[GOTFIVEONIT]

so you think your vote doesnt count eh? will it really is meaningless - unless you live in one of the many battleground states! then your vote means everything. in some of these states, kerry or bush only won by a margin of a few hundred votes. bush only won the last election by 100,000 votes in ohio. 100k votes decided the 04' election! the democrats have a better lead over the repugs in the number of safe states and electoral votes that they have, and only need 83 more electoral votes that they can pick up in the battleground states to hit the 270 mark, while repugs have a long way to go, needing 143 more electoral college votes. so no to the girl from england who wrote that it means nothing because of winner takes all, in order to get all of those state's electoral college votes you still have to win the popular vote. its only meaningless if you live in a heavily blue (democrat) blue state or heavily republican (red) state, but if you live in any of the battelground states, then yes your vote means everything. plus michigan and ohio will be two key states that will be in play, meaning they will be battleground states. a limited number of votes will decide the election in these two states. in michigan alone we have over 800,000 Muslims who live there, while the governor of Ohio boasts 150,000 Muslims in his state. remember bush only won the last election and Ohio by only 100,000 votes!

[GOTFIVEONIT]

Potential battleground states (purple). Numbers reflect the amount of electoral votes each state holds. Likely Republican states are red, likely Democratic states are blue

Potential battleground states

Pundits and political experts have identified certain battleground states whose close votes may be crucial to the election. These states include, but may not be limited to:

Electoral College votes in parentheses

Arkansas: (6) Although a conservative state in the heart of the Bible Belt, the Democratic Party is a powerful force in Arkansas and Democrats tend to have a comfortable advantage in statewide races. Presently, the Governor, both U.S. Senators, and three out of four of the Arkansas' House members are Democrats, and Democrats control the state legislature by a large margin. The Arkansas Democratic Party tends to be more conservative than the national party, however, and as a result voters there tend to be open to Republican Presidential candidates. Though favorite son Bill Clinton won Arkansas easily both times he ran, Arkansas gave their electoral votes to Bush in 2000 and 2004 by a fairly large margin. Arkansas has a large African American population, which could favor the Democratic candidate.

Colorado: (9) The "Centennial State" is holding its second Democratic National Convention in Denver after 100 years. The election of Ken Salazar, a Hispanic-American to the U.S. Senate; Bill Ritter to the Governorship in 2006 and a U.S. House seat pick-up in 2006 made it a prized apple for the Democrats, prompting DNC Chairman Howard Dean to claim that the West holds the key to victory in 2008, which effectively made Denver the location of the Convention. Strong Hispanic-American concentration and the attention of issues such as immigration reform, labor union support and minimum wage have made this a possible Democratic state. However, Republicans still claim their title on this state because of their support of gun rights and their stance on social conservative issues, and pundits have put Colorado as the initial favorite for the Republicans.

Florida: (27) The key player in 2000, whose votes went, controversially, to George W. Bush, making him the effective winner. Florida is situated in the South, which has become a Republican stronghold. Experts agree that the winner of Florida will have a significant advantage towards advancing to the White House. Florida has trended toward the Republican Party since 2000. For Democrats, the vote of the elderly is seen as a potential boon, due to the party's traditional stance on Medicare and Social Security, two key components of winning the elderly vote, in addition to tax cuts and values issues. The Hispanic and African American population's in Florida could also give the Democrats an edge in a close race. As for Republicans, the business attention of tax cuts and Cuban-American attention has made it a strong contender. Also, Florida's recently-elected governor, Republican Charlie Crist, has enjoyed high approval ratings and has been mentioned as a possible vice presidential nominee on the 2008 GOP ticket.

Indiana: (11) Traditionally a Republican stronghold but in 2006, Democrats won three house seats here. Another factor that may drag down the Republican Ticket might be Governor Mitch Daniels, who has become very unpopular in the state. Also in 2006, Democrats gained control of State House. The state hasn't voted for a Democratic Presidential Nominee since Lyndon Johnson in 1964, but a poll out by the Indianapolis Star, features a generic Democrat leading a generic Republican in the Presidential election 37%-32%.[71] The poll shows the War in Iraq and the sluggish economy to be the biggest issues among Hoosiers. Also, the poll found that a Democratic Ticket featuring Indiana Senator Evan Bayh would boost the possibility of Indiana switching alliances.

Iowa: (7) The first in the nation caucus is also first in the list for those who want to ensure their victory in the "Hawkeye State". Iowa has been a true battleground state, in the sense that it went for Gore in 2000 and Bush in 2004; but, both times, the margin of victory was small, making it a pivotal destination. In 2006, Democrats retained control of the Governor's Mansion with the election of Chet Culver and the addition of two U.S. House seats. Also, for the first time in four decades, Democrats gained complete control of the state legislature, further enhancing the progress of the Democrats. Still, agriculture policies and conservative values make it a magnet for the Republicans.
Kentucky: (8) With a Democratic pick-up of the Governor's Mansion in November 2007, and a troubled State Republican Party, Kentucky a state that will be in play. Republican Governor Ernie Fletcher was defeated for re-election on November 6, 2007, and Senators Mitch McConnell and Jim Bunning's approval have dropped recently. McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader, is up for re-election in 2008. Although it went to the Republicans in 2000 and 2004 by strong margins, it was previously won by Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. Pundits have put Kentucky in the Republican column.

Michigan: (17) The "Great Lakes State" has been a safe bet for the Democrats for a long time, giving its 17 electoral votes to Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry. However, with each election, the margin of victory has diluted, shifting it from the "safe" category to the "leaning" category for the Democrats, opening a window for the Republicans. Populist issues have dominated the state and made it a natural attraction for the Democrats, but Republicans have gained ground in advancing tax cuts and other social issues, following the "Reagan Democrat" movement. One point of contention is the recent landslide re-election victory for the Democratic governor Jennifer Granholm, who carries many Michiganders' blame of its declining economic situation. But still, pundits agree that even though the Democratic proclivity is high, there remains a significant vacuum that could be filled by the Republicans.

Minnesota: (10) Minnesota has been a traditional Democratic state in recent decades, but in the past two presidential elections, the elections have been competitive between the GOP and Democratic candidates. The 2008 Minnesota U.S. Senate election is also stated to be competitive, with Republican Norm Coleman running for re-election and commentator Al Franken actively seeking the Democratic nomination. The Republicans are holding their National Convention in Saint Paul hoping to sway the election toward Republicans this time. The last Republican presidential candidate to win in Minnesota was President Richard Nixon in 1972; since then, it has generally been solid ground for the Democrats. But in 2000 and 2004, the margin of victory was small, encouraging multiple visits by candidates in both parties. In 2006, however, the DFL picked up a house seat and gained 19 legislative seats and six state senate seats.

Missouri: (11) The "Show Me State" has been dubbed as the bellwether for the nation, determining the mood of the nation for a long time. It is the state who has determined the most winners for the Presidency. The home of President Harry Truman leans slightly Republican, granting its 11 electoral votes to Bush in both 2000 and 2004. Despite the relative strength of Republicans in this Midwestern state, it has a strong penchant for advancing populist causes, such as stem cell research and universal health coverage. In 2006, Missouri elected its first female U.S. Senator in Claire McCaskill. Continuing on that trend, the national mood souring over the war in Iraq makes this a strong contender for the Democrats.

[GOTFIVEONIT]

Nevada: (5) The Democrats, on the lobbying of Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid and DNC Chairman Howard Dean changed the primary date to make it compatible with New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina. Even though Nevada has tended to vote for the Republicans, the high concentration of labor unions and Hispanic-American vote make it a potential battleground state. The 2006 Gubernatorial election was a competitive one, where Republican Jim Gibbons won by a slim margin; when the state has tended to support them. For Democrats, the Las Vegas metropolitan area and its exponential population increase are making it a Democratic attraction, and they are buoyed by the strong disapproval ratings of Gibbons (29 percent approval rating as of March 2007) and Bush (34 percent approval rating as of March 2007).[72] In addition, Nevada has been won by the victor of every US Presidential election since 1912, with the single exception of 1976.

New Hampshire: (4) Once very reliably Republican, New Hampshire became a swing state in the 1990s. Republicans still have somewhat of an edge in statewide elections, however the Democrats took control of the state legislature and both Congressional seats in 2006. The New Hampshire Republican Party tends to be more socially liberal than the national party, and as a result their behavior in national elections is harder to determine. New Hampshire was the only state in the nation that went for Bush in 2000 and then for Kerry in 2004, although by narrow margins both times.

New Mexico: (5) New Mexico has been long eschewed as a nominal state, but that thinking has changed dramatically. With elections being heavily contested and victories being decided by two or three states, New Mexico has become one of the centers of political fighting. In 2000, Gore won by a razor-thin margin and in 2004, Bush won by a small, yet safe margin. These results have made experts conclude that New Mexico's five electoral votes, even though small in calculation, could make significant splashing and benefit the challenger who might lag behind in big states such as Ohio and Florida. New Mexico's large Hispanic and Native American populations tend to vote Democrat, and could be the key for a Democratic candidate in a close race. Its penchant for populist streaks have made it an attraction for the Democrats, with Gov. Bill Richardson joining the crowd for the Democratic nomination, based on the calculation that Democrats need to win such Western states to advance their path towards succeeding Bush.

Ohio: (20) "I think 2008 is very likely to be a hotly contested race in Ohio," stated Eric Rademacher, director of the University of Cincinnati's Ohio Poll, for the Cincinnati Enquirer.[73] Its 20 electoral votes were critical to President Bush's reelection in 2004. In 2006, however, Ohio voters elected Democrats Ted Strickland and Sherrod Brown for Governor and U.S. Senator, respectively.

Oregon: (7) A Democratic-leaning state, with generally strong beliefs in civil liberties and liberal ideology on social issues. The state has gone to the Democrats from the 1988 election onward.

Pennsylvania: (21) Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth Pedro A. Cortés stated on March 17, 2007, that "The commonwealth’s large number of electoral college votes and diverse population make Pennsylvania a key battleground state." [74] Pennsylvania has leaned Democratic since 1992, giving its electoral votes to Bill Clinton (1992 and 1996), Gore (2000) and Kerry (2004). President Bush visited the state more than 40 times during his 2004 campaign.[75]

Tennessee: (11) Tennessee was not expected to be competitive in 2008, but recent polls have shown that Democrats could be very competitive in the state. A recent Rasmussen poll had Clinton narrowly edging Giuliani and Romney.[76] And while Tennessee did go to Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, it has not been kind to Democrats in recent cycles. It went against native son Al Gore in 2000; if Gore had won the state, he would have emerged the victor. Tennessee joins other Southern states like Kentucky that have not been competitive in recent memory, but in which Democrats find themselves surprisingly competitive.

Virginia: (13) No Democratic presidential candidate has won Virginia since Lyndon Johnson's landslide victory in 1964, and it was the only Southern state that went Republican in 1976. Virginia is no longer as reliably Republican as it once was, as evidenced by Democrat Tim Kaine's victory in 2005 for the Governor's Mansion and Jim Webb's narrow victory in the 2006 Senate race against incumbent Republican George Allen. Additionally, Northern Virginia, the fastest-growing region in the state, tends to lean Democratic. On September 13, 2007, former Virginia governor and Democrat Mark Warner informally announced he will run for the Senate in 2008 for the seat of retiring Senator John Warner. This notion is supported by a September 2007 Rasmussen Reports poll in which Mark Warner leads former Republican governor Jim Gilmore 54% to 34% and Republican Congressman Tom Davis 57% to 30%.

West Virginia: (5) Although registered Democrats in the state outnumber registered Republicans, Bush narrowly won the state in both the 2000 and 2004 elections with 52% and 56% of the vote respectively. President Clinton won the state in both 1992 and 1996.
Wisconsin: (10) Among the closest states in the nation, Wisconsin very narrowly went to Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. These two results were much closer than the results in prior elections, so it could be possible Wisconsin is trending Republican in presidential elections, though John Kerry won by a slightly larger margin than Gore in 2000.

The potential battleground states listed above control a total of 207 electoral votes. Of the states that are not expected to be competitive, 142 electoral votes (Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Wyoming) are currently expected to go to the Republican party, while 183 (California, Connecticut, D.C., Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington) are expected to go to the Democrats. Any of these may become competitive as the election progresses.

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by GOTFIVEONIT

and your living idealistic too. look we have to look at people who can actually win and who can beat the repugs. have you been listening to what they have been saying? especially this romney character. thier anti-islam bashing is downright frightening. not to mention how these repugs ruin the economy left and right, destroy the middle class. we have to make sure that they repugs dont win the election. its basically the lesser of two evils. at least with a democrat in the white house, middle class tax cuts to spur the economy, no more wars, an end to the iraq war, an end to the patriot act and maybe just maybe we might get a little bit more balance in foreign policy as well. but at least Muslim's in america can start to feel safe again, once we can do that, then we can lobby more on foreign affairs.

As far as I'm concerned, Ron Paul can win, and he's the best candidate there is right now for the reasons I mentioned, and therefore, I'm voting for him. I'm not playing this "lesser of two evils" game, when I can vote for a candidate that I actually agree with. You and I both know that Hillary and Obama are as committed to Israel and more wars as Bush is, and you also know how cozy they are with AIPAC. It's nothing but the same with them, so why should I vote for them?

[GOTFIVEONIT]

Originally Posted by Kaminyu

As far as I'm concerned, Ron Paul can win, and he's the best candidate there is right now for the reasons I mentioned, and therefore, I'm voting for him. I'm not playing this "lesser of two evils" game, when I can vote for a candidate that I actually agree with. You and I both know that Hillary and Obama are as committed to Israel and more wars as Bush is, and you also know how cozy they are with AIPAC. It's nothing but the same with them, so why should I vote for them?

ron paul cant win. lets be sensible here. he couldnt even make more than 10% of the vote in the iowa primary. thank god you live in a blue state, your vote will be meaningless regardless of how you vote.

all politicians cater to the zionist lobby. you cant get elected if you dont. thats a fact. if you want to change that, its time Muslims start actually voting for these people who have a chance to win, that way we can go back to them and say 'see you won because of us'. and i know that mosssad here will agree with me on that. unless we can stop the zionist lobby in its track, its useless to take it out on the politicians. they are very clever, they will split the muslim vote if they have to over nationality. its why bill clinton went to bat over kosova, then showed up on pakistani tv claiming how he helped the muslims of kosova so much. besides let's not forget all the billions of dollars in aid countries like egypt and jordan receive. along with pakistan now too.

if you really want to help Muslims, first find a way to get rid of the repugs. most democrats are opposed to the war, and any democrat who becomes president will have to end the iraq war, because thats the reason why the dems won the mid-term elections in 06' to begin with.

[MoonStar]

make sure you're registered to vote in the primaries, here's the deadlines

Primary election - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by GOTFIVEONIT

ron paul cant win. lets be sensible here. he couldnt even make more than 10% of the vote in the iowa primary. thank god you live in a blue state, your vote will be meaningless regardless of how you vote.

all politicians cater to the zionist lobby. you cant get elected if you dont. thats a fact. if you want to change that, its time Muslims start actually voting for these people who have a chance to win, that way we can go back to them and say 'see you won because of us'. and i know that mosssad here will agree with me on that. unless we can stop the zionist lobby in its track, its useless to take it out on the politicians. they are very clever, they will split the muslim vote if they have to over nationality. its why bill clinton went to bat over kosova, then showed up on pakistani tv claiming how he helped the muslims of kosova so much. besides let's not forget all the billions of dollars in aid countries like egypt and jordan receive. along with pakistan now too.

if you really want to help Muslims, first find a way to get rid of the repugs. most democrats are opposed to the war, and any democrat who becomes president will have to end the iraq war, because thats the reason why the dems won the mid-term elections in 06' to begin with.

ron paul also wants to take money out of the pockets of Egyptians and take away birthright citizenship which is how alot of us and our relatives became Americans, and he also has a long history of making controversial statements about black people which seems to indicate that he might be racist.

his view on healthcare would result in the income of doctors increasing by alot, and he's a doctor himself... so its not all bad

anyway if somebody wants to help muslims then they should just go out there and help muslims. dont worry about politics and all that, just help people

[displaced]

Originally Posted by MoonStar

make sure you're registered to vote in the primaries, here's the deadlines

Primary election - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

you can usually register on-site.

[MoonStar]

Originally Posted by displaced

you can usually register on-site.

hm, what's up with the deadlines then?

Originally Posted by Kaminyu

As far as I'm concerned, Ron Paul can win, and he's the best candidate there is right now for the reasons I mentioned, and therefore, I'm voting for him. I'm not playing this "lesser of two evils" game, when I can vote for a candidate that I actually agree with. You and I both know that Hillary and Obama are as committed to Israel and more wars as Bush is, and you also know how cozy they are with AIPAC. It's nothing but the same with them, so why should I vote for them?

From what I've read Obama was against the war from the start. Paul was a physician while Obama was a civil rights lawyer. I can't tell who'd be better in the long run but I think Obama would be better for Muslims in this country and he'd be less likely to be a warmonger.

[displaced]

Originally Posted by MoonStar

hm, what's up with the deadlines then?

they don't want everyone to try to register on-site?

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by GOTFIVEONIT

ron paul cant win. lets be sensible here. he couldnt even make more than 10% of the vote in the iowa primary. thank god you live in a blue state, your vote will be meaningless regardless of how you vote.

He was expected to be at 4% in Iowa, and 10% is only 3% points away from 3rd place. Iowa is a big Christian state anyway, so of course Huckabee is going to be 1st. The problem for Ron Paul in Iowa, was that he opposed Ethanol as an alternative fuel because the extract from the corn still requires coal and fossil fuels, and they simply didn't understand that.

all politicians cater to the zionist lobby. you cant get elected if you dont. thats a fact. if you want to change that, its time Muslims start actually voting for these people who have a chance to win, that way we can go back to them and say 'see you won because of us'. and i know that mosssad here will agree with me on that. unless we can stop the zionist lobby in its track, its useless to take it out on the politicians. they are very clever, they will split the muslim vote if they have to over nationality. its why bill clinton went to bat over kosova, then showed up on pakistani tv claiming how he helped the muslims of kosova so much. besides let's not forget all the billions of dollars in aid countries like egypt and jordan receive. along with pakistan now too.

Well, Ron Paul doesn't cater to the Zionist lobby, and he's doing fairly well. The Zionist lobby, and their MSM underlings, have pretty much done all they can do now against him. Unfortunately for them, they don't have a monopoly on the flow of information, so that isn't going to be enough to stop him.

At this point, they only thing they can do is rig the votes, and if that fails, then they'd probably resort to assassination. But, at that point, it would be too late for them, as that wouldn't be enough to stop his revolution.

if you really want to help Muslims, first find a way to get rid of the repugs. most democrats are opposed to the war, and any democrat who becomes president will have to end the iraq war, because thats the reason why the dems won the mid-term elections in 06' to begin with.

Admittedly, any of the Democratic candidates are better than the Republican ones, with the exception of Ron Paul, since he's really a Libertarian anyway. However, since the Democrats still cater to the Zionist lobby and other interests, we'd still be left with the same problems.

At mid-term elections, they failed to deliver on those expectations they were elected on, so what good are they?

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

ron paul also wants to take money out of the pockets of Egyptians and take away birthright citizenship which is how alot of us and our relatives became Americans, and he also has a long history of making controversial statements about black people which seems to indicate that he might be racist.

I'd have to disagree with him on birthright citizenship. With the Egyptians, he's a non-interventionist, so what do you expect? However, Ron Paul isn't a racist, and those controversial statements he never actually made anyway. I'm not sure how an individualist Libertarian who views racism as an ugly form of collectivism can possibly be a racist. Individualism is about as anti-racist as you can get.

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by MoonStar

From what I've read Obama was against the war from the start. Paul was a physician while Obama was a civil rights lawyer. I can't tell who'd be better in the long run but I think Obama would be better for Muslims in this country and he'd be less likely to be a warmonger.

I can't say for sure if he would be better for Muslims, but saying he'd be less likely to be a warmonger isn't quite accurate:

Obama supports war with Iran (he sees the civil war in Iraq as actually a war with Iran)

Obama more of the same pro-war pro-israel BS

Obama votes with Israel on Lebanese invasion

Obama support for Israel

Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran and Pakistan (dead link):

"U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs."

"But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.

"'The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?' Obama asked.

"Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world. 'On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. … And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point

And then there is his speech at AIPAC (which is too long to post here).

On the other hand, you have Ron Paul, who is a non-interventionist (i.e. doesn't believe in getting involved with foreign affairs at all), and wants to cut off all aid to Israel.

So who's less of a warmonger?