Hey, you also have one of the best Senators in the country, although that may be like calling someone smart for an Okie.
In any event, a big non-battleground state like California, Texas, or New York is pretty much a non existent vote. BUT that doesn't stop you from voting on everything else.
Oregon--blue. I'll be voting for a third party candidate in my tiny and useless effort to end the electoral college ssytem.
So is it scary to most of the liberals on this board that they are in a "Red" state? It never scared me when I was living in New Mexico to vote Bush on 2000.
*Battleground state* here, but I just couldn't get myself excited to vote this fall. Missed the first debate. Maybe will watch a few minutes next time.
The fact that Gore couldn't win after the great Bill Clinton handed it to him spoke volumes about who the "dumb" one was. Even W's daddy could take a handout from Reagan.
Oregon here. A blue state, but my Congressional district hasn't gone Dem in over a quarter of a century and probably won't this time. We may end up with two Dem Senators though.
Man, how did I screw that up? Texas ain't Democrat! Anyway, I wouldn't say one's vote is wasted, but that it doesn't count. If you see democracy as the free market applied to politics, each voter is a price-taker. As such, each vote alone has no impact on the market. (Of course, with the tyranny of the 2-party system, our political market isn't free, but whatever.)
Iowa, the state that keeps sending polar opposites Charles Grassley and Tom Harkin back to the Senate. Obama wins here big.
In Minnesota here. A lot of pundits both locally and nationally say this is a battleground state although the last time MN went Republican in the national election was Eisenhower. This state has the distinction of having been on the losing side in two of the most lopsided elections ever.
It won't matter now anyway. Our country is headed to the poor house, headed to a wars on 5 fronts, and headed for civil conflicts for the next decade. The sky (read "market") is falling!
