It’s simple, if you want a large early voter turnout in St. Pete you label it “the Early Bird Special”. It cracks me up you guys pretend ObamaCare wasn't a big factor in this election. Hell, even the tried and true Democrat tactic of scaring the seniors didn’t work in this race.
Well I believe that you are cracking up, anyway. Don't recall that I pretended anything, merely suggested that 25% is not necessarily evidence that limited early voting didn't affect the result...
Can you please post the single national law for early voting? Oh, there isn't one because the states handle it? Wow, it's almost like you don't know what you're talking about. In some states, you need to provide a valid reason to get an absentee ballot, and wouldja know it, "having to work two or three jobs" often doesn't cut it with some of these more...conservative...attorneys general.
otherwise known as partisan for "yeah, I got nothing." LMAO I didn't even realize he was posting. I put him on ignore long ago.
No. You can't seem to grasp that "simplicity" and "ease" are not direct synonyms, and the difference between them is the heart of the discussion-- at least my share of it. That's really pretty dumb in this context, whether it is a put on to score points or not.
In this case, both terms are more than adequate to describe the absentee and early voting process. Trust me, between the two us, I’m certainly not the one desperately attempting to spin this result.
Well Brummie is insinuating that tight early voting restrictions played a played a big factor in this race (it didn’t) so when you chime in with your 40% I can only assume you agree with him. The fact is this was a race the Dems were confident they would win, the DNC handpicked a strong candidate with huge name recognition, poured tons of resources into the race, and ran attack ads against their GOP opponent 24/7 and they still lost.
It's a shame you have me on ignore. Because now you won't know that a lot of the people who I'm talking about - the ones you call lazy and uneducated - just don't have the internet. How easy is it to apply online when you don't have internet access? How on earth the Republican party gets off thinking that the poor can afford internet access, voter ID cards, and time off work just astounds me.
The reason why you still continue to not be an intelligent person plays out beautifully in this post. Go back and re-read the thread. Did I every say that the Republican would lose if more people voted? Of course not. I said the outcome would be very different. If all the outcome means to you is a 1 (win) or a 0 (loss), there's no way we can determine who would win because when you allow someone the ability to vote, it's not flipping a switch. There are all sorts of downstream effects - if they go and vote for the first time, they might feel overwhelmed by the number of absurd local candidacies to vote for and become a proponent of repealing some Progressive-era election reforms. That's one example of many, so please don't go off on some massive tangent about this. It'll make you look even less intelligent. No, what I was saying was this: Jolly won by three points, 48-45. Had turnout been 40% instead of 25%, he could have won by eight. Or ten. Or by one in a squeaker. Or lost by six. Or be ten. The odds that it would have stayed the same are much lower, however, due to the increased variance. What we're discussing is doubling the size of the electorate by making election day a national holiday, by allowing early voting two weeks in advance, by actually educating voters on early voting (without looking, tell me all the early voting rules for Georgia. Wow, nobody knows them, not even really educated voters. Who knew.), and by removing other obstacles to voting. Predicting an increase in the electorate by that amount is massively unpredictable once we eliminate the institutional barriers that pollsters can use to weed out registered from unregistered from unlikely from likely voters. Until you can grasp that "changing the outcome" does not boil down to your laughably simple 1s and 0s, you are doomed to repeat your mistakes. You are doomed to predict Mitt Romney over and over again. You are doomed to consider the 4.2 million exchange enrollments as a disaster. You are doomed to think that our response in Libya is unconstitutional overreach whereas our response in Syria is underwhelming namby-pamby. This stuff is connected, don't doubt it. You will grow tired of being wrong one day. No group of people can maintain a collective delusion for so long.
BTW, from AP last night" [/quote]Despite a disastrous start and relentless Republican opposition, President Barack Obama said Friday that enrollment in his signature health care program is high enough to make it stable for the millions who have signed up.[/quote] But of course "Minister of propaganda" and "FUBAR"...
Despite a disastrous start and relentless Republican opposition, President Barack Obama said Friday that enrollment in his signature health care program is high enough to make it stable for the millions who have signed up.[/quote] But of course "Minister of propaganda" and "FUBAR"... [/quote] I also read somewhere that enrollment for some people will continue past March 31st. Not to mention that people can start signing up again in October, a mere seven months away.
LMFAO. Do you honestly think he would say anything else? It's lie after lie after lie with these fools. I stopped taking Sebelius and Co. seriously long ago. But yeah, it's definitely all propaganda. They're still 2 million short, and it's estimated that another 1 million enrollees have to yet to pay their premiums. Plus we have no idea how many of these enrollees were previously uninsured (the whole f***** point of the law), and they are way short of the target for young enrollees (which are key to keeping insurers from raising premiums). This new marketing onslaught shows their desperation. Anyway, while that was a nice diversion, we can continue that back in the Healthcare thread. Back to the midterms.
Oh Sebelius and Co. know the #’s. They may be incompetent, but they’re not stupid: So how many have paid ACA premiums? “They have a lot more information than they’re letting on,” one industry source said of the Obama administration. “They have real hard data about the percent that have paid … If they have not processed those yet and compiled the data, that is a choice they are making. But they have that data now.”
I'll bet on the Dems' (barely) keeping the Senate, largely because Republicans have a bad habit lately of nominating candidates that'll say and do things that play well with the base and thus win them House races, but make things more difficult in statewide (IOW, Senate) and national races.
I read it as a general statement, based on recent history (e.g. Indiana and Missouri should have been R pickups in 2012 except that the Republicans shot themselves in the foot by nominating people who were not electable statewide). This discussion should probably move over to the Senate thread in order to discuss specific races.
This is why you're an idiot. And, as a consequence, why you have me on ignore. For everyone else: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/mo/missouri_senate_akin_vs_mccaskill-2079.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Missouri,_2012 The GOP primary in the state was August 7, 2012. At no point after August 20 did the Republican candidate lead in the polls. He led in the polls for two weeks. Then the press put in their first report and they lost. This of course ignores the entire literature on how polling is quite variant before an election; if you look at Nate Silver's predictions, there were forecasting errors that got smaller as the election day got closer. As for Indiana, Mourdock led in some polls, trailed in others, until his late revelation that he was nuttier than that dude with 700-pound balls from South Park. Then he stopped leading in all of them.
Both akin and Murdock were electable statewide. They just made the dumbest of statements which exposed their lunacy to the world. The result that even in deep red states they were defeated. If they kept their views tactfully to themselves they would've won easily.
I keep hearing that these guys were electable statewide -- but the fact is, they weren't elected. Saying dumb things that get you not-elected is a sign that they were actually not electable. It's not like Donnelly and McCaskill were such awesome candidates that they had no chance. Or are you saying that they came up against the Obama wave and lost because more Ds were turning out for Obama? If they ran in 2010 or 2014 they'd win? I don't buy it -- you don't get to say things that turn off women to that extent and still get elected unless you're in the deepest of the deep south.