I'd vote for neither. Both are corrupt politicians of a corrupt, false-democracy. Our elections are rigged, our politicians and leaders buy their way into office or win simply based on popularity. The meritocracy of the old days is gone.

With that said, both obviously can't take their religion seriously because to be a politician in today's society you must trample on someone, steal money from the people, and mislead the populace. I'd rather have a good old-fashioned dictator who seized power by force than have a leader who claims he's able anyone, when all he's doing is lining his pockets with our hard earned money.

Anything in regards to abortion, the health mandate, etc, etc, they're of no concern. These politicians simple do what gets them elected and gets them more money and power at our expense.

I hear this a lot from the US, but I have to say that my experience as an Australian is that when I go to the doctor for a cold, see him at no cost to myself, and pay 5 dollars for a course of antibiotics, I don't feel that my dignity is being threatened.

Got that right. Most of the votes during the primary elections come from special interest groups (PACs) and the Unions. The average joe might "vote" but that poll turns out in the favor of these groups for the media. I only wish the average joe would actually have the real say so in this country anymore. *sigh* Same's true in November. Everything's all hyped up by the media, and usually what's on television usually wins out.

The American people get what they want....The "hands out", "I don't care", "they're all crooked", "my vote doesn't matter" attitude has carried the day. With the majority of Americans with this attitute we don't have to be concerned about radical terrorists. As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and they is us!"

Actually the primary elections are the real opportunity to change things; only about 20% of REGISTERED voters vote and a small 5% of the population can swing elections at a local, regional and state level. But, then, most people aren't interested.

A lot of people make the same comments about religion, business and employers as our last two posters said about politicians. Our immigrant ancestors didn't take that attitude....they changed things.

Perhaps with all this sarcasm we need to look inside....or else quit watching TV news and dig into the not-so-reported news to find that we have SOME sincere public servants who truly deserve our votes. Good citizenship requires that we encourage good candidates, perhaps even yourself.

No, but of course there's more to it than that.

What kind of Catholic voter am I? Long before this election is over, I will be a very weary voter. Tired of the whole thing.

hang in there!

it's only just begun!

DMD - your posts are enlightening and valid - thank you - I like the idea of balance.

In the case of the Presidency - I would like to see some balance in the Presidency - Bill Clinton was liberal - but he moved to the center to preside over a decent economic period in the USA (he may have benefited from Reagon / Bush I policies to end cold war and not have to pay for military but a decent run) It was his willingness to compromise (knowing full well that if he did not he would lose the presidency) that made his Presidency effective.

I'm not sure Obama can move to the center - on anything but especially abortion and healthcare.

He runs as a centrist but governs as an extreme liberal.

As to President Clinton, I agree with you and admire his skill and brilliance (and accept his human failings...it seems his family has done so and isn't that what counts?) - and for the very reason that he tacked to the center, the Democratic 'base' still despises him. (Actually, the Republicans of his day hated him for that reason as well - if they had a good idea, he wasn't above supporting it.) Just as both Presidents Bush tried to tack to the center - they too are despised by the GOP base. ( I will concede that neither earned any love from the opposition though....)

I have been on focus groups in my younger days and I no longer participate in such.

The goal of our hyper-partisan politics for the past twenty years or so is to turn off most voters - keep them home, make them cynical and disinterested.

Demonize the opposition. Tire them with bombastic claims, lies, sensationalism and simplicity. Target your 'base', turn them on by repeating what you think they want to hear and keep the turnout down from the rest of us.

As a political strategy designed to win elections that approach works and that is why we are where we are today in this country. however, as a governing philosophy it sucks as it produces deadlock and total mistrust. Remember that President Reagan and Speaker O'Neil could blast away at each other but end the evening at the White House telling war stories, smoking fine, probably Cuban, cigars and sipping single malt scotch. Those were the days! With the help of the late, and brillian Senator Pat Moynihan of my state, they saved Social Security from insolvency in the eighties and bought us thirty years to fix it permanently which we have selfishly squandered.

Today, the 'admen' rule the roost and the'bases' of both parties are leading us off of a cliff.

If any of you watched Newsroom on HBO last night, you had a great example of what I am saying as the contrast between the political operative of my generation played by Adam Arkin and his 30something colleague was clear as day. Arkin had no voice in the debate format decision which was being pushed by the 30 something whose only goal was to win - regardless of content or quality.

That my friends is where we are today. And yes, my candidate lost the Democratic nomination in 2008 and we are the worse for that as a nation in my view.

Those who find our present-day politics "too partisan" need only look back to the beginning of the Republic and the turbulent election of 1800.

I am a staunch Republican and I would have voted for Hillary Clinton over John McCain any day of the week.

What a joke!

I agree with your assessment DMD. It's probably going to remain hyper partisan forever.

John Adams lost his election to the First Presidency and at the time was appointed VICE PRESIDENT according to the rules - I think I would like that!

Obama / Romney or Romney / Obama who would you support?

check out this article from Our Sunday Visitor

This is the kind of BS that drives me crazy about the Catholic
Church - Does this Bishop not know that Obama supports abortion - and in fact promotes abortion?

The Catholic Bishops are slightly less frustrating than the Orthodox Bishops but for different reasons.

"Worried conservatives reacted negatively to the news that Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York had invited Barack Obama to the Al Smith Dinner in October. But the cardinal plainly believes the invitation serves the best interests of the Church — declaring war on the president of the United States by excluding him from this politically tinged festive event would hardly be helpful."


THE INVITATION SERVES THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHURCH????
WHAT IN THE HELL IS THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN?

I certainly don't pretend to know the mind of high ranking prelates, but even Saint Paul appealed to Caesar (who happened to be Nero!).

A recent analysis by the University of Colorado projects the winner of the 2012 presidential election:

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/20...rado-study-says

A University of Colorado analysis of state-by-state factors leading to the Electoral College selection of every U.S. president since 1980 forecasts that the 2012 winner will be Mitt Romney.

The key is the economy, say political science professors Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver. Their prediction model stresses economic data from the 50 states and the District of Columbia, including both state and national unemployment figures as well as changes in real per capita income, among other factors.

“Based on our forecasting model, it becomes clear that the president is in electoral trouble,” said Bickers, also director of the CU in DC Internship Program.

According to their analysis, President Barack Obama will win 218 votes in the Electoral College, short of the 270 he needs. And though they chiefly focus on the Electoral College, the political scientists predict Romney will win 52.9 percent of the popular vote to Obama’s 47.1 percent, when considering only the two major political parties.

“For the last eight presidential elections, this model has correctly predicted the winner,” said Berry. “The economy has seen some improvement since President Obama took office. What remains to be seen is whether voters will consider the economy in relative or absolute terms. If it’s the former, the president may receive credit for the economy’s trajectory and win a second term. In the latter case, Romney should pick up a number of states Obama won in 2008.”

Their model correctly predicted all elections since 1980, including two years when independent candidates ran strongly, 1980 and 1992. It also correctly predicted the outcome in 2000, when Al Gore received the most popular vote but George W. Bush won the election.

The study will be published this month in PS: Political Science & Politics, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Political Science Association. It will be among about a dozen election prediction models, but one of only two to focus on the Electoral College.

While many forecast models are based on the popular vote, the Electoral College model developed by Bickers and Berry is the only one of its type to include more than one state-level measure of economic conditions.

In addition to state and national unemployment rates, the authors looked at per capita income, which indicates the extent to which people have more or less disposable income. Research shows that these two factors affect the major parties differently: Voters hold Democrats more responsible for unemployment rates while Republicans are held more responsible for per capita income.

Accordingly -- and depending largely on which party is in the White House at the time -- each factor can either help or hurt the major parties disproportionately.

Their results show that “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. The results indicate, according to Bickers, “that 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.”

In an examination of other factors, the authors found that none of the following had any statistically significant effect on whether a state ultimately went for a particular candidate: The location of a party’s national convention; the home state of the vice president; or the partisanship of state governors.

In 2012, “What is striking about our state-level economic indicator forecast is the expectation that Obama will lose almost all of the states currently considered as swing states, including North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida,” Bickers said.

In Colorado, which went for Obama in 2008, the model predicts that Romney will receive 51.9 percent of the vote to Obama’s 48.1 percent, again with only the two major parties considered.

The authors also provided caveats. Factors they said may affect their prediction include the timeframe of the economic data used in the study and close tallies in certain states. The current data was taken five months in advance of the Nov. 6 election and they plan to update it with more current economic data in September. A second factor is that states very close to a 50-50 split may fall an unexpected direction.

“As scholars and pundits well know, each election has unique elements that could lead one or more states to behave in ways in a particular election that the model is unable to correctly predict,” Berry said.

Election prediction models “suggest that presidential elections are about big things and the stewardship of the national economy,” Bickers said. “It’s not about gaffes, political commercials or day-to-day campaign tactics. I find that heartening for our democracy.”

Does anyone vote based on the vice president?

Only idiots.