If you hate LMFAO then you are probably taking them too seriously. I've never heard of 3OH

I'll be putting in my customary hours for whomever our Senate candidate ends up being (hoping for Hubbard), so you could say I'm somewhat invested. Unfortunately, I live in a very Republican end of town and thus there are no competitive races down ballot.

Beckel looked scared half to death by the end of that; makes me wonder what kind of methods FOX uses to handle these sorts of incidents.

[NO.]

Do veep picks ever bring states into play that other wise wouldn't have been?

NO.

Yes, they do. 

Muskie brought Maine to Humphrey which Nixon would otherwise have carried.

Gore might well have tipped Tennessee to Clinton in 1996.

Bricker tipped Ohio to Dewey in 1944.

I think Stevenson brought Illinois to Cleveland in 1892.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that any of those victories were directly related to the veep pick.

TX - Hays County

In the Austin media market McCain barely won this county in 2008, with the Hispanic population growth and university present Obama could flip this county

I wouldn't think so. Hays borders the southern side of Travis, which is considerably more white/suburban than the central and northern parts of the county. Obama lost Hays by 2% in 2008 when conditions were near perfect; compare to 56-42 win for Bush in 2004 and a 58-33 win for Bush in 2000 (Nader interestingly pulled 7%). The point being that Obama likely hit his Hays County ceiling in 2008.

[NO.]

Do veep picks ever bring states into play that other wise wouldn't have been?

NO.

[he's much more enthusiastic and energized,]

1. Obama is running 5%-8% or so worse off than George W. Bush was at this time. It may seem slight, but in a close election it could prove critical.

This simply isn't true. In fact, Obama is pacing Romney by a higher percentage than Bush was Kerry  in April 2004.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/chart3way.html

2. While Romney's favorables are bad now, they only are so low due to the Primary. They will rise, especially with Republicans (see point 3 below). I think, ultimately, Romney is stronger than Kerry when it comes to appeal - he's much more enthusiastic and energized, and less prone to major gaffes.

It's arguable as to who is more mind-numbingly boring between Romney and Kerry, but I would like to know how you got to that second conclusion. Kerry said one mush mouthed thing about his vote for Iraq and then made the mistake of going windsurfing; the rest was mostly a smear campaign. Romney is sorely mistaken if he thinks people will just forget about the ugly primary, another thing that Kerry didn't have to deal with.

3. The GOP base will rally around Romney. They are down on him now because it was a pick of Romney over several other Republican candidates. In November, it will be Romney against Obama. So while Romney may not have been the #1 pick of the deep conservatives out there, when it's a choice between Romney, Obama, or not voting (which would essentially be a choice for Obama), they'll turn out in order to dethrone the incumbent they so badly despise.

Romney will win 90%+ of the GOP vote, of course. Unfortunately for him, the GOP's share of the electorate is going to drop if they can't find a way to get the grassroots working for Romney. At the end of it all, that may be the death nail for Romney more than the moderate enthusiasm on the Dem side for Obama.

4. The number one issue of the electorate in 2012 is the economy. The number one issue of the electorate in 2004 was national security (was still the 9/11 aftermath). George Bush had a commanding lead with national security - the rally effect was still going strong, albeit starting to peter out, the anti-Iraq War brigade didn't even emerge yet, and hurricane Katrina was still a year away. Whereas now, Romney is seen trusted with the economy, while Obama's approvals on the issue are somewhere around the 30% mark. Sure, the economy is slightly improving, and if it does continue, and, more so, picks up pace, the better the chances are for Obama.

But this (4) is a huge hole in the 2004 analogy. GWB had a commanding lead over the major issue of the electorate, whereas Obama has been seen flailing, failing, and coming up short.

The most recent CNN poll (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/16/cnnorc-poll-april-13-15-2012-election/) shows Obama leading Romney by 2% (44-42) on the issue of the economy, and by double digits on a multitude of leadership questions.

5. Now that I think about it, 2004 wasn't really a surprise - it took us right back to an almost 50-50 split, which was, essentially, the result of the prior 2000 election. My point? While Bush fell from 90% down to around 54% from September 12, 2001 to circa April 2004, that had more to do with the rally effect petering out rather than any perceived (at that time) faults during his first term. Compare that to Obama who fell from ~70% (these are rough estimates based on memory, too lazy to look every one of them up) to as low as 39% (now back to the mid to up 40s) over the course of his 4 years, but his story was one of his own making (unpopular health care, failed/unproductive stimulus, poor economy, Libya, etc).

Basically, my point here is that Bush was always divisive, hence the 2000 split, but people weren't intent on making a referendum against him on his first four years, but they are doing so on Obama's. Pretty important difference, if you ask me.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

Obama's approval rating is an average 47-48, higher if you weed out the hackish Republican pollsters. The trend also shows increasing approvals for Obama, not declining.

I've tried to stay neutral in this issue until more evidence arose, but some of the things the Zimmerman defenders here are saying is ridiculous. Walking around in suburbia is out of the ordinary? What a paranoid lot you guys are. I suppose your insides tighten when you hear hip-hop on a car radio in the distance, as well?

one should not be able to hear a car radio in the distance.

It's a pretty common occurrence in any reasonably populated area, especially if you live near a major road.

Of course it's a common occurrence, which makes it all the more stupid and irritating.

Are you also irritated by ice cream men?

I would include more depth generally, especially on some of the economic issues. Asking whether or not the test take believes its fair that the wealthy pay a higher rate seems rather shallow and non indicative. Also, the social scoring seems to be heavily influenced by issues that most people would find trivial (flag burning, prostitution, etc). I could be in the minority here, but I would like more statements about civil rights and homeland security.

FWIW: even in it's current form, the Matrix is by far superior to the Compass.

If Perry runs he will win without issue; the Texas Democratic Party is forever lacking (to put it gently).

That said, I think he decides against it. He just blew millions of dollars making himself look like an ass on the national stage and I would place a bet that neither the big donors or grassroots would be enthusiastic about Perry '14. Look for Greg Abbott to step up and annihilate whatever one-term congressman the Democrats find to sacrifice. I'm hoping for Chris Bell again; his meetings typically had donuts or pizza depending on the time of day. We even got Subway on election day. Good times.

Deerhunter - Cryptograms <- amazing album.

I did it for about a year...and then I dumped my girlfriend and went to Whataburger (an awesome fast food for those of you in deprived states). Never looked back.

I can agree with that. Regardless of how many Presidential elections we go through, people never seem to learn the complete irrelevance of most VP picks.

[Mittosis]

Is Mittosis performed like convention biological organisms undergo mitosis? Or is it more like an exponential increase in production capability, producing rates similar to mitosis?

Picture 1 is Mittosis Theory 1; Picture 2 is Mittosis Theory 2:

Mittosis is a severely aggressive biological process, impacting approximately 1 in 20 severely conservative governors. It would be comparable more to traditional mitosis in the way two Mitt Romneys are in effect created from one. Mitt Romneys are impervious to cancer, which is a symptom of the key underlying mechanism.

Whenever a flip-flop is made by a Mitt Romney, it is viewed by the body much like how a misread piece of genetic information would be read. Instead of causing cancerous tumors in the host Mitt Romney's ideology, however, the resulting error initiates a complex and instantaneous process whereby all the inconsistent positions taken by that Mitt Romney are transferred to the new Mitt Romney.

Whenever a flip-flop occurs, Mittosis occurs. This is a survival mechanism, as any one Mitt Romney actually has only one inconsistency (the initial flip-flop that created the Mitt in question). All of the combined inconsistencies are the cumulative output of all Mitt Romneys. Nobody has truly seen the potential devastation until now.

When the Mitts run out of parties to run in, do we begin to see multiple independent Mitts? Or do they start to create their own parties? Or will they start running for different offices?  How much in additional spending is this projected to cause for various elections departments?

This comes to mind:

I've tried to stay neutral in this issue until more evidence arose, but some of the things the Zimmerman defenders here are saying is ridiculous. Walking around in suburbia is out of the ordinary? What a paranoid lot you guys are. I suppose your insides tighten when you hear hip-hop on a car radio in the distance, as well?

one should not be able to hear a car radio in the distance.

It's a pretty common occurrence in any reasonably populated area, especially if you live near a major road.

I've tried to stay neutral in this issue until more evidence arose, but some of the things the Zimmerman defenders here are saying is ridiculous. Walking around in suburbia is out of the ordinary? What a paranoid lot you guys are. I suppose your insides tighten when you hear hip-hop on a car radio in the distance, as well?

I had the pleasure of meeting Kendrick Meek when I lived in Florida; direct and savvy - would have made a great Senator. I'm glad I had the chance to vote for him.

A relatively distant 2nd. All things considered, there is less presence for Paul in Texas than I thought there would be.

[Really, the only party that he cannot contort his values enough to run in is the Anti-Mormon Party (existed 1841-1844 in Illinois).]

[ ] Barack Obama (D)
[ ] Mitt Romney (R)
[ ] W. Mitt Romney (I)
[ ] W. M. Romney (I)
[ ] Willard M. Romney (Socialist Labor)
[ ] Willard Mitt Romney (Constitution)
[ ] Mittens Romney (Silly Hats Party)
[ ] Gromit Romney (Libertarian)
[ ] Tree-Loving Romney (Green)
[ ] MITTBOT 2.0 (MICROSOFT VISTA)

[ ] Milton Romney (Reform)
[ ] Mitchell Romney (Americans Elect)
[ ] Mitt W. Romney (Justice)

Mitt Willard Romney (Connecticut for Lieberman)

[] Mitt Romney (American Third Position Party)
[] Mitt Romney (CPUSA)
[] Mitt Romney (The John Bolton/Allen West Association for the Advancement of Hawkish Policy Party]
[]Mitt Romney (Write-in)
[]Opebo (Write-in)

[ ] Mitt Romney (Blue Enigma)
[ ] Mitt Romney (Modern Whig)
[ ] Mitt Romney (Republican Moderate)
[ ] Mitt Romney (Alaskan Independence)
[ ] Mitt Romney (Independence)
[ ] Mitt Romney (Aloha Aina)
[ ] Mitt Romney (Moderate)
[ ] Mitt Romney (Populist)
[ ] Mitt Romney (Ecology Democracy)
[ ] Mitt Romney (Grassroots)
[ ] Mitt Romney (Conservative)
[ ] Mitt Romney (Marijuana Reform)
[ ] Mitt Romney (Right To Life)
[ ] Mitt Romney (Taxpayers)
[ ] Mitt Romney (Progressive)
[ ] Mitt Romney (United Citizens)
[ ] Mitt Romney (Liberty Union)
[ ] Mitt Romney (Independent Greens)
[ ] Mitt Romney (Tax Revolt)
[ ] Mitt Romney (Progressive Dane)
[ ] Mitt Romney (Charter)
[ ] Mitt Romney (Rent Is 2 Damn High)
[ ] Mitt Romney (Working Families)
[ ] Mitt Romney (New Progressive)
[ ] Mitt Romney (Popular Democratic)
[ ] Mitt Romney (Puerto Rican Independence)
[ ] Mitt Romney (Movimiento Unión Soberanista)

Really, the only party that he cannot contort his values enough to run in is the Anti-Mormon Party (existed 1841-1844 in Illinois).

Where there's a Willard, there's a way.

Only aid to NGO's who work within those countries, not to corrupt governments. So, Neutral.

^^^^

Sending aid directly to the corrupt governments of the third world is a naive practice.

For those defending this poll: Do any of you actually believe that the sample used to conduct this poll is reflective of what the electorate will look like on election day? 19% Independent? Not happening.

sestak.  he would have made an excellent senator.

Kay Bailey Hutchison? Pro-choice, but a Southerner. Lots of experience, but maybe too old.

KBH is not pro-choice. I'll never understand where this misconception developed.

1. Franklin Pierce
2. Andrew Johnson
3. Millard Fillmore
4. John Tyler
5. Richard Nixon

I personally think the extent to which Buchanan was a bad President is over stated. There's something to be said about taking over an extremely hostile political environment and keeping it in check for as long as he did.

Romney will need foreign policy experience and someone who is capable of both acceptable to independents and able to appease the base. This leaves Condi or perhaps Elizabeth Dole, who served on the Armed Services Committee (this is a stretch though).