Undecideds/Moderates

[Crux]

Are they real? Do they actually exist? I'm beginning to wonder. The more I see and hear people talk, the less I think there are people who are genuinely undecided. One of my tennis clients is a middle-aged guy. He swears up and down that he is a moderate, that he belongs to neither party. But, he reposts all the republican hit-pieces on facebook with fudged numbers and misquoted stuff. He calls Obama "scary". He's voted republican his entire life except for his very first election when he voted for Carter, and he calls that a mistake (fair enough on that score). He's a republican. But he refuses to call himself one. His mind was decided as to who he would vote for in this election 20 years ago, yet he acts like he's one of the ~8% of people in the 'middle' who don't belong to one party of the other. Does the moderate, undecided voter actually exist?

[msteelers]

I think my mom is genuinely undecided. She started out as pro-Romney, but the more she has seen from him the less she likes, and has openly talked about potentially voting for Obama.

Everyone else I have spoke to about this made up their minds months ago.

Edit: However, she is on vacation now with her extremely conservative friends. I expect her to at least be anti-Obama when she gets back, and there might not be enough time to undo the damage. Oh well. Maybe I can at least still get her to vote against Allen West.

[Grundbegriff]

Are they real? Do they actually exist? I'm beginning to wonder. The more I see and hear people talk, the less I think there are people who are genuinely undecided. One of my tennis clients is a middle-aged guy. He swears up and down that he is a moderate, that he belongs to neither party. But, he reposts all the republican hit-pieces on facebook with fudged numbers and misquoted stuff. He calls Obama "scary". He's voted republican his entire life except for his very first election when he voted for Carter, and he calls that a mistake (fair enough on that score). He's a republican. But he refuses to call himself one. His mind was decided as to who he would vote for in this election 20 years ago, yet he acts like he's one of the ~8% of people in the 'middle' who don't belong to one party of the other. Does the moderate, undecided voter actually exist?

You seem to be confusing several issues:

(a) progressive <----> conservative
(b) centrist <----> peripheralist (or statist <--> libertarian)
(c) Democrat <----> Republican

If he refuses to call himself a Republican, perhaps that's because (contrary to your assertion) he's not one. For example, many peripheralists/libertarians find the Republican Party (and the very idea of two dominant political parties) nauseating, but will find themselves in ideological accord with Republicans more often than with Democrats. Similarly, many conservatives (who are not necessarily libertarian or peripheralist, but simply paleo) will more often agree with Republicans than with Democrats, but will for various reasons avoid party affiliation.

You seem to need to see this guy as a crypto-Republican who's simply lying or self-deceived about his outlook, and maybe that's what he is. But perhaps you find him confusing because you're conflating things that seem discrete to him.

In addition, you seem to be suggesting that all undecideds are moderates, or that the squishy middle is the only place one might find such uncertainty. Certainly, that's the natural habitat of the undecided voter, who tends either to be ideological incoherent or inattentive/low-info. But perhaps his claim to be undecided isn't meant to imply that he's moderate. Maybe it's just to imply that even though he intuitively rejects Obama and habitually circulates Republican talking points, he also feels his lack of a coherent mental model in terms of which he can achieve cognitive rest regarding, and then articulate, his voting decision.

[Crux]

Are they real? Do they actually exist? I'm beginning to wonder. The more I see and hear people talk, the less I think there are people who are genuinely undecided. One of my tennis clients is a middle-aged guy. He swears up and down that he is a moderate, that he belongs to neither party. But, he reposts all the republican hit-pieces on facebook with fudged numbers and misquoted stuff. He calls Obama "scary". He's voted republican his entire life except for his very first election when he voted for Carter, and he calls that a mistake (fair enough on that score). He's a republican. But he refuses to call himself one. His mind was decided as to who he would vote for in this election 20 years ago, yet he acts like he's one of the ~8% of people in the 'middle' who don't belong to one party of the other. Does the moderate, undecided voter actually exist?

You seem to be confusing several issues:

(a) progressive <----> conservative
(b) centrist <----> peripheralist (or statist <--> libertarian)
(c) Democrat <----> Republican

If he refuses to call himself a Republican, perhaps that's because (contrary to your assertion) he's not one. For example, many peripheralists/libertarians find the Republican Party (and the very idea of two dominant political parties) nauseating, but will find themselves in ideological accord with Republicans more often than with Democrats. Similarly, many conservatives (who are not necessarily libertarian or peripheralist, but simply paleo) will more often agree with Republicans than with Democrats, but will for various reasons avoid party affiliation.

You seem to need to see this guy as a crypto-Republican who's simply lying or self-deceived about his outlook, and maybe that's what he is. But perhaps you find him confusing because you're conflating things that seem discrete to him.

In addition, you seem to be suggesting that all undecideds are moderates, or that the squishy middle is the only place one might find such uncertainty. Certainly, that's the natural habitat of the undecided voter, who tends either to be ideological incoherent or inattentive/low-info. But perhaps his claim to be undecided isn't meant to imply that he's moderate. Maybe it's just to imply that even though he intuitively rejects Obama and habitually circulates Republican talking points, he also feels his lack of a coherent mental model in terms of which he can achieve cognitive rest regarding, and then articulate, his voting decision.

The interesting thing to me is that he doesn't claim to be undecided in the least. Neither is he libertarian by nature. He openly talks about how his business is doing really well under Obama. But he talks like your typical "rah-rah" sports-fan republican (and yes, the same type exist for democrats too). The type that parrot everything they hear from republican news sources and on facebook as though it is the truth without the slightest effort to validate. He's an intelligent guy - he runs a successful orthodontic practice. Seems to manage his money well from what I can gather. But he doesn't even *try* when it comes to the politics - he swallows the republican talking points hook, line and sinker. But claims he's a moderate. Claims he is open minded, and doesn't affiliate or believe in one party over the other.

I get the different scales - I'm not really confused by them. I have an ongoing debate with myself as to where I really fall on all three myself. Ironically most of the libertarians I know vote more democrat than republican these days because the republican party is neither fiscally conservative NOR socially liberal Talking with this guy it doesn't seem a matter of the republican party being the 'lesser of two evils'. He's thrown his lot in with them and I think he just likes the idea of being moderate. It just makes me wonder how many genuinely undecided or 'in the middle' voters there really are. How many of them pretend to be but really have made up their minds long ago.

[Gavin]

I'd consider myself a moderate but that may be the wrong terminology.

Fiscally I am for programs that help the poor and otherwise afflicted (as long as the affliction isn't chronic laziness or phobia of working). I'm also for incentivizing decision makers in agencies to come in under budget as long as safeguards are put in place to prevent the decision makers from cutting necessary programs or just cutting wages so they can get more incentive money (currently, I believe agencies try to meet or even exceed their budget out of fear of getting less money the next year, this is not sustainable). I think that would be the equivalent of raising taxes without actually doing so by making our dollars stretch further. I'm also pro-taxes only after those changes are made.

Socially I'm conservative but don't think anything I believe should be forced on others in a nation intended for freedom of religion.

So maybe that's just functionally liberal, I don't know.

[El Guapo]

Questions from the Undecided Voters.

[Gavin]

I'd consider myself a moderate but that may be the wrong terminology.

Fiscally I am for programs that help the poor and otherwise afflicted (as long as the affliction isn't chronic laziness or phobia of working). I'm also for incentivizing decision makers in agencies to come in under budget as long as safeguards are put in place to prevent the decision makers from cutting necessary programs or just cutting wages so they can get more incentive money (currently, I believe agencies try to meet or even exceed their budget out of fear of getting less money the next year, this is not sustainable). I think that would be the equivalent of raising taxes without actually doing so by making our dollars stretch further. I'm also pro-taxes only after those changes are made.

Socially I'm conservative but don't think anything I believe should be forced on others in a nation intended for freedom of religion.

So maybe that's just functionally liberal, I don't know.

This being said, I'm not undecided. I'm becoming increasingly more aware of what appears to be blatant corporate ownership of the Republican party. At least the Dems try to hide it from me.

[RunningMn9]

I don't know what I am, other than to know that I still haven't decided who to vote for. My selection process isn't ideologically based, and as a result, I find difficulty in choosing between these two fools (or deciding to go the ideological route and choose from the third-party buffet).

What I'm still weighing is the public perception of a Romney win, and if I think that perception is enough to have a material positive impact on the economy.

If I conclude "yes", then I will vote for him. If "no", then I will continue to boycott the Republicans for letting the religious right and tea party folks rise to prominence.

[RunningMn9]

*deleted*

[RLMullen]

At least RM9 is looking at both sides of the issue.

[Malificent]

I don't know what I am, other than to know that I still haven't decided who to vote for. My selection process isn't ideologically based, and as a result, I find difficulty in choosing between these two fools (or deciding to go the ideological route and choose from the third-party buffet).

What I'm still weighing is the public perception of a Romney win, and if I think that perception is enough to have a material positive impact on the economy.

If I conclude "yes", then I will vote for him. If "no", then I will continue to boycott the Republicans for letting the religious right and tea party folks rise to prominence.

I guess when it comes down to it, I can't vote Republican and reward the party for their childish "we are taking our ball and going home" philosophy of the last 4 years. I think that is the parent in me.

[WYBaugh]

I don't know what I am, other than to know that I still haven't decided who to vote for. My selection process isn't ideologically based, and as a result, I find difficulty in choosing between these two fools (or deciding to go the ideological route and choose from the third-party buffet).

What I'm still weighing is the public perception of a Romney win, and if I think that perception is enough to have a material positive impact on the economy.

If I conclude "yes", then I will vote for him. If "no", then I will continue to boycott the Republicans for letting the religious right and tea party folks rise to prominence.

I am right there with you RM9. I guess you can call me undecided or apathetic towards the contestents. But the Republicans are killing themselves with the regligious right/tea party. I've been voting Libertarian for awhile now just because I cannot stand either of the two major choices.

I just feel dirty selecting either one.

[Grundbegriff]

The interesting thing to me is that he doesn't claim to be undecided in the least. Neither is he libertarian by nature. He openly talks about how his business is doing really well under Obama. But he talks like your typical "rah-rah" sports-fan republican (and yes, the same type exist for democrats too). The type that parrot everything they hear from republican news sources and on facebook as though it is the truth without the slightest effort to validate.

Ah. In that case, who knows what his problem is? Maybe he calls himself moderate because he knows some people from the far, far right-- genuine monarchists or theocrats or fascists-- and reckons thoughtless Republicanism moderate in comparison!

[YellowKing]

Moderate != independent. I think your original post was referring more do independent, undecided voters actually exist.

The two parties tend to stay fairly static in terms of platforms (not necessarily from generation to generation, but certainly within generations). Thus I think it is probably rare to find someone who truly votes for the candidate they like better, regardless of their party. To do so you either have to have no real convictions of your own, or you are so wishy-washy in your convictions that you can flip back and forth with no issue.

I'd imagine most self-proclaimed independents tend to vote for one party over the other, but are open to the idea of voting for the candidate of another party if they believe they can do a better job.

[geezer]

What I'm still weighing is the public perception of a Romney win, and if I think that perception is enough to have a material positive impact on the economy.

If I conclude "yes", then I will vote for him. If "no", then I will continue to boycott the Republicans for letting the religious right and tea party folks rise to prominence.

"A material positive impact" is your price, huh? That's depressing after the total exasperation you've expressed regarding the Tea Party influence on the R side of the coin.

[geezer]

I'd imagine most self-proclaimed independents tend to vote for one party over the other, but are open to the idea of voting for the candidate of another party if they believe they can do a better job.

I think this is fair, or at least, it accurately describes me. I'm generally a pretty safe D vote, but I have in the past, and would in the future, vote for an R candidate if they were progressive on the social side of things. Particularly if the D in question was a complete failure with regard to the civil liberties issues that he campaigned on. For example. The problem for me is that, on the other hand, I very strongly believe in some of the items in the ACA. So when I say I'm "independent" or "undecided" it does not mean I have no convictions, but rather certain candidates embody thing I both strongly favor and am strongly against, so I'm forced to choose against myself on topics that both matter very much to me.

[Grundbegriff]

I'd imagine most self-proclaimed independents tend to vote for one party over the other, but are open to the idea of voting for the candidate of another party if they believe they can do a better job.

I think this is fair, or at least, it accurately describes me. I'm generally a pretty safe D vote, but I have in the past, and would in the future, vote for an R candidate if...

This is where I find myself, too, except that I tilt rightward rather than leftward. My first vote in a presidential election was for the Libertarian, and whether I choose the D or the R (or neither) has a lot to do with the individuals and issues in play.

[Kraken]

I'd imagine most self-proclaimed independents tend to vote for one party over the other, but are open to the idea of voting for the candidate of another party if they believe they can do a better job.

When I was little I asked my dad if we were Rs or Ds. He said neither -- we vote for the man. (Yeah, it was all men back then). That made sense to me then and I've identified as independent ever since.

Over the decades I've voted for both parties and neither party. My liberal-to-moderate outlook leads me to Ds more often than Rs, especially recently. But not always. If control of the Senate didn't hinge on the outcome, I would favor Brown over Warren because he's more effective than I expect her to be, especially at bringing home the pork. I just don't want to see his nutjob colleagues take both houses of Congress.

Part of me hopes that Romney will take the White House and revive moderation in his party. But that same part of me doesn't trust him to do it.

[geezer]

I'd imagine most self-proclaimed independents tend to vote for one party over the other, but are open to the idea of voting for the candidate of another party if they believe they can do a better job.

I think this is fair, or at least, it accurately describes me. I'm generally a pretty safe D vote, but I have in the past, and would in the future, vote for an R candidate if...

This is where I find myself, too, except that I tilt rightward rather than leftward. My first vote in a presidential election was for the Libertarian, and whether I choose the D or the R (or neither) has a lot to do with the individuals and issues in play.

And ironically, this time around *my* vote will be going for the Libertarian...

[Grundbegriff]

I'd imagine most self-proclaimed independents tend to vote for one party over the other, but are open to the idea of voting for the candidate of another party if they believe they can do a better job.

I think this is fair, or at least, it accurately describes me. I'm generally a pretty safe D vote, but I have in the past, and would in the future, vote for an R candidate if...

This is where I find myself, too, except that I tilt rightward rather than leftward. My first vote in a presidential election was for the Libertarian, and whether I choose the D or the R (or neither) has a lot to do with the individuals and issues in play.

And ironically, this time around *my* vote will be going for the Libertarian...

Well, that makes two of us!

[LordMortis]

I'd imagine most self-proclaimed independents tend to vote for one party over the other, but are open to the idea of voting for the candidate of another party if they believe they can do a better job.

I think this is fair, or at least, it accurately describes me. I'm generally a pretty safe D vote, but I have in the past, and would in the future, vote for an R candidate if...

This is where I find myself, too, except that I tilt rightward rather than leftward. My first vote in a presidential election was for the Libertarian, and whether I choose the D or the R (or neither) has a lot to do with the individuals and issues in play.

And ironically, this time around *my* vote will be going for the Libertarian...

Well, that makes two of us!

My vote will be going Libertarian, if they allow me to write in a Libertarian vote. As far as I know, it hasn't been sorted out yet. I guess that makes me undecided. But I was decided enough about the time Huntsman dropped out that I wouldn't be voting for democrat or republican for president. Watching this cycle go deeper and deeper. I'm trying to figure out if I can ever vote a party candidate again. I can't believe I'm becoming even more disillusioned with both parties and their institutionalizations and beholdennessitude as I get older. That I found out only recently that Johnson won't be on the ballot because his people were three minutes late with some paperwork. Now this doesn't speak well for Johnson but it pisses me off completely but that he was blocked by our Republican SoS put in place by our Republican governor.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/ ... mpetitors/" target="_blank

This pretty much defines my evolved opinion of the Republican party. I think I'm completely through with them. I used to find individuals working with in each party that either I thought I could stomach or I knew I could stomach but I am so sick of both parties that their "ideals" taint anyone involved with them. This began for me with Democrats tar and feathering Dean because he wasn't their man and it's gotten worse for my perception every cycle.

[Scraper]

Are they real? Do they actually exist? I'm beginning to wonder. The more I see and hear people talk, the less I think there are people who are genuinely undecided. One of my tennis clients is a middle-aged guy. He swears up and down that he is a moderate, that he belongs to neither party. But, he reposts all the republican hit-pieces on facebook with fudged numbers and misquoted stuff. He calls Obama "scary". He's voted republican his entire life except for his very first election when he voted for Carter, and he calls that a mistake (fair enough on that score). He's a republican. But he refuses to call himself one. His mind was decided as to who he would vote for in this election 20 years ago, yet he acts like he's one of the ~8% of people in the 'middle' who don't belong to one party of the other. Does the moderate, undecided voter actually exist?

They do exist otherwise there would be no swing states. Every year Ohio votes with the winning side be they Republican or Democrat. That's a lot of people who decide based on the candidate and the issues at the time and not who their fathers and peers told them to vote for for the past 30 years.

[LordMortis]

Are they real? Do they actually exist? I'm beginning to wonder. The more I see and hear people talk, the less I think there are people who are genuinely undecided. One of my tennis clients is a middle-aged guy. He swears up and down that he is a moderate, that he belongs to neither party. But, he reposts all the republican hit-pieces on facebook with fudged numbers and misquoted stuff. He calls Obama "scary". He's voted republican his entire life except for his very first election when he voted for Carter, and he calls that a mistake (fair enough on that score). He's a republican. But he refuses to call himself one. His mind was decided as to who he would vote for in this election 20 years ago, yet he acts like he's one of the ~8% of people in the 'middle' who don't belong to one party of the other. Does the moderate, undecided voter actually exist?

They do exist otherwise there would be no swing states. Every year Ohio votes with the winning side be they Republican or Democrat. That's a lot of people who decide based on the candidate and the issues at the time and not who their fathers and peers told them to vote for for the past 30 years.

I think Crux was more shooting for the people who haven't decided by October whom they will vote for in November. I don't necessarily hold it against them. I have a bunch of stupid proposals and candidates I still have to read up on in the next week or two and all of the ads don't help. They just piss me off, really. How many millions are spent on advertising proposals from all sides without ever telling me what the proposal is? Not one proposal commercial has shown me any of the verbiage on the actual proposals offered. Not one. And there are five of these going off on every commercial segment. How do these PACs succeed? Do people actually listen? In these 15 to 30 second blurbs, you could easily say:

PROPOSAL 12-2
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION
REGARDING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
This proposal would:

Grant public and private employees the constitutional right to organize and bargain collectively through labor unions.

Invalidate existing or future state or local laws that limit the ability to join unions and bargain collectively, and to negotiate and enforce collective bargaining agreements, including employees’ financial support of their labor unions. Laws may be enacted to prohibit public employees from striking.

Override state laws that regulate hours and conditions of employment to the extent that those laws conflict with collective bargaining agreements.

Define “employer” as a person or entity employing one or more employees.
Should this proposal be approved?
YES
NO __

Think about this before you get to the polls. Is that what you really want?

And then maybe later focus on things like the verbiage:

Override state laws that regulate hours and conditions of employment to the extent that those laws conflict with collective bargaining agreements.

And (for my money) explain why this is good or bad by example. Why is this important.

But that's not what we get from either side. We get no help understanding. We get "those guys are lying to you. Help students and people with burning houses" and "those guys are lying to you. This is won't making unions illegal." How much money is being dumped into not informing the citizenry at all? At least I suppose all of this useless advertising helps keep money in the economy.

[Isgrimnur]

Political persons and organizations don't want informed, intelligent voters. It's been proven time and again that there aren't enough of them to win anything. They want uneducated, impressionable people that are just motivated enough to vote. Relying on advertising to inform you is a fool's errand. And getting the full truth requires more effort than most people want to exert.

So, instead, you end up voting these issues in a straight ticket manner. Do you identify more with the group that supports the issue or opposes it? Well, then, it must be aligned / opposed to my beliefs and I will vote accordingly.

So goes the political process.

[LordMortis]

Political persons and organizations don't want informed, intelligent voters.

And I don't want political persons and organizations that go for this. And that is at the heart of my problem with supporting the people supporting and supported by the process as it stands.

[RunningMn9]

"A material positive impact" is your price, huh? That's depressing after the total exasperation you've expressed regarding the Tea Party influence on the R side of the coin.

I come cheap!

I don't consider my vote worth anything anyway. It's a symbolic gesture to make myself feel better, as my elector will be voting for Obama regardless of what I do. Although I suppose that's a reason to go third party.

I will have to conduct an ideological match-making test to see which candidate actually reflects the nonsense in my head.

But even then, my ideological beliefs are fairly fluid, so I have no idea what utility I would get out of that.

[RunningMn9]

According to the first candidate selector I happened across, I have an 89% ideological match with Obama. This is reinforced by my polar opposite candidate being Michelle Bachmann.

So I guess I'm down to choosing ideology or possible economic impact.

[LawBeefaroni]

So goes the political process.

The largest single demographic is the non-voter. Bigger than Democrats or Republicans, bigger than women voters or men voters.

[LordMortis]

So goes the political process.

The largest single demographic is the non-voter. Bigger than Democrats or Republicans, bigger than women voters or men voters.

I think that's probably the largest undecided factor as well. Deciding whether or not to actually vote.

[Gavin]

I just wish we had the ability to cast a negative vote instead of a positive vote. While I may not like any candidates in most elections, I at least have one that I know I don't want. The idea that I have to vote in favor of someone I don't want should not be a given.

[Defiant]

I just wish we had the ability to cast a negative vote instead of a positive vote. While I may not like any candidates in most elections, I at least have one that I know I don't want. The idea that I have to vote in favor of someone I don't want should not be a given.

That would simply guarantee that the least well known third party candidate would win the election.

[Gavin]

That would simply guarantee that the least well known third party candidate would win the election.

Sounds fantastic!

[Apollo]

I think the idea that some voters are "Independents" is a bit misleading. Almost all of the self-described "political independents" I know are very conservative folks who always vote for the GOP candidate for President. Most of them used to call themselves Republicans until they became disenchanted with the Bush Administration's "big government" policies shortly after the 2006 elections and started calling themselves "Independents" or in some cases "Libertarians". In progressive areas of the country I imagine there are a lot of liberals who consider the Democratic party too conservative and call themselves "Independents" despite the fact that they will always support the Democrat in Presidential elections.

I find this misleading because the assumption seems to be that "Independents" are in play and are as likely to vote for one party as the other...Which is absolutely not the case in my personal experience.

[Holman]

I've known self-styled Independents who always voted Democratic for state and national offices but occasionally went the other way in local elections (e.g. when the local GOP option was truly moderate).

[LordMortis]

I think the idea that some voters are "Independents" is a bit misleading. Almost all of the self-described "political independents" I know are very conservative folks who always vote for the GOP candidate for President. Most of them used to call themselves Republicans until they became disenchanted with the Bush Administration's "big government" policies shortly after the 2006 elections and started calling themselves "Independents" or in some cases "Libertarians". In progressive areas of the country I imagine there are a lot of liberals who consider the Democratic party too conservative and call themselves "Independents" despite the fact that they will always support the Democrat in Presidential elections.

I find this misleading because the assumption seems to be that "Independents" are in play and are as likely to vote for one party as the other...Which is absolutely not the case in my personal experience.

Most I know are not that way. Maybe it's a regional thing. Most independents I know lean conservative in their personal views but are no means tied to the republicans or libertarians, whereas I don't think I know an independent liberal minded voters. This is probably why Michigan is becoming less and less of a swing state and increasingly a democrat state. (blech. Though I must say I have no idea how we got the current PoS republican governor, who might actually make Grandholm tolerable.) The irony of course is that liberal minded almost universally portray themselves as open and active minded and conservative minded folk almost universally think of themselves as inflexible on principle.

[ezmate]

This year was the first year in ages where I was undecided. I've voted Republican since I voted for Dole, but this year was not as easy for me. I'm not sure it matters, though - I live in Texas and our electoral votes are going to Romney, regardless of how I vote.

I voted early this weekend and voted for Obama, though. My wife & I canceled each other out on that particular race...

[noxiousdog]

This year was the first year in ages where I was undecided. I've voted Republican since I voted for Dole, but this year was not as easy for me. I'm not sure it matters, though - I live in Texas and our electoral votes are going to Romney, regardless of how I vote.

I voted early this weekend and voted for Obama, though. My wife & I canceled each other out on that particular race...

You've been spending too much time in Austin!

[geezer]

This year was the first year in ages where I was undecided. I've voted Republican since I voted for Dole, but this year was not as easy for me. I'm not sure it matters, though - I live in Texas and our electoral votes are going to Romney, regardless of how I vote.

I voted early this weekend and voted for Obama, though. My wife & I canceled each other out on that particular race...

You've been spending too much time in Austin!

One can never really spend to much time in Austin. (That said, I flee like a scared little girl during SXSW and ACL weekend(s). I hate that s***).

[ezmate]

You've been spending too much time in Austin!

Probably true...but I haven't yet switched to an all-organic diet, so they haven't completely brain-washed me!

Of course, it might be that I expect serious solutions from my politicians and Romney's "lowering the tax rate across the board and offsetting that with removal of (unspecified) deductions" is NOT a serious solution.

[noxiousdog]

You've been spending too much time in Austin!

Probably true...but I haven't yet switched to an all-organic diet, so they haven't completely brain-washed me!

Of course, it might be that I expect serious solutions from my politicians and Romney's "lowering the tax rate across the board and offsetting that with removal of (unspecified) deductions" is NOT a serious solution.

They must not have taught you about 'magic' in your budgeting classes. Best line item ever.