Umm ... what?nolanvt wrote:Or, it's a head fake by Clinton to give Trump the impression he has a chance in Michigan - he doesn't.
Do you think that Trump is just following Hillary around wherever she goes?
Umm ... what?nolanvt wrote:Or, it's a head fake by Clinton to give Trump the impression he has a chance in Michigan - he doesn't.
One implies he doesn't know any better, the other means he should. They mean different things. Ignorant isn't really an insult - although it is morphing into one.USN_Hokie wrote:Both is also a correct answerawesome guy wrote:TheH2 wrote:Now I'm convinced, Nolan is just an ignorant voter.
Did you mean ignorant or stupid?
either one is correct. HToo!
They've spent time and money the last week in Michigan. Not a good deployment of resources by the Trump campaign.USN_Hokie wrote:Umm... Election is tomorrow bro. Do you think the Trump campaign is calling up to buy ads in Michigan right now?nolanvt wrote:Or, it's a head fake by Clinton to give Trump the impression he has a chance in Michigan - he doesn't.awesome guy wrote:Clinton is in Michigan right now. Yes, she needs to defend Michigan. Trump is also there. That shows where things are right now. Just going by body language, she looks tired and defeated. Trump looks energized and charging. Could just be the different staminas or it could be they both know what's coming!
I know...and he could be bothTheH2 wrote:One implies he doesn't know any better, the other means he should. They mean different things. Ignorant isn't really an insult - although it is morphing into one.USN_Hokie wrote:Both is also a correct answerawesome guy wrote:TheH2 wrote:Now I'm convinced, Nolan is just an ignorant voter.
Did you mean ignorant or stupid?
either one is correct. HToo!
One of two grammar things that get me, the other isn't so much grammar. PIN number, I hate that so much.USN_Hokie wrote:I know...and he could be bothTheH2 wrote:One implies he doesn't know any better, the other means he should. They mean different things. Ignorant isn't really an insult - although it is morphing into one.USN_Hokie wrote:Both is also a correct answerawesome guy wrote:TheH2 wrote:Now I'm convinced, Nolan is just an ignorant voter.
Did you mean ignorant or stupid?
either one is correct. HToo!
You're taking my ribbing of nolan way too seriously man.
Someone should probably tell Obama and the Clinton campaign. Better yet...Hillary could just forward your link to the voters...no need to vote.nolanvt wrote:538 currently has Hillary at about an 80% chance to win Michigan.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... /michigan/
I don't understand their system. There is no poll that would seem to support Virginia being a toss-up. There are a number of states where one candidate has won every single poll and they have it as a toss-up.USN_Hokie wrote:Virginia just went to toss-up on RCP.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... e_map.html
I don't know either. Personally, I think Trump wins PA before he wins VA.BigDave wrote:I don't understand their system. There is no poll that would seem to support Virginia being a toss-up. There are a number of states where one candidate has won every single poll and they have it as a toss-up.USN_Hokie wrote:Virginia just went to toss-up on RCP.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... e_map.html
BigDave wrote:I'm not clear why you think both jurors aren't deliberating. Yeah, there are plenty of voters who automatically vote for their party's candidate, and are completely uninformed about any issues. I would suspect, though, that basically everyone on this board is far more informed than the average voter. Uninformed people don't tend to hang out on political message boards.USN_Hokie wrote:Which juror do you want Dave? The one who "doesn't want to wait around in the courtroom all day", or the one who will sit through deliberations and listen to the arguments of others? Your conclusion is from the perspective of a lazy juror. We don't want lazy voters or jurors.BigDave wrote:More to the point, you're not spending your time in line deliberating. A more apt analogy would be, if offered the choice of serving on a jury for the first trial of the day with no deliberation or serving on a jury for the last trial of the day with one hour of deliberation (assuming both trials cover the same subject matter and the only difference is how long you will have to wait), which juror would you choose? Most would choose to not have to wait around in the courtroom all day.nolanvt wrote:Nah, touched on it in my last post. The reason USN's silly comparison was false is that my vote has already been determined when I arrive at the polling place. It has not when I go to serve on a jury.
Are you arguing that willful ignorance is a positive attribute?TheH2 wrote:One implies he doesn't know any better, the other means he should. They mean different things. Ignorant isn't really an insult - although it is morphing into one.USN_Hokie wrote:Both is also a correct answerawesome guy wrote:TheH2 wrote:Now I'm convinced, Nolan is just an ignorant voter.
Did you mean ignorant or stupid?
either one is correct. HToo!
It can be.HokieJoe wrote:Are you arguing that willful ignorance is a positive attribute?TheH2 wrote:One implies he doesn't know any better, the other means he should. They mean different things. Ignorant isn't really an insult - although it is morphing into one.USN_Hokie wrote:Both is also a correct answerawesome guy wrote:TheH2 wrote:Now I'm convinced, Nolan is just an ignorant voter.
Did you mean ignorant or stupid?
either one is correct. HToo!
New Mexico has also moved into the toss-up category.USN_Hokie wrote:Virginia just went to toss-up on RCP.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... e_map.html
This is not a good interpretation of this section. Congress sets the time in which states choose their electors, but how those electors are chosen is up to the state:BigDave wrote:nolanvt wrote:Is it your opinion that early/absentee voting is somehow not Constitutional? (This one is going to be fun!)Congress set election day to be the Tuesday of the first full week of November. Voting other than that day violates the law.Article II Section 1 wrote:The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.
On the sliding scale of "how abhorrent to the Constitution is this", allowing for absentee ballots - where you actually have a reason other than "I want to" to need to vote early isn't nearly as bad as unrestricted early voting ... but neither one is constitutional, strictly speaking.
Congress then sets the day in which the electors choose the President, which is in December. All state electors must choose on the same day. There is nothing that prevents states from allowing early voting on electors.Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors...
Nope. I don't answer any incoming calls where I don't recognize the number. If its important, they can leave a message and I'll call them back.RiverguyVT wrote:Anyone here answer when a pollster calls? I don't
This is correct.Uprising wrote:This is not a good interpretation of this section. Congress sets the time in which states choose their electors, but how those electors are chosen is up to the state:BigDave wrote:nolanvt wrote:Is it your opinion that early/absentee voting is somehow not Constitutional? (This one is going to be fun!)Congress set election day to be the Tuesday of the first full week of November. Voting other than that day violates the law.Article II Section 1 wrote:The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.
On the sliding scale of "how abhorrent to the Constitution is this", allowing for absentee ballots - where you actually have a reason other than "I want to" to need to vote early isn't nearly as bad as unrestricted early voting ... but neither one is constitutional, strictly speaking.Congress then sets the day in which the electors choose the President, which is in December. All state electors must choose on the same day. There is nothing that prevents states from allowing early voting on electors.Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors...
I took the PPP poll a few times four years ago just out of curiosity. Now, I have blocking of junk calls, so if a pollster were to call, I wouldn't find out about it.RiverguyVT wrote:Anyone here answer when a pollster calls? I don't
So theoretically, a state could have never-ending voting. Voting for the next election could start the day after the previous election.USN_Hokie wrote:This is correct.Uprising wrote:This is not a good interpretation of this section. Congress sets the time in which states choose their electors, but how those electors are chosen is up to the state:BigDave wrote:nolanvt wrote:Is it your opinion that early/absentee voting is somehow not Constitutional? (This one is going to be fun!)Congress set election day to be the Tuesday of the first full week of November. Voting other than that day violates the law.Article II Section 1 wrote:The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.
On the sliding scale of "how abhorrent to the Constitution is this", allowing for absentee ballots - where you actually have a reason other than "I want to" to need to vote early isn't nearly as bad as unrestricted early voting ... but neither one is constitutional, strictly speaking.Congress then sets the day in which the electors choose the President, which is in December. All state electors must choose on the same day. There is nothing that prevents states from allowing early voting on electors.Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors...
The better question is: Is there anything that prohibits a state from not allowing early voting? I don't think so.
In vote by mail states, you can change your vote all the way up to election day. You just have to call into the county elections office. I haven't done it so I have no idea how easy it is but you can alter your vote before or on election day.HokieJoe wrote:BigDave wrote:I'm not clear why you think both jurors aren't deliberating. Yeah, there are plenty of voters who automatically vote for their party's candidate, and are completely uninformed about any issues. I would suspect, though, that basically everyone on this board is far more informed than the average voter. Uninformed people don't tend to hang out on political message boards.USN_Hokie wrote:Which juror do you want Dave? The one who "doesn't want to wait around in the courtroom all day", or the one who will sit through deliberations and listen to the arguments of others? Your conclusion is from the perspective of a lazy juror. We don't want lazy voters or jurors.BigDave wrote:More to the point, you're not spending your time in line deliberating. A more apt analogy would be, if offered the choice of serving on a jury for the first trial of the day with no deliberation or serving on a jury for the last trial of the day with one hour of deliberation (assuming both trials cover the same subject matter and the only difference is how long you will have to wait), which juror would you choose? Most would choose to not have to wait around in the courtroom all day.nolanvt wrote:Nah, touched on it in my last post. The reason USN's silly comparison was false is that my vote has already been determined when I arrive at the polling place. It has not when I go to serve on a jury.
So there's nothing in the world that could change your vote all the way up to election day?
What if you voted for a candidate and discover afterwards, but before election day, that this person was being charged with a loathsome crime? Or perhaps candidate promised to pass some legislation that is anathema to your personal ideology?
Hopefully you'd feel bad about your poor decision making afterwards, but you'd have no one to blame but yourself. You didn't exercise due diligence before casting your vote.
FTR, I didn't say he was stupid.TheH2 wrote:It can be.HokieJoe wrote:Are you arguing that willful ignorance is a positive attribute?TheH2 wrote:One implies he doesn't know any better, the other means he should. They mean different things. Ignorant isn't really an insult - although it is morphing into one.USN_Hokie wrote:Both is also a correct answerawesome guy wrote:TheH2 wrote:Now I'm convinced, Nolan is just an ignorant voter.
Did you mean ignorant or stupid?
either one is correct. HToo!
On another note, I don't know anything about physics, that doesn't make me stupid, just ignorant.