dajafi wrote:Are you saying that because Democrats are nearly as bad as Republicans on a few issues--or at least were willing to be "yes men" on some of those awful things--the differences on torture, equality, investment, starting wars vs. ending wars are meaningless? Or because Obama might make some similar mistakes--though I doubt it, given the judgment he and his team have shown on the big stuff vs. that of Romney's Bush advisers--in future? That's nihilistic even for a when-i-feel-like-it (IOW, when women's rights and reproductive choices aren't involved) libertarian.

And on education policy, you need to read my post again. I am pretty much sure the good instinct that informed NCLB (and aid in Africa) is dead on that side in the Tea Party age. That's what I'm saying. They're actually getting worse, as the Bennetts and Lugars give way to the Mourdocks and Akins.

Timing and context matter. Obviously I don't like Romney, but I think 30 years ago someone of his profile would have been a fine president: he's smart, manages well and seems to have some personal ethics (no big scandals during his governorship). But the modern Republican Party is unhinged, and I don't imagine he'll do much if anything to restrain the absolutists. Things we might both want--overhaul of the tax code or immigration reform--won't happen in the established form (bipartisan, product of compromise) when the governing authority doesn't even recognize the legitimacy of their opposition. You in particular, as a pox-on-both-houses type, should oppose them as you would any group that believes it has a monopoly on truth and righteousness despite the lousy track record I described.

td11 wrote:

So, what gives? Why is Obama — at least according to the Post-ABC data — having so much trouble with independents?

The answer lies in the fact that most independents are not, well, independent. Of all the likely voters who called themselves independents in nine days of the Post-ABC tracking poll, fully three-quarters (75 percent) — said they tend to lean toward one party or the other. (The remainder are known as “pure” independents.)

And it’s among those shadow partisans that Obama is struggling. Ninety-two percent of Republican-leaning independents said they plan to support Romney, while 84 percent of Democratic-leaning independents are backing Obama.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

Werthless wrote:Again, the whole point of my post was that yours had little to do with Romney. And you're still going on and on about the tea party. Again, if abortion is very dear to you, as it is for many of you, then you should probably vote for Obama. But dont pretend that Romney is going to hurt the economy more than anything Obama would do.

Werthless wrote: But dont pretend that Romney is going to hurt the economy more than anything Obama would do.

jerseyhoya wrote:An Ohio poll tied at 49-49 where they push leaners and push indies to id with the party they lean to (D+3 sample, which seems realistic). Poll apparently has a very good track record.

td11 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:An Ohio poll tied at 49-49 where they push leaners and push indies to id with the party they lean to (D+3 sample, which seems realistic). Poll apparently has a very good track record.

this was pre-debate and the moe was +10 among independents

mozartpc27 wrote:Yeah, I'm back to worried sick about the election. Good thing I already have a dog, cause I's scared.

Someone hold me and tell me it's going to be alright.

Werthless wrote:

dajafi wrote:Are you saying that because Democrats are nearly as bad as Republicans on a few issues--or at least were willing to be "yes men" on some of those awful things--the differences on torture, equality, investment, starting wars vs. ending wars are meaningless? Or because Obama might make some similar mistakes--though I doubt it, given the judgment he and his team have shown on the big stuff vs. that of Romney's Bush advisers--in future? That's nihilistic even for a when-i-feel-like-it (IOW, when women's rights and reproductive choices aren't involved) libertarian.

And on education policy, you need to read my post again. I am pretty much sure the good instinct that informed NCLB (and aid in Africa) is dead on that side in the Tea Party age. That's what I'm saying. They're actually getting worse, as the Bennetts and Lugars give way to the Mourdocks and Akins.

Timing and context matter. Obviously I don't like Romney, but I think 30 years ago someone of his profile would have been a fine president: he's smart, manages well and seems to have some personal ethics (no big scandals during his governorship). But the modern Republican Party is unhinged, and I don't imagine he'll do much if anything to restrain the absolutists. Things we might both want--overhaul of the tax code or immigration reform--won't happen in the established form (bipartisan, product of compromise) when the governing authority doesn't even recognize the legitimacy of their opposition. You in particular, as a pox-on-both-houses type, should oppose them as you would any group that believes it has a monopoly on truth and righteousness despite the lousy track record I described.

Libertarianism is not freedom to do whatever the hell you please. If you want to sum it up, it's freedom to do whatever the hell you please when it doesnt negatively affect someone else. That you can't/won't acknowledge how that may apply to abortion speaks more to you than to me.

Again, the whole point of my post was that yours had little to do with Romney. And you're still going on and on about the tea party. Again, if abortion is very dear to you, as it is for many of you, then you should probably vote for Obama. But dont pretend that Romney is going to hurt the economy more than anything Obama would do.

Warszawa wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:Yeah, I'm back to worried sick about the election. Good thing I already have a dog, cause I's scared.

Someone hold me and tell me it's going to be alright.

no matter who wins can't see much if any legislation getting passed through congress anyway. would like to thank the republicans in the house and senate for setting a great blueprint for this. i mean if romney wins i would hope that the dems focus on nothing more than making him a one term prez and just filibuster everything.
the one thing i am scared about would be the supreme court. if obama somehow loses i would hope that a judge like ginsburg would retire immediately and let obama replace her.

Werthless wrote:

td11 wrote:

So, what gives? Why is Obama — at least according to the Post-ABC data — having so much trouble with independents?

The answer lies in the fact that most independents are not, well, independent. Of all the likely voters who called themselves independents in nine days of the Post-ABC tracking poll, fully three-quarters (75 percent) — said they tend to lean toward one party or the other. (The remainder are known as “pure” independents.)

And it’s among those shadow partisans that Obama is struggling. Ninety-two percent of Republican-leaning independents said they plan to support Romney, while 84 percent of Democratic-leaning independents are backing Obama.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

My mother in law calls herself indepedent. I don't know if she has ever voted for a Democrat.

dajafi wrote:Pretty interesting take on the role of outside money in this year's cycle. I don't know if Paul is ghost-writing Edsall's stuff, but they seem to share a perspective on the positive role political parties can and should play.

pacino wrote:imagine that, independents dont exist