CU election projection gurus still have Romney winning...actually kinda predicting a landslide

[spdirty]

These guys are really putting their reputations on the line with this. They have it 330-208 for Romney. Hope they're right. I honestly don't know who's gonna win, just putting this out there because it's interesting.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/10/04/updated-election-forecasting-model-still-points-romney-win-university

[Requiem]

Haha.

The model foresees Romney carrying New Mexico, North Carolina, Virginia, Iowa, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida.

What a joke.

[SoCalBronco]

This model uses state by state economic data. What is interesting about this model is the claim that it has worked 9 elections in a row and even accurately predicted the 2000 result where Gore wins popular and Bush wins electoral. The model itself is a new one, the 9 for 9 claim comes from the professors plugging in the state by state economic data on record in the election years all the way back to 1980 into the mathematical formula to see how close it was to the actual result (it doesnt claim to have been around back then, its just a retroactive application of the formula using the data from back then).

We'll see how close they come. There are a couple other models out there which project Romney at around 53% of the two party share (The famous Bread and Peace Model among others). Ofcourse, there are several models including Allan Lichtman's Keys to the Presidency, which predict re-election of the President.

I wouldnt be surprised by any result, be it a slight Romney win, slight Obama win, or a win by any of the candidates by 3-4 points.

[Rohirrim]

I still don't understand why people back Romney, other than party loyalty or Mormonism. He hasn't taken a stand on anything that lasts more than a week or two. He's the perfect candidate. No matter what you believe, he believes it too. Maybe that's the revolutionary new secret to getting elected. Ha!

[TonyR]

They have it 330-208 for Romney.

LOL That's pretty funny. Romney certainly appears to have a better chance right now then he did a week ago. But if Romney wins it's going to be by a nose. (insert Pinnochio joke here...)

[orinjkrush]

it has never been about what you say, its about how you say it. Think Reagan.

[Arkie]

Intrade has a market for every state. They predicted nearly every state right in 2008. They have it 303-235 for Obama.

http://electoralmap.net/2012/intrade.php

[nyuk nyuk]

I think these guys have accurately predicted every election since 1980, if I'm not mistaken.

[SoCalBronco]

I think these guys have accurately predicted every election since 1980, if I'm not mistaken.

The model retroactively has the right predictions. They haven't predicted anything before any election up to this point. In other words, the model wasn't here in 1980, or 84, or 88, or 92 or anything up to this point. But when the model was derived, they then retroactively took state economic data available in each year and plugged it into the formula and it came out right.

We will see if they are right with this call. It is certainly an aggressive call.

[Rohirrim]

I wish one of the Righties on here would answer my questions. Here's a candidate who has completely covered the details of his past. He destroyed all records of his time as governor. Wiped the hard drives clean. His records from the Olympics are closed. He's only coughed up two tax years that were engineered for the election. His time at Bain he refuses to disclose, other than stating that when Bain was doing a bunch of questionable things, he had no part in it, which is disputable. He hides assets offshore so they can't be taxed but won't tell anybody how much.

And then, on his positions, he reminds me of the old Talking Heads song: "I've changed my hairstyle so many times now, I don't know what I look like." In other words, he's a complete cipher. The Right doesn't know what he stands for, and neither does the Left. He comes to the debate and simply changes all the things he's been saying for a year. And the Righties just sit their nodding their heads as if it's all good. When little slips of the tongue occur or some old stories come out, they divulge the nature of a very strange man. It's some weird ****. Maybe it's some kind of Mormon mind trick?

[Arkie]

Intrade has a market for every state. They predicted nearly every state right in 2008. They have it 303-235 for Obama.

http://electoralmap.net/2012/intrade.php


Florida just switched to Obama. Now it's 332-206 for Obama.

[elsid13]

The model retroactively has the right predictions. They haven't predicted anything before any election up to this point. In other words, the model wasn't here in 1980, or 84, or 88, or 92 or anything up to this point. But when the model was derived, they then retroactively took state economic data available in each year and plugged it into the formula and it came out right.

We will see if they are right with this call. It is certainly an aggressive call.

Or they retro fitted the model using the those results.

[Crushaholic]

I wish one of the Righties on here would answer my questions. Here's a candidate who has completely covered the details of his past. He destroyed all records of his time as governor. Wiped the hard drives clean. His records from the Olympics are closed. He's only coughed up two tax years that were engineered for the election. His time at Bain he refuses to disclose, other than stating that when Bain was doing a bunch of questionable things, he had no part in it, which is disputable. He hides assets offshore so they can't be taxed but won't tell anybody how much.

And then, on his positions, he reminds me of the old Talking Heads song: "I've changed my hairstyle so many times now, I don't know what I look like." In other words, he's a complete cipher. The Right doesn't know what he stands for, and neither does the Left. He comes to the debate and simply changes all the things he's been saying for a year. And the Righties just sit their nodding their heads as if it's all good. When little slips of the tongue occur or some old stories come out, they divulge the nature of a very strange man. It's some weird ****. Maybe it's some kind of Mormon mind trick?

No, you're correct. I don't trust Romney as far as I can throw him. He says whatever he needs to say, in order to be elected. However, the ONLY chance of repealing Obamacare is a Romney win. That's how I'm seeing it...

[Rohirrim]

No, you're correct. I don't trust Romney as far as I can throw him. He says whatever he needs to say, in order to be elected. However, the ONLY chance of repealing Obamacare is a Romney win. That's how I'm seeing it...

Except that in the debate he said he's going to keep much of it.

[Arkie]

Or they retro fitted the model using the those results.

It's easy to do with a sample size of 8.

[24champ]

This model uses state by state economic data. What is interesting about this model is the claim that it has worked 9 elections in a row and even accurately predicted the 2000 result where Gore wins popular and Bush wins electoral. The model itself is a new one, the 9 for 9 claim comes from the professors plugging in the state by state economic data on record in the election years all the way back to 1980 into the mathematical formula to see how close it was to the actual result (it doesnt claim to have been around back then, its just a retroactive application of the formula using the data from back then).

We'll see how close they come. There are a couple other models out there which project Romney at around 53% of the two party share (The famous Bread and Peace Model among others). Ofcourse, there are several models including Allan Lichtman's Keys to the Presidency, which predict re-election of the President.

I wouldnt be surprised by any result, be it a slight Romney win, slight Obama win, or a win by any of the candidates by 3-4 points.

There's 13 models out there, 5 of which say Romney will win, another 5 says Obama will win and finally 3 models have it as a toss up.

[peacepipe]

I still don't understand why people back Romney, other than party loyalty or Mormonism. He hasn't taken a stand on anything that lasts more than a week or two. He's the perfect candidate. No matter what you believe, he believes it too. Maybe that's the revolutionary new secret to getting elected. Ha!Because they all have one religion in common,moronism.

[pricejj]

Gotta love "The Primary Model", which assumes an Obama victory because he received a higher percentage of his party's votes, than Romney did, in the New Hampshire primary. Ooooooh, the science!

[Requiem]

Still taking money wagers on this election. Who is ready to bet the bucks?

[pricejj]

How about "The Time for Change Model", where the "formula" automatically gives the incumbent ~51% of the vote, and has been accurate since 2000? :spit:

[Requiem]

How about "The Time for Change Model", where the "formula" automatically gives the incumbent ~51% of the vote, and has been accurate since 2000? :spit:

But I'm sure you are fine with the economic models that all side in Romney's favor because the underlying principle in most all of they is that no incumbent POTUS has won re-election with unemployment numbers as high as they are now. Sound reasoning.

[pricejj]

My personal fave is "The Economic Expectations Model", which predicts an Obama victory based almost exclusively on the question, "Do you think you will be more economically stable next year?"

Nevermind that the model had a -5% error in 2008, and a +7% error in 2004.

[Requiem]

My favorite model is the mixed president is better than a Mormon president model.

[pricejj]

But I'm sure you are fine with the economic models that all side in Romney's favor because the underlying principle in most all of they is that no incumbent POTUS has won re-election with unemployment numbers as high as they are now. Sound reasoning.

It's not one of the 13 cited models, but I would tend to give it credence over some of the others, considering it has held true for every single presidential election in U.S. history.

[Requiem]

I personally like what Nate does @ 538.

[pricejj]

My favorite model is the mixed president is better than a Mormon president model.

Unfortunately, one of the models deducts ~3% from Obama, because he's mixed...it's called "The Race Factor". It basically says that people who aren't black, might not vote for him because they think he might favor blacks.

Kinda like some of my younger black friends, who are going to vote for Obama just because they don't perceive him as "the man"...or the white man to be more specific. Completely disregarding qualifications and performance, of course.

[Requiem]

Most people are dumb and vote for stupid reasons. Not surprising. This is the same country that historically speaking, only let blacks and women vote in the last 100 years. Glad we got with the times.

[Jetmeck]

These guys are really putting their reputations on the line with this. They have it 330-208 for Romney. Hope they're right. I honestly don't know who's gonna win, just putting this out there because it's interesting.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/10/04/updated-election-forecasting-model-still-points-romney-win-university


Only in the ass backwards world you live in ?

Heh....I got a couple bridges for sale ?


Dumbass............................

[pricejj]

Most people are dumb and vote for stupid reasons. Not surprising. This is the same country that historically speaking, only let blacks and women vote in the last 100 years. Glad we got with the times.

FYI, the quran gave women voting rights almost 1,500 years ago. Bet you didn't know that! ;D

I wouldn't vote for anybody if I perceived that they were giving special handouts and priveledges to certain groups of people based on their gender, or race. It's despicable, like a monarchy. That's the main reason why I don't like Obama.

[Jetmeck]

No, you're correct. I don't trust Romney as far as I can throw him. He says whatever he needs to say, in order to be elected. However, the ONLY chance of repealing Obamacare is a Romney win. That's how I'm seeing it...

oBAMACARE is good thing/

More wars and tax breaks for the rich are bad things.

Please do not decide on just ONE ISSUE............

[pricejj]

oBAMACARE is good thing/

More wars and tax breaks for the rich are bad things.

Please do not decide on just ONE ISSUE............

LOL at Socialists.

How is taking 2.5% of my pay away (Obamacare tax), and redistributing it to someone else in the form of over-priced healthcare (without them having to do anything for it), a "good thing"?

It's not a good thing. It's bad for me, and bad for everyone else, who now has to pay a higher marginal cost for healthcare created by my dollars that someone else is using. The subsidized person receiving my money never would have purchased the product at that cost, without my redistributed money.

It's precisely why Socialist redistribution policies don't work...they destroy competition, and disable the invisible hand. There is literally no point in the equation, where the price of healthcare goods is competitive.

That can begin to change that by repealing Obamacare, and giving block grant funding to Seniors, in order that they can pay out of pocket for healthcare services, including health insurance, if they wish.

[Requiem]

I'm so glad I have awesome insurance.

[Rohirrim]

I'm so glad I have awesome insurance.

There's no such thing. Only the illusion.

[The Lone Bolt]

LOL at Socialists.

How is taking 2.5% of my pay away (Obamacare tax), and redistributing it to someone else in the form of over-priced healthcare (without them having to do anything for it), a "good thing"?

So how would the republicans bring down the cost of HC? What is their plan?

It's not a good thing. It's bad for me, and bad for everyone else, who now has to pay a higher marginal cost for healthcare created by my dollars that someone else is using. The subsidized person receiving my money never would have purchased the product at that cost, without my redistributed money.

Very few would get any "redistributed money" under the AHCA -- those who cannot afford to but insurance on their own. And if those folks don't have insurance they use the ER and we pay for that anyway, so your whining about paying for the HC of others is pointless. Under the current system you already are. And the republicans would do nothing to change that.

It's precisely why Socialist redistribution policies don't work...they destroy competition, and disable the invisible hand. There is literally no point in the equation, where the price of healthcare goods is competitive.

Under the AHCA, everyone buys private insurance. Insurance companies will compete for customers. The invisible hand continues to function.

That can begin to change that by repealing Obamacare, and giving block grant funding to Seniors, in order that they can pay out of pocket for healthcare services, including health insurance, if they wish.

I don't see how that is a solution to getting everyone insured.

[ZONA]

I still don't understand why people back Romney, other than party loyalty or Mormonism. He hasn't taken a stand on anything that lasts more than a week or two. He's the perfect candidate. No matter what you believe, he believes it too. Maybe that's the revolutionary new secret to getting elected. Ha!

I just shows how ignorant most people are in this country. For the polls to swing like they have based on a showcase of Romney lies during debate, how can you think anything but most Americans are truly ignorant and lazy. They don't care to fact find for themselves, they're simply won over by body language and being told what they WANT to hear, not what is truth. That is a fact.

[pricejj]

So how would the republicans bring down the cost of HC? What is their plan?

www.mittromney.com

Very few would get any "redistributed money" under the AHCA -- those who cannot afford to but insurance on their own. And if those folks don't have insurance they use the ER and we pay for that anyway, so your whining about paying for the HC of others is pointless. Under the current system you already are. And the republicans would do nothing to change that.

That is completely false. Every individual making under ~$35k per year is subsidized (according to scale), by everyone making over ~$35k per year. What you have, essentially, is the majority of middle-class taxpayers subsidizing overpriced health insurance for the lower middle-class taxpayers, wealthy people whose annual earnings are less than the federal poverty level (who Obamacare exapanded to include under Medicaid), and low income people (Medicaid).


Under the AHCA, everyone buys private insurance. Insurance companies will compete for customers. The invisible hand continues to function.

Why would I buy $6000 per year health insurance, when I can just pay 2.5% of my annual earnings (which is much less than $6000) and receive nothing? Health insurance companies aren't making much profit as it stands. The problem is healthcare costs are too high. Compounding that issue, when insurance companies are forced to provide "free" products and services to certain priviledged sectors of the population (birth control), and including over-utilization of healthcare, healthcare costs are projected to continue to rise.[/quote]

I don't see how that is a solution to getting everyone insured.

U.S. healthcare costs are the highest in the world. The question is, how can we bring healthcare costs down...not how much money we can waste on over-priced health insurance (which is what Obamacare is the only thing Obamacare accomplishes).

[pricejj]

I'm so glad I have awesome insurance.

It's government insurance, sponsored by the U.S. taxpayer, and negotiated by the government employees union to shift all the costs onto the private sector.

[pricejj]

...

Another way that Obamacare raises costs is by mandating the "Bronze" insurance plan, with a myriad of covered products and services, that most people don't need, and will never need.

[Rohirrim]

I just shows how ignorant most people are in this country. For the polls to swing like they have based on a showcase of Romney lies during debate, how can you think anything but most Americans are truly ignorant and lazy. They don't care to fact find for themselves, they're simply won over by body language and being told what they WANT to hear, not what is truth. That is a fact.

His $5 trillion dollar tax cut is a joke, on its face. Anybody who believes it has **** for brains. He's going to cut loopholes? Which loopholes add up to 5 trillion? He won't say. Bull****. Is he going to cut the mortgage interest write off? Really? Then say goodbye to an already staggering housing industry. He says he'll create 12 million jobs in four years? Most economists say that if we just stayed with the status quo, that many jobs would be created in four years. Romney is feeding people bull**** from one end to the other, and they're buying it up. Just like he used to sell Bain's bull**** promises.

Americans need to learn a little arithmetic.

[The Lone Bolt]

www.mittromney.com

Yes I'm familiar with the Romney "plan": pass the buck to the states and wash your hands of it. While I support the idea of allowing states to experiment and make improvements, I do not support having 50 different HC plans and bureaucracies. The AHCA allows states to experiment and make improvements while maintaining a HC standard for all Americans.

Nothing else in Romney's plan will reduce the cost of HC IMO. Tort reform will have no effect as medical malpractice lawsuits represent less than .6 % of all HC costs. Allowing companies to sell insurance across state lines would lead to companies "cherry picking" the healthiest customers and circumventing consumer protections which would lead to states with the poorest consumer protections to attract more insurance business and probably bring standards down for everyone. And the rest doesn't sound too promising either.

Look, Romney's plan has no working examples in the real world. The AHCA does -- in Switzerland and in Massachusetts. Romney's plan only works in theory. The AHCA works in reality.


That is completely false. Every individual making under ~$35k per year is subsidized (according to scale), by everyone making over ~$35k per year. What you have, essentially, is the majority of middle-class taxpayers subsidizing overpriced health insurance for the lower middle-class taxpayers, wealthy people whose annual earnings are less than the federal poverty level (who Obamacare exapanded to include under Medicaid), and low income people (Medicaid).

I stand corrected. There will be some subsidizing over the poverty line. However:

Nearly two-thirds (64.6 percent) of the 45.7 million uninsured people under age 65 are living in households with incomes of less than 200 percent of poverty, or about $44,100 for a family of four (Exhibit 1). In addition, of the estimated 25 million adults under age 65 who have such high out of pocket costs relative to their income that they are underinsured, more than half (55 percent) have incomes under 200 percent of poverty.

http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/ExclusiveCommentary.aspx?id=ba21673c-b1ac-44b7-8f76-50e856cdb9b5

So any such "redistribution" will disproportionately benefit the poor.


Why would I buy $6000 per year health insurance, when I can just pay 2.5% of my annual earnings (which is much less than $6000) and receive nothing?

Because you lose the money and still have no health insurance. Besides, what makes you think you will be paying $6000/yr?

Health insurance companies aren't making much profit as it stands. The problem is healthcare costs are too high.

Yes I agree that is a problem. And we have much more work to do. The AHCA is the beginning and not the end. But the AHCA has been demonstrated to work in the real world and Mitt's plan has not.

Compounding that issue, when insurance companies are forced to provide "free" products and services to certain priviledged sectors of the population (birth control), and including over-utilization of healthcare, healthcare costs are projected to continue to rise.

If this becomes a problem then the law can be amended. I don't expect that the AHCA is in it's final state.

U.S. healthcare costs are the highest in the world. The question is, how can we bring healthcare costs down...not how much money we can waste on over-priced health insurance (which is what Obamacare is the only thing Obamacare accomplishes).

Well, here's an article you may want to read from a nice, conservative source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/04/29/why-switzerland-has-the-worlds-best-health-care-system/

[Garcia Bronco]

I've changed camps. I will be supporting Romney in the booth on Nov 2nd. I'am looking at my portfolio (it's the economy stupid) and I am listening to my two different FA's and we feel like Romney will help us get a budget, stop or decrease QE(printing money and hopefully help fire Bernanke), as well as just be better from a market standpoint of my portfolio. We'll have to move money around because the printing of money is keeping stocks at artifical levels. Romney is an actual businessman and Obama is not and right now we need to run America like a business that's concerned with it's bottom line. My political hopes are that the Republicans keep the house and win the presidency. Right now Obama is not the best President to help people like me reach a financial level to retire.

[Garcia Bronco]

Yes I'm familiar with the Romney "plan": pass the buck to the states and wash your hands of it. While I support the idea of allowing states to experiment and make improvements, I do not support having 50 different HC plans and bureaucracies. The AHCA allows states to experiment and make improvements while maintaining a HC standard for all Americans.

Nothing else in Romney's plan will reduce the cost of HC IMO. Tort reform will have no effect as medical malpractice lawsuits represent less than .6 % of all HC costs. Allowing companies to sell insurance across state lines would lead to companies "cherry picking" the healthiest customers and circumventing consumer protections which would lead to states with the poorest consumer protections to attract more insurance business and probably bring standards down for everyone. And the rest doesn't sound too promising either.

Look, Romney's plan has no working examples in the real world. The AHCA does -- in Switzerland and in Massachusetts. Romney's plan only works in theory. The AHCA works in reality.




I stand corrected. There will be some subsidizing over the poverty line. However:



http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/ExclusiveCommentary.aspx?id=ba21673c-b1ac-44b7-8f76-50e856cdb9b5

So any such "redistribution" will disproportionately benefit the poor.




Because you lose the money and still have no health insurance. Besides, what makes you think you will be paying $6000/yr?



Yes I agree that is a problem. And we have much more work to do. The AHCA is the beginning and not the end. But the AHCA has been demonstrated to work in the real world and Mitt's plan has not.



If this becomes a problem then the law can be amended. I don't expect that the AHCA is in it's final state.



Well, here's an article you may want to read from a nice, conservative source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/04/29/why-switzerland-has-the-worlds-best-health-care-system/

Tort payouts are rather small...however the premiums for the insurance are not and are passed on right to the customer. One of those customers...medicare....caps it's payout. the money is made up somewhere.

[The Lone Bolt]

Essentially the AHCA "Swissifies" the American HC system:

By many measures, the Swiss are healthier than Americans, and surveys indicate that Swiss people are generally happy with their system. Switzerland, moreover, provides high-quality care at costs well below what the United States spends per person. Swiss insurance companies offer the mandatory basic plan on a not-for-profit basis, although they are permitted to earn a profit on supplemental plans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/health/policy/01swiss.html?pagewanted=all

It works there. It can, and will, work here too.

[Garcia Bronco]

oBAMACARE is good thing/

More wars and tax breaks for the rich are bad things.

Please do not decide on just ONE ISSUE............

More wars are a bad thing, but we've got a problem with Israel and Iran. Israel is not going to let Iran have a nuke, period. They will attack Iran. When that happens Iran will close the straights of hormuz. You will see an economic depression unlike any have witnesssed in almost 100 years, maybe the worst ever.

The Bush/Obama tax cuts can't really be repealed anyway. You'll send America into a tailspin during a mini-depression. This could cause the rest of the world to collapse as well. Union jobs will disappear overnight if we go into another global recession. We've got serious global problems to address as country both finanically and geographically. Our goals should be to stop Iran from gaining nukes, but allow them to create better infrastructure. We also need to make sure that we are protecting the world by protecting our economy.

[pricejj]

Yes I'm familiar with the Romney "plan": pass the buck to the states and wash your hands of it. While I support the idea of allowing states to experiment and make improvements, I do not support having 50 different HC plans and bureaucracies. The AHCA allows states to experiment and make improvements while maintaining a HC standard for all Americans.

The U.S. does not have a problem with health care standards. We provide the best healthcare in the world. Under Obamacare, a 15 member panel decides what standard of healthcare you will receive. The only way to cut costs under Obamacare is to reduce services, or which reduces standards. Whereas, competition naturally increases standards in a more free-market based approach.

Inexpensive catastrophic health insurance plans with HSA's are the cheapest and best way to provide coverage in case of emergency. If you truly want everyone covered, capping skyrocketing Medicare spending is the best way to reduce healthcare costs. This is true all around the world.

Nothing else in Romney's plan will reduce the cost of HC IMO. Tort reform will have no effect as medical malpractice lawsuits represent less than .6 % of all HC costs. Allowing companies to sell insurance across state lines would lead to companies "cherry picking" the healthiest customers and circumventing consumer protections which would lead to states with the poorest consumer protections to attract more insurance business and probably bring standards down for everyone. And the rest doesn't sound too promising either.

Romney proposes to reform medicare for younger people, which decreases healthcare costs substantially.

Look, Romney's plan has no working examples in the real world.

Medicare was enacted in 1965, and has skyrocketed healthcare costs. Capping Medicare spending isn't as dramatic as you make it seem. The world's best healthcare system will remain intact, be more efficient, and less expensive for all. Unlike Obamacare which only increases costs.


The AHCA does -- in Switzerland and in Massachusetts. Romney's plan only works in theory. The AHCA works in reality.

Massachusetts has the highest healthcare costs in the world, with the fastest increasing healthcare costs. So the answer is "NO"...it doesn't work.




I stand corrected. There will be some subsidizing over the poverty line. However:

http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/ExclusiveCommentary.aspx?id=ba21673c-b1ac-44b7-8f76-50e856cdb9b5

So any such "redistribution" will disproportionately benefit the poor.

Obamacare subsidizes individuals and families up to 300% of the federal poverty level...that equates up to about $35k per year for an individual or $69k for a family of four. That is not "poor", that is squarely in the middle-class. The problem is, healthcare costs are too high. There is no reason a family of four who makes $69k per year should be mandated to purchase health insurance with premiums of $7200 per year, or more. They then have to figure out a way to cover the $10,000 deductible to pay for their ACTUAL healthcare.


Because you lose the money and still have no health insurance. Besides, what makes you think you will be paying $6000/yr?

That's actually what it would cost for me to purchase health insurance now (and the price is projected to increase). As an FYI, a similar plan in Massachusetts (Romneycare) is approximately $8000. As you can see, mandating expensive health insurance for over-priced healthcare is no solution at all.


Yes I agree that is a problem. And we have much more work to do. The AHCA is the beginning and not the end. But the AHCA has been demonstrated to work in the real world and Mitt's plan has not.

Massachusetts also has the largest debt as a % of GDP of all the states, and the fastest increasing debt...primarily due to increasing healthcare costs. Again, Obamacare doesn't work.


If this becomes a problem then the law can be amended. I don't expect that the AHCA is in it's final state.

Obama has stated that he doesn't want to revisit healthcare. That he has "fixed" it.

Well, here's an article you may want to read from a nice, conservative source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/04/29/why-switzerland-has-the-worlds-best-health-care-system/

Actually, Singapore has the worlds cheapest, and most effective healthcare system. You should check it out.

Switzerland has a debt to GDP ratio of 401.9% and is the 3rd biggest debtor nation in the world. Socialism does not work.

If the U.S. had that debt to GDP ratio, we would be spending about $1.8T on debt servicing, which is over 70% of federal revenues.

[Rohirrim]

I've changed camps. I will be supporting Romney in the booth on Nov 2nd. I'am looking at my portfolio (it's the economy stupid) and I am listening to my two different FA's and we feel like Romney will help us get a budget, stop or decrease QE(printing money and hopefully help fire Bernanke), as well as just be better from a market standpoint of my portfolio. We'll have to move money around because the printing of money is keeping stocks at artifical levels. Romney is an actual businessman and Obama is not and right now we need to run America like a business that's concerned with it's bottom line. My political hopes are that the Republicans keep the house and win the presidency. Right now Obama is not the best President to help people like me reach a financial level to retire.

The United States of America is not a business. That's your first mistake. It was not brought into existence to make a profit. This is how ****ed up the American concept of government has become. Here's the mission statement of the U.S.: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

Show me a business with that mission statement.

Second, the purpose of the United States is not to enable you to make a profit. I mean jesus ****ing christ! What the **** every happened to, "Ask not what your country can do for you... ?"

Third, your premise of Romney being a good president because he was a businessman (what kind of businessman is a whole another subject) has already been shattered. Here's the three presidents who have been businessmen: George Bush, Herbert Hoover and Warren Harding. All three of them sucked.

[Garcia Bronco]

The United States of America is not a business. That's your first mistake. It was not brought into existence to make a profit. This is how ****ed up the American concept of government has become. Here's the mission statement of the U.S.: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

Show me a business with that mission statement.

Second, the purpose of the United States is not to able you make a profit. I mean jesus ****ing christ!

Third, your premise of Romney being a good president because he was a businessman (what kind of businessman is a whole another subject) has already been shattered. Here's the three presidents who have been businessmen: George Bush, Herbert Hoover and Warren Harding. All three of them sucked.

It very much is a business. That you don't see that is one of your greatest mistakes politically and financially. It's a failing business. It has poor infrastructure, operations, and ability to make money. Would you invest is such a company? No you wouldn't.

George Washington was a business man. Jefferson was a businessman(who died broke). TR was a businessman and there are many more including Wilson, McKinley, and so on. You don't know your history.

You keep quoting the preamble and it doesn't help your arguments. And hell...a profit? I'd just like the US to break even. lol

[Requiem]

Mitt Romney dealt in private equity. Has nothing to do with job creation, but all about greed and getting the biggest profit margins. Garcia, so funny.

[Requiem]

The only reason Washington was ever a businessman is because he married into a lot of money and got inheritance. That dude was poor as **** before that.

[Rohirrim]

It very much is a business. That you don't see that is one of your greatest mistakes politically and financially. It's a failing business. It has poor infrastructure, operations, and ability to make money. Would you invest is such a company? No you wouldn't.

George Washington was a business man. Jefferson was a businessman(who died broke). TR was a businessman and there are many more including Wilson, McKinley, and so on. You don't know your history.

You keep quoting the preamble and it doesn't help your arguments. And hell...a profit? I'd just like the US to break even. lol

:bs: George Washington was a general. Thomas Jefferson was a scholar. Teddy Roosevelt was never a businessman. Your premise is total hogwash.

[Rohirrim]

Romney has made business experience the main reason to elect him. Without his business past or his projections of business future, there is no there there. But history shows that time in the money trade is more often than not a prelude to a disastrous presidency. The less experience in business, the better the president.

In a scholarly ranking of great presidents, a 2009 survey conducted by C-Span,6 of the 10 best leaders lacked sufficient business experience to be president by Romney’s rumination. This list includes Ronald Reagan, the actor, union activist and corporate spokesman, and John F. Kennedy, the naval officer, writer and politician. There is one failed businessman on the list of great presidents, the haberdasher Harry S. Truman.

By contrast, two 20th century businessmen — George W. Bush, whose sweetheart deal with the Texas Rangers made him a multimillionaire, and Herbert Hoover, who came by his mining fortune honestly — were ranked among the worst presidents ever by the same historians. Bush left the country in a sea of debt and an economic crisis rivaled only by the one that engulfed Hoover.

Both George W. Bush and Romney are Harvard Business School graduates, further padding their business cred. Once they started governing, both men failed to improve the economic lives of those under them.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/the-wrong-resume/

[pricejj]

...

So you promote Obama and Bernanke deflating the dollar away towards zero, usurping all U.S. citizens wealth? And widening the gap between those who have assets tied to inflation ("the rich"), and those who don't ("the poor").

[Garcia Bronco]

:bs: George Washington was a general. Thomas Jefferson was a scholar. Teddy Roosevelt was never a businessman. Your premise is total hogwash.

You are wrong. It was George Washington getting ripped off by English merchants that prompted him to back a revolution. TR funded and got funding for a number of his ventures: He was the ultimate salesman. Thomas Jefferson was businessman, a broke man, that got funding for his school. These are just examples. I swear...what do they teach you kids in school. How do I know these things about history that you don't? Most of my early education, where I learned these facts was at public schools.

[The Lone Bolt]

The U.S. does not have a problem with health care standards. We provide the best healthcare in the world.

Seriously? While the standard is high the cost is astronomical compared to other countries. No, we do not provide the best HC in the world. In fact our system is by far the worst among industrialized nations.

Under Obamacare, a 15 member panel decides what standard of healthcare you will receive.

Wrong.

The Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, is a fifteen-member United States Government agency created in 2010 by sections 3403 and 10320 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which has the explicit task of achieving specified savings in Medicare without affecting coverage or quality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Payment_Advisory_Board

The only way to cut costs under Obamacare is to reduce services, or which reduces standards.

Pure speculation.

Whereas, competition naturally increases standards in a more free-market based approach.

The ACA (I guess I was mislabeling it the "AHCA") is a free-market based approach. What part of "private insurers" don't you understand?

Inexpensive catastrophic health insurance plans with HSA's are the cheapest and best way to provide coverage in case of emergency.

Evidence? Or is this just in theory?

If you truly want everyone covered, capping skyrocketing Medicare spending is the best way to reduce healthcare costs. This is true all around the world.

Which is what the Independent Payment Advisory Board ("15-member panel") is tasked to do. Yet you are against it.

Romney proposes to reform medicare for younger people, which decreases healthcare costs substantially.

How?

Medicare was enacted in 1965, and has skyrocketed healthcare costs. Capping Medicare spending isn't as dramatic as you make it seem. The world's best healthcare system will remain intact, be more efficient, and less expensive for all. Unlike Obamacare which only increases costs.

As already pointed out to you, the Swiss enjoy quality HC at a much lower cost than us. Real-world proof that you are wrong.

Massachusetts has the highest healthcare costs in the world, with the fastest increasing healthcare costs. So the answer is "NO"...it doesn't work.

Source?

And can you explain why it's remains so popular in Massachussets if it's such a bust?

Though the Massachusetts health care law has been panned by Republicans nationwide, local support for it remains steady.

Two out of three adults in the state support the law, while 88 percent of doctors say it improved, or did not affect, the quality of care, per the BCBS survey.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/05/has-mitt-romneys-massachusetts-health-care-law-worked/


Obamacare subsidizes individuals and families up to 300% of the federal poverty level...that equates up to about $35k per year for an individual or $69k for a family of four. That is not "poor", that is squarely in the middle-class.

I said "disproportionately benefits" the poor, not exclusively. Reread.

The problem is, healthcare costs are too high. There is no reason a family of four who makes $69k per year should be mandated to purchase health insurance with premiums of $7200 per year, or more. They then have to figure out a way to cover the $10,000 deductible to pay for their ACTUAL healthcare.

Yes there is -- to spread the risk for everyone and to avoid sticking hospitals with the ER bill. But realistically the vast majority of such families would have insurance through their employers so why you bring up this unlikely scenario is a mystery.

That's actually what it would cost for me to purchase health insurance now (and the price is projected to increase). As an FYI, a similar plan in Massachusetts (Romneycare) is approximately $8000. As you can see, mandating expensive health insurance for over-priced healthcare is no solution at all.

Once again, see the Swiss system. High quality care, far lower cost then the USA. A model that has been proven to work in the real world.

I really don't understand you conservatives. You fall all over yourselves to dump a system that has real-world working examples and throw your support behind a plan that only works in theory. That doesn't strike me as very "conservative."

Massachusetts also has the largest debt as a % of GDP of all the states, and the fastest increasing debt...primarily due to increasing healthcare costs. Again, Obamacare doesn't work.

Source?

Obama has stated that he doesn't want to revisit healthcare. That he has "fixed" it.

Can you find one example of Obama saying that he will oppose any reforms of the ACA?

Actually, Singapore has the worlds cheapest, and most effective healthcare system. You should check it out.

Yes I have. Not sure it would work here though. They have a very different system of government. But I'm sure we could learn a thing or two from them.

Switzerland has a debt to GDP ratio of 401.9% and is the 3rd biggest debtor nation in the world. Socialism does not work.

If the U.S. had that debt to GDP ratio, we would be spending about $1.8T on debt servicing, which is over 70% of federal revenues.

What does this have to do with their largely successful HC system?

[Rohirrim]

So you promote Obama and Bernanke deflating the dollar away towards zero, usurping all U.S. citizens wealth? And widening the gap between those who have assets tied to inflation ("the rich"), and those who don't ("the poor").

Didn't you learn anything from Cheney? Deficits don't matter. Most of it is money we owe ourselves. Jobs are the issue, not tax breaks, and not deficits. Create jobs. The deficit will take care of itself. Besides, when it comes to runaway spending, I would trust the Dems over the Republicans.

[pricejj]

The deficit will take care of itself.

U.S. taxpayers paid 20% of federal tax revenues towards debt servicing last year, and this number is only going up.

Besides, when it comes to runaway spending, I would trust the Dems over the Republicans.

You can't possibly be serious. These are the neo-Progressives, not Clintonian Democrats. Obama has added more than $5T in debt...more than any President in the history of the U.S. And twice as much as his predecessor GWB, who added about $2.5T in 8 years.

If Obama is elected to another term, he will have added more debt than all other Presidents combined (based on his generous projections).

[El Minion]

Debt is a problem when Japan, China and other foreign countries stop buying our debt and stop parking their money here. Inflation is low and so is interest rates. Complaining about the debt now is a red herring, jobs is and has been the issues to keep the US on the road to recovery not debt, at least not now. Complaining about the debt now is like complaining that there are to many investors (foreign countries) wanting to invest (buying US treasuries) in your business. We should all be so fortunate.

If US debt was such a problem, then Japan and everyone else would be dumping US treasuries and interest rates would be going through the roof. They are not.

[Arkie]

Didn't you learn anything from Cheney? Deficits don't matter. Most of it is money we owe ourselves. Jobs are the issue, not tax breaks, and not deficits. Create jobs. The deficit will take care of itself. Besides, when it comes to runaway spending, I would trust the Dems over the Republicans.

Debt benefits the financial class, so deficits matter to them.

We can create debt free money like Lincoln's Greenbacks or JFK's US Notes. We can create money instead of bonds out of thin air. The bankers create Federal Reserve Notes out of thin air to buy the bonds. Their creation buys our creation, and we pay them interest for this exchange. There's no reason to have this system of debt-based money except to benefit the 1%.

[Blart]

If Romney wins America gets what it deserves

[pricejj]

If Romney wins America gets what it deserves

Yes. We all deserve a chance for a free and prosperous future, without the shackles of Socialism and ever-increasing debt.

The Romney/Ryan plan begins to put us on that path. The path to prosperity.

[pricejj]

...


The Federal Reserve is printing $80B dollars per month in order to keep a ZIRP. Without that, interest on our $16T debt would eat up all our tax revenues. Unfortunately, that also means that U.S. Citizens can no longer gain interest earnings on their wealth. It also means that Social Security cannot grow like it's supposed to, in order to be somewhat sustainable.

Deficit spending is also highly inflationary, as evidenced by skyrocketing prices in the real estate, healthcare, commodities, and education industries (to name a few).

Therefore, not only are prices going up, while the dollar devalues, but our wealth is also not growing...creating a deadly mix, where we all get poorer. Except of course people who are lucky enough to hold real assets.

[TonyR]

The Romney/Ryan plan begins to put us on that path. The path to prosperity.

LOL Unless you're a multi-millionaire, bro, you're not allowed on that path.

[Requiem]

pricejj has got the punchlines down hookline and sinker.

[TonyR]

pricejj has got the punchlines down hookline and sinker.

He's living, breathing proof of the power of propaganda.

[barryr]

Even the liberals have had 4 years to come up with all the great stuff that Obama has done, but spend more time telling everyone why Romney would be worse. Pretty much sums it all up.

[Rohirrim]

Even the liberals have had 4 years to come up with all the great stuff that Obama has done, but spend more time telling everyone why Romney would be worse. Pretty much sums it all up.

Most serious political scientists and people who actually know what they're talking about realize that Bush ****ed this country up so badly, allowing Wall Street to obliterate our economy so thoroughly, that no president, regardless of party, could have cleaned up the mess in four years. Especially with the worst Congress in history, dedicated to doing absolutely nothing. We'll be lucky if we can clean it up in the next eight years. Unfortunately, the Right has learned absolutely nothing from this disaster, and simply wants to proceed along the same path Bush took, employing the exact same policies.

It's called insanity.

[spdirty]

http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4435

[EXCLUSIVE] 77% likelihood Romney wins popular vote, according to famous U of Colorado study (http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4435)

http://www.campusreform.org/liimages/871445/CRO.jpg

775 298 Google +34 84
By Levi Fox, on Oct 16, 2012




The University of Colorado (CU) prediction renowned for perfect accuracy will predict a popular-vote win for Mitt Romney later this month, Campus (http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4435#) Reform has learned.

The poll has accurately predicted every presidential election since it was developed in 1980. It is unique in that it employs factors outside of state economic indicators to predict the next president.

CU Political Science Professor Dr. Michael Berry, who spoke with Campus Reform at length on Tuesday, said there is at least 77 percent chance that Romney will win the popular vote.
http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/CLAS/Departments/PoliticalScience/AboutUs/ContactUs/DepartmentDirectory/PublishingImages/Berry,%20Michael.jpg Professor Michael Berry from the University of Colorado told Campus Reform in an exclusive interview that there is a 77 percent chance Romney will win the popular vote.



“Our model indicates that Governor Romney has a 77 percent likelihood of winning the popular vote,” said Berry.

That number is significant, not only in its size, but because of the fact that only four presidents since the nation’s founding have won the presidency without capturing the popular vote, the last being George W. Bush in 2000.

Berry noted his model has never been wrong at predicting the outcome of a presidential election.

“For the last eight presidential elections, this model has correctly predicted the winner,” he said.

Berry also acknowledged that while his poll is accurate, however, that his model does not “calculate a specific confidence level for the Electoral College result.”

The study, conducted every four years, is non-political and employs historical data as well as current unemployment numbers and income (http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4435#) levels.

In the crucial swing states of Florida, Ohio, and Virginia, a recent poll (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57498660/poll-economy-health-care-top-issues-in-3-battleground-states/) reveals that a majority of voters believe the health of the economy is the most important issue of this election.

Additionally, more than double of the respondents in a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-07-23/poll-romney-obama-economy/56439758/1) trust Romney over Obama to fix the economic state of our country (63%-29%).

Along with the economy, unemployment adds an element which only increases the probability of the CU prediction.

“The apparent advantage of being a Democratic candidate and holding the White House disappears when the national unemployment rate hits 5.6 percent,” Berry said.

Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder adds, “the incumbency advantage enjoyed by President Obama, though statistically significant, is not great enough to offset high rates of unemployment currently experienced in many of the states.”

The Colorado model has had such accuracy over the years, these results have received no criticism from academic (http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4435#) peers, according to Berry.

Berry emphasized that the overall accuracy of this model is based on the premise that American elections circle around the major issues. The day-to-day campaigning, gaffes, and political jabs are quite ineffective to the general population’s decision, come November 6th.


Campus Reform's Levi Fox had the chance to discuss this prediction with Dr. Michael Berry. Here is the exclusive interview. (http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4436)

Follow Levi Fox on twitter: @levithefox (http://twitter.com/levithefox)

[barryr]

http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4435

[EXCLUSIVE] 77% likelihood Romney wins popular vote, according to famous U of Colorado study (http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4435)

http://www.campusreform.org/liimages/871445/CRO.jpg

775 298 Google +34 84
By Levi Fox, on Oct 16, 2012




The University of Colorado (CU) prediction renowned for perfect accuracy will predict a popular-vote win for Mitt Romney later this month, Campus (http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4435#) Reform has learned.

The poll has accurately predicted every presidential election since it was developed in 1980. It is unique in that it employs factors outside of state economic indicators to predict the next president.

CU Political Science Professor Dr. Michael Berry, who spoke with Campus Reform at length on Tuesday, said there is at least 77 percent chance that Romney will win the popular vote.
http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/CLAS/Departments/PoliticalScience/AboutUs/ContactUs/DepartmentDirectory/PublishingImages/Berry,%20Michael.jpg Professor Michael Berry from the University of Colorado told Campus Reform in an exclusive interview that there is a 77 percent chance Romney will win the popular vote.



“Our model indicates that Governor Romney has a 77 percent likelihood of winning the popular vote,” said Berry.

That number is significant, not only in its size, but because of the fact that only four presidents since the nation’s founding have won the presidency without capturing the popular vote, the last being George W. Bush in 2000.

Berry noted his model has never been wrong at predicting the outcome of a presidential election.

“For the last eight presidential elections, this model has correctly predicted the winner,” he said.

Berry also acknowledged that while his poll is accurate, however, that his model does not “calculate a specific confidence level for the Electoral College result.”

The study, conducted every four years, is non-political and employs historical data as well as current unemployment numbers and income (http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4435#) levels.

In the crucial swing states of Florida, Ohio, and Virginia, a recent poll (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57498660/poll-economy-health-care-top-issues-in-3-battleground-states/) reveals that a majority of voters believe the health of the economy is the most important issue of this election.

Additionally, more than double of the respondents in a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-07-23/poll-romney-obama-economy/56439758/1) trust Romney over Obama to fix the economic state of our country (63%-29%).

Along with the economy, unemployment adds an element which only increases the probability of the CU prediction.

“The apparent advantage of being a Democratic candidate and holding the White House disappears when the national unemployment rate hits 5.6 percent,” Berry said.

Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder adds, “the incumbency advantage enjoyed by President Obama, though statistically significant, is not great enough to offset high rates of unemployment currently experienced in many of the states.”

The Colorado model has had such accuracy over the years, these results have received no criticism from academic (http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4435#) peers, according to Berry.

Berry emphasized that the overall accuracy of this model is based on the premise that American elections circle around the major issues. The day-to-day campaigning, gaffes, and political jabs are quite ineffective to the general population’s decision, come November 6th.


Campus Reform's Levi Fox had the chance to discuss this prediction with Dr. Michael Berry. Here is the exclusive interview. (http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4436)

Follow Levi Fox on twitter: @levithefox (http://twitter.com/levithefox)

I think this is the likely scenario. Obama hasn't done or said a thing that would make any legit undecider think he is the answer. Plus, it is highly likely the numbers of people that voted in 2008 will take a serious drop this time around since Obama has not given people any reason to get that thrilled and excited. Sure, the yellow dog democrats will vote for him, they'd vote for a dead guy for president as long as that "d" is by the name, but the youth vote in particular is going to diminish IMO and that was Obama's meal ticket. But those same voters in 2008 don't have jobs, see high gas prices, higher food prices, and there's Obama taking numerous vacations and Michelle with her $500 pairs of shoes. Not a good way to win fans who haven't yet been brainwashed into zombie democrat voters.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

^

Vacation and expensive shoe smack from a GeeDubya/Condi cheerleader?

That's some funny sh*t. :laugh:

BTW, when gas was approaching $5/gallon on the smirking monkey's watch, BushCo cheerleaders like you bent over backward to assure us the POTUS had no control over gas prices.

Double standard much?

[El Minion]

These guys are really putting their reputations on the line with this. They have it 330-208 for Romney. Hope they're right. I honestly don't know who's gonna win, just putting this out there because it's interesting.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/10/04/updated-election-forecasting-model-still-points-romney-win-university


???

[TonyR]

What happened to barryr? And lonestar? And nyuk nyuk? And pricejj? Among many others? All very quiet...

[Arkie]

Florida just switched to Obama. Now it's 332-206 for Obama.

Intrade predicted this a month ago. Not bad.

[Jetland]

What happened to barryr? And lonestar? And nyuk nyuk? And pricejj? Among many others? All very quiet...

i think nyuk got a bit of a ban over this stupidity
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?p=3707521#post3707521

[Rohirrim]

I think this is the likely scenario. Obama hasn't done or said a thing that would make any legit undecider think he is the answer. Plus, it is highly likely the numbers of people that voted in 2008 will take a serious drop this time around since Obama has not given people any reason to get that thrilled and excited. Sure, the yellow dog democrats will vote for him, they'd vote for a dead guy for president as long as that "d" is by the name, but the youth vote in particular is going to diminish IMO and that was Obama's meal ticket. But those same voters in 2008 don't have jobs, see high gas prices, higher food prices, and there's Obama taking numerous vacations and Michelle with her $500 pairs of shoes. Not a good way to win fans who haven't yet been brainwashed into zombie democrat voters.

Swing and a miss. Ha!

[NUB]

BTW: Nate Silver went 50/50 on predicting how the states would vote.

[Blart]

CU election model is actually pretty fascinating, because it focuses on state-by-state economics. Not accurate, but it's neat and unique.

I'm always happy to see academic sources, rather than pundits and crap like unskewedpolls.

[frerottenextelway]

I personally like what Nate does @ 538.

I remember in 2007 he was a no name poster on Kos and started pulling Dem primary projections out of nowhere based on Demos and such, it was surreal. The guy is a damn genius!

[Durango]

BTW: Nate Silver went 50/50 on predicting how the states would vote.

This guy is brilliant. I listened to him on Charlie Rose a week or so ago and he predicted a remarkably high percentage chance that Obama gets re-elected, even amid all the 'name' brands calling it even, or advantage-Romney.

He was taking a lot of heat for his predictions, but stood his ground. He even gave high percentage likelihood that Obama would sweep Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado & Nevada and insisted a better than 50-50 chance that Obama takes Florida and Virginia as well. Wow.

There's no doubt in my mind he will be front and center as the mid-terms come around. Great stuff.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What happened to barryr? And lonestar? And nyuk nyuk? And pricejj? Among many others? All very quiet...

They're still waiting for Fox to call the election for RobMe. Ha!

http://www.bartcop.com/voter-heroes.jpg