Early-vote totals indicate extremely tight race

[AdamT]

Then why oppose voter ID laws?

Try searching the 150 threads in which the argument is explained ad nauseum.

 

[Bobcat]

The same thing that is denied the law-abiding when they have to prove who they are before they buy a gun.

Oh, I see. you want anyone to be able to walk into walmart and buy a gun. mental patients, illegals, felons, pedifiles, serial killers, jihadists. how about driving a car? no license needed, right?

boarding a plane, entering a federal courthouse, buying booze or drugs. all open all free, right? and as to voting, just go to the polling place and vote, then go to the one across town and vote, then the one in the next county, then go to the next state and vote a few times? sounds like utopia to me. :lamo

 

[Bobcat]

Try searching the 150 threads in which the argument is explained ad nauseum.

none of them make your case, and every one verifies that dems only oppose voter ID so they can continue to stuff ballot boxes with illegal votes. Not one of you libs has ever presented a logical argument to support anyone voting wherever they choose without having to prove who they are. It is lunacy or corruption or just plain lying.

 

[Carleen]

Then why oppose voter ID laws?

In my state, it's THE LAW to obtain some kind of photo ID when you turn 18. Doesn't matter if you are driving or not. By law, when a person turns 18, it's already STATE LAW to obtain a state issued photo ID. No one screams about that.

What is the motive behind opposing voter ID laws? Are you saying that we shouldn't be verifying "who" is voting in our elections? Is it ok with you if illegals vote?

I don't get it. Why oppose a law that helps ensure the sovereinty of our election process?

I already know the left's answer. Because if illegals couldn't sneak through the cracks, liberals would be losing votes. Period. It's a fact. I live in a state with hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, and I see it first hand. They get all kinds of assistance, even though they aren't supposed to. They get jobs, even though they aren't supposed to. They vote, even though they aren't supposed to. They get all kinds of licenses to do certain business here in the US, even though they aren't supposed to.

It blows my mind that liberals would trade the rule of law, and our Constitutional principles, just to get elected. That proves that the left doesn't have good policies, and they don't have a philosophy that the majority of Americans espouse. Therefore, they cheat.

Tell me, who is the right's "Acorn"? Who is the right's "SEIU"? We don't have organizations like that, that promote illegal registering, and illegal voting. We don't cheat. The left does.

I do not oppose voter ID's. Just doing it so close to an election. It should be done in a non-election year. That would be fair to everyone.

 

[Carleen]

the truth is sometimes humerous. But tell us, exactly why do you oppose voter ID laws? Who, specifically is denied the right to vote by voters having to prove who they are before voting?

Don't oppose voter ID's. See my other reply. I thought his rant was very funny,

 

[joko104]

Looks like this is going to be exciting if nothing else.

- Early-vote totals indicate extremely tight race

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]Discuss! [/FONT]

I think ANY reporting - including polls - of actual voting in early voting should be STRICTLY outlawed. Personally, I think all polling should be outlawed anyway.

Since nearly all voting machines now are computers, a biometric fingerprint checker/recorder or even just a photo of the voter would make voting more than once impossible or too easy to get caught.

 

[joko104]

Oh, I see. you want anyone to be able to walk into walmart and buy a gun. mental patients, illegals, felons, pedifiles, serial killers, jihadists. how about driving a car? no license needed, right?

boarding a plane, entering a federal courthouse, buying booze or drugs. all open all free, right? and as to voting, just go to the polling place and vote, then go to the one across town and vote, then the one in the next county, then go to the next state and vote a few times? sounds like utopia to me. :lamo

I don't think guns should be allowed on aircraft that are pressurized.

The problem of voter fraud is not people voting more than once. It is poll workers in the polls casting multiple votes and manipulation of the voting machines.To eliminate voter fraud otherwise would just be to stamp voter registration cards so it could be seen whether or not the person voted already.

 

[AdamT]

I don't think guns should be allowed on aircraft that are pressurized.

The problem of voter fraud is not people voting more than once. It is poll workers in the polls casting multiple votes and manipulation of the voting machines.To eliminate voter fraud otherwise would just be to stamp voter registration cards so it could be seen whether or not the person voted already.

That's certainly a much bigger factor than in-person voter fraud. The other major component is fraud involving absentee ballots. But conservatives are only focused on in-person voter fraud, which almost never happens. Why? Because it suppresses Democratic turnout.

 

[Bobcat]

That's certainly a much bigger factor than in-person voter fraud. The other major component is fraud involving absentee ballots. But conservatives are only focused on in-person voter fraud, which almost never happens. Why? Because it suppresses Democratic turnout.

you are a one trick pony, adam. are you now claiming that a significant number of democrats do not have any kind of ID?

It has been shown that in person voter fraud was quite frequent in the 08 election, Acorn's sole reason for existing was to facilitate voter fraud.

 

[Bobcat]

I don't think guns should be allowed on aircraft that are pressurized.

The problem of voter fraud is not people voting more than once. It is poll workers in the polls casting multiple votes and manipulation of the voting machines.To eliminate voter fraud otherwise would just be to stamp voter registration cards so it could be seen whether or not the person voted already.

I can't speak for other states, but here the poll workers have a list of registered voters for each precinct, when you vote, a check mark is put beside your name so no one else can vote in your name.

Now the problem. Lets say I am Joe Jones. With no voter ID requirement, my neighbor could go to the polls, claim to be me and cast my vote, then when I went to vote they would say "you already voted". 2nd scenario. Hilda Smith died in July, Mary Jones knows that and goes to the polls claiming to be Hilda Smith and votes, then Mary goes back and votes in her own name. Mary gets two votes.

It never ceases to amaze me that liberals oppose proving who they are when they go to vote.

 

[AdamT]

you are a one trick pony, adam. are you now claiming that a significant number of democrats do not have any kind of ID?

It has been shown that in person voter fraud was quite frequent in the 08 election, Acorn's sole reason for existing was to facilitate voter fraud.

Yes, it is not even in dispute there there are millions of people who don't have state approved ID and it's not in dispute that most of them are Democrats.

Not only has it not been proven that in-person fraud was frequent in '08, it has not been proven that in-person fraud has occurred in modern history in more than a handful of cases. The states that have litigated their ID requirements have not been able to cite a single case of in-person voter fraud.

 

[Bobcat]

Yes, it is not even in dispute there there are millions of people who don't have state approved ID and it's not in dispute that most of them are Democrats.

Not only has it not been proven that in-person fraud was frequent in '08, it has not been proven that in-person fraud has occurred in modern history in more than a handful of cases. The states that have litigated their ID requirements have not been able to cite a single case of in-person voter fraud.

in-person voter fraud was the stock and trade of Acorn, that was proven in several states and put Acorn out of business.

But let me understand----it sounds like you are saying that a significant number of democrats are too stupid to have any kind of state issued ID? So these people cannot drive, get on a plane or train, cannot enter a federal building, cannot buy booze or smokes or sudafed. If thats what you are claiming, I submit that if they are that ignorant, then they should not be voting and should be in some kind of protective custody.

But no, what you are really saying is the the votes of illegal aliens and dead people are critical to electing democrats, and that voter ID laws would keep those fraudulent votes from happening.

 

[obvious Child]

I tend to agree in that I thought Huntsman was the candidate in the republican line-up. But like Thompson from the 08 election, he didn't have the legs, the will power, the tenacity, for it. The Huntsman campaign gave up early on in the primary race.

I don't know about that. Huntsmans wasn't willing to do what was necessary to get the nomination. He wasn't willing to abandon science, it wasn't willing to bend over to Wall Street, he wasn't willing to get down in the extreme social conservative mud. Basically, he acted like an adult and he paid for it with his candidacy.

 

[Zyphlin]

I tend to agree in that I thought Huntsman was the candidate in the republican line-up. But like Thompson from the 08 election, he didn't have the legs, the will power, the tenacity, for it. The Huntsman campaign gave up early on in the primary race.

I honestly blame the GOP this round. They COULD have gone with Huntsman and had the election wrapped up in August (if not earlier). It would have been over. The GOP would vote for Huntsman, Independents would landslide and moderate and Conservative Democrats would vote Republican by the busload. Obama would have been finished in August. Only the diehard liberals would be for Obama. Huntsman wouldn't be alienating women, minorities and youth. And he would have strong foreign policy chops. And the fact that Huntsman doesn't have the flip flopping record the length of Tennessee would help loads. The GOP could have saved itself insane amounts of money by simply choosing Huntsman, not to mention this whole ****fest of an election.

I can't blame the GOP because I blame Huntsman.

The man ran by far the worst strategized primary campaign I have ever witnessed by a member of either party. Just....HORRIBLE. Even as perfectly set up as he'd have been against Obama in a general election, he'd managed to **** that up if he put forward as poorly conceived campaign plan as he did in the primary.

He was my favorite candidate to ever run in an election I was going to participate in....but god his campaign could've been ran better by three monkey's expressing themselves with crayons

I don't know about that. Huntsmans wasn't willing to do what was necessary to get the nomination. He wasn't willing to abandon science, it wasn't willing to bend over to Wall Street, he wasn't willing to get down in the extreme social conservative mud. Basically, he acted like an adult and he paid for it with his candidacy.

Bull**** on every count. Completely and utterly. It wasn't about being willing to abandon science, it was about not going out of his way to pointlessly attack his fellow party members over it. It wasn't about being unwilling to "Bend over to wall street", it was failing to articulate his actual conservative fiscal record. It wasn't about not being willing to get down in the extreme social conservative mud, it's refusing to actually run a god damn political campaign where you highlight the positives on issues where you have holes on.

He didn't act like an adult...he acted like an idiot.

 

[obvious Child]

Romney has Independents by 15 points in most polls when Obama had Is by 8 points in 2008. How much more would they break for Huntsman?

I don't know, but a fiscally conservative, socially moderate, science based candidate who doesn't pander to the crazy? Can you ask for a better independent candidate?

 

[Bobcat]

I can't blame the GOP because I blame Huntsman.

The man ran by far the worst strategized primary campaign I have ever witnessed by a member of either party. Just....HORRIBLE. Even as perfectly set up as he'd have been against Obama in a general election, he'd managed to **** that up if he put forward as poorly conceived campaign plan as he did in the primary.

He was my favorite candidate to ever run in an election I was going to participate in....but god his campaign could've been ran better by three monkey's expressing themselves with crayons



Bull**** on every count. Completely and utterly. It wasn't about being willing to abandon science, it was about not going out of his way to pointlessly attack his fellow party members over it. It wasn't about being unwilling to "Bend over to wall street", it was failing to articulate his actual conservative fiscal record. It wasn't about not being willing to get down in the extreme social conservative mud, it's refusing to actually run a god damn political campaign where you highlight the positives on issues where you have holes on.

He didn't act like an adult...he acted like an idiot.

I liked him too, but you are right, his campaign was terrible.

 

[obvious Child]

I can't blame the GOP because I blame Huntsman.

The man ran by far the worst strategized primary campaign I have ever witnessed by a member of either party. Just....HORRIBLE. Even as perfectly set up as he'd have been against Obama in a general election, he'd managed to **** that up if he put forward as poorly conceived campaign plan as he did in the primary.

He was my favorite candidate to ever run in an election I was going to participate in....but god his campaign could've been ran better by three monkey's expressing themselves with crayons

Honestly, I don't think it would have mattered. The GOP didn't want what Huntsman was selling. And Huntsman wasn't willing to abandon his beliefs to get the nomination. Romney has essentially forsaken nearly every belief he has held in the past to get the nomination (not to mention abandoning staff to please the Social Extremists). Huntsman openly mocked the other Republicans with his "I believe in science, call me crazy" statement.

Bull**** on every count. Completely and utterly. It wasn't about being willing to abandon science, it was about not going out of his way to pointlessly attack his fellow party members over it. It wasn't about being unwilling to "Bend over to wall street", it was failing to articulate his actual conservative fiscal record. It wasn't about not being willing to get down in the extreme social conservative mud, it's refusing to actually run a god damn political campaign where you highlight the positives on issues where you have holes on.

Can't agree with you there. The GOP candidates aside from Huntsman and Johnson openly mocked science to get significant votes to pander to those who believe that global warming is a hoax. Several of them implicitly argued that the government is lying to us and that science cannot be trusted. That is diametrically opposed to what Huntsman believed. You cannot get those votes unless you forsake the beliefs you held. And Huntsman did articulate his record. Utah's growth, low taxes and overall employment was cited many times by Huntsman. You seem to have a very different recollection of the primaries then I. What Huntsman never got was a big media zinger, but those were almost ALWAYS insane or false statements made by a candidate. He never had a slogan to run on like Cain's. And you know that it is incredibly difficult to get the nomination without the support of social conservatives in the GOP. That is absolutely fundamental to a GOP primary. You have to be willing to get down into the mud with the social cons if you want a chance at the nomination. Huntsman outright refused to do this. Couple that with actually professing a belief in science and he lost that group from the get go. Notice that Romney basically threw out his statement that the government must do something to curtail Co2 Emissions that he made as governor. And he adopted significantly stronger anti-abortion statements and beliefs then he had as Governor where he donated money to Planned Parenthood. Huntsman highlighted his fiscal record but he did not do what was necessary to have a real chance at the record. Johnson had his problem as well. And when you consider that Huntsman supported Civil Unions, he's basically done with a huge portion of the GOP crowd. Huntsman refused to abandon a great many of his positions to please the GOP base.

Do you really think that a candidate who's socially moderate to the point of supporting civil unions and believes in human caused Global warming had any real chance in the GOP primary where ideological purity and conforming to the party's principles were absolutely key?

He didn't act like an adult...he acted like an idiot.

Actually he did both. He acted like an adult in what he believed. He acted like an idiot in refusing to do what was necessary to have a chance in the race.

 

[Goshin]

So much for the hacks who predicted a Mitt or Obama landslide, lol.

It is looking like it could come right down to the wire, maybe even to a handful of votes and hanging chads...

 

[obvious Child]

I liked him too, but you are right, his campaign was terrible.

His campaign was dead in the water the second the social cons realized he was for civil unions and believed in human caused global warming. At that point, he's worse then a RINO and you cannot win a nomination without at least some decent support from the social conservative side of the GOP. Maybe if Huntsman flip flopped like Romney and said that civil unions are a mistake and that science is a fraud, he might have had a chance, but Huntsman doesn't seem like the type to abandon beliefs just for votes. Unlike Romney who will change his position daily based on the number of votes it gets him.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

His campaign was dead in the water the second the social cons realized he was for civil unions and believed in human caused global warming. At that point, he's worse then a RINO and you cannot win a nomination without at least some decent support from the social conservative side of the GOP. Maybe if Huntsman flip flopped like Romney and said that civil unions are a mistake and that science is a fraud, he might have had a chance, but Huntsman doesn't seem like the type to abandon beliefs just for votes. Unlike Romney who will change his position daily based on the number of votes it gets him.

pandering to the base can really turn off independents and moderates. The only reason I even registered as a republican was to vote for McCain in the primary, but by the time the election came around such a vote was almost impossible for me to justify

 

[obvious Child]

pandering to the base can really turn off independents and moderates.

Which is why I believe prior to Romney's pivot to the middle, Romney was doing so badly against Obama. Intrade during the pre-pivot had a Obama at 70%. What bothers me is that so many people seem to forget the statements Romney made post primary and even during the primaries. Or they realize that you have to make some pretty nuts statements to win the primary and after you disavow them. Either American voters are gullible, or just jaded. Romney right now is saying the rich won't get a tax cut under him. That's pretty much a 180 degree change from his primary statements. I wonder if he's disavow his promise to repeal Obamacare on day one. He can't do it on day one. And it's really bad to start the first day by breaking a campaign promise. Not even 24 hours and you've already broken a promise.

The only reason I even registered as a republican was to vote for McCain in the primary, but by the time the election came around such a vote was almost impossible for me to justify

It's a shame how much McCain changed in the election.

 

[Black Dog]

It is looking like it could come right down to the wire, maybe even to a handful of votes and hanging chads...

Yea, it is really exciting. I voted for Mitt, but to be honest I don't care who wins as politically speaking I don't like either. At least it is going to be fun to watch.

 

[Black Dog]

Yes, it is not even in dispute there there are millions of people who don't have state approved ID and it's not in dispute that most of them are Democrats.

So they can register to vote, but they can't get a state ID? Whats wrong with this picture?

Not only has it not been proven that in-person fraud was frequent in '08, it has not been proven that in-person fraud has occurred in modern history in more than a handful of cases. The states that have litigated their ID requirements have not been able to cite a single case of in-person voter fraud.

So because we don't have it happening on an epidemic scale, we should not protect against it?

 

[IndepCentristMA]

So much for the hacks who predicted a Mitt or Obama landslide, lol.

On the contrary...

Early voting began before the debates... back when Obama supposedly had a 10pt lead... The fact that early voting totals don't bear out a major lead for Obama spells great things for the Romney campaign... who has a groundswell of support that's remained high in places he leads and is currently tightening races he's behind in...

Also, what's been noticed, is that the groups that were going heavy for Obama in 2008 are either split or going towards Romney...

Given that voting from this point on, and on election day will reflect the post-debate opinions that should begin stretching towards Romney... I do think it's going to be a fairly close election, since we don't have a divided vote by any major 3rd party candidate... and with the general left-right balance that swings at highest by 6pts... it's about 3 pts right now...

This is yet another positive sign of a Romney win..

 

[Black Dog]

On the contrary...

Early voting began before the debates... back when Obama supposedly had a 10pt lead... The fact that early voting totals don't bear out a major lead for Obama spells great things for the Romney campaign... who has a groundswell of support that's remained high in places he leads and is currently tightening races he's behind in...

Also, what's been noticed, is that the groups that were going heavy for Obama in 2008 are either split or going towards Romney...

Given that voting from this point on, and on election day will reflect the post-debate opinions that should begin stretching towards Romney... I do think it's going to be a fairly close election, since we don't have a divided vote by any major 3rd party candidate... and with the general left-right balance that swings at highest by 6pts... it's about 3 pts right now...

This is yet another positive sign of a Romney win..

Not really. I am not going to post 99.9% of polls that say different. You can disagree but makes no difference either way. This will not be a landslide for anyone, period.

Swelling ground support. :doh