birdog1960

did you look at the average size of contributions to each campaign? i heard today somewhere around $300 million from wealthy donors to rove's orgs. like i said, lots of explaining to do. http://www.businessw...-waste-of-money

not the least of which is to big donors who thought they could by an election after "citizens united". but how bout to the electorate for holding up romney's concession. the events sure made him look the part of puppetmaster. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/rachel-maddow-karl-rove-fox_n_2086046.html

yeah and that obama was not american born. guess which one is true.

...awesome! did anyone see the article about the 10 wealthiest counties in the us going 8/10 for obama. included were fairfax and loudon in va. wonder how the repub strategists explain this and how they try to "correct" it. i think it implies an education level difference in voters not anticipated by the republicans, the demographic details don't seem to be available yet.

the point isn't whether conservatives agree or disagree with my premise. it's whether minority voters do. that was the question being addressed here. you haven't refuted my argument regarding that in any way. and what does the anecdote about your hypocritical friend add to the argument? do you mean to imply that everyone who wants to change the tax system into a truly progressive system is a hypocrite?

<p> i answered this earlier today on ppp but the conservatives didn't like the answer. i'll try again with different wording: much of republican economic policy in the last 2 decades has been aimed at maintaining and even increasing the top heavy distribution of wealth. they have been very successful (and conversely, the dems quite unsuccessful). we have the most concentrated distribution of wealth in this country that has existed in most of our lifetimes. and it gets worse (or better depending on your perspective) every year. it doesn't take an economist to see that the system is set up for this to happen. at least the dems pay lip service to slowing, stopping or reversing it. one salient example is minimum wage. who does a low minimum wage benefit? who does it hurt? who's for and against it politically. answer those questions and you'll have the answer to your bigger question.

the mexico/immigrant thing just amazed me. romney somehow made a positive out of his grandfather going to mexico so he could practice polygamy. then made it sound like they were returning to the US for political asylum and were everyday "immigrants". and the dems left it alone (i think there should have been multiple pac ads on it but turns out it wasn't needed). but on harp the republicans about this "birther" issue. it's really no wonder why they're losing with a constituency like this.

is it really just perception after his behind closed doors 47% comment? i think that's a legitimate reason for those below the median income level (disproportionately underepresented by white males) to mistrust him.

how bout this: redistribution of wealth. that's what tax changes would do. that's what the slippery slope to single payor will do.

i have no idea about the truth of the first few sentences but i wonder the same thing. doesn't really matter. madden and underwear or not, i'm pretty certain almost everyone here votes. and everyones vote is worth the same ( despite "citizen's united" which seemed a nonissue yesterday).the last few sentences are right on, imo. unfortunately, i don't see single payor happening soon despite the results yesterday. don't have to watch akin. i know more than a few folks just like him personally. gay marriage issue is quite interesting. mark shields commented last night that it was only a decade ago that howard dean took this on in vermont and was thought crazy to do it. now, it seems a sizable number of folks, and possibly a majority, agree with his stance. it's actually a winning issue for dems.

maybe, i don't. i think it's a statement of fact.

it is an answer. just not the one you wanted...so you chaged the question. but, i'll answer the new one: i think many of those in the lower socioeconomic groups, which includes a disproportionate number of people of color but also many whites) want tax laws that don't let the wealthy pay a percentage of income less than the middle class. and many think they should pay more.

taxation policies are in no way skin/color agnostic anymore than economic stratification is. energy and foreign policy? sure, to a large extent i agree.

um....maybe because the demographics in the election clearly show support for different agendas...or do you find romney's and obama's proposed agendas very similar?

are you dense? i'm white and top 10% and voted for obama as did many of my fellow virginians in the same demographiic (look at the virginia counties that went blue - upper middle class and above, overall). i don't hate whites anymore than the latino's and blacks who voted for romney hate their race, which is to say, not at all. the demographics don't support platforms that primarily benefit a shrinking demographic. it's as simple as that.

this...the scenes from romney hq last night were almost a parody of themselves. there aren't enough old white men to win a national election and THAT is sure to get worse (from doc's and other repubs perspective). white men voted in the mid 60's for romney....and it wasn't nor will it ever be, enough.

yes, except for http://www.rasmussen...l_tracking_poll rasmussen. he was wrong on popular vote big time and didn't predict a single battleground state (as far as i can tell he just abstained on them all). was off by 3 seats in senate races. can we now stop you repubs from saying "he is the most accurate"? he is reprehensible: the worst kind of propagandist. shame... edit: in absolute numbers, rasmussen had fla, virginia, colorado and iowa going to myth. ohio a tie. rcp aggregates had none of them in romneys column. the guy's a shill, plain and simple.

AP says obama and so does cnn. has o with 303 electoral votes now.

yes VIRGINIA! there is another 4 years

polling seems deadly accurate with the exception of rasmussen.

explanation on ohio as of 5 mins ago; 700000 outstanding votes. 600000 in lucas (toledo) and cayahoga (cleveland) which lean overwhelminfgly dem. oh and pbs calculates subtracting ohio and adding nevada =271. haven't confirmed that on my own.

doesn't matter...nevada just went blue.

obama now ahead in both fla and va..but very close

no. that's the nature of republican primaries. i didn't see a blatant fight between hillary and obama to be the most liberal in the primaries. it's unique to the repub primaries and thats a function of the divide between grass roots repubs and the majority of the national electorate.

fox gives o 275. it is well and truly over