537 Votes Gave Us Bush: Let's Not Get Fooled Again

“Five hundred and thirty seven. The number of votes that changed the course of American history … If you’re thinking that your vote doesn’t count, that it won’t matter. Well, back then, there were probably at least 537 people who felt the same way.”

We get the Government we elect. Don't forget to vote. [More...]

Here is the latest Qunnipiac poll, conducted Oct. 23 to Oct. 28 (with the NY Times and CBS News) in Florida, Ohio and Virginia. Obama is holding his own, barely.

Here is the latest NY Times/CBS News poll: Obama leads 48% to 47%.

The poll found that Mr. Obama is supported by 52 percent of women and 44 percent of men, while Mr. Romney is preferred by 51 percent of men and 44 percent of women.

... 67 percent saying that Mr. Romney would very closely or somewhat closely follow the policies of former President George W. Bush.

The last thing the nation needs is another GW Bush.

Please don't take anything for granted. These these last days are critical. Don't let up on your friends, relatives and co-workers. While the election is said to come down to 7 states, Romney is now trying to create more swing states, focusing on Pennsylvania, Michigan and Minnesota. He's got money to burn, and his last minute ads, claiming he's a moderate, will deluge the airwaves. There may be very few undecided votes left, but these last-minute efforts could inspire greater turnout among his supporters. It's all about turnout now, and the Electoral College count.

Remember 2000, let's not get fooled again.

< Bill Clinton Holds 2 Colorado Events Today for Obama | Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    NYT/CBS/Q poll (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 07:47:30 AM EST
    released this morning:

    Ohio Obama +5
    Florida Obama +1
    Virginia Obama +2

    If anyone wants to dig into crosstabs,
    they are here

    It's pretty obvious why Romney is throwing money at Pennsylvania and Minnesota. He's finding himself in an electoral nightmare in the states where he's been campaigning. A reverse momentum if you will.

    For PR purposes the Romney campaign is referring to it as "Expanding the Map". What it is in reality is "Grasping at Straws".

    PPP (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 08:02:18 AM EST
    released this morning:

    Iowa Obama +5
    Wisconsin Obama +5

    Is Dandy Don Meredith warming up his voice to sing a solo to Mitt?


    Obama being a leader on Sandy... (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by magster on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 08:54:47 AM EST
    ... is probably helping in FL. I imagine showing an ability to lead during a hurricane would be a plus there.

    An analysis of why Wisconsin (none / 0) (#18)
    by Towanda on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 10:19:28 AM EST
    differs from other battlegrounds, from this morning's Milwaukee paper, here.

    The factor that may be the focus is turnout; will Walker's and Priebus's voter-suppression tactics allow three-fourths of eligible voters to again cast ballots?  And especially the factor of its  historically high youth vote -- until the recall election, that is, when the voter-suppression tactics targeted at them worked well for Walker.  As a practice run by ALEC, et al., for this fall, it ought to be reason for worry about Wisconsin.

    So, Obama suddenly is returning to the state tomorrow, before Romney returns again, too.  What their internals show, it would be nice to know.


    And the big guns: the Big Dawg (none / 0) (#20)
    by Towanda on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 10:27:53 AM EST
    Bill Clinton is extending his stay in Wisconsin, not only heading to the northern, sometimes-blue outpost of Eau Claire today but also heading into the reddest of red counties tomorrow: Waukesha.

    I know all seventeen Dems in Waukesha County, where the local Dem party is famed for decades for running ads in the local paper, begging for anyone to volunteer to be on the ballot/led to slaughter.

    This could be fun.  I don't recall that Bill Clinton dared go there even when he was president.  As for Obama, he no doubt knows that African Americans still get stopped and arrested there just for driving there -- or, in one case, even just for goin' fishin' there.


    My wife's family is from the Fox Valley area (none / 0) (#22)
    by Farmboy on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 10:44:14 AM EST
    and I've found driving from town to town there to be like a political checkerboard. Early this summer I'd see fields of "stand with Walker" signs then ten minutes later it was all Barrett.

    What blows my mind are the "Farmers for Obama" signs along I-94. Obviously Wisconsin farmers know to which side of their bread the butter is applied.


    Yes, those are the Obama-Walker voters (none / 0) (#24)
    by Towanda on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 11:06:47 AM EST
    (the subject of an analysis a week or so ago in the JSOnline).  In the Fox Valley home of Joe McCarthy, where his memory still is venerated, those are the voters who blow my mind and make me blow my top.

    I'm just hiding out in my blue city, waiting out the end of the ads and phone calls, and planning on doubling the blood-pressure pills next week to be able to watch what those weird Wisconsin voters do.


    Before Dandy Don (none / 0) (#31)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 11:44:22 AM EST
    was giving grief to Howard Cosell, Pops and I were watching him live in the Ice Bowl.

    And, the answer is, no, it is not time to sing yet.  More work to be done.


    Work is never done... (none / 0) (#66)
    by easilydistracted on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 03:15:47 PM EST
    One only runs out of time.

    And another.... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by magster on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 09:18:56 AM EST
    O + 2 in Florida according to Mellman poll released today.

    ... and another! (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by magster on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 11:56:05 AM EST
    PPP also says O + 5 in Ohio.

    ... and another! (none / 0) (#52)
    by magster on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 01:27:18 PM EST
    O + 8 in Wisconsin.

    Remember, OH plus WI and NV = 270, even if CO, IA, FL, VA, NC and NH are red.


    I think that's too wide a margin in Wisconsin (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Towanda on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 03:27:50 PM EST
    but what's important is the trend, in terms of the same pollsters and what they're seeing. Whew.

    Still, what is the WH seeing, and what are the internals saying, that they rushed Biden to Wisconsin for the last few days, and they rushed Bill Clinton to Wisconsin today and now are extending his stay by another day, and even are rushing Obama here to Wisconsin tomorrow?  And both Romneys and Ryan and . . . I dunno.  I wish that I could stop worrying about the blatant voter-suppression tactics that are rampant in Wisconsin.


    What you're seeing is (none / 0) (#70)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 04:04:30 PM EST
    Ohio is in the Obama basket.

    I wouldn't say Obama is "rushing" to Wisconsin tomorrow. He's been off the trail since Saturday, and wasn't Wisconsin part of Monday's cancellation? He's also going to Colorado and Nevada tomorrow. They are just solidifying the 270. No sense leaving anything to chance the last 5 days.


    I Think He Should Stay and Do His Job... (none / 0) (#74)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 04:57:12 PM EST
    ...if there is one thing pretty much everyone hates, is the GD politicking.  Has anyone ever said they haven't seen enough of the candidates.

    He has a chance to show he is above all of it and would rather lose while helping folks, then win.  Not true, but with the disaster he is getting awesome press without having to be a typical pol.  Even Christie is kissing his A.  He should be walking arm and arm with Christie letting those undecided see that they are above it when the S hits the fan.

    He should just stay in front of the cameras, in this and that city, you know jeans and button shirt.  The caring pol.  Let Romney run around scared, telling folks why his better while Obama actually helps people who really need it, and all of it on TV.


    Ah, yes, he had cancelled (none / 0) (#77)
    by Towanda on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 06:47:55 PM EST
    his trip to Green Bay.  Still, it would have seemed that he was needed more elsewhere.  Well, we'll just have to see, next week, if the schedulers did their job in this crucial week.

    But -- update -- now Obama is coming back (none / 0) (#80)
    by Towanda on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 07:27:17 PM EST
    to Wisconsin on Saturday, definitely a sudden announcement with no details, other than that it will be an event in Milwaukee.

    Bill Clinton extending his stay for more days, Obama coming twice in three days -- and Romney in between, and Ryan for several days . . . I wish I knew why they're worried about Wisconsin.

    The only Romney sign in my neighborhood got blown to bits by Superstorm Sandy yesterday.  Hahahaha.

    But when Wisconsin is hit by a hurricane, with surfing on Lake Michigan on waves topping dozens of feet, anything is possible.


    Did they rush them or (none / 0) (#72)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 04:22:55 PM EST
    did they rearrange them because of Sandy?

    and another! Nat'l Journal says O +5 (none / 0) (#58)
    by magster on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 02:11:42 PM EST
    nationally, when tied at the end of last month.

    Uh Oh (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 09:26:54 AM EST
    some of us may be owing Wasserman an apology for our smarty comments about her praising of the Florida ground game.  

    I read something about Obama exceeding (none / 0) (#12)
    by magster on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 09:33:43 AM EST
    2008 in Palm Beach county early voting so far. I think FL is almost more likely than CO at this point.

    Surprising the heck out of me (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 09:47:28 AM EST
    Pleasantly.  Sorry Debbie that I didn't have full faith in your ground game claim.

    Palm Beach GOP operative memo (none / 0) (#15)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 10:00:09 AM EST
    obtained and displayed by Palm Beach TV station...

    "The early and absentee turnout is starting to look more troubling...The Democrat turnout machine in the county has been very effective and they are cleaning our clock."


    I saw that (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 10:03:28 AM EST
    Do you think it's authentic?

    Agreed--If Romney (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 11:39:27 AM EST
    were truly closing the gap, he would be in Ohio and Colorado all the time.   No need to go to Florida or Virigina, since (according to reality-free Romney world) they are in the bag.  No need to worry about Pennsylvania and the rest, since securing the victory must come in Ohio first.....

    And the new ads lying about the Auto Industry.

    And the revival of the lying ad about Welfare Reform.

    And  buying thousands of dollars of stuff at Walmart, so your charity photo-op about Sandy aid yesterday did not flop.

    Romney is desperate and throwing the kitchen sink at it.  What a despicable lying, shallow, Nixonesque figure.  Worse than W, although both were touted as MBAs, CEOs who are not all that conservative.

    And, Ohio will be ours.  I love calling those guys.  No b.s. there.  Went to high school there.  More calls, the better.


    Fix the flooding and power outages in Ohio (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Towanda on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 03:30:09 PM EST
    from the storm, Mr. Obama, as the problems are in northern Ohio.  We really need turnout in northern Ohio.

    Looking good (none / 0) (#14)
    by lilburro on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 09:51:35 AM EST
    amazing the discrepancies in how this is being reported.  By all rights this is momentum in FL but elsewhere I'm seeing it as an erosion of the President's support.  Sure, maybe from quite some time ago, but not since the first debate.

    Nate still has Florida at 59% chance Romney (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 10:00:19 AM EST
    A few days ago I think he had it at 67% for Romney.  I don't think I checked yesterday, attempting to stop being so Nate driven.  A Nate sheeple

    Nate has a new article up this morning. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Angel on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 10:27:23 AM EST
    Numbers still holding for Obama electorally, 299 - 239 based on state polls.  Shows Willard 59% Fla and Obama 77% Ohio.

    Handy chart for the (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by magster on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 09:14:47 AM EST
    "I'm disappointed in Obama" crowd here.

    Early Voting Way Up in Leon County Florida (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by john horse on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 09:02:10 PM EST
    which I think benefits Obama.  Going to be another close election in Florida but I think high turnout benefits the Democrats.

    By the way, could the creep that stole my Obama yard sign please return it.  Just know this.  Besides being a poor reflection of your side, in a close election the bad karma you have created may be just what is needed to tip the election to Obama.

    Probably too late for Ads to have an impact (2.25 / 4) (#3)
    by Jim in St Louis on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 08:03:24 AM EST
    I think the result will be fairly close- but Romney will end up with a decent sized victory.  Not 1980 mandate stuff- but substantial.  Plus Rs hold the house, and pickup a few in the senate.

    2008 Obama voters just are not there this time. He has shed votes from all of his support groups- even blacks are not going to give him 97% support again, it's down to about 93% in the last poll I saw- I guess they are mad about SSM.  

    He lost much of the extreme left by mis-handling Obamacare- who wanted a single payer, without gaining anything from the center, and it's had a measurable dampening on hiring.  They may be quieter about the war on terror, Gitmo, drones etc, but they are not pleased either.

    He had a honest argument that he inherited a nasty economic situation- but the electorate has judged his handling of that situation to be amateurish and I think they have had enough. 2010 should have given him a clue to triangulate ala Clinton. Pending unemployment numbers will come in just prior to the election- (guessing 7.8% here) (and I hope they remember CA this time)

    He's lost a lot of moderates who thought he was going to be post-racial, (whoopsie) and those voters who had only voted for him because it would prove America is not racist. Well we did that- now we can go back to electing based on experience and competence.

    His campaign's core message has not been his record- but instead that Mitt is some Ayn Rand nut job who will give your wife cancer while he wheels g-ma off the cliff and sends jobs to Bolivia.  In the first debate, and in the TV ads America sees Mitt as a reasonable, moderate, competent manager who was elected Gov of Mass- how radical could the guy be and still get elected Gov of Kennedy country?

    I'm a full supporter of everything you said- get out the vote, let your vote count, drag your neighbor to the polls etc. But there are just too many erosions from his previous voters- hard to find people who would be `new' Obama voters.

    I am too verbose- I need an editor!

    Thanks for the summary from this ... (5.00 / 7) (#7)
    by magster on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 09:09:43 AM EST
    ... morning's Fox & Friends. I was too busy looking at all of Obama's excellent overnight polls to tune in this morning.

    Do you actually understand... (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by Dadler on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 10:38:49 AM EST
    ...what LBO means?  Leveraged buyout?  And that this is how Romney made his fortune?  And that is is, essentially, his standard operating paradigm in life?

    You are talking to a genuine lefty who finds Obama a massive failure.  But to even consider Romney a better alternative is to court literal insanity.

    Leveraged buyout.  Look it up.  And then imagine you are the junk being raided.


    And for all who care, there's some new and funny media/economic commentary up at Dadler's Lit Blog. (link)


    Jim (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 11:40:16 AM EST
    I don't agree with the insults and name calling, but The People have a point.  You are arguing the conservative position, which I think we all get by now, but the issue is whose story the voters believe.

    You may have some points, but the bottom line is that the republicans started off this term by stating that their No.1 goal was to make Obama a one term president and then proceeded to try as hard as they could to make that happen to the detriment of the country.  In addition, the policies that caused the recession are the ones they advocate reinstating.

    People are making their decisions based on these arguments and the bottom line seems to be that they see the arguments you are making as bogus.

    Hopefully, if Obama wins, there is some real reflection on the right about what the party has become.

    More likely, they will increase the crazy and make it easier for a dem to win in 2016.  

    But honestly, that's not what I am hoping for. The  country needs a more moderate republican party that can find ways to compromise.


    But that is the point... (1.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Jim in St Louis on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 01:16:39 PM EST
    the voters are rejecting the Obama campaign message, and they are rejecting the Obama policies.  This president is scraping to get above 50 in any poll, and you would want him to go MORE left?
    National elections are won in the center- Mitt seems to understand that.

    (No worries about name calling- all in good healthy debate- sticks and stones and so on.)


    Jim in St Louis (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 01:28:51 PM EST
    You are done here today, I've limited you to four comments per our comment rules. Some were deleted. And name-calling is not allowed here. Save your comments on your computer so you don't lose your "work" if I delete future comments as unacceptable. And take your race-baiting elsewhere.

    Wait, (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 06:18:18 PM EST
    you just said part of Obama's problem is that he's lost some of the left-- aren't you essentially arguing he should be more left?

    "Whoopsie" about (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 12:43:35 PM EST
    being "post racial?"

    It really is about race, after all?


    Not all about race- but a lot- yes (1.00 / 5) (#46)
    by Jim in St Louis on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 01:12:55 PM EST
    Starting with the silly Gates / beer summit thing, then onto no investigation for Black panthers voter intimidation, and so one right up to Holder and Obama claiming that any critics of F&F are bigots.

    He could have played this so much better- but wasted a really nice opportunity.


    You do have your Republican talking points (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 01:22:51 PM EST

    This President has been the subject of more physical disrespect from elected Republican officials than any other.

    There is Joe Wilson's "You lie!" at the State of the Union (which made him a folk hero), the finger waging of Jan Brewer on the tarmac, and Mitt Romeny's disgusting disrespect of President Obama during the debates.

    Not even during the height of Impeachment did the Republican officials show shuch physical contmept of the President.

    Republicans only see reverse racism....I wonder why?

    Black Panthers?  Really?   Two guys at one polling location???  From a party that has wide spread voter intimidation down to a science?

    What a different value system and world.  You must watch Fox news nonstop.   I want no part of it.  


    This comment reveals (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by vicndabx on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 01:25:32 PM EST
    who is post racial vs. who is not.

    That you mention the BPP says more about your mindset than anything.

    And here you were sounding all reasonable-like.


    Really (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 07:17:58 PM EST
    The two Black guys out front of a heavily African-American precinct were intimidating voters who were going to vote Obama anyway? The case that was dismissed by Bush admin figures is why Obama was "racially divisive"-- huh why do I think this wouldn't be an issue if Holder and Barack were white.

    jim in st louis (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 01:22:44 PM EST
    You are also limited to four comments a day and your statement below there is no problem with name-calling is 100 % wrong. Please read our comment rules. Personal insults and name-calling are not allowed.

    sorry - new user gotcha boss (none / 0) (#55)
    by Jim in St Louis on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 01:31:19 PM EST
    Huh (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 06:16:22 PM EST
    "now we can go back to electing based on experience and competence"

    Guess Mitt's screwed then.


    The reference to California (none / 0) (#42)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 12:57:40 PM EST
    with respect to the jobs numbers was first time unemployment claims a few weeks back.

    That was an acknowledged quirk that was corrected.

    You did hit almost every conservative talking point.

    Why post here on a liberal/left site?  


    "why post ....?" (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by magster on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 01:08:10 PM EST
    rhymes with "stroll".

    How is it that it's come to (none / 0) (#23)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 10:48:47 AM EST
    abject pleading in order to maybe, possibly, fingers-crossed, eke out a victory?

    How does that happen?

    Am I the only one who, on reflection, feels really angry that this is where we are, and that the best we can do is take one for the team?

    I don't disagree that life under Romney and his ilk will be worse - it has more or less been ever thus when it comes to life under Republican rule - so why is it that we're approaching the 11th hour and this isn't just totally in the bag for Democrats?  Could it be four years of so much post-partisan contortion, blurring of the line that's supposed to define the differences, efforts to "get things done," and conceding and compromising and putting leadership in time-out, have given the American people the distinct impression that voting may matter, but not really that much, since there are oodles of areas where the parties agree?

    So, okay - let's say that Obama manages to win this.  Then what?  Can't claim a mandate this time around, I don't think - all the talk will be of how he's going to have to govern from the mother-f-ing center, which is where he's been governing from all along. We've been treated to non-stop talk of deficits - that we already know don't matter - to the crackpot/devastating ideas of Bowles-Simpson over and over no matter how many times they've been rejected and no matter how many times their proposals have been trashed as bad for the economy, to the gob-smacking decision to let all the Bushies off the hook for their crimes, followed by carrying on in their image.

    Does anyone believe that electing Obama is going to make all that go away or that he's going to  reverse course, when he's the one who made it all part and parcel of his current term?   Can we at least face the reality that it's here to stay and it's going to get worse?  Even if more slowly than with Romney/Ryan?

    An Obama victory on election night will be a Pyrrhic one, in my estimation.  Sure, we'll all be relieved that Romney and Ryan have not been given the keys to the WH, and we'll never, ever regret that they lost.  I wouldn't regret for a moment if we never saw or heard from them again.  I guess I'm feeling like this is an election where, once again, we may come to regret that anyone won, because we've all lost in some way.

    Sorry for the rant; I'm cranky for mostly Hurricane Sandy-related reasons, and I just don't have the tolerance today to contemplate where we are politically, and where we're going, even if Dems manage to squeak over the finish line ahead of Mr. Plastic Anything-But-Fantastic and his Boy Minion.

    Maybe I'll feel better after lunch.  Or when I get word that our power is finally back on.

    I also don't buy the mandate stuff.... (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by magster on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 11:26:56 AM EST
    GWB ran the country through the shredder in his first term without even having actually won. If Obama wins with 270 votes while losing the popular vote by 6%, who cares?!?!? Power is power.

    and to the "I can't believe it's close" (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by magster on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 11:30:37 AM EST
    stuff, the Princeton Election Commission think Nate WAY overemphasizes meaningless national polls, and based on their analysis of state polls, give Obama a 95% chance.

    I should have paused before hitting post so that you only had one reply instead of 3 from me. Sorry.


    First, thanks for trying to cheer me up - (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 12:38:01 PM EST
    I appreciate it!

    Listen, I know there is more to government than just whoever's at the top, and there's no question that Mitt Romney can do a whole lot of damage and make a lot of people's lives miserable if he is elected and can embark on his dream of killing all those parts of government that positively affect the lives of the majority of the citizenry.

    And I know there are some bright spots, even if they don't always get the headlines.

    I also know, and am supremely irritated by, the media's preference for a neck-and-neck horse race that will make them seem relevant and drive ratings so they can get even bigger raises, since we all know that the more money one has, the smarter one is, right?  How do we drown out that kind of noise when it is everywhere, and the sane analysis gets lost in the shuffle?  Deliberately gets lost in the shuffle, I think.

    That being said...I don't think the media is entirely to blame for where we are, nor do I think they get the blame for the choices Obama has made these last four years, most notably the catering to conservative Dems and moderate-to-liberal Republicans.

    It would be nice to think that somehow, we can start sifting the possible field of Democrats for those who don't just have the best chance to win, but for those who represent the best of what we keep saying we want a Democratic leader to be, but I fear that, absent some significant campaign finance reform, we will once again be looking at a field of possible contenders who represent the cream of the fund-raising crop - and I don't think that group's loyalties are where most of us would like them to be.

    Again - thanks for trying to cheer me up; it shows how far we've come, I think, because not so long ago, I don't think I could have expected that kind of response, could I?  And I much prefer this kind of dialogue, because I do believe that we both have the same goals, even if we haven't always agreed completely on policy and strategy.

    Truly, the best news I've gotten today is that our power is back on, so I will be going home tonight to a warm house, running water, and hot water!  I wasn't sure I could stand much more of the "pioneer" life!


    Anne (none / 0) (#35)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 12:13:28 PM EST
    If you put everything aside and assumed that Romney and Obama would have identical policies, there are 9 words that should make this a win for liberals:

    Obama will likely appoint 2 more supreme court justices.

    They don't even have to be the most liberal justices.  Just having moderate/left justices will have a huge and lasting impact on everything from healthcare to gay marriage to drone policy to affirmative action to . . . well almost everything.

    With 4-5 appointments total, he could change the country's direction for the next 100 years, and the courts are the one place that we don't need him to be the liberal that you want him to be.  He just has to appoint the kind of justices he's already appointed.

    That easy.


    That's the Problem... (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 12:52:19 PM EST
    ...not some grand solution.

    People on both sides voting for people they don't want ruling because the prize is too large and the other guys are nutz.  I hate the way you keep acting like the current system is so grand and that we should be happy to support someone who doesn't come close to what we want.  While I understand it, that train of though only prolongs this insanity of us against them.

    His only quality, as this could be said of Bush in 2004 by the right, is he better than the other guy.  Not entirely true and Bush was really bad, but you get my point, maybe if the right didn't have your mentality in 2004, Bush would not have been reelected.

    The right doesn't even like Romney, but they they are, chest thumping like you, same exact spiel, vote for our guy or suffer.  We are going to end up with a President that neither side really wants.  And it will continue to happen until people like yourself look at the bigger picture, like getting someone who actually represent the people voting for them and be willing to give up 4 years to get it.  Who know, if they don't live up to the hype, they will be gone.

    So Obama's got my vote, but I am not happy about it.  And he will be much better, but I am sick of the GD choices.

    think how easy Obama would have it if he actually ruled like a Democrat, we could all be proud of out votes.


    The issue IMHO isn't Obama (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 01:44:56 PM EST
    It's that a candidate who governed as you suggest could not be elected.

    Governing happens (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by sj on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 02:31:54 PM EST
    ...after the election.  And you notice that he started regaining lost traction when he showed an element of populism and pushback against Republican policies.

    Great Point... (4.00 / 2) (#71)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 04:22:47 PM EST
    ...when the election rolled around all of a sudden jobs were important, gay marriage was A-Okay, and the Mexicans were worthy of a little attention.

    When it comes to getting them votes, he figured out real quick that acting like a Democrat for 6 months will get a lot of fricken votes.

    The real question is who's he going be in December (if he wins), Obama on the campaign trail, or back to his the ways that almost cost him an easy election.  I fear I already know.


    The question that your comment (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 02:40:55 PM EST
    prompts is, what stopped Obama, once he was elected, from governing that way?  

    Wait, I know - you're going to tell me the Congress prevented him, that he could have a million great, progressive ideas, but Congress wouldn't give him the legislative path to make those goals a reality.  Am I right?

    But, isn't it true that Obama has, repeatedly, flexed his executive muscle to cut the Congress out of the loop and get some of the things he wanted, that he didn't think they would give him?  So, what stopped him from using that power for more progressive, Democratic-style good?  

    What do you imagine would be the result of people experiencing the positive effects from progressive leadership?  I think what happens is that people don't have to be guilted, shamed, coerced or pleaded with to vote for more of that kind of leadership.

    One wonders - at least I do - what difference it would have made to the economy if Obama had installed/appointed/nominated/staffed his administration and the Treasury Department with people other than alums of Wall Street and the big banks.  Oh, but Congress wouldn't have passed a bigger stimulus anyway, so it was never going to matter, and he did the best he could, right?  As if that was all he could do...poor thing.  

    I think most of us realize that presidents are not superheroes with superpowers, nor are they magicians with magic wands; we really do get that.  But this constant refrain from you that "we can't" - can't even try to get what we want because it's preordained to fail - is a self-fulfilling prophecy of the worst kind.

    I happen to think we deserve more and we deserve better; I'm sorry that you don't, and sorrier still that you seem be happy to settle.


    Absolutely and Obviously. (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 02:41:44 PM EST
    You gotta admit, Obama should not be in a tight race with Mitt Romney four years after GWB.

    The day (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 08:05:23 PM EST
    After Obama was inaugurated I said here, I think, that he would have a struggle to be reelected. The economy was never going to turn completely around in four years and the opposition could always point to the unemployment number.  He is winning because he's been good overall.  If he wasn't Romney would be killing him.

    It's not because Obama's been so good (none / 0) (#85)
    by ExcitableBoy on Thu Nov 01, 2012 at 10:33:49 PM EST
    that it's close, it's becuase Romney's so bad. If he was a better candidate (or person, or whatever) this thing would be over.

    I believe Obama will make history, winning re-election with the worst numbers ever. No one's been re-elected with unemployment so high, numbers under 50% this late, etc.

    Many of the voters who swept him into office want to get rid of him. The exuberant first-time voters are gone; less blacks will show up because history's already been made; some of the voters who really thought he could roll back the tides found out he's really just a politician; and too many people are still looking for jobs, or have quit trying.

    After four years, the grass is always greener on the other side, but enough are looking at Romney's lawn and deciding it's astroturf to keep the president in office.


    Anne, I know you like Charlie Pierce (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 02:38:30 PM EST
    as much as I do. When you get a chance read him today about why he voted for Obama, as he puts it, without enthusiasm and without a doubt.

    I agree with you it is a sad state of affairs that just holding the other side at bay is considered a victory, but it really is worth it in this case.


    A couple of random thoughts to cheer you up... (none / 0) (#25)
    by magster on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 11:23:47 AM EST
    ... the little, behind the scenes stuff make a difference. The executive orders, the administrators of the federal agencies, the judicial appointments (especially the Supreme Court). While Obama has been underwhelming, the tectonic plates of government function are moving in a good direction. Examples: fuel efficiency standards, DADT and not defending DOMA, executive order version of dream act, discontinuation of torture, auto bailout....

    I also just can't see how the GOP can continue to be Tea Party with the demographic shifts going on in the USA. Their base is dying out and being replaced by Latinos and youth. I believe this is the current GOP's last legitimate chance to win a national election.

    Maybe the next 4 years will be underwhelming, but now is the time to recruit for 2016 while the country continues to hopefully lurch a little left under an Obama second term.


    A little assumption goes a long way (none / 0) (#54)
    by Jim in St Louis on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 01:29:52 PM EST
    The assumption that lefties give about immigration/demographics is kinda lame. That somehow a natural progressive shift is going to happen no matter what. What the heck kind of immigration/demographics do you think Texas has?  and what kind of electorate (right/left)do they have?

    I'm "assumption'ing" this.... (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by magster on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 01:38:52 PM EST
    TX is blue in 8 years.

    She said, 'I'm home on shore leave,' (none / 0) (#78)
    by Rojas on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 07:12:32 PM EST
    though in truth we were at sea
    so I took her by the looking glass
    and forced her to agree
    saying, 'You must be the mermaid
    who took Neptune for a ride.'
    But she smiled at me so sadly
    that my anger straightway died

    Pretty ironic (none / 0) (#27)
    by Mojo56 on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 11:27:44 AM EST
    that you would use The Who and 'Won't Get Fooled Again' as the impetus to get out and vote. It is ironic on a couple of levels. First, the song was rated the #1 conservative rock song of all time. :) Second, the overarching theme of the song is that it just doesn't matter who you vote for: "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss". "The parting on the left is now the parting on the right" suggests that there is no differences between political parties when you get right down to it. It is all about power and holding on to it once you get it. "Don't get fooled again" into thinking that anything is going to change.

    I've felt for some time that we only have one party in the U.S.: The Party of Big Government. There are 2 factions, Dems are the hard liners and Reps are the moderates. It really doesn't matter who you vote for we are headed down the same path. It is just a matter of how fast we get there.

    Oh, it matters who we elect. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Angel on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 12:13:13 PM EST
    If you don't feel like participating in the system then don't.  But don't come here and tell us that Democrats and Republicans are just alike and they're all corrupt and we're going to he!! in a handbasket.  

    If Nader taught us anything.... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by magster on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 12:26:35 PM EST
    ... it's that Democrats and Republicans do govern very differently.

    Yeah... (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 12:36:50 PM EST
    ...No differnce between Bush and Gore or Kerry, they were all bound to invade Iraq or appoint complete partisan hacks to the SCOTUS, and guess it was just inevitable that Wall Street was going to go on a drunken rampage.

    Must be nice to live in that world where your party didn't actually run the country off a cliff.  But back here in reality, there is a pretty big difference in parties, if there wasn't, tools like you wouldn't be here making idiotic comments, pretending to be neutral while spewing Fox talking points.

    Here is some real irony.

    The song that "was rated the #1 conservative rock song of all time" was written by a man that supports Obama even though he isn't a US citizen, and had this to say about that very song in regards to Obama:

    Townshend said Obama's decisive election victory on Tuesday was "the most wonderful result," a comment that earned the loudest cheers of the evening.

    And afterwards, he mused over the song's cynical parting shot, "meet the old boss, it's the same as the old boss," and suggested, "Maybe not."


    I also find it mighty ironic that the number one conservative song of all time, according to you, can't even be played at their political events because the writer isn't down with their politics.


    Beam me up Scotty (1.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Mojo56 on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 02:55:18 PM EST
    Reading comprehension FTW. Fox talking points...LOL.

    As for the gist of your assertion, post 9/11 who knows what President Gore might have done. Many Dems (including VP Biden) thought it was perfectly reasonable to invade Iraq. With regard to partisan hacks on the Supreme Court, you are just upset that Bush appointed people YOU disagree with. Obama has appointed 2 justices that many on the right consider to be partisan hacks. It is all in the eye of the beholder.

    Townshend is undoubtedly liberal so it is no surprise that he would be happy with the election of Obama. 4 years later Guantanamo is still open, drone attacks are still being used, the Middle East is in turmoil, the real unemployment rate is over 11%, GDP growth is anemic, gas prices have doubled and there is a cover up going on regarding Benghazi that Richard Nixon would be proud of. Somehow I think Pete was right in the first place. So when you talk about 'my party' (as if you know what my party is) running the country off a cliff you would do well to look in the mirror. Your party is just as culpable.


    You're the one who is not accepting the truth of (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Angel on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 03:05:40 PM EST
    what Bush/Cheney et al did to this country.  That tired meme about gas prices, give me a break.   Benghazi is a monumental cover-up?  Get real.  There is an economic recovery on-going and the unemployment rate is NOT over 11%.  The Obama administration has had no scandals but that doesn't keep the Faux noise machine from trying to manufacture one or two.  You'd really be much happier if you just moseyed on over to Redstate.

    Benghazi is a real cover-up (1.00 / 1) (#87)
    by ExcitableBoy on Thu Nov 01, 2012 at 10:56:03 PM EST
    Leave Fox out of it; there is more than enough evidence from other sources and real honest-to-goodness FACTS that, going back MONTHS before the attack, they made it clear security was seriously deteriorating and they needed help.

    There had been a couple attacks on them before (a hole blown in the wall and an IED in the street); the British had already pulled out because of an attempt on the ambassador's life and the rise of militant groups in the city; the Red Cross left.

    Please, before comparing this to Bush and 9/11/01, it's not even close. The PDB was a vague reference to Bin Laden wanting to strike somewhere in America (if you haven't read it, do so -- it takes about a minute). That's akin to saying cats and dogs don't always get along, or the Sox and Yankees don't like each other. Not exactly front page news, and nothing actionable. On the other hand, these were concerted, multiple communications directly to the State Dept. and various authorities about specific concerns about a specific location. In light of all that THEY SURELY KNEW, the concerted effort to point to a ridiculous video was not just shameful, but disgusting.

    Lastly, no, I didn't read a single word of this on Fox News. They bore me.


    Poke Them With a Stick... (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 04:49:28 PM EST
    ...you are so transparent.  Do you take a class that teaches you how to go to liberal website and pretend your neutral, to make some irrelevant point with what I can only assume is some mission to change minds ?

    I don't get it, all I had to is poke you a bit and the right wing non-sense flared up, then you get mad because I think your a republican.

    See what you don't understand, in reality, folks of all parties can go more than a sentence without using Fox News blatherisms like Benghazi, Big Government, Benghazi, Hardliners, Benghazi, Reps are the moderates, Benghazi, the 'real unemployment rate',  Benghazi, and the grand finally, "as if you know what my party is".  As if I care, but more importantly, if you are going to write a post pushing right wing hackery, don't get mad because I assume you are a right wing hack.  

    So you if your not a republican, congratulations, you fooled me.


    Thank you, Mojo56 (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Jack E Lope on Thu Nov 01, 2012 at 09:20:34 PM EST
    4 years later Guantanamo is still open, drone attacks are still being used, the Middle East is in turmoil, the real unemployment rate is over 11%, GDP growth is anemic, gas prices have doubled and there is a cover up going on regarding Benghazi that Richard Nixon would be proud of.

    It's nice of you to point out the consequences of a non-liberal government.

    So when you talk about 'my party' (as if you know what my party is) running the country off a cliff you would do well to look in the mirror. Your party is just as culpable.

    I notice that you do not deny that you are registered as Republican. Methinks thou dost protest too much. You point out the jumping-to-conclusion...immediately followed by your own jumped-to conclusion.  That self-deprecating humor is so formulaic.

    I don't know about other posters here at talkleft, but I am not now - nor have I ever been - registered as a member of a party.  And I registered to vote as soon as I became eligible, at age 21.


    How (none / 0) (#89)
    by lentinel on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 05:51:37 AM EST
    can you deny, whatever you think about the relative merits of either or both candidates, that their parties are virtually indistinguishable?

    Follow the money.

    And, although the invasion of Iraq was obviously a Bush/Cheney cabal agenda-driven move, they could not have done it without the idiotic, ignorant and sometimes fevered support of the leadership of the Democratic party.

    And don't get me started on Kerry.
    He was given an opportunity on a silver platter to dethrone Bush.
    And he couldn't rise to the occasion. In the debates, he was comatose. Partly so because he had voted for the war.

    I think Gore would have been infinitely better than Bush, but he ran a terrible campaign - joined at the hip by Lieberman - a right-wing hack.

    And then there is Obama whose justice department has made strenuous efforts to immunize Bush, Cheney and the rest of that boatload of rats from prosecution.

    There is more similarity between these parties than you like to admit.


    I wouldn't go that deep.... (none / 0) (#32)
    by magster on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 11:49:08 AM EST
    ... I would wager Jeralyn was referring to this.

    Does anyone know an undecided (none / 0) (#40)
    by me only on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 12:48:58 PM EST
    voter at this point?  I keep hearing about buying ads.  Who hasn't made their mind up.  (I'm not talking about myself.  I am still deciding how to vote, but it has nothing to do with either candidate.)

    No. (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by magster on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 01:07:04 PM EST
    My father-in-law, who is a one issue (abortion) hard core Catholic in Cincinnati is about to get an intervention this weekend from my wife, 2 brothers-in-law, sister-in law, and me in one last ditch effort. Not holding my breath.

    Sister in law is going for the "if you want your grandkids to even think about college, you need to vote Dem." I'm going for the study from St. Louis where they gave free contraceptives to teens and reduced unwanted pregnancies (and by extension) abortions drastically, saying "if you are truly anti-abortion, then a party that is not hostile to contraceptives is really the only logical choice", my brother in law is going to point out that Obamacare is going to enable him to get back surgery even though he had to leave his job and benefits behind because of back issues, and my wife is going for the "your family was made possible by the policies that favored the middle class in the 50s and 60s. Voting Republican is denying some guy who is in the same position you were in 50 years ago of the same opportunities you had."

    Wish us luck!


    I should add... (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by magster on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 01:11:39 PM EST
    that my father in law is one of the most generous, sweetest guys ever. It's really painful that his political view is so skewed.

    I also see how much Fox News influences him. Fox News is poison. He parrots some Fox propaganda as truth way too often, and it really really bums me out.


    Well, (none / 0) (#60)
    by sj on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 02:35:21 PM EST
    Good luck then.  It sounds like you have a plan there.

    Read him some John XXIII (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Towanda on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 03:24:31 PM EST
    on social justice.  Great stuff.  He may see that Obama may not be a great Congregationalist, but that based on his words (I know: just words?), he would have made a good Catholic -- then, anyway.

    That is, unless your father-in-law is one of those John XXIII haters who is glad to see that Vatican II was but a blip, and the cardinals came back to their senses in selecting popes since.  


    Everywhere (none / 0) (#88)
    by lentinel on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 05:37:33 AM EST
    I look, Obama is over the top as far as the electoral college is concerned.

    Although I do not diminish the importance of a single vote, the "closeness" of this race seems to me to be artificially stimulated by such discredited media as CNN - hoping that we will be tuning in and buying the merchandise that they want to sell us.

    And, although I do not diminish the importance of a single vote, let us not forget that the election of 2000 was a coup d'etat - handed to Bush by a corrupt local government in Florida and an admittedly partisan Supreme Court - and facilitated by a Democratic candidate unwilling to go to the mat. Just my view of things.