PDA

View Full Version : The electoral game



Tetragrammaton
04-27-2012, 05:32 PM
First, two free references that people can use:

270towin.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2012

Now that Mitt Romney has all but won the Republican party, we can start looking at state-by-state poll results, which are starting to mobilize now that they know who the target is (my people just started moving past Florida and local elections this week). While everyone talks about dogs, communists, and Rush Limbaugh, polling numbers is the most fascinating part of any election cycle.

The first thing people need to know is the changes in electoral vote representation because of the 2010 Census. These are all the states that changed their numbers.

Arizona, +1
Florida, +2
Georgia, +1
Illinois, -1
Iowa, -1
Louisiana, -1
Massachusetts, -1
Michigan, -1
Missouri, -1
Nevada, +1
New Jersey, -1
New York, -2
Ohio, -2
Pennsylvania, -1
South Carolina, +1
Texas, +4
Utah, +1
Washington, +1

What does this mean? Ohio is less important, Florida is more important, and Republicans got a boost while the Democrats lost a few in their traditional safe states.

Obama won 359-179 last election, the most impressive result we are likely to see in any election in our generation. Who will win, though? Let's look state-by-state.

If you go to 270towin.com, the default will be the 50 states colored in by Republican or Democrat, with the nine "swing" (Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia) states uncolored. They are calling Arizona for Romney and Michigan for Obama, but I am going to call those both swing as well and include them on my list. People who aren't good at politics think Pennsylvania is a swing state, so I will go along with them. Subtracting Arizona and Michigan gives Obama a 211-180 lead. Since he is the President, we will see how he can get to 270, swing state by swing state.

One note, however: Indiana, which Obama won by a percentage point in 2008, is likely Safe Republican. That is the only change everyone agrees on so far.

ARIZONA:
I pull Arizona for a lot of reasons. While it has been reliable for Republicans for many cycles, it likely would have gone for Obama had McCain not been their Senator. Outside of Utah, the entire Southwest region is slowly becoming a reliable Democratic constituency, since they appeal more to the growing Hispanic base, as well as the drunken Arizona State lunatics. Two polls came out this month. Both 42-40, one each for Obama and Romney. This is a true tossup, and if you live in the state, you will surely see it.

COLORADO:
Similar to Arizona. New Mexico has more or less become a Democratic state, and Colorado might soon follow. A poll just released a few days ago has them in a statistical dead heat, but PPP gave Obama 53-40 earlier this month and Romney has never led or tied Obama in a poll here. I won't call it yet, but if this trend continues into June, most will.

FLORIDA:
The third-biggest haul, and the only one that is actually competitive. This is the game, and for many reasons. Because of the math, if Obama wins Florida, he needs very little other help to reach 270, so for Romney this is a must-win. In many respects, Florida is a symbol of America, with its diversity compared to other states. Being able to build a coalition from Miami Hispanics, Haitians, Jews, northern religious whites, and the middle class is a delicate balancing act. Three polls have come out in less than twelve days. One had Obama at 50-45, another at 45-43, but the most recent gave Romney 47-45. Too early to tell.

IOWA:
Because of its low electoral numbers, no one has seen fit to throw money at too many polls so far. Only one has been done this year, in February, which gave Mitt Romney a 46-44 advantage. I would predict the state for Obama anyway, given its history, but six electoral votes aren't that important.

MICHIGAN:
Republicans pretended to make a race of this reliably Democratic state in 2008, but with the economy, it never happened. The economy works in reverse this time, and Mitt Romney is a native, so most people were not shocked when Obama only led 47-43 in a poll that came out earlier this month. Obama is still going to win this state, because of his base, but Mitt Romney is going to pour a lot of money into this one.

NEVADA:
A bit of a late break for Obama in 2008, he is looking pretty well here in 2012 after years of Republican control. The only poll released this month showed Obama at a 51-43 lead. If you start reaching 50 percent in any poll, especially with eight months to go and all of those undecideds remaining, you are in trouble. Is Mitt Romney supposed to sweep undecideds and woo people who have their minds made up this far in advance? A tall order, but a small state. A sustainable loss for Romney.

NEW HAMPSHIRE:
New Hampshire was long the independent crowd of the Northeast, going for Bush when everyone went for Gore, but the Boston suburbs of New Hampshire seemed to be turning this state, as it went for Kerry and Obama. However, a Massachusetts ex-governor on the ticket makes this competitive. Polls this month vary wildly, giving Obama 51-42 in one poll and Romney 44-42 in another. It is the smallest swing state haul, however, so who knows how much in resources will go there?

NORTH CAROLINA:
Black turnout helped Obama win a squeaker in 2008, and he is running competitive here again. Romney leads 46-44 in the most recent poll, but results earlier this month gave Obama a 49-44 lead. I would bet this one is won by Romney, and with a healthy margin. If Obama can only win 50-49 in 2008, as the first black Presidential candidate and with such an unpopular President, how can he compete with lower black turnout and a bad economy?

OHIO:
FOX News started calling this for Republicans by 2010, but a slightly improved economy and a billionaire opponent helps Obama relate to working-class voters. He has led all three polls conducted and released this month, by the margins of 49-44, 46-42, and 45-39, with outlets such as Fox News and Rasmussen (Fox News) releasing these. You have to go back to February to see a Romney lead in the state. If Obama picks up Ohio, it puts him very close to his 270, so Romney needs to focus a lot of energy here and hope his Michigan roots spill over.

PENNSYLVANIA:
One of the unavoidable truths of American politics is having to pretend Pennsylvania is in play for Republicans. If John Kerry can win by 3 here, what Democrat can't win? Obama carried the state 54-44 in 2008, and he will do so again. No polls since March, which gave Obama a 45-42 advantage. Obama has dominated the polls for the last year or so, with Romney tying or leading by a point or two a few times. He will try to make it a race, but it would be hard to make it a realistic swing state.

Virginia:
This state is so back-and-forth. Two polls were released a few days ago: One gave Obama a 48-46 lead, while the other gave Romney a 45-44 lead. With one being Rasmussen, it is hard to say, as Obama was doing very well in polls before that. No one is going to call this for a while, but I have to think the D.C. suburbs will show up for the devil they know.

So where do we stand? If we give Obama Michigan and Pennsylvania, he rockets up to 247 electoral votes. If we give Romney North Carolina, that leaves 96 electoral votes up on the table. Obama can get 23 votes in a lot of ways.

Scenario one: Win Florida. That ends everything.

Scenario two: Southwestern sweep of Colorado, Arizona, and Nevada, along with safe New Mexico. This gives Obama 273.

Scenario three: With Ohio, any other state besides New Hampshire gives Obama at least 270. If Obama wins Ohio, nationally he probably would have the numbers for either Iowa or at least one of the Southwest states.

Scenario four: Virginia's thirteen electoral votes would boost Obama up to 260, and then other small states could put him over the top. Just Colorado would guarantee a 269-269 tie, but if you added a Nevada or New Hampshire, he goes over the top.

As you can see, Obama has a very solid structural advantage going into 2012. Mitt Romney needs the national trends to move several percentage points to move these states and to make Obama defend those states considered Safe before he can start buying furniture for the Oval Office.

Comments? Disagreements?

Locke
04-27-2012, 06:14 PM
Great breakdown Zest. I disagree with Arizona being winnable by Obama, and am iffy on Colorado, but everything else I can get on board with. I still don't see how Romney comes out with a win, but there is still a lot of time before November...

JamesBW43
04-28-2012, 11:05 AM
Can't say I disagree with any of that. I think we will see two very polished campaigns this time around.

As always, it all really depends on what issues come to the forefront and which candidate can find a way to get his base out to the polls (a tall order for both candidates this time though).

COphinphan89
04-29-2012, 01:26 AM
Good breakdown. One thing to consider about Colorado, there will almost certainly be a weed legalization measure on the ballot in November. Much like the gay marriage ballot issues brought the evangelicals out in droves for Bush in '04, this one could bring out more likely Obama voters. While I will certainly be voting to legalize it, I won't be voting for Obama or Romney.

Colorado has become a very blue state over the past few election cycles. The only real opposition the blues have left here is the large and very red El Paso county where I live.

Locke
04-29-2012, 12:45 PM
Good breakdown. One thing to consider about Colorado, there will almost certainly be a weed legalization measure on the ballot in November. Much like the gay marriage ballot issues brought the evangelicals out in droves for Bush in '04, this one could bring out more likely Obama voters. While I will certainly be voting to legalize it, I won't be voting for Obama or Romney.

Colorado has become a very blue state over the past few election cycles. The only real opposition the blues have left here is the large and very red El Paso county where I live.

I wasn't aware of that. I guess I was over-estimating the political pull of the Evangelical Christians that live in SE Colorado. If what you say is true, then it sounds like Obama will have a pretty good hold on Colorado...

CedarPhin
04-29-2012, 07:48 PM
Montana's a fairly purple state as well.

It's only 3 electoral votes though.

Tetragrammaton
04-29-2012, 08:27 PM
Montana's a fairly purple state as well.

It's only 3 electoral votes though.

Obama made a bit of a run at Montana back in 2008. He got 231,667 to McCain's 242,763. If Obama's war chest is as strong as he thinks it is going to be, he could throw a lot of money toward Montana. Actually winning it is a tall order, but if Romney has to defend it, that is an issue, as it takes him away from bigger hauls.

Fun fact: Montana is the most "independent" state, with the highest percentage of votes going to guys not named McCain or Obama in the 2008 election.

CedarPhin
04-29-2012, 08:52 PM
Had a ton of voters for Perot in 92, too.

Seems like most of their elected officials are almost always Dems (with a few exceptions here and there), and they always go Red for the GE. Definitely a lot of independent minded folk out there to be sure.

Dogbone34
04-29-2012, 08:54 PM
Romney / Bush

Locke
04-29-2012, 09:57 PM
Romney / Bush

How do you figure? Zest just gave us a pretty detailed break down, and nothing in there points to Romney having a significant chance of taking this thing. You can hope all you want, but the facts are telling us otherwise...

Dogbone34
04-29-2012, 11:21 PM
How do you figure? Zest just gave us a pretty detailed break down, and nothing in there points to Romney having a significant chance of taking this thing. You can hope all you want, but the facts are telling us otherwise...

jeb could move the dial

it is the incumbents to lose

Tetragrammaton
04-29-2012, 11:33 PM
The problem for Republicans, both now and in the immediate future, is that the "Safe Democrat" states are creeping closer to 270. Republicans need to win Ohio to have a chance, while Democrats don't need it. Republicans can't win without Florida; the Democrats can get to 270 in a lot of ways. If the regional trends of Hispanic voters, increasing in number, continue to go to the Democratic Party in the Southwest, the Democrats can form a coalition that might not be invincible, but would take a phenomenal campaign by a Republican to break through. If the Democrats' own the Northeast, the West Coast, the Southwest, and the Great Lakes area, all of those Southern and Midwestern states do little to combat that.

Locke
04-30-2012, 02:36 AM
jeb could move the dial

it is the incumbents to lose

No, Jeb couldn't. The Bush name is going to be a black mark for another decade or so. People aren't talking about the walking train wreck Bush was anymore, but you can be damn sure they will again if another Bush ends up on a ticket. Fact is, the worst thing the Republicans could do would be to put a Bush back on the ballot. I think that's why no one has seriously talked about him as a possible VP...

CedarPhin
04-30-2012, 12:22 PM
I think Jeb gets on the ticket this cycle, the Romney/Bush ticket goes down in flames, and Bush runs for the main office in 2016.

I've thought that for awhile now. "Romney/Bush", trying to get some lost glory from "Reagan/Bush". It won't work, but it'll be funny to watch them try.

Locke
04-30-2012, 12:26 PM
I think Jeb gets on the ticket this cycle, the Romney/Bush ticket goes down in flames, and Bush runs for the main office in 2016.

I've thought that for awhile now. "Romney/Bush", trying to get some lost glory from "Reagan/Bush". It won't work, but it'll be funny to watch them try.

If they were stupid enough to do that, we'd be looking at 16 years of a Dem in office. Can you imagine the clustf*ck we would see from the right if that happened...?

CedarPhin
04-30-2012, 12:36 PM
It's likely they'd claim that we'd become a one-party state, chock full of conspiracies about George Soros, the UN, Bill Clinton, Obama's middle name, George Soros' pet fish, and say that we're on the fast track to tyranny, socialism, and feudalism for our Democratic overlords.

The John Birch wing of the GOP (which is pretty big these days) would probably commit a mass suicide, Jim Jones-style.

Locke
04-30-2012, 12:48 PM
It's likely they'd claim that we'd become a one-party state, chock full of conspiracies about George Soros, the UN, Bill Clinton, Obama's middle name, George Soros' pet fish, and say that we're on the fast track to tyranny, socialism, and feudalism for our Democratic overlords.

The John Birch wing of the GOP (which is pretty big these days) would probably commit a mass suicide, Jim Jones-style.

Toss in communist in there, and I think you hit all the main points...

CedarPhin
04-30-2012, 12:52 PM
Oh yeah. It's a Marxist-Communist-psuedo Muslim-Socialist-Ayerisian/Alinsky-ite plot to turn the USA into the USSA. Obummer's the Manchurian Candidate for all those who wish ill on America.

Dogbone34
04-30-2012, 03:23 PM
Toss in communist in there, and I think you hit all the main points...

dog eater

MadDog 88
04-30-2012, 03:38 PM
With the economy turning towards the better, smarter Americans won't want to return to the Bush ideology that Romney brings. Although it may be close in votes, I don't think Obama will have a problem reaching 270.

Dogbone34
04-30-2012, 03:41 PM
No, Jeb couldn't. The Bush name is going to be a black mark for another decade or so. People aren't talking about the walking train wreck Bush was anymore, but you can be damn sure they will again if another Bush ends up on a ticket. Fact is, the worst thing the Republicans could do would be to put a Bush back on the ballot. I think that's why no one has seriously talked about him as a possible VP...

I guess from the prism of the hard core left or those on the payroll. Americans like Jeb and they like celebrity gimmicky politicians. Some said W and Hillary were not viable and they did better than expected.

Locke
04-30-2012, 04:06 PM
I guess from the prism of the hard core left or those on the payroll. Americans like Jeb and they like celebrity gimmicky politicians. Some said W and Hillary were not viable and they did better than expected.

It's nothing to do with being a celebrity, and everything to do with the last name. George Bush might be remembered better by history, but that's not going to happen for another few decades. Right now, people won't need to be reminded that we are in this mess due to him. The idea that we bring his brother into office won't go over well with the Independents. Having a Bush on any Presidential ticket for the next few elections is political suicide...

JamesBW43
05-01-2012, 12:08 AM
The problem for Republicans, both now and in the immediate future, is that the "Safe Democrat" states are creeping closer to 270. Republicans need to win Ohio to have a chance, while Democrats don't need it. Republicans can't win without Florida; the Democrats can get to 270 in a lot of ways. If the regional trends of Hispanic voters, increasing in number, continue to go to the Democratic Party in the Southwest, the Democrats can form a coalition that might not be invincible, but would take a phenomenal campaign by a Republican to break through. If the Democrats' own the Northeast, the West Coast, the Southwest, and the Great Lakes area, all of those Southern and Midwestern states do little to combat that.

Republicans might be able to combat this by restricting voter rights on the state level though. I don't know how successful they've been in which states but I recall that they were trying quite hard to make it more difficult for minorities and young adults to vote.

Dogbone34
05-01-2012, 01:05 AM
Republicans might be able to combat this by restricting voter rights on the state level though. I don't know how successful they've been in which states but I recall that they were trying quite hard to make it more difficult for minorities and young adults to vote.

that's some serious political tin foil hat paranoia

rob19
05-01-2012, 06:56 AM
that's some serious political tin foil hat paranoia

I forget which episode but the Daily Show actually did a special that covered that very topic.

LANGER72
05-01-2012, 09:10 AM
J Bush will not be the VP. Rubio looks doubtful unless he changes his mind.
The welfare states are in Obama's pocket.

LANGER72
05-01-2012, 09:19 AM
Republicans might be able to combat this by restricting voter rights on the state level though. I don't know how successful they've been in which states but I recall that they were trying quite hard to make it more difficult for minorities and young adults to vote.


What they are trying to do is require a photo ID along with voter's registration to be eligible to vote.
We need ID's everywhere...banks, government offices, medical offices, for employment, etc...the arguments against this create the likely hood of voter fraud.
We all know the democrats PAC's will cheat any way they can. Getting names from cemeteries, etc.
It already happened in 2008, and you can bet it will happen again.

Tetragrammaton
05-01-2012, 09:38 AM
The welfare states are in Obama's pocket.

I wish welfare on all states, but if by "welfare states" you mean those that receive more money than they pay in taxes, those are all reliable Republican states.

JamesBW43
05-01-2012, 11:20 AM
that's some serious political tin foil hat paranoia

It's common knowledge man.

JamesBW43
05-01-2012, 11:23 AM
What they are trying to do is require a photo ID along with voter's registration to be eligible to vote.
We need ID's everywhere...banks, government offices, medical offices, for employment, etc...the arguments against this create the likely hood of voter fraud.
We all know the democrats PAC's will cheat any way they can. Getting names from cemeteries, etc.
It already happened in 2008, and you can bet it will happen again.

If I recall correctly some states were trying to require two forms of ID and disqualifying certain forms like college IDs et al. And while there is certainly a theoretical argument to be made against voter fraud, the simple fact is, it's not nearly as prevalent as many would like you to believe.

Dolphins9954
05-01-2012, 11:25 AM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/05/militaryind-1.jpg

CedarPhin
05-01-2012, 01:43 PM
nh6Hf5_ZYPI

Dogbone34
05-01-2012, 02:30 PM
It's common knowledge man.

No it's not common knowledge

it's common racially motivated divisive propaganda

Locke
05-01-2012, 07:26 PM
No it's not common knowledge

it's common racially motivated divisive propaganda

Really? Laws requiring college kids to cast their vote in their home state isn't voter suppression? Requiring two forms of IDs, excluding student IDs, to vote isn't voter suppression? These are all laws aimed at demographics that vote overwhelmingly Democrat: young adults and minorities...

LANGER72
05-01-2012, 07:46 PM
Really? Laws requiring college kids to cast their vote in their home state isn't voter suppression? Requiring two forms of IDs, excluding student IDs, to vote isn't voter suppression? These are all laws aimed at demographics that vote overwhelmingly Democrat: young adults and minorities...

It is very simple. You have to get the ID's and vote where you live, not where you vacation or go to school. Absentee ballots? The laws are not aimed at demographics, it is aimed at preventing voter fraud and making sure that one casts their vote where they are supposed to. It is very simple to understand. If you can't bother getting the ID's, taking steps of responsibility to ensure accuracy of the elections, then it is the voter himself that suppressing himself.
If the democrats had their way, you could just phone it in.

Locke
05-01-2012, 07:52 PM
It is very simple. You have to get the ID's and vote where you live, not where you vacation or go to school. Absentee ballots? The laws are not aimed at demographics, it is aimed at preventing voter fraud and making sure that one casts their vote where they are supposed to. It is very simple to understand. If you can't bother getting the ID's, taking steps of responsibility to ensure accuracy of the elections, then it is the voter himself that suppressing himself.
If the democrats had their way, you could just phone it in.

They know damn well that college kids have so much on their plate, they aren't going to worry about an absentee ballot. An 18 year old having more than one form of ID is extremely rare too. These are all laws designed specifically to limit young voter's turnout.

You can play coy and pretend to be all doe-eyed all you want. This is happening, everyone knows why, and that's why they are fighting it. Voter fraud is so low, there have been what, like 4-5 documented cases in the last several elections? Yup, that sounds like a major issue that demands law-changes to counter. Absolutely ridiculous. This is the only time I'll ever say this, but I really really hope you two are just being partisan here, because if you really think this is just innocent due-diligence, I worry about your ability to understand the world around you...

LANGER72
05-01-2012, 08:01 PM
College kids with all of what on their plate? LOL
I am sure they can squeeze it in between the jello shots and the beer funnel.
Those kids have cars or access to public transportation, they have zero excuse.
Lame, lame, lame.

Understanding the world around me? I have been living in it for quite some time now...not imagining it in some kind of weird virtual video game.

Pulling out two Id's to vote. How lazy.

Dolphins9954
05-01-2012, 08:05 PM
efKguI0NFek

Locke
05-01-2012, 08:09 PM
College kids with all of what on their plate? LOL
I am sure they can squeeze it in between the jello shots and the beer funnel.
Those kids have cars or access to public transportation, they have zero excuse.
Lame, lame, lame.

Understanding the world around me? I have been living in it for quite some time now...not imagining it in some kind of weird virtual video game.

Pulling out two Id's to vote. How lazy.

That first sentence tells me you've never stepped foot in a college, and how little you think of higher education. That tells me everything I need to know about your stance on this topic. I'm done...

JamesBW43
05-01-2012, 08:31 PM
It is very simple. You have to get the ID's and vote where you live, not where you vacation or go to school.

Why?


Absentee ballots?

I tried to vote absentee ballot in my first election back in '04. Broward county lost it, and then didn't get me a new one until a week after the election.


The laws are not aimed at demographics, it is aimed at preventing voter fraud and making sure that one casts their vote where they are supposed to. It is very simple to understand. If you can't bother getting the ID's, taking steps of responsibility to ensure accuracy of the elections, then it is the voter himself that suppressing himself.
If the democrats had their way, you could just phone it in.

What incident of voter fraud would have been prevented by requiring two forms of ID and disqualifying student IDs? What incident of voter fraud would have been prevented by reducing time allowed for early voting? What incident of voter fraud would have been prevented by fining people for not turning in signed voter registration forms within 48 hours instead of 10 days?

Dogbone34
05-01-2012, 08:33 PM
there are young, yes even minorities who support the GOP

the opponents of voter identification dragged partisan politics and race into it

show your identification to vote, it's not that hard

LANGER72
05-02-2012, 12:02 AM
Why?

I do not know about where you live, but that is the procedure where I live in Florida. The polling location is 10 minutes from my home. It is very convenient.


I tried to vote absentee ballot in my first election back in '04. Broward county lost it, and then didn't get me a new one until a week after the election.

Tough luck. The democrats running the elections office should be removed from office. Absentee ballots are generally reliable.



What incident of voter fraud would have been prevented by requiring two forms of ID and disqualifying student IDs? What incident of voter fraud would have been prevented by reducing time allowed for early voting? What incident of voter fraud would have been prevented by fining people for not turning in signed voter registration forms within 48 hours instead of 10 days?

I don't know off hand of any incidents involving student ID's. I think they could be used in conjunction with a state picture ID. I see no harm there as long as the other ID is state issued. Nothing wrong with having a passport as well. It never hurts to have 2 forms of ID...drivers license and passport.

Regarding early voting, they are allowing adequate time. I am sure there is a good reason, probably funding.

In the case of voter's registration form processing, do you think it is possible to verify the information on the application within 48 hours? Use some common sense. Cutting off voter's registration 10 days prior to voting does not sound unreasonable. The problem is that the procrastinators want the system to accommodate them. It is not like the election snuck up on them. Having people sign up hours before the election is a recipe for fraud...overwhelm the system.

CedarPhin
05-02-2012, 12:09 AM
Who is going to have the extra money to pay for a passport when you're going to college?

LANGER72
05-02-2012, 12:13 AM
That first sentence tells me you've never stepped foot in a college, and how little you think of higher education. That tells me everything I need to know about your stance on this topic. I'm done...

We have already went over this topic before. I know there is free time unless you are a total book worm. For you to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. Getting ID's, passport, or voter's registration takes just a little bit of time...every few - 10 years.
We all know your stance on higher education. Congrats enlightened DR Locke. It is getting kind of tiring hearing the same monotone.

LANGER72
05-02-2012, 12:20 AM
Who is going to have the extra money to pay for a passport when you're going to college?


What is it..135.00? It used to be 1/2 that price but someone we know and love jacked up the prices. Thank BO.
It is just a little bit more than the price of a tank of gas..

I am done here.

CedarPhin
05-02-2012, 01:41 AM
It's been like at least 120 since like 2007, when I renewed my passport.

Locke
05-02-2012, 02:52 AM
We have already went over this topic before. I know there is free time unless you are a total book worm. For you to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. Getting ID's, passport, or voter's registration takes just a little bit of time...every few - 10 years.
We all know your stance on higher education. Congrats enlightened DR Locke. It is getting kind of tiring hearing the same monotone.

Unless you're one of the extreme few who have a full ride, you are working at least one job to put yourself through school. An average of 15 credit hours, which requires extensive time to put together papers and homework, on top of approximately 20 hours a week of a part time job, and you think they have time to just throw away? Look, I know it's easy to think all college kids do is drink and bang each other if you've never been to college, but that's simply not true. The ones who do that too much usually end up dropping out or flunking out, so please don't base the average college kid's life off of those girls gone wild videos, that couldn't be farther from what really happens. At least, not with real college students.

Lastly, feel free to get tired of hearing the "same monotone", it's going to keep coming as long as you spout nonsense like college students have all this free time. You keep throwing out the same overused Republican talking points, I'm going to keep responding with the exact same arguments...

---------- Post added at 12:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 AM ----------


there are young, yes even minorities who support the GOP

the opponents of voter identification dragged partisan politics and race into it

show your identification to vote, it's not that hard

True, but they vote overwhelmingly democrat. It's easy to sacrifice a few votes of your own if it takes away exponentially more from the other side...

LANGER72
05-02-2012, 10:40 AM
Unless you're one of the extreme few who have a full ride, you are working at least one job to put yourself through school. An average of 15 credit hours, which requires extensive time to put together papers and homework, on top of approximately 20 hours a week of a part time job, and you think they have time to just throw away? Look, I know it's easy to think all college kids do is drink and bang each other if you've never been to college, but that's simply not true. The ones who do that too much usually end up dropping out or flunking out, so please don't base the average college kid's life off of those girls gone wild videos, that couldn't be farther from what really happens. At least, not with real college students.

Lastly, feel free to get tired of hearing the "same monotone", it's going to keep coming as long as you spout nonsense like college students have all this free time. You keep throwing out the same overused Republican talking points, I'm going to keep responding with the exact same arguments...

---------- Post added at 12:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 AM ----------



True, but they vote overwhelmingly democrat. It's easy to sacrifice a few votes of your own if it takes away exponentially more from the other side...


I will never accept the notion that college students have no free time to obtain an ID. I know otherwise. It just fits into your political talking points.

LANGER72
05-02-2012, 10:45 AM
It's been like at least 120 since like 2007, when I renewed my passport.

It was 85.00 in 2002 when I last renewed. It went from 97.00 to 100.00 in 2008. It is what it is.

JamesBW43
05-02-2012, 07:26 PM
I don't know off hand of any incidents involving student ID's. I think they could be used in conjunction with a state picture ID. I see no harm there as long as the other ID is state issued. Nothing wrong with having a passport as well. It never hurts to have 2 forms of ID...drivers license and passport.

Regarding early voting, they are allowing adequate time. I am sure there is a good reason, probably funding.

In the case of voter's registration form processing, do you think it is possible to verify the information on the application within 48 hours? Use some common sense. Cutting off voter's registration 10 days prior to voting does not sound unreasonable. The problem is that the procrastinators want the system to accommodate them. It is not like the election snuck up on them. Having people sign up hours before the election is a recipe for fraud...overwhelm the system.

The 48 hour thing is about 3rd party individuals or groups who register people to vote. If they do not turn in the signed registration forms within 48 hours they are fined. This new rule has caused some groups to cancel their voter registration efforts in Florida.

Dolphins9954
05-03-2012, 11:15 AM
http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif