Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal frankie's Journal: It Don't Mean A Thing If It Ain't Got That Swing 10

Journal by frankie
I've seen voter registration drives recently in Maryland, New York, and Virginia. I appreciate them as patriotic gestures. But these American mitzvahs are completely irrelevant and useless for their desired purpose of affecting the election.

Only a handful of states (with about 20% of the electorate) have any chance of picking the President this year. Assuming no McCain surprise, the following states are potentially in play:

  • Leaning Demo: 66 EV: Oregon, Iowa, Maine, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan
  • Kings of Swing: 43 EV: New Mexico, Florida, Missouri
  • Leaning Repo: 55 EV: West Virginia, Arkansas, New Hampshire, Ohio, Louisiana, Tennessee

If your favorite state isn't on this list, sorry, you may as well write in Harry Browne or Bill Clinton. Once again we are at the mercy of the Fickle Mush Heads. Vote for freedom, and pray for your soul.

p.s. Speaking of Harry Browne (Libertarian candidate for President, 1996 & 2000), damn, you've got to read his site. Harry has no love for Democrats (he opposes public education, public health care, gun control, income tax, etc), but OMFG he is a first-class rabid Bush basher. I could feel the flecks of foaming spittle bouncing off the inside of my screen.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

It Don't Mean A Thing If It Ain't Got That Swing More

It Don't Mean A Thing If It Ain't Got That Swing

Comments Filter:
  • I made up this spreadsheet [gunzour.net] about a month ago which lists (in bold) the "battleground states" for the upcoming presidential election. It's based purely on statistics using 2000's election results. (Be sure the read the explanatory comments at the bottom.) It's interesting that your list of states is slightly different than mine. You don't list Arizona or Maine, for example.

    As a Marylander, I knew even in 2000 that my vote didn't count. I voted for Browne. Not sure who I will vote for this year, yet.
    • My Maryland too, Perot 92, Browne 96. 2000 was McCain primary, Nader-trader general. Libertarian again this year, assuming Nader fades out.

      Here's my spreadsheet [geocities.com] with a brief explanation. It uses the past 5 presidential cycles.

      After reading your page, I agree Tennessee is a Republican lock. Maine is indeed on my list, in the near-blue zone.

      Arizona is mainly moderate Republicans, but they're Republican nonetheless. I think Perot was a Dole spoiler there in 1996. IMO, the only way to get blue Arizona is

  • Basically you missed the whole point. Allowing everyone to get married by the government will totally kill the discussion about the seperation of church and state. I thought you want this seperation? Why would you take a side that would kill this discussion? I have to assume now that you are a fickle mushhead who SAYS he wants said seperation, but really only want to follow the party line. I didn't actually think it would be possible for you to make that connection, but I thought I'd at least give you
    • Basically you missed the whole point. Allowing everyone to get married by the government

      Huh? You totally missed *my* whole point. Where do I say I want the government to marry everyone? The goal is to remove the concepts of qw(married marriage spouse) etc from US law, right? The government aspects of marriage are simply a shorthand for a certain constellation of benefits, and "one can provide all of those benefits to anyone" [slashdot.org]. Make that process easier, and you don't need marriage laws any more. Which is

      • No, I understood your whole point. The funny thing is YOU don't. You said that I had an opinion on gay marriage, attempting to tie it to my use of the word "wrong". Well that just doesn't make sense since by removing marriage from the governments powers this will certainly lead to homosexuals getting married by whatever church they happen to attend. Except this is seperate from my view about that issue. And my view doesn't matter. On the issue of the government performing and recognizing marriage, the
        • you don't see how killing the discussion is the ultimate failure in solving the problem

          Apparently not. For the 2nd time, explain whatever it is that you're talking about.

          issues that have nothing to do with marriage such as inheritance, social security, and even George W. Bush

          Government bereavement benefits (and 1000+ other laws) are directly tied to marriage. For the N+1 time, how exactly do you propose to untie them? I suggested changing the laws rather than eliminating them (e.g. don't kick a stay-a

Slashdot Top Deals

The bugs you have to avoid are the ones that give the user not only the inclination to get on a plane, but also the time. -- Kay Bostic

Close