Despite the bias of the channel itself, I have actually always thought FOX polling was not really biased.
Hey, if Joe is white, Christian, and hetrosexual he’d be a perfect secretary of state for Mitt.
Joe is the congressman for Lancaster County, PA, area…Amish Country. They don’t generally come in any other variety here, unfortunately.
Then what’s with these Black Amish I’m always hearing about, eh?
I believe they hang out with those Black Irish people two hollers over.
There’s only one sensible course of action left. Founding a new TV channel to counterbalance the rampant left wing bias of Fox News.
Ken Bennett, a Republican and Arizona’s top election official says it’s ‘possible’ Obama might not be put on the ballot:
The birther fun never ends.
Hey, I’m all for it. Just as long as exactly the same standard of proof demanded from Obama applies to Romney, or anyone else in Arizona running for office.
Well, seeing as it’s absolutely ESSENTIAL for Obama to win Arizona, I guess he may as well concede now.
Theoretically, what would the Federal Government do if Arizona refused to put him on the ballot in November? What if other states tried to do the same?
I can’t see how this couldn’t work in favor for the GOP. Regardless of the outcome, they win points for the controversy.
Sounds like a bluff. Pretty sure FF&C means Hawaii can tell AZ “Verification is what we say it is.”
Most likely a bluff (and a buff to his conservative cred), but I wonder how much discretion he has on who gets listed on the ballot? Of course, one doesn’t actually vote for the President, you vote for the electors, which puts a twist on the whole ballot access thing anyway.
They should get one of the legislator’s little kids to draw a birth certificate. As an added bonus, it’d infuriate the birthers. I was going to suggest used toilet paper, but that’d just seem demeaning to Obama.
The GOP won the 2004 Pres. election via cheating and lies. Intrade now shows Republican President elected in 2012 as 41+%. Obama is by no means a “shoe-in.”
There will be many many thousands of voters who would tell pollsters “I wanted to vote for Obama, but I couldn’t ignore all the talk about his lying about his birth-place.”
Umm, no.
Those who are believing the birther conspiracies, or even willing to believe that Obama is actively “lying about his birth-place”[sic] are not going to be voting for him (even if he released that video of the birth… on Waikiki beach, with the palm trees and surfers giving his mom the “Hang Loose” gesture).
In fact, Romney might be too rational for them, and they’ll be voting for the LibertwatarianTinFoilTouque Party candidate.
I would not believe any video that had palm trees.
Wait, did we do that in this or another thread? Who had the meltdown again?
I think the point a few posts ago is not that potential swing voters are going to believe any of the bullshit that the RWMarketing Machine is pumping out, but that it will sully their Obama irrespective of the truth. Complaints about policy differences, character flaws, etc. are one thing. It’s the outright lies and fabrications that the Machine is so prolific at spreading and repeating that will have an unquestionable effect. Whether it will turn the election is another thing, and between voter suppression efforts, intentional falsehoods, and a close to majority of people who actually prefer a Republican for whatever reason, Obama as a shoe-in is a myth.
[obsessive vocabulary nitpick] Grrrr. It’s “shoo-in”:
[/ovn]
“Shoo-in” As in “shoo! shoo!”. You might have it confused with “shoe in the door”, implying a tenuous state for success, as opposed to a “shoo in”, a near certainty.
I don’t have many attacks of Obsessive Pedantic Disorder, but they all seem to happen here…
“If I am elected, every American will have tight pussy, loose shoes and a warm place to shit.”
Shoo-in. Not shoe-in.