Gradycarter's Blog

Just another site

Tag: governor Romney

The Amazing Morphing Campaign Money Map on Vimeo – NPR

The Amazing Morphing Campaign Money Map on Vimeo

I originally saw this at Metoisiosis.Com, which is a very interesting blog that I like to follow.

I first want to point out that it was put out by NPR, which I’ve said for a few years that I think if people had to choose one news source to pay attention to that NPR would be the best one. And I do attribute part of that to being that NPR doesn’t have to seek advertisers and can tell a straight story without worrying about stepping on everyone’s toes

THIS is awesome… Well, the story being told is not awesome at all, but the telling of this story is absolutely awesome. We really do have such a convoluted election system. Some of this problems with our electoral system seems to be by design, but a lot of it seems to be due to a lack of design – which is not to say that it simply sucks because it has to do with the government, because we are smart enough to make this work better.

A lot of people would probably say that if we just got rid of the Electoral College this would mostly fix it’s self, and I partially agree. The problem however is that we are facing more than just regional and demographic barriers, we are facing campaigns that are financed by figures that we cannot comprehend (and I mean that not in jest, I mean that we don’t understand the gravity of these numbers), to deal with issues that are multiple thousands of times larger in terms of actual quantitative numbers… We literally have no idea what we are dealing with here…

Ok, I’ll just let the video do the rest of the talking, but Please share this, because campaign finance has already left it’s mark on this cycles campaigns (namely the Presidential campaigns), but campaign finance reform only happens if it is demanded by the people.

Here are a few snapshots incase you want to share any of this with others.








Mormonism In The Election

What Mormons Really Believe.

Before I get started here I want to say that I am posting this hoping that people actually won’t make religion the main reason that they vote, at least not their established religion. The idea of voting based on having prayed and reflected on how you should vote makes perfect sense to me. I just don’t have the same feeling about the team style “gamesmanship” and politics that has filled the faith that people claim.

I’m not trying to offend anyone who is Mormon, or anyone who thinks that you shouldn’t speak ill of people’s religions, but that is not why I’m posting this. I am posting this because I think it has been very surreal to watch so many of my Christian friends decide the Mormonism is close enough to being Christian that they feel like Governor Romney is one of them. Well, I like to embrace people of other religions, because I appreciate the exchange of ideas and beliefs, but having experienced some of the most adamant conversations of my life in Christian communities about how they are not of us…

I actually am fascinated by a lot of what I’ve heard about Mormonism. I don’t believe in Mormon specific ideology, but I am excited to hear about it. In fact, in 2010 I had weekly conversations, when I had moved home from college, with some door to door missionaries  They were very interesting, but we did walk away continuing to disagree, but more knowledgable about one another.

And incase you are trying to compare this to your personal faith I will have to remind you that this is not little issue for Governor Romney, he was a Bishop in the Mormon Church. It is very important to him. And the idea of American exceptionalism is very central to Mormonism. I’m just trying to make sure that we are approaching this in context.

With all of this being said I don’t think that we need to be voting based on people’s religions. But for those who have made this a part of their basis for voting I would just like to make sure that you aren’t doing it because it’s just too convenient not to stick to your guns…


While reflecting and talking with a few friends after making this post I felt like I had to include this comment that I made, because it is part of what I’m talking about. And again, I’m not saying this to bash Mormonism, but I am saying it to identify some of the willingness to change positions that have been completely profound to people, and yet they’ve softened out of what I perceive to be convenience…

What’s actually super interesting to me about Mormonism is that it sounds like a very “progressive” ideology in some ways… The only other people I’ve ever heard say that they think that we all are, or can become gods have been very liberal. The idea of Elohim having sex with Mary is very much against conservative theology. The WHOLE reason why a lot of churches say that Jesus was not born with original sin like the rest of us is because we was born of a virgin…

Also, the idea of Jesus having children is straight out of the Divinci Code (you know, that book that a lot of people consider to be the beginning of the coming of the AntiChrist…). – Me (aka: Grady)

A Whisper in The Storm: The Final Reckoning –

The Final Reckoning –

“Until there is a conception of participating in a democratic society, and a conception which is real – not just words and it means that we really are participating in a democratic society, until that’s the case discussion of taxes is fiddling with technicalities, and missing the point.” – Noam Chomsky, ‘An Inconvenient Tax’ (Film)

First of all I have to admit to having added to the title of this article. I added “A Whisper in the Storm” as an homage to how much I enjoyed this article.

Before you go any further I want to encourage you to read the article below… If you don’t have too much time, or you know that you might get bored with me please skip down to Mr. Brooks, I really doubt you’ll regret it.

Believing in something, or being defined by one’s background can often be a point of comfort and belonging. Having identity and individuality can be a very fulfilling thing, but people seem to perceive their individuality as reasoning why they can’t cooperate with others. This is The United States of America’s great identity crisis.

Americans want to be individuals, but they want to do it together, until it’s inconvenient… We have common cause and purpose in this nation, and in this world. Seeking commonalities seems like the best way to coexist. But finding out who you are can be just as important to a persons sense of purpose and worth. I like to classify myself as a social libertarian – which I think is actually much more in-line with the American electorate than either party, but you’d never know it from the 24 hour news cycle or the political gamesmanship we can’t seem to escape. One of the reasons I classify myself as such (as of right now) is that I believe in liberty based on a balance of a very democratically monitored and limited republic, while aiming to not allow my brothers and sisters of this nation and this world to live a forgotten and tragic life.

I don’t agree with Noam Chomsky all of the time, but I do have great admiration for him. His quote above symbolizes part of our struggle in my mind. Bill Maher is also someone who identifies as a social libertarian, regardless of how offensive he can be (I’m particularly don’t like how he makes fun of the middle of the country as he does). This post isn’t about my political philosophy so much though. Instead of going into petty politics (which is what happens anytime you put a face/name to any ideas) I would rather talk about the importance of sticking to talking about ideas.

David Brooks has my complete political admiration in his firm moderate grasp… I know I just said we should talk about ideas and not people, but David is one of the few people who knows how to talk about ideas so clearly that it can’t be personal. He’s good at his job… Before I really knew who he was I actually had the opportunity to meet him at the No Labels national launch, and I actually didn’t recognize him until after I’d spoken with him. He was incredibly kind, even though it was kind of my job at the time to know who he was… Well, this article moves me, and inspires me. Mr. Brooks is critical, and fair about the tone of today in my opinion. He is a moderate Conservative (which seems to be a rare bread in the mainstream anymore), and his words seem to lack all of the talking points that you hear in the main stream of the politics of today. I won’t attempt to explain what he’s trying to say, there’s a reason why he is so revered, he is good at using his own words. So, I would just like to remind you that this is a conservative man who has put into exact words how I feel about this election… I only say that because being from Oklahoma, and living in Arkansas it’s not all that difficult to be accused of being radically liberal, and I don’t think that I am (sorry for making it about me…).

Please, please share this article with your friends or family who are voting angrily (regardless of ideology), or who are seemingly lost in trying to understand what is happening in our country. I hope you enjoy the read, and I’d love (as usual) to get your feedback by whatever means you’d like.

Oh, one last thing. If you are ready to start hearing some voices that want to get our nation to get passed some of our shameful bickering I urge you to check out the wonderful organization No Labels. Perhaps you’ll enjoy their “12 Ways to Make Congress Work”, especially the No Budget – No Pay portion of their proposal.



The Final Reckoning


Jan. 20, 2009, was an inspiring day. Barack Obama took the oath of office and argued that America was in a crisis caused by “our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.”

It was time, he said, to end the false choices between the orthodox left and the orthodox right. He called for “an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics. … In the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things.”

Obama acknowledged that some people questioned the scale of his ambitions, the scope of his grand plans. But, he continued, “What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.”

In some ways, President Obama has lived up to the promise of that day. In office, he has generally behaved with integrity and in a way befitting a man with his admirable character. Sure, he has sometimes stooped to the cynical maneuver. Contemptuous of his opponents, he has given himself permission to do the nasty and negative thing. But politics is a rough business and nobody comes out unsullied.

In moral terms, he hasn’t let us down. If he’s re-elected, his administration would probably remain scandal-free. Given the history of second terms, that is no small thing.

Moreover, Obama has been a prudent leader. He’s made no rash or disastrous decisions. He’s never acted out of some impetuous passion. His policies toward, say, China, Europe and Iran have had a sense of sober balance. If re-elected, he would probably commit no major blunders, which also is no small thing.

But the scope of Obama’s vision has contracted over the years. It has contracted politically. Four years ago, Obama won over many conservatives and independents. But he’s championed mostly conventional Democratic policies and is now mostly relying on members of his own party.

It has contracted managerially. Four years ago, Obama went to the White House with a Team of Rivals — big figures with big voices. Now the circle of trust is much smaller and political.

The mood has contracted. The atmosphere of expansive hope has often given way to a mood of aggrieved annoyance. He seems cagier, more hemmed in by the perceived limitations of his office. The man who ran on hope four years ago is now running one of the most negative campaigns in history, aimed at disqualifying his opponent.

Most of all, the vision has contracted. The arguments he made in his inaugural address were profoundly true. We are in the middle of an economic transition, a bit like the 1890s, with widening inequality, a corrupt and broken political system, an unsustainable welfare state, a dangerous level of family breakdown and broken social mobility.

The financial crisis exposed foundational problems and meant that we were going to have to live with a long period of slow growth, as the history of financial crises makes clear.

If Obama had governed in a way truer to his inauguration, he would have used this winter of recuperation to address the country’s structural weaknesses. He would have said: Look, we’re not going to have booming growth soon, but we will use this period to lay the groundwork for a generation of prosperity — with plans to reform the tax code, get our long-term entitlement burdens under control, get our political system working, shift government resources from the affluent elderly to struggling young families and future growth.

When people say they wish Obama had embraced the Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction plan, they don’t mean the specific details of that proposal. They mean the largeness that Obama’s inauguration promised and the Simpson-Bowles moment afforded. They mean confronting the hard choices, instead of promising more bounty for everyone with no sacrifice ever.

But the president got sucked in by short-term things — the allure of managing the business cycle so that the economy would boom by re-election time. Instead of taking the midterm defeat as a sign he should move to the center, or confound the political categories, he seems to have hunkered down and become more political. Washington dysfunction now looks worse than ever.

Sure, House Republicans have been intransigent, but Obama could have isolated them, building a governing center-left majority with an unorthodox agenda. Instead he’s comforted the Democratic base and disappointed sympathizers who are not in it.

One final thing. No one is fair to President Obama. People grade him against tougher standards than any other politician. But his innate ability justifies that high standard. These are the standards he properly set for himself. If re-elected, he’d be free from politics. It’d be interesting to see if he returns to his earlier largeness.

Romney’s Latest Auto Claims Are Absurd – Steve Rattner (aka: the Car Czar)

Romney’s latest auto claims are absurd.

If you don’t have much time, or patience, I would recommend skipping my comments (they are blog comments…) and go ahead and read the article below, which was written by the Car Czar for the auto bailout on Romney’s comments as of late about the auto industry.

Steve Rattner is one of my political and economic heroes… I think that he has a very clear vision of what it means to be pragmatic and plain-spoken in our complex world of politics and business. I often speak to my conservative friends to pay close attention, but that is mostly because of where I’m from. Being from Oklahoma, and living in Arkansas makes it more likely that the uninformed commentator is conservative – the opposite would be true if I were from another part of the country (something that the show “Portlandia” takes a comical approach towards addressing). It’s all about perspective really, we speak in such scathing and polarizing terms about people who promote policies that aren’t so different from our own. In this article Mr. Rattner is calling to the reader’s attention the importance of understanding simple and verifiable facts as they stand… It does not mean that he thinks that Governor Romney is all bad, and the opposite from himself. In fact, I’ve heard Mr. Rattner on multiple occasions praise Governor Romney for being a pioneer on Wall Street. The criticism found in this article is only partially ideological, but more so it is a referendum on the former Governor/CEO/Bishop/etc.’s lack of deference to the truth… It is not a coincidence that these attacks are mostly being made in Ohio, as he desperately needs a November surprise in the state with probably the most organized auto labor collective that there is…

The counter response that I have been hearing when I try to discuss Governor Romney’s multiple aggressions upon reality is that the President lies to, so it’s a push… Well, it’s not… When I ask for examples, or when I hear examples on TV they all seem to be about how the President promised lower unemployment (5.something percent), however that isn’t really the same kind of lie… Being overly optimistic and missing the mark on how much his actions would affect the economy is not the same as blatantly lying about what has or has not happened. It’s just not the same thing. It’s fine to ask questions about whether or not the President implemented appropriate policies, and there is Plenty of room for that debate, but that does not mean that he is a liar in the same way that Romney was… What do you think? Surely I’m wrong about something here, and I’d love some feedback, so feel free to let me know what you think.



Romney’s latest auto claims are absurd

Why Republicans Said Not To Vote For Romney


I would rather you watch this video before you get bored of me, so watch it and if you’d still care to know what I think you can continue on below.

I have a few very stark and competing feelings regarding this election (on Romney in particular), and in the end they lead me to believe that we are going to have a smart and capable president after this election. I’m not certain that we’ll have an honest President, or that we’ll have a President who can live up to all that they’ve promised the American people, but I do know that the 2 men running for the office of President of The United States who have any chance of winning are very intelligent.

I do think however that there is a pretty important distinction in how their colleagues have spoken about them. I haven’t ever seen Democrats as a whole go after President Obama for being deceitful and for being a liar. On the flip side I have absolutely seen that with Governor Romney, and now watching the same people who disparaged him for months, or in some cases years, pretend like it never happened is maddening. So, I’m posting this video as a reminder, because as I’ve said before, Mitt Romney does lie to the people but I’m unsure if he sees it as being for their own good, and thus he in his mind is doing the right thing… I think that’s probably the case considering the insurmountable trail for a moderate Republican that leads to the Republican nomination for President…

Now, I know a lot of conservatives will respond to this by saying that all politicians are liars (which I don’t agree with – ie: Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul), but even if we are to accept them all as liars that doesn’t mean that they have to lie equally and correspondingly. Mitt Romney lies, often. The question you have to ask yourself (especially if you’re a moderate) is if you’re ok with that due to the extreme right that he is obviously attempting to bypass to accomplish necessary conservative goals. And this is not to say that being a part of the extreme right simply makes you wrong, it just means that without a lot of people like you consenting he wouldn’t have the nomination. Before I cut myself off I just want to reference a post I made earlier this year saying that he would pivot to the middle, and I was asking the question of whether or not you would be ok with that. Well, now he’s done it, are you ok with it? Here’s the link “The Virtue of Flipping and Flopping”

Hopefully I have explained myself clearly. My mental battle with conservatives right now is 2 fold: understanding what’s wrong with President Obama (I am not getting clear responses), are you comfortable with having a President who has such a propensity to lie (and I don’t think Obama lies like him)?

What do you think when you watch this?

Ohio – What Is the State of the State That Will Decide The Election?

This morning on Morning Joe they discussed the likelihood that the President will win in Ohio, mostly due to his campaign’s roots they’ve planted there over the last 5 years, and their impressive ground game there. The also discussed a few other states, but Nevada in particular. These 2 states are very important in the hopes of the President getting reelected, and 1 great connection was made on the show as to why they will probably go the President’s way – they are probably the 2 states with the most organized labor unions. Also, those labor unions in Ohio are probably Very heavily in favor of President Obama considering the auto bailout and the car industry in Ohio. Governor Romney has definitely made up some room in Ohio, but it looks at this point like it probably won’t be enough, and Ohio will almost surely predict the outcome of the election, baring some very surprising upsets in other swing states.




Nevada would be a big get or either candidate. The help that the unions in Nevada are giving President Obama seem to be providing a safe cushion. If he were to lose Nevada it might be pretty costly in the end…



On Morning Joe they were discussing the likelihood of this being the final election map, and the possibility of having a 269 to 269 tie (even though it would be quite unlikely), and the possibility of Governor Romney winning the popular vote while President Obama wins the electoral college – and they discussed how this country needs an election without contest because of the toxicity of our political polarization, and how that effects our people.


Morning Joe Charts – Economy Under Obama

Morning Joe Charts – Economy Under Obama.

So tonight’s Presidential Debate (the 3rd of 3) is about foreign affairs and foreign policy. It is a very difficult debate for Romney for 3 reasons: his lack of foreign policy experience, his awkward handlings of multiple issues related to foreign affairs (ie: London Olympics, the knee jerk reaction to Benghazi, and his rhetoric describing nations like Iran and Russia and China), and of course the fact that it is very difficult for a challenger to debate a sitting President on foreign affairs.

With all of that in mind we need to remember that most voters are going to vore more so on the the state of the economy and their feelings about who will be better for it. Many polls have said that people have more faith in Governor Romney on the economy, but their does seem to be some division. With all of that said, here are some charts about the jobs numbers during President Obama’s tenure in office. I find them more impressive than some, but I can’t help but think about the unmitigated disaster that he was in charge of helping us avoid (not to say that things haven’t been rough.

I think that the best chart for an affirmation of the President’s record is the first chart on Real GDP, and the way that it shows a steady rise, which to me represents economic growth less based on bubbles that we have faced over the last 30 years with under-regulated markets. On the other hand, I think that the chart that is the most devastating for the President is the third chart measuring Real Hourly Earnings. This chart, which I posted about in a previous post regarding Steve Rattner’s analysis, is apparently a stronger predictor of re-election viability. This of course is not exactly a full scale quantitative study due to the small number of re-election campaigns we have to compare to, and the fact that only those of FDR had comparable economies. Also, if we were to vote according to whether or not a President helped us make more money at our job we would need to have a really detailed conversation about what our expectations for a President really are… Can a President really do that? And for my conservative friends out there who just said yes, I would like for you to then explain to me why Romney says that the government can’t create jobs, or make jobs better (aka: government needs to just get out of the way). I just don’t see how that could actually help people make more money. If anything I think that if the third chart is really indicative of how this election will turnout I think it would be very likely to indicate that the voters simply want to have their cake, and eat it too.

So, the analysis isn’t perfect, but I do think that it is very important to pay attention to trends that we can find. We need a national mirror, and sometimes charts such as these can at least be a play the part of a reflective window that we walk past to get a glimpse at our countries face.

What do you think?

The Charts

Are You Better Off? – Bloomberg News

Are You Better Off? Take a Look at the Stock Market – Bloomberg.

This Bloomberg study about whether or not we are better off than we were 4 years ago was pretty interesting, so we’ll start of with the picture book version, as I do love charts/numbers, and then you can read the article. I think it’s worthwhile. I would imagine that a lot of people would be glad to dissect the article on their terms and explain why we are or aren’t better off, but I would like to present the article. If anyone would like to add their analysis I’d love to read it, and I’ll definitely consider posting it if it’s really compelling. I think that the article speaks to a level of our speculation as voters/consumers.

Are You Better Off?

Do you remember the news four years ago? Banks collapsed, markets cratered, companies struggled to make payroll and millions of people lost their jobs. Your retirement savings were decimated, the value of your house plunged, credit was unobtainable. Politicians dithered and economists argued. Only confusion prospered.

Against this background, it’s surprising to hear Republicans returning to Ronald Reagan’s classic debate question: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” To anyone whose memory extends a full electoral cycle, the answer is clearly yes.

When assessing our politicians, what matters isn’t just the here and now. It’s at least as important to consider how well we are set up for tomorrow, next year and the decades that follow.

This distinction is particularly important in assessing the aftermath of the last recession. The anxiety that gripped us in late 2008 wasn’t born out of a typical cyclical decline that hurts for a year or two before the economy returns to growth. Rather, it was a fear that something more fundamental had changed, altering our whole economic trajectory.

Only a forward-looking indicator can pick up both this fear and its ultimate resolution. Unfortunately, most economic statistics tell us only what happened last month, last quarter or last year.

Stock Market

The stock market, by contrast, is obsessively focused on the future. When investors decide whether to buy a company’s stock, they aren’t just thinking about its current earnings (if they were, a company like Twitter Inc. would be worthless). They are trying to figure out what its future earnings will be, and what that stream of income should be worth today. Their collective judgment, while far from perfect, tells a compelling story about how America’s prospects have changed over the past four years.

On the day of President Barack Obama’s inauguration, the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX)closed at 805, just over half its pre-recession level. In other words, investors thought the recession had done so much damage that the future earnings of corporate America were worth only about half what they were before. And because corporate earnings are a roughly constant share of the broader economy, the stock prices suggested a decline of historic magnitude in investors’ assessment of the long-run prospects for the entire U.S. economy.

As of Sept. 10, the S&P 500 index stood at 1429, about 78 percent higher than it was on inauguration day. Probable translation: Investors believe the long-run outlook for the American economy has improved enormously.

True, the stock market can rise for various reasons. Investors might expect corporate profits to grow faster than the economy, or corporate taxes to fall. They might have become more patient, causing them to place a higher value on earnings way out in the future. Given the current political climate, and the way the crisis shattered peoples’ complacency, none of these stories seems particularly plausible.

The stock market is also an imperfect proxy for the outcomes we truly care about. If there were futures markets more directly tied to economic output, unemployment or perhaps even well-being, they would provide an even better picture.

Surveys asking people to evaluate their well-being can also provide a useful insight given that people’s responses are influenced by their outlook. One index run by research company Gallup Inc., for example, shows people’s perceived well-being at a four-year high. (Disclosure: Justin Wolfers is a senior scientist at Gallup.)

Of course, the stock ticker can’t answer the most important political questions. It can’t say we are better off because of Obama’s policies, or for other reasons. It can’t say whether we are better off than we would have been under President Mitt Romney. It does, however, capture well the narrative of disaster, survival and recovery that has marked the past four years. It helps us to remember how bad we felt back then, and to appreciate where we are today.

(Betsey Stevenson is an associate professor of public policy at the University of Michigan. Justin Wolfers is an associate professor of business and public policy at the University of Pennsylvania, and a non-resident senior fellow of the Brookings Institution. Both are Bloomberg View columnists. The opinions expressed are their own.)

Read more opinion online from Bloomberg View. Subscribe to receive a daily e-mail highlighting new View editorials, columns and op-ed articles.

Today’s highlights: the editors on what to do about Libor’s overseer and on King Abdullah and Jordan’s subsidy addictionJeffrey Goldberg on power failures and Mormon food hoarding; William Pesek on China’s education policies in Hong KongRamesh Ponnuru on how muchRomney could actually accomplish as president; Barry Nalebuff on why New York should ban calories in beverages.

To contact the writers of this article: Justin Wolfers at Betsey Stevenson at

To contact the editor responsible for this article: Mark Whitehouse

The First Presidential Debate of 2012 (Complete) Romney vs.Obama – 10/3/2012 University of Denver

Presidential Debate 2012 (Complete) Romney vs.Obama – 10/3/2012 – Elections 2012.

Here is the full debate, and I’m going to put my quick thoughts below (so that I don’t spoil anything if you want to make up your own mind), but I’ll post some more thorough thoughts later.

Full Debate

OK, so far all of the analysis that I’ve heard tonight is that people feel that Mitt Romney got the best of this debate. On a personal note I don’t necessarily agree, but I understand how that might be true when speaking about the electorate. I think that this is going to be surprising to many because of the views that people have about these 2 people and their person-ability (and on that note I think that Obama looked much more comfortable but that Mitt looked more engaged, as he looked the President in the face almost the entire time that he wasn’t speaking). However, this isn’t all that surprising as this debate was about domestic issues (aka: The Economy), and considering the fact that this debate was almost entirely about President Obama’s record (because the voters know at least something about it), and the roles will likely flip in the coming debate (particularly in the foreign policy debate).

I think that the topics that we will likely hear more about over the coming days will be much of the same:

  • Medicare – Romney supports the voucher approach, and Obama doesn’t
  • Taxes – they both need to define more clearly what they want on personal and corporate rates
  • Military – (this may be wishful thinking) They didn’t talk too much about this, and it mostly seemed like a preview of the Foreign Policy debate when they did

I would love to hear more specifics about each of these things however. I want to hear about Romney’s plans to close loopholes, but I’m in suport of that. And I want to hear Obama defend the Affordable Care Act, as it still seems mysterious in a lot of ways (although I support so much of it), and I want to hear them both define their approach their plans for foreign policy from this point forward (even though I feel like I understand the President’s approach so far). I would also appreciate a more cooperative conversation about regulation, but I think that’s pretty wishful thinking.

I took some notes, and I’m going to watch this video again, and consolidate my notes so I can make a few more observations about what took place tonight. Please feel free to let me know what you thought about this debate if you have an opinion, I would love to hear from you.


The Election Breakdown By “The Issues”

So as much as I love to talk about swing states I think that breaking down the election by “issues” is very important, because they can be barometers for why people vote as they do, which is kind of the whole point of voting (having purpose and reasons). So here we go, these polls are from Politico & George Washington University:






%d bloggers like this: