Obama is not ahead in the popular or electoral votes. He is behind.

The latest Gallup polls - that were taken after the second debate - are in.

Romney

51%

Obama

45%

I find it incredible that the US electorate is on the verge of voting in a Republican Mormon who never served his country. Astonishing that the south accepts him.

Mind you I wouldn't pay too much attention to the polls yet....plenty of arguing and dirty tricks yet no doubt!

So if Romney wins by 5 percent and Obama is elected, how do you think the country will react? Because such an extreme thing is now looking actually possible. Obama is ahead in every region but the South. But in the South Romney is so way ahead that he could win the popular vote.

I think that the result would be accepted, albeit with a lot of grumbling and probably for the next 4 years you'll hear about the illegitimacy of the last election. Today's right-wingers are not revolutionaries, they are not going to be rioting in the streets and lighting cities ablaze, about the most extreme things that you could expect would be that Fox News would mount a campaign to do away with the Electoral College.

Exactly. I think a lot of people on the Left believe that the Right would go crazy violent because they are projecting their own way of dealing with things onto others.

Anyway, in JT's example, 5% would translate into about 7 million votes. When Gore won the popular vote in 2000 and the Dems went crazy, he won the popular vote by half a million votes. By the Left's measure, that's worth engulfing the country in flames. But, that wouldn't happen. You'd hear a lot of grumbling and Obama would not be able to claim a mandate by the people in order to pressure Congress to go along with him. In fact, Republicans in Congress could argue that while Obama is rightfully President by winning the Electoral College, they would be doing the "will of the people" by stopping his initiatives at every turn.

I find it incredible that the US electorate is on the verge of voting in a Republican Mormon who never served his country. Astonishing that the south accepts him.

Mind you I wouldn't pay too much attention to the polls yet....plenty of arguing and dirty tricks yet no doubt!

True, the only poll that matters is the one on election day. But the trend is undeniably moving in Romney's favor.

I find it incredible that the US electorate is on the verge of voting in a Republican Mormon who never served his country. Astonishing that the south accepts him.

Mind you I wouldn't pay too much attention to the polls yet....plenty of arguing and dirty tricks yet no doubt!

The redneck types don't love Mormons but they don't love Muslims even more and incredibly there are so many ignorant and or brainwashed voters that about one in six thinks Obama is Muslim. There is also still deep racism in America so that would usually be stronger than any anti-Mormon sentiments among the racist factions.

So its not that the redneck types are endorsing Mormonism. More like a lesser of two evils thing.

Bush v Gore was a contested election that had the be settled by the right wing supreme court, but yes the popular victory by Gore wasn't massive.

It would indeed I think be a historic first for there to be a popular winner by a large chunk like 5 percent and still lose.

I would be very surprised if there wasn't some kind of fallout from that from either side even without the kind of Bush v Gore drama.

As far as Obama or his supporters panicking from the Gallup poll, well, I think the Obama campaign has better internal polls and I do not believe they are panicking. I am an Obama supporter quite invested in Obama winning and I remain very confident in an Obama electoral college victory. I see little chance Romney can win Ohio and that's almost the entire election this time. I was feeling depressed after debate one but I believe Obama is on a roll now and we'll see that clearly, electorally, November 6.

People say Romney is getting big crowds. So did Dukakis as the election approached. It's not unusual for a losing candidate to get big base crowds.

I find it incredible that the US electorate is on the verge of voting in a Republican Mormon who never served his country. Astonishing that the south accepts him.

Mind you I wouldn't pay too much attention to the polls yet....plenty of arguing and dirty tricks yet no doubt!

The redneck types don't love Mormons but they don't love Muslims even more and incredibly there are so many ignorant and or brainwashed voters that about one in six thinks Obama is Muslim.

Including Obama-supporter Madonna... http://www.huffingto..._n_1912400.html Of course, after being called a racist moron she says she was only joking.I think that was the same excuse used by Sen Robert C. Byrd when asked about lynching blacks in his younger years.

If supporting Obama isn't a sign of how clueless she is, she turned around and opened her concert in Denver (home of the Dark Knight shooting) shooting fake guns (including an AK-47) for one of her songs. That must have brought up some unpleasant memories for the audience.

http://www.washingto...0a1e_story.html

There is also still deep racism in America so that would usually be stronger than any anti-Mormon sentiments among the racist factions.

So its not that the redneck types are endorsing Mormonism. More like a lesser of two evils thing.

Racism can also be defined as not firing someone for doing a bad job because of their skin color. If the "racists" on the Left would close their eyes and vote based on job performance, Obama would be in deeper doo-doo.

An election isn't a firing. It's a choice between two candidates. Nobody is saying Obama has performed perfectly but the voters decide whether they like Romney better. Do you seriously think a woman whose top issue is abortion rights would ever consider voting for Romney/Ryan? That has nothing to do with racism.

BTW, I totally believe Madonna was being ironic calling Obama a Muslim. Perhaps it's true that most Americans don't get irony. A pity.

An election isn't a firing. It's a choice between two candidates. Nobody is saying Obama has performed perfectly but the voters decide whether they like Romney better. Do you seriously think a woman whose top issue is abortion rights would ever consider voting for Romney/Ryan? That has nothing to do with racism.

Do people on the Left seriously believe Romney will unilaterally issue an Executive Order banning abortion? I'm pro-choice but I don't believe for one second the status quo will change with regards to abortion. If born-again Evangelical Christian George W. Bush with a friendly right wing Republican Congress didn't try to put an end to abortion, I don't believe for one second that Romney will.

An election isn't a firing. It's a choice between two candidates. Nobody is saying Obama has performed perfectly but the voters decide whether they like Romney better. Do you seriously think a woman whose top issue is abortion rights would ever consider voting for Romney/Ryan? That has nothing to do with racism.

Do people on the Left seriously believe Romney will unilaterally issue an Executive Order banning abortion? I'm pro-choice but I don't believe for one second the status quo will change with regards to abortion. If born-again Evangelical Christian George W. Bush with a friendly right wing Republican Congress didn't try to put an end to abortion, I don't believe for one second that Romney will.

I never said that. It is well understood Romney will pick pro life supreme court justices IF he gets the chance. No there won't be an acid test. Anyone who follows American politics understands the game with the picks. Yes they have to be approved but if they are well qualified it is very hard to deny a president's picks on political reasons. There are certain plenty of judicial picks that are qualified and right wing enough that their position on abortion will be understood.

As people who follow U.S. politics should know, the courts are SLOWER than the legislature and executive branch. Because they are LIFETIME positions! Just because Bush failed to overturn Roe v. Wade doesn't mean Romney won't try and succeed. It is often a matter of luck and timing for when you get the picks and when the other side gets their picks. Romney's election would put the the pro life people on a clear path to their dream.

Do people on the Left seriously believe Romney will unilaterally issue an Executive Order banning abortion? I'm pro-choice but I don't believe for one second the status quo will change with regards to abortion.

I'm pro-choice too, but I can understand people who are pro-life. I agree that Romney has no real interest in banning abortion. It would cause a lot more problems than it would solve and he is to pragmatic for that. He will want to be reelected in 2016 and getting rid of abortion would nix it for him.

Do people on the Left seriously believe Romney will unilaterally issue an Executive Order banning abortion? I'm pro-choice but I don't believe for one second the status quo will change with regards to abortion.

I'm pro-choice too, but I can understand people who are pro-life. I agree that Romney has no real interest in banning abortion. It would cause a lot more problems than it would solve and he is to pragmatic for that. He will want to be reelected in 2016 and getting rid of abortion would nix it for him.

He wouldn't do it directly. The supreme court after a pick or two by Romney would do it. Clearly pro choice isn't a high priority for you and that's fine. For voters where it is, mostly women, they would justifiably feel very threatened by a Romney presidency. Most voters are not one issue voters of course. But many are.

Personally, my top issue for decades now has been: HEALTH CARE access for all Americans. On that issue, Obama is a major hero.

deleted by me...in bad taste, although it was funny.

What must happen before Roe v. Wade can be overturned is this.

1. Both Houses of Congress must pass a law making abortions illegal except in certain circumstances. The Senate would likely require cloture to be used which requires the 60 vote minimum.

2, The bill must then be signed by President Romney.

3, Some individual, state or eligible entity must then challenge the law in Federal Court as being unconsituttional where it must wind it's way through the federal court system, eventually landing on the desks of SCOTUS.

I seriously doubt all this could be accomplished in Romney's lifetime, so why worry about it?

On another issue, the women who might have abortion on the top of their agenda for voting for Obama can't possibly be those women who are working two jobs trying to help support a family under the Obama regime. They must be in the rich 1% or the 47% looking for government assistance.

I find it incredible that the US electorate is on the verge of voting in a Republican Mormon who never served his country. Astonishing that the south accepts him.

Mind you I wouldn't pay too much attention to the polls yet....plenty of arguing and dirty tricks yet no doubt!

The redneck types don't love Mormons but they don't love Muslims even more and incredibly there are so many ignorant and or brainwashed voters that about one in six thinks Obama is Muslim. There is also still deep racism in America so that would usually be stronger than any anti-Mormon sentiments among the racist factions.

So its not that the redneck types are endorsing Mormonism. More like a lesser of two evils thing.

I don't think any less of Romney because he stayed home to make money instead of going off to a 3rd world country to kill people.

Bush v Gore was a contested election that had the be settled by the right wing supreme court, but yes the popular victory by Gore wasn't massive.

It would indeed I think be a historic first for there to be a popular winner by a large chunk like 5 percent and still lose.

I would be very surprised if there wasn't some kind of fallout from that from either side even without the kind of Bush v Gore drama.

As far as Obama or his supporters panicking from the Gallup poll, well, I think the Obama campaign has better internal polls and I do not believe they are panicking. I am an Obama supporter quite invested in Obama winning and I remain very confident in an Obama electoral college victory. I see little chance Romney can win Ohio and that's almost the entire election this time. I was feeling depressed after debate one but I believe Obama is on a roll now and we'll see that clearly, electorally, November 6.

People say Romney is getting big crowds. So did Dukakis as the election approached. It's not unusual for a losing candidate to get big base crowds.

Historic maybe but not the biggest advantage in the popular vote to be negated. In 1824, Andrew Jackson got 41% of the popular vote to John Quincy Adams' 31%. Adams was seated as president. And that was back int he good old days when American supposedly was functional.

What is the position in the US on abortion?

In the UK, after fulfilling the criteria required through doctors for an abortion, it is allowed to have an abortion up to 24 weeks after conception. This is being reduced to 20 weeks soon, according to parliamentary discussion. However in Northern Ireland the criteria for getting an abortion are much stricter and the termination can only be in the first nine weeks.

There is movement in the UK also for the proposed 20 week cut-off to be reduced, even before it comes into law.

Is there the same sort of limit in the US?

And when Romney gets in, would he be more likely to follow the UK style than banning abortion completely? This would seem to be the way to go - to say that life cannot be confirmed until xx weeks after conception, therefore at early stages one is not terminating a life.

What must happen before Roe v. Wade can be overturned is this.

1. Both Houses of Congress must pass a law making abortions illegal except in certain circumstances. The Senate would likely require cloture to be used which requires the 60 vote minimum.

2, The bill must then be signed by President Romney.

3, Some individual, state or eligible entity must then challenge the law in Federal Court as being unconsituttional where it must wind it's way through the federal court system, eventually landing on the desks of SCOTUS.

I seriously doubt all this could be accomplished in Romney's lifetime, so why worry about it?

On another issue, the women who might have abortion on the top of their agenda for voting for Obama can't possibly be those women who are working two jobs trying to help support a family under the Obama regime. They must be in the rich 1% or the 47% looking for government assistance.

You've got it backwards, I am certain. An overturn attempt would START with a supreme court case. If the Roe vs. Wade was overturned in the court, THEN it would flow down to legislatures. It would also of course instantly allow STATES to ban all abortions if they like. Now richer women could just travel to a legal state. So as usual right wing policies target minorities and the poor even more.

...

And when Romney gets in, would he be more likely to follow the UK style than banning abortion completely? This would seem to be the way to go - to say that life cannot be confirmed until xx weeks after conception, therefore at early stages one is not terminating a life.

No! Romney's position is much more radical than that! His VP favors banning ALL abortions.

Romney's current position is to allow abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and threat to a mother’s life. ONLY.

Please. This is not complicated. They are anti-women. Anti-choice. It's called a war against women and it is real.

What is the position in the US on abortion?

In the UK, after fulfilling the criteria required through doctors for an abortion, it is allowed to have an abortion up to 24 weeks after conception. This is being reduced to 20 weeks soon, according to parliamentary discussion. However in Northern Ireland the criteria for getting an abortion are much stricter and the termination can only be in the first nine weeks.

There is movement in the UK also for the proposed 20 week cut-off to be reduced, even before it comes into law.

Is there the same sort of limit in the US?

And when Romney gets in, would he be more likely to follow the UK style than banning abortion completely? This would seem to be the way to go - to say that life cannot be confirmed until xx weeks after conception, therefore at early stages one is not terminating a life.

Abortion in the US is legal in all instances. Various states have some restrictions concerning notification of parents and late term abortions but other than that, abortions are legal.

This was decided by the Supreme Court in the Roe v. Wade decision when they upheld the 14th amendment which concerns "due process"

Romney cannot do anything by himself. Here is a post I made on the previous page...edited by me.

What must happen before Roe v. Wade can be overturned is this.

1. Both Houses of Congress must pass a law making abortions illegal except in certain circumstances. The Senate would likely require cloture to be used which requires the 60 vote minimum.

2, The bill must then be signed by President Romney.

3, Some individual, state or eligible entity must then challenge the law in Federal Court as being unconsituttional where it must wind it's way through the federal court system, eventually landing on the desks of SCOTUS.

I seriously doubt all this could be accomplished in Romney's lifetime, so why worry about it?

What must happen before Roe v. Wade can be overturned is this.

1. Both Houses of Congress must pass a law making abortions illegal except in certain circumstances. The Senate would likely require cloture to be used which requires the 60 vote minimum.

2, The bill must then be signed by President Romney.

3, Some individual, state or eligible entity must then challenge the law in Federal Court as being unconsituttional where it must wind it's way through the federal court system, eventually landing on the desks of SCOTUS.

I seriously doubt all this could be accomplished in Romney's lifetime, so why worry about it?

On another issue, the women who might have abortion on the top of their agenda for voting for Obama can't possibly be those women who are working two jobs trying to help support a family under the Obama regime. They must be in the rich 1% or the 47% looking for government assistance.

You've got it backwards, I am certain. An overturn attempt would START with a supreme court case. If the Roe vs. Wade was overturned in the court, THEN it would flow down to legislatures. It would also of course instantly allow STATES to ban all abortions if they like. Now richer women could just travel to a legal state. So as usual right wing policies target minorities and the poor even more.

I do believe you are talking about adding or deleting an amendment, not ruling on the constitutionality of passed legislation. Once legislation has been deemed to be unconstitutional it would require a later Supreme Court decision overturning the original decision. This can only be accomplished when the Supreme Court has consented to rule on newer legislation dealing with the same subject matter. This newer legislation must originate in Congress.

A constitutional amendment would be much harder to get through than new legislation. Following is a quick down and dirty on how amendments are processed:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about."

http://www.usconstit...et/constam.html

No. I am not talking about an amendment. I am talking about a case going to the supreme court where the justices decide to make it a big case and make it about overturning Roe vs. Wade. You do NOT need a constitutional amendment to do that. The court has that power at any time.

To repeat this very basic concept of the American government system: Roe vs. Wade was a supreme court decision. It was not constitutional amendment. Because it was only a supreme court decision the supreme court has total power to overturn it at any time when ruling on ANY case that is about abortion. It most certainly does not need to be a ruling about a piece of federal legislation.The actual case could indeed start much, much smaller. Now IF it was a constitutional amendment which it is not, that WOULD require a constitutional amendment to overturn it.

The obvious implication here is that pro choice people are being paranoid or making up an imaginary threat that is represented by Romney-Ryan and their radical right wing anti-choice agenda. That is simply not the truth. The threat is as bona fide and possible as it gets.

What must happen before Roe v. Wade can be overturned is this.

1. Both Houses of Congress must pass a law making abortions illegal except in certain circumstances. The Senate would likely require cloture to be used which requires the 60 vote minimum.

2, The bill must then be signed by President Romney.

3, Some individual, state or eligible entity must then challenge the law in Federal Court as being unconsituttional where it must wind it's way through the federal court system, eventually landing on the desks of SCOTUS.

I seriously doubt all this could be accomplished in Romney's lifetime, so why worry about it?

Of course. It ain't going to happen. The whole "War on Women" thing is nothing but another dishonest political tactic.

Never mind the actual facts about the way it easily could happen if Romney/Ryan get a pick or two.

To repeat, nothing like the way Chuckd described it. It just takes ANY abortion case presented to the court interested in ruling on Roe v Wade again.

IMO the real war on women is the way Obama and his team try to vicitmize them and the fact that his admin does not pay his female staff the same as his male employees

IMO the real war on women is the way Obama and his team try to vicitmize them and the fact that his admin does not pay his female staff the same as his male employees

For the same position, same qualifications, and experience? I'd like to see proof of that because I do not believe it.

...

And when Romney gets in, would he be more likely to follow the UK style than banning abortion completely? This would seem to be the way to go - to say that life cannot be confirmed until xx weeks after conception, therefore at early stages one is not terminating a life.

No! Romney's position is much more radical than that! His VP favors banning ALL abortions.

Romney's current position is to allow abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and threat to a mother’s life. ONLY.

Please. This is not complicated. They are anti-women. Anti-choice. It's called a war against women and it is real.

I admire your passion on an issue where you'll never be in a situation to worry about it.

IMO the real war on women is the way Obama and his team try to vicitmize them and the fact that his admin does not pay his female staff the same as his male employees

For the same position, same qualifications, and experience? I'd like to see proof of that because I do not believe it.

I just LOVE IT when liberals start adopting common sense arguments from the conservatives when it is one of their own violating the rights of some minority group.

IMO the real war on women is the way Obama and his team try to vicitmize them and the fact that his admin does not pay his female staff the same as his male employees

For the same position, same qualifications, and experience? I'd like to see proof of that because I do not believe it.

I just LOVE IT when liberals start adopting common sense arguments from the conservatives when it is one of their own violating the rights of some minority group.

Surely you have a link for this damaging political revelation?

Wait...not Fox News....even I know better than that.

Just a game to detract attention from the anti-woman policies of Romney-Ryan. Now they are trying to fool moderate women when they are reasonable but they are not. They don't support equal pay laws and they favor making abortion illegal. They know they have the right wing women and they know the right wing women know the games they are playing are just a show to trick the moderate women. Romnesian.