Anyone have any thoughts about New Jerseys non-binding vote on legalizing sports betting? A federal law (which might get struck down by the Supreme Court if it ever was looked at) forbids states that didn't already allow sports betting after 1993 from allowing it afterward.  I believe if this is approved then New Jersey would be ready for action if that federal ban is ever struck down. 

   I'm wondering if anyone on this board has personally experienced a voter ID law in practice on the precinct level.  I believe a few states have adopted it (Indiana in 2006), and would be interested in hearing about how it worked out on the ground level, in terms of disputes, controversies, etc..

    It looks like Ohio voters will strike down Ohio's  law curbing the powers and rights of public sector unions.  I'm wondering if this is any indication of strength for the Democrats in Ohio  for the 2012 vote, or just the electorate saying not so fast to Kasich.

I actually met him in the 1990's.  Nice guy.  At the time he was promoting his plan for a national referendum process, which is something I was then interested in, and still am.  I'd love to see him get in the race and liven things up.

Cain said today that the people who will end up paying more in taxes under his plan are those who buy lots of new goods.  People who buy lots of used goods will do well.

Chairman Sanchez, I was having a little fun with the poll options, kind of putting the spin on them that people from the different sides might do with this. 
Concerning cuts, I think the only way you make a serious dent in federal spending, if that is the goal, is to go after the big ticket items that make up the bulk of federal spending, defense, social security, medicare and medicaid.

I'm wondering if this has galvanized people in any direction.  Personally, it makes me much, much less likely to vote for Cain in the upcoming California primary. 

Never using Streaming myself, I like the new price reduction last month and am hoping that with Quikster they will retain the same pricing structure.  It was a reduction for me anyway, as we have the four dvds at a time plan and it went from 27 to 23 dollars a month, minus the non-used streaming of course.  Down the road, when more and more movies and obscure period pieces and film movement type movies go to streaming I'll have to make the switch, but not until then.

I'm wondering whats going on with Snyder's recall.  The recall Snyder website didn't have many details.  I'm wondering how many signatures they've gotten so far, and what the deadlines are.

In terms of the Jewish hold on California politics, having both US senate seats is rather striking.  OTOH, once Boxer and Feinstein retire, I doubt whether other Jews would replace them.  Also, the Jewish US house contingent is lower with the death of Lantos and Harman's retirement.

     Two points against the proposal seem to cancel each other out.  1) Pennsylvania would lose clout as the presidential campaigns would skip the state and 2) GOP congressmen from swing areas are against the plan because Dems might mount serious efforts to win their districts in the presidential contest.  Seems to me that for point two to go into effect, point one has to be at least modified.  Clearly big sections of the state would get ignored, but I can imagine some heavy duty campaigning in the Philly suburbs.

    Of course if GOP candidate were to win the state outright anyway, and then win only, say 15 or so of the electoral votes, it would actually strengthen their argument.  They could then say, see we just wanted what was best for Pennsylvania, regardless of the partisan impact. The more I think about this, such a result would actually do the most to entrench the system

Over time it will be interesting to watch the hispanic development in California and elsewhere.  As the years pass, a greater and greater percentage of Hispanics are born in the US, and if they speak Spanish they don't speak it very well or use it in every day language.  Assuming immigration stays about the same, or drops somewhat due to the awful employment situation, the percentage of US born/non Spanish speaking Hispanics as compared to those born outside the US will grow and grow year after year.
    This reality will have potentials for both parties.  On the one hand I forsee the gradual death of language politcs (bilingual ballots, bilingual education etc), and concern about all the non-English speaking going on.  Also, as time goes on, the % of hispanics who are US citizens and fully assimilated in mainstream American life will be going up and up.  This could play out well for both parties.

    I'd be interested to hear from our Pennsylvania people about the impact of Governor Corbett's support on the chances of this happening.  He spoke quite favorably about it yesterday.

   Also, it would be nice if it was introduced in a less gerrymandered environment, say one in which it was likely that the Dem candidate was likely to win an amount of EV's fairly close to his statewide percentage anyway.  That way supporters of the change could argue that the electoral vote change was merely creating a result more in proportion to the true state of political feeling in the state.

Sbane, I'd be intrested in seeing your PA gerrymander.  I'd like to see one where the Philly districts are chopped up and split up over the entire eastern Pennsylvania area, giving Dems a victory chance throughout the region.

If this actually went through, it would be quite understandable for Dems in Georgia, Texas, Indiana, Missouri, Colorado, Arizona etc to try for something similar, and it would be hilarious to see the flip flopping.  All of a sudden Republicans would be against, and Dems for the idea.
    Still, since this would represent a significant internal shift in how the electoral college works, I'm for the idea, since it may lead to more states doing it, and more discussion about the presidential election process in general, with more people coming around to a national direct two round popular vote a la France idea.

In essence having the winner take all is like having to go for the touchdown on fourth and goal from the three yard line, and going to districts is like allowing for a field goal instead.
   Another way to look at is its as the GOP is trying to have the more conservative parts of Pennsylvania seceed, or rather expel Philadelphia from the state, in terms of its impact on the state as a whole.  I've wondered why GOP hasn't tried this in other states such as Michigan, Illinois, and even Ohio where you have a GOP dominated hinterland (somewhat in Illinois I guess) that can get swamped by the Democratic cities of the state.
   

As an advocate of abolition of the electoral college, I like this idea for it might trigger a mad scramble in other states to change to the district method.  All such changes will lead to greater politicizing of the issue of how we elect a President, and with that perhaps more discussion about bigger reforms, such as electoral college abolition and perhaps, some day maybe in the 22nd or 23rd century,  the introduction of a popular vote two round (if no one has a first round majority) Presidential election system. 

If there are just three candidates on the ballot are the Greens and Independence parties giving their ballot line to either Turner or Weprin?  I'm assuming Working Families goes to Weprin and Conservative to Turner.

Statewide I've always said look to the SF Bay Area for your answer to Democratic strength.  Democrats run so well in prosperous, still fairly white counties that elsewhere in the country would be GOP bastions.

Upon the outbreak of WW2, the South African parliament narrowly voted for war, by 80-67.  The parliament had about  110 united party members 27 national party members and a few others.  I'm trying to find a district by district breakdown of the 1938 election to see how close the National party came to winning more seats. Nationwide they won about 31% of the vote, the United party about 52%, which leads me to guess that there were numerous close districts.  If anyone has any link to anything with a district by district breakdown of the vote I'd love to see it.

It was on the Ron Owen's show on KGO, she made her comments about not personally benefiting from them about 11:55.   Can't find a KGO link of actual shows.
Eshoo also mentioned her son's family which made a good living (I think somewhere around 200k a year), and that she didn't think people in that income category should see their taxes raised, just those at a higher, unspecified level.
    Doing deliveries, I get to listen to all kinds of radio shows during lunch and dinner hours, and I like to mix it up, a little NPR, a little sports, a little John Bachelor (I like his guests and the overall attitude of imminent dramatic world events about to happen), a little Dave Ramsey,  then maybe back to the Giants game.

This morning I listened to Congresswoman Anna Eshoo being interviewed on a local call in show.  She basically said that the top two percent of income earners in the country were the sole beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts, and that she personally didn't recall any benefit from them.
   Now, one can certainly make a case that the super wealthy benefited a huge amount from these cuts, fair enough, but clearly middle income and upper middle income people such as Eshoo also benefited as her tax rate went down too, with some of her money that used to be taxed at 15% going to 10%, and most significantly her old 28% rate (most of her taxable income I'm guessing) going to 25 %.  How I wish I could have enlightened her, but alas I was doing my lunch deliveries.

Opebo,

There is of course the restaurant world.  At my restaurant (where I do deliveries and am 10% owner since last year btw, thus joining the ruling class) you can work full or part time.  Most tipped employees only work about 15 to 20 hours a week, as they make around 25 to 30 dollars an hour (minimum wage plus tips).  But, you could work more hours if you'd like.  I work about 30 hours a week, used to do 40 hours a week, far more than any other tipped employee.
      One thing is to manage expenses.  If you don't spend a huge amount of money on horse back lessons for the kids, don't drive an expensive car, and don't take expensive vacations, you don't need to work as many hours.  My wife works about 5 hours a week at our restaurant, so combined we work 35 hours for a family of four, and still save about 30% or our income( now supplemented by ownership income), yet we know lots of people who combined work maybe 70 hours a week (husband and wife) and are just getting by.

So much financial planning, retirement planning etc. is predicated on the idea of stock investments returning somewhere in the ballpark of about 10% per year.  Historically, this is pretty accurate I believe.
   However, since 2000, we have had somewhere around 0% return for the broadest US index funds.  Obviously that figure isn't going to last forever, but sooner or later I wonder if we should be adjusting our expectations of what we can expect from stock investing.