Originally Posted by The Rani

no substance whatsoever.

Oh, there was plenty of substance.

For one thing Ryan confirmed that anyone born after 1957 is going to get screwed out of their Social Security money if he and Romney have their way.

Second, Ryan claims that the Romney's proposed new military spending is simply reducing proposed cuts rather than the forced restarting of projects that the Pentagon didn't really want anyway.

I'm sure that I could come up with 5 or 6 more but just off the cuff these two come to mind.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yeah I wondered why he was speaking out AGAINST the prescription drug plan!
That's why I thought the debate was a mess ... mudslinging and no substance whatsoever.

He wasn't. He said it was instituted but not paid for, and was thus one reason for the high Bush deficits.

Originally Posted by The Rani

"screwed" out of their Social Security money?
That's your interpretation, not what was said.

Anyone who paid attention to teh Socila Security debate of 2005 is either a fooll liar if they say that they don't know what was meant.

To paraphraise Ryan said that if you're undr 54 than they plan to alter the system.

And on top of that, there whole financial elite is going to push for some kind of so called grand bargain after the election. If Romney wins you're going to hear a bunch of BS about a mandate for giveaways to plutocrats.

And evn if that fails then after the third dubya term, or something a lot like it starts, we will see crazy budgets. The working people get screwed while they pretend to raise revenues by closeing some so called loopholes that somehow never really get closed whan the ture budget numbers come out later.



Look, if you want to let Walll Street shysters play with a big chunk of your retirement money that's your business.

So what's your view on the Biden quote regarding the prescription drug plan?

As Eric said he just told the truth about the Bush people passing it off budget.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I have no idea what "teh Socila Security debate of 2005" is supposed to be

This is a new keyboard I'm not used to it yet.
Anyway back in 2005 Bush II claimed that he had political capital after being re elected.
He vowed to use that capital to privatize Social Security. He actually went on a planned 60 city tour to promote the idea.
He ended up canceling the tour after just a few promotion stops because of its unpopularity.

And today we are tangibly better off because he failed.
Had Social Security been privatized in the 2006-07 time period ithe private accounts would have lost a lot of their value during the stock market crash in 2008.
Imangine an elder that you know needing their money just when the system goes haywire.
And the stock market is despite Frank-Dodd still largely unregulated.
Therefore such private accounts would still be in grave danger of crashing everytime something goes wrong here or in europe or China or in just about any economic zone large enough to disrupt our economy.

What I heard is Ryan say that in order to save the system for older folks, younger ones would have to deal with restructuring.

The only restructuring that the system really needs is that the cap needs to be popped.
There is no reason why anyone making 12 million dollars a year shoudn't contribute more than what they would contribute if they made only 105k a year.
The system could be made solid for 75 years without anyone, not even the rich, being excluded from benefits.
But that's not an option that they will choose to persue if elected.

Hey guess what <redundant "mudslinging" snipped>
And conservatives are supposed to be the selfish ones.

Conservative has more than one meaning.
I wish to conserve a system that has worked well for almost 80 years with only a minor rate change.
I think that on this issue the self proclaimed conservatives are the radicals.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I don't know about any of this.

I'm sure that Paul Ryan is a liar and a scumbag, same as any politician.

You and Justin don't recognize that the quality of politicians reflects the quality of the voters and the system we the people have created. If you say all politicians are liars and scumbags, you are saying everyone is a liar and a scumbag. If that's a bit of an over-generalization, then calling all politicians liars and scumbags is, well, a bit of an over-generalization too.

But it's true that we need to look at financial problems from beyond just our own point of view. And we need politicians, and voters who put politicians in office, who can do that.

On the other hand, Social Security does not need much fixing. Those who say that it does, are robbing seniors and tomorrow's seniors of money they have paid and worked for, and tearing down an outstanding, self-supporting social insurance system just because it's "big government," in order to provide a tax break for those who don't need one.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

This is a new keyboard I'm not used to it yet.
Anyway back in 2005 Bush II claimed that he had political capital after being re elected.
He vowed to use that capital to privatize Social Security. He actually went on a planned 60 city tour to promote the idea.
He ended up canceling the tour after just a few promotion stops because of its unpopularity.

And today we are tangibly better off because he failed.
Had Social Security been privatized in the 2006-07 time period ithe private accounts would have lost a lot of their value during the stock market crash in 2008.
Imangine an elder that you know needing their money just when the system goes haywire.
And the stock market is despite Frank-Dodd still largely unregulated.
Therefore such private accounts would still be in grave danger of crashing everytime something goes wrong here or in europe or China or in just about any economic zone large enough to disrupt our economy.



The only restructuring that the system really needs is that the cap needs to be popped.
There is no reason why anyone making 12 million dollars a year shoudn't contribute more than what they would contribute if they made only 105k a year.
The system could be made solid for 75 years without anyone, not even the rich, being excluded from benefits.
But that's not an option that they will choose to persue if elected.


Conservative has more than one meaning.
I wish to conserve a system that has worked well for almost 80 years with only a minor rate change.
I think that on this issue the self proclaimed conservatives are the radicals.

Fair enough.

If I gave you the impression that I would be opposed to all specific economic reforms that's not where I am.
As economics is not your interest I wont go into specifics here but I wouldn't mind my own taxes being raised or perhaps certain spending cuts happening. In any large organization there is waste, but I just don't see that one specific change to Social Security as being a good one.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I don't know about any of this.

I'm sure that Paul Ryan is a liar and a scumbag, same as any politician. It's hard to know the truth when everyone "spins" the issues for their own benefit ... both politicians and their supporters. I don't really care about arguing economics.
But from listening to different people, on different sides (including the middle), I do believe that we're headed for serious financial problems in the near future. If dealing with those issues honestly can't be done because people react by saying "but hey, I'm getting screwed!!" we are ALL fucked.

For a long, long time, American voters have sent a clear message to Washington. When politicians cut taxes, they're rewarded. When they increase spending, they're rewarded (depending on what it is). When they raise taxes, or try to cut spending or reform entitlements, they're punished.

When Reagan tried to cut spending, the Democrats re-gained the Senate. When Bush I raised taxes, he was thrown out of office. When Clinton raised taxes, the Republicans took control of Congress. When Bush II tried to reform Social Security, the Democrats took over Congress.

Some spending increases are unpopular (TARP, stimulus, Obamacare). Tax cuts are never unpopular (except with the far left). Tax increases are ok as long as it's somebody else's taxes being raised. Spending cuts are ok as long is it isn't something that benefits you. That is the way people have voted, consistently for many years.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

For a long, long time, American voters have sent a clear message to Washington. When politicians cut taxes, they're rewarded. When they increase spending, they're rewarded (depending on what it is). When they raise taxes, or try to cut spending or reform entitlements, they're punished.

When Reagan tried to cut spending, the Democrats re-gained the Senate. When Bush I raised taxes, he was thrown out of office. When Clinton raised taxes, the Republicans took control of Congress. When Bush II tried to reform Social Security, the Democrats took over Congress.

Some spending increases are unpopular (TARP, stimulus, Obamacare). Tax cuts are never unpopular (except with the far left). Tax increases are ok as long as it's somebody else's taxes being raised. Spending cuts are ok as long is it isn't something that benefits you. That is the way people have voted, consistently for many years.

Amazing. A post from JPT that makes sense.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Amazing. A post from JPT that makes sense.

There have been more than just one.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

There have been more than just one.

~Chas'88

Needles in haystacks!

Originally Posted by The Rani

But from listening to different people, on different sides (including the middle), I do believe that we're headed for serious financial problems in the near future.

This type of thinking is part of the problem. It makes sense to think that if you listen judiciously to both sides and carefully weigh them, you will obtain a reasonably accurate idea of what is going on.

In science this works. But in the political economy it doesn't, largely because thinking tends to follow fads. Problems arise when the current fad in thinking is simply too-far out of alignment with reality. Since both sides follow the same fads, coloring them in accordance with their ideology, trying to ascertain "the truth" by weighing what both sides say gives you the fad, in a less ideological form, but just as wrong.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Great. More mudslinging.

I have no idea what "teh Socila Security debate of 2005" is supposed to be, but I did watch the VP debate of 2012.

Tpyos, I presume. The "Social Security debate of 2005" is a reference to an effort to privatize Social Security when Dubya was President.

What I heard is Ryan say that in order to save the system for older folks, younger ones would have to deal with restructuring.

Filtering it through insurance companies so that the insurance companies can have windfalls in a captive market is one form of restructuring. It's like saying that you must process your grocery-store payments through some entity that provides no service but gets to take a cut -- bad for the shopper and bad for the grocer, but great for the profiteer.

Privatization of Social Security and Medicare is an argument for rent-seekers at the expense of everyone else.

Hey guess what when you live in a community/socialist system, it means doing what's best for the community.

No cap on employee income, including profit-sharing and executive bonuses. What should be exempt? Capital gains, inheritances, resource royalties, dividends, and income from interest from savings and bonds that have never been subject to Social Security. People who have gotten huge incomes from bonuses from the mass firing of American workers must contribute to compensate for what others lose that FICA does not tax.

It looks like some people want to talk about "sharing the wealth" when it comes to others giving things up in such a system, and being "screwed over" when they're the ones giving things up.

Making sacrifices on behalf of economic interests who want more people to be poorer so that the people behind those interests can enjoy lives of unprecedented lavishness would seem extremely unattractive.

And conservatives are supposed to be the selfish ones.

Some of the most blatant conservatives would so seem.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You and Justin don't recognize that the quality of politicians reflects the quality of the voters and the system we the people have created. If you say all politicians are liars and scumbags, you are saying everyone is a liar and a scumbag.

Only if politicians are genuinely drawn from the pool of the people at large. Which pretty clearly isn't the case.

Oh, and even if it were, the only people who deserve to get tarred by their voluntary association with liars and scumbags are the ones who support them. Nearly half of the residents of the USA don't do that even under duress, and a lot of the ones who do engage in it are doing so only because they perceive that they have no alternative in the matter.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Only if politicians are genuinely drawn from the pool of the people at large. Which pretty clearly isn't the case.

They may not be representative; that's not the point. They are representing us, because we put them where they are, under the system we have created. If we don't like them, then the fault is ours, and ours alone. It's not good to pass the buck to the "politicians;" the buck stops here with us.

Oh, and even if it were, the only people who deserve to get tarred by their voluntary association with liars and scumbags are the ones who support them. Nearly half of the residents of the USA don't do that even under duress, and a lot of the ones who do engage in it are doing so only because they perceive that they have no alternative in the matter.

All of that is our fault and our responsibility. Those who "don't do that" are clearly the most responsible ones for the mess we have. There are plenty of alternative choices on the ballot too.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

They may not be representative; that's not the point. They are representing us, because we put them where they are, under the system we have created. If we don't like them, then the fault is ours, and ours alone.

If only that bore any resemblance to the truth of the thing, you might have a point.

Not a single one of us, or any collective of us created the ruling system under which we live. At best, we quietly acquiesce to it -- but this is no more or less than can be said for a citizen of Saddam's Iraq or Lenin's RSFSR. Our ballots are as closely-controlled to exclude any element of challenge to the ruling structure as were the ones that elected those other two worthies time and again. This is the way a ruling system works.

Unless you want to argue that failure to revolt is morally identical to support, then you're left admitting that we're no more to blame for the quality of those who rule us than were those other people in those other places.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Only if politicians are genuinely drawn from the pool of the people at large. Which pretty clearly isn't the case.

Oh, and even if it were, the only people who deserve to get tarred by their voluntary association with liars and scumbags are the ones who support them. Nearly half of the residents of the USA don't do that even under duress, and a lot of the ones who do engage in it are doing so only because they perceive that they have no alternative in the matter.

Focusing blame on elected politicians ignores the fact that a lot of them do what they do not out of malice, but because they tend to trust what Beltway "experts" say as fact and also because of legal and financial restrictions on the size of their staff they come to rely on lobbyists to help with the technical details of legislation. Additionally, many politicians are bound by regional economic interests; one of the reasons the Military-Industrial Complex has become a sacred cow is because it intentionally spread itself into as many congressional districts as possible, so if they dare tried to cut Defense spending they will get hounded by people telling them not to take away their jobs.

For example, Joe Biden has often been rightfully criticized for sucking up to insurance companies, but Delaware, which he represented as a senator, is home to many insurance companies and so has lot of residents who work in the industry, people who vote and use the income from their jobs to pay the bills. For the same reason politicians in West Virginia suck up to Big Coal, a lot of people there work in the coal mines.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

They may not be representative; that's not the point. They are representing us, because we put them where they are, under the system we have created. If we don't like them, then the fault is ours, and ours alone. It's not good to pass the buck to the "politicians;" the buck stops here with us.

All of that is our fault and our responsibility. Those who "don't do that" are clearly the most responsible ones for the mess we have. There are plenty of alternative choices on the ballot too.

Who is them and who selects acceptable thems for you to make your illusory choices from? If you wish to continue naively believing that politicians "represent" you (in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary) you are certainly welcome to do so, however perhaps you should ask why you require surrogates be used to dominate others you disagree with. Perhaps voters should stop being cowards and start representing themselves.

Oh and for the record, some (the majority actually) of us don't "put them where they are." A few of us take no responsibility for the mess you voters created.

A while ago I looked at the national polls by comparing the RCP average to the median poll in the average. The national average is now Romney +1.3. I thought I would do the same analysis with some state polls, throwing out any pre-debate polls. The details are below, but here's the conclusion:

Of the states that RCP rates as toss-ups, Romney now leads in NC (+6), FL (+3.5), CO (+1), NH (+2)and VA (+1). Obama leads in IA (+2), WI (+2-3), MI (+3) and PA (+4), but those leads have shrunk considerably from where they were not long ago. OH and NV are tied.

If you take those numbers and plug them into a calculator, you get 253 electoral votes for Obama, 261 for Romney. At that point it all comes down to OH. Winning NV without OH will not do it. For Romney to win without OH he has to win WI, or IA plus NV. MI and PA are only likely to go his way if the others go as well. For Obama to win without OH, he has to get VA plus either NV or NH. FL is increasingly looking like a solid Romney state.

If you throw in Romney's national lead and the fact that undecideds usually break for the challenger by a wide margin, if the election was held today Romney would win OH and NV at a minimum, and therefore win the election.

There is another conclusion that can be drawn from the analysis below (it also applies to the toss-up states not listed). In nearly every case, the average is skewed in Obama's favor by a handful of outlier polls. Ohio is the best example. There are five polls showing a 1 point race. There are three polls showing Obama comfortably ahead, by as much as 6 points. If this was the result of random statistical variation, you would expect an equal number of pro-Romney outliers, and an equal number of states where the median is more favorable to Obama than the average. There are none. Every single outlier is in Obama's favor. The possibility that there are polling organizations deliberately skewing their polls for Obama cannot be ignored. To be more cautious and charitable, at a minimum there are assumptions about Democrat turnout and party ID in the "conventional wisdom" of some polling firms that are causing them to overweight their polls in Obama's favor.

One final word, about my home state of VA. There are indications that the already returned absentee balloting is heavily in Romney's favor (the majority of the ballots already turned in are in Republican-leaning areas, meaning that Republican "turnout" is high). The Democrats want to believe that the state has flipped in their favor, or at least turned into a toss-up. When you look at the way the state has voted in the past, and then you look at the way it voted in 2009 and 2010, 2008 looks much more like an anomaly than a trend. It will take more than one election to prove that the state's tilt has fundamentally changed. Don't be surprised if Romney wins it by a substantial margin.


Florida

RCP Avg.: Romney +3.2

Median:

Romney: 50
Obama: 46.5
Spread: Romney +3.5

Colorado

RCP Avg.: Romney +0.7

Median:

Romney: 48
Obama: 47
Spread: Romney +1

New Hampshire

RCP Average: Obama +0.7

Median (average of two polls without one pre-debate poll):

Romney: 49
Obama: 47
Spread: Romney +2

Virginia

RCP Avg.: Obama +0.4

Median:

Romney: 48
Obama: 47
Spread: Romney +1

Nevada

RCP Avg.: Obama +1.6

Median:

Romney: 47
Obama: 47
Spread: Tie

Ohio

RCP Avg.: Obama +1.3

Median:

Romney: 47
Obama: 47
Spread: Tie

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

A while ago I looked at the national polls by comparing the RCP average to the median poll in the average. The national average is now Romney +1.3. I thought I would do the same analysis with some state polls, throwing out any pre-debate polls. The details are below, but here's the conclusion:

Of the states that RCP rates as toss-ups, Romney now leads in NC (+6), FL (+3.5), CO (+1), NH (+2)and VA (+1). Obama leads in IA (+2), WI (+2-3), MI (+3) and PA (+4), but those leads have shrunk considerably from where they were not long ago. OH and NV are tied.

It depends upon what polls you are willing to accept. A huge number of suspect polls -- from pollsters with agendas and pollsters with poor methodologies gives us noise and not news.

If you take those numbers and plug them into a calculator, you get 253 electoral votes for Obama, 261 for Romney. At that point it all comes down to OH. Winning NV without OH will not do it. For Romney to win without OH he has to win WI, or IA plus NV. MI and PA are only likely to go his way if the others go as well. For Obama to win without OH, he has to get VA plus either NV or NH. FL is increasingly looking like a solid Romney state.

If you throw in Romney's national lead and the fact that undecideds usually break for the challenger by a wide margin, if the election was held today Romney would win OH and NV at a minimum, and therefore win the election.

It is essentially a tie in the popular vote. Mitt Romney is winning by large margins in states that he is winning in and President Obama is winning by smaller margins in the states that he is winning. Such allows an advantage to President Obama in the electoral college even if he is slightly behind in total votes.

The undecided seem to break ineffectively toward the eventual loser because the undecided tend to be on the opposite side of the political spectrum from the candidate in the lead -- challenger, incumbent, or open-seat nominee. Many of the undecided simply do not vote or rely upon random chance (like a coin toss) to decide for whom to vote. The only time in which the undecided go some other way is during the collapse of one of the candidates -- as in 1988 when Mike Dukakis lost to the elder Bush.

There is another conclusion that can be drawn from the analysis below (it also applies to the toss-up states not listed). In nearly every case, the average is skewed in Obama's favor by a handful of outlier polls. Ohio is the best example. There are five polls showing a 1 point race. There are three polls showing Obama comfortably ahead, by as much as 6 points. If this was the result of random statistical variation, you would expect an equal number of pro-Romney outliers, and an equal number of states where the median is more favorable to Obama than the average. There are none. Every single outlier is in Obama's favor. The possibility that there are polling organizations deliberately skewing their polls for Obama cannot be ignored. To be more cautious and charitable, at a minimum there are assumptions about Democrat turnout and party ID in the "conventional wisdom" of some polling firms that are causing them to overweight their polls in Obama's favor.

Except that now the outliers are on the Romney side. It is more likely that the Romney campaign, the Republican Party, FoX Newspeak Channel, and such front groups as Karl Rove's Crossroads America have been commissioning a huge number of polls that show a strong slant toward Republicans. I note that FoX News lauds just about every poll that shows President Obama losing... usually with polls from biased entities and polls that have no transparency about their methods. Just because a vast majority of people in 1480 believed that the Earth is flat does not mean that the Earth was then flat.

One final word, about my home state of VA. There are indications that the already returned absentee balloting is heavily in Romney's favor (the majority of the ballots already turned in are in Republican-leaning areas, meaning that Republican "turnout" is high). The Democrats want to believe that the state has flipped in their favor, or at least turned into a toss-up. When you look at the way the state has voted in the past, and then you look at the way it voted in 2009 and 2010, 2008 looks much more like an anomaly than a trend. It will take more than one election to prove that the state's tilt has fundamentally changed. Don't be surprised if Romney wins it by a substantial margin.

According to Reuters,

Obama leads Romney by 59 percent to 31 percent among early voters, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling data compiled in recent weeks.

The sample size of early voters is relatively small, but the Democrat's margin is still well above the poll's credibility interval - a measurement of polls' accuracy - of 10 percentage points. (full graphic: http://bit.ly/RmeEen)

With the Nov. 6 election just more than three weeks away, 7 percent of those surveyed said they had already voted either in person or by mail (full graphic: http://bit.ly/SWm5YR).

If things are going as you say they are in Virginia, then such indicates that things are going differently in Virginia. The process may not be the same in Virginia as in Ohio. Your side has a disaster in the making in Ohio.

In North Carolina and Maine, Democrats seem to be voting in higher numbers than 2008, while Republicans seem to be voting in slightly lower numbers than four years ago, he said.

In Ohio, where voters do not register by party, early voting appears to be higher than normal in both Republican and Democratic areas, McDonald said.

In Iowa, about twice as many registered Democrats as Republicans have voted by now - a potential warning sign for the Romney campaign, he said.

Let's put it this way: one pollster says that President Obama is up 76-24 in Ohio among early voters, 19% of all voters. Romney is up 51-45 among the 81% who had not yet voted... but that will be good for about a 5% Obama win. Under the circumstances I would not write off North Carolina for Obama, either.

Florida

RCP Avg.: Romney +3.2

Median:

Romney: 50
Obama: 46.5
Spread: Romney +3.5

Colorado

RCP Avg.: Romney +0.7

Median:

Romney: 48
Obama: 47
Spread: Romney +1

New Hampshire

RCP Average: Obama +0.7

Median (average of two polls without one pre-debate poll):

Romney: 49
Obama: 47
Spread: Romney +2

Virginia

RCP Avg.: Obama +0.4

Median:

Romney: 48
Obama: 47
Spread: Romney +1

Nevada

RCP Avg.: Obama +1.6

Median:

Romney: 47
Obama: 47
Spread: Tie

Ohio

RCP Avg.: Obama +1.3

Median:

Romney: 47
Obama: 47
Spread: Tie

Those who analyze polls have instantly-obsolete analysis because polls go obsolete. You have not allowed for effects of

(1) the Obama campaign using material from the debate against Mitt Romney, and

(2) Joe Biden winning the VP debate.

GOP-leaning counties off to brisk start in absentee voting

May I ask if US opinion pollsters sort out those who aren't likely to vote from those who are likely to vote in an election. Because here in Australia we have compulsory voting and opinion polls are usually pretty accurate (after adjusting for margin of error).

Because Neil Howe in this last post on the lifecourse blog, noted that Obama's lead among likely voters was more than among opinion polls which did not leave out those who weren't likely to vote.

Also if any of them just randomly ring up people in conducting their opinion polls, do they choose mobile as well as land-line numbers or just land-line numbers. Because many people don't have land-lines anymore, they just have mobile phones (I and many people I know do).

Originally Posted by Tristan

May I ask if US opinion pollsters sort out those who aren't likely to vote from those who are likely to vote in an election. Because here in Australia we have compulsory voting and opinion polls are usually pretty accurate (after adjusting for margin of error).

Because Neil Howe in this last post on the lifecourse blog, noted that Obama's lead among likely voters was more than among opinion polls which did not leave out those who weren't likely to vote.

Also if any of them just randomly ring up people in conducting their opinion polls, do they choose mobile as well as land-line numbers or just land-line numbers. Because many people don't have land-lines anymore, they just have mobile phones (I and many people I know do).

It is easy to call people randomly on land lines but not on cell phones.

Speaking of telephones and polls -- a magazine called Literary Digest made a telephone poll of voters in 1936, and predicted from the results of their poll that Alf Landon would win. The problem? In 1936, telephones were still a luxury item, and people who had them were largely Republicans.

In time land line telephones will become not so much a luxury as obsolete items. If the land-based grid of telephones were to be disabled, then the capital-costly system would not be replaced except for entities with mass use of telephones and fixed addresses. Cell phones or nothing.... probably phones for persons and not for addresses.

Originally Posted by Tristan

May I ask if US opinion pollsters sort out those who aren't likely to vote from those who are likely to vote in an election. Because here in Australia we have compulsory voting and opinion polls are usually pretty accurate (after adjusting for margin of error).

There are usually three kinds of polls done: polls of All Adults, Registered Voters and Likely Voters. At this point of an election cycle, almost all of the polls are likely voters.

Because Neil Howe in this last post on the lifecourse blog, noted that Obama's lead among likely voters was more than among opinion polls which did not leave out those who weren't likely to vote.

Actually it was Romney who he was talking about. Republicans almost always perform better in elections than they do in the polls, in part because Republican voters are more engaged in "doing their civic duty" and turn out to vote with higher frequency than Democrats. Likewise, they perform better in likely voter polls than polls of registered voters or any adult.

Also if any of them just randomly ring up people in conducting their opinion polls, do they choose mobile as well as land-line numbers or just land-line numbers. Because many people don't have land-lines anymore, they just have mobile phones (I and many people I know do).

Most pollsters call cell phones.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Who is them and who selects acceptable thems for you to make your illusory choices from? If you wish to continue naively believing that politicians "represent" you (in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary) you are certainly welcome to do so, however perhaps you should ask why you require surrogates be used to dominate others you disagree with. Perhaps voters should stop being cowards and start representing themselves.

Unless you are just being ridiculous, the way government works is that we vote for people to represent us. There is no use discussing any other situation. Go off then into the wilderness with your gun and have fun.

Oh and for the record, some (the majority actually) of us don't "put them where they are." A few of us take no responsibility for the mess you voters created.

If you don't vote, you are among the MOST responsible for the mess; that's all there is to it.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

If only that bore any resemblance to the truth of the thing, you might have a point.

Not a single one of us, or any collective of us created the ruling system under which we live.

Who created it then, men from Mars? Last time I checked, Americans live in America, and Americans decide what kind of system we live in. Here and now.

At best, we quietly acquiesce to it -- but this is no more or less than can be said for a citizen of Saddam's Iraq or Lenin's RSFSR. Our ballots are as closely-controlled to exclude any element of challenge to the ruling structure as were the ones that elected those other two worthies time and again. This is the way a ruling system works.

We always have a choice to vote Green or Libertarian, and if people don't vote that way, it is their choice. If we want a better system, then it is up to us to create it. We acquiesce in it, and that's our fault. If we vote for the wrong people, and that happens a lot, then that is our fault too. Politicians are no-one but ourselves. The wealthy and connected have advantages, but if the people vote for the wealthy and connected one, that's their own damn fault. Gov. Brown is certainly not perfect, but he's a whole lot better than Mrs. Ebay who tried to buy the office. California voters would have none of it. We did the right thing on that one.

Unless you want to argue that failure to revolt is morally identical to support, then you're left admitting that we're no more to blame for the quality of those who rule us than were those other people in those other places.

Every country gets the government that it deserves. The people of Syria are fighting valiantly for their freedom. I think we should do a bit more to support them, frankly. It's too bad it has come to that. I think we are a whole lot better off than they are, or than the people of Iraq or the Soviet Union were. We could change things here and make them a lot better if we voted for better people, and changed the system. We don't have to change it as drastically as in those other places did. But people need to get involved and mobilize for change. It IS our fault if we don't. You can say that people here have no choice at the polls, and to some extent I agree. You also think almost all of our politicians are corrupt, and you tend (or at least you used) to think government is bad per se. You may even think Obama and Romney are as bad as Saddam Hussein or Assad. I disagree there. I think the system needs changing, and I have my suggestions and preferences, and I speak up and take action sometimes; but I don't have quite the cynical view that you do. But then, I'm a boomer and not a Xer too. I'm glad to be a boomer, although I'd like to be younger