SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Right’s (Possible) Coming Freak-Out

PLANK NOVEMBER 4, 2012

The Right’s (Possible) Coming Freak-Out

BY ALEC MACGILLIS

It’s a fate-taunting proposition, the day before a close election, to be looking ahead to the possible reactions to one particular outcome. But as Hurricane Sandy has taught us, it’s always a good idea to be prepared for contingencies. Herewith, then, is an attempt to reckon with the reaction that could occur on the right end of the spectrum if Barack Obama is reelected, as many prognosticators, not just the skinny ones with fancy models, are now predicting. It does not seem to be going too far to imagine that an Obama win would bring a very strong outburst on the right. After all, not only is there deep contempt for Obama in conservative circles—on display from the floor of the House (“You lie!”) to the Twitter feeds of leading businessmen (Trump, Murdoch, Jack Welch, etc)—but there has of late been real confidence, bordering on assurance, that he would fall on Tuesday.

This was not the case for much of the summer, but Mitt Romney’s victory in the first debate, and the polling surge that followed, inflamed hopes that we were, indeed, about to witness 1980 redux: the Jimmy Carterization of the hapless Obama. These hopes have been kept alive even after Romney’s polling surge abated and Obama’s narrow edge in key states held firm, by a mainstream media eager to stoke the narrative of a photo finish and by partisans and partial commentators doing their best to present a bullish front (see, for instance, Jay Cost’s dismissal of Obama-leaning polls and Michael Barone’s prediction that Romney will win 315 Electoral College votes.)

This means that a Romney loss could result in a harder landing for many Obama-loathers than would’ve seemed likely just a month or two ago. The long-term consequences are a matter for deeper consideration—how Republicans in Congress would deal with a lame-duck Obama over the next few years, how the party as a whole would respond to a second straight presidential election loss. For now, though, we can imagine some of the forms that an immediate reaction against an Obama victory would take, from outright denial to more subtle forms of delegitimation:

1. The election was stolen. This is, of course, the old tried-and-true stand-by: that Democrats win elections “Chicago-style.” It is a story line that has helped give rise to the new Voter ID laws and other voting restrictions around the country, as Jane Mayer described well in her recent New Yorker profile of Hans von Spakovsky, one of the leading town criers against voter fraud. On the one hand, it would seem like this would be a less effective line to take in 2012 than in past years. After all, states have passed 23 laws imposing new restrictions on voting in the past two years, and key swing states such as Ohio and Florida are being led by Republicans who have done their best to impose limitations on voter access; ACORN, the favorite target of voter-fraud accusations, is no longer in business; and the only notable allegations of organized voter fraud to surface this election have involved Republicans. But that won’t keep the Chicago legend from gaining circulation again this time around. Von Spakovsky, who is now on the elections board in Virginia’s largest county, Fairfax, was on Fox News the other day warning that Romney voters in some places were being counted as Obama voters.

Meanwhile, there is a more genteel, but still noxious, version of this argument starting to make the rounds: that an Obama victory this year would be less than fully legitimate given that he would be relying, even more than in 2008, on the support of racial minorities. There was even a hint of this in Politico’s broad election wrap-up piece on Sunday: “If President Barack Obama wins, he will be the popular choice of Hispanics, African-Americans, single women and highly educated urban whites. That’s what the polling has consistently shown in the final days of the campaign. It looks more likely than not that he will lose independents, and it’s possible he will get a lower percentage of white voters than George W. Bush got of Hispanic voters in 2000. A broad mandate this is not.”

Support thought-provoking, quality journalism. Join The New Republic for $3.99/month.

2. The Benghazi cover-up. If there hasn’t been more talk of stolen elections so far this year, it’s partly because the right has been so consumed with the conviction that Obama callously left four Americans to die on September 11 in Benghazi—and that the press is helping cover it all up just long enough to secure his election. I’ve already made clear what I think of this—that, far from covering up what happened that horrible night in Libya, the press has been successfully coaxed into giving it far more scrutiny than the deaths of four Americans would’ve received at many other times and in many other contexts. And I made that argument before the latest burst of additional scrutiny from the likes of the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post columnist David Ignatius.

Yet still the notion persists that this has been the greatest government cover-up since...well, Watergate, according to John McCain, who argued that it was in fact worse than that, since “nobody died in Watergate.” Then there was Rudy Giuliani declaring at Romney’s rally in Ohio Friday night that it was Obama’s “incompetence” that had led to the four men’s deaths and that Obama should resign. Meanwhile, Fox News has been so fixated on Benghazi that it barely paused to cover the devastation of Sandy until it finally realized, starting this weekend, that the devastation could be easily cast as an Obama administration failure. But that distraction aside, Benghazi will live on as the rallying cry for the most hardcore of the Obama de-legitimizers.

3. The Sandy fluke and Christie betrayal. This is emerging as the favored way to explain away an Obama reelection among the Republican elite. Put simply, Obama was saved by the weather, which, distracted the country from the campaign and thereby halted Romney’s momentum. Karl Rove, just a couple days after predicting a Romney victory with 277 Electoral College votes, declared that the storm had helped Obama:

“If you hadn’t had the storm, there would have been more of a chance for the [Mitt] Romney campaign to talk about the deficit, the debt, the economy. There was a stutter in the campaign. When you have attention drawn away to somewhere else, to something else, it is not to his [Romney's] advantage,” Rove told The Washington Post.

Rove, who served as George W. Bush’s deputy White House chief of staff, said that in the wake of the storm, there are “advantages and a minor disadvantage” for the president as well as a “subtle disadvantage to Romney.” “Obama has temporarily been a bipartisan figure this week. He has been the comforter-in-chief and that helps,” Rove said.

Mississippi Governor and longtime GOP honcho Haley Barbour concurred Sunday, saying the storm “broke Romney's momentum.” Conservative pundit Fred Barnes went the furthest, tweeting that Obama had been let off the hook by the media for failing to see through his storm response, and instead returning to the campaign trail: “Here’s media bias: if Obama were a Republican, he’d be facing press attacks for campaigning while people in NY and NJ are cold and suffering.”

There are a few problems with all this. There is the fact that some conservatives are dismissing the storm as really not having been all that big a deal—Wall Street Journal columnist Holman Jenkins Jr.scoffed in his Saturday column that Sandy had merely caused “weather-related mishaps” in New York. Then there is the fact that blaming the storm for giving Obama an opportunity to show leadership is rather at odds with the longstanding conservative critique that he is no sort of leader. As one liberal blogger, Simon Maloy, tweeted on Sunday: “So the GOP argument is that the incompetent, feckless president with no leadership skills benefited immensely from a crisis? Seems legit.” But above all, there is the fact that Romney’s momentum had clearly stalled out well before the storm hit—Obama, for one thing, was maintaining an edge in the Ohio polls in the week before Sandy.

There is an intriguing complement to the Sandy rationale: the betrayal of Republicans by Chris Christie, who was altogether too cuddly with Obama in the days after the storm. Christie’s desertion of his party into the scrawny arms of the president may well become the Dolchstosslegende of 2012—the betrayal without which victory would've been assured. Among those wielding the charge is none other than Rupert Murdoch, who was leading the pack urging Christie to run for president but who tweetedover the weekend that Christie “while thanking O, must re- declare for Romney, or take blame for next four dire years.”

4. Obama won dirty. This is another line emerging among the conservative elite. They may grant Obama’s victory, but it was a victory achieved with such low tactics (the Bain Capital ads) and narrow and rudimentary a message (pandering to young single women with free birth control) that it leaves him with effectively zero authority to govern the country. For a typical example of this line, see former George W. Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson:

In a remarkable New York magazine article by John Heilemann this May, senior Obama aides frankly described the task ahead — delegitimizing Romney. He would be attacked as a vulture capitalist, a cultural revanchist, a social Darwinist. “For anyone still starry-eyed about Obama,” said Heilemann, “the months ahead will provide a bracing revelation about what he truly is: not a savior, not a saint, not a man above the fray, but a brass-knuckled, pipe-hitting, red-in-tooth-and-claw brawler.”

“Bracing” does not fully capture it. Throughout the summer, the Obama campaign and its allies accused Romney of not paying taxes, of possibly committing a felony, of personally outsourcing jobs to China and India, of stashing money in the Cayman Islands, of bearing responsibility for a woman’s death from cancer. The attempt to discredit Romney had an added political benefit. A presidential campaign consumed by the jabs and parries of the 24-hour news cycle was less focused on larger matters such as the economy.

...

An Obama win—with an assist by Ohio—would vindicate the president’s campaign game plan. But ... Obama will have left the nation divided, disillusioned and less governable.

Or Peggy Noonan:

Look at where he started, placing his hand on the Bible Abe Lincoln was sworn in on in 1861. It was Jan. 20, 2009. The new president was 47 and in the kind of position politicians can only dream of—a historic figure walking in, the first African-American president, broadly backed by the American people. He won by 9.5 million votes. Two days after his inauguration, Gallup had him at 68% approval, only 12% disapproval. He had a Democratic Senate, and for a time a filibuster-proof 60 members. He had a Democratic House (256-178) with a colorful, energetic speaker. The mainstream media were excited about him, supportive of him.

His political foes were demoralized, their party fractured. He faced big problems—an economic crash, two wars—but those crises gave him broad latitude. All of his stars were perfectly aligned. He could do anything. And then it all changed. At a certain point he lost the room.

5. His opponent was a joke. For most of the summer, this was looking to be the right’s likely rationalization of an Obama victory: he had the good fortune to run against a historically lousy candidate, a stiff chameleon with no common touch and a habit of saying dreadfully gauche and clueless things. (I will never forget watching Joe Scarborough’s reaction to Romney’s “47 percent” comments, while in a hotel room in Dayton, Ohio—shaking his head as if to say, can we just call this election now?). But then something funny happened: Romney did very well in the first debate, making Obama look listless and defeated by comparison, and the right went into a swoon for its man. Never mind that he had done well at the debate partly by abandoning the conservative positions they had been urging him to speak for all summer, and that they thought his selection of Paul Ryan would amplify. No, all that mattered was that he was moving up in the polls and might in fact have a shot at winning. The cone of silence around his desertion of the conservative platform has been truly something to behold. What will be very, very interesting to see is whether a Romney loss would be followed by a resurgence of critiques of the candidate himself. One would imagine it will. But it will be severely compromised by this past month’s conspicuous concession to expediency.

A final thought: it should be said that there will be other, better-grounded rationalizations of a Romney loss. For one thing, we can be sure to see calls for the party to break out of its racial homogenity, should Romney lose despite winning (as is predicted) about 60 percent of the white vote. But at least at first, these self-critical murmurs will almost surely be drowned out by louder and more visceral protests against reality.

That is, assuming Obama wins. Nate Silver still gives Romney a 15 percent chance to pull it out. And who knows, Michael Barone may know something we don’t.

*Note: it goes without saying that all of the above scenarios would be greatly exacerbated if Obama wins reelection while losing the popular vote. I’ve been among those warning of this possibility, especially if Sandy keeps many in blue states from voting. But again, that’s a whole other can of legitimacy-questioning worms.

Follow me on Twitter @AlecMacGillis

 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 91 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

91 comments

Er . . . so can I now come out honestly and say that it's my impression that lots of Republicans are simply living in a world of fantasy and delusion? Romney's problem (and it would have been any candidate's, ultimately) is that it's difficult to be the candidate of a party whose view of the world is disconnected from reality and fueled by irrational hatreds.

- ironyroad

November 5, 2012 at 12:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Can someone answer me this which I ask not argumentatively but wanting to know: my understanding is that Nate Silver's analysis is predicated on 2012 turn out being substantially similar to 2008's and that that assumption informs the weighting given to the poll samples. For example as one guy puts it: ...Most of the polls showing Obama ahead either nationally or in some states reflect a common bias: their sample reflects a picture of the electorate that resembles the 2008 Democratic advantage. But this year we expect the gap in party identification to be smaller. In short, unless the Democrats match or exceed the massive “hope and change” surge of four years ago, then what Silver and the Democrats who look to his column for encouragement fear will be true: all the pro-Obama state polls are going to turn out to be quite wrong... So is this critique of Silver telling? If not, why not? Is there somewhere where Silver or anyone else meets it head on? If the critique is telling, oughtn't it to be consternating for Obama supporters because my impression is that 2012 turnout will be depressed for Democrats and elevated for Republicans compared to 2008.

- basman

November 5, 2012 at 12:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

basman, Read the other Nate: http://www.tnr.com/blog/electionate/109632/reframing-turnout-why-2008-wasnt-unique-many-imagine

- chaitless

November 5, 2012 at 1:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"What will be very, very interesting to see is whether a Romney loss would be followed by a resurgence of critiques of the candidate himself. One would imagine it will. But it will be severely compromised by this past month's conspicuous concession to expediency." What world are you living in, Alec? When have wing nuts ever been known for consistency? When it comes to forgetting inconvenient positions or facts, no one is their equal. Effing hypocrites, all. Basman, is there data to show that Democratic turnout will be depressed this time compared to Republicans? I havent seen anything specific on this (other than bravado from right wing types). If anything, anecdotally, it appears that in early voting, Democrats are quite energized, all over the country.

- austinous

November 5, 2012 at 1:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basman, not true at all. Nate Silver's prediction is based on the swing state polls being accurate. He bases the assessment of the polls' accuracy on several factors including their methodology and past performance. He allows for the possibility of systematic error--i.e. bias--which would most plausibly arise from the pollsters all making the same wrong assumptions about turnout demographics, but this possibility of bias accounts for essentially all of Romney's 15% chance of victory. At risk of repeating myself, Nate Silver does not himself make any assumptions about turnout; rather he is reliant upon pollsters' assumptions about turnout being accurate in aggregate. Based on these pollsters' past performance and Silver's own read on likely patterns of turnout, his model puts the likelihood that the polls' likely-voter screens are systematically wrong--i.e that they have systematically misjudged actual turnout patterns--at about 15%, and this chance of polling bias constitutes Romney's only hope.

- AaronW

November 5, 2012 at 1:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And, yes, as per chaitless, read Nate Cohn's post describing how turnout this year is likely to be less different from 2008 than many Romney supporters believe/hope.

- AaronW

November 5, 2012 at 1:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And, yes, as per chaitless, read Nate Cohn's post describing how turnout this year is likely to be less different from 2008 than many Romney supporters believe/hope.

- AaronW

November 5, 2012 at 1:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The new president was 47 and in the kind of position politicians can only dream of—a historic figure walking in, the first African-American president, broadly backed by the American people. He won by 9.5 million votes. Two days after his inauguration, Gallup had him at 68% approval, only 12% disapproval. He had a Democratic Senate, and for a time a filibuster-proof 60 members." Peggy Noonan is up to her usual Party-line gobbledygook again. Obama never had a filibuster-proof 60 Dems in the Senate. Southern Democrats are nothing but Republicans, many of them Right wingnuts. The majority of them held Obama hostage as much as wingnut Republicans did. And the reason Obama won by such a big margin in 2008 and was so popular in his first days as president was that the average American's heart was clutched with fear when he or she saw McCain running around in a panic during the Wall Street crash caused by Republicans and then noticed that Obama was cool, calm, and confident. And as soon as the public realized Obama was going to keep us out of soup lines, it went back to its usual back-biting and whining. Americans, rich. poor, and middle class, have become whiners (it's the price we pay for abundance). That's why Obama has lost his mojo. And re John Heilemann's comment: who was ever starry-eyed about Obama? Starry eyes are for Reagan worshipers.

- magboy47.

November 5, 2012 at 2:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good points. Awe of Alec MacGillis for the perfect image that illuminates the Republican machine this year: "The cone of silence around his desertion of the conservative platform has been truly something to behold."

- JCAtwood

November 5, 2012 at 3:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Regarding Nate Silver's analysis, if someone really does believe it then they should be willing to give 3:1 odds that Obama wins since Silver put Obama's certainty of winning at 75%. Of course, when Silver offered to bet, he only offered fair odds. Telling.

- seattleeng

November 5, 2012 at 4:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seattle, for a serious gambler--as I understand Nate Silver is--there's little reason to take a one-off bet even if you can get favorable odds. Guys like him want a guaranteed return. As of today, Silver favors Obama 5.7:1, thus if you really would pay him off at 1:3, that is if in the even of an Obama victory you'd pay Silver $1.33 for ever dollar he staked, that is still a good bet for him--but only if, as in a poker game, he can make that same favorable bet over and over again. Given that presidential elections occur once in four years and that each one is unique, he knows that repetition isn't possible. He may also know himself well enough to understand that the joy of winning $33K on a $100K bet cannot offset the possible pain of losing the whole hundred grand even if the chances of that happening are only 15%.

- AaronW

November 5, 2012 at 6:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Best to add in the weather forecast for Tuesday: heavy rain in eastern NC and VA as the new N'oreaster heads north to drench the NE on Wednesday. basman: Nate Silver's modelling was analyzed by another former baseball stat guy, Dan McLaughlin, who seems to be the 'Nate Cohn' at redstate com. I read his post here http://baseballcrank.com/archives2/2012/10/post.php October 31, 2012 "POLITICS: On Polling Models, Skewed & Unskewed". Perhaps this will answer your question about the turnout assumptions, but I think the issue is that (some) pollsters are using 2008 turnout assumptions. The last thing I read yesterday was a prediction that the entire Electoral College vote will hinge on Maine's allocation of two of their Electors by congressional district. One thing about StormSandy coverage that has NOT been covered by the media is 1) Long Island's south shore is so bad that the U S Navy is using amphibious landing craft, and 2) apparently there are so many trees down in New Jersey - in towns like Summit, Denville, and Morristown - 50+ miles from the shore - where power is still out - that this election is going to make a lot of people very angry.

- K2K

November 5, 2012 at 7:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

a different analysis of the Obama coalition than the one cited/linked by Alec from Politico is this by Ron Brownstein, which is far more interesting because of the challenges in OH, WI, MI: http://nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/obama-s-rust-belt-sun-belt-backers-very-different-20121102?page=1 Is Alec working on "The Left's (Possible) Coming Freak-Out"? It is obvious to a lot of people that the polarization is way too intense this year. No matter the outcome, half the voters will be upset. (Not me, I am still undecided about voting for anyone , except my Assemblyman) Biden, Schumer, and Reid have publicly promised deathgrip-gridlock if Romney wins.

- K2K

November 5, 2012 at 8:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If any pollster's likely voter screen consists merely of assuming the 2008 turnout -- which is the false charge levied by the right to try and reassure itself that the reality obvious in the polls does not exist -- it would be malpractice. Given the consistency of the state polling, for this latest wingnut fantasy to make sense, it would have to be almost all the pollsters engaged in the same bad practice at once. Who wants to bet on that? Wang at the Princeton Election project gives Obama a 99% probability of success. He uses only state polling information. RCP (the go-to site for Republicans apparently) shows 303 EC votes for Obama, the same as Nate Silver. Their maps are identical, with Romney winning NC and FL and Obama winning OH, VA, CO (any one of which would suffice), and of course MI, WI and PA. Nate Silver is ticking up to 87% probability for Obama, as I suggested he would as Election Day approaches. The only thing that appears to separate him and Wang is Silver's contingency that there is indeed something wrong with the polls that has systematically biased them against Romney. I thing he is being quite conservative, as critics (not the wingnuts, the numerate) have pointed out. Perhaps half the distance between Silver and Wang feels right to me. Silver himself has posted a chart showing that in only 3 out of the most recent 74 statewide races where there were at least 3 major poll results proximate to the election did the polling average fail to call the outcome correctly. That is a failure rate of 4%. If there is no correlated failure in OH, VA, and CO, that is they are statistically independent, the risk of all of them suffering that failure is infinitesimal (which is why Wang, who uses only state polls, has Obama at 99%). There is the possibility of both systematic error and of a Democratic turnout failure. The 13% probability that Silver assigns to these contingencies is if anything generous. The wingnut complaint that the polls are systematically wrong has no evidentiary basis. It cannot be rules out -- for that we would have to have some kind of "true" meta-poll that showed the normal polls being wrong. But the fact that a possibility cannot be excluded as against the laws of physics is not the same thing as saying it has any evidentiary support. The wingnut complaint does not. The wingnut accusation, that the polls are systematically biased and Romney is actually winning, must be seen as part of their general reality denial -- climate change denial, creationism, the recent stifling of the Congressional Research Service report that failed to show any economic growth resulting from tax cuts historically. The best that could be said of these people is that they are possessed by Lysenkoism. More accurately in my opinion, they are captive of a system of extreme religious belief as impervious to reality as the medieval church. If they lived in Galileo's time, they would be quite happy insisting that the earth is the center of the universe and does not orbit the sun.

- roidubouloi

November 5, 2012 at 8:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

so K2K, let me get this right, people in NJ will be so angry that after the biggest storm in the history of the NE that they will punish the governments slow response by getting rid of FEMA? If so they are even stupider than you imagine. I have friends in the area, a lot of them are blaming Christie and I find myself in the strange place of defending him. As to this election I am so damn tired of people screaming about 2008. White people did vote in 2008. Sarah Palin did stoke turnout. Obama won by 8% and with demographic changes with that electorate he would have won by 10%. This gives him a lot of room. And who cares if Romney wins West Virginia by 50%? Maybe all the pollsters out there don't know what they are doing and somehow Conservatives know that they are all wrong and the exact manner in which they are all wrong and Romney will win the ev but good lord that is quite a big assumption to make.

- blackton

November 5, 2012 at 8:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I picked apart that article by McLaughlin a few days okay. It is wrong, but, more important, its fundamental premise that the national polls are telling the "true" story has already been rendered obsolete by events. The national polls have come into line with the state polls. It would be interesting if someone were able to analyze, after the fact, the reasons for the divergences between the national and state polls. If Obama has been ahead in the swing states all along, then, for the national polls to show a tie or a slight Romney tilt, he has to have been behind in the states that are firmly red or blue. I wish someone could study response rates in states where people know they will not likely affect the outcome and in states where they know they have a high chance of doing so. The fact of polling, and that the results are now widely known, may be having feedback effects on polling responses. Alternatively, the national polls were getting different results out of the swing states than the polls of those states. Given the much, much lower sample size for each states embedded in national poll, volatility would be expected, but not a systematic divergence between the results of a national poll of Michigan and a Michigan-only poll. Don't know that we are ever going to find out, but it would be great if we could. Then again, I know someone who not only denies the likelihood of anthropogenic climate change, but insists the world is cooling. The reality of what has been going on with the polls is not going to alter the wingnut narrative, because reality is irrelevant to the wingnut narrative, today and every day.

- roidubouloi

November 5, 2012 at 8:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks to those who answered me. I appreciate it.

- basman

November 5, 2012 at 8:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K, there is only a 20% chance of rain in Durham and a 30% chance of rain in Raleigh North Carolina. In northern Virginia the weather is going to be sunny.

- blackton

November 5, 2012 at 9:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Right has been "freaking out" by scaring themselves with boogie-men a lot since Obama won in 2008. First, it was "Socialist!". Then "Anti-Gun!". Then "Rock-Star!". Then "Dictator!" And always, "we can't afford another 4 years of Socialism!" -- despite the facts that Keynesian stimulus and the bailouts/rescues/loans were absolutely needed to prevent a Great Depression Scenario. They instantly preferred the Hoover approach of "Do nothing and hope!" Given out freaked out they are by their own fictions, I think the reality has to be better than their fears. We're lowering the deficit. We're getting out of Iran and Afghanistan. We've got Obamacare to control costs on Medicare/Medicaid into the future. And the economy is steadily improving.

- AllanL5

November 5, 2012 at 9:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Right really has nothing to fear, except fear itself. The rest of us have quite valid fears, that if the Right gains power at this time, their fear of fear will lead them to take suicidal actions -- like opposing Obama at every turn, or lowering taxes even further and increasing the deficit while lowering Government spending and putting us back into that Double-Dip Recession waiting in the wings. Or repealing Obamacare and raising the deficit. Or repealing Dodd-Frank and creating another CDO crisis. THOSE are valid fears. Staying the course Obama has set will result in more employment and lower deficits. Why should they be afraid of that?

- AllanL5

November 5, 2012 at 9:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Allan, This is like living in the year 1612 with a crystal ball that shows without question the world that will come into existence through science and then asking, "Why should the Catholic Church be afraid of that? Do you have any reason to doubt that, given a choice, the Catholic Church would rather we were living in the world of 1612 than the world of 2012? The True Believers want to live in a world in which faith is paramount. Reality may be painful in such a world, where we eschew science and rationality, but the pain and suffering is of no more importance to them than to an absolutely convinced Buddhist. It is indeed the essence of existence as they see it. Reality is the veil, faith is truth and freedom. They desire, desperately, a rigid social order where all have their places and can console themselves that they are part of a grand design. The poor should be poor. The rich should be rich. The powerful should be powerful. The powerless should be powerless. It is of no importance to them whatsoever that this is not an objectively necessary state of affairs.

- roidubouloi

November 5, 2012 at 9:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Allan5, I am with you -- I fear a bleak future with an Obama loss (and loss of Senate control). It's funny how the Right (including Romney/Ryan) kept saying we are on the verge of turning into Greece. Reading the recent TNR piece on the rise of the neo-nazi party in Greece (amid general social chaos caused by the austerity measures), it occurred to me that it is the Romney/Ryan agenda that stands more chance of turning us into Greece, complete with the anti-immigrant paranoia that apparently is rampant there, as well as high unemployment (from slashed spending), etc. (I'm not saying we would see an increase in right-wing fascism, which is the focus of that article, but the steep unemployment that would lead to an increase in poverty, breadlines, etc., doesn't seem that far fetched.)

- shellski

November 5, 2012 at 10:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

John Zogby, Contributor Veteran pollster and political pundit Follow (27) OP/ED | 11/04/2012 @ 9:32AM |11,827 views What If It's Not Close After All? http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnzogby/2012/11/04/what-if-its-not-close-after-all/ Whoever wins, won't make any difference.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 5, 2012 at 11:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/04/14927414-ryan-says-obamas-policies-threaten-judeo-christian-values Ryan says Obama's policies threaten 'Judeo-Christian values' Ryan says Obama's policies threaten 'Judeo-Christian values' By NBC's Alex Moe CASTLE ROCK, Colo. -- Less than 48 hours before polls open on Election Day, Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan gave a firm warning to a group of evangelical Christians Sunday night: President Barack Obama’s policies jeopardize Judeo-Christian values. “And in these critical battleground states, it’s going to make the big difference as to whether or not people are worried about where America’s headed, worried about whether we’re going to reassert our Constitution, or whether or not we’re going to go down the path the president has put us on,” Ryan said speaking on a Faith and Freedom Coalition tele-townhall with thousands of voters across the country.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 5, 2012 at 11:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Will predicts a 321 EV Romney wipe-out. Will was quite accurate last time. RUN TO THE HILLS. Ahem. Yes. I will go back to my meds. Thanks for your attention. (P.s. for what it is worth, I agree with Roid on 303 - 50.5% for Obama.)

- icarus-r

November 5, 2012 at 11:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jamie: Thanks for highlighting Ryan's Sarah Palin moment. Here is my prediction: directly as a result of that statement, another 1-2% of "independents" will swing over to Obama. Ryan's Highminded version of Birtherism, at this late hour, demonstrates a level of panic in Boston that is strange even by Republican standards. I mean, the Jeep ads were bad enough - to get slapped down by the auto industry is something, for a Republican presidential candidate who is the son of an auto exec - but this? 1-2% - in Virginia and Florida. I think Ryan's statement has just cost Romney those two states.

- icarus-r

November 5, 2012 at 11:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Allan5, I am with you -- I fear a bleak future with an Obama loss (and loss of Senate control)." shellski, I fear a bleak future even if Obama wins. A GOP House will be so enraged if Obama gets a second term on top of his "illegitimate" first term that they will impeach him on a trumped-up charge, like they did Clinton. And they will do it for the same reason. They believe that no Democrat has a legal or moral right to occupy the Oval Office for one term, let alone two. Dark days are ahead, no matter who wins Tuesday. And it really is the fault of the voters. Republicans are going to do what Republicans do. But 50 or 60 million people don't have to vote anti-democracy, obstructionist GOP sociopaths into power--especially since most of them are voting against their own self-interests in the process. I think that's called the human condition, and it can be very bleak indeed. But it can also be optimistic and hopeful. I'm not giving up on us yet.

- magboy47.

November 5, 2012 at 11:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If Obaman wins this election will it mean that god (er, allah) favored Obama? Or will it mean Romney (and by extension Mormonism) is the devil? I eagerly await the contorted reasoning. (On a matter of religion, of all things.)

- tec619

November 5, 2012 at 11:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ryan says Obama's policies threaten 'Judeo-Christian values' By NBC's Alex Moe CASTLE ROCK, Colo. -- Less than 48 hours before polls open on Election Day, Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan gave a firm warning to a group of evangelical Christians Sunday night: President Barack Obama’s policies jeopardize Judeo-Christian values. “And in these critical battleground states, it’s going to make the big difference as to whether or not people are worried about where America’s headed, worried about whether we’re going to reassert our Constitution, or whether or not we’re going to go down the path the president has put us on,” Ryan said speaking on a Faith and Freedom Coalition tele-townhall with thousands of voters across the country. He continued, “It’s a dangerous path, it’s a path that grows government, restricts freedom and liberty, and compromises those values, those Judeo-Christian, western-civilization values that made us such a great and exceptional nation in the first place.” A Ryan campaign spokesman told NBC News about Ryan’s comments: "He was talking about issues like religious liberty and ObamaCare - topics he has mentioned frequently during the campaign." Mitt Romney has also shared similar comments about Judeo-Christian values, such as during his commencement address at Liberty University in May 2012. The Faith and Freedom Coalition is an influential evangelical grassroots organization headed by Ralph Reed. The tele-townhall tonight was only advised by the group and never by the Romney campaign. It was a call that had been re-scheduled at least once due to scheduling conflicts. Ryan fielded questions from several callers in between campaign rallies in Minnesota and Colorado. Asked by a caller from Florida about how his faith has helped him as Romney’s running mate, Ryan said it “sustains” and “humbles” him. “We [Ryan’s family] pray throughout the day. I keep a rosary in my pocket, whatever jacket I've got, and I'm given so many prayers from people,” the Wisconsin congressman said. “I'm one of those people who don't think you can separate your faith from your public life as an official from your private life. It informs you, it guides you, it makes you who you are, and it gives you great peace. First prayer I say every morning is the Serenity prayer.” Ryan also noted he received an email from his pastor in Janesville, Wis. tonight with the words: “have no fear.” “And that's how the Lord sustains me. No fear,” Ryan added.

- JAIMECHUCH

November 5, 2012 at 11:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Aaron writes: "Seattle, for a serious gambler--as I understand Nate Silver is--there's little reason to take a one-off bet even if you can get favorable odds. Guys like him want a guaranteed return. As of today, Silver favors Obama 5.7:1, thus if you really would pay him off at 1:3, that is if in the even of an Obama victory you'd pay Silver $1.33 for ever dollar he staked, that is still a good bet for him--but only if, as in a poker game, he can make that same favorable bet over and over again. " Silver currently has it at almost 8:1 odds Obama will win this. Intrade is about 1.5:1. Given that spread, if he was serious about his percentages, he'd be all in on Intrade. Of course, Silver could also be bullshitting about the the percentages. Which is my point. "Experts" cite percentages all the time. But if they aren't offering odds that match the percentages, then they are just making up numbers based on their own biases. Silver isn't the first guy who sat in front of a creaky excel model and proclaimed it "perfect"

- seattleeng

November 5, 2012 at 11:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It doesn't have to be bad. In the face of complete Republican intransigence, Obama can let the entire Bush tax-cuts expire. That would be a huge influx of revenue into the Government, reducing the deficit and reducing the need for any Recession creating budget cuts. And unlike spending cuts, tax-increases are NOT recessionary. Sure, the Republicans could hold America hostage for an increase in the Debt-Ceiling. But such obvious desire to destroy America just to get Obama would rebound upon them for the 2014 elections. And while the House did impeach Clinton, the Senate let it collapse. Something similar could happen this time. Meanwhile, Obamacare gets another 4 years to mature and give benefits, Medicare/Medicaid is preserved, and the economy continues to improve. Eventually, Republican doom-mongering has to look ridiculous compared to reality.

- AllanL5

November 5, 2012 at 11:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

magboy, The only solution to the dystopian future you envision is for Obama, after being re-elected, to take a short holiday and then get back on his campaign horse. The REAL job of the president is politician-in-chief, not policy-wonk-in-chief. FDR got it. Reagan got it. So far, Obama has been unwilling to shoulder his burden (and it is a terrible burden) of the perpetual campaign, of nurturing public opinion, courting and supporting office-holders, leading his party and cultivating its overall success, and co-opting opponents at every turn, in favor of hanging out in the Oval Office talking policy. He is so disinclined toward this grinding work of public relations that he nearly blew the election in the first debate. But he is a brilliant man with extraordinary political gifts. If he will put them to work for us in the next four years, he can wield public opinion like a club to flatten the Tea party Republicans.

- roidubouloi

November 5, 2012 at 11:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Depending on exactly how a possible Obama win shakes out - a relatively clear, clean victory, as opposed to cliffhangars and contested results in one or more key states - I expect that Alec's mix of five right-wing reactions gets it just about right. It might even have a glimmer of truth (though only a glimmer) to it, in that Sandy and Christie have helped him out...though, unless the possible victory turns out to be razor thin, it's likely that he would have won without those factors. But the freak-out will evolve over time as well. I suspect that sooner or later the most salient response will be #5, that Romney was a weak candidate, as the jockeying for 2016 revs up. Folks who never really liked him but bent over backwards to back him in order to oust Obama will turn their attention to building up the prospects of right-wingers like Ryan, Santorum, whomever by blaming Romney's supposed moderation for his defeat. "This time, let's finally pick a real conservative!" will be their battle cry.

- Thunderroad

November 5, 2012 at 11:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roid, I think your reply to magboy nailed what really will be the biggest question coming out of a possible Obama victory. Will be see the policy wonk who disdains politics, the conciliator who bends over backwards to accommodate the opposition? Or will he come out fighting, prepared to compromise but not at any cost? I suspect we'll find out soon enough...

- Thunderroad

November 5, 2012 at 12:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Absolutely, seattle. Silver's model is creaky, but the wingnut fabulists who declare all the polls wrong have a beautiful, divinely ordained model in their heads that is working beautifully. Does it matter that the nine poll analysts agree that Obama is going to win? Nah. What is that in the face of Providence. Does God care what they think? Nor does it matter that at this point you don't need a model at all to understand what is happening. Go to Silver's blog in the Times. Look at the poll results -- no modeling by Silver, just the results for the battleground states. You will find a sea of blue, with the exception of NC and FL, where you will find mostly red, and CO, where you will find a mix of red and blue that says CO is still teetering. As for the rest, especially OH, but even VA, nothing but blue. Of course, for the reality/evidence/fact-challenged (Do you know anyone like that, seattle?), all this is meaningless. Keep throwing ridiculous darts at Silver, right through 'til midnight tomorrow. Then get back to us.

- roidubouloi

November 5, 2012 at 12:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We will know soon enough, thunderroad. It is just important to keep in mind that political "fighting" is not something done with teeth constantly bared. It is always a combination of carrots, sticks, narrative, threats, co-optation, compromise, and, at times, bare-knuckled combat or raw power. Any one of them used to exclusion quickly wears out. Kind of like a uniform crop wears out the soil. It has to be mixed up constantly, just to keep the opposition off balance if nothing else. The gifted politician sizes up each situation and chooses the array of weapons he will deploy opportunistically, then goes about it with gusto. I passionately hope that is the Obama we will see once the election is over. I know he has the ability. Does he have the will?

- roidubouloi

November 5, 2012 at 12:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't know that the Left's "possible freak-out" is the same kind of scenario, K2K. There was a left freak-out, but that was in 2000 after thugs had physically attacked a counting center in Florida and the Supreme Court had inserted itself into the process. A few months ago I and, I suspect, a lot of other people were reckoning with Obama being defeated -- it would have been a great disappointment but people would have said, bad economy etc, it was inevitable. And one thing I remember about 2004 is the bad-tempered tone from some Republicans after they had won! Lord knows what it would have been like if Bush had lost the general election.

- ironyroad

November 5, 2012 at 12:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

On Wednesday, Sen. McConnell will announce this is #1 political goal will be to deny Pres. Obama a third term. VP Biden will then show him the Constitution.

- aboufade

November 5, 2012 at 12:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

blackton: when I wrote, about Long Island and New Jersey, that " that this election is going to make a lot of people very angry." I did not mean to imply that anger would necessarily be felt in a vote on Tuesday. Just that I do not think Obama gets the Sandy bounce what with all the horror stories coming out on since Friday. As for FEMA? Most of what they do is co-ordinate. The US Navy deployed ships in advance, in anticipation, of the official FEMA "request", which came in a timely manner, but then the FEMA "request" had to go back to DoD for SecDef approval, also done very timely. The DoD posted a list of all assets and supplies deployed. The hipster foodies of the Lower East Side got the MREs! Just because Romney said that maybe some of FEMA should devolve to the states does not mean abolishment of FEMA. I seem to recall every GOP president since Reagan has called to abolish the DoEducation, yet it is still with us. Last night, I saw that Massachusetts was sending more National Guardsmen, air medics, to NYC. I discovered that you can NOT just call the National Guard to offer housing. Then I realized that they will get berths on the US Navy ships based offshore for that purpose: housing for first responders from elesewhere. I am still waiting for Governor Cuomo to paraphrase Clinton's "where are the carriers" to "where are the cruise ships" :)

- K2K

November 5, 2012 at 12:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

yeah irony, hopefully an Obama loss will not freak out the "left". So looking forward to NOT being around to watch the next four years of gridlock. Really.

- K2K

November 5, 2012 at 1:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I await the conspiracy theories now that The Weather Channel has revealed it is partly owned by Bain Capital, which is matching donations to the Red Cross. btw, Alec M, Benghazi is NOT just "the rallying cry for the most hardcore of the Obama de-legitimizers". A whole lot of Americans still think the President should first defend freedom of expression instead of using the podium at the UN General Assembly to denounce a YouTube. I meant to add that Bush Derangement Syndrome is still alive and thriving, as is Obama Derangement Syndrome, and Romney Derangement Syndrome (regardless of whether he wins or not). still the drip drip drip of new details on Benghazi don't break at view full comment http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/11/05/why-the-ambassador-died/

- K2K

November 5, 2012 at 1:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hi K2K, Thanks for the shout-out to New Jersey, especially my home town. The clean-up has been going very well. It's just the loss of power thing - I still have no power, but I think most people are resigned or blame the utility. Not the governor and certainly not FEMA. The town has posted that all polling places will be powered, with generators if necessary. If anything, the storm has warmed me up a little to Christie, and I have been a dedicated Christie hater for over 20 years.

- polijunky

November 5, 2012 at 1:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Allan writes: "It doesn't have to be bad. In the face of complete Republican intransigence, Obama can let the entire Bush tax-cuts expire. That would be a huge influx of revenue into the Government, reducing the deficit and reducing the need for any Recession creating budget cuts. And unlike spending cuts, tax-increases are NOT recessionary" Undoing the bush tax cuts will raise $300B a year. We're about $1.2T a year in the hole. So, that is another $900B that needs to be found. And if the economy comes back, that will close about $600B. But that is still $300B that needs to be found. of course, in 2007, Bush had is to under $200B with the tax cuts in place....so even if all this happens, we're still worse off than Bush...

- seattleeng

November 5, 2012 at 1:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"magboy, The only solution to the dystopian future you envision is for Obama, after being re-elected, to take a short holiday and then get back on his campaign horse. The REAL job of the president is politician-in-chief, not policy-wonk-in-chief. FDR got it. Reagan got it." roi, You're absolutely right. My hope for Obama in a second term is for him to challenge Republicans by name at every turn to help him get things done for America. And then castigate Republicans over and over in public when they refuse to help their country. He's got nothing to lose in a second term. I hope he's got the guts to go for it. He can get angry. His problem is sustaining it. Romney has accused him of "revenge" politics. But that's the very essence of politics--back and forth, up and down, I get you, you get me. Go for it, Mister President--while you have the power!

- magboy47.

November 5, 2012 at 1:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid writes: "Does it matter that the nine poll analysts agree that Obama is going to win?" They predict a win for Obama IF turnout resembles 2008. If it resembles 2010, then their predictions are wrong. Rasmussen indicates the % of voters that self-identify as republicans is higher than at any time ever. Not just last 10 years. EVER. Oct 2012: 39.1% ID as R Oct 2010: 33.4% Oct 2008: 33.3% Oct 2004: 37.2% And how about for dems Oct 2012: 33.3% ID as D Oct 2010: 36.3% Oct 2008: 40.3% Oct 2004: 38.7% You see that, in 2008 Dems had +7 advantage. In 2012, R has + 5.8. That is a 13 point swing favoring R compared to 2008. And yet, we still have polling groups like CNN claiming a D+11 sampling? That is better than even 2008. Does CNN really believe turnout will be stronger for Obama today than in 2008? Not a chance. And we have independents breaking for romney by double digits in some cases. In 2008, Obama won independents by 52 to 44: + 8. Today, it looks like he'll lose independents by the same amount. Again, that's another big swing: 16 points. So, these two things: Sky high R identification and very high lead among independents are counter to what we saw in 2008. And thus, when a poll applies 2008 segmentation to the 2012 race, you have to wonder. The electoral college results still leaves me shaky. But make no mistake, 2012 is like 2010 on steroids for the repubs. Hopefully its enough...

- seattleeng

November 5, 2012 at 2:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Magboy writes: "You're absolutely right. My hope for Obama in a second term is for him to challenge Republicans by name at every turn to help him get things done for America. And then castigate Republicans over and over in public when they refuse to help their country." Obama failed to work with congress the last 4 years, and he hasn't explained how he'll do it the next 4 years. Assume he's got nothing. It's just more parties with JayZ and hollywood while the middle class watches their wages erode even further.

- seattleeng

November 5, 2012 at 2:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

From Taegan: Quote of the Day "If I hear anybody say it was because Romney wasn't conservative enough I'm going to go nuts. We're not losing 95% of African-Americans and two-thirds of Hispanics and voters under 30 because we're not being hard-ass enough." -- Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), quoted by Politico, saying that demographics would be the only reason for a hypothetical Mitt Romney loss Tuesday. What can Republicans do if Hillary runs in 4 years? There simply are not enough angry white men anymore.

- blackton

November 5, 2012 at 2:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seattle, I might be inclined to read the rest of your stuff on how wonderful Rasmussen is, and how Obama is going to get blown out of the water by Romney - as Will say's, with 321 EV - if you did not write twaddle like this: "Obama failed to work with congress the last 4 years". In just over 30 hours, with Virginia and Florida breaking for Obama, Ohio won't matter didley. We will see you here claiming how the Minorities and Women and Martians stole the election that should have gone to the Great White Hope, and that will be the end of that line of argument.

- icarus-r

November 5, 2012 at 3:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well I sure hope it's the Right freaking out and not the rest of us. As for Ryan - omg he said that? Yikes. Between Trump, Sununu, all the dog whistling I'm just nauseous and I hope these guys go AWAY.

- Sophia

November 5, 2012 at 3:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Judeo-Christian civilization is under threat? Omigod! That's where I live!

- ironyroad

November 5, 2012 at 3:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seattle: Regardless of what happens on Tuesday - there is still a 15% chance Romney could win - two things are worth mentioning. First, Frum "endorsed" Romney - to the extent that that matters - essentially on the grounds that he believed Romney was lying through and through about each of his economic policy proposals. That tells you something. Second, both the Economist and the Financial Times have come out supporting Obama, essentially for the same reason that Frum supports Romney: that Romney is a liar who can't be trusted.

The Financial Times: The more serious objection to Mr Romney is that he has gone through so many contortions to win his party’s nomination that it is hard to see how he would govern in practice. His wishlist includes an aspiration to raise Pentagon spending by a fifth while cutting everyone’s taxes and still somehow balancing the books. Such fiscal alchemy is an exercise in evasion, not a recipe for sustainable economic recovery. The Economist: Obama’s shortcomings have left ample room for a pragmatic Republican, especially one who could balance the books and overhaul government. Such a candidate briefly flickered across television screens in the first presidential debate. This newspaper would vote for that Mitt Romney, just as it would for the Romney who ran Democratic Massachusetts in a bipartisan way (even pioneering the blueprint for Obamacare). The problem is that there are a lot of Romneys and they have committed themselves to a lot of dangerous things.

- icarus-r

November 5, 2012 at 3:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Icarus, Obama is the king of committing to what he can not deliver. From cutting the deficit in half, to closing gitmo, to stopping the rise of the oceans, to fixing the economy, to allowing us to keep our doctors, to greater transparency...the man has not done a good job. The economy began it's recovery in the summer of 2009 like clockwork, and thanks to poor management the recovery failed and slid backwards. Worse, he has failed to make the case on why the next 4 years will be any different. He still has the same congress to deal with. He couldn't' tame them last time due to personal flaws. It's doubtful he'll work with them given another 4 years. He nights are spent partying, and his days are spent golfing. His entire last year has been spent campaigning. Think of that: Non-stop campaigning while the country suffered... We'll see what tomorrow holds.

- seattleeng

November 5, 2012 at 6:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seattle: As has been said earlier, twaddle. Obama has not achieved all that he said out to do; no President does. Do I wish he'd done more, gone further? Of course. But the economy has, in fact, started to recover, not because of "poor management" but because of the meager efforts that the Democrats managed to eke past the America-hating Republicans. Obama has, indeed, failed to "tame" the Congressional Republicans "due to personal flaws," since the vast majority of Congressional Republicans have proven to have the personal flaw that they are utter sociopaths with utter contempt for the citizens they're supposed to respect, represent, and serve. Your fantasy that the President of the United States occupies his time with golfing and partying is, in fact, delusional. How would he manage the non-stop campaigning and manage to keep that up? Keep on pumping out the lies, Seattle, and we'll keep mocking them. Tomorrow's going to be a very interesting day; I like to think it'll be a triumph of the spirit of America over the hateful lying greed that you and Romney represent. We will indeed see what tomorrow holds.

- janus

November 5, 2012 at 6:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"He nights are spent partying, and his days are spent golfing." Seattle: did you actually write this sentence? I mean, before, you put racist "affirmative action baby" piffle in the mouth of Romney. Now you're full on with the lazy nigger line? Seriously? I mean, you should started and stopped with that, so at least we know the animus is personal and does not reflect your reasoning capacity. (There are a lot of high functioning racists around.) But then you actually criticise Obama for not delivering this list: "From cutting the deficit in half, to closing gitmo, to stopping the rise of the oceans, to fixing the economy, to allowing us to keep our doctors, to greater transparency...the man has not done a good job. The economy began it's recovery in the summer of 2009 like clockwork, and thanks to poor management the recovery failed and slid backwards." I have told you before, and I will say it again. With your friends, you might be able to get away with nonsense like this. On Redstate, they might think you a genius. But, again, seriously? Gitmo, when the Republicans killed it? Climate change, when the Republicans killed it? "allowing us to keep our doctors" - could you possibly come up with a bigger lie than this - OK, you did not mention Death Panels and Apology Tour, so I guess you could have. Bonus points on that. The economy began its recovery in 2009 ... "like clockwork"? If the economy runs like clockwork, why blame Obama for it? You guys can't even keep your lies straight. :) In any event, when the two top libertarian economics global newspapers in the English language denounce Romney as a shapeshifting liar, and your only reply is to attack Obama as a lazy nigger, I think that says a lot about your mental state. :)

- icarus-r

November 5, 2012 at 8:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seattle says: "They predict a win for Obama IF turnout resembles 2008. If it resembles 2010, then their predictions are wrong." A complete fabrication, typical of seattle and the wingnut right. They predict a win for Obama based on a very large number of polls all of which have likely voter screens none of which consists of assuming that the turnout in 2012 has the same composition as 2008. This is simply a Republican fraud, wholly without basis. So, of course, we can count on seattle to repeat it. Remind us Wednesday morning, seattle. Or will you be blaming the hurricane, Chris Christies? What will the excuse be when your prognostication -- based on nothing but a single pollster with a well-documented Republican bias -- turns out to be wrong?

- roidubouloi

November 5, 2012 at 8:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Breaking: The ignorant Nate Silver, who needs seattleeng to explain to him what to do with polling information, how to read them, how to interpret them, has just tipped Florida light blue, with 52% chance of Obama winning. I don't expect that, largely because of the efforts Florida is making to suppress Democratic voting, including inadequate facilities in Democratic districts. But it would sure be a welcome bonus. The Democratic party needs to start bringing lawsuits in the Federal courts in the states where the Republicans are trying to suppress Democratic turnout. The should invoke Bush v. Gore for the principle that there has to be some semblance of equal opportunity to vote, and have one's vote counted, throughout any state.

- roidubouloi

November 5, 2012 at 9:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lawsuits post-election, of course. No time now.

- roidubouloi

November 5, 2012 at 9:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Silver also now gives Obama about a 91% chance of winning. I think I am beginning to understand how Silver's model works -- basically an option pricing model that uses the polls to produce a mean and variance for a probability distribution state-by-state. He uses a Monte Carlo simulation to aggregate the state-by-state probabilities with some sort of function partially to correlate (technically to co-integrate) their movements so that they are not treated as statistically independent. I predicted several days ago that as we got to the election his probability for Obama would tick up near to or above 90%. Nate, wherever you are, feel free to confirm that I am correct. :-)

- roidubouloi

November 5, 2012 at 9:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid, too early ... give it another 24 hours. But, IMHO, Florida, not Ohio, will decide the election.

- icarus-r

November 5, 2012 at 9:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Re 2008 versus 2010 - the problem there, of course, is that mid-term elections are generally anomalous. EVEN IF Seattle were right about the assertion concerning polling assumptions, the assumption itself is eminently reasonable.

- icarus-r

November 5, 2012 at 9:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...I'm pretty sure the right's been freaking out for four years already!

- Tobbar

November 5, 2012 at 10:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

seattleeng: "Obama failed to work with congress the last 4 years" Oh please. It's Republicans in Congress who have failed to work with Obama. Most of Obama's polices were once Republican ideas: the health care mandate (indeed, most major provisions of the health care law), cap and trade, disclosure of political expenditures. They've done complete 180s with little or no justification. Why? Because as Mitch McConnell said, their highest priority was to make Obama a one term president. Maybe when there's no further term to deny Obama, they'll be a little more reasonable.

- dsimon

November 5, 2012 at 10:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, if FL falls to Obama, that would without any question decide the election.

- roidubouloi

November 5, 2012 at 11:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid writes: "A complete fabrication, typical of seattle and the wingnut right. They predict a win for Obama based on a very large number of polls all of which have likely voter screens none of which consists of assuming that the turnout in 2012 has the same composition as 2008." Oh really? Today's CNN poll has a D+11 and shows O and R tied. Think about that: They have over-sampled dems by 11 points and the poll is tied. Now, tell me, when in recent history have dems have been that over-represented at the polls? 2008 had d+6. And thus, the CNN poll assumes dem turnout even higher than 2008. Almost twice as high as 2008. Laughable. Your apology is accepted.

- seattleeng

November 5, 2012 at 11:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

magboy47: "A GOP House will be so enraged if Obama gets a second term on top of his 'illegitimate' first term that they will impeach him on a trumped-up charge, like they did Clinton." Maybe. But if enough of the Tea Partiers lose, some of those who might be the most enraged won't be in office anymore. And it may open up the possibility moderation and deal-making if Boehner isn't in thrall to the extreme elements of his caucus. I'm not saying it's a likely outcome, but it's possible.

- dsimon

November 5, 2012 at 11:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Icarus writes: "Seattle: did you actually write this sentence? I mean, before, you put racist "affirmative action baby" piffle in the mouth of Romney. Now you're full on with the lazy nigger line? Seriously? I mean, you should started and stopped with that, so at least we know the animus is personal and does not reflect your reasoning capacity. (There are a lot of high functioning racists around.)" Man, the N word just rolls of your tongue, doesn't it? Always there, ready to fire. Feels good to say, does it? I don't like the word, and haven't typed it or written it for what must be 20 years. So you can understand I find it funny that you throw it around the way you do. Lazy means that one has a tendency to sit around and watch TV. It does NOT mean someone is out doing something all the time. I'll re-frame it for you: Bush played a lot of Golf. Obama played a 4 times more golf than Bush did in 8 years. Bush had a few parties. Obama had many 3X more parties, and spent 5X more on partying. In 2003/4, Bush did a lot of fundraising trips. Obama doubled it. There is nothing lazy about this. In fact, quite the contrary. What is it about your brain that always equates black men with laziness? And then to use that repulsive word the way some use table salt. You worry me Icarus buddy. Icarus writes: "I have told you before, and I will say it again. With your friends, you might be able to get away with nonsense like this. On Redstate, they might think you a genius. " Except I don't go to right wing (or libertarian) websites. It's pretty much only TNR. Not enough time. If Obama had accomplishments to run on, then he would have run on them. He ran on killing OBL (which 90% of the population would have done if asked to push the button, so no big feat of courage there) and he ran on GM. Hardly an awesome list of accomplishments. Especially for a man with so many promises AND a willing congress for 2 years. I know you like to blame the lack of accomplishments on the second 2 years of congress. But, the fact is, other presidents have done quite a bit even with a spiteful congress in place. So, that lame excuse doesn't really wash. Do you think all the parties and golf and fundraising took no time? Seriously? The country is in the crapper because this president hasn't spent the time needed to make things work. Even the president said the economic progress would have been much, much stronger. Note he didn't say "If the republicans cooperate, we'll hit 5.5%" He said "This stimulus will get us to 5.5%" And it didn't. Not even close. We haven't even hit the level promised if NO stimulus were in place.

- seattleeng

November 5, 2012 at 11:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dsimon writes: "Oh please. It's Republicans in Congress who have failed to work with Obama. Most of Obama's polices were once Republican ideas: the health care mandate (indeed, most major provisions of the health care law), cap and trade, disclosure of political expenditures. They've done complete 180s with little or no justification. Why? Because as Mitch McConnell said, their highest priority was to make Obama a one term president." Leadership is about getting things done in the face of extreme adversity. That includes an ornery congress for 2 years. Others have done much, much better here. Just look at Bill Clinton. Now, if Obama wins, what will be different? He wasn't able to work with congress the last 2 years. Congress is basically the same. And so what? At least 2 more years of nothing? You didn't think this far ahead? PS. Did you see the vid of Clinton stumping for Obama today? He actually asked the crowd “Who wants a president who will knowingly, repeatedly tell you something he knows is not true?” I cannot make this stuff up. But of course, that depends on the meaning of "is," er, never mind.

- seattleeng

November 5, 2012 at 11:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seattle - I write it, only because I am certain that you think it. No point tiptoe-ing around the ugly sentiment that permeates every post you have been writing lately about Obama. Nice try with the "lazy means watching tv" and "golf takes lots of effort" nonsense. You know exactly what I mean; more to the point, you know exactly what you meant. Shirking responsibility - the oldest calumny against Blacks in America. First it was the college grades, and now it is Obama partying. Honestly. When you talk about partying and golfing, we're not talking about a dog whistle buddy - this is the entire Brass section of the Cleveland Philharmonic you're dragging out. And go on to try to justify this crap? Seriously?

- icarus-r

November 6, 2012 at 12:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I thought Bush 43 held the record for days off from work.

- ironyroad

November 6, 2012 at 12:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Icarus, a black man is accused of playing too much golf, and that is racist in your book? Why, just 20 years ago, claiming your doctor played too much golf and you couldn't get an appointment was simply a way to show how out of touch and wealthy your doctor was. But today, it means the man is lazy. To you, anyway. I guess I still view it as a way to indicate a person is wealthy and out of touch. And you are certain I am a racist? You are the guy who uses the N word with regularity, and you dream up (and publish!) vignettes in which you imagine coworkers all having racist discussions around the water cooler. And you actually write their lines in which they speak in southern dialects and say racist things. And you create these out of thin air. All in your head. And you eagerly share them with readers. Creepy. Wouldn't you think it odd if someone wrote a short story imagining what pedophiles discussed at a meeting around a water cooler? Wouldn't you think it really odd of someone took the time to write down an imagined conversation among the imagined pedophiles, and the recounted the details about what they liked to do? I certainly would. In fact, I'd think the person probably was a latent pedophile. So, you can see why I think your story about the racists all gathering around the water cooler was so strange. Especially when you yourself use the N word so often. You know how in high school the kid that was the quickest to call someone else a f*ggot often ended up being gay himself? Maybe a similar mechanism is at work and can explain why you are so quick to call others racist and why you see race in every critique.

- seattleeng

November 6, 2012 at 3:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

oh no irony. Bush43 held the record for days off at his ranch in Texas, which just meant he did his hard POTUS work in between cutting cedar brush :) In the USA, Golf usually connotes leisure time and wealth. Not laziness. It is quite a complex game. Eisenhower always seemed to be playing golf - maybe someone has the tally? I do admit I thought Obama's very cool AirForce1 bomber jacket that appeared on his Sandy visit to NJ did remind me of Bush43's combat piltot uniform worn for the Mission Accomplished moment.

- K2K

November 6, 2012 at 6:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K: Seattle does not mind wealth. And the comment about partying and golf comes right after another comment about college grades. Seattle is educated and intelligent enough to know that birtherism is a sign of serious mental deficiency; but he can't escape the not-so-subtle memes. The point is not golf; it is shirking responsibility - what Confederates routinely accused African Americans and what the "Welfare" ads were representing. Seattle: very amusing. Evidently no one taught you about "fiction" and "imagination". :) I am also writing a play about Plantagenet England and another one about Empress Elisabeth of Austria-Hungary. I can assure you I am neither a medieval English squire nor a Viennese Baroness. More to the point, it is actually not difficult at all to "imagine" the watercooler discussions - because all I have to do is go on conservative, or "conservative", websites and copy-paste the comments. In respect of the watercooler convo, I confess to heavy plagiarism.

- icarus-r

November 6, 2012 at 9:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think perhaps seattle has a self-image issue. You're not the dispassionate observer, and icarus is not the guy yelling "faggot" a bit too quickly, seattle. He's the guy standing up for principle and calling down shame on bigots; you're the guy who retorts, "Hey, this guy must be a faggot, too!" Good job toeing the "you can't point out racism without being a racist" party line of your comrades, though. Eventually, you and yours will have to realize that the problem is not actually acknowledging racism, but the racism itself, and then we can actually start getting somewhere. Well, maybe not you. But your kids, perhaps.

- janus

November 6, 2012 at 10:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

so icarus, the same crticisms of Bush43's too many vacation days chopping cedar brush, partying whilst on National Guard duty during the Vietnam war, the DUI - what was that? Dog whistles for what? Even the Obama-loving media notes that Obama seems to prefer campaigning to governing, and the Democratic Party has no real leadership. I am just curious about Obama's transcripts to see what classes he took. After all, there is no correlation between college grades and future success.

- K2K

November 6, 2012 at 10:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K: The Obama-loving media, and in fact every media outlet, has faulted Obama for disliking campaigning, rather than liking campaigning. But that is a separate matter. Every communication takes place within a given context. There was a 500+ discussion on these boards a year or so ago, on this very topic. That is why identical words used in different contexts may, and often do, both connote and denote different meanings. Calling the fratboy Bush II lazy has a different meaning, in the context of entitled fratboys, than calling Obama lazy. I don't want to get into another 500+ thread on this one, but this is why, for example, calling Obama the food stamp President was considered race-baiting dog whistle, even as there are a lot of White folk on food stamps. As for transcripts - you might be "just curious"; Rush is not "just curious": he has argued that Obama was an affirmative action student - meaning, again, that he was too dumb to make it on his own - that he got ahead only because of his race - that he is not deserving - that ... and that is why Fox News is so interested in the famous college transcripts.

- icarus-r

November 6, 2012 at 11:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

P.s. This is why, by the way, then Clinton called Romney "boy", it did not raise any issues. If anyone calls Obama "boy" ... well, you get the point. :) It is also why when Sununu says that Obama does not "understand" America, again, in the context of the birther movement, it has a different meaning altogether than when Romney is attack for not understanding America - the America. For intelligent criticism of Obama without a hint of racism or race-baiting, take a look at The American Conservative.

- icarus-r

November 6, 2012 at 11:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Icarus writes: "As for transcripts - you might be "just curious"; Rush is not "just curious": he has argued that Obama was an affirmative action student - meaning, again, that he was too dumb to make it on his own - that he got ahead only because of his race - that he is not deserving - that ... and that is why Fox News is so interested in the famous college transcripts." And Bush was said to have gotten into Yale due to daddy. That he was too dumb to get in on his own. No question we can call Bush dumb and question HOW he got into Yale. But can't we raise those same questions about Obama without being called racist? That is the issue here. You permit one criticism to be leveled at a white president (and in fact you celebrate them!), and reject that same criticism being leveled at a black president. Worse, when the other side asks the same question, you call them racist. Wondering how a president got into school is always valid. (Bush and Yale) Wondering if a president is working hard enough is always valid. (Bush at the ranch) Wondering if a president made it on his own is always valid (Romney Jr and Romney Sr). Wondering if a president enjoys having a lot of sex outside marriage is always valid (kennedy, clinton, etc). In all these cases, if someone asks the questions above about Obama, you'll claim it's a dog whistle and racist, and you'll call the person the N word. You are being intellectually lazy. Stop. Icarus writes: "P.s. This is why, by the way, then Clinton called Romney "boy", it did not raise any issues. If anyone calls Obama "boy" ... well, you get the point. :)" Clinton said of Obama in 2008: "A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags" Was that racist?

- seattleeng

November 6, 2012 at 11:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I went over the essential irrelevance of voter self-IDS in another thread, seattle. Not going to repeat it again for you benefit. Is it possible that dozens and dozens have forgotten how to take a random sample? Possible. Highly unlikely. The closing pools, nationally and in the competitive states, are a sea of blue. Get over your wing-nuttery. Rejoing the reality-based community. Yes, these questions about Obama are racist, particularly the affirmative action claims. The man graduated form Harvard Law School magna cum laude. That places him in about the top 5% of his class, one about 30 people in a class of 600. Exams are graded anonymously, there is not ID of the student on the bluebook. He did not achieve that with affirmative action. Needless to say, you couldn't come close, nor could George W. Bush who was very, very far from being an honors student.

- roidubouloi

November 6, 2012 at 12:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K, that's true, I'd forgotten the brush-clearing. Seriously, though, brush-clearing is one of those jobs one can do a lot of thinking while working. Obama prefers campaigning?? Now that's a new one.

- ironyroad

November 6, 2012 at 1:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seattle: re Clinton's comment, I don't know. Have to see the context. But his comment about Obama's win in South Carolina, and how Jesse Jackson did the same, came very close. And at the time, I called him on it. As for the rest, no point in repeating what I have already said. Questions about George W Bush - and not Jeb Bush - have arisen because of his obvious estrangement from the English language. Questions about Obama have been raised in spite of his evident gifts with it. That pretty tells you everything you need to know.

- icarus-r

November 6, 2012 at 1:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid writes: "The man graduated form Harvard Law School magna cum laude. That places him in about the top 5% of his class, one about 30 people in a class of 600" You are confused again. Up until 1999, magnu cum laude was awarded to 76% of the graduating class at harvard law, at least according to the Reuters and the LA Times. But, that aside, is it valid to wonder how a president got into their school? Is it valid to wonder if a president is spending enough time at the job? Is it valid to wonder if a president is enjoying extra-marital affairs? articles.latimes.com/1999/jun/10/news/mn-46135 don't eat the link. don't eat the link. don't eat the link. don't eat the link. don't eat the link.

- seattleeng

November 6, 2012 at 2:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarus writes: "re Clinton's comment, I don't know. Have to see the context." Nary a shred of intellectual curiosity? You can't type the quote I provided into google and see what comes back? Here's the source: Tim Russert claims that Bill Clinton said it to Ted Kennedy. That was then quoted in the New Yorker in a piece linked below by Ryan Lizza. This was at a time when Clinton was trying to secure support from Hillary from Kennedy. www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/09/10/120910fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=2 And so, what do you say? Is that quote about as racist as it comes? Or will you manufacture some sort of pass for Clinton as the left always does?

- seattleeng

November 6, 2012 at 2:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarus writes: "As for the rest, no point in repeating what I have already said. Questions about George W Bush - and not Jeb Bush - have arisen because of his obvious estrangement from the English language. Questions about Obama have been raised in spite of his evident gifts with it. That pretty tells you everything you need to know." And so, if a president is a gifted speaker, then all questions related to performance are off limits? Is that now your new standard? So, asking Clinton if he lied in a deposition to save his hide...was that off limits? It wasn't racist I don't think.. What was it? Reagan was a gifted speaker. Was it reasonable to question his intelligence? Your standard here is crumbling and even more confusing. Please clarify.

- seattleeng

November 6, 2012 at 2:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid writes: "I went over the essential irrelevance of voter self-IDS in another thread, seattle. Not going to repeat it again for you benefit." Your assertion was that self IDs are volatile and unreliable. And yet, many of the big firms track them, and they clearly show trends that mimick the the mood of the country. So, while YOU mght feel they are volatile and unreliable, Gallup and Rasmussen do not. And they take HUGE samples (10K likely voters). And they've tracked this for a LONG time. And both are showing 2012 are showing the R self-ID is higher than it has ever been, all the way back to 1936. The dems won in 2008 and the balance was D+5. If the balance today is D+2, then Romney wins the popular vote. But the trends from Gallup and Rasmussen are showing this as R+1 and R+ 6 respectively. If the republicans show in in numbers anywhere close to that, this is a landslide for Romney. We shall see.

- seattleeng

November 6, 2012 at 3:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seattle: question Obama's performance in office to your heart's content. Attack the ACA, minimise the importance of Osama, talk about how Russia is the greatest threat to the US since smallpox - whatever. But when you use racist memes - affirmative action student and shirking responsibility - as surrogates for performance expect to be called on them for what they are. This might help. This is what I wrote in TNR on 22 April 2008:

I was rooting for Hillary in NH and was genuinely happy about her win. Things changed after that, and one of those things, was Bill's comment in SC. Out of context? That's the problem - if indeed they were out of context, the words would not have hurt. It's the context that matters: Jesse Jackson, South Carolina. That's the context. It's kinda like saying, "Joe Lieberman bargains strongly for his rights; so did Shylock." In Ann Arbor.

- icarus-r

November 6, 2012 at 3:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Is it valid to wonder if a president is enjoying extra-marital affairs?" I think a case can be made for wanting a president with a strong libido.

- ironyroad

November 6, 2012 at 5:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarus writes: "But when you use racist memes - affirmative action student and shirking responsibility - as surrogates for performance expect to be called on them for what they are." But every criticism can be construed as a racist meme by someone. And thus, not a single criticism can be leveled against Obama. And if it is, then some circular logic is presented to deconstruct that criticism into race. I say he plays too much golf, and you take that to mean he is lazy, and thus racist. You cannot make a bigger stretch than that. "It's the context that matters" This is nothing more than the left granting themselves a license to accuse whomever they wish of racism, because you claim you can somehow divine intent. When Biden talks with an Indian accent to draw a laugh, he gets a pass. When Clinton calls Obama his valet, he gets a pass. When Clinton gets a female employee to give him a BJ, he gets a pass. All of these would have been firing offenses had someone on the right done them. Remember George Allen using the word Macaca? On cue, a wiki page appeared proclaiming a twisted link back to a slur, and a new racial epithet was born. Out of thin air. Even with Gore and Hillary claiming Allen didn't mean it, he was done. www.slate.com/articles/life/the_good_word/2011/04/wikipedias_macaca_problem.single.html What the left will tolerate from their own never ceases to amaze. That NOW just shut up when Clinton was getting serviced by a subordinate says all you need to know. That the left would mobilize over a word that had never even appeared in print says all you need to know.

- seattleeng

November 6, 2012 at 8:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Only 10:15 EST, seattle, and the actual electoral map is already looking almost exactly like that of Nate Silver. And, Surprise! The voter self-IDs of exit polls are showing the same sort of Democratic edge that the pre-election opinion polls did. EXACTLY AS I TOLD YOU, WHEN YOU ASK PEOPLE THEIR SELF IDS REPEATEDLY AND THERE IS ALWAYS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SELF IDS AND VOTER REGISTRATION, THE ONLY PROPER CONCLUSION IS THAT PEOPLE SELF ID DIFFERENTLY THAN THEIR REGISTRATION, AND YOU CANNOT THEN ADJUST THE POLL OUTCOMES TO MATCH THE REGISTRATION. So much for all of the rignt-wingnut fantasies about the polls being biased against Romney. Whenever you want to eat crow, seattle, the world at TNR awaits you.

- roidubouloi

November 6, 2012 at 10:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid writes: "So much for all of the rignt-wingnut fantasies about the polls being biased against Romney." In 2008, Obama enjoyed 10M vote advantage over McCain In 2012, Obama enjoyed 2M vote advantage over Romney. The 2008 polling advantages the dems had in 2008 DID NOT show up again, and thus, the polls that applied 2008 tilt were wrong to do so. I am surprised Romney pulled less than McCain, however. So much for the evangelicals. Yet again.

- seattleeng

November 7, 2012 at 1:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Icarus writes: "We will see you here claiming how the Minorities and Women and Martians stole the election that should have gone to the Great White Hope, and that will be the end of that line of argument." No, nobody stole the election. But the country kept the republicans in the house, which means they approve of the gridlock to date I guess.

- seattleeng

November 7, 2012 at 2:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Until one can criticize anyone without being called a racist, America will still be moving backwards, one of the most unfortunate outcomes of Obama's first term. Hope to keep reading seattleeng's comments (this election was about the status quo being less scary, and an interesting vote for Congress to contain his "Deus-ex-Machina of Executive Orders and Regulations") until my tnr.com subscription expires on Dec, 27. assuming tnr.com is still in business by then. Oddly, they tried to automatically renew on my VISA on 11/5, with NO notice to me, and the renewal was for a much higher price than the digital sub I have. A sign of desperation now that all the Obama campaign ads are gone?

- K2K

November 7, 2012 at 7:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close