Oregon was the last to join the group of states to try for legalization. It has a very conservative east side according to some dude from the state. I know the least about Oregon. Colorado has been trying to legalize it the longest for many reasons. It has long had a majority supporting it in the entire country. It has the most males and males vote in legalization's favor far more than women. The economy was helped by the vast medical MJ market that created lots of tax revenue. And the most money was put into the state. It is believed the initiative to pass legal MJ did not happen in Cali due to it being out of a presidential election year that causes less young voters to vote. This year the youth vote in Colorado favors legalization by an overwhelming 73% of both sexes. The stat has had an 8% lead in favor or higher the whole time.

Other reasons it is in favor here is that it is already legal in the state capital of Denver. In Washington Seattle is almost legal according to it's legislature.

Yes, Kasz I feel cautiously optimistic, but unless you are referring to the Nevada vote I do not know what you are talking about. Polls in Colorado in 2006 well behind the whole time and polls for Cali have always been behind in favor when they have tried. I do remain cautiously optimistic here, but I do know the culture about weed changed here and for non-smokers like myself opinions changes as well when Medical MJ retailers began popping up everywhere all over the state.The nation polled in October supported legalization for the first time by 51% this October.

The thing I don't get too is... practically every very liberal person I know isn't a fan of Obama, but thinks Romney will be worse.


Barak Obama is killing children and American citizens overseas... with not a very good reason why... and in 2009-2010 when it was a majority of democrats and they had all the legislative power in the world.....

93% of all created wealth was captured by the top 1%. In large part to Obama vetoing a deal between the leaving Bush administration and senate democrats to write language into TARP that would force banks to write down bad mortgages for poorer people.


How much worse could Romney actually be in these regards?

The areas he's supposed to be worse in... are already areas that Obama is really really really horrible in.

Like worse then George W Bush horrible.

Bush's drone policy was actually smaller and more reserved and his 1% number was like... 64-65% when he had growth.  (1% had like 55% of the loses when bad.).

I don't see why you'd vote for either mainstream candidate, but at least Republicans are being ideologically consistant.

How a liberal doesn't vote 3rd party I have no idea.

I think it'll be within 20 EVs either way.

I think Romney wins by winning in Ohio, Virginia, and Florida.

Highly unlikely, as Ohio has never had an average lead  for Romney in the state. His current average on RealClearPolitics has President Obama at 2.9% in favor for the state.

There's a huge difference between canadian and european welfare and what latin americans have got used to. It's a whole other mentality, a different way of looking at the welfare question and that's where I think you are mistaken right there . I live in southern Brazil, the most developed region of the country, but I do know enough of the mentality of those dependent on government-led social politics on a third-world country to tell you that's not the case - or better yet, it's made not to. Most feel entitled to have the government sustaining them and deliberately will not act in a way to get over their situation as to keep being sustained.

Of course I'm not trying to say mexican immigrants are all a bunch of lazy good-for-nothings; they get the worse jobs and the worse payments and it's hard to be satisfied by that. Just that's what the populist politics the USA has been following since the Reagan days is making it out to be. A machine designed to keep an ever increasing percent of the population dependent and government help and easily manipulated to vote towards one candidate or another by the simple promise of keeping and/or increasing the welfare state.

Anyways, we are getting off-topic here and if you are willing to continue this conversation then inbox me.

haha nice :)

It all really comes down to the accuracy of the polls.  Personally, I think most of them are pretty accurate, or at least accurate enough for obama to win in the way i outlined earlier.  However, the oversampling of democrats present in most polls gives some credibility to people doubting the polls accuracy.  

According to the redskin rule, looks like Romney is going to win tomorrow :)

Voter turnout will be an issue... despite democrats having a voter turnout advantage over republicans... it's much smaller then it was in 2000.

interesting too is that nobody is worried about the Bradley effect anymore.  I've only seen one place mention it.

Likely because republicans want to argue race isn't a factor, and if the bradley effect really is true... Obama would be very vulnerable.