Mitt Romney Gets Overflow Crowd at Red Rocks

I'm watching the local news. 7 news reports the crowd showing up for Mitt Romney tonight at Red Rocks tonight exceeded the outdoor amphitheater's 10,000 capacity. (The campaign gave out 25,000 tickets.)

Unless several thousand went to see Kid Rock perform for Romney instead of Romney himself that's a big showing. (Kid Rock sang Born Free and yes, I'm being facetious.) Also stumping for Romney at the event: New Mexico's female "Latino Governor" The news referred to her as "star power" and said the appearance of star power "wasn't an accident." The supporters placed closest to Romney were those holding signs that read "Democrats for Romney."

Traffic to Red Rocks was seriously delayed at rush hour, but the news said part of the reason was someone had hit a deer. [More...]

Obama will be in Denver tomorrow at Denver Civic Center Park. Tickets are required.

Early voting has begun in Colorado. The campaign ads are non-stop, and tonight it seemed like there were a lot more ads for Romney than Obama. It seems Colorado is indeed going to be a close race.

I got my ballot and it's very confusing. It's not like you just check a name. There are 13 candidates for President, Obama is second, Romney is third. The ballot is in English and Spanish, with Spanish right below the English for each initiative. The detailed legalese in the initiatives renders the initiatives practically incomprehensible.

Amendment 64 to legalize marijuana is on the back at the bottom left. This is a ballot you need to take 15 minutes to read, and can't do while multi-tasking.

As usual, even the process of marking your choice is unnecessarily complicated. You have to draw a line between arrows. What happened to a marking an X or putting a checkmark in a small box or filling in a small circle? I had to get a ruler to make sure my lines were straight. I wonder how many people will take the time to do that.

The important thing is Democrats and marijuana legalization supporters can't take a chance and sit this election out. Every vote in Colorado is critical.

< George Zimmerman: The Witness 8 Interviews | Michael Skakel Sues Nancy Grace for Libel >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I am SO glad I don't live in (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by nycstray on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 11:57:35 PM EST
    a swing state! I'm having enough prob with the prop ads here, especially the No on 37 (grrrr!) ones funded to the tune of 34.5 mil from Monsanto and friends (gee, all for 3 little words on our food labels!). Thankfully my neighbor gave me a heads up on another one that was on the ballot last time (sounds good, but details, details . . .) and I had a sudden memory flash to 2010. Once I get them sorted though, Mom wants me to help her ;)

    And I'm happy my mail-in ballot still is the old fashioned fill the oval type :) AND!, no voter ID needed!!!! :D (mine was stolen, ID that is . . .)

    Looks like CA has one more Obama vote this time around. Romney has totally creeped out Mom, along with all those men clueless on rape and women's rights.

    Got my fingers crossed on Amendment 64 for CO!

    And, here's hoping the deer passed quickly :( Been a lot of that around here lately . . .

    I haven't studied the ballot measures (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 12:12:38 AM EST
    yet, but a friend whose judgment I trust pointed out the food labeling prop. is sponsored by the trial lawyers and will result in endless litigation to enrich them.  He is voting against it.  

    Interesting (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 12:24:54 AM EST
    My heirloom seed supplier has been involved in this (pro-labeling) issue. Very little money on the pro side (last I heard, about 5mil for advertising), but if I go to Euro land, I get labeling. What's so hard about "Contains GMO Ingredients"?

    I think what bothers me the most is the "info" in the neg ads. Did that Big Mac meal really cost billions more when they added the calorie count? Or how about when they had to add COO to produce labels? As someone who has had to alter packaging, it drives me freakin' NUTS! :) I'd REALLY like to see some actual numbers on this stuff instead of the scare tactics.


    He's voting against it (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 08:54:33 AM EST
    Specifically because of the trial lawyer issue?  According to the last Bill Maher, there are numerous studies proving the GMOs do not improve our crop production and they are causing massive use of pesticides and herbicides.  They are using a gene now that is supposedly resistant to Agent Orange while attempting to get an herbicide approved that has Agent Orange in it.

    Am I horrible person if I say that I don't care if trial lawyers beat Monsanto to death?  I know it is people too, but so is soylent green.


    Latest numbers (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 04:15:35 PM EST
    looks like it's about 50/50 now and could be defeated. Apparently the pro side will start running ads this week, but they only have about 6.5mil to 41mil against . . .

    I really think people would think twice if they knew more about GMOs and exactly how much they are putting in their bodies daily, not to mention all the other factors such as the ones you mention.


    Yep (none / 0) (#45)
    by sj on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 10:11:58 AM EST
    "trial lawyers" write laws just so they can litigate them. oy.

    "Democrats For Romney" (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by shoephone on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 12:49:24 AM EST
    Well, that makes about as much sense as "Jews For Jesus," a group that used to hang out in front of the West L.A. Post Office. (They should have been at LAX, like the Hari Krishnas, who got more eyeballs.)

    I'm not familiar with Kid Rock's music. Um, are we talking of "Born Free" about Elsa the Lion, or some silly, jingoist little ditty composed just for Mittens?

    Why am I not surprised that ... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 03:27:55 AM EST
    ... the Romney campaign would resort to creating the illusion that real Democrats would be supporting this serial bull$Hi+ artist. The entire GOP nowadays seems to be enthralled with the mendacious and infatuated with the absurd. Are the majority of white people in this country really this insanely stupid?

    Wow what a racist comment (none / 0) (#11)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 07:16:33 AM EST
    "Are the majority of white people in this country really this insanely stupid?"

    Thanks for giving the "Stormfront" crowd instant credibility, Donald.

    Is there something about this election that is causing you to lose your marbles?


    I feel compelled (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by Lena on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 12:03:26 PM EST
    to ask Slayersrezo: do you honestly feel offended by this comment?

    Not to throw fuel on the fire, but I often find myself asking the same question as Donald when I read politics. Also, as you pointed out below, women are hardly a monolithic progressive voting bloc; so even though I'm both white and a woman, I also often find myself thinking: why on earth are these crazy women voting for Romney? Nothing against women, the crazed, or white people.


    Of course I feel insulted by this (none / 0) (#107)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 06:11:01 PM EST
    Somewhere between 5 to 10 percent of blacks and maybe as much as 35 to 40 percent of all latinos will vote for Romney.
    Ask Mr. Racist why he didn't slander their intelligence too.

    I don't want to speak ... (none / 0) (#112)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 08:17:27 PM EST
    ... for Donald, but I don't think he'd have any problem including them in the "insanely stupid" category.

    "Stormfront"? That's rich, coming ... (4.67 / 6) (#14)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 07:39:24 AM EST
    ... from someone who only yesterday was comparing President Obama to Hitler and Mussolini, and was warned personally by the host for his effort.

    Apparently you learned nothing, and obviously don't embarrass easily.

    FYI, I'm of German-Irish-Welsh descent and as white as they come. And given that Romney's polling 55% of the white vote, I stand by my statement.

    So, Zero, go sell insanely stupid someplace else.


    "White" was a completely gratuituous (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 09:48:56 AM EST
    addition to your comment, Donald, and whether you intended to stir the ugly pot or not, you did - so why not just say "oops! - poor choice of words on my part" and be done with it?

    But, nooooo - you had to make it worse in your follow-up.

    No one cares what your racial or ethnic background is - and it sure doesn't give you the right to be an a$$.


    I meant every word. (4.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 12:12:18 PM EST
    And THIS and THIS are why.

    You know, I didn't willingly choose to insert race as a conscious subtext into this campaign, Anne. I'm not the one who repeatedly sought to turn false representations about the president's Hawaii birth certificate into a phony controversy, or implied in repeated statements that he's "un-American (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)" or sent through the e-mail under the title "This is funny" photoshopped caricatures of Barack Obama as an African witch doctor with a bone through his nose.

    But the Republicans did, on all counts, and they did so for a specific reason. Further, they knew EXACTLY what they were doing and why they were doing it. And so it's a given that they're not going to like it when it's thrown right back into their faces.

    And honestly, at this point, I couldn't possibly care any less about Zero's self-righteous umbrage and his hamhanded attempts to manufacture a controversy. So, you'll be hearing no channeling of Rick Perry as a mea culpa from me. Sorry.



    I'm not a birther (none / 0) (#108)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 06:15:32 PM EST
    But , yes, there's been controversy over whether other Presidents were born in this country before, and whining that some of the birthers are racist doesn't mean they all are.

    While I believe President Obama is an American citizen, merely asking the question doesn't make one a racist.

    But you know that. You are very dishonest at times.


    Not the first biggoted remark from him. (none / 0) (#61)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:43:31 AM EST
    I could really give a crap if you are (1.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 07:54:52 AM EST
    The Swedish Prime Minister.
    If Bill Cosby had asked whether black people were all stupid for voting Democrat, I bet you'd be all up in his grill.

    Pathetic, your double standards and bigotry.

    And yes, I know that assassinations of US citizens and respect for civil rights aren't on your list of important things to complain about when the people doing them have a "D" behind their names. That's double pathetic.

    Lastly, here's a lovely article about the state that you profess so much to love:
    Hawaii the State that Doesn't Vote

    With "Representatives" like you, I can see why.


    That's a very long article (4.00 / 1) (#23)
    by fishcamp on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 08:43:34 AM EST
    Slay but a good one.  I'm all for saving Honolua Bay since it is a surfers paradise and beautiful.  I have even surfed there back in the day but the waves were too big for me.

    Hawaii and Donald (none / 0) (#56)
    by the capstan on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:08:18 AM EST
    Yesterday Donald was being 'picked on' for his automatic lauding of anything and everything about the Dem. party: well, he is a party functionary on Ohau.  So who is surprised?

    I know Maui pretty well--favorite vacation spot for almost my entire family.  (We held an 'ashes to the sea' ceremony on Napili Bay for my husband several years ago).  I also know the pineapple company--in fact, owned stock in it, a link to paradise, I thought.  When change came to  Kapalua, tho, I sold off the stock.


    More like something about (none / 0) (#72)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 12:11:31 PM EST
    a tradition of moral equivocation and vicious obliviousness that engendered Aushwitz, the Bomb, and the Tea Party..

    Our fellow white people sure are touchy (and tone-deaf to irony), eh Donald?


    Guys like Zero have long bought into ... (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 02:56:43 PM EST
    ... the GOP's faux argument -- hook, line and sinker -- that white wingnuts are somehow the true victims here of reverse discrimination, and they react accordingly and on cue.

    They are the political equivalent of Pavlov's dog, and not for nothing does Romney & Co., Ltd. blow its dog whistles at every given opportunity.

    And to be perfectly honest and frank, I find it patently disingenuous for anyone to willingly pretend that the GOP's race-baiting is anything other than what it really is -- and quite obviously, I'm not at all afraid to say it publicly.

    White racism has long been a cancer on American society, and its continued existence depends wholly upon the not-so-benign neglect of otherwise good people, who -- regardless of their reason or rationale -- choose to look the other way, remain silent and do nothing about it.



    But Slayer wasn't the one who asked (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 03:20:34 PM EST
    if this many white people could be so insanely stupid, you were.

    Your comment was going along just fine, making a credible point, and didn't need any jazzing up for a community that is more or less unanimous - but for a handful - in its agreement that racism sadly still exists.

    We get it, Donald - you can stop lecturing us about it.  

    I have no doubt you believe what you've posted, but that wasn't the problem: you did what you often do: built your comment around some you tube video you find especially clever, and waited for someone to bite. It worked.  It just looked like you were trolling a message to lure the Slayers and jims out to play.  

    Just stop digging and put down the shovel.


    Doesn't being born white come (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 04:13:46 PM EST
    with several built-in pluses in this country though?  I'm sort of with Donald, how can people born gifted with so many built-ins be this selfish, narcissistic, and ultimately self destructively stupid?

    As a poor white male (2.33 / 3) (#110)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 06:23:24 PM EST
    Who lives in Baltimore city...

    You better be prepared to tell me all about my alleged privileges , Military Tracy, or STFU about them. And I must warn you: I've read quite a bit of Tim Wise and went over several privilege checklists. Very few of the things on them have ever applied to me under any circumstances, but I just love when people like you try to tell me how great my life is.


    You are a white male born in the USA. (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Angel on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 02:12:28 PM EST
    That alone put you ahead from the get-go.  You sound bitter and miserable and seem to take some sort of perverted satisfaction in your situation.  No advice for you except that you may want to try to figure out  why that is.  

    Anyone born in the USA (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 02:21:06 PM EST
    Of any color or sex gets a "bump" in life compared to someone in a war-torn anarchistic country.

    Try again. What else do I have to be thankful for, besides lack of universal health care in this country?


    Again, white male, US born...that puts you (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Angel on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:21:00 PM EST
    ahead of most of the world, not just the USA.  You apparently just like to whine.

    Okay then.....your life sucks (none / 0) (#121)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 01:11:41 PM EST
    Could this possibly be attitude related?  Before you become fully cloaked and weighted in white man's burden, have you checked to make sure your flaps were up?

    You do have a way w/words! (none / 0) (#122)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 01:51:52 PM EST
    White Man's Burden (none / 0) (#127)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 02:18:09 PM EST
    Well,  I suppose that I'm related to Rudyard Kipling somehow?

    Do you live anywhere besides your head?
    People like you kind of make me hope someone presses the button. Selective empathy? Check. Bigotry? Check. An inability to have nuanced views of other sexes/races? Check.

    Here's a clue - I have friends of every sex and ethnicity in real life. I also have had enemies of most colors and both sexes.
    That's because I'm a human being not your caricature. I'm sorry I don't come across well on the internet. I'm sure you will survive.


    It's the Limbaugh-Hannity-Beck (none / 0) (#126)
    by jondee on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 02:18:01 PM EST
    strategy and always has been: redirect the pain and anguish of the great outsourced and downsized away from Lloyd Blankfein and Richard Mellon Scaife and sic 'em on those miserable souls lower down in the pecking order..

    Cuz good winger True Believer knows that the Alpha males and females of the herd have to be succoured at all costs -- the scraps they leave for the rest of us are too valuable.


    I just love how that goof (none / 0) (#102)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 04:32:37 PM EST
    Assumes I'm a straight line Republican voter, or registered Republican or something.

    You want to know where racism (which is not one-way street) comes from?

    Selective empathy.
    Sadly , Donald shows signs of succumbing to that, thus becoming no better than the bigots he decries.


    So what he shouldn't talk about what is obvious (none / 0) (#103)
    by vicndabx on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 04:49:17 PM EST
    because....gulp....you might be offended?  It's not polite?

    This from the person who begins and ends every post w/a smart aleck, often derogatory comment?

    Coming from you, this part is absolutely, priceless:

    you can stop lecturing us about it

    Fact is Donald is 100% spot on.

    I say this not to start a problem - I like your posts, they are well thought out and passionate, even though I may disagree w/some of them.  It just strikes me as a little pot calling the kettle black (no pun intended).

    Maybe we can all try striving for a more civil tone.


    More evidence (none / 0) (#105)
    by sj on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 06:06:10 PM EST
    of either poor reading comprehension or selective reading comprehension.  Even tilting my head I can't tell which.

    as you like to say (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by vicndabx on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 06:20:06 PM EST

    Dig away brother.. (none / 0) (#124)
    by jondee on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 02:09:38 PM EST
    And, no need to be so defensive, Anne..

    If it isn't glaringly-blaring obvious that the dominant class-race in this country has had a longstanding pathologic inability to conduct an unflinching historical moral self-inventory and perform a much-needed cognitive recalibration, when will it be?

    Fifty million of them elected someone President in 2000 who wasn't fit to manage a Seven Eleven, and now they're now "leaning toward" a slash-and-burn, scorched earth, cutthroat, hypercapitalist who believes God is a man who lives on a planet far-far-away in a distant galaxy..

    Yeah, there's something seriously awry uupstairs with many, many white people in this country.  


    I am getting so nervous. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 05:33:16 AM EST
    I just can't believe Romney has this much support.

    My nerves are frayed too (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 05:39:40 AM EST
    Not good. But, Ohio, Ohio, Ohio

    I don't (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 06:53:19 AM EST
    think that Romney really has a lot of "support" so much as people just want to get rid of Obama and see Romney as a viable alternative. It would truly be shocking if someone like Santorum or Newt had that much support.

    People keep forgetting that Romney can pull off the moderate stuff merely by being a GOP governor of a deep blue state. There's a lot of people who don't pay as much attention to stuff as people around here do who think "well, he can't be very radical to have won in MA."


    Problem is that a vote is a vote is a vote; (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 07:38:20 AM EST
    so whether a person marks the ballot or touches the screen in the space with Romney/Ryan in it as an anybody-but-Obama vote, or as an affirmative vote for the policies and ideology of that ticket, they get counted the same.

    Oh, I'm (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 08:28:19 AM EST
    well aware of that but people are hurting so much right now I don't think they're even thinking about that.

    Please explain (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 09:33:27 AM EST
    While I have my issues with Mr. Obama, he is not running against Jesus, he is running against Mitt Romney.

    Mr. Romney has no discernible character, he does not seem to understand how the world works, he is arrogant to women, he is a freaking (MORMON (isn't that enough?), and he has never had to worry or suffer in his entire life about the things that normal people do.  I am the same age as Romney, and I did MY Army service.

    Barack Obama could spot Mitt Romney 50 IQ points and still beat him at tic-tac-toe.

    Why is the arrogant dumb guy with no character a "viable alternative" to the smart guy who exhibits a degree of compassion?  Is it because Obama is blah?


    He is whoever he wants to be (none / 0) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 12:49:30 PM EST
    Whenever he wants to be him.  Once in office I have no idea who he wants to be, I only know who he owes...who he is indebted to in this election.  Based on that alone it looks like a living hell for the rest of us if he somehow wins.

    Are you talking about Obama? (none / 0) (#85)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    Not sure.

    Yes you are (3.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 01:00:01 PM EST
    You are being jerky.  And go ahead, I don't care

    I can't either (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 12:25:39 PM EST
    And I can't imagine why.  Just voting in the other guy doesn't improve anything for you, no matter how upset you are about where you are today.  It is frustrating because many people knew there were huge bubbles out there and that there would be a huge crash too, but everyone ignored us.

    Voting in the next different guy will not fix what ails America.  Only time and the next right decision followed by the next right decision can undo what it took BushCo to do in 8 yrs. Obama isn't perfect (no President ever is), but he sure as hell isn't even close to the hurt that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will put us through.


    Maybe this will make you feel better (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by NYShooter on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 05:45:11 PM EST
    REUTERS POLL: "Obama Is Going To Trounce Mitt Romney In A Landslide...." featured in "Business Insiders"

    "With two weeks to go before Election Day, a new Reuters/Ipsos forecast released today predicts an Electoral College landslide for President Barack Obama over Republican rival Mitt Romney.
    Obama leads Romney by a point in the Reuters/Ipsos daily tracking poll, 47-46. But results from Ipsos' tracking in key swing states leads to a projection of a much bigger Electoral College victory. The Ipsos projection has Obama winning the big three swing states of Florida, Ohio and Virginia.
    Ipsos' final Electoral College score: 332-206."


    While this works out well (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by sj on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 06:08:23 PM EST
    for this particular election, I still find the electoral college a badly outdated institution which can grossly misrepresent the actual will of the people.

    No argument there (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by NYShooter on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 07:12:49 PM EST
    But, if we're talking electoral reform, when are we going to get rid of the abomination that grants Wyoming the same number of Senators as California, with 70 times the population?

    Mitt has the momentum (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 08:35:36 AM EST
    it's only a question of how much.

    No one can seriously argue that Obama has the same juice as he did in 2008.   That was a historic campaign and we may never see another one like it.  

    Now Obama is holding on for dear life.  The fact that Obama put out a new color pamphlet with nothing in it tells you all you need to know about this campaign.  He's up 1 with 4 minutes to go and is trying to run out the clock.

    He may do it but I would say this race is 50/50 with Mitt gaining speed.

    How is Obama going to win (none / 0) (#22)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 08:42:33 AM EST
    if he loses independents by 12 points?

    There aren't that many democrats out there.  


    The thing (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 08:50:21 AM EST
    with the national polls and those numbers are that Romney has a HUGE lead in the south. So he could pull a George W. Bush and lose the popular vote. Remember the electoral college so beloved by the GOP is the one that picks the president and the GOP is at a severe disadvantage w/r/t the EC.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#25)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 09:07:40 AM EST
    but Ohio has never gone for someone who didn't win the popular vote.

    If Obama loses the popular vote he will probably loose.

    I'm not predicting it will happen but that is more likely then Obama winning Ohio to keep the presidency and losing the popular vote.

    I think if Obama is pinning all his hopes on Ohio he's in trouble.

    There aren't 5-6% more democrats in Ohio than republicans and he can't loose the independents by 10% or more and win the state.   That is a big hill to climb.


    I think your logic (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 09:23:08 AM EST
    is a little loose. The hill to climb in Ohio is still Romney's.

    The last 11 polls out of Ohio have Obama in the lead or tied.


    Fair enough (none / 0) (#30)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 09:28:19 AM EST
    but the latest has this breakdown...

    32% Republican, 39% Democrat

    That's a 7% edge.  2012 is not 2008.   The election hinges on turnout.

    Obama has to have that lead in turnout to win because he's losing independents so badly.  

    I think its not going to happen.   If it drops to just a 2 or 3 percent advantage then he loses.

    We'll see.


    Frankly (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 09:40:40 AM EST
    I think if Romney wins it's not going to be with OH.

    Well (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 09:48:41 AM EST
    I take that back. After checking electoral vote Romney MUST WIN OH to win the election.

    I joke with a friend of mine who lives in OH that her one vote is probably worth 10,000 here in GA


    You're right (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 10:01:21 AM EST
    her vote is worth far more than yours this year. Which means if you work her Ohio connections and can convince a few to vote the way you'd prefer, your influence vote is worth far more.

    I'm beginning to think (none / 0) (#41)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 09:54:17 AM EST
    there is no electoral path for Romney to win.

    For those interested. Obama today will be in:

    Davenport, Iowa - Mississippi Valley Fairgrounds
    Denver, Colorado - City Park
    Las Vegas, Nevada - Doolittle Park


    [sigh] ...Denver... (none / 0) (#47)
    by sj on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 10:18:26 AM EST
    ...City Park...

    I want pictures of that event.  I hope they show the Pavilion...


    I don't know (none / 0) (#48)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 10:31:08 AM EST
    I'm beginning to think there is no electoral path for Romney to win.

    The latest electoral vote breakdown at RCP has Romney up 206-201 (with 131 "toss-up" votes among 10 states).  With no "toss-ups" (based on current polls), they have Obama winning by 281-257.  Three weeks ago, Obama lead in both categories and had a much larger lead in the "no toss-up" category.  If Romney can pick up just 12 more electoral votes among the toss-up states in Obama's column, he wins.  This could include either:

    1.  Ohio (Obama leading by 1.7)
    2.  Wisconsin (Obama +2.7) and NH (Obama +0.8)
    3.  Wisconsin and Nevada (Obama +2.8)
    4.  Wisconsin and Iowa (Obama +2)

    If the election were held today, I'd probably give Obama a slight edge, but I wouldn't write Romney off.  Unless he can completely stop (or reverse) the slide toward Romney over the past few weeks, I think everyone will be up pretty late on election night.

    Three weeks ago doesn't matter (none / 0) (#53)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 10:59:01 AM EST
    13 days from now is what matters. All you have to go with today though is today.

    RCP with leaners has Obama leading 281-257 (if Virginia goes to Romney which is currently tied)

    538 with all leaners has Obama leading 294-244.

    And every betting site across the world right now has Obama favored.

    Could all that change? Of course. Obama's ground game could still win nearly every swing state and turn it into a 332-206 runaway.


    Of COURSE it matters (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:50:11 AM EST
    Your position was that you were "beginning to think that there is no electoral path for Romney to win".  My point is that the race has been tightening, with Romney holding a slight electoral lead with toss-ups states excluded, and Obama holding enough electoral votes to win if every toss-up state breaks the way the polls indicate right now, including many states within the poll's margin-of-error.  The very problem is that the data we have right now doesn't matter, except to extent that it shows what the numbers will be in @ 2 weeks, on election day.

    You could argue that the trend toward Romney has been stopped (hopefully it has), but to ignore it by claiming "three weeks ago doesn't matter" is just putting your head in the sand.

    BTW - Not sure about "every trading site across the world", but InTrade puts the odds of an Obama win at 56-44.  Care to guess what they had the odds at 23 days ago? (almost 80%).

    Notice a trend?


    Just so you know (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 12:23:46 PM EST
    56% at Intrade means Obama is favored to win. Trends are a backward looking stat. But if you prefer to look backwards to predict the future here's a trend. Romney has never been favored to be president at Intrade. Not one day.

    In fact...on January 1st of this year Obama was at about 53% and today he's at 58%. Romney actually peeked on about January 15 at 47%. He's now at 42%.


    Wow, .... thanks (none / 0) (#82)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 12:49:23 PM EST
    Just so you know 56% at Intrade means Obama is favored to win

    Just so you know, that "backward looking stat" means that Obama's chances of winning have dropped by 22 points in the past 3 weeks, while Romney's have increased by 22 points - from 78-22 to 56-44.  Also choosing a random point 10-11 months prior to an election in an attempt to bolster your argument isn't really helping.  Most people aren't even paying attention to the election until 30-60 days out.

    But good luck stating the ridiculous (trends are irrelevant) and the obvious ("56% percent means he's favored to win"), if that makes you feel better.


    Maybe (hopefully) (none / 0) (#33)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 09:31:25 AM EST
    ... but the problem is that "hill" has gotten a lot smaller over the past few weeks.

    Sure they did (none / 0) (#26)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 09:16:52 AM EST
    but Ohio has never gone for someone who didn't win the popular vote.

    Just 12 years ago.


    Ooops (none / 0) (#31)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 09:29:00 AM EST
    you got me there.

    Had my election metaphors mixed up.

    Ohio is the bellwether for the eventual winner.


    Any idea on the polling data for (none / 0) (#28)
    by easilydistracted on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 09:23:34 AM EST
    independents in Ohio?

    According to Survey (none / 0) (#32)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 09:30:27 AM EST
    it's an 8% advantage for Romney



    So? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 09:37:25 AM EST
    New things happen all the time.

    You would think that losing the popular vote would make someone lose but we all have recent examples of that not being the case.

    Again it depends on where the independents are located. If they are located in places like Utah it's not going to matter.

    And then there are the western states like CO and NV that are going to have a say in who is president.

    The thing that Romney and the GOP in general have going against them is demographics. The GOP base is dying off and they are not being replaced with the same number of voters.


    And before anyone questions (none / 0) (#37)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 09:42:03 AM EST
    Ga6thDem's validity on that statement, it's just paraphrasing Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) on his view of the demographics and the GOP... "We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."

    If they primary Graham, (none / 0) (#58)
    by the capstan on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:24:05 AM EST
    I shall make my way down the street to vote for him in the Repuglican primary.  (My son, who sat out the 2008 election because of distress over O's attitudes to gay marriage, is now strongly suggesting that I cast a ballot for Obama altho i live among the reddest of the red, the semi-rural poor who consistently vote against their own interests.)

    Frankly, I'm skeptical ... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 09:25:38 AM EST
    ... of Obama's chances, but the same poll you cite only has Romney up by 1% overall (even with the 12% lead among independents).  Even if you accept the numbers from this poll, it's quite possible for Romney to win the popular vote by 1% and Obama to win the election.

    The reason for my skepticism has more to do with the trend toward Romney over the past few weeks.


    I'm with you (none / 0) (#40)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 09:49:28 AM EST
    That's why I think its 50/50

    AB Stoddard said it well last night.  

    "It's time to see if the vaunted Obama ground game is for real.  If it is he might win.  If it isn't he will loose."

    Obama's strength is democratic voters.  He isn't getting republicans switching teams.  Republicans aren't staying home and independents are breaking for Romney.

    More D's, about 5-10% more, need to show up in key states if he's going to win.


    Romney's momentum has halted. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by magster on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 10:11:20 AM EST
    The graph lines on 538 have gone back upwards for Obama. Obama won the last 2 debates. His ground game in Ohio and Iowa and North Carolina is banking a ton of early votes. The polls show Obama is holding his firewall of OH, IA, NV and WI and polls have been mixed from CO VA and FL.

    With Romney endorsing only one senate candidate who claims rape pregnancies are "what God intended" hopefully shifts the momentum to Obama even more.

    I'm nervous, but Obama is the favorite to win right now.


    We'll see (none / 0) (#50)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 10:47:41 AM EST
    All the polls depend on turnout.

    A plus 5-10% dem turnout.

    I am skeptical that will happen.   If D/R breakdown is even Obama looses.

    Every poll has assumed a dem advantage.   All of 528 and every other predictor is assuming that.

    If it doesn't happen, well...

    This predictor says Romney wins and it's never been wrong.

    We'll see


    Seems it is mostly based on economic data (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 10:58:39 AM EST
    which makes sense. But the raw economic data now does not take into account the fact that people are smart enough to see that it has improved, albeit slowly and not enough, in the last 3.5 years.

    If Romney take PA, as these guys predict, I will eat my Obama bumper sticker.


    Please provide a linked video if (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:55:03 AM EST
    you eat the bumper sticker, which I fervently hope is not required.  

    ha! I will make a chocolate fondue (none / 0) (#71)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 12:05:22 PM EST
    to help me out!

    But I don't think it will be necessary.


    Oh for Gods sake (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 01:05:15 PM EST
    You are no Nate Silver.  Josh voted in the Nickelodeon Presidential election, the Nickelodeon winner has won in 5 out of the 6 elections or something like that.  Obama won this Nickelodeon vote so neener neener neener.

    Are we as smart as our kids? :-) (none / 0) (#138)
    by Politalkix on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 12:19:41 PM EST
    BHO has already whupped Mittens in polls conducted amongst kids and people across the world.
    We just have to prove now that we are as smart as our kids and people in the rest of our planet when it comes to voting! :-).
    Pakistan is the only country in the world that favors Mittens over the President. I asked a GOPer why that was so and watched his head explode.

    The reason (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:16:42 AM EST
    they are assuming a dem advantage is because of demographics more than anything. It's going to take a whole lot of people sitting home to make it even with the GOP on that account. The GOP base is dying off so Romney is going to have to hope that the elderly are enough of a percentage of voters this time to help him over the finish line.

    True (none / 0) (#87)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 01:00:12 PM EST
    but in 2008 obama got his core constiuancy to vote at a higher percentage then had ever been done before or since (2010 being since).

    Why?  Because people where jazzed about Obama and he got a lot of first time voters or lazy voters.

    So two schools of thoughts...

    1. that first time voter is now a voter, or at least an obama voter
    2. that first time voter hasn't gotten anything out of their vote and will stay home.

    This whole election hinges on Obama getting non traditional voters back to the polls.  

    We'll see.   There is a reasonable argument that he will and an equal one that he won't.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 01:48:45 PM EST
    no. 2 applies to GOP voters as well. It's been hysterical to watch the religious organizations who have been preaching that Mormonism is a cult now all of sudden pretend they never said that.

    I don't see Romney inspiring a lot of love from anybody it seems.


    The part about Mormonism (none / 0) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 01:54:19 PM EST
    losing official cult classification among Christians has been just a little bit astonishing to me.  I wonder if they will ever take it back?

    It will be a cult again Nov 7 (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 01:56:18 PM EST
    Nov 7? (none / 0) (#131)
    by jondee on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 02:52:35 PM EST
    it'll be a cult again when the first prominent liberal Mormon appears on the scene (Madame Cleo predicted it for the year 2057.)

    His momentum is halted and reversed (none / 0) (#49)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 10:44:10 AM EST
    Check the rolling aggregate of polls, plus the swing states.

    But RCP shows Obama trending down (none / 0) (#65)
    by Towanda on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:54:04 AM EST
    in Ohio.  Worrisome, so I hope that changes -- but there has been not enough change for Obama in the polling averages in that site to allay worries.

    Sounds like you follow this ... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:56:28 AM EST
    ... pretty closely.  Do you have any idea why the difference between 538 and RCP?  Is there a poll/s included in one site but not the other?

    I use the PollTracker on TPM (none / 0) (#73)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 12:11:38 PM EST
    Here. If you look at the Ohio graph you will see that the race did indeed narrow after the first debate and Obama got down to being up 1%. but it is starting to widen out again. Currently the aggregate has Obama up by 2%.

    Of course in Ohio that may not be wide enough to counter-act the GOP shenanigans at the polls, so I am still a little worried.


    RCP vs 538 (none / 0) (#79)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 12:32:21 PM EST
    RCP is strictly an aggregate of recent polls. 538 is a computer formulation giving more credibility to some polls than to others based on their past history and current outlier status. But that's just the beginning. Here is a taste of all that is involved.

    RCP = add and divide.
    538 = mathematical genius formula or mathematician gone mad.


    Great explanation (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 01:04:09 PM EST
    Like all math you can turn it into you want.

    Garbage In = Garbage Out.

    Nate has a good record so his results can't be taken lightly.

    However the hidden value that is making all these polls bounce is the prediction I've mentioned above.   Turnout.

    IN all models they are estimating higher D vs. R ratios like there where in 2008.

    I maintain that 2012 is not 2008 and the only question is how much R's will close the gap and will the shift in I's be enough to counter a small or minimal shift.

    Two things at play.  How much will I's break for Romney and how many D's vs. R's will show up.

    Obama looses if he doesn't get a high D turnout.  he might still loose if R's turnout more and I's break heavily for Romney.


    How exciting (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 10:09:00 AM EST
    25,000 tickets for a 10,000 person venue.  I'm not impressed. They only played the scarcity card to attempt to build excitment. That was a Luntzesque set up Jeralyn.

    It would be easy to find 25,000 Republicans to invite to Red Rocks.  It would be even easier to find 50,000 outdoor nature crisp fall loving Democrats :)  Red Rocks is gorgeous, and free tickets!!!!!!!!

    Dueling Concert Competition? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 10:14:42 AM EST
    Katy Perry performs a free concert at the 18 acre Doolittle Park in Las Vegas this evening at an Obama rally.

    Maybe Romney (none / 0) (#1)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 11:49:07 PM EST
    was hoping Kid Rock would help him top the 72,000 that Obama had four years ago in Portland when The Decemberists played before an Obama Rally.

    Voting Guide (none / 0) (#6)
    by koshembos on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 12:56:15 AM EST
    Every election we get a ballot guide from the Democratic party. Sometimes, AFL-CIO sends us a guide as well. We how what to vote on the main positions and questions (MD), but who knows all the guys running for judge or even delegates?

    Another Pro-Rape Pregnancy GOP Pol Surfaces (none / 0) (#12)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 07:36:34 AM EST
     And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen," Mourdock said.

    Another stupid white man. (3.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 07:46:01 AM EST
    I think God intended that the Republicans lose the Indiana Senate seat.

    You know, (none / 0) (#16)
    by Lena on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 07:47:32 AM EST
    the fact that the GOP keeps spewing this callous and demeaning tripe at women, even as Mitt Romney is apparently (?) making gains with women, makes me want to hit the entire Democratic party over the head with a mallet.
    Why on earth can't the Dems make hay with this? Why can't Obama passionately defend women's rights against a-holes like this? A little fire, please.

    LOL (none / 0) (#18)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 08:02:45 AM EST
    Your worst enemy has always been other women.
    I'm afraid you don't all vote for the "Progressive" positions on all social issues.

    Don't worry, I'm sure this will save you:


    Without actually (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by Lena on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 08:24:46 AM EST
    looking at your article/post/whatever, I have to say that my worst enemy is not other women; it's people who have a lack of compassion for others, a contempt for women's rights, and a hatred of civil rights. Most of these people just happen to fall into the Republican, not the Democratic, party.

    Per TMZ.... (none / 0) (#51)
    by magster on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 10:55:48 AM EST
    Romney lied in friend's divorce case to scr&w wife out of divorce settlement. He said Staples stock was of little value giving wife lame property settlement in divorce. 3 weeks after divorce Husband and Mitt sold interest in Staples to Goldman Sachs for mucho $$$$$$$$$$$.

    Republicans think lying in a deposition is an impeachable offense, right?

    Yeah, I know it's TMZ, but Gloria Allred uses TMZ as a megaphone so I think this might blow up a little.

    If true (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:02:23 AM EST
    that's a pretty serious charge imo.

    I don't think this sort of allegation ... (none / 0) (#99)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 03:04:10 PM EST
    ... will have any impact on the current election. However, should Romney somehow find himself elected, it could come back to haunt him in a very big way if it's at all true.

    I read that earlier this morning. Also read that (none / 0) (#55)
    by Angel on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:06:38 AM EST
    Trump's so-called announcement was that the Obama's filed divorce papers 12 years ago.  So what if they did?  Marriage failure in this country is 50%.  And some say if that's the announcement then watch out because that will get Michelle on the campaign trail more and she's more popular than either of the candidates.

    Hmmm . . . . (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:35:45 AM EST
    Seems if the Obamas did file papers, they have worked through it and their marriage looks strong. Isn't that what the right thinks folks should do?

    And yeah, MO out on the trail would really backfire on Trump. He's SUCH an A**.


    How many couples wouldn't be able to relate to (none / 0) (#60)
    by Angel on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:40:13 AM EST
    the Obamas if that is the case?  

    Trump already makes his grand announcement (none / 0) (#62)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:44:54 AM EST
    something along the lines of Trump giving $5 million to charity for Obama's college transcripts. I guess it was a huge event in the mind of Trump but it died on the vine. Another Trump fail.

    I'd be more impressed if (5.00 / 6) (#64)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:52:17 AM EST
    The Donald would also offer another $5 million to charity if Mitt Romney releases his complete tax returns for the past twelve years.
    What a pathetic publicity hound Trump is.

    Trump knows he is never going to have to (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by vml68 on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 12:01:30 PM EST
    make that donation which is why he made the offer. Cheap b@stard.

    What an idiot (none / 0) (#67)
    by vicndabx on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:55:39 AM EST

    They are both lawyers (none / 0) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 12:28:41 PM EST
    By God, if I had been a lawyer when my husband told me he was going back to Iraq there would have been some god damned papers filed then too.

    Took much damned time though to get er done, too much time to discuss important damned things....no papers....marriage lives on


    Apparently they have discussed (none / 0) (#75)
    by lilburro on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 12:12:24 PM EST
    this "rough patch" in the marriage before, anyway.

    Marriage failure in this country is 50%. (none / 0) (#80)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 12:33:31 PM EST

    Marriage failure in this country is 50%.

    That is a bit misleading.  Lets consider the marriages of my married wife, mother, two sisters, two sisters in law, and Elizabeth Taylor.  

    It is true that 50% of the marriages involved ended in divorce.  It is also true that none of the women related to me have ever been divorced.



    On the contrary (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 12:48:30 PM EST
    the statement is not misleading at all. You're degrading large scale empirical evidence by comparing it to a small sample with your own personal anecdote.

    Not at all (none / 0) (#114)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 09:43:51 AM EST

    I am just pointing out that while 50% of marriages end in divorce, of necessity less than 50% of married people become divorced.  That is just arithmetic as there are people that get divorced multiple times.

    In fact it used to be a tax dodge among some high earning dual income couples to divorce in late December fly to the Caribbean and get remarried in early January.  The tax savings by filing as singles paid for the vacation.  The IRS put the clampers on that a while back.  But for the purpose of compiling divorce statistics those happily "married" couples helped goose the divorce stats.


    My family must cancel you out in (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 01:16:12 PM EST
    the average. I think I computed an 80% divorce rate, if I included my parent's generation and my generation. I think it has increased since I did that math.

    I have not contributed one way or other to the statistic, having never married...but I have no reason to believe I would have beaten the family odds.


    My dad has been married and divorced (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 01:55:28 PM EST
    5 times....he cancels everybody out :)

    The odds from the NYT (none / 0) (#115)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 09:54:43 AM EST
    Oh, Abdulllllllllll (none / 0) (#116)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 10:18:41 AM EST
    Conventional Wisdom is probably wrong

    I consider this guy (even though he's a Christian and I'm not) an expert on divorce.
    Long story short...

    "This metric makes the most sense when looking at the long term trend, but the data source is problematic.  The chart above suffers from the same missing data as the table from the 2012 Statistical Abstract.  Out of six 5 year periods of decline since 1980, only the first two include data from California, the largest state in the country by population.  Starting with 1995 data from California isn't included, and as I pointed out above five other states are missing for one or more recent periods as well.  Louisiana and Indiana don't report data going back to at least 1990, perhaps further.  This is a very significant gap, but until recently the choices were to use the partial data or not measure national divorce rates at all."

    Wouldn't surprise me if the missing data from California included a much higher than the norm divorce rate as well.


    Indeed (none / 0) (#117)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 10:28:10 AM EST

    The stats you point count raw number of divorces.  So that persons with multiple divorces increase the divorce rate and therefore skew the divorce risk.

    Have you seen any stats for first time divorces?


    Click on the link (none / 0) (#118)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 10:59:19 AM EST
    to "First Divorce rate" 2010, in that post I linked you to.

    You should also read the entire post.


    When our older daughter was (none / 0) (#119)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 12:22:31 PM EST
    getting married in 2007, the DJ we met with told us it was the first wedding reception he'd done in a long time where the bride's parents were still married to each other and so were the groom's.

    He said it made it so much easier that he didn't have to factor in ex-wives and ex-husbands and step-parents and girlfriends and boyfriends.

    I don't know of anyone in my family who was ever divorced.  In my husband's family, his sister has been married three times, but if you knew her, you would not find that surprising.


    I'd wonder about the poor men she was married (none / 0) (#120)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 12:46:54 PM EST
    to, and hope that none of them is living with mom or out of his car.

    I also hope she doesn't have any kids. Usually multiple failures (more than 2) at marriage bespeak some sort of character flaw.


    Because, what? Women who divorce (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 02:22:01 PM EST
    are greedy, selfish, take-the-money-and-run types?

    Got any idea how many women are left in poverty as a result of divorce?

    As it happens, whatever flaws my sister-in-law has, greed was never one of them; I never knew husband No. 1, the marriage to #2 didn't survive their inability to have children and both walked away sadly, but amicably, and she is still married to #3, with whom she had a son.  Who, as it happens, is a fine young man.

    And while I do think my sister-in-law's personality and personal, pre-marriage, history had a fair amount to do with the failure of her first two marriages, it has to be said that the failure of a marriage is almost never just one spouse's fault - but you knew that, right?

    We all have flaws, some more than others, and some worse than others - it's what makes relationships in general and marriage in particular hard, at times.

    I guess some greedy bee-yotch burned you bad and you've never gotten over it; I'm sorry for your experience, but try to grasp that whatever happened to your marriage doesn't cast all women in the same negative mold.

    And, finally, given how much anger, hostility and misogyny bleed into most of your comments on the subject of women, family court, social status, and crime, you appear to be in need of some significant professional help in getting beyond your own experience.


    I didn't know (none / 0) (#123)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 02:00:53 PM EST
    we had a practicing psychologist on the TL board.

    Isn't that a pre-condition of commenting (none / 0) (#130)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 02:28:35 PM EST

    I didn't think so (none / 0) (#135)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:27:10 PM EST
    I may shake my head at the 24 hour a day naysayers and think they might be happier going back to their original role as Eeyore in an A.A. Milne production, or just call it a day and fill their prescription from Dr. Kevorkian, but I'd never presume to evaluate their condition.

    Ahhhh, yes ... (none / 0) (#137)
    by Yman on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 11:12:44 AM EST
    .... because men are persecuted in divorce cases, too.  Not the first time you've made such a silly claim.

    The picture gets a little clearer ...


    Are they allowed to even admit (none / 0) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 12:53:38 PM EST
    to contemplating such things without being immediately stoned to death afterwards?

    For what its worth (none / 0) (#90)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 01:09:08 PM EST
    That would depend on which NH poll (none / 0) (#91)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 01:14:31 PM EST
    you want to post today. Here's both.

    New Hampshire: Romney 50%, Obama 48% (Rasmussen)
    New Hampshire: Obama 48%, Romney 45% (Lake Research)


    Poll Tracker aggregate has Romney up 1 (none / 0) (#93)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 01:18:06 PM EST
    and widening, so your result sounds credible to me, fwiw.

    They (none / 0) (#133)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 05:08:55 PM EST
    put Amendment 64 on the back and bottom left?

    They certainly are making it hard to find.

    Modern Democracy - American style.