Battleground States And The 2012 Presidential Election
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-05-22/battleground-states-and-2012-presidential-election
To win the White House, a presidential candidate must attain 270 Electoral College votes. Political strategists on both sides agree that President Barack Obama and presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney already have 80 percent of the American electorate locked up. The battle for the remaining 20 percent will come down to a handful of states across the nation: Voters in Virginia, Ohio, Iowa and North Carolina will likely determine America’s next president. New data show unemployment falling in several crucial swing states, while home values are rising in Nevada and Florida. And in Arizona, opposition to a new immigration law has galvanized Latino voters. Diane and guests discuss the role of the battleground states in the 2012 presidential election.
Guests
Amy Walter
political director, ABC News.
Jim Tankersley
economics correspondent, National Journal magazine
Larry Sabato
founder and director, Center for Politics at the University of Virginia
Kelefa Sanneh
staff writer, The New Yorker magazine
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Oh, I didn't say I was staying home. I will vote, rest assured I will vote. But with unlimited piles of money on the right, I worry about what to expect.
"Arkus Duntov wrote:
Teece Bowman wrote: "The election of anything government related in 2012 is a charade. There is no representation "of the people, by the people'
I could not disagree more. We have an elected government that gives the people exactly what they want, whether it be domestic social programs or foreign interventionist militarism, they don't want to pay for either and they get that too for the time being. The people want to be treated like dependent ignorant children and again politicians deliver in full. I see absolutely no gap between what the people say they want and what they get. If your angle is government regulation over the financial markets because you've got a problem with capitalism, what a joke government destroys wealth by throwing money away by the truck load and cannot manage itself let alone anyone or anything else without destroying it. We had the opportunity to elect an honest man but he was dismissed as a crackpot. Sorry but things are going to have to get a lot worse before the people snap out of their collective stupor.
"We need a true alternative to government as usual"
You had it and his name was Ron Paul.
May 21, 2012 - 1:57 pm"
Listen, Rufusenik, next time you're doing Paul, ask him how he proposes to find 14 Trillion in Gold to pay off our National Debt.
Ha-ha, they stole all the Dollars, now they want all the Gold too.
As usual, your message is 100% manure, we Democrats pay for our domestic social programs and oppose foreign interventionist militarism.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
Of course you don't like libertarianism, your control freaks. You people on the far left are of the same ilk that ushered in Stalin and myriad of other dictators into power.
Arkus Duntov wrote:
"You people on the far left are of the same ilk that ushered in Stalin and myriad of other dictators into power."
--------------------------------
Those would be the dictators living or dead RP has no problem with i.e., Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini, Castro, any Soviet leader, Saddam Hussein , Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, etc. RP also loves the PLO. What a guy!
Thanks for reminding me why I am a libertarian MarcusTullius, the far right are also control freaks and equally dangerous to freedom and immune to common sense or reality as in your case..
Arkus Duntov wrote:
"You people on the far left are of the same ilk that ushered in Stalin and myriad of other dictators into power."
"...the far right are also control freaks and equally dangerous to freedom and immune to common sense. "
----------------------------------
RP is the perfect standard bearer for the Libertarians. He promotes the foreign policy of the far left and the domestic appraisal of the government shared by conspiracy moonbats. The only time common sense and Ron Paul had anything to do with one another was when he declared last week that he will no longer be actively campaigning in the GOP presidential primaries.
It's interesting that the majority of 'red states', touting individualism and freedom from government, receive more money then they send to the federal government. They have lost more by their elected representatives being bought by Big Business and some billionaires. It is not the policies of pro-Big Business and Wall Street to sell-off US Manufacturing businesses and send their jobs overseas. It was their legislators who voted for the repeal of the Glass-Seagall Act, reducing taxes on 'compensation' enabling corporate CEO's and Wall Street bankers to escape paying their fair share of taxes and fueling their greed to make short-term profit, and giving tax breaks to companies doing businesses off-shore. It completely baffles me that they listen to the Republican 'pro-family' whose goals have been to dismantle Medicare and Social Security, eliminate earned income tax credit that helps working families/individuals, etc. The Republicans use magicians technique of diverting attention from what they're really doing which is social and economic policies that help the top 1% and in particular the top 0.01% and hurt the bottom 99%.
ecarter wrote:
"It's interesting that the majority of 'red states', touting individualism and freedom from government, receive more money then they send to the federal government'
Not going to bother checking your data, does it even matter if their playing by the same federal government rules as the blue states, of course not that's the system, all politicians work to bring home the gravy. Per capita federal funds to states would obviously effect these numbers, you cannot compare sparsely populated states to say New York or California. Highway funds for instance would obviously be higher per person in a rural state. Obviously many of the "blue states" are bankrupted and their citizens are over taxed by democrat over promises to unions and social programs. I would rather live in a red state, republicans without a doubt run state fiscal matters much better than state level democrats. The rest of your rant is $#&!
Sounds like we have mostly the 1% Whiners and Occupy bunch on this topic.