My Prediction

Hugh Freaking Dillon

polaris_x wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

I know. if they spent less time campaigning and actually doing some fucking WORK, the country would be in way better shape.

there's no way I'd even turn on a tv if all I'd see is Harper ads for 3 years.

uhhh ... but that's what we're getting ... while harper is cutting programs in like environmental science - he's increasing his ad spend ... so, he can continue to air propaganda pieces with Canada's new colour (blue) ...

we're nowhere even close to the amount of ad spending as down south. I rarely see canadian political ads.

Dirtie_Frank

pandora wrote:

MayDay10 wrote:

It is going to be a "blowout" either way (electorically)

Either the polls are right and Obama will have around 300-310

or they over-estimated D turnout and under-estimated R turnout and Romney will have around 300-320.




I would like a re-vamp of the electoral college. Candidates campaigning exclusively in like 6 states is bullshit.

I agree bullshit

Instead of a winner take all how about if the electoral college was split by tbe percentage the candidate won in the state. For Example: I believe California has 55 electoral votes if Candidate A won 60% and Candidate B won 40% , A would get 33 vote and b would get 22.

polaris_x

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

we're nowhere even close to the amount of ad spending as down south. I rarely see canadian political ads.

oh for sure ... that's pretty obvious ... i just meant that we are nowhere near an election year and we have a financial problem like everywhere else and harper is putting in measures in social programs and what not but yet he's increased the spending on ads that pump up his gov't ...

i notice them quite a bit ...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... udget.html

cincybearcat

polaris_x wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

“If we lose this election there is only one explanation — demographics,” Graham told Politico on Monday.

“If I hear anybody say it was because Romney wasn’t conservative enough, I’m going to go nuts,” said Graham. “We’re not losing 95 per cent of African-Americans and two-thirds of Hispanics and voters under 30 because we’re not being hard-ass enough.”

This was a terrific comment.

you do understand his context there right?

Ummm, not sure what you mean. It seems he is saying that there is something wrong with the republican party and it needs to be more inclusive and move away from it's fanatical religious right...if that is not what he is saying, then I clearly didn't understand the context!!!

polaris_x

cincybearcat wrote:

Ummm, not sure what you mean. It seems he is saying that there is something wrong with the republican party and it needs to be more inclusive and move away from it's fanatical religious right...if that is not what he is saying, then I clearly didn't understand the context!!!

ya ... sort of ... that and that the party made a decision to court white voters a while ago ... when you pull the quote as you did - some may interpret it to mean that those segments are racist ...

pandora

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

pandora wrote:

MayDay10 wrote:

It is going to be a "blowout" either way (electorically)

Either the polls are right and Obama will have around 300-310

or they over-estimated D turnout and under-estimated R turnout and Romney will have around 300-320.




I would like a re-vamp of the electoral college. Candidates campaigning exclusively in like 6 states is bullshit.

I agree bullshit

Instead of a winner take all how about if the electoral college was split by tbe percentage the candidate won in the state. For Example: I believe California has 55 electoral votes if Candidate A won 60% and Candidate B won 40% , A would get 33 vote and b would get 22.

That would be way more interesting and fair.

Zoso

do absentee voted count?

cincybearcat

polaris_x wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Ummm, not sure what you mean. It seems he is saying that there is something wrong with the republican party and it needs to be more inclusive and move away from it's fanatical religious right...if that is not what he is saying, then I clearly didn't understand the context!!!

ya ... sort of ... that and that the party made a decision to court white voters a while ago ... when you pull the quote as you did - some may interpret it to mean that those segments are racist ...

Huh, didn;t mean it that way and honestly I don;t read it that way.

brianlux

keeponrockin wrote:

@Brian, I think EVERYONE would benefit from a shorter campaign. Here in Canada it's 5 weeks. I'm just sick of the election coverage...

I know I've hit my limit for all the noise. Yesterday I was in the men's room in a coffee shop and some loud mouth on the radio started yet again to rail against their opponent and I just wanted to scream, "WILL YOU SHUT THE F*CK UP!!!" But who needs the indigestion?

Jason P

I predict the 2016 campaign starts today.

brianlux

Jason P wrote:

I predict the 2016 campaign starts today.

Where's the screaming emoticon?

Black Diamond

Obama in 5 by TKO

Jason P

brianlux wrote:

Jason P wrote:

I predict the 2016 campaign starts today.

Where's the screaming emoticon?

EdsonNascimento

Here's the funny and sad part - all this electioneering and moaning about the need for change, and we are going to end up with status quo - Obama, Reid, Boehner (I know the latter 2 are not up for their own election, it's the control of those chambers I'm referring to) and it's Bush's fault.

So, who are the fools?

fear4freedom

Romney 285 Obama 254! Pa will be close.....!! Virginia will go for Romney!

Senate will be 51-49, Romney wins and Obamacare gets repealed!

I love exclamation points!!!!!!!

Zoso

fear4freedom wrote:

Romney 285 Obama 254! Pa will be close.....!! Virginia will go for Romney!

Senate will be 51-49, Romney wins and Obamacare gets repealed!

I love exclamation points!!!!!!!

that's pretty optimistic.. no?

pandora

fear4freedom wrote:

Romney 285 Obama 254! Pa will be close.....!! Virginia will go for Romney!

Senate will be 51-49, Romney wins and Obamacare gets repealed!

I love exclamation points!!!!!!!

I must say I love them when you use them! Your enthusiasm I take to heart!!

brianlux

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Here's the funny and sad part - all this electioneering and moaning about the need for change, and we are going to end up with status quo - Obama, Reid, Boehner (I know the latter 2 are not up for their own election, it's the control of those chambers I'm referring to) and it's Bush's fault.

So, who are the fools?

Edson, the problem is that if a Republican candidate won the election, like Romeny or Alice Cooper or a clone of Hitler or a clone of Maynard G. Krebs, you would get change but is change in-of-itself what you want? The one's who will probably look like fools- and I say this not out of spite or disparagement- will probably be the Republicans for not choosing more wisely. Unless, of course, Romney wins.

cincybearcat

brianlux wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Here's the funny and sad part - all this electioneering and moaning about the need for change, and we are going to end up with status quo - Obama, Reid, Boehner (I know the latter 2 are not up for their own election, it's the control of those chambers I'm referring to) and it's Bush's fault.

So, who are the fools?

Edson, the problem is that if a Republican candidate won the election, like Romeny or Alice Cooper or a clone of Hitler or a clone of Maynard G. Krebs, you would get change but is change in-of-itself what you want? The one's who will probably look like fools- and I say this not out of spite or disparagement- will probably be the Republicans for not choosing more wisely. Unless, of course, Romney wins.

I don't think Romney is the problem. The party catering to the religious right is the problem. If the party had let Romney run as he wished without having to cater to a crazy base, I think he'd have beaten Obama pretty handily. Of course, I think we also still have some version of Obama care as well instead of campaigning to get rid of it.

I still say if the republican party actually ran on the "less government is more" platform and go the hell out of the way of gay marriage, and other personal social issues they would be a formidable party that would have a hard time losing an election.

whygohome

fear4freedom wrote:

Romney 285 Obama 254! Pa will be close.....!! Virginia will go for Romney!

Senate will be 51-49, Romney wins and Obamacare gets repealed!

I love exclamation points!!!!!!!

Weird. I agree. But I have Romney with 286.
The religious zealots and the old white people will come out in droves (for the ticket that wants to privatize social security and turn Medicare into a voucher program).