BiggerPockets

Karen M.,
the political group was killed by Joshua like all other groups last week.

-Uwe

Karen M. so are you saying that "when the Redskins lose we all win?"

Finally a forum for me to show off my true expertise... random and meaningless football and political knowledge!

Karen M. is partially right, there is a Redskins "indicator". However, some of the facts need tweaking.

First, the Redskins lost to the Panthers, not the Cowboys. This is relatively insignificant, as the important part of the rule is the outcome for the Redskins themselves, not who their opponent is. Also, there are a few more distinctions with regard to the rule itself:

1) The incumbent PARTY will win the election if the Redskins win, and the challenging PARTY will win the election if the Redskins lose. This is necessary for things like termed out presidents to continue to follow the rule, as technically there is not an incumbent in an election following a termed out president.

2) The creator/discoverer of the rule stated a revision, that refers not necessarily to the incumbent party, but to the party that last won the popular vote (but not necessarily the electoral college). Thus, Gore winning the popular vote (but not the electoral college) in 2000 and Redskins losing in 2004 would indicate a change in party that won the popular vote, meaning the party that actually held the white house (despite not winning the previous popular vote) would continue to hold the white house (as George W Bush did).

This stuff matters.

And it didn't work out in 04, so it's not always, nice try, we'll probably know by the end of the week when defeat is accepted.....I hear Ryan is planning on teaching at some university...LOL

No, not some, I think almost half the country will be surprised. Half the country will be disappointed and half will be happy and relieved. Guess you could say most of the country could be surprised! LOL

I'd even say the winner will have some surprises, so will the loser.

I also think if it's really close, it may well be contested, we may not know until Friday, perhaps next week!

LOL, yes you did and I told you that it needed to be in by the 8th when Republicans will be voting! :)

Be glad when this is over and then we can go forward from here! (LOL) :)

D-day has arrived. This evening we will have a much better idea who the next president will be.

Mark, if you listen to any politician, they will claim they ared doing the best to keep their side to keep voting. If they thought they were behind and hopless, they may not go.

Canada has different views on free speech, they don't allow propaganda or known false statements to be broadcast there, that said, Fox News is not allowed in Canada due to their history of misstatements. Fox is obviously the far right propoganda machine, some on the right swear it's nothing but the truth. Maybe on of of neighbors up there can chime in on this but that's the way I understand it, it was reported on the regular news that Fox had been banned some years ago. So, if you want real and trustworthy news, Fox is not the place to get it. They do have great sports coverage.

MSNBC is the voice of the left. Some reporters/shows are better than others. They too stretch reality to make their point. However, I watch Early Morning Joe, Joe Scoroburh (sp?) he was a Republican congressman. A regular on MSNBC is Michael Steele, former chairman of the RNC, so you do get a balanced voice on Morning Joe. He is not the only Repub on the network, there are others, so you do get talking points of both sides but it certainly is center and left.

CNN has been a favorite of mine best world coverage, but they were purchased and is turning into a milder Fox. NBC is the parent of MSNBC, but you'll see the difference in the stories covered rather than a pure political view. CBS and ABC, I sometimes watch and they too shift to the coverage rather than any clear politically slanted position. IMO So, NBC, CBS and ABC should all be viewed considering the information out there and compared at hand. PBS is probably the best down the center in delevering a broader based news coverage. But PBS usually covers, at least when I see it, a few stories and they drill down much deeper than the commercial stations, you'll find them all over the place.

Local news is usually owned by regional or local station owners and their political views will mirror the owners' views, IMO. Our local stations in my area are all right leaning as is the population here.

Newspapers follow the bias of the owners as well. The Springfield News Leader here is called the Springfield News Misleader by most.

Radiois usually alocally owned or syndicated delivery of about anything you want to hear. There is Rush, he couldn't tell the truth if his mother's life depended on it, yet he has made a fortune at being a personality and the master of stirring the pot. I'm sure there is a counter on the left for Rush, but I have no idea who it is, I don't listen to verbage on the radio.

So, yes there is bias in our information networks. It's really important to get different views and to hear the same story from different points of view and then you have to decipher what may be the real situation.

We all usually find a personality or news person we like to hear, Tom Brochal (that doesn't look right, have no idea how these folks spell their names) for exmple sounds down the center but you can pick out his personal views. That's what you need to do is know when you're getting a line and when you're getting solid center information. I try to stay in the center. You'll find many, even here I'm sure that won't even think about listening to MSNBC or FOX, they don't want to hear it. You'll find that information is mixed with other facts, such as government reports, and they are used to decieve for political gain.

IMO, it's so skewed in the US it's almost work trying to dig out some of the issues. Political reporting here is pretty much propoganda from both ends IMO.

That said, I'll watch Chuck Todd of MSNBC for the reporting as he presents the possible paths to winning and drills down to counties within states without interject his personal views or political slants for one party. He will talk about how Romney needs to do this or that just as he does for Obama to win. But I'll be flipping channels too.

I don't think Romney will take Ohio, we will see, his Jeep made in China ad didn't help him there. Virginia and Florida will be ones to watch, they will be key states as to how the path will be developed. :)

I like to consider myself fair and balanced :), so just to provide some factual information to this discussion...two pieces of factual information:

1. Fox is not banned in Canada:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/foxcanada.asp

2. This rumor started in most part because back in 2003, Fox News went in front of a U.S. court and argued that it had the Constitutional right to lie to its audience. This was part of a whistle-blower lawsuit filed by a reporter who claimed that Fox required her to lie in an on-air broadcast:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre#Whistleblower_lawsuit

@J Scott, I'll buy that! See, it's hard to get around all the misinformation, excuse me Fox, at least they are on the record as lying and admit it. Thanks for clearing that up, my bad...

They just said we are having record turn outs in many areas.

I sure hope it's over with this evening!

Now, I'm off to go VOTE!