Some polls now have Romney ahead.

[Atomic Playboy]

Then again you could make the argument the electorate was open to an alternative, but Romney was precisely the worst man to run in these times (plutocrat after an economic crisis caused by Wall Street). I think the trajectory of the race shows he never really had a chance. His specific weakness on the auto bailout might not have cost your average Republican.

Regardless of the outcome, we're ending up with a very similar set of policies. I mean, let's face it, Obama and Romney agree on 90-98% of issues (depending on the day for Romney). But at least the American public is smart enough to realize that a plutocrat is exactly what America does not need after plutocrats were responsible for the worst economic disaster this planet has faced in 80 years. Someone needs to remind these people that this country does not function solely for the benefit of the extremely rich; it occasionally functions for the benefit of the rich as well.

 

[shira]

Regardless of the outcome, we're ending up with a very similar set of policies. I mean, let's face it, Obama and Romney agree on 90-98% of issues (depending on the day for Romney). But at least the American public is smart enough to realize that a plutocrat is exactly what America does not need after plutocrats were responsible for the worst economic disaster this planet has faced in 80 years. Someone needs to remind these people that this country does not function solely for the benefit of the extremely rich; it occasionally functions for the benefit of the rich as well.

There are some very important differences:

The makeup of the Supreme Court four years from now might be very different with a President Romney rather than a President Obama. I say "might be" only because it's not clear that any of the existing justices will stop down or die during the next four years.

Edit: Republicans will do everything in their power to de-fund Obamacare, but that's not going to succeed under Obama.

Finally, the tax system isn't going to become MORE regressive under Obama.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

There are some very important differences:

The makeup of the Supreme Court four years from now might be very different with a President Romney rather than a President Obama. I say "might be" only because it's not clear that any of the existing justices will stop down or die during the next four years.

Republicans will do everything in their power to de-fund it, but that's not going to succeed under Obama.

Finally, the tax system isn't going to become MORE regressive under Obama.

Don't get me wrong, I understand all that. I already voted for Obama. But people act like the President is some dictatorial role. It isn't, it never has been, and if it ever becomes one, America has failed. The President really doesn't have that much power, and the two nominees have very few differences between their policies. Do you think that things will be enormously different 4 years from now based on who's elected?

 

[Farang]

There are some very important differences:

The makeup of the Supreme Court four years from now might be very different with a President Romney rather than a President Obama. I say "might be" only because it's not clear that any of the existing justices will stop down or die during the next four years.

Republicans will do everything in their power to de-fund it, but that's not going to succeed under Obama.

Finally, the tax system isn't going to become MORE regressive under Obama.

I think the Supreme Court is key. The ACA ruling was amazing in terms of what the dissent was willing to do. The right of the court are extremists more than maybe any in Congress, and bolstering them with a majority for a generation would have a huge impact.

 

[Blackjack200]

we left around 4PM going from newtown to get onto 95S. the entire bypass was crawling. once we got into 95S the 95N exit into newtown/yardley was backed up a mile as well. local news said about 25000 people showed up.

Goddamn it, that bypass (332) always crawls.

Who could have beaten Obama this year? Huntsman looks good on paper but I don't think he has the political skills. Jeb Bush seems to be the strongest on the Republican bench (especially with an appeal to Latino voters), but his name is toxic. Christie sort of flopped on the national stage, but a case could be made.

Mitt was probably the strongest, which seems pathetic. Huntsman is just not a big game politician, Jeb Bush, to your point, is unelectable because of his name. Christie is a firebrand who says incautious inflammatory things on an almost daily basis. He's not viable for a national ticket.

I think you could plausibly suggest two Romney alternatives that might have done better. Marco Rubio - hispanic, rising star, but probably not quite ready yet, and honestly I'm not sure he's presidential caliber. And Mitch Daniels - a smart and savvy guy that usually comes across as thoughtful and even-handed. I don't know all that much about him, and I don't know if he could have done better. Even though it looks like Romney will almost certainly lose at this point, he was able to pose a legitimate threat to Obama, and I'm not sure Rubio or Daniels would have.

 

[Farang]

Goddamn it, that bypass (332) always crawls.



Mitt was probably the strongest, which seems pathetic. Huntsman is just not a big game politician, Jeb Bush, to your point, is unelectable because of his name. Christie is a firebrand who says incautious inflammatory things on an almost daily basis. He's not viable for a national ticket.

I think you could plausibly suggest two Romney alternatives that might have done better. Marco Rubio - hispanic, rising star, but probably not quite ready yet, and honestly I'm not sure he's presidential caliber. And Mitch Daniels - a smart and savvy guy that usually comes across as thoughtful and even-handed. I don't know all that much about him, and I don't know if he could have done better. Even though it looks like Romney will almost certainly lose at this point, he was able to pose a legitimate threat to Obama, and I'm not sure Rubio or Daniels would have.

I had the same view of Christie and maybe I still do, but the storm coverage may be clouding my judgment. I was reminded of Jindal when he flopped at the RNC--just didn't seem like a guy who could go the distance.

I could imagine Rubio winning the nomination.. he is sharp. But half of me thinks he is a Paul Ryan, sharp on all the points he needs to be but at the end of the day not much of a leader.. just some kind of confident pitchman for a list of checked boxes. It comes through during a campaign, when interview after interview they aren't really able to engage.

 

[ivwshane]

AFAIK all voting machines are inspected postmortem anyway via software audit, so the whole issue seems a bit nonsensical anyway. It's really not hard to forensically compare election copies of software to verified, original versions. You can probably do it with Encase, though I haven't in years so I'm talking out of my ass.

Goddamn it, that bypass (332) always crawls.



Mitt was probably the strongest, which seems pathetic. Huntsman is just not a big game politician, Jeb Bush, to your point, is unelectable because of his name. Christie is a firebrand who says incautious inflammatory things on an almost daily basis. He's not viable for a national ticket.

I think you could plausibly suggest two Romney alternatives that might have done better. Marco Rubio - hispanic, rising star, but probably not quite ready yet, and honestly I'm not sure he's presidential caliber. And Mitch Daniels - a smart and savvy guy that usually comes across as thoughtful and even-handed. I don't know all that much about him, and I don't know if he could have done better. Even though it looks like Romney will almost certainly lose at this point, he was able to pose a legitimate threat to Obama, and I'm not sure Rubio or Daniels would have.

Huntsman would have been an option for me, Romney? Hell no! When people conjure up the image of a typical politicians he is what comes to mind (that and his policies aren't well grounded and lack any meaningful details).

 

[buckshot24]

I think the Supreme Court is key. The ACA ruling was amazing in terms of what the dissent was willing to do. The right of the court are extremists more than maybe any in Congress, and bolstering them with a majority for a generation would have a huge impact.

Obamacare was obviously against the constitution Roberts was too much of a pussy to say so. Kennedy isn't exactly an extremist and he dissented.

And what the fuck is Ginsberg but an extremist?

 

[buckshot24]

These post-mortems are going to be fun tomorrow.

 

[Farang]

Obamacare was obviously against the constitution Roberts was too much of a pussy to say so. Kennedy isn't exactly an extremist and he dissented.

And what the fuck is Ginsberg but an extremist?

20% of the economy is not to be regulated as interstate commerce.. got it.

 

[buckshot24]

20% of the economy is not to be regulated as interstate commerce.. got it.

They aren't regulating commerce. Choosing not to buy something isn't commerce.

 

[Siddhartha]

There are some very important differences:

The makeup of the Supreme Court four years from now might be very different with a President Romney rather than a President Obama. I say "might be" only because it's not clear that any of the existing justices will stop down or die during the next four years.

Republicans will do everything in their power to de-fund it, but that's not going to succeed under Obama.

Finally, the tax system isn't going to become MORE regressive under Obama.

I remember back in 2000 people, for example Ralph Nader supporters, said that there was not that much different between Gore and Bush.

Looking back at:
1. two wars, huge deficits, and
2. the worst economic recession since the 1930's
3. Mr Bush's US Supreme Court choices

those people were wrong and the US will be paying for Mr Bush's policies for the next two generations.

 

[Farang]

They aren't regulating commerce. Choosing not to buy something isn't commerce.

Distinction:

choosing to buy

versus

point of sale of something you must and inevitably will buy

The vast majority of people engage in the latter. Unless you get hit by a truck when you're 3 years old, it's a point of sale issue.

 

[rockyct]

I think the Supreme Court is key. The ACA ruling was amazing in terms of what the dissent was willing to do. The right of the court are extremists more than maybe any in Congress, and bolstering them with a majority for a generation would have a huge impact.

Conservatives already have a majority in the SC. The deciding vote is typically Kennedy and he's a moderate conservative. I think the other two liberal judges may step down if Obama wins; at least Ginsburg as she is 79. Kennedy and Scalia are both 76, but Scalia will be there until he dies.

It would be a huge legacy if Obama were to appoint all four of the liberal judges if Ginsburg and Breyer were to retire. He'd basically establish the liberal side of the SC for twenty years or more and that's pretty damn scary to most Republicans.

 

[Doppel]

dd

 

[TraumaRN]

Well time to put up or shut up. Polls are opening on the east coast!

 

[shira]

I think the Supreme Court is key. The ACA ruling was amazing in terms of what the dissent was willing to do. The right of the court are extremists more than maybe any in Congress, and bolstering them with a majority for a generation would have a huge impact.

And speaking of ACA, in my previous post when I wrote that the right would try to "de-fund it," I meant de-fund the ACA. That's going to get exactly nowhere with Obama's re-election.

By 2016, when the reality of the ACA has sunk in and become well accepted, the ACA will no longer be an issue.

 

[shortylickens]

Dixville Notch, NH in with the first votes:

Obama: 5
Romney: 5

I saw that on the news this morning.

 

[Blackjack200]

Well time to put up or shut up. Polls are opening on the east coast!

I put up at 7:00 this morning.

Barak "The Islamic Shock" Obama - Our nations first Kenyan President ++

 

[evident]

Goddamn it, that bypass (332) always crawls.

.

I'm not sure whether the township makes that bypass crawl on purpose or not. I feel like the traffic lights are intentionally timed so that you stop at every light if you are going the speed limit or speed limit +10. This is true even when there's no traffic on that road. ...

 

[Blackjack200]

I'm not sure whether the township makes that bypass crawl on purpose or not. I feel like the traffic lights are intentionally timed so that you stop at every light if you are going the speed limit or speed limit +10. This is true even when there's no traffic on that road. ...

Good God, it seems like they are definitely timed that way. I confess to doing 65-70 MPH on that road late at night or early in the morning just so I'm not stopping at every light.

 

[buckshot24]

My last polling update!

Somebody was asking why Rasmussen was showing a plus 6 advantage in his party Id poll but only a one point lead for Romney in his tracking poll. Apparently Rasmussen is using a plus 2 Democrat model in his poll for better or worse.

 

[TraumaRN]

Here in southeast Michigan the turnout has been pretty heavy so far. Big lines pretty much throughout the morning in multiple locations according to local media reporting. Heavy turnout reported as well in Detroit this morning which obviously a hugely democratic area.

 

[Blackjack200]

Here in southeast Michigan the turnout has been pretty heavy so far. Big lines pretty much throughout the morning in multiple locations according to local media reporting. Heavy turnout reported as well in Detroit this morning which obviously a hugely democratic area.

No enthusiasm brah.

 

[ghost recon88]

Heavy turnout reported as well in Detroit this morning which obviously a hugely democratic area.

Why is Detroit a hugely democratic area? :sneaky:

Big turnout here this morning at 7:30 just east of Lansing, predominately white area though