RSN May Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Tomasky writes: "There's a secret lurking behind everything you're reading about the upcoming election, a secret that all political insiders know ... but few are talking about, most likely because it takes the drama out of the whole business."

Pennsylvania will be an important state for President Obama in November. (photo: Kristoffer Tripplaar/Pool/Getty Images)
Pennsylvania will be an important state for President Obama in November. (photo: Kristoffer Tripplaar/Pool/Getty Images)



The Coming Obama Landslide?

By Michael Tomasky, The Daily Beast

05 Aug 12

 

Liberals don't want to jinx it. It terrifies the right. And the press would prefer a nail-biter. But the fact is that finding Romney's path to victory is getting harder every day.

here's a secret lurking behind everything you're reading about the upcoming election, a secret that all political insiders know - or should - but few are talking about, most likely because it takes the drama out of the whole business. The secret is the electoral college, and the fact is that the more you look at it, the more you come to conclude that Mitt Romney has to draw an inside straight like you've never ever seen in a movie to win this thing. This is especially true now that it seems as if Pennsylvania isn't really up for grabs. Romney's paths to 270 are few.

First, let's discuss Pennsylvania. There has been good reason for Democrats to sweat this state. True, Obama won it handily in 2008, by 10 points. But it's a state that is older and whiter and more working-class than most of America. Obama benefited from all the unique circumstances of 2008 that helped him across the country, but if ever there were a state where the "well, we gave the black guy a chance and he blew it" meme might catch on, it's the Keystone State.

But the jobless rate there is 7.5 percent, well below the national average. Democratic voter registration has held its own. The Philly suburbs have grown. And this odious voter ID law is facing meaningful challenges. A hearing on the law's validity has just been concluded. A state judge says he'll rule on the law's constitutionality the week of Aug. 13. It sounds as if the law's opponents made a stronger case at the hearing than its supporters. In any case, the losing side will appeal to the state Supreme Court.

But whatever happens with that law, Pennsylvania has been trending back toward Obama lately. He now holds a lead there of nearly seven points, and he's close to 50. And as I wrote the other day, Nate Silver now gives Barack Obama a slightly better chance of winning Montana than he does Romney of winning Pennsylvania. That tells you something.

The Democrats' Pennsylvania sweat also had to do with its size - 20 electoral votes, tied with Illinois for fifth biggest in the country. Democrats have been able to count on those votes for 20 years. Losing them would be a dagger right in the heart, a maybe irreparable sundering of the party's electoral coalition. Imagine Republicans losing usually reliable Missouri (10 EV's) and Arizona (11). Big ouch.

So if Pennsylvania is off the boards, let's look around. Imagine it's election night, say 10:45 east coast time. Four eastern states haven't been called yet: Ohio (18), Virginia (13), North Carolina (15), and Florida (29). Also, in some Western states, the polls haven't closed, or the races are too tight to project just yet - Colorado and Nevada, say. Arizona has just been called for Romney. At this point, Romney actually leads, 188 to 182. In this scenario I'm assuming Obama has won Iowa (6), which is admittedly close but where his lead has been stable at three or four points, and New Hampshire (4), where Obama has a similar fairly small but stable lead, and Michigan (16), where the gap appears to be opening up a little.

So it's a six-vote Romney edge. They're feeling great up in Boston. Especially with the big Eastern four still up in the air. Right?

Not really. Let's look at these West Coast states. Even though they're still voting in California, obviously Obama is going to win it (55). And equally obviously, he's going to win Washington (12) and Oregon (7), where neither side even bothered to spend a dime. Throw in Hawaii (4). Those 78 votes haul Obama up to 260. That's something to keep in mind for election night: Whatever Obama's number is at 10 pm Eastern, add those 78 EV's - they're a mortal lock, and a hefty insurance policy. If he wins Nevada (6) and Colorado (9), it's over.

In other words, Obama can lose the big Eastern four - Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida: all of 'em! - and still be reelected.

And barring some huge cataclysm, he's not losing all four of those states. If he wins even one - say Virginia, the smallest of the four- then Romney has to win Colorado, Iowa, and New Hampshire; all possible, certainly, but all states where he has been behind, narrowly but consistently, for weeks or months.

The list of states where Obama holds that narrow but consistent lead is long: Ohio, Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, and New Hampshire. Michigan and Wisconsin are no longer really narrow. Florida is more or less a dead heat. The bottom line is that of the dozen or so key swing states, Romney leads only in one: North Carolina. And that lead developed only over the summer. We'll see whether the Democrats' decision to convene in Charlotte has any impact on Romney's three-point margin.

All this explains the interesting little chart toward the lower right-hand corner of Nate Silver's home page, headed "Electoral Vote Distribution." It rates the probability that Obama receives a certain number of electoral votes. Most outcomes, in a range running from 150 EV's up to 400, rate around a 2 percent chance of Obama receiving that number. The highest spike on the chart? It's at around 330 EV's, which Silver reckons Obama has a 14 percent chance of hitting. Now, most political journalists would chuckle derisively at the idea that Obama is going to carry home 330 EV's. Deride away. And while you do, bear in mind that Silver called 50 out of 51 states last time (counting DC; he missed only Indiana) and every single Senate race.

Sure, something big could happen to alter the dynamic completely. But we've watched these guys go, what, six or seven rounds now (out of 15). After seven rounds, you can pretty well tell some things. All the supposedly game-changing events of the last few weeks haven't changed much of anything. This is a paradoxical situation that has little or no modern precedent, which makes it hard for people to accept. Liberals are too nervous to think it, reporters too intent on a "down to the wire" narrative, and conservatives too furious and disbelieving, but it's shaping up to be true: An extremely close election that on election night itself stands a surprisingly good chance of being not that close at all.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+171 # brux 2012-08-05 09:49
I was a strong supporter of Obama the first time he ran, and I hope he wins this election by an even bigger landslide, because that is the only way this country is going to be able to get back to some kind of justice and normalcy.

BUT, I refuse to donate or work for Obama's election this time and I also think that should Obama win in a landslide it will be a signal - a wrong signal, that his almost Republican policies are good enough and that he can use that as a reason not to implement more Democratic policies.

We are still so far tilted to the right that the country is not going to recover, and the .01 are just piling up more and more money and power so they can eventually win and dump another planetful of debt on the rest of us.

There is no good solution - I want Obama to win and will turn out to vote for him, but I don't expect him to do much or be able to do much in a second term.

Will America ever see better days?
 
 
+184 # Billy Bob 2012-08-05 11:42
Voting for Obama is ONLY the first step. If you don't think of Obama as an individual and think of him as a product or symptom of the current political fight, it's not really about Obama. We have to PUSH BACK at the far right. We can't do it without pushing Obama in front of us. He will fight us every inch of the way, BUT we KEEP PUSHING LONG AFTER HE'S OUT OF OFFICE. We PUSH HARD TO THE LEFT during the 2016 primaries, and (more importantly) during the 2014 midterm election.

The sheer weight of our numbers will eventually become overwhelming, and the numbers really are on our side. Midwest Tom is right about one thing. Immigration is making this country move to the left. He says it like it's a bad thing. It's one of the reasons he's still a conservative. It's not a bad thing. It's a blessing.

We can't blame conservatism on the elderly, because they aren't much more conservative than anyone else. They just seem to be an easy target for people, because the left is afraid to admit the Hispanic vote is good for us. We NEED the elderly on our side and we NEED the minority vote on our side.

We NEED to keep fighting and we will overcome the conservative headlock our country has been in since the late 1960s. I'm tired of the noogies.

Sorry, I digressed, but point is that Obama is all we have FOR NOW. We WILL however force our politicians to the left, because where the American voters are.

Obama's just the next step.
 
 
-45 # RMDC 2012-08-05 12:29
You may be right but it is more like what the Reptiles did in 1996 -- put up a Bob Dole against Clinton because Clinton was the best president the republicans could ever have had. Obama is now their best hope for continued imperialism abroad. The important agenda for the next decade is the re-colonization of all Africa. Obama will do a much better job than Romney of that. This "son of Africa" will keep the masses silent as his special forces and mercenaries kill his brothers by the millions.

At least Romney would provoke a huge backlash from the left, human rights advocates, and the anti-corporate activists. Obama will silence them becaue they will be told not "to jinx" it.

I'm not voting. Obama is a self-proclaimed murderer. Romney will be one too just as soon as the moves into the Whore House. If Obama is the best we have for now, then we have noting good at all. These are two evil candidates and i can't bring myself to vote for evil.

But I would not count out Karl Rove yet. He's got a billion dollars and he will Swift Boat like nothing anyone has ever seen before.
 
 
-34 # paulrevere 2012-08-05 13:45
`whew...RMDC, great take on the most likely response for either candidate to be elected.

I've long felt that Romney is the necessary cod liver oil the left has refused to drink...instead its the 'lesser of two evils, practical politics' coolaid for them.

That huge backlash, without doubt, would unify the left...tks for the public comment and insight on that.
 
 
+39 # Billy Bob 2012-08-05 13:46
No. If the reptiles (I like that word by the way) could have elected newt gingrich or even george bush jr. they would have. They realized neither one had a chance and put up their best shot. Dole really was their best shot.
 
 
+114 # Billbb 2012-08-05 12:59
Correct as far as it goes but we also have to give him a solidly Dem Congress so he can at least enact his (admittedly not liberal enough but the best option we have) agenda.
 
 
+68 # Billy Bob 2012-08-05 13:47
AMEN! That's why the midterm elections are so important. That's when the reptiles (RMDC's word I've just adopted) are at their sneakiest.
 
 
-16 # RLF 2012-08-06 03:23
Give O a strong congress so he can what??? Take away more civil rights, put in place more raygunesque supply side policies, forget to prosecute war crimes or banksters? At least he doesn't torture people (he just sends them somewhere to do that for US). The right wing congress seems to be saving us from a right wing agenda!
 
 
+96 # Texas Aggie 2012-08-05 13:30
Absolutely. But what you forgot to mention is that the down ballot races are as important if not more. Nothing good will happen if the republicans have control of either the Senate or the House. And for God's sake, we need to get the judiciary cleaned up!
 
 
+79 # cassandrapt 2012-08-05 12:31
Agree!!
And before we count our chickens, let's not forget the new voter suppression laws and voting machine fraud.
 
 
+78 # Billbb 2012-08-05 12:45
brux, I'm with ya most of the way thru your post but I do see a possible end to the corruption -- that another Supreme Court appointment or two might well allow us to reverse the horrendous Citizens United decision and start returning to one citizen/one vote instead of the one dollar/one vote that the extremists foisted on the nation.
 
 
+62 # Majikman 2012-08-05 12:59
OTOH, Brux maybe a landslide will be a rejection of the repug policies. Other than the hopeless teabaggers, I'm not so sure that lots of people don't see through the repug lies and their extreme wacko agenda. They're turning themselves inside out to suppress the vote...hmmmmm
Like you, I'll vote for Obama, but send my political contribution to local races.
 
 
+74 # maddave 2012-08-05 13:42
Forget "landslide". Forget any thoughts of a slam-dunk win for Obama. That may well happen, and let's all hope that it does; HOWEVER, there being many a slip between the cup and the lip, I intend to support Obama fully with my time, money and effort just as if he were running behind. The ABSOLUTE worst thing that we can to do between now and November 6th (November 7th for GOP voters) is sit back on our (apparent) laurels and push the coast button.

However, if you are living in an area in which at Obama IS a 100% certified shoo-in, then for God's sake focus your efforts on re-electing Democrat House & Senate incumbents . . . and defeating their GOP counterparts. If those same tea-bagging SOB's remain in office, then we will remain at loggerheads for another four years!

BTW: In case you missed my last few comments, let me repeat my #1 most important long-range reason for supporting Obama: (With apologies to Bill Clinton):
"It's the Courts, Stupid!"
 
 
+41 # QDP 2012-08-05 15:42
focus your efforts on re-electing Democrat House & Senate incumbents . . . and defeating their GOP counterparts. If those same tea-bagging SOB's remain in office, then we will remain at loggerheads for another four years!

That's the point. It isn't about Obama.
 
 
+8 # gzuckier 2012-08-05 21:19
Well, as the election of 2000 showed us, actually winning not just the majority of votes but actually the majority of electoral college votes doesn't mean you get to be president any more.
 
 
+3 # RLF 2012-08-06 03:24
The courts are the only reason...we need him to put in a couple shifty moderates.
 
 
+14 # brux 2012-08-05 14:37
Except for the fact that plebiscites seem to just be advisory for entertainment value and hollywood movie sensibilities, our government does not actually follow them or care about what the people have to say.

I must say I'm a bit ambiguous on this because unlike most Liberals I am for a strong military and an active international policy - but not as long as we are the purveyors of the new fascism. Argh ... it's so complicated, but things are not going to get any better if we allow dictatorships to fester all over the world nor if we create them ourselves.

I agree with you on the local focus.

I also think that the corporations and the .01% have just so much money they are manipulating us in ways we do not even understand with technology that the United States developed to counter fascism and despotism worldwide ... ironic, ain't it?
 
 
+16 # QDP 2012-08-05 15:43
Nothing wrong with corporations seeking higher profit. The fact that our system is controlled by this is what must be changed.
 
 
+37 # mjc 2012-08-05 13:34
Oh brux.., so many of us feel exactly the same way. I live in New York and there is no way that this state will go for Romney, even in the hinterlands of upstate where I live. And it is a personality contest. Republicans say it shouldn't be but dear God why go with the flattest, least trustworthy personality you can find? Obama blew a lot of dreams away in his first term but it will take people like you and I to let him know that he has this obligation to live up to the hope and change HE talked about.
 
 
+32 # Regina 2012-08-05 15:59
But we have to get rid of the NO Party, the collection of obstinate obstructionists dedicated to making Obama fail, the do-nothings getting big salaries, great pension plans, and superb medical services. Whenever they figure out that they look like shirkers they ring up another attack in their War Against Women, like equating the availability of contraception with 9/11 or some other such insanity.
 
 
+7 # RLF 2012-08-06 03:26
Obama didn't need much help to fail after the cabinet he appointed!
 
 
+17 # KittatinyHawk 2012-08-05 16:09
We must remind all Democrats. Personally I hope the third party all keep learning so they get candidates and give the two old dogs a run for all their Corporate Money.
I am concerned with now...whatever happens in the next 4 years will be more important than saying Christie and Cuomo are going to run against each other.
Take One Day at a Time, One Project at a time and perhaps we can win Today.

It is like those who think Locally and act Globally. Why would you do that when America is starving to death? Think Global, Act Local and preserve Tomorrow
 
 
+47 # pbbrodie 2012-08-05 14:16
The reason everyone should vote for Obama and stop this silly and very dangerous vote third party BS is because with Obama, we will get Supreme Court justices who will be very much more likely to reverse Citizens United decision, among other things. If those voting third party or just sitting this out should cause Romney to be elected, it will drive a nail in the heart of this country that may very well be irreversible!
When you decide whether or not to support Obama, despite any misgivings you may have for any of the long list of problems you may have with him, just keep reminding yourself that you may very well put Romney in the White House and reinforce the extremely dangerous and derisive ultra-conservat ive Supreme Court and that spells disaster for our country.
 
 
+22 # Regina 2012-08-05 16:02
Not quite -- he will replace decent justices with other decent justices, since there aren't 5 vacancies coming soon, only 2. But far, far better to get Obama's appointments into those seats than Romney's!
 
 
+17 # KittatinyHawk 2012-08-05 16:13
I always think about those who would want to Vote and cannot when people run their mouths about not voting.
Everyone wants President to be perfect...too bad he isn't, neither are you.
Not voting is an insult to all of us who want a better America. Not Voting is exactly what the reptiles...new fad, want. So when I consider doing what they want or using My Right. I will use my Right until they try to take them away...with Romney in...wouldn't be too long.
 
 
-9 # RLF 2012-08-06 03:29
I'll be voting alright and it will be for a green or communist or socialist...sin ce we only have two republicans from the majors.
 
 
-8 # RLF 2012-08-06 03:28
It would be great...Obama could appoint a Geithner to the SCOTUS. His past acts make me believe he can't even appoint without going right. He is just another Harvard lawyer.
 
 
0 # indian weaver 2012-08-07 17:01
no matter who wins, it is already a nail in the amerikan coffin, and it is already irreversible - the fascism, police state, cruelty, greed, all deeply built into the system now. it is truly irreversible. One persists in self deception and fear of the known because the reality is so horrible and evil, or unknown - in the case of those avoiding facing the power and overwhelming odds of $trillions against you. a vote for mitt and his victory is a good way to potentiate the future now and start getting it over with, which may take decades or generations now.
 
 
-10 # cynnibunny 2012-08-05 16:28
Amen! It is hard to work for a guy who has so little spine. Granted, he's found some of it lately, but his imperialism, his willingness to compromise, his lack of grandstanding when he could - all of these point to Obama as wanting to coast, not wanting to use the upcoming win as a way to establish important mandates.
 
 
+13 # gzuckier 2012-08-05 21:17
You don't have to just elect a president, or congressman, or senator, or governor who agrees with your principles; that's just the first step. After that, you have to keep pressure on them to force them to live up to their principles; because there's plenty of pressure on them not to, and if you don't, then they figure what the Hell.

Whereas if you elect somebody who doesn't agree with your principles in the first place, then you can't force them to live up to them.
 
 
+13 # jacksmedium 2012-08-06 02:51
If President Obama should be re-elected the future of the nations "normalcy" will depend on the Democrats taking back the House and holding on to the Senate. Congress is the issue, big-time.
 
 
+5 # charsjcca 2012-08-06 07:52
I agree. When the Romney campaign could not grasp the essentials of a domestic Marshall Plan I knew it would be hard sledding. We are an urban society. Those dynamics will play out no matter who is running and what their philosophy.
 
 
+8 # ganymede 2012-08-06 12:17
I appreciate your supporting words for Obama, but for the love of me I can't understand why you won't actively support him. It looks like it's going to be a landslide, and it's also obvious that Obama is a clever progressive who's serious about reforming this country. He might even turn out to be one of our greatest presidents. I hope you'll change your mind and actively support him. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to drive out and help educate the weak-minded, manipulated people who have foolishly helped to bring us down to this sorry state.
 
 
+5 # drew 2012-08-07 13:39
Brux - I hear ya Bro' ... but you're too smart & tuned-in NOT to get off your ass and into the campaign. 'O' almost lost me too, by over-compromisi ng during his 1st 2 years; but he was truly trying to change the tone in DC, be everybody's Prez, and he was trying to use his political capital to get historic healthcare reform passed. But these past ~20 months he has come around and is holding his ground FAR better against these truly evil R's. 'O' really sounds great, both in his policy proposals and how he frames the debate. I hope you reconsider and get involved in the campaign. We've got to CRUSH these brazen, lying, incompetent, racist, misguided, traitorous, incredibly DANGEROUS Republican jackals before they literally destroy the Country and the planet!
 
 
+81 # Barbara K 2012-08-05 10:03
I certainly hope he wins by a landslide. The R states have done so much voter suppression that I hope they stopped more of their voters than the Dem ones. That would be real justice. lol. If he wins by a landslide, there can be no hanging the results in the air for a long time, or any doubts raised. How awful life would be under Romney.
 
 
+2 # Barbara K 2012-08-06 11:25
Here is a YouTube worth the watch, I recommend we all watch it, we have really come so far:


► 16:57► 16:57

www.youtube.com/watch?v=2POembdArVo
 
 
-47 # wantrealdemocracy 2012-08-05 10:04
So what? O bomb a wins and the collapse of our nation continues and accelerates. We add a couple of more nations to the list of those nations in which we are fighting or occupying. The profits for our munition makers go up and the rest of the nation falls into a bottomless pit. We lose our Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as any chance of getting a good union job with benefits. Our schools are all run for profits as is health care and our water supply systems. We keep on clear cutting our forests until our air is not healthy to breathe. But hey, all is well for the richest amongst us who so wisely purchased our democracy and are now seated so firmly in the cat bird seat. Only someone as goofy as me will vote for ANYONE but those two morally challenged people put forward by our masters. I figured I might as well stand up and say "NO" as we all go down.
 
 
-7 # jacksmedium 2012-08-06 03:14
"Think Positive Dude" Consider the Green Party.
 
 
-8 # RLF 2012-08-06 03:33
But the economy needs those tax cuts for the rich more than the poor and old people need their SS and Medicare. We saw Obama make many deals with the devil because he is either a republican or he has absolutely no bargaining skills...both of which bode evil for the country.
 
 
+7 # bmiluski 2012-08-06 07:07
President Obama thought he was bargaining with rationale people. That's why he didn't do so well.
 
 
-2 # Antemedius 2012-08-07 08:57
Yes, he's not very smart.

Now if instead of Obama your average blogger not owned by wall street had been elected who understood that batsh*t crazy bipartisanship with batsh*t crazy republicans was only going to produce batsh*t crazy governance, things might have been different.
 
 
-1 # Antemedius 2012-08-08 02:58
For someone not very bright, he is an absolute Einstein compared to the people who still cheer for him though. And I'm sure he knows he's not dealing with rationale people there, which may explain that big grin he wears?
 
 
+15 # bmiluski 2012-08-06 07:12
When will we ever get rid of the electoral college? It's time we started putting into office a man/women that wins the majority of the votes. Just think, the whole bush/cheney mess could have been just a bad nightmare rather than reality had we gone with the popular vote rather than having the supreme court chose a president for us.
 
 
+2 # barbaratodish 2012-08-07 02:08
Quoting wantrealdemocracy:
So what? O bomb a wins and the collapse of our nation continues and accelerates. We add a couple of more nations to the list of those nations in which we are fighting or occupying. The profits for our munition makers go up and the rest of the nation falls into a bottomless pit. We lose our Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as any chance of getting a good union job with benefits. Our schools are all run for profits as is health care and our water supply systems. We keep on clear cutting our forests until our air is not healthy to breathe. But hey, all is well for the richest amongst us who so wisely purchased our democracy and are now seated so firmly in the cat bird seat. Only someone as goofy as me will vote for ANYONE but those two morally challenged people put forward by our masters. I figured I might as well stand up and say "NO" as we all go down.

I agree that we need an alternative to Democrat-Republ ican. We need ON LINE WRITE IN VOTING NOW See: http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/21-21/12763-an-alternative-to-being-remotely-controlled-by-our-qdroneq-chic-fil-a-identity
 
 
+18 # dittoschild 2012-08-05 10:12
From "Your Mouth To God's Ears"!!!!!
 
 
+63 # bingers 2012-08-05 10:13
I don't think there will be a landslide, but one can hope. If there is maybe something rational will happen in congress. If the Dems hold the Senate, even if it's 50-50 with Biden holding the swing vote, they can eliminate the filibuster and coupled with taking back the House, we can get America fixed.
 
 
+7 # RLF 2012-08-06 03:34
Keep holding your breath and eventually the lesser of two evils will come through...probl em is...you still get evil.
 
 
+45 # MADASHELL 2012-08-05 10:17
I'd comment, but I'm afraid I'd jinx it.

GO OBAMA!
 
 
+97 # Lisa Moskow 2012-08-05 10:24
It's all about the horse race and the distraction from any discussion of policy.

I am also disappointed in Obama but I feel
I must vote for him because Romney is a disaster.
 
 
+22 # QDP 2012-08-05 15:44
The lesser of two evils is not a vote solution. We must change how we vote, how our system operates, and why we have the tools to do so, but don't invoke them....
 
 
+19 # feloneouscat 2012-08-05 17:19
Quoting QDP:
The lesser of two evils is not a vote solution. We must change how we vote, how our system operates, and why we have the tools to do so, but don't invoke them....


The only way that I understand we can change how we vote is to have a Constitutional Convention. Intelligent Republicans an Democrats blanche at the idea (and they should).

I don't consider Obama a lesser, much less an evil. I consider him a step towards turning this country around.

Let's face it, Bush did a HELLUVA lot of damage before he left office. Obama has done a lot of four years to rectify that. Romney has 70% of the Bush team - we don't need that again.

One has at least put people to work.

The other likes to put people to work in China.
 
 
+6 # Dion Giles 2012-08-05 21:52
"One has at least put people to work"
=========================================
Careful!!! For a reality check have a look at the graph of employment vs date as published by the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis.

First go to
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s%5B1%5D%5Bid%5D=EMRATIO
Then adjust the graph to make it clearer. To do this you change the start date to 2000 using “Observation date range” then “Redraw Graph”.

One plunge in employment started at the time of the destruction of the Twin Towers. This then steadied at a civilian employment-popu lation ratio of about 62-63% right through until the end of 2008. Then down it came. Down, down, down until it hit about 58% at the start of 2010. After that it stayed down. The plunge through 2008 and 2009 coincided with some major glad-handing of the thieving banksters at the nation’s expense – during the window in which the Democrats held a reasonable position in Congress and, of, course, held the White House. Cause and effect is debatable, but that grey zone in the graph isn’t a good look for fighting an election on jobs.
 
 
+2 # QDP 2012-08-06 00:31
felcat,
your "blanching" IS THE PROBLEM Ergo: There are no intelligent politicians. we just don't get into the Amendment process because this may open up a lot of other venues. So you are saying don't use the tools we have to change what isn't working because this will cause much greater problems?

Our system - and those representing us are a bad joke, poor leaders, and illogical in their incapacity to both legislate and improve upon our governance.
 
 
+1 # barbaratodish 2012-08-07 02:10
Quoting QDP:
felcat,
your "blanching" IS THE PROBLEM Ergo: There are no intelligent politicians. we just don't get into the Amendment process because this may open up a lot of other venues. So you are saying don't use the tools we have to change what isn't working because this will cause much greater problems?

Our system - and those representing us are a bad joke, poor leaders, and illogical in their incapacity to both legislate and improve upon our governance.

You are right our system nees=ds to be changed WE need ON LINE WRITE IN VOTING NOW! See:http://read ersupportednews .org/pm-section /21-21/12763-an -alternative-to -being-remotely -controlled-by- our-qdroneq-chi c-fil-a-identit y
 
 
+5 # jacksmedium 2012-08-06 03:21
Correction; 70% of the Bush team has Romney. The 1% controls the Teapublican Party and their candidates are stooges.
 
 
+6 # jacksmedium 2012-08-06 03:26
Oh, and the term Intelligent Republicans is an Oxymoron. The brains of the Republican have been eradicated via political inbreeding.
 
 
+6 # jacksmedium 2012-08-06 03:18
The change you mention will NEVER happen while Teapublicans have ANY legislative, judicial, or executive leverage. It may take a while, but "the way" is by voting Democrat.
 
 
+38 # Gizmo 2012-08-05 10:40
Wondering how the Congressional races factor into this? Does Obama have coat tails?
 
 
+33 # maddave 2012-08-05 13:50
Damned good question, Gizmo!

We MUST give Obama back the House and a clear democratic super majority---minu s Liberman, (I, Israel)--- in the Senate. Otherwise we'll have four more years of GOP samo-samo negativism.
 
 
+9 # KittatinyHawk 2012-08-05 16:17
Do not know if we will get the House back but if we can remove 90% of the slugs, it will be a better scenario.
 
 
+7 # bingers 2012-08-05 17:22
Quoting maddave:
Damned good question, Gizmo!

We MUST give Obama back the House and a clear democratic super majority---minus Liberman, (I, Israel)--- in the Senate. Otherwise we'll have four more years of GOP samo-samo negativism.


Lieberman is retiring.
 
 
+2 # jacksmedium 2012-08-06 03:22
Quoting Gizmo:
Wondering how the Congressional races factor into this? Does Obama have coat tails?

"You Betcha".
 
 
+65 # angelfish 2012-08-05 10:49
Obama Landslide? From your lips to God's ears! I can't see how it could turn out otherwise, but, after the Bush Debacles who can be sure of anything these days? Just be sure to get out and VOTE! ...and, oh yes, never, EVER Vote ReTHUGlican!
 
 
+23 # Wyntergreen 2012-08-05 10:50
From your keyboard to God's ear.
 
 
+65 # bobby t. 2012-08-05 10:51
americans do not unseat a sitting president during wartime. this was the strategy of bush jr, and prez learned to do the same. no contest.
obama back and hopefully enough senators and house seats to make a difference. need to fix health plan to single payer or pub option and get jobs going with the new cash coming in from the top one percent. need a bill to put a few in jail for tax evation, starting with romney.
better get carbon tax higher as we are in deep do do if these droughts continue. time to wake up and tell the truth about global warming gop!
 
 
+4 # KittatinyHawk 2012-08-05 16:19
We have a new breed of people...many do not care, do not vote for one excuse or another. (ask people getting id bs, sure they would like to count just for that indignity alone)..

We must all get the sweep going, helping people get id's
 
 
+98 # Erdajean 2012-08-05 10:51
Hope this is right -- the idea that a wad of maggots can destroy all the good secured for working Americans since FDR is about the most depressing nightmare we could dream. AND -- that is precisely what the GOP set out to do, and bragged about it from election night, 2008.

No -- Obama is NOT perfect, and a few knee-jerks to the contrary, we all know it. But put up against the Idiot Mitt Romney, who gets more stupid and more the whirling dervish every day, it's like a bad cold compared to an ebola epidemic.

For the record, we need to get across to the Democrat campaigners that no, Democrats cannot match the Kochs and Sheldon Adelson and Co. in funding -- because we are the screwed and we are poor. But to imply that it is all about money, as they are doing, is disgusting -- and it is so wrong. IF we have integrity on our side -- and play that card, instead of shaming good people about money they can't give, it DOES matter, and it IS our winning hand.
 
 
+47 # Linda 2012-08-05 11:54
For the record, we need to get across to the Democrat campaigners that no, Democrats cannot match the Kochs and Sheldon Adelson and Co. in funding -- because we are the screwed and we are poor. But to imply that it is all about money, as they are doing, is disgusting -- and it is so wrong. IF we have integrity on our side -- and play that card, instead of shaming good people about money they can't give, it DOES matter, and it IS our winning hand.

Your right !
Money and all these negative ads put out by the right won't sway intelligent people from voting in their own best interest ! We know things will get worse if Romney wins this election and where not going to let that happen !
We may not have the money to contribute to our candidate but we do have our votes and we will be out there voting in November !
We will also replace those Tea party crazies in Congress and the Senate !
We need to start at the local level voting for Mayors and Governors either third party or Democrats willing to fight for all of the people not just the middle class ! For too long the conversation has always been about the middle class while the working poor are dumped on by all sides ,this needs to stop !
 
 
+18 # mjc 2012-08-05 14:31
While I don't know if I have the confidence that you seem to in the ability of intelligent people voting their own interest, I agree that I am totally fed up with demands for more donations to various campaigns...eve n if a donation was made a week or a month ago. Money is NOT everything. Think one's own voice...in the Laundromat or church meetings or at book club meetings can be far more effective.
 
 
+12 # Linda 2012-08-05 15:42
mjc I think the majority of left leaning intelligent people will vote in their own best interest even if they are not totally happy with all that Obama has done !
People have to know that the alternative is going to lead us all down a road we never wish to go down!

I do think that some people are so childish that they will not vote for Obama because he didn't do everything they expected him to do .
I don't consider those people to be rational thinkers !
I still think the majority will come to understand that Obama is our best choice if we want any chance of turning this country around !
 
 
+9 # KittatinyHawk 2012-08-05 16:24
Just getting involved and getting people out to vote, helping Communities could sway our voting. Checking if people's voting id is up to date...I mean if they voted within time period to keep them eligible to vote...

We have to make the difference...No body else is going to. There was not Contracts where we get free ride.. time we got involved and help out now
 
 
+2 # Rain17 2012-08-05 16:57
I do think the Democrats and liberal don't leverage and manage their wealthy supporters as well as the GOP does.
 
 
+70 # Tigre1 2012-08-05 11:00
Hope hope hope...now look, we are all Americans...Oba ma and the dems are not the lesser of two evils...they are the BEST we can do Now. 'They' are all useful, like sandbags when you're building a dam against a flood of time and technology. We get him in, and immediately we MUST do better. Better quality "leaders" and get them up front of us rather than being on the leash of money. Everybody just grow up now.
 
 
+22 # Billy Bob 2012-08-05 11:16
That was a great comment and a great analogy.
 
 
+33 # jwb110 2012-08-05 11:18
Quoting Tigre1:
Hope hope hope...now look, we are all Americans...Obama and the dems are not the lesser of two evils...they are the BEST we can do Now. 'They' are all useful, like sandbags when you're building a dam against a flood of time and technology. We get him in, and immediately we MUST do better. Better quality "leaders" and get them up front of us rather than being on the leash of money. Everybody just grow up now.

Thanks Tigre!. If anything could be learned from the Republicans it is they they never eat their own. Stop the nattering about Obama and get behind the best guy in the race!
 
 
+41 # Billy Bob 2012-08-05 11:32
I recently read a commentary by Robert Perry on Alternet that pretty much sums it up for me:

http://www.alternet.org/election-2012/making-protest-vote-presidential-elections-vanity-choice?akid=9166.109509.M6wzy3&rd=1&src=newsletter686843&t=14

He calls the whining about Obama and vows to vote for a 3rd party a "VANITY vote". I like that for the very reason is irritates so many of the people planning to do it. At this point, with 3rd party candidates polling pretty near 0% it really is a wasted vote. It's not just a question of choosing from "the lesser of two evils". It's a question of who will do less damage.

If you honestly think there's absolutely no difference between Obama and Romney at this point, you're either being dishonest or you're seriously not paying attention.

CONT.
 
 
+10 # QDP 2012-08-05 15:47
I agree, we must change our voting SYSTEM. Everything, from rules, laws, conduct, to transparency, to limits on donation, to control, even the jurisdiction of this process. It has been bought and has been PAID for.

Change, now.
 
 
+9 # Billy Bob 2012-08-05 18:19
I wish we had the French system with one free-for-all primary involving all candidates from all parties, followed by an automatic runoff between the top two vote getters. Just like that the problem would be solved.

Well, the other problem about money would only be solved by make all campaigns 100% publicly financed by law.
 
 
-3 # SMoonz 2012-08-05 23:53
Any election with a popular voting system would be disastrous to our country. Money would be a bigger factor. More than it is now.

An electoral system keeps representation at a balance in states that would be at a disadvantage in a popular voting system.

Picture the following scenario. A candidate campaigns in major cities like New York, Miami, Los Angeles, Chicago and Dallas. Gets most of the vote in major cities and wins after having spent his resources there. The rest of the country was ignored and will likely be ignored in every presidential election thereafter.

Now if we have the top 2 vote getters advancing guess who would likely end up on top? A Democrat and a Republican. Such a system solves nothing.
 
 
-1 # barbaratodish 2012-08-07 02:16
Quoting SMoonz:
Any election with a popular voting system would be disastrous to our country. Money would be a bigger factor. More than it is now.

An electoral system keeps representation at a balance in states that would be at a disadvantage in a popular voting system.

Picture the following scenario. A candidate campaigns in major cities like New York, Miami, Los Angeles, Chicago and Dallas. Gets most of the vote in major cities and wins after having spent his resources there. The rest of the country was ignored and will likely be ignored in every presidential election thereafter.

Now if we have the top 2 vote getters advancing guess who would likely end up on top? A Democrat and a Republican. Such a system solves nothing.

We need ON LINE WRITE IN VOTING Consider: Drone "Identity" Is Self Validity Lite Be Absolute To Yourself Instead Of Relative To Others and/or; http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/21-21/12763-an-alternative-to-being-remotely-controlled-by-our-qdroneq-chic-fil-a-identity
 
 
+3 # bmiluski 2012-08-06 07:19
Unfortunately, that wouldn't stop the Super Pacs from using sleazy ads against their opponents.
 
 
+6 # Rain17 2012-08-05 16:53
The US electoral system is not proportional like Israel, where even fringe parties can win a seat or two in the Knesset if they get 2-3% of the vote. It is winner take all. You are 100% correct.
 
 
+6 # SMoonz 2012-08-05 23:47
Standing up for what you believe in is not a waste.

Voting with a clear conscience is not a waste.

Wasting a vote is when a person gives a pass to someone who does not deserve it.

Also, voting for a 3rd party is not going to kill Obama's chances of winning when we have an Electoral System. It seems most forget that we are not in a popular voting system. If you are in a swing state where the results look tight, then yes, I can see why someone would want to vote for a major party.

However, in a state like mine which is California, Obama is a shoe in for the win. Voting for a 3rd party candidate is not a bad idea and would actually send a sign to Party leaders that our vote truly does count. We can not be taken for granted.
 
 
+52 # Billy Bob 2012-08-05 11:32
CONT.

I know Mittens wants to be Mr. Etch-a-Sketch, but he HAS opened his mouth and HAS "written" a book. His true feelings are very well known and they are FAR TO THE RIGHT of Obama.

Do you STILL think Gore wouldn't have been substantially better than bush jr.? How about Carter vs. reagan? How about Humphrey vs. nixon? SERIOUSLY?

Humphrey only lost to nixon .7%, and Wallace got over 13% of the vote. Did the Democratic Party become more left-wing and less warlike after losing in 1968? Did it successfully fight against "trickle-down" voodoo economics after reagan won?

The fact is that making the Democratic Party lose will NOT teach it be become more liberal. It will make it assume liberalism (or "progressivism" if you like) is dead, so it become EVEN MORE like the repugs.

If you honestly think things will finally get SO bad that we'll "finally fix it", SERIOUSLY how much longer do you think we have to "fix it"?

NOW is the time to fix it, and we CAN'T do that by voting for someone who (LET'S BE HONEST) WILL NOT win, NO MATTER WHAT.
 
 
+5 # Rain17 2012-08-05 16:56
Those who advocate the "heighten the contradictions" are the ones who can afford to suffer the consequences while "things get worse before they can get better". Most of the celebrities who aggressively pushed for Nader in 2000--Michael Moore, Molly Ivins, Thom Hartmann, Phil Donahue, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Barbara Ehrenreich, and others I can't remember--could afford to live with the consequences. They weren't going to have to deal with the aftermath and could afford to waste their vote on a candidate who had no chance of winning. The rest of America wasn't so lucky.

After 2000 I could no longer take Michael Moore seriously any more. Don't get me wrong. I liked some parts of the movie "Sicko" and "Capitalism", but I can never forget how he helped make Bush president. He knew better but chose to follow that destructive path anyway.
 
 
-2 # Billy Bob 2012-08-05 21:23
Even Moore was angry with Nader in the last week before the election when Nader went out of his way to campaign in Florida and ensure he'd take away more votes from Gore. I think Moore has, since 2000, come out and actually said he made a mistake. I may be wrong, but one of my friends who voted for Nader at the time told me this.
 
 
0 # Rain17 2012-08-06 09:26
I don't recall Moore ever saying he was mistaken and wrong to support Nader. Moore knew better and knew what Bush would be like. Knowing what was at stake Moore not only should he have told Nader to drop out, he should have also endorsed Gore. He didn't and is responsible for the debacle that followed.
 
 
-2 # QDP 2012-08-06 00:35
Really now, WHO cares what celebrities think? Honestly, they are just actors trained in memorizing scripts, not spokespeople providing valuable commentary. Thats it.

We need our politicians to face up to their constituents and to fairly- represent ALL of us. Michael Moore is just a talented comedian, -he makes you laugh. So does Mitt unfortunately. That's sad.
 
 
+10 # bingers 2012-08-05 17:29
Quoting Billy Bob:
CONT.

NOW is the time to fix it, and we CAN'T do that by voting for someone who (LET'S BE HONEST) WILL NOT win, NO MATTER WHAT.


Quite possibly the sanest (I'm referring to the entire post) thing Ive read in a long time.
 
 
+18 # melmcgee 2012-08-05 11:08
Are we forgetting Bush v Gore and Bush v Kerry? Between voter suppression laws and the corruption of the voting machines, don't be surprised by Pres. select Romney. For more info on the voting system theft, go to blackboxvoting.org

This article will lull us into some kind of complacency that will insure that the 1% overrides the 99%.

I'm not happy with Obama either. Having grown up in the South, it's a classic case of rob the store and bring in the black man to hang it on....
 
 
+20 # Billy Bob 2012-08-05 14:03
Defeating a repug is like beating the champ. The cliché is that you can't beat the heavyweight champ unless you knock him out.

You can't beat repugs in a "squeaker". You HAVE to win by several percentage points to counter the right-wing corruption.
 
 
-25 # Rain17 2012-08-05 16:51
I don't really believe the voter machine conspiracies. Sometimes the voters do pick Republicans in close elections.

As for the voter ID policies I am somewhat concerned, but I suspect the majority of those without IDs aren't regular voters anyway. I would suspect that many of them rarely vote and didn't show up in 2008 or 2010.
 
 
+30 # Interested Observer 2012-08-05 11:15
A Landslide and the reverse of the irrational mid-term loss of the House. Time for the Tea-Party to end, permanently.
 
 
+28 # Billy Bob 2012-08-05 14:01
The teabaggers aren't going away until another right-wing lunatic is in the White House. They are the same people who have a full-blown temper tantrum ANY time a Democrat is President. It's not a political movement. It's an intimidation tactic. If we made it clear we wouldn't put up with their obstruction any longer they'd be powerless.

But they'd still bitch about it.
 
 
+33 # Linda 2012-08-05 11:16
I hope your right Mr Tomasky because if Romney wins this election we will all know just how much worse it can get !

brux I am at least happy to read you are still voting for Obama but I don't agree with everything you said !
Maybe if Obama had the majority in Congress and 60 votes he needs in the Senate he would move further left ! I don't think his policy's are to the right because he wants it that way ,I think he is more a centrist and was trying to be bipartisan in hopes the Republican's would pass something ,anything .
My wish was that he knew back then what he knows now ,"when he had the majority in Congress," that Republican's would never compromise with him !Their plan from day one was to make him fail in the eyes of the country ! Thankfully most of us knew what they were up to and place the blame for a stalled economy where it belongs on the Republican party !
 
 
+5 # KittatinyHawk 2012-08-05 16:31
ABC tonite has decided that the Reid Accusation happened so we do not look at the OB Economics.
The two young gentleman should realize they might not be reporters a year from now if Romney gets in. They should also do some Journalism for their jobs and research who allowed Corporations to leave America in past twelve years. Not OB
 
 
+6 # jacksmedium 2012-08-06 03:46
Make that "the past 32 years".
 
 
+34 # Ellioth 2012-08-05 11:20
The only hope for a positive future for our children is:
1. Obama wins - a landslide wold be nice
2. Obama shows strong leadership in honestly dealing with our nation's enormous challenges, calls out those whose policies and obstructions have been calamitous (most Repubs. some Dems)
3. Obama leads an effort to create a new national vision of our future that inspires and mobilizes Americans to stand up and get involved. Imagine a new national strategic imperative for the U.S. that calls on our higher selves. This is the kind of leadership we need.

Romney has no clue and would be a disaster.
Obama gets it but has not shown the spine or real leadership to tell the truth as we know it and get America moving again. It's all there - wipe the obstructionists off the map. Yes we can!
 
 
-23 # mgwmgw 2012-08-05 11:20
If anyone lives in a state where there is a strong expectation of which candidate will win in that state, which is most of America, your vote will count for more if you vote for a Green or Libertarian candidate, even if they do not win, especially if neither Obama nor Willard (the rat) Mitt Romney are doing what you think right. Look into Gary Johnson or Jill Steinem. You may be pleasantly surprised. If candidates other than D or R get enough votes, that may change some of the discussion. If they get above 15% in polls that the debate organizers decide to use, that will change the discussion more. This only works if enough of us do it.
 
 
+23 # Billy Bob 2012-08-05 13:58
Any President still needs to win with a CLEAR majority of voters on his side. Without that he'll be perceived as having no mandate to govern.

The only thing your strategy will accomplish is emboldening repugs to continue attacking Democrats rather than cooperating.

Without a clear mandate any victory will be shallow and pretty much useless.
 
 
-1 # barbaratodish 2012-08-07 02:19
Quoting Billy Bob:
Any President still needs to win with a CLEAR majority of voters on his side. Without that he'll be perceived as having no mandate to govern.

The only thing your strategy will accomplish is emboldening repugs to continue attacking Democrats rather than cooperating.

Without a clear mandate any victory will be shallow and pretty much useless.

What if we demand and get ON LINE WRITE IN VOTING NOW?
 
 
+8 # Linda 2012-08-05 16:09
First of all I would never vote for a Libertarian I don't agree with their political views !
As far as a third party candidate they could be great people but if they don't have the financial backing ,name recognition and the backing of the majority of the people then they are not viable and your wasting your vote !Those who want to see a third party candidate become President need to start in their states to build the party by electing them for City Councilor, Mayor's , Governor's then Congress and Senators. You might take a page from the Tea Party in how they accomplished taking over Congress they started at the bottom and moved up !
Don't be like the guy who wanted to be president of the company when he had no idea of how to run a company !Start in the mail room !
 
 
+6 # jacksmedium 2012-08-06 04:21
"Taking a page from the Tea Party" would require a benevolent donor like --- say --- the Koch brothers.
 
 
+1 # KittatinyHawk 2012-08-05 16:34
I really do not need more discussion. We need to make choices for President and hope that the Greens, Independents, Liberatarians start doing better ...even if they start November this year.
Cannot start throwing names around at finish line. Should have started this last year.
I do not want promises that they will go with OB and then not do so...seen that.
 
 
-4 # Billy Bob 2012-08-05 18:21
They had the last four years to get ready for the Democratic Primaries. None of them felt it was important enough to challenge the President in a serious way. That's another reason why I can't take them seriously now.
 
 
0 # SMoonz 2012-08-05 23:59
Agree 100 percent. It is time people vote with their conscience and make a statement. We need to send the higher ups a sign that we won't sit back and just take it. Vote third party until major parties take notice. They will.
 
 
-3 # barbaratodish 2012-08-07 02:22
Quoting SMoonz:
Agree 100 percent. It is time people vote with their conscience and make a statement. We need to send the higher ups a sign that we won't sit back and just take it. Vote third party until major parties take notice. They will.

Or, Perhaps if we all DEMAND ON LINE WRITE IN VOTING NOW we maay accomplish a legal COUP! and DRAFT someone who is transparent, and an AUTHENTIC leader Like maybe RALPH NADER!
 
 
-1 # barbaratodish 2012-08-07 02:18
Quoting mgwmgw:
If anyone lives in a state where there is a strong expectation of which candidate will win in that state, which is most of America, your vote will count for more if you vote for a Green or Libertarian candidate, even if they do not win, especially if neither Obama nor Willard (the rat) Mitt Romney are doing what you think right. Look into Gary Johnson or Jill Steinem. You may be pleasantly surprised. If candidates other than D or R get enough votes, that may change some of the discussion. If they get above 15% in polls that the debate organizers decide to use, that will change the discussion more. This only works if enough of us do it.
What we need is to DEMAND ON LINE WRITE IN VOTING NOW!
 
 
+15 # wavemaster500 2012-08-05 11:21
Osama is Dead so case closed. They won't be able to swift boat him or play the he's weak on Defense card. Without an October Suprise Romney has got nothin
 
 
+10 # Regina 2012-08-05 16:11
Don't bet on it. The ultra-extremist s are very inventive. They can, and do, "create" all sorts of accusations, and the Fox fantasists bang all their noise makers to repeat them.
 
 
-6 # SMoonz 2012-08-05 23:58
Osama is dead. He died long before Obama supposedly did him in. Don't believe me? Benazir Bhutto said it. Madeline Albright said it. Hillary hinted at it a few years back. Many others in the intelligence agencies said so as well.
 
 
+4 # jacksmedium 2012-08-06 04:34
"You cannot out think those who aren't thinking". Not thinking is a prerequisite to being a Teapublican. They can and will and have "swift boated" the President and a lot more. It worked in 2004 when they did it to John Kerry, a genuine war hero and veteran.
 
 
+15 # aitengri 2012-08-05 11:33
The greatest benefit from an Obama landslide would be to clear the fog around him, whether that's his fog, or our perceptual fog. There could be no excuses, no waffling, around the critical policy tests that would ensue. We would have a clear four year shot at cheerleading, OR assaulting the Democratic flank with a significant challenge movement from the so-called left, however labeled: "3rd party", "progressive Democrat", Coffee, Latte, Green Tea, Neo-Labor, etc.
 
 
+10 # Billy Bob 2012-08-05 13:56
We could let them know immediately that our next candidate will be properly vetted with a competitive primary including candidates who really represent the left, from a track record of actually doing it.

Of course we'll have to get those left-wing candidates to actually run as Democrats and not take the easy way out.
 
 
+5 # KittatinyHawk 2012-08-05 16:35
If Romney got in...who is to say you will vote again?
 
 
+8 # Billy Bob 2012-08-05 18:22
My point isn't about Mittens winning. You're absolutely right about the reptile drive toward an absolute dictatorship every time one of them is in office.

I'm refering to the fact that, once Obama is re-elected, we STILL need to keep working to make sure 2016 does a better job of representing us than 2008 did.
 
 
+21 # tclose 2012-08-05 11:34
Hope you are right, Michael, but anything can happen btwn now and November. And polls have been notoriously inaccurate, especially given the small separation btwn these 2. This is not the time to get overly confident, but the time to work like hell to ensure every possible vote for Obama. And for Democratic Congressional and the Senate candidates.

But I hope you are right!
 
 
+42 # VoiceofReason613 2012-08-05 11:47
It should be a landslide for Obama, and stressing the following points can help make it so:

1. Mitt Romney and other Republicans are promoting policies similar to or often worse than those that had such disastrous results during the Bush administration, including converting a three-year major surplus, which was on track to completely eliminate the total federal debt, into a major deficit, creating very few net jobs (none in the private sector), and leaving the country on the brink of a depression, with an average of 750,000 jobs being lost during its last three months.

2. Republicans have obstructed efforts to get our country out of the tremendous ditch they left us in by voting no on and sometimes filibustering many Democratic proposals, some of which they previously supported and sometimes even co-sponsored. Hence, it is not surprising that a recent poll showed that 49% of Americans believe that Republican Congress members are purposely sabotaging the U.S. economy in order to defeat Obama and other Democrats, while only 40% disagree.

3.. Republicans support continued tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and highly profitable corporations, while basic social services that middle class and poor people depend on are being cut and teachers, police officers, fire fighters, and others are losing their jobs.

4. Republican legislators have voted against providing funds to save jobs of teachers, police officers, and fire fighters,
 
 
+38 # jmcg 2012-08-05 11:48
PLEASE DON'T LET THIS KIND OF ANALYSIS MAKE YOU FEEL COMPLACENT!!!

If Dems and other progressives allow the belief that Romney can't win convince them that they don't have to get out and vote, Romney will win. Even in states that would seem to be a lock. You can bet that Republicans will not be staying home. I don't know how to prove it, but it is my belief that one of the major reasons that W. was elected Governor of Texas was that Texas Democrats didn't believe that anyone with any sense would vote for Bush over Ann Richards and they didn't get out and vote. And we all know where that led.

Your vote does count and it is important! Don't throw it away, either by misguided principle or by apathy. Do not ever assume that the outcome is ensured.
 
 
+16 # Billy Bob 2012-08-05 13:53
Complacency is a big problem, but with left-wingers DEFEATISM is a big problem too. The left is SO UNBELIEVABLY LAZY when it comes to voting that any sign they might be "wasting their time" will make them stay home and watch tv. Let's face it, WE'RE NOTORIOUS WIMPS. Maybe a little encouragement will help.
 
 
+35 # VoiceofReason613 2012-08-05 11:51
Additional points that will help produce a landslide for Obama:

5. Republicans are generally in denial about the tremendous dangers from climate change, in spite of a very strong consensus in peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals and statements by scientific academies all over the world that climate change is a major threat, largely caused by human activities, and the many wake-up calls we have been receiving in terms of severe storms, tornados, floods, heat waves, droughts, and wildfires,. Anyone who thinks that climate change is a hoax promoted by liberals should visit the website of the “Republicans for Environmental Protection.” (www.rep.org) . This conservative group was only able to endorse four percent of Republicans in the 2010 U.S. midterm elections because so many Republicans are in denial about climate change and other environmental threats.

6. The Republican Party has moved far to the right under the influence of the Tea Party. There are very few moderate Republicans in Congress today.

7. While far more needs to be done, Democrats have enacted policies that have turned the economy away from the possible depression that the Bush administration left the U.S. on the brink of. More net private-sector jobs have been created already during the Obama administration than during the entire eight years of the Bush presidency.
 
 
+39 # Regina 2012-08-05 12:10
Don't let these numbers games make you complacent. There's no end to Republican tricks, and that includes the Roberts Court, as inherited from the Rehnquist Court. There's no sure knowledge of all the previously registered folks who are suddenly going to find out that they are barred from voting this time. Don't ever underestimate the Republicans' talent for stealing elections -- they succeeded in 2000 and 2004, and have been throwing a massive tantrum since they didn't succeed in 2008.
 
 
-19 # Eliza D 2012-08-05 12:21
Come on people! In what may be the last days of Planet Earth Obama has:
1. Signed NDAA,allowing citizens to be arrested without
charges or legal representation.
2. Allowed the EPA to dump two million pounds of
highly toxic chemical dispersants into the Gulf of Mexico
after the BP spill.
3. Signed off on building two new nuclear power plants in
Georgia, AFTER it has been learned that radioactive fallout
from Fukushima has contaminated the entire Northern
Hemisphere.
4. Appointed Monsanto stooges(such as Michael Taylor) to the
FDA, which is supposed to oversee the safeguarding of our
food.
Can we really afford four more years of these reckless policies? Of course, Romney would be a train wreck, but we need enlightened, courageous leadership NOW.
 
 
+11 # Billy Bob 2012-08-05 13:51
Please read:

http://www.alternet.org/election-2012/making-protest-vote-presidential-elections-vanity-choice?akid=9166.109509.M6wzy3&rd=1&src=newsletter686843&t=14

Are you really trying to make things better? Trying to defeat Obama WON'T.
 
 
+16 # bingers 2012-08-05 17:35
And you will NEVER get anything resembling enlightened leadership from ANY Republican, just more disaster.
 
 
+8 # Patrice Ayme 2012-08-05 13:08
I wrote an essay on the Obama situation, "Happy Banking Barack", on my site. The key is that even the existing right wing British government is thinking about what even the LEFT in the USA does not dare suggest for the banks.
As someone said, Obama needs to be pushed hard to the left, or he will kept on being the best republican the money of the left could buy.
 
 
+8 # Rain17 2012-08-05 16:42
The problem here is that American public believes right-wing ideas by and large. While the left was sleeping the right has won the ideas war. Even many liberal policymakers accept conservative assumptions on issues without question.

The right has created a policy apparatus that includes think tanks like the Heritage Foundation that are out there 24/7 pushing out right-wing ideas. The left did the start the Center for American Progress, but they still are significantly behind their right-wing counterparts.

The other problem is that the right is much better at getting their ideas out. They can reduce their positions to one or two sentences that people can remember. The right knows how to appeal to the "low-informatio n voter", while the left takes forever to get their views out. What the right can get out in one sentence, the left takes paragraphs.

If the left wants more liberal policies they'll focus more of their resources on persuasion and issues-based advocacy. Right now there is very little effort expended in that direction.

The right won the ideas war because they spent decades framing the issues on their terms. If the left wants to get better victories they'll focus more of their energy on winning the PR/ideas war.
 
 
+7 # jacksmedium 2012-08-06 05:01
Keep in mind that the appeal of the Right Wing is it's mean spirited agenda and it's reliance on the "fear factor". It is a delicate task to appeal to the "Angels of ones lessor nature" and still advance the goals of human decency.
 
 
+2 # Rain17 2012-08-06 13:51
Jack--The other problem is that the right actually knows how to use effective PR techniques to get out their viewpoints. To be blunt the left sucks at messaging. The right knows how to tailor its messaging out to the masses.

The other point is that the Heritage Foundation and other right-wing think tanks have "experts" who can go on TV at a moment's notice to get out their viewpoints. The left lacks that same apparatus. And the few "experts" it does have don't know how to effectively debate their opponents and get their message out on TV.
 
 
-6 # lorenbliss 2012-08-05 13:37
The charade of "change we can believe in" – its Big Lie of “government gridlock” exposed by the bipartisan unanimity of Congressional votes to nullify our constitution and fund the imperial war machine – proves it hardly matters who wins the presidency.

Regardless of the outcome, we'll get a Republican – a fascist – who will (further) slash our Social Security stipends, (again) stealing our own money. Our Medicare premiums will skyrocket even as our access to treatment is (further) diminished. Meanwhile the thieving One Percent – the aristocracy, the Ruling Class, the only caste the politicians represent – will grow ever more obscenely rich, ever more openly tyrannical, just as we, the 99 Percent, the new Proletariat, will be hurled ever deeper into permanent, inescapable and effectively genocidal poverty.

Such has been, for the past four years, the only "change we can believe in.” And so it will be for the foreseeable future, no matter which (interchangeabl e) factotum of the Ruling Class, Tsar Obama or Tsar Romney, sits in the White House, the new Winter Palace.

Yes, denounce me with thumbs-down clicks. Such is the price one pays for speaking truth in Moron Nation, the former United States, its erstwhile “sweet land of liberty” now downsized to the One Percent's United Estates, the Big Plantation on which we are already so savagely oppressed we are scarcely more than slaves.
 
 
+8 # Billy Bob 2012-08-05 16:04
You really won me over by calling everyone who disagreed with you members of a moron nation.
 
 
-1 # barbaratodish 2012-08-07 02:27
Quoting lorenbliss:
The charade of "change we can believe in" – its Big Lie of “government gridlock” exposed by the bipartisan unanimity of Congressional votes to nullify our constitution and fund the imperial war machine – proves it hardly matters who wins the presidency.

we'll get a Republican – a fascist – who will (further) slash our Social Security stipends, (again) stealing our own money. Our Medicare premiums will skyrocket even as our access to treatment is (further) diminished. Meanwhile the thieving One Percent – the aristocracy, the Ruling Class, the only caste the politicians represent – will grow ever more obscenely rich, ever more openly tyrannical, just as we, the 99 Percent, the new Proletariat, will be hurled ever deeper into permanent, inescapable and effectively genocidal poverty.
And so it will be for the foreseeable future, no matter which (interchangeable),,,

Yes, denounce me with thumbs-down clicks. Such is the price one pays for speaking truth in Moron Nation, the former United States, its erstwhile “sweet land of liberty” now downsized to the One Percent's United Estates, the Big Plantation on which we are already so savagely oppressed we are scarcely more than slaves.

PERHAPS WE CAN DRAFT RALPH NADER IF WE DEMAND ON LIN WRITE IN VOTING NOW!Seehttp://r eadersupportedn ews.org/pm-sect ion/21-21/12763 -an-alternative -to-being-remot ely-controlled- by-our-qdroneq- chic-fil-a-iden tity or read
 
 
-29 # Lawrence 2012-08-05 13:38
Is there still a hope for Ron Paul as a write-in candidate?
 
 
+17 # Billy Bob 2012-08-05 16:02
You might as well write in "John Birch".
 
 
+14 # bingers 2012-08-05 17:38
Quoting Lawrence:
Is there still a hope for Ron Paul as a write-in candidate?


Ron Paul is an ignorant racist who has only been right about 2 things in his entire life. He also raised a son who is even more disgusting than Romney. The only good thing about him running would be the certainty of Republican defeat.
 
 
-4 # barbaratodish 2012-08-07 02:28
Quoting Lawrence:
Is there still a hope for Ron Paul as a write-in candidate?

We need to demand on line write in voting now
Such has been, for the past four years, the only "change we can believe in.”
 
 
+28 # papabob 2012-08-05 13:48
David Sedari said something about Undecided Voters:

"To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes‹ down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. 'Can I interest you in the chicken?' she asks. 'Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?'

To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked."
 
 
-17 # Noni77 2012-08-05 15:13
So, the issue is to follow King Jeroboam or King Rehoboam and you all choose Jeroboam with consequences that will be an exact replay.
 
 
+13 # unitedwestand 2012-08-05 15:15
We also need to make sure that neither Boehner or Cantor or any of those "Reptiles" (as someone above called Republicans) stay in control of the House. They've behaved like hoodlums and the country doesn't benefit from their leadership.

Hopefully President Obama et al, have gotten a clue that when they have the opportunity to pass legislature that will help the economy they vote on it an pass it.
 
 
+13 # allie 2012-08-05 15:20
We must keep a majority in the Senate. Winning the House back would be ideal.
 
 
+1 # Antemedius 2012-08-06 19:56
In 2010, American voters foolishly aided and abetted the Republicans by giving them control of Congress.

We now enter a very dangerous period in the lead up to the 2012 presidential election.

If Obama is not re-elected, and people don't work towards returning workable majorities in the House and the Senate to the Democrats, then the country only continues its decline, and all will be lost.

It may be the end of a two century great social experiment unequaled in human history.

Returning the Democratic Party to the glory days of house and senate control that it had until Obama and the party were unable to convince enough people that their batsh*t crazy drive for bipartisanship with batsh*t crazy republicans was the only way to go, is the only way to go. There is no other reasonable way to go.

There were huge socially progressive strides made towards thinking about gradually thinking about progressively moving forward by Obama and the Democratic Party during that time, and the only thing holding them back is that not enough people clapped loudly enough.

The voters predicament and the collapsing economy is all the fault of the voters.

http://antemedius.com/content/keep-rockin-free-world-give-obama-and-dems-some-credit-change
 
 
+15 # QDP 2012-08-05 15:38
Maybe it's not about Obama.

We all know what he inherited, fueled by Clinton's Glass/Steagall repeal. Our finances are out of control, clearly. What BO inherited was a corrupt Congress and squeaky reptiles dying to make certain cash rich minorities more in control.

That Voter fraud in this day still exists ? Please, its all about our plutocratic Oligarchy. We are run (operated, spun) and controlled by a system clearly defined by arcane rules, outdated practices, incongruous voting regulations and most of all, by greedy & corrupt leaders. Like cold-blooded reptiles they simply seek the biggest, most opportune next meal on the Hill. This will not change with this next election.

We have to change our system, Constitutional Amendments and Voter reform. The sad part about our great Nation is that we are falling apart at the important parts of what made this Republic great, and we are too scared to fix it.

The fact that Mittchievous Romnomoney can even be in this position to contend is the worst part of our "Land of the Free" BS that gets mouthed off at every event. Face up, slavery continues, it is currency, it is credit. Wilson claimed the biggest mistake made was allowing the Federal Reserve and Bank to be created. That happened in 1913, and we still suffer the consequences.

It's not Obama, it's our system WE MUST CHANGE NOW.
 
 
+2 # Rain17 2012-08-05 16:37
President Obama is likely headed toward a win. If you look at where the economy was in 2009 versus where it is today, there has been improvement. The problem for Romney is that the economy is not bad enough for him to win.

There is a formula that AU Professor Allan Lichtman created called the 13 Keys to the Presidency. They are:

1. Mid-termelectio n X. Romney wins this one because the GOP gained seats in the House.
2-4. Incumbency, Primary Challenge, Third Party. Obama wins these keys because he is running for re-election, no primary challenge emerged, and no third party candidate is on the horizon.
5. Long-Term Economy. X Romney wins this one.
6. Short-Term Economy. Obama wins this one because the US is not a recession and the US economy is better off than when he took office.
7-11: Policy Change, Social Unrest, Scandal, Foreign Military Success, and Foreign Military Failure. Obamacare wins the policy change key because no HCR has passed Congress in decades and it survived. There are no protests like 1968. The right has been unable to make Solyndra Whitewater and the OBL raid succeeded. No repeat of Somalia has happened either.
12. Incumbent Charisma. X The excitement of 2008 is gone. Romney wins this one.
13. Challenger Charisma: The GOP candidate lacks it. Obama is ahead 10-3. Even if I turn Policy Change and STE against him he is ahead 805. Romney needs six keys to win.
 
 
-13 # William LeGro 2012-08-05 17:30
This is an utterly useless article. Exactly what purpose does it serve except to showcase the author's handicapping ability? We get far more than enough of this junk in the MSM.

Oh wait...Tina Brown. Newsweek. What was I thinking?
 
 
+5 # jacksmedium 2012-08-06 05:13
It stimulates discussion and debate. Further, it reinforces the resolve of those participating to champion the Democratic cause and be ever vigilant.
 
 
+13 # vgirl1 2012-08-05 17:31
Even in secret, landslide talk is dangerous. None of us concerned about the direction of the country and the need to shut down the far right can afford to think this election will be or is a potentially landslide event.

We must be sure we VOTE. We must TAKE NOTHING FOR GRANTED.

We SAW WHAT SITTING HOME DID in 2010.

We CANNOT RISK IT.

ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE and VOTE OBAMA 2012!
 
 
+10 # edward abbey 2012-08-05 18:04
Reasons why I cannot vote for Romney:
He may not understand economics
He does not care about the middle class
His 1% fingerprints are all over his image and his finances
I have very little in common with the 1%
I refuse to vote against my middle class interests.
His Massachusetts Health Care Plan was better than Obama's :>)

He would appoint Supreme Court justices that would continue the atrocious rulings that our current Supreme Court has been making routinely (5-4 usually).
 
 
-7 # Pollard 2012-08-05 18:39
Murder Inc is the Republicrat mantra. Pelosi's bilionaire husband was way out front in the profit taking from Bush Cheney's trillion dollar Zio wars.

Occupy the Federal Reserve and the wars will end. MSNBC sells War-o-tainment better than any network in Manhattan. The Democrat Party in New York controls the national Democratic Party and New York forever bangs the drums for war.

Meanwhile, you can not go to the mall without seeing fifty people missing teeth. 1000 bases in 130 countries and a phony open border terror war/drug war is a waste of trillions of dollars.
 
 
-9 # Douglas Jack 2012-08-05 21:30
Political 'Democracy' (Greek 'power of the people') is a mathematical impossibility. Humanity's 'indigenous' (Latin = 'self-generatin g') ancestors for tens of thousands of years have sustainably practiced 'economic' (Greek 'oikos' = 'home' + 'namein' = 'manage' from 'manus' = 'hand' means 'care & nurture') democracy. Economic democracy means progressively investing in multihome communities and our specific professions and trades where everyone has the ability to contribute knowledge, experience & decision-making acumen. Politics are only meant to be a subset of economic democracy. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/relational-economy/8-economic-democracy
 
 
-10 # Martintfre 2012-08-06 05:09
// But it's a state that is older and whiter and more working-class than most of America. Obama benefited from all the unique circumstances of 2008 that helped him across the country, but if ever there were a state where the "well, we gave the black guy a chance and he blew it" //

every thing is viewed under the racist lens -- disgusting. Lets play the disgusting point just a tad more.

Lets revisit Pennsylvania where new black panther black supremest King "Kill white cracker babies" Shabaz and one of his co-thugs was outside a Philly polling place Nov 2008 and later Attorney general Eric Holder gave him a free pass.

IF that were a klansman doing that same there would be a justified hue and cry from every quarter to string that SOB up.. but why free pass when some one else who is just as despicable but black why a free pass?

The rule of law is Equal treatment under the law folks.

The law of rulers is the cult of personality - monarchies, leaders with out accountability.

Is that what we want? where the people are endless heard of sheep bleating for the cult of hero worship?
 
 
+9 # kyzipster 2012-08-06 11:50
Actually, it was the Bush Justice Department that gave him a 'free pass', two weeks before Obama was sworn in. It was one incident that could not be defined as a 'campaign of intimidation' under the Voting Rights Act.

It was hardly ignored, Fox News ran with the Youtube clip for weeks, they're probably still playing it. And here you are using the actions of one human being to make some case that racism is just as prevalent on the left as it is on the right. You folks only convince yourselves with this Bill O'Reilly nonsense.
 
 
+6 # kyzipster 2012-08-06 05:57
This may be playing out much like the Clinton Presidency. A Republican resurgence at midterm due to the perceived 'extremism' of a 'far left' president and a second term for a Democrat after the true extremism on the Republican side frightens enough voters back to a bit of sanity.

This is not really about Obama, it's about the opposition becoming so dysfunctional and useless that the majority of voters have no other choice but to vote against them.
 
 
+5 # dkonstruction 2012-08-06 07:04
Polls are done on "likely voters" which means that these people are assuming they are still eligible to vote and have not been illegally thrown off the voting roles. given the potentially millions of voters now being purged in key states, polls such as the ones being being used in the article to judge the outcome of the election may be completely unreliable and no matter what Obama does the whole thing may be moot if enough of his supporters are purged from the roles. This is an issue that the dems should have been chamioning for 12 years now (since the 2000 election was stolen from them by throwing more than 20,000...some say 40,000...africa n americans off of the rolls in florida).
 
 
-2 # RICHARDKANEpa 2012-08-06 08:51
Brux, you vote but most people as discussed as you will still be reluctantly planning to vote when the polls close.

Some Right Wingers are disgusted as well and will surprise some right wingers in seemingly safe districts.

We desolately need third parties, because vomiting all day long from the political puke is unhealthy.

Single issue people whether its those who think only guns matter or Israel is the only issue of importance, are raring to go and Romney rearing to kiss their rears as often a possible
 
 
+1 # Pollard 2012-08-06 16:17
Would you rather die from cyanide or arsenic. These two parties have raped monies set aside for social securities to fight their filthy zio wars fro personal profits. One week of the fraud terror war could pay for the world's dental care for an entire year.

Democrats in DC are by and large selfish bloodthirsty profiteers hell bent on exporting American jobs for Wall Street's profits.
 
 
+1 # Pollard 2012-08-06 16:20
Obama did not forget to prosecute war crimes of banksters. He gave Bush the same blanket pardon Bush gave Cllinton his first day in office. Obama owes his first term to Corzine and Goldman-they would whack him if he even thought about prosecuting them.
 
 
0 # Antemedius 2012-08-06 19:38
Either Obama or Romney will win the presidency in November.

Everyone else will lose.
 
 
+1 # Antemedius 2012-08-06 19:50
The banks, the economy, America, and you, would be fine if rather than bailing out Wall Street over the subprime mortgage mess they created for themselves and everyone else, the administration and the fed had instead paid off every mortgage in the country - subprime or not - for less money (only about 12 trillion) than the 18-20 trillion they gave wall street as a reward for pillaging the economy.

This could even have been done with tax credits thus avoiding any outlay of money from the fed.

It would have restored the value behind the CDO mortgage backed securities that wall street got themselves into so much trouble with, and thus saved Wall Street while tremendously boosting the consumer driven economy, as the money would have gone directly to the mortgage holding banks while at the same time effectively doubling the amount of bailout money by lifting a enormous debt weight from all those homeowners who would then have had an equivalent amount of disposable funds to spend any way they chose.

.........

Candidate Barack Obama campaigned for the restoration of Glass-Steagall, and then put in place all the same people who'd destroyed it. He'd been made an insider.
...
It was the same pattern Obama followed in every department: Where he didn't leave Bush's people in charge he brought back Clinton's. Anything to be an insider.

-- http://antemedius.com/content/reminder-wall-streets-mercenaries-ride-donkeys
 
 
0 # grandone@charter.net 2012-08-07 04:57
I predicted an Obama landslide a year ago when the economy sucked!!! Romney sounds like George W Bush. Do we REALLY want that do over?
 
 
0 # Lois 2012-08-07 07:20
We need to support OUR President and make sure that voter suppression is not possible in our DEMOCRACY! Re-election is so important for the future of our country. We need to reduce the Tea Party influence - big time!
 
 
0 # Group_Capt_Lionel_Mandrake 2012-08-08 07:20
I watched Mr. Tomasky last night on either Cynk Uegur or Eliot Spitzer saying this about Romney (Tomasky disapproves of Romney, of course): "A presidential candidate has no reason to cover up what he's done. He should not fear to defend his values, because he won't get away with covering up anything." That was the gist of what he said.

Now anyone remember President Bush and his going AWOL from his Air Base and how-- who? Dan Rather? -- lost his job over saying anything about this? And still the American Boobuses can't tell you that Geo. Bush was a feckless idiot, not just an idiot. So Mr. Tomasky's judgment has got to be clouded... So, despite his counting of the Electoral College votes, I wouldn't count on an easy victory for Obama. What about Rove and his umpteen millions in SuperPac money? I fear for our country thanks to the Supreme Court and its 5 Catholic right-wingers (There are six Catholics on it, aren't there? And the others are of what religion?
 
 
-1 # suziemama 2012-08-08 22:22
As for myself, I will be voting for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Stein is the only candidate has the platform, vision, and integrity to save this country. She has now qualified for federal matching funds.

Obama could have earned my vote, but time and time again, he betrayed my values. For all nine presidential elections that I have experienced, I have been "told" it was my duty as a progressive to vote for whichever candidate the Democrats put forward, however distasteful. I'm not buying it.

Republicans will sink the ship of state, while the Democrats will sink the ship slightly less slowly. Either way we will drown from endless wars, corrupt economics, nuclear contamination, runaway climate change, and police state repressions...

If we refuse to vote for a candidate who represents our values, then we can't complain when the Dems don't represent us.

Oh, and as far as the nonsense about Nader and Gore, the Senate must certify the election results. If just ONE senator had stood up and challenged the voting irregularities in 2000 or 2004, we might well not have had Bush. The senators did not stand up for disenfranchised voters because Gore TOLD them to remain silent.

Vote Dr. JILL STEIN for President.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN