Elections thread

[ProfessorRatigan]

I love that it didn't take too long for the standard 'libtard' phrase to pop up. I would hope the other side is mature enough not to have to resort to buzzwords like 'rethuglican' or the like... I guess when you're on the losing end of an argument, you can't help but trot out tired, used and, worst of all, CHEAP non-substantive slogans...

Anyone supporting Obama is a 'libtard' --give me a break. Obama is easily the most conservative president in recent history. Unquestionable support of Israel? Check. Tax-cuts to the richest 1%? Check. Wars in the middle east? Libya, check. Afghanistan, check. (Drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Syria...check, check, check...) A cabinet composed almost entirely of ex-Goldman Sachs people? Motherfucking check. I could go on...
(Appointing the former head of MONSANTO to head the FDA! Fast and Furious, which, yes, IS fucked up and his administration and Justic Department SHOULD be held accountable for, but won't be. Assassinating AMERICAN CITIZENS via the National Defense Authorization Act!!!!!)

Again, I'm posting this, because it seems to have gotten swallowed up in all the POINTLESS bickering with dvdjunkie. http://www.cracked.com/blog/ndaa-bigges ... ing-about/

Honestly, why is NO ONE talking about NDAA? It's all pointless, petty differences between Obama and Romney, as if the two were polar opposites. In truth, they are BOTH ultra-conservative corporatist dickheads and neither deserves to be President, just for this ONE issue by itself (which, FYI, they both AGREE ON.)

On foreign policy they agree, pretty much, on every point that matters or should be distressing to us. Instead, we (not just here on this site, we as in the American public at large) treat this and all elections like it's the super bowl and we're rooting for our team to win...

[Super Aurora]

What you are really saying Super Aurora is that you don't have an answer to any of those questions, am I correct?
If Obama is a "moderate conservative" I think you have him mixed up with wrong guy. There is nothing about him that is or was conservative,

Obama isn't a liberal. He's not a socialist (regardless of what the conservatives may say), his healthcare plan was basically romney's plan 2.0. His foreign policy is basically moderate, his economic policy takes some inspirations from "business leaders" and corporate ideals, even though they'd talk trash about him anyway because they want a 100% tool. And on other things as well.

So no, Obama would be labeled as a center right person on his record. He's not anywhere near a liberal, but he's not a full conservative by any means. That's why I said more so as moderate conservative as oppose to full hard-on liberal.

Again you have no clue how political spectrum works. You think that if it doesn't fit your views or answers you automatically label them the opposite of opposing side you're for. This is why bipartisan is a mess that it causes and needs to go. It breaks away any sort of moderate standings left in politics world. More and more politicians are leaning more and more right, even in the democratic party.

Even some big liberals I know, say Obama isn't liberal.

and I think this will point that out:

A good friend of mine sent this to me:

"23 million unemployed/underemployed, 47 million on welfare, $5.5 Trillion in new debt, 5.5 Million homes in crisis/foreclosure, $716 Billion taken from Medicare, $1.9 Trillion in new taxes on 1-January, $4,500 drop in Household Income, 100% increase in gasoline prices, 14% drop in oil drilling leases on private land, 64% drop in drilling leases on public lands. How do those numbers add up for you?"

Please explain this as eloquently as you can.

That's completely stupid.

1. Obama came in with the unemployment rate at 7.8 percent. A majority of his term has been the swelling from the aftermath of the recession. The stimulus did a lot of good, but it wasn't enough, and so its just now coming back down to pre Obama level's (8 percent). Those people out of work were going to be out of work regardless because we were loosing 750,000 jobs a month every month regardless of who came in and over time that has slowly turned around. Plus, you can't say that 'x amount of people are out of work' when a portion of those were out of work much longer than the recession.



2. Again, 47 million on public assistance is directly the cause of the recession to begin with, not indicative of the actual amount of people on assistance as opposed to when Obama took office, and destruction of the middle class because of many policies already set in motion by the Bush administration and going back further such as the ridiculous tax cuts and huge austerity cuts to assistance programs and the collapse of the housing market. And that goes for those in debt and those who have lost their homes.


3. 716 billion taken from medicare? That was money that was shaved off the top from the private insurers. That money was just overhead that the private companies would take in from the government as extra surcharges that had nothing to do with the customers benefits and went right into their profit margins. It has nothing to do with beneficiary spending, indeed, it was waste and abuse. I have to say even as hating the bill that its one of the best things in it.

4. He didn't raise any new taxes. In fact i'd go as far as saying that was just a lie to begin with. There have been no taxes levied federally, the states have done their individual things, but a majority of these are small and pitifully insignificant.


5. 4,500 drop in housing income is a lie, it was actually 2,500, and because again of the recession. An still the numbers will in housing income drop will decrease as time goes.


6. 100% increase in gasoline prices is completely misunderstanding the issue. Obama doesn't control the gas prices. That is driven by speculators on wall street who jack up the price depending on their bets. Its not illegal, but its immoral, and its not something Obama can necessarily change unless he went after making it illegal, something he isn't going to do. Supply and Demand has not been an indicator for gas prices since before the Bush administration.

7. Those drilling bans were directly in regards to drilling on our shores, in public and private property such as wild life reserves or natural habitats, and also in regards to Obama's shifting to more offshore drilling to offset that.


Not to mention you failed to give me a source where you're friend "found" this from.

I love to read you as you are straining to keep from crying because you might be wrong about our 'ruler' and maybe it will change your thoughts about YOUR future and the future of the children who will some day grown up into responsible human beings.

One, I don't cry over this. Why should I? This isn't a dead relative dying or something. You dramatize everything in effort to make your self look legitimate like in the last two quotes below.

Second, it won't change anything of my thoughts about anything. Especially from a guy like you who relies on Fox News as "legitimate unbiased new source"

I think that there a number of you who go through life with blinders on and not one original thought except to be against what other people are for.

That's not true at all and you know it. I support Obama this term on two things: his foreign policy and his social policies. The latter being much more important than economic as this defines rights for humans as humans beings. And even still his economic policies, even if they're not perfect(nothing is perfect) from legitimate sources i've seen, look much better than Romney's ever is. Even Ben Stein, a professional economist and big friend of Fox News that you love so much, stated that Romney plan is not fiscally possible. Did you not watch that video I posted? The plan Romney wants would make the economic crisis even worse than first two years of Obama's years in office.

I don't see how Romney will be able to do much better when he already proposes adding 500 billion per year to the deficit on defense spending that nobody, including the defense administration itself, actually wants. On top of this, his plan calls for a massive reduction in tax revenue totaling roughly another 200-300 billion dollars per year (despite his ridiculous claims of lowering taxes while closing deductions, earning either a net zero tax decrease for EVERYBODY, or a shift of tremendous tax burdens directly onto the middle class from the wealthy).

So in total, he's going in with the plan to ADD 0.7 trillion to the deficit, right off the bat. Even if he cuts literally ALL entitlement spending (which of course is neither feasible nor possible when Medicare and Social Security are concerned), he'll still have a yearly deficit totaling roughly 1.4 trillion dollars--greater than Obama's current amounts.

Mind you, as governor, Mitt Romney INCREASED spending[ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -massachu/ ] . So his record is in fact worse than Obama's when it comes to decreasing spending and tackling the deficit.

Furthermore, when we look at things from a historic perspective, we can see that incumbent Democrats have by and large helped reduce the deficit more than Republicans, who have presided over increases to the deficit.

I thank those eleven people who sent me PM's about this situation. And if you didn't think there was bullying going on here at UD, that is the reason why they have not contributed their thoughts to the thread. Those eleven people shall remain nameless because they trust me to never let anyone know whom they are.

Then why even bring it up if you want to have their names remain anonymous? One or two, I could buy ( I can guess CJ and carolinakid are one of the few probably), but 11? Sure. Also in fact why even bring this up. It hold nothing to election or this debate. You're just trying to play "victim" here.

Okay, now back to the throwing stones at the old guy.

I love how you always bring this up as if to gain any sort of sympathy for you or as if you're trying in desperate attempt to make us look like "bad guys".

[Super Aurora]

Anyone supporting Obama is a 'libtard' --give me a break. Obama is easily the most conservative president in recent history.

That's also false. He's not liberal but he definitely not most conservative president in recent history either.

Unquestionable support of Israel? Check.

If you're referring to Obama backing out from Israel, there's a good reason for that. Part of the reason America is so hated by the middle east and why we have gotten terrorist attacks is because of our BFF relationship with Israel. That's not to say we're breaking from them period but to stick with them so closely despite the fact Israel have a very well made and competent military tells us that they're able to do well on their own. By distancing ourselves from them too closely, it help easing up our foreign relation with other middle eastern nations bit better. In foreign affairs, playing favoritism isn't always the best tactic.
As for Libya, they're investigating into it.

Tax-cuts to the richest 1%? Check.

He only extended the bush tax-cuts a bit in order to have the other proposal get pass through congress. GOP in congress been filibustering left and right over anything Obama gave even ones that usually they support. So Obama had to compromise in order to do so which was extend bush tax cuts. But if he gets reelected, you can guarantee your ass he definitively going to tax up the rich one the bush tax cuts go bye-bye (I believe it goes away beginning of next year, as it was extended for two and it was extended in 2010).

Wars in the middle east? Libya, check.
Afghanistan, check. (Drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Syria...check, check, check...)

What war in Middle east? He already got all of our troops out of Iraq, is working on steadily bringing out troops out of Afghanistan, Drones imo I find that it's going be the new technology standard tactic in military warfare strategy whether your democrat or republican. While I do find it unfortunate that civilians got caught in it like in Pakistan, we at least got the one guy we went out there in the first fucking place to begin with. To me it's like the atomic bomb decision: drop bomb killing civilians but as means to end war quicker or no bomb and still fight on and increasing the amount of causality both soldiers and civilians. Same deal but in different circumstance here.

It's all pointless, petty differences between Obama and Romney, as if the two were polar opposites. In truth, they are BOTH ultra-conservative corporatist dickheads and neither deserves to be President, just for this ONE issue by itself (which, FYI, they both AGREE ON.)

While the two aren't way extreme opposites, they are different enough. Also even if Romney was like Obama, which he actually would be if he stuck with his Massachusetts governing policies, if you been paying attention, Romney been flip-flopping his stance so much that it's hard to even tell what side he's on. To me that enough clue in to tell me that this guy would not make great president. And half of his flip-flopping has to do with the fact he's being puppeteer by the GOP to sway to their far right radical views. Remember when Romney was running for primaries, the GOP and tea-parties hated him and his policies and wished he didn't win the nomination. which leads me to your next statement...

On foreign policy they agree, pretty much, on every point that matters or should be distressing to us.

Again if you been paying attention, you'd notice Romney flip flopped on that too. The reason he even agreed to almost all of Obama's foreign stances is because:

1. he has no stance on them to begin with. He's inexperience on the subject. Obama has made all valid and well said explanations and reasoning on each foreign issue.

2.Because of that, Mitt knows that he made an oppose stance on say Iraq war (which is unpopular now), he knows he going to lose favor and lose votes like that. He trying to play it safe.

Mitt knows little to nothing on foreign policy therefore his tactic is to go along with the flow even if it contradicts any of his other speeches on the issue in the past.

Instead, we (not just here on this site, we as in the American public at large) treat this and all elections like it's the super bowl and we're rooting for our team to win...

LOL I have to say I can't argue with that. It does seems to be like that and I am guilty of this too.

[Siren]

//hands Siren another mega bucket

Huzzah my friend!

My feelings on the Trump/Obama thing....

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wlvQW7tI4aE" frameborder="0"></iframe>

[Super Aurora]

//hands Siren another mega bucket

Huzzah my friend!

My feelings on the Trump/Obama thing....

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wlvQW7tI4aE" frameborder="0"></iframe>

gotta watch that lol. The Jon Stewart one is hilarious how brief and cynic it was.

[CJ]

I thank those eleven people who sent me PM's about this situation. And if you didn't think there was bullying going on here at UD, that is the reason why they have not contributed their thoughts to the thread. Those eleven people shall remain nameless because they trust me to never let anyone know whom they are.

Then why even bring it up if you want to have their names remain anonymous? One or two, I could buy ( I can guess CJ and carolinakid are one of the few probably), but 11? Sure. Also in fact why even bring this up. It hold nothing to election or this debate. You're just trying to play "victim" here.

Let me clear this up, I'm not one of the "11".

[Siren]

Then why even bring it up if you want to have their names remain anonymous? One or two, I could buy ( I can guess CJ and carolinakid are one of the few probably), but 11? Sure. Also in fact why even bring this up. It hold nothing to election or this debate. You're just trying to play "victim" here.

Let me clear this up, I'm not one of the "11".

Not one of the 11 either.

Also isn't "libtards" some violation here. Seems both insulting and derogatory.

[Super Aurora]

Then why even bring it up if you want to have their names remain anonymous? One or two, I could buy ( I can guess CJ and carolinakid are one of the few probably), but 11? Sure. Also in fact why even bring this up. It hold nothing to election or this debate. You're just trying to play "victim" here.

Let me clear this up, I'm not one of the "11".

That's more two off the list. (siren's included) lol.

[Siren]

Does it really matter how many people sent PMs? It's childish really, IMO. And by no means proves one is right or wrong.

Put it this way...

The majority of voters said Obama was right for the presidency 4 years ago. Talking millions of voters said, they support him. Does that mean everyone believes he is right, cause he had the most votes? Well dvdjunkie, that is your logic in action. Just because 11 people patted you on the back does not mean you are the most right or logical one here. Maybe it just means 11 other people out there just follow your logic.

PS....that was SOOO difficult not to get really insulting and such....

[ajmrowland]

yeah, people use gay now. while i wasntnoffended, junkie might as well have called us gay in the derogatory sense.

[disneyboy20022]

I'm not one of the 11 either.

Also, we have a new image of Donald Trump who is officially an idiotic moron.

[Mayhem]

Not one of the 11 either...

As for Obama's positioning, yes the Democrats are what are described as moderately conservative. Certainly right of centre. America would never allow any party that was left of centre, not after the 50s witch hunts. Perhaps a little to the left of where the Conservative party in the UK is situated currently, but have always been around that pegging.

The Republicans are way off further to the right. We call a party sitting in that same sort of spot the BNP (British National Party) here heh.

So no, Obama is not a liberal, is not a socialist, and definitely has quite conservative policies. The ONLY policy that is any where near being "socialist" is the health plan bill, which is much needed in the US given how it appears to a lot of people looking in from outside the country, that proper medical care is only for the rich.

If you want an indication of proper socialism and all that it can entail, rewind the clock to 70s Britain when Labour were in power. Go look it up. Be glad those sorts of things are unlikely to happen much in the US.

[dvdjunkie]

Note to Mahem and the other Obama-lovers:

The majority of you don't read any of the links to posts that I contribute, and that's why you speak so derogatorily towards thing you haven't really looked into. Most of you are afraid of finding the truth and it might be more than you can handle.

Here is something I found very informative and very interesting, and I have learned a lot more about what it means to be an American.

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/ ... 2&month=10


And none of you, so far, have proven that Obama is nothing less than a liberal spending machine. How do you think this country got into such debt. He is writing checks for things that don't make any sense at all. $16 trillion plus in National Debt is not a laughing matter. You evidently didn't watch the last of the debates, where your 'fearing ruler' acted with arrogance, disgust, and bullishness. He never answered a question straight forward. He always called Mr. Romney "Governor" and he used the phrase "You are all over the map" more times than I want to count.

Obama still hasn't come forward with the truth about the lack of support for our Consulate in Benghazi for almost two weeks. And he still refuses to say it was a terrorist attack. He still insists that Al Queda is on the run, and we still see American consulates that have been taken over with the Al Queda flag flying proudly. That should never be.

He still refuses to admit to his failures when it comes to Eric Holder, A123, and Solyndra. How can you trust a man to be your President when he can't even tell the American the truth about our involvement in all these failures.

Over 20 million people still out of work, and he thinks creating upper level jobs is a progress.

Would rather make appearances of Jay Leno and David Letterman shows to lie to the American public. He doesn't have a record to stand on, so why does he try so hard.

I read on another site, that Obama listen over 40 things he was going to correct in his first four years in office, and all of them were either failures or he totally ignored them.

He told us that he was going to "put America back to work" and get the unemployment rate down below 5%, and he failed miserably at that.

I am surprised that most of you aren't even voting in this year's election. As they say, if you didn't vote you don't have the right to complain or have your opinion heard. I am happy to read that most of you don't jump up and down over Gary Johnson or Roseanne Barr who are independent candidates running for the Oval Office and their names appear together in several states. One of the reasons I don't pay any attention to Independent or Libertarian candidates who are way overwhelmed by all that is going on in the world and think it can dealt with by talk.

Again, I never say, "I told You so" and will not on November 7th. But I will be here looking for you to admit that the better candidate won the election and we will have a new Commander-in-Chief. If I am wrong, you know that I will admit to it before anyone can call me on it. But I have faith that I am rooting for the right team in this election.

[Super Aurora]

Again, I never say, "I told You so" and will not on November 7th. But I will be here looking for you to admit that the better candidate won the election and we will have a new Commander-in-Chief. If I am wrong, you know that I will admit to it before anyone can call me on it. But I have faith that I am rooting for the right team in this election.

No need for me or anyone else to respond to all that other garbage you spew since you obviously didn't read the posts I made since you haven't counter-debate on any of the points I made. The link you post is wrong especially on his view on the foreign policy.

But I will respond to this portion of your post and give you this:

Into the Home Stretch

by Drew • October 22, 2012 • Uncategorized • 70 Comments

With the debates complete, and just two weeks left in the campaign, there’s enough state-level polling to know pretty clearly where the candidates currently stand. If the polls are right, Obama is solidly ahead in 18 states (and DC), totaling 237 electoral votes. Romney is ahead in 23 states, worth 191 electoral votes. Among the remaining battleground states, Romney leads in North Carolina (15 EV); Obama leads in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Wisconsin (44 EV); and Florida, Virginia, and Colorado (51 EV) are essentially tied. Even if Romney takes all of these tossups, Obama would still win the election, 281-257.

The reality in the states – regardless of how close the national polls may make the election seem – is that Obama is in the lead. At the Huffington Post, Simon Jackman notes “Obama’s Electoral College count lies almost entirely to the right of 270.” Sam Wang of the Princeton Election Consortium recently put the election odds “at about nine to one for Obama.” The DeSart and Holbrook election forecast, which also looks at the current polls, places Obama’s re-election probability at over 85%. Romney would need to move opinion by another 1%-2% to win – but voter preferences have been very stable for the past two weeks. And if 1%-2% doesn’t seem like much, consider that Romney’s huge surge following the first debate was 2%, at most.

From this perspective, it’s a bit odd to see commentary out there suggesting that Romney should be favored, or that quantitative, poll-based analyses showing Obama ahead are somehow flawed, or biased, or not to be believed. It’s especially amusing to see the target of this criticism be the New York Times’ Nate Silver, whose FiveThirtyEight blog has been, if anything, unusually generous to Romney’s chances all along. Right now, his model gives Romney as much as a 30% probability of winning, even if the election were held today. Nevertheless, The Daily Caller, Commentary Magazine, and especially the National Review Online have all run articles lately accusing Silver of being in the tank for the president. Of all the possible objections to Silver’s modeling approach, this certainly isn’t one that comes to my mind. I can only hope those guys don’t stumble across my little corner of the Internet.

source: http://votamatic.org/into-the-home-stretch/

Even if Romney wins the three toss up states, FL, VA, CO, he will still be behind and Obama wins anyway. Also Nate Silver who is an accurate and professional poll-based analysis, states Obama is in the lead. Of all the polling statistics being thrown around, Nate's is most likely the most accurate.

So that being said, might want to hold that confidence you had in yourself for a moment.


also about economic....

Originally Posted by BBC NEWS

US economic growth up sharply in third quarter


The US economy grew more than expected in the three months to September, official figures showed.

The world's largest economy expanded at an annualised rate of 2% in the third quarter, the Commerce Department said.

The jump was partly due to a large increase in government spending.

The figures are the one of the last pieces of important economic data before the US presidential election between Barack Obama and his challenger Mitt Romney on 6 November.

Federal government expenditures and gross investment increased 9.6% compared with the previous quarter, while national defence spending rose by 13%. The Commerce Department said there was a jump in personal consumption as well.

A drought in the US, which was the worst for 50 years, cut farm output and took 0.4 percentage points off the GDP figures, the Commerce Department said.

With more than 20 million Americans unemployed and a huge public deficit, the economy has become one of the central issues of the campaign.

The US has now been growing for more than three years, since June 2009.

"While we have more work to do, together with other economic indicators, this report provides further evidence that the economy is moving in the right direction," said Alan Krueger, chairman of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers.

But the Romney camp was not impressed. "Slow economic growth means slow job growth and declining take-home pay," Mr Romney said in a statement. "This is what four years of President Obama's policies have produced."

Economic fight
Mr Romney has repeatedly challenged President Obama's record, saying ''we have not made the progress we need to make''.

"If the president were re-elected, we'd go to almost $20 trillion (£12.4tn) of national debt. This puts us on a road to Greece," Mr Romney said during the second presidential debate.

Mr Obama replied that his opponent did not have a five-point plan to fix the economy, but ''a one-point plan''.

Last month, the US unemployment rate fell to 7.8%, down from 8.1%, its lowest since January 2009 when Mr Obama's term in office began.

Nigel Gault, chief US economist at IHS Global Insight, said: "There is prospect that we could do better next year if we could clear up some of the uncertainties, particularly the fiscal cliff.

"A lot of the ingredients for stronger growth are falling into place, particularly the gradual easing of credit conditions and the improvement in the housing market."

The "fiscal cliff" refers to automatic tax hikes and government spending cuts that were agreed by Democrats and Republicans during the last budget face-off, which will drain about $600bn out of the economy next year unless action is taken by Congress.

Low interest rates
To help get the US economy back on track, the US Federal Reserve in September restarted its policy of pumping money into the economy via quantitative easing. The Fed pledged to buy $40bn of mortgage debt a month, with the aim of reducing long-term borrowing costs for firms and households.

"Growth was fairly resilient," said Christopher Vecchio, a currency analyst at DailyFX, but "nevertheless, this is still not the stable recovery the Federal Reserve is looking for".

Recent housing data has also shown some encouraging signs of recovery, analysts say.

Sales of existing homes and housing construction have picked up and the main home price index has risen consecutively for three months.

House prices have rebounded in some areas, while mortgage rates are expected to stay at record lows because of low interest rates.

The Fed has vowed to keep rates at the current levels of close to zero until 2015.

The economy grew by 1.3% in the previous quarter. The US states its growth in annualised terms, meaning that its quarterly growth rate is extrapolated as if it was growing at that pace for the whole year.

source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20096380


This is coming from BBC, A news site with barely any political bias. So what about Obama gaining no economic growth?

[xxhplinkxx]

I will be here looking for you to admit that the better candidate won

You still don't seem to understand that even IF Romney wins, there's nothing for any of us to ADMIT. As I've been saying for days- the majority DOES NOT equal correct.

Majority =/= Correct.

[Siren]

I will be here looking for you to admit that the better candidate won

You still don't seem to understand that even IF Romney wins, there's nothing for any of us to ADMIT. As I've been saying for days- the majority DOES NOT equal correct.

Majority =/= Correct.

Well said!

Did anyone ask dvdjunkie to admit the better candidate won when Obama won? Didn't think so. Why didn't anyone ask? Because the whole "better candidate" is a matter of OPINION and opinion does not equal fact.

[jpanimation]

I'm not one of the 11.

My lack of participation in this thread mostly has to do with my apathy towards this election but it also has to do with the hostility of this thread. So much name calling and personal attacks, not enough debate. Not a healthy thread.

[dvdjunkie]

Found this little item and it will be last I post until after the election.

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/us_po ... position=4

Above all the name calling and disputed sources I must encourage everyone of you who is registered to vote, to exercise that right on November 6th.

There are some of you who are going to be recovering from this major storm that is headed your way this next week (Hurricane Sandy) and I hope that everyone escapes without much damage and loss of life.

The weather is something we can't control, and I will be more concerned about surviving this storm than anything else. There are some who will use it as an excuse for NOT voting, but that is their perogative. We still have 10 days before the election, and it is going to be very closely watched by a lot of people.

More important is the safety of everyone in the path of this storm, and then we have a few days to 'dig out' from all of what the storm leaves us, and then we can VOTE!!

[Alphapanchito]

Why doesn't Romney campaign in Massachusetts?

I thought this was interesting.

[ajmrowland]

Wanna know what else is interesting? Romney's not campaigning today, but he set up a Sandy relief event.

in Ohio.