User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6633 seconds
50 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Brian Lerher had Amy Howe on this morning, and toward the end of the segment, they discussed yesterday's craziness.
Good day for expertise, really. Bloomberg and AP were fighting over who had it first, but SCOTUSblog had analysis as to the WHY of the IM being upheld within a minute of the first headline. Which is nice, because being a pundit on TV is basically being paid to be a blowhard dilettante who has no real expertise or even strong layperson knowledge on any topic but the ability to make ######## shine and thus get credited over the people who actually know something about the topic. That cable news by design makes nuance impossible, and that producers only bring on people they know will stick to their preassigned position only makes things worse.
WTF are you talking about, Andy? It's the supporters of Obamacare who brought up free riding.
As I've said, there are "free riding" cases to fit every POV. The insurance mandate of the ACA aims at one type of "free riding", and for the past 100+ years conservatives and libertarians have been whining about another. The only difference is that taxing the "free riders" under the insurance mandate would result in more money to treat everybody, whereas eliminating the "free riders" that you and Ray always whine about leaves us with current form of emergency room "free riding" still in place.
Why not? Jim has given it the official OT-P* seal of approval. Keep it vaguely civil and you're golden, just like the NBA and soccer threads. It's like the Longthreaders don't realize that they've actually won.
*Yeah, you know me.
That's not what disingenuous means. Disingenuous is saying one thing in one case and then going ahead and doing it yourself. Ginsburg is calling out the other side for violating their own position, not advancing that past held position as her own. It would only be disingenuous if she herself is advancing that notion despite a past stance.
But way to pick out one line in a large quote while failing to engage with the actual topic of the post. /golfclap
edited for clarity.
Weak :>
But here's the list (clickable links to explanations behind the individual ideas):
The Right to Be Forgotten
Boot Camp for Teachers
Bankers Should Be Boring
Sell the Pill Over the Counter
Speakers of the House Shouldn't Be President
Make Cars Super Light
The End of the Checkbook
Boot the Extra Point
The Islamists are Our Friends
The Cost of Modern Revolution
Lotteries for College Admissions
Charge for Your Ideas
Ban Gasoline
Actually, Fossil Fuels Are Here to Stay
Hire Introverts
Violence Doesn't Work Most of the Time
Fix Law Schools
Less Work, More Jobs
Abolish the Secret Ballot
Don't Treat the Sick If They're Poor
Smartphone-Free Socializing
Knowledge of the Future Is Messing With the Present
End the Dunk Tank
Let's Cool It With the Big Ideas
The ACA is an attempt to bring previously uninsured people out of the emergency rooms and into the mainstream of the health care system, in order to remove the Sword of Damocles from hovering over their heads. That's pretty much the bottom line for ever ACA supporter I've ever met.
----------------------------------------------------
seems to be the Viagra of the Tea Party
Ummm, Andy: I've been to Tea Party rallies. Viagra is the Viagra of the Tea Party.
Maybe so, but "free riders" rhetoric sure as hell ain't the saltpeter.
Well, not the sole bottom line. For example, part of my bottom line is that it advances the cause of communism and the end of the 2nd Amendment. But certainly a very big part of the bottom line.
It was awesome, and you know it.
Where "previously uninsured people" includes a boat load of free riders who can't afford to pay and indeed won't be paying.
If they could afford to pay, they wouldn't be exempt per the Act.
But somehow the "young free riders" Posner spoke of are doing something horrible to the system, while the free riders who can't afford to pay aren't - and not only aren't they but we're going to increase the burden they are providing to the system.
Hey now, it is also an attempt to bend the cost curve, thus making health care cheaper than it would be without the law. I think both are good things and I think linked together, due to a bunch of factors (like the fact that the emergency room free rider issues is very inefficient and preventative care is very efficient).
RDF.
Yes, Ray. We're all planning to send them to your house, to take your healthcare, at gunpoint.
Mitt Romney is hardly the tea party wing of the conservative movement, but he definitely ran to the right of McCain during his 2008 campaign and got a greater share of conservative votes in the early primaries if the exit polling is even remotely accurate. Free riding is very much a bugaboo in general, it upsets most people's sense of fairness in that one group is getting a free lunch or undeserved benefits.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/06/29/flashback_of_the_day.html
Naturally. The economy was only being held back by regulatory uncertainty ya know. Now they're not uncertain, they can totally go back to trying to make money and stuff.
Hey now, it is also an attempt to bend the cost curve, thus making health care cheaper than it would be without the law. I think both are good things and I think linked together, due to a bunch of factors (like the fact that the emergency room free rider issues is very inefficient and preventative care is very efficient).
No argument with any of that, though in terms of what energizes us I think that the point I raised is primary.
Yes, how strange an idea it is that people who can't pay might be more open to sympathy than those who won't pay. I realize that this must seem like a truly bizarro concept.
Only in those states that actually are really hot! Severability!
Yes, and also the Yankees lost last night, which would never have happened but for the ruling.
The Dow being currently up for the day has nothing to do with anything.
No, they're both legal principles -- (1) that the role of a judge is to consider the balance of powers among the branches of the federal government; and (2) that acts of Congress shouldn't be dubbed unconsitutional if there's a way not to. Neither depends on the political content of the act being considered.
Again you miss the point. The "truly bizarro concept" is pretending you're trying to reduce free loading when actually you're increasing the free loading of scores of free loaders.
As they say.
In the immortal words of Getty Lee: "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".
Here, here!
Is giving people insurance (free loading) so they can get regular care including preventative care a worse drain on society than not giving them the regular care and reducing their economic output and having them inefficiently using resources (via Emergency rooms and such)?
If you are going to make an economic argument one is better or worse I would like to hear it. Personally I suspect it is much better (economically) to give them the insurance, but I could be wrong.
EDIT: The reason I ask, is because typically when free loading is used as a pejorative it is because of either the moral or the economic element. In this case if it is the economic I am interested in why you think that. It is is moral I would like to hear about that as well.
Only if we make them buy broccoli.
Indecision as decision?
Again you miss the point. The "truly bizarro concept" is pretending you're trying to reduce free loading when actually you're increasing the free loading of scores of free loaders.
Again, the point of the ACA is to bring the uninsured into the system, and the point of the mandate is to make sure that there's enough money to pay for it. The "free loader" rhetoric on both sides is just that, though as I said, it certainly would apply more to those who refuse to pay than to those who can't.
It's not a big deal that he ran to the right of McCain, McCain essentially ran down the middle (of the GOP) in 2008, which basically meant that everyone was running to his right (except Paul who was simultaneously running to the far right and left... without contradicting himself which says something about the uselessness of labels or the magic of Paul or both...)
what's remarkable is that Romney, who as an elected official governed center right, in 2008 and 2012 moved or tried to move right of people who really ARE on the right....
and he's somehow gotten away with it. (so far)
Even if you've chosen not to decide, you still haven't acted, any more than I've "acted" when I choose not to attend the theater. Mental steps.
At the risk of beverage donation -- this is exactly what happened on the state level with smoking laws -> trans fats laws. I think, in general, these laws are stupid at both the federal and state level. Whether or not they are constitutional is more or less immaterial (to me; obviously lawyers care). I don't think it's a reasonable reading of the Constitution (caveat: I've never read it) to say "The rights to create stupid laws are delagated to the States and are not a province of the Federal Government".
Someone posed an interesting question as to "what is the limit of Federal power over the States?". Well, practically - there is no limit. The Federal Government has the money and guns to exert it's will over the States as it chooses. It, on a less autocratic level, can have the the preponderance of "The Will of The People" - in that 49 states can oppress the will of 1.
Now -- Legally -- there are checks and limits to this Federal power. But the governance of this power is determined by the actions of the 3 branches of government, and Congress is a Federal entity, even though it is made of States' representatives. They can and do make decisions that limit the power of their own states. I am no lawyer and I don't really care about this. I mean, I care in the sense that the Fed can make bad laws that limit my freedom or hurt people or whatever, but the States can do this to.
I take a Utilitarian approach to the division of State/Federal power. The Libertarian argument (which is not merit-less) simply assumes that power wielders are bad, and hence balkanizing power is by definition, better. However, I think this is only a general principle and not specific at all. The smaller the entity - the easier all it's subjects are to control and suppress. Evil is an Integral Equation.
So, this is wishy washy - but I think the States should do what they do best, and the Feds should do what they do best [and check the power of the States to harm it's citizens] and similar with Civic governments as well.
pointing out that Romney is a flipper is not going to make a single soul switch from Romney to Obama
however, while Obama "wins" if a Romney supporter votes for him, Obama also wins if a Romney voter stays home OR votes for Gary Johnson
Right now the "base" seems all stirred up about Obamacare, Roberts, Liberal judges, the death of freedom, etc...
But Romney is the WORST possible candidate to ride that wave- all Obama has to do is run old Romney ads (from his Mass days) talk about Romneycare- air any claim they can find of Romney talking about Romneycare...
the idea would be to paid Romney as a "RINO," and maybe just maybe you either get some of the firebreathers so disillusioned they stay home, or pissed off enough to vote Johnson, either is a win for Obama.
Basically Obama has to keep poking at the Teaper wing of the "base," - if Republican discipline is going to break- that's where it's gonna break.
The people involved in the hotel business in 1964 were involved in the hotel business. They weren't sitting around in their living rooms watching tv and then suddenly the government came around and told them to rent rooms to minorities.
I agree, and at times I think I'm the only one...
I care about efficiency, states rights/sovereignty as something divorced from efficiency has no meaning to me, the concept that "states" (i.e, NY, Texas, Calif) have "rights' separate apart and above the people therein is completely alien to me... Fortunately most of the time the people who advance "states rights" arguments are doing so in such patently bad faith it's easy to dismiss such claims on that basis.
you keep suggesting that the tea party will revolt against romney.
this is a fantasy
yesterday's ruling was a blessing for the governor since now it has crystallized that the only way for fiscal minded folks to rid themselves of a president that they believe burns money just for fun is to get gov. romney elected. only way.
the gop is exploiting this as only my party can do
there are many paths for the president to be re-elected
the tea party sabotaging the romney campaign is not one of them and to count on it is to waste one's time
The tightrope that Obama's messaging team has to walk is painting Romney as someone who has wholly committed himself to radical Tea Party positions on important issues, while also painting him as a soulless, core-free corporate raider type who will say or do anything that wins him a profit in money or votes. So you use the Romneycare stuff to make the "without a core" argument without saying that Romney is a "Rino".
Rinos and Dinos are popular with the middle, and it's a really big risk to paint your opponent as something popular.
I also think it's incredibly unlikely that the Teapers won't turn out for the party's candidate. When establishment Republicans have won close-fought primaries with right-insurgents, and won, the base has turned out for the establishment Republican in the general. The Tea Party seems to have a strong understanding of American electoral politics - the general election is a zero-sum game, and if you don't get your candidate through in the primaries, you go with major party candidate closest to your views and start working to unseat him or her in the primary next time around.
EDIT: coke to Harvey
My understanding that it's actually more for 1) making sure as many people as possible sign up for health care in order to 2) prevent the free-riding issue that would result in increased health insurance costs when combined with the guaranteed issue and community rating provisions, and which possibly results in a "death spiral" where only the sickest people get health insurance because of the general increased cost of insuring a risk pool that's weighted towards people who have health conditions.
You're almost certainly correct about the Tea Partiers' common sense when it comes to choosing the lesser of two evils. But it'll still be fun to watch em squirm a bit when they see the former Mitt Romney preaching the virtues of mandates, and compare him to the Romney of today. They'll still get out and vote to slay the Kenyan Devil, but you have to wonder whether or not they're going to be quite as enthusiastic as they might have been without that sense of doubt as to who the real "Mitt Romney" really is.
this is a fantasy
I think a "revolt" is a fantasy, but I think some sitting home instead of voting for Romney is not really as big a fantasy. I'm not sure how many folks would do so and admit the effect could be negligible. I just think it's not a completely wackdoodle concept to contemplate.
Many people will argue this. Every last one of them will either be ignorant or fools, or both. Look at Mitt Romney's platform. It increases debt at every single step of the program.
My understanding that it's actually more for 1) making sure as many people as possible sign up for health care in order to 2) prevent the free-riding issue that would result in increased health insurance costs when combined with the guaranteed issue and community rating provisions, and which possibly results in a "death spiral" where only the sickest people get health insurance because of the general increased cost of insuring a risk pool that's weighted towards people who have health conditions.
What I said is just a shorthand version of what you just said. I'm not disagreeing with your longer version.
It should be:
yesterday's ruling was a blessing for the governor
And then:
this is a fantasy
well, keep thinking that. barring some jarring news about the governor he can count on their support.
rickey
i am speaking to perception.
guys, i know the tea party and the gop. i know i am a nobody on the internet but you have to believe me on this one. all the suppositions i have read to date are plain garbage.
i know these people. they ain't all my cup of tea but i know them better than i know many of my relatives.
you want to know ask the question. you want flights of fancy keep listening to the wangdoodles
We'll see the Romney clips about as many times as the clips showing Obama saying the mandate isn't a tax, I'd imagine.
Two of the people I work with to this day call themselves Tea Part members, I call them Teapers, if I was even less polite I'd call them TeaBaggers, but that's just a gratuitous insult, anyway, you and everyone else know what wing of the GOP I'm talking about.
The reality is that the vast majority of people who are horrified by the court's decision and hate ACA were already motivated to vote against Obama. This decision isn't going to change anything. I doubt it will have a profound effect on the election.
one of us (or may both of us) are wishcasting
my party is going to have them whipped into a frenzy permanently between now and november. ohio, wisconsin, north carolina you name it
great thing about hate. it sustains
and these folks do hate the president.
i think that is the single toughest thing for dems to accept. that you have this piece of the electorate that doesn't just disagree with the president. they hate him. want him dead. and then his head chopped off. and that fed to wild animals on live tv.
sorry but it's true
ain't no way they don't vote come november
no...........way
"Obama passed an unconstitutional health care bill" makes him sound pretty incompetent/power hungry. Maybe that's just me. And, like Bitter says, loserish.
well, you have your mind made up. ain't no wishcasting here
i have the power of hate on my side
and that is a mighty powerful tool
sorry
I agree, but you're talking about a core group that's maybe 35% of the electorate. Those people are going to vote against Obama no matter what, so they're not the issue and won't decide the election.
who said the president was hurt?
i said the governor got help. both can be helped by yesterday
now wait. folks are saying these folks will stay home. i am telling folks they won't stay home
what are you arguing?
I was talking about the actual decision. I agree that a loss could have hurt. (a loss could have helped in some ways by motivating the left, but on balance it probably would have favored Romney.)
But they were going to anyway.
What's tough for Democrats to accept (and tough for partisans of all stripes to accept) are the folks in the middle 50%, the ones who aren't strong partisans (strong Democratic partisans are a smaller population than strong Republican partisans), who don't have a clear ideological location. Most of that middle 50% are weak partisans who will vote for their party, but there are real swing voters in the middle, and all** of them seem sort of weird to strong partisans.
**All except for the miniscule percentage of non-partisan ideologues. But there's only about 10,000 of them, so we can safely pretend they don't exist for analysis of voting behavior.
i am not arguing anything
i am sharing facts. i am immersed in the gop and elements of the tea party. to tell me i don't know what i see and hear every is at minimum odd
The only problem with that comparison is that while the Romney clips show Romney flatly contradicting himself, those Obama clips would be contradicting the justification of the ACA issued by John Roberts. Obama's not only consistently spoken in favor of the mandate since he first introduced the ACA, but he (and Congress) put the mandate into law. Very little inconsistency there.
Whereas Romney opposes the mandate now, but he both championed and signed into law an identical mandate for his own state.
middle 50%? i think that number is much smaller. 20% tops. at least nowadays
and i could be persuaded that its lower than 20
It works like this:
A demo getting painted as a tax and spend liberal? That's SOP whether he is or not, showing clips of Obama arguably lying about taxes? That has little impact since the people who care most about taxes are voting against him anyway and assumed he was lying before the clips aired.
A Repub getting pained as tax and spend and lying about it? Well that's harder to figure- its hurts in a GOP primary for sure- but Mitt's gotten past that- in a general- maybe some true believers tune out...
True independents (and by that I mean people in the middle, not the people who claim to be Indy but are hard right or left ideologues)- if this just turns into ### for tat mudslinging we may see them simply tune out- or simply vote the unemployment numbers irrespective of what either campaign says or does.
My quip was not in regard to the name, but was in regard to you constantly obsessing over these people here. Am I wrong (perhaps I am as I don't pay much attention to them) that they are a relatively small subset of the populus, and that they're basically extremist right wingers who are essentially irrelevant to anything as there's no way in hell they're voting for Obama no matter what happens? It's not like we're talking about swing voters here. Is there a chance they will _not_ vote for Romney, and will vote for some fringe third party candidate instead? I really can't see that, but, again, perhaps I'm wrong.
At least true libertarians would vote for a third party candidate (I voted for Bob Barr last time) or would vote for either of the D and R candidates depending on who has the power in the legislative branch.
Fair enough. I agree that the vast, vast majority of that group will vote against Obama no matter what. That said, I think it's likely that there are some lower information voters outside that core group who are conservative but might not be motivated to vote for Romney because he's not conservative enough, not a man of the people, or whatever.
Not to be argumentative, but elections are zero sum, both sides can not be helped.
look at west virginia which is a dem leaning state but have strong animus toward the president
you have folks of all stripes who got their hackles up at this president taking office
It's recursive, David.
my party is going to have them whipped into a frenzy permanently between now and november. ohio, wisconsin, north carolina you name it
great thing about hate. it sustains
and these folks do hate the president.
i think that is the single toughest thing for dems to accept. that you have this piece of the electorate that doesn't just disagree with the president. they hate him. want him dead. and then his head chopped off. and that fed to wild animals on live tv.
sorry but it's true
ain't no way they don't vote come november
no...........way
Harv,
I agree with what you're saying as a general point, and I have no problem accepting it. I'd only add that even the slightest bit of wavering by the tiniest fraction of Obama haters (your term) can help tilt a swing state.
It might help him on the fringes, but that's way offset by Obama having a better case to make to people in the middle.
===
(a loss could have helped in some ways by motivating the left, but on balance it probably would have favored Romney.)
The only thing, IMO, that can help Obama on the far left is getting the Occupy people to turn out for the dems. And that's not happening over the health care bill. FWIW/SSS/twitter might be useless: I saw a lot of victory tweets from the pragmatic lefties I follow yesterday, but not a single mention of ACA from any of the Occupy feeds I subscribe to.
look at west virginia which is a dem leaning state but have strong animus toward the president
you have folks of all stripes who got their hackles up at this president taking office
Again, true as a general point, but West Virginia hasn't voted for a Dem since Clinton in 1996. They'll still vote for the Dems on the state and local levels but when it comes to presidents it's not just Obama who makes them vote red.
bah. campaigns can exploit a topic to their advantage and have since the days of the country's founding
i will end this here because i know this argument, consider it hokum and we are not going to convince each other of anything
“[W]e established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance... Using tax penalties, as we did … encourages ‘free riders’ to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others.”
help give the lie to the "Obama is outside the mainstream" type of campaign attacks. You can hardly run an ad criticizing this law when you own nominee is on the record as supporting its core principles. The continued discussion of it in the news damages Romney's credibility and reinforces the notion of him as a flip-flopper. It's not going to change the outcome in Texas or California, but it probably doesn't hurt with swing voters in the states that ARE going to matter.
But sure let's move on.
isn't this a zero sum game?
edit: Coke to bitter
and folks here are way wrong if they think the folks who hate the president were all gop voters previously
But were any of them Obama voters in 2008? I doubt it. McCain won WV by 12 points. I don't think the vote this year will be much different.
The idea isn't to eradicate free-loading, it's to eradicate free-loading by people who don't need to free-load.
The market for health care is unique in that there's essentially a societal compact, engaged in by all, that would-be purchasers of necessary health care will be served even though all parties know they can't pay. It can't be compared to normal markets.
??? on this issue?
whether some far righties will be so disillusioned they sit out/ vote Johnson? no...
Your honesty is admirable.
The two Teapers (sorry Ray) in my office, also admit that they hate Obama (actually one simply says that he hates what Obama stands for), they also assert that they HATE Romney (repeatedly, endlessly... they're from Mass by the way)- bot say they will hold their nose come November, but one has started saying, "hey, I'm in NY, my vote doesn't matter, maybe I'll vote Johnson...)
of course, this isn't a swing state, and there is definite calculation going on there...
the gop has a long tradition of exploiting hate
we have a skill set honed over years of practice
ha, ha
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/assuring-affordable-health-care-for-all-americans
When the conservative party nominee implemented a plan that has passed muster with one of the leading conservative judicial minds, and has had the support of conservative think tanks, I am not sure how one can argue that this is an outrageous case of liberal overreach with a straight face.
no- but some may not have voted in 2008...
You do know that not everyone follows polls, and goes on political blogs... Obama's election was a profound shock to many people
turnout in 2010 was some 83 million- that was an off year election, turnout was abnormally high - you had people voting who had not vote din the Presidential election - that's odd.
I think it hurt the Dems back in the day (Vietnam war protests and such) and I think it hurts the GOP now. The GOPs great strength usually is the ability to dog whistle the hate, so the haters hear it and know it and the low information folks don't. Romney is pretty bad at dog whistle politics.
None of that matters if the economy is bad enough, but there are a bunch of things that really do favor Obama in the upcoming election. With each passing week I grow a bit more confident and I think 505/50 undersells Obama's chances.
But I fall victim to confirmation bias as the next guy, so we shall see.
If even that much. Barring a completely incompetent candidate, both sides can count their floor at about 44-45%. Even in the 2 biggest shallackings since WW2, 1964 and 1984, the losing candidate still got ~40% of the vote. The thing is, you've got two variables that determine how that turns out.
The first are the relatively low information true independents. Pretty much every bit of research shows that most independents reliably support one party or another, it's only about 20-25% of them that really are up for grabs, and they tend not to spend a lot of time on politics. Obama was probably helped by the decision with this group, simply because it was the best news about the ACA that's been a powerful enough story for people to actually notice it. For these folks, having a major reform be ruled constitutional is an endorsement of a sort, and they sure ain't going to get deep in the weeds on the topic.
The second is the enthusiasm of each party's base. The goal here is to have them enthusiastic enough that it's fairly easy for your GOTV operation to herd them to the polls on election day and not stay home. Here, I'm not sure how things turn out. While it's certainly true that the ruling against them energizes the conservative base and makes them more receptive to getting out for Romney than they might otherwise have been, it's also true that the ruling helps energize the liberal base as well making people more likely to get out to vote to protect the court victory. And at the same time, losing at the court may have fired up some Democrats and made them more likely to vote, it would have been a crushing blow to the morale of a lot of Democrats to see the thing they'd been trying to get done for over half a century go down in flames and possibly damped enthusiasm.
What it comes down to is winning the late breaking true independent voters who generally don't pick until the very last week or so of the election and are currently not paying much attention, while getting as much of your base out as possible in order to gain that vital but tiny edge over the other side's turnout. If you get both done, you win the election. If you win one and not the other, it's going to be a heckuva long election night.
Of course, I could be completely wrong, but I think I'm in the same time zone as accurate.
I know, you forget, I'm not a Dem, I've never been registered as a Dem, I WAS a registered Repub for a long time, and I l;eft teh party for a reason.
I don't think he actually "gets" dog whistle politics
He's a robot, he doesn't actually feel those kinds of emotions.... :-)
I'm generally libertarian, of course, but it really isn't "inaction," at least in its pure form. There has been commercial "action" here -- the providing of the guarantee that necessary treatment will be provided to the uninsured even if they can't pay. If "commerce" entails provision of good/service and payment therefor, the first is already present, albeit in a unique form. Asking the freeriders to buy insurance is more akin to collecting a debt owed than pure "inaction."
ah, one of those.
well, the gop has its unpleasant elements. 'tis true.
Any group with more than ten people likely has unpleasant elements.
Coward. You know you wanted to say zip code.
The Republicans have two countervailing forces working on the "enthusiasm" issue. The base hates Obama, and wants him out. But they are not enthusiastic for Romney, and never will be.
Anybody claiming to know exactly how this will turn out is selling snake oil -- or hGh.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main