TexasCHLforum.com

Basically, it's targeted at the eastern seaboard, where the Democratic vote is strongest.
Every conservative I know will vote this election come hell or high water.
I bet the 47% are not as motivated.

http://pjmedia.com/weathernerd/2012/10/ ... lection/2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If the hurricane hits land then maybe it will create the shovel ready jobs that were promised.....

Snow predicted here as far south as Richmond (where I live). Kind of stinks a bit.

Is it possible that some form of emergency declaration could delay or extend voting?

MasterOfNone wrote:Is it possible that some form of emergency declaration could delay or extend voting?

Only if they don't like the real count.

smoothoperator wrote:

MasterOfNone wrote:Is it possible that some form of emergency declaration could delay or extend voting?

Only if they don't like the real count.

That's scary enough to be possible...You never know with the Chicago-political-machine operator we have in the WH now.

LabRat

No. It is a bad thing. It takes away all possible coverage for the scandal in Libya by giving the MSM another reason to ignore it, and gives the president a chance to look presidential in promising aid.

Scott in Houston wrote:No. It is a bad thing. It takes away all possible coverage for the scandal in Libya by giving the MSM another reason to ignore it, and gives the president a chance to look presidential in promising aid.

Those are two more reasons it'd be bad. The first two are that lives are at risk and there's the potential for untold economic damage.

Dave2 wrote:

Scott in Houston wrote:No. It is a bad thing. It takes away all possible coverage for the scandal in Libya by giving the MSM another reason to ignore it, and gives the president a chance to look presidential in promising aid.

Those are two more reasons it'd be bad. The first two are that lives are at risk and there's the potential for untold economic damage.

Good point on the lives, but the economic damage from this storm is a drop in the bucket next to the economic damage from a re-election of our disaster in chief.

Btw, I focused on the election because the OP focused on the election impact of Sandy.

Rex B wrote:Basically, it's targeted at the eastern seaboard, where the Democratic vote is strongest.
Every conservative I know will vote this election come heck or high water.
I bet the 47% are not as motivated.

You believe its good that millions of people are being hit by a natural disaster because that may help keep those you disagree with at home come voting day?

tallmike wrote:

Rex B wrote:Basically, it's targeted at the eastern seaboard, where the Democratic vote is strongest.
Every conservative I know will vote this election come heck or high water.
I bet the 47% are not as motivated.

You believe its good that millions of people are being hit by a natural disaster because that may help keep those you disagree with at home come voting day?

Well, calling a natural disaster "good" is somewhat extreme...
On the other hand, it is well known that Republicans benefit by bad weather on election day. (Because Democrats stay home, and Republicans don't.) And the discussion about what to do if a "weather event" occurs in such a manner to affect voter turnout is a valid discussion. The problem is, that should we allow special consideration for areas that are impacted on election day, eventually that consideration would be watered-down (pun intended) such that Democrats would want a "do-over" just because election day was cloudy. Seems to me all those in the impacted area should be early-voting NOW if they think they might be unable to vote on election day.

tallmike wrote:

Rex B wrote:Basically, it's targeted at the eastern seaboard, where the Democratic vote is strongest.
Every conservative I know will vote this election come heck or high water.
I bet the 47% are not as motivated.

You believe its good that millions of people are being hit by a natural disaster because that may help keep those you disagree with at home come voting day?

Millions? Natural disaster? Youre dramatically blowing this out of proportion. This election is not an issue of "disagreement", but an issue of defending our personal resources from those who feel entitled to take it. This is more on the level of defending the homeland or shooting a mugger.

sjfcontrol wrote: Seems to me all those in the impacted area should be early-voting NOW if they think they might be unable to vote on election day.

There are many states that do not have any early voting. Folks come out on election day, or they don't vote (except for a few who have acceptable absentee voting excuses).

Jim Beaux wrote:Millions? Natural disaster? Youre dramatically blowing this out of proportion. This election is not an issue of "disagreement", but an issue of defending our personal resources from those who feel entitled to take it. This is more on the level of defending the homeland or shooting a mugger.

I believe you may be so sure of your own self importance that you are beyond reasonable discourse.

tallmike wrote:

Jim Beaux wrote:Millions? Natural disaster? Youre dramatically blowing this out of proportion. This election is not an issue of "disagreement", but an issue of defending our personal resources from those who feel entitled to take it. This is more on the level of defending the homeland or shooting a mugger.

I believe you may be so sure of your own self importance that you are beyond reasonable discourse.

I have no doubts.