"All of the above"

Just knew someone would vote that eventually. Dare I ask for a reason why?

E: -7.13, S: -7.18

*cough*

-7.18 isn't even spectacularly high. I would think someone with that score would at least be reasonable.

Well,

I don't really see a need to own a gun.
I don't own one myself, I don't know if
I ever will. I don't like guns.
Many countries have banned them all together,
so I don't see that voting the way I did is
unreasonable.
However, I don't actually know if it entirely
necessary to ban all guns.
I am not opposed to compromises, but we are
way too far on the other extreme.

On the other hand, maybe we should be more concerned
about the number of nuclear weapons than the number of
guns.

The real problem is human nature, and I don't know
how likely it is that that will ever change.

"All of the above"

I am interested in what the Buddha himself taught. It is my understanding that Buddhism is all about the four noble truths.

Last fall, I started Meditation. My teacher used Buddhist concepts as a structure for meditation.
 
I have been studying about Buddhism and Buddhist meditation principles, including the four noble truths and now call myself a Buddhist.

What is your opinion of Buddhism?

or a 269-269 map

I don't think that either scenario is likely but it is fun to speculate.
If you post a 270-268 it can be either a D or R victory.
Does anyone here still remember me (I usually posted as MacFarlan)?
It has been a long time since I got out of the habit of posting here, but
I follow the polls on this site. This is Obama 270 Republican 268.

I am in Cheltenham and I believe that is still Fattah's district (2nd).

I voted
"Pardon to life without parole".
Doubt about whether he is actually guilty is not the same as proof of innocence.
If the truth can ever be discovered it might be a mistake to release him, in
case he actually is guilty. But executing someone who might be innocent is appalling to me.

Obama won all the states that Lincoln won in 1860 and a few more. This shows how the map has completed flipped in the old "Union" states. If Obama can hold onto three Lincoln states Ohio, NH, and Iowa he will get 270 electoral votes. This is a scenario which is quite different from the map I posted. The problem with the Ohio, NH, Iowa combination is that after 2020 Ohio is likely to lose electoral votes and the candidate in 2024 would have to win at least one of the Rocky mountain states or a southern state.

The point of the map was to show how the Democrats need to focus on swing states like Florida, Nevada, and Arizona which have gained electoral votes, instead of states that lost electoral votes in the last census, namely Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan. It isn't so much to suggest a possible result, but to show where the new swings states are going to be going forward. If you go to the calculator for years over the last 50 years you will see that the states in the map only reached 270 in 2000, you will see a gradual increase in the totals for the map which finally leveled off in 2010. Will the numbers continue to go up? That is the question.

Here's how it happens:



The President is winning all but a few of the states that he wins by 5% or less, and he just barely wins CO, IA, NH, and PA. To be sure, he barely loses OH and VA, but he is losing a raft of states by margins of 15% or more. He wins Colorado under questionable circumstances after a statewide Democratic machine appears after about four years, giving a 'flavor' characteristic of 2000.  The President barely gets 272 electoral votes.

Republicans are probably taking back the Senate, though, by holding everything and picking up seats in Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, and Virginia while they lose the House.   

That map is certainly a possibility.

By narrowly I mean by .52% (like 2000) or less, it is not likely that the election will be this close, but if it is, it could be 2000 in reverse.

Just so you know, my vote is "yes".

What happens if nobody gets a majority?
Do they go with the plurality winner or have a run off?
Or do they have state by state primaries like the Dems and Repubs?

Circumcision of infants is a vile practice that shouldn't be permitted, much like you shouldn't tattoo an infant.  I am daily reminded of this symbol of a covenant of Abraham that I reject and want no part of literally cut out of my flesh.  If circumcision is to be practised, let it be done among understanding adults like Abraham and Ishmael, not infants.

Yes, it should be banned. It is cruel to treat a newborn this way. If someone wants to do it anyway, let them take their baby to another country. It does not violate a person's religious belief as long as they can take their baby somewhere else.

Here is a possible tie, but 1 electoral vote from NE would break it in Obama's favor:


You could also switch NH & NM for an Obama win. The House would probably go for the Republican if there is a tie, while the Senate would go Democrat. We would have a split, with a Republican President and a Democrat VP.

In a close election, if Obama wins every red state on this map he wins 266 e votes.
Obviously we can see that the three yellow states will be critical.

I think that Obama would win Minnesota.

At this point the possibility that the Dow will reach 14,000 any time this year is rapidly decreasing. (it will be at, near*** or above 12,000 for most of the year, however - in other words the current bear market will not last the entire year, I don't think)

***by "near" I mean + or - 500 points

Except for Mittens, yes.

Mormons are a sort of Christians

"Sort of Christians" Interesting: does that mean that they sort of get to go to heaven or some place just as nice, like Disneyworld for example.

I would insert Huckabee, but that is because he is a likely candidate, it may be someone who hasn't been talked about or even someone like Jeb Bush. Huckabee is not necessarily a terrible candidate, although he is very conservative, but Obama could beat him according to recent polls.

I voted for
"They'll screw it up by picking [insert candidate here]"
Because I believe that the Republicans would have to pick an outstanding
candidate to have a chance against Obama.

All of the following are possible answers (for me), however:

The economy has to go into a double dip recession
They don't stand a chance (well the do stand a chance but not a good one)
Still too early to tell (this may be the best answer for obvious reasons)

I am going to be optimistic and say above 15,000

(but I might change my vote while the poll is still open)

Here is a chart of states
that haven't gone for a Democrat
since 1964.

rank      last time won
in                by a Democrat
2008           prior to 1964
      
      
1  Oklahoma   1948
2  Wyoming   1948
3  Utah      1948
4  Idaho      1948

6  Alaska     1964 only time

11 Nebraska   1936
12 Kansas   1936
18 South Dakota   1936
19 North Dakota   1936

Therefore, a win by a Democrat of any of these states would be noteworthy.

how about a tie

Not a likely scenario, but it shows how important the smallest of states are.
270-268 for Obama.