2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Plantae]

The thought did cross my mind. Most people assumed that was the reason why Bush the Elder went with Quayle, and we all know how THAT turned out.

On one hand, I can see things going that way, especially if picking Ryan wins Romney Wisconsin. However, I'd be careful with that comparison; Barack Obama is no Michael Dukakis. If Obama's attack on Ryan's budget proposals ramps up, voters might turn against him pretty quickly.

But maybe Obama should have ditched Biden for Eva Longoria or something.

[Blademaster]

I'd prefer an attractive young star to some washed-up has-been.

Well fuck you too!

[Plantae]

Well fuck you too!

Made me laugh. Mad face is a nice touch.

Sorry, Roy. In my rush to make Star Wars jokes, I forgot about these earlier comments. Also, as a side note, as much of a time-sink as this debate must be, it is at least helping me understand the nuances of political media, haha.

Of which she had no proof, and was found to be utterly false.

And I agree. But I think the assertion that "Mitt Romney is a felon" is Obama's attack line is false.

There is not even a political comparison to be made, one is to suggest the candidate's biggest victory was one in which he had little to do with it, the other is suggesting the candidate is a accessory to murder. There is NO comparison to be made.

There is a comparison. If we were to believe the false ads that suggest that Obama was not involved in the operation, and moreover, that his Administration leaked information that led to the arrest of a Pakistani spy (which was also alleged), that significantly damages his image in foreign policy. Thinking of Romney as involved in some sort of negligence is also quite damaging. I'll acquiesce that being seen as a murderer is probably worse than being seen as a failed terrorist-hunter. But I'm not sure that's the comparison here.

No one called Romney an accessory to murder. To the extent that any such (false) charge is made, it is implied to be non-criminal negligence, not homicide. No one could possibly listen to that ad and come to the conclusion that Romney was directly responsible for a woman's death. If they do, I doubt their intelligence.

Obama is not responsible for an ad placed by a Super PAC. And he's also not responsible for going on a witch hunt to disprove some typical, overblown political allegation. The idea that he would do so is ludicrous, as Romney definitely wouldn't do the same for him. It should be more than enough that Obama rejected the fallacious claim that the ad suggests.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2...ry-131577.html

So you're falsely accusing the Obama campaign of collusion with a Super PAC, similar to the way that Stephanie Cutter falsely accused Romney of lying to the SEC? Which one are you today, the pot or the kettle?

Except if one is to portray himself as Post Partisan despite what Congress does, that does not give them the right to suddenly do a about face and turn on the nastiness. Furthermore it is perfectly right to call the person out about such a about face.

You can call him nasty if you like. I'm just saying that calling it a "betrayal" is an exaggeration. And either way it probably doesn't matter too much to the coming election.

Except not every drill was made by the same company, nor drilled the same way, why should they be effected when they have no ties to what happened? Is not such a blanket moratorium excessive?

Does that apply to all the drilling sites? Or to a selected few?

Except that is a false dichotomy, a proper moratorium could be in place that targets the rigs that could be in danger, while allowing for the rigs not in danger to keep going.

I don't see how it could be that easy to determine which rigs are in danger. What exactly does a "proper moratorium" constitute? That seems pretty vague to me.

As far as I can tell, the danger is not just the equipment on each particular rig, but also the protocols and safety regulations involved in deep sea drilling in general. I'm not sure how you would even start to identify which rigs posed the most danger without first halting operation to carry out an inspection. The problem clearly isn't just purely physical; it's also operational. Figuring out where there might be both mechanical and human error takes time. Six months? On all 33 rigs? I'm not sure. I'll admit that I'm not qualified to answer that. But it's certainly not a split decision based on existing criteria.

And I don't see why it matters which company built the rig. The problem seems to be pretty general. Why should we assume that there's no risk to the rigs of other companies just because they have a different name on the side?

As opposed if some of those rigs move, in which case the jobs may never come back and those towns that are hurting for a season or two, dry up completely.

And those fisheries might never recover either. Again, there's a risk in taking either approach. It's not an easy decision.

No.. decreasing gas prices is a matter of how much supply is on the market, and seeing how demand is not going to be reduced anytime soon, the only choice we have is to increase the amount on the market from friendly sources.

By the way the U.S. actually has a significant amount of oil, far more than the 2% that the Democrats would like you to believe.

My point is that our supply is too small to be significant, and will remain small for the foreseeable future.

The Rand Corporation doesn't seem to understand the distinction between technically recoverable oil and economically recoverable oil. The latter, which is actually feasible to recover, is estimated at around 70 billion barrels by the Minerals Management Service. But even if Obama started funneling money into oil production today, there would probably be a 10-year project delay. And even then, 70 billion barrels might not significantly affect gas prices.

Actually, even if there were a trillion barrels of economically recoverable oil, ramping up research and development now won't translate to a drop in gas prices in the immediate or near future. However many new leases Obama might open today, there is no way we will see a significant change in gas prices due to domestic oil production within the next decade.

And the assurance from that is what? She can say what ever she wants, the fact that she has the ability to gut the program says otherwise.

No, it doesn't. There's no way to tell whether or not she would remove the work requirement until she does it. All we have is her assurances as of this moment. But consider the political fallout. Even if she would consider removing the work requirement, she certainly won't be doing it any time soon. As I pointed out several replies earlier, this is essentially an issue of whether or not to trust that HHS will issue waivers only under rigorous guidelines. Neither opinion can be proven without evidence. As it is, there's certainly nothing here to support the accusation that Obama wants to gut welfare reform. Because there's not much to support either conclusion. What's certainly untrue is that the work requirement has already been "gutted" by the Obama Administration. No such thing has occurred. Last time I checked, the work requirement is currently still in place.

The closure was planned no doubt, but you would think with Obama's promise to keep the plant open, and the fact that the U.S. did so much for GM, that he would have worked to keep his promise to those workers, as the Government did help the company.

Obama did not make this promise. His remarks are freely available, and they do not say this. This is merely how they have been interpreted by Paul Ryan. And you can't tell me that Obama is responsible for saving every GM Plant in existence.

t should be noted that because of the lag time in payments, reduction in payments, etc etc before Obamacare even started, has caused doctors to begin to turn away patients. A further reduction in hospital reimbursements could see the same happen.

I'm aware. This seems to me to be a problem of the timescale of implementation. This will hopefully be alleviated once more Americans are insured.

Seeing how your post was a Red Haring [sic] as it had nothing to do with the actual ratings of the network, lets continue on shall we?

You're right. It doesn't have anything to do with the ratings of the network (unfortunately). I was just expressing my hope that Fox News viewers might turn to a more appropriate channel for their information (which they won't).

The evidence is based on voter rolls and changes from state to state. As I said you can find evidence, not hearsay, but actual evidence of voter fraud changing close elections. Now will it effect blow outs? No. But in some of the closest down ballot elections, it can make all the difference.

Citation needed. I can't find appropriate data to test this claim.

[Roy Karrde]

On the subject of likeability, Roy, I assume you don't find Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan to be at all an attempt to cater to those types of voters? As I understand it, the opinion of him on the street is that he's rather dreamy (though sorry, girls, he's married!).

No I honestly do not think that he picked him because of his looks ( BTW I hate his nose ), there are many beautiful people in the GOP right now, but many of them are not ready for prime time. If Mitt picked some one that was all looks but not ready, he would be slammed as picking another Sarah Palin. On the other hand Paul Ryan has proven his smarts, he has been called one of if not the smartest person in Washington. He shows that at the campaign stump.

BTW I figured I would add this:

Things heard at a Klan Convention according to Dark Sage: And on a personal note, a little girl grows up in Jim Crow Birmingham. The segregated city of the south where her parents cannot take her to a movie theater or to restaurants, but they have convinced that even if she cannot have it hamburger at Woolworths, she can be the president of the United States if she wanted to be, and she becomes the secretary of state.

[kurai]

A Brief Meta-Review On Voter Fraud

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) requires the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to study a host of topics, including “voting fraud” and “voter intimidation.” In 2005, EAC embarked on an initial review of the existing knowledge of voting fraud and voter intimidation. The goal of that study was to develop a working definition of “voting fraud” and “voter intimidation” and to identify research methodology to conduct a comprehensive, nationwide study of these topics. EAC staff along with two, bipartisan consultants reviewed the existing information available about voting fraud and voter intimidation, including reading articles, books and reports; interviewing subject matter experts; reviewing media reports of fraud and intimidation; and studying reported cases of prosecutions of these types of crimes. It is clear from this review that there is a great deal of debate on the pervasiveness of fraud in elections as well as what constitute the most common acts of fraud or intimidation. There is also no apparent consensus on the meaning of the phrases “voting fraud” and “voter intimidation.” Some think of voting fraud and voter intimidation only as criminal acts, while others include actions that may constitute civil wrongs, civil rights violations, and even legal activities.

In order to facilitate future study of these topics, EAC developed a working definition of “election crimes.” “Election crimes” are intentional acts or willful failures to act, prohibited by state or federal law, that are designed to cause ineligible persons to participate in the election process; eligible persons to be excluded from the election process; ineligible votes to be cast in an election; eligible votes not to be cast or counted; or other interference with or invalidation of election results. Election crimes generally fall into one of four categories: acts of deception, acts of coercion, acts of damage or destruction, and failures or refusals to act. From EAC’s review of existing information on the issue, it was apparent that there have been a number of studies that touched on various topics and regions of the country concerning voting fraud and intimidation, but that there had never been a comprehensive, nationwide study of these topics. EAC will conduct further research to provide a comprehensive, nationwide look at “election crimes.” Future EAC study of this topic will focus on election-related, criminal activity and will not include acts that are exclusively civil wrongs, campaign finance violations, and violations of ethical laws and regulations. EAC will study these concepts by surveying the states’ chief election officials about complaints they received, election crime investigation units regarding complaints received and those referred to law enforcement, and law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies regarding complaints received, charges filed, and final disposition of each complaint.

[...]

To begin our study of voting fraud and voter intimidation, EAC consultants reviewed the current body of information on voting fraud and voter intimidation. The information available about these issues comes largely from a very limited body of reports, articles, and books. There are volumes of case law and statutes in the various states that also impact our understanding of what actions or inactions are legally considered fraud or intimidation. Last, there is anecdotal information available through media reports and interviews with persons who have administered elections, prosecuted fraud, and studied these problems. All of these resources were used by EAC consultants to provide an introductory look at the available knowledge of voting fraud and voter intimidation.

[list of reference material]

During our review of these documents, we learned a great deal about the type of research that has been conducted in the past concerning voting fraud and voter intimidation. None of the studies or reports was based on a comprehensive, nationwide study, survey or review of all allegations, prosecutions or convictions of state or federal crimes related to voting fraud or voter intimidation in the United States. Most reports focused on a limited number of case studies or instances of alleged voting fraud or voter intimidation. For example, “Shattering the Myth: An Initial Snapshot of Voter Disenfranchisement in the 2004 Elections,” a report produced by the People for the American Way, focused exclusively on citizen reports of fraud or intimidation to the Election Protection program during the 2004 Presidential election. Similarly, reports produced annually by the Department of Justice, Public Integrity Division, deal exclusively with crimes reported to and prosecuted by the United States Attorneys and/or the Department of Justice through the Public Integrity Section.

It is also apparent from a review of these articles and books that there is no consensus on the pervasiveness of voting fraud and voter intimidation. Some reports, such as “Building Confidence in U.S. Elections,” suggest that there is little or no evidence of extensive fraud in U.S. elections or of multiple voting. This conflicts directly with other reports, such as the “Preliminary Findings of Joint Task Force Investigating Possible Election Fraud,” produced by the Milwaukee Police Department, Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office, FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office. That report cited evidence of more than 100 individual instances of suspected double-voting, voting in the name of persons who likely did not vote, and/or voting using a name believed to be fake.

[...]

In addition to reviewing prior studies and reports on voting fraud and intimidation, EAC consultants interviewed a number of persons regarding their experiences and research of voting fraud and voter intimidation. Persons interviewed included:

[list of persons]

These interviews in large part confirmed the conclusions that were gleaned from the articles, reports and books that were analyzed. For example, the interviewees largely agreed that absentee balloting is subject to the greatest proportion of fraudulent acts, followed by vote buying and voter registration fraud. They similarly pointed to voter registration drives by nongovernmental groups as a source of fraud, particularly when the workers are paid per registration. Many asserted that impersonation of voters is probably the least frequent type of fraud because it is the most likely type of fraud to be discovered, there are stiff penalties associated with this type of fraud, and it is an inefficient method of influencing an election.

[...]

Consultants reviewed more than 40,000 cases that were identified using a series of search terms related to voting fraud and voter intimidation. The majority of these cases came from courts of appeal. This is not surprising, since most cases that are publicly reported come from courts of appeal. Very few cases that are decided at the district court level are reported for public review. Very few of the identified cases were applicable to this study. Of those that were applicable, no apparent thematic pattern emerged. However, it did seem that the greatest number of cases reported on fraud and intimidation have shifted from past patterns of stealing votes to present problems with voter registration, voter identification, the proper delivery and counting of absentee and overseas ballots, provisional voting, vote buying, and challenges to felon eligibility.

[...]

EAC consultants reviewed thousands of media reports concerning a w potential voting fraud or voter intimidation, including:

• absentee ballot fraud,
• voter registration fraud,
• voter intimidation and suppression,
• deceased voters on voter registration list and/or voting,
• multiple voting,
• felons voting,
• non-citizens voting,
• vote buying,
• deceptive practices, and
• fraud by election officials.

While these reports showed that there were a large number of allegations of voting fraud and voter intimidation, they provided much less information as to whether the allegations were ever formalized as complaints to law enforcement, whether charges were filed, whether prosecutions ensued, and whether any convictions were made. The media reports were enlightening regarding the pervasiveness of complaints of fraud and intimidation throughout the country, the correlation between fraud allegations and the perception that the state was a “battleground” or “swing” state, and the fact that there were reports of almost all types of voting fraud and voter intimidation. However, these reports do not provide much data for analysis as to the number of complaints, charges and prosecutions of voting fraud and intimidation throughout the country.

Election Crimes: An Initial Review and Recommendations for Future Study, December 2006. (U.S. Election Assistance Commission)

The Commission’s lack of fact-finding and the unbalanced perspectives of its contributors are prominent in several findings and recommendations about voter fraud in this report. The Commission majority asserts that voter fraud seriously weakens our political system (Finding 2), that no Congressional action should be taken to combat voter intimidation unless it also addresses voter fraud (Recommendation 7), and that all states should adopt a photo identification requirement for voting (Recommendation 9). Such assertions, unfortunately, are unsupported by the record and merely repeat politically-charged allegations.

It is common knowledge that Congressional and state Republicans have repeatedly stated that voter fraud is a grave problem and called for strict voter identification laws. Meanwhile, their Democratic counterparts have voiced concern that such laws will not stop the main types of fraud but could prevent elderly, Native American, indigent, and other eligible voters less likely to have official photo identification from having their votes counted. The Indiana Democratic Party, in fact, was one of the parties that recently challenged that state’s identification requirement and Federal Circuit Judges Posner and Evans wrote bluntly about the partisan implications of such a voter identification law. Perhaps, then, it won’t surprise many that all six of the Commission’s Republican- appointed Commissioners now say that voter fraud “seriously weakens” our political system, while I and my Democrat-appointed colleague reject this notion. Often lost in the partisanship around this issue, however, are the facts. It is to those facts that I hope readers will turn in discerning the truth about this highly politicized issue of voter fraud.

Voting rights experts of all stripes agree there is hardly any evidence in the United States of the kind of in-person voter fraud that photo identifications is meant to stop. Some, such as the two conservative speakers invited to the Commission briefing, claim that there “must be” such fraud and it just hasn’t been adequately investigated or discovered. Some, such as the moderate speaker at our briefing who helped develop the bipartisan Carter-Baker report, say that while there is little evidence of voter fraud, as a matter of political compromise any electoral reform must address this issue. Some, such as the lone progressive speaker who appeared before the Commission, think that problems like increasing voter turnout and addressing voter intimidation demand attention first. But no one can point to substantial evidence of in-person voter fraud or provide data showing it is a serious national problem. Our briefing did nothing to change this. In fact, there is little evidence that voter fraud of any kind constitutes a serious national problem, as my Republican-appointed colleagues have themselves stated more recently. On the contrary, the few reports and investigations of voter fraud launched in the last decade have mostly evaporated upon serious scrutiny. While any instance of voter fraud must be condemned and seriously redressed, we do a disservice to overstate the threat that fraud—particularly “in-person” voter fraud—poses compared to other barriers to participation in our voting system. In the absence of evidence that “in-person” voter fraud is a serious problem, I am concerned that calling for voter identification requirements will not stop ineligible voters but will stop eligible voters from having their vote counted.

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling allowing the Indiana legislature to try out a voter identification law, there will be intense scrutiny of whether implementation of that and similar laws results in excessive burdens on a class of voters. Six Justices signaled that they could revisit and strike down the Indiana voter identification law if in practice it results in denial of an equal opportunity to participate in the election process per Section 2 or has the purpose or effect of discriminating against minorities in Section 5 jurisdictions under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Objective, independent investigations (apparently, by someone other than our agency) will have to be done to determine whether these new voter identification laws specially burden classes of voters as implemented. However, based on what I have heard, I am very concerned that the implementation of such voter identification laws already is disenfranchising some eligible voters.

I am most familiar with how Native Americans can be specially burdened by voter identification laws because they live in rural areas, may not speak English, or may not even have birth records necessary to get photo identification. The 2006 experience of an elderly Navajo woman, Agnes Laughter, is particularly moving and informative of the problems with identification requirements. Agnes made a long journey from her reservation home to the Chilchinbeto Chapter House. She was greeted there in her Navajo language by people who knew her. But because she did not have the identification required by Arizona, she was only given a provisional ballot and told to return in three days. She protested that she simply could not obtain the necessary identification in such time and lacked transportation, but she was never given a regular ballot and never made any choices for her leaders. An affidavit further describing what happened to Agnes is attached to this statement. How many elders are effectively disfranchised by such voter identification laws in Native and minority communities? Are we willing to risk disfranchising eligible voters when we aren’t sure the barrier of voter identification laws is necessary?

The Commission did not use its authority to investigate whether in-person voter fraud is a significant problem or whether mandating the use of photo identification at polling places would do more harm than good. Instead, the Commission majority has referred to unspecified allegations of voter fraud and issued findings and recommendations without first establishing a factual basis. More than a missed opportunity, I fear that the Commission majority’s recommendation to require voter identification could lead to the disfranchisement of more minority voters like Agnes, whose civil rights this body was supposed to protect.

Briefing: Voter Fraud and Voter Intimidation, October 2006. (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights)

Fraud by individual voters is both irrational and extremely rare. Most citizens who take the time to vote offer their legitimate signatures and sworn oaths with the gravitas that this hard-won civic right deserves. Even for the few who view voting merely as a means to an end, however, voter fraud is a singularly foolish way to attempt to win an election. Each act of voter fraud risks five years in prison and a $10,000 fine – but yields at most one incremental vote. The single vote is simply not worth the price. Because voter fraud is essentially irrational, it is not surprising that no credible evidence suggests a voter fraud epidemic. There is no documented wave or trend of individuals voting multiple times, voting as someone else, or voting despite knowing that they are ineligible. Indeed, evidence from the microscopically scrutinized 2004 gubernatorial election in Washington State actually reveals just the opposite: though voter fraud does happen, it happens approximately 0.0009% of the time. The similarly closely-analyzed 2004 election in Ohio revealed a voter fraud rate of 0.00004%. National Weather Service data shows that Americans are struck and killed by lightning about as often.

Many vivid anecdotes of purported voter fraud have been proven false or do not demonstrate fraud. Although there are a few scattered instances of real voter fraud, many of the vivid anecdotes cited in accounts of voter fraud have been proven false or vastly overstated. In Missouri in 2000, for example, the Secretary of State claimed that 79 voters were registered with addresses at vacant lots, but subsequent investigation revealed that the lots in question actually housed valid and legitimate residences. Similarly, a 1995 investigation into votes allegedly cast in Baltimore by deceased voters and those with disenfranchising felony convictions revealed that the voters in question were both alive and felony-free. Many of the inaccurate claims result from lists of voters compared to other lists – of deceased individuals, persons with felony convictions, voters in other states, etc. These attempts to match information often yield predictable errors. In Florida in 2000, a list of purged voters later became notorious when it was discovered that the “matching” process captured eligible voters with names similar to – but decidedly different from – the names of persons with felony convictions, sometimes in other states entirely. A 2005 attempt to identify supposed double voters in New Jersey mistakenly accused people with similar names but whose middle names or suffixes were clearly different, such as “J.T. Kearns, Jr.” and “J.T. Kearns, Sr.,” of being the same person. Even when names and birthdates match across lists, that does not mean there was voter fraud. Elementary statistics students are often surprised to learn that it is more likely than not that among just 23 individuals, two will share a birthday. Similar statistics show that for most reasonably common names, it is extremely likely that at least two people with the same name in a state will share the same date of birth. The ostensible “matches” may not represent the same person at all. Other allegations of fraudulent voting often turn out to be the result of common clerical errors, incomplete information, or faulty assumptions. Most allegations of voter fraud simply evaporate when more rigorous analysis is conducted.

Voter fraud is often conflated with other forms of election misconduct. It is extremely rare for individuals to vote multiple times, vote as someone else, or vote despite knowing that they are ineligible. These rare occurrences, however, are often conflated with other forms of election irregularities or misconduct, under the misleading and overbroad label of “voter fraud.” Some of these other irregularities result from honest mistakes by election officials or voters, such as confusion as to whether a particular person is actually eligible to vote. Some irregularities result from technological glitches, whether sinister or benign: for example, voting machines may record inaccurate tallies. And some involve fraud or intentional misconduct perpetrated by actors other than individual voters: for example, flyers may spread misinformation about the proper locations or procedures for voting; thugs may be dispatched to intimidate voters at the polls; missing ballot boxes may mysteriously reappear. These more common forms of misconduct are simply not addressed by the supposed “anti-fraud” measures generally proposed. Raising the unsubstantiated specter of mass voter fraud suits a particular policy agenda. Voter fraud is most often invoked as a substantial problem in order to justify particular election policies. Chief among these is the proposal that individuals be required to show photo ID in order to vote – a policy that disenfranchises up to 10% of eligible citizens. But the only misconduct that photo ID addresses is the kind of voter fraud that happens as infrequently as death by lightning. Therefore, it suits those who prefer photo ID as a policy to lump as much misconduct in with “voter fraud” as possible, to create the impression that the problem is far more significant than it actually is. Moreover, to the extent photo ID is suggested as a solution to the perception that voter fraud occurs, it behooves those who prefer photo ID to reinforce the unsubstantiated perception that voter fraud exists.

Policy Brief on the Truth About “Voter Fraud”, September 2006. (Brennan Center for Justice, NYU School Of Law)

Election Fraud Offenses Prosecuted, Oct. 2002 - Sep. 2005:

PERSONS CHARGED: 95
CONVICTIONS: 55
DISMISSALS BY THE GOVERNMENT: 8
ACQUITTALS: 5

Ballot Access & Voting Integrity Initiative: Election Fraud Prosecutions & Convictions, September 2005. (U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Public Integrity Section)

[Dark Sage]

Things heard at a Klan Convention according to Dark Sage: And on a personal note, a little girl grows up in Jim Crow Birmingham. The segregated city of the south where her parents cannot take her to a movie theater or to restaurants, but they have convinced that even if she cannot have it hamburger at Woolworths, she can be the president of the United States if she wanted to be, and she becomes the secretary of state.

Nice. They did a great job on showing the difference in what we can expect with a Romney-Ryan Win. When the only speaker who said anything honest and sincere at all at this Convention is the black woman who worked for someone they did not even invite (Bush), then the irony of it all just jumps out at you, doesn't it??

And btw, wasn't Ms. Rice a good friend of Mr. Ghaddafi while Bush supported his regime? Not that this has much to do with it, but just saying...

[Gavin Luper]

And btw, wasn't Ms. Rice a good friend of Mr. Ghaddafi while Bush supported his regime? Not that this has much to do with it, but just saying...

Not that I see how this topic serves any argument at all in this thread, but this rings a bell. Didn't Gaddafi have a thing for Condaleeza Rice?

[Dark Sage]

Not that I see how this topic serves any argument at all in this thread, but this rings a bell. Didn't Gaddafi have a thing for Condaleeza Rice?

Yeah, according to his journals, he had a big crush on her. But then again, he was insane.

[Plantae]

Election Fraud Offenses Prosecuted, Oct. 2002 - Sep. 2005:

PERSONS CHARGED: 95
CONVICTIONS: 55
DISMISSALS BY THE GOVERNMENT: 8
ACQUITTALS: 5

So the basic idea here is that there are many types of election offenses, but those that fail under the actual definition of "voter fraud," which is what the requirement of a photo ID is designed to stop, make up a very small minority and are so rare that they are essentially inconsequential? If that's the case, then the "voter fraud" laws that have been proposed are both unsubstantiated and inadequate in addressing more important election offenses.

On the other hand Paul Ryan has proven his smarts, he has been called one of if not the smartest person in Washington. He shows that at the campaign stump.

I'm not about to call him the smartest person alive. Certainly, his budget plan shows a lack of foresight. But he's certainly better than Sarah Palin. I'm still not sure, though, that it wouldn't have been wiser for Mitt Romney to pick someone like Marco Rubio.

And btw, wasn't Ms. Rice a good friend of Mr. Ghaddafi while Bush supported his regime?

Support his regime would be a little strong here. Taking someone off the list of nations that support terrorism still doesn't scream friendship. Bush held Libya at arm's length. He just normalized relations with them so that the CIA could use their country for the extraordinary rendition program (allegedly).

[Roy Karrde]

Nice. They did a great job on showing the difference in what we can expect with a Romney-Ryan Win. When the only speaker who said anything honest and sincere at all at this Convention is the black woman who worked for someone they did not even invite (Bush), then the irony of it all just jumps out at you, doesn't it??

She was the ONLY one who said something sincere at this convention? No wonder you are so clueless, you didn't watch any of it.

And btw, wasn't Ms. Rice a good friend of Mr. Ghaddafi while Bush supported his regime? Not that this has much to do with it, but just saying...

Gaddafi had a crush on her, but there is nothing to suggest that they were good friends.

And Plantae I will address your post later on tonight, got a lot of stuff to do today.

[Plantae]

She was the ONLY one who said something sincere at this convention? No wonder you are so clueless, you didn't watch any of it.

Sorry, Dark Sage, I'm with Roy on this one. There was sincerity in spades, probably even within the speeches that were a little blurry on the facts. On the other hand, good intentions aren't really enough here.

And Plantae I will address your post later on tonight, got a lot of stuff to do today.

This will be acceptable, Roy-san.

[Dark Sage]

Cheerfully withdrawn. But the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, as a wise man once said.

You know, Roy, I just realized... It's funny that you should compare Romney's upcoming advertising campaign to the Death Star...

If I remember correctly, both Death Stars proved to be failures, and the destruction of the second one played the biggest part in the fall of the Empire.

In the end, in fact, the Death Star became the symbol of the Empire's greatest fault: Their belief that technology could defeat human willpower. Kind of like the GOP's belief that money is the greatest force in the world, and that everything worth having can be bought, including votes.

Ross Perot would certainly disagree. He was the richest man who ever ran for President. Even then, people saw him as a joke.

[Roy Karrde]

Cheerfully withdrawn.

You know, Roy, I just realized... It's funny that you should compare Romney's upcoming advertising campaign to the Death Star...

If I remember correctly, both Death Stars proved to be failures, and the destruction of the second one played the biggest part in the fall of the Empire.

In the end, in fact, the Death Star became the symbol of the Empire's greatest fault: Their belief that technology could defeat human willpower. Kind of like the GOP's belief that money is the greatest force in the world, and that everything worth having can be bought, including votes.

Ross Perot would certainly disagree. He was the richest man who ever ran for President. Even then, people saw him as a joke.

You forget to note that money can buy alot of things, from advertising, to a GOTV effort, which is why noted Liberal Michael Moore last night said Liberals should get used to saying "President Romney" as he has clearly shown he can outraise Obama. And if last night was any indication, give a speech just on par with some of Obama's best.

But hey, now is the Democrats chance, which is looking like instead of being about Optimism and Hope like the Republican Convention, it will be about Abortion and Anger.

[Plantae]

If I remember correctly, both Death Stars proved to be failures, and the destruction of the second one played the biggest part in the fall of the Empire.

Hey, I already made the Star Wars jokes in this thread! This analogy obviously has a number of flaws. It's not as if only Republican party members are wealthy. All politicians are. It's a problem with politics in general that money buys ads and ads can buy influence. I think our country was founded on the intention of allowing a wider field of candidates than the current selection of political elites. And again, I'm talking about both parties here. When was the last time you saw a candidate that wasn't a lawyer? What happened to the engineers, the chemists, the teachers?

You forget to note that money can buy alot of things, from advertising, to a GOTV effort, which is why noted Liberal Michael Moore last night said Liberals should get used to saying "President Romney" as he has clearly shown he can outraise Obama. And if last night was any indication, give a speech just on par with some of Obama's best.

I have yet to see much noticeable effect from either of these factors. It's not like Romney is ahead in the polls by ten points. We can talk if his numbers are still up after the DNC.

But hey, now is the Democrats chance, which is looking like instead of being about Optimism and Hope like the Republican Convention, it will be about Abortion and Anger.

I don't think so. Barack Obama is wise enough to give a speech containing at least some optimism. (Also, the DNC slogan appears to currently be "We make it possible," and the official DNC website is plastered with statement about achieving a better future. Not exactly pessimistic.) But again, I suppose we'll see. And though I'll agree the general tone was at least directed toward hope, the RNC wasn't all flowers and sunshine either. Plenty of criticism and anger was thrown around.

[Dark Sage]

Yes Roy, he can outraise Obama because members of the 1% tend to support him, as he supports their interests.

The minorities that support Obama cannot afford the $500K donations or attend the $500-a-plate dinners that millionaires can afford out of pocket change.

[Roy Karrde]

I have yet to see much noticeable effect from either of these factors. It's not like Romney is ahead in the polls by ten points. We can talk if his numbers are still up after the DNC.

Umm you may have noticed that I said that Romney's Death $tar doesn't come alive till today, he did not have access to general election funds and the hundreds of millions of dollars within until he accepted the nomination.

And though I'll agree the general tone was at least directed toward hope, the RNC wasn't all flowers and sunshine either. Plenty of criticism and anger was thrown around.

True but even you have to admit, in terms of red meat, the RNC convention was lacking.

I don't think so. Barack Obama is wise enough to give a speech containing at least some optimism. But I guess we'll see.

I am sure he will, but I am speaking of the convention as a whole, I mean lets look at some of the speakers they will be throwing out at us.

Georgetown Law School Graduate Sandra Fluke
President of NARAL Pro-Choice America Nancy Keenan
Women’s rights activist Lilly Ledbetter
President of Planned Parenthood Action Fund Cecile Richards

The Democrats want to capitalize on Akin's remarks, but by now that is long forgotten.

Yes Roy, he can outraise Obama because members of the 1% tend to support him, as he supports their interests.

The minorities that support Obama cannot afford the $500K donations or attend the $500-a-plate dinners that millionaires can afford out of pocket change.

Is that why Obama outraised John McCain in 2008, and backed out of his promise to used Government Election Funds so that he could raise more money? Is that why Obama's team at the start of this campaign were floating the idea of him raising 1 billion dollars?

Jesus man, it's statements like these that make me wonder if you even remember the 2008 election.

[Dark Sage]

The Democrats want to capitalize on Akin's remarks, but by now that is long forgotten.

I beg to differ. This article was posted just today.

http://fremonttribune.com/news/opini...a4bcf887a.html

[Roy Karrde]

I beg to differ. This article was posted just today.

http://fremonttribune.com/news/opini...a4bcf887a.html

Yes because one article is a representation of the public's consciousness on a issue that happened a week ago ( On a Friday no doubt, which is the dead cycle in the News World ), and right before a MASSIVE political event.

[Plantae]

Umm you may have noticed that I said that Romney's Death $tar doesn't come alive till today, he did not have access to general election funds and the hundreds of millions of dollars within until he accepted the nomination.

The general election funds make up only a portion of the $180 million or so Romney had in cash-on-hand in the beginning of August. The same is also true of Barack Obama's general election funds, which won't be available until after the DNC; his total cash-on-hand is around $120 million. There is obviously a gap in fundraising. I'm just questioning whether it translates to a gap in the polls. This has not been proven yet. I also don't think McCain's failure as a candidate can be attributed much to fundraising; other factors (his platform, Sarah Palin, etc.) were more important.

True but even you have to admit, in terms of red meat, the RNC convention was lacking.

I did. I'm just saying that it wasn't all or even mostly lean meat.

The Democrats want to capitalize on Akin's remarks, but by now that is long forgotten.

It hasn't been that long yet. Harping on Akin's remarks (and women's rights in general) is still an effective strategy to get women voters out to the polls. Especially since public opinion on abortion exceptions has actually changed as a result of Akin's remarks.

Yes because one article is a representation of the public's consciousness on a issue that happened a week ago ( On a Friday no doubt, which is the dead cycle in the News World ), and right before a MASSIVE political event.

This poll is a more adequate representation of public consciousness on the issue. Also, this tends to be a pretty contentious issue for most women, regardless of the time period involved. Also, I don't think the Obama campaign is trying to target the sort of people that paid much attention to the RNC.

Is that why Obama outraised John McCain in 2008, and backed out of his promise to used Government Election Funds so that he could raise more money? Is that why Obama's team at the start of this campaign were floating the idea of him raising 1 billion dollars?

It's hard to say that Obama has less wealthy donors. But Romney does have more anonymous, super-wealthy Super PAC donors.

[Dark Sage]

Here's another one. From Fox News, no less:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...-akin-support/

[Roy Karrde]

The same is true of Barack Obama's general election funds, which won't be available until after the DNC. There is obviously a gap in fundraising. I'm just questioning whether it translates to a gap in the polls. This has not been proven yet. I also don't think McCain's failure as a candidate can be attributed much to fundraising; other factors (his platform, Sarah Palin, etc.) were more important.

Well you have to remember that Obama is running in the red right now, he is spending more money than he is taking in, largely because his entire campaign strategy was to define Romney before he could get the General Election funds, that has largely failed, now comes the Romney counter punch.

It hasn't been that long yet. Harping on Akin's remarks is an effective strategy to get women voters out to the polls. Because the subject of women's rights generally doesn't favor the GOP.

In terms of the things that have passed, from the convention, to a massive holiday weekend, it can be a eternity. Not to mention the Republican barrage to get women voters this week does take alot out of that strategy for Democrats.

This poll is a more adequate representation of public consciousness on the issue.

Umm dude, that poll was taken 10 days ago, by the time the Democratic Convention starts it would be over 2 weeks since the remarks even came out, and again as I noted, there has been ALOT that has happened in that timeframe.

It's hard to say that Obama has less wealthy donors. As noted, though, Romney does have more anonymous, super-wealthy Super PAC donors.

Obama could have those anonymous super-wealthy Super PAC donors, if he had actually taken a different strategy about Super PACs to begin with, and had not spent most of his Presidency attacking Wall Street. If Democrats are pouting about lack of Super PAC donors, then they have no one but themselves to blame.

[Plantae]

Well you have to remember that Obama is running in the red right now, he is spending more money than he is taking in, largely because his entire campaign strategy was to define Romney before he could get the General Election funds, that has largely failed, now comes the Romney counter punch.

Cash-in-hand is still cash-in-hand. There's a plan B, I'm sure. Though yes, a Romney counter-punch is forthcoming.

In terms of the things that have passed, from the convention, to a massive holiday weekend, it can be a eternity. Not to mention the Republican barrage to get women voters this week does take alot out of that strategy for Democrats.

See my edited comments in the previous post. It's easy to pander to women on issues like abortion. Trust me, they won't forget Akin's seeming callousness.

Umm dude, that poll was taken 10 days ago, by the time the Democratic Convention starts it would be over 2 weeks since the remarks even came out, and again as I noted, there has been ALOT that has happened in that timeframe.

My point is that public opinion on this issue now favors the platform of the Democratic Party. Regardless of Akin's remarks, drawing attention to this issue is an effective strategy.

Obama could have those anonymous super-wealthy Super PAC donors, if he had actually taken a different strategy about Super PACs to begin with, and had not spent most of his Presidency attacking Wall Street. If Democrats are pouting about lack of Super PAC donors, then they have no one but themselves to blame.

Sorry, my intention was to illustrate that Romney probably does have more donors in the 1% than Barack Obama does. By the numbers. Which, as you say, is because Obama has a less familiar relationship with Wall Street.

[Roy Karrde]

My point is that public opinion on this issue now favors the platform of the Democratic Party. Regardless of Akin's remarks, drawing attention to this issue is an effective strategy.

That is unless after a long holiday weekend, and a convention featuring many prominent women, that the public looks at it and goes "This again? Can't we get to the important things?" The thing is the Democrats have to sell that not only that the Akin remarks are still relevant two weeks after they happened, but that it applies to a party that had many speeches geared straight toward women. Last night a prominent Democratic Strategist made the point that it is better to have the first convention than the second, because it is almost impossible to course correct such a large event. The same can be said for the Democrats thinking that they can create a convention with a large theme about abortion ( Something that ranks very low in the polls ) but fail to realize that the Republicans were going to come out swinging with a massive push for women.

Sorry, my intention was to illustrate that Romney probably does have more donors in the 1% than Barack Obama does. By the numbers. Which, as you say, is because Obama has a less familiar relationship with Wall Street.

Yes, but to be fair Obama had more donars from the 1% than McCain did in 2008. Obama's campaign against the rich are biting him in the ass.

[kurai]

So the basic idea here is that there are many types of election offenses, but those that fail under the actual definition of "voter fraud," which is what the requirement of a photo ID is designed to stop, make up a very small minority and are so rare that they are essentially inconsequential? If that's the case, then the "voter fraud" laws that have been proposed are both unsubstantiated and inadequate in addressing more important election offenses.

yes, that is what the data suggests. ID-related agitation and actual instances of voter fraud have become highly conflated.

for example, we can examine Michael Walsh's editorial in the New York Post (August 2012):

The vote of one idiot can cancel out the vote of a single genius — such is the glory of our one-man, one-vote system. But what about the vote of an illegal alien? The deceased? Or a convicted felon? Should they be allowed to spoil the electoral process — and perhaps change history?

And why — in the name of “civil rights” — is Attorney General Eric Holder using the power of the Justice Department to hamstring states trying to put a stop to voter fraud by requiring a secure ID in order to vote?

The answer is clear: In an election that promises to be every bit as close as Bush v. Gore in 2000, each side is going to need every vote it can get. And one way, historically, that Democrats have been able to swing close elections is through fraud. Consider:

* In the 2004 Washington state governor’s race, the Republican’s early lead was overcome by the miraculous discovery of previously uncounted ballots squirreled away in the Democratic stronghold of Seattle, handing the election to the Democrat.

* In the close governor’s race in Connecticut in 2010, a mysterious shortage of ballots in Bridgeport kept the polls open an extra two hours as allegedly blank ballots were photocopied and handed out in the heavily Democratic city. Dannel Malloy defeated Republican Tom Foley by nearly 7,000 votes statewide — but by almost 14,000 votes in Bridgeport.

* Now a new book — “Who’s Counting?” by John Fund and Hans von Spakovsky — charges that Al Franken’s 2008 defeat of incumbent Republican Sen. Norm Coleman may be directly attributable to felons voting illegally.

Coleman led on election night, but a series of recounts lasting eight months eventually gave the seat to the former Saturday Night Live star.

Later, a conservative watchdog group matched criminal records with the voting rolls and discovered that 1,099 felons had illegally cast ballots. State law mandates prosecutions in such cases; 177 have been convicted so far, with 66 more awaiting trial.

Franken’s eventual margin of “victory”? A mere 312 votes.

on examination:

item 1 has nothing to do with voter ID but rather attempts to describe alleged corruption among election officials. evidently, no indictments followed.

item 2 also has nothing to do with voter ID, and does not actually appear to allege anything problematic. if there is a shortage of ballots, should not more ballots be provided? is it actually suspicious that a heavily democratic city voted heavily for the democratic candidate? also, no indictments.

item 3 has some obvious conceptual and mathematical problems. we begin at 1099 "illegally cast ballots", but suddenly fall to 243 prosecutable crimes. if we take the reported data to be valid and fully informed, this was less than the margin of victory. as the 1099 number likely arose from misuse of data (it is not illegal for felons to vote in minnesota once their sentences have been completed, and as cited below, this starting figure is not even correct), we must also question the categorization of those 243 offenses. additionally, this entire premise has nothing to do with voter ID: felon status is not listed on one's identification, and thus such requirements would not stop illegal actions at registration or ballot time.

let us consider the relevance of the 243 offenses in the legitimization of voter ID legislation:

The survey gathered data regarding seven types of voting issues:

1. Voter Impersonation. The total number of voters investigated for voter impersonation (7) and the total number of 2008 voters (2,921,498), allows us to see that the total percentage of all voters who were investigated for voter impersonation was 0.0002%. No one was convicted. County Attorneys did not express a concern about voter impersonation.

2. Double Voting. In regards to double voting, a total of 165 voters, or 0.0056% of 2008 voters, were investigated for this reason. No one was convicted and, as noted earlier, in some cases, such as in Anoka County, upon investigation, they determined that individuals with the same name and birth date were, in fact, separate people.

3. Non-Citizens Voting. A total of 9 voters, or 0.0003% of 2008 voters, were investigated for this reason. No one was convicted. And, while Nobles County reported others had expressed this particular concern, County Attorneys did not express a concern about this issue.

4. Under-age Voting. One voter, or 0.00003% of 2008 voters, was investigated for this reason. No one was convicted. County Attorneys did not express a concern about this issue.

5. Voting outside of jurisdiction. A total of 56 voters or 0.0019% of 2008 voters were investigated for this reason. No one was convicted. County Attorneys did not express a concern about this issue.

6. Felon Voting. A total of 1,179 voters (or 0.0404% of 2008 voters) were investigated for this reason. Based on the date that the survey was received, 26 convictions or 0.0009% of all 2008 voters were convicted for this reason. The 26 convictions represent 2.21% of all investigations into felon voting. However, not all investigations were completed when the survey was returned to us.

7. Coercion of voters with disabilities or who are vulnerable. Neither were there investigations into this nor were there expressions of concerns from County Attorneys.

There were a total of 1,581 (or 0. 0541% of 2008) voters who were investigated for ineligible voting and possible voter fraud. Based on the data, voter impersonation is not an issue in Minnesota. Thus, a photo identification requirement is unnecessary.

Facts About Ineligible Voting and Voter Fraud in Minnesota, November 2010. (Citizens for Election Integrity Minnesota)

the conclusions to be drawn about walsh's argument are obvious.

as similar arguments are being advanced in the push for voter ID legislation, it is necessary to critically examine which problem such an effort is attempting to solve. if there are negative side-effects to the prevention of a trivial issue, why act at all? why act in 2012?

[i am compiling a number of recent sources on such side-effects to be posted at a later time]

[Plantae]

That is unless after a long holiday weekend, and a convention featuring many prominent women, that the public looks at it and goes "This again? Can't we get to the important things?" The thing is the Democrats have to sell that not only that the Akin remarks are still relevant two weeks after they happened, but that it applies to a party that had many speeches geared straight toward women. Last night a prominent Democratic Strategist made the point that it is better to have the first convention than the second, because it is almost impossible to course correct such a large event. The same can be said for the Democrats thinking that they can create a convention with a large theme about abortion ( Something that ranks very low in the polls ) but fail to realize that the Republicans were going to come out swinging with a massive push for women.

The Republican Convention did have many prominent women, but what are their approval ratings by the general public? Are they even relevant to the public consciousness? My point is that abortion rights may rank very low in polls of election interest, but they're much more important to women.

Akin's remarks ignited a firestorm, but they're only relevant in the sense that they give the Democrats an excuse to bring up the issue. I would agree, though, that such a strategy is not likely to result in significant gains for the Obama campaign.

But even if the Republicans come out swinging as hard as they can, their platform will never be acceptable to the majority of women. Don't expect Romney to achieve much headway in this regard. It may be logical to assume that neither side will sway many new women voters.

Yes, but to be fair Obama had more donars [sic] from the 1% than McCain did in 2008. Obama's campaign against the rich are biting him in the ass.

Yes, he did. And yes, campaigning against Wall Street and the rich does tend to result in less donations from Wall Street and the rich. But I think party affiliation also plays a role here.

[Roy Karrde]

The Republican Convention did have many prominent women, but what are their approval ratings by the general public? Are they even relevant to the public consciousness? My point is that abortion rights may rank very low in polls of election interest, but they're much more important to women.

I believe both Ann Romney, and Condi Rice, or atleast Ann Romney has very very high approval ratings, but then again Candidates Wives usually do.

Edit: Condi Rice has a high rating as well.

Akin's remarks ignited a firestorm, but they're only relevant in the sense that they give the Democrats an excuse to bring up the issue. I would agree, though, that such a strategy is not likely to result in significant gains for the Obama campaign.

They ignited a firestorm for Akin, something that is even now starting to die down, its harder to take what Akin said and attribute it to the whole GOP after this week.

But even if the Republicans come out swinging as hard as they can, their platform will never be acceptable to the majority of women. Don't expect Romney to achieve much headway in this regard. It may be logical assume that neither side will sway any women voters to their side.

To young college women? No probably not. To Married Women? To Mothers? That is a different story. Especially since non College Educated women, the Democrats advantage has slipped from 20... to 8, and still in free fall.

Yes, he did. And yes, campaigning against Wall Street and the rich does tend to result in less donations from Wall Street and the rich. But I think party affiliation also plays a role here.

If Party Affiliation played such a role then Obama would not have been raking it in from Wall Street and the Rich back in 2008.

[Plantae]

I believe both Ann Romney, and Condi Rice, or atleast Ann Romney has very very high approval ratings, but then again Candidates Wives usually do.

Edit: Condi Rice has a high rating as well.

I think Ann Romney is good for Mitt's image as a family man. But her views don't represent most women. And yes, she's a candidate wife, so she gets a free pass. Michelle Obama's approval ratings are much higher than Ann Romney's.

Condi's not going to draw the woman vote anymore than she draws the black vote.

As for Akin's remarks, the point here is that the majority of women favor abortion, and the super-majority of women at least favor abortion exceptions. And I think there are some who don't trust Romney at his word that he does support them, considering Ryan is his running mate.

If Party Affiliation played such a role then Obama would not have been raking it in from Wall Street and the Rich back in 2008.

I said it was a factor, not the deciding factor. The 2008 Election involved different concerns than this one.

as similar arguments are being advanced in the push for voter ID legislation, it is necessary to critically examine which problem such an effort is attempting to solve. if there are negative side-effects to the prevention of a trivial issue, why act at all? why act in 2012?

So the data doesn't support Voter ID legislation. Good to know.

[Roy Karrde]

I think Ann Romney is good for Mitt's image as a family man. But her views don't represent most women. And yes, she's a candidate wife, so she gets a free pass. Michelle Obama's approval ratings are much higher than Ann Romney's.

One could say that her views represent those of wives and mothers, something Romney does need to court.

As for Akin's remarks, the point here is that the majority of women favor abortion, and the super-majority of women at least favor abortion exceptions. And I think there are some who don't trust Romney at his word that he does support them, considering Ryan is his running mate.

Except as we have already gone through here, even Ryan has supported abortion exceptions.

But here is the thing, is abortion really the primary concern for voters? Polls say no.

[Dark Sage]

I'd like to make a point that one of my Facebook friends brought up.

Four years ago, the GOP was as enthusiastic about Palin as they are about Ryan now.

Today, they didn't even invite Palin to the RNC.

[Plantae]

One could say that her views represent those of wives and mothers, something Romney does need to court.

Except as we have already gone through here, even Ryan has supported abortion exceptions.

But here is the thing, is abortion really the primary concern for voters? Polls say no.

Yes, Ann Romney does represent some wives and mothers. But probably not enough.

Ryan has supported abortion exceptions, but rather feebly. Again, I think women voters are concerned that he might not be telling the full truth. Personally, I think Mitt Romney means it when he says he supports the exceptions; but I don't think the public necessarily perceives it that way.

Abortion is not a primary concern for voters. But it is a large concern for many woman voters especially.

[Roy Karrde]

Yes, Ann Romney does represent some wives and mothers. But probably not enough.

Seeing how Obama's numbers with them are already in free fall, if Ann Romney can get 5-6% or even 10% to switch their vote, that would push Romney over the top.

Ryan has supported abortion exceptions, but rather feebly.

He did so with Incest and Forceable Rape, I would not count those as feeble, especially since one of the big talking points of Democrats is that Republicans would ban abortions in terms of rape.

Again, I think women voters are concerned that he might not be telling the full truth. Personally, I think Mitt Romney means it when he says he supports the exceptions; but I don't think the public necessarily perceives it that way.

Abortion is not a primary concern for voters. But it is a large concern for many woman voters especially.

It is probably a large concern with college educated women, the liberal ones who are devoted entirely to the feminist cause. But again I point to wives and mothers, those who already have children who cannot find jobs, those that have to balance the check books in a tough economy. To them, abortion pretty much doesn't factor at all into their life.

[Dark Sage]

He did so with Incest and Forceable Rape, I would not count those as feeble, especially since one of the big talking points of Democrats is that Republicans would ban abortions in terms of rape.

According to the GOP Party Platform, they most definately would.

And that wasn't the only thing that made it an aberration.

[Plantae]

Seeing how Obama's numbers with them are already in free fall, if Ann Romney can get 5-6% or even 10% to switch their vote, that would push Romney over the top.

I just don't see this happening. More unmarried women also support Obama now than they did before the "war on women" was ignited. It also seems to depend on whether or not unmarried women turn out in good numbers.

He did so with Incest and Forceable Rape, I would not count those as feeble, especially since one of the big talking points of Democrats is that Republicans would ban abortions in terms of rape.

By feebly, I mean that he has been back and forth on this issue. His official position as a vice presidential candidate may be that he supports the exceptions, but his personal views may very well be different. And I think that most people sense that.

It is probably a large concern with college educated women, the liberal ones who are devoted entirely to the feminist cause. But again I point to wives and mothers, those who already have children who cannot find jobs, those that have to balance the check books in a tough economy. To them, abortion pretty much doesn't factor at all into their life.

You're misrepresenting women. Even the married ones have strong opinions on abortion. Just because a woman has children doesn't mean she doesn't support the right not to have them.

[Dark Sage]

You're misrepresenting women. Even the married ones have strong opinions on abortion. Just because a woman has children doesn't mean she doesn't support the right not to have them.

Indeed. It's a flawed arguement that's easy to counter.

It's like when opponents of gay marriage say that a marriage that is incapable of producing offspring shouldn't exist. And then a supporter fires back by saying that if that's the case, should a heterosexual couple that is incapable of having children be required to annul their marriage?

[Roy Karrde]

I just don't see this happening. More unmarried women also support Obama now than they did before the "war on women" was ignited. It also seems to depend on whether or not unmarried women turn out in good numbers.

But as I said unmarried women are typically reliably liberal so is that really such a shocker?

By feebly, I mean that he has been back and forth on this issue. His official position as a vice presidential candidate may be that he supports the exceptions, but his personal views may very well be different. And I think that most people sense that.

Dude he wrote in exceptions in a bill that was produced LONG before the thought of him as a Vice President ever came up.

You're misrepresenting women. Even the married ones have strong opinions on abortion. Just because a woman has children doesn't mean she doesn't support the right not to have them.

Yeah.. so a married woman, who's family is suffering, who's living pay check to pay check, who has kids moving back in with them because it is impossible to find a job. Is going to vote for a man who could very well continue the malaise for another 4 years because she likes his views on abortion. Views I might add, are actually quite radical, and far more out of the mainstream than Romney.

Edit: Ugh its sad, this week was going so good, great even, and then you have a confused old man, who has borderline dementia, deciding to do a "Comedy Act". Of course I am talking about... Joe Biden.

Approaching a table of men he knew to be Greek, the VP said, “I’m Joe Bidenopoulos.”

“Ask George,” he said – unclear who George was, maybe someone at the table --“who’s the most Greek Irishman he’s ever known.” Sounded like Biden was suggesting he is.

He moved on to a table of three women, sitting down briefly, before moving on to one where two women were sitting.

“Let’s dance,” he said to one, named Jennifer, as she stood up right next to him. They posed for a photo before he turned to her tablemate, who was wearing scrubs, and asked, ‘Are you a nurse?” He then sat down and started speaking to her quietly, presumably about nurses.

Then, he posed with a group of restaurant staff and owners, and was talking about Greek food and rice pudding.

“Can I get some rice pudding to go?” he asked, just before the pool was ushered out at 1:05 p.m. Now holding in van.

'I'm Joe Bidenopoulos' - POLITICO.com

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you our Vice President.

[Dark Sage]

In the meantime, Governor Scott Walker said that Eastwood's bizarre speech made him "cringe".

Movie critic Roger Ebert tweeted that Eastwood's routine was "unworthy of him".

Clearly, it was not the veteran actor's finest moment.

[Roy Karrde]

In the meantime, Governor Scott Walker said that Eastwood's bizarre speech made him "cringe".

Movie critic Roger Ebert tweeted that Eastwood's routine was "unworthy of him".

Clearly, it was not the veteran actor's finest moment.

Dude I would like to see ANYONE that has a problem with it, do better improving on a stage for 10 minutes infront of a world wide audience. Remember that, he had no teleprompter, no script, he made it up as he went along. And considering he went up there and did it, he clearly sees the trouble of another 4 years of this Presidency.

[Dark Sage]

I'm not one to speak, but if I was Clint's agent, I would have suggested rehearsing a bit.

Btw, Roy, remember when you said this?

Aww some one a little jealous that the Republicans got a mega star like Clint Eastwood? Don't worry, the Democrats have their own little movie star Eva Longoria from movies like Arther Christmas and The Sentinel.

Nope, not jealous at all. Because he bombed big time.

[Roy Karrde]

Nope, not jealous at all. Because he bombed big time.

Really? We can go into his speech, and how good or bad it was, how genuine or not he came off. But the RNC had interest peeked for a week on who the "Mystery Guest" was, it made news sites and was talked about on broadcasts. It drove people to tune in, especially when it was found out that it was Eastwood much more so if it was just "Marco Rubio" that was going to speak.

A snap poll from Florida shows that 22% changed their vote from undecided to Romney, while only 12% changed their vote from undecided to Obama.

You can scoff, but I have a feeling that Eastwood drove in a few percentage points for Romney from Florida.

Edit: Also to note from the Florida poll 49% liked the speech, only 24% didn't, and that includes a majority of seniors and independents.

[Dark Sage]

Really? I expected the Convention to help Romney better than THAT. Conventions typically tend to do that.