Jump to content


Member Since 04 Aug 2005
Online Last Active Today, 08:29 PM

#1156066 Presidential Election Poll

Posted by ghdi on 07 November 2012 - 02:11 AM

I stand by my prediction of a landslide of Carter-Reagan proportions. It's common sense.

Not one single McCain voter from four years ago will vote for Obama in 2012. But Obama will lose votes from several blocs because of his horrid record: Hispanics, women, white men, Catholics, Jews, small businesspeople. It's going to cost Obama every swing state, plus more. People are going to be talking about how inaccurate most polls were.

Watch as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin fall into the Romney column. Watch New Jersey and Nevada be nail-biters.

Let's watch and see.

You got basically nothing correct. The President has won by an electoral landslide. Florida is not even called yet and he already has 303 EV's.

Common sense? Common sense is not completely disregarding every single poll because its not going your side's way or blaming "the mainstream media" for all that ails the country. Common sense is not encouraging your party to go hard right when the demographics in this country are changing constantly and white people (myself included) no longer hold the cards.

Oh really? Romney got 100K less than McCain in Ohio and 200K less than Bush (04). Hispanics? At this point (3am) Hispanics voted for the President by a 3-1 margin which is BETTER than his 2008 margin in that same bloc. 40 point shellacking and he underperformed McCain among Hispanics nationwide! Obama won women 55 to 45 and both of these margins are expected to stay the same or grow by the time everything is counted. He didnt win white men, but the difference from 2008 was -3% and no one expected him to win that bloc. 70% of the Jewish vote. He's WON EVERY swing state bar NC (which almost all pollsters/pundits say was a longshot) with FL possibly going his way. The only improvement Romney made over McCain was the popular vote gap (no surprise), taking back Indiana and NC - which at the end of the day is nothing. Hell, Bush barely won in 2000 and 2004 and they're the most razor thin elections in modern history. The last time a Republican won with any sort of distance in the #s is 1988, now 24 years ago.

The GOP got slammed tonight. There is nothing they can hang their hat on, except the fact that a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage candidate (Christie) has a good shot in 2016 depending on how Obama's 2nd term goes and who runs for the Dems. Is it any surprise that the gap in the polls closed when Romney disingenuously lurched to the center in the first debate? When Romney was running hard right, he was getting smoked! W ran from the center-right from day one and still barely won. Gay marriage passed in every state it was on the ballot. The attempts to restrict women's reproductive rights was hammered in FL. Allen West is likely out. Michelle Bachmann could be out. Akin, Mourdock, Tommy Thompson, and basically every single senate seat that was contested has gone to the Democrats with a net gain of +4 not impossible with 3 races left to decide. At the very least, its going to remain the same in terms of the BOP in the Senate. The House has had a few more seats tip to the GOP with the re-districting, but no one expected the Dems to have a chance to take it.

Oh and just for kicks, Obama won PA by at 5 points. Too bad you didnt take the bet.
  • 2

#1156045 Presidential Election Poll

Posted by ghdi on 06 November 2012 - 11:23 PM

I stand by my prediction of a landslide of Carter-Reagan proportions. It's common sense.

Not one single McCain voter from four years ago will vote for Obama in 2012. But Obama will lose votes from several blocs because of his horrid record: Hispanics, women, white men, Catholics, Jews, small businesspeople. It's going to cost Obama every swing state, plus more. People are going to be talking about how inaccurate most polls were.

Watch as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin fall into the Romney column. Watch New Jersey and Nevada be nail-biters.

Let's watch and see.

Posted Image\
  • 1

#1154324 Presidential Election Poll

Posted by ghdi on 14 October 2012 - 08:50 PM

So are you hoping the Democrats decide they want to remove money from the election process and decide to open up the debates and fundamentally change the electoral system? Keep dreaming. The ONLY way we will ever get fair elections is if the third parties and independents garner enough public support that the two major parties would have to take notice and adopt parts of their platform to stay ahead of them. I'm not expecting Johnson or Stein to win this election and change everything, it is a long-term uphill climb and I'm refusing to slow it down by voting for the Democrats or Republicans. I don't care that I'm voting for someone who in all likelihood will lose, I'm voting for someone I can believe in. And if everyone who said they like (insert third party candidate here) but won't vote for them because they won't win actually did vote for them, it would make a big difference.

I understand this. However, there is no third party candidate running this year that will make any sort of noise in the election. The problem is that third party candidates have no way to get their msg across so the uninformed never learn about them. Is it any wonder why a third party candidate hasn't been in a debate in 20 years? Voting for Johnson or Stein now does nothing but help one of the major party candidates get in or stay in. The system isn't going to change by voting for the guy who gets a percentage of the vote below 5. There has to be a universal "coming together" for this sh!t to change.

The system has to be changed from within or, an outsider has to play by their rules (i.e. Perot), which I think is going to be the way a third party gets in. Someone who has a grassroots system (i.e. a more effective Ron Paul) and completely new way of running a campaign that can completely change the game, which neither Johnson or Stein have. Campaign finance laws are still ridiculous and voting third party this year isn't going to change anything. I realize that Obama is flawed just as 99% of all elected officials are. However, I find the current state of the Republican party bar a few individuals I can count on one hand to be even more flawed. I cannot vote for a third party candidate this cycle knowing that they don't stand a chance. If Johnson or Stein had even a semblance of a chance, I'd be more likely to cast my vote for one of them, and I don't feel voting third party in this climate is the correct "protest" of the system this year because of how late in the game it is and how few people know who Johnson and Stein even are. Do you think the GOP or Democrats are even going to think twice if an outsider gets 2%? The protest has to be universal and apply to all levels of national gov't because the same problem exists in house and senate elections. I agree with you that I think Johnson or Stein are perfectly qualified and have ideas that could help this country, but there's no chance in hell of either of them getting in this year and 2-5% isn't changing a damn thing.
  • 1

#1154281 Presidential Election Poll

Posted by ghdi on 14 October 2012 - 08:27 AM

...because you love the way Obama handles the economy?

You got kids?

I haven't seen one thing that Romney offers that makes me think he will do a better job than Obama and outside of the economy, I am dead against Mitt Romney in the executive office in literally every single respect. His neocon foreign policy is downright scary. I don't think Obama has done a great job on the economy, but I don't think its even close to how badly your side of the aisle tries to make it. I think he could do a lot more and have been saying that for 2 years. Mitt Romney won't even share his full plan with us, and we're supposed to think he can do a better job? Because he was a venture capitalist or was a supposedly successful 1 term governor? Please.

It's also a substantiated fact that it takes 3-5 years for the majority of economic decisions made by an administration to really hit and be felt by the majority of the country. It's not even a discussion that 8 years of W hurt this country in a very significant way and Obama inherited a huge fvcking mess. It's also a substantiated fact that the Republicans have done anything and everything they can to block many of Obama's ideas with filibusters w/ their goal since DAY ONE of his presidency to get him out (Mitch McConnell held a meeting the day after election day saying they wouldn't work with him and has even admitted as such). Obama has never had a super-majority and has had to deal with GOP filibusters since day 1.

I'm tired of reading about third parties trying to be hammered into our skulls. I do respect where its coming from, don't get me wrong, but Gary Johnson has no chance at winning and no third party candidate will even sniff 3% this cycle. No third party will compete in this country until money is removed from the equation (or someone comes in with a lot of money) and the two major parties don't have a monopoly on the debates. I'd like to see 6 or 7 competitive parties in this country, but the electoral system has to change fundamentally and voting for a 3rd party candidate now will not do that as it didnt do anything in the last 10 cycles. I'm content voting for Obama because he actually has a chance and will keep Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan out. I do think Obama has many faults and has not kept all of his 08 promises, but I don't think Mitt Romney will keep any, since he changes them at the drop of a dime to suit the weather.

And yes, I have a daughter.
  • 1

#1151466 Romney on the 47%

Posted by ghdi on 18 September 2012 - 07:52 PM

Really? Would it change your point of view at all if he said he was going to take away all the stuff you want, but then says he cares about them?

Frankly, I'll take that over Obama castigating those rubes who don't know what's best for themselves because they cling to their guns even with the obligatory "I care about their welfare nevertheless".

No, it wouldnt change my view. However, he comes across as extremely cold in this video. I also don't think its entirely fair to cast off Obama's statement as obligatory. At the very least, he tried to show that he cares about those people, whether or not its true is another argument entirely. If this is what Romney believes, he needs to say it in public and not just in front of a group of millionaire donors who (like the ones Romney paints as not being for him) who'd never vote for Obama. I may not like it or agree with it, but I can respect the candor.

I realize that politics this day in age are largely disgusting on both sides of the ball, but I'd like to hold out some shred of hope that there are people in positions of power that care about the majority of the country and not just a segmented few.
  • 1

#1151461 Romney on the 47%

Posted by ghdi on 18 September 2012 - 07:35 PM

I guess you just proved Romney's point. The people who are going to get all jazzed up about this stuff aren't going to vote for him anyway.

That's not the point. It's the fact that he says that he doesn't care about them that people are in an uproar about. Hey, I'll give the guy credit for being honest about how he feels, but isn't it the job of the President to "care" about the entire country and not just those who his ideology speaks to and who vote for him? "And so my job is not to worry about those people." So, he only worries about people who are living better? As Linda McMahon said in her response to the video (and I get that she's running in a very blue state) that the majority of people on the take from the gov't don't want to be in that position, but are forced to because of the hand they've been dealt.

That's what's so interesting as to how the right is reiterating the Obama quote about a segment of the right "clinging to guns and religion". They don't play the full quote, where he goes on to say that he still cares about them despite the differences in that respect. The entire Romney video is out now and nothing is taken out of context or made into a soundbite (which both sides of the media hammered Obama for in 2008).
  • 1

#1151445 Romney on the 47%

Posted by ghdi on 18 September 2012 - 05:35 PM

Well, considering the media was caught themelves on audio plotting against Romney, any misttep and the media will relentlessly attack him, like they do all Republicans.

This is such a tired and lame argument that the entire media has it out for the right wing. Do I agree that certain networks and pundits are slanted one way or another? Absolutely. And most people realize this. However, this "woe is us" BS about the news media having it in for Republicans is ridiculous. Who were the ones that destroyed Howard Dean in 2004 for getting overly excited at his own campaign rally? I remember MSNBC playing that innocuous moment on loop for weeks. I seem to remember the media recently destroying Anthony Wiener when they had a chance just as they did Larry Craig and the other nimrods who cant keep their dicks in their pants. I also notice the local media taking that Vito guy in Brooklyn to task (rightfully so) every chance they get. The media will attack anyone who give them the ammunition to do so.

This is the problem with Romney: He's a terrible candidate. He's extremely awkward and his background doesn't lend him the ability to connect with people. G.W. Bush had a similar "privileged" background, but he had the ability to talk to anyone and relate to them. I've said since day one that I felt Bush was a good guy who meant well, but I hated his politics and a lot of the people he had giving him advice. I think Romney is a scumbag and I hate his politics. It absolutely amazes me that the Republicans have taken to this guy so much after his term as Massachusetts governor. Obamacare was basically created by Romney! This election was giftwrapped for the GOP. They had the perfect opportunity to nominate someone who could get moderates on their side. Instead they nominate the literal caricature of a Republican. The stuffy, rich, "I'm better than you", pandering to the far right, guy. McCain went far right in 2008 and got beat. Far right doesnt win national elections!

In 1982 and 1983 during Reagan's first term, unemployment was the highest its EVER been until 2010. It went down to 7.5% before the 84 election and Reagan obliterated Mondale in the election, when the Democrats had a perfect chance to nominate someone that could've (at the very least) competed with Reagan. Why did Reagan win? Because he was a much better candidate than Mondale who wasnt even the party's first choice because *SHOCKER* the media destroyed Gary Hart (this wasnt 1988 when Donna Rice came about). It's exactly what's happening with this election. The only difference is that this election will be closer. People like Obama. People liked Reagan. Not many people like Romney. Not many liked Mondale. Reagan dealt with real economic woes his first term but yet still mauled his opponent because his opponent was a complete moron.

And of course the right wing take issue with the fact that it got out at all and never bother with the substance and the ones that do (David Brooks, Linda McMahon, Scott Brown) are taken to task by the Limbaughs of the world. "Waahhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Its all the media's fault!" No. Its your candidate's fault. Your completely out-of-touch ridiculous candidate who should've been laughed out of the primaries the moment we saw him treat his dog like a piece of luggage.

Romney losing this election could be the best thing for the GOP. The current power brokers in the party will be forced to realize that the majority of this country is socially progressive and fiscally conservative. Pandering to the extremes of the party will not win elections when the demographics of this country are changing so much.
  • 1

#1142793 We signed Krys Barch for 2 years

Posted by ghdi on 10 July 2012 - 01:24 PM

but WHY do we sign 2 of those clowns... then buy one out... Re-sign the other and sign a BRAND NEW ONE just like them... it doesnt make sense at all

Because Boulton sucks. It's also not out of the question that Boulton asked for this so he could go somewhere else he could play more. He was picked up and signed by the Isles very quickly. We don't know the reasons and can only speculate. We re-signed Cam to a two-way deal. I'd be willing to bet he's sent down to Albany at some point.

We've carried two "goons" on this squad in the past. Its also not a bad thing to have a guy like Barch (who is a better hockey player than both Boulton and Cam) that can do the dirty work/scrap so Clarkson doesnt have to. Clarky's become a much more important player on this team in DeBoer's system and we can't have him doing stupid stuff in division games, which are always tough contests. The Rags, Isles, and Flyers all have an element of nasty on their team when it concerns goonery. I'd much rather have Barch in that role than Boulton or let it fall on Clarkson who is too skilled to be doing that stuff. Barch can actually skate.

It didn't break the bank, it doesnt kill our cap, and neither of them will play in the playoffs. Its a necessary evil in the Atlantic Division regular season.
  • 1

#1139733 ‏Zach Parise has agreed to terms with the Minnesota Wild

Posted by ghdi on 04 July 2012 - 12:34 PM

I'm neither shocked nor even angry about this. It sucks to lose our captain. If its not our coach, its a player.

That said, the contract is awful length wise, he left the conference, and we will likely only see him on our ice once a season unless its in a Stanley Cup Final, which right now is as far fetched as Lou starring in a Magic Mike sequel.
  • 1

#1138430 ‏Zach Parise has agreed to terms with the Minnesota Wild

Posted by ghdi on 02 July 2012 - 09:02 PM

Just spoke with someone very close to Parise. Thinks Pens and Devils are front runners.Said Lou is guilting Parise heavily about leaving.

In Lou we trust! lol
  • 1

#1138213 ‏Zach Parise has agreed to terms with the Minnesota Wild

Posted by ghdi on 02 July 2012 - 03:18 PM

See I'd love to see Zach back in jersey but after we made him captain and he wanted a cup contender team( I believe we were pretty damn close) the fact that he's even thinking about leaving us kinda upsets me . Don't you think?

I dont think its fair to look at it like that. Its no secret we are having issues with our finances/ownership and this is probably the only time Zach will get a chance to see what he's worth on an open market. Its a smart business decision from his perspective to take a look at whats out there. What will upset me is if he leaves and the #s were so close and it looks like he was BSing, but I cannot have animosity at this point as its not fair to him. This is really a once in a lifetime decision he's going to make as its likely this contract will take him to the end of his career.
  • 1

#1136815 Boulton picked up by Isles

Posted by ghdi on 30 June 2012 - 12:40 PM

Janssen is a terrific scraper, the only problem is that 9 out of 10 times he is fighting out of his weight-class.

Because he's batsh!t insane. And thats the reason I like him.

He can't skate or do anything with his stick except goonery, but he's a good sh!t-stirrer.
  • 1

#1133973 What to do if we lose Parise?

Posted by ghdi on 22 June 2012 - 12:42 PM

If Lou trades Parise's rights, I will print this topic and eat it.
  • 3

#1132297 Bitter Rangers Fan Is Bitter

Posted by ghdi on 13 June 2012 - 09:07 PM

Yea, I read it earlier today. One of the biggest piles of sh!t that Ive ever seen published by Puck Daddy.
  • 1

#1130701 GDT: SCF GAME 6 - New Jersey @ Los Angeles

Posted by ghdi on 11 June 2012 - 03:36 PM

Read this in the Daily News:

A horse called Jersey Devil won a race in LA yesterday. Coming out of the 6 position :)
  • 1