Not too fast Liberals

MadLib · Nov 25, 2012

Kurmugeon said:
One of the primary purposes of Polling is to put a check and balance detector on the possibility of massive voter fraud.

Just because the results of the election from any given pollster does not match the given election outcome, does not automatically mean that the particular Pollster is wrong, it COULD mean that this is place were voter fraud was a significant factor.

Let me say it again, if a Pollster's predictions don't match the outcome, he isn't always Wrong!

It could have been Election Cheating!

And all of a sudden what could have happened is discussed as if it DID happen. It could have also been the New World Order putting up figureheads to keep us docile.

One way to test this theory is to try to match Exit Polling and Outreach Post Election Vote Declaration Polling to the listed election outcome.

We all know that putting a Republican Support Bumper Sticker on your car is a great way to get your doors keyed, tires slashed, windows scratched or shattered, or if an OWS guy is nearby, have your car pooped on...

Same with Democrats. Signs stolen, etc.

In a Similar Fashion, Republicans have learned the hard way, DON'T talk to exit polls.

Yes, Voter Intimidation is a REAL Problem in America.

You think voter intimidation only happens to Republicans? Push poll calls from both sides are not unheard of.

So that leaves Annonymous Post Election Voter Declaration Polls as the only real check without significant bias.

There hasn't been time enough to conduct such polls, and there needs to be a bit of time between the election and the Post-Poll to get people willing to Talk.

It will take some Time for the picture of the level of voter fraud impact on the 2012 election to become clear, but already we see it was a major, if not determining factor.

-

Or it could have been incompetence. Accepted/institutionalized voter fraud in favor of the Democrats by Republican-controlled states is HIGHLY unlikely, whereas incompetence from a Republican administration is...well...accepted.

MadLib · Nov 25, 2012

Ikari said:
I suspect they're both cheating.

Why would they both cheat? What does that accomplish?

MadLib · Nov 25, 2012

Kurmugeon said:
Don't about it, you've won, you get to pass your entire agenda.

I hope to see all your campaign and platform promises passed as soon as possible; Gay marriage, public funded abortion, legalize all recreational drugs, give $1M in "repairations" to Blacks, Sieze all Guns, Carbon Trading, Ban SUVs, Govt. Seizure of Factory Ownership...

Do it. Right away, we won't even try to stop you.

-

Who won't stop us? I'm pretty sure the Republican House will stop us.

IndepCentristMA · Nov 26, 2012

Boo Radley said:
Spend less time with words and look at actual history. We have done well with high tax rates and low, and done poorly with both as well. There is little to no real connection to taxes and prosperity.

Spend less time with the idiocrisy... and more time with the realistic logic...

It's not whether the tax rate is high or low... it's the effect of a rate change that you fail to recognize... especially in regards to capital gains taxes... You say I'm focused on words don't have a clue about the history of it (kind of funny being that I'm a historian, but anyways)... However, I think you may need to recheck the false narative you've bit into, comparing it with the actual history of what happened...

Clearly you can see, in the wake of capital gains tax rate cuts there is a rise in the amount of revenue collected by the government... because people are withdrawing their long-term savings in those points... we at the same time see spikes in new investment in those periods, as people see the speculation of long term investment as profitable with lower tax rates...

It's also what the taxes are used for? and why we somehow seem to keep needing more and more... They say they are raising taxes to pay down the debt out of one side of their mouths, then out of the other they promise new spending programs... as the existing spending programs in place are ballooning in size...

Then, they say we need to cut the Defense budget so we can do some nation building at home... I thought the cuts to the defense budget were meant to close the deficit and help pay down the debt? That's exactly it... Liberals will always want more and more of a share of other people's money... So that governement can fix everything... As as government employee I can tell you first hand I KNOW that this is not the most efficient way of doing things... and nothing is being done to solve it...

That's how government spending continues to balloon up unchecked... and people are distracted by all this talk about tax rates... The Government spends more than it takes in, because it spends more than it takes in... not because it needs to take out a loan until it can get a higher paying job...

We've got to raise the standards on the poor, and stop finding ways to enable them...
We've got to stop restricting the successful people, and allow them to be so it creates prosperity for all...
We've got to reform how the government operates, so it matches the efficiency of the business world...

IndepCentristMA · Nov 26, 2012

MadLib said:
Why would they both cheat? What does that accomplish?

The same goal... just one did it better...

Seriously, did you just ask that?

No, one side cheated, the other sat back and was like... No, I'll let them cheat and I'll take the high road... :roll:

Boo Radley · Nov 26, 2012

IndepCentristMA said:
Spend less time with the idiocrisy... and more time with the realistic logic...

It's not whether the tax rate is high or low... it's the effect of a rate change that you fail to recognize... especially in regards to capital gains taxes... You say I'm focused on words don't have a clue about the history of it (kind of funny being that I'm a historian, but anyways)... However, I think you may need to recheck the false narative you've bit into, comparing it with the actual history of what happened...

Clearly you can see, in the wake of capital gains tax rate cuts there is a rise in the amount of revenue collected by the government... because people are withdrawing their long-term savings in those points... we at the same time see spikes in new investment in those periods, as people see the speculation of long term investment as profitable with lower tax rates...

It's also what the taxes are used for? and why we somehow seem to keep needing more and more... They say they are raising taxes to pay down the debt out of one side of their mouths, then out of the other they promise new spending programs... as the existing spending programs in place are ballooning in size...

Then, they say we need to cut the Defense budget so we can do some nation building at home... I thought the cuts to the defense budget were meant to close the deficit and help pay down the debt? That's exactly it... Liberals will always want more and more of a share of other people's money... So that governement can fix everything... As as government employee I can tell you first hand I KNOW that this is not the most efficient way of doing things... and nothing is being done to solve it...

That's how government spending continues to balloon up unchecked... and people are distracted by all this talk about tax rates... The Government spends more than it takes in, because it spends more than it takes in... not because it needs to take out a loan until it can get a higher paying job...

We've got to raise the standards on the poor, and stop finding ways to enable them...
We've got to stop restricting the successful people, and allow them to be so it creates prosperity for all...
We've got to reform how the government operates, so it matches the efficiency of the business world...

Historical Marginal Income Tax Rates — Visualizing Economics

So, what does the future hold? Good question! Obviously, no one likes tax increases, but the similarities between the 1920s-1930s and the 2000s-2010s seem hard to ignore. Today, after an era of very low taxes, we have enormous inequality and a huge deficit. Last time that happened, the top tax rate soared (and, it should be noted, the economy boomed--even with the top rate high). And we certainly wouldn't be surprised to see history repeat itself again...

Read more: THE HISTORY OF TAXES: Here's How High Today's Rates Really Are - Business Insider

Now, you may well be a historian. INtenet is a hard place to question anyone. But many I've noticed try to rewrite history to fit a preconceived narrative. Not making any judgment concerning you, do keep that in mind. However, we are nto enambling the poor. This is fantasy put out Fox and those who want it to appear that way for whatever reason. Most people work. Few want to be dependent.

Tomorrow, I'll try and get a copy of those charts I saw today.

IndepCentristMA · Nov 26, 2012

Boo Radley said:
View attachment 67138620

Historical Marginal Income Tax Rates — Visualizing Economics

View attachment 67138621

So, what does the future hold? Good question! Obviously, no one likes tax increases, but the similarities between the 1920s-1930s and the 2000s-2010s seem hard to ignore. Today, after an era of very low taxes, we have enormous inequality and a huge deficit. Last time that happened, the top tax rate soared (and, it should be noted, the economy boomed--even with the top rate high). And we certainly wouldn't be surprised to see history repeat itself again...

Read more: THE HISTORY OF TAXES: Here's How High Today's Rates Really Are - Business Insider

Now, you may well be a historian. INtenet is a hard place to question anyone. But many I've noticed try to rewrite history to fit a preconceived narrative. Not making any judgment concerning you, do keep that in mind. However, we are nto enambling the poor. This is fantasy put out Fox and those who want it to appear that way for whatever reason. Most people work. Few want to be dependent.

Yay, more pointless charts which show that we used to function with higher tax rates... How come you don't show the charts, which showed that we functioned just fine without those tax rates at all? You do realize the US functioned fine before as well...

Learn the history of the income tax if you want to speak of what rates are "necessary" to pay off what...

Our Documents - 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Federal Income Tax (1913)

No income tax until 1861, where a tax of 3% was instituted on incomes over $800 (in 1861 dollars), it was repealed in 1872...

Another income tax was instituted in 1894 of 2% on income over $4000 (in 1894 dollars), it was struck down by the Supreme Court

In 1909 a proposal for a Constitutional Ammendment which would legalize an income tax passed and was ratified by 1913... However... the tax at that time was only 1%, and paid by just 1% of the population after exeptions...

So, yes... we can function fine with and without low or high tax rates...

Neither of those things address the point... of the effects of raising/lowering tax rates on a struggling economy that's growing at a rate of 2% and less...

I wasn't speaking in terms of the nominal marginal rate... but the effect of rate changes... THAT MEANS WHEN THE TAX RATE IS CHANGED... LOWERED/RAISED... CUT/HIKED...

All your chart does is take to unrelated stats and put them on the same chart to make it seem an equal comparative... which it isnt... But even still... when you look at the GDP and Unemployment Rate, whenever taxes are raised/lowered there is a bend in the curve upwards/downwards based on the change in rates...

Also, since you're looking at the nominal marginal rate... not the effective rate... you miss out on noticing all the other taxes and just who is paying what... when 50% pay 0% in taxes, whereas the top 10% pay 70% of the tax base... enabling the poor is exactly what we are doing...

You also discount all the numerous other taxes that are paid across this country... such as state income taxes, corporate taxes and state corporate taxes, capital gains tax, estate tax, luxury tax, state sales taxes, government fees, etc. We pay PLENTY of taxes... and the government has more than enough revenue to provide the basic services meant to keep a society functioning... The trouble is, people waste government money, pretend government can cure all problems, and make reactionary decisions rather than long-term planning...

Government spending has increased at 12 times the rate of median incomes... This isn't debt service... this is the expansion of the so-called "safety net"...

The "safety net" was supposed to be there to encourage risk taking and investment, given that if someone fell, there would be insurance against a total disaster... hence the bankruptcy proceedings and social security system were put in place...

The "safety net" has long since graduated from that meager position, and now no longer requires you to have taken the risk in the first place... but insures that even if you never take a step, there's plenty of government assistance for you to subside on...

Now, instead of a "safety net" it's more like a "padded room"... where you don't have to do anything and the government still takes care of you, no matter how little you can function within society, and despite the drain on others that you are...

I think another thing you discount to consider, as well... That the federal government isn't the only government body taking people's tax money and using it for social welfare programs... Combined state and federal spending makes it that about $1T is spent annually on social welfare programs... and that's an ever increasing number (keep in mind, this is before ObamaCare and the Baby Boomer retirement kicks in)!

Please... in your search for charts for tomorrow... how about you include the expansion of the size of social welfare programs since the 1960s and 1970s to where it is today, and where it's projected to be...

Boo Radley · Nov 26, 2012

We can certainly play dueling charts, but as historian, you know there are reasons for events. And we likely can't go back, and we had a lot of poor, abut the world is a different place today.

whysoserious · Nov 26, 2012

LOL the republicans are clearly upset. How many conspiracy theories can these people come up with in one month?

-Obama rigged the election.
-Obama let everyone die in Benghazi.
-Obama hid Petraeus' affair.
-Obama flopped the debate on purpose because he doesn't want to be president.
-Obama and the liberals rigged the polls to effect election turnout (crazy how they ended up dead on, amiright?).
-Obama still not born in America (almost 40% of you think that holy ****)

Keep listening to Rush and Beck and we'll keep winning presidential elections. LOL

obvious Child · Nov 27, 2012

whysoserious said:
LOL the republicans are clearly upset. How many conspiracy theories can these people come up with in one month?

-Obama rigged the election.
-Obama let everyone die in Benghazi.
-Obama hid Petraeus' affair.
-Obama flopped the debate on purpose because he doesn't want to be president.
-Obama and the liberals rigged the polls to effect election turnout (crazy how they ended up dead on, amiright?).
-Obama still not born in America (almost 40% of you think that holy ****)

Keep listening to Rush and Beck and we'll keep winning presidential elections. LOL

You missed a couple:

- Obama is a secret mummy Godzilla Zombie
- Obama is secretly Bin Laden's best friend who hid him and replaced him with a body double to die in the attack
- Obama caused the black death back in Europe

OpportunityCost · Nov 27, 2012

whysoserious said:
Keep listening to Rush and Beck and we'll keep winning presidential elections. LOL

33 Governors disagree.

haymarket · Nov 27, 2012

OpportunityCost said:
33 Governors disagree.

Those GOP governors FAILED to deliver the presidential election for Mittens and the Republicans. That was the point from whysoserious and it is a valid one. Let the 33 governors disagree. They proved no more of a distraction than a pimple on the ass of the body politic.

Snyder had no ability to help Mittens in Michigan and Obama won by almost ten points. Same state after state with many GOP governors. Check the results in Wisconsin with the right wing saint Walker in charge. He FAILED to get Wisconsin in the GOP column. Same with Christie in New Jersey. And a bunch more.

blaxshep · Nov 27, 2012

Actually I am glad Obama won, the sooner the country collapses the sooner we can have a civil war to fix the problem.

Wiggen · Nov 27, 2012

Deuce said:
A balanced budget would have lost world war 2.

Perhaps if you admit that things are more complicated than "borrowing is always bad," we can discuss the rest of you oversimplifications. (they are numerous")

But that's only if you assume winning world war 2 was important. I think there are some who, in the interests of a balanced budget - and perhaps because they saw some merit in our oppostion during the war - wouldn't have cared.

Wiggen · Nov 27, 2012

blaxshep said:
Actually I am glad Obama won, the sooner the country collapses the sooner we can have a civil war to fix the problem.

Yeah, we'll beat you againt this time, too.

OpportunityCost · Nov 27, 2012

haymarket said:
Those GOP governors FAILED to deliver the presidential election for Mittens and the Republicans. That was the point from whysoserious and it is a valid one. Let the 33 governors disagree. They proved no more of a distraction than a pimple on the ass of the body politic.
Snyder had no ability to help Mittens in Michigan and Obama won by almost ten points. Same state after state with many GOP governors. Check the results in Wisconsin with the right wing saint Walker in charge. He FAILED to get Wisconsin in the GOP column. Same with Christie in New Jersey. And a bunch more.

Stupid **** like bolded is why no one takes you seriously.

Presidential cycles tend to be just that, cyclical. Pretending that this election cycle is the death knell of the GOP and Dems will continue to win every Presidential election is overweening pride and a plainly stupid idea.

Donc · Nov 27, 2012

blaxshep said:
Actually I am glad Obama won, the sooner the country collapses the sooner we can have a civil war to fix the problem.

Yawn.:yawn:

IndepCentristMA · Nov 28, 2012

haymarket said:
Those GOP governors FAILED to deliver the presidential election for Mittens and the Republicans. That was the point from whysoserious and it is a valid one. Let the 33 governors disagree. They proved no more of a distraction than a pimple on the ass of the body politic.

Snyder had no ability to help Mittens in Michigan and Obama won by almost ten points. Same state after state with many GOP governors. Check the results in Wisconsin with the right wing saint Walker in charge. He FAILED to get Wisconsin in the GOP column. Same with Christie in New Jersey. And a bunch more.

I'm sorry... but I don't recall a single state where the Governor's duties includes making the state vote for the same political party for president as they had for Governor...

Syder, Walker, and Christie? That's your argument? States that have gone Blue in nearly every election cycle since Clinton? 92, 96, 00, 04, 08, 12... that was the current Governor's faults?

Christie also shot himself in the foot in that regard praising Obama days before the election... Christie could've helped turn PA to Romney by campaigning in the Camden/Philadelphia area... and rubbing off on Philly residents to make it more competitive, thus the overwhelming majority of the state, that's conservative and elected their own Govenor Corbett comfortable, and could've swayed the election... He may have been a better VP choice for that reason... but Christie has a track record of being volitaile and not able to be relied upon... and he showed why... With his et tu brute moments at the convention and a week before the election... Realistically he was just trying to set himself up for a run in 2016 and he can't do that if Romney is president from 2012 to 2016,... that would also give Ryan, the VP the chance for the 2020 nomination if Romney got re-elected as well... Selfish political ambition...

Funny that you leave out Virginia and Ohio governors... of actual swing states who had recently gone blue but were trending back red... Kasich and McDonnell... they didn't deliver their states to Romney either...

However, did you see what we just did... Listing out the Governors of WI, MI, OH, PA, NJ and VA... did you see that... how that worked... We can throw in IN as well with Mitch Daniels... Those are the Northern industrial states, which are heavily unionized, and heavily Democratic states for ages... and yet, currently, although they went to Obama for president in the nationwide popularity contest... For real politics, which is local... they've all got Republican Governors... who have instituted fiscally conservative policies to fix the current fiscal crisis... Many other states nationwide have followed that same suit... and the states like Oklahoma, Texas, Idaho, and North Dakota... which are the best performing economies at the moment, all have Republican Governors as well, are right to work states, and you're seeing comparative economic booms...

Yes, the square old rich guy, with overly hairy arms, that says hokey things often, and has a bit of foot in mouth disease didn't beat Obama in a nationwide popularity contest...

That doesn't mean fiscally and social conservative principles are dying... it means that people liked Obama slightly better than they liked Romney... (and specifically those people that are in the groups that Obama won big... the young, poor, uneducated, and minorities)

See you in the mid-terms, when those people don't show up...

IndepCentristMA · Nov 28, 2012

Wiggen said:
Yeah, we'll beat you againt this time, too.

We? Aren't you the Brit? The Brits sided with the Confederacy in that war... lest you forget...

whysoserious · Nov 28, 2012

blaxshep said:
Actually I am glad Obama won, the sooner the country collapses the sooner we can have a civil war to fix the problem.

And this is why republicans will continue to lose. This is their electorate.

haymarket · Nov 28, 2012

IndepCentristMA said:
See you in the mid-terms, when those people don't show up...

Its rather sad that the only way you can win many elections is in low turnout years. That is rather revealing in an of itself.

IndepCentristMA · Nov 28, 2012

haymarket said:
Its rather sad that the only way you can win many elections is in low turnout years. That is rather revealing in an of itself.

It's rather funny that you're pretending that "the only way YOU can win" is in low turnout years... considering the YOU refers to Republicans...

First off, since WWII, in what is widely considered the modern era of politics, the Republicans have won the majority of the elections... 48 Truman (D), 52 Eisenhower (R), 56 Eisenhower (R), 60 Kennedy (D), 64 Johnson (D), 68 Nixon (R), 72 Nixon (R), 76 Carter (D), 80 Reagan (R), 84 Reagan (R), 88 Bush (R), 92 Clinton (D), 96 Clinton (D), 00 Bush (R), 04 Bush (R), 08 Obama (D), 12 Obama (D)... I know I'm not a math major... but last I checked that's Republicans 9, Democrats 8...

However, as you can see it clearly swings back and forth from time to time... Neither side with a monopoly on "Right"... I know the liberal minds are all tooting their own horns right now about how great it is that they were able to pull off this unbelievable re-election... and how the "majority" of people voted for a Democrat for President... but that was 1 Democrat... 1 time... which brought it from 9-7 to 9-8 in the modern era... This isn't some momentus occasion which changed politics forever... it was 1 election... just 1... enjoy it while it lasts... If this 4 years is anything like the last 4 years, the Democrats are bound to lose the next, no matter what the turnout is...

Secondly... I am not a Republican... I voted for a Republican because I know him to be a moderate centrist and a brilliant leader, who tosses the political BS aside to accomplish real change, tidy up the finances, and reform the inefficient programs... That's exactly what I see as the duty of an executive... So much so, that I wrote him in as the right candidate in the 2008 election... against the Republican candidate...

In the next election I'm not going to vote for the next Republican candidate because he is a Republican... if the Republicans want my vote, they need to nominate the right candidate... otherwise I will return to voting independent or third party... If Republicans nominate some social conservative clown whose mind stopped developing and maturing in middle school and thinks the US Constitution ought to begin with Genesis and end with Revalations, like say Rick Santorum, I will be actively campaigning against them...

The only way I could win, is if millions of people woke up, became educated, and stopped following along with the crowd... That's not going to happen... Unfortunately, despite the fact that 70% of Americans are moderate... no one can run as a centrist and win, because too many idiots by into the US vs THEM attitude of Republicans and Democrats...

Right now 50% of the populace (not just the voting populace) would be behind Mitt Romney if it wasn't for the frindge outside idiots of the Republican Party, who say stupid things like rape is a blessing, or back in my day women used aspirin between their legs as birth control... that scares off 10-15% of the people who call themselves Democrats, but arent the idiot liberals... Similarly, John Kerry would've been president if it wasn't for 10-15% of the people who identify as Republicans who saw Kerry's statements like Global Warming is the #1 issue to deal with... really... #1... the #1 issue the US Government's Executive needs to handle is "Global Warming"?!?!?!? I'm a heavy environmentalist that is in the process of starting an environmental non-profit company... That still finds that statement ludicrous...

So, instead of uniting the 30% of the Democratic Party and 30% of the Republican Party... we get the BS stalemates that we saw this time around... arguing about ignorant buzzword topics like birth control pills and planned parenthood subsidies... as if that was the important decision of this election... wow... blind idiots... which leads us to the last point...

Lastly, it's more impressive winning the mid-term elections... because it reflects the more informed and politically active participants... mid-term elections have their own statistical averages for high and low voter turn-out... but they're much lower than the presidential elections, which turn into a mockery of political relevance... People show up in greatest number to presidential elections that have no clue who candidates are, what issues are being voted on, what the positions of the people in the offices they vote for are expected to do in office, etc. It becomes a popularity contest... not a decision on anything political...

Whereas, the mid-term elections involve people that know there is an election being held, that their local Congressional Rep, Senator, etc. are running, and then they decide on what's good for their area... These are the more informed voters who are voting on issues... issues they care about enough to show up, when the entire media circus and celeb get out the vote campaigns aren't there to remind you... but you still get to the polls and cast a ballot... That's more impressive...

As Tip ONeil said, all politics is local... and local races are what's featured in the mid-terms... There we get a much better sense about what the people across this country really feel, since they are voting on their local races... If you follow the mid-term elections... what you'll find is, though Ike won the popularity contest on likeability, the people were fans of what FDR did and kept electing Democrats, that continued on through Kennedy, until people saw what the Democrats were becoming, and what Reagan did that was different... and the people started vacilating back and forth between the parties, depending on which was more moderate...

The last two mid-term elections were definite representations of that... The Republicans in office thought they had all this popular momentum in 2004 from the elections which they swept... and kept on this hard line conservative BS like the Terri Schiavo crap (that they still won't let go)... Under Bush the right to lifers were going crazy... and people were sick of it... so in 2006, the mid-term elections swung heavily against Republicans, and the Democrats won back both houses... Then, after 2008, when Obama won, and his and the Democratic Congress' handling of the fiscal crisis in spending like there was no tomorrow upset people who were anxious about the mounting debt... the mid-term elections reflected the mood of the people that this kind of spending had to be stopped, and the frustrations with TARP, ARRA, bailouts, buyouts, ObamaCare, etc. was that Republicans won by the Congress in large measure, and gained seats in the Senate, making it more even...

This presidential election was nothing different from that... a status quo election... everyone kept the same players in power... and the dynamic in Washington has not changed... people are skeptical about the future and weren't comfortable jumping ship... If things don't get better in the next 2 years... we will see if that keeps up... This fiscal cliff discussion doesn't seem to be showing itself as any different... public posturing about bi-partisanship, but steadfast positions on both sides which aren't changing...

So again, I will see you in the mid-term elections... where those Independent and moderate people who were thrown out of office by the ignorant and uninformed voters stand a chance to get in their and offer real solutions which appeal to all sides... and can find compromises in the middle... with which to actually get stuff done...

Donc · Nov 28, 2012

IndepCentristMA;1061193555]

It's rather funny that you're pretending that "the only way YOU can win" is in low turnout years... considering the YOU refers to Republicans...

First off, since WWII, in what is widely considered the modern era of politics, the Republicans have won the majority of the elections... 48 Truman (D), 52 Eisenhower (R), 56 Eisenhower (R), 60 Kennedy (D), 64 Johnson (D), 68 Nixon (R), 72 Nixon (R), 76 Carter (D), 80 Reagan (R), 84 Reagan (R), 88 Bush (R), 92 Clinton (D), 96 Clinton (D), 00 Bush (R), 04 Bush (R), 08 Obama (D), 12 Obama (D)... I know I'm not a math major... but last I checked that's Republicans 9, Democrats 8...

*That paragraph didn’t address the question of haymarkets post

However, as you can see it clearly swings back and forth from time to time... Neither side with a monopoly on "Right"... I know the liberal minds are all tooting their own horns right now about how great it is that they were able to pull off this unbelievable re-election... and how the "majority" of people voted for a Democrat for President... but that was 1 Democrat... 1 time... which brought it from 9-7 to 9-8 in the modern era... This isn't some momentus occasion which changed politics forever... it was 1 election... just 1... enjoy it while it lasts... If this 4 years is anything like the last 4 years, the Democrats are bound to lose the next, no matter what the turnout is...*

Nor did this paragraph address anything that was in the post that you quoted.

Secondly... I am not a Republican... I voted for a Republican because I know him to be a moderate centrist and a brilliant leader, who tosses the political BS aside to accomplish real change, tidy up the finances, and reform the inefficient programs... That's exactly what I see as the duty of an executive... So much so, that I wrote him in as the right candidate in the 2008 election... against the Republican candidate...

Nor this paragraph.:dito:

In the next election I'm not going to vote for the next Republican candidate because he is a Republican... if the Republicans want my vote, they need to nominate the right candidate... otherwise I will return to voting independent or third party... If Republicans nominate some social conservative clown whose mind stopped developing and maturing in middle school and thinks the US Constitution ought to begin with Genesis and end with Revalations, like say Rick Santorum, I will be actively campaigning against them...*

Who ask you anything about the next election? :shock:

The only way I could win, is if millions of people woke up, became educated, and stopped following along with the crowd... That's not going to happen... Unfortunately, despite the fact that 70% of Americans are moderate... no one can run as a centrist and win, because too many idiots by into the US vs THEM attitude of Republicans and Democrats...*

Do you ever stay on topic?:roll:

Right now 50% of the populace (not just the voting populace) would be behind Mitt Romney if it wasn't for the frindge outside idiots of the Republican Party, who say stupid things like rape is a blessing, or back in my day women used aspirin between their legs as birth control... that scares off 10-15% of the people who call themselves Democrats, but arent the idiot liberals... Similarly, John Kerry would've been president if it wasn't for 10-15% of the people who identify as Republicans who saw Kerry's statements like Global Warming is the #1 issue to deal with... really... #1... the #1 issue the US Government's Executive needs to handle is "Global Warming"?!?!?!? I'm a heavy environmentalist that is in the process of starting an environmental non-profit company... That still finds that statement ludicrous...

Who gives a **** about Kerry?

So, instead of uniting the 30% of the Democratic Party and 30% of the Republican Party... we get the BS stalemates that we saw this time around... arguing about ignorant buzzword topics like birth control pills and planned parenthood subsidies... as if that was the important decision of this election... wow... blind idiots... which leads us to the last point...

Try and focus on the post that you quoted.

Lastly, it's more impressive winning the mid-term elections... because it reflects the more informed and politically active participants... mid-term elections have their own statistical averages for high and low voter turn-out... but they're much lower than the presidential elections, which turn into a mockery of political relevance... People show up in greatest number to presidential elections that have no clue who candidates are, what issues are being voted on, what the positions of the people in the offices they vote for are expected to do in office, etc. It becomes a popularity contest... not a decision on anything political...

WTF...already on mid-terms?:crazy3:

Whereas, the mid-term elections involve people that know there is an election being held, that their local Congressional Rep, Senator, etc. are running, and then they decide on what's good for their area... These are the more informed voters who are voting on issues... issues they care about enough to show up, when the entire media circus and celeb get out the vote campaigns aren't there to remind you... but you still get to the polls and cast a ballot... That's more impressive...