2012 Election Thread

[rowjimmy]

For a guy who doesn't "get bogged down with details" you sure try waste a lot of our time with epic posts around here.

Awww, you think my posts are epic? Thanks, man.

They require a lot of scrolling... I don't actually read them.

[gah]

For a guy who doesn't "get bogged down with details" you sure try waste a lot of our time with epic posts around here.

Awww, you think my posts are epic? Thanks, man.

They require a lot of scrolling... I don't actually read them.

I haven't read a rjb post in the politiwook chat section in maybe a year now. No offense dude, just saying.

[runawayjimbo]

For a guy who doesn't "get bogged down with details" you sure try waste a lot of our time with epic posts around here.

Awww, you think my posts are epic? Thanks, man.

They require a lot of scrolling... I don't actually read them.

I haven't read a rjb post in the politiwook chat section in maybe a year now. No offense dude, just saying.

::inserts Dawson crying gif::

[Undermind]

The Romney-Ryan campaign gaffe of the day
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/paul-ryan-new-hampshire-stimulus_n_1892299.html

[Undermind]

The hits just keep coming!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/23/mitt-romney-60-minutes-health-care_n_1908129.html

and

[Undermind]

Some Romney financial backers may be backing out...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/01/mitt-romney-donors_n_1930269.html

[UncleEbinezer]

I am growing sick of the TV ads here in VA.  We don't even watch that many commercials (DVR) but the handful that do get past is crazy.  Within one break you can see both a Romney and Obama ad.  And the mail!  FAHK!

[twatts]

I am growing sick of the TV ads here in VA.  We don't even watch that many commercials (DVR) but the handful that do get past is crazy.  Within one break you can see both a Romney and Obama ad.  And the mail!  FAHK!

There was a story on NPR yesterday about how you can track campaign spending to see how much or little a candidate was trying to win an area...  They mentioned VA being an important swing state especially ORF with all its military and what not... 

In Raleigh, we are seeing twice as many MR ads as BO ads...

Terry

[PIE-GUY]

I am growing sick of the TV ads here in VA.  We don't even watch that many commercials (DVR) but the handful that do get past is crazy.  Within one break you can see both a Romney and Obama ad.  And the mail!  FAHK!

There was a story on NPR yesterday about how you can track campaign spending to see how much or little a candidate was trying to win an area...  They mentioned VA being an important swing state especially ORF with all its military and what not... 

In Raleigh, we are seeing twice as many MR ads as BO ads...

Terry

one upside to living in a solidly red state... no presidential ads unless they are national... and very few are national.

[Hicks]

I am growing sick of the TV ads here in VA.  We don't even watch that many commercials (DVR) but the handful that do get past is crazy.  Within one break you can see both a Romney and Obama ad.  And the mail!  FAHK!

There was a story on NPR yesterday about how you can track campaign spending to see how much or little a candidate was trying to win an area...  They mentioned VA being an important swing state especially ORF with all its military and what not... 

In Raleigh, we are seeing twice as many MR ads as BO ads...

Terry

one upside to living in a solidly red state... no presidential ads unless they are national... and very few are national.

Or in my case the upside of living in a state that will never, ever have any impact on a Presidential election.

[sls.stormyrider]

same here.
we have a couple races that are close - senate and one House race (my red)

the commercials basically all say the same thing.
"vote for me because the other guy is bad" and then list why the world will end.

there are very few commercials that say " this is what I stand for - vote for me"

[runawayjimbo]

Judges blocks PA's obvious attempt to suppress voter turnout, at least until after the election

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gofwU6p1wVa1q_XloJpJkhL2jy8Q?docId=7eb8b0ee54b0499c9caa9776c1eba958

Judge halts Pa.'s tough new voter ID requirement

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — A judge on Tuesday blocked Pennsylvania's divisive voter identification requirement from going into effect on Election Day, delivering a hard-fought victory to Democrats who said it was a ploy to defeat President Barack Obama and other opponents who said it would prevent the elderly and minorities from voting.

Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson said in his ruling that he was concerned by the state's stumbling efforts to create a photo ID that is easily accessible to voters and that he could not rely on the assurances of government officials at this late date that every voter would be able to get a valid ID.

If it stands, it is good news for Obama's chances in Pennsylvania, one of the nation's biggest electoral college prizes, unless Republicans and the tea party groups that backed the law find a way to use it to motivate their supporters and possibly independents.

Simpson's ruling could be appealed to the state Supreme Court, although state officials weren't ready to say Tuesday whether they would appeal. He based his decision on guidelines given to him days ago by the high court justices, and it could easily be the final word on the law just five weeks before the Nov. 6 election.

Simpson's ruling will allow the law to go into full effect next year, though he could still decide later to issue a permanent injunction.

Election workers will still be allowed to ask voters for a valid photo ID, but people without it can use a regular voting machine in the polling place and would not have to cast a provisional ballot or prove their identity to election officials afterward.

One lawyer for the plaintiffs called it a "win," while the Advancement Project, which aided the legal challenge, expressed concern that a new public education campaign would be needed to ensure people without photo ID know they can vote.

Gov. Tom Corbett, a Republican who helped champion the law, said the state's lawyers were still analyzing it.

The state's Republican Party chairman, Rob Gleason, said he was disappointed and stressed that the law is a "common-sense reform" that is supported in public polling across the political spectrum.

"Despite the empty rhetoric to the contrary, this legislation is still about ensuring one person, one vote," Gleason said.

In a statement, the Obama campaign said the decision means that "eligible voters can vote on Election Day, just like they have in previous elections in the state. "

Simpson's ruling came after listening to two days of testimony about the state's eleventh-hour efforts to make it easier to get a valid photo ID. He also heard about long lines and ill-informed clerks at driver's license centers and identification requirements that made it hard for some registered voters to get a state-issued photo ID.

The 6-month-old law — now among the nation's toughest — has sparked a divisive debate over voting rights and become a high-profile political issue in the contest between Obama, a Democrat, and Republican nominee Mitt Romney, for Pennsylvania's 20 electoral votes.

It was already a political lightning rod when a top state Republican lawmaker boasted to a GOP dinner in June that the ID requirement "is going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania."

Pennsylvania, traditionally considered one of the most valuable presidential swing states, is showing a persistent lead for Obama in independent polls. Pollsters had said Pennsylvania's identification requirement could mean that fewer people ended up voting and, in the past, lower turnouts have benefited Republicans in Pennsylvania.

But Democrats have used their opposition to the law as a rallying cry, turning it into a valuable tool to motivate volunteers and campaign contributions while other opponents of the law, including labor unions, good government groups, the NAACP, AARP and the League of Women Voters, hold voter education drives and protest rallies.

The law was a signature accomplishment of Pennsylvania's Republican-controlled Legislature and Corbett. Republicans, long suspicious of ballot-box stuffing in the Democratic bastion of Philadelphia, justified it as a bulwark against any potential election fraud.

Every Democratic lawmaker voted against it. Some accused Republicans of using old-fashioned Jim Crow tactics to steal the White House from Obama. Other opponents said it would make it harder for young adults, minorities, the elderly, poor and disabled to vote.

A wave of new voter identification requirements have been approved in the past couple years, primarily by Republican-controlled Legislatures.

Earlier this year, a federal court panel struck down Texas' voter ID law, and a state court in Wisconsin has blocked its voter ID laws for now. The Justice Department cleared New Hampshire's voter ID law, and a federal court is reviewing South Carolina's law.

[VDB]

It was already a political lightning rod when a top state Republican lawmaker boasted to a GOP dinner in June that the ID requirement "is going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania."

The only way this comment could not have been about simple vote-suppression would have been if the amount of vote fraud (that benefits Democrats) allegedly taking place/about to take place is in excess of the margin of victory that Obama would have otherwise received had he prevailed. Which, given that voter-ID proponents have been able to produce scant actual evidence of actual voting fraud, I find quite unlikely.

[Undermind]

And today's Romney-Ryan campaign foot in mouth prize goes to Paul Ryan. 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/paul-ryan-30-percent-welfare-state_n_1933730.html

When you're in the public eye and are running for public office it may be wise not to disenfranchise large sections of the population.  Just sayin'...

[runawayjimbo]

And today's Romney-Ryan campaign foot in mouth prize goes to Paul Ryan. 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/paul-ryan-30-percent-welfare-state_n_1933730.html

When you're in the public eye and are running for public office it may be wise not to disenfranchise large sections of the population.  Just sayin'...

Today?

Ryan's comments were delivered as part of his keynote address at The American Spectator's 2011 Robert L. Bartley Gala Dinner, which the magazine posted online. A reader tipped HuffPost to Ryan's speech, given in November -- six months before Romney's videotaped remarks.