Election 2014

Should Libertarians Vote Republican on Tuesday?

|

Should small-"l" libertarians vote Republican on Tuesday?

Reason TV's Nick Gillespie sat down with Kirsten Kukowski, press secretary for the Republican National Committee, who lays out her case.

This interview was originally released on October 30, 2014. The original write-up is below: 

"A lot of times, when [Republicans] are on the stage with Libertarian candidates, we are agreeing with you guys–with libertarians–more than we are agreeing with Democrats," says Kirsten Kukowski, press secretary for the Republican National Committee.

So should small-"L" libertarians vote for Republicans next week?

Reason TV's Nick Gillespie recently sat down with Kukowski to give her a chance to explain why libertarians, who hold a broader definition of social freedom than the GOP platform lays out, should vote for Republicans during Tuesday's midterm election. During the interview the two discussed what lessons the Republicans have (or haven't) learned during the Bush years, why 2016 is shaping up as the year when libertarian-leaning Republicans will push to change the party, and whether Libertarian candidates should be seen as spoilers by GOP and Democratic partisans.

Approximately 7:30 minutes.

Produced by Nick Gillespie and Meredith Bragg. Camera by Joshua Swain and Meredith Bragg.

Go here to see the Libertarian Party's Vice Chair Arvin Vohra make the case for why libertarians should vote for LP candidates.

Note: We reached out the Democratic National Committee but were unable to schedule an interview.

NEXT: Convoluted Common Core Math Leaves Parents Baffled

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. No. Unless you’re in Amash’s district.

    1. Exactly.

      If the GOP wants my vote, then they need to nominate candidates who are WORTH my vote. Mike Lee, Justin Amash, and Rand Paul are the only ones who make the cut right now.

      -jcr

      1. Here in IL, we shouldn’t even vote for Libertarians. That party has added to out usual choice between Nazi and Stalinist- we can also vote Froot Loops.

        It’s depressing. I’m staying home.

        1. our

          Jesus, I can’t type in the morning.

  2. I will be voting for Paul LePage for governor. In all the other races I will be voting against progressive Democrats. Oh, and I will be voting against all bond questions as a matter of principle, though I know they will all pass. They always do.

    1. I still haven’t decided what to do about Two-Term Collins in her race for her fourth term. I may leave that one blank, since I can’t vote for her progressive opponent.

    2. You live in Maine but will vote for progressive GOPer Collins for Senate over pro-ACLU, anti-spying, anti-war Bellows no doubt.

      1. I don’t know who you’re talking about, but I automatically assume that everything you just said is a lie.

      2. Apparently you missed my 4:07 comment.

      3. Like many libertarians, I simply cannot vote for Democrats because of their economic policies. I’ve got a kid and I want her to have a job someday. An entry level job, because everyone needs to enter the job market. I can’t support people who want to keep raising the minimum wage until youth unemployment reaches 100%.

        1. Greatest private sector job growth = 1) Clinton 2) Obama 3) Reagan.

          Bush – dead last by miles.

          1. Um, yeah. Because the president controls job growth. Idiot.

            1. I’ve got a kid and I want her to have a job someday.

              Don’t vote GOP then.

              http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01196.html

              1. Greatest private sector job growth I’m going to attribute to the sitting president in a discussion about Congressional races = 1) Clinton 2) Obama 3) Reagan.

                Fixed. You really are a parody.

                1. That’s especially funny given that Clinton had a Republican congress for most of his time in office and Obama has been hamstrung by a Republican House.

                  Reagan, meanwhile, also had a Democratic House. This kind of implies that you can’t lay positive or negative job growth at the feet of one party in the federal government, since most job growth occurs at times of split government rather than unified government.

                  The other problem is that high job growth often occurs because you’re starting from a terrible baseline. Obama, Clinton, and Reagan all entered office at a time of high unemployment. That means there was room for there to be a large number of jobs created. If a president entered office with low unemployment, they can’t have that much job growth because there aren’t many places for that job growth to occur.

                  1. Most of the mainstream media loves to perpetuate simplistic stories about which politician and/or party is responsible for short-term growth (or lack there of). It isn’t always obvious and sometimes can require careful analysis.

                  2. That goes completely against everything shreik holds in his empty little head. What with the complex idea of “If you start at the bottom, you have more room to go up.”

                    1. That goes completely against everything shreik holds in his empty little head. What with the complex idea of “If you start at the bottom, you have more room to go up.”

                      This is also why I love the attack ads against Scott Walker in Wisconsin about how ‘Wisconsin has lower job growth than other midwestern states!’

                      Yeah, because the other midwestern states like Illinois, Ohio, and Michigan all got ass-raped by the recession and had double digit unemployment. Wisconsin never got that bad. As a result, Wisconsin having less job growth than other midwestern states is actually evidence of Wisconsin’s relative stability and the capacity of their economy to weather recessions.

                      It’s actually a positive sign, whereas they’re trying to pretend it’s a negative sign.

                  3. “The other problem is that high job growth often occurs because you’re starting from a terrible baseline. Obama, Clinton, and Reagan all entered office at a time of high unemployment.”

                    Look how it runs away when it’s talking point is refuted. And it doesn’t care, as long as the talking point is out there, which is why it’s such an evil piece of garbage.

                  4. You’re also talking raw counts of jobs. There are close to 100 million more people in the country now compared to when Reagan took office, 50 million more than when Clinton took office. Labor participation rate has crashed under King Barry.

                  5. Clinton had a Republican congress for most of his time in office

                    Clinton’s positive reputation is entirely due to his obnoxious plans being thwarted by the congress.

                    -jcr

                2. Greatest private sector job growth under Obama? What?

                  2009 total employment was around 145 million.

                  In 2014 total employment is around 146 million.

                  Meanwhile, “Not in labor force” goes up by about 12 million. The official “unemployment rate” goes from about 6% to…. about 6%.

                  It looks like total employment has just now reached what it was as the Bush administration was wrapping up their tenure. I suppose if you want to credit Bush with all of the job losses that occurred in the first 2-3 years of the Obama administration (down to 139 million employed) and then credit Obama with the delta from 2011 to 2014 then your analysis might make sense.

                  But then Bush fans could just claim that Clinton gets credit for the job losses during the recession that Bush inherited. And then claim job growth from that low point (136 million-ish) to a peak of almost 147 million.

                  How about we just go with “total employment is relatively flat for the last decade and a half” – going from about 145.5 million in 2000 to about 146 million in 2014. All while the population has gone from 281 million to 317 million. Nobody should be proud of that.

                  1. PRIVATE sector jobs. See Calculated Risk blog of Oct 5, 2014.

                    1. Ever heard of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, Mr. Buttplug?

                3. Dweebston just left a smoking crater.

              2. I lived and worked through Reagan’s economy as well as Clinton’s and Obama’s.

                There’s no comparison. Reagan’s was without a doubt the best for working people with Clinton’s a not so close second and Obama’s sucks donkey dicks.

          2. BOOOOOOOOSSSSSHHHHHHHHH

          3. Greatest private sector job growth = 1) Clinton 2) Obama 3) Reagan.

            Yes, thankfully Clinton won the Cold War and destroyed the USSR, allowing less military spending. Al Gore’s invention of the Internet helped growth, too. Plus, working for eight year with an all-Democrat Congress, he never had to compromise with those idiot Republicans and do anything foolish like reform welfare. And killing bin Laden when he had the chance may well have averted a catastrophic terror attack on his successor’s watch!

            1. You forgot to mention that Obama’s election also halted global warming, which is why they had to change the term to “global climate change”.

      4. I assume that you start drinking pretty early in the morning these days, don’t you buttpig? Your Proglotards are about to get destroyed, and your master is going to be completely powerless now.

        1. I will be sure to show up Wednesday morning here to praise the forthcoming Gridlock and meaninglessness of the next two years.

          1. Hooray?

          2. Gridlock is a feature. Don’t you know about balance of power?

  3. After the screaming fit he threw about our shiny new CCW laws, I’m considering voting for Mike Bost.

    At the same time, this is Illinois. I basically get to vote between Nazis and Stalinists no matter which election we’re talking about.

  4. Having the Senate there to as an additional check on Obama is a good thing–since Obama is way over in the opposite corner of the Nolan chart–just be prepared to hear from establishment Republicans, if they win, that it’s all because they’re the only ones fighting gay Marriage and hating on Muslims.

    1. I mean, that circa 70% chance of the Republicans taking the Senate seems to be a pretty consistent prediction across the board.

      What do you think the chances are of a fully Republican Congress voting to repeal or heavily reform ObamaCare?

      Prolly less than 10%, isn’t it?

      Swing voters won’t be voting for Republicans because they hate gay marriage or want to go to war in Syria–since the Republicans wisely kept their mouths shut and didn’t really harp on that–but the Republicans didn’t harp on repealing ObamaCare or slashing spending either.

      I dunno. I’ll be glad to see Obama limping and quacking, but every time we give the Republicans enough rope, they always seem to want to hang libertarians with it.

      1. 70% chance GOP takes the Senate and 0% chance any meaningful legislation is passed.

        Gridlock! How Glorious!

        1. Gridlock! How Glorious!

          Sounds wonderful to me. The only thing I worry about is nothing getting repealed. You Proglodytes are so ignorant, always believing that anything the government does will be good, despite more than 100 years of evidence against such belief. But I understand, having your head up dear leaders ass for 6 years has deprived your feeble brain of oxygen.

          1. You Proglodytes are so ignorant, always believing that anything the government does will be good

            Be fair to him.

            The SCOTUS thinks that too.

          2. I’m a Cato market liberal and social liberal, you liar. But mischaracterizing my status is all you have left.

            1. You’re a prog, everyone know it. FAIL.

              1. It isn’t sentient.

                It’s just troll bot trolling.

                trololololo!

            2. You aren’t a market anything demfag.

            3. Palin’s Buttplug|11.2.14 @ 4:44PM|#
              “I’m a Cato market liberal and social liberal, you liar”

              You’re a lying turd. Fuck off.

        2. Wait, I thought you were praising the Clinton years up above ? you know, the period that had six years of an opposition Congress that hated the President so much they impeached him?

          Incidentally, back in 2006, were you calling for a Republican victory to prevent gridlock?

          You realize you’re obvious, blatant, lying socialist scum, PB?

          1. To you fascists everyone else is a socialist.

            1. That’s gold Jerry! Gold!

      2. NYT are now saying 70% chance of GOP Senate, WAPO, 94%, RCP calling it for GOP. Even Huffpo is calling it for the GOP. The Dems can kiss the Senate goodbye, the fat lady has sang.

        1. The question is: What good things can a Libertarian expect to come from a GOP win in the Senate?

          The most likely outcome seems to me that a) Obama is a little more hamstrung and b) The establishment Republicans will trumpet that America loves them for being so establishment Republican.

          a) is good, b) is probably bad for Rand Paul–and Rand Paul is probably the only opportunity for significant libertarian political change over the next two to six years.

          What we’re probably going to get is a push to support the establishment Republican candidate because Hillary is running to the left of Liz Warren, and Liz Warren is pushing hard to be Hillary’s Secretary of the Treasury.

          I’m hoping for something better than having to support establishment Republicans. Yeah, being shot in the foot by establishment Republicans is better than being shot in the head by progressive Democrats, but I was hoping for a better option.

          …and I’m afraid the timing isn’t going to be right for that.

          1. Obama is a little more hamstrung

            This is the best that can come of it, but it’s better than nothing. The best hope is that Obama is a miserable wretch his final 2 years, no one who has ever walked upon the face of the earth deserves it more, the arrogant fucking prick.

            1. I agree.

              So, let’s say he’s crippled on Tuesday!

              What fresh hell are we in come Wednesday?

              Is it all gonna be about gay marriage, immigrants, and Muslims again?

              I don’t hear anybody in the Republican establishment clamoring about spending or taxes. Are they going to get rid of the individual mandate? I haven’t heard any politicians in the Republican establishment clamoring for that either.

              1. I realize this might not be the most logical argument, but the ocean of prog tears I expect to flood mainland America come Wednesday is enough to make me want a Republican victory.

                I don’t think they’ll improve anything. I don’t think they’ll make it worse. Can’t I want Republicans to win for super petty reasons? Just this once? Pretty please?

                I yearn to hear whine about how contraception is going to be outlawed now that we have a Republican controlled senate. I think all red blooded non-progs in this great country should hope for the same.

                1. In fairness Irish, about half of GOP Congressmen are signed on as sponsors of a federal personhood bill that would make several birth control measures illegal (along with IVF procedures).

                  1. So you admit now that birth control is abortifacient.

                    1. I admit some people think it so.

                    2. Bzzt. You just said the bill would make those things illegal, not that some people think it would make them illegal.

                    3. I said it would make several illegal, you made a more general claim that I think only a minority of people would hold.

                    4. To be more specific, things that most people consider to be forms of BC rather than abortions, forms that prevent implantation but could result in destruction of a fertilized egg, would have to be banned. IVF, which involves freezing and/or destruction of fertilized eggs, would also have to go.

                2. ut the ocean of prog tears I expect to flood mainland America come Wednesday is enough to make me want a Republican victory.

                  It’s not like there is no hope like there has always been. We do have Rand and Amash and Massie now. We need to put a libertarian foot up their ass. I believe that we are doing that when we punish them by voting for L candidates when they are not libertarian enough.

                3. I realize this might not be the most logical argument, but the ocean of prog tears I expect to flood mainland America come Wednesday is enough to make me want a Republican victory.

                  This seems logical to me. A thorough crushing of whatever remains of 2008’s Hope and Change is devoutly to be wished, if for no other reason than because it creates prog tears. Disillusioning the left is a step forward for liberty.

                  1. The left is so (stupid|dishonest) it is immune to disillusionment. If they lose the senate it will be because of racism, corporate political donations, and Jim Lehrer.

                    1. A great many libertarians and conservatives came out of the disillusioned left in the 20th century. There’s no reason it can’t keep happening.

              2. You damn well know that if the GOP clamored for anything, the next day we’d have a bunch of people (preferably women and minorities) plastered all over Oprah and CNN each with a sob story about how what the GOP was clamoring for would destroy them.

                1. Yes, I know and understand that.

                  I know that if the Republicans do well on Tuesday, it will only be becasue they WISELY kept their big mouths shut.

                  That’s why I wrote “wisely kept their mouths shut” in my post up yonder.

                  When they win, though, they’re not going to keep their mouths shut. They’re going to open their mouths real wide–and they’re gonna say a lot of stupid, stupid, anti-libertarian, anti-Rand Paul shit.

                  And that’s going to start happening in three days–if all goes well.

                  I’m just sayin’. I’ve been beaten up by this bully before. Come Wednesday, the establishment Republicans aren’t going to give a flyin’ about libertarians anymore. They can’t wait to scrape the Rand Paul stench out of their shoes.

                  That’s the way these things happen. That’s the way it goes.

                  1. They’re going to open their mouths real wide–and they’re gonna say a lot of stupid, stupid, anti-libertarian, anti-Rand Paul shit.

                    If they do that they’re getting their asses kicked in the primaries in 2016.

                    Mitt Romney was certainly no Tea Partier or libertarian, but he won because he never talked shit about Ron Paul or about the Tea Party (which his opponents Santorum and Gingrich did). Don’t think that lesson hasn’t been learnt.

              3. What fresh hell are we in come Wednesday?

                This happened when Republicans won a majority in the House in 2010.

                1. Edge has been acclaimed for “vibrating with possibility” and “making use of space, time and physicality to explore and present endless concepts.”

                  What do you suppose that even means, besides “this art installation uses props to do stuff, and make points”?

          2. Obama is going to do a lot of horrible things with his pen in the next two years regardless of who wins the Senate, so I really don’t see him being hamstrung. He’ll also appoint recess nominees in defiance of the SCOTUS rulings.

            The real benefit of a GOP Senate is the ability to block nominees and pass bills that Democrats are afraid to filibuster and force Obama to veto them. e.g., bills repealing Obamacare.

            1. He won’t have any Congressional cover anymore.

              It’ll be different for him.

              Remember when the Republicans lost their lock on both Congress and the White House?

              Donald Rumsfeld resigned the day after the midterms. There was nothing else for him to do.

              I hate to quote Obama, but “Elections [do] have consequences”.

              1. He won’t have any Congressional cover anymore.

                It’ll be different for him.

                Oh, yes. Don’t forget: Senate investigation committees.

                1. How are those different from the House investigations he’s been dodging for 4 years.

                  1. They have subpoena power.

                    1. The House doesn’t? I could have sworn Holder was in defiance of multiple subpoenas over F+F, and I’m sure they didn’t come from the Senate.

          3. The most likely outcome seems to me that a) Obama is a little more hamstrung and b) The establishment Republicans will trumpet that America loves them for being so establishment Republican

            No one outside the Beltway will buy #2. The main sources of energy and motivation for the Rs is coming from three, somewhat overlapping sources (Tea Party, libertarians, and SoCons), and the involvement of establishment Rs this time around has been basically nil. Sure, they can lie to themselves about it but no one is going to be convinced that kicking out the Ds is the result of some newfound love for establishment Republicanism (whatever that is).

            1. The narrative has been that the GOP is finally going to win because they’ve chosen non-TP candidates and been less aggressive in their campaigns for weeks.

          4. Much “discretionary” spending comes under the ax. It’s not the stuff that’s busting the budget, but there are plenty of goodies that may have been bargained for by Democrats in some states that the Republicans who replace them hold no particular brief for.

        2. 70% is not a certainty. Let’s not pull a Bart Simpson this election.

          1. “I didn’t do it.”?

        3. The Dems can kiss the Senate goodbye, the fat lady has sang.

          Uhm, Mr. Dewey, the fat lady don’t sing until it’s over.

  5. Libertarians should vote in the way that is most likely to thwart abuse of government power.

    At this moment in time, that means thwarting Democrats, which means voting Republican.

  6. Wow! Markets do work!

    Obamacare Rate Increases Low as Insurer Competition Grows

    “We made a decision several years ago that health reform is not as much a law, as it is an opportunity,” said Scott Streator, a vice president at Dayton, Ohio-based CareSource who manages plans sold under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act known as Obamacare.

    CareSource, a nonprofit insurer, gained almost 20 percent of Ohio’s Obamacare enrollees in 2014 by offering some of the lowest premiums in the state. Now, with enrollment set to reopen Nov. 15, the company is extending its health plans into neighboring Kentucky and Indiana.

    The Affordable Care Act was designed to let insurers aggressively compete for customers within a new system of government-run marketplaces. Early results from companies such as CareSource suggest it is succeeding.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..grows.html

    Just as I have been telling you Peanuts!

    1. My insurance went up $150/month this enrollment.

      Fuck off.

      1. Shop around! Competition is flourishing!

        1. My insurance is subsidized by my employer, idiot.

          1. Mine too, and it went up again. You have to forgive buttface, he’s an imbecile, and for someone like him who lives off welfare, it might have gotten a little better, to the detriment of all of us productive folk.

            1. They give welfare to non-sentient beings like Shreek nowadays?

              1. I was assuming that the majority of welfare went to non-sentients like Shreek.

    2. Around here most of the Orthopedic practices do not take any of the Obamacare Exchange plans. I know this because I spent about 6 hours on the phone last week trying to find an appropriate specialist for my son. Even our gold-plated plan that costs up the yin-yang isn’t accepted. When we researched it before buying the (very expensive) coverage, as near as we could tell all practitioners accepted the plan. Apparently the exchange plans all pay far less than other private coverage plans. Even less than medicaid. So the doctors are dropping those plans. So now I get to pay two grand a month for a plan that increasingly is not accepted by doctors in our area. So thanks for that.

      Oh, and because of changes in the system, all of the plans are being dropped at the end of the year. So we have to go find new coverage in the next two months. So again, thanks for that.

      1. Racist!!!

      2. Why can’t you appreciate the Free Market benefits of Obamacare, Christfag?!!

  7. “We’re seeing competition flourish,” she said. “Even though it’s a hassle, shopping is going to be worth it for consumers this fall.”

    DEATH SPIRAL! DOOM!

    1. Why is it not a hassle for me to buy something at a real marketplace?

  8. Should Libertarians Vote Republican on Tuesday?

    Depends. Are the Republicans libertarians? If yes, then vote for them. If no, write in your grandmother before endorsing those statist fucks.

    Remember. The more fucked up it gets, the more libertarians are created. The only way to lose is to support someone you don’t believe in.

    1. The only way to lose is to support someone you don’t believe in.

      Shriek, is that you?

      1. Hey Winston.

        Fuck off and die in a fire.

        1. Oh fuck, I misread what I quoted. I’m an idiot, you can quote that anytime you want. I apologize for comparing you to Shriek, that was a low blow.

        2. That said I’m pretty dubious of the “the worse the better” line of argument. Otherwise China and Russia would be full of libertarians.

          1. North Korea… vibrating on the edge of libertopia.

  9. Shreeky is freaking out.

    1. DEATH SPIRAL! DOOM!

      You fuckers were all giddy with anticipation that the market/exchange system would fall apart.

      It isn’t and it won’t.

      1. You’re so clueless. It’s pathetic.

        1. His claim earlier that California has no natural resources which is why it’s doing worse than Texas is my new favorite Shrike argument.

          The state built on a gold rush with tremendous farmland, oil shale deposits, mining, beautiful climate, and a large logging industry just doesn’t have enough natural resources! Otherwise they’d be doing brilliantly!

          1. They have the entertainment industry, Silicon Valley, and the busiest port in the country, Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach, through which almost all the trade between China and the United States passes…

            …and California still can’t get it together.

            Here’s the right wing San Francisco Chronicle talking about our regulatory problems in 2009:

            “The total cost of regulation to the State of California is $492.994 billion which is almost five times the State’s general fund budget, and almost a third of the State’s gross product.”

            California has heaped on a ton of new regulation since then, and that figure doesn’t include regulation from the federal government, the costs of ObamaCare, etc.

            California is so horribly mismanaged by the Democrats, having a plethora of natural resources might not even matter! It’s sort of like the USSR, that way–the Soviets always had a lot of natural resources, too.

            But given all that incompetent governance, all the natural resources in the world just didn’t. fucking. matter.

            1. Now with bacon!

              http://blog.sfgate.com/bottoml…..-counting/

            2. As I said in another thread, California is the France of the 50 states.

              I’ve seen the parallel drawn before and I find it to be very accurate.

          2. is claim earlier that California has no natural resources which is why it’s doing worse than Texas is my new favorite Shrike argument.

            He meant that they don’t have any natural resources that they can utilize. You know, because his progderps made them all off limits because of some bait fish or frog?

          3. Quit lying. I said CA was richer than Texas, earned more per capita, and produced more crude oil than Alaska.

            All facts.

      2. The worst aspects haven’t gone into effect, silly. Come 2016, ACA is going to become a pejorative and democrats are going to get even less public support.

  10. OT:

    So after all of these years of my friends harassing me about playing Vampire Masquerade Bloodlines because it’s the greatest RPG of all time, blah blah blah, I saw it on Steam yesterday for $4 and finally bought it. It is an interesting game, I’m a little surprised by certain aspects of it. Greatest RPG of all time? I don’t think so.

    1. Greatest RPG of all time is really dependent on what you want.

      I really like the ol’ Planescape Torment, but I get that the controls and format aren’t for everyone.

      If we’re talking the best RPG in the past couple of years, I’d probably go with New Vegas because the writing is stupidly good. Been spending my off hours on the new Wasteland and it’s pretty good too.

      1. Mass Effect 2.

        Final Fantasy 7.

        Shadowrun Returns.

      2. Planespace Torment, barf, uggghhhhh…

        Best RPGs of all time:

        Gothic

        Fallout New Vegas

        Two Wolds II

        Gothic 3

        Risen

        Gothic II

        Divinity Original Sin

        Skyrim

        Divinity 2 Ego Draconis

        1. It’s not as ‘RPG’ as a lot of other stuff, but Deus Ex and its remake are favourites of mine. I also enjoyed System Shock 2 years after it came out.

      3. New Vegas

        and Zork

        1. Zork!!!

          I first played it in a mainframe!
          Fuck yea!

      4. Baldur’s Gate II

        Although, I prefer Icewind Dale. Holy cow, but it has good music.

  11. The Democrats really had to fuck things up for the Republicans to be doing this well after the past years of gaffes. That’s just an outsider’s take.

    1. People elect politicians to do something, the politicians do, and then things get fucked up because you can’t create a utopia by fiat. Then people complain and want politicians to do something to correct the things the politicians just finished doing.

      100 years later…

  12. Reason TV’s Nick Gillespie sat down with Kirsten Kukowski, press secretary for the Republican National Committee, who lays out her case.

    Well at least you had representatives for both the Democrats and the GOP in the video.

  13. Should Libertarians Vote

    No.

    Libertarians are far too few in number and our lives too precious to risk death by automobile on election night.

    1. My wife is the mythical unicorn, a libertarian woman. She voted by mail. Can’t risk things any other way.

      1. The secret is not in having a libertarian woman. It’s in having a libertarian woman and both Monday and Wednesday, during consistent weeks.

  14. Ones vote is so unlikely to matter it seems a good idea to go ahead and vote LP where one can.

    If I had to pick between the big two I think maybe it’s best to have a Democrat President and GOP congress, since recent GOP executives were the driving force behind our major invasion/occupations while Dem Presidents seem rightly haunted by their Vietnam debacle. On the other hand major entitlement legislation seems to spring from Dem Congresses.

    1. Assuming that this ISIS stuff doesn’t blow over quickly, we’re going to have been fighting in Iraq longer under King Barry than we were under Bush. We’ll definitely have been fighting in Afghanistan longer under Barry.

      1. The extent is different and initiation counts for something. In terms of blood and treasure expended they’re pretty far apart. That’s not to defend either, btw.

        1. Apropos of nothing, a thought RE style:

          “Blood and treasure” is an absurdly antiquated phrase in the context of contemporary politics; it is nonetheless used with great aplomb by a number of libertarians and anti-war types. One practically shudders at the self-styled non-interventionist’s recycling of old-timey Treasure Island dialogue in tossing out the wretched phrase, which serves only to make prose stilted, pretentious, and anachronistic. Why not ‘casualties and costs’ or — more colloquially — ‘people and stuff’?

          /Strunk & White

          1. It’s an expression. Get over it.

            1. If I was the type of person who was into getting over small and petty things I wouldn’t be commenting on a political blog, heh.

              1. Yeah! What… what he said!

  15. OT:

    Remember when things first started going down in Ferguson, the FAA set up a no-fly zone, which they said was totally about safety?

    Well, as it turns out, to absolutely nobody’s surprise, the police were colluding with the FAA to set up the no-fly zone to keep the media away.

    This is my shocked face.

    1. Indeed.

      And it looks like they’ll delay Wilson’s non-indictment until after the election. Race riots are bad for Democratic candidates everywhere.

  16. I fluctuate, depending on circumstance. If the race is close, or if I particularly dislike the Democrat, I’ll vote GOP. Otherwise, Libertarian. But in any case my residence means either is usually a purely symbolic gesture.

    1. PhD Cheri sure loves to say ‘Please be sure’.

    2. This email was sent out by Cheri Jimeno, Ph.D., the President of New Mexico State University Alamogordo to the university students.

      If you’ve ever been to Alamogordo, you can stop worrying.

  17. OT: This is my favorite commercial at the moment:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrVocGjeNx8

    Tremendous bad dancing.

    1. There are certain things white people should not be allowed to do. Public dancing is one of them.

      1. If the Irish are any indication, then you are correct. However, I subscribe to the Karina Smirnoff dance school of hot damn, yessssss.

      2. There are certain things white people should not be allowed to do. Public dancing is one of them.

        Yeah! That Fred Astaire was hideous to watch!

      3. Uh, yeah ok.

        No.

    2. Ahh, short men, one of the last groups we can make fun of with impunity.

  18. If I bother to vote I’ll vote straight GOP because here in Jersey they’ve got zero chance of winning and it’s the only way I can send an FU to the Dems which will be meaningless.

    1. I can often predict the outcome of an election by taking the inverse of my ballot.

      1. In my 20 years of voting, I’ve yet to vote for a winning candidate.

  19. My vote is pretty much useless in Virginia this election.

  20. OT: Is everyone ready for free tuition?

    http://strikedebt.org/how-far-to-free/

    In the 2012-2013 academic year, students spent $61.8 billion on tuition for public colleges and universities (source, page 7). That’s our starting point. But, as we said above, the government is already subsidizing that figure via various programs which would no longer be needed if tuition were simply free. Additionally, predatory for-profit colleges receive billions in federal subsidies which simply channel taxpayer money straight into the pockets of Wall Street investors while saddling students with worthless degrees and a crushing debt load.

    1)Profitz are evul. 2)Funny math, funny math, funny math. 3)Ignore that costs increase as a result of subsidies because they remove incentive to cut costs because schools are going to get their money anyway. 4)heave the debt from your gender studies degree onto Joe/Jane-taxpayer.

    Presto! Free tuition!

    1. But, as we said above, the government is already subsidizing that figure via various programs which would no longer be needed if tuition were simply free.

      Stunning logic. In a similar vein, my costs of living would be zero if they were simply free.

      1. I blame predatory for-profit grocery stores!

      2. Stunning logic

        I checked that article for ‘logic’ and found it wanting.

        1. Logic is only as good as its starting premises.

          1. This kid must’ve started with the premise of “I’m fucking retarded.”

    2. I think this issue is the best way for the Ds to win in 16.

      Make all kind of noise about cancelling the debt, win the WH and then for four years fail to actually do it due to R obstructionism and then run on the issue again in 20, 24…

    3. There are worse ways to waste the money…

      For example, the discredited War on Drugs is costing U.S. taxpayers $51 billion per year, much of which comes from state budgets that have drastically cut state appropriations for higher education. Redirecting this worthless funding stream into a free education system would restore some credibility to the nation’s fiscal priorities

  21. If your vote can make a difference and the libertarian can’t win?

    No

    Otherwise?

    Yes

    Hth

    Good example of why functional strength is so important in law enforcement and why it should be a requirement tested yearly

    Dragging 340 lbs of unbalanced weight (more difficult than barbell etc which is why strongmen etc train and compete so often with unbalanced or unwieldy instruments quickly across two lanes of traffic ain’t easy

    Props to this obviously well trained and taskready officer

    http://tinyurl.com/om8yxap
    [Open in new window]

    Booya dash cams

    1. THe cop thought the 340 lb suspect would have tips on donut recipes?

      1. Are you taskready, GKC? If not, shut it!

        1. Take your extra “r” and add to “a_sehole,” you’ve got a new handle.

          1. You can be so hurtful. So so hurtful!

            1. WTF, now I’m feeling guilty.

              Just don’t tell me to “shut it.”

              1. You’re a Catholic, don’t you feel guilty all the time?

                1. I’m working on it.

    1. Hehehe. I was hoping for some kind of actual attack, though. A sudden arrow through the chest would’ve been a nice addition.

  22. The Republicans stink and the Democrats are even worse. And the LP is running guys like Sean Haugh. Not much reason (drink!) for optimism.

    And need I remind you that Hitler, Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot, for example, came to power because their opponents sucked and people thought they couldn’t possibly be that bad.

    1. And need I remind you that Hitler, Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot, for example, came to power because their opponents sucked and people thought they couldn’t possibly be that bad.

      That statement is true for only one of the people you listed.

      1. Lenin lost the elections, PP didn’t have any, AH got a plurality in a multi-party election and overwhelming votes in referenda where the Nazis and NOTA were the only candidates on the ballot.

        1. (not literally NOTA)

      2. That statement is true for only one of the people you listed.

        I wasn’t referring to elections specifically.

  23. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAT_BuJAI70

    I never voted for libertarian in CA. They’re deader than the GOP here.

    I’ll never vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, and neither should any serious libertarians. The pizza delivery man is a disaster, and Reason just found out that he hates the Koch brothers and wants to expand medicaid.

    1. Sean Haugh “Bringing change in thirty minutes or less.”

      1. If they have a town hall meeting someone should ask him if his policies come with a side of crazy bread.

    2. Ron Paul is running in the primaries?

  24. Hmm, I recall in 1932 there was discontent in the US over the economy, Prohibition and Victorian Morality and what we got was the New Deal.

    1. Heh – IIRC Mencken endorsed FDR in 1932 because the Dems were dry.

      1. Weren’t the Dems mostly Wet by then?

        Also Mencken and Bourne spent WWI gushing over the German TOP MEN who knew what they were doing, unlike Woodrow Wilson.

        1. Oops, wet not dry.

          1. I’m not praising Mencken as such, just saying, “You’ll Never Believe Who this uber-cynic foe of democracy voted for!”

            1. Thing is FDR did in many ways campaign as a small government type.

              However this was from his DNC acceptance speech:

              Throughout the nation men and women, forgotten in the political philosophy of the Government, look to us here for guidance and for more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth… I pledge myself to a new deal for the American people. This is more than a political campaign. It is a call to arms

      2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U…..tion,_1932

        Garner accused Hoover of “leading the country down the path of socialism.”

        his addresses, Hoover attacked Roosevelt as a capitalist president who would only make the Depression worse by decreasing taxes, reducing government intervention in the economy, promoting “trade [with] the world”, and cutting “Government ?Federal and State and local”.[

        Oh, how ironic.

  25. I love this 1912 Republican attack on Woodrow Wilson:

    http://commons.wikimedia.org/w…..er1912.jpg

  26. I can’t tell you how sad I was when earlier it was pointed out that California, my home state, and where I currently reside, lacks natural resources.

    Where did they all go? Did capitalists steal them? Did they never exist in the first place?

    1. Seriously, Warren with an extra r, I’m sorry I called you an arsehole, I just didn’t like you telling me to shut up.

      1. I thought you were joking. Of all the things that are sent your way that got under your skin?

        I mean I was spoofing faux-Dunphy, not coming after you.

        1. OK. I try not to offend people *unintentionally.*

    2. Texas took them so the dirtbag Rethuglicans could claim they were having good economic growth when actually it was just growth caused by all the resources they took from California under cover of darkness.

      1. [Shakes fist at Texans!]

        1. Don’t mess with Texas!

          *Samuel Jackson crazy glare*

          1. [turns fist into jaunty wave]

  27. I live in California so it doesn’t matter. I’ll do what I usually do while everyone is voting, stay home and pull on my dick til I see rainbows.

  28. Interesting approach, sure to lead to pearl clutching:

    “Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology plans to start asking undergraduate applicants to determine if they think they can control their destinies. Students who answer in ways that suggest that they are confident they can control their fates?or who have a “locus of control” to use the psychological term?will get an edge in admissions decisions. And the system could start as early as next year.”

    http://www.slate.com/articles/…..ntrol.html

    1. Its kinda sad/funny that this college feels like they even have to ask applicants this question. I don’t blame them. I think its a good idea on their part.

      1. Too many adult children out there.

  29. “Young learn from Civil War re-enactment…

    “Southern Nevada Living History Association volunteers and spectators took part Saturday in the ninth annual Civil War Days in the Battle Born State, a re-enactment of the war at Spring Mountain Ranch State Park in Red Rock Canyon.

    “Hundreds of people attended the event in head-to-toe Civil War attire. Many of them were children, who could be heard shouting such things as, “Oh no, they got Grandpa!” as their loved one collapsed to the ground.

    The association has more than 100 members from Nevada, California, Arizona and New Mexico, association spokeswoman Lisa Coffey said.

    “She said young members are encouraged to participate to help preserve the history of the war but remain under strict guidelines until they are 16 years old. “That’s when they are allowed to carry a loaded rifle” ? a sort of right-of-passage for those who have participated since childhood.”

    http://www.reviewjournal.com/n…..-enactment

  30. Archaeologists discover 20 lb dildo in Sumerian ruins

    http://ih3.redbubble.net/image…..75×360.png

    1. Lol mother fucker.

  31. OT: Bill Maher Strikes Back At Berkeley Students Who Uninvited Him To Commencement

    http://www.inquisitr.com/15780…..mencement/

    “And, in a country where the Democratic party has sold out to the center, and even the right, this is what is needed ? this is why I wanted to accept this invitation. And invited ME because it was 50th anniversary of something that is legendary on that campus: the Berkley free speech movement. I guess they don’t teach irony in college any more.”

    1. And, in a country where the Democratic party has sold out to the center, and even the right, this is what is needed ? this is why I wanted to accept this invitation.

      Hahahahahaha, Bill Maher’s a fucking idiot. The Democratic Party is farther left than it has ever been.

      1. You’re the fucking idiot. Obama is supporting cutting SS benefits and corporate tax cuts. He supported Simpson Bowles along with Tom Coburn. SB would have cut the top rate down to 27% and flattened taxes. Durban even supported it. It was killed by the House.

        1. “He supported Simpson Bowles”

          Along with little, small laws nationalizing health care and huge ‘stimulus’ spending. Minor trifles I’m sure.

          1. No one nationalized our healthcare for crying out loud. You have been corrected on this lie before.

            1. You’re right. They haven’t nationalized our healthcare system yet. They just keep doubling down on their fascist policys. They just make the rules and control insurance companies while the insurance companies do all the leg work and the gov rakes in the dough on taxes and increased costs. Much better system. All the payoff and none of the work.

              1. The only thing stopping them from nationalizing health care is that nationalization is still so stupendously unpopular.

                Obamacare is a stopgap measure to nationalization, just like various leftist gun control measures today are stopgap measures to their desire for the full on banning of fire arms. PB will have to forgive me if I don’t applaud the left because they want to advance their totalitarianism slowly so as not to perturb the sheep.

          2. Well, Bo? You got an answer or do you admit defeat to PB?

        2. …and trying to repatriate overseas profits, and imposing restrictions on prop-desk trading by banks, and considered abolishing 401k tax benefits for a while, removed the work-requirements for welfare, purposely stalled on Keystone for 6 years now…

          yeah, he’s not a leftist. He’s ‘moderate’, just like you.

          1. Mostly false. Obama never removed the work requirements on welfare. Prop desk trading ban yes. Banks should not trade with FDIC insured money.

            1. Palin’s Buttplug|11.2.14 @ 10:00PM|#
              “Mostly false.”

              Assertion absent evidence, turd.
              But that’s no surprise; fuck off.

            2. “Banks should not trade with FDIC insured money.”

              They had no problem making exemptions for their own municipal junk bonds – so its perfectly OK to gamble insured money on sugardaddy government, just not, you know, things that actually diversify exposure.

    2. Maher should be sure to mention to the premed students how they’re idiots for accepting the vaccination myth.

      http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/…..blogs&_r=1

    3. Maher reminded the students that “my reputation isn’t on the line. Yours is.”

      No qualms there.

    4. I don’t agree with Maher on a lot but he isn’t scared of engaging people with different viewpoints than his. These college progressives do not believe in freedom of speech whatsoever. Little brown shirt fucks would rather shout somebody down than debate them because thats what a leaning institution is all about. /sarc

      1. Graduation is about the graduates – I don’t believe in shoving any speaker down their throats just to make a point – “ha ha, we’re more tolerant than you, that’s why we’re having this speaker you don’t like speak at one of the key events in your life!”

        Want to respect Maher’s free speech? Invite him to speak at some other university forum where his remarks don’t bear the university’s imprimatur.

        That being said, I don’t actually know if these protesters are representative of the student body as a whole.

        If we are to have graduation speakers, my preference would be to have the students vote for them.

        1. Hey, as long as it’s not Abu Jamal…

        2. He did say that particular issue wasn’t going to be part of the commencement speech obviously but I would assume that most of Berkeley’s student body probably agrees with him on most issues. But you’re right I don’t think the protesters are representative of the student body.

          Why not invite him because he is a successful business person instead of combing through his politics. Thats what I don’t get.

    5. ” in a country where the Democratic party has sold out to the center”

      Jesus *()@$ Christ.

      This is one of the problems with the progressive narrative about *themselves* – they seem to think that the reasons for their ‘failure’ (and this is not a joke)… is that they *compromise too much*. and that they make too many concessions to ‘moderates’.

      They tell themselves this at least. They think they’re ‘too nice’ and ‘too accommodative’. they’re not Uncompromising Enough. They’d totally have had single-payer healthcare by now if Obama had not ‘compromised’…

      (even though there was not a single republican vote on the ACA)

      There are never flaws in their ideas; only in the failure to push harder for them against the Evil Opposition Conspiracy.

      Thomas Frank’s piece in Salon is full of comments to this end =

      “Until I read the book, What is Wrong with White People, I felt that criticism of the party with which I share so much ideologically was traitorous. Now I can honestly admit that I hate playing on losing teams. I am pissed off that liberals do not push harder. Yes, I agree that we made a mistake when we shut up Howard Dean. He inspired passion and the Democrats have become a party of elderly school marms attempting to take on a field of born again serpents.”

      1. “This is one of the problems with the progressive narrative about *themselves* – they seem to think that the reasons for their ‘failure’ (and this is not a joke)… is that they *compromise too much*. and that they make too many concessions to ‘moderates’.”

        Of course, that’s exactly the same narrative we hear from conservatives. If only those darn RINO’s and Establishment Republicans weren’t always compromising!!!

          1. Are you kidding? For one, it’s a running narrative on Rush Limbaugh’s show. But the idea that Boehner and the moderate establishment is always holding back in the name of compromise is incredibly popular on the right.

            1. “From violating no-tax pledges to failing to curb the growth of government, “compromising on principle keeps on costing Republicans,” said Pastors and Pews founder David Lane, a Los Angeles-based conservative evangelical organizer. “Compromise cost them the White House in 1992. Reagan won re-election in 1984 with 49 states; [George W. Bush] needed the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 and Ohio in 2004.”

              http://www.washingtontimes.com…..z3HyATVncx
              Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

              1. “But moderation, cooperation, and “compromise” doesn’t just lead to GOP mediocrity and defeat. It also leads to ruination for the United States of America. ”

                http://townhall.com/columnists…../page/full

                  1. I meant on a specific issue lately

                    As in, legislation that came about as a result of conservative ‘compromise’

            2. See, here’s the thing, Bo =

              These people had both houses of congress and the executive branch for 4 years. And they are blaming the failure of their policies (ACA, economic stimulus, loose money, failure of ME policy, etc) on ‘compromise’ with the GOP to ‘get things done.

              Name a single policy under a ‘conservative’ leadership that you can see the same claim being applied to. Iraq? Dems didn’t wage anything close to opposition to bush’s wartime policy.

              We’re not talking about ‘people compromising’ in order to get elected. We’re talking about the Ruling, Dominant party claiming their *policies* are failing because they compromised too much. (e.g. ACA)

              You’re just showing that the rhetoric is used by the base of both sides to explain failed elections. That’s unsurprising.

        1. Except that actually DOES happen. Of course it’s not really compromise so much as allowing themselves to be pwned in the hopes that the Dems’ MSM allies will stop attacking them.

          Name something that Obama/Reid compromised on that matches the magnitude of the GOP cave on suspension of the debt ceiling or the ending of sequestration this year.

      2. The people just don’t realize how smart and benevolent they are. If everyone would just listen to them utopia would materialize. They’re so smart. Why does everyone keep resisting them? Must be repubs and rednecks. Time for the progressives to bring out the boots and guns for your own good.

      3. They are Hofferian True Believers.

    6. “I guess they don’t teach irony in college any more.”

      And they don’t really care either. They know full well what they did.

      When you get to the heart of the matter they take pride in shutting down other people’s opinions they don’t agree with.

      It’s not that hard to understand the mind set here. They believe ‘x’ is necessary for progress. If you go against ‘x’ or offer ‘y’ there’s no wiggle room for debate. You challenge their ethos ergo you’re an extremist – and so on.

      This is how pathetically transparent they are in their ignorance and tyranny.

      1. they have gone as far many many times to resort to violence against speakers who oppose their worldview for example Anne Coulter has been assaulted several times.

        They’ve also engaged in theft and vandalism such is the case where they destroyed and antiabortion display on campus and they have stolen entire runs of school newspapers when they had articles they disagree with

        The best response to bad speech us good speech

        But not for progs

        1. They have lost the debate a long time ago so what they try to do is change the meaning of words (dishonesty) or use force to shut their opposition down. If they had to actually debate they would lose again and again like they have for the last 100+ years.

    7. The truly amazing thing is that I’ve agreed with Maher twice in one week.

      I never thought that I’d agree once in one lifetime.

  32. Gorgeous, strong and powerful!

    Not AS epic as my teammate’s US record setting double bodyweight c&j, but still STRONG AS FUCK!!!

    Booya strong wimmins!

    http://tinyurl.com/oq7xfuk

    Maher can be funny, on rare occasion insightful, but his claims to be a libertarian are ridiculous

    He’s kind of got that Carlin cranky curmudgeon thing going which can get old

    He is entirely right about the campus speech commissars

    As I said, when I was on program board, Angela Davis was ok, but Kinison was too intolerant?

    Gag me with a spoon

    Booya body cameras!!

  33. SoCon Conservative Magazine Writer: Pornography Ruins Boys Education

    “The headmaster of the all-boys boarding school I attended when I was a teenager was always wary of admitting students to the academy that had been exposed to pornography. Among his reasons for this was that boys who had carnal knowledge?even on the level that pornography affords?very often found it an impediment in the process of their education. Now I am the headmaster of that same boarding school, and I am increasingly convinced of the reasoning behind my old headmaster’s reticence over such applicants.”

    http://www.crisismagazine.com/…..-education

    1. I went to a public school when I was a teenager and watched gobs of porn. It didn’t ruin my education the public school system, that I was forced into, did. The only thing that pornography ruined for me as a teenager was a lot of clean socks.

  34. This is the kind of thing that encourages the sexual harassment policy revolution at colleges

    “A sexual harassment case that has been unfolding without public notice for nearly five years within the Yale School of Medicine has roiled the institution and led to new allegations that the university is insensitive to instances of harassment against women. The case involves a former head of cardiology who professed his love to a young Italian researcher at the school and sought to intervene in her relationship with a fellow cardiologist under his supervision. A university committee recommended that he be permanently removed from his position, but the provost reduced that penalty to an 18-month suspension.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11……html?_r=0

    1. Excellent! He references what historians referred to as the pristine myth which is something I have brought up with liberals before when they try to assert that the white settlers were destroyers and the Native Americans were solely protectors of the environment

      In fact there is strong evidence that the United States became more heavily forested after the European colonizers arrival and that many Indian tribes were quite reckless in their destruction of large swaths of forest

      The pristine myth goes hand-in-hand with the patronizing noble savage myth that we see in everything from dances with wolves to avatar

      They also use it to attack to Judeo Christian religion and prop up Native American religions since they believe the former results in our feelings of ownership of the animals and the environment and our right to destroy it where is the latter is all about being a gentle steward

    1. Before she died, Maynard asked her husband and her mother if they would carry on the work she started to get death with dignity passed in every state.

      “I want to work on the cause,” Ziegler told PEOPLE last month. “I have so much admiration for people who are terminally ill and just fight and fight. They are so dignified and brave. This is a different choice, but it is also brave and dignified.”

      She also shared with them her hopes and dreams for their future. Upstairs in the home she shares with her family are neatly wrapped Christmas and birthday gifts for her loved ones for the next year.

      “She made it clear she wants me to live a good life,” Ziegler says.

      In her second video, Maynard, who is an only child, said she hoped her mother does not “break down” or “suffer from any kind of depression.”

      And for Diaz, “I hope he moves on and becomes a father,” she said. “There’s no part of me that wants him to live out the rest of his life just missing his wife.”

      1. “I want to work on the cause,” Ziegler told PEOPLE last month. “I have so much admiration for people who are terminally ill and just fight and fight. They are so dignified and brave. This is a different choice, but it is also brave and dignified.”

        I like these people. This is a personal choice and they’re rightfully treating it as such.

        Incidentally, I’m still pissed off by that Matt Walsh article about this woman. Matt Walsh is such fucking scum.

        If you are saying that it is dignified and brave for a cancer patient to kill themselves, what are you saying about cancer patients who don’t? What about a woman who fights to the end, survives for as long as she can, and withers away slowly, in agony, until her very last breath escapes her lungs?

        Is that person not brave? Is that person not dignified? I thought we applaud that kind of person. I thought we admire her courage and tenacity. Sorry, you can’t advance two contradictory narratives at once. If fighting cancer is brave then it is brave PRECISELY BECAUSE she is fighting it rather than giving up and choosing death.

        Actually you can, moron, because the issue is one of personal choice. Neither decision is right, simply different based on the personal beliefs and values of the terminally ill.

        The fact that Walsh thought this was a good argument is staggering.

    2. I guess she was anxious to get the whole eternal damnation thing over with.

      1. Don’t you mean get on with it?

  35. New York Times argues in favor of eliminating midterms because they don’t let the president behave like enough of a dictator.

    The main impact of the midterm election in the modern era has been to weaken the president, the only government official (other than the powerless vice president) elected by the entire nation. Since the end of World War II, the president’s party has on average lost 25 seats in the House and about 4 in the Senate as a result of the midterms. This is a bipartisan phenomenon ? Democratic presidents have lost an average of 31 House seats and between 4 to 5 Senate seats in midterms; Republican presidents have lost 20 and 3 seats, respectively.

    The realities of the modern election cycle are that we spend almost two years selecting a president with a well-developed agenda, but then, less than two years after the inauguration, the midterm election cripples that same president’s ability to advance that agenda.

    Yes, clearly the problem with modern politics is that presidents aren’t powerful enough and are too accountable to the public. Spot on, NYT.

    1. Wait:

      David Schanzer is a professor of public policy and Jay Sullivan is a junior at Duke.

      Yeah, clearly random 21 year olds are the people we should be listening to when it comes to completely overhauling our electoral system.

      1. I was going to wonder aloud whether they felt the same about the 2006 midterms, but Jay Sullivan at least has the excuse that he was probably too busy dealing with puberty and masturbating to pixelated sex scenes on GTA to know anything about politics at the time.

        1. Pixelated?

          What graphics card do you use?

          4k be all realistic n shit

      2. Since when does anyone give a fuck what some 21 yo dipshit has to say?

        Is the NYT that desperate for cheap labor?

    2. This is up there with the lefties who say that it’s stupid that we have separation of powers and the consequent gridlock, we should just have a parliamentary system like the rest of the Anglosphere so things would get done.

      Of course when you remind them that if we had a British-style parliamentary system, John Boehner would be the Prime Minister who was “getting things done”, their heads explode.

    3. I’m sure they felt the same way in 2006.

  36. Not on your life

  37. In the case of Maryland, the answer is yes, hold your nose & vote Republican.

    The Dems will have a majority in both houses, if not a veto proof majority. It might be as much as you’d like, but some check on the power of a single party is better than no check.

    1. Indeed, but it still irks me that I have to vote for a milquetoast Republican when there were better candidates in the primary and the Libertarians are running much better candidates. Fuck FPTP.

  38. Short answer: maybe?

    I live in Maryland so I’ve been struggling with this. Nationally, I may as well vote for an aardvark because Maryland is as blue as it gets thanks to Baltimore and the DC commuter counties. Locally, though, there are enclaves that don’t just check whatever name’s next to “D” on the ballot. After O’Malley, there’s a really good chance Hogan, a pro gun rights, fiscally conservative Republican could get elected.

    My calculus goes as such: I start off wanting to vote Libertarian, but there aren’t that many L candidates. Now we’re looking at no vote, or a vote for a D or R. Ordinarily I’d go with a blank vote, but the Democratic party machine in Maryland, especially in Annapolis, is somewhere below a child sex trafficking ring ethically-speaking, and I long ago vowed never to vote Dem in this state. So, it comes down to how reprehensible I find the other candidates versus how horrible it would be for the Dem to win.

    In my case, I would benefit greatly from an “anti” vote, i.e. I’m not voting for anyone, but I’m voting against somebody.

    1. Hogan, a pro gun rights, fiscally conservative Republican

      Let’s not go crazy here. Hogan will undoubtedly be better than Brown, but relative to his Libertarian opponent, he’s milquetoast on both (but especially guns). The same goes for the Republican candidate for AG vs his Libertarian opponent. Also, there was a better Republican candidate in the gubernatorial primary (Lollar).

      They have my vote (it’s Maryland, after all), but only because their opponent is Brown and the polls are close enough (albeit favoring the Dems) that he could win.

  39. ????? This offer only UK , USA, Canada, Australia, New Zeland persons first 50 registeration free can join us ?????

    What Matthew responded I’m shocked that a stay at home mom can earn $8529 in four weeks on the internet . pop over here.

    Registeration free can join us ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.