StrangeSox

I doubt Christie's handling of Sandy in 2012 will play prominently in 2016.

The vast majority of the Republicans who don't care about those social issues (I don't think that's accurate but w/e) could vote in the primaries.

QUOTE (SOXOBAMA @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 09:54 AM) Bush said he had a mandate after he won 286 electoral votes in 2004. So, Obama must have a giant mandate by comparison No. According to Politico and the WSJ, it dasn't a broad mandate because he had to rely on minorities and women to win instead of winning the white male vote.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 09:26 AM) THAT point is view is more logical, yes. But it doesn't apply to most states. I think putting your voice into the system, even if it's "wasted" sends a message of protest. Yes, I used my vote to protest. I thought that was the point of the system...the point of having a voice, even if it's a small one. That was what I did in the Biggert/Foster election. I wrote-in a friend's name. I don't support Biggert, but Foster is bad himself and the difference between the two didn't amount to enough for me to care. I suppose on the whole I'm glad Foster won, but he wasn't going to do it with my vote.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 09:25 AM) i was also just about to type that in response to Rock so why are you saying what you're saying to people living in Indiana and Illinois? These states were secure for each candidate.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 09:24 AM) Yet it is the same "logic" you are putting forth. Romney had no chance to win last night, right Nate Silver? Ergo, everyone who voted for Mitt wasted their vote. Romney had about a 10% chance based on the polls. Johnson and Stein had 0%.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 09:23 AM) If you think that one of the two major party candidates is significantly worse than the other AND you live in a swing state, then voting 3rd party is probably a bad idea. Neither of those conditions applied to me, so I was fine with voting for Johnson as a protest vote. This is pretty much how I see it.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 09:16 AM) lol ok. see this is the reason this country is so divided.

OTOH, if a only 600 fewer liberals voted for Nader in Florida in 2000, we would have been sparred 8 years of Bush. Game theory plays a part in elections if you're in a swing state.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 09:03 AM) 3. If you happen to be against gay marriage, never ever campaign on that issue, and when asked about it, mention that your focus is on economic and national security issues. The country has changed so much in only 8 years.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Nov 6, 2012 -> 03:40 PM) There's going to be another QOTSA album, and Dave Grohl is going to play drums on it. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 08:50 AM) It means you're "supposed to" vote for Obama so when you vote Libertarian you might as well vote for Romney since you just helped him out. No it means that since libertarians overwhelmingly would support Republicans before Democrats, voting for Libertarians means you're not voting for the Republican and are therefore increasing the Democrats' chances.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 08:48 AM) [/b] What does that even mean? That doesn't really make any sense. The Libertarian party has very little in common with Obama. The Greens have even less in common with Romney. e.g. A vote for Nader in Florida in 2000 was a vote for Bush.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 08:46 AM) On same sex marriage you are mixing up his personal and governmental points of view. Mr. States Rights supports DOMA and is a perennial cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act. edit: He also opposed the ruling in Lawrence that we have a constitutional right to privacy in sexual matters.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 08:45 AM) Love. at least it made sense for liberals to want to go to a more-liberal country.

QUOTE (Jake @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 08:41 AM) Americans don't have the stomach for a real libertarian's economic policy Austrian economics iz bad

Marriage equality won on the ballot in three states. Progressive champion Warren is in the Senate. Tammy Baldwin, the first openly gay Senator, was elected. Obama won with a strong electoral vote margin. This was a pretty solid night for liberals.

Strong pro-life, anti-marriage equality, and a whole host of nutty economic ideas to boot. Not exactly a broad-reaching "out of my bedroom" candidate.

Well I asked if the Republicans could win without their social conservative base and you pointed out a socially conservative candidate so...

I gotta disagree with that. Ron Paul doesn't shy away from social conservatism himself, anyway.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 08:11 AM) I actually wish they'd all be forced to add a vote of no confidence to the ballot (none of the above), I heard Jesse Ventura pose this idea once, and I thought it was brilliant. Worse, I think he's right...they won't do it because they know none of the above would win. Some states have that as an option for at least some races. Incumbents hate it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 08:07 AM) I would kill for an out of my wallet and out of my bedroom candidate. Could the Republicans win a national election without appealing to their very socially conservative base?

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 01:17 AM) The GOP are not anti-Latino. I can only assume he is talking about immigration. The message has been pro legal immigration. I was born in Ireland and immigrated here through the same legal immigration process that others have used no matter of race, religion, or country of origin. As an immigrant I support immigration. Sure would I have loved to have my entire family over here, absolutely. But it didn't work out. Their situation is just as poor and dire as any poor country. Just as my families was. The GOP is seen as anti-Latino by the Latino community for a variety of reasons.

Allen West loses: http://elections.msnbc.msn.com/ns/politics...8/#.UJn4FcV6sxH

Hi balta, Nice to see you again