Election 2012

No, the Presidential Election Probably Won't be Over Tomorrow

Stupid Ohio

|

If this election never ends, thank this guy.

Nick Gillespie warned last week that Ohio's absentee and provisional ballot system is likely to gum up the election results. In short, Ohio residents who request an absentee ballot, change their mind and decide to vote at the polls the old fashioned way will be required to fill out provisional ballots instead. By state law, provisional ballots can't be counted until Nov. 17.

Today, The Washington Post reports on the legal mess being caused by the way Ohio is counting the provisional ballots, beyond even the delays:

Voting rights advocates contend that a new directive issued Friday evening by Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted improperly places the burden on voters — rather than poll workers — for accurately recording the form of identification on provisional ballots.

Husted ordered the state's 88 county elections boards to reject provisional ballots when the identification portion is incomplete. This appears to be in conflict with a consent decree reached last month between the state and voting rights groups that said provisional ballots with incomplete identification information should be counted.

A group of unions and voting rights groups went to federal court Thursday asking that the state be made to reaffirm that commitment. A day later, Husted released his directive. The state is expected to respond before the end of Monday, but a decision may not come until after the election. Election boards have 10 days after the election to evaluate the eligibility of provisional ballots and decide whether to count them.

The final tracking poll by the University of Cincinnati has the race too close to call in Ohio with President Barack Obama barely ahead. A different poll, though, by NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist gives Obama a six-point lead in the state.

The Post also goes into detail about early voting squabbles and issues in Florida over the weekend as well. It's clear that the closer the vote is Tuesday, the further we'll be from actually knowing the outcome.

NEXT: Megaupload Founder offers Free Internet to All of New Zealand

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Boy, I can’t wait for it to be 2000 all over again.

    1. The “MOST IMPORTANTEST ELECKSHUN IN ARE LIFES” freakout must continue somehow.

      Journalists, media pundits and political operatives gotta eat, too.

      1. “MOST IMPORTANTEST ELECKSHUN IN ARE LIFES”

        I might believe that idea except neither major candidate’s willing to do what it takes to not crash us. Because of that, me blowing my nose tomorrow outranks it.

    2. I say that if it’s that close, they should have to share the office.

      1. This is why the Constitution originally gave the vice-presidency to the runner up.

        1. the Constitution

          Who cares what that moldy thing says?

          1. It’s like, older than most people’s grandparents. How are we supposed to understand that?

            1. Math.

      2. “You see this line? This is my half of the office. You stay in your half.”

        1. “Dad, Obama sneezed onto my half of the office!”

        2. Hey, while we’re at it, since we have three branches of government, why not have three co-presidents who must agree among themselves. They would be the three top vote getters.

          1. They would be the three top vote getters stooges.

            1. Why I oughta…

          2. With three, they’d start setting up a voting system. Better off with two.

          3. Triumvirates don’t have a great record of preserving empires in their limited historical appearances.

            1. That should say preserving republics. The failure of the triumvirates led to the creation of the empire

              1. Sigh. Queensryche all over again. Who wants that?

        3. “You see this blue line? This is my half –”

          “Whoa, whoa, whaddya mean, blue? It’s going to be a red line!”

          “Pistols at dawn?”

          “It’s on, Co-Prez.”

  2. It could be over without Ohio. If fivethirtyeight.com is right, Obama might get to 270+ electoral college votes without Ohio. If Rasmussen reports is right, then Obama must win both Wisconsin and Ohio, plus Nevada or some smaller state — and Rasmussen puts Romney narrowly ahead in almost the swing states, and dead even in Wisconsin and Ohio. If Romney wins Wisconsin, Ohio might be irrelevant.

    1. It’s Rasmussen vs. everyone else, then. Most of the polls have Obama narrowly ahead in almost all the swing states.

      Romney has, like, North Carolina, and that’s about it.

      However, one thing I think might be a hilarious upset is if Romney wins Michigan and/or Pennsylvania.
      Apparently he’s pulled close in Michiga and Minnesota recently. If by some freak of luck he wins one of those that could change the equation.

  3. provisional ballots with incomplete identification information should be counted.

    “Well, somebody filled this thing out. That’s good enough for me.”

    1. Yep. Ballots are now some sort of fetish in themselves, entirely abstracted from their purpose.

  4. Will there be no end to the evidence that our political system is terminally broken, that our government is entirely incompetent, and that no one cares for the rule of law anymore?

    How many years have we had to institute substantial election reform, and still it comes down to this shit at the very last instant? There is no concern for the electorate anymore, only gaming a very broken system.

    I am tempted to withhold my vote, but I will engage in this futile exercise simply to try to get Gary Johnson in to the 5% club.

    1. No, there will be no end to the evidence, because it’s the way things are now and have been for a long time. It is the nature of government, and so it is unsurprising to see it.

      1. Oh, but it will all work out THIS time, we have the UN watching out for us!!

    2. 5%?

      I think you left out a decimal point. It goes on the left like this .5%.

      I’m taking the under on that too.
      Mark it down.

    3. Judging by the antics at each national convention this year, if Gary Johnson gets to 5% of the vote it will only spur a bipartisan effort to change election laws to require third party candidates receive 10% of the vote. Democrats and Republicans will both hail it as a sign of their ability to compromise.

    4. Stop voting for fucking Republicans.

  5. A group of unions and voting rights groups went to federal court Thursday asking that the state be made to reaffirm that commitment.

    Whenever the topic of scrupulously fair and well-run elections comes up, I immediately think of the unions.

    1. Some of the horrors I heard from union members about the voting process at their meetings was enough to make my blood run cold. The coercion level is evidently very high.

  6. Nov 27 – Supreme Court names Romney President.

  7. I bet it’s not as close as everyone seems to expect.

    And, regardless, even if the final results aren’t in tomorrow, resistance to this shitty president won’t end until he’s out of office.

    We’ll keep resisting the shitty president we might replace Obama with until that one’s out of office, too.

    The results of the election won’t be over for me until the last president resigns, and we replace him with a tuna fish sandwich.

    1. FUCK I hate Tuna

      1. You know, just when I think Canadians can’t get any more appalling…

      2. Pantsfan, maybe you are just making your tuna sandwiches wrong. For example, do you put pickles in them? People who don’t put pickles in their tuna sandwiches may as well be eating deep dish pizza.

        1. Growing up it was always mixed with relish and I hate Relish.

          1. See, there’s your problem. You’re supposed to kill the tuna, not let it grow up.

          2. This is what you want.

            People who eat non-yellowfin tuna packed in water (or even worse, soybean oil) are worse than Hitler, and have the taste of someone who frequents Olive Garden.

              1. For a case of 24. IT’S WORTH IT.

          3. Pssh, you think that is bad. My grandmother who grew up in SK would melt a slice of processed cheese on top. And then grill it like grilled cheese, but with margarine or maybe Canola oil instead. The point is it was vile and I always blamed the Prairies for that.

            1. That sounds good to me. Cooked with butter, of course.

          4. So now you don’t exactly relish tuna, huh?

        2. A few things:

          First, speak no ill of the deep dish. You are simply incapable of fully appreciating it’s intense complexity. It’s like the tranny of faux Italian cuisine, permanently stuck between a calzone and a pizza. You are just a judgemental anti-LGBT Santorumist that is afraid of what you fail to comprehend.

          Second, tuna is not that awful shredded crap that comes in a can. Tuna is a gorgeous block of raw reddish-purple fish that can be served either seared or completely raw in a poke.

          1. I will address your second statement first: you are correct, but canned yellowfin tuna in olive oil is also fucking delicious. Trader Joe’s carries it under their store brand, go try some. And tuna comes in multiple colors, dumbass. White tuna, fatty tuna, toro, etc. they are all awesome.

            Your first statement just seemed to be some sort of crazed gibberish, I couldn’t really make it out.

            1. While I’m aware that tuna comes in all varieties of coloration, I am a fan of the fatty red and that is what I will forever consider pure tuna. Although, I will occasionally feast on a bit of albacore tuna. But, much like Warty, I enjoy the fatty.

              As for deep dish, it is simply a culinary cacophony akin to Stravinsky’s “Rite of Spring”. While purists rejected this, and even more so with their lofty expectations following the “Firebird Suite”, they simply failed to appreciate the ominous message it sent and the social criticism it offered. A delectably deviant deep dish pizza offers the same fundamental revelation to the man truly prepared to examine it for what it is.

              1. So you’re admitting to being no different than Hannibal Lecter. Good, it’s important that people understand what you really are.

                1. The only thing worse than pizza wars are mayonnaise wars.

                  1. The only thing worse than pizza wars are mayonnaise wars.

                    Where can I enlist?

                    1. Mayo = Pus

                    2. I should start eating more pus, I guess. I never realized it was that delicious.

        3. Pickles? Blachhh!

          Fancy albacore in spring water mixed with onions and Miracle Whip.

          1. Miracle Whip? You cretin.

            1. Mayo tastes like ass.

              1. Only because you aren’t getting artisinal Mayo

              2. Miracle Whip is ass.

                And how often do you taste ass?

        4. Mayonnaise, preferably Hellmanns if you’re East of the Rockies,finely diced /coarsely minced celery and drained tuna. That is all.

          1. Sadly as a rabid foodie I agree with this statement. But I also note that tuna in a can and raw tuna are totally different foods.

            1. Tuna in a can is called “tuna fish”.
              Add mayonaise for “tuna fish salad”
              Fresh/flash frozen tuna is just “tuna”.
              Unless you are Japanese.
              The Japs have as many words for tuna as the Eskimos do snow.

      3. HAM SANDWICH 2016!

        1. Why do you hate Jews and Muslims?

        2. Don’t you remember what HAM SANDWICH did to Mama Cass? There’s a reason any good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict HAM SANDWICH, because it is a murderer.

      4. You’re right. Tuna is disgusting.

    2. Yeah you’re a real hero of the revolution. Until someone knocks your latte over. You’re a (probably) white American, and your name is Kendall. What the fuck do you have to complain about?

    1. If your stupid state makes this pain last even longer I will… get some friends and spell out FUCK OHIO with our arms. Then you’ll be sorry.

      1. Make sure you get the letters in the right order.

      2. “FCUK OIHO”

        1. I didn’t say he wouldn’t be both sorry and confused. The important thing is there will be a fuckton of ruing at that point, is all.

          1. “‘Rue the day’? Who says that?”

            1. Norwegian doctors in Lars Von trier’s “Kingdom” TV series.

            2. “This? This is ice. This is what happens to water when it gets too cold. This? This is Kent. This is what happens to people when they get too sexually frustrated.”

              1. “You see, Mitch, I used to be you. And lately I’ve been missing me, so I asked Dr. Hathaway if I could room with me again.”

                1. “Would you classify that as a design failure or a launch failure?”

            3. I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, “… I drank what?”

        2. Pretty sure it would be “OIHO KCUF”

          1. Also tacocat is tacocat spelled backwards.

            1. A man, a plan, a canal: Panama

              1. Palandrome e mor dna lap

    2. With joe’s dick.

  8. No matter what happens tomorrow, we are in for some Lulz. If Obama straight up loses, the left will freak out. If he wins the popular vote but loses the EC, they will completely meltdown. If the opposite happens, it will be hilarious to see them flip flop into defending the EC. If Obama flat out wins, John’s reaction will be hilarious. Of course, reality will sink in Wednesday that no matter what, we’re stuck with Obamney for the next four years. Which isn’t funny

    1. Or we can have endless recounts and ultra-vicious inter-TEAM battling if everything is super close. Remember 2000 and how unbelievably tedious it was?

      1. I remember dating a hot 19 year old Navajo, while being 31 at the time, and not giving a shit about the election. Good times. Other things I wont mention, for it would sound like preposterous oversell cool, were making it a pretty sweet time as well.

        1. “There’s a reason they call them Nava-hoes”

    2. I’m not sure I have enough left in me to be amused, no matter what happens.

    3. Of course, reality will sink in Wednesday that no matter what, we’re stuck with Obamney for the next four years. Which isn’t funny

      If Romney wins i think i can draw out the LOLz of crying lefties at least until January.

    4. Way to stay positive, Cali.

  9. Unless the election is epicly close or there is a reason to think the provisional votes favor one candidate over another we will know who won the election tomorrow.

    It is a pretty huge long shot for them to matter when networks have been calling whole states with only 35% of the vote counted for the past 50 years.

    1. Hey, that might be good for some lulz. Again.

    2. So you’re confidently predicting it will either be close or it won’t?

      Several states that might be so close that it might turn into Florida 2000 all over again — Rasmussen reports had Ohio, Wisconsin, and Iowa dead even when I checked last night.

      1. I am predicting that it will not be so close that we will not know the winner.

        I can see 200,000 provisional outstanding and one guy is 100,000 votes ahead…so the loser needs 75% of the provisional vote to win…

        Of course if that happens then we know the winner.

    3. Oh No!! Oh No! The onely reason Ronald Raygun won was the they released the exit poll numbers before the polls closed in CA!!

  10. People were calling me a dick for suggesting that we wouldn’t have a clear winner tomorrow. But now who’s the dick?

      1. Both of you?

        1. Probably.

    1. You are a dick and we will have a clear winner tomorrow.

      These two facts are unrelated.

  11. I think this deserves a re-post.

  12. “Jon Husted”

    Add a lower-case letter L as needed.

    1. Rachel Maddow’s writers will not be giving that one any attribution.

  13. Where are all the military absentee votes?

    1. Panetta’s briefcase.

  14. As a Floridian, I’m just glad this article isn’t about us.

  15. I actually met Husted back when (1999?) he was first running for State Representative. He was going door-to-door with his son (about 5 years old) to hand out leaflets. Seemed like a nice guy back then, but seems to have become “just another politician” as he progressed up to higher-level offices. Dropped the first wife and got a newer model, etc.

    1. Jesus Christ, another fucking Ohioan? My state is wildly overrepresented here.

      1. You guys are really bringing the quality level of commenters down. Almost as much as FoE does.

        1. Excuse me, sir, but every one of my comments is deeply substantive, unlike certain others whom I could name. Such as you. Fag.

          1. I don’t know, I don’t think you make enough money. Do you have a PhD in City and Central Planning?

            1. Excuse me, but I have consulted the actuarial tables extensively. Why don’t you go to a tractor pull or something?

              Also, do they have tractor pulls in Ukraine? If so, I bet they’re FUCKING AWESOME.

              1. Well they have all those tractors left over from the soviet era that the stupid peasants couldn’t eat.

              2. If they do, I’m sure it’s REAL tractors and not the Okie-land variety. And no, I have never been to A TRAKTOR PULLZ!

                1. I still maintain that the greatest possible sporting event to watch would be a prison rodeo.

                  1. I can’t think of anything better than prison rodeo.

                1. That looks exactly like I hoped.

                2. Thanks HM! That was both interesting and somewhat disturbing at the same time. I looked on Yandex, but that is apparently the only site devoted to TRAKTOR PULLZ.

              3. The Russian tractor pull video link was posted in an earlier thread.

          2. Did Warty say something? I couldn’t hear anything over the roar of glibness emanating from his direction.

            1. They say that, on long summer nights, if the wind’s just right, you can still hear his glib roar in the distance. Listen, boy.

              “…fuckepifuckepifuckepifuckepifuckepi…”

              I reckon there it is.

  16. Rasmussen’s take on the election:

    “Eight states, with a total of 95 Electoral College votes, remain toss-ups and will determine the winner: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin. All eight of those states were carried by Obama in 2008.

    Florida and Virginia are absolute must-win states for the Romney campaign. If the president wins either, the election will be his. It is quite reasonable to think the challenger can win these states but far from a sure thing.

    If he can win those two states, Romney will then have to win either Ohio or Wisconsin to stay in the game. It is possible that the president could win both and keep his job, but that outcome is far from certain as well.

    Ohio is the bigger prize with 18 Electoral College votes but may be a bit more difficult for Romney to carry. The auto bailout has helped the president in the Buckeye State, and the Obama campaign spent millions of dollars here early in the year defining Romney negatively. Still, Democrats may be a bit concerned that early voting in their Ohio strongholds is down from four years ago.

    Wisconsin, with its 10 Electoral Votes, is close enough that both parties’ presidential and vice presidential candidates have visited the state in recent days. If Romney can win the Badger State after losing Ohio, he would still need to win Colorado and either Iowa or Nevada to win the election”

  17. Anyone have data on who the most wrong pollsters have been on a state basis in the last few elections? Like, what are the polls that have completely blown a state?

    1. All the polls but Rasmussen gave Obama higher poll numbers in 2008 then he actually got.

      I know this is not the question you asked.

      1. http://www.realclearpolitics.c…..a-400.html

        Here you go.

        You can find the other states on your own.

        Also I would not trust that final number on top. According to the NYT and USAtoday it should be 4% not 4.6%

        1. According to Wikipedia it should be 7.2% as Obama’s margin of victory.

          1. Ohio or the whole country?

    2. Lies, damn lies, and polling data

    1. I just brewed a clone of Avery’s Old Jubilation. A beautiful malty Xmas Ale without all the spice additions (I’m a little hesitant to go spices after over spicing my pumpkin porter). Should be bottling it this week.

  18. http://politicker.com/2012/11/…..xit-polls/

    In a conference call this afternoon, President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign had one central message for their supporters when Election Day arrives tomorrow: They should “keep calm,” even if they hear snippets of information favoring Republican Mitt Romney.

    “My warning, we need to stay calm for much of the day,” Stephanie Cutter, Mr. Obama’s deputy campaign manager, said, touting thousands of early ballots already submitted by voters. “We’ve already banked a pretty big portion of our vote.”

    What the????

    That doesn’t strike me as a message that a campaign that had any confidence in the outcome tomorrow would put out.

    1. “They should “keep calm,” even if they hear snippets of information favoring Republican Mitt Romney.”

      That’s what they said to the Raiders’ fans, when they thought they might lose the Superbowl.

      That’s what they said to Canucks fans, when they were afraid they might riot after they lost in the Cup.*

      They’re afraid if Romney wins, it’ll start a riot.

      It might!

      *The Canucks are pathetic. They will never win the Cup.

      1. You explain it. I hate to read too much into it. But it sure strikes me as they know tomorrow is going to go really badly for them and they don’t want people on the West Coast to give up and not come out and vote hurting the down ticket candidates.

        I hadn’t thought of the riot angle.

        1. It’s standard cover-your-ass for the inevitable riot in Watts if and when Obama loses.

          1. They never said anything like that in 08. I have never heard of even loser candidacies like McCain or Dole say such a thing. Who the hell says up front to their supporters “okay we think the exit polls are going to look pretty bad tomorrow?”

          2. Given the general police state we’ve observed in places like, say, Anaheim, Oakland, or Berkeley, any riots will be over quickly.

            We are, sadly, not the same nation we were in the 90s.

          3. I dont think there will be riots if Obama loses.

            But given my proximity to North Philadelphia, if there are, I’ll be having a really shit week.

        2. If they lose, they’re gonna lose bitter.

          They’ve convinced their supporters that the only people who really oppose Obama are racists and the Koch Brothers.

          If they lose, a lot of ’em are gonna take it like the Rodney King verdict.

          I’m sure they’re worried about voter complacency, too.

          1. If he loses the civil war between the Clinton and Obama people is on. There are Clinton people all over the administration. Look for the post election leaks to be epic. Meanwhile, the media has to figure out some way to get out of bed with Obama, get their clothes back on and try to start attacking Romney. They will try to do it by reporting the leaks and saying “if we only had known how bad things were, we would have reported it. We promise to do better this time”.

            1. We’ll see. I think they’ll still be too interested in protecting his legacy.

              1. The media or the Clinton people? I could see the media being that dumb. But you would think they would value being able to go after Romney more than they would the Big BO’s legacy.

                1. Actually, in such a situation should it present itself, that is an interesting question: Which legacy is the more important to protect, the Clinton (by proxy of Hillary) or The Zero’s?

                  Would they be willing to turn on HRC, thus sparing Bill, but still rending BO’s legacy relatively intact, wistfully citing, “What could have been?”

                2. The media.

            2. Bill Clinton was at Market Square in downtown Pgh campaigning for BO this morning. Apparently my hopes of a mutiny were premature.


              1. Bill Clinton was at Market Square in downtown Pgh campaigning for BO this morning. Apparently my hopes of a mutiny were premature.

                There’s no way he’s going to mutiny before the election. He has to maintain party integrity. We’ll see how much traction this Benghazi thing gets during Obama’s 2nd term, and Biden’s first.

                1. Biden’s first

                  BARF

            3. If he loses the civil war between the Clinton and Obama people is on. There are Clinton people all over the administration. Look for the post election leaks to be epic.

              I’m curious about this, too. The only problem I have with this theory is, if Obama does lose, what will the Clintons and Obama be fighting over? Unless of course the little Benghazi debacle dribbles into the next administration and Hillary has to start answering questions which she feels Obama should be answering. That could be delicious.

    2. “We’ve already banked a pretty big portion of our vote.”

      I’m sure you have, Stephanie. Binders full of corpses.

    3. That doesn’t strike me as a message that a campaign that had any confidence in the outcome tomorrow would put out.

      It’s almost like they know that their legions of dead voters won’t show up in exit polls.

  19. Jesus Christ, Romney and Obama are making their final statements during halftime on MNF.

    There’s no escape!

    1. P.S. The Saints have some husky cheerleaders!

      I’ve never seen anything like that.

      1. Pics or they don’t exist.

  20. In an astonishing display of media malpractice, CBS News quietly released proof?two days before the election, far too late to reach the media and the public?that President Barack Obama lied to the public about the Benghazi attack, as well as about his later claim to have called the attack “terrorism” from the beginning. CBS unveiled additional footage from its 60 Minutes interview with President Obama, conducted on Sep. 12 immediately after Obama had made his statement about the attacks in the Rose Garden, in which Obama quite clearly refuses to call the Benghazi an act of terror when asked a direct question by reporter Steve Kroft.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-J…..Covered-Up

    1. Yeah, Obama’s a jackass and a liar.

      And he scapegoated Muslims everywhere just to try to deflect blame from himself. Obama exploited bigotry against Muslims, just to try to get himself reelected…

      He’s a jackass and a liar.

        1. Cause that guy represents all Muslims

          http://www.theatlanticwire.com…..bya/56803/

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..03846.html

          1. Don’t be an ass.

            The point was there still is significant anti-U.S. sentiment in Libya. This sentiment preached from the pulpit motivates certain groups to carry out terrorist attacks. If anyone “scapegoats” Muslims, it’s the radical aimmah who preach such hate.

            Shultz’s claim that Obama exploited bigotry against Muslims in the Benghazi affair is nonsense. Not even Obama is stupid enough to employ Islamophobia as a tactic when a fair amount of the American population already think that he’s either some sort of crypto-Muslim himself, or at least bending over backwards to Muslims despots everywhere.

            Indeed, his motivation for first denying that Benghazi was a planned terrorist attack was his same motivation for still denying that the Fort Hood shootings were a planned terrorist attack.

            1. I’m being an ass? Really?

              Ken’s point was that Obama’s narrative essentially portrayed Libyans and Muslims as animalistic savages who couldn’t control their violent impulses when they saw a youtube video, and with his apologies regarding the video, basically implied that they couldn’t be expected to act differently. And I say this as someone who, over the past month, has argued with Ken Shultz more than anyone with the possible exception of you

              1. I’m being an ass?

                If you were assuming bad faith, yes.

                Ken’s point was that Obama’s narrative essentially portrayed Libyans and Muslims as animalistic savages who couldn’t control their violent impulses when they saw a youtube video, and with his apologies regarding the video, basically implied that they couldn’t be expected to act differently.

                I don’t think that was Ken’s point at all; if it was, he has argued it piss-poorly.

                And I say this as someone who, over the past month, has argued with Ken Shultz more than anyone with the possible exception of you

                My sympathies. Did he also accuse you of being a troll in blackface, like he did me?

                1. “If you were assuming bad faith, yes.”

                  I didn’t assume bad faith, I just thought your link was irrelevant to the comment about “scapegoating” given the context of the subject (Obama’s remarks about the attacks and the youtube video)

                  “I don’t think that was Ken’s point at all; if it was, he has argued it piss-poorly.”

                  I’ve seen him make this argument a few times, and I’m pretty sure that’s what he’s saying. Though I won’t disagree that his arguments aren’t always top notch

                  “My sympathies. Did he also accuse you of being a troll in blackface, like he did me?”

                  No, but he does have a habit of telling me the meaning and motivation of my actions or beliefs, even when I explicitly state otherwise, and he tends to frame the parameters of the debate so that he is by definition correct. And I will agree that his comments in that other thread toward you were some of the most absurd I’ve seen. I’ve been here a few months and was well-aware that (unless you’ve been lying this whole time, and I have no reason to believe you have been) you are actually mulatto and not someone with a name that’s supposed to parody Obama or whatever he thought it was supposed to mean

            1. Rhetorically speaking, he’s correct. In terms of actions, Obama has been Bush’s third term

    2. Stiff upper lip, John.

      Think of the lulz when the re-elected Obama gets impeached for this.

      1. I doubt Obama wins tomorrow. But if he does, he will never be impeached. The Dems are too far gone for that.

        1. I think it’s unlikely that Romney wins.

          I hope Romney wins.

          I voted for Romney!

          But I think we better dial back our expectations.

          Romney has all the momentum on his side, but I don’t think it’s enough.

          I hope I’m wrong.

          1. Here is why it is very likely Romney wins Ken.

            https://reason.com/blog/2012/11…..nt_3357279

            If you look at the numbers, unless the electorate and turn out look exactly like 2008, with a Dem +7 or better margin, Obama is done. And all of the party identification is running R even or better.

            Now it is possible the party Identification polls are wrong. But the fact that Obama is way down in early voting and the Republicans generally vote big on election day but still are keeping up with Obama in the early voting says they probably are not.

          2. Ken,

            I would also point to the WAPO article last week that had 13% of likely voters who voted for Obama last time, voting for Romney this time. If that is even half right, Romney wins easily.

            1. To me, the thing Romney has in his favor is momentum.

              Usually, the winner surges–all the way through to the election.

              Look at this tracking poll of swing states:

              http://www.rasmussenreports.co…..cking_poll

              ALL the momentum is in Romney’s favor!

              From August 26 on, everything has swung in Romney’s favor…

              The only question is whether it’s enough. It’s just that I think people are voting for Romney reluctantly. They don’t really like him–they just despise Obama. …and I’m not sure that’s enough for people to throw out an incumbent president. The benefits of incumbency are just really formidable, and I don’t think Romney’s got what it takes to overcome that.

              I hope I’m wrong!

              1. Momentum is an illusion created by sportscasters who need something to talk about during boring games.

                1. Not in trends it isn’t.

                  It was 46 Obama to 45 Romney back in August, and now it’s slowly and steadily built to 46 Obama 50 Romney…

                  That’s all in swing states, and that’s all undecided voters–apparently–breaking for Romney.

                  If if undecided voters are steadily breaking for Romney in swing states, that’s not a trend to be ignored.

                  I’m not sure it’s enough. But I wouldn’t be making any big purchases right now if I were an assistant working for Obama.

                  1. But BO had “the momentum” before that, and what good did it do him? Whenever the trend reverses, everyone says “oh he lost the momentum”. It’s Ptolemian epicycle-level thinking. It’s an unnecessary complexification of what’s going on.

                    What’s really happening is that something’s going on underneath that has been helping Romney. First and foremost he’s outspent BO by a lot during this past week. Plus more and more people who said they would vote for BO two months ago just because Romney seemed like a rich prick who liked to fire people, feel the reality of another four years like the past four years breathing down their necks.

                    1. What’s really happening is that something’s going on underneath that has been helping Romney.

                      That something is that Obama’s never cracked through his 47% support ceiling and Romney does a crappy job of selling a public persona. Comes across as a little weird and off putting at first. But he grows on you and over time seems like a non-politician, ie a normal person.

                      The other thing that’s going on is a Bradley effect. change nothing about Obama but his skin color and he’d be polling in the high 30s instead of the mid 40s. Some of the difference is people that want to fire Obama but are afraid of saying so for fear of looking like a racist.

            2. John, can you promise that after tomorrow you’ll shut. the. fuck. up. about the election? Please?

              1. +1000

              2. Only if you promise to fuck yourself sloopy.

                1. It’s a deal. Hell, I’m willing to take one for the team if it gets you off your Romney bootlicking soapbox.

                  1. Sure sloopy after you are done fucking yourself, we can talk about drones and you can whine about what a big meanie I am and how everyone would just love us if it wasn’t for big meanies like me.

                    I will be sure to bring a tissue for you.

                    1. If you want to talk about drones, I’m game. I’m sure the policy of killing Pakistani, Somali, Iraqi and Afghan children because they involuntarily live near a “militant”* will continue apace regardless of whether Obamney or Robama wins tomorrow.

                      *-any man of military age living in those nations.

                    2. You gotta admit, sloopy, it’s kinda a big story.

                    3. Sure it is. Team Statist (Red faction) vs Team Statist (Blue faction) every four years and a huge percentage of the population is dumb enough to think there’s a big difference in what will happen depending on the outcome.

                      The big story is that PT Barnum was right about suckers being born every minute and too few of us realize it.

                    4. If you want to see a big difference in the factions that are competing for control, maybe you should move to Syria.

                    5. “a huge percentage of the population is dumb enough to think there’s a big difference in what will happen depending on the outcome.”

                      There was only one person in the Reason staff survey who thought that Obama would be better for economic freedom…

                      It’s more than just dumb people who think Romney is qualitatively better than Obama.

                      Just because neither of them are libertarian capitalists doesn’t mean they’re the same. One is clearly better than the other on economic issues–even if he’s just not very good, that’s a whole lot better than awful.

                    6. So….turd sandwich then?

                    7. I think sometimes picking the best of a bad choice is what we have to do.

                      And in Obama’s case, he’s an exceptionally bad choice.

                      Just because neither choice is great, doesn’t mean we should just bend over and take whatever they want to give us.

                    8. I think sometimes picking the best of a bad choice is what we have to do.

                      Why? Seriously, why would you vote for a guy you oppose 90% of the time because he’s running against a guy you oppose 95% of the time? Especially when there’s a guy you agree with 90% of the time on the ballot?

                      Just because neither choice is great, doesn’t mean we should just bend over and take whatever they want to give us.

                      By they, do you mean the two party system? If not, you should have.

                    9. “Seriously, why would you vote for a guy you oppose 90% of the time because he’s running against a guy you oppose 95% of the time? Especially when there’s a guy you agree with 90% of the time on the ballot?”

                      Romney promised to sign the repeal of the individual mandate.

                      That’s not 5% or 10% better than Obama; that’s 100% better than Obama.

                      We will never get rid of the individual mandate so long as Obama is president.

                      Romney opposed the nationalization of GM in real time–on the same ground I oppose it. That isn’t 5% or 10% better than Obama; that’s 100% better than Obama.

                      Obama is going around Ohio, even as I type, making a speech BRAGGING about using my paychecks to nationalize GM on behalf of the UAW.

                      You’re so stuck in the idea that the parties are both wrong in their own way, that you’re having a hard time seeing the differences. I understand that. Most people have a hard time seeing how similar the two parties are.

                      But Romney isn’t like Obama in some very important ways. Obama is almost exactly the same as George W. Bush was, but Romney is NOT exactly like Obama at all.

                    10. I understand your reasoning better now. Thanks for the explanation. (/no snark)

                      I’m just more concerned with foreign policy, overall fiscal restraint, civil rights and individual liberties, and Romney is hardly better than Obama in those areas…especially where compared to Johnson.

                    11. “I’m just more concerned with foreign policy, overall fiscal restraint, civil rights and individual liberties, and Romney is hardly better than Obama in those areas…especially where compared to Johnson.”

                      You’re right about that.

                      I would just ask you to consider that voting for Johnson isn’t going to get rid of Obama.

                      And I think getting rid of Obama and having a chance to make some progress on economic issues is more important than making a statement this election.

                      We will never make any progress on economic policy so long as every piece of legislation requires Barack Obama’s signature.

                      And we can continue to oppose Romney–something I plan to do–from the moment his ass hits the Oval Office chair.

                    12. Well, I’m going to vote my conscience and pull the lever for Johnson. I’m in California, so a vote for Romney would be useless here anyway. That said, I would still be voting for Johnson as opposed to against any other candidate. That concept is oddly foreign to me.

                    13. I don’t know about yours, but my conscience didn’t make it on to the ballot.

                    14. You never heard of a write-in vote, Tulpa?

                    15. I don’t know about yours, but my conscience didn’t make it on to the ballot.

                      I know. You’ve already said you were planning on voting for Romney.

                    16. I would just ask you to consider that voting for Johnson isn’t going to get rid of Obama.

                      Neither is voting for Romney, if you live in CA.

                      What do you think of pushing an initiative that changes the apportionment of CA’s presidential electors from winner take all to one of Congressional district?

                      I’m fucking sick of being ignored by presidential candidates, and having a couple of little shitholes decide who gets to be our dictator.

                      Fun fact. More people will vote for Romney in CA than in OH, PA, CO and WI combined.

                    17. I would be thrilled if they did it on a district by district basis and gave he two extra EC votes from each state to the winner of the popular vote in the state…or even to the state legislature.

                    18. But you realize Romney can’t accomplish that lofty goal unless Team Statist (Red faction) wins control of the Senate, right? And if he does so, that means they will have control of both houses and the WH, meaning their entire fucked up SoCon agenda will be on the table. And that’s not a good thing.

                    19. meaning their entire fucked up SoCon agenda will be on the table.

                      What the fuck does that even mean?

                      Seriously?

                      Pregnancy camps?
                      Forced conversion to Mormonism?

                      What?

                    20. It means I believe they’re gonna go after so-called social ills as opposed to economic issues.

                      I would be shocked if they didn’t spend a lot of time:
                      Pushing DADT back into action
                      Going hard after illegal immigrants
                      Trying to get an amendment outlawing gay marriage
                      Continuing the drug war (no difference than Obama here)
                      Growing the military budget to whatever level the military asks for.
                      And a bunch of other piddly legislation that is more symbolic than substantive.

                      Look, I hope they focus on the fiscal issues and put some big cuts on the table. I just don’t see it based on their past efforts. I hope I’m wrong, but history is on my side here.

                    21. I don’t see how anyone is going to be able to increase military spending at this point.

                      They might try to re enact DADT but I think that there isn’t much chance of it passing.

                      I also don’t see a constitutional amendment on SSM going anywhere.

                      And I do agree that they will do something wrt immigration. But it’s hard to say exactly what.

                      On the bright side there always the chance that the republicans will do a Nixon goes to China on winding down the drug wars. Not much of one, but there’s zero chance of it happening with the democrats in charge.

                    22. Pushing DADT back into action

                      Romney & Ryan have both said they have no interest in reversing that.

                      Going hard after illegal immigrants

                      No different from now.

                      Trying to get an amendment outlawing gay marriage

                      Good luck with that.

                      Continuing the drug war (no difference than Obama here)

                      Like you said, no difference.

                      Growing the military budget to whatever level the military asks for.

                      That’s a point. But not a social issue.

                      And a bunch of other piddly legislation that is more symbolic than substantive.

                      I like symbolic legislation that does nothing in reality. It’s the best kind.

                    23. I will be sure to bring a tissue for you.

                      Oh my, we have a big tough talkin’ man here.

                    24. What is tough about bringing Sloopy a tissue?

                    25. Chris Berman is gonna interview both Obama and Romney at half time–that’s the halftime show?

                      I’m imagining Boomer saying; “He. could. go. all. the. …way!”

                    26. This will help anyone who’s still undecided!

                    27. You’re talking like sloopy has come to his viewpoint out of a weepy deficiency of testicular fortitude, and not a knowledge of the facts on the ground.

                      The fact that you think that way about someone arguing against killing women and children for amorphous gains says more about you, and your chest thumping ways, than it does about sloopy.

                    28. The fact that you think anyone who opposes your tough-guy policy of murderdroning anyone and everyone in a certain region of the world without any reservations needs a tissue.

                      If anyone is a whining pussy here, it’s a person that thinks we must kill everybody that might oppose us (or live next to someone that does, or might attend a wedding of a person that lives near someone of military age in a jerkwater province in the middle of the mountains 10,000 miles away) in order to be safe from terrorism.

                    29. The fact that you think anyone who opposes your tough-guy policy of murderdroning anyone and everyone in a certain region of the world without any reservations needs a tissue.

                      No I just think you are stupid. So stupid in fact you don’t even understand my position. I have never said the drone strikes were good policy. I don’t know. I don’t know what they do or have access to the information that would tell me that. They might be terrible policy.

                      What I have said is that they are not illegal and not a violation of the laws of war and any civilian casualties that occur are the fault of the assholes who hide in civilian population. That is a totally different argument than whether they are good or bad policy. But you are so stupid you can’t ever seem to understand that and think anyone who doesn’t scream murderer at every opportunity supports drone strikes.

                      I have tried to explain that to you about a hundred times. But you never listen because you don’t want to listen. It is an emotional issue for you. It is not something you think rationally about or can be taken seriously about.

                    30. What I have said is that they are not illegal and not a violation of the laws of war and any civilian casualties that occur are the fault of the assholes who hide in civilian population. That is a totally different argument than whether they are good or bad policy.

                      So the discussion of whether they’re good or bad policy is totally separate from moral concerns?

                      If there were a bunch of Marines raping Afghani children, would you say “hey now, we have to separate the discussion of whether it’s good policy from the moral considerations”

                    31. So the discussion of whether they’re good or bad policy is totally separate from moral concerns?

                      No you half wit. Because something is bad policy doesn’t make it a war crime or even immoral. They are separate questions.

                    32. But if it is immoral and a war crime, it is bad policy. Right?

                    33. Depends on whether you or not you win.

                      You seam to be conflating a nation state’s war policy with morality.

                      Which is frankly bizarre.

                      It’s the kind of thing that the hated SoCons do.

                    34. John, Congress has never explicitly authorized drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, etc. And you saying that the AUMF essentially gives the president the power to do whatever the fuck he wants, wherever he wants, militarily, as long as he says (without proving) that the targets are terrorists?

                    35. I mean, on what grounds could you say that 9/11 was bad policy for Al Qaeda?

                    36. I mean, on what grounds could you say that 9/11 was bad policy for Al Qaeda

                      9-11 was an act of terrorism and illegal. Whether it was good or bad policy doesn’t change that. This isn’t hard.

                    37. “9-11 was an act of terrorism and illegal. Whether it was good or bad policy doesn’t change that. This isn’t hard.”

                      Illegal? This is definitely true, but I’m wondering whose law your using. If it’s international, well then I just have to laugh because the concept is a joke. If it’s US law, then would the same argument not apply if drone strikes were illegal in whatever country they were conducted in?

                    38. The Law of war Calidissident. And if you claim there is no international law, then stop whining about the US attacking Pakistan.

                    39. Who enforces this law again? And I think the actions go against the US Constitution, not some UN declaration or what not

                    40. So, John, you have no problem with the Palestinians lobbing rockets into Israel because they are shooting them at alleged military targets, right? I mean, if they hit a bus or school, that’s just because the Israelis built those schools or drove those buses near military installations that are hidden within civilian areas, right?

                      And by your definition, the 9/11 attack on the WTC was terrorism, but the attack on the Pentagon was not, since it was a military target. According to the Law of War, a military target is valid, even for soldiers out of uniform. And if who we’re killing is justified using your definition of soldier, those assholes flying those planes were soldiers going after a military target.

                    41. Because they stole our planes, while we build our own drones? Convenient rule for us.

                      I bet plenty of Muslim fence sitters are won over by your radical analogues saying that the blood of the WTC victims was the fault of the US government, too.

                    42. Yes, because flying a plane into a building is terrorism but dropping bombs on a wedding party in Kandahar with no known terrorists in attendance isn’t, right?

                      Jesus Christ. You’re fucking sick, do you know that?

                    43. I mean, on what grounds could you say that 9/11 was bad policy for Al Qaeda?

                      On the grounds that it provoked a response which destroyed them.

                      Was the Pearl Harbor attack bad policy because it was immoral or was it bad policy because it forced America into total war against Japan?

                    44. What I have said is that they are not illegal and not a violation of the laws of war and any civilian casualties that occur are the fault of the assholes who hide in civilian population.

                      Right, and with no oversight or review, how are we to know if any of these people are terrorists or just people at a wedding? And do I even need to bring up the illegality of killing an American citizen without charge or due process because he said bad things? Legal does not necessarily = moral or righteous. What we are doing might be legal, but that’s up for debate. It is certainly immoral and not up to the American ideal.

                      I have tried to explain that to you about a hundred times. But you never listen because you don’t want to listen.

                      Oh, I want to. It’s good to understand the mind of someone that is unfazed at the scope of deaths of many innocent people at the hands of our military and the potential blowback they will ultimately cause.

                      It is an emotional issue for you.

                      When innocent women and children are killed in the name of my government, you’re damn right it’s emotional. The emotion is revulsion.

                      It is not something you think rationally about or can be taken seriously about.

                      Thanks. Coming from you, that’s a compliment.

                    45. Right, and with no oversight or review, how are we to know if any of these people are terrorists or just people at a wedding?

                      Because to believe otherwise is to believe that the military just goes and randomly kills people because they like to. And I know that not to be the case. And furthermore, there is no reason for it to be the case. Why would the military just go and kill people for fun? They are fighting a war and doing the best they can to kill the right people when those those people are using the civilian population as human shields. You can say they get bad information and mess up. But there is no evidence nor any reason to believe they are intentionally targeting civilians, which is what you seem to believe.

                      And do I even need to bring up the illegality of killing an American citizen without charge or due process because he said bad things?

                      I agree with you about that. Should have never been done. But that says nothing about what is happening in Pakistan.

                    46. “Because to believe otherwise is to believe that the military just goes and randomly kills people because they like to.”

                      Um, no. It could mean a couple things. It could mean Obama just wants to look to tough by attacking “terrorists.” It could mean he is really poor at choosing targets or has a really low threat threshold for sending in the drones. It could mean he’s willing to kill a shitload of innocent people if it kills even one terrorist. It could mean the military carries out the attacks incompetently. But that would never happen right? Cause the military is totally unaffected by the corruption and inefficiency that plagues the rest of the government?

                    47. Because to believe otherwise is to believe that the military just goes and randomly kills people because they like to.

                      …there had occurred in F Company the event known as the Great Turkey Shoot. In a deep crater in a forest, someone had come upon a squad or two of Germans, perhaps fifteen or twenty in all. Their visible wish to surrender–most were in tears of terror and despair–were ignored by our men lining the rim. Perhaps some of our prisoners had recently been shot by the Germans. Perhaps some Germans hadn’t surrendered fast enough and with suitable signs of contrition (We were very hard on snotty German adolescents). Whatever the reason, the Great Turkey Shoot resulted. Laughing and howling, hoo-ha-ing and cowboy and good-old-boy yelling, our men exultantly shot into the crater until every single man down there was dead. A few tried to scale the sides but there was no escape. If a body twitched or moved at all, it was shot again. The result was deep satisfaction, and the event was transformed into amusing narrative, told and retold over campfires all that winter. If it made you sick you were not supposed to indicate. I was beginning to understand what a marine sergeant told Philip Caputo during the Vietnam War: “Before you leave here, Sir, you’re going to learn that one of the most brutal things in the world is your average nineteen-year-old American boy.”

                      Evan Wright, Generation Kill,

                    48. * sorry, wrong cite

                      Paul Fussell, Doing Battle at 124

                    49. Because to believe otherwise is to believe that the military just goes and randomly kills people because they like to.

                      the military doesn’t order the drone strikes, slick. BO does.

                      Killing people halfway around the world is DoingSomething. That’s all that matters to his ilk.

                    50. Because to believe otherwise is to believe that the military just goes and randomly kills people because they like to.

                      The military is kept out of that loop because they have a certain respect for lawfulness of orders.

                    51. egal does not necessarily = moral or righteous. What we are doing might be legal, but that’s up for debate. It is certainly immoral and not up to the American ideal.

                      Who the fuck cares? Who are you to say what is moral? And who besides you would care even if you did. I would say it is pretty immoral to walk away and go home leaving everyone who ever helped us to the mercy of the Taliban. These are complex issues. And neither of us have a monopoly on morality. You just think you do.

                      When innocent women and children are killed in the name of my government, you’re damn right it’s emotional. The emotion is revulsion.

                      No in your case it is generally idiocy and delusion. You have no idea how many “innocent” people are dying. You just assume their all innocent because it feeds your moral vanity.

                    52. assume their (sic) all innocent

                      innocent until proven guilty.

                    53. They are fighting a war and doing the best they can to kill the right people when those those people are using the civilian population as human shields.

                      By “right people,” you mean people who live in huts 10,000 miles away from the nearest US port of entry with zero means to get here and carry out any act of terrorism, right? Or are you using the US government’s definition of “any adult male of fighting age in the middle east or northern Africa”? Either way, the policy is fucked and in no way can be defined as “national defense“.

                      No in your case it is generally idiocy and delusion. You have no idea how many “innocent” people are dying. You just assume their all innocent because it feeds your moral vanity.

                      I can guarantee you the several hundred women and children killed in the attacks are innocent.

                    54. John, this is seriously a Tony post. If the subject was say health care, instead of foreign policy, and you make a couple subject-appropriate changes to the words, it’s pretty much exactly what he says

                    55. This is a favorite tactic of John. Repeatedly make an argument that implicitly supports a particular (policy, person, etc) and then when called on it, yell “Well I never actually said exactly that!” You’ve repeatedly maid statements about how the drones are killing terrorists, how they don’t cause resentment against us or motivate people to act against us, etc etc and you expect us to believe you don’t think they’re good policy?

                    56. This is a favorite tactic of John.

                      Yeah it is called arguing the issue instead of making idiotic broad statements.

                      You’ve repeatedly maid statements about how the drones are killing terrorists, how they don’t cause resentment against us or motivate people to act against us, etc etc and you expect us to believe you don’t think they’re good policy?

                      No I have repeatedly said that not killing our enemies is no way to win a war and refusing to attack enemies who hide in civilian population is just to tell them to hide there more. It doesn’t produce more terrorism. Does that make the policy good? Maybe. Depends on a whole lot of information neither of us have. But don’t let your lack of information stop you from saying stupid shit.

                      Caldisident, Sloopy brings enough stupid and irrationality. If you come in we might reach peak retard and ruin the reason servers tonight.

                    57. You can’t spell dissident and you expect me to take your charges of stupidity seriously?

                    58. Caldisident, Sloopy brings enough stupid and irrationality. If you come in we might reach peak retard and ruin the reason servers tonight.

                      Wow, what a sound and well-reasoned argument. Forget everything I ever said about the murderdrone attacks. I defer to John’s absolute wisdom in all foreign policy matters. After all, he served, so he must be an expert.

                    59. What I have said is that they are not illegal and not a violation of the laws of war

                      And they say only the cool progressive kids want to assfuck the Constitution.

                    60. We’ll never get what we really want through the ballot box. You only get what you really want through internet shopping.

                      We can’t get what we want by way of elections, but we can throw a rotten emperor out on his ass–and that’s pretty cool.

                      That’s about the best we can hope for this time. And every libertarian should be able to celebrate for a night, when the American people throw a vile socialistic jackass like Obama out on his ass…

                      If that’s what we do.

                      If Obama wins, there won’t be anything to celebrate at all.

                    61. Obama tells Boomer that Americans are doing incredible things in their communities.

                      Isn’t that great?

                    62. If Obama wins, we can count on a Republican house/Senate to continue to fight him.

                      If he loses, get ready to open your wallets, because an undivided federal government means spending is going wayyyyy up.

                    63. ITT John complains that people grossly mischaracterize his drone position and respond by mischaracterizing his drone position.

                      Seriously, are you people even capable of honest argument on this subject? I’m kind of jealous. You have a portal into ‘liberal thinking’. If you ever wonder how people can be insane enough to embrace the welfare state arguments, you need only reference your own ‘thinking’ on this subject.

                    64. Is ‘liberal thinking’ not stroking your cock over the death of innocent brown people?

                      If so, guilty as charged.

                    65. Oh God the irony…

                    66. “Seriously, are you people even capable of honest argument on this subject? I’m kind of jealous. You have a portal into ‘liberal thinking’. If you ever wonder how people can be insane enough to embrace the welfare state arguments, you need only reference your own ‘thinking’ on this subject.”

                      Talk about a lack of self-awareness. You guys are the ones that buy into government efficiency, capability, morality, wisdom, etc when it comes to the military and foreign affairs, and we’re the ones who are embracing thinking similar to those who embrace the welfare (or regulatory for that matter) state?

                    67. You have an incredibly superficial and flimsy understanding of what the state should and should not be doing and why.

                    68. Keep projecting Cytotoxic. I realize the government is going to be corrupt and inefficient in all its operations, which is why I want to limit it as much as possible. People like you and John, explicitly or implicitly, based on the policies you support, effectively deny these self-evident facts on foreign policy. You refuse to take into account how corrupt and incompetent the government will be when conducting all the invasions, drone strikes, government toppling, etc etc that you support. You refuse to acknowledge the unintended consequences, or even the possibility thereof. All of these things describe EXACTLY how liberals view the welfare and regulatory state

          3. But I think we better dial back our expectations.

            I am voting for Johnson and in two years we are fucked no matter who wins.

            I am making a horse race prediction when I say Romney is going to win.

            The only expectation I have that can be hurt is that it sucks to be wrong.

      2. Agreed, Rich. There’s no way he escapes the shitstorm heading his way over the Benghazi cover-up. Sorry, but Bubba may have escaped being removed from office, bu that won’t help Obama, especially when the Clintons turn on him once Hillary leaves in January…because they know it’ll either be her or him, and their supporters have more stroke than Obama’s do.

        And once the Benghazi cover-up hits full force, watch what happens with F&F, all of the cronyism in picking who gets free money for their startups, etc. If Obama cares one whit about his legacy, he better hope he loses in a squeaker.

        1. Obama will never face serious criticism over Benghazi. Not enough people care.

    3. It’s hilarious that some people think there is no bias in the MSM. A news organization has damning evidence that a sitting President just lied in a debate about a very serious matter, and that a competitor’s employee aided him in the lie. And they just sit on it, when they have a golden opportunity to boost ratings and hurt a competitor at the same time? That’s proof that they would rather be a propaganda arm than a going concern.

      1. http://dailycaller.com/2012/11…..ama-media/

        The end of the Obama media.

        1. By the next presidential cycle most of these people will be gone. They’ll have moved on to academia or think tanks or Democratic senate campaigns, or wherever aging hacks go when their union contracts finally, inevitably get voided. They’ll be replaced by a vibrant digital marketplace filled with hungry young reporters who care more about breaking stories than maintaining access to some politician or regulator.

          No evidence in the article is provided that this will happen.

          Newspapers and cable news outlets still make money…just not s much as they did.

      2. It is amazing how shameless it is. They wait until two days before the election so that it is too late to have an impact or for anyone to ask Obama about it. But they will still claim “we released it before the election, what do you want?”

        It is unbelievable.

    4. If Obama wins, it will be because Romney refused to engage on this topic during the third debate. I think it was a HUGE mistake. If I was Romney, I’d have been on this like stink on shit from debate #3 till the last poll closes.

      1. It was actually a losing issue for MR, thanks to MSM obfuscation and outright lying.

        1. Narrative-bending is part of Romney’s task and it’s just another thing he failed at.

  21. OT: Wow, it looks like the officials are in the tank for Vick tonight. First, they give them a catch even after it’s challenged and apparent the ball hit the ground first. Then they call a personal foul on the D-lineman when Vick ducks and goes into him head first.

    1. I don’t really have a dog in this fight, but I agree.

      1. I thought the officials were keeping him on a tight leash, myself.

        1. Oh, the Saints fans are rabid after that pick.

          1. I don’t give fuck about football, but you guys make me glad that it’s a thing.

            1. Did you see the race yet?

              1. Aurgh! No. I’ll be stuck in this shitty hotel for 3 more nights.

                1. Rough.
                  There’s a new movie called ‘Rush’ coming out, about James Hunt vs. Niki Lauda in’73.

                  I’ve heard Kimi lives the James Hunt lifestyle.

                  1. Didn’t little Opie Cunningham direct that?

                    1. I think it was the narrator from Arrested Development.

                    2. Despite that, I’ll still be curious to see it. What I REALLY want to see is the Senna biography that came out a little while back.

                    3. That’s a must see.

                    4. I can’t bring myself to watch it for reasons noted below.

                    5. It’s great to see him arguing with the professor.

                    6. So you’ve seen it? Any footage of him punching Irvine in the nose?

                    7. sadly not

                    8. Otherwise, how was it? I really want to see it, but at the same time I’m afraid it won’t live up to my impossibly high expectations.

                    9. Fear not, it lives up to expectations.

                    10. Alrighty, I can’t stands it no more. Amazon is selling it on Blu-ray for $20. It should be home before I am.

                    11. Isn’t it still on netflix? Dude, watch it free while you’re stuck in your hotel.

                    12. I think its on Netflix Instant

                    13. Not enough bandwidth to watch it here. You’d think a hotel across the street from the Cisco campus would have a huge pipe, but I may as well be in Alberta.

                  2. Nothing matters after May 1, 1994. I still choke up when a replay of that horrible day comes on.

                    1. +1000 I can’t explain how it is that I miss someone whom I’ve never met so much.

                    2. Bernie Ecclestone has some people who may pay him a visit.

                    3. He may be a dickhead, but he’s right. American audiences care a lot more about Nascar than they do F1. I don’t see the appeal of watching guys turn left all day, but there it is.

                    4. It may also be about timing. Most races are on at 6am Sunday mornings.
                      Not the best for getting an American viewing audience.

                    5. I think Americans, in general, care more about the spectacle, whereas it’s the technical aspects of F1 that appeal to me. I’m still annoyed that they banned active suspensions, anti-lock brakes, ground effects, 4-wheel steering… McLaren came up with that great brake biasing depending on which way the car was turning….banned. F-duct…banned. More than 8 cylinders….banned. I’m still hopeful that Jean Todt will roll back some of Mosley’s epic bullshit and just let them race.

    2. You mean like the low block they just called on him after he got intercepted and tried to prevent the touchdown?

      1. An irrelevant call. The guy was past him and they knew it was gonna go for 6.

        You see, I ascribe to the grand conspiracy theory. The refs have headsets from the league that tell them when and where to throw flags so as to give the appearance of fairness. The flags they throw on Vick will all be meaningless and will not alter any plays. Sure they got to kick off from the 50, but most kickoffs are touchbacks anyway.

        You watch. all of the flags on Vick will be meaningless and/or declined because the play resulted in the Saints favor. And also look for the little earpieces in the officials’ ears. It’s as plain as the chemtrails coming out of an F-16.

        1. I like this theory and would like to subscribe to your RSS feed.

    3. Will Andy Reid be fired at half time?

      1. Leave of absence…grief-stricken coach tries to focus but is unable to, so he’ll take the rest of the season off to regroup.

        1. Saints’ defense is so terrible, I bet the Eagles still win this game.

          1. Yes they are. They provided my joke of a Chiefs team with our one solitary lead of the season (in OT, so we’ve not actually played with a lead at all).

        2. He’s leaving to spend more time with his family. Well, the ones who haven’t committed suicide yet.

          1. That was cold.

            1. That’s how I roll.

  22. And for the record I’m probably not going to end up voting, not out of a principled stand but because I’m still registered in the voting precinct where my parent’s live and I’m away at school.

  23. Romney wins in December when the Supreme Court votes 5-4 to cover his ass in Ohio.

    1. Oh, that would be delicious, great popcporn for the circus. Quid pro quo for taking a dive on Obamacare.

      1. Well, a few conservative justices would like to retire, but can’t with Obama naming the replacements.

        1. Who? Scalia loves his job and is quite healthy for his age. Maybe Thomas if he’s tired of taking shit relentlessly from the left, but Roberts, Kennedy, and Alito are all in their prime.

          1. My brain has been addled by the nonstop ads and robocalls.

            Perhaps I was thinking of the liberal justices about to fall over dead and the conservatives want someone other than Obama to replace them.

            1. The only justice that’s really on her way out is Ginsburg due to her age and health issues. I’ve heard some grumbling from the left about how she’s not being a team player in waiting so long when there’s a risk Obama might fail to get a second term.

              1. She’ll be mummified and propped up in her chair until another Democrat is elected. Who would know the difference?

              2. I suspect Ginsburg knows in her heart of hearts that BO isn’t going to appoint an old-style ACLU person like herself. Even she must be creeped out by the left-leaning authoritarianism of someone like ReleaseTheKagan.

                1. What’s odd is Sotamayor. Obama must be kicking himself over appointing someone who occasionally cares a shred about civil liberties.

          2. I do have faint memories of reading that Scalia wanted to move on to something else.

            It must be the booze talking to me tonight.

            1. Maybe he does, but from what I’ve heard he likes sitting on the bench and writing opinions as this intellectual giant of textualism. Although maybe he would like to retire and focus on writing and lecturing.

        2. No way would Roberts have the balls to do that.

          1. Precedent has been set. They’ll defer to the state officials regardless of who is ahead. If it’s a Team Blue-run state, that means they’ll count until Obama wins, and if it’s a Team Red-run state, they’ll do the same until Romney comes out on top.

            The Supreme Court may have fucked up the Obamacare ruling, but they’ll punt whenever there’s a precedent they can blame when 1/2 the country will be pissed at them.

          2. A republican secretary of state uses the most narrow definition possible of the law in Ohio certifies the vote for Romney. Obama files suit, the supremes uphold the certified vote ala Bush/Gore.

            Seems straightforward to me.

        3. Ginsburg is the one who looks like she’ll keel over any minute.

          But yeah, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas are getting up there too.

          1. That’s what I was thinking. They’re young enough and healthy enough to wait for 2016, but if Romney wins they won’t need to.

          2. Romney could have a chance to put four justices on the court.

            1. No way would Scalia or Thomas trust him to nominate their replacement. They know who he is and they will rightfully not trust him to put conservatives on the court.

              1. “Conservatives” like Scalia, who never met a fourth amendment violation he didn’t like.

                1. Actually in Kyllo v. US “In an unusual Supreme Court alliance, conservative justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined with liberals David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer to form a 5-4 majority.”

          3. Clarence Thomas is a year younger than I am. I’m not going anywhere and neither is he.

            Actually, I did just retire but I don’t have a Supreme Court gig. No way I’d give that up.

            Brother Clarence has another twenty years to go pissing off conventional thinkers.

            1. Why don’t we clone him? Hundreds of times? And give him Morgan Freeman’s voice!

  24. Why don’t they just make all absentee ballots provisional ballots and count them after the bookkeeping verifies that the absentee voters did not also show up at the polls?

    1. VOTER SUPPRESSION!

  25. Obama’s taking credit for the College Football Playoffs!

    1. Ha, now you KNOW the BCS title game will end up K-State and Notre Dame – try to live that shit down!

      1. I’m hoping they’ll all end up with a loss and The Ohio State University will end up with the AP National Championship. Because fuck the NCAA for not letting people sell or trade personal property while turning a blind eye while Cam Newton’s dad sells him to the highest bidder.

  26. Maddow is claiming Johnson is polling at 5% in Ohio (or maybe it was 10%?), Stein at 1%, Goode at 0.5%. (Of course, she thinks all Johnson voters would otherwise by Romney voters, which makes me think the left is getting desperate.)

    If the margin of either Obama or Romney losing is less than the total number of third-party votes, we’ve won.

    And hi to my fellow Ohioans. Ex-Californian here. Early voting was a bit nuts today; free coffee at the board of elections in Cuyahoga county? Huh?

    1. You claim to be an Ohioan, but you live in Cuyahoga County. As a person who grew up in Cincinnati, that does not compute.

      You’re not from Ohio. You’re from Cleveland. 😉

      Also, where are you from in Cali?

      1. I live in Stark County; I just go up to Cleveland to make money, sort of like how Visigoths used to raid Rome.

        Also, Cincinatti is flat, and people there have southern-ish accents, even though they aren’t in the south. It’s properly considered part of Indiana or Kentucky (as is Columbus).

        I was in San Diego for the past few years. Miss my friends and being 5 minutes from one of the best surfing spots in the world (La Jolla Shores), but there’s more opportunity and better cuisine here.

        1. but there’s more opportunity and better cuisine here.

          In Cleveland? Serious question: when did the Bath Saltz kick in tonight?

          1. I used to think the guy-from-Columbus that I worked with in San Diego was crazy when he complained about restaurants in San Diego.

            Living in Ohio/visiting Cleveland is actually pretty pleasant these days. Cuyahoga County is politically a dump full of liberals (cf. our county executive going to jail for straight-up bribery), but the suburbs are pretty normal and nice places to do business, and also happen to be where the best food is hiding. (See Tyler Cowen’s Econtalk about food for an explanation of why this is.)

          2. The food in San Diego is terrible. If the Thomas Jefferson hospital kitchen opened a restaurant in San Diego, the line would stretch around the block. The native food of San Diego is a fish stick on a corn tortilla with cabbage and ranch dressing. Some moron’s fridge died, and he just slopped together all the junk inside. And then everyone in San Diego decided that’s how they should eat all the time.

            1. I’m California lifer (4 years in SD) and I’ve never had fish taco with ranch dressing. A quality fish taco is better midwestern-ish diner food.

              The fun runs out on meatloaf and clam chowders after a while.

        2. Cleveland rocks, but I was in the water at La Jolla Shores recently. In October.

          More opportunity?

          Maybe. Depending on what you mean by “opportunity”.

          Admit it. You went to Cleveland for a chick, didn’t you.

          That was the “opportunity”.

          1. More business opportunity. It’s not really in the realm of possibility to do what we want to do in southern California. Can’t spray nitrocellulose, tax compliance is a nightmare, hard to hire people, tons of land-use regulations, electronics manufacturered must be RoHS compliant, real estate is too expensive to buy/lease, lack of talented + cheap workforce in areas like woodworking, etc.

            In fact, we’re working on a contract with a guy in southern California who basically wants to white-label our stuff (we build it, we put his logo on it, he sells it).

            1. Nitrocellulose?

              Are you in munitions?

              1. Guitars.

                I can’t hear the difference myself, but some musicians swear it sounds better than poly.

                1. That’s awesome, do build them from scratch? I’ve been playing since I was a teen, and would love to see what you got. Have a webpage?

                  I am on the verge of finishing college and realized that I should of learned a trade instead. My dad is a finish carpenter and a skilled wood worker. I worked under him for a while but in my arrogance thought such work was easy and beneath me (I’m smarter now) so never took it seriously or stopped to learn a goddamn thing. I really regret not apprenticing under him. He would have been more than happy to have taught me everything.

                  I’m thinking of trying gunsmithing.

    2. Kos has got the vapors:

      I find that people who spew the platitude that “the candidates are the same” tend to be the ones who have the least to lose if the wrong candidate is elected. At risk of sounding melodramatic, these elections truly are a matter of life and death.

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/…..etail=hide

      1. Oh, he’s way past the risk of sounding…

  27. It’s go time! Is the GOP ready to steal Ohio?

    Uncertified, “experimental” software patches have been installed on machines in 39 counties of the key swing state

    1. It’d be nice if leftists remembered that they insisted on touchscreen-based voting machines after the 2000 election.

      Eventually, 4chan will swing an election to a write-in candidate whose name happens to be a foul word.

  28. Tarnished Silver: Colby Cosh assesses the new king of stats

    The situation is that many of Nate Silver’s attackers don’t really know what the hell they are talking about. Unfortunately, this gives them something in common with many of Nate Silver’s defenders, who greet any objection to his standing or methods with cries of “Are you against SCIENCE? Are you against MAAATH?” If science and math are things you do appreciate and favour, I would ask you to resist the temptation to embody them in some particular person. Silver has had more than enough embarrassing faceplants in his life as an analyst that this should be obvious.

    1. Colby Cosh is a must follow if you are on the twitters.

      1. What the fuck is a “twitter”?

        1. Something where politicians go to die.

          1. That’s Hell, and the observation booth is Heaven.

        2. It’s what the young kids are doing these days.

          1. Wait, so “twitter’ is another word for butt-chugging? It all makes sense now.

            1. It has something to do with rainbow parties and bath saltz.

    2. The one scheduled for Tuesday won’t tell us much, since Silver gives both major-party candidates a reasonable chance of victory

      Umm, Colby — Silver is saying Obama has a 92% chance of winning as of 11-5, and has Wisconsin — a swing state where Rasmussen has a tied vote — as a 97% chance of going to Obama.

      Silver is predicting a blowout. He’s calling virtually all the swing states for Obama.

    3. Colby Cosh is one of Canada’s best.

    4. When it comes to prestige, it stands about where PECOTA was in 2006. Like PECOTA, it has a plethora of vulnerable moving parts. Like PECOTA, it is proprietary and irreproducible. That last feature makes it unwise to use Silver’s model as a straw stand-in for “science”, as if the model had been fully specified in a peer-reviewed journal.

      Wait so no one has actually seen the model?!?!?!

      Christ! We may as well be asking a witch doctor what he sees in the bones cux he predicted rain in 2008.

  29. The most entertaining possible outcome would probably be a tie in the electoral college, with Obama winnign the popular vote, and the House voting in Romney instead.

    1. Joe Biden electing himself Vice President will add to the entertainment.

  30. 90 Days, 90 Reasons is up to 110 reasons, such as “Obama has worked to combat Alzheimer’s [sic]”, with 13 of them signed by the 90 Days staff.

    Reason #110 is a reprint of Clinton’s op-ed in the Des Moine Register. I guess they’ve run out of indie musicians and millionaire actresses to cough up a paragraph or two for them.

    1. No one goes to that site except the Reason staffers.

      1. Liberaltarian pussies almost all

  31. So the TV is on over there, and next thing I notice it Chris (“DUMBASS”) Berman tossing BP fast-balls to Barack (“CHICAGO FIXER”) Obama. Fortunately the remote has an “off” key.
    That was a bit ago; one of the teams is winning, but they can ram the goal posts up Chris (“DUMBASS”) Berman’s butt before I turn it on again.

  32. Thanks for sharing this information, i truly love your weblog. Keep this good work & enlighten us with your new post. Thanks !

  33. That dude makes a lot of sense man!

    http://www.anon-you.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.