Why your vote for President in November probably doesn't mean shit.......

[Nynus]

Do you live in California? New York? Texas? Illinois? How about Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentuck, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Arizona, Georgia, Maine, New Jersey, Oregon, or Washington?

If you do, then your state is pretty much already done with the general election. Face it. There's almost nothing that can happen that will change the outcome of which direction YOUR state's electoral votes will go in the general election in 2012. If the Democrats put up a drooling idiot, or the Republicans put up a Satan worshiper, your state will STILL vote in the same way it's currently trending.

It's done. Over. Go home, stop bitching, it's already decided. If your state goes any different than it's already trending, then something drastic has happened and the landslide will be so severe that your state wouldn't make a difference anyways.

There's a bit of better news if you live in Indiana, Montana, Iowa, Michigan Minnesota, or New Mexico.

You might have a shot at helping to decide the outcome of the election, but in reality probably not. Odds are if your state reverses it's current trend, then the swing states have probably already decided the election.

There is some hope if you live in Missouri, North Carolina, Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Your states are still in the toss up stage, and might go either way. However, unless the REAL swing states split their outcomes, your states don't have enough electoral votes to really decide anything in this election.

So WHERE is the REAL fight going to happen for the 2012 President election?

Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. That's it. If you live there, congratulations you're going to decide who get's to be the next President. If you don't, then your vote probably isn't going to mean shit.

Why?

Demographics, voter trends, income, religion, ethnicity, immigration, etc. etc.

Heres the breakdown of the key states.

Florida - 29 votes - toss up state at the moment - This is why Rubio is essential, at this moment as a VP. That will push Florida fairly firmly into the Republican column)

Pennsylvania - 20 votes - also a toss up state - This state will be decided by the economy. If the economy explodes and takes off like a rocket, Obama may be able to take Penn. If it meanders along with only small improvement then this state will go Republican.

Ohio - 18 votes - still a toss up - Like Pennsylvania the economy will decide who gets the electoral votes.

Now here's where things get interesting, if the economy gets an espresso enema and jumps up like crazy, and Obama wins Ohio and Pennsylvania but loses Florida then some of the lesser (read smaller) swing states come into play.

Virginia (13 votes), Wisconsin (10 votes), Colorado (9 votes), Nevada (6 votes) and to some extent Missouri (10 votes), will decide the outcome.

The lesser states haven't been seen as too much of a deciding factor because they'll probably split between Obama and the Republican candidate. But if one of the candidates catches a wave in 4 out of 5 of those states, it could make the difference.

Those are the numbers. Not only have I been doing this for decades, but there are people a lot smarter than me that have been doing the same thing in a professional capacity. It's not out there in the mainstream media because it doesn't sell commercials and ad space, but it's the truth none the less.

All the political wrangling, all the news pundits, all the bullshit that's on the news and going on in Iowa right now doesn't really mean shit. It's going to come down to how much money get's spent, how much rat fucking gets done, and how much coverage occurs in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.

There are two wildcards in this equation. Scandal and an Independent candidate.

If I was a Democrat, I'd be doing whatever I could to get Paul or Trump to get into the race as an independent. This would probably gut the Republican chances for elections.

If that doesn't happen, then I'd be doing my damnedest to find a scandal on whoever the Republicans nominate or make one up that will stick to the wall.

Other than that, it's pretty much game over.

[bluffmanxx]

I wonder what the voter registration laws are in Florida?? A November 2012 road trip with a bus load of friends might be fun...lol...

[billynomates]

If the Democrats put up a drooling idiot,

I'm not going to state the obvious!

V Interesting Paul cos I was reading other day that Ross Perot got 19% of votes and no electoral votes.

[Nynus]

The 19% of the popular votes came from traditional Republican sources. That was enough to swing the "swing" states firmly into the Democratic hands. It didn't change any of the hardline states, but it did dramatically effect the borderline states.

The same is true to a lesser extent with Ron Paul. His voting bloc is primarily from the Independent Right, although he does pull more votes from the left then did Perot. However, it's not enough to even out the votes in the swing states.

Trump as an independent is a pimple on the ass of the trouble that Ron Paul would cause, however, he would still pull enough votes away from the right in the swing states to give the election to Obama. How does that sound to the Liberals and Obama? Kingmaker Trump! Even after the birther issue, and the entire radical left nearly immolating themselves at the thought of Trump in the race, he could turn out to be their best friend. Trump could be the savoir of the unwashed 99%ers. (Hence the saying, "Politics makes for strange bedfellows")

With either Paul or Trump in the race as an independent, you'd most likely see Fla, Penn, and Ohio fall to Obama, plus Nevada and Colorado. At that point it's all over. Way too many electoral votes for the Republicans to make up, and no where to get them from.

Ron Paul is well aware of this, and I seriously doubt that he would accept Obama getting a 2nd term in order to prove a point. He's not the maniacal egomaniac that Russ Perot was. Although I can see some smokey, back room deals getting made over this point. Hopefully everyone keeps their heads and doesn't put him on as a Vice President. I've got a bad feeling that might backfire much, much worse than Palin did.

[skyguy2007]

I'm curious as to why you think Paul would backfire as a VP running mate?

[wubders]

The establishment and the demodummies must be getting scared of Paul, because Fox had that POS Dickhead dumbfuck Morris spewing crap and lies on Paul to anyone foolish enough to listen.....he and that Carville should be muzzled like the crazy rabid dogs they are... He can't be good for politics , and his stupidity will hopefully backfire. Sure many would like to give him a reason to have his jaw wired shut for a few months....whatta dumbfuck!!!

[wubders]

Paul wants to get electoral votes, to bargain with, and give convention speeches, to continue his movement, more than he would ever want to be a VP candidate for any of the current GOP candidates

[Nynus]

I'm curious as to why you think Paul would backfire as a VP running mate?

Because he doesn't bring any positive results in the swing states, but he can be used as an associative scarecrow by the Left.

The ignorant independent, which is actually the demographic that will decide who sits in the Oval Office, can be scared quite easily. They are unsure of Ron Paul, and a little bit scared of him. He doesn't "fit" as a politician they are used to seeing.

"Isn't he one of those guys that's been cluttering up the ballot for the last 4 elections"

BTW, the above is an actual quote, from shortly before Thanksgiving, from one of the ignorant independents, (Hereforth referred to as an II) from Colorado, in response to a discussion at a poker table about Ron Paul. I went on to query this "II" as it was a perfect focus group for the people that will decide the Presidency.

First off, I asked him if he would vote for Ron Paul against Obama. His answer was no. The reason? "He makes me uncomfortable. There's a lot of weird things that he want's to do."

So I asked a few things that he was for and against. He thought we should pull all our troops back to the U.S. borders, he was pro legalization of marijuana, he believed the Federal Government was spending too much, and he wanted lower taxes. He really didn't have an opinion on anything else. Didn't care about DODT, Gitmo, Abortion, Gay Marriage or even Obamacare. He had a job, was making money, so the economy wasn't really affecting him. He didn't think Obama was doing a good job and would like to see him gone, but he also thought Congress sucked too and would like to see all of them gone. However, when I pressed him on why, he couldn't really come up with an answer.

When I asked him about if he would vote for Obama, he said, "Probably not." When I ran through the Republican candidates he was fine with all of them except Bachmann and Paul. Quote, "Those two are scary."

Basically, he wasn't voting for Obama unless someone scared him more than Obama did. When I asked him if he was scared of Obama he said, "Oh yeah. That guy is spending way to much of our money"


Now, I'll be honest, I wasn't querying the "II" about Paul as a VP, but if he was on the ticket, it's has a watered down effect. It's not much, but it might be enough to scare a few votes away in some of the key state.

What you have to realize is that although the Presidency is going to be decided by Florida, Penn, and Ohio, it's NOT going to be decided by all the voters in those states.

Here's why:

Your firm Left and firm Right voters are going to vote for their side's candidate regardless. Then you have the leaning Left and Right voters that will vote for their respective side as long as they aren't a drooling idiot or child molester. It's the approximately 30% in the middle that are going to decide the outcome. About half of those are so ignorant that their decision is going to be made capriciously. Either because of looks, feelings, Oprah, innuendo, their friends, or whatever. They have no clue what the issues are, and don't care to learn about them. They rarely watch the news, rarely read a paper, and basically make a decision based on TV ads and what their friends think.

So when I mentioned that Ron Paul doesn't bring anything to the swing states, I'm talking about that key 30% of people in those three states. If even 10% of them are uncomfortable with Ron Paul as a VP, then they vote Obama and the other 20% split. That gives those States to Obama, and he may win.

Now if you look at Rubio, he's a name that Florida voters know, and have voted for in the past. The association of him with almost any of the Republican candidates will give that candidate the state. Then the Republican candidate only has split Ohio and Penn and the election is over. If the Right loses both Ohio and Penn, then they only have to pick up 3 out of 5 of the secondary swing states to win.

Sad to say it, but the country is in the hands of 30% of the VOTERS of only three of our states, and those people have almost no clue about what's going on in our country, much less the world.

[billynomates]

Doubt if Ron Paul will run as independent- it would destroy any chance of his son ever getting the Republican ticket. Think you'll find that's his long term aim.

[Nynus]

Rand Paul, (who is on TV this very momement giving an interview) is on the fast track with Rubio and Christie as the future of Conservative Politics. Not necessarily the Republican Party.

The interesting thing about Rand Paul is that he's working within the structure of the Republican Party to move it towards a more libertarian position. Namely, that the Federal Government needs to get the fuck out of people's lives.

I think you'll see this position more and more as the core Tea Party views, and the Libertarian positions get rolled into the Republican platform.

The big fight within the Republican Party ISN'T going to be the primaries, it's going to be the drafting of the platform during the Republican convention. THAT is why Ron Paul is looking for Primary Election wins. The more he wins in the primaries, the more Libertarian that platform will become. This is where the threat of Ron Paul as an independent candidate becomes the Sword of Damocles for the Republicans.

Rand Paul is holding a similar situation and is positioned to take over for his father as the champion of Libertarian values in the upcoming years. He's going to be pushing from within the Senate, and from within the party with even more influence and sway within the Beltway than his father ever did. Even now, he probably has more power to influence policy decisions in Congress then his dad. Baring a serious loss of political clout, I expect this to increase in the coming years.