Dems don't know the difference between Russian and U.S. ships.  That will help with the veteran/military vote.

That's a bit of an overreaction to a mistake.

Just paraphrasing what was said in a Navy Times article.  Check out the comments section:

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/09/navy-dnc-update-apology-russian-ships-democratic-convention-091212


Oh, and that was quick:

RASMUSSEN POLL: ROMNEY JUMPS BACK INTO LEAD...

R: 47%
O: 46%

Developing...

Still looking for the Romney crowd to show me the map to 270. None of you are stupid enough to do that are you?

Posted by seamar_116 on 9/13/2012 11:26:00 AM (view original):
Still looking for the Romney crowd to show me the map to 270. None of you are stupid enough to do that are you?

RoadTo270 has the tossups listed as NV, CO, IA, WI, MI, OH, PA, VA, NC, FL and NH.

The NY Times puts NC in Romney's camp, and Obama is not campaigning there.  Good choice for the Convention.  I do not consider MI a tossup, and it will go Obama.  Obama's numbers are not good in IA, so that is likely Romney.  PA will go Obama.

So that leaves NV, CO, WI, OH, VA, NC, FL and NH.

Colorado is an enigma.  It has voted pretty solid Republican for many presidential elections, but went Obama in '08.  Further, it did not really go very red in '10, so I think it will stay Obama.

NV has a large Mormon population and the state has been killed economically.  I think Romney takes it.

NH, I have no idea.  Could go either way.  For the hell of it, lets give it to Obama.

VA has gone Dem one time in presidential elections in the past 40 years, and went very red in the 2010 races, so I think Romney takes it.

That leaves WI, OH and FL.  Based on how close it is, I have no idea.  But lets start with WI.  Based on Ryan and the fact that Dem recall efforts there were a failure, I think it goes Romney.  That would be 250 Obama, 241 Romney (based on the above).  If WI goes Obama, that would be 260 Obama, 231 Romney, and Romney would have to win both OH and FL.  If WI goes Romney, he could lose OH as long as he wins FL.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to those three states.  If Obama wins VA, then Romney would have to win all of those three states.  But I do not see Obama winning there.  Western/southern parts of the state are going to turnout huge.

As to those three states, my guess is that OH goes Obama and WI and FL (little old ladies like Ryan, and Obama dissing Israel lately is not going to help with the Jewish vote, plus northern FLA/panhandle is going to turnout like crazy) go Romney, which would give him 270.

FYI, I chose this prediction because it comes out to exactly 270, and thus would drive Dems crazy.

Posted by seamar_116 on 9/13/2012 11:26:00 AM (view original):
Still looking for the Romney crowd to show me the map to 270. None of you are stupid enough to do that are you?

Apparently, someone is.

I actually think he's pretty close.  But everything I see (including Rasmussen) says Nevada is going to Obama.

This isn't helping their fraud...I mean cause.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/florida-voter-purge-rick-scott_n_1879515.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Posted by jvford on 9/13/2012 2:04:00 PM (view original):
I actually think he's pretty close.  But everything I see (including Rasmussen) says Nevada is going to Obama.

The last poll I saw for NV was August 29 and it was only +3 Obama (http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/).

Based on the economy, the recent Mideast mess, and the skewed samples of many polls, my theory is that any state where Obama is less than +5 is a big problem for him.  And that is essentially every single tossup state.

Of course, there is still a whole long way to go, but Obama only got about a 4-5 day bounce from the convention, and now things are all tied up again.  With polls that are skewing +5-+10 Dem over Repub.

The Democrats are now just stating it as a fact that Republicans are trying to prevent blacks and hispanics from voting.

It of course is a huge lie.

There is no attempt to do anything that does not focus on illegal voting.

With 90% of Ameircans having picture id and programs to make sure voters can get them if they want this is a big non-issue.

Of course if the Democrats do not use fear against minorities they would lose more elections, so spreading hate and division is now their main tactic.

How many cases of illegal voting have there actually been?

Is it anywhere near the 10% of Americans that don't have a picture id?

So what's more of a "big non-issue"?

"10% of Americas"?  Or 10% of voting age Americans.

There have been numerous examples of voter fraud.  There have been numerous prosecutions and convictions.  But I don't even give a **** about that.  You need a picture ID in this country to do almost anything.  And every voter ID law says you can get a free one.  So, frankly, this whole claim that voter ID discriminates against the old, minorities, the old minorities, whatever, is a crock of ****.

Posted by jvford on 9/13/2012 3:31:00 PM (view original):
How many cases of illegal voting have there actually been?

Is it anywhere near the 10% of Americans that don't have a picture id?

So what's more of a "big non-issue"?

I guess it goes without saying that swamp's answer will have nothing with the facts, and everything to do with what helps Republicans win.

Posted by jclarkbaker on 9/13/2012 3:41:00 PM (view original):
"10% of Americas"?  Or 10% of voting age Americans.

There have been numerous examples of voter fraud.  There have been numerous prosecutions and convictions.  But I don't even give a **** about that.  You need a picture ID in this country to do almost anything.  And every voter ID law says you can get a free one.  So, frankly, this whole claim that voter ID discriminates against the old, minorities, the old minorities, whatever, is a crock of ****.

Don't know which 10% because I was just using swampys numbers.

Numerous?  How many is numerous?  I mean really, why is there this drive to fix something that amounts to a statistical non-issue unless it was to potentially suppress certain voting groups.  And before you say "it's easy to get a free photo id" again, you know damn well that if you make it even a little bit more difficult for some to vote, the might say "**** it" and not bother.

Posted by jvford on 9/13/2012 3:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jclarkbaker on 9/13/2012 3:41:00 PM (view original):
"10% of Americas"?  Or 10% of voting age Americans.

There have been numerous examples of voter fraud.  There have been numerous prosecutions and convictions.  But I don't even give a **** about that.  You need a picture ID in this country to do almost anything.  And every voter ID law says you can get a free one.  So, frankly, this whole claim that voter ID discriminates against the old, minorities, the old minorities, whatever, is a crock of ****.

Don't know which 10% because I was just using swampys numbers.

Numerous?  How many is numerous?  I mean really, why is there this drive to fix something that amounts to a statistical non-issue unless it was to potentially suppress certain voting groups.  And before you say "it's easy to get a free photo id" again, you know damn well that if you make it even a little bit more difficult for some to vote, the might say "**** it" and not bother.

I wasn't accusing you of anything.  I do not know the specific statistics.  But I can tell you with certainty that I have never come across any adult who did not have a picture ID, except back in the day when VT was the last state to get pictures on driver licenses (sometime in the 1980's or very early 1990's).

I have seen three articles in the last week of three different voter ID arrests/prosecutions.  One was two Dems in MO or AR.  Can't remember which states the other two were in, but they were both females.

Oh, so I see.  It is acceptable that people have to get off their fat ***** and go to a polling place, but not to get a picture ID if they don't have one.  Whatever.  That argument is BS. 

And quite frankly, I bet all these people can find a ******* picture ID when they want their beer and cigs.