Ways to make our voices heard this november?

[Ozone]

I'd love to see a rally in this state with gun owners coming together. I'd love to send a message to Obama that we are not going to let him infringe apon our rights.
I'm going to be sick to my stomach, if this state once again turns Blue. How can a state with the most NRA members..and a BIG hunting/fishing following possibly turn towards Osama, and his anti gun agenda's?

The other question is..do we know how many gun owners there are in the United States? Do these people know their rights about to be taken away, if Osama gets in?

[Lysander]

Originally Posted by Bmaninmifco

The way i look at it 40% vote the party line on each side.
So that 80% who vote the party line no matter if Satan and Dahmer were running against each other negate. That means there is 20% who vote the candidate. Of that 20% 10% won't vote for a third party because they think they don't have a chance to win so they will vote a major party who agrees with their views that has a chance.
That leaves 10% to vote with their favorite candidate using that logic it should only take 6 or 7% of those voters to win the majority of the electoral college votes.

The biggest problem I see in the analysis is, in focusing in on the "10%" who "vote for their favorite candidate," it ignores what the remainder of the voters do. Yes, a 7% swing to a candidate that does not have "automatic" party support is significant - but only when looking at other variables. (Note: I am using the numbers above without comment as to their accuracy) Remember, that if all other votes are split as described, and all other totals split equally, one major-party candidate will have 40% + (1/2 of 10%) + (1/2 of 3%) for 46.5%; the other major-party candidate will have another 46.5%, and the third party candidate (assuming only one third-party candidate) has 7%. It's also how those percentages are proportioned among the electorate that count.

If the 7% swing is nation-wide, then the local swings may be insufficient to change any individual state vote. This, in my opinion, comes with tracking the national vote tally rather stopping at each State's tally. the 7% may be a cumulative tally, where the actual Statewide percentages may be vastly different.

If the national 7% were to be concentrated in a single stat, such as California, that candidate only wins in that state, and it will not mean they win overall despite having an impressive vote tally. In fact, they may swing the victory a different way, as other candidates may have had a strategy of relying on a win in California to gain sufficient electoral votes - but failed.

Remember, Perot gained an impressive share of the votes (+/- 22% from memory), but the support was so diffuse that no electoral votes were gained.


I'm not saying a "third-party" candidate cannot win; Theodore Roosevelt came in second on his "third-party" run, after all. But, little was in place to build on that showing at the polls, and since it appears that his party was build, specifically, for him, there was little to show for it in later elections - both Presidential and Congressional. It seems like we keep trying top-down (Presidential first, then everything else) rather than bottom-up.

[adymond]

I'll start (with the utmost respect of course) from the bottom up with Cindy McCain and Sarah Palin anyday!

Back on track. Lysander, you sir are correct.

[Bmaninmifco]

Originally Posted by Lysander

The biggest problem I see in the analysis is, in focusing in on the "10%" who "vote for their favorite candidate," it ignores what the remainder of the voters do. Yes, a 7% swing to a candidate that does not have "automatic" party support is significant - but only when looking at other variables. (Note: I am using the numbers above without comment as to their accuracy) Remember, that if all other votes are split as described, and all other totals split equally, one major-party candidate will have 40% + (1/2 of 10%) + (1/2 of 3%) for 46.5%; the other major-party candidate will have another 46.5%, and the third party candidate (assuming only one third-party candidate) has 7%. It's also how those percentages are proportioned among the electorate that count.

If the 7% swing is nation-wide, then the local swings may be insufficient to change any individual state vote. This, in my opinion, comes with tracking the national vote tally rather stopping at each State's tally. the 7% may be a cumulative tally, where the actual Statewide percentages may be vastly different.

If the national 7% were to be concentrated in a single stat, such as California, that candidate only wins in that state, and it will not mean they win overall despite having an impressive vote tally. In fact, they may swing the victory a different way, as other candidates may have had a strategy of relying on a win in California to gain sufficient electoral votes - but failed.

Remember, Perot gained an impressive share of the votes (+/- 22% from memory), but the support was so diffuse that no electoral votes were gained.


I'm not saying a "third-party" candidate cannot win; Theodore Roosevelt came in second on his "third-party" run, after all. But, little was in place to build on that showing at the polls, and since it appears that his party was build, specifically, for him, there was little to show for it in later elections - both Presidential and Congressional. It seems like we keep trying top-down (Presidential first, then everything else) rather than bottom-up.

Correct. I fully do not expect a third party to win. And my numbers are just how I look at it. I have yet to see a comprehensive study to it.

But to win you don't need that full 7 percent you just need 2 percent to siphon votes off of one.

In this election we have Mcain and Paul. Mcain made a decent choice in a VP.
But he's not getting any younger and truthfully I would not feel comfortable having Palin as my president. While I agree with her stance on guns and government spending I do not agree with her stance on abortion.
She's ok with it in cases of the mother's health but not ok with it in cases of rape and incest.
What about the mothers mental health?
That right there would make me question voting for Mcain since there is a very real chance that at 72 years old he may not make it.

[adymond]

Originally Posted by Bmaninmifco

Correct. I fully do not expect a third party to win. And my numbers are just how I look at it. I have yet to see a comprehensive study to it.

But to win you don't need that full 7 percent you just need 2 percent to siphon votes off of one.

In this election we have Mcain and Paul. Mcain made a decent choice in a VP.
But he's not getting any younger and truthfully I would not feel comfortable having Palin as my president. While I agree with her stance on guns and government spending I do not agree with her stance on abortion.
She's ok with it in cases of the mother's health but not ok with it in cases of rape and incest.
What about the mothers mental health?
That right there would make me question voting for Mcain since there is a very real chance that at 72 years old he may not make it.

Okay here's the thing. It does not, or should not matter what her stance on
abortion or religion is. What should matter is does she feel it is her job to legislate what you do? If she is a true conservative her stance should be "I personally do not condone abortion, but it is the right of the state and the constitutants of that state to determine the legality of something like abortion while maintaining strict protections in specific instances for the mother's health." I have not seen evidence that she is not in favor of it in cases of rape or incest. Maybe you can provide a source for that.

What is NEVER discussed though is what the toll of abortion is on women who have had one? Do you honestly think there is not a mental burden carried with that decision? I'm just saying.

I am also sick and tired of hearing how old McCain is. He has been cleared medically. It SHOULD NOT matter a fucking bit of difference how old he is. Obama is only 44. Biden is 66. Palin is 44. Big freaking deal. You look at what that man has been through and tell me he is not tough as nails. His family has a history of longevity. His mother is 96 and was able to come to the convention. Obama's mother is dead from cancer. His father is also dead I believe. Obama smokes. So let's see family history of cancer and a high risk behavior for developing cancer. That sounds much better than a 72 year old.

[renegadephoenix]

as i said in Mtn Jacks post, we need to start to hit every political Rally in this state in force to bring the issue of the 2nd A to the forefront of the election. hold OC/CC rallys right along with political rallys handing out each states Gun Laws. work with the McCain Camp to have the issue brought up that he is a Pro-2nd A guy along with Palin who is definatly 2nd A supportive. if Osama won't touch the issue then i'm sure McCain will.

[Bmaninmifco]

Originally Posted by adymond

Okay here's the thing. It does not, or should not matter what her stance on
abortion or religion is. What should matter is does she feel it is her job to legislate what you do? If she is a true conservative her stance should be "I personally do not condone abortion, but it is the right of the state and the constitutants of that state to determine the legality of something like abortion while maintaining strict protections in specific instances for the mother's health." I have not seen evidence that she is not in favor of it in cases of rape or incest. Maybe you can provide a source for that.

What is NEVER discussed though is what the toll of abortion is on women who have had one? Do you honestly think there is not a mental burden carried with that decision? I'm just saying.

I am also sick and tired of hearing how old McCain is. He has been cleared medically. It SHOULD NOT matter a fucking bit of difference how old he is. Obama is only 44. Biden is 66. Palin is 44. Big freaking deal. You look at what that man has been through and tell me he is not tough as nails. His family has a history of longevity. His mother is 96 and was able to come to the convention. Obama's mother is dead from cancer. His father is also dead I believe. Obama smokes. So let's see family history of cancer and a high risk behavior for developing cancer. That sounds much better than a 72 year old.

Is there a mental toll on abortion? yes I'm sure there is.
But what about the mental toll of being reminded that you were raped every day and possibly seeing the face of that rapist everyday?
And it is not a states decision Roe v. Wade ended that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_122924.html
http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm

1.And I'm sorry, but you have to look at his age. What someone did when they were younger just shows the mans character. It does not show the mans health. Strokes happen heart attacks happen.

2. young voters want someone they can connect with. How many 18-26 year olds do you think can connect with Mcain? Now how many do you think can connect with Obama?
There will be a record turn out of young voters in this election to vote for Obama.

And when start swearing your not exactly supporting your position.
I support Mcain all I said was his choice of Palin is making me question if he will get my vote or Paul.

[adymond]

Originally Posted by Bmaninmifco

Is there a mental toll on abortion? yes I'm sure there is.
But what about the mental toll of being reminded that you were raped every day and possibly seeing the face of that rapist everyday?
And it is not a states decision Roe v. Wade ended that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_122924.html
http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm

1.And I'm sorry, but you have to look at his age. What someone did when they were younger just shows the mans character. It does not show the mans health. Strokes happen heart attacks happen.

2. young voters want someone they can connect with. How many 18-26 year olds do you think can connect with Mcain? Now how many do you think can connect with Obama?
There will be a record turn out of young voters in this election to vote for Obama.
And when start swearing your not exactly supporting your position.
I support Mcain all I said was his choice of Palin is making me question if he will get my vote or Paul.

I will swear when it it needed for effect. Huffington Post as a source? She said she would oppose even if her daughter were raped. That is not the same as saying it should be illegal in cases of rape or incest. I see nothing there but editorializing. The second source only says she is pro-life. Try again. Using the Huffington Post cast serious doubts that you are being entirely honest in your stance. The section I bolded also casts doubt in my mind about your honesty. I actually think Rowe v Wade did not prove it is the Federal government's job to legislate what individual states decided to do. It only said that federal bans were not constitutional. I think better minds than mine have argued both sides of that. But with your logic abortion should not even be an issue if you disagree it should not matter since Roe v Wade settled the issue what is the problem with her being pro-life?

Sure strokes happen and heart attacks happen. When there is no previous family history though the likelihood is not that high as long as one is in good medical condition. Like McCain has been cleared to be in. Cancer happens too. So don't elect someone with a family history or a high risk behavior.

How many 18-26 year olds can relate? I don't know that many people in the general public can even come close to relating to this man. He has gone through many things NOT ONE PERSON I KNOW has had to endure. I can't relate to him. I can't relate to him not because of his age, but because he has given more for this country than I can even imagine. If the spinless generation (of which I am ashamed to be part of) relates to a man who has no history to base his candidacy on more than someone who has given so much based simply because of his age we will get what we deserve. I would bet there are PLENTY in our military that can relate to McCain more based on his service than on something as stupid as age. So if he is too old how is it that Obama is not too young? I will say this again. If his age is a decisive issue you are an idiot.

[Bmaninmifco]

Originally Posted by adymond

I will swear when it it needed for effect. Huffington Post as a source? She said she would oppose even if her daughter were raped. That is not the same as saying it should be illegal in cases of rape or incest. I see nothing there but editorializing. The second source only says she is pro-life. Try again. Using the Huffington Post cast serious doubts that you are being entirely honest in your stance. The section I bolded also casts doubt in my mind about your honesty. I actually think Rowe v Wade did not prove it is the Federal government's job to legislate what individual states decided to do. It only said that federal bans were not constitutional. I think better minds than mine have argued both sides of that. But with your logic abortion should not even be an issue if you disagree it should not matter since Roe v Wade settled the issue what is the problem with her being pro-life?

Sure strokes happen and heart attacks happen. When there is no previous family history though the likelihood is not that high as long as one is in good medical condition. Like McCain has been cleared to be in. Cancer happens too. So don't elect someone with a family history or a high risk behavior.

How many 18-26 year olds can relate? I don't know that many people in the general public can even come close to relating to this man. He has gone through many things NOT ONE PERSON I KNOW has had to endure. I can't relate to him. I can't relate to him not because of his age, but because he has given more for this country than I can even imagine. If the spinless generation (of which I am ashamed to be part of) relates to a man who has no history to base his candidacy on more than someone who has given so much based simply because of his age we will get what we deserve. I would bet there are PLENTY in our military that can relate to McCain more based on his service than on something as stupid as age. So if he is too old how is it that Obama is not too young? I will say this again. If his age is a decisive issue you are an idiot.

No need for the personal attacks. Sorry to say but a man who can debate from a position of strength does not need to resort to name calling and swearing.
You can attack my honesty all you want. I have stated my opinion that is how I see it. If you don't like it oh well.
Now we can continue to debate like adults or you can continue to get personal and show your true character.

[adymond]

Originally Posted by Bmaninmifco

No need for the personal attacks. Sorry to say but a man who can debate from a position of strength does not need to resort to name calling and swearing.
You can attack my honesty all you want. I have stated my opinion that is how I see it. If you don't like it oh well.
Now we can continue to debate like adults or you can continue to get personal and show your true character.

Personal? Where is the personal attack? The only thing in my post that comes even close is basing my conclusion about your dishonest statement of opinion. Not a personal attack there chief. Try to deflect my statement by claiming victimhood. Another card from a deck I am becoming more and more convinced you are playing from.

Or are you admiting that age is the only deciding factor in your decision making and you take offense to me calling you an idiot for it? If age is not a determining factor for you then there is no personal attack. Why don't you reply to me statement about Rowe v Wade? Or how about the health implications? Would that just get in the way of the straw men?