2012 US Election -- Round 2

[Wumbologist]

I can't help it if you can't think straight. Muddled thinking.

I can think perfectly fine, and you'll find that my positions are consistent day to day. Can't be said for the candidate you support.

I would, and for the same reason I told Ian that. He insulted me, because, like you, he has a hard time keeping it from being personal. If you think I told him to fuck off out of the blue, you're wrong. Don't sling insults if you don't expect to be responded to.

It's not my fault if you can't distinguish between "your ignorance on this topic" and "you are ignorant". One is a personal attack, the other is an attack on your opinion.

You're not paying attention to what he's actually saying. Quote him.

"I will create 12 million jobs"

"Government doesn't create jobs"

"I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose"

"The next right step in the fight to preserve the sanctity of life is to see Roe v. Wade overturned"

"I would have signed the assault weapon ban that came to his desk. I said I would have supported that and signed a similar bill in our state."

"I do not support any new legislation of an assault weapon ban nature"

"of course I support the Blunt Amendment."

“I don’t believe that bureaucrats in Washington should tell someone whether they can use contraceptives or not, and I don’t believe employers should tell someone whether they can have contraceptive care or not,”

Supporting mandatory euthanization is a far cry from whether abortion should be legal or illegal.

I think you missed the obvious snark of that statement.

Obama has a lot of opinions I don't like, but the ones I'm concerned about are the ones he has control over. The fact that is or is not for or against gay marriage is not something I'm concerned about at all. When he was against gay marriage, and I was for it, I knew he couldn't do anything about it, so it wasn't something I criticized him much for. Then when he switched his opinion on that, it also didn't matter much to me because, again, he has no power over it.

If a bill to legalize gay marriage were to make its way through Congress, the president could sign it or veto it. Of course the president's stance on gay marriage matters, and yet once again you'd rather elect a man who will do everything in his power to stop the advancement of gay rights while patting yourself on the back and telling yourself how great it is that you are for gay rights. A Romney presidency risks reinforcing DOMA rather than striking it down, and potentially the fight for a federal marriage amendment. That's from the man's own website, if you don't believe me:

"As president, Mitt will not only appoint an Attorney General who will defend the Defense of Marriage Act – a bipartisan law passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton – but he will also champion a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman."

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values

Very radical. And, if you know a damn thing about the history of SCOTUS appointments you'll see a long history of things like, oh, the current Chief Justice voting to uphold Obamacare when he was considered "far right." Justice Harry Blackmun, a Nixon appointee, actually wrote the opinion in Roe v Wade. In 1992, after 12 years of Bush and Reagan appointees (a mere 4 years of Carter) and 8 years prior to that of Nixon, the SCOTUS had a chance to reverse Roe v Wade in Planned Parenthood v Casey, and it did not do so. 8 of the Supreme Court Justices at the time were appointed by Nixon, Ford, Reagan and GHWBush. One, Byron White, was appointed by a Democrat. That STILL -- 8 successive Republican appointments -- was not enough to get sufficient Justices to the Court that would reverse Roe v Wade. In fact, as I noted, Blackmun, a Nixon appointee, WROTE Roe v Wade.

Finding two Justices to radically shift the Court is not as easy as you might think. Just because Romney nominates them doesn't mean they're going to reverse Roe v Wade. It will be hard to find many Justices who will do that.

Hard or not, it's Romney's stated position:

"Mitt believes that life begins at conception and wishes that the laws of our nation reflected that view. But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade – a case of blatant judicial activism that took a decision that should be left to the people and placed it in the hands of unelected judges. With Roe overturned, states will be empowered through the democratic process to determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate."

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values

Guarantee it all you want. It still doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. Witness: Planned Parenthood v Casey, which was moved up to SCOTUS, heard by 8 Republican appointments and 1 Democrat appointment. Roe v Wade withstood that. Now, we have several Clinton and an Obama appointment on the bench. Do you think we're closer or farther away than in 1992?

I don't want a president who has Roe v. Wade in his sights, regardless of how difficult a shot it is to make.

That's bullshit. Nobody is suggesting women ought to be discriminated against on the job. That's what the Civil Rights Act involves, and no Republicans are talking about repealing it. For the love of Pete, it was the Republican Party that passed the damn thing in the first place. You do know that, don't you? The Civil Rights Act of 1964? More Republicans voted for it than Democrats. Had it been left to the Democrats, it would have failed hard.

Lily Ledbetter act relates ONLY to the statute of limitations. I know the Democrats try to sell it as if it guarantees nondiscrimination in pay. It doesn't. The Civil Rights Act does. And, that hasn't changed.[/quote]

Laws only work if they're enforced. Ledbetter helps to ensure that womens rights on the job are more enforceable. What Republicans did in the 1960s has little bearing on the Republican Party of today, and in today's world the presidential candidate was opposed to Lily Ledbetter and the VP candidate voted against it himself. Again, give me a good reason for them to oppose it, or admit you're standing with a campaign that has voted against women.

Easy, again, if you paid attention at all to current events, you'd probably know that the Republican Budgets that have been proposed have sought to cut $1 billion out of the National Institutes of Health budgets which would cut federal funding for cancer research, including prostate and testicular cancer.

A broad-spectrum cut to the NIH which would cut federal funding to cancer research (presumably for breast and cervical cancer as well) is not nearly the same as specifically seeking to shut down Planned Parenthood, which directly provides reproductive and contraceptive services to women. Fucking huge reach.

Hopefully, you can puzzle out the difference between (a) something that is "good" for women, and (b) equality. Remember, the question Kristie and I were talking about was "equality." Sure, if we give women all their medical care for free it would be great for them, but that's different than treating them equally -- don't you see that?

There's a big difference between giving something and taking it away. Planned Parenthood has existed, as you pointed out, since the Nixon Administration. Thousands upon thousands of women depend on it for essential health services that they might not be able to get elsewhere. Specifically targeting Planned Parenthood for a cut, especially when you're talking about spending trillions on new ships the Navy doesn't need, shows an outright disregard for women. And, once again, it's not even an economically sound cut! It will cost us more money in the long run to deal with the consequences of not having Planned Parenthood anymore, than we can ever hope to save by cutting it. Planned Parenthood is a bargain for this nation. A smart budget hawk would know that, only someone who doesn't understand its importance or genuinely wants women to have less care would seriously be considering cutting it.

Maybe they wouldn't earn your vote, but women's EQUALITY does not depend on Planned Parenthood funding. Let's not confuse a thing of benefit to women with a thing that is necessary for equality of the sexes.

Men "require" more in the way of prostate and testicular health care than women do, yet not providing them with free testing and treatment doesn't mean we're treating them unequally. Surely you get the point by now? Not giving people free stuff doesn't mean we're treating them unequally (unless we are giving other people that same or equivalent stuff for free).

Overall, women's reproductive health is more costly than men's reproductive health. There's no routine screening test for testicular cancer, and prostate exams aren't typically recommended until 40-50 years of age. Those are typically a simple digital exam, with no extraneous costs required unless abnormality is found. Compare this to the recommendation of an annual pap smear starting around the time a woman becomes sexually active, annual mammograms starting at age 40, and birth control for both the obvious purposes stated on the box and for other medical reasons. That's a lot more to worry about. And yes, through federally-funded clinic programs, men can get prostate exams they can't afford. The difference here is that for women, the "equivalent stuff" is more encompassing and costs more, which is the purpose Planned Parenthood exists to fill.

Again, the difference between something being "good" for women, and the issue of equality. Two different issues. Try not to confuse them.

Women are and were able to defend themselves against income inequality in the workplace. You think you're discriminated against, call the EEOC and tell them. They will open a case and investigate. They'll either resolve it with the employer or issue a Right to Sue letter, and a federal case may ensue under the Civil Rights Act. Ledbetter Act only adjusts when the Statute of Limitations begins to run. That's it.[/quote]

Better income inequality enforcement isn't just something that's "good" for women. If a woman's right to equality is violated and she can't take action under the law, it does her no good.

Ledbetter was a relatively small change but a good one. I'm still waiting to hear the valid reason for Romney/Ryan opposition to it.

Bush was far more vocal about his Pro-Life position that Romney is about his. Romney has said he won't do anything about abortion during his presidency. I'm glad about that.

Read his website.

That wasn't what we were talking about. You butted in to an exchange about equality.

Still dodging, then?

I can't help it if you aren't listening. He has been just as specific as Obama has. Or, do you care to provide the "detailed" explanation of how Obama's plan adds up? Or, do you think that $1.2 trillion deficits is "adding up?"

Funny, everyone who's gotten their hands on Romney's plan has agreed the math doesn't work. Try me though, smart guy.

They've not proposed increasing military spending. They've proposed not decreasing military spending and setting it as a percentage of GDP (4%, I believe). Cutting taxes will help the economy, as they did in 2002, 2003, 2004,2005 and 2006, and in the early 1980s, and in the early 1960s.

Are we talking about this week's Romney or last week's Romney? I'm pretty sure both talked about building more ships for the Navy, and I'll admit if they've found somebody who will build us some ships for free, I might have to reconsider my vote because that's one heck of a deal.

As far as cutting taxes helping the economy in "2002, 2003, 2004,2005 and 2006":

LOL.

Nonsense. It would have meant a managed bankruptcy reorganization, like those that have happened many other times with huge companies. The auto bailout was a gift to the UAW.

Where would they have gotten the tens of billions of private credit they would have needed for that to happen? It didn't exist at that time, and without it GM would have gone into liquidation.

I don't see how you think Obama is better suited. Perhaps you have some argument in that regard. Is it his ability to break $1 trillion in deficits every year? Is it the fact that we have about 8% unemployment, but it's only that low because so many people have left the workforce, and if we had the same workforce now as we did in January 2009, the unemployment rate would be over 10%? Is it the 47 million people on food stamps? Is it the decrease in average wages for the middle class, making about $4,000 less per year than 4 years ago? Better suited? Really?

I don't think Obama's done a great job with the economy, though following eight years of Bush and entering into a global economic crisis, nobody's gonna have a good time. Sure, he could have polished the turd a little better. But I don't see Romney with any ideas that hold water, just a heap of empty promises about a "Five-point plan" and "12 million jobs?. If Romney could show that he actually has a path to bringing the economy up, then we could have a debate over whether his economic plan was worth complete abandonment of social policy progress. But he hasn't backed up his claims, which means the only sure thing is the complete abandonment of social policy progress end of it.

[FBM]

[Tero]

12 million jobs!

[kiki5711]

Romney's China Investments Called Out, Underestimated By Obama

While Obama cited only one oil company, China National Offshore Oil Corporation, the Romneys' 2010 and 2011 tax returns show investments in at least 10 Chinese companies, a total investment of at least $391,800.

Among them were New Oriental Education and Technology, a company in which the Romneys' blind trusts invested nearly $60,000. New Oriental is famous for stealing copyrighted U.S. academic tests, and was fined hundreds of thousands of dollars by a Chinese court for it.

In what could prove an awkward point for Romney post-debate, the issue of intellectual property theft came up repeatedly on Monday, and Romney railed against the Chinese, who, he said "are stealing our intellectual property, our patents, our designs, our technology, hacking into our computers, counterfeiting our goods."

Other Chinese companies the Romneys' trusts have invested in include Youku.com and Tencent Holdings -- two huge Internet companies -- and Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing, an Asian stock exchange holding company that the Romneys nearly doubled their money on.

"I want a great relationship with China," Romney said Monday night. "China can be our partner, but -- but that doesn't mean they can just roll all over us and steal our jobs on an unfair basis."

Another Romney investment in China was in Li & Fung Limited, a supply chain management company that oversees the transfer of Chinese-manufactured goods to giant American retailers like Target and Walmart -- precisely the types of products that many argue have cost American jobs at home as they've been outsourced to cheaper labor markets.

Under pressure to explain many of the overseas investments made by his blind trusts, Romney has maintained that he has no control over the trusts' choices. But according to an aide who spoke earlier this year, his investment manager, Bradley Malt, works "to make the investments in the blind trust conform to Governor Romney’s positions, and whenever it comes to his attention that there is something inconsistent, he ends the investment."

Mother Jones points out that during Romney's first Senate campaign, in 1994, the private equity millionaire painted a very different picture of how much control each investor has over his or her blind trust, saying, "The blind trust is an age old ruse, if you will, which is to say, you can always tell the blind trust what it can and cannot do. You give a blind trust rules."

Stem Cell Research



In 2007, Romney held between $100,000 and $250,000 worth of shares in Novo Nordisk, a Danish pharmaceutical company that engages in limited use of stem cells for research. He sold the stock in 2010. His trust also made investments in Fresenius Medical Care, a German firm that had also done stem cell research. Romney has supported stem cell research in the past, but today he opposes any use of human embryonic stem cells for research into diseases and other medical issues because the work could destroy viable human embryos.




Chinese State-Owned Oil Companies

In 2009 and 2010, the W. Mitt Romney blind trust invested $77,262 in shares of Cnooc Limited, the Chinese state-owned oil company, which he later sold for a profit of more than $8,100 on Aug. 10, 2011, according to the New York Times. He reportedly has had other investments in a Chinese oil company that was identified by the Congressional Research Service as a likely violator of the Iran Sanctions Act, according to the Associated Press.


The 'Morning-After Pill'

The Romneys have invested money in Teva Pharmaceutical, an Israeli company that engages in stem cell research and also manufactures "Plan B One-Step," the emergency contraceptive known as the "morning-after pill." This pill is opposed by anti-abortion groups. According to ThinkProgress.com, Romney has invested in other birth-control manufacturers via an index fund with Goldman Sachs.



Credit Suisse Group The Romney trust held investments in Switzerland-based Credit Suisse Groupe until August 2011. In 2009, the bank was fined $536 million for violating Iran trade sanctions in 2009. Romney sold these investments the day before a Republican primary debate in Iowa in 2011, according to the New York Times. Though Romney is no longer invested in the Swiss bank, the bank is invested invested in him: Earlier this year a Credit Suisse banker appealed to subordinates to donate money to the Romney campaign, according to a Reuters story.




Other Chinese Companies

Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, China Life Insurance and New Oriental Education, a company sued in 2003 by a U.S. in addition to Chinese oil companies, between 2009 and 2010 the W. Mitt Romney blind trust bought and sold shares of Chinese companies including firm for copyright infringement, according to reports.




BNP Paribas

Between mid-2009 and mid-2010, the Romney trusts made large investments in securities from BNP Paribas, a French bank with ties to Iran. The bank halted new business in Iran in 2007 but still has outstanding loans in the country. In all, Romney's family trusts bought more than 2.6 million shares, which were all sold in late 2010 for about $2.5 million, according to the Associated Press.

If you want to read about the rest of them: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/2 ... de=1566930

[Coito ergo sum]

Clint Eastwood: 'Obama's Second Term Would be a Rerun of the First'

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cli ... 57325.html


Chicago Store-Owner Labeled ‘Racist’ For Anti-Obama Business Sign http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/10/23/ ... ness-sign/


A little fact-checking -- Bob Woodward: Obama 'mistaken' on sequester http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82772.html

Massive crowds for Romney in Colorado: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_21839256/r ... -red-rocks

Rasmussen now showing tie in Ohio: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... _president

Real clear politics shows close race in Ohio (O 47.7 - R 46): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/

Joe Scarborough: election comes down to Ohio: http://www.politico.com/blogs/joe-scarb ... html?hp=r7

If Ohio shifts to lean Romney, Obama has an issue.

According to James Liptin, Romney is like a bauss! http://www.politico.com/news/stories/10 ... tml?hp=r22

[Ian]

If you think Rasmussen is a reliable source of information, you have an issue.

[Coito ergo sum]

If you think Rasmussen is a reliable source of information, you have an issue.

It's a source, and it tends to lean right.

But, of late, it was polling less favorably to Romney than Gallup.

I think if you just write it off, you're just being a partisan douche. I did not JUST list Rasmussen, and therefore limiting the comment to that is pretty asinine. Check real clear politics which is also showing a closing gap, narrowing to within about a 1.5 points. It's pretty fucking close.

I could dismiss 538, now that it is owned by the New York TImes, which is infamously pro-liberal, but it is still a source and one to look at. It is, of course, the one you think is balls on accurate, despite its biased ownership.

[Ian]

No, I'm being an ANTI-partisan douche. You should try it sometime.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/I ... ussen.html
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/P ... tml#item-2

[Coito ergo sum]

No, I'm being an ANTI-partisan douche. You should try it sometime.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/I ... ussen.html
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/P ... tml#item-2

Oh, really? You tend to rely on one source, like 538.

I generally post from multiple sources. You saw a post of mine with several links regarding Ohio, and I also cited Realclearpolitics showing Obama with still a marginal lead. I made no claim that Rasmussen was more persuasive or more reliable. It was one of multiple polling data points.

You, on the other hand, just handwaived the whole thing away with the "oh, if you think Rasmussen is ...." comment.

The point of showing Rasmussen and also real clear politics, etc., is to show that they were actually pretty close. They're about a point different. You throw it all away, though. The fact that Gallup has been polling less favorably to Romney than Rasmussen of late (by a point, but nevertheless, less favorably) and the fact that real clear politics is not far off from Rasmussen here should indicate something. Either that, or you think Real clear politics and Gallup are almost as biased as Rasmussen.

[Ian]

Taking issue with EVERY. SINGLE. POINT. in someone else's post is your M.O. It's not mine. I didn't feel like bothering with much more than Rasmussen.

FYI: I use several sources for my information. 538 is one of them, and I'm fine with that considering their track record in 2008 and 2010. Ditto Electoral-Vote.com and others. Reliability of information is a very big thing with me. I don't think Gallup is biased, but they are looking like a statistical outlier compared to all the other national polls recently, so I think they may be flawed. Rasmussen, however, is not only flawed but deliberately biased, and you ought to be embarrassed for citing them so often.

[Wumbologist]

So who are you guys voting for, anyway?

[Coito ergo sum]

Taking issue with EVERY. SINGLE. POINT. in someone else's post is your M.O. It's not mine. I didn't feel like bothering with much more than Rasmussen.

I don't care if you take issue with one, all or none. But, dismissing everything out of hand, and making some dopey-ass accusation that I gave some sort of imprimatur to the value of Rasmussen report MERELY BY MENTIONING THE POLL AMONG OTHERS is really rather silly.

FYI: I use several sources for my information. 538 is one of them, and I'm fine with that considering their track record in 2008 and 2010. Ditto Electoral-Vote.com and others. Reliability of information is a very big thing with me. I don't think Gallup is biased, but they are looking like a statistical outlier compared to all the other national polls recently, so I think they may be flawed. Rasmussen, however, is not only flawed but deliberately biased, and you ought to be embarrassed for citing them so often.

Next time, when you cite something, among those several sources, that "leans left" I'll ignore the import of the overall grouping of polling data you cite, and then just offhand dismiss the most left leaning source as biased and accuse you of asserting it's complete reliability.

And, I don't cite them "so often." You ought to be embarrassed for even saying that. I cite them sometimes -- once in a great while. Fuck dude...

[Ian]

Why Do Republicans Hate Obama So Much?
Many Democrats genuinely don't have a clue why Republicans hate President Obama so much. Is it racism? Probably not entirely since many Republicans love Rep. Allen West (R-FL), former representative J.C. Watts of Oklahoma, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, etc. Is it the ACA? Maybe, but that is completely irrational because "Obamacare" is just Romneycare and was actually devised by the conservative Heritage Foundation, touted first by Nixon and then as a Republican alternative to Hillarycare in the 1990s. "Make everybody take responsibility for their own health care and buy insurance from a private company" has been the Republicans' rally cry for years... until Obama agreed and passed their plan. Is it because he is a "socialist?" He did save General Motors, not usually known as a socialist icon. So what's left? Try this:

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

Come to think of it, things have been awfully quiet on the End Times front. Living in the South, one grows accustomed to hearing about a never-ending series of conspiratorial threats and eschatological panics.

Prophetic fads sweep the region. It’s Satan worshippers one year, “secular humanists” the next. Subliminal messages are descried in popular music; supermarket barcodes harbor the Mark of the Beast; logos on boxes of soap suds give evidence of corporate diabolism.

Under President George W. Bush, a series of preposterously bad novels by evangelical authors Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins became huge bestsellers. Dramatizing the Book of Revelation as an action-adventure melodrama like Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Terminator films, the books portray born-again American suburbanites as Jesus’s allies in an apocalyptic struggle against a U.N.-sponsored “World Potentate,” who looks “not unlike a younger Robert Redford” and speaks like…

Well, like Barack Obama, actually. Which I think explains something about what appears to be happening in the 2012 presidential election. To an awful lot of white Protestant evangelicals across the Deep South especially, President Obama has become no less than a secular stand-in for the Antichrist — a smooth-talking deceiver representing liberal cosmopolitanism in its most treacherous disguise.

Dislike of Obama has grown to cult-like proportions across the region. Statewide polls show the president losing by thunderous majorities. A recent poll by the Public Religion Research Institute highlighted in The New York Times shows that “among Southern working class whites, Romney leads by 40 points, 62-22, an extraordinary gap.” In the Midwest, Obama leads among the same group. Subtract the African-American precincts, and the president might not win 30 percent of votes in states like Arkansas and Oklahoma — one reason many Republicans suspect that national polls must be skewed.

So is it all about race? Not entirely, no. Many of the same voters who see President Obama as an African-born Muslim Socialist would very likely support, say, Condoleeza Rice. (Or think they would, anyway.)

Nor, however, are their fears entirely irrational. Because if the polls are right — and a disinterested observer would have to say that professional pollsters have grown increasingly accurate at predicting recent contests — the 2012 presidential election may not bring about “The Rapture,” but it could definitely mark the definitive end of a political era.

Specifically, it doesn’t matter how badly President Obama loses the five Deep South states won by Alabama governor George Wallace in 1968 — along with, say, South Carolina, Texas and Oklahoma. Should he prevail in most of the nine “swing states” where everybody agrees that the contest will be decided, and where Obama currently appears to lead by strong majorities, the white, GOP-accented South will find itself politically marooned.

Again.

Richard M. Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” will have been dismantled and a new, moderately center-left Democratic coalition built by President Obama. For the first time since 1972, the Rush Limbaugh/Mike Huckabee wing of the GOP will find itself with no clear path to power. (Not that there’s anything remotely holy about Limbaugh; I’m talking demographics here, not theology.)

The existential shock would be considerable. Not since the 1960s, when successive civil rights laws overcame the region’s “massive resistance” and ended legal segregation, have certain kinds of white Southerners experienced such anger and trepidation. Boo hoo hoo.

Moreover, should Obama be successful in rebuilding the U.S. economy during a second term, and once voters grasp that “Obamacare” has liberated them from the fear of being driven into bankruptcy by medical emergencies, the new Democratic coalition could prove to have a kind of staying power not seen since FDR and Truman.

Indeed, it’s been Republican anxiety over that very possibility in the wake of George W. Bush’s spectacular failures that led to the GOP’s Washington version of massive resistance during Obama’s first-term.

Or, to put it another way, if President Obama can win in this economy, how could any talented Democratic candidate lose?

The temptation for Southern Republicans would be to double down on the crazy, because “conservatism,” so-called, can never fail, only be failed. Also because religious melodrama is really what an awful lot of them are really about. That, and Koch Brothers money. They’re not actually conservatives at all, in the classical sense, but sentimental fanatics seeking to purge the nation of sin; adepts of “limited government” with their noses buried in women’s panty drawers; apostles of a lost Utopia located in a non-existent past, most often in 60s sitcoms like “The Andy Griffith Show.”

In that sense, fear and loathing of President Obama strikes me as a lot wider than deep; a fad, not an existential dread. They survived the Voting Rights Act; they’ll get over this. However, adapting to the new political reality may take some time.

Too bad, because the nation needs a principled conservative party to check the follies of the anti-gravity left.

Today, it hasn’t got one.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/why-do-so-m ... ate-obama/

[Gerald McGrew]

Ah yes, CES is going full on creationist on us now. "I've got my sources and you've got yours."

538 isn't "just one source", it's a composite of polls that are weighted according to methodology and past performance.

RCP is merely a polling average with no differentiation between good polls and bad ones.

Rasmussen doesn't "tend to lean right", they are habitually an outlier to the right. If Rasmussen says Obama's up by one in Ohio, he's most likely actually up by 4-6 points.

Not all "sources" are created equal, so trying to hide behind "we all have our sources" is pretty lame.

[Wumbologist]

Nobody answered my question. I'm having a hard time figuring out who you guys are voting for. I like to think my vote is pretty obvious though.