… GOP NOMINEE WILL NARROWLY DEFEAT BARACK OBAMA IN TUESDAY NIGHT’S ELECTION
Billions of dollars in television commercials, millions of individual voter contacts, thousands of media articles, hundreds of days and seemingly dozens of televised debates will come to a head on Tuesday evening … or sometime shortly thereafter (we think).
What will happen? No one really knows …
National polling suggests that the 2012 presidential election between Democratic incumbent Barack Obama and “Republican” nominee Mitt Romney will go down to the wire – although polling in swing states suggests that Obama enjoys a much easier path when it comes to securing the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House.
In fact conventional wisdom holds that Obama can afford to lose several battleground states whereas Romney’s “path to 270” involves a much narrower margin of error. According to the latest Real Clear Politics’ Electoral College map, there are eleven “toss up” states heading into the final 24 hours of the race – Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Virginia.
Together, these states comprise a total of 146 electoral votes … more than enough to put either candidate well over the top. Also there’s a very real chance that any number of scenarios could unfold resulting in an Electoral College tie – in which case the presidency would be decided by the “GOP-controlled” U.S. House of Representatives.
To hear the pundits tell it, though, even a “tie” is wishful thinking for Romney – particularly if he loses Ohio to Obama. In that scenario, the former Massachusetts governor would have to pretty much run the table in the rest of the battleground states – a tall order if you accept current polling which shows that the race is statistically tied in each of those states.
Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post sums up the mainstream media’s view of this polling data – predicting that Obama will be reelected with 277 electoral votes compared to 261 for Romney. Cillizza also believes that Obama will win 50.1 percent of the popular vote compared to 48.5 percent for Romney. And again … based on current polling, those predictions are pretty solid. Meanwhile InTrade – a leading online prediction market – puts Obama’s reelection prospects at 67.8 percent.
So … four more years of Obama is pretty much a foregone conclusion, right?
Maybe … but maybe not.
Several prominent pollsters and politicos – most notably former Bill Clinton strategist Dick Morris, former George W. Bush strategist Karl Rove and columnist George Will and Michael Barone – are all predicting that Romney will emerge victorious. In fact several of them are predicting Romney will win in a landslide.
At the heart of these prognostications is the fundamental belief that 2012 polling is reflecting a 2008 electoral landscape – one which no longer exists. According to these pollsters and politicos, Romney will benefit from sagging Democratic turnout and surging Republican intensity aimed at defeating Obama – and that nowhere will this trend be more evident than in the battleground states (all of which Obama won in 2008).
“In battleground states, the edge in early and absentee vote turnout that propelled Democrats to victory in 2008 has clearly been eroded, cut in half according to a Republican National Committee summary,” Rove wrote last week for The Wall Street Journal.
Given this “intensity gap,” polls which show the race tied – or Obama slightly ahead – are fundamentally flawed.
From the beginning of this race, we’ve accepted the basic premise that there was roughly a 4-6 percent advantage for Romney that wasn’t showing up in mainstream polling. The only problem for the GOP nominee? Prior to the first presidential debate it appeared as though he had slipped below this margin – meaning that even if the anticipated “intensity gap” manifested itself, he would still lose.
Since Romney’s command performance in the first debate, though, he has brought the race back to “even” – or reclaimed his lead, if you buy into the “intensity gap” theory.
We don’t think there will be a landslide on Tuesday night – for either candidate. We predict a tight race – one that may take a day or two to sort out. In the end, though, we predict that Romney will be elected the 45th President of the United States by a handful of electoral votes – and will win the popular vote by anywhere from 3-5 percent.
Does that amount to a hill of beans for U.S. taxpayers?
Probably not … which is why this website endorsed former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson.
Who do you think will win on Tuesday night? Vote in our poll and post your thoughts in our comments section below …
Nate Silver has Big O at 307 electoral votes. Someone cue the fat lady.
Obama has an edge in the normal map, but only by 10 electoral votes. Their “no toss-ups” electoral map shows Obama winning with 303 electoral votes.
Princeton shows Obama leading Romney in electoral votes 233-191.
Most media people predict what they bHOPE will happen.
Surprised FITS is not expecting an Obam landslide.
We are in for some REALY Depressing days if Obama is re-elected.
Can you imagine how rdical he will be if he does not have to wrry about re-election??
The use of gas or coal would be immediate JAILABLE offenses, w/ mandatory Abortion, possible.
And any white person would have to pay reperations to any black…and Traditional marriage would be outlawed, but Gay Marriage liberally sanctioned, w/ incentives by the government…
And that’s just a start…
Sounds like you don’t have any faith in your boy. Already predicting dire (and laughable) results when he loses.
“We are in for some REALY Depressing days if Obama is re-elected.”
Can we count on you to save yourself the depression and video tape the event?
If you establish a fund for your family prior to your departure I promise I’ll donate to it.
Sounds like Big(o)T has no faith in America. He’s desperately hoping Romney wins so he can stop hating his country.
Actually, Fits predicted landslide for Romney just last week.
and maybe some retroactive education for idiots
Better lube up, teapot. It ain’t gonna be close. Down goes Mittens, Down goes Mittens…..
Dude, you need serious help.
The best thing that can happen for US taxpayers Tuesday is a win for Jim Demint’s slate of candidates, Mourdock, Flake, Mandel, Fischer, Akin, Allen, Cruz, and Smith.
actually, the best thing wd be for Deminted’s slate to be busted for being pricks who think they know more about pussy than politics
BS. I’m done with TP and everyone else.
I sincerely hope you will join me in voting for Oshitforbrains and his ilk. I’m voting for the evilist MF I can find tomm. Let the fuckers finish running it into the ground.
Why vote Repuklicrat when you can have twice the pain at twice the price.
Have a Great Day!! :)
Passive-aggressive comment of the day.
With the right medication, Frank, I believe your disorder is treatable.
How do you pronounce “Repuklicrat” Re-puke-lee-krat?
Or is it “re-puck-li-krat”
I prefer “re-puke-lick-rat.”
There you go kiddies. Everyone in the pool.
Have a Great Day!! There won’t be many left with Odumbass in charge.
Frank Pytel :)
Liberals will get out in the streets and march for certin policies…
But then COWER when their agenda has a light shined on it….
Be what you ARE…Don’t Lie
And if anybody knows a about lying, its big t. He has raised brazen lying to an art form.
Its folks like Big T who told Romney to run the Jeep ads.
We don’t lie, teapot. We KNOW you’re an idiot and Mittens is a loser. Repugnants are going down….
No T. That’s the problem. The filth no longer hides when the light hits it. Its the new clean.
Just yell louder. That’s what makes them right. They can yell louder than anyone else. That’s how they took the senate and the presidency. The house is next, if they didn’t take that last night. I guess I need to check the news, though I’m sure I already know what it says.
Have a Great Day!! There won’t be many left with Odumbass in charge.
Frank Pytel :)
It’s over… The reason Romney is in Pennsylvania is because Ohio is now lost for him.
Or he’s hedging his bets and reacting to unusually strong polling numbers in Pennsylvania.
Who knows. It’s a toss up. It’s certainly far from “over” for either candidate.
Romney is scheduled to be in Ohio on election day. If it were considered “lost,” why would he bother? He’s hitting as many states as possible, and his underlings are hitting where he can’t. Same with Barry.
Why do you say “No way”?
It will be much closer and probably leaning the other way.
Big T – I hope ObamaCare will allow you to get the help you need, you whack job.
lol….if it ends up the way most gov’t programs do it’ll probably fry his brain more…after a six month wait for a referral of course.
? you, and the Dumb@$$#$ you serve, will be trying to bring some sort of Law Suit against me, when your god-Obama loses and you implode…you’ll claim I libeled your government-savior on high…
Your only problem: Your case against me will fall apart, when you cannot prove I’m wrong…
Again: You idiots March in the Streets for an agenda of Hate against Decent America…then you are COWARDS when called on it…
Did Obama say (or did he not say) that he would make Coal So EXPENSIVE through taxes, that the coal industry would go out of business???
Now: Let the LIARS, Lie:
You’re acting bitchy again.
Actually, it was Romney who stood outside a coal fired plant and proclaimed that it “killed people.”
Of course, he was right.
He did not say that.
I thought the headline said “Mitt Romney was a squealer”…..personally,I thought was TMI.
Not for 9″.
RASMUSSEN: R 49% O 48%
Romney winning independents 59%-35%…
FL: R 52% O 47%…
MI: R 47% O 46%…
VA: R 50% O 48%…
OH: R 49% O 49%…
Wonder how Obam-ites will spin this????
Ya heads gonna bust Wednesday morning!
Ya mama better put ya on suicide watch.
Rasmussen says Obama has a 5% lead.
Note how Rasmussen says a tie and everyone else says a lead for Obama.
Oh, and I think everyone is “in the know” about your posts, but I thought I’d point out that yet again, you have simply copy/pasted directly from Drudge.
“Oh, and I think everyone is ‘in the know’ about your posts, but I thought I’d point out that yet again, you have simply copy/pasted directly from Drudge.”
So what if he does? You copy and paste from other sites all the time. In fact, you did so a few times below. I don’t thnk he’s trying to hide the fact that he cut and pasted stuff.
Are we to take from this rant that your posts where you cut and paste are just as illegitimate as you seem to imply are his where he uses the same tactic? Got it.
So what if he does? You copy and paste from other sites all the time. In fact, you did so a few times below.
There’s a difference between quoting articles/data and just copy/pasting editorialized headlines from Drudge, but I think most people that don’t spend their time defending Big(o)T realize that. The biggest difference being that quoting an article to reinforce a point – and providing a link to the entirety of the article to provide context of said quote – actually provides foundation for an argument. Lazily copy/pasting a bunch of no-context, spun bullshit and hoping it does the arguing for you is pretty damn laughable. It is also notable that posting altered headlines with no links provides zero context, nor does it allow one to judge the source of said information, which is extremely important as Drudge Report very often links to biased political blogs and right-wing sites, including Breitbart, The Blaze, and Red State.
If you can’t tell the difference, then you need help.
Are we to take from this rant that your posts where you cut and paste are just as illegitimate as you seem to imply are his where he uses the same tactic?
In this thread, sid pretends that the Drudge Report is the equivalent of a Tax Policy Center PDF.
You’re welcome to judge my posts however you see fit. It is why I back up my arguments with sources and provide links to said sources so you can check up on what I post. If you are really trying to paint me “as bad as BigT” then I really feel sorry for you.
All your obsession did was post polling numbers. Those are legitimate numbers, and just as legitimate as the opinions posted by the TPC. If you disagree, then it is only because the numbers cast doubt on the electability of your savior. As an Obamabot, what in the world will you do if he loses?
Good luck tomorrow, but rest easy knowing your vote is meaningless. Your state is decided, and not in your favor. There’s nothing you can do. Probably not your first experience with being impotent.
Why are Obama and Bill (hand-in-the-cookie-jar) Clinton beging in Pa.?
Setting the stage for HILLARY in 2016. Then she will the FIRST BITCH!
Better get your Zanax filled tomorrow morning, you gonna need it Wednesday morning!
I hope you choke on your own puke tomorrow, you sadistic, idiot! I guess you have confederate flag toilet tissue too! wipe up your vomit with it, jackass!
Man. You commies are very verbally abusive.
Have a Great Day!! :)
if Nobama is elected, I’m selling my business and taking the money out of country.
Hire Mitt as a consultant. He’ll have plenty of free time if he loses and he’s practically an expert at keeping his money out of country!
NoBama is no better – washingtonexaminer.com/obama-has-investments-in-companies-that-ship-jobs-overseas/article/2502361
Nope, no better (‘cept Romney is a better money manager) – http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/despite-criticisms-obamas-investments-share-similarities-romneys_650833.html
According to financial disclosure forms, President Obama has $50,000-$100,000 invested in the Illinois General Assembly Defined Pension Benefit Plan.
Underwhelming compared to the scale Romney’s done it on in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Switzerland, and apparently, even the Netherlands.
By making use of the so-called participation exemption in the Netherlands and Luxembourg do Bain dividends and capital gains to avoid the proceeds of his shares safely bring in tax haven Cayman Islands. The participation exemption means that the profit from a shareholding of more than 5 percent is not taxed in the Netherlands. Netherlands is partly why an attractive location for holding companies of multinationals and financial funds. “We are world champions participation exemption ‘, says Jos Peters, tax specialist at Merlyn.
Plus there’s allegations that Romney may have avoided taxes via a trust fund with the Mormon Church.
The trust, which is only a small fraction of Romney’s $250 million net worth, has been paying Romney 8 percent of its assets every year, according to Bloomberg. Since charities, including the Mormon Church, are tax-exempt, Romney hasn’t paid taxes on the money for more than 15 years. The Romney campaign declined to respond to questions from Bloomberg and only said through a spokeswoman that “the trust has operated in accordance with the law.”
All of this, of course, is on the scale of millions upon millions of dollars. You’re trying to compare all of this to the $50k-$100k Obama put in some pension plan?
But you know what the biggest crock of shit in all of this is? That all this shit about Romney is out in the open. We have all of this massive evidence of tax avoidance, and every single time Romney defends it by saying “Well, I didn’t break any laws!” He pays 13.9% of what he makes in taxes when the middle class tends to pay more, in some cases MUCH more. He actively stores millions of dollars overseas and uses every loophole in the book.
This guy. This guy of all people is the person Republicans think will actually reform the tax code to benefit the middle class. The one guy who knows every loophole in the book, but can’t name any number of them he’d end, is supposed to be trusted to end loopholes. The guy who actively hides his money in other countries with the rest of the millionaires and billionaires and corporations is the one they’re trusting to keep a $5 trillion tax cut revenue neutral despite a non-partisan group calling it mathematically impossible, even under the rosiest of conditions.
It is akin to hiring a serial rapist and murderer to be your daughter’s bodyguard.
Yep, like I said, Mitt’s better at managing his money – do you really believe that NoBama was still paying off student loans just a couple of years ago?
I like your serial rapist analogy – exagerate much?
“It is akin to hiring a serial rapist and murderer to be your daughter’s bodyguard.”
And that is one of the reasons you are labeled an Obamabot, Smirks. Ridiculous, outrageous comparisons like that are a sign of desperation.
BTW, Romney also makes a whole lot of charitable contributions, which is how his tax rate comes down so much. Combine his tax rate with his contributions and I would wager he gives away a greater percentage of his money than do you. The difference being he is successful enough, and charitable enough, to be able to make decisions as to where his money will do the most good.
Yep, like I said, Mitt’s better at managing his money
Unless Romney’s going to magically heal the economy through his encyclopedia-like knowledge of tax loopholes out of the kindness of his heart, you’re just asking to be a lamb to the slaughter.
I like your serial rapist analogy – exagerate much?
I guess it is a bit of an exaggeration. A serial rapist has actually broken the law to become such a thing. I guess it would be better to compare it to that creepy looking guy that stares at children at the playground (not illegal! following the laws!) to babysit your kids.
If you want to demote it to “fox guarding the henhouse” then do so, but the point still stands. You’re asking a guy who has regularly avoided taxes with every loophole in the book to fix the tax code. Really? If you’re going to point to his experience with using loopholes to aid him in losing loopholes, then please point me in the direction of a list of loopholes he will definitely end. You’re asking a guy who paid 13.9% in taxes, thinks that it is fair that he pays less than the middle class, and alludes to the idea that he wouldn’t be qualified to be president if he paid more than that, to lower tax rates for everyone, end loopholes, and remain revenue neutral?
BTW, Romney also makes a whole lot of charitable contributions, which is how his tax rate comes down so much.
Warren Buffett has spent a lot of his wealth on charitable causes as well, but even he has called for higher taxes for the rich. The billions upon billions of dollars that the rich and corporations avoid paying are a major part of the reason we have a deficit. So yes, gee, it sure is nice that Willard puts some of his money into charity when he isn’t bilking taxpayers by avoiding taxes at every turn, thus pushing more of the tax burden on small businesses and the middle class as well as massive yearly deficits.
If Romney put as much of his fortune into charitable causes as Bill Gates, I might give him some slack. If his fortune wasn’t earned strapping down struggling businesses with massive amounts of debt, leaving some of them to falter shortly afterwards, I might give him some slack. If he were proposing a mathematically plausible tax reform that did lower taxes for the middle class and was revenue neutral, I might give him some slack. Then again, if all of that shit were true, hell would be frozen over.
Spoken like a true Obamabot. Romney pays more, combined, in taxes and charity,, but you want more. Soak the rich for all you can, eh? Your jealousy of success is rather telling.
Good riddance. Say hello to Mitten’s money while you’re out of the country.
Using Rasmussen and Dick Morris as sources for anything up to and including a printed bus schedule is beyond delusional. Even Brit Hume is acknowledging that THE REST OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD is coming to a different conclusion than these two.
Apparently the majority of people who call themselves Republicans believe in demonic possission and against evolution, but certainly some among you believe in Mathematics.
It’s not the mathmatics that some people (including Will above) are questioning. It’s the assumptions built into the equations that are being questioned.
“mathematics,” that is.
A study from the Congressional Research Service — the non-partisan research office for Congress — shows that “there is little evidence over the past 65 years that tax cuts for the highest earners are associated with savings, investment or productivity growth.”
As a result, it is not mathematically possible to design a revenue-neutral plan that preserves current incentives for savings and investment and that does not result in a net tax cut for high-income taxpayers and a net tax increase for lower- and/or middle-income taxpayers under the assumptions we have described above. This means that even if tax expenditures are eliminated in a way designed to make the resulting tax system as progressive as possible, there would still be a shift in the tax burden of roughly $86 billion from those making over $200,000 to those making less than that amount.
Belief in Mathematics?
“A study from the Congressional Research Service — the non-partisan research office for Congress — shows that ‘there is little evidence over the past 65 years that tax cuts for the highest earners are associated with savings, investment or productivity growth.'”
One might conclude that you are implying that the article from which you cut and pasted (shame on you!) this excerpt also stated the opposite to be true. In other words, increasing taxes on the highest earners is associated with savings, investment or productivity growth.
I’m sure that’s not what you intended, since you are aware that the article went on to state:
“Do higher taxes on the rich lead to faster economic growth? Not necessarily. The paper says that while growth accelerated with higher taxes on the rich, the relationship is ‘not strong’ and may be ‘coincidental,’ since broader economic factors may be responsible for that growth.”
Just thought I’d clarify that for folks, since we wouldn’t want your unintentional omission to cause anyone to come to the wrong conclusions.
The point is that Republicans push tax cuts for the rich as something that is going to spur economic growth. This is not only how they justify tax cuts being much greater for the rich than for the middle class (see: Bush tax cuts), but also how they explain how said tax cuts will ultimately be revenue neutral. Tax cuts means you collect less tax revenue, thus Republicans must push either cuts (which they never really did 2000-2006) or justify it with a wonderful lie such as lower taxes miraculously generating more tax revenue. Rush Limbaugh loves using this lie, but so did Paul Ryan when he supported the Bush tax cuts.
That’s a key thing, because part of what is supposed to keep Romney’s tax plan revenue neutral is the fact that the economy should boom in response to the tax cuts. The report in question clearly states that tax rates on the rich being dropped will not result in such a boom. It didn’t result in a big enough boom to make up for the drop in tax rates when Bush passed his tax plans, as evidenced by the over $1 trillion the Bush tax cuts have added to the deficit. Also, it should be noted that Romney’s plan is ON TOP of the Bush tax cuts, so that deficit for the past decade will continue to be a deficit.
The other part is that lower tax rates for the rich DOES result in something very clearly, and that is increased concentration of wealth for the wealthiest individuals.
The share of total income going to the top 0.1 percent hovered around 4 percent during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, then rose to 12 percent by the mid-2000s. During this period, the average tax rate paid by the 0.1 percent fell from more than 40 percent to below 25 percent.
The study said that “as top tax rates are reduced, the share of income accruing to the top of the income distribution increases” and that “these relationships are statistically significant.”
In other words, cutting taxes on the rich may not grow the economic pie. But the study found that those cuts can effect “how that economic pie is sliced.”
Also, I’m not pushing to raise taxes on the rich as a means of growing the economy, I’m pushing to raise taxes on the rich as a means of reducing the deficit. Tax hikes on those who can easily afford it should be combined with spending reductions. It is precisely why I don’t like the fact that Obama would spend the revenue gained via letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the rich on other shit, but at least such a plan doesn’t solely exist in fairy tale land like Mitt’s tax plan.
Just thought I’d clarify that for folks, since we wouldn’t want your unintentional omission to cause anyone to come to the wrong conclusions.
Here’s the hilarious part. I post links so that people can look for themselves at the sources of what I post from, and yet you are calling me “as bad as BigT” who posts handmade headlines with no links whatsoever to the source of said headlines, let alone the articles they link to.
You really are comical with this shit.
Sorry, $1 trillion added to debt, not deficit.
Only problem is that you could tax the rich 100%, and it wouldn’t do squat to the debt. The fact is you need to cut spending, but that would mean losing some of the precious handouts you support. Redistribute the wealth, eh? Spoken like a true Obamabot.
There is a function X in time t. You have argued above for both increasing and decreasing relationships simultaneously, or at least implied that there is no clear relationship. Read what you’ve written in detail. I don’t have time to go through the stupidity of your logic.
If the best one can infer from your bipolar post is that the issue is not clear………and that nobody truly knows shit enough to forecast the economy…..then why would we put up with a religious Mormon who thinks 47% of US society is useless, hates gays, flip flops, and has no respect for women?
Maybe the truth is you just want to make yourself look smart by degrading others. Thatz what I think. Give us all a break and go fuck BigT.
I haven’t argued anything, other than pointing out Smirks conveniently leaving out information that some might find relevant. You seem to run to his defense alot. Maybe your fading looks have you longing for some Interwebs strange?
I do see you took to heart my lesson to you on proper use of the term infer. You actually used it correctly, in application, so you are welcome.
Unfortunately, you still seem to be harboring your religious bigotry. But keep sticking to the Obamabot talking points. We get it. Republicans hate homos and split-tails.
But I don’t need to degrade people to look smart. I already know I’m smart. All the tests confirm it, and my personal success indicates it. I degrade Obamabots like you and Smirks for fun.
I’m not into dudes, though, so I’ll decline your suggestion about y’all’s obsession. With all the venom that flows back and forth, maybe you should suggest it to Smirks. You know how opposites attract? And Smirks seems he might be into that sort of thing.
“But I don’t need to degrade people to look smart. I already know I’m smart. All the tests confirm it, and my personal success indicates it. I degrade Obamabots like you and Smirks for fun.”
Take one more test: one for social retardation.
You actually consider this environment a social environment? Wow! What a sad life you must lead. This is a place where people go to vent their spleens. It has been for some time. People who gravitate towards each other–politically, socially, sportswise, etc.–tend to be pleasant to each other, while those with whom they disagree tend to get flamed pretty regularly. You do it, I do it, and most others do it. This is hardly any kind of representation of how people act in actual social settings. At least, I would hope not.
Most people here are playing caricatures of themselves, while others are pretending to be something they clearly are not. There are the rare ones who are up front with who they are and how they truly feel (or at least want you to believe that’s how they feel), but most people hide behind made-up names and avatars.
Of course, I like poking around to see who I can figure out, then try exposing a raw nerve or two and poke some more. Sometimes I hit paydirt. I can tell by the manner in which people react.
Have fun watching the returns! Hope you have a miserable night. Win or lose, I’ll be having fun in a variety of actual social environments. Hope you get out a little.
1 retired General supports Obama:
500 Retired Admirals and Generals support Romney:
Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2012/11/05/2508011/in-the-last-lap-obama-has-the.html#storylink=cpy
Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia should all go Romney. Michigan and Pennsylvania could be surprises for Romney, and of the two, I think Michigan is actually more likely. If either goes for Romney, nobody cares about Ohio. Add the possibility of Iowa, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin going for Romney, and you have a real nice win. Add both MI and PA, and throw in Ohio, and that’s a landslide.
Personally, I think it will be a mix of the above (not sure the exact formula), and Romney wins by a squeaker, but I would not be surprised by a comfortable Romney win.
An Obama win-by-squeaker is possible, but I think Silver (and others) is way off. I think he’s definitely wrong on Virginia and Colorado going for Obama, and I think he’s probably wrong on at least two of the other states he has for Obama that I mentioned above (IA, MI, NH, OH, PA, and WI). We’ll know soon enough (barring recounts and challenges).
People lie so polls lie.
As for Ohio and Ohioans, it’s like this.
They are mostly racist and hardcore redneck although very hard workers. Socially lazy, many of them never voted during the last presidential election or any before. They ran their mouth, talked trash about Obama but counted on someone else to actually register and vote McCain in. They pissed in their pants when Obama won.
Now they are a bunch of pissed off rednecks with smaller bank accounts and a whole bunch of guilt. They have registered in vast numbers and they are going to vote Romney in overwhelming numbers.
Unfortunately for Southerners D & R alike, they will then continue to invade our region and annoy us at every turn. Buckeyes and buckteeth.
You’re not only a racist but a fool too. Even the crackers in Ohio are voting for Obama.
I am sick of this. Big-T, are you paying attention?
1) this is not a chat room. say your piece and then STFU.
2)If you feel that you must post multiple times on one blog topic, article, whatever they are called, then perhaps you should get your own website. See, this is FITS site so he calls the topic and then everyone weighs in. I seriously doubt that anyone comes here to argue with you!
3) If you must rant day and night would you at least refrain from the e-bonics style of writing that you have resorted to lately. I just get downright distracted from hating you when I’m trying to decipher your secret language. Either that or just lay off the booze cause, dude, some of that shit reads exactly like Otis is writing it directly from his jail cell in Mayberry.
Thanks and with the kindest regards.
Who the hell are you to decide what FITS bans or doesn’t. Frankly my guess is that FITS loves T. He stirs the pot. Probably makes them a lot of money. Every time he posts, that’s nickel for advertising. Every time someone responds. Same thing.
Fracking libtards think they own the fracking world.
Like the Demlicans say. Vote Early and Vote Often!!
Just ignore him. It’s easier that way.
Who the hell is Judith Klein and why does that website say I agree with her? Or is it she with me?
Romney wins with 291 votes……IF Obama were to win, it will be very, very close.
Just read an article about Willard’s participation in the takeover of HCA. Dude has made millions off reclassifying Medicare records. There’s your republican nominee.
Come on! This one is in the bag! I suspect widespread voting fraud will push O over the top…Mark this one a big win for the donkeys…think Al Franken part deux…
The Republicans’ Closing Argument
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) — With only one day until the election, the Republican Party today released its official closing argument to the American people.
In its entirety, the argument read as follows: “We’re strongly opposed to FEMA and health care, but basically O.K. with rape.”
Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, said that the Party’s message of “zero tolerance toward disaster relief combined with a more easygoing attitude about rape” would lead the Party to victory on Election Day.
“Our argument couldn’t be simpler: when God wants to create a hurricane or make a woman pregnant, big government should get out of the way,” he said.
The Party chairman said that the closing argument was part of its “expand the map” strategy: “We’re contesting every state, from Pennsylvania to Colorado to Iowa, where we believe there are voters who are in sync with our more advanced view of hurricanes and rape.”
Mr. Priebus also had this message for the American voter: “Your vote is important. We’ve spent billions trying to buy it.”
Tomorrow night as our President is re-elected, we will see the last vestiages of the Grand Old Party limp off into history. A recent guest on MSNBC made a bold prediction that when President Obama is re-elected it will be a long time before a white, male, Republican is elected president. The prediction is quite specific, that 2016 is Hillary’s for the taking and 2024 will probably see the current mayor of Los Angles as the first Hispanic president.
The white race is quickly becoming a minority and while it will never be extinct, there could come a time when this nation is a majority non-white and secular country. When that happens the white race will never be a political, economic or legal threat again.
So the “white race” is a political, economic, legal threat? Why is this about race? People, this should be about ISSUES! The top issues being the Economy and Foriegn Policy. Women’s issues, health care issues, gay issues will be irrelevant if we don’t take care of first things first!
So explain why 95% of the black vote is going Obama? Are there really that many ignorant black people or are they simply voting on race?
If I were black, I would be insulted to think my vote was “in the bag”.
If Barry gets only 95% of the black vote, I’ll be shocked.
Are you white?
I’m just curious if you have an incurable case of white guilt or if your anti-white bias is actually racism instead.
The demographics are changing and eventually whites will be less than 50% of the population. But the “majority of minorities” will be divided among asians, blacks, hispanics, and others.
The “white race” that you bemoan as so evil, BTW, is also responsible western civilization’s progress. The enlightenment, renaissance, and scientific revolution all spawned out of eupope and later white america. This isn’t to say that whites are “better” than others. Instead, it’s to question why you think it’s such a good thing if the white race becomes insignificant.
Maybe you prefer the current South African model of government?
Romney will crush Obama tomorrow in popular vote and electoral college….it won’t be close….soon Obama will be filed in the history books next to Carter as a single term Presidential mistake. To quote
Obama “elections have consequences”…call Three men and a Truck….direct move from the White House to Chicago.
@gasman – hope you are right. Otherwise, we had better brush up on our Chinese!
Oh, I would say that it would be a good thing to brush up on your Chinese regardless of which dictator gets elected.
@by a – The Chi coms will own us if we keep “borrowing” from them. Read up on your History lessons dude.
Romney in a landslide! Obama to join the Chicago corrupt again
Wow you must have really had a big gulp from the tea party Cool aid cooler, dude. Ok, just deal everyone, you teabaggers are and were wrong. No landslide or even a squeeker (FITS) just embrace the desire to move away from ranchor and polarized politics.