Romney knows he's desperate and losing in Ohio to put up the totally moronic ad that Jeep is moving to Italy--it's hurting Sarah Mitsy as bad as the shit the real Sarah shits out.

The Jeep factory is in the middle of the city and being rebuilt. It's a huge factory and everyone knows Romney pulled a desperate lie out of his ass like the righties here continue to do 24X7 as they forget to irrigate their Foley caths.

Romney has given up Ohio; he's in Fla. today.

A lot of us get overly emotionally invested in elections. We really shouldn't. It's not healthy.

Post-election depression I think is a fairly common occurance. It makes sense that this should happen if a race is evenly tied, or if the candidate you favor is ahead and ends up losing, but in this election, that simply is not the case.

All I'm saying is in this election, it's obvious that Romney is going to lose. The election is only 6 days away. The likelihood that the polls will shift in Romney's favor by then is slim. Even if they did, with early voting, it wouldn't make much of an impact.

I have said for a while now that I believe that Obama will win, and win with exactly 303 electoral votes. As time has gone on, I've only been reinforced in this belief.

That's not to say that it will happen. Maybe Colorado will go one way or the other. Maybe Florida, Virginia, or Ohio will. But I really doubt it.

Regardless of the outcomes in these states, it doesn't change that fact that Romney has no electoral path to victory. He's going to lose.

Accept it now, and you'll be the better for it.

Now I'm not saying that you shouldn't vote for Romney. If you wanna bet on a losing horse, go right ahead. But your horse will come in last place. I'm just saying this so you know this ahead of time. There's no reason to get your hopes up, only to have your hopes destroyed in 6 days.

So since Romney is going to lose, I think this bring up a more important question.

When Obama wins, does this not mean that he has earned "political capital", as Dubya put it? If the American People reject a Republican businessman, then does that not mean that they prefer President Obama's policies? Does this not mean that the GOP will have absolutely no legitimacy in blocking every attempt Obama makes to try to heal the American economy?

We get so caught up in the horse race, but elections have consequences. In this election, it means that the American People think a community organizer is better suited to fix the economy than a Republican businessman. It means that they think that the rich should pay more in taxes instead of getting a 20% tax break. It means that they think universal health care is a good idea. It means that they think that we ought to do whatever we can to bring manufacturing jobs back home from overseas. It means that the American People think that Wall Street should have more regulation, not less. It means that the American People think we should focus more on spending money on infrastructure than cutting the deficit.

It means that the Republican business agenda has been completely rejected.

Elections have consequences. And if the GOP behaves the same way after the election as they did before, then it means that they don't respect the wishes of the American People.

It is my hope that (for once) the Republicans will find the decency in themselves to be humbled by the election results, instead of acting to engage in economic and political sabotage at a time when our nation is in dire need of solving it's problems.

Hey Willy,  your assuming   that could lead to your disappointment,  and as much as I do like your board persona and your engaging ability, (unlike most of your contemporaries)  that assumption could possibly lead to  your dismay and the real question is "what will Willy do?"  I do believe,  as with the conservatives,  you will approach the lose with dignity and decorum.   We will all move forward with our own thoughts and ideas  (hey, we are the lucky ones,  we have thoughts and ideas)  and approach the coming state and local elections  (as they are very important in helping to keep the balance in government)  in two years,  hopefully with as much strength of purpose as we see for the leader of the  Executive Branch,  aka Commander In Chief  aka  President of the United States of America.

There are always too many Democratic congressmen, too many Republican congressmen, and never enough U.S. congressmen.  ~Author Unknown


-- Modified on 10/30/2012 11:30:07 PM

-- Modified on 10/31/2012 12:21:31 AM

The tenor of consistent lies RR have told showcases that they have utter contempt for the American people. Time for a commercial showing Ryan and Romney pushing to cut FEMA by 40%. I didn't hear that the last two days, but I have heard it the last two months from them.

I like the head of Chrysler calling Romney a liar also in his bullshit "Jeep moving to Italy" line.  Sarah Mitsy gets the Pinnochio of the Century award.

The Quinnapiac Ohio poll this morning is ominous for Romney.  Obama leads by 5 points and when asked if the economy is getting better

52% Getting Better
17% Worse
30% Staying Same

RR have displayed utter contempt for the American people lying every time they open their mouths and they have been nailed every time.  Commercials should run showing both saying to cut FEMA 40% in the last two months to let states do it juxtaposed with the governors of NY and NJ and Mayor of NYC talking about Obama's aid to the  Sandy devestation.

I also like the head  of Chrysler coming out  and calling Romney a total liar about  Jeep moving to Italy.. These clowns get the Pinocchio of the century award.

The new Quinnipiac poll in Ohio this morning has Obama again 5 solid points ahead of Sarah Mitsy in Ohio and when asked if the economy is getting better

52% Economy Getting Better
17% Worse
30% Staying the Same

And as Uncle Ezra wrote in WAPO yesterday:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/30/the-nate-silver-backlash/

"Before we get too deep in the weeds here, it’s worth being clear about exactly what Silver’s model — and that’s all it is, a model — is showing. As of this writing, Silver thinks Obama has a 75 percent chance of winning the election. That might seem a bit high, but note that the BetFair markets give him a 67.8 percent chance, the InTrade markets give him a 61.7 percent chance and the Iowa Electronic Markets give him a 61.8 percent chance. And we know from past research that political betting markets are biased toward believing elections are more volatile in their final weeks than they actually are. So Silver’s estimate doesn’t sound so off."



-- Modified on 10/31/2012 7:39:43 AM

While we debate the issues, while we pontificate about who may win and how they will govern, in the great scheme of things we realize it really does not matter.

The rich and affluent will continue to be so. They have the means and smarts to maintain their position no matter which party governs. They will continue to lead their lives while the average democratic voter will continue to struggle, wondering when all this hope and change is suppose to help them.

While I myself was no fan of Clinton or Obama, I have done well personally while they were in office, proving this point as well.

Bottom line, the liberal left is pissed because in the end, they realize while they can argue all day, they have already lost. Even if they win, they lose. I will continue to be in the top 3% no matter who is elected, I will continue to enjoy my country club membership, and basically enjoy life. This really pisses off the liberal left, and this is what kind of makes me smile

Do I want Obama to lose, SURE but since I live my life in a way where I do not depend on the government for my livlihood, I know I will win in the long run either way.

No democrat who depends on the government can make the same statement

So to sum it up briefly, the left has ALREADY LOST. No matter how November 6th turns out, in the game of LIFE, it's already CHECKMATE against the average democrat.

LMAO (all the way to the bank).

This must be code to awaken a zombie assassin.

Are you having problems posting also,  Jeff?  I was thinking it is my new Verizon "jetpack" maybe not I see you Testing.

-- Modified on 10/30/2012 11:40:46 PM

so even though they say this is unmoderated, TER's crack IT staff manages to make my posts disappear at times as it did here. So then I test and edit the test if it shows up.

The wealthy do tend to do well under Democratic presidents. That's because they manage the economy better. Get your laughs in now, your taxes may soon be going up.

But the problems this nation faces right now far supercedes how well any particular person is doing. We've been shown (yet again) that climate change is no laughing matter. If we don't fix this problem, no one will be laughing all the way to the bank. There won't be any banks. Or people.

We also are still recovering from the worst foreign policy blunders in US history, and once we get the hell out of Afghanistan, that will be just another awful page in US history. We will be left with a military that needs to be rebuilt, and millions of veterans to help transition into civilian life.

We have the debris of the housing bubble still lingering, which have severely damaged the economy, particularly on the west coast. We need to address the problem that we now have more empty homes in this nation than we do homeless.

We have an aging and crumbling infrastrucuture, and bridges in such disrepair that it poses a safety risk to millions of Americans. To compound the problem we have a insufficient public transportation system, almost no high speed rail, and chronically high gas prices.

We're still digging out of (yet another) Republican Great Depression, and we are wasting the talents of millions who could be doing nation building at home, as they sit on the sidelines, unemployed.

The United States has spent the last century as the strongest military and economic superpower the world has ever known, and after 30 years of Republican mismanagement of the economy, some nations are questioning if we'll still be that superpower in the future. What will it mean for all of humanity if the strongest superpower is a nation like China, who's government is nothing more than a dictatorship and who have little to no respect for human rights?

We have a lot of problems to fix, but we can't fix them if the GOP is more dedicated to destroying our nation's credit rating than solving problems.

Will this election humble them? I really doubt it. But for the sake of our nation, and indeed the world, I hope it does.



-- Modified on 10/31/2012 5:18:17 AM

Companies can only pass along the buck to the consumer if the product in question has low price elasticity. In most cases, the willingness of the consumer to pay is what determines prices.

I don't take Neil Boortz very seriously. Listening to his radio show is like listening to a dumber Ayn Rand with the obnoxiousness of Limbaugh.

Regardless, I've never been a big fan of consumption taxes. We should be encouraging demand, not discouraging it. This is why I favor income and property taxes instead.

Tax companies, tax the rich, what happens. They pass it along to the middle class and poor. Companies raise prices on products and services to cover the increased tax rates. The middle class you clain to love so much gets hit with the bill.

The rich do what we have seen for the last several years. They sit on their money or send it overseas where it can avoid taxes. The middle class loses jobs, the rich still rake it in. They also change their purchasing and service habits and who gets hit, the middle class. Remember the yacht tax they had to repeal?

I really was not kidding when I said the rich had already won. These are the reason why. Under what you dream of, yeah, the rich guy has to cancel his yacht order, AND 330 MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE LOSE THEIR JOBS.

Like I said earlier, it was CHECKMATE long before the 6th.

Sorry Willy.

vs. Boortz how is a commercial success I think pretty much sums up your understanding of a competitive market place.

If there is not enough elasticity in the price of a product and the taxes get to steep, the outcome is EVEN WORSE!! They just quit making it and the consumer can not get it anymore.

BTW, forget Boortz, I noticed you never really responded to the content of the article.

Here is a clue my friend, try to listen to Air America today and let me know how your economics is working out...

And Air America went under simply because it was bad management. They had a bad business plan, and it had nothing to do with their content. Air America's idea was to buy whole radio stations instead leasing time. Then they tried to expand faster than they should have. This loaded the company up with debt and it wasn't long before they went under.

But Air America wasn't the only company that tried this experiment. The Jones Radio network, which was already established, and putting on Boortz by the way, also decided to experiment with a few liberal talkers.

Air America may be gone, but look at the effect they had. Their main star, Al Franken is now a sitting US Senator. Randi Rhodes came on after Franken, and she's still on the air. Some other gal had a show on after Rhodes, and today that gal has a show on MSNBC called The Rachel Maddow Show. A Jones Radio talker got his own show too, The Ed Schultz Show.

At the time, the idea of getting a liberal cable news channel was an impossible dream. Today, that's what MSNBC is. Al Gore's Current TV may still be the minor leagues, but they keep doing what they're doing. And I guarantee you more people watch Rachel Maddow's show than listen to Neil Boortz.

Like I said, I'm against consumption taxes. I think the sales tax rates in California and New York is fucktarded. It just makes more sense to me to tax income. And you know who you tax the most? Those who can most afford to pay them.

why liberal radio is not viable in this country. There are a few shows here and there, but they pale in comparison to the numbers conservatives garner. I do business in the SF Bay area and they of course have some shows, but it seems they are on late and Conservative shows have the prime slots.