One thing we might notice, is that Romney takes an early lead in the popular vote, because several red states like KY and IN close early, while the populous blue state NY closes later. Plus Sandy may cost Obama some votes there. It is hard to catch up once someone starts with a lead. The lead will close as the East comes in, but at the same time more of the South will come in too. Meanwhile Obama will be slowly racking up states, and take the lead in the EC. It may appear that Obama is going to win the EC while losing the popular vote, at least until CA and the West Coast comes in, which will probably tip the popular vote to Obama late in the evening. By then Obama should have already won the EC and thus the election.

Romney seems to be making a small comeback in the poll averages tonight. Maybe ads are having an impact. It does not appear to be a dramatic shift, although CO is almost back to a tie.

Obama should not be losing the economic argument. He record is similar to Reagan's, who was able to convince people in 1984 that it was "morning in America."



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...d-reagan-1984/

(quote)
While Reagan dealt with a much more rapid rise (and fall) in the unemployment rate during his first term, the parallels – particularly from the 34th month of the two presidencies on — are somewhat remarkable.

To be clear: Even the most optimistic Democrats don’t expect Obama in November to come anywhere near the 49-state, 525-electoral vote landslide that Reagan scored in 1984.

And, Republicans note that by September 1983 the economy was creating 1.1 million jobs a month while the country has lost 61,000 jobs (a month?) since Obama was elected. They also point out that Reagan was more popular at this point in his first term than Obama is currently. (By mid 1984 Reagan’s job approval rating was in the mid 50s in Gallup data; Obama’s job approval in Gallup currently stands at 52 percent.)

All true. But, the trend line does suggest that just as Reagan was able to argue that his policies had begun to work to improve the economy in 1984, so too can Obama in 2012. There’s other evidence — aside from the jobs report/unemployment rate — of growing confidence in the economy; in an NBC- Wall Street Journal poll conducted earlier this month, 57 percent of people said the economy was recovering while 37 percent of people said it wasn’t.

Update 5:57 p.m.: The American Enterprise Institute’s James Pethokoukis weighs in, arguing that the drop in unemployment under Reagan was much more about job creation, while under Obama, it’s been about attrition: “When President Obama took office, the LFP was 65.7% vs. 63.6% last month. … When the unemployment rate fell sharply under Reagan over the same period — from 9.2% in September 1983 to 7.3% in September 1984 — (labor force participation) rose to 64.1% from 63.5%. Optimistic Americans were pouring into the job market — and finding jobs! The economy was booming.”
(unquote)

Note that Pethokoukis compared LFP of Obama today to when he took office, when unemployment was rising due to the Bush recession, while he compared LFP of Reagan from Sept. 1983 to Sept. 1984, when unemployment was improving.

It is morning in America. Why would we want to return to how things were before?

All this suspense!

But there will be none of this four years from now if Bob Casey is the Democratic nominee, for this is what will happen if he is:

http://www.270towin.com/2012_electio...php?mapid=bgPn

Just mentally substitute "Casey" where it says "Obama" (and anyone you feel like for "Romney" since it won't matter who it actually is).

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

All this suspense!

But there will be none of this four years from now if Bob Casey is the Democratic nominee, for this is what will happen if he is:

http://www.270towin.com/2012_electio...php?mapid=bgPn

Just mentally substitute "Casey" where it says "Obama" (and anyone you feel like for "Romney" since it won't matter who it actually is).

Actually in that scenario, I'd see Casey carrying Kentucky as well. If Casey can carry Coal-loving Blue-Dog West Virginia, then he'd certainly get Kentucky. Kentucky has a lot of Blue-Dog Democrats registered in a majority of counties (check out the Voter Registration records--majority of people registered are Democrats), and since Casey is a Blue-Dog... it only makes sense.

The total statistics as of 2012:

Democrats: 1,665,853

Republicans: 1,151,331

Other: 219,969

Source: http://elect.ky.gov/SiteCollectionDo...s/statcnty.txt

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Actually in that scenario, I'd see Casey carrying Kentucky as well. If Casey can carry Coal-loving Blue-Dog West Virginia, then he'd certainly get Kentucky. Kentucky has a lot of Blue-Dog Democrats registered in a majority of counties (check out the Voter Registration records--majority of people registered are Democrats), and since Casey is a Blue-Dog... it only makes sense.

The total statistics as of 2012:

Democrats: 1,665,853

Republicans: 1,151,331

Other: 219,969

Source: http://elect.ky.gov/SiteCollectionDo...s/statcnty.txt

~Chas'88

While I'm not presumptuous enough to say I know as much about Kentucky as you do, don't you have Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul as your Senators, while West Virginia has Joe Manchin and Jay Rockefeller?

And Indiana I'm really sure about: I have quite a few close friends in Indiana, especially down by Rockport/Santa Claus/St. Meinrad - and Casey would definitely be acceptable to them in ways Obama couldn't dream of - and if Casey could be strong there, he wouldn't have any trouble at all winning everything north of I-70, plus the Greater Indianapolis area.

Casey might also win that one district in Nebraska and pick up one more electoral vote, bringing him to 385.

For Deb, a rant I ran into elsewhere:

It's easy for privileged people to look at Obama and say, "I have no reason to vote for Obama." I am a white straight male. I don't have to worry about racial discrimination, I don't have to worry about heating assistance or food assistance, I don't have to worry about gay rights because not having them doesn't affect me personally. For me, it matters little if I vote for a third party progressive, a Democrat, or hell, even (horrifically), a Republican. I'm going to be fine regardless. I might even do better under a Republican in the short term (ignoring the long term social disorder and infrastructure degradation that a Republican would facilitate; as we saw with the Bush years).

But for people who do rely on social safety nets, they do see a difference. You ask any impoverished person getting, say, WIC, and they'll very likely tell you, if they're informed on Republican policies, that Republicans might take it from them. Meanwhile Obama opposed it.

Think about it. As a straight white male, with no kids I should add, there's really nothing in it for me in the short term to vote for anyone progressive. Hell, from an idiotic Randian point of view I either should vote for the Republican or not vote at all. That's too simplistic, though, from a moral and ethical (and non-idiot Randian) standpoint.

If you're a single mom depending on SCHIP to get your kid regular dental visits and to assure that they are in good health, you're reliant on a government program that if you're informed you know that Republicans are against. Ted Kennedy got SCHIP passed with an unholy alliance with Orrin Hatch. It was imperfect. It profited insurance companies. It left a lot of kids uncovered. It costed the federal government billions. But at the time, 1997, it was a start. As a privileged white male with no kids, I couldn't care less, I could bloviate on and on how it was a bureaucratic waste of money, and wasn't covering everyone. I could've pointed to Canada and complained and moaned and whined about how we should adopt their system. I probably did. (Can't remember, but knowing my youthful self it probably happened.) But, as a single mother that's a real reason to vote for the Democrat, because you don't want to lose that very needed safety net in your life, even if there's an off chance that the Democrat could cut it, it's not guaranteed. To them a vote for Obama or the Democrats is not a "lesser evil." It is a "necessary good."

And, of course, as history showed, the Democrats tried to reform SCHIP several times over the years, once they had back control over the Congress. Bush, proving that the Republicans don't give a shit about people, vetoed them twice. It wasn't until 2009 that Obama was able to expand SCHIP to cover more children who weren't covered before. That same single mother who in 1997 was supporting Democrats probably supports them more now, as their child was able to be cared for in times of need, and has been able to get a leg up on life. That's her reason, and it's not because she's privileged, and such things don't actually matter to her. To her it's not a "lesser evil," it's a "necessary good."

It matters to me, too. I grew up poor. I know what being poor is like. I also know that as a white straight male I've had more opportunities to get out of it. Not a target of discrimination I've been able to slide through the class based cracks and get somewhere. Obama's expansion of SCHIP came with a cigarette tax. I probably even complained about it here too, when I was a smoker (haven't smoked in three weeks!). Growing up poor however I understand the necessity for these kinds of expansions. I'm not going to point fingers and place fault and say "that was the wrong way to go about it." Politically it was probably the only way to get it done. Good for Obama, I happily paid the extra $1 rate. Hell, I even read the little paper that was taped to the door on the stores around here noting the rate hike (they really did that, to inform customers that the rate hike was happening; perhaps it was so people could stock up though I don’t know).

Detractors will say that the health care expansion was a total failure, meant only to line the pockets of the insurance industry. They cynically call it "Health Insurance Reform." As a privileged white male it would be easy enough for me to adopt this position. "Single Payer now!" Screw the fact that the Medicaid drug rebate was increased immediately upon inaction, screw that preventative medicine is a hallmark of the program (one reason Cuba has such good health care at lower costs), screw that Native Americans had their health care coverage expanded.

Who cares that adults with existing conditions are covered. Screw the fact that lifetime dollar limits on new policies are banned, that dependants can remain on their parents' plans until they turn 26! I'm 36 years old, white, straight male, in great health, that shit doesn't matter to me! All those people with Medicare Part D coverage? They don't deserve the rebates that they get under the new health care provisions. If you get sick? Pfft, who cares if insurers can't drop you anymore, right? I mean, as a white straight male I fucking earned my place in life, and therefore, you should suck it up.

Medical Loss Ratio limits? Fuck that, if insurers want to charge whatever they want, they should be able to! Immunizations and vaccinations (for everyone) covered without co-payments or deductibles? Idiotic. I had to pay for my vaccines, why should people get a free ride? The insurance companies will simply offset it anyway, right? They're trying to force me to buy insurance even though I can use a Health Savings Account because I'm a white male with no conditions and am in great health. Damn them trying to fine me, those mud suckers. Hell, they're even covering contraceptives, for free! The outrage!

Now, I could go on but I am clearly already ranting far more than I should. The above paragraphs were of course tongue in cheek. A perspective from a privileged white male who is highly ignorant of health care reform as it exists and is prejudiced by immoral and unethical thinking. To those people who have utilized the benefits of health care and who appreciate what it has brought to their lives it is not a "lesser evil." It's a "necessary good."

In the end the reality is that Obama wants to expand the health care exchange so that states can have their own public exchanges. In other words, a state based public option. Vermont is forging ahead with this idea, and Oregon is also heading in that direction. As supporters of the mandate we always knew that this sort of public option was going to happen eventually. So those privileged narcissists who believe that health care reform is a dud because it piggy backs on the insurance industry will not have that to complain about in due course. Meanwhile millions of Americans will enjoy the benefits that health care brings. And that's definitely a reason why many of them will vote for Obama. To them Obama is not a "lesser evil," he's a "necessary good."

If you're an LGBT person you probably have a sore spot as far as Obama is concerned. He started off, even before being officially the President, granting Rick Warren a platform for his inauguration, a notoriously anti-gay bigot. Obama's DOJ continued to maintain anti-gay policies and indeed the military kept DADT in place. As a white straight male it didn't affect me much at all, except for my sympathies for my gay friends. Of course, when Obama finally did get DADT repealed the cynically privileged proclaimed in their ludicrous way that not only did Obama not do repeal it, but the Republicans, particularly the Log Cabin Republicans, were the ones who started it all! Never mind the fact that Republicans overwhelmingly voted against it. Never mind, more ludicrously, the Log Cabin Republicans endorsed Romney because Romney "will not waste his precious time in office with legislative attacks on LGBT Americans." (Really, they actually fucking said that in their endorsement. Really.) The repealing of DADT is surely a reason LGBT Americans would vote for Obama, is it not? The repealing of DADT is not a "lesser evil" (it should've been done via the courts!), it's a "necessary good."

The first thing Obama did for LGBT persons when he got into office was to extend benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. He hosted the first White House LGBT pride reception in American history. He signed the Mathew Sheppard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law. He ended discrimination based on gender identity in the federal government. He lifted the ban that prohibited people with HIV/AIDS from entering the United States. He created a National Resource Center for LGBT Elders. He ensured hospital visitation and medical decision-making rights for gay and lesbian patients. He allowed trans Americans to receive true gender passports without surgery. He clarified the Family and Medical Leave Act ensuring family leave for LGBT employees. He ensured Government housing programs can no longer discriminate against the LGBT community. He declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional and announced the Administration will no longer defend it in court. He clarified the meaning of "family" to include LGBT relationships, helping to protect bi-national families threatened by deportation. Finally, President Obama is the first President to come out in favor of gay marriage equality and make it part of his platform. These are all reasons the LGBT community could have for voting for Obama. As a white straight male they affect me little. For the LGBT community these are not a "lesser evil" simply but a "necessary good."

Obama has been called the "Food Stamp President." Yet, the facts show that under Obama food stamp recipients went down. The facts show that eligibility went up because so many people were hit really hard by the recession. Helping them out is a bad thing for Republicans. That's a reason for anyone who ever got food stamps in their entire lives to vote for the Democrat. Full stop. That's a real, clear, reason. You don't eat, you starve. Starving is no fun. Having been poor I know this. Sadly, and yeah I was going somewhere with this, my brother and his wife are voting for Romney. For the better part of two years they got food stamps (and WIC as I mentioned previously the Republicans tried to gut). It's quite frustrating because for me it's as if they're nullifying my vote for Obama which exists to fight back against repressive Republican policies. (And I'm in Colorado, a fairly important swing state, so it really does hit hard, and you don't talk politics with family, it doesn't do much good.)

If you're poor, living paycheck to paycheck, or due to the lackluster recovery rely on food stamps you have a reason to vote for Obama (anyone can cast stones for why the recovery wasn't the greatest thing ever, the reality is that 46 million Americans are on food stamps). The Recovery Act allotted $26 billion to the SNAP program, allowing it to muster on through the hardships. SNAP kept 4 million people out of poverty, is not contributing to the overall fiscal state of the country, and is considered the most effective means to help the economy recover. Having been a child of a family that received food stamps it's an extremely important cushion necessary to keep the economy going and to keep people from falling into despotism. This is a reason why at least a good chunk of those non-hypocritical Americans have to vote for Obama. For them he's not a "lesser evil," but a "necessary good." For the privileged, however, it doesn't matter too much.

This is a simple sample of the reasons some people have for voting for Obama. They're legitimate reasons. They actually have an impact on their lives. These people are not privileged, they can't decide to vote over single issues, other mitigating factors come into play and they bite the bullet. They get chastised by the privileged left who have nothing to worry about. Now, not all of the privileged left feel this way. Some, like myself, do not want to see LGBT rights that have been incrementally gained go away, they don't want to see people who rely on WIC or food stamps or health care to be thrown under the bus. This would undoubtedly happen if Obama or even if the Democrats lost power.

When I was a kid my dad lost his social security disability thanks to fucking Regan doing some bullshit (they were auditing people on disability I believe and they just cut you off). We were eating, literally eating rice for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Charities were hit hard, there were few food banks we could go to. So I think about it and I think, fuck, that was fucking Regan, what would a Romney or a Ryan do? How could I possibly wish that on anyone? What sort of human would that make me? A really cruel and inhuman person if you ask me.

We, the moral, ethical, and caring progressive left are not as cynical as those who do not think there are reasons to vote for Obama, we are not so deluded, we are not so... to put it bluntly, uncaring asshole shitheaded maggot leeches on society. We understand that for society to function there needs to be a social safety net. We understand that to keep that social safety net in place we must fight back against Republicans (and Libertarians) who believe the almighty markets are going to save everyone. Even if on the fringes the Democrats compromise too much, even if the Democrats aren't the best fighters. We must fight.

If you do not think that there are reasons to vote for Obama, any reason at all, you are a privileged piece of shit and you don't fucking deserve the wall that the Democrats have put up to prevent the collapse that a Republican (or Libertarian) government would assure. I despise you. I deplore you. You are the epitome of what is wrong with this country. People who cannot understand political realities, and people realities, that they have to live through every fucking day. All because your pathetic single issue is more important to you than your fellow citizens. You are trash. Nothing. A vile human pile of excrement. I would hope that you get what you wanted, that is, to see the world burn so that your new paradise can form in its ashes, except I actually give a shit about my fellow human beings, particularly those whose future I might have a remote possibility of helping (through voting), so I don't lose sleep at night knowing that I did the right thing by voting for Obama.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

While I'm not presumptuous enough to say I know as much about Kentucky as you do, don't you have Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul as your Senators, while West Virginia has Joe Manchin and Jay Rockefeller?

I'm from Pennsylvania--but the reason I said as much about Kentucky was based off of the research I did with the Voter Registration & the fact it went for Clinton in both elections who was much more of a Democrat akin to Casey. Although I will admit the fault in my reasoning pops up that Clinton was a Southern Democrat which got him states like Louisiana and Arkansas in such a scenario as well.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I'm from Pennsylvania--but the reason I said as much about Kentucky was based off of the research I did with the Voter Registration & the fact it went for Clinton in both elections who was much more of a Democrat akin to Casey. Although I will admit the fault in my reasoning pops up that Clinton was a Southern Democrat which got him states like Louisiana and Arkansas in such a scenario as well.

~Chas'88

And since you bring up Louisiana, Casey would likely lose only narrowly there - and also in Georgia, South Dakota, Montana, and Alaska.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

And since you bring up Louisiana, Casey would likely lose only narrowly there - and also in Georgia, South Dakota, Montana, and Alaska.

One problem Casey would have IMO is if the Democratic Party saddled him at the convention with positions like having to defend Pro-Choice & other Culture Wars memes traditionally associated with the Democratic Party.

The other would be how he would respond to an Obama Presidency and his legacy. I'm assuming you think Obama would do well to warrant another Democrat being elected in 2016, or Romney being elected and doing poorly. One would be easier to respond to than the other. Casey could run as a re-invention of the Democratic Party in 2016 if Romney fails. Casey would have to figure out how associated he wants to be with the Obama presidency if Obama is successful. And if Obama wins and fails... I wouldn't think ANY Democrat would have a chance in 2016 no matter how Blue-Dog they are, same if Romney wins and succeeds.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

The only problem Casey would have IMO is if the Democratic Party saddled him at the convention with positions like having to defend Pro-Choice & other Culture Wars memes traditionally associated with the Democratic Party.

~Chas'88

Here's what seals the deal for Casey: When he wins his Senate race in Pennsylvania on Tuesday by 10 or 12 points, while Obama wins the state by like 3.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Here's what seals the deal for Casey: When he wins his Senate race in Pennsylvania on Tuesday by 10 or 12 points, while Obama wins the state by like 3.

I edited after you replied:

Another would be how he would respond to an Obama Presidency and his legacy. I'm assuming you think Obama would do well to warrant another Democrat being elected in 2016, or Romney being elected and doing poorly. One would be easier to respond to than the other. Casey could run as a re-invention of the Democratic Party in 2016 if Romney fails. Casey would have to figure out how associated he wants to be with the Obama presidency if Obama is successful. And if Obama wins and fails... I wouldn't think ANY Democrat would have a chance in 2016 no matter how Blue-Dog they are, same if Romney wins and succeeds.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Here's what seals the deal for Casey: When he wins his Senate race in Pennsylvania on Tuesday by 10 or 12 points, while Obama wins the state by like 3.

The reason he'll win big in PA is because Tom Smith is associated with the looney fringe of the Republican party in PA, and the Republican party is going into propaganda overdrive here. Everyday my mailbox is being flooded with flyers--and my neighbors and myself are getting sick and tired of all the propaganda--it's having the opposite effect than desired. Smith also is funding himself because the Republican party hasn't really funded him, so nobody knew he was running until the damn propaganda flyer campaign flooded our mailboxes.

There's also the fact that there's a Libertarian candidate (last I checked) by the name of Rayburn Smith, and some people confuse the two or consider him a more desirable option.

~Chas'88

The elite establishment in the media, Beltway pundits and Washington as a whole are looking like a cartoon at this point. Every article you read making a prediction about the election is determined by the author's political views. There are no Democrats predicting a Romney win, no Republicans predicting an Obama win. The polls are all now showing a dead tie everywhere, because they're all clueless and herding themselves into the only safe position for salvaging their reputations. Having a tie at the end at least saves them from picking the wrong winner by one point. The news networks are clearly playing this up for ratings. It's like the Super Bowl for them, nothing more.

I have no idea what's going to happen, even though all of the anecdotal evidence, early voting returns and usual indicators are pointing towards Romney winning. Some of the polls and Democrat spin have Obama winning, or nearly winning, because of massive Democrat turnout and a wide Democrat party ID advantage, despite the fact that Romney is winning independents by a wide margin. At the same time, you have polls popping up at the last minute showing ties in PA and MI. There are articles popping up in liberal publications subtly hinting that Obama's turnout may not be what's being projected. It's all a massive smoke cloud at this point. Nothing left to do but see what happens on Tuesday.

If Obama wins, it's four more years of the Great depression Part II. I Romney wins, it'll be a pleasant surprise. As an Xer, I'm prepared for anything, and I expect the worst. But I do live in a "swing state" and I will vote for Romney.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The elite establishment in the media, Beltway pundits and Washington as a whole are looking like a cartoon at this point. Every article you read making a prediction about the election is determined by the author's political views. There are no Democrats predicting a Romney win, no Republicans predicting an Obama win. The polls are all now showing a dead tie everywhere, because they're all clueless and herding themselves into the only safe position for salvaging their reputations. Having a tie at the end at least saves them from picking the wrong winner by one point. The news networks are clearly playing this up for ratings. It's like the Super Bowl for them, nothing more.

I have no idea what's going to happen, even though all of the anecdotal evidence, early voting returns and usual indicators are pointing towards Romney winning. Some of the polls and Democrat spin have Obama winning, or nearly winning, because of massive Democrat turnout and a wide Democrat party ID advantage, despite the fact that Romney is winning independents by a wide margin. At the same time, you have polls popping up at the last minute showing ties in PA and MI. There are articles popping up in liberal publications subtly hinting that Obama's turnout may not be what's being projected. It's all a massive smoke cloud at this point. Nothing left to do but see what happens on Tuesday.

If Obama wins, it's four more years of the Great depression Part II. I Romney wins, it'll be a pleasant surprise. As an Xer, I'm prepared for anything, and I expect the worst. But I do live in a "swing state" and I will vote for Romney.

All the state polls in swing states show Obama winning by 2 or 3 points, with Colorado and Virginia having more narrow margins, and Florida barely for Romney, and NC at 2 or 3 points for Romney. Odds are that Obama will win. Most pundits predict their own favorite to win, except in a few cases. On the McLaughlin Group, Mort Zuckerman passionately attacked Obama's economic record, but predicted Obama will squeak through. The other 4 panelists predicted according to their desires. So there are exceptions here and there. Nate Silver says that the election is not too close to call, and calls it for Obama. If you say otherwise, it is only because either you want it to be otherwise, or that you think the polls are biased. I still predict a 332 to 206 win for Obama, but Florida will be close, and the result might well be 303-235.

http://philosopherswheel.com/pollaverages.html

Again, JPT is wrong about the economy. I am quite sure that the economy will continue a modest recovery for at least 2 years NO MATTER WHO wins Tuesday. It is the long-term fortunes of our society and our planet that are at stake. In this regard, Romney is certainly the wrong choice, without ANY doubt.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Uh oh:


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...ntial-election

I have nothing but contempt for people who believe such superstition. 2004 disproved that nonsense.

..........

Originally Posted by playwrite

Always easy to lambast Big Daddy from the comfort of an intact home, with power and food, and no bodies floating by.

Even easier to lambaste him when the bodies are floating by. At least, if you were fool enough to expect him to regulate the winds and tides.

As for me, I don't expect the lawnmower to wash dishes, so I'm not disappointed when all it does well is cut grass. And not being disappointed, I feel no need to look for an excuse to shout "Bad lawnmower! BAD!". It's just a damn lawnmower.

Originally Posted by Odin

..........

Much scarier in their own words -




The vast majority of Romney supporters are simply dumb as dirt.

What we're up against? Simply ignorance and stupidity..... and that is certainly in no short supply.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Even easier to lambaste him when the bodies are floating by. At least, if you were fool enough to expect him to regulate the winds and tides.

As for me, I don't expect the lawnmower to wash dishes, so I'm not disappointed when all it does well is cut grass. And not being disappointed, I feel no need to look for an excuse to shout "Bad lawnmower! BAD!". It's just a damn lawnmower.

Thanks for the immediate example of "dumb as dirt."

No one is suggesting regulating winds and tides beyond perhaps putting less carbon in the air and slowing global warming. But there is more, much more, that could be done by investing in infrastructure to protect low-lying major metropolises. Then there's the continued govt investment in weather satellites and other instrumentation, research, that could make our predictions much more precise on when and where. And then there's the investment in FEMA and emergency capacities at the federal, state and local levels.

And then, the most important thing, that the vast majority of people, including you, just can't get is the power of a fiat currency. Just why is it that the feds can spend on dealing with these disasters so easily? And without the lease likelihood of any one actually paying for it with either higher taxes or with inflation.

Quit being a bonehead.

Two storms that activated to help Obama?
[QUOTE]Tuesday, Oct 30, 2012 05:28 AM PDT
So what does Romney do now?

If the hurricane freezes the presidential race in place, it's notgood news for the GOP nominee
By Steve Kornacki

For Romney, the downside is obvious: Sandy has for now frozen therace in place – and where the race is right now isn’t good for him. If theelection were held this moment, Barack Obama would probably be returned tooffice for a second term. The president is at best tied with Romney in thenational horserace and at worst behind by a point, but he holds clearadvantages in the most important battleground states and is muchbetter-positioned to reach 270 electoral votes.

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/30/so_what_does_romney_do_now/[/QUOTE]
It seems the Feds activated their climate weapon to help Obama. Ifyou still remember just months ago how hurricane Issac attacked Republican'sConvention.

Rush Limbaugh Says Obama Manipulated Isaac Storm Track ToDelay GOP Convention: ‘The Hurricane Center Is … Obama’

By Stephen Lacey on Aug 27, 2012
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...ama/?mobile=nc

GOP fears ghost of Katrina at RNC 2012

Read more:http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz2555svXio

Originally Posted by Aramea

Of course, but I guess that is why we are all here on a forum about the fourth turning. "We can feel, but we can no longer collectively do." I suspect as these tragic events keep happening (and they will, of course) it will become obvious that our institutions are broken and the lack of compromise will start causing politicians pain at the polls.

I can hope.

You've got my vote. When are you runining?

Here's my $0.02 I slid into the local paper. The guest op-eds were numerous today, and fewer were leaning GOP:

She's a bright and engaging 20-something, a 2008 Obama supporter, and this year, she'll vote for Mitt. I listened as she laid it out. Yes, she's worried about contraception and thinks that abortion is a personal matter. Socially, she favors gay marriage, and economically, more help for college students. Mitt Romney favors none of these, yet he wins her vote.

In the end, as liberal as she is politically, this young woman is going with her gut. It was that first debate, when President Obama came across as weak and dissembling. That was it. She said that she was sad to change her mind, since Obama represented her personal beliefs, but she's voting for strength this time. She did say that she hoped Romney wouldn't do all the things he says he will.

For the Obama team, this is not a good omen. For the Romney team, it's manna from heaven.

Needless to say, I'm neither young nor female, but I understand her dilemma. The last four years have been disappointing. When GeorgeW. Bush was in office, he represented everything I opposed. I voted against him twice, and would again today. But give the devil his due; he was a strong albeit misguided leader. He led us into a needless war and promoted a drug benefit plan that benefited no one so much as the pharmaceutical industry. He stood by while New Orleans drowned and finished his term by crashing the economy. It didn't matter. He stood up for his programs. So did the Republican Party. We all went along grudgingly.

By contrast, I think Obama has good intentions yet very poor delivery. Even his signature accomplishment, the Affordable Care Act, seems to be a bit of a stepchild this year - defined not by the Democrats but rather by the Republicans. If it's good, it should be heralded. Instead, it's been mostly ignored or denigrated.
Likewise the economy is defined as bad by the GOP, and not defended all that well by the Obama team, either. What's going on here? We missed a second Great Depression by a few missteps, and the verdict is negative? And where is the fair share of blame for a recalcitrant GOP? It's not even mentioned.

So that young woman has made a choice - one she may regret. She's likely to find that a GOP administration, with a like-minded Congress, will dramatically alter the country. They will certainly eliminate the ACA, lower taxes even further on the wealthy and cut everything in sight that supports average people. That's their promise. I take them at their word.

So unlike the young woman, I'll be voting for the Democrats again. I won't do it with great verve. I'll do it with resignation. For me, they haven't so much earned another term as won the right by default. After 30 years of trying the GOP plan, we know it doesn't work - not for average folks. So, I'll see you at the polls. I'll be the glum one.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Much scarier in their own words -




The vast majority of Romney supporters are simply dumb as dirt.

What we're up against? Simply ignorance and stupidity..... and that is certainly in no short supply.

The BUDDHISTS!!! OMG!!! RUN!!!

Speaks for itself -

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The elite establishment in the media, Beltway pundits and Washington as a whole are looking like a cartoon at this point. Every article you read making a prediction about the election is determined by the author's political views. There are no Democrats predicting a Romney win, no Republicans predicting an Obama win. The polls are all now showing a dead tie everywhere, because they're all clueless and herding themselves into the only safe position for salvaging their reputations. Having a tie at the end at least saves them from picking the wrong winner by one point. The news networks are clearly playing this up for ratings. It's like the Super Bowl for them, nothing more.

President Obama may lose the popular vote and win the Electoral Vote because Hurricane Sandy may have cut into the usual high numbers of voters in the northeastern US where there is practically no GOTV effort except perhaps in New Hampshire and Virginia (Virginia goes pretty far north). Meanwhile he is behind by incredible margins in a raft of states. He could imaginably carve out a majority of electoral votes from the Inland mountain states if he were to barely win Arizona (although this is unlikely) with bare majorities in four states while getting crushed in the other states of the region. He will probably lose Utah by 40%.

The polls are not 'dead even' everywhere. I just discussed Utah, and that is before I discuss some polls in Idaho, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. He is certainly not 'dead even' in New York, California, or Rhode Island, either. In what have been considered swing states most of the year except perhaps Missouri he is in something from close to a tie to somewhat ahead. Choose whatever poll you wish. He is going to win the states like Michigan and Pennsylvania that he absolutely must win. He is also ahead in some states that Mitt Romney absolutely must win to have a chance: Ohio and Virginia. The true toss-ups (Colorado, Florida, and North Carolina) are states that Mitt Romney can't afford to be tossups.

I have no idea what's going to happen, even though all of the anecdotal evidence, early voting returns and usual indicators are pointing towards Romney winning. Some of the polls and Democrat spin have Obama winning, or nearly winning, because of massive Democrat turnout and a wide Democrat party ID advantage, despite the fact that Romney is winning independents by a wide margin. At the same time, you have polls popping up at the last minute showing ties in PA and MI. There are articles popping up in liberal publications subtly hinting that Obama's turnout may not be what's being projected. It's all a massive smoke cloud at this point. Nothing left to do but see what happens on Tuesday.

Sample from today:


Florida: Romney 52%, Obama 47% (InsiderAdvantage)

Florida: Obama 50%, Romney 49% (Public Policy Polling)

Florida: Romney 50%, Obama 48% (Pulse Opinion Research)

New Hampshire: Obama 51%, Romney 48% (WMUR)

North Carolina: Obama 49%, Romney 49% (Public Policy Polling)

Ohio: Obama 48%, Romney 46% (Pulse Opinion Research)

Pennsylvania: Obama 49%, Romney 46% (Pulse Opinion Research)

Virginia: Obama 48%, Romney 47% (NBC/WSJ/Marist)

Virginia: Obama 49%, Romney 48% (Pulse Opinion Research)

Wisconsin: Obama 49%, Romney 48% (Pulse Opinion Research)

Pulse Polling Research, basically a subsidiary of Republican-friendly pollster Scott Rasmussen, shows tiny leads for the President in a bunch of states in which it recently showed leads for Mitt Romney. One such state is Florida. Maybe the horrible ad that tries to link President Obama to anti-American dictators Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro has backfired because it is demonstrably untrue. "Insider Advantage" is a junk pollster tied to R special interests.

If Obama wins, it's four more years of the Great depression Part II. I Romney wins, it'll be a pleasant surprise. As an Xer, I'm prepared for anything, and I expect the worst. But I do live in a "swing state" and I will vote for Romney.

We seem to be getting out of the Lesser Depression. The curve of unemployment for the first 45 months of the Reagan and Obama administrations are very close. if you think Reagan was an effective President -- by the same criteria, so is Barack Obama except that America is so regionally polarized that President Obama could never win even a 40-state landslide. There's no speculative boom going on that could easily go sour -- and depressions start almost as a rule with booms going bust. Prepare yourself for four good years should President Obama be re-elected.

Of course I do not deny that you are going to vote for Romney.