2016 Election

Quote: Gabes22

You need an ID to open a bank account, to buy a cell phone, to purchase or rent a home, to purchase alcohol or tobacco, to purchase some household cleaning items like Drano or OTC medication, to apply for a job, to apply for unemployment, to apply for welfare or Medicaid, to purchase a car, to rent a car, to take a test drive on a car, to get on an airplane, to get married, to purchase a firearm, to adopt a pet, to rent a hotel room, to get a hunting/fishing license, to pick up a prescription, to apply for an application to protest voter suppression, to donate blood, to purchase nail polish at certain drug stores (CVS), yet for some strange reason we don't wish to make sure that the person at a poll coming to vote is the person who is actually casting said vote

I opened my bank account in 1975. Ask me how many times they needed my actual ID since about 1985.

Zero. It could long expire. Not even lived in that state.

That's just one example.

Quote: rxwine

I opened my bank account in 1975. Ask me how many times they needed my actual ID since about 1985.

Zero. It could long expire. Not even lived in that state.

That's just one example.

And what about the other things on that list.

The only times I ever need my ID are when I go to the airport or check into a hotel.... Things elderly and poor people do all the time, I'm sure.

Edit: oh and occasionally I get carded in Vegas when I'm gambling!

Edit #2: and I cross the border to gamble in Canada sometimes. Again, this is something I'm sure poor and elderly people do regularly so they MUST have ID!

Quote: ams288

Nope. That's stupid.

Why? Both are rights, and in fact the right to keep and bear arms is more absolute than the right to vote. Why do you want to take away the right of a poor person to own a firearm?

Quote: ams288

The only times I ever need my ID are when I go to the airport or check into a hotel.... Things elderly and poor people do all the time, I'm sure.

Edit: oh and occasionally I get carded in Vegas when I'm gambling!

Edit #2: and I cross the border to gamble in Canada sometimes. Again, this is something I'm sure poor and elderly people do regularly so they MUST have ID!

We're they checking to see if you were old enough to gamble, or just making sure you weren't a figment of their imagination?

Quote: AZDuffman

Why? Both are rights, and in fact the right to keep and bear arms is more absolute than the right to vote. Why do you want to take away the right of a poor person to own a firearm?

This is a great trolling post that isn't worthy of a response.

Quote: Gabes22

And what about the other things on that list.

For me, no, but look at the actual cases.

Persons who are living temporarily with another could actually go for as long years as there is someone else there to take care of most of those things. Only a couple, like medications might be a problem.

Ever hear of two people living on one income?

Quote: ams288

This is a great trolling post that isn't worthy of a response.

No, it is a legit question. Of course, one you either can't or do not want to answer.

I thought you were against people losing rights just because they cannot afford ID. Are you or are you not.

Quote: ams288

The only times I ever need my ID are when I go to the airport or check into a hotel.... Things elderly and poor people do all the time, I'm sure.

So, poor people do not go to see a doctor? Because you need ID for that!

Quote: Face

Why are the olds and poors and people who don't have the wherewithall to get something as simple as an ID "disproportionately democratic"?

You made my mind come out of gear. I read this as an insult, yet you're a Dem. Does not compute lol

Certainly not meant as an insult to anyone, nor do I want to be responsible for your mind coming out of gear, face. :)

I thought it was generally accepted data that that those without Id are more likely to be older, poorer and non-white. And those groups are disproportionately democrats. I believe even most republicans acknowledge this. I don't have access to all the data, but with very little search effort I get these links:

North Carolina Secretary of State, Elaine Marshall says the number of voters that do not have ID in North Caralina are democratic by a 3-2 margin.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113986/voter-id-north-carolina-law-hurts-democrats

In Pennsylvania, statistician Bernard Siskin testified before the Pa supreme court that those disenfranchises by the tougher ID laws would be democrats by a 3-1 margin.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/17/2313571/top-pennsylvania-republican-admits-voter-id-helped-suppress-obama-voters/

In Florida, former GOP chairman Jim Greer, who helped draw up Florida's Voter ID law, told the Palm Beach Post, "that the explicit goal of the state’s voter-ID law was Democratic suppression".

Additionally in this same article (below) the associated press analysis found the new South Carolina Voter ID laws would hit black precincts the hardest, keeping thousands from casting nonprovisional ballots. Likewise, if Alabama’s voter-ID law goes into effect, it will place its largest burden on black voters who lack acceptable forms of identification and don’t have immediate access to alternatives'.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/28/republicans-admit-voter-id-laws-are-aimed-at-democratic-voters.html

There is much more if you want to look a bit and much of the research and data is done by independent or non partisan groups and not disputed by republicans, even totally accepted by republicans.

Quote: rxwine

For me, no, but look at the actual cases.

Persons who are living temporarily with another could actually go for as long years as there is someone else there to take care of most of those things. Only a couple, like medications might be a problem.

Ever hear of two people living on one income?

My insurance forces me to use their home delivery service for any medications that I would have to be on for more than 30 days. No ID ever required. And it's a lot cheaper too.

I suspect a lot of seniors would be in the same boat.

Quote: ams288

My insurance forces me to use their home delivery service for any medications that I would have to be on for more than 30 days. No ID ever required. And it's a lot cheaper too.

I suspect a lot of seniors would be in the same boat.

But they needed the ID at the Doc's office in the first place.

Quote: AZDuffman

No, it is a legit question. Of course, one you either can't or do not want to answer.

I'd actually say it's a potentially flag-able post. You're putting words in my mouth that I never even came close to saying. Where did I say I want to take away poor people's right to own a gun?

Never did.

That'd be in-American. Don't put nonsense words in my mouth.

Quote:

So, poor people do not go to see a doctor? Because you need ID for that!

I have never needed an ID to see my doctor that I've been going to since 2011, just my insurance card.

Quote: AZDuffman

So, poor people do not go to see a doctor? Because you need ID for that!

Just as you do to use credit or debit cards in many places. And, yes, elderly people do use such advanced products.

Quote: AZDuffman

But they needed the ID at the Doc's office in the first place.

No they didn't.

I never have needed my ID, just my insurance card.

Be careful, your doctor may be stealing your identity and planning to vote in your name!!

Here is just a handful of cases of citizens, mostly older, who were denied voting privileges because of lack of ID, including 3 service veterans, 2 of who served in World war 2. Honorable military discharge papers and Photo ID's from the department of Veteran Affairs were deemed not valid ID.


http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/22/449243/report-nine-people-denied-voting-rights-by-voter-id-laws/

Quote: ams288

I'd actually say it's a potentially flag-able post. You're putting words in my mouth that I never even came close to saying. Where did I say I want to take away poor people's right to own a gun?

That means so much from a guy who did THIS just hours ago:

Quote: ams288

Quote: AZDuffman

Dems go screaming when any anti-fraud pro-voter suppression measure is proposed. All I'm saying.

Fixed.

Quote:

Never did.

That'd be in-American. Don't put nonsense words in my mouth.

Well, you are stating that to require ID is to take away the right to vote so I just want to know why that does not carry. So, you are now saying requiring and ID is *not* taking away a person's rights?

Quote:

I have never needed an ID to see my doctor that I've been going to since 2011, just my insurance card.

Since HIPA it has been the policy at any doctor's office I have been at.

Quote: AZDuffman

That means so much from a guy who did THIS just hours ago:

Quote: ams288

Quote: AZDuffman

Dems go screaming when any anti-fraud pro-voter suppression measure is proposed. All I'm saying.

Fixed.

Well, you are stating that to require ID is to take away the right to vote so I just want to know why that does not carry. So, you are now saying requiring and ID is *not* taking away a person's rights.

Again, stop putting words in my mouth. Never said it was "taking away a person's rights." I said it was voter suppression (in my post you also quoted just above it - LOL!)

They still have the right to vote - the righties just make it as expensive, difficult, and inconvenient as possible for them to do so. Voter suppression.

Quote: ams288

Quote: AZDuffman

Dems go screaming when any anti-fraud pro-voter suppression measure is proposed. All I'm saying.

Fixed.

Quote:

Again, stop putting words in my mouth. Never said it was "taking away a person's rights." I said it was voter suppression (in my post you also quoted just above it - LOL!)

Again, means a lot from someone who did put words in someone's mouth.

Quote:

They still have the right to vote - the righties just make it as expensive, difficult, and inconvenient as possible for them to do so. Voter suppression.

Bringing an ID and showing up on Election Day is hardly "expensive, difficult, and inconvenient." Somehow this does not suppress white people and those who do not vote Democrat.

Quote: AZDuffman

Again, means a lot from someone who did put words in someone's mouth.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

You're the one who said I wanted to take guns away from poor Americans, which I never came close to saying. I'm still waiting to hear what that was about...

Quote: AZDuffman

Bringing an ID and showing up on Election Day is hardly "expensive, difficult, and inconvenient." Somehow this does not suppress white people and those who do not vote Democrat.

Paying a small fee at the voting booth is even easier than getting a ID, but either thing is a poll tax if a fee is involved to vote.

Least the way I see it.

So why can one vote without ID but not buy a gun? Aren't both "rights" that we have as Americans?

If we can impose restrictions on what is required to have a gun, why shouldn't we be able to require one to do something to vote? Simply prove who you are with a legally issued ID.

No matter what people who want IDs for voting say, even if we say make it free and make it easy to get with the right paperwork, somehow those against somehow say those who are in favor are trying to suppress the rights of others.

Quote: rxwine

Paying a small fee at the voting booth is even easier than getting a ID, but either thing is a poll tax if a fee is involved to vote.

Least the way I see it.

You are seeing it incorrect. An ID is not used only to vote, it is part of everyday life. Heck, a rule requiring pants at the polling place is a "poll tax" by your above logic. Nudists might not otherwise own pants!

Quote: RonC

No matter what people who want IDs for voting say, even if we say make it free and make it easy to get with the right paperwork, somehow those against somehow say those who are in favor are trying to suppress the rights of others.

Those of us against it don't need to say anything. All we have to do is run the quote where the very republicans that drew up the bill say the purpose is to suppress the democratic vote.

In Florida, former GOP chairman Jim Greer, who helped draw up Florida's Voter ID law, told the Palm Beach Post, "that the explicit goal of the state’s voter-ID law was Democratic suppression".

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/28/republicans-admit-voter-id-laws-are-aimed-at-democratic-voters.html

Quote: RonC

So why can one vote without ID but not buy a gun? Aren't both "rights" that we have as Americans?

If we can impose restrictions on what is required to have a gun, why shouldn't we be able to require one to do something to vote? Simply prove who you are with a legally issued ID.

No matter what people who want IDs for voting say, even if we say make it free and make it easy to get with the right paperwork, somehow those against somehow say those who are in favor are trying to suppress the rights of others.

When did the rightwing start arguing that gun law ID prevents illegality?

Mostly they just say gun laws don't work, and people get around them except the innocent people.

Quote: rxwine

When did the rightwing start arguing that gun law ID prevents illegality?

Mostly they just say gun laws don't work, and people get around them except the innocent people.

Which is why people should not have to show ID to purchase one. Need to stop gun ownership suppression. Poor people should not have their rights stepped on.

Quote: rxwine

When did the rightwing start arguing that gun law ID prevents illegality?

Mostly they just say gun laws don't work, and people get around them except the innocent people.

Gun laws don't work, but they are out there.

My question was simply why can we have one but not the other? Why is it so wrong to ask for an ID to vote when we have to show an ID to buy a gun?

Quote: kewlj

Certainly not meant as an insult to anyone, nor do I want to be responsible for your mind coming out of gear, face. :)

I thought it was generally accepted data that that those without Id are more likely to be older, poorer and non-white. And those groups are disproportionately democrats. I believe even most republicans acknowledge this.

Perhaps it is, and perhaps they do. I don't know. I don't pay a ton of attention to the voter ID debate, it's just that what you said caught my eye.

I think it's just a difference in philosophy. When I see that "poors, olds, and browns" can't afford it, my first response is "well, they better figure it out". When the average cost for an ID is less than $25, with the most expensive being less than $35, I don't have much compassion. This does not mean I do not agree with you on the "voter tax", just that I simply have no compassion and find it absurd and laughable that one could not somehow acquire $25. I find it to be a bad argument.

I think it also ties into, and sorry for the continued derail, my issue with guns. When s#$% goes down with guns, I pay for it. Me, a law abiding (I said it without laughing =p), tax paying, Constitution defending American. I have real problems with this, as I'm sure anyone can understand. We've all been teens, and most of us had to pay absurd money for car insurance because of other idiotic teens (like me). I get the reason behind it; I just hate it.

You, and perhaps I will lump all Dems in, seem to think life should bow to the oppressed. That to me is just about as crazy as some in the GOP who think it should bend to God. No. Life is life and it sets its own bar. Keep up or get trampled. Either way, you deal with it because I'm not. I have my own that I gotta keep out from under the wheels.

Quote: Face

Perhaps it is, and perhaps they do. I don't know. I don't pay a ton of attention to the voter ID debate, it's just that what you said caught my eye.

I think it's just a difference in philosophy. When I see that "poors, olds, and browns" can't afford it, my first response is "well, they better figure it out". When the average cost for an ID is less than $25, with the most expensive being less than $35, I don't have much compassion. This does not mean I do not agree with you on the "voter tax", just that I simply have no compassion and find it absurd and laughable that one could not somehow acquire $25. I find it to be a bad argument.

You, and perhaps I will lump all Dems in, seem to think life should bow to the oppressed. That to me is just about as crazy as some in the GOP who think it should bend to God. No. Life is life and it sets its own bar. Keep up or get trampled. Either way, you deal with it because I'm not. I have my own that I gotta keep out from under the wheel.

2 things face. $25-$35 is a lot of money to a senior citizen on a fixed income of social security (average SS check is $1100/month, which is below the poverty level). That $25-$35 expense so they can vote could be the difference between eating for several days.

A couple years ago, there was a story on I believe CNN, which I just looked for but couldn't find, about an older gentleman, I believe 88 or 90 years old, living in a small town in rural North Carolina. He served his country in two wars, World War 2 and Korea, and living in the same small town in NC for the rest of his life, voted in every election. When NC passed Voter ID, he was turned away at the polls, despite that those poll workers in his small town knew exactly who he was.

He attempted to remedy the situation before the next election, which I believe was the 2012 presidential election. He was required to go to a voter ID office some 25 miles away which was a problem since he could not drive due to medical conditions. But he arranged transportation and took whatever records he had, including military paperwork, social security paperwork, ect. But guess what, not of that was acceptable. He was told he needed a birth certificate, so he went home and with the help of some volunteers, applied for his birth certificate at a cost of whatever charge there is for that.

When he received his birth certificate, he again arranged transportation and returned to the voter registration office 25 miles away. His birth certificate which I believe was issued in 1924 or there-abouts was rejected because there was a misspelling of his middle name, I forget the details, but I believe it ended in s and the birth certificate had a double s. He was told they could do nothing for him and he would need to personally go to the state capital some 120 miles away.

He was determined to vote and made the necessary arrangements, even though it was a great hardship to him in his medical condition. He hadn't been that far from home since he returned from Korea 60 years prior. At the state capital he was again denied, unless he could produce a witnesses from the actual event, that would swear that he was the person on the certificate. Obviously such a witness would have to be well over 100 years old and there were none.

End result, this gentleman who served his country in 2 wars, and voted every election for 60 years, was not allowed to vote for president that year. This man spent far more than $25-$35 dollars in actual cost AND effort and guess what.

You may say that I found an extreme remote example, but there apparently are many, many such stories. It is not al that uncommon for older people, I mean really elderly people, 80, 90 years old, to not have the documentation that is required, nor the ability to get it. They lived in a time, when they did not need id.

One more thing Face. This is the second time, you have called or lumped me in with democrats. I consider myself an independent. It is true that I have 'leaned' democrat in much of the last decade that I have been eligible to vote, but that was mainly concerning a single issue that put me closer to the democrats. And I have been registered democrat during that time, so I could participate in the primaries. I have just switched my party registration to republican and will be supporting Donald Trump in the Nevada caucuses next February. I still consider myself an independent and it remains to be seen who I will support in the general election presidential race.

The debate has begun.... Here we goooooooo!!

Quote: EvenBob

I don't get the appeal of Carson, he puts me
to sleep. He has zero experience that would
translate into presidential cred. Trump at
least has dealt with politicians for the last
30 years and brokered huge successful deals
in the private sector.

He has specifically been working with (and is considered a superstar within) the evangelical community for more than a decade; he's a top draw on their speaking tours and conventions. That's who's supporting him in the polls, with a huge push from their leadership nationwide to do so at the expense of all the others who might appeal to that part of the base. He wasn't well known outside that community until this started.

Trump is killing it!

He just mopped the floor with Jeb!

"Oh good - more energy tonight!"

I laughed so hard.

Apologies for lumping you in with Dems. I get lumped in with the GOP too and I hate it, so really. My sincere apologies.

And again, I'm not gonna debate your example. Extreme? Whatever. It happened, and I'm sure there are other examples, too. I won't debate it, because there's nothing to debate. People have gotten screwed. More will get screwed.

But as I said, I guess I just don't care. I got problems, too. Those on DT know that I started 2015 with $127 to my name and have made only $11k since then. I'm gonna make $15k this year, and that's it. I got a kid who I have custody of. I don't get child support, I haven't received one penny in any social support. No WIC, no TANF, not a single dime on the dole. I haven't, and I won't.

Yet if my Pops dies and suddenly I need $300 to register all of his guns before The Man comes to collect them, you can bet your ass I'll find $300. Why? Because I said so. Life's a bitch, but it ain't steamrolling me. I don't want a pass, I don't want a donation. I want you to get out of my face and let me kick some ass. If I can't, and I end up losing the Blackhawk and the Del-Ton and the DMPS to The Man... who's fault is that?

Who's gonna stand up for me? Who's gonna say the registration of said weapons is an infringement on my poor ass? By your definition, it is, but I doubt anyone against voter ID will stand up for me. And I wouldn't want them to. It's not rxwine's responsibility to see that I have funds to live my life and afford the things I need. Ams188, kewlj, boymimbo, Babs, AZD, RonC, EB, none of you have any responsibility to me, other than those required by the rules of this forum. If I can't (insert thing here), it is not the law's failure to protect me. It's my own dumb ass's fault, and I better get to work before it happens again.

Mine is more a bitch on philosophy and poor debates than an opinion on voter ID. If there's no ID law, I won't care. If there is a law, I won't care. If you say it's a "poll tax", I agree. I guess I've hopped in here just to satisfy my derail quota for the day =p

Quote: beachbumbabs

He has specifically been working with (and is considered a superstar within) the evangelical community for more than a decade; he's a top draw on their speaking tours and conventions. That's who's supporting him in the polls, with a huge push from their leadership nationwide to do so at the expense of all the others who might appeal to that part of the base. He wasn't well known outside that community until this started.

Thank you! All the pieces fit now, I could
not figure out who's behind Casper Milqetoast.
It all makes sense.

Quote: ams288

Trump is killing it!

He just mopped the floor with Jeb!

"Oh good - more energy tonight!"

I laughed so hard.

He looks like a caricature of himself.

Some good lines; not much substance.

I'd say he will fall in the polls now; I am probably wrong.

I will not vote from him in the primaries against most of the people on the stage...but who knows who will be left when the Texas primary is held.

Quote: RonC

He looks like a caricature of himself.

Some good lines; not much substance.

I'd say he will fall in the polls now; I am probably wrong.

I will not vote from him in the primaries against most of the people on the stage...but who knows who will be left when the Texas primary is held.

I think Carly's response to Trumps comments about her face was perfect.

If anything could damage Trump, it was that.

.....but who knows with Trump.

Quote: ams288

I think Carly's response to Trumps comments about her face was perfect.

I vote it best zinger of the night. Well, so far.

Anyone else notice that the candidates words and mouth movements are not in sinc? Maybe it's just my system? It's kind of annoying.

I like when Trump said he never asked for
gambling in Fl. And if he had asked he would
have got it.

Quote: kewlj

Anyone else notice that the candidates words and mouth movements are not in sinc? Maybe it's just my system? It's kind of annoying.

Mine seems okay. I'm watching streaming, not cable.

Quote: EvenBob

Almost 90min in and there are several that
haven't spoken once. Why are they there.

yeah the format is horrible. 11 candidates is just too many. It seems CNN has regulated some of them, like Huckebee, Rand Paul, Christie, Kasich as the lower tier that are getting fewer questions.

Makes you wonder why they had a debate with 11 candidates and a second debate with 4 candidates. Wouldn't an 8/7 split have been better? Even if relegated to the JV debate, a candidate could get some time to express his/her views.

Quote: kewlj

You may say that I found an extreme remote example, but there apparently are many, many such stories. It is not al that uncommon for older people, I mean really elderly people, 80, 90 years old, to not have the documentation that is required, nor the ability to get it. They lived in a time, when they did not need id.

It is an extreme example. Also a lesson in why to make sure you can document yourself. I read once about a guy who ended up homeless but before he did got a safe deposit box for all that important stuff. As to elderly people "living in a different time" that is nonsense. They are living in our time today. They functioned in modern times. It is impossible they lived this long without getting ID. Just another excuse.

Face is right, if they don't have it or cannot afford it they better figure it out.

Trump is getting little applause, but look
where they are. Calif is not behind Trump,
even the Right is Left leaning there.

Quote: EvenBob

Trump is getting little applause, but look
where they are. Calif is not behind Trump,
even the Right is Left leaning there.

The audience was apparently told to not applaud anyone.

Quote: EvenBob

Trump is getting little applause, but look
where they are. Calif is not behind Trump,
even the Right is Left leaning there.

I think Trump is doing ok. Not great, but ok. He makes those goofy facial expressions, but that probably won't hurt him like it would other candidates. That's just Trump.

I don't think anyone has done particularly well. I suspect some might think Carly is doing well, but I find her very aggressive....much too aggressive. Even Chris Christie commented that she keeps jumping in when it's not her turn.

I don't think Jeb is doing so well, He just looks like he doesn't want to be there, as he usually does.

Rubio is getting very little time, but I think he looks good......but I thought that last debate and he got no bump, so what do I know.

Rand Paul, Huckebee and probably Christie are done. They should be in the JV debate next time. They are in Rick Santorum territory. lol

Almost every question is 'Trump said this,
what do you think about it.' That's not
a real question. Pillsbury Doughboy
Bush has dropped 50 pounds this
year. Good thing.

Fiorina is hardly speaking at all.

Quote: RonC

.....
The amount of money it takes to run a campaign kind of forces people to accept money and "owe' people; liberal try to hide behind it being "the people" donating when the union's support a candidate but the candidate they support is often not the one supported by the majority of their union. They chastise corporations acting the same way; they can't see the double standard. Same way with Soros and the Koch Brothers. The ones that have more money are some how more wrong.

'''''

This is inaccurate about how union support works. It's illegal for unions to donate dues money to candidates. Unions can form PACs or have fundraisers, but participation in anything like that is voluntary, and can't be solicited at the workplace or be any requirement for membership, representation, or receiving other services the union contractually provides. The union can be decertified (blown out of existence; it's not a trivial thing) for any illegal activities of this type.

If a union sends a member to a political campaign for pay, either the campaign itself pays for that person, or the union's PAC pays for that person to be there. Expenses are either borne by the person themselves, or by the same funding streams, again not by dues. Union members working for or supporting a campaign do so voluntarily, most as volunteers.

None of this is left to self-policing, either. Unions have quarterly filings and annual audits to ensure strict compliance with these political activity rules.

Unions discuss the issues they care about with the candidates before supporting or endorsing them. Ours had a lot of internal debates about who and what we would support with money and workers; during the time I was active in that area, we supported about 60% Dem and 40% Repub (along with a couple of "I"s) over 10 years, and donated $1M+ to several hundred candidates each year. Did every PAC donor agree with every donation? Not a chance. But the donations were chosen based on candidate positions on issues our PAC developed as our priorities, and those who funded it did so with that in mind, and voluntarily. Which is the point of doing it; our particular issues were backed up with group funding, even though each individual was limited by law in how much they could donate.

That's how it works, or did work before Citizen's United (I'm honestly not sure what, if anything, changed for our group; when we retire, we're no longer eligible to participate, and I left before CU, BUT I don't think hardly any of CU helped Unions escape compliance.) So, that's a group of people with common interests voting with their pocketbooks as well as with their support, and getting more attention for their money as a group. Criticize that methodology if you like, but it's not like workers are forced to pay dues, only to have that money used in political campaigns. It's illegal and widely misunderstood due to distortions and half-truths by union-haters.

3 polls show Trump with a huge lead,
60%, 52% and 48%. Fiorina is 2nd,
with about 18%. Bush is dead last
in all 3 polls.

Quote: EvenBob

Fiorina is hardly speaking at all. The old
guy on the end has yet to speak 2 hours
in. Pataki.

Chris Christie?

Christie, Bush, Kasich, Huckabuck, and Walker
are all tied for last on the Drudge poll. Remember,
46% of Drudge viewers are Independents, 5%
are Dems, 49% are Rep's. So this isn't a bunch
of dem's skewing the vote. The first debate
poll on Drudge was very accurate.