Ah, i see what your saying... however the one thing I'd caution you about that may be clouding it is the East coast West coast effect.

Essentially, if one side is winning lopsidedly on the east coast... like Obama in 2008.  The losing party tends to not show up on the west coast.  While the winning party gets energized and goes out to vote despite victory being  all but locked up to be part of the victory.

Polls generally do try and model their surveys based on race and such afterall.  It's not like they just count every person who answers the phone as one vote.

"Republican" as a dirty word though I mean in a more general sense.  Sure republicans don't like democrats, democrat's don't like republicans...

however even if you were a hispanic conservative who votes mostly conservative I don't think you would want to be labeled a republican, is what i mean.

It's like if your ever having a political conversation with a bunch of friends and your all seemingly agreeing.

Chances are, the guy who isn't talking and just nodding his head probably disagrees... and just doesn't want to have that conversation.

I just found out I can vote in Wisconsin... Was going to vote in Illinois but why do that when my vote doesn't matter. +2 votes for Romney in Wisconsin then he would have recieved earlier... in 2000 this state was won by 500 votes...

I doubt in the coming months people will have too many positive things about FEMA and the federal government after hurricanes.

If anything, it'll point how vital is it the each state in these areas is better prepared to handle disasters to the area they govern. It's rare, but the Northeast can take a lesson from the South.

The only issue, really, is Pennsylvania, where the Eastern end of the state that keeps the state Blue has been devastated, while the redneck center and even-mixed West are much less impacted.

End this this ridiculous crusade on cannabis (and war on drugs) left by our joke of a (then) president Nixon and legalize hemp.

They've been spending so much money on the DEA to "try" to eradicate all drugs (mainly cannabis). It's just a waste of tax payer money. I remember him saying (before he was president) when he was still a senator in Illinois; that the war on drugs is an utter failure and they should rethink the whole issue. 4 years later he's still continuing the with war.

Plus legalizing cannabis would end the incarceration of non-violent drug offenders of simple possession. Thus leaving room for the more dangerous criminals. Bring back that money through taxation, cutting costs of prosecuting, and jailing people, cut spending on cops arresting. and take all that money away the cartels are swimming in through legalization.

Of course it's still a drug and people will abuse it, but its not going to be as bad under a legal status compared to things like alcohol. Plus you have people abusing other legal commodities anyway. But most importantly, nobody has the damn right to tell you what you can or can't do with your life. But the govt. is doing a pretty good job on that. Which is why Obama is opting to convert this country to communism/socialism.

Now I know we had a debate on this a while ago (in another thread) on how well communism works. But I personally would not want to live under a system that tells you what to do; and hands you everything on a silver platter with little to no effort.

Well, the first major problem he needs to address is his mental health, as he's living in a fantasy world where he won his re-election. Now, what Romney can do when he becomes president is to help create an environment where businesses can create new jobs without burdensome taxes or regulations. Then he can focus on other issues, like bringing those responsible for the deaths of 4 Americans at our consulate (including those politicians who denied them aid in their final hours) to justice.

Ah, didn't realize that about Penn.  Thought it was pretty soldily Obama by now though.

Obama and Chris Christe traveling together to look at the damage alone i'd say beats any negative political impact.

Oh yeah. Central Pennsylvania is basically West Virginia, while the west is basically East Ohio (which is why we've got one of the more competitive congressional races in the country nearby: Critz v. Rothfus, though Critz is one of those damn blue dogs bragging about how pro-life and pro-second-amendment he is...). Even the race i'm in is fairly competitive, even though no-one outside the district thinks it is.

Left, Right, or moderate, Western Pennsylvanians tend to scorn Central as "Pennsyltucky"

Let's hope Pennsylvania makes the right decision.

That effect is interesting. It is clear that people are clearly affected by the attitude their party or canidate portrays. That is why on here I generally portray a positive message to those I that agree with me. For one, because the data that is the only thing we have to rely on to who is probably winning is way more positive for the Democrats. Also,because  this place is not  a United front like other political places, it has a lot of people trying to muddle the facts with vertbiased data. For example, those that only are talking about a small minority of polls versus showing a clearer picture of averages. The media does this all the time.

I also have been taking on the Poe effect in terms of writing on politics here because it can often be the best method to laying things out clearly.

The race thing is only brought up because it is significant,and of course it does not need to be dwelled upon. Of corse, each party does look at different races and sexes to look at ways to hit the magic spot to get the most of them on their side.

I think that the only people that want to be labled Repulicans are those that do label themselves that, yes. A lable of unaffiliiated to me would just say I am open to other parties besides one.

Yes, when you have a reputation amongst people it does make sense that that those that do not agree remain silent. The worst cases of this example are when people are being rude, taking advantage of those, or being prejiduce.