Originally Posted By: the G-man
 Originally Posted By: THE Bastard

The Justices weren't as old and weren't making so much noise about stepping down.


Actually, in both 2000 and 2004 it was predicted that the president elected that year would have the opportunity to make several court appointments. And, if 2004 was decided "on fear" that tends to support my position that security and economic issues are what decide elections.


There was speculkation, yes. But Ginsberg has said she's not going to make it throiough tis term so the Dems need to win and Stevens is 88 years old. This president will be mnaking changes to The Court for sure.

Again, no arguement on most people voting the broader issues in an election.

But, as you said yourself, it only takes a small group of voters in a swing state to decide a close election. That small group is usually motivated by some issue outside the "mainstream". Hence my example of the evangelicals in '04. If this election were going to be either candidate in a landslide, I'd concede the point.

But this election, like the last 2, is going to come down to the wire...and the small hot button issue of choice will decide it. It might not directly effect your vote or mine but, I beleve that there are enough people who will vote on that single issue as to effect Ohio. Or Pennsylvania. Or Michigan.

IMHO.

Oderint, dum metuant.


You are a god damned idiot, you know that? You ought to be smacked upside your dumb-fuck head, even after all these years. Shame on you!
-USCHI showin' some love