patrick.net

Yeah his crook friend Valerie Garret will see to it!

Voter ID law was passed in VA, so I'm moving that one to Romney in my electorical count.

Interestingly enough I'm 45, and a musician.
Lately by chance, and as a musician, I have been associating with more younger people, than I have in the last 10 or 15 years, 21-26.
These kids sound like 1980 republicans. They are so disillusioned by the new Liberals and OWS distraction, and agenda to create a Stipend Benefit society(for lack of the "Entitlement" word that is used way to much).

These kids do the talking I just listen. They aren't NOT the hip and trendy Okeydokes that rubber stamped Obama's 2008 "Change" propaganda with out question.Did I mention many of these kids are of Hispanic heritage?

Obama is going to need a bigger Blackberry to win this time around.

Tell all those kids to get federal jobs with pensions so they can be retired musicians who dont have to work when they are 45.

"Hey you kids, Get off... Mow my lawn! "

CaptainShuddup says

"Hey you kids, Get off... Mow my lawn! "

Obligatory:

Its also pretty certain than Romney could lose the election in general. Next....

CaptainShuddup says

These kids sound like 1980 republicans. They are so disillusioned by the new Liberals and OWS distraction, and agenda to create a Stipend Benefit society(for lack of the "Entitlement" word that is used way to much).

Generalize much?

edvard2 says

Generalize much?

No not all.
I do remember even hinting in 2008 that you voting for anyone other than Obama to the 21-31 crowd you would get jeers and scorn resentment. Especially if you said you would vote independent. That just stealing votes from the Liberals. It was unpopular to say you were voting for anyone other than Obama. It was just uncool.

Now the only people that say they are voting for Obama are on the internet. I suspect it's just HRHMedia working over time, burning the midnight oil.

Then after those that say they are voting for Romney, there's a just as large segment that claim they aren't voting at all. They drank the Obama cool-aide and are disillusioned with the whole process. They've been lied to and relegated to unemployment and diminished by being lumped in the "99%" lot, where their voice even is even more dimmed by clutter and noise. They don't rate, they don't count, and they don't matter, so they aren't voting.

Pay attention much, I mean besides what misinformation you read on the interwebs that HRHMedia wrote.

Currently, Barack is favorite by 52.5 electoral votes. He has a 67% chance of winning the election. My prediction that Barack is favorite by 3.5 points in football terms still stands. Some interesting stats - California - Barack has 100% chance to win. Texas - Romney has 99% chance of winning. It's gonna come down to swing states - Colorado - Barack 59% chance. Florida - Romney - 55% chance. Iowa - Barack 64% chance. And yes, Illionois - Barack has 100% chance of winning.

dublin, i agree with everything except for your football pointspread. 3pts is usually your generic home field advantage, and the money line odds on that can range anywhere from -145 to -165. Obama is -200, which is closer to a 6 pt favorite. Splitting hairs? Maybe, but in order to make money on odds, you better be sharp with your lines

Thu 8/30 Winning Party (All in wagering)
05:00 PM 1351 Democrat 1.526
1352 Republican 2.740

as per pinnaclesports.com, the most liquid wagering shop in the world

Obama was Jo Jo Dancer your life is calling?

CaptainShuddup says

No not all.
I do remember even hinting in 2008 that you voting for anyone other than Obama to the 21-31 crowd you would get jeers and scorn resentment. Especially if you said you would vote independent. That just stealing votes from the Liberals. It was unpopular to say you were voting for anyone other than Obama. It was just uncool.

The problem with making generalizations is that they're sweeping in nature and inaccurate. That said, I don't think its unsafe to say that younger people are more likely to vote for more liberal politicians. Its been that way forever. Just as all other things in life, politics "progress". All anyone has to do is crack a history book and see that throughout US history, ultimately many things that those who want to remain the same ( also known as conservatives) have not really succeeded other than slowing down the action of progress. Its less to do with politics and more to do with science. Simply put, it is scientifically impossible to " conserve" anything and that goes for American politics as well. But as time passes, young people continue to vote more progressively, and with each generation the bar of progress is risen ever so slightly upward.

The way I look at it is to also compare the musical tastes of various age groups. Not all but a great many older people will often in my opinion stop listening to or trying new music once they pass a certain age. They're then forever stuck in a musical era. For example, a lot of boomers listen to bands from the 60's and 70's. They often don't expand their musical horizons.

The same can also be said to some extent with these same people and their political leanings: In an attempt to retain whatever political standards they feel comfortable with- as in what they think to be right- many turn to conservative politics. Perhaps whatever passed for "ok" 30-40 years ago has changed and is no longer viewed as totally acceptable. But just like music, some people are stuck in an era and thus they vote for people who promise to somehow prevent those changes from occurring. Of course saying all old people vote for conservative politicians is a gross generalization. Many others do exactly the opposite. But here is some truth in that as well.

Let's be perfectly clear here. These aren't the Liberals of yester year, hell I was one of them, I ought to know. These liberals have more in common with the GOP of 2003 that were fighting the good fight(in their mind) defending Democracy, for those of us that wanted them too or not. Threat or no Threat.

"Remember STFU Liberals we'll defend Democracy"

The Liberals today have that same tone, they are creating bad bad legislation giving the farm away to the banks, and wall street, while telling everyone we're to stupid to understand why so don't worry about it.

Kids today they are turning around. After they turned Fiddy Cent off, and realized they had to get a real job, they saw just how screwed they really are.

I can tell you as a 20 something when Ross Perot was running against Bush and Dukakis as an independent. I liked the fact that Perot had business sense and thought him just the antidote for our ailing economy back then. So no, youngsters don't always vote Democrat, that's just a liberal fantasy. Sure they can be bullshited and fooled once, but Obama wont fool them again.

CaptainShuddup says

Let's be perfectly clear here. These aren't the Liberals of yester year, hell I was one of them, I ought to know. These liberals have more in common with the GOP of 2003 that were fighting the good fight(in their mind) defending Democracy, for those of us that wanted them too or not. Threat or no Threat.

.... but to turn the coin, the GOP of today isn't the GOP of yesteryear either. If Reagan were to run for President today, he would have not made it past the first round because he would have been deemed to liberal. Looking back even further, famous Republicans of the past, like Lincoln and later Teddy Roosevelt were fairly progressive and perhaps even more so by today's standards. TR was a great conservationist, responsible for much of the national parks we now enjoy. He was an avid reader and wrote profusely. He was also a champion for populist concerns, such as labor rights,and organized labor. Of course none of these would be at all acceptable to today's Republicans. Instead, their view has changed almost 360 degrees.

So yes- perhaps the Democratic party has changed. But the Republican party has changed as well. Hence I don't get the counterpoint being made here...

I looked at the delegates’ distribution. It looks like:

Romney is winning Florida and Virginia on Jewish votes.

Romney is likely to get Colorado, Nevada, and Iowa by just outspending Obama there.

Assuming Obama holds other Midwestern states (including Pennsylvania) and New Hampshire they both will end up with 269 delegates.

What will happen in such a case?

While we're posting nude pictures:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_sydA_xCOkr0/TGyTvh_eK2I/AAAAAAAAAlc/HsI5nHS4tlc/s1600/Lara+Baby.jpg

Now go take on the day, you shack up sluts. - Dr. Laura

She schtupped her way into radio, cheating on her husband with the radio station manager.

michaelsch says

What will happen in such a case?

Cannibal Anarchy.

michaelsch says

I looked at the delegates’ distribution. It looks like:

Romney is winning Florida and Virginia on Jewish votes.

Romney is likely to get Colorado, Nevada, and Iowa by just outspending Obama there.

Assuming Obama holds other Midwestern states (including Pennsylvania) and New Hampshire they both will end up with 269 delegates.

What will happen in such a case?

I understand Pennsylvania is also leaning Romney because of coal country.

Pennsylvania + Florida going for Romney would mean he didn't need Ohio. He may win it anyway but technically would not need it.

It won't really matter. There's no real difference between the two candidates.

It's just "us vs. them" tribal warfare at this point. It's all about ginning up fear and hatred to get votes.

michaelsch says

I looked at the delegates’ distribution. It looks like:

Romney is winning Florida and Virginia on Jewish votes.

Romney is likely to get Colorado, Nevada, and Iowa by just outspending Obama there.

Assuming Obama holds other Midwestern states (including Pennsylvania) and New Hampshire they both will end up with 269 delegates.

What will happen in such a case?

Election would be thrown into the House.

It won't happen. I don't think it's ever happened before.

Either way it's going to be fun watching Romney gin up the base with anti-Obamacare rhetoric when Romney enacted the same kind of thing as governor of MA.

rootvg says

It won't happen. I don't think it's ever happened before.

Past results do not guarantee future performance.

rootvg says

I understand Pennsylvania is also leaning Romney because of coal country.

I don't think so. Pennsylvania is much bigger than the coal country part of it.
But of course, if Romney wins Pennsylvania he will win the elections.

freak80 says

Either way it's going to be fun watching Romney gin up the base with anti-Obamacare rhetoric when Romney enacted the same kind of thing as governor of MA.

Well, it isn't the same kind if thing.

1. There was a large difference in uninsurance rate in Mass and nationwide. I do not remember the exact figures but something like 5% vs 12%. It was much easier to finance.
2. Romneycare enjoyed huge support in Mass. Obamacare is extremely unpopular.
3. Romneycare was quickly implemented and it actually increased the total amount of services provided to the public. Unemployed uninsured people now receive a top healthcare in Mass. Obamacare still does not work, but it has already caused huge transfers of money to healthcare corporations and vary painful reduction of services, especially provided to Medicare patients.

rootvg says

Obama won in 2008 because Paulson refused to save Lehman Brothers.

The rot was much wider than LEH. They were just the third or fourth cockroach.

The cause of the financial collapse was not the financial collapse itself. The cause was the ponzi bubble in housing running its course after prices finally topped in the summer of 2005. After that, everything was in run-off mode and due to the trillions in mortgage fraud allowed to go on 2004-2007 the crash was going to be immense as borrowers defaulted on their loans and the underlying collateral valuations were nowhere near sufficient to save the system.

I've a couple friends from my college years who live in IL. Both are homeowners and both are looking at getting out. The problem is taxes. Unlike our mess in California, when the IL legislature was presented with a budget shortfall thu just raised the hell out of taxes. RE tax is twice what it is here, so my one buddy was paying 5k/year in taxes on his 250k house. My other buddy was paying 7k on his 350k house. Plus state income taxes are high, as are state sales taxes. The government is fatter than ever, and Cook county ghetto dwellers are living high on the hog.
I wouldn't underestimate the anger of the tax payer base in IL. My one friend (250k house) is moving in November to Montana. The other hasn't yet found a solution, but is considering Denver.
Neither has any love in his heart for Obama.

Chicago will do just fine voting for Obama, once again! gotta show your colors !

Chicago Chaos: Gangland Shootings Claim 19 Victims In One Night

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/311749/chicago-chaos-gangland-shootings-claim-19-victims-in-one-night/#DY08dx8dRGAwwFdd.99