Replies

I get it, but if things don't improve and enough people see their own situations and their children's futures getting worse and worse, many "liberal" states may become "too close to call" states. I live in a true blue state, but I'm not taking anything for granted.

In the mean time, you have three months to help us find a Conservative alternative that has a chance of winning, so hop to it.:)

I live in a true blue state, but I'm not taking anything for granted.

Sure you are. (You proved it in post #56, re: Virgil Goode & Tom Hoefling: ...either of them is that they can't win. Demonstrate to me that a vote for either of them is anything other than one less vote Obama needs to win, and I'll reconsider.

I mean what do you want me to do? Post the '08 Obama results for those 15 blue states? Show you the 2012 Summer polls for those 15 blue states?

When it comes to Romney's chances of winning a blue state, you don't seemingly want to deal with the electoral reality of state by state corporate results. Instead, you just want to focus on some fantasy "I'll-pull-this-out-of-nowhere" illusion popular vote scheme & break everything down vote by vote in those blue states.

Yet when it come to measuring Goode or Hoefling's chances of winning, you do take it for granted that they won't win a blue state like Oregon.

Let me give you "breaking news": Mitt Romney won't win Oregon. Virgil Goode, who's on the ballot in Oregon, won't win Oregon, either. NEITHER WILL WIN OREGON. You want to inconsistently take it for granted that Goode won't win Oregon; but not take it for granted that Romney won't win Oregon.

You look with your eyes wide open @ Virgil Goode's chances in Oregon; but when it comes to analyzing Mitt Romney's chances in Oregon, you close them & conclude, "Nope. Not taking the obvious for granted."

That is called exercising a selective fantasy. (You are simply inconsistent)