This may be a very close election - some pollsters are saying there's a 66% chance of that - but who knows.

We could easily wind up (from looking at the polls), with a popular vote favoring Romney, but an electoral college count that favors Obama - like what we had with Gore vs. Bush, but with the parties reversed.

In the event of a tie electoral vote, The House will appoint the President, (which would be Romney since it's Republican), and the Senate will appoint the V.P., (which would be Biden, since it's majority is from the Democratic party). That would REALLY be weird! (and quite unlikely to happen).

BIG influence from these "battleground" states in a national election! :cool:

If Obama wins, it will be historic, because no President has ever won reelection for a second term, with such a high level of disapproval in the polls, since polling records were kept.

Why I don't like Obama:

I'm tired of:

*high gas and diesel prices - but Obama's restricted oil projects, and oil drilling on Federal lands. Even cut down on oil production in the oil preserve in Alaska - chosen because it has no impact on the animals (there are VERY few).

*his abandoning Ambassador Stevens and others, when they came under attack in Benghazi - despite having real time video from a recon drone, and military assets, nearby.

And having his Administration spokesmen talk about it, like it was a demonstration against a video - when he was told by the Consulate, that it was a militia attacking them, with military weapons (mortars, explosives, etc.), and had real time video of the attack, as well.

*crony gifts to his supporters: A123, Solyndra, etc., and his pursuit of his "enemies" (whistleblowers, Conservatives, etc.)

*lack of recovery from the recession. By his own account, he is a failure.

*lies and etc. He didn't close Gitmo, he didn't secure our borders, he didn't improve immigration, he has the justice department file suit against every single state that has passed Voter ID laws.

*failure to pass even ONE budget, in either part of Congress.

*and of course, the huge run up in the national debt.

*Obamacare should have been a crowing achievement, but it's a complete disaster, since all the largest employers have filed for an exemption from it. What kind of a messed up national health care system is that? Small businesses are exempt, and big businesses just need to file for an exemption! What a load of crap!

*inciting hate between classes, and racism. I thought surely THIS President would be color blind - instead, he's anything BUT color blind.
Meanwhile, he had coddled Wall St. (Especially Goldman Sachs), like nobody else.

The only two good things he's done is allow Gays to serve openly in the military, and say Yes to getting Bin Laden.

That's not much for nearly 4 years worth. I'd give him a grade of D, so far.

Obama has incited class hatred? I'd have put that one squarely at the feet of the conservatives. All that anti-poor, anti working-class, and anti-welfare rhetoric. Republican governors engaging in anti-union and anti-workers' rights activity. That is class war. That is class hatred.

Obama has no effect on gas and diesel prices. Increasing production does not necessarily lead to lower prices. Too many other factors involved.

There are too many unknowns to make a definite conclusions. Almost every allegation I've seen has be denied plus there are many other factors that are not being taken into account (Monday quarterbacking).

Benghazi might turn out to be one of those events that only scholars will fully understand years down the road due to how complicated it probably was.

I'm assuming you have no proof of this because this is not true.

[quote]*lack of recovery from the recession. By his own account, he is a failure.[quote]
No, it is only a "failure" because of how conservative frame it. I can say the Packer's last year's regular season was a failure if the bar was set at 16-0 (which was widely claimed).

The current recovery is not much different than past recoveries besides the fact that this one is MUCH deeper. Plus, there are many other factors that Obama has no control over.

A lie implies that he knew he wasn't going to do those things when Obama said that. Those are just issues that didn't turn out for whatever reason, not him knowingly deceiving people (like *cough* Romney's tax plan)

Ok.

Only an idiot would try to solve the debt problem during a recession...

My analysis of Obamacare is that it addressed some issues extremely well, some alright, and some just missed the mark all together. History will tell.

This doesn't make any sense. Most "class warfare" has been instigated by conservatives. Asking the upper class to pay a bit more is not class warfare. Inciting people to attack rich people's homes, loot them, and burning them to fucking ground is class warfare. Gain some perspective.

Now that isn't biased....:D

Y'know, there's a lot of complaint from the red side about how Obama has 'failed America'. But that was their goal to start with, according to some Republican big names (big mouths?).

Republican leaders said they wanted Obama to fail:

Quote:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

Because if he gets re-elected it'll be hard to push through stuff you wanna push through, granted. But how about moving things through that you potentially CAN agree on, assuming no obstructionism? "Single most important thing"? Really?

Quote:

Rush Limbaugh: "I hope he fails."

We all know he's a nutter but he still has a flock.

Quote:

Tea Party favorite Rep. Michele Bachmann:"We’re, we’re, we’re hoping that President Obama’s policies don’t succeed"

So, so, so glad she never made it out of the primaries.
(Link disclaimer: Link sources do skew blue, but the quotes are exact and even offer recordings.)

So... given two of these quotes are from people who have been considered leaders in the Republican and conservative vein and in a position to get in the way of Obama's bills, I'd say part of the reason for Obama's failure rests with them.

I'm not exonerating the Democrats because their performance has been less than stellar too. But at least they didn't openly state they wanted Obama to fail, take steps to make him a one-term president, work on engineering failure in the Executive Branch then turn around abd try to tell me that he failed on his own.

Srsly, u guys?

Being colorblind IS being racist. In a massively racist society, to pretend not to see the crushing effects widespread racism has on people of color, IS the racist thing to do.

I'm curious about some specifics.

Given the stance of the 2010 Republican Connally/Ryan-controlled House of Representatives,
what could the Democrats do that they did not do (stellar-ish-ly) ? :rolleyes:

Wow. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that a GOP shill doesn't know a Republican Party outcast.
Johnson announced his candidacy for President on April 21, 2011, as a Republican,[12] on a libertarian platform emphasizing the United States public debt and a balanced budget through a 43% reduction of all federal government spending, protection of civil liberties, an immediate end to the War in Afghanistan and his advocacy of the FairTax. On December 28, 2011, after being excluded from the majority of the Republican Party's presidential debates and failing to gain traction while campaigning for the New Hampshire primary, he withdrew his candidacy for the Republican nomination and announced that he would continue his presidential campaign as a candidate for the nomination of the Libertarian Party.[13] He won the Libertarian Party nomination on May 5, 2012. His vice-presidential running mate is Judge James P. Gray of California.

Now I'm the uninformed one, can you give me the chapter and verse of your precious constitution which says that?

There's that entitlement thinking again. The two major criminal enterprises do not have a right to anyone's vote.

We've heard this tale before. Vote for a war-mongering, religious nutter, crony capitalist when you want limited government. That makes perfect sense.

Once more a little bit louder. You're forgetting that the GOP is run by war mongers, religious nuts, and crony capitalists, they don't want libertarians. Will we ever find out how much money Romney made on the Delphi automotive bailout scamming the taxpayers and workers alike? Two criminal organizations but the Republicans seem to profit more from the schemes.

Ibby, you have to be careful with this. There is very fine line between being colorblind (not racist), marginalizing racism (bad intentions), and trying to make up for racism (still racist).

Republicans tend to be racist by marginalizing racism, not by actually being color blind, which would not be racist (that's the definition). In fact, treating someone different based on ethnicity is technically racist no matter the intention. This includes calling black people criminals or Asians good at math. Many white liberals act in racist manners by trying to make up for past racism as well, which can end up be extremely condescending to whoever they are trying to help.

Being colorblind but acknowledging that racism exists is the best bet (ideally) in my opinion.


Also, as a side note...I could call our current "racism" as more of a "culturalism" since very few people believe in race anymore. It is just that culture is tied to race here in The States.

also, PH45, i take it from your description there that you think it's possible to be racist against white people. That's not true.

According to that set of definitions, it's not possible to "be" racist at all, unless you are the embodiment of an entire society. If you want to insist on your definitions--which are certainly not the same as the vernacular usage common today, but the common person isn't always right, it's true--then you might be better served by saying, "an individual cannot be racist, you mean discriminating," rather than leading with the notion that white people can't experience it, since that's bound to be inflammatory to those who are in all good conscience using the terms racism and discrimination as synonyms.

By strict definition, an individual can be racist and a white person in America can experience racism at the hands of a black person.

I don't think the two experiences of racism in any way equate, mind you. There is a power differential to consider.

You should really take what I say with an open mind and not assume you know what I believe. These -isms are very complicated and much more vast than the popular labels used here in the states. (Note, this post is much longer than I intended....I'm rambling)

First of all, before throwing around other people's views, we need to talk about the definition of racism. Racism is social doctrine that is held and enforced by a population. This has a MUCH wider scope than the white versus black racism that we usually refer to. For example, if my community thinks Italians are lazy and routinely pass them up on job applications, that community (generalized) is racist against Italians. If a community thinks Chinese people are mathematically smart and only hire them for mathematically based work, that is racism. It doesn't matter the intention or severity, it a group of people enforce a stereotype (social doctrine), it is by definition racist.

I don't want to go too far into this because it is extremely controversial, but I strongly believe our society's narrow definition of racism does more harm than good. We need to realize that since our society is racist, everyone is going to pick up some racist behavior no matter your skin color. I have had discussions with multiple "pro-revolution" black people and they have all admitted that they harbor racist thoughts against themselves as well. Only then, can we have a intelligent discussion about how to address the current state of racism in our society because we need everyone on the same page. Right now, everyone is all over the place so naturally, no one can agree on the best course of action. This why I said earlier in a different thread that racism has changed and so the reaction against it needs to follow as well.


Second, "colorblindness" can mean many different things so we need to figure out what we are talking about. As I said before, there is a difference between acting in a color blind manner and marginalizing racism. Right now, as a graduate student in engineering, I study with people from all over the world. I would never treat the black person I study with any different than the Chinese person I study with. If I did, it would be racist and condescending to the black person because he is just as capable as the Chinese student. On a person to person basis, I try my best to treat every person, regardless of skin color or background, the same.

On the other hand, I recognize the racism in our society and do not try to marginalize it. This line between colorblindness and marginalizing is subjective so there will naturally be some overlap and disagreements but that is another discussion. However, I feel it is best for society and federal institutions to address and equalize the racist inequalities in our society, not individuals. Individuals can take part and support our institutions in doing that, which I do, but I will not take it upon myself, as a white person, to dictate what is best for black people since I have no perspective.


As for the entire "there can be no such thing as reverse racism" crap, that entire discussion is stupid in my opinion because it is narrow minded. Especially now, we cannot quantify racism within a society due to its complexity and fluidness. You can not just assume that racism is flat and equal. There are some parts of our white versus black racial interaction that is racist against white people and some parts that are racist against black people. I just believe that the parts that are racist against black people are MUCH more severe and have a MUCH greater effect on a person's life. So, if you take the "average", yes, it one way, but to claim that racism can only go one way limits discussion of how racism really works and therefore ends up hurting the fight against racism due to lack of understanding.


As a last point, and don't take this as an insult, but I think your signature line "show me a problem you don’t think is caused by white people and i’ll show you how you missed hundreds of years of cultural hegemony and imperialism/colonialism." is racist. Now, I don't believe it is racist against white people, but racist against people of color. By claiming that all of the world's problems are caused by white people is extremely condescending towards people of color by claiming they have no control over their lives. Now, white people have done a lot of fucked up shit and still continue to do fucked up shit to other countries (the not marginalizing part...), but people of color have much more control over their world than you are making it out to be and by denying them that claim of control, you imply that they do not have the ability of self-determination. Just so you realize, white people do not have full control over everyone's lives. We have had a major influence, but people from other countries are no different from us. They have politicians who are lying sacks of shit and opportunist who will fuck over their entire population for wealth and power too.

Thankfully for us, the United States has institutions that protect us to a much greater extent from these fuckers and unfortunately, many third world countries do not enjoy these institutions (partly because of white people...). I know full well that white people can fuck over America and I damn well believe that black people can fuck themselves over as well.

Remember that post about John Ludlow

Now look at the crap going on in that election...


Times Union.com
STEVEN DUBOIS, Associated Press
November 2, 2012

Ballot tampering reported in Clackamas County
[Skuttle-butt says a female, temporary, employee in the Sec of State's office
was illegally marking ballots for John Ludlow when the original voter had not voted for either candidate.]

Republicans party officials are already denying everything,
and demanding an apology from Ludlow's opponent, Charlette Lehan,
after her campaign chairman made the following statement:

Ibby, English is a living language with streamlining changes often occurring to suit a particular purpose; unfortunately, sometimes at the loss of specificity. Frankly, you haven't been living long enough for your endorsement of such changes to carry much weight.

Go back to Webster's New World Dictionary Second College Edition, Copyright 1976 and we find:

ra.cial.ism n. 1. a doctrine or teaching, without scientific support, that claims to find racial differences in character, intelligence, etc., that asserts the superiority of one race over another or others, and that seeks to maintain the supposed purity of a race or the races. 2. same as RACISM (sense 2) ---ra'cial.ist n., adj.

The first sense of the above word is where the "institutionalized" aspect comes from as doctrines and teachings are primarily the purview of the prevailing culture.

ra.cism n. 1. same as RACIALISM (sense 1) 2. any program or practice of racial discrimination, based on racialism ---rac'ist n., adj.

This is the word that was intended to describe "any" (i.e. institutional and individual) racial discrimination.

In the good ol' USA, the word "racialism" fell out of popularity with "racism" being substituted for it while maintaining its application for describing individuals as racists. The definition you presented seems to drop that application which, as Clod said, would preclude any individual from being called racist; unless, their whole cultural social structure exhibited the same behavior. This reeks of agenda. I don't buy it; but, I can see how it would appeal to a connoisseur of poppycock.

I'm'a believe the huge body of scholarly/academic literature written by PoC over a dictionary written by (very very likely racist) white people.

Attachment 41507

Not particularly bovvered i gotta say.

I agree and disagree.

I disagree because the definition of racism implies a social doctrine. Even though discrimination and racism are considered synonymous in our society, I would argue that there has to be some social structure behind a racist. This social structure does not have to be very severe, but I believe it has to exist.

I agree because I believe a person can be racist by attempting to promote a prejudice in society. If I somehow promote that Mongolians are lazy and try to get society to embrace that view, I would consider that racism because of the interaction with society. If you discriminate without promoting the behavior I would not consider that racism. It is semantics at this point but I think, for definition sake, they should be separate.


I think this addresses your point?

I got the impression Monnica T. Williams, Ph.D., was directing this article at fellow clinical therapists, trying to establish strict definitions of the concept/practice associated with several terms. The terms they use to communicate with each other both personally, and in their research papers they publish to share their findings with their peers.

This has little to do with the great unwashed, and how they use these words to communicate with their bros, as you will learn once you leave academia for the real world. If you berate people about their position, which you determined from your definitions, you may discover a surprisingly hostile resistance.

Can you cite any constitutional amendment or any legislation to back this up?

The GOP deserves to lose and I hope they learn some hard lessons, that way after 4 more years of Obama and not having to run against an incumbent, that they nominate a better candidate. If the GOP nominates another whack job from a weird religious cult like Rick Santorum, you will get Nancy Pelosi in the White House.

Right now Richard Mourdock is down 11 points in a very red state because of his "pregnancy by rape is god's will" BS.

This is the "social conservative" crap that drives the younger people away from the GOP in droves and it's killing the party.

Of course not, none exists, but I believe he was addressing the reality that the two parties have locked up sufficient control to squash a third party run for anything but a local post.

I agree with this reality and think it will continue as long as people are fat, dumb, and happy. Christ, look at the turnouts on election days, especially at mid-terms. People that won't be bothered voting are hardy engaged in shaping the selection.

Maybe, just maybe, if we can get people fired up enough to get involved on a local level, with shit that they can actually see affects them directly, they'd be more inspired to pay attention at higher levels. It might dispel the feeling of helplessness, and their vote is meaningless.

Oh, you can have more than two political parties, (and we do), but the way our gov't is set up by the Constitution, only two parties are ever likely to dominate any election.

It's like cars - nothing says they have to have 4 wheels, but the function of them makes 4 wheels by far the most popular choice. There have been 3 axle 6 wheel cars, and 3 wheel cars, but they never became popular.

Santorum or Pelosi in the White House? :eek::eek::eek:

Richard is a whack job, and the party asked him to quit the race, but he wouldn't. When you open your mouth and stuff your whole leg down your throat, you need to get out of politics, clearly. IMO, Richard is toast in politics.

Yes, I agree. The Republicans wanted a platform and a candidate more conservative than last time. At the same time, the whack jobs have to be cut from the herd - they're a mess, and sickening.

I believe there is also induced individual racism. A victim of racism, who has not been a racist, may become a racist if there's no remedy after being victimized due to a dominant racist social structure behind the perpetrator. The victim's social support structure may become racist in response to the victim's situation rather than the other way around. It's a learned behavior that can be taught both ways.

I don't believe discrimination and racism are synonymous. Racism is just one of many forms of discrimination and its relative importance varies among societies around the world.

I do believe that promoting racial prejudice in any way, words (e.g. defamation) or actions (e.g. discrimination), is racism in any instance since even if we had a racism free social structure there would always be individuals who buck the system.

In particular, the all-important Ohio:

Attachment 41508

Nice post pierce.

The thing with race and racism is it isn't half as simple as it first appears to be.

Life is messy. Society is messy.

Race is one factor in a nexus of factors that defines an individual's experience of and place in the world. Race, class and gender in particular work together to produce a particular experience in society.

If a middle-class black manager passes over a working-class, white woman because he prefers to employ/promote black workers then she is experiencing racism. The power differential isn't coming from race, it's coming from a combination of class and gender, but the act of passing over is an expression of racism.

True Dana, 35 years ago at Westinghouse Steam Turbine, complaints by civil rights groups prompted the hiring of a black man to head up personnel. But after he'd hired over 150 black people and no whites or Asians, they found out it isn't that simple.

The day will come when elections will not have primaries but there will be runoff elections, people will choose between 5 or 6 parties in the first round and then between the top two finishers in the second round.

This will probably happen after we start driving flying cars that run on sunlight, America is not that advanced yet.

I've been disappointed in Obamas lack of aggressiveness, and unwillingness to go back to the voters for support before the reelection campaign. I'll still vote for him.
This article sums up pretty how I feel about this election.

Well I hope so, but we shouldn't underestimate the tenacity of power-hungry shysters.

On the other hand ... Christie-Huntsman 2016!

Seriously, Christie is about as good a leader as I can see anywhere in the US. Huntsman seems sane, despite coming from Utah.

You're so far ahead of most North Americans, it's scary. :yelsick:

I would have seriously considered Huntsman over Obama.

Christie seems more popular among Democrats than Republicans right now. However, he was told by Republicans that his "endorsement" of Obama won't be forgotten. We will see.


Also, I find it funny that the best (most realistic) critiques of the Obama administration have come from Obama endorsements.

I have friends in Jersey who are not happy with Christie, but from what I've seen he's not sneaky. He seems to say what he means, and vice versa, so if he's going to fuck you he won't deny it.
The criticism from republicans has come from the people the party will hopefully shed in the near future.

Christie seems a more sensible chap than most of the current crop of republicans. Not just because he endorsed Obama (I thought his reasoning for that was excellent though) but generally he seems pretty sensible. The times I've seen him in interview, that is, 'cause I know very little about him as a politician.

I really wonder what the republican party expected from Christie considering the circumstances of the praise he gave Obama. Should he have not declared his state under an emergency and not paved the way for Federal Level aid to come in? Should he have told Obama to take his 'handout money' and, with all due respect, GTFO? Should he have taken the money but then given Obama the cold shoulder while he visited?

Or was it the fact that he was so positive towards Obama in an election year and so close to election day?

I think he did best by the people of the state he governs, who should be and are his primary political concern, not the republican party itself. He did right by the people who elected him and end up getting called a traitor and distanced by prominent members of the party and the pet news service that were so in love with him. Love is such a fickle thing in politics.

Same here. He and Obama were the two centrists. Huntsman was probably closer to me philosophically, so my vote probably would have gone there. The more Romney I see, the worse it is for Romney.

Dear GOP moderate or die. Find honest folks who appreciate the nuances of economics in real world situations and shed the nutters. People used to talk about the Dems becoming a permanent minority party, so they changed. The numbers are not looking good for the GOP right now as a coalition of backward looking people who demographics say are done. You need a plan that doesn't include destabilizing the country.

Gov. Christie has been very well spoken of by the Conservatives and Republicans in the past. I haven't heard what Christie said about Obama. Did he actually endorse Obama? Or just offer a few words of praise?

Unfortunately, good politicians like Huntsman are easily overlooked in the primaries, because they don't stand out enough from the rest of the field. Also, they don't have the organization they need in all the primary states, to help promote their candidate, and make a solid showing.

The Republicans need a "big tent", but they need to re-think their platform, and either get the nutters to toe the platform, or walk the plank out of the party. Way too many of them, hanging around, and giving conservatives, a bad rep.

I work in NJ, and my take on dissatisfaction with Christie is really people not understanding implications.

I work with a young woman whose husband is a professional fire fighter for Cherry Hill Township. She endorsed Christie, commenting "I can't believe the benefits and pension that NJ teachers get! They should be cut back". I told her that her husband may very well get the same treatment. She assured me that he worked for a local municipality, and what happened at the state level would not effect her family. It did.

People didn't understand that when the state cuts spending, local municipalities get less money from the state. Now everyone is upset at losing local services or seeing their local taxes skyrocket. Well, duh.

And now Christie, who, as a repubican, stood against Big Government and Washington Spending is embracing said evilness, because it benefits him and his. This is what happens every time. For instance, Republicans were all dead set against stem cell research, until it could help Reagan's Alzheimer's. It happens every time.

This guy speaks my mind in the comments section of the 538 blog.

Let me war you...

Amazing. I'd heard audio of his speeches, but don't ever remember seeing one. He's good.

And you can't tell he's in a wheelchair.

touch screen voting machine in Pennsylvania "switching" vote from obama to romney. this machine seems to be badly out of calibration. 309 views as of 11:22 am PST.


uploader's comments. he says not a calibration issue, perhaps we just don't have the same understanding of the meaning of calibration.

I had somewhat similar issues with my voting machine. When I went to select my choice under presidential candidates, it only took a gentle tap to select any of the others but I had to pound the section for my choice several times before it highlighted. Then at the end, when it summarized, the summary had the the wrong selection. I had to go back and do it again. No other part of the voting from the Congress choices to the amendment and bond yes/no questions had the same problem.

That is seriously fucked up.



But ya know...goddamn, it but you Americans are clever bastards. That's some stylish electoral shenannigans right there.

Just saw this on the BBCNews feed:

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md...mlbvo1_500.jpg
just sayin'... you won't convince me this ain't some racist shit going on.

Lots of shenanigans.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...egularities-2/

I really have to give the Obama camp people in my area some kudos for effort.

The voting laws changed in Virginia. The new requirements aren't complicated, but the change would catch some who weren't prepared off-guard. Ever since around mid-August, I've been getting home visits and door-hanger pamphlets from groups supporting Obama. Each and every time, the material they left behind had a huge section that explained the changes in the voting laws, how and where to register to vote and what you would need to show when you got to the front of the line. When I actually opened my door to one of the home visits, they asked directly if I had any questions on how to register or what to bring. This past weekend, I had no less than 5 visit attempts. I stopped answering the door because 1) their efforts were wasted on me, that is I already was registered and knew what I needed well before this effort and 2) cmon... lemme have my weekend in peace! But even so, I was glad they were out there doing this.

I have not once ever gotten a home visit or a leave-behind from any of Romney's supporters. No fliers with reasons to vote for him, no fliers with reasons to not vote for Obama, no fliers with info on how to register or what to bring to the voting station. There could be a bunch of reasons why, such as this area was too blue for them to bother, or red enough so they didn't feel they needed to, or his local camps had a lousy print media budget, or there just wasn't a Romney camp presence like Obama's in my area or... I just know that, if I was really on the fence trying to decide and had my misgivings about both candidates, I'd feel the Obamatons want me to be involved in this process and Romneyites don't give a whatsit. And while that alone isn't enough reason to vote for someone, with all the encouragement by both candidates to get people to go out and vote, it does make it look better for him. I would also think his camp would be doing all they can to curry favor and, by proxy, some votes from people all over the state since even he says it's an important battleground state he really wants to win.

Romney: "Go vote!"
Obama: "Go vote! Here's how!"

572 vote difference at this moment with 77% precincts reporting in Florida. deja fucking vu.

Cyber Wolf, I gotta say AMEN!!

Just five minutes ago I answered a knock at the door to make sure that BD and BigV had voted. Yes, young lady, I've voted, we've all voted. Thanks!! she said, and walked away. I called her back and asked her what about the other voters registered here and she said, as she looked at her phone/app, this was just updated today, so they're not on the list.

She strikes me as an Obama supporter, though I didn't ask. This is all blue territory, and she's not the first one to knock on my door like that. The "ground game" is *all* Obama, and that shit makes a difference. Here in WA, the electoral votes were never in question, but we do have some down ballot issues that are also important, including governor.

more rapid fire observations...

I'm listening to two radios, one with (one of the) the local npr station(s) and the other with the local voice of the conservatives, KTTH. Interestingly, they're just the local guys on the conservative station, not the fox heavyweights that broadcast during the day (hannity, limbaugh, medved, beck, etc, etc). There's some sniping, some sour grapes, some wishful thinking. Lots of blaming. Especially hurricane Sandy.

***

just heard that turnout in my county is north of 87%. WOW.

Paul Ryan won his election for US House of Representatives. Yeah, *that* Paul Ryan.

A milestone, and a major loss for the GOP

...the military vote split 50/50

* The shadow of the Lamp on the wall is smiling contentedly*

the military split truly surprised me

why did it surprise you?

Isn't our military made up of the same stuff as our nation? the popular vote is quite close, about 50-50.

You *ahem* don't think half the military is ..I forget the words you used, but you know. dummies?

GOP has lost New England.
link

For political junkies (like me), these are the best of times and the worst of times.
This morning, I started with a NY Times editorial about
the election and "inequities" of the Electoral College,
and then followed Google links to where ever they might lead.
It has been very entertaining ...


NY Times Editorial
Published: November 15, 2012
The Tarnish of the Electoral College


Rolling Stone
Tim Dickinson
November 7, 2012
President Obama's Six Keys to Victory

And then on to a "conservative" take on the election.
This is actually quite a thoughtful article...

NJ.com
November 12, 2012
The GOP's media cocoon
But then just to prove the point, there was this...

Politico
11/16/12
Charlie Webster: Sorry for 'black people' claim

As a follow up to that mess...

Portland Tribune
Raymond Rendleman
25 April 2013
Former county elections worker pleads guilty to fraud charges

It's good she was caught and punished, but it doesn't correct the election, and it doesn't stop them from bringing in a throw-away shill again next time.:(