Originally Posted by playwrite

Rather that do the usual personal attack, please try a cogent counter-argument again. I know your last attempt ended in defeat (there is no alternative ending), but it probable is the primary route most have taken, including myself (I went kicking and screaming), to finally arrive at reality. I know it's difficult, but I’m sure you too, if you make it, will be glad you did.... maybe even thank me.

I've explained the relationship between interest rates and commodity prices a dozen times. I've provided a wealth of recent, peer-reviewed economic studies confirming this relationship.

You can call that defeat or whatever you want, but you're only proving your point that this debate is more about emotions than facts.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

California has its own pathologies, but having spent my entire life south of the Mason Dixon I'm more familiar with the local ones. Where else do you get people who honestly believe God created the world as it is 6,000 years ago, or that dinosaur bones are a trap set by the devil to lead innocents in to the sin of believing evolution?

The refusal to accept facts isn't limited to biology, and it is worn as a badge of pride.

Oh, Bush spent trillions on the national credit card then bolted out the door with his friends? Better blame Obama for stabilizing the economic chaos Bush left behind!

Republicans haven't tried to outlaw abortion in 30 years of campaigning on it? Well, if we elect them again, I'm sure they'll do it this time!

Republicans explode the deficit to pay for their tax cuts and wars? This guy is different and he'll totally balance the budget without giving us details of the plan. Sure.

See, I don't think all conservatives are bad people. Most of them have really high ideals and an optimistic outlook on the world. But they're starting to sound like that doe-eyed lover who keeps going back to an abusive spouse. "I know they've broken promises in the past and treated me wrong, but this time is different!"

Your hatred has no bearing on the realities of the electoral college. I'm not interested in discussing it.

Ok, but how many of the elections have come down to such a wide regional gap? It can be as unlikely as you want without context, but we have a specific context to work with here. The states Romney are currently leading in are blowouts, but they don't offer many electoral votes.

Obama won states like NY and MA by 25%+. The Republicans have a larger number of safe states, the Democrats have safe states with a larger number of electoral votes. That's why it comes down to a few states that are more evenly divided. There was a poll not long ago that showed Romney trailing in CA by only 8 points. It won't change the outcome of that state, but it shows you how the national vote is trending.

In any case, there are currently three daily tracking polls in the RCP average. If you take the average of those three polls, Romney leads by 3 points. All three of them have moved towards Romney since Tuesday's debate. Al Gore finished ahead in the popular vote by 0.5% in 2000, and Bush won the electoral vote by 5. With the modern electoral system (electors always vote the way the popular vote in their state voted), the growth of the U.S. population and the expansion to 50 states, a split outcome can only come from a result that narrow. In contrast, Bush won the popular vote by 2.4% in 2004, and won the electoral vote by 35, adding NM and IA while losing NH from 2000.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Not the lady in the back.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Not the lady in the back.

I like the fact that it was posted by someone or some group called "Rancid Butter". Sounds like a credible authority for political views.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Not the lady in the back.

Ok, I admit - I giggled .

Romney and pundits like David Brooks say Obama hasn't said what he's going to do for his next term. But he laid it out right out of the box in the second debate, addressing the first questioner:

OBAMA: Jeremy, first of all, your future is bright. And the fact that you’re making an investment in higher education is critical. Not just to you, but to the entire nation. Now, the most important thing we can do is to make sure that we are creating jobs in this country. But not just jobs, good paying jobs. Ones that can support a family.

And what I want to do, is build on the five million jobs that we’ve created over the last 30 months in the private sector alone. And there are a bunch of things we can do to make sure your future is bright.

Number one, I want to build manufacturing jobs in this country again. Now when Governor Romney said we should let Detroit go bankrupt. I said we’re going to bet on American workers and the American auto industry and it’s come surging back.

I want to do that in industries, not just in Detroit, but all across the country and that means we change our tax code so we’re giving incentives to companies that are investing here in the United States and creating jobs here.

It also means we’re helping them and small businesses to export all around the world to new markets.

Number two, we’ve got to make sure that we have the best education system in the world. And the fact that you’re going to college is great, but I want everybody to get a great education and we’ve worked hard to make sure that student loans are available for folks like you, but I also want to make sure that community colleges are offering slots for workers to get retrained for the jobs that are out there right now and the jobs of the future.

Number three, we’ve got to control our own energy. Now, not only oil and natural gas, which we’ve been investing in; but also, we’ve got to make sure we’re building the energy source of the future, not just thinking about next year, but ten years from now, 20 years from now. That’s why we’ve invested in solar and wind and biofuels, energy efficient cars.

We’ve got to reduce our deficit, but we’ve got to do it in a balanced way. Asking the wealthy to pay a little bit more along with cuts so that we can invest in education like yours.

And let’s take the money that we’ve been spending on war over the last decade to rebuild America, roads, bridges schools. We do those things, not only is your future going to be bright but America’s future is going to bright as well.

http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-...12-transcript/

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No, it happened four times IIRC: 2000, 1888, 1876, and 1824. If the Republicans come close, they can also cheat and win that way, as they did in 2000 and 2004. btw all four of these electoral college wins were Republican/conservative wins. So if it is reversed for Obama in 2012, that would be a change. It would certainly show the power of a demented South to tip the popular vote of the country.

But I agree, if Romney maintains a 7 point lead nationally, he won't be able to hold onto the lead in the close swing states.

Edit: What amazes me is that some swing voters can find Romney unattractive for most of a year, and then on the basis of one performance suddenly find him acceptable and continue to do so for 15 days. Will he really maintain this, despite Obama's improved performances, his own declining performances, and an improving economy, over the next 20 days?

The horror of another Republican takeover is pretty hard to contemplate, I must admit. After all we went through.

The reason Romney is now doing better than before the debates is as follows

1. Republican convention didnt go well, nor did it get much coverage.

2. Obama spent millions trying to paint Romney as unacceptable. Alot of people not paying attention until now only knew Romney from that perspective (having not watched the convention etc) Now they see him without the narrative Obama wanted to see and they liked it, he wasnt the hard right wing ideologue they were expecting.

3. Romney is a great debater. I watched most of the Republican debates, he did very well in most of them. He is quick on feet, highly intelligent and comes across as competent.

4. Many in the middle are looking for an excuse to vote against Obama. Many think he is a nice guy and family man but he doesnt seem to be up to the job and has a terrible record to run on. All Mitt needed to do was show he was acceptable.

5. Obama's election strategy: its the same as Bush 92 and Carter 80, demonize the opponent so they dont want to change horses. Now thats hard to do with charming people like Reagan and Clinton. Romney isn't so much warm a fuzzy but he does appear confident, competent and likable enough. Also, Obama has hardly even laid out a second term agenda. His two debates were all focused on disqualifying Romney.

The election is far from over and I expect the race to tighten but we'll see.

Also I saw on another website that 3 carrier battlegroups are gathering near the Persian Gulf....October surprise regarding Iran?

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Your hatred has no bearing on the realities of the electoral college. I'm not interested in discussing it.

JPT back to his old self again.

Regarding commodities and interest rates, I don't see any direct connection, other than that if they are both rising it might indicate a rising economy. But if the commodity prices are rising too fast, then that means inflation, and that depresses the economy because it slows commerce.

Interest rates are mostly controlled by the Fed. Commodity prices are mostly controlled by commodity traders. I don't see much connection there. Low interest rates don't seem to be causing inflation anymore, though they might have contributed to it in the past, while high interest rates have partly indicated an attempt to control high inflation that had already started. High commodity prices, though, definitely are the biggest factor in inflation. Costs, supplies, demand, subsidies, and speculation by traders about what the future price will be, and their attempt to make money off of the fluctuation (just like in the stock market), are the main causes of high prices of the commodities we all buy and need. Of course, the Republicans would add government taxes and regulations to that list (which I would include under "costs"). And you have to factor in the greed of CEOs and stockholders within corporations, who demand an ever-bigger slice of the cash flow for themselves.

Can QE and MMT (as in printing and keystroking money) cause inflation? Not now, but maybe in times that are already inflationary. But playwrite has a good point that pumping up bank reserves does not necessarily mean that the banks lend money. They can do that anytime they can find a borrower, but banks can get very tight if they don't have confidence that people can pay back the loans. So, they were loose before the recession, and got tight afterward. But from what I hear, they are still loose today in things like derivatives, if they think they can gamble and win, instead of lending to real people with real jobs.

Originally Posted by Weave

The reason Romney is now doing better than before the debates is as follows

1. Republican convention didnt go well, nor did it get much coverage.

2. Obama spent millions trying to paint Romney as unacceptable. Alot of people not paying attention until now only knew Romney from that perspective (having not watched the convention etc) Now they see him without the narrative Obama wanted to see and they liked it, he wasnt the hard right wing ideologue they were expecting.

3. Romney is a great debater. I watched most of the Republican debates, he did very well in most of them. He is quick on feet, highly intelligent and comes across as competent.

4. Many in the middle are looking for an excuse to vote against Obama. Many think he is a nice guy and family man but he doesnt seem to be up to the job and has a terrible record to run on. All Mitt needed to do was show he was acceptable.

5. Obama's election strategy: its the same as Bush 92 and Carter 80, demonize the opponent so they dont want to change horses. Now thats hard to do with charming people like Reagan and Clinton. Romney isn't so much warm a fuzzy but he does appear confident, competent and likable enough. Also, Obama has hardly even laid out a second term agenda. His two debates were all focused on disqualifying Romney.

The election is far from over and I expect the race to tighten but we'll see.

You laid out a feasible narrative and it might be right. I just don't see why one debate performance would show people he is acceptable and likable enough. Maybe for a few days, but the Obama narrative is still accurate. And if the economy is improving now, his "terrible record" might not seem so bad. Better numbers have given Obama a bump in the past. He is down 1% now (Gallup is still the outlier by far), and very tight in most swing states too, so the race is already as tight as it can be.

As I posted above, he has laid out an agenda. He talks too fast maybe, and it isn't a long one, because he doesn't know if he will get a congress to enact it. He knows that the charge if totally false that HE is responsible if he can't work with the tea party. But he is nervous about openly challenging them in the congressional election. He needs to do that though, or indeed he has no credible agenda.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

I've explained the relationship between interest rates and commodity prices a dozen times. I've provided a wealth of recent, peer-reviewed economic studies confirming this relationship.

You can call that defeat or whatever you want, but you're only proving your point that this debate is more about emotions than facts.

Okay, but my three conclusions still hold. There is no direct transmission mechanism where QE leads to commodity increases. Rather, it is rout behavioral change (i.e. hysteria) that results in portfolio change (i.e. chasing yields). You can talk about interest rates giving poor signals of excess savings leading to mal-investment, all you want – regardless, the banks are still only going to lend when they have a credible and willing borrower. And most important, the FED doesn't give a poo.

Given what is going on in the Middle East on the supply side and in China on the demand side, it is amazing that pump prices are not considerable higher. Whatever the FED could do to make gas prices higher/lower is insignificant. The FED knows that and so they don't give a poo.

Compared to FX, bond and even equity markets, the gold market is a runt that could be easily crushed within minutes by any one of a dozen central banks. The clueless hold gold as THE symbol of markets and economies (if not their very lives), and some make money off of it (IF they sell it). However, the FED doesn't give a poo.

Similarly, the gyrations of food prices, other commodities, medical care, higher education or whatever the inflationisties want to get hysterical over. Same story - small potatoes and the FED doesn't give a poo.

This is what they give a poo about -



- and will continue to give a poo about until this comes back to ‘normal’-



- put away all that other hooey and the world will start making a lot more sense.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Not the lady in the back.

No, the ladies up front just got facelifts.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Built-in organizational mechanisms are overrated. Ad hoc has the virtue of better accord with the way the world and people and things in it actually operate.

Unless you can convince a majority that having a non-governement is a great idea, having an elected non-group of non-conforming politicians will be a laugh riot, but won't last very long. I give it about two months.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Mr Playwrite, I believe you and I are talking past one another to a degree. Reserve requirements; Debt-re-servicing; Yes, I get all that and in my understanding haven't disagreed with you. But, this might be what I'm looking for:



So, you're telling me that you believe Fed Policies have had no effect on a rise in Asset Prices(eg: the Price of RBOB) over the last 3+ years. Am I correct in my understanding i/r/t your belief in this area? No effect; None, what-so-ever. That's what I'm asking you.

Prince

PS: What's funny to me is that the only reason I brought this subject up in the first place was to help describe why I personally believe both the Dems and GOP are incorrect i/r/t their talking points related to the increase in the Price of Unleaded Gasoline over the last 3+ years.
IMO, most of these topics just get used as political footballs(and grenades)!

Unless you're a day trader or perhaps a swing trader (i.e. week to months 'bets'), the FED effect is relatively insignificant and transitory compared to simple supply/demand issues ranging from Middle East geopolitical to Euro woes to China growth, and most important what the House of Saud had for breakfast. US domestic production is relatively a non-issue (unless you own an oil lease!) and US consumption is more or less a given unless we go into another severe economic contraction.

So your correct about it being a political football.

I guess I've just missed sparing with Indy.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Your hatred has no bearing on the realities of the electoral college. I'm not interested in discussing it.

ROFL, see? You can't even talk about the ideas behind and consequences coming from your modern Republican party.

"Oh sweetie, it looks like you got another black eye"

"I don't wanna talk about how much you hate my husband!"

Obama won states like NY and MA by 25%+. The Republicans have a larger number of safe states, the Democrats have safe states with a larger number of electoral votes. That's why it comes down to a few states that are more evenly divided. There was a poll not long ago that showed Romney trailing in CA by only 8 points. It won't change the outcome of that state, but it shows you how the national vote is trending.

In any case, there are currently three daily tracking polls in the RCP average. If you take the average of those three polls, Romney leads by 3 points. All three of them have moved towards Romney since Tuesday's debate. Al Gore finished ahead in the popular vote by 0.5% in 2000, and Bush won the electoral vote by 5. With the modern electoral system (electors always vote the way the popular vote in their state voted), the growth of the U.S. population and the expansion to 50 states, a split outcome can only come from a result that narrow. In contrast, Bush won the popular vote by 2.4% in 2004, and won the electoral vote by 35, adding NM and IA while losing NH from 2000.

The math doesn't add up... The fact that it is closer in CA and NY just proves my point. Obama has a slim lead in most regions, but Romney has a ridiculous lead in the heart of the bible belt. It is exactly one of those "rare scenarios" that leads to a large difference in the popular vs. electoral vote.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Unless you're a day trader or perhaps a swing trader (i.e. week to months 'bets'), the FED effect is relatively insignificant and transitory compared to simple supply/demand issues ranging from Middle East geopolitical to Euro woes to China growth, and most important what the House of Saud had for breakfast. US domestic production is relatively a non-issue (unless you own an oil lease!) and US consumption is more or less a given unless we go into another severe economic contraction.

You repeat that over and over again, but where is there one shred of empirical data to support your axioms?

Isn't that what you complain about from your favorite Austrian straw-men?

I know Bernanke co-authored a paper that researched that issue, but they did so 30 years ago and they had a very limited sample size (post gold-window) to work with. Show me some recent research, from the post Graham-Leach-Bliley world, that supports your sacred assumptions. Or, does the marriage of primary dealers and speculators not play a causal factor in modern economies?

I don't think Bernanke is a bad guy or a dumb guy - and please skip the tinfoil conspiracy ad-homs, it never takes a conspiracy for people to work for their own perceived interests, nor does it take a conspiracy for rich people to be out of touch and ignorant of others' concerns - but I think he's just a guy stuck in the data of the past despite time having given us a bigger, fuller picture to look at.

MMT is interesting, but if we can't recognize the constraints of monetary systems and rush in to the deep-end head first, we're going to have a bad time.

Romney and Ryan keep saying that growth has declined for two years. But those are the two years that Republicans have controlled congress and the states. They stopped all stimulus and fired public workers. That growth has continued at all, and is picking up now, is a testimony to the stimulus that Obama did before. Spread the word.


Some hopeful signs in recent state polls:

Iowa: Romney vs. Obama NBC/WSJ/Marist Obama 51, Romney 43 Obama +8
Wisconsin: Romney vs. Obama NBC/WSJ/Marist Obama 51, Romney 45 Obama +6
Ohio: Romney vs. Obama Rasmussen Reports Obama 49, Romney 48 Obama +1
Ohio: Romney vs. Obama SurveyUSA Obama 45, Romney 42 Obama +3
Michigan: Romney vs. Obama EPIC-MRA Obama 52, Romney 46 Obama +6
North Carolina: Romney vs. Obama Rasmussen Reports Romney 52, Obama 46 Romney +6
Colorado: Romney vs. Obama PPP (D) Romney 47, Obama 50 Obama +3

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Romney and Ryan keep saying that growth has declined for two years. But those are the two years that Republicans have controlled congress and the states. They stopped all stimulus and fired public workers. That growth has continued at all, and is picking up now, is a testimony to the stimulus that Obama did before. Spread the word.


Some hopeful signs in recent state polls:

Iowa: Romney vs. Obama NBC/WSJ/Marist Obama 51, Romney 43 Obama +8
Wisconsin: Romney vs. Obama NBC/WSJ/Marist Obama 51, Romney 45 Obama +6
Ohio: Romney vs. Obama Rasmussen Reports Obama 49, Romney 48 Obama +1
Ohio: Romney vs. Obama SurveyUSA Obama 45, Romney 42 Obama +3
Michigan: Romney vs. Obama EPIC-MRA Obama 52, Romney 46 Obama +6
North Carolina: Romney vs. Obama Rasmussen Reports Romney 52, Obama 46 Romney +6
Colorado: Romney vs. Obama PPP (D) Romney 47, Obama 50 Obama +3

It took a week to fully determine how the first debate would affect the polls. I assume that the same will be true for the second.

North Carolina, and probably Florida, are lost to Obama. I think that Virginia is slipping away as well. The South never fully embraced him anyway. Last election (2008), I put an Obama sign in my yard (in Georgia) and it was stolen within two days and replaced with a Dollar Store American flag. Not gonna bother this time around, my kid has to go to school everyday amongst these luddites.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

You really only have the foggiest clue of what you're talking about. You keep retreading the basics that aren't in debate, misrepresenting the statements of those who understand more than you, and you manage to do it all with the most condescending tone I've ever heard.

"Arrogance and ignorance go in hand"

Except there is a long line of Neo-Keyensians with real credentials taking the same positions ... making it hard for all of your gripes about lack of rigor to be taken seriously.

Essentially, there are real disconnects in thinking here. Saying things aren't in dispute, but are not what they seem, puts the burden on you to show cause, when your version of events is so much mnore complex than PWs ... or mine, for that matter. Personally, the basic model is still true enough. If you to embellish, please show how. If you want to try something different, feel free to put it out there.

Frankly, I haven't seen any mechanisms at work that can't be easily explained with a few not-in-dispute concepts. Speculation is an expected outcome of too much concentration of wealth. When you have 5x what you need, gambling on making it 10x is par for the course. I assume you aren't disputing excessive wealth concentration.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

ROFL, see? You can't even talk about the ideas behind and consequences coming from your modern Republican party.

"Oh sweetie, it looks like you got another black eye"

"I don't wanna talk about how much you hate my husband!"

Your caricatures do not merit a response. Simple as that.

The math doesn't add up... The fact that it is closer in CA and NY just proves my point. Obama has a slim lead in most regions, but Romney has a ridiculous lead in the heart of the bible belt. It is exactly one of those "rare scenarios" that leads to a large difference in the popular vs. electoral vote.

Uh huh. Here's how it works: There are heavily Republican states and heavily Democrat states, and there are states in between. As the national vote shifts towards a particular candidate (in this case, Romney), the first states in the middle to fall his way are those that are most Republican as a baseline. As his lead widens, states that have less of an (R) lean start to fall. That's why the election has to be almost a dead tie in order for the popular vote and electoral college to split. To illustrate it, here are the states RCP rates as toss-ups, and how they differed from the national popular vote in 2008:

National Vote

Obama: 52.9%
McCain: 45.7%
Margin: D +7.2

Toss-Up States

NH: D +9.6
MI: D +9.3
WI: D +6.7
NV: D +5.3
PA: D +3.1
IA: D +2.3
CO: D +1.8
VA: R +0.9
OH: R +2.6
FL: R +4.4

If those partisan tilts stay exactly the same* and the national vote is exactly a tie, Romney would pick up FL, OH and VA, and Obama would win the electoral college by 8. Percentage-wise, that means Obama wins the electoral college 50.6%-49.4%, a 1.1% difference in Obama's favor.

If Romney won the national popular vote by 1%, he would pick up CO and win the electoral college by 12. Percentage-wise, that means Romney wins the electoral college 51.1-48.9, a 1.2% difference in Romney's favor.

In other words, the popular vote margin has to be (roughly) under 0.6% for the split to happen. It is true that Obama is more like to win the electoral college while losing the popular vote than Romney is. But the popular vote has to be extremely close for that to happen.

*Granted, it's not this precise, and states shift around. WI in particular has had a major shift towards the Republicans since 2008, and the Republican VP nominee is from that state. NH is a dead heat, possibly due to Romney being from MA (along with the state's long-standing libertarian tradition). FL has been moving towards the Republicans in recent years, at an incremental pace. But that's how it basically works.

Since 2008 was a high water mark for Democrat turnout and a low point for Republican turnout, and was also influenced by the crash of the economy, a more accurate picture might be gained by averaging the partisan lean of these states in 2004 and 2008. This is what you get:

MI: D +7.6
NH: D +6.7
WI: D +4.8
PA: D +4
NV: D +2.6
IA: D +2
CO: R +0.3
OH: R +1.2
VA: R +3.4
FL: R +3.5

Under this scenario, a popular vote tie would result in a 12 point electoral college win for Romney. Anything over a 1 point Romney win nationally would get him IA. 1.4 would get him NV. If he won with the 3 point margin he now has from the average of the daily tracking polls, he would win all of them except NH and MI.


Once again reality is not this precise, but that's basically how it works.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Except there is a long line of Neo-Keyensians with real credentials taking the same positions ... making it hard for all of your gripes about lack of rigor to be taken seriously.

Essentially, there are real disconnects in thinking here. Saying things aren't in dispute, but are not what they seem, puts the burden on you to show cause, when your version of events is so much mnore complex than PWs ... or mine, for that matter. Personally, the basic model is still true enough. If you to embellish, please show how. If you want to try something different, feel free to put it out there.

It's not like this is something I made up out of the blue. This is a good primer from an econ professor at Harvard.

I assume you aren't disputing excessive wealth concentration.

Of course, this is one reason why financial markets are increasingly overshadowing more traditional supply/demand assumptions.

While global growth in supply and production is fairly stable in the long run, commodities are prone to price shocks and overshooting the equilibrium in the short run. Since finance dominates the calculation, small changes to monetary policy can have large effects on the nominal price of commodities.

Further, I don't think it's a stretch to say that higher commodity prices is bad news for a nation that imports so many commodities like oil that are essential to all aspects of our productivity.

Macro-economics often seems counter-intuitive to people who like simple a is good b is bad relationships. Sometimes debt is good, up is down, etc.. etc.. In this case, low interest rates are supposed to stimulate economic activity, but they're hindering it in the absence of fiscal policy supporting wages.

Originally Posted by Aramea

It took a week to fully determine how the first debate would affect the polls. I assume that the same will be true for the second.

North Carolina, and probably Florida, are lost to Obama. I think that Virginia is slipping away as well. The South never fully embraced him anyway.

Maybe, but the most recent polls in FL are only +1 Romney. If Obama makes a comeback in the national polls, FL will shift to about +1 Obama, and NC could be in play again. The coastal south is not quite what it was before the migration there by northerners.

It's up to the people to realize that just because things are not fully fixed, that we should fire Obama and go back to the policies that caused the mess.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Maybe, but the most recent polls in FL are only +1 Romney. If Obama makes a comeback in the national polls, FL will shift to about +1 Obama, and NC could be in play again. The coastal south is not quite what is was before the migration there by northerners.

It's up to the people to realize that just because things are not fully fixed, that we should fire Obama and go back to the policies that caused the mess.

I hope you are right, Eric. I am firmly ensconced in a red state. It really does not matter who I vote for this time around. That is its own tragedy, but for now I must acknowledge my utter lack of power.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Same here, Aramea, but it's the opposite for me. My state will go blue no matter what I do. *sigh*

That's good to know! I don't have to worry so much about your incorrect vote.

Myself, living in a blue state means I have the option to vote green! You wouldn't think so, but if a pollster called and ask me, "are you voting for Obama, Romney, or are you undecided," and gave me no other options, I would have to respond that I am undecided!

Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala
A theory of a divided nation.
Jonathan Cohn
October 5, 2012

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/...are-guatemala#

THIS ELECTION, we’ve heard a lot about divisions that define America. First it was the 99 percent and the 1 percent. Then it was the moochers and the makers. Politicians, of course, love to claim that we are more than the sum of our differences, but the dividers actually have a point. In all kinds of real and practical ways, the United States today is not one nation, but two.

We’ve come to think of “blue” and “red” states as political and cultural categories. The rift, though, goes much deeper than partisan differences of opinion. The borders of the United States contain two different forms of government, based on two different visions of the social contract. In blue America, state government costs more—and it spends more to ensure that everybody can pay for basic necessities such as food, housing, and health care. It invests more heavily in the long-term welfare of its population, with better-funded public schools, subsidized day care, and support for people with disabilities. In some cases, in fact, state lawmakers have decided that the social contract provided by the federal government is not generous enough. It was a blue state that first established universal health insurance and, today, it is a handful of blue states that offer paid family and medical leave.

In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.

Americans have been arguing over which system is morally and economically superior since the beginning of the republic. But every now and then, the worldviews have clashed and forced a reckoning. The 2012 election is one of those moments ...................

By nearly every measure, people who live in the blue states are healthier, wealthier, and generally better off than people in the red states. It’s impossible to prove that this is the direct result of government spending. But the correlation is hard to dismiss. The four states with the highest poverty rates are all red: Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and Texas. (The fifth is New Mexico, which has turned blue.) And the five states with the lowest poverty rates are all blue: New Hampshire, New Jersey, Vermont, Minnesota, and Hawaii. The numbers on infant mortality, life expectancy, teen pregnancy, and obesity break down in similar ways. A recent study by researchers at the American Institute for Physics evaluated how well-prepared high schoolers were for careers in math and science. Massachusetts was best, followed closely by Minnesota and New Jersey. Mississippi was worst, along with Louisiana and West Virginia. In fact, it is difficult to find any indicator of well-being in which red states consistently do better than blue states.......

Advocates for the red-state approach to government invoke lofty principles: By resisting federal programs and defying federal laws, they say, they are standing up for liberty. These were the same arguments that the original red-staters made in the 1800s, before the Civil War, and in the 1900s, before the Civil Rights movement. Now, as then, the liberty the red states seek is the liberty to let a whole class of citizens suffer. That’s not something the rest of us should tolerate. This country has room for different approaches to policy. It doesn’t have room for different standards of human decency.

(well said! -Eric the Green)