And this is the guy that is going to do a better job with our debt and deficit?
Showing posts with label Election 2012. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Election 2012. Show all posts
Monday, October 29, 2012
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Uncertainty Preferred
For those of you out there who are voting for Mitt Romney, I have a simple question for you: what does he stand for?
We've seen him change his mind on every conceivable issue and it's obviously beyond my comprehension why anyone would vote for him. This rings ironic when you consider that many of these same folks that are voting for Mitt Romney aren't voting for Barack Obama because they are afraid of what he might do (and what he may do has no bearing on reality, considering how he has governed and actions he has taken in the last four years).
In the final stretch of the campaign, Mitt Romney has no planned interviews and refuses to answer reporters questions about things like Richard Murdock (the only Senate candidate he has endorsed) and abortion. He simply has his staged campaign appearances and reads from his pre-ordained talking about points which seem to revolved around three things: momentum, Obama sucks, and momentum. Am I the only one that see this as a losing strategy?
If I'm wrong (and there is about a one in four chance that I am wrong), politics in this country will have taken such an ugly turn that I'm not entirely certain things would ever be the same. We'd have, as president, Mr. Etch-A-Sketch...someone willing to do or say whatever it take to get elected, including saying things that are diametrically to something he said even a few days previously. Many of you may chuckle and say, "Ah, but Mark, this is what politicians always do."
Stop and think about this for a minute. This is different. This is worse.
Now, I'm not saying that you have to love and adore President Obama and think he's a savior but you do know what you are getting with him. He's been a moderate president...cutting taxes in many ways for the middle class (the payroll tax, the stimulus), robust national security (drone attacks, getting bin Laden), passing health care (the GOP idea for an exchange with mandate, modeled after Romney's plan for MA) and expanded local oil and gas drilling. That's going to continue if he is re-elected. Anyone thinking otherwise, isn't thinking rationally.
So, if there are still any fence sitters out there or people leaning Romney, I'd like an answer of what exactly he is going to do (based on what he has said) if he is elected and why this (ahem) uncertainty is preferred.
We've seen him change his mind on every conceivable issue and it's obviously beyond my comprehension why anyone would vote for him. This rings ironic when you consider that many of these same folks that are voting for Mitt Romney aren't voting for Barack Obama because they are afraid of what he might do (and what he may do has no bearing on reality, considering how he has governed and actions he has taken in the last four years).
In the final stretch of the campaign, Mitt Romney has no planned interviews and refuses to answer reporters questions about things like Richard Murdock (the only Senate candidate he has endorsed) and abortion. He simply has his staged campaign appearances and reads from his pre-ordained talking about points which seem to revolved around three things: momentum, Obama sucks, and momentum. Am I the only one that see this as a losing strategy?
If I'm wrong (and there is about a one in four chance that I am wrong), politics in this country will have taken such an ugly turn that I'm not entirely certain things would ever be the same. We'd have, as president, Mr. Etch-A-Sketch...someone willing to do or say whatever it take to get elected, including saying things that are diametrically to something he said even a few days previously. Many of you may chuckle and say, "Ah, but Mark, this is what politicians always do."
Stop and think about this for a minute. This is different. This is worse.
Now, I'm not saying that you have to love and adore President Obama and think he's a savior but you do know what you are getting with him. He's been a moderate president...cutting taxes in many ways for the middle class (the payroll tax, the stimulus), robust national security (drone attacks, getting bin Laden), passing health care (the GOP idea for an exchange with mandate, modeled after Romney's plan for MA) and expanded local oil and gas drilling. That's going to continue if he is re-elected. Anyone thinking otherwise, isn't thinking rationally.
So, if there are still any fence sitters out there or people leaning Romney, I'd like an answer of what exactly he is going to do (based on what he has said) if he is elected and why this (ahem) uncertainty is preferred.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Yep, That's Why
I love the last line...I'm not quite sure which Governor Romney we would be getting, either, General Powell.
Geography 101
As a social studies teacher, I'm frustrated and perplexed that people haven't wondered if Mitt Romney is qualified to be president having such a poor understanding of Middle Eastern geography.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
And There Goes The Senate
If there was any whiff at all that the GOP had a chance for the Senate, it is now completely gone.
What's the deal these guys and rape? Sheesh...
And will this hurt Mitt Romney considering this?....
What's the deal these guys and rape? Sheesh...
And will this hurt Mitt Romney considering this?....
An Opposite Reality
Things are always interesting behind the scenes here at Markadelphia. Take, for instance, a discussion Nikto and I had the other day about what he called my hand wringing and doubt about the election a couple of weeks back after the first debate. He reminded me that the Right laps up shit like this like a toothless old man slurping his soup. It didn't quite hit me right away what he was talking about. until I read this piece and then thought about the quote I put up here recently from Charles Bukowski
The problem with the world is the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
You'd think after all this time of me talking about "Managing Fantasies," I wouldn't fall for their line of BS in my attempts to be thoughtful and fair. But I did. The fact is, folks, the president is the favorite in this election and this whole idea that Mitt Romney has momentum going into the last two weeks is completely false. Tomasky explains.
And yet the conventional wisdom is congealing right now—it is hardening this morning, minute by minute—that Romney is going to win the election. From Playbook, which distills the c.w.: President Obama won last night’s foreign-policy debate on substance, in snap polls and with the pundits, but Mitt Romney did well enough that for the first time in six years, Romney folks emailed, “We’re going to win.”
In reality, Obama is the favorite. The state maps still make him so. Nate Silver, the only person who takes every single poll into account (plus loads of other indicators), still has him so. This emerging c.w. is built more on spin and smell, which the media are starting to buy.
Ah, yes. The "liberal media." These are the same ones that love high ratings so, of course, the race has to be close and the "Mittmentum" meme plays into this quite well. Amusing, considering this concept is all about feelings, things that my friends on the right assure me have no bearing in their thought process.
One piece that Mike Allen bought this morning in that Playbook item: A Romney aide told him New Hampshire leans their way. Ridiculous. Even RCP has Obama +3 in New Hampshire. A poll yesterday had him up nine. He’s never trailed there. It’s been a fight, true, but he is clearly on course to win it. But the Romney aide just threw it out there. Not blaming him or her—it’s the kind of thing you throw out when you want to start giving an impression of inevitability. But that is what the Romney team is trying now to do. (It’s up to journalism, of course, to say when something doesn’t seem true.)
Right. So they have to start saying that it isn't true if they want to be honest.
And so, after their side’s third consecutive debate loss, conservatives are the ones feeling confident. They are creating a reality. They’re talking up Romney’s supposedly unstoppable momentum now that he’s survived the debates without making one of those Gerry Ford-style goofs (that’s the bar now for the presidency?). They’re tweeting things about Silver, sharpening their knives, contemplating his November 7 takedown. They’re not quite measuring the drapes, but they’re getting their rulers out of storage.
Creating a reality...that's just what they do. They sense doubt or worry in liberals and then they pounce. The hand wringing begins and then "not reality" becomes reality. Of course, if they end up being wrong, so what? Remember, there is no "being wrong" in their world. That whole being wrong thing is for liberals. When they are wrong, the simply harumph, make up a load of bullshit, and pretend that they were actually right...sort of like Mitt Romney has been doing since Debate #1.
The undecided voter (and even the conservative one) has to ask themselves...is this really the guy you want to vote for? At least you know what you would be getting with the president...more economic recovery, a plan to actually reduce the debt and manage the deficit, robust national security, and firm solutions to health care, education, energy, and immigration. Mitt Romney offers none of these things because he's changed his position so many times on all of them. Tomasky concurs.
Conservatives know all this. But they’re constructing an opposite reality. This is at the heart of everything going on right now, I think. It’s what they can do that liberals can’t really do. They've always done it. “Romney is going to win” in 2012 isn’t so different from “We’ll be hailed as liberators” in 2003. They say something and try to make it so, and the media go for it time and time again.
This is what’s maddening to liberals about what Romney has done since the first debate. He’s constructed a new reality about himself and he’s gotten away with it, mostly. Specifically, it’s that he’s flip-flopped on all these things without the remotest hint of acknowledgement that the old positions even existed.
So, for the next two weeks, people (and especially the media) have to stop falling for it. Democrats have to stop the needless worrying and get to work to get out the vote. The electoral math says the president is the favorite to win this election with feelings not entering into the equation at all. Let's make sure he does and then some. In addition...
What should Obama do? Well, Republicans want to make Democrats fearful and jittery and reactive—appear to be accepting the Republican premise. So basically, anything but that. These next two or three days will be crucial, and if the Democrats do seem fearful and reactive, they’ll help the new c.w. congeal and maybe help seal a fate that the facts don’t yet come close to foreordaining.
Recognize their BS for what it is: the last gasp of a shrinking voting bloc.
The problem with the world is the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
You'd think after all this time of me talking about "Managing Fantasies," I wouldn't fall for their line of BS in my attempts to be thoughtful and fair. But I did. The fact is, folks, the president is the favorite in this election and this whole idea that Mitt Romney has momentum going into the last two weeks is completely false. Tomasky explains.
And yet the conventional wisdom is congealing right now—it is hardening this morning, minute by minute—that Romney is going to win the election. From Playbook, which distills the c.w.: President Obama won last night’s foreign-policy debate on substance, in snap polls and with the pundits, but Mitt Romney did well enough that for the first time in six years, Romney folks emailed, “We’re going to win.”
In reality, Obama is the favorite. The state maps still make him so. Nate Silver, the only person who takes every single poll into account (plus loads of other indicators), still has him so. This emerging c.w. is built more on spin and smell, which the media are starting to buy.
Ah, yes. The "liberal media." These are the same ones that love high ratings so, of course, the race has to be close and the "Mittmentum" meme plays into this quite well. Amusing, considering this concept is all about feelings, things that my friends on the right assure me have no bearing in their thought process.
One piece that Mike Allen bought this morning in that Playbook item: A Romney aide told him New Hampshire leans their way. Ridiculous. Even RCP has Obama +3 in New Hampshire. A poll yesterday had him up nine. He’s never trailed there. It’s been a fight, true, but he is clearly on course to win it. But the Romney aide just threw it out there. Not blaming him or her—it’s the kind of thing you throw out when you want to start giving an impression of inevitability. But that is what the Romney team is trying now to do. (It’s up to journalism, of course, to say when something doesn’t seem true.)
Right. So they have to start saying that it isn't true if they want to be honest.
And so, after their side’s third consecutive debate loss, conservatives are the ones feeling confident. They are creating a reality. They’re talking up Romney’s supposedly unstoppable momentum now that he’s survived the debates without making one of those Gerry Ford-style goofs (that’s the bar now for the presidency?). They’re tweeting things about Silver, sharpening their knives, contemplating his November 7 takedown. They’re not quite measuring the drapes, but they’re getting their rulers out of storage.
Creating a reality...that's just what they do. They sense doubt or worry in liberals and then they pounce. The hand wringing begins and then "not reality" becomes reality. Of course, if they end up being wrong, so what? Remember, there is no "being wrong" in their world. That whole being wrong thing is for liberals. When they are wrong, the simply harumph, make up a load of bullshit, and pretend that they were actually right...sort of like Mitt Romney has been doing since Debate #1.
The undecided voter (and even the conservative one) has to ask themselves...is this really the guy you want to vote for? At least you know what you would be getting with the president...more economic recovery, a plan to actually reduce the debt and manage the deficit, robust national security, and firm solutions to health care, education, energy, and immigration. Mitt Romney offers none of these things because he's changed his position so many times on all of them. Tomasky concurs.
Conservatives know all this. But they’re constructing an opposite reality. This is at the heart of everything going on right now, I think. It’s what they can do that liberals can’t really do. They've always done it. “Romney is going to win” in 2012 isn’t so different from “We’ll be hailed as liberators” in 2003. They say something and try to make it so, and the media go for it time and time again.
This is what’s maddening to liberals about what Romney has done since the first debate. He’s constructed a new reality about himself and he’s gotten away with it, mostly. Specifically, it’s that he’s flip-flopped on all these things without the remotest hint of acknowledgement that the old positions even existed.
So, for the next two weeks, people (and especially the media) have to stop falling for it. Democrats have to stop the needless worrying and get to work to get out the vote. The electoral math says the president is the favorite to win this election with feelings not entering into the equation at all. Let's make sure he does and then some. In addition...
What should Obama do? Well, Republicans want to make Democrats fearful and jittery and reactive—appear to be accepting the Republican premise. So basically, anything but that. These next two or three days will be crucial, and if the Democrats do seem fearful and reactive, they’ll help the new c.w. congeal and maybe help seal a fate that the facts don’t yet come close to foreordaining.
Recognize their BS for what it is: the last gasp of a shrinking voting bloc.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
The Final Pivot
Mitt Romney took his last chance to pivot to the center before a national audience and completely embraced it. No longer the saber rattler, Romney is now on board with the withdrawal from Afghanistan and diplomatic solutions with Iran. There were no attacks on the president's handling of Libya and a whole lot of head nodding in agreement with the president. In fact, dare I say it, Romney seemed quite dovish compared to the president. But that's all part of the plan.
Romney knows that in order to win he needs more women to vote for him. He's closed the gap somewhat but it's still not enough. He also knows that the neocons aren't popular at all in the country (even with many on the right) so it's buh-bye to the tough guy. It's truly amazing to me what this man will say to become president. What exactly does he stand for? Who is he? After last night, he's clearly someone who is a novice on the world stage.
Many pundits (including myself) thought that last night's debate wouldn't matter. I think I may be wrong. Romney played prevent defense because he wants to maintain his "within in striking distance" of getting Ohio. But as any football fan knows, prevent defense prevents you from winning the game. He looked weak last night and too conciliatory to the president. I suspect that deep down many folks on the right are not happy at all about voting for this guy. We may actually see some loss for Romney at the polls with this debate. People like their presidents to look strong.
So, now we head to the final two weeks of the campaign with the president still holding an electoral edge. Obviously, it's going to come down to turnout but at this point, I predict a 281-244 victory for the president (popular vote 50-48) with Virginia votes still being counted in January. Of course, this could change:) Regarding Congress, the Democrats will net 15 seats in the House and they will pick up one seat in the Senate making it 54-46. Essentially, we will basically be right where we are at now.
Romney knows that in order to win he needs more women to vote for him. He's closed the gap somewhat but it's still not enough. He also knows that the neocons aren't popular at all in the country (even with many on the right) so it's buh-bye to the tough guy. It's truly amazing to me what this man will say to become president. What exactly does he stand for? Who is he? After last night, he's clearly someone who is a novice on the world stage.
Many pundits (including myself) thought that last night's debate wouldn't matter. I think I may be wrong. Romney played prevent defense because he wants to maintain his "within in striking distance" of getting Ohio. But as any football fan knows, prevent defense prevents you from winning the game. He looked weak last night and too conciliatory to the president. I suspect that deep down many folks on the right are not happy at all about voting for this guy. We may actually see some loss for Romney at the polls with this debate. People like their presidents to look strong.
So, now we head to the final two weeks of the campaign with the president still holding an electoral edge. Obviously, it's going to come down to turnout but at this point, I predict a 281-244 victory for the president (popular vote 50-48) with Virginia votes still being counted in January. Of course, this could change:) Regarding Congress, the Democrats will net 15 seats in the House and they will pick up one seat in the Senate making it 54-46. Essentially, we will basically be right where we are at now.
Monday, October 22, 2012
The Last Debate and the Current State of The Race
Tonight is the last presidential debate and the subject is foreign policy. My prediction is that not as many people will tune in as they did to the first two debates. The simple fact is that many Americans do not care that much about foreign policy (which I think is truly a drag) and are more focused on the economy and jobs. I'd look for each candidate to try to pivot back to domestic issues as much as they can.
In addition, I don't think there will be any surprises tonight and both candidates will likely come out even and that's just about where the race is at present. Take a look at the latest polls.
What a giant pile of muddled mess. At least in the national polls, the race is tied. But what about the states?
With Ohio, the president maintains around a 2 point lead. On election night, if the president wins Ohio, it's over. Actually, if he wins Virginia before the Ohio results are in, it's also over. Here's Virginia.
I'd like to see some more polls out of Virginia other than Rasmussen who doesn't call cell phones but this one is as much of a tie as anything can be with perhaps a slight edge to Romney. If Romney wins it, then the president pretty much has to win Ohio in order to get to 270.
Another odd state these days is New Hampshire which, with its mere 4 electoral votes, could be an early indicator of how either candidate is going to do on the night.
The latest poll from UNH is likely way off and I'm more inclined to think that it's pretty even with the president up slightly. I'd say this last debate really isn't going to make much of a difference with the polls. Nearly everyone has decided who they are going to vote for and some have already done so.
The one thing that I just keep shaking my head at is the "Do it again, only harder" mentality of the Right. We've seen what happens when we adopt conservative policies: our country was driven into a ditch. Now there are people that want to go back to that? Why? I think a lot of it has to do with Romney's campaign slogan versus the president's...it's "Believe" vs. "Forward."
This is perfectly exemplified by the guy that puzzles me the most...my pal, last in line. Obviously, I'm hoping he responds here but I just don't get how won't accept the fact the president essentially saved his 401K. He did a better job than President Bush on a score of issues and Mitt Romney has made it very clear he wants to go back to that.
I just don't get it.
In addition, I don't think there will be any surprises tonight and both candidates will likely come out even and that's just about where the race is at present. Take a look at the latest polls.
What a giant pile of muddled mess. At least in the national polls, the race is tied. But what about the states?
| RCP Average | 10/12 - 10/21 | -- | -- | 47.6 | 45.7 | Obama +1.9 |
| Suffolk | 10/18 - 10/21 | 600 LV | 4.0 | 47 | 47 | Tie |
| PPP (D) | 10/18 - 10/20 | 532 LV | 4.3 | 49 | 48 | Obama +1 |
| CBS News/Quinnipiac | 10/17 - 10/20 | 1548 LV | 3.0 | 50 | 45 | Obama +5 |
| Gravis Marketing | 10/18 - 10/19 | 1943 LV | 2.2 | 47 | 47 | Tie |
| FOX News | 10/17 - 10/18 | 1131 LV | 3.0 | 46 | 43 | Obama +3 |
| Rasmussen Reports | 10/17 - 10/17 | 750 LV | 4.0 | 49 | 48 | Obama +1 |
| SurveyUSA | 10/12 - 10/15 | 613 LV | 4.0 | 45 | 42 | Obama +3 |
With Ohio, the president maintains around a 2 point lead. On election night, if the president wins Ohio, it's over. Actually, if he wins Virginia before the Ohio results are in, it's also over. Here's Virginia.
| RCP Average | 10/4 - 10/18 | -- | -- | 48.0 | 48.0 | Tie |
| Rasmussen Reports | 10/18 - 10/18 | 750 LV | 4.0 | 50 | 47 | Romney +3 |
| ARG | 10/12 - 10/14 | 600 LV | 4.0 | 48 | 47 | Romney +1 |
| NBC/WSJ/Marist | 10/7 - 10/9 | 981 LV | 3.1 | 48 | 47 | Romney +1 |
| CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac | 10/4 - 10/9 | 1288 LV | 3.0 | 46 | 51 | Obama +5 |
I'd like to see some more polls out of Virginia other than Rasmussen who doesn't call cell phones but this one is as much of a tie as anything can be with perhaps a slight edge to Romney. If Romney wins it, then the president pretty much has to win Ohio in order to get to 270.
Another odd state these days is New Hampshire which, with its mere 4 electoral votes, could be an early indicator of how either candidate is going to do on the night.
| RCP Average | 10/9 - 10/21 | -- | -- | 48.4 | 47.4 | Obama +1.0 |
| UNH | 10/17 - 10/21 | 773 LV | 3.5 | 51 | 42 | Obama +9 |
| PPP (D) | 10/17 - 10/19 | 1036 LV | 3.0 | 48 | 49 | Romney +1 |
| Rasmussen Reports | 10/15 - 10/15 | 500 LV | 4.5 | 50 | 49 | Obama +1 |
| Suffolk/7News | 10/12 - 10/14 | 500 LV | 4.4 | 47 | 47 | Tie |
| ARG | 10/9 - 10/11 | 600 LV | 4.0 | 46 | 50 | Romney +4 |
The latest poll from UNH is likely way off and I'm more inclined to think that it's pretty even with the president up slightly. I'd say this last debate really isn't going to make much of a difference with the polls. Nearly everyone has decided who they are going to vote for and some have already done so.
The one thing that I just keep shaking my head at is the "Do it again, only harder" mentality of the Right. We've seen what happens when we adopt conservative policies: our country was driven into a ditch. Now there are people that want to go back to that? Why? I think a lot of it has to do with Romney's campaign slogan versus the president's...it's "Believe" vs. "Forward."
This is perfectly exemplified by the guy that puzzles me the most...my pal, last in line. Obviously, I'm hoping he responds here but I just don't get how won't accept the fact the president essentially saved his 401K. He did a better job than President Bush on a score of issues and Mitt Romney has made it very clear he wants to go back to that.
I just don't get it.
The Latest Polls
I haven't done a post with polls lately as I have been out of town and simply scheduled a bunch ahead of time. Here is where we are at.
It's hard to make sense of these polls with one showing Romney up 7 and the other showing Obama up six. The best thing to do is take the average of all the polls and that's probably where we are at. At least with the national polls, the race is a tie.
But the swing states are where this election are going to be won or lost and those states still favor the president. Andy over at Electoral-Vote.com has the count at 286-235 with 17 at tie (13 for Virginia and 4 for New Hampshire). I think New Hampshire will go for the president which makes it 290-235. Perhaps I'm being premature but it looks like Florida is going to go for Romney. Virginia? It's an exact tie at this point.
The other thing to take note of is how the approval ratings for the president haven't really changed. What does that mean?
| Ohio: Romney vs. Obama | PPP (D) | Obama 49, Romney 48 | Obama +1 |
| Ohio: Romney vs. Obama | Gravis Marketing | Obama 47, Romney 47 | Tie |
| Florida: Romney vs. Obama | SurveyUSA | Romney 46, Obama 47 | Obama +1 |
| Ohio: Romney vs. Obama | FOX News | Obama 46, Romney 43 | Obama +3 |
| Virginia: Romney vs. Obama | Rasmussen Reports | Romney 50, Obama 47 | Romney +3 |
It's hard to make sense of these polls with one showing Romney up 7 and the other showing Obama up six. The best thing to do is take the average of all the polls and that's probably where we are at. At least with the national polls, the race is a tie.
But the swing states are where this election are going to be won or lost and those states still favor the president. Andy over at Electoral-Vote.com has the count at 286-235 with 17 at tie (13 for Virginia and 4 for New Hampshire). I think New Hampshire will go for the president which makes it 290-235. Perhaps I'm being premature but it looks like Florida is going to go for Romney. Virginia? It's an exact tie at this point.
The other thing to take note of is how the approval ratings for the president haven't really changed. What does that mean?
Sunday, October 21, 2012
A Sunday Reflection
Today, I'm wondering how so many of the conservative Christians out there have no problem whatsoever with Mitt Romney being a Mormon. Personally, I could care less what or how he worships but my friends on the Right have assured me many times that Christian purity is of paramount importance in whichever candidate they choose.
After all, most believe that Barack Obama isn't really a Christian and is a secret Muslim. Or they think he is an agent of the Black Militia. Either way, his religion is questioned constantly yet Mitt Romey's faith is never questioned. Why is that?
Why do none of these folks have a problem with the fact that Mitt Romney thinks that God is a six foot tall man who lives on or near the planet Kolob?
After all, most believe that Barack Obama isn't really a Christian and is a secret Muslim. Or they think he is an agent of the Black Militia. Either way, his religion is questioned constantly yet Mitt Romey's faith is never questioned. Why is that?
Why do none of these folks have a problem with the fact that Mitt Romney thinks that God is a six foot tall man who lives on or near the planet Kolob?
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Why Again?
Gene Lyons has a great piece on why exactly the Right hates Obama so much. It echoes some of the recent writings of Andrew Sullivan. First, of course, we have to define the problem.
To an awful lot of white Protestant evangelicals across the Deep South especially, President Obama has become no less than a secular stand-in for the Antichrist — a smooth-talking deceiver representing liberal cosmopolitanism in its most treacherous disguise. Dislike of Obama has grown to cult-like proportions across the region.
But it's not really racial because they'd vote for Allen West or Condi Rice in a minute. So what is it again?
Nor, however, are their fears entirely irrational. Because if the polls are right — and a disinterested observer would have to say that professional pollsters have grown increasingly accurate at predicting recent contests — the 2012 presidential election may not bring about “The Rapture,” but it could definitely mark the definitive end of a political era.
Hmm...do go on, Gene.
Should he prevail in most of the nine “swing states” where everybody agrees that the contest will be decided, and where Obama currently appears to lead by strong majorities, the white, GOP-accented South will find itself politically marooned. Again.Richard M. Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” will have been dismantled and a new, moderately center-left Democratic coalition built by President Obama. For the first time since 1972, the Rush Limbaugh/Mike Huckabee wing of the GOP will find itself with no clear path to power.
I think this will happen even if the president loses. A GOP presidential candidate hasn't gotten above 300 electoral votes since 1988 when George HW "RINO" Bush got elected. Should Romney win, he will get nowhere near 300 EVs. But this is what happens when your party is populated by extremists.
Moreover, should Obama be successful in rebuilding the U.S. economy during a second term, and once voters grasp that “Obamacare” has liberated them from the fear of being driven into bankruptcy by medical emergencies, the new Democratic coalition could prove to have a kind of staying power not seen since FDR and Truman. Indeed, it’s been Republican anxiety over that very possibility in the wake of George W. Bush’s spectacular failures that led to the GOP’s Washington version of massive resistance during Obama’s first-term. Or, to put it another way, if President Obama can win in this economy, how could any talented Democratic candidate lose?
The economy is going to add 12 million new jobs in the next four years even by conservative estimates. So when Mitt Romney says he is going to do this, he's basically taking credit for the recovery that Obama and the Democrats implemented.
Lyons ends with why their reality has become unhinged.
The temptation for Southern Republicans would be to double down on the crazy, because “conservatism,” so-called, can never fail, only be failed. Also because religious melodrama is really what an awful lot of them are really about. That, and Koch Brothers money. They’re not actually conservatives at all, in the classical sense, but sentimental fanatics seeking to purge the nation of sin; adepts of “limited government” with their noses buried in women’s panty drawers; apostles of a lost Utopia located in a non-existent past, most often in 60s sitcoms like “The Andy Griffith Show.”
Yep.
To an awful lot of white Protestant evangelicals across the Deep South especially, President Obama has become no less than a secular stand-in for the Antichrist — a smooth-talking deceiver representing liberal cosmopolitanism in its most treacherous disguise. Dislike of Obama has grown to cult-like proportions across the region.
But it's not really racial because they'd vote for Allen West or Condi Rice in a minute. So what is it again?
Nor, however, are their fears entirely irrational. Because if the polls are right — and a disinterested observer would have to say that professional pollsters have grown increasingly accurate at predicting recent contests — the 2012 presidential election may not bring about “The Rapture,” but it could definitely mark the definitive end of a political era.
Hmm...do go on, Gene.
Should he prevail in most of the nine “swing states” where everybody agrees that the contest will be decided, and where Obama currently appears to lead by strong majorities, the white, GOP-accented South will find itself politically marooned. Again.Richard M. Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” will have been dismantled and a new, moderately center-left Democratic coalition built by President Obama. For the first time since 1972, the Rush Limbaugh/Mike Huckabee wing of the GOP will find itself with no clear path to power.
I think this will happen even if the president loses. A GOP presidential candidate hasn't gotten above 300 electoral votes since 1988 when George HW "RINO" Bush got elected. Should Romney win, he will get nowhere near 300 EVs. But this is what happens when your party is populated by extremists.
Moreover, should Obama be successful in rebuilding the U.S. economy during a second term, and once voters grasp that “Obamacare” has liberated them from the fear of being driven into bankruptcy by medical emergencies, the new Democratic coalition could prove to have a kind of staying power not seen since FDR and Truman. Indeed, it’s been Republican anxiety over that very possibility in the wake of George W. Bush’s spectacular failures that led to the GOP’s Washington version of massive resistance during Obama’s first-term. Or, to put it another way, if President Obama can win in this economy, how could any talented Democratic candidate lose?
The economy is going to add 12 million new jobs in the next four years even by conservative estimates. So when Mitt Romney says he is going to do this, he's basically taking credit for the recovery that Obama and the Democrats implemented.
Lyons ends with why their reality has become unhinged.
The temptation for Southern Republicans would be to double down on the crazy, because “conservatism,” so-called, can never fail, only be failed. Also because religious melodrama is really what an awful lot of them are really about. That, and Koch Brothers money. They’re not actually conservatives at all, in the classical sense, but sentimental fanatics seeking to purge the nation of sin; adepts of “limited government” with their noses buried in women’s panty drawers; apostles of a lost Utopia located in a non-existent past, most often in 60s sitcoms like “The Andy Griffith Show.”
Yep.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Good Lord...
My wife and I to flip over to Fox News for a laugh after last night's debate and this what we saw.
After a few seconds, I turned to look at her and she looked like she was having deep abdominal pain. What a collection of (ahem) people.
Frank always does a good job of shaping reality for people that are easily susceptible to suggestion (see: most conservative voters) but this video is a perfect illustration of the shrinking demographic of the base. Where are the young people? Where are the people of color?
Seriously, why didn't they just have a "Don't Tread On Me" flag set up in front of themselves...:)
After a few seconds, I turned to look at her and she looked like she was having deep abdominal pain. What a collection of (ahem) people.
Frank always does a good job of shaping reality for people that are easily susceptible to suggestion (see: most conservative voters) but this video is a perfect illustration of the shrinking demographic of the base. Where are the young people? Where are the people of color?
Seriously, why didn't they just have a "Don't Tread On Me" flag set up in front of themselves...:)
With Friends Like These...
The subject of the Keystone Pipeline came up in last night's debate and Mitt Romney fell back on that very false talking point that the president has "blocked it." This has been shown time and again to not be true.
But Governor Romney might want to be careful about how vigorously he champions the pipeline. He might seriously tick off a very large group of heavily armed people who don't take kindly to foreigners ordering them around: Texans.
As the company pursues construction of a controversial 1,179-mile-long cross-country pipeline meant to bring Canadian tar sands oil to South Texas refineries, it's finding opposition in the unlikeliest of places: oil-friendly Texas, a state that has more pipelines snaking through the ground than any other.
In the minds of some landowners approached by TransCanada for land, the company has broken an unspoken code.
"This is a foreign company," Crawford said. "Most people believe that as this product gets to the Houston area and is refined, it's probably then going to be shipped outside the United States. So if this product is not going to wind up as gasoline or diesel fuel in your vehicles or mine then what kind of energy independence is that creating for us?"
Hmm...who else has been saying that for quite some time now?
TransCanada's pipeline, some landowners say, is more worrisome than those built by other companies because of the tar sands oil the company wants to transport. They point to an 800,000-gallon spill of mostly tar sands oil in Michigan's Kalamazoo River in 2010. It took Enbridge, the company that owns that pipeline, 17 hours to detect the rupture, and the cleanup is still incomplete.
Ah, those landowners in Texas are just a bunch of fucking tree hugger hippie communists...fuckers...what right do they have?
Nearly half the steel TransCanada is using is not American-made and the company won't promise to use local workers exclusively; it can't guarantee the oil will remain in the United States. It has snatched land. Possibly most egregious: They've behaved like arrogant foreigners, unworthy of operating in Texas.
Oh, there's that, of course.
I seem to recall a few people on here expressing unqualified support for the Keystone Pipeline and accusing those who didn't of being traitors. So, this story from AP begs the question...are Texas landowners anti-American because they won't let a Canadian company drill for oil on their land?
But Governor Romney might want to be careful about how vigorously he champions the pipeline. He might seriously tick off a very large group of heavily armed people who don't take kindly to foreigners ordering them around: Texans.
As the company pursues construction of a controversial 1,179-mile-long cross-country pipeline meant to bring Canadian tar sands oil to South Texas refineries, it's finding opposition in the unlikeliest of places: oil-friendly Texas, a state that has more pipelines snaking through the ground than any other.
In the minds of some landowners approached by TransCanada for land, the company has broken an unspoken code.
"This is a foreign company," Crawford said. "Most people believe that as this product gets to the Houston area and is refined, it's probably then going to be shipped outside the United States. So if this product is not going to wind up as gasoline or diesel fuel in your vehicles or mine then what kind of energy independence is that creating for us?"
Hmm...who else has been saying that for quite some time now?
TransCanada's pipeline, some landowners say, is more worrisome than those built by other companies because of the tar sands oil the company wants to transport. They point to an 800,000-gallon spill of mostly tar sands oil in Michigan's Kalamazoo River in 2010. It took Enbridge, the company that owns that pipeline, 17 hours to detect the rupture, and the cleanup is still incomplete.
Ah, those landowners in Texas are just a bunch of fucking tree hugger hippie communists...fuckers...what right do they have?
Nearly half the steel TransCanada is using is not American-made and the company won't promise to use local workers exclusively; it can't guarantee the oil will remain in the United States. It has snatched land. Possibly most egregious: They've behaved like arrogant foreigners, unworthy of operating in Texas.
Oh, there's that, of course.
I seem to recall a few people on here expressing unqualified support for the Keystone Pipeline and accusing those who didn't of being traitors. So, this story from AP begs the question...are Texas landowners anti-American because they won't let a Canadian company drill for oil on their land?
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Thoughts on the Debate
For those of you wondering what happened to Barack Obama in the first debate need not wonder after tonight. He's back and in massively full force!!
The president did a fantastic job tonight touting his accomplishments and explaining what a second term would mean for the country. He called out Governor Romney for his blatant lies and complete policy about faces in a most excellent way. In fact, I think he spent some of his debate prep watching the videos below. For all you undecided voters out there, there's no need to listen to anyone else but Mitt Romney himself.
I wonder how long it will take (less than a second) for a "Voices in My Head" mouth foam...:)
Anyway, this calling out clearly rattled Romney and, unfortunately for Republicans, this brought out the old Mitt...repeating the same question over and over again ("Have you looked at your pension? Have you looked at your pension?")in a similar way to how he tried to bet Rick Perry $10,000...talking about binders with qualified women (?)...looking the perfect combination of hyper and flustered when told he was wrong about something (the president's post Libya comments)...among many other awkward moments that make it pretty clear that the president won the debate tonight.
On a personal note, I was shocked, I tell you, SHOCKED, to hear the president actually have the guts to say what I have been wanting someone in government to say in the last decade:
Some of those jobs aren't coming back.
Praise the Lord! Someone who is FINALLY honest about globalization. And he followed it up with a very thoughtful and intelligent comment about education and retraining workers. So what does all this mean for the race? I think it will stop the momentum that Governor Romney had and re-energize the Democrats which is really great because they are less enthusiastic about voting than the Republicans.
More importantly, I think it cements the electoral firewall the president has set up in Ohio, Wisconsin and Iowa which still makes this a very tough race for Romney to win. But it's still going to be closer than it looked before the first debate which makes it all the more exciting!
The president did a fantastic job tonight touting his accomplishments and explaining what a second term would mean for the country. He called out Governor Romney for his blatant lies and complete policy about faces in a most excellent way. In fact, I think he spent some of his debate prep watching the videos below. For all you undecided voters out there, there's no need to listen to anyone else but Mitt Romney himself.
I wonder how long it will take (less than a second) for a "Voices in My Head" mouth foam...:)
Anyway, this calling out clearly rattled Romney and, unfortunately for Republicans, this brought out the old Mitt...repeating the same question over and over again ("Have you looked at your pension? Have you looked at your pension?")in a similar way to how he tried to bet Rick Perry $10,000...talking about binders with qualified women (?)...looking the perfect combination of hyper and flustered when told he was wrong about something (the president's post Libya comments)...among many other awkward moments that make it pretty clear that the president won the debate tonight.
On a personal note, I was shocked, I tell you, SHOCKED, to hear the president actually have the guts to say what I have been wanting someone in government to say in the last decade:
Some of those jobs aren't coming back.
Praise the Lord! Someone who is FINALLY honest about globalization. And he followed it up with a very thoughtful and intelligent comment about education and retraining workers. So what does all this mean for the race? I think it will stop the momentum that Governor Romney had and re-energize the Democrats which is really great because they are less enthusiastic about voting than the Republicans.
More importantly, I think it cements the electoral firewall the president has set up in Ohio, Wisconsin and Iowa which still makes this a very tough race for Romney to win. But it's still going to be closer than it looked before the first debate which makes it all the more exciting!
Polls For Tuesday, October 16th
Here are the polls for today. The obvious one that jumps out right away is the Gallup poll which shows Mitt Romney up 4 points nationally.
But does it matter? The swing state polls haven't really moved that much and with Ohio still polling 2-3 points that puts the president at 255 so all he needs is Wisconsin and Iowa which have been consistently in the president's column for the entire campaign. A good debate tonight (regardless of what Mitt Romney does) will help cement this lead.
The other poll to take note of is the one in my home state where Bachmann is leading Jim Graves by 9 points. The race seemed much tighter than this in recent polls.
But does it matter? The swing state polls haven't really moved that much and with Ohio still polling 2-3 points that puts the president at 255 so all he needs is Wisconsin and Iowa which have been consistently in the president's column for the entire campaign. A good debate tonight (regardless of what Mitt Romney does) will help cement this lead.
The other poll to take note of is the one in my home state where Bachmann is leading Jim Graves by 9 points. The race seemed much tighter than this in recent polls.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Polls For Monday October 15
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)