Juror#8

Be thankful that this would be considered a gratuitous promise, and therefore non-binding, in any court of law.

This entire sentiment is interesting.

I would love to see some optimism come out of this contest. If a Romney-elect would mean a righting of the ship, a bump in business, a restoration of the economy, then I'm 100% in support. I can't stand Romney - I think he is an insufferable lying prick, but if he helps my country to be the best, then let's do it. I recently went to a Romney event in NoVa. I can say that the folks there seemed energized and enthusiastic. People seemed excited and were talking about the future in really idyllic terms (no, I didn't mean ideal). Atmospherically, it seemed very neo-Clintonian. The polls certainly didn't have them dissuaded. That was good to see. Maybe there is something to this whole "polls are erroneous" thing. I don't think so, but maybe... I should say to0, though, that I also attended an Obama rally in Prince William county, VA this weekend. The turnout wasn't as good but it was an enthusiastic bunch.

Your points definitely stand to reason. But for whatever reason, there is a logical disunion between state-wide politics and presidential politics. Maryland, to my surprise, experimented with a Republican Governor (Erlich) in the middle part of last decade. Maryland will NEVER be a red state. It is as reliably democratic as California. California, NY, etc. are states that have or have had republican governor's in strongly democratic states. Montana, SD, ND, WY are states that are very Republican but that have also elected Democratic senators within the last decade. Also, Gore couldn't carry his state in 92, 96 or 2000. I don't think Clinton carried Arkansas in 92. Romney is not carrying Michigan, or Massachussets, or Colorado. George W. didn't carry Connecticut. Except for Gore, the others were at the top of their ticket. I'm not sure how influential the VP is in carrying or helping to carry a state even though that consideration is very much ballyhooed in the mid-summer vice-presidential selection process.

Romney is betting that they can pull disaffected voters from suburban Philly (Bucks and the "other" Montgomery County) that are underrepresented in recent polling or simply depress the turnout there by assuaging enthusiasm. He knows he won't win these areas, but he needs to limit his losses (under 375,000) and try to make up for them in an invigorized top of the PA "T" (Tioga, Warren, Wyoming, etc counties). Obama is betting that he can pull 1,000,000 in Philly metro area (seriously - 1,000,000 is written on the walls of campaign HQ in the Philly area) and 550,000+ in Philly alone. If he does, then it doesn't matter how much of the "T" Romney energizes. He loses the numbers game. Obama doesn't need to meet 2008 numbers - he only needs to maintain 80%. Pittsburgh is reliably D and the turnout is less significant than it is in the aggregation of Philly, Bucks, Delaware, MoCo, etc. Obama is going to get 300,000 plus in Allegheny County. That is why I surmise that Michael Smerkonish has had nice access to Obama recently. He just did an interview on Smerkonish's radio show last week. Smerkonish is from Buck's county and is a self-identified conservative republican who voted for Obama in 2008. At the end of the day, Obama will win the battle in PA. Contrary to what some "gurus" here may think, BO has the numbers in his favor and it's gonna be hard for Romney to keep turnout under 1,000,000 in the Philly metro area. Edit: I feel that I understand BO's campaign strategy pretty well. I've seen the ground game closer than you have - basically in HD; it is the most disciplined operation that I've ever seen in the campaigns that I've seen somewhat closely (statewide, Congressional, and 4 presidential).

I think that by 11:00 p.m. tonight, it will be: Obama - 277 Romney - 235 Obama will get OH, PA, NV, WI, MI, IA Romney will get FL, NC I think that VA, CO, and NH will be too close to call until early tomorrow morning. NH will break first for Obama but it will be entirely academic at that point.

Very interesting Peggy Noonan article. We'll know soon if she's correct: http://blogs.wsj.com/peggynoonan/2012/11/05/monday-morning/

Typical condescending liberal. You're voting for Obama! Lib junk. Concern Troll....no dog in this race my bum. End Sarcasm.

That's really deep.

Funny that you say that Doc. I read somewhere recently from someone purported to be a former Romney advisor during his gubernatorial run that Romney sees social issues as a "nuissance." The article alleged that the only thing he cares about is economic issues. If he would just say that (which is politically impossible), I'd respect him more.

I have nothing to say about Obama. But to say that Romney has "evolved"? Really? On abortion? On Gay Rights? On Cap and Trade? On healthcare? On Gun Control? You can evolve on issues but I'm not sure that you can evolve on everything. I can't support Mitt because I literally don't know what I'd be supporting. He has no core. Go ahead, call me an "Obama supporter" if that makes you feel better about your support for Mitt. During the primaries I posted on this forum that I wouldn't support Mitt Romney. I wanted Chris Christie to join the race. I expressed support for Newt. I consistently criticized Romney then, and I continue to this day. You guys can bend over, close your eyes, and hope the tape holds your shhhhit hole shut. Romney is gonna get in your ass either way. I don't go that route. I'm better than that. I'm gonna adhere to my own personal principle and fight back against those forces and mediocrity in my party. Maybe we'll wise up and choose a decent candidate next time.

Great...another one of the "if you don't like Romney, you're for Obama" dolts. You're a dolt. Since you're late to the party, let's catch you up - I don't like Romney; I think that he is an equivocating lout. That doesn't mean that I want Obama to win. I do, though, happen to personally like the president....for reasons that your feral self couldn't possibly comprehend or even allow yourself to appreciate. But just to clarify for you: 1. You can dislike one candidate personally without supporting the other. 2. You can like one candidate personally without supporting their policies. These concepts may be foreign to you since the entirety of your political ethos starts and stops with Mitt and Romney. But to some, there is a bit more sophistication in our political universe. When I read your post, I was immediately reminded of that Brad Pitt/Matt Damon exchange from "Ocean's 11." You (and some other's here) are the decidedly less interesting, and considerably less talented, version of Matt Damon. I'm Brad Pitt. Please skip to 35 seconds into the video and stop it right around 41 seconds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7VTkceSsEw That 6 seconds is the extent of your value to the political universe. You're Mr. "Smash and Grab." Yep, that's you, you pea-brained jackass - still trying to understand the world through soundbytes, and really cognize the contours of this nation through a sepia tone lense.

So it fair to assume that you're calling the race for Romney and feel that Ohio and VA is firmly in Romney's pocket?

Not sure...but from what I'm hearing, they're on cruise control. And it's also interesting that Romney is running, what appear to be, desparation ads in Ohio. Usually, less than a week out, it's all positive "closing the deal-why I'm presidential-here is my vision" advertisements. I'm not sure though. The WH is conspicuously quiet while all this talk revolves around Romney momentum. And to hear about this perceived confidence from the WH that is internal and not being leaked to pundits to share with the media. It seems to scream "internal polling data." Honestly, all I've heard about BO over the last month is that he dropped the ball, performed horribly in the debate, lost momentum, missed an opportunity to close the deal, etc. What I've heard about Romney is that he's surging, more presidential, etc. If nothing else, I think that Romney has enjoyed the narrative.

With respect to Obama: I guess the crux of the question is that if he is re-elected, could he have, in fact, "failed"? Is the country at large (or the system) a better barometer of success or failure than you individually? Does it mean that you personally believe something that is not empirically true? Do you or those with whom you're close, reflect the will or belief of the country at large? You and my brother both...and he is not the gambling type.

What does it say about you? What does it say about the country?

What I'm hearing is interesting. Caveat: This is third hand information: Administrative Official - Brother's Colleague - Brother - Me. However, I still find it interesting... The word is, the WH is REALLY confident and have been since last Thursday. Not "portray confidence in the news media and hope for the best" confidence, but more like "let's just stay quiet, be cool, not make any waves, not tip off the media, and keep status quo" confident. Why? I don't know Justified? I don't know. But it's interesting because some here feel particularly confident that the tide has turned for Romney. The 'Romney momentum' has been a growing storyline here and in the media. I can name a few here who have already called the race for him. But for whatever reason, I hear that the WH feels very satisfied about where they're at. They obviously *feel* like they know something that others don't. My brother says that *in his own opinion* based on what he sees in the polls that every other person has access to, but also based on some conversations with his colleagues, that Romney can't make up ground in Ohio and is losing ground in VA. Please no personal attacks. I don't have a dog in this race. I just thought the info was worth sharing with you.

Me too. Especially movies the scale and scope of "The Matrix." Envisioning a martial arts proficient Will Smith as Neo and a saturnine, engmatic Morpheus played by Sean Connery seems really odd. Imagining their career arc and the career arc of those who took the roles because the first choice turned them down is interesting too. Molly Ringwold, pretty woman? BTW, I never considered Will Smith a good actor until I took time to consider his entire performance history. He's farily versatile.

Reading about folks who were the first to be offered a movie role, passed on the role, and who then later regretted the decision. Is the character so iconic that you can only see that actor playing the role or can you use a little revisionist history to imagine the role with another actor?: http://www.chacha.com/gallery/4620/which-stars-turned-down-legendary-roles?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_campaign=zergnet_32404 Jack Nicholson as Michael Corleone....hmmmmmm.......

I'm not attcking you. And I'm not sure you understood my question entirely. I just want to know how you can say that an individual may not be committed to women's issues because they voted for an individual - when the substantive details and true extent of any indictment against the individual for whom they voted was not known until after the election. Is that any different than saying that if you voluntarily took a Commutative Mathematics class specifically to be taught by Ted Kaczinski (spelling?) in the late 60s, that you have no cause to advocate for Human Rights now?

I'll play along. I voted for Clinton in 96. First year I was eligible to vote. So because some woman was 'speaking directly into the microphone' in the oval office, anyone who may have voted for the recipient cannot be sincere about their commitment to women's issues? Because someone was bobbing for apples in the Lincoln suite, anyone who voted for the recipient cannot be sincere about their commitment to women's issues? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Lewinsky mess circa early 1998, a year plus after the erection. It I recall correctly, Lewinsky came forcefully in March of that year. "I can't believe this rumor about Clinton," I ejaculated at the time. But that was almost 2 years after the the vote was cast. And wasn't the Paula Jones matter dismissed in court but eventually settled prior to appeal in like 2000? What would that have to do with anyone who voted for Clinton in 1996? Do you think that folks should be beholden to rumor and accusation? Gennifer Flowers? Didn't he admit in his autobiography in 2004 that he had a sexual relationship with her? What would that have to do with voters in 1996. Or do you feel that folks should be beholden to rumor and accusation? Can those who voted for John McCain "care about women" because he had an affair and his ALLEGED exploits of slangin' rooster after his wife was involved in a disfiguring accident are legendary? What about Newt Gingrich? Arnold Schwarzzenegger? John Edwards? Elliot Spitzer? What about women who voted for Clinton, McCain, or Schwarzzenegger? Are they self-loathing? Do they care about themselves?

I don't despise BO. I think he is a nice guy. I know people who have worked with him and they say wonderful things about him as a person - truly, sincerely, genuinely nice things. I respect him and think he is trying hard to take this country in a good direction. I disagree with BO on policy. I don't think that he is capable of taking this country in the right direction. I feel that the GOP prescription is better able to fix the problems that the country has right now. I think the GOP has the ideas and the insight. I don't have to personally dislike him, to disagree with him. I dislike Romney as a man and as a person. I've met him. I got the man's autograph years ago. There nothing that he has done (outside of having a family) that bespeaks principle and constitution. To be fair, I don't know anyone who knows Romney so I don't know what he is like behind closed doors. But the persona he projects is so fake and unendearing. I agree with him on policy though. At least his latest iteration. The problem is, I'm not sure if what we see now, is what we'll get later. And that's why I can't support him. Frankly, I just don't believe the words that he says. I envision him being the Warren Burger of our time (please note that I fundamentally agree with many of Burger's decisions, but the analogy is still sound in general). Mitt Romney = Warren Burger

I agree that it was a mistake. I think that muddles a dedicated debate and makes him look desperate and pandering. But I think that they made a calculated decision that this election rises and falls on the strength of Ohio. I don't know this for sure, but based on some allusions in a recent conversations, there are probably some internals showing a trend for Romney and the WH decided that if they did nothing, they would lose the state so they only had one play that would decidedly, in one way or the other, focus on the constituency of that single state. Auto bailout. I also think that Ohio is trending in Romney's direction. However, there has been a lot of early voting in OH so who knows the result of those already cast.

Wow. He said that he looked at the candidates and noticed that there were no women. So he went to find women. He didn't say that the existing one's were unqualified, only that of those that he had, none were women. He disqualified the extant applicant pool based on the fact that they weren't what he coveted...women. He therefore disqualified men because they weren't women. Read his statement over and over and over again and then link to it yourself. I'm going off of what he did and did not say. It's clear to those who don't try to defend his every move. Give him some room to breathe will ya, you're crowding him a bit.

Well played. Ba-doom-boom diiiiiiiinnnng. "Take my wife.....no really....take her." "I just flew in and my arms are tired."