Re: 2012 Elections
Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:21 pm
They get Hank Williams Jr. instead of Springsteen.Alefroth wrote:Good question.Doocy asked earnestly, ”Where are the conservative performers?”
That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
They get Hank Williams Jr. instead of Springsteen.Alefroth wrote:Good question.Doocy asked earnestly, ”Where are the conservative performers?”
Don't forget the Nugent.silverjon wrote:They get Hank Williams Jr. instead of Springsteen.Alefroth wrote:Good question.Doocy asked earnestly, ”Where are the conservative performers?”
As a complete side issue:Canuck wrote: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83273.html" target="_blank
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,...
Defiant wrote:As a complete side issue:Canuck wrote: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83273.html" target="_blank
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?
He called us too. He gets around.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.
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.El Guapo wrote:No one is calling me.
Move an hour north. They'll call you and show up at your door constantly.El Guapo wrote:No one is calling me.
So much for independent voters really being republican.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.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.
[Nate Silver]Independents are not Undecideds[/Nate Silver]LordMortis wrote:So much for independent voters really being republican.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.
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 wrote:[Nate Silver]Independents are not Undecideds[/Nate Silver]LordMortis wrote:So much for independent voters really being republican.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.
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).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."
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.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."Holman wrote:[Nate Silver]Independents are not Undecideds[/Nate Silver]LordMortis wrote:So much for independent voters really being republican.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.
One hopes, by today, there are almost no undecideds. I suppose the truly dedicated will flip a coin tomorrow.Holman wrote:There are far fewer true Undecideds than Independents.
No, undecideds are not a subset of independents. One can belong to one of the major parties and be undecided.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."Holman wrote:[Nate Silver]Independents are not Undecideds[/Nate Silver]LordMortis wrote:So much for independent voters really being republican.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.
If there is a possibility that you will vote Democrat, then you are not a dependent of the Republican party.Defiant wrote:No, undecideds are not a subset of independents. One can belong to one of the major parties and be undecided.
That's not how independent is usually defined.cheeba wrote:If there is a possibility that you will vote Democrat, then you are not a dependent of the Republican party.Defiant wrote:No, undecideds are not a subset of independents. One can belong to one of the major parties and be undecided.
Urgh, OO minutiae argument time.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.
Did it on the way back, in and out in 10 minutes.PLW wrote:Hit the polls on my way to drop the kid off at preschool this morning.
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.Blackhawk wrote:Did it on the way back, in and out in 10 minutes.PLW wrote:Hit the polls on my way to drop the kid off at preschool this morning.
What if you just have a personal dislike against your party's candidate, but you vote straight ticket otherwise?cheeba wrote:Urgh, OO minutiae argument time.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.
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.
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.noxiousdog wrote:What if you just have a personal dislike against your party's candidate, but you vote straight ticket otherwise?cheeba wrote:Urgh, OO minutiae argument time.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.
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.