Prediction Map

Prediction States Won

		270 |	538 |
Dem	128
Rep	410
Ind	0

Confidence States Won

		270 |	538 |
Dem	128
Rep	410
Ind	0
Tos	0

State Pick-ups

	Gain			Loss			Hold			Net Gain
	ST	CD	EV	ST	CD	EV	ST	CD	EV
Dem	0	0	0	-16	-2	-231	13	1	128	-231
Rep	+16	+2	+231	0	0	0	22	2	179	+231
Ind	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Prediction Score (max Score = 112)

Score	State Wins	State Percentages	CD Wins	CD Percentages
69	37	26	4	2

Analysis

I believe this is more than likely the result of the election. the polls are skeewed heavy for obama and its not reality

Prediction History

Comments History - show

Version History

2: 2012-10-02 @ 22:49:39 1: 2011-11-22 @ 22:52:32 View Version

Member Comments

By: Buttetonian (I-WA) 2012-10-03 @ 01:20:15
This is very disheartening, especially if you actually believe your analysis. Your projections defy logic. Then you say -- "the polls are skeewed (skewed) heavy (heavily) for obama and its not reality" .. really? Even the Wall Street Journal & FOX? You're definitely out-of-touch with the American people, just like your candidate.

---

By: darthpi (D-PA) 2012-10-03 @ 02:19:29
Typically when I see a map like this, my gut reaction is to assume that it is a joke. Then I looked at your 2010 Senate maps. Apparently, you actually believe the nonsense you're spouting. I weep for humanity. Here's a tip: Try getting your information from somewhere other than World Net Daily and Drudge.

---

By: WhyteRain (I-TX) 2012-10-03 @ 08:18:42
I've said that all the Democratic maps here that show Obama gaining more than 330 votes are really predictions that the Democrats will win enough House seats (25-plus) to put Nancy back in the Speaker's chair. So I have to say that this map is one that predicts the REPUBLICANS will have a similar blowout in the House -- and I don't know of anyone expecting that to happen. The last time I looked at RCP, they showed 23 House races "too close to call". If the Democrats sweep them all, they'll gain 13 seats, while if the GOP sweeps them, they'll gain 10. P.S. I have a new map myself. Last Edit: 2012-10-03 @ 08:19:25

---

By: Johnsnowblind (O-BRA) 2012-10-03 @ 08:41:05
It seems more an ardent devotee opinion of Republican party than a serious analysis of the possibles results...

---

By: cptarmy03 (R-MA) 2012-10-17 @ 17:06:24
really is that why the polls went from a 25point lead in ohio for obama to a statistical tie and now Romney is trending up after the First debate when Obama got his ass handed to him. polls don't move that fast in any direction. After the second debate where obama was caught again in another lie its pretty much over for your communist president. He is not the smooth orator that you all believe he was. I do believe come election day romney will carry the swing states to include Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Indiana, Nevada. You president blew it with the Libya Gate cover up. He makes Jimmy Carter look good. Obama is the first President to preside over a credit rating down grade from AAA to AA+ and now AA-. Great job Right. Last Edit: 2012-10-17 @ 17:09:24

---

By: dnul222 (D-MN) 2012-10-17 @ 17:59:52
thank you 'no' GOP congress which failed to pass any deficit reduction package with the senate...no on 25% of US judges just because Obama nominated them, no on any plan of Obama's even though it was based on GOP previous proposals...just no no no...all for political control and you wonder why so many people wanted Paul of Texas for President... Personally I would rather vote for johnson of the libertarians this time around and not have to deal with BS from DEM or GOP like this map...

---

By: cptarmy03 (R-MA) 2012-10-17 @ 18:54:25
to dnul222 - so you agree that Obama has failed since you don't want to vote for him again. Voters Remorse hehehe....

---

By: cptarmy03 (R-MA) 2012-10-20 @ 13:41:20
darthpi Obama is the joke. He is our version of Emperor Nero of the Roman Empire. While our embassy was burning and our ambassasdor and 2 navy seal and a Embassy offical were killed Obama was fiddling in Vegas with the Super Wealthy raising money for his campaign...but he is for the "Working Class" I hav never been hired by the poor always by someone with the financial means to pay a salary....... Last Edit: 2012-10-20 @ 13:42:47

---

By: KS21 (I-KS) 2012-10-20 @ 13:55:39
Speaking of jokes, guess who predicted Sharon Angle to win over 80% of the vote in the NV Senate race last cycle...

---

By: cptarmy03 (R-MA) 2012-10-20 @ 14:31:36
this is not 2008. but you don't refute my point but bring up a complete irrelevant issue....

---

By: KS21 (I-KS) 2012-10-20 @ 22:51:50
Far from irrelevant, it is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of delusional predictions you have made, are making, and undoubtedly will continue to make...

---

By: Ickey415 (--IA) 2012-10-21 @ 11:32:11
Even if you believe the polls are "skeewed heavy" for President Obama, I still cannot assess your prediction map as serious if you actually believe Mitt will win CA. You just live in a GOP-constructed alternate reality. Which is fine for you, but please do not add your predictions to our serious averages. This is unhelpful. MN and NM going for Mitt? Utterly ridiculous. This is a ridiculous map. Mitt isn't even advertising or campaigning in PA or MI at this point - he's written them off completely. Get serious, please. -Jeff

---

By: CR (--MO) 2012-10-21 @ 12:20:52
Well not entirely true. Ryan has been doing a number of campaign events in western Pennsylvania this weekend and Romney is running ads in Pittsburgh. Not sure about Michigan. I think it unlikely they'll win either state but at least as far as Pennsylvania goes it would appear they are still investing some resources there.

---

By: colin (I-ON) 2012-10-21 @ 19:14:34
Would love to see a surprising hard push for Pennsylvania and Michigan at the end. I don't think it's farfetched...

---

By: cptarmy03 (R-MA) 2012-10-21 @ 19:33:48
the reason I believe that Obama will be defeated: 1. Economy and National Security. both are in shambles and he owns it. remember Obama is the first president to preside over a down grade of our credit rating AAA to AA- 2. In 2008 obama got a lot of the college vote today the same people that were freshman in college are graduating and where are the JOBS. He does not have the same passionate support he had in 2008.. 3. What people say in these polls and what they actually do behind that curtain when they pull the lever are two different things.

---

By: KS21 (I-KS) 2012-10-21 @ 22:33:02
"What people say in these polls and what they actually do behind that curtain when they pull the lever are two different things." Give me an example of this benfitting the GOP by upwards of double-digit margins (CA) and I'll show you a flying turtle. Some things just don't happen.

---

By: cptarmy03 (R-MA) 2012-10-22 @ 08:55:50
for one Ohio in 2004. polls were saying Kerry and Bush won..... and a president winning relection with Obamas record would be a first....but then again a foriegn company in Spain is tallying the votes so I guess its in the bag.... hope you enjoy the new normal of a real unemployment rate of 18% Last Edit: 2012-10-22 @ 08:57:46

---

By: KS21 (I-KS) 2012-10-22 @ 17:27:06
I had no idea A. Spain was "foriegn" (foreign, perhaps?) B. Spain was a company C. We outsourced our election operations to Spain. I though that's why we had China.

---

By: WhyteRain (I-TX) 2012-10-23 @ 07:16:30
Californians will vote for Obama because they know they'll need a bailout and he's most likely to give them one. All the failing, shrinking states will vote for Obama for that very reason.

---

By: cptarmy03 (R-MA) 2012-10-23 @ 07:34:28
KS21 I said company IN spain. thats righ you have no Idea.... that is the only point you are refuting. what no rebuttal on the credit down grade or the lack of voter passion of democrat voters...... Last Edit: 2012-10-24 @ 16:39:56

---

By: Snigglie (R-AL) 2012-10-23 @ 14:15:17
Here are some states that I think Romney would win before he wins California (in no particular order): Washington, Oregon, Connecticut, Maine (all of it), and New Jersey. He'd probably also win Massachusetts and Rhode Island before California, too. Even though President Obama won both by larger margins than he did California in 2008, Massachusetts is still Romney's home state and Rhode Island is right next door. Despite that fact that I think this prediction is a bit crazy, I've not seen anyone attack any of the posters that show President Obama winning states like Texas accusing them of skewing the 'average'. The site doesn't even use an average, it uses a median, so the crazy predictions all balance out.

---

By: Ickey415 (--IA) 2012-10-25 @ 16:57:44
Lack of voter passion for Obama? What universe do you live in? Are you even aware that 20% of all Americans have already voted and that he's winning the early vote in Ohio by 2-1? Similar results in Iowa, too. Obama is already beating Mitt and it's still October, dude. Still waiting for you to get real. -Jeff

---

By: MN_DFL (D-MN) 2012-10-26 @ 13:33:31
are you serious? have you ever talked to any people in some of the states that you have put as Republican? As a Minnesotan, I can guarantee you Romney is not taking MN, not to mention, California, etc...

---

By: cptarmy03 (R-MA) 2012-10-26 @ 16:41:38
Ickey415 - have you seen the crowds that the obama is attracting. its a fraction of what he attracted in 08. 20% of all americans have not voted. not every american votes. so the foundation of your argument is flawed. But lets go with it, that means there is 80% left to vote. Plus the absantee ballots of the military. Kerry was winning in 04 according to early exit polls and lost. MN_DFL - Look around your community. I am sure you know someone that has been or is laid-off. This election is all about the ECONOMY. Regardless of party affiliation are you better off today then you were 4 or 5 yrs ago. I had a job under W. laid off under Obama. bush 10 trillion in 8 yrs Obama 6 trillion in 3.5 years.....and both of you are okay with this...if bush overspent in 8 what do you call Obama....

---

By: FiveSenses82 (D-MO) 2012-10-27 @ 18:57:06
This is the map of someone who is completely out-of-touch with reality.

---

By: cptarmy03 (R-MA) 2012-10-27 @ 19:18:05
Really FiveSense82 if thats true then why is Rommney ahead in the polls and tied in Ohio and now Nevada, Colorado, Iowa are in play and crucial. If I was out of touch with reality obama should be up by 10-15 points he is the incumbant. the fact that he is in a close race is bad for Obama..... how about refuting my facts...thats right obama has no record to defend....complete failure..... Last Edit: 2012-10-27 @ 19:19:49

---

By: darthpi (D-PA) 2012-10-27 @ 19:49:53
Osama Bin Laden: Dead. Iraq War: Over. Stock market (S&P 500) up about 70%. 31 consecutive months (over two and a half years) of private sector job growth, despite the fact that we were losing around 700,000 jobs a month when President Obama took office. Universal health care on track to be implemented. New regulations on the banks to prevent them from ever doing what they did to us in 2008 again, including an unprecedented agency wholly dedicated to consumer protection. Not a failure. Not perfect, but clearly not a failure. And Romney isn't tied in Ohio. If the best he can get in the polls is a tie according to Rasmussen, the most reliably Republican pollster out there, then he is trailing. End of discussion. Last Edit: 2012-10-27 @ 19:50:32

---

By: cptarmy03 (R-MA) 2012-10-28 @ 12:19:06
Bin laden is dead due to Bush policies, the Navy Seals deserve that credit. Al Queda is still alive and capable of inflicting harm "LIBYA" No response - I guess he was too busy campaigning to answer the "3 a.m." phone call.... That also begs the question-did he order the raid on bin laden’s compound because he had no choice. Looking at the response to Libya one can only imagine Iraq war over due to Bush/Maliki agreement and failure of Obama to secure Status of Forces agreement to protect our troops. Al Queda is now taking root in Iraq. (s&p 500) I guess what you’re saying is Obama is helping the 1% since the only people who invest are the 1%'s according to the liberal mantra. Obama came in with a 7.8% unemployment rate and 4yrs later it is still 7.8% result NET ZERO job creation. real unemployment when you include the underemployed and those that have dropped out and that the government removed from the stats its more like 18-20% Universal health care - amounts to a tax on the middle class those making less than 250k a year the very people that Obama said he would not raise taxes. Oh by the way he is paying for it by cutting $702 billion from Medicare the only president to cut Medicare. It was the democrats beginning with Clinton. Clinton repealed Glass-Spiegal Act that was put in place by FDR to prevent another depression. It was the democrats that coerced the banks along with Obama when he was with ACORN to lend to people who could not pay back their loans. Calling banks discriminatory to check credit ratings and provide proof of employment to demonstrate the ability to pay back the loans and then blaming the banks and calling them predatory for doing what they were coerced to do. Bush in a number of letters to the Congressional banking committee chaired by the democrats Barney frank, Chris Dodd who made a fortune from Country wide. quote " Barny Frank - Let it ride the housing market is fine no bubble.” What happen 08 CRASH. Obama had super majorities in both houses and could not motivate and lead his own party to accomplish anything that would help the economy all he did was -Kick-backs to the auto unions (they should have gone thru bankruptcy court) -massive debts from 2 stimulus deals that did not add one net job -speculative investment with taxpayer money to Solyndra, A123, "green energy" companies that have gone bankrupt and we are left holding the bag. -and a disastrous foreign policy Economy in the toilet, middle east falling into the 7 level of hell, an Al Queda attack and attempted attack in NYC (the federal reserve) and you call his record a SUCCESS. wake up.... we elected an amateur

---

By: cptarmy03 (R-MA) 2012-10-28 @ 12:26:10
darthpi- one more point if Obama's record is not a failure why is he tied in Ohio, and campaigning in these swing states. If he was doing such a great job he should be up by at 6-8 points and he would have this election in the bag...

---

By: darthpi (D-PA) 2012-10-29 @ 00:43:53
So if I'm reading this right, George Bush gets credit for all of the good things that happened during Barack Obama's presidency (Bin Laden, Iraq, etc), but Barack Obama gets all of the blame for the horrific job losses in the first few months of his presidency, which occurred because of the economic panic that started under...oh what was that guy's name? I'm just going to let that settle in with everybody. For the record, I'm fine with you blaming President Obama for the months where we lost jobs after the first six or so months of his presidency. I'm not happy about it, but fair is fair, and six months is roughly enough time for his economic policies to start having a substantial impact. As for this argument that the health care mandate is somehow a large tax increase on the middle class: BS. It is a tax on those who aren't responsible enough to get insured. By your logic raising the cigarette tax is a large tax increase on the middle class. But everyone who puts more than five seconds of thought into this realizes that if a tax is only applying to people based on their behavior, it really is fundamentally different from a tax on income, and thus not at odds with the promise not to broadly raise taxes. Medicare: One quick point to make here; a fair portion of the savings from the Medicare cuts go to paying for the closure of Medicare Part D donut hole. I don't know the exact percentage of the cuts that go to financing this, but I think it is more than a bit unfair to characterize the money going from one part of Medicare (Medicare Advantage) to another part of Medicare (Medicare Part D) as somehow a cut to the Medicare program. Not to even get into the fact that these cuts were a GOOD IDEA because they reduced government waste, and that Paul Ryan, aka one of the two guys you are voting for, supports them. Glass-Steagall: Yes, Bill Clinton did repeal this, or at least the important parts of it. It was the single most idiotic thing he did during his presidency, and that's saying something. I would also note that the bill that repealed it was sponsored and pushed through Congress by Phil Gramm, Jim Leach, and Thomas Bliley - all Republicans. Almost all of the handful of no votes on the repeal came from Democrats, fwiw, though it sadly did pass with bipartisan support. And now the fun part. "It was the democrats that coerced the banks along with Obama when he was with ACORN to lend to people who could not pay back their loans." Disregarding the fact that President Obama was never "with ACORN" (He was part of the Developing Communities Project, which is a faith-based organization largely devoted to helping the jobless find work, and which as far as I can tell has no relation to ACORN whatsoever. Perhaps the two organizations occasionally worked together to help the poor, I don't know, but they clearly aren't actually related.), Ronald Reagan bears as much responsibility for the subprime mortgage crisis as the Democrats, if not more. Sure, you can blame Jimmy Carter for the Community Reinvestment Act and say that it caused irresponsible subprime lending, but you should also then take note of the Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act of 1982, the law that allowed the adjustable-rate, balloon payment, and interest-only mortgages that failed at astronomical rates as the housing bubble burst. How did it do that? It gave the federal government authority over the states, something you conservatives claim to abhor, by allowing the federal government to nix states regulations that prohibited those mortgages. And who was it signed by? Ronald Reagan. If you actually look at the facts, the crisis wasn't caused so much because of a dramatic increase in lending to those who had low credit worthiness (homeownership only increased from 65% to 69% during the bubble), though I will concede this did at least have some effect, but rather by the fact that so many of the mortgages that were being handed out were of a dramatically more risky variety. It is notable that a majority of the people who got adjustable-rate mortgages would have been qualified to have a fixed-rate mortgage instead, but that the lenders often pressured them into the adjustable-rate variety. From 2000 to 2006 the proportion of individuals who were given various forms of sub-prime mortgages (including ARMs) who were qualified for conventional fixed-rate prime mortgage increased from 41% of ARMs to 61%, often because brokers were given financial incentives to do so. You also seem to be unaware of the actual problem that caused those mortgage failures to precipitate a broader economic calamity. The ratings agencies, the same ones that you give so much credibility to when discussing the US credit rating, completely failed to judge the risk of foreclosures for those Adjustable Rate Mortgages, and thus the riskiness of the Mortgage Backed Securities which bundled those mortgages together into investment vehicles. Those agencies were essentially unregulated and dished out favorable credit ratings to the Mortgage Backed Securities created by their Wall Street friends, for no other reason than that they were friends, and trusted them implicitly. They estimated that those Mortgage Backed Securities had a 0.12% chance of default for a five year period. The actual default rate? 28% The default rate was more than 200 times higher than the ratings agencies had predicted. Investors were lead to believe that those Mortgage-Backed Securities were safe investments, and large numbers of investors then, trusting the ratings agencies to actually do their jobs correctly, invested in them. When so many of those MBSs then failed, it caused a liquidity crisis, as many investors couldn't cover their losses. That crisis was exacerbated by the fact that the Securities and Exchange Commission, which at the time consisted entirely of members appointed by President Bush, had changed the Net Capital Rule in 2004 to allow investment banks to leverage their assets dramatically more than in the past. When the investments in MBSs that those investment banks had made failed so spectacularly, they didn't have enough money to cover the losses. The liquidity crisis was amplified from a crisis just among unlucky investors to a crisis for the institutions that were at the heart of our entire financial system. Panic spread into the broader economy as it appeared that our entire banking system would collapse, and companies started laying off workers in droves in order to protect themselves: not something I blame them for, mind you; it is better that at least some workers retain their jobs while others lose theirs than to risk bankruptcy and liquidation where every employee ends up unemployed. To prevent just that sort of full banking collapse we ended up being forced to choose between bailing out the idiots who caused the problem, or letting the entire economy collapse 1929 style. For the record, I think we did the right thing, though it was certainly a Sophie's Choice situation. If those investors had known the risks they were taking, they never would have made those investments. Yes, we would still be dealing with a bubble burst in the housing market, but the effects of that would never have become so widespread or calamitous. The Dodd-Frank Act that all of you conservatives rail against provides just the kind of regulation of the rating agencies that would have helped prevent the crisis, and also increases the capital requirements of the banks, so that if we have to deal with a bubble burst in the future, they will at least be able to clean up the mess and won't need another bailout. Quite frankly I think we need to go further and repeal Reagan's Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act so that we get rid of adjustable rate mortgages entirely, but for now I'll take what I can get. I'm going to stop now, as if I can't convince you how terrible the conservative policies of deregulation are with that soliloquy, and thus why electing Mitt Romney to the Presidency is a terrible idea for the long-term stability of the economy, you probably aren't the kind of person who can be convinced.

---

By: WhyteRain (I-TX) 2012-10-29 @ 08:23:15
Obama didn't "end the war in Iraq" any more than he's FAILED to "end the war in Korea". The war in Iraq was over -- won -- under Bush. All Obama did was to FAIL to be able to compromise (gee, that's a pattern with this guy, isn't it?) with the Iraqis on a new SOFA. If the SOFA we have with South Korea was up for renewal, Obama would probably fail to get that, too, but then when U.S. forces were forced to abandon South Korea, would you say that "Obama ended the war in Korea"?

---

By: WhyteRain (I-TX) 2012-10-29 @ 08:27:03
darthpi, the Housing Bubble is easily explained in far shorter terms: The federal government, beginning under Carter but then put on steroids under Clinton and continued under Bush, decided it would be wise to "close the racial gap in home ownership". Everything else followed that decision.

---

By: cptarmy03 (R-MA) 2012-10-29 @ 10:40:56
obama care - supreme court called it a tax. You talk of responsiblity in getting insurance. Then why did obama exempt the very people the act was intended to help. The poor and illegal wont pay the tax. Obama care is having a negative effect on employement. if a company has 50 or more employees it must provide insurance and then pay a 40% tax on the value of the insurance. the majority of employer hit by this are small business that are taxed as individuals not corporations. example, sole proprietors, LLC, S corps. oh by the way the unions that provide "cadillac policies" are exempt from this tax. But if these employers drop coverage they only pay an 8% penalty what would you do... both sides say cutting medicare is bad but only the democrats actually cut medicare... how do you save it by cutting 3/4 of a trillion dollars..... Obama was an attorney that represented individuals thru acorn and assisted acorn thru his orginazation. deregulation - it worked for the telephone industry, airline industry and it would work for the Health Insurance agency. Lift the ban on selling insurance policies across state lines, have appropriate regs to protect individuals with pre-existing conditions, and allow people to tailor insurance policies to thier needs or not buy at all. its funny you liberals say "its a womans body to have an abortion and kill an innocent human life, but when it comes to my body to do with it what I please as in drink, smoke, get or not get medical checkups its not my body to make those decisions." all the changes to banking and investment relate directly back to the repeal of Glass-Spiegal......the democrats ran the house and senate from 06-2010 they could have put the brakes on all of this but chose to double down. I agree with WhyteRain on his response to SOFA and housing bubble.... Last Edit: 2012-10-29 @ 10:44:52

---

By: darthpi (D-PA) 2012-10-29 @ 13:15:11
Turns out I was right, you aren't the kind of person who can be convinced. Your view of the housing bubble is dramatically oversimplified to fit your political narrative. Yes, the Community Reinvestment Act played a role, but to pretend that it was essentially the sole cause is absolutely preposterous. --- Barack Obama represented individuals through ACORN and assisted ACORN as an attorney? That's your argument? By that logic any attorney who has ever defended a murderer in court is complicit in murder. --- "its funny you liberals say 'its a womans body to have an abortion and kill an innocent human life, but when it comes to my body to do with it what I please as in drink, smoke, get or not get medical checkups its not my body to make those decisions.' " 1. It's not a life. Life begins at birth. Not conception. But you're not going to be persuadable on that, so I'm not going to waste text on it. 2. It is your right to make those decisions. The health reform law doesn't force you to get medical checkups, and neither does any other law or bill that I'm aware of. The health care law's mandate tax simply says that if you choose not to be insured (ie, you still have the choice) that you will be subject to a tax that is meant to modify behavior, just like the taxes on cigarettes or alcohol. Technically speaking you could pass an excise tax on abortions to try to reduce the number of abortions, and realistically I don't think there would be any way the courts could stop you from doing that. The taxing power that is granted to Congress is essentially limitless and has only one exception, regarding direct taxes, and none of this involves direct taxes. --- "both sides say cutting medicare is bad but only the democrats actually cut medicare... how do you save it by cutting 3/4 of a trillion dollars....." Because all of that money was wasteful. The PPACA eliminated government subsidies to the private insurance industry in Medicare Advantage. I thought you conservatives supported ending government subsidies? It also reduced waste by reducing overpayments to providers that had been occurring under the old Medicare payment system. The Medicare actuaries say that by removing those subsidies and reducing those overpayments the life of the program has been extended by 8 years, if I remember correctly. If it turns out that maybe they were a bit overzealous in trying to weed out waste and we accidentally hurt providers, then we can go back and fix it, and find a way of paying for it. --- "oh by the way the unions that provide 'cadillac policies' are exempt from this tax." I can't find any evidence that this is actually true. By all means, if you have some, let me know. I admit I'm not perfect at finding this sort of thing. However until you do, I'm going to assume that you've simply made this up. I know it was proposed by some Democrats, but I don't remember it actually being put into the law. And I followed that law quite thoroughly while it was going through Congress. But again, it's possible I missed it. I await your proof. --- I'm glad you at least recognize Glass-Steagall as a good idea. Most conservatives I know refuse to give FDR credit for anything outside of the successful military effort in WWII. Last Edit: 2012-10-29 @ 13:29:41

---

By: darthpi (D-PA) 2012-10-29 @ 19:28:50
All of the articles that claim this exemption exists were written in mid-January 2010, and they talk about proposed changes to the original bill, which was passed in the Senate in December 2009. That Senate bill was not modified by the House, it was passed in full. So the only changes that could have been made would have been in the reconciliation bill, which was not even introduced until March 2010, meaning all of these articles were offering nothing other than speculation. You may have noticed that you don't find anything claiming this exemption exists after the reconciliation bill was introduced. Why? Because the exemption doesn't exist. It was a rumor, and it wasn't true. Maybe there was a handshake deal on it, I don't know, but it was never put into the final bill, and the final bill is all that matters here. The only thing the reconciliation bill (Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010) did on that excise tax was delay the implementation of that tax until 2018. Now yes, it was delayed so that unions could have time to collectively bargain for plans that wouldn't get hit with the tax, but ultimately there is no actual exemption. --- "I guess your okay with the government telling you what to eat, wear, drive, live, and play because they know what is best for you better than you do.....That is the problem with Obama care. Don't tell me how to live my life." I'm not okay with total control, but I am perfectly fine with certain reasonable restrictions, so long as they have a positive overall effect. For example, I think we should ban the use of cell phones while driving. I think we should ban ammunition magazines for semi-automatic firearms of more than 10 rounds. I think most narcotics should remain illegal, and I suspect you do as well. And yes, I'm okay with the government levying a coercive tax on individuals who are fully capable of purchasing health insurance but who refuse to because they think that they're going to be one of the lucky ones. And guess what? Mitt Romney agrees. He just can't admit it in the current Republican Party, so he has to play this game of claiming that he only ever thought it was a good idea at the state level. There are other things I'm not okay with; for example, I'm not okay with the idea of reversing Lawrence v Texas, which a lot conservatives want to do, which would allow states to criminalize same-gender sexual activity. As someone who isn't straight, I take offense to those sorts of laws, since they discriminate against individuals like myself. Trust me, I don't want to become a country like North Korea where the government actually does control every aspect of people's lives, but this notion of Ayn Rand style hyper-individualism being promoted by the Republican party is absolutely incompatible with the modern world. There are some times when the collective interest outweighs the individual interest. Last Edit: 2012-10-29 @ 19:33:39

---

By: darthpi (D-PA) 2012-10-29 @ 21:30:11
I'm glad to see you agree on Lawrence v Texas. A lot of conservatives don't. Hat tip to you. -- No, I don't agree with you on the exemption issue. You're implying the unions are getting special treatment that others aren't getting. That simply isn't the case. Yes, the unions are happy about the delay in the tax being implemented, but that delay is favorable to everyone, not just unions. --- "Our founding fathers believed that the right to bear arms was a fundemental right for the protection life but also protection of freedom and liberty." When our nation was founded the revolving pistol hadn't even been invented yet. If our founders had known the kind of firearms that were going to be developed I very highly doubt they would have phrased the second amendment the way that they did. They would have made it much less broad. Personally I would like to see a formal constitutional amendment to allow for more firearm regulation, as I think the commerce clause argument rests on potentially unstable legal ground and could be undone by a more conservative Supreme Court. I will also say that I don't feel safer knowing that high capacity firearm magazines are legal. As for this whole "tyranny" theory, I believe that so long as our government remains broadly representative of the will of the people, and I see no indication that it isn't, the idea that we need weapons to protect ourselves from our own government is at minimum incredibly antiquated.

---

By: WhyteRain (I-TX) 2012-10-30 @ 08:47:25
cptarmy, you say the Constitution grants the federal government the right to override state laws governing sodomy and the right to ban drug use? I actually had to scroll up to see what state you're from. Then it made sense: You're a conservative IN MASSACHUSETTS. Well, in Texas you'd be known as "half-a-commie". :-)

---

By: cptarmy03 (R-MA) 2012-10-30 @ 09:55:51
LOL ...thats funny... it has to do with privacy. also lawrence v Texas found the texas sodomy law illegal because it only outlawed sodomy between males not between a man and a woman. It failed under the equal protection clause if I remember correctly. However I don't agree with gay marriage. It can be done thru contract law. ie power of attorney, health proxies, wills, living wills, and trusts. marraige is one man and one woman. Last Edit: 2012-10-30 @ 13:50:01

---

By: cptarmy03 (R-MA) 2012-11-06 @ 12:29:33
for what its worth. if accurate "So says Gannett’s Cincinnati.com, which has the data from the state government posted at its site this morning. I put the question mark on the data because I don’t see anything up yet at the Ohio Secretary of State’s website, but occasionally the media will get updates prior to the website. According to the data, Mitt Romney already has 697,143 votes before the polls opened a couple of hours ago, while Barack Obama only has 605,546, a difference of almost 92,000 votes. The data is time-stamped at 2:03 ET this morning, and the link on the front page of the site reads, “Early voters: How Ohio has voted.” A few counties have not yet reported any early-voting results, but one county in particular looks huge. Cuyahoga, which includes Cleveland, should be a Democratic stronghold, and perhaps the one area where Democratic early-voting efforts should have produced their biggest lead. Instead, Romney has a lead of about 14,000 votes already, 127,570 to 113,373. In Hamilton County, where Cincinnati itself is located, Romney leads by over 5,000, 29,969 to 24,808. A quick scan of the data shows Romney leading in every county with more than 25,000 EVs. This may be a very big deal, if these numbers are correct. Obama had a big lead in EVs before Election Day in 2008, which allowed him to withstand the GOP’s better turnout on the day itself. Frankly, Team Romney might have been thrilled to be trailing by 92K at this juncture. To be ahead in early voting portends a big Republican turnout in the Buckeye State, and perhaps an early night for all of us. We’ll see, but this is the first indication of unforeseen Romney strength in this election." http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/06/romney-up-92k-in-oh-early-voting/ Last Edit: 2012-11-06 @ 12:30:46

---

By: cptarmy03 (R-MA) 2012-11-07 @ 08:04:49
we just lost our CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. Hope you all like the new normal. high unemployment and high debt. we are on the path to GREECE.....

---

By: darthpi (D-PA) 2012-11-08 @ 00:40:02
You really don't believe in America, do you? About a hundred fifty years ago we survived a CIVIL WAR. You don't think we can survive four more years of President Obama, when the Republicans still control the House? Look, I didn't like George Bush. I thought his policies would be bad for the country. In my view they were. But I never gave up. I knew that progress is slow, and moves in a two steps forward, one step back kind of fashion. Now you, I am sure, have a very different view of progress than I do. But take my word: their will be another conservative president in the near to medium-term future. It'll probably take a bit longer if your party continues to take the positions on immigration and equality that it does, but it will happen. You also don't seem to have much faith in free enterprise, if you think that the policies of modest social democracy that progressives support are going to kill our economy. Again, especially considering the Republicans still control the House. "marraige is one man and one woman." This, as much as anything else, is why your party is losing the youth vote by 20 points. By the way, I don't mind churches sticking with this definition, that's their call, not mine. I certainly don't agree with it, but whatever. But if the government is going to provide a favored status to married individuals, which is a perfectly valid thing to do, and which I think is good policy since marriage is a powerful and constructive institution in our society, then the government has to recognize that same-sex couples deserve that status - the status of civil marriage - as well. Anything else is plainly discriminatory.

---

By: thornestorm (G-CA) 2012-11-10 @ 17:27:11
Hmm, we lost our constitutional republic by having an election where the candidate with by far the most electoral votes, who also won the popular vote, was elected? Only in Conservativeland is that true. Obama inherited an incredible mess left to him not only by Bush II, but by previous presidents going back decades. He has reversed the slide and now presides over a strengthening economy. About 5.5 million private sector jobs have been created since the Bush recession ended. This year's deficit is expected to shrink about $200 billion. The recovery act, passed in '09, saved or created about 3 million jobs according to Mark Zandi, McCain's chief economic adviser in '08. Obama has passed a health care plan that will insure millions more and start reducing health insurance companies obscene profits by making them eliminate various tactics that allow them to cut-off peoples' coverage. The typical worker has had their federal tax burden reduced, and I believe small businesses have had their taxes cut 18 times. Plenty more could have been accomplished if the Republicans in the Senate hadn't made it their policy to filibuster everything and make sure the economy was as weak as possible. In the end it didn't matter, Obama was easily re-elected and Mitch McConnell failed in his #1 policy objective of making Obama a 1-term president. As for foreign policy, Bush did nothing about getting Bin Laden, and remarked that he didn't care where he was and didn't think much about him. Very interesting. Not interested in getting the leader of a terrorist organization that killed more than 3000 Americans, but he was very interested in going after Iraq which had never done anything to the U.S. but did have lots of oil and a great strategic position in the Middle East. Bush's choices betrayed his priorities, and oil was clearly more important to him than justice and human life. Obama made it his no.1 foreign policy objective to get Bin Laden, and in very little time, he was back on Bin Laden's trail. The military part of the operation was relatively simple, as our intelligence services had properly identified his residence and his defenses were very light. Obama gets the credit for the rapid finding and killing of Bin Laden, while Bush miserably failed. Greece is where we were headed under BushII, but Obama is slowly taking us back to prosperity, as Clinton did after 12 years of Reagan/Bush.

---

By: CR (--MO) 2012-11-10 @ 18:39:51
I have to say I somewhat agree with darthpi in the sense that we still have our constitutional republic, an economy that even when weighed down is strong and resilient, and we can survive many political events including presidencies that many people don't like. The real question is what kind of a country will we be and the truth is pretty evident. The country is center-left now and not center-right. Americans can say what they want to pollsters, but they clearly want a larger more active government in certain areas. The real question now is how Republicans are going to work in the new America and new reality. How to do they present and sell their principles of free markets and limited government to the people. How do they show they are reformers. I really don't know. Their coalition is weak and divided. If they try to move one way or another they isolate a faction that stays home and costs them at the polls. Which doesn't matter anyway given the new majority's numerical advantage anyway. I personally think this is the beginning of a trend where Democrats are the dominate party and force in American politics. Republicans will be a minority and an alternative just in case the Democrats need to be checked. Much like a safety blanket. They'll hold power ever once and while, maybe even maintaining a branch of government every now and then. The new America is here to stay either way. The rest of us will just have to move on.

---

By: darthpi (D-PA) 2012-11-10 @ 21:52:16
The more I think about all of this, the more I think we may have finally hit the political realignment that has been coming for a while. By normal realignment timing, we should have had a realignment in the 1990s, assuming that 1968 is considered a realignment. The Republicans may have gotten a second chance in the early 2000s due to Bush's idea of compassionate conservatism, as well as due to public trust in the Republican Party on foreign policy in the immediate aftermath of the 9-11 attacks, but I do think that enough Americans are now supportive of substantial changes to society (whether on LGBT rights, immigration, global warming, income inequality, or any number of other issues) that they aren't willing to put their trust in a party that they increasingly associate with the past. While I very much doubt that the Republican Party will completely fall apart, if things go badly it is possible that they end up relegated to the position that Democrats had from 1968 to around 1992, and that Republicans may have trouble electing a president unless the Democrats are hit with some sort of major scandal. This is more likely to be the case if the Republicans don't make some substantial changes to their policies, particularly on immigration. If the Republicans do make some meaningful changes, and can rebuild public trust by doing so, then they could easily rebound in less than a decade. If you look at the example of the New Deal coalition era, the Republicans made meaningful changes by 1940, and by 1948 they nearly won the Presidency. Four years after that, they won in a landslide, and elected one of our best Presidents ever in Eisenhower. They may have even won the Presidency before that had the Second World War not intervened. "The country is center-left now and not center-right." I don't know if this is necessarily true. From my view it is more that the party associated with the center has changed. During the 1970s and 1980s the Democrats gained a reputation of being associated with the far left wing. During the last two decades it is somewhat hard to say which party held the center, but I think now it is likely that most Americans now view the Democrats as the party closest to the center, and the Republicans more as the party of right wing. If I were the Republicans, I would nominate somebody like Chris Christie in 2016, someone who isn't a hard right winger on the social issues and who can maybe make a case for why smaller government can mean more effective government. The argument for small government in recent years has been missing that critical "why" component, and has been reduced to a mere slogan with no obvious reason behind it. Oddly enough, the Mitt Romney of 2002, when he won the governorship of Massachusetts, would have been ideal for this sort of thing, before he latched himself onto the Neocons, the social conservatives, and radical fiscal conservatives like Grover Norquist who care more about reducing taxes than they do about actually making government effective.

---

By: CR (--MO) 2012-11-10 @ 23:55:25
Well again I agree with a number of your points. I think Republicans will be a minority party for some time. They won't collapse because the people need them as an alternative to the Democrats and as a check on them. Because their voting base isn't concentrated in urban areas I could see them continuing to do well in the House for many years just as the Democrats once did. I still feel the country is more center-left. People want the government doing things. You're right, if the GOP wants more power and chance to reform then they need to convene the people that their ideas of free markets and smaller, smarter government is best. It has to be packaged for people of today. If they want to say stay conservative on social issues I'd say keep to being pro-life except in case of rape, incest, and life of the mother. The rest I'd say we leave up to the states. I don't like the idea of Chris Christie as the nominee but I don't know what their options are. Too moderate and the conservatives will stay home in enough numbers to shut them down. Too conservative and they isolate everyone else and can't break the new majority coalition. The right of center coalition is ripping itself apart. So I don't have an answer there. Plus we can't win the electoral college because outside of swing Florida and Ohio back and maybe Iowa I can't see picking up enough swing states to win. We'll find out.

---

By: dnul222 (D-MN) 2012-11-11 @ 10:22:09
I think everyone is over-estimating what this election meant. It was a good job by team Obama to get out the vote where they needed. BUT please note that turnout was down- as of now Obama under-performed by several millions and McCain polled more than Romney...neither party was satisfied. COnservatives and Liberals have been written off several times since WWII- for example it was supposed to be the end of the GOP after Watergate, well Reagan proved that worng oh and he was supposed to usher in the new GOP majority well CLinton proved that wrong....Yes demographics are changing but I think immigration reform and rhetoric changes would put the latino vote more balanced... the worst sign for the GOP was the last three election cycles the DEMs have won the youth vote strongly-this is how people vote in the future - they are trained in their youth!!!

---

By: CR (--MO) 2012-11-11 @ 11:30:43
Again the point you make sounds good dnul and all very logical. Our politics are cyclical and eventually the other party gets back into power. But it's also the direction the country takes that matters. In the last few election the people have decided that bigger government is better. The people agree with the Democratic premise on the American experience. And that's the whole point. The ball keeps moving left. FDR laid the foundation in the 1930's. LBJ pushed it to the next level in the 1960's. Obama continued the trend in this century. The breaks in between? Well the people only put Republicans in to act as reformers. Spruce up and refine what the Democrats have done and make it work better. Hence Eisenhower in the 1950's, Reagan and the GOP Congress in the 1980's-1990's. The course is set. Yeah there are demographic changes happening but that is only part of it. See many Americans may claim they are more conservative and believe in those ideals but they aren't. Or they don't vote that way. This is part ideological too. The youth vote is always liberal - look at the 1960's and 1980's for example. The big problem is figuring out how to repackage the GOP as reformers (the only role we can ever have) and not isolate the purists in the conservative base to the point they stay home. They have some really big problems to deal with.

---