The US elections in November, 2010.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Someone once said, "Good news! They've been canceled. Now you don't have to worry about them."

[maiforpeace]

The youth turnout in California is projected to be double what it will be in the rest of the nation.

CA Prop 19: Evidence Mounts That Marijuana Initiative Will Drive Youth Turnout

By: Jon Walker Monday October 4, 2010 10:14 am

There is a growing body of evidence that California’s Proposition 19, which would legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana, will drive an increase in youth turnout this year. Marijuana legalization is very popular with young voters, and they are very tuned in to news about Prop 19. Both macro and micro indicators point to higher than normal turnout among young voters this midterm in California, and that increase loops back to the presence of the marijuana initiative on the ballot.

On the Macro Level

With its own cultures of passionate supporters and dedicated opponents, Marijuana legalization is a political issue unlike almost any other. Rallies dedicated to the reform of marijuana laws draw tens of thousand regularly around the country. Rare is the political issue that can do that.

Marijuana legalization is extremely popular on the internet. The Prop 19 page is by far the most visited initiative page this year on Ballotpedia.org. On Facebook, the Yes on Prop 19 campaign now has 180,000 fans. That is a significantly larger number of followers than any California candidate, and orders of magnitude larger than any other ballot measure in the state.

Looking at the Polling and Data

A 2009 America Votes poll of Coloradans found that 45% of “surge voters” said they would be more interested in voting if marijuana legalization was on the ballot. A similar dynamic seems to be playing out in California right now.

Young voters are extremely interested in Prop 19. Awareness of Prop 19 being on the ballot is nearly universal with likely voters under age 30. A Field poll found an unheard-of 94 percent of young voters know the initiative is on the ballot, which is noticeably higher than Prop 19’s 84 percent awareness with all voters. Normally, for a ballot measure, this level of awareness is almost impossible to achieve, even for the best funded campaigns.

Young voters in California are not just tuned in to the debate over Prop 19, but are planning to support it in big numbers. PPIC found 70 percent of likely voters under 35 plan to vote for it, and a PPP poll found 67 percent of voters under 30 (PDF) planning to vote yes. Tom Jensen at PPP discovered California is one of the only states where they are not predicting a likely large drop-off in the youth vote this midterm.

A big question to contemplate in California is whether the marijuana initiative is helping to stifle the enthusiasm gap Democrats are dealing with in most other states, particularly when it comes to intended turnout from young voters. We’re seeing a much higher level of interest in this election from voters under 45 in California than in most places and those folks are highly favorable toward Proposition 19, planning to vote for it by a 54/34 margin.

The evidence is strong that it is Proposition 19, and not Jerry Brown’s lackluster campaign, that has young people interested in voting this year.

The Impact

While we will not know for sure until November 2nd, several factors indicate Prop 19 is going to help drive youth turnout. Marijuana prohibition disproportionately affects young voters, they are very focused on the debate over Prop 19, and they overwhelming plan to vote for the initiative.

With the initiative polling right around 50 percent, the numbers in which young voters turn out to support it could make the difference between passage and failure. Previous analysis shows that if young voters turnout this November at the same percentages of the electorate that they normally do during presidential years, it could mean Prop 19 passes 51 percent to 49 percent, instead of failing 49-51.

Yay California, leading the way!!!

[Warren Dew]

And here I thought all the druggies were in their 50s and 60s by now.

[maiforpeace]

And here I thought all the druggies were in their 50s and 60s by now.

Give me a break. You don't think that's an old stereotype by now?

I wonder if you refer to people who consume anything alcoholic as an alcoholic or a druggie too?

[Warren Dew]

Give me a break. You don't think that's an old stereotype by now?

Hey, I'm old, so my stereotypes are old.

Edit: I will updated my definition of "druggie" to include tobacco smokers, though.

[Coito ergo sum]

And here I thought all the druggies were in their 50s and 60s by now.

Give me a break. You don't think that's an old stereotype by now?

Very true. It's unfair to characterize all druggies as being in their 50s and 60s. Some are for sure in their 70s, and others in their 40s.

[Coito ergo sum]

Debt Has Increased $5 Trillion Since Speaker Pelosi Vowed, ‘No New Deficit Spending’

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/deb ... speaker-pe

[Coito ergo sum]

Rhode Island gubernatorial candidate Frank Caprio, in a radio interview Monday morning, reacted angrily to President Obama's decision not to endorse him during a visit to the Ocean State Monday.

"He can take his endorsement and really shove it as far as I'm concerned," Caprio told talk-show host John DePetro during an interview on WPRO-AM.

In Monday morning's Providence Journal, John Mulligan of The Journal's Washington bureau reported that Mr. Obama would not endorse Democrat Caprio during a visit to Rhode Island Monday.

Mulligan quoted independent candidate Lincoln Chafee's spokesman saying Obama's decision "is a victory for Linc Chafee," who is one of Caprio's opponents in the race for governor.

Former Republican Senator Chafee endorsed Mr. Obama for president in 2008.

Caprio went on to criticize Mr. Obama for not visiting Rhode Island during this spring's record floods.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... ver-n.html

Caprio said Rhode Islanders "are hurting," that the state has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country and "now he's coming into Rhode Island treating us like an ATM machine."

Mr. Obama will visit a Woonsocket factory and raise money for Democratic candidates during his visit.

[Ian]

Debt Has Increased $5 Trillion Since Speaker Pelosi Vowed, ‘No New Deficit Spending’

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/deb ... speaker-pe

Eight False Things the Public "Knows" Prior to Election Day
http://institute.ourfuture.org/blog-ent ... ey-go-vote

The summary:
1. Obama tripled the deficit (No: it is lower than in Bush's last budget)
2. Obama raised taxes (No: the "stimulus" contained a big tax cut)
3. Obama bailed out the banks (No: the bailout happened before Obama took office)
4. The "stimulus" failed (No: the CBO estimates it created 1-3 million jobs)
5. Businesses will hire if they get tax cuts (No: They will hire when they sell more products)
6. Health-insurance reform will cost $1 trillion (No: the CBO says it will save $138 billion)
7. Social security is a Ponzi scheme (No: it will continue to be solvent for 25 years)
8. Government spending takes money out of the economy (No: government buys stuff and hires people)

[Ian]

In my most humble opinion...

I've alluded to this earlier (I posted an article a little while ago and mentioned it elsewhere), but I think a Republican takeover of the House is the best thing that could possibly happen to the Democrats, or at least to Obama. It'll give Obama a more legitimate foe over the next two years. In 2012 he'll be pointing to the "do-nothing" Congress under Speaker Boehner and his large contingent of "let us be absolutely clear: there will be no compromise with Obama" Tea Party colleagues. Sure, much of the "do-nothing" will be because Obama will veto anything of substance they manage to throw at him. But in the meantime, the GOP leaders in the new Congress will have diminishing support for its raison d'etre. Why? Because in order to actually do what they keep talking about, they're going to have to propose some serious spending cuts. And every issue and program the government invests in has a good-sized army of supporters behind it. The GOP will have to alienate more and more people in order to get their way. They'll either be vetoed into doing nothing, or they'll stay away from the fray and literally do nothing, hoping that they won't lose as many friends that way. So far there isn't even much mention of how they would cut spending, just that they want to do it. Yesterday's Doonesbury illustrated the GOP's impending dilemma perfectly.

The worst thing that could happen (for Obama in 2012, at the very least) would be for the Democrats to hold both houses. This is just my opinion, of course. The civil war within the GOP (moderate pragmatists vs Tea Party extremists) would erupt before 2011 is even here, and the Tea Party would indeed take a ton of heat for costing the GOP its takeover of the House. It would be much better for the Obama administration if this civil war did not play out until the 2012 Republican primaries, or until after its Palin-hugging candidate gets creamed in the general election. If the GOP's revival is stunted in 2010, they might actually nominate a genuine moderate in 2012, one who won't kow-tow to the Teabaggers. But I don't think that'll happen - the GOP will take the house, and then Palin & Co. will remain influential amongst the GOP base for another two years.

I don't know if a GOP takeover of both houses would be better for Obama. I doubt it, but I could certainly be wrong. With a split Congress, the hill would be utterly deadlocked and a lot of right-wing legislation wouldn't even make it to Obama's desk. The GOP House would be spinning its wheels and garnering a lot of attention, but ultimately only losing friends as it sat immobilized. If both halves on Congress are taken over, the veto pen will get quite a workout and Obama will have lots to crow about as re-election nears.

/End train-of-thought/

[Warren Dew]

1. Obama tripled the deficit (No: it is lower than in Bush's last budget)

You like CBO estimates:

2. Obama raised taxes (No: the "stimulus" contained a big tax cut)

The big issue is that he wants to continue to raise taxes.

By the way, the stimulus didn't include tax rate cuts; it included subsidies - basically government spending - disguised as tax "credits". Tax credits are just another way to give out handouts, without the incentives that tax rate cuts have to increase productivity.

3. Obama bailed out the banks (No: the bailout happened before Obama took office)

The TARP loans to banks have almost all been repaid. Obama's GM and Chrysler bailouts have not.

4. The "stimulus" failed (No: the CBO estimates it created 1-3 million jobs)

The "stimulus" was supposed to keep unemployment under 8%. It failed.

Heck, even you put it in quotation marks.

5. Businesses will hire if they get tax cuts (No: They will hire when they sell more products)

Businesses will hire if they see benefits to doing so. In the present unstable climate, with the apparent interest of government in taking away any gains that business owners get, they don't see any benefits. That will continue to be true even if they could sell more products by doing so.

6. Health-insurance reform will cost $1 trillion (No: the CBO says it will save $138 billion)

That's because the reform bill included a new $1 trillion surtax. Which, by the way, means Obama actually did raise taxes.

7. Social security is a Ponzi scheme (No: it will continue to be solvent for 25 years)

That it won't fail for 25 years doesn't make it any less of a Ponzi scheme. Of course, this has nothing to do with Obama.

8. Government spending takes money out of the economy (No: government buys stuff and hires people)

That's indeed a myth. The truth is that it's government taxation that takes money out of the economy.

[Trolldor]

No, it's not taxation that takes money out of the economy.

Taxation increases Government revnue, which allows for increased Government spending. Taxation and low Government spending would take money out of the economy.

[Robert_S]

Government spending puts money in
Taxes take money out.

Deficit spending makes sense if you are in a period of stagnation and expect things to turn around later. If the private sector cannot get its shit together enough to circulate some money, then it's up to the public sector.

[Coito ergo sum]

President Obama Heads into Midterms at Lowest Approval Rating of Presidency
Two-thirds of Americans believe country going off on the wrong track

NEW YORK , N.Y. - October 25, 2010 - President Obama is spending the next week crisscrossing the country in support of Democratic candidates before this year's midterm elections. While the president may do a great job of energizing the base, he may not be able to convert any Independents who have yet to decide for whom they will vote. Currently, two-thirds of Americans (67%) have a negative opinion of the job President Obama is doing while just over one-third (37%) have a positive opinion. This continues the president's downward trend and he is now at the lowest job approval rating of his presidency.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/Hi_ass ... eNews.html

[maiforpeace]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallu ... roval.aspx

I just sent in my ballot. This is my third time voting, it's still exciting to me!