"No Party" Wins

OBAMA SUCCESSES
Who will tell the people? Obama will not!
His Exec Order 13589 “Promoting Efficient Spending”
cut spending in many departments.
He budgeted 8 Billion in spending cuts and according to OMB is well on way to get it.
He will have increased spending by only 8.6% if he lives up to just 3800B in 2013 fiscal year.
He would have gained 4M more jobs had the Republicans not stopped his American Jobs bill.
I do not understand the lack of promo material.

Interesting. But, alas, people will vote in majority how they feel is popular. Independent, unaffiliated, no party..whatever. The winners in the major elections in the state and for any national contest will be the ones that get the votes for what the media and what is considered the "leader" mostly. Yeah, there will be exceptions to this, but it's still the rule.

So, the media will continue to present Obama and various democrats in various states as "winning" and "favorites" so as to get the "follow-along" vote. Whoever gets out their voters will win...and it's not going to necessarily who the majority wants to win. Understand?

Wonkbook’s Number of the Day: 6.2%, or $3,446. According to the Tax Policy Center, that’s the blow to after-tax income for the average family (well, technically, it’s for the average “tax unit,” but let’s just say “family,” as we’re not robots from the planet budget wonk) if Congress goes over the fiscal cliff. But forget the average, which gets dragged up by the size of the tax increase on the rich. Let’s get more specific.

For families in the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution, the hit to post-tax income is 3.7 percent, or $412, most of which comes from the expiration of the stimulus tax breaks. Families right in the middle lose 4.4 percent of their after-tax income, or about $1,984, mostly from the expiration of the stimulus tax breaks and the payroll tax cut. And for families in the top one percent, going over the fiscal cliff will mean losing 10.5 percent of their after-tax income, or $120,537, mostly due to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. So everyone takes a hit, but the rich get hit the hardest.

Step back for a moment to consider what this means: After a decade in which median household income fell by more than $10,000 — making it perhaps the worst decade for the middle class in modern American history — Congress, by virtue of being unable to come to a deal, might actually cut the money middle-income Americans have to spend after taxes by another $1,984.

They are, to their credit, trying to come up with a way to keep that from happening. We’ve got much more on those negotiations, and on the fiscal cliff in general, in today’s top story, so keep reading!

Most people I know who are registered unaffiliated lean center-left, but don't like the liberal tag that comes with thinking of themselves as Democrats. There are a few who are the other way.

Agree with dap about turnout. That's the name of the game right now. What I disagree with his post on is a simple chicken-egg issue. Is the "leader" going to win because people like to vote for who is most popular or is the "leader" going to win because he legitimately (ie on the issues) motivates more people to vote for him? As far as the media is concerned, there is always going to be a reinforcement factor involved in their reporting, but they don't just reinforce thin air. The reason why the media seems to have jumped on the "Obama in front" bandwagon is because Obama has legitimately been in front at least since Romney's overseas trip. The polling in places like Virginia and Ohio have, overall, had Obama in the lead since Romney sewed up the nomination. This wasn't a media concoction in the beginning.