**2012 Election Day thread**

[mr_genius]

Which is why you should keep an eye on Jeb Bush. His handlers were smart enough to keep him out of this election, but he could be tough in the future.

 

i'll have to see his platform and see how much free stuff he is giving out to the 65% before i can comment on a Jeb Bush candidacy.

Edited November 8, 2012 by mr_genius

[Soxbadger]

lol

 

Thats irrelevant. You can keep believing that its voting for free stuff, but the difference is social issues. As soon as Republicans get back to small govt on things like, drugs, sex and other sins, the quicker our country gets back to having some freedoms.

 

The problem unfortunately is people are to busy telling me what I can and cant spend my money on. Why do they care if I spend a few thousand a year on drugs and abortions, its my damn money.

[mr_genius]

lol

 

Thats irrelevant. You can keep believing that its voting for free stuff, but the difference is social issues. As soon as Republicans get back to small govt on things like, drugs, sex and other sins, the quicker our country gets back to having some freedoms.

 

The problem unfortunately is people are to busy telling me what I can and cant spend my money on. Why do they care if I spend a few thousand a year on drugs and abortions, its my damn money.

 

well, frankly, the new GOP won't care what you spend your money on. get all the abortions and reefer you want. So can we count on your vote?

[NorthSideSox72]

unlikely. after Clinton won his second term it was supposed to be 30 years of Democrats controlling the house, senate, and oval office. didn't work out that way. if the GOP plays it right, they can win again.

 

sure they can, that was kind of my point. They have to change - so they will.

 

I believe after a weak recovery we're in for another recession in '13-'14. I would have preferred not to have a lame-duck President in office over the next four years.

 

And your reasoning for this is...

 

Only thing I see likely to cause that is if we go over the fiscal cliff.

 

[Soxbadger]

If that was their platform, probably haha. I guess if they wanted to ban immigrants or gay marriage, Id still have to begrudgingly vote against my self interest, but if they are willing to be cool and give out freedoms, Im willing to give them a chance.

[mr_genius]

sure they can, that was kind of my point. They have to change - so they will.

 

well i can't argue with that. some changes need to be made, that's for sure.

[mr_genius]

If that was their platform, probably haha. I guess if they wanted to ban immigrants or gay marriage, Id still have to begrudgingly vote against my self interest, but if they are willing to be cool and give out freedoms, Im willing to give them a chance.

 

gay marriage, fine. we will not put up a fight against it.

 

But no lawless, mad max style, libertarian stuff! that means no open boarders.

[Soxbadger]

Yeah I know open borders is an argument I doubt Ill ever win, but damn would it be great.

 

And why do I hate the word libertarian, is it to close to librarian for me? Im just not sure.

[Reddy]

sure they can, that was kind of my point. They have to change - so they will.

 

 

 

And your reasoning for this is...

 

Only thing I see likely to cause that is if we go over the fiscal cliff.

the only way that'll happen is if we keep talking about going over a financial cliff.

[mr_genius]

the only way that'll happen is if we keep talking about going over a financial cliff.

 

i bet they take the easy way out and find a way to 'kick the can down the road'.

 

the best solution to me, is to agree to some crappy tax increase for 'rich people' that the Democrats want. BUT the tax increase only kicks in after spending cuts are realized.

Edited November 8, 2012 by mr_genius

[farmteam]

I was very proud of Minnesota, we voted NO to the gay marriage and voter ID amendments. First state to NOT pass an amendment defining marriage as 1 man 1 woman. Well, Arizona did, but then passed it two years later. I highly doubt it would even be put on the ballot again here, let alone pass.

[greg775]

Chris Matthews is a f***ing moron for what he said. That is all.

[StrangeSox]

Which is why you should keep an eye on Jeb Bush. His handlers were smart enough to keep him out of this election, but he could be tough in the future.

Given how his brother was completely ignored by the gop this election and that most people still blame him for the economic conditions, I'd say that brand is tainted. He'll have been out of public office for a while as well.

[StrangeSox]

Yeah I know open borders is an argument I doubt Ill ever win, but damn would it be great.

 

And why do I hate the word libertarian, is it to close to librarian for me? Im just not sure.

It's pronounced lolbertarian

[hogan873]

This has actually been a pretty pleasant thread to read. There are many different opinions, but everyone has been very civil and for the most part been making good arguments.

 

Compare what's going on here to what's going on in social media such as Facebook. I have friends on Facebook that I'm not sure I can look at the same way due to some of their posts. I have plenty of friends with different political views than me, and we can sit around and discuss such topics over a few beers with no hard feelings afterwards. But I've seen too many people posting stuff saying anyone who voted for Obama is a moron or an idiot. One person went on a long-winded rant saying all the idiots re-elected a Muslim, socialist terrorist. Then after a string of comments to them said, "Hey, I have a right to express my opinion, and you should respect that." Not when you call people idiots and say completely inaccurate things about the President.

 

It's been very hard to bite my tongue and not respond to these types of posts, but I won't stoop to their level. I'm just very disappointed in some people, and it's hard to look at them the same way. It's a shame that politics have come to this. Or maybe it's just that Facebook and the like is one of the worst things to happen when it comes to topics like politics and religion.

[Brian]

Florida is like that customer that comes into the store 5 minutes before you close, stays after you close like it's no big deal, than leaves without buying anything.

 

Geez...

[cabiness42]

In my opinion, main difference between democrats and republicans is social issues like abortion (get out of my bedroom), marriage (get out of my life), drugs (dont tell me what I can consume.)

 

Of the Democrats I know, none of them want big govt, they just hate big govt social conservatism.

 

Abortion isn't about what happens in your bedroom.

 

[StrangeSox]

This has actually been a pretty pleasant thread to read. There are many different opinions, but everyone has been very civil and for the most part been making good arguments.

 

Compare what's going on here to what's going on in social media such as Facebook. I have friends on Facebook that I'm not sure I can look at the same way due to some of their posts. I have plenty of friends with different political views than me, and we can sit around and discuss such topics over a few beers with no hard feelings afterwards. But I've seen too many people posting stuff saying anyone who voted for Obama is a moron or an idiot. One person went on a long-winded rant saying all the idiots re-elected a Muslim, socialist terrorist. Then after a string of comments to them said, "Hey, I have a right to express my opinion, and you should respect that." Not when you call people idiots and say completely inaccurate things about the President.

 

It's been very hard to bite my tongue and not respond to these types of posts, but I won't stoop to their level. I'm just very disappointed in some people, and it's hard to look at them the same way. It's a shame that politics have come to this. Or maybe it's just that Facebook and the like is one of the worst things to happen when it comes to topics like politics and religion.

 

That's why I generally avoid talking politics on facebook and stick with semi-anonymous message boards and blogs.

[StrangeSox]

Abortion isn't about what happens in your bedroom.

As long as it remains legal anyway.

[cabiness42]

Again, I just don't understand how equal representation at a presidential level = underrepresentation of their interests.

 

And I won't. I don't see a good argument for how 1 person in ND is more important than 700 in California in each level of government.

 

California has 1 electoral vote for every 680,000 people and North Dakota has one electoral vote for every 220,000 people, so it's 3-1 and not 700-1 in Presidential elections.

 

Also, while the people of California may not have been able to forsee such a massive population back then, they did choose to enter the union as one giant state instead of 2-3 smaller states, whereas the Dakota territory decided to become two states. Nobody forced those decisions on those people.

[cabiness42]

As long as it remains legal anyway.

 

Interesting to note that after the Presidential race, the most money spent by Democratic/liberal PACs was on an Indiana Senate candidate who is very pro-life. I wonder if all those donors knew how much of their money was going to a pro-life guy?

[StrangeSox]

"The billionaire donors I hear are livid," one Republican operative told The Huffington Post. "There is some holy hell to pay. Karl Rove has a lot of explaining to do ... I don't know how you tell your donors that we spent $390 million and got nothing."....Rove was forced to defend his group's expenditures live on Fox News on Tuesday night, and will hold a briefing with top donors on Thursday, according to Politico.

[StrangeSox]

Interesting to note that after the Presidential race, the most money spent by Democratic/liberal PACs was on an Indiana Senate candidate who is very pro-life. I wonder if all those donors knew how much of their money was going to a pro-life guy?

I'm sure they knew and that it was simply "any Democrat is better than Mourdock" as well as being aware that you're not going to be able to get a progressive Senator from Indiana.

Edited November 8, 2012 by StrangeSox

[caulfield12]

They're already writing an article at politico.com stating that the "favorites" for 2016 (at this EARLY point) are Hillary and Jeb.

 

Jeb still has the Bush brand going against him. Amazingly, it has been since 1976 that a Bush or Clinton wasn't somehow involved in a national presidential election.

 

More voters blamed Bush than Obama for the current economic predicament. That's quite telling, after four years of constant attacks on Obama from the right.

 

Rubio's the obvious Golden Boy candidate of the moment. The new Indiana governor is getting lots of attention. Chris Christie, although his "embrace" of Obama will be hard for many to forgive. Mitch Daniels. Susan Martinez of New Mexico is rising and represents one of those states being flipped by immigration (Virginia, NC, Texas, NM, Colorado, Arizona). Ryan, although he couldn't even make much inroads against Obama...and with all the attention paid to the state over the Walker election, union battle and recall fight.

 

I don't believe Biden has much of a chance, going back to the whole plagiarism thing that helped to sink him the first time he ran. Martin O'Malley from MD is one of the up and coming "darkhorse" candidates. The Clintons own the nomination unless they decide not to make one last run, which would go against every inclination Bill has (revived this cycle) to be a big part of the spotlight and not put out to pasture. Andrew Cuomo, although his father was a much more articulate and compelling candidate.

 

 

http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/07/insid...lped-obama-win/

 

I wonder how much money it would cost for the White Sox to buy all the data mining information the Obama team has compiled on metropolitan Chicago and use it to help market to potential season ticket buyers....?

 

 

Edited November 8, 2012 by caulfield12

[Y2HH]

California has 1 electoral vote for every 680,000 people and North Dakota has one electoral vote for every 220,000 people, so it's 3-1 and not 700-1 in Presidential elections.

 

Also, while the people of California may not have been able to forsee such a massive population back then, they did choose to enter the union as one giant state instead of 2-3 smaller states, whereas the Dakota territory decided to become two states. Nobody forced those decisions on those people.

 

Um, yes they did. The people in power, which were very few, made such decisions on behalf of everyone else -- for better or worse -- whether they, the people, were even aware of it. Especially back then when news took months to travel around. Many of these types of decisions were probably made without foreseeing population booms or busts in the future. As a matter of fact, I doubt many of such decisions were made looking that far in the future at all.