Election Day Thread

The campaigning is over. It's now time to vote. President Obama will be in his home town of Chicago.
Mitt is out campaigning. His event in New Hampshire last night drew 12,000. In Des Moines, 20,000 came out for Obama's last rally (slideshow of pictures here.)

The final result could come down to Ohio, Florida, Virginia, or Colorado, or some other battleground state. Which means, it really comes down to each of us. Please don't forget to vote.

If you voted in person today, please tell us how it went. You can also use this thread for news updates and predictions.

Any thoughts on which networks to watch or avoid? Who has the most bearable pundits? Which network makes you hit the mute button?

I'll be at work much of the afternoon, but back for live threads before dinnertime.

My final prediction: President Obama wins with at least 280 electoral votes. My most likely scenario is 299.

My worst case scenario is 271 votes:

Please Vote!

Please stick to election coverage here, we'll be back to other topics tomorrow.

< Another Reason to Vote in Colorado: Amendment 64 | Election Night Radio >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Today's "Writer's Almanac" includes (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 11:46:03 AM EST
    an interesting piece re history of eligibility to vote in the U.S.:


    I love the notion ... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 11:55:56 AM EST
    that on top of having to be a white property owner, you also had to be "of a quiet and peaceable behavior and civil conversation" to vote in 1788 Connecticut.  

    That would let out just about everyone involved in the process today.   Probably back then too.


    Election Day Alcohol Sale Bans (none / 0) (#23)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 12:49:50 PM EST
    2 States prohibit the sale of alcohol on state and national Election Days.

    This restriction is a relic of the Prohibition era when saloons sometimes served as polling stations. The only states that still cling to statewide Election Day sales bans of alcohol at restaurants, bars and package stores are Kentucky and South Carolina.

    Alaska and Massachusetts also ban Election Day alcohol sales, except that local governments are authorized to provide an exemption from the ban.



    Samuel Popkin's "pre-mortem": (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 12:08:21 PM EST
    NH should be blue in all scenarios (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by magster on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 12:49:57 PM EST
    It's not as close as OH, VA and CO.

    Jeralyn has seemed hesitant about NH (none / 0) (#25)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 12:53:49 PM EST
    for some reason. Maybe she has some super secret information.

    Well, those two minisule precincts in (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 02:00:08 PM EST
    NH weren't definitive.  All votes counted last night.  

    Early Result for New Hampshire (none / 0) (#44)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 02:17:25 PM EST
    More Results (none / 0) (#45)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 02:22:02 PM EST
    See there (none / 0) (#48)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 02:27:16 PM EST
    the midnight NH vote was a landslide:

    Votes to retain Judges has always been something (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 01:01:44 PM EST
    I have left blank since I didn't think I knew enough about them to vote intelligently. I decide that was just laziness and that this year I would try and research them. Much to my chagrin, the only recommendations I could find on the web was from the MO Family Network (extremely right wing). Their information was helpful as I could easily determine I needed to vote against their recommendations and they provided links where to access information on which governor appointed them and how the governors viewed the appointments.

    I was disappointed but not exactly surprised not to find recommendations from any liberal group. Sad state of affairs when we don't even get in on fight in important areas such as the courts.


    its the opposite around here (none / 0) (#29)
    by CST on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 01:08:44 PM EST
    After the trifecta of Obama, Warren, and Lynch - all of the other races were unopposed Dems.

    Definitely worth investigating now (none / 0) (#31)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 01:21:44 PM EST
    since this is the next GOP 'thing' - getting Dem appointed state level supreme court justices removed. Happening to 3 justices here in FL, and I heard about another state this morning...can't recall which. But it is a GOP coordinated effort.

    They were recommending voting NO (none / 0) (#36)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 01:45:01 PM EST
    on our Supreme Court justice and 3 out of 4 of our justices on the Court of Appeals.

    This is an area that liberals and even the
    Dem organizations shamefully neglect here in MO. I canvased for the 2004 election and got completely "blank expressions" when I mentioned anything about the courts to the Dem or Indie voters I talked to during my canvasing. OTOH it was at the top of the list for every Republican I knew then and now.



    I had to bite my tongue or something to (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 02:01:31 PM EST
    vote for a judicial candidate for whom I haven't a great deal of respect, as opposed to the Tea Party candidate.  

    I had to refrain from gagging (none / 0) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 03:00:33 PM EST
    when I filled in the circle by "My sweet Claire's name." Never thought I would ever vote for her again and hoped that Atkins would only garner around 2% in the polls so I could write in someone else's name. Unfortunately, well over 40% of the people in MO think Atkins is an acceptable candidate.  I do feel a little better since I voted "Yes" on all the judges where the right wing wanted me to vote "NO." I also voted against all of their recommendations (would have anyway)on the amendments and propositions on the ballet.

    Current site rules prohibits me from discussing my choice in the presidential election even though my state is not a battle ground state and will go to Romney.  


    Voting for McCaskill would be very (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 03:01:53 PM EST

    Extremely difficult (none / 0) (#75)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 03:49:59 PM EST
    The only good thing is that I didn't have to stand in line to cast a vote that I hated making. Luckily my polling place is very small and has a lot of voting machines and paper ballot booths. You never have to wait in line if you go in the off hours especially if you use paper ballots instead of the voting machines.

    As long as those on the far right ... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 03:45:42 PM EST
    ... prove themselves willing to constantly resurrect stillborn debates about social issues and private affairs which have otherwise long since been settled as matters of public law, I have absolutely no problem voting against any of them, simply as a matter of sane and civil public policy.

    As far as I'm concerned, you and other Missouri Democrats can lament the many obvious shortcomings of "My sweet Clair's name" later, because come Election Day, the lesser of two evils is still lesser. I consider a woman's right to reproductive choice and freedom to be sacrosanct and inviolate, and I'm not at all open to redebating the subject even on its edges. And if one of the candidates continues to persist, then it's a deal breaker for me, and he or she has lost my vote.



    To correct "one" of your misconceptions, (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 04:13:10 PM EST
    I am not a Missouri Democrat. BTW, I didn't ask for or need your advise on who I "should" vote for in this election. FYI, your lecture would have hurt rather than helped getting Claire my vote.

    You might want to study what Dems like Obama and Claire were willing to incorporate in the Grand Bargain that they have continued to strongly support. When people no longer have the means to survive after the safety net and domestic programs are drastically cut so that Congress can reduce the corporate tax rate, they will have lesser evils like McCaskell to thank. Hungry babies (think WIC), more people without food security, seniors living on reduced SS without access to emergency heat assistance and with reduced medical care (changes to Medicare) may only see the evils that are making their lives unbearable.      


    That's your choice. (none / 0) (#90)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 05:00:08 PM EST
    I certainly don't disagree with you at all about Medicare and "The Grand Bargain." But to be perfectly honest with you, that's not my immediate concern.

    To the extent that I risk being called a one-issue voter, then I must admit that at present, defending a woman's constitutional right to exercise personal sovereignty over her own uterus has become THE one issue over which I will adamantly refuse to even discuss or consider compromise.

    Once abortion and contraception are off the table in the political debate over public policy, only then will I allow other factors to influence my vote and my rationale for voting.

    I do sincerely lament that in the year 2012, some 42 years after Hawaii became the first state in the nation to guarantee statutorily a woman's right to reproductive choice, there are still a lot of people who insist that the ultimate disposition of a woman's lady parts is a fit topic for public discussion.

    But as long as far-right candidates continue to elevate anti-choice politics to the forefront of their campaigns, then it's simply a dealbreaker with me and I'll have no problem supporting whoever their opponent happens to be that election.



    I can understand why the Grand Bargain (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 05:14:26 PM EST
    is not one of your main concerns. The drastic reduction in safety net or domestic programs will not impact your ability to survive so you can concentrate on your one issue and chose to ignore other issues that impact the day to day lives of less fortunate Americans.

    I'm going to ignore that personal attack. (none / 0) (#101)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 07:15:07 PM EST
    I work very closely with several community health centers that serve poor communities in both Hawaii and California, which is part of that public support for the social safety net. By supporting the mission of CHCs, we can ensure that everyone has access to medical / dental / behavioral health care that's both affordable and readily accessible. You didn't know that prior to this discussion. I'm disclosing it now.

    But back to the more immediate point. Do you honestly believe that Missourians can depend on Todd Akin to fend off the dismantling of our country's social safety nets? Because given your stated priorities, that's really the $64,000 question that was posed to you and other Missouri liberal / progressives today.

    For whatever her faults as a U.S. senator -- and I agree with you wholeheartedly, they are many -- Claire McCaskill can still be relied upon to tow the Democratic Party line when it comes to issues such as protecting Medicare and Social Security, while Todd Akin can be considered a just-as-reliable vote for the GOP to end both of those programs as we know them.

    Were you or any other Missouri liberal / progressive to have withheld your respective vote from Claire McCaskill in this instance, you would have simply removed yourself from the electoral equation, because you'd now be one less progressive vote for Republicans to have to worry about overcoming at the polls today. In so doing, you'd have rendered yourself politically irrelevant at a most critical juncture.

    Again, how would that have served progressive causes?



    The point you seem to be missing is (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 07:47:56 PM EST
    that Missourians cannot depend on Claire McCaskill to fend off the dismantling of our country's social safety nets any more than they can depend on Todd Akins. There is no Democratic Party line at the executive level when it comes to issues such as protecting Medicare and Social Security. Here is what Obama is willing to do on the safety net programs and McCaskill will support this 100%:

    Medicare: Raising the eligibility age, imposing higher premiums for upper income beneficiaries, changing the cost-sharing structure, and shifting Medigap insurance in ways that would likely reduce first-dollar coverage. This was to generate about $250 billion in ten-year savings. This was virtually identical to what Boehner offered.

    Medicaid: Significant reductions in the federal contribution along with changes in taxes on providers, resulting in lower spending that would likely curb eligibility or benefits. This was to yield about $110 billion in savings. Boehner had sought more: About $140 billion. But that's the kind of gap ongoing negotiation could close.

    Social Security: Changing the formula for calculating cost-of-living increases in order to reduce future payouts. The idea was to close the long-term solvency gap by one-third, although it likely would have taken more than just this one reform to produce enough savings for that. link

    She may not take actions that will eliminate the safety nets programs on day one but she will support changes that will drastically reduce the benefits and desirability of the programs so that they can easily be dismantled in the near future. Casting a vote for a person who supports the objectives of the Cat Food Commission does nothing to but put my seal of approval on McCaskill's actions.

    BTW, I don't see where stating the truth that these changes will not impact your ability survive is a personal insult. It is merely the truth.


    Well some of us with lady parts (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 05:47:32 PM EST
    are concerned about more than personal sovereignty over our lady parts, maybe you should be also if you want to be a great defender of lady parts. Lady parts tend to be part of a whole human after all . . . .

    Then let me ask you this in all seriousness: (2.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 06:28:16 PM EST
    What sort of political leverage do you think you have over a pro-choice but otherwise mediocre Democratic incumbent like Claire McCaskill right now, when the only alternative on your ballot is a dyed-in-the-wool GOP teabagger like todd Akin, who's on record as being in total lockstep with Mitt Romney's and Paul Ryan's plans to convert the Medicare program into a voucher system and offer up Social Security to the Wall Street casinos?

    In other words, how is the progressive cause served over the long term, when you're apparently willing to allow an incumbent -- an incumbent who might still yet be swayed to our point of view on the so-called "Grand Bargain," I might add -- to be replaced with a certifiable right-wing ideologue with whom you will never be able to even communicate, much less persuade?

    Pro-choice has become a real bellwether for me, because it's been my considered experience that when politicians refuse to respect a woman's fundamental right to her own reproductive choices, they also tend to not be too terribly concerned with the rest of her personal well being, either.



    Donald, did you miss the part where (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 06:46:27 PM EST
    MOBlue said that, even though she nearly gagged doing it, she voted for McCaskill?

    Apparently so, because you're lecturing her as if she chose to vote Akin.

    Look, having dominion over one's body is of great importance, but so is knowing that if your circumstances are meager and you decide to carry a fetus to term, that you have adequate pre-and post-natal care, that you have adequate nutrition for yourself and your baby, that there is a network that supports you in your efforts to say "yes" to life.

    No, the Todd Akins of the world aren't going to advocate for those things, but what of the Blue Dog Democrat who sees all these things, beyond the immediacy of the right to choose, in terms of dollars and cents- and as negotiable?

    I don't know, Donald...I appreciate your staunch support of the right to choose, but the thing you don't seem to get is that it's so much bigger than that for women.  And that's why MOBlue fairly gagged voting for Claire.

    Respect for women is more than just according us dominion over our bodies; when it starts to become, "well, okay - you do what you want, but don't be looking to the government for help," we know that respect is not what we've been accorded.


    I appreciate your concern, Anne. (none / 0) (#104)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 07:45:38 PM EST
    I guess that even though we're all nominally on the same side of the political spectrum, we're  all going to still see things somewhat differently from one another, that's all.

    For me, the fight to protect a woman's right to choose is the proverbial canary in the coal mine. The way I see it, if we inadvertantly help to create the political conditions -- by the conscious withholding of a key vote for a pro-choice candidate in a critical election, for example -- which would allow that particular right to be fatally compromised, I'm really at a loss to see how we would be able to protect anything else that we profess to hold so dear.

    Now, I live in a state that's well to the left in the country's political spectrum, where the Claire McCaskills of the world tend to be easily isolated and not last too long out here in Democratic circles. I really don't much care for Blue Dogs, either, any more than the liberals of our parents' and grandparents' generations probably liked the old Dixiecrats of the South.

    But politics is the art of compromise, and the bald fact of the matter is that if you're a practical Democrat in places like Missouri or Nebraska, you have to accept that the primary type of Democrat who's going to be electable tends to be a Blue Dog like McCaskill and Ben Nelson, and not a bona fide liberal like Nancy Pelosi, the late Ted Kennedy or my late former boss, Congresswoman Patsy Mink.

    And if we need their votes to be able to retain control of the U.S. Senate, which we do, then I'm going to support those Blue Dogs in races like McCaskill-Akin, while simultaneously doing whatever I can to see that whatever influence over policy they might enjoy is limited to that initial vote for Majority Leader, and not much else.



    I think the idea that I or any other left leaning (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 07:15:54 PM EST
    person has any leverage over Claire McCaskill on the Grand Bargain is completely ludicrous. Please look at her record and the letters she has signed (4 or 5 at last count) pressing for the Cat Food Commission to be formed, for Obama to continue to pursue that objective even after it failed to pass in the Senate and then after it failed to be passed by the members of the commission. The powers that be want to reduce corporate taxes and strip the safety net and domestic programs to the bare bones and Claire is bound and determined to help Obama achieve that objective for the benefit of the 1%.

    The right to survive after a person is born is a real bellwether for me because once people are unable to meet their very basic needs all else is immaterial. Believe me if you do not have a roof over your head or enough to eat every ounce of energy you have is devoted to getting those needs met.  


    I really do appreciate your priorties. (none / 0) (#107)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 07:57:50 PM EST
    Your concerns about the social safety net are very important. We are really not all that far part, which probably explains why some details tend to be outsized. We simply have to work harder to ensure that we don't inadvertantly undercut one another as we move forward in the same direction.

    If Missouri progressives are that concerned about McCaskill's commitment to preserving programs like Medicare, then I'd respectfully suggest that a more effective way to register that concern would have been by a challenge in a Democratic primary, and not now, when she's in a tight general election campaign against a known GOP wingnut.

    I've got to go. Take care, and keep the faith. Aloha.


    of time publically discussing a topic that you consider unfit for public discussion, on this thread anyway...

    Everybody has to prioritize according (none / 0) (#96)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 06:10:21 PM EST
    to their own lights. The wars happen to trump both lady parts and financial issues for me.

    Geez, Donald, you do your cause no good (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by caseyOR on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 06:44:10 PM EST
    when you get on your high horse and lecture people.  

    If you had read MOBlue's comment more carefully, you would have realized that she DID vote for Claire. She didn't like it, but she did it. So, what's your problem? It's not enough for you that she cast the vote, now she has to like it?

    Get a grip, man.


    Try NACDL if (none / 0) (#106)
    by Rojas on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 07:56:27 PM EST
    retaining civil rights is important to you.

    About the only hope I have of effecting things in this election is a vote against a court of appeals judge.
    Here's hoping Sharon Keller has to retire her broomstick at long last.


    Thanks for the info (none / 0) (#108)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 08:03:13 PM EST
    Will bookmark for later reference.

    If youi're not keeping up with (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 01:41:41 PM EST
    Charlie Pierce today, you're really missing something.

    Here he is on what's happening in Pennsylvania:

    And this hour's episode of The Land of 1000 Finagles comes to us from western Pennsylvania, where Republican operatives apparently were asking people for photo ID outside the polls, despite the fact that the state law does not require it -- until a judge dropped a writ of knock-that-sh!t-off on their asses.

    An Allegheny County judge issued an order to halt electioneering outside a polling location in Homestead. County officials received a complaint shortly before 10 a.m. Tuesday that Republicans outside a polling location on Maple Street in Homestead were stopping people outside the polls and asking for identification. The order states: "Individuals outside the polls are prohibited from questioning, obstructing, interrogating or asking about any form of identification and/demanding any form of identification from any prospective voter."

    Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Guido A. DeAngelis, one of two judges overseeing Elections Court, issued the order and said such actions by partisans "could have a chilling effect" on voting.

    And here's a little snippet from a much longer report from Charlie's daughter, who is voting in her first election today in Northern Virginia, and encountered an extremely long line:

    Welcome to America, where we forget how many people lost their lives for our right to vote and are happier to stand in line to get a discount on a TV on Black Friday than we are to patiently wait patiently to vote.


    Chrysler gives all 55,000 of its employees the day (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 01:41:57 PM EST
    ...and tells them to go vote.


    I was thinking to myself earlier that (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 03:14:42 PM EST
    it ought to be a national holiday. It is at least as important as New Yrs Day and 4th of July, etc.

    Good for Chrysler.


    Did my part to run up the northern Virginia vote (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 01:43:52 PM EST
    this morning. Very long lines - was happy to see that, and happy to wait. Took about two hours.

    Fire up FL brother has done all he can (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 03:57:56 PM EST
    do re this election.  Just finished his knocking-on-doors shift.  

    Twitterfolk...the hashtag exitpoll is pretty (none / 0) (#1)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 11:22:51 AM EST
    interesting. Apparently exit poll results are in a "quarantine" area where only reporters can access them, and they are forbidden to disclose until the polls close. Lots of speculation as to when Drudge will start leaking fake results.

    Golly, lots of bad jokes ... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 11:48:14 AM EST
    on Twitter.  That's a surprise.  /snark

    On a serious note, there will be less exit polling this year than in previous cycles.  So the media is not expected to rely on them as heavily as they have in the past.  


    I'm (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by lentinel on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 11:59:38 AM EST
    certainly glad to hear that exit polling will be down from previous elections.

    I know the pollsters are supposedly just gathering information, but I have always felt that it is a violation of privacy to ask someone for whom they voted. I also feel that the "results" they report are for the purpose of manipulating people who have not yet voted.

    You can tell that I'm not a great fan of the media.


    A logical reason for less exit polling (none / 0) (#32)
    by Towanda on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 01:30:05 PM EST
    and for discounting any that we do see came up from one of the smart pundits on CNN last night -- Gergen?

    With so many voters already having voted, as much as 80 percent in some states, exit polls of those of us still voting today will not reflect all voters.


    Was just looking around for some (none / 0) (#2)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 11:36:57 AM EST
    news on how the voting is going in NY and NJ, given the obstacles of Sandy's aftermath, and while it's not been without its problems, it looks like a lot of those affected are making an effort to vote.

    Here's a link to a NYT story on what's happening, and a snip from the article:

    Though the region hit by Hurricane Sandy is not expected to be in play in the presidential election, the combination of the storm and heavy morning turnout yielded long lines, confusion, frustration and anger. At several polling sites in New York City the vote scanning machines being used for the first time in a presidential election malfunctioned, forcing workers to resort to paper ballots and slowing the process even more.


    Across the storm-damaged region on Monday, bleary-eyed, disheveled residents drove long distances and waited in long lines at government offices to cast early ballots, and many said voting felt like an important step back toward normalcy.

    On Tuesday, the line to vote at an East Village polling station extended half a block down First Avenue and rapidly built westward on Ninth Street. By 8:40 a.m. at least 175 people were patiently reading papers, manipulating smartphones and drinking coffee, advancing not even a foot a minute.


    In Forest Hills, Queens, Ann Dichter, 63, said she had never seen as busy a polling place in her 10-plus years there as she did Tuesday. Asked what was on her mind this day, she began a tirade against one of the presidential candidates, then stopped and summed up her mind-set thusly: "Women's rights."

    Reading the entire article, you can just imagine the kind of day a lot of people have been having in the affected areas, but kudos to those willing to take the time and make the effort to vote today, even after all they've been through.  

    And thank goodness for elected officials going the extra mile - even providing shuttle buses to help get people to their polling places - to make sure as many people as possible can exercise their right to vote - and not factoring in the  party affiliation of the voters being helped.  

    I think the efforts made (none / 0) (#4)
    by Amiss on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 11:48:02 AM EST
    by those in power have backfired on them here in Duval county Florida. People of ALL colors and ethnic backgrounds are at the polls.
    Afraid that is just half the battle in the rainy state today. Although I do see the sun peeking out from behind those clouds.

    I think I would have a very hard time (none / 0) (#12)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 12:18:43 PM EST
    living in a state where so much effort seems to be made to prevent or discourage people from voting; in my mind, those who create barriers to voting have no business being involved in government at any level.

    That being said, one of the ballot initiatives here in MD has to do with the redistricting map - whether to accept it or reject it.  This is an area where both parties take liberties in an effort to tilt districts in one direction or the other.

    I was ticked off some years ago when the map was redrawn and I ended up in a predominantly Republican district - the new map puts us in Elijah Cummings' district, which makes me happy, but I recognize that Republicans who ended up in the same district feel about their new district the way I felt about my old one.

    When our kids were younger, we always used to take them with us to the polls, and I think to this day they could both recite what I always used to tell them: "voting is the responsibility we accept for the privilege of living in a free society."  And I'm happy to say that both our daughters have voted since they were eligible!  Kids DO listen to their parents, it seems...

    We may be less free than we used to be, or feel that way, and we may get discouraged by the choices we're given or the promises that inevitably get broken, but I feel like the least I can do is honor the premise that it is a privilege to live in a free society by continuing to vote each and every time I have the opportunity.  


    Seriously... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 12:06:47 PM EST
    for the first time in my life, I don't really have time to waste voting...work is off the wall with all the flood damaged water heaters and boilers that need replacing, and I still haven't gotten any petro since the storm...down under a 1/4 tank.  I keep telling myself "3 more days till Mexico, 3 more days till Mexico..."  And I think of the Rockaways, Long Beach, Freeport, Staten Island, and Jersey and tell myself "perspective, perspective, perspective."

    But I can't let third party also-ran who shall remain nameless due to site election rules down...I'll hit the polls after work, my polling place has never had a long line for some reason.  Maybe cuz my neighbors are tighter with their time to waste/have their priorities straight;)


    kdog (none / 0) (#14)
    by Amiss on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 12:24:03 PM EST
    Whatever the reason that gets you to vote, however you vote I just wanted to thank you for making the effort and getting out to cast your ballot.
    I have no illusions about how difficult it must be for those affected by Sandy. Been there (hurricanes and  their aftermaths) more times than I can count, so for that obstacle alone you have my deepest respect and many thanks.

    Thanks... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 12:39:02 PM EST
    for the kind words, but aside from getting slammed at work and eating extra sh*t I can't claim any hardship from the hurricane, me and mine have been so so lucky it ain't funny.

    It is nearby communities that are really hurting....and it is they without heat or decent food or a roof who make the effort to vote today that deserve your praises.


    And best wishes for another wonderful (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 01:56:20 PM EST

    P.S.  Saw a news article this a.m. re a local politico who got past TSA using her Costco photo id.!


    Hey, kdog, what do you know (none / 0) (#28)
    by Peter G on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 01:05:41 PM EST
    about conditions in Freeport, LI?  I was surprised to see it on your special concerns list. We have friends who live there, and hadn't heard anything about that area being particularly hard-hit.  Did we miss something?

    The marina... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 02:24:39 PM EST
    was basically destroyed, boats parked on streets and sh*t. It's a South Shore town so some homes were flooded, depending on how close to the water your friends are they may have been fine.  We have a customer in Freeport who didn't flood, but another in nearby Oceanside took on 5 feet of water and is in bad shape, yet to reopen.

    Definitely not as bad as Long Beach or The Rockaways, don't mean to worry you Peter...but Freeport got it pretty bad from what I've heard.


    Any news on Roslyn? (none / 0) (#49)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 02:31:48 PM EST
    Mid-Island... (none / 0) (#52)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 02:41:11 PM EST
    they should be ok, if they have their power back and didn't suffer falling tree damage.

    Note...I have no first hand knowledge, I haven't been in Freeport or Roslyn.  Just going by news reports and common sense geography.


    Last I heard they were running on a gen (none / 0) (#58)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 02:54:28 PM EST
    with no phones (business client) and my friend in Bay Ridge didn't have anymore info than that (works with them also), so I thought you might know more since you were out that way. :) Only info I could get was on the power company's site for the outages.

    Sounds like a bloody mess out there :(


    Five blocks north of the Sunrise Highway (none / 0) (#50)
    by Peter G on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 02:40:21 PM EST
    and thus nearly 20 blocks from the water.

    I'd assume safe from flooding... (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 02:46:29 PM EST
    I don't think any storm surge went north of Sunrise Hwy.

    Power is another story...and I just heard from a truck driver who claims a source at the utility that they are flat out lying to people in the most devastated coastal areas.  He said it will be weeks and weeks and weeks until places like Long Beach have power, and the utility is promising next Wednesday.  The Rockaways, forget about it...bad f8ckin' scene people.


    vml still has not checked in. I think she (none / 0) (#56)
    by caseyOR on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 02:49:29 PM EST
    is the only TLer in the Sandy zone we have not heard from. She was going to ride out the storm in her New Jersey apartment with her dogs. Originally, she was in an evacuation zone, but shortly before Sandy hit her neighborhood was told to stay if they were on floors 2 and above. She lives on the second floor.

    I sure do wish we'd heard from her.


    Me too... (none / 0) (#59)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 02:58:46 PM EST
    I'm trying to assume the best, just no power.  It's getting damn cold to tough it out without heat though.

    I've als been very worried about her (none / 0) (#80)
    by sj on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 04:04:25 PM EST
    I look to see if she has checked in every day, but she hasn't been "here" since a week ago Monday.

    Yman... (none / 0) (#103)
    by Rojas on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 07:20:35 PM EST
    unless I missed it. Have not heard from the Jersey man.
    I hope he and his loved ones are ok.

    I didn't know... (none / 0) (#110)
    by sj on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 05:21:46 PM EST
    ...that he was a Jersey boy.  I just checked and he hasn't commented for over a week either.  I hope he's okay.

    Nate has Florida BLUE (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 12:10:40 PM EST
    A very light light blue.  I just fell down!

    People are PI**ED (none / 0) (#16)
    by Amiss on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 12:28:23 PM EST
    about the suppression. It's been leaning more and more, but that wouldn't be good teevee.

    That is so true. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by indy in sc on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 02:46:05 PM EST
    The pundit class is so caught up in what they say is greater enthusiasm on the R side.  They fail to notice that the D's and in particular, african-american and hispanic D's, are sooo upset with the voter suppression tactics that they are running to the polls in big numbers.

    Elijah Cummings was on Morning Joe today telling Joe how wrong he was to laugh off the issue yesterday and how this is a painful and emotional issues for many in the african-american community who lived through the civil rights movement.  


    4 - 6 hour lines, (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by NYShooter on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 03:24:41 PM EST
    some fainting, taken by emergency vehicles.

    Are we a third world country? Is this the best we can do?

    I know elections were left to the states in the Constitution, but the Federal Gov't is not without weapons.

    Something's gotta give.


    A few of you Floridians called it days ago (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 12:29:50 PM EST
    If Obama takes Florida (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 12:32:28 PM EST
    It's bedtime.  The sun will hardly be down and the champagne will be flowing.  Wonder how long a final tally will take?  Do you think early voting will make the final tally easier to come by?

    No (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 12:43:41 PM EST
    The panhandle is still in the central time zone so we'll still take awhile for an east coaster.

    And as always with Florida, if Broward County comes in early a big Obama lead is needed. If Broward County comes in late Obama only needs to be close.


    Yes, I'm aware that the panhandle is in (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 12:47:10 PM EST
    my time zone.  Do you know if they have had early voting going on?

    All Florida had early voting (none / 0) (#39)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 01:54:50 PM EST
    Making the first click of votes tonight (after 8:00 ET) a big number.

    Hey, here's an article talking about a (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 12:55:08 PM EST
    possible early tally from Florida due to early voting.  Some elections it is a long night waiting for Florida.

    Anyone have any insight into the (none / 0) (#11)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 12:13:36 PM EST
    PA Senate race? Just heard on Ed Shultz that Casey might be in real trouble against a tea party challenger.  Casey is a rather disappointing dim bulb, but he is OUR disappointing dim bulb. Would hate to lose that seat.

    I don't care for Casey (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 12:23:35 PM EST
    But he has polled in the lead in every poll.

    TPM (none / 0) (#15)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 12:26:27 PM EST
    Whew...thanks... (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 12:49:00 PM EST
    Did not need my mellow harshed today...

    "Mellow harshed." Great expression. (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 03:15:38 PM EST
    'Smors anyone?

    This day is just terrible (none / 0) (#30)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 01:12:45 PM EST
    I don't recall waiting for results ever being this tortuous.  But I think Republicans have sucked me in with the reality deficient BUT ALL THE POLLS ARE WRONG! nonsense.  I don't know how the polls can be that wrong though...I think the GOP just truly does not understand the scale of the demographic changes we have undergone in the US.

    One Word, Suppression (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 01:47:18 PM EST
    I think the GOP leaders know (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 01:49:57 PM EST
    They get fat checks though for trying to sell things that don't have demographic  support, and they attempt to fabricate the sense of at least 50% support hoping to create something approval seekers might join with them on.  This is their last go around though, it is all uphill from here.

    Or their party can move left forcing Democrats to become Democrats again.  That would be a shame.


    Personal anecdote (none / 0) (#43)
    by brodie on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 02:02:57 PM EST
    A few days ago I was sitting at the kitchen table of extended family as a very smart, recent top college grad making her second-ever vote was filling out her mail-in ballot.  

    After president and senator, she was lost, on a fairly long ballot that had ten or so ballot propositions, some substantively complex.

    She also was under the impression that she needed to vote on every possible matter or office in order for her ballot to count.

    I wonder how many other people think similarly.  Particularly when the ballot instructions can be misleading, as with those that say Vote Every Page.

    From the other end of the age spectrum, (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 02:50:52 PM EST
    I just talked to my mother, who lives in a retirement community here in MD that is large enough to be its own precinct.  She went to vote at 7:10 this morning, ten minutes after the polls opened, and didn't get to vote until about 8:30 - it was very busy.

    Since it's a community of mostly old people, each person is given a number at the pollbook and called up in turn to vote, so they don't have to stand in line.  I think she said her number was 102 - 90 minutes for 101 people to vote seems like a long time to me, especially with multiple machines.

    Anyway, she was sitting next to a woman and her husband, and the womsn was asking the husband, and my mother, a bunch of questions: "can I take my sample ballot with me to the voting machine?" "do I have to vote for everything on the ballot?"  My mom said the woman looked like she was in her nineties, and she couldn't imagine it was her first time voting, but I think for some people, voting just makes them nervous.

    I remember from my time as an election judge that for some people, the process is just confusing - even the machines themselves can be daunting to people who just aren't used to or comfortable with how it all works.  Someone hands you a plastic card that looks like a credit card and you have to insert it in the right direction and make sure it "clicks" in before the ballot comes up.  You can make the print larger if it's hard to see, you can go back and change your vote if you haven't pressed the "Cast your Ballot" box on the screen - you're supposed to be able to take all the time you need, but with lines forming and knowing people are waiting, people can feel pressured to hurry up and just vote already.

    I know I'm dating myself, but I miss the old-style machines where moving the big lever closed you behind a curtain where no one could see what you were doing, and after you flipped the various levers to indicate your selections, you moved the big lever the other way to officially cast your votes and open the curtain.

    Ah, the good old days!


    It's not immediately (none / 0) (#72)
    by brodie on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 03:35:44 PM EST
    apparent to me why we can't have a simple, single-system of casting a vote in this country, at least in elections involving federal office.  The fed govt can pay for it with a $10/taxpayer, corporation checkoff or mandatory tax, or else use the funds saved by cutting back the Pentagon and intelligence agencies' budgets and/or raising the corporate tax.

    I hope senate Dems have the cojones to propose and pass such a bill, once they get rid of the filibuster for the upcoming session, then dare the Rs in the House to vote against such obviously needed legislation.


    UN (none / 0) (#93)
    by pngai on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 05:37:40 PM EST
    Would you like American voters to have direct voting in the UN too?

    What on earth (none / 0) (#111)
    by sj on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 05:34:44 PM EST
    does the UN have to do with an election involving a federal office?  

    American voters have just as much right to have direct voting in the UN as French voters.  And Spanish voters.  And voters from any other country represented.  Or maybe they have as much right as a voter from Georgia has to vote in New York.  Or maybe as much right as an American voter has to vote in Mexico.  Or Canada.

    In case that isn't clear... get over the fixation with the UN.


    When Will They Start Posting Results ? (none / 0) (#47)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 02:25:28 PM EST

    I think Virginia is the first state (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 03:07:55 PM EST
    that polls close in, at 7 pm eastern.  Pardon the grammar.
     So I would expect results from precincts there starting to come out shortly thereafter.

    The more I read about FL and other states' (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 03:13:58 PM EST
    voting laws, the more I think the federal government should equalize hours for voting, eligibility, no. of polling places, etc.  

    From my newspaper this morning: (none / 0) (#71)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 03:29:23 PM EST
    All times EST
    * States in multiple time zones; latest closing time shown

    Polls closing at 7:00 pm:

    Indiana *
    Kentucky *
    South Carolina

    Polls closing at 7:30 pm:

    North Carolina
    West Virginia

    Polls closing at 8:00 pm

    Florida *
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey
    Rhode Island
    Tennessee *

    Polls closing at 8:30 pm


    polls closing at 9:00 pm

    Kansas *
    Michigan *
    New Mexico
    New York
    South Dakota *

    Polls closing at 10:00 pm:


    Polls closing at 11:00 pm:

    North Dakota *

    Polls closing at 1:00 am:


    Oregon and Washington State are 100% vote-by-mail.


    In Oregon all ballots must be received by (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by caseyOR on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 06:40:33 PM EST
    the county elections offices no later than 8 PM on election day. At 8 PM sharp, they elections people start counting. So, we should know Oregon's results tonight or tomorrow.

    In Washington ballots must be postmarked no later than election day (today). So, it could be a few3 days before all Washington totals are known.

    I drove by the Multnomah County election office about 30 minutes ago. People are lined up around the block to vote. There are official ballot drop boxes on the streets immediately around the election bureau positioned so that people can simply drive up and drop off their ballots. The lines of cars are blocks long to use drive-up boxes.

    We have several important issues, other than president, on the ballot. Portland mayor and city council positions, school bond measure, library tax district measure, secretary of state, and many ballot measures including one that would legalize marijuana.


    MN polls: 7:00 am to 8:00 pm, not 9 (none / 0) (#109)
    by DFLer on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 01:07:07 AM EST
    Here is a good timeline (none / 0) (#85)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 04:29:15 PM EST
    Of what to look for tonight as various states start reporting.

    Just voted. (none / 0) (#51)
    by indy in sc on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 02:40:44 PM EST
    I did not expect a 3 hour line at my polling place (in 45 degree weather!).  I have never had a line that long there.  I was happy to see that the line was made up of a fairly diverse group of people.

    I have no illusions that SC will turn blue, but my unscientific poll says voter turnout is higher this time around--in SC, I'm not sure that's a good thing. :)

    Grudging Obama Supporter (none / 0) (#53)
    by WJ McCabe on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 02:42:54 PM EST
    I am an Obama supporter, but only because Mitt Romney scares the hell out of me and there are no other viable candidates. I would love to see some real changes in the political process in this country. The procedure by which we elect top government officials is not only absurd in many ways, but there are real barriers being put up out there for people to vote. My frustration is voiced in my last post if anyone is interested.


    I'm right there with you - (none / 0) (#79)
    by Lena on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 03:58:50 PM EST
    I had a hard time voting for Obama too. I'm currently thinking of it simply as voting against Romney. Romney's consignment to the dustbin of history is something I can and will celebrate.

    A sad day at the polls for me; but there were lots of downticket items on my Florida ballot that I enjoyed voting on.



    Sometimes that is the best option we get (none / 0) (#84)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 04:21:50 PM EST
    As Charlie Pierce said, "Without enthusiasm, but without a doubt."

    I did like voting for Alan Grayson though. That was fun. And against the removal of the justices, and all the amendments. Bill Nelson - meh. but better than Mack.


    I would have held my nose (none / 0) (#87)
    by brodie on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 04:44:27 PM EST
    and voted for Humphrey in 68 had I been of age, even not knowing he was privately on the private record against the war and early on, but just sensing he wanted out of the quagmire.  But plenty of Dems didn't, and we all paid for it.

    Sorta similar today, if to a lesser extent.  Sometimes we just have to play the hand we're dealt to avoid a far greater evil.


    Lucky you! (none / 0) (#94)
    by Lena on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 05:40:48 PM EST
    I would have loved voting for Alan Grayson! I'm in an area that was formerly Cliff Stearns' district, until he was ousted in the primary by a tea party yoyo named Ted Yoho.
    My district has changed though, so I had no opportunity to vote against Ted. Sadly, I'll probably end up with another Republican. Even though I live in a blue county, my congressional district has been cleverly gerrymandered to yield a Republican representative.

    A friend (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 03:07:48 PM EST
    of mine on facebook said he heard that it might be four days before we get the final result of the election. I hope not

    I seriously doubt it (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 03:17:13 PM EST
    I think that is the current last ditch hope of the GOP - that the results will be in serious doubt. Maybe they can even get it to the SCOTUS again!

    It was a 5-minute wait ... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 03:15:42 PM EST
    ... this morning at my precinct in East Honolulu. From what I observed, the precinct's 25 voting booths were always full. And when I left, there were just as many people waiting in line as there was when I first arrived, and there were a lot of cars either parked in or pulling into the school parking lot.

    So, anecdotally speaking, I'd say we're looking at a pretty heavy turnout in Honolulu. Since the presidential and U.S. Senate races are pretty well decided at this point, I'd offer that the runoff election for Honolulu mayor is what's driving people to the polls today, because what's really on the ballot is the fate of our city's multi-billion dollar rail project as it's presently proposed.

    Far and away, this current mayor's race has been the ugliest political contest I've ever been involved in. What's made it particularly acrimonious is the fact that because all City & County races are non-partisan, both runoff candidates -- former Mayor Kirk Caldwell and former Gov. Ben Cayetano -- are Democrats. Peter Carlisle, the incumbent Republican mayor, finished a distant third in August's election and is out of the running.

    I kid you not, but if Gov. Cayetano is elected, he will become our city's fourth mayor in the last three years. Our proposed elevated heavy rail system has become an extraordinarily controversial topic of political conversation out here, in large part because of the project's eye-popping $5.7B to $9.1B price tag, depending upon how much of the proposed original rail line is actually built.

    (Keep in mind that the resident population of the City & County of Honolulu -- the entire island of Oahu -- is 953,000 persons, which renders that hefty cost problematic. We simply don't have the size and diversity of tax base on Oahu that's necessary to absorb that sort of fiscal hit without a very substantial increase in City & County property taxes.)

    Needless to say, thanks to rail the current political atmosphere has proved hypercharged and highly toxic, and voters have exacted a serious toll on those city officials who've actively worked to vest this rather dubious public works project -- sometimes, as both state and federal courts recently ruled, by deceiving both the City Council and the general public regarding its true cost and ultimate impact on the environment and local traffic.

    It's certainly a far cry from the days of Mayor Frank Fasi, who governed the City & County of Honolulu by consensus for over a quarter-century (1968-1994) -- and did so more than competently, IMHO, especially when compared with what we've endured the past eight years.

    Aloha. Keep the faith.

    We have a purportedly non-partisan (none / 0) (#69)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 03:22:01 PM EST
    mayoral election today.  The Dem. candidate, Bob Filner, served South bay and Imperial Valley very well in Congress, but his district did not include the City of San Diego.  The Republican candidate, Carl DeMaio, is gay; Doug Manchester, now owner of local paper and N.C. Times, backs De Maio.  

    With all due respect to San Diego, ... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 04:05:50 PM EST
    ... the U-T's Doug Manchester has -- to paraphrase my late stepfather -- put to sea without mainsail, rudder and compass, and is one wave short of shipwreck.

    I mean, when I'm back home in SoCal as I was in mid-September, and I'm reading an editorial in the conservative Pasadena Star-News denouncing the U-T's ascent into Cloud Cuckooland, i.e., "When newspapers go wingnut", for shamelessly promoting Dinesh D'Souza's crackpot pseudodoc, "2016: Obama's America," then it's a given that Manchester and the U-T are seriously out there, knee-deep in the weeds of a right-wing netherworld and chasing their own tails.



    Jonah Goldberg's rant re "538" and (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 03:41:27 PM EST


    The first couple of comments return fire.  

    Do you think Goldberg would be (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 03:51:49 PM EST
    so critical of Nate if Nate were predicting a Romney win?

    No?  Me, either.

    Methinks these guys are feeling a tad desperate; just wait til they start to experience the reality of an honest-to-God loss...

    If he can pull himself out of the dark hole that defeat will be sending him to, do you think Goldberg will be back to apologize for being so critical of Nate's numbers?

    No?  Me, either.


    He seems pretty desparate to write (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 03:56:16 PM EST
    something-anything, given he admits he knows nothing about the subject.  

    Lots of reports of problems in Wisconsin (none / 0) (#83)
    by Towanda on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 04:18:13 PM EST
    and especially in the blue areas, of course; see jsonline.com and madison.com.  Fortunately, I timed it well for no problems, no line at my polling place -- as it's so close that I can look out the window to see how many cars are parked there -- despite high turnout . . . and despite election exhaustion, with the seventh election in less than two years. I also was pleased to see my longtime, experienced poll workers keeping the poll observers where they belong, and they made not a peep.  (They just looked p*ssy, arms crossed and all; these would be GOP observers, as my area is blue as can be.)

    However, reports of insanely high turnout are coming in from red, red Waukesha County (home of corrupt AND incompetent election clerk Kathy Nicklaus).

    for State Senate. Great neighbor and friend, but we long ago agreed to disagree politically.

    But imagine the influence you could have (none / 0) (#88)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 04:51:56 PM EST
    wielding weed-whackers, hedge trimmers, and the like !

    Ha! (none / 0) (#89)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 06, 2012 at 04:53:36 PM EST
    But... (none / 0) (#112)
    by sj on Wed Nov 07, 2012 at 05:38:15 PM EST
    ...what was the outcome?  Is s/he in? or out?  :)