2012 Elections

silverjon · Post by **silverjon** » Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:21 pm

Alefroth wrote:
Doocy asked earnestly, ”Where are the conservative performers?”
Good question.

They get Hank Williams Jr. instead of Springsteen.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:19 pm

silverjon wrote:
Alefroth wrote:
Doocy asked earnestly, ”Where are the conservative performers?”
Good question.
They get Hank Williams Jr. instead of Springsteen.

Don't forget the Nugent.

Ale

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:30 pm

Fox to Springsteen: quit meddling in New Jersey!

Canuck · Post by **Canuck** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 10:21 am

I know the 2012 elections aren't over yet but I'm ready for them to be and I thought this was a pretty darned interesting article from Politico talking about possible happenings and players in 2016.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83273.html" target="_blank

Canuck · Post by **Canuck** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 10:21 am

I know the 2012 elections aren't over yet but I'm ready for them to be and I thought this was a pretty darned interesting article from Politico talking about possible happenings and players in 2016.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83273.html" target="_blank

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 10:22 am

One of my neighbors decided that it was appropriate this Halloween to pass out annoying misleading tea party propaganda to the kids trick or treating.

My favorite part was that evil liberals are for government health care, while virtuous tea party activists are for everyone using private health insurance.

The irony of that - coupled with the fact that this couple is old as shit, and is on Medicare, is probably lost on them.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 10:44 am

Canuck wrote: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83273.html" target="_blank

As a complete side issue:

Speaking on a call that was later publicly released, he said: “ince this is off the record, I will just be very blunt. Should I win a second term,...

Uhh... So off the record stuff is not really off the record, then?

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:19 pm

Defiant wrote:
Canuck wrote: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83273.html" target="_blank
As a complete side issue:

Speaking on a call that was later publicly released, he said: “ince this is off the record, I will just be very blunt. Should I win a second term,...

Uhh... So off the record stuff is not really off the record, then?

The interviewing paper wrote an editorial which effectively shamed them into allowing it to be published.

tapatalkin'

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 7:44 pm

Wow, former President Clinton just called my house on behalf of one of my State Senators -- because he's too busy working to deal with the after effects of Hurricane Sandy to call me himself. Interesting campaign strategy, I suppose. The non-campaign campaign.

Teggy · Post by **Teggy** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 8:09 pm

Well, Matt Damon called me and he even offered me a ride to the polls, so there.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:09 am

202 800 5534 can die a slow horrible death. They're robo dialing my cell phone to poll me.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:34 am

Smoove_B wrote:Wow, former President Clinton just called my house on behalf of one of my State Senators -- because he's too busy working to deal with the after effects of Hurricane Sandy to call me himself. Interesting campaign strategy, I suppose. The non-campaign campaign.

He called us too. He gets around.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:37 am

Yeah..well...Super Mayor Cory Booker called here about an hour ago. I'm feeling important.

Octavious · Post by **Octavious** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 1:08 pm

Well he was fixing my power lines while he was calling you so there!

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 1:14 pm

No one is calling me.

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 1:16 pm

El Guapo wrote:No one is calling me.

I got a call from Vic Atiyeh urging me to vote away Oregon's inheritance tax. Poor guy sounded like his family benefit from that vote fairly soon.

Too bad for him I voted to keep the tax.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 2:00 pm

I got Clint Eastwood's Romney robocall, and he sounded half-dead. I've always liked him, and it was hard to listen to his voice gone so weak.

I turned the phone towards a chair until he finished.

Octavious · Post by **Octavious** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 2:06 pm

Chaz · Post by **Chaz** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 2:08 pm

El Guapo wrote:No one is calling me.

Move an hour north. They'll call you and show up at your door constantly.

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 4:23 pm

Remember the second debate where undecided voters got to ask the candidates questions?

They're not undecided anymore - and 4 out of 5 are voting Obama

Using my Dick Morris approved projection abilities I predict Obama will win 80% of swing voters tomorrow.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 4:32 pm

Exodor wrote:Remember the second debate where undecided voters got to ask the candidates questions?

They're not undecided anymore - and 4 out of 5 are voting Obama

Using my Dick Morris approved projection abilities I predict Obama will win 80% of swing voters tomorrow.

So much for independent voters really being republican.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 4:51 pm

Exodor wrote:Remember the second debate where undecided voters got to ask the candidates questions?

They're not undecided anymore - and 4 out of 5 are voting Obama

Using my Dick Morris approved projection abilities I predict Obama will win 80% of swing voters tomorrow.

That means that they were all planted by a conspiracy between Candy Crowley and the Obama campaign.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 4:53 pm

LordMortis wrote:
Exodor wrote:Remember the second debate where undecided voters got to ask the candidates questions?

They're not undecided anymore - and 4 out of 5 are voting Obama

Using my Dick Morris approved projection abilities I predict Obama will win 80% of swing voters tomorrow.
So much for independent voters really being republican.

[Nate Silver]Independents are not Undecideds[/Nate Silver]

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 5:14 pm

Holman wrote:
LordMortis wrote:
Exodor wrote:Remember the second debate where undecided voters got to ask the candidates questions?

They're not undecided anymore - and 4 out of 5 are voting Obama

Using my Dick Morris approved projection abilities I predict Obama will win 80% of swing voters tomorrow.
So much for independent voters really being republican.
[Nate Silver]Independents are not Undecideds[/Nate Silver]

No but undecideds are a subset of independents and the two are tied together. You can't really be independent if your vote is already decided before the candidates are. I don't really think of you as a swing vote if you always vote the same way but that might be more to my thinking then the actual definition of "independent voter."

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 5:40 pm

LordMortis wrote:
No but undecideds are a subset of independents and the two are tied together. You can't really be independent if your vote is already decided before the candidates are. I don't really think of you as a swing vote if you always vote the same way but that might be more to my thinking then the actual definition of "independent voter."

The reality this year is that there are a ton of self-described Independents running around, but most of them are disgruntled or Tea-Party Republicans. These types were never more "undecided" than was any card-carrying Republican. They were always going to vote for the GOP nominee against Obama (unless a truly attractive third-party challenge boiled up, but that didn't happen).

There are far fewer true Undecideds than Independents.

Teggy · Post by **Teggy** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 5:42 pm

LordMortis wrote:
Holman wrote:
LordMortis wrote:
Exodor wrote:Remember the second debate where undecided voters got to ask the candidates questions?

They're not undecided anymore - and 4 out of 5 are voting Obama

Using my Dick Morris approved projection abilities I predict Obama will win 80% of swing voters tomorrow.
So much for independent voters really being republican.
[Nate Silver]Independents are not Undecideds[/Nate Silver]
No but undecideds are a subset of independents and the two are tied together. You can't really be independent if your vote is already decided before the candidates are. I don't really think of you as a swing vote if you always vote the same way but that might be more to my thinking then the actual definition of "independent voter."

All you need to be independent is not registered with a party. In fact, you can be registered with a party and say you are independent in a poll. And registered Democrats or Republicans can be undecided.

coopasonic · Post by **coopasonic** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 5:42 pm

Holman wrote:There are far fewer true Undecideds than Independents.

One hopes, by today, there are almost no undecideds. I suppose the truly dedicated will flip a coin tomorrow.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:56 pm

LordMortis wrote:
Holman wrote:
LordMortis wrote:
Exodor wrote:Remember the second debate where undecided voters got to ask the candidates questions?

They're not undecided anymore - and 4 out of 5 are voting Obama

Using my Dick Morris approved projection abilities I predict Obama will win 80% of swing voters tomorrow.
So much for independent voters really being republican.
[Nate Silver]Independents are not Undecideds[/Nate Silver]
No but undecideds are a subset of independents and the two are tied together. You can't really be independent if your vote is already decided before the candidates are. I don't really think of you as a swing vote if you always vote the same way but that might be more to my thinking then the actual definition of "independent voter."

No, undecideds are not a subset of independents. One can belong to one of the major parties and be undecided.

cheeba · Post by **cheeba** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 8:12 pm

Defiant wrote:No, undecideds are not a subset of independents. One can belong to one of the major parties and be undecided.

If there is a possibility that you will vote Democrat, then you are not a dependent of the Republican party.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 8:34 pm

cheeba wrote:
Defiant wrote:No, undecideds are not a subset of independents. One can belong to one of the major parties and be undecided.
If there is a possibility that you will vote Democrat, then you are not a dependent of the Republican party.

That's not how independent is usually defined.

You don't need to vote reliably for one party or the other in order to be a member of that party. Or indeed, you do not need to vote to be a member of that party.

cheeba · Post by **cheeba** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:09 pm

Defiant wrote:That's not how independent is usually defined.

You don't need to vote reliably for one party or the other in order to be a member of that party. Or indeed, you do not need to vote to be a member of that party.

Urgh, OO minutiae argument time.

An independent voter is generally one who doesn't rely on the party line but instead picks and chooses his issues. There are degrees of independence, of course, but I would say if you might vote for someone based on the issues and not just his political party, then you have at least some degree of independence. If you're undecided it's because you're not dependent on a political party affiliation.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:14 am

I'm hoping that my plan to go over there during the early afternoon pays off and there are no lines. Since I'm in a massive apt complex where voting is at the central club, I'm hoping everyone is either at work or in class.

PLW · Post by **PLW** » Tue Nov 06, 2012 9:27 am

Hit the polls on my way to drop the kid off at preschool this morning. Took about an hour, but she was rewarded with my "I Voted" sticker. I know it's a volunteer gig, and so you naturally get a lot of old people, but the line would have moved about 30% faster with more competent poll workers.

In the end, I went with Obama. I think he is probably slightly worse than Romney for the economy, as a whole, but he really has delivered on the social issues I care about, and I think he will do even more so in a second term where he doesn't have to worry as much about reelection prospects.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Tue Nov 06, 2012 9:39 am

PLW wrote:Hit the polls on my way to drop the kid off at preschool this morning.

Did it on the way back, in and out in 10 minutes.

PLW · Post by **PLW** » Tue Nov 06, 2012 9:56 am

Poll Tide:

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Tue Nov 06, 2012 9:56 am

Blackhawk wrote:
PLW wrote:Hit the polls on my way to drop the kid off at preschool this morning.
Did it on the way back, in and out in 10 minutes.

And here we see perhaps the lone advantage to your city of residence. In 2008 when I voted in Marian county, it took hours. Although I guess IN was a swing state then and this time out is not really considered up for grabs.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Tue Nov 06, 2012 9:57 am

Looks like Obama is winning by 2-1 margin in the popular vote so far:

http://www.politico.com/2012-election/m ... dent/2012/" target="_blank

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Tue Nov 06, 2012 10:43 am

cheeba wrote:
Defiant wrote:That's not how independent is usually defined.

You don't need to vote reliably for one party or the other in order to be a member of that party. Or indeed, you do not need to vote to be a member of that party.
Urgh, OO minutiae argument time.

An independent voter is generally one who doesn't rely on the party line but instead picks and chooses his issues. There are degrees of independence, of course, but I would say if you might vote for someone based on the issues and not just his political party, then you have at least some degree of independence. If you're undecided it's because you're not dependent on a political party affiliation.

What if you just have a personal dislike against your party's candidate, but you vote straight ticket otherwise?

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Tue Nov 06, 2012 10:44 am

There's a polling place in my building at work. I can't vote there but it was packed this morning. This polling place is almost always empty on election day. Well, by empty I mean never more than 5 people in line. Today there were about 50 people in line an hour after opening.

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Tue Nov 06, 2012 10:51 am

noxiousdog wrote:
cheeba wrote:
Defiant wrote:That's not how independent is usually defined.

You don't need to vote reliably for one party or the other in order to be a member of that party. Or indeed, you do not need to vote to be a member of that party.
Urgh, OO minutiae argument time.

An independent voter is generally one who doesn't rely on the party line but instead picks and chooses his issues. There are degrees of independence, of course, but I would say if you might vote for someone based on the issues and not just his political party, then you have at least some degree of independence. If you're undecided it's because you're not dependent on a political party affiliation.
What if you just have a personal dislike against your party's candidate, but you vote straight ticket otherwise?

When I lived in Michigan, cheeba's home state, they did things differently. Anyone, registered or otherwise, could select the party for which they vote in the primary election. In such circumstances, folks typically only self-identify with one party if they are straight-ticket voters. As I've grown older and lived in other states, I see that the Michigan system is not typical for how things work around the country. That system may color cheeba's internal definitions leading to his "Urgh, OO minutiae argument time" line.