I think voting should be encouraged by just about any means possible. It shouldn't be a chore for anyone to exercise their right to participate in a democracy. If Ohio allowed early voting in the last Presidential election it should offer exactly the same for this one.

As for not allowing early voting until after the debates, I don't see the need for this step. In my opinion, early voters have already made up their minds and won't be swayed by the debates.

gut;1258871 wrote:On a related matter, I'm not sure when early voting starts but it really should not be allowed before all the debates have been completed.

I agree with this.

Why?

stlouiedipalma;1258918 wrote:Why?

Because I believe in the virtue of allowing early voting but people ought to at least give themselves an opportunity to be informed and persuaded by the contenders beyond the stump speeches and ra-ra nonsense. It's almost for sure I'm going to vote for Barack Obama at this point but I ought to at least have an open mind to voting for Romney. Consequently, it's not unreasonable to expect me to wait until they stand toe to toe before I cast my vote.

To me it's like declaring who the better team is between Michigan and Alabama before seeing them actually play.

I get your point, but both candidates have their base locked in at this point. The only voters they're pitching to now are the undecideds. Those folks won't make up their minds until well after the last debate anyway, so you might as well allow early voting.

Besides, if the committed vote early there shouldn't be any delays for the undecideds come Election Day, lol.

Of course, there is always the October Surprise...

I'm all for voting early, but not wasting tax dollars to offer nearly unlimited opportunity to do so. There's really no excuse with the amount of flexible options available. I would wait in long lines to vote on Tuesday in most elections, particularly this one. I have no interest in accommodating - not on my dime - someone who is too lazy and/or disinterested (really no other way to put it) to take advantage of their many opportunities to vote early. I doubt it's much of a loss, anyway, as if it's that low of a priority for them they are probably a poorly informed voter.

Of course, there is an actual economic reason to have early voting, because it's unproductive (and a disincentive) to have people waiting hours in line. But opening the polls for 12-14 days ahead of time should be more than sufficient.

As for the debates, even if it's a marginal impact a more informed voter is something we should always strive for. Again, there's very little need to enable someone to vote weeks early. Heck it's a win if they at least know who's on the two tickets. But I think you overestimate the average voter - I'm sure there are plenty of people who would take advantage of the convenience of early voting (I'm at the store, hey I should probably vote no one's in line!) and cast a premature ballot. Plus, it's not like we are voting only for POTUS.

Some good tweets on the RNC:

@mattyglesias "Clint Eastwood demonstrating that seniors may not be prepared to navigate a menu of subsidized private insurance plans."

:laugh:

@chrisrockoz BREAKING NEWS: CNN REPORTS: Last night when he got home, Clint Eastwood got in a huge fight with the rest of his furniture. #RNC #GOP2012


@chrisrockoz Romney proves w/ a little hard work & a little luck, even a multimillionaire white guy from Harvard can succeed in this country #GOP2012

@chrisrockoz The Dems should have an empty chair on stage for the entire DNC, & when anyone asks who it belongs to, they can say Osama bin Laden #DNC2012

BoatShoes;1258940 wrote:
@chrisrockoz The Dems should have an empty chair on stage for the entire DNC, & when anyone asks who it belongs to, they can say Osama bin Laden #DNC2012

It's funny because it's the only accomplishment Obama can point to. Just make sure the chair wasn't made in China.

Dingey Harry came out swining today calling Ryan/Romney hypocrites.

“It is the height of hypocrisy for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan to make a pretense of showing sympathy for the victims of Hurricane Isaac when their policies would leave those affected by this disaster stranded and on their own,” Reid said.
“If Paul Ryan and his fellow House Republicans had succeeded in blocking disaster relief last fall, there would have been no aid for the victims of Isaac today. And Paul Ryan’s budget would gut disaster funding, making it much harder to get aid to our fellow Americans in their time of need,” he added.

"hypocrisy" is really a word Harry Reid should consider eliminating from his vocabulary.

I've not really understood why House/Senate party leaders are typically the most radical, outspoken and irrational of the bunch. And consider Reid is next in line for POTUS after Biden. If Ted Nugent goes all crazy[er], he better have 3 bullets.

I hope the Dems do put up an empty chair....because that should be the symbol of their party.

What makes a joke funny is that there is a little bit of truth in it. Eastwood nailed it....and they realize it. I hope they spend all sorts of time keeping this front page and center.

Read Romney's speech today. Not too bad. Typical fluff and all that. Had some issues with the foreign policy section, mainly Israel, Iran, and referring to Russia as an adversary. He still goes on about the apology tour, but whatever, it is a campaign speech.
Other than that, ehh, typical speech.

And wtf was Eastwood doing with a chair?

ccrunner609;1259011 wrote:AFTER your idea that obama had it right on foreign policy, you probably shouldn't bring up Romney.

Well, given that half of Romney's foreign policy advisers are neocons, it does not help his cause.
Although, I really, really, really hope Zoellick is a main adviser. He is actually sane and rational.
But, whatever man. I just have disagreements with his statements. They were rah rah, it's a convention. It does not matter really.

The whole are you better off now than four years ago is the main shtick.

ptown_trojans_1;1259013 wrote:
The whole are you better off now than four years ago is the main shtick.

Which is why we need to vote our current losers out. I'm mostly voting on the economy, but look two pages back, we've "progressed" to the point we can't even say that a man and woman are the best parents or else that is wrong in Ty Webb's and the "progressives" minds. How nutty has the American left wing become?

Manhattan Buckeye;1259016 wrote:Which is why we need to vote our current losers out. I'm mostly voting on the economy, but look two pages back, we've "progressed" to the point we can't even say that a man and woman are the best parents or else that is wrong in Ty Webb's and the "progressives" minds. How nutty has the American left wing become?

Yeah, the economy is going to drive the election, as everyone agrees.
And, that is really where Romney can pull a win out.
The President has not helped himself at all by the lofty expectations in 2009. And, the flat growth is not helping.
Yes, we are growing, but slowly. And, it is not fast enough for voters.

I have a feeling your point may drive the day, people will vote incumbents out no matter the party. Like 2010, it is a vote on the current party.
That is really the only way I can see Romney winning.

As to the lefties, yeah, they are mostly nuts, but then again, so are the righties to a degree. Both, miss the main issues and are driven by ideology, not policy. But, yeah, I get ya.

Oh, and noticing one thing. Did we hear anything on Afghanistan during the Convention? It is the forgotten war.

ptown_trojans_1;1259019 wrote:Oh, and noticing one thing. Did we hear anything on Afghanistan during the Convention? It is the forgotten war.

It'll be interesting to see if Barry mentions it.

believer;1259031 wrote:It'll be interesting to see if Barry mentions it.

Same here.
No one is saying a peep about it. And is it sad, as Americans are dieing weekly either by ambushes, IED, or rouge Afghans acting like police or friendlies.

ptown_trojans_1;1259032 wrote:Same here.
No one is saying a peep about it. And is it sad, as Americans are dieing weekly either by ambushes, IED, or rouge Afghans acting like police or friendlies.

No one is talking about it because the American people want the troops home, but neither Obama nor Romney is going to bring them home. Instead they are dreaming up new "threats" that will require our troops to deal with.

gut;1258964 wrote:"hypocrisy" is really a word Harry Reid should consider eliminating from his vocabulary.

I've not really understood why House/Senate party leaders are typically the most radical, outspoken and irrational of the bunch. And consider Reid is next in line for POTUS after Biden. If Ted Nugent goes all crazy[er], he better have 3 bullets.

Actually Boehner is third in line. So even if Obama wins we could still get rid of the socialists with two quick finger squeezes!

BoatShoes;1259330 wrote:Actually Boehner is third in line. So even if Obama wins we could still get rid of the socialists with two quick finger squeezes!

Spoken like a true Keynesian.

And low and behold, an column asking the same question, where is Afghanistan?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-war-the-candidates-forget/2012/08/31/e91a3cb6-f382-11e1-892d-bc92fee603a7_story.html

No question that Romney didn't mention Afghanistan.

People like Footwedge, of course, will consider it clear evidence that Romney is ruled by the eeeevil neo-cons. Perhaps, but the fact remains that Obama is the current commander-in-chief.

Obama has indicated that he plans a complete withdrawal by 2014. If BHO and his campaign advisers are smart enough, they'll make certain he reiterates this in his pep rally speech. This may be one point that might assist his re-election efforts.

The problem is Obama is behaving like the eeeeevil neo-cons. He promised to close GITMO....hasn't happened for example. And we're still in Afghanistan.

I'm not convinced we'll withdraw troops from Afghanistan by 2014 even if the American sheeple decide 4 more years of Obama will cure our economic ills.

Again, it will be interesting to see if Barry mentions Afghanistan and in what context and to what degree. If he doesn't, will we see another write-up from the leftist Washington Compost criticizing the - um - oversight? I doubt it.

While withdrawal from Afghanistan is certainly a valid point, the economy trumps the importance from a political point of view at least.

I'm a conservative who thinks that now that OBL is dead, it's time to give Afghanistan back to the Taliban turds.

But I highly doubt that foreign policy political realities will allow Romney or Obama to do that any time soon.

believer;1259599 wrote:No question that Romney didn't mention Afghanistan.

People like Footwedge, of course, will consider it clear evidence that Romney is ruled by the eeeevil neo-cons. Perhaps, but the fact remains that Obama is the current commander-in-chief.

Obama has indicated that he plans a complete withdrawal by 2014. If BHO and his campaign advisers are smart enough, they'll make certain he reiterates this in his pep rally speech. This may be one point that might assist his re-election efforts.

The problem is Obama is behaving like the eeeeevil neo-cons. He promised to close GITMO....hasn't happened for example. And we're still in Afghanistan.

I'm not convinced we'll withdraw troops from Afghanistan by 2014 even if the American sheeple decide 4 more years of Obama will cure our economic ills.

Again, it will be interesting to see if Barry mentions Afghanistan and in what context and to what degree. If he doesn't, will we see another write-up from the leftist Washington Compost criticizing the - um - oversight? I doubt it.

While withdrawal from Afghanistan is certainly a valid point, the economy trumps the importance from a political point of view at least.

I'm a conservative who thinks that now that OBL is dead, it's time to give Afghanistan back to the Taliban turds.

But I highly doubt that foreign policy political realities will allow Romney or Obama to do that any time soon.

But I thought Romney was this evil warmongering neo-con looking to police the world and kill American soldiers all at the behest of the Kochs, the Trumps, the GEs, the Boeings and the satanic Haliburton? Surely he worships at the neo-con altar...but...ummm...uhhh...he didn't mention any of the neo-con playbook one time. Nor did any of his neo-con henchmen. It couldn't be that he's not one...could it? Inconceiveable!! :laugh:

People really do have all kinds of justifications and excuses to vote for Obama. Some just can't face-up to what an extreme disappointment he's been.

Funny, really, because I hoped he would be something different than I expected, and I'm disappointed that I wasn't wrong.

BHO offered his comments on the RNC convention today:

“It was something to behold,” Obama said at a farm museum here. “Despite all the challenges that we face … what they offered over those three days was more often than not an agenda that was better suited for the last century. It was a re-run. We’ve seen it before. You might as well have watched it on a black-and-white TV.”

If you didn’t DVR it, let me recap it for you,” Obama said. “Everything’s bad. It’s Obama’s fault. And Gov. Romney is the only one who knows the secret to creating jobs and growing the economy. There was a lot of talk about hard truths and bold choices but nobody ever bothered to tell you what they were.”
He continued: “And when Gov. Romney had a chance to let you in on his secret, he did not offer a single new idea. Just retreads of the same old policies that have been sticking it to the middle class for years.”