pacino wrote:is mitt going to be the first person to lose four of five home states? is he the first person to have five home states (michigan, massachusetts, rhode island, california, utah)? just an interesting thing. i guess gore was the first to lose his home state but win the most votes.

New Hampshire, not Rhode Island

He could win NH if things turn back around

ah, knew it was another NE state. he's winning maine, right??? feel like it'd be sad if he was down in that. that's the republican mainstay in the northeast.

New Hampshire is the only chance Republicans have in the Northeast. Could win ME-02 in a really good GOP year.

OK, flipped them because of the senators. thanks. weird that maine picks their senators republican but votes democratic?

"One hundred percent of the kids in our state had health insurance. I don't think there's anything that shows more empathy and care about the people of this country than that kind of record."

Thanks for validating the need for the ACA, Mitt.

To quote my favorite W. line, Gore did win his home state: DC.

W lost Connecticut, though

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Breweries per square mile? What a dumb way to measure it.

tis, but i couldnt find one about per capita. alaska is top 10 in that due to how small their population is, but one could argue that NJ has easier access to PA microbrews than Alaska has to ANY other micros, so land size makes some more sense in that respect.

http://www.brewersassociation.org/pages ... per-capita

you have to go to the link and open the pdf.

looks like NJ and NY need to get in gear to keep up.
other than the south, it's all over the place. that's because the south still has 'dry' counties, i think.

thanks for posting that, man.

They said if I voted for McCain/Palin, there'd be increased warrantless electronic surveillance of Americans, and they were right.

jerseyhoya wrote:They said if I voted for McCain/Palin, there'd be increased warrantless electronic surveillance of Americans, and they were right.

so you should be happy?

and so i should vote, what, romney?, cause he'll fix it. this is why i say we dont have a true liberal party.

I really wish they let the third party candidates join in one debate, just so issues like that might get an airing. Likewise the war on drugs, real finance sector reform, et al--big stuff where the major party candidates are in near total agreement, and public opinion is probably somewhere very different.

But that would require a media and elites actually interested in an informed public, which of course is the last thing they want.

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:They said if I voted for McCain/Palin, there'd be increased warrantless electronic surveillance of Americans, and they were right.

so you should be happy?

and so i should vote, what, romney?, cause he'll fix it. this is why i say we dont have a true liberal party.

On that, yeah. Government needs to be aggressive in performing its primary responsibility. Keeping its citizens safe.

Wish we were still trying to catch terrorists and sending them to third world hell holes or Guantanamo rather than humanely blowing them up with their travelling parties or families with the drones though.

sending them to third world hell holes is illegal. catching them is fine. blowing them up is lazy. signature strikes are horrible, and the president said so early on but something made him cave. it's very disappointing....but for me, or you, to think THAT will somehow change under a republican administration is, at its very best, incredibly naive.

dajafi wrote:I really wish they let the third party candidates join in one debate, just so issues like that might get an airing. Likewise the war on drugs, real finance sector reform, et al--big stuff where the major party candidates are in near total agreement, and public opinion is probably somewhere very different.

But that would require a media and elites actually interested in an informed public, which of course is the last thing they want.

gary johnson from the right and jill stein (wish it was someone better) from the left would be interesting to place into a debate. it would give it an air of legitimacy.

johnson-types are hte savior of the republican party. i hope they realize that sooner rather than later for the betterment of our political system and our country.

pacino wrote:OK, flipped them because of the senators. thanks. weird that maine picks their senators republican but votes democratic?

It's like bizarro Arkansas.

darn 'Obama Phone' created in 2008....???? wtf??? this all you got, drudge? trying to not discuss the economic numbers just put out, i guess

Indeed. Studiously avoiding 2Q GDP being revised down to 1.3% on top of the awful durable goods numbers out heightening fears of a double dip recession. That's what the VRWC is doing.

Last week I was thinking that it might be a good idea if house and senate votes became private. Sure, it seems a little counter-intuitive, because voters sort of have a right to know what their reps are doing, but I think it might help limit purely partisan politics. Then I just read tonight(while helping with homework ) that they did the same thing with the first constitutional congress- they kept the proceedings under lock & key for 30 years so the Founders wouldn't be shy about speaking and voting their conscience. Of course neither party would go for the idea today. We'd need a referendum and an educated public to vote.

Someone start a petition, mkay?

A central pillar of a democracy is accountability (although it may not seem to be with President It's Not My Fault becoming a favorite for reelection).

While there are some aspects of sunshine laws/disclosure that might be more trouble than they're worth, making Congressional votes private would be more or less the end of the republic. Only exaggerating a little bit.