MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Barack Obama Wins a Second Term. Now What?

At the end of election day 2012, here’s the situation in Washington, D.C.: President Barack Obama has won a second term as president. Democrats will remain in control of the Senate. Republicans will stay in control of the House. So where does that leave us? 

The fiscal cliff looms: At the beginning of next year, a slew of temporary tax cuts and spending measures will expire. If we allow this to happen as currently scheduled, the budget deficit will close significantly. But according to the Congressional Budget Office, allowing all the temporary measures to expire at once would also send the country into a second recession. Doing nothing, in other words, isn’t really an option. Yet postponing all the elements of the fiscal cliff risks perpetuating the nation’s unsustainable deficits. So far, however, legislators have deferred most discussion, preferring to wait until after the election to start figuring out what to do. Delay is no longer an option.

Entitlement spending remains unsustainable: In the long term, the biggest driver of  federal debt is the entitlements, with Medicare topping the list. Yet aside from minor payment tweaks, President Obama has proven unwilling to fundamentally rethink or reform the way the program works. Will he cut a deal with Republicans to overhaul Medicare and/or Social Security? He’s said he won’t unless Republicans agree to raise taxes on top earners — something they’ve so far refused to even consider. Which brings us to the next point...

The tax system remains a mess: Politicians in both parties pay lip service to the basic idea of tax reform, which usually involves simplifying the tax code, ditching loopholes, and reducing personal and corporate rates. Yet detailed proposals to reform the tax system are few and far between, and both campaigns have been clearer about the loopholes and deductions they wouldn’t get rid of than the ones they’d nix.

ObamaCare stays the law of the land: Whether Mitt Romney’s commitment to repealing the health care overhaul was real or not is no longer a question. Barack Obama is sure to defend his signature achievement, and so are Democrats in the Senate. The Supreme Court, meanwhile, has rules its individual mandate constitutional. So is the law here to stay? Not necessarily. A handful of legal challenges, including at least one that could unravel most of the law, remain. And even if the law survives legal challenge, the practical challenges of implementation, especially in resistant red states, will be a huge challenge.

The GOP will have an internal battle for direction — and possibly a civil war: Screenplay formula requires that late in every story, protagonists hit their lowest points, and then spend a few minutes in what’s known as a “long dark night of the soul,” where the protagonist ponders what he’s learned and comes to grip with who he really is. After its second successive presidential loss, the Republican party is likely to perform a similar public soul searching, perhaps with a long-simmering public battle.

And then there’s the budget: Senate Democrats haven’t passed a real budget in over three years. They should probably get around to that.

Also on the coming (s)hit list: immigration reform, another debt ceiling fight, death by drones, and the unended wars. Four more beers years! 

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.

  • Paul.||

    Pro L, Tulpa, John, the rest of you know who you are. Where my boys at? Come on, don't be shy!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I've been posting here all night, moron.

  • Paul.||

    Woo, sensitive.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I've been posting here all night, including back and forths with you yourself, and you try to paint it like I'm hiding. Fuck off.

  • Paul.||

    Talk about salty ham tears.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Go paint yourself purple and moo.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Paul, you're being retarded. You're even making Tulpa look rational.

  • Paul.||

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/10.....nt_3319761

    John|10.17.12 @ 11:55AM|#


    And it only got through by a miracle. Maybe you will get another miracle here. But I doubt it.

    Here is the thing. If Obama loses, are you going to admit how stupid your prediction was? You never know for sure. But it seems awfully stupid to bet on a president this incompetent no matter how much the media wants to help him.

    Come on now, no shame in it.

    Can we all now at least admit that when the Republicans run a focus-group-tested candidate, that it gets you nothing? That you wasted three years foisting a candidate on your party that had no significant differences between the incumbent, and the incumbent and his merry band of deluded supporters were actually able to sell the case that he'd be literally...literally be killing people in the street if he won?

    Maybe in 2016, the GOP will run someone, you know, really different.

    They're gonna hammer you anyway, so why not go for the gold?

    Quit going for the bronze hoping that no one on Team Blue will notice.

    Stand up for your beliefs.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Paul,

    Maybe in 2016, the GOP will run someone, you know, really different.

    Hmmm, no, they won't.

    Neither will the Democrats. It will be like being inside a never-ending time loop.

  • Sudden||

    My concern is that they will. They'll run Santorum.

    And he'll win, because he'll be running against a white guy inherent a dismal shitshow of an economy.

  • Adam330||

    Chances are that the Democrats will be running Biden.

  • fish||

    That is a potential presidency that I'd be interested in following!

  • ||

    "Can we all now at least admit that when the Republicans run a focus-group-tested candidate, that it gets you nothing? That you wasted three years foisting a candidate on your party that had no significant differences between the incumbent, and the incumbent and his merry band of deluded supporters were actually able to sell the case that he'd be literally...literally be killing people in the street if he won?"

    I hope we can all drink to that. Electability my ass.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I mean seriously, grow the fuck up. This is a terrible outcome and all you guys are interested in is tweaking the people who actually came out for the losing side instead of sitting on the fence or pretending to be above the fray.

    And in this case, you're lying.

  • ||

    Tulpa seriously go fuck yourself.

    Voting for Jonson is not sitting on the fence and voting for Johnson does put us above the fray.

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    My vote for Johnson was voting for better candidates. As far as I'm concerned the Republicans have let Obama run unopposed twice. In spite of that he still couldn't get but 50.3% (as of this writing) of the popular vote this time.

  • ||

    I predicted Romney would win.

    Glad I never bet you.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    CNN person just said that the Republicans lost because of having 20 primary debates.

  • ||

    It certainly made for ad fodder, regardless of the nominee.

  • Paul.||

    They had to find just the right candidate.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "But according to the Congressional Budget Office, allowing all the temporary measures to expire at once would also send the country into a second recession. Doing nothing, in other words, isn’t really an option."

    If you think Obama and the Democrats in the Senate are going to close the gap with spending cuts, you're out of your mind.

    There are worse things than the cliff the way it's set to go now. ...and Obama raising taxes is one of them.

    You call it a recession? I call it creative destruction.

    Bring on the creative destruction.

  • Incredulous||

    Agreed.

  • Lyle||

    Sounds like fucking Nero. The Romans didn't like him.

  • ||

    I'll be the one fiddling while everyone reaps what they sowed. There will be no greater vengeance for libertarians than the ability to smirk and say "I told you so" to all the suffering people when the whole thing comes crashing down on itself. At this point, that's the only way out of this mess, because heavens knows the electorate isn't going to wise up.

  • Peter Suderman||

    The expiration of the Bush-era income tax rate cuts is part of the cliff. Do nothing and they go up.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Obama will not be satisfied with simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire.

    He will want more new taxes than what we would get if the tax cuts simply expired.

    If the alternative is slashing the budget deeper, why wouldn't he want more taxes?

    He ran on raising taxes!

    He promised to raise taxes. He has a mandate to raise taxes--and he has the Senate behind him, too.

  • Foobarbazoo||

    Yup, Grover Norquist hardest hit. His time of influence (such as it was) is over.

  • Adam330||

    They go up on everyone though, so it's pain all around rather than on a few disfavored folks.

  • OldMexican||

    Barack Obama Wins a Second Term. Now What?

    Hold on to your wallets.

  • Alien Invader||

    And holding onto it is going to do precisely what good?

  • ||

    The clutching is therapeutic. Devoid of cash, a wallet becomes squishy, but resistant, and makes a decent replacement for a stress ball in a pinch.

  • OldMexican||

    Better than holding on to your dicks.

  • Foobarbazoo||

    You're doing it wrong.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "President Obama has proven unwilling to fundamentally rethink or reform the way the program works."

    That is factually incorrect.

    Obama has expanded Medicaid to cover between 11 million and 17 million more people by way of ObamaCare

    He's been perfectly willing to fundamentally rethink AND reform the way the program works.

    He's simply unwilling to make it smaller. He is willing to make it bigger, and now that he doesn't have to worry about getting reelected, I don't see why we shouldn't expect him to try to make the program even larger.

  • ||

    I think he's using "reform" as shorthand for "reform for the better".

  • Ken Shultz||

    I assure you, Barack Obama thinks what he's done with ObamaCare is reform "for the better".

  • Caleb Turberville||

    College kids dancing in the street on TV. They don't need much of an excuse to dance in the street, do they?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Joe Paterno cough cough

  • Caleb Turberville||

    The knee-jerk presidential cultists are giving the knee-jerk Paterno cultists a run for their money for most repugnant.

  • Sudden||

    Well played. Well. Played.

  • Paul.||

    Free college education is something to dance about.

  • Sudden||

    LOL, free just means paying for it later plus inflation. They don't realize this, but facts are stubborn things.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Except, of course, when they get out, they're going to have their bill. And the bills of every ne'er-do-well that decided that a 4-year vacation sounded like a super keen idea. And who are they to say no? They decided that it was alright for them to bleed others for their good time. Why should their veins be sacrosanct.

  • Atlas Stoned||

    Please excuse my fellow college students. Most don't have jobs and don't understand what it is like to be looted.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Good news for the Dems is that they probably still won't have jobs in four years.

  • Atlas Stoned||

    The unemployment rate for recent college grads will be higher.

    The silver lining is that the unintended consequences are still unintended.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    I'm not sure they're going to have a lot to loot. They can't be majoring in anything too hard to be out this late on a school night.

  • Atlas Stoned||

    The Art History exams are truly rigorous these days.

  • MJGreen||

    I was a libertarian before getting a full time job, but man... you really can't contemplate how much money gets withheld until you see the sum grow with each paycheck.

    It's even worse when you make some money on the side or when you were unemployed, and have to shell out FICA tax on April 15.

  • ||

    You report that shit? ...sucker

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I'm sure Mr Suderman will tell us how every Obama policy was invented by Romney for the next 4 years.

  • ||

    I'm sure you won't pipe up about criticisms of Obama, well, EVER. Shut the fuck up, you partisan retard.

  • Incredulous||

    We're basically screwed unless Obama grows a brain and drastically changes course.

    This is impossible so we're basically screwed.

    Unless he surrounds himself with people who have brains.

    But this won't happen.

    So we're screwed.

  • Ken Shultz||

    He just won a mandate to keep doing the same things he's been doing.

    Why would he change course?

  • Bingo||

    I dunno, I'm pretty impressed that Timmy Gheitner still has a job.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Does Obama think Geithner is doing a bad job?

    Not that Obama can tell the difference between a good job and a bad job, but I think Obama thinks Geithner's job was to get Obama reelected.

    Hell, if Obama could, he'd probably give Geithner a raise after this.

  • Bingo||

    Some sick part of me is gonna laugh as the economy continues to dive and Geithner continues to do his thing. The raise is inevitable though, our betters need raises when the cost of living is increasing at such a drastic rate.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Actually, the general consensus is that Geithner is going into the private sector now that the election is over. And, sadly, there's no shortage of banks or brokers willing to line up to hire a guy who's skill as a financial manager was so poor he got the "riskless bond" downgraded, but has Timmeh's Rolodex.

  • Zeb||

    I never get why politicians think that winning slightly less than 50% of the popular vote gives them some sort of mandate to rule. Half of the country voted against him.

  • Adam330||

    And the other half voted against the other guy.

  • ||

    After its second successive presidential loss, the Republican party is likely to perform a similar public soul searching, perhaps with a long-simmering public battle.

    Eh

    Reps may have got the popular vote in this presidential election and they kept the house.

    What should be a real gut punch for them is how bad they did with the senate.

  • Paul.||

    I haven't even read any debriefs on that. I have no idea what happened there. I'm sure NPR will inform me in the morning.

  • ||

    I think the simple claim would be that Aiken is a crazy idiot and he took the other Republican senators with him by his remarks.

    At least that is what the polls looked like to me at real clear politics...right after he said "raped women can't get pregnant or whatever" polls for all republican senators went down.

    Of course all politics are local so who the hell knows.

  • Paul.||

    I find it hard to believe that Akin took down the whole Senate.

  • ||

    Well he took himself down, and then that led to Mourdock's comments a few weeks later. So there's 2 right there.

  • SIV||

    Doing nothing, in other words, isn’t really an option.

    It is usually the best option.

    The expiration of the Bush-era income tax rate cuts is part of the cliff. Do nothing and they go up.

    They go up on everyone. Including the middle class and the working poor.
    Seems like almost everyone will "pay their fair share". Important lessons will be learned.

  • Nigel M||

    Def a mandate for higher taxes on the rich.

  • SIV||

    Higher taxes all around. I think the exit polls said 62% favor higher taxes.
    I was expecting a VAT no matter who won the election.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I think the exit polls said 62% favor higher taxes.

    Yeah, if they don't have to pay them.

  • OldMexican||

    Entitlement spending remains unsustainable: In the long term[...]

    In the long term, I'll be 45. I'm 44 right now. SS and Medicare are already in the red, so let's talk about how Romney actually dodged a bullet this time. He should count his blessings.

  • Paul.||

    Exactly. Medicare and SS continue their rocket ride to insolvency, and at best Romney would have slowed it down, let alone reform it or reverse it.

    I keep trying to give Tulpa (who's very pissed off right now) a positive nudge that the second Obama term may be the best thing that ever happened to the GOP. Burn baby burn. And we can blame it all on Obama.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Again, we've already discussed this. Exit polls show Bush is blamed more than Obama for the economy.

    Are you taking memory loss pills tonight?

  • Paul.||

    Yes, Tulpa, I know, and I agree. He's being blamed now. Will he still be blamed in four years? I find that hard to believe. Did the Republicans still blame Clinton in 2007?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The economy didn't crash under Clinton. They couldn't even blame him in 2001, what would they blame him for?

  • Paul.||

    If you'll recall, Republicans blamed everything that was wrong with America on Clinton. Including 9/11.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Bull. Show me where they blamed Clinton for 9/11.

  • ||

    Uh, do I need to link articles showing how Bin Laden was supposedly offered up to Clinton on a silver platter in 1998 but Clinton said they couldn't hold him and thus he left Africa for Afganistan?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    That's a specific criticism of a specific event, not what the BO-bots are doing with Bush on the economy.

    We can criticize Woodrow Wilson for campaigning for the income tax without similar accusations, I hope.

  • Paul.||

    Dude, I'm not going to quibble about the nature of the blame, but you're of seriously short memory if you don't recall the GOP pointing to Clinton when 9-11 happened.

    I'm not saying it gained huge traction, but the blame was going around. What CuriousGeorge said.

  • BC||

    I'm pretty sure that Dear Leader's delusional followers and the Palace Guard Media are going to ensure that he dodges any blame for the implosion. They'll manage to pin it all on the nearest carcass with an R attached to his name.

    (Mitch McConnell, would be my guess. I mean, look at how they made him the poster child for OMG REPUBLICAN OBSTRUCTION based on his remark about wanting to make Dear Leader a one-term president, despite the fact that he made that remark after the 2010 midterms, in the context of talking about how best to advance a GOP agenda.)

    I mean, look at the way he's wriggled out of responsibility for Fast & Furious, and the clusterfuck in Benghazi. You seriously think he's ever going to be held accountable for the economy crashing and burning? Seriously?

  • sasob||

    Probably not any more than Clinton was held responsible for the bottom falling out of the stock market when the tech bubble burst during the last year of his administration. I never cared for Bush, but less face it - he inherited economic problems that became and was declared a full-blown recession the day before 9-11 occured. I still think the tremendous amount of weaponry expended in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars was partly an attempt to prime the pump for the economy.

  • SIV||

    A VAT can sustain them past my lifetime.
    Sure the payments won't be worth as much. That's why they call it the "new normal".

  • Kevin from Arizona||

    This election reinforces my view that our politics are like Groundhog Day.

    Yesterday-Obama in the White House, the dopey GOP in the house, and insane Harry Reid running the Senate. Tomorrow-Exact Same Shit!

    All I want is Bill Murray playing the piano version of Symphony of Destruction by Megadeth.

  • MJGreen||

    Phil!? Phil Connors?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Come now, we can be honest. I am guessing that 90% of the reasoners here at Hit & Run were pining for Romney to win. I don't doubt that you don't like Romney, because there are more than ample reasons. But as libertarians, the last fours years of overt class warfare disgusted you. A presidency unchecked and unchallenged by a fawning media irked you. A full term of unabashed righteous statism was intolerable. You wanted to see a Romney victory because it would mean an upset the smug, satisfied and mindless Obamabots.

    You may not want to admit it to me, the commentariat or even perhaps yourselves, but it's true. (AND DON'T ACCUSE ME OF PROJECTION BECAUSE I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.)

  • Paul.||

    Meh. There's a lot of confusion and conflation (some of it deliberate, methinks) about the prediction that Obama would win and the desire for Obama to win.

    I would have loved an Obama loss because man, what a statement about their cult of personality.

    But on the other hand, I believe that the creative destruction that Obama's presidency is becoming will be a cautionary tale for the next election.

    Man, did Bush do us some damage or what?

  • Bingo||

    Obama is Bush.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    "I'll get you next time, Gadget."

    What are you, a cartoon supervillain? That's the best strategy you have?

  • Paul.||

    Because the GOP foisting Romney on their shoulders was a fucking genius strategy.

  • Paul.||

    Foisting. That's unintentionally funny.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    As it turns out, they needed someone more "moderate".

  • Paul.||

    As it turns out, they needed someone more "moderate".

    Twice the GOP has gone with "moderate" candidates. McCain was always the "maverick", admired by democrats because he tweaked the nose of his party. Reviled by base republicans because of McCain Feingold. Lost to Barack Obama in 2008.

    Then they take a run with Mitt Romney who was a former governor of the bluest of the blue states. The Michael Bloomberg of Massachusetts. A wealthy big business guy (Hey! Capitalism!) but generally a big government Team Player. Whatever gets the job done. Plus, he signed MassCare into law, and hey, how can the Dems criticize a guy who signed MassCare into law?

    The GOP picks a candiate any more Moderate, Tulpa, and they'll be running Michelle Obama against Joe Biden in 2016.

  • ||

    Are you sure about that?

    Looks like Johnson in key states may have been a spoiler.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...will be a cautionary tale for the next election.

    God I wish that would be the case. I think that the American economy will prove to be resilient enough to rebound in spite of Obama's policies, but will be credited as taking place because of Obama's policies. I don't know what's next. One can hope the president finds his inner civil libertarian, but in reality leftists seldom do.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You can only cut on your goose so many times before it stops laying eggs. The problems facing our economy now are unlike anything we've had to deal with before, even in the Depression.

    Remember, entitlement programs were a revenue source, not sink, back in the Depression.

  • Sudden||

    This exactly.

    Plus, the most onerous provisions of Obama's twi signature legislative achievements (PPACA and FinReg) go into effect in his second term.

    The reckoning will be thorough.

    Also keep in mind that any increases in economic output will immediately result in greater velocity of money that will spike inflation and interest rates. If interest rates return to historic norms, the debt service jumps over 300% and negates any and all gain in revenues.

    This economy is fucked for the next four years. It would've been had Romney won too. The hope is that the GOP finds it's inner libertarian and Rand gets the run in four years.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Judging by the teeth-gnashing on the other thread -- from people who claimed not to care in previous weeks -- you may be right (though 90% is a high estimate). But a lot of people around here have whipped themselves into such a delusional state that they probably don't realize how bad it's going to get.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Fist of Etiquette,

    Come now, we can be honest. I am guessing that 90% of the reasoners here at Hit & Run were pining for Romney to win.

    Most, certainly, didn't want Obama to win - including yours truly. I didn't harbor many hopes that a Romney government would really turn things around, but with Obama at the helm (again) there's no question that his awful policies and his demagoguery will continue to sully the political landscape as it has before.

    Just the though of hearing about how words like "ice cream" or "envision" carry hidden racist innuendo, for four long more years, is enough to make me gag.

  • Bingo||

    On the bright side, at least the free market isn't going to take the blame this time.

    Oh wait, Ezra Klein wrote that article about how both candidates are free market. We're fucked.

    Solyndra: free market as fuck.

  • cryptarchy||

    ^^ this, but when we finally collapse the free market won't be to blame. The worst thing would've been a Romney victory then a collapse, because all those sheep would've blamed the market on the failure and not current policy

  • ||

    I don't give a fig about Romney, but I really would have liked to see the Obama Kidz wailing and gnashing their teeth for the next few months.

  • hotsy totsy||

    Pretty much like you say, FOE, even though I voted for Gary Johnson.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    THAT WAS ROMNEY'S VOTE.

  • hotsy totsy||

    And in Colorado yet! At least Amendment 64 passed. Otherwise CO keeps rollin' the same.

  • The Knuckle||

    I am willing to say that is fairly accurate (at least for me)

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Agreed. I know I was.

    Unfortunately, Obama won in the worst way possible. We will have to see how it goes, but there are some tangible lost opportunities which libertarians should rightly be disappointed by.

  • SIV||

    That's me to a "T". Looks like we no longer live in a "center-right" country.
    The exits sound like America is ready for full blown Euro-socialism. More troubling personally is all the fb and other social media friends of mine who NEVER make/like/comment on political posts who came out of the woodwork praising god for Obama's reelection.

  • MJGreen||

    I got more invested in the election in the past weeks, for the reasons that Paul provided above. I was hoping for Mitt merely to see Obama's fans crushed.

    But that didn't happen. I feel slightly sad tonight. By Thursday, I won't care any more. Shit will continue to get shittier. And I've already learned to tune out Obama's voice, so that's one reason not to change horses in midstream.

  • ||

    I looked at this as a no-lose election.

    Obama loses: Yay, a week of lefty meltdowns.

    Romney loses: Hey, there's a small chance that the GOP puts up someone decent in '16 and the House wont be carrying his moderate water for 4 years.

  • ||

    I am guessing that 90% of the reasoners here at Hit & Run were pining for Romney to win.

    I would have liked an Obama loss.

    The idea that Americans kick the president out of office when the economy is crappy is a pretty good idea. Regardless of who or what is to blame. (it is our high debt to GDP ratio by the way)

    Also the millions of tears of lefties losing their idol and their following hyperventilation would have been nice as well.

    But the above does not describe the desire for a Romney win.

  • Jerryskids||

    I can't speak for anyone else but I was not 'pining for Romney to win' and I think my rationale is the same for more than 10% of the commenters here.

    Had Romney won the election it would have demonstrsted to the GOP that they can run any old POS candidate and win and that the libertarian wing of the GOP could be dismissed. A Romney win would have been far more devastating to libertarians than a Romney loss.

    Of course, the Tea Party folks have hurt the GOP far more than we have by actually having candidates win primaries and lose generals. We will have to wait and see if the GOP learns the right lessons from this. (My guess is no, the inner circle is just going to change the rules to insure no 'outsiders' can get anywhere in the GOP from here on out.)

    Our Constitution was set up with checks and balances specifically designed to keep the various branches fighting each other so as to prevent them from uniting in ravaging the general public. Four more years of gridlock and nothing getting done in Washington is realistically the best thing we can hope for until some serious small-government types get elected.

  • ||

    "You wanted to see a Romney victory because it would mean an upset the smug, satisfied and mindless Obamabots."

    I would like to see a different smug face every four years, so yeah, a part of me died a little inside when arguably the worst President since King George III actually got re-elected. The buildup to all this was like reading Casey at the Bat. I love how the Republicans told us libertarian minded folks to shove off because Mitt Romney was "the electable one." At least this result will wipe the smirk off of their faces. Mighty Romney struck out.

  • Bingo||

    The funniest thing about this article is that Suderman could have titled it: "Romney Wins. Now What?"

    You're slacking on the assignment, I'm sure all the reason writers had to write something for each candidate winning.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's odd to me that some people are acting like Obama's not going to do anything stupid--and Obama's fear of making bad public policy will somehow save the rest of us.

    I don't see why winning a mandate would make Obama shy about going further in doing what he's done doing what he promised to do.

    He's going to be much worse than he has been over the last two years--since the Tea Party victory. He has nothing to lose now.

  • Bingo||

    Yeah, its gonna be bad. Personally, I'm counting on student loan forgiveness and probably the "secretary of business" which will finally unite government and business so they can control competition profits.

    Obviously, Harvard reaching $100k per year tuition and Zero innovation in all sectors for several years is just a coincidence.

  • SIV||

    You're slacking on the assignment

    Welch is sharpening his blood-quenched axe.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Don't worry guys...it'll be ok.

    You still have a republican congress that will stonewall Obama.

    You'll just have to watch out for those executive orders.

    !!! THE BUMs WON !!! Now pay up...rich people.....

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Alice Bowie,

    You'll just have to watch out for those executive orders.

    Are you implying the American people just elected a banana republic dictator?

    Why, that's racist!

  • Ken Shultz||

    I suppose you're being facetious, but just in case? There's no way the Republicans in the House under John Boehner are about to mount a principled defense to keep spending down.

    You must be kidding!

    It was Boehner's behavior that made the Tea Party rise up outside of the Republican Party to begin with. If there's a bigger spender in Congress than John Boehner, I don't know who it is.

  • Bingo||

    ^^^ this this, all of this

  • Foobarbazoo||

    Yup, and Grover Norquist's reign is also over. The GOP *will* raise taxes, and all those "pledges" will mean nothing.

    Obama is going to run roughshod over the House the next six months, guaranteed.

  • Omni||

    Totally agreeing as well. I have the definite feeling the GOP house is going to cave in pretty big to O's tax & spending demands.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    So we have a loss, and a wild card.

    A loss because a repeal of ObamaCare is now minimal.

    A wild card, because no one -- but no one! -- knows what Obama's gonna do.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    We don't know exactly what he'll do, but it's certainly going to be something bad.

  • Paul.||

    There was absolutely no chance that Romney was going to "repeal" Obamacare. None. Zip. Zilch.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Are you kidding me? While this assumes the ability to do so (i.e, GOP control of the Senate), Romney's base and the general public would have crucified Rombot if he hadn't done as he publicly declared he would do -- and something that was a very popular move.

  • Paul.||

    Sort of like Obama's base crucified him for the continuation of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, the instigation of hostilities against Libya, the failure to close Guantanamo, the expansion of warrantless wiretapping and indefinite detention, a stiff legal fight against gay marriage, expansion of corporate welfare, a complete and total evisceration of Global Warming as a national topic, persistent high unemployment and a planned terrorist attack on American soil on the anniversary of 9-11 which resulted in an Ambassador and three other Americans being killed? Like that?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Romney's base isn't Obama's base. Look at what the TP did to RINOs in Congress compared to what the antiwar movement did to Dem war supporters in Congress.

  • Paul.||

    You're making my case for me, Tulpa. Don't you think that's crux of what I'm telling you? That the GOP might be able to run a more... principled candidate?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    A principled candidate is going to get shellacked in the general election if those principles include anything resembling ltdgov.

    The TP killed off the RINOs in the primaries. Very different.

    PS: I can't believe I'm having to explain this to a person who claims to be politically informed.

  • Paul.||

    Well they're certainly losing in the general election with a candidate that represents ultdgov.

    They lost in 08 to the anti-free speech pro-bailout, pro-tarp candidate.

    Time to try something different.

  • Paul.||

    They lost in 08 to the

    should be "lost in 08 with the"

  • Sudden||

    Well, both are technically correct.

  • ||

    Yeah, because running a progressive liberal has worked out well for the Repubs from an electability standpoint.

  • hotsy totsy||

    OR Roe v Wade. Or get rid of Planned Parenthood. Or make rape legal.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "A wild card, because no one -- but no one! -- knows what Obama's gonna do."

    Well, if you have to assume something? I don't see why you wouldn't just assume that he's going to keep doing what he's done in the past--and do what he promised to do during the campaign, too.

    We have a fiscal cliff coming up in a month.

    Obama promised to raise taxes.

    Why wouldn't we expect him to raise taxes?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I am more worried about the legislation, EOs, appointees and random corruption coming out of the WH than high taxes. A market can survive high taxes if everything else is good.

    Banana republicanism is imminent, unfortunately.

  • Ken Shultz||

    No.

    Avoiding high taxes is what everything else is about.

    With economies sagging all over the world, only conspiracy buffs and Paultards are worried about inflation.

    The reason spending sucks is becasue it ultimately needs to be paid for with taxes. The reason businesses are hoarding cash like never before and not expanding? Is because they think they're going to have to pay high taxes.

    Taxation is nationalization. The more taxes there are, the more our economy is centrally planned and wealth redistributed. Avoiding as much taxation as possible is the whole ball of wax.

    And taxes are going way up. Obama has a mandate to raise taxes. And I'll be damned if he isn't gonna use it.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I'm telling you, taxes -- especially on the margins -- don't matter as much as rule of law and limiting regulation.

    Look at Latin America. The problem there isn't, for the most part, high taxes -- it's corruption and bad regulation and informal use of executive power to regulate the economy. I think that with Obama's election we're going to see a lot more of that.

    Taxes won't help, but uncertainty is going to kill any prospects of growth IMO.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Look at this char of corporate profit margins:

    http://www.businessinsider.com.....low-2012-6

    They were at an all time high.

    So why aren't they spending?

    It isn't because of consumers. Consumer spending is actually up!

    Corporations aren't hiring and aren't spending--in large part--becasue they assume they're going to be paying much higher taxes in the future.

    And they're right.

  • Foobarbazoo||

    Corporations aren't hiring and aren't spending

    They are spending, they just don't have anything to spend on, and don't need to hire, either.

    Apple is a good example – it doesn't even know what to do with the money it's making, so it just gives it back to investors via a dividend. They sell everything they can make, and Foxconn is at max capacity.

    They could hire more people, but there aren't any programmers left to hire, and the pay is already stratospheric as it is to get the one's they've got.

    The simple fact is that with manufacturing moving to China, there simply aren't any jobs for people who are only fit to do that kind of work. Taxes have nothing to do with it.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The simple fact is that with manufacturing moving to China, there simply aren't any jobs for people who are only fit to do that kind of work. Taxes have nothing to do with it."

    The money American consumers save by buying things made in China gives them more discretionary income to spend on other things they couldn't afford otherwise.

    This is one of the basic things that makes economies grow. Productivity gains and technological innovation do the same thing. Productivity gains are great because they make it so people can get more stuff for less. Technology likewise--there are whole industries that exist today becasue we don't have to do things as inefficiently anymore. Those innovations put people out of work--but they saved consumers more than those people were making, and all that saved money turns into discretionary income.

    Getting more stuff for less money just isn't bad for the economy--no matter if Americans lose jobs or not. That's what creative destruction is all about, and we need more of it. That's what makes economies grow.

    We were not a wealthier nation when everyone was working on a farm or in a factory.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    "They sell everything they can make, and Foxconn is at max capacity."

    And, you would expect that the resulting business decision from this would be to expand capacity. To make and sell more. Yet they aren't.

  • hotsy totsy||

    I tend to agree with the trouser man. Lots of Latin Americans have the attitude that if they feel like paying taxes, they will and if they don't feel like it, they won't.

  • Lord Humungus||

    ^^ this (what TIT said)

  • ||

    You don't pay attention to commodity markets, do you?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, there's been some inflation, but that isn't the big concern--and hasn't been for years.

    If there's anything driving that kind of inflation right now, it's about what the Fed is doing--it's not being driven by the budget deficit.

    Hell, you can still buy a ten year treasury and get less than a 1.5% annual yield. That's partially because we're the prettiest horse in the glue factory--compared to what's going on in Europe and elsewhere.

    In other words, that's because the world's investors are more worried about getting into the relative safety of the dollar--more than they're worried about losing money in the U.S. dollar to inflation.

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    Wait, I can buy a ten year treasury? I thought the Fed owned them all.

  • ||

    Just because the bond vigilantes haven't come for the Treasuries yet doesn't mean they wont.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Oh sure, inflation will rear its ugly head eventually.

    But the biggest danger to the economy right now isn't inflation.

    The biggest danger is taxation.

    I'd much rather run bigger deficits and have lower taxation.

    If Obama soaks the rich like he's promised to do, we're gonna find out the hard way that taxation's a lot worse than carrying a deficit.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Not until Helicopter Ben steps off the scene. As a practical matter, you don't want to get into a pissing match with someone who can print money.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    "Hell, you can still buy a ten year treasury and get less than a 1.5% annual yield. That's partially because we're the prettiest horse in the glue factory--compared to what's going on in Europe and elsewhere."

    Well, actually it's at 1.78%. And that's in no small part becuase the Fed is buying up ten year notes on an ongoing basis.

  • XM||

    First of all, Obama (and the nation) will have to deal with all the destruction left on the East Coast by Hurricane Sandy. That will probably make a dent on the nation's economy, somewhere. It's kinda sad to think a tragedy of that scale was almost an afterthought to the presidential race. I imagine the GOP and some libertarians will continue to make an issue out of FEMA and the government's response.

    I don't foresee any internal battles for identity within the GOP. They'll probably stick with the formula that led to their resurgence in 2010, which will involve focusing on Obamacare and expiring tax cuts.

    They'll be renewed calls for them to appeal to the minority vote, and the GOP may very well moderate their position on immigration. But Obama won't be the candidate forever, and if what happened to Bush repeats, then O will be lame duck by 2014 or sooner.

    I've heard for so long that Obamacare would do some bad things to the nation. We have no choice but to find out.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The GOP will regroup under the most powerful Republican in the country.

    John Boehner. I'm trying to imagine anything less reassuring.

    The Republicans are going to be irrelevant for at least two years, and hope that something happens so they can take the Senate in two years.

    Two years of irrelevancy.

    Congratulations, America! The whole country is finally like California. Want to see America's economic policy come December?

    Look at Sacramento today.

    Overspending?

    Check.

    Irrelevant Republican Party?

    Check.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Chris Christie is dead to the GOP at the national level, that's for damn sure.

  • Alice Bowie||

    why?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Because he got up on a national stage three days before the election and blew Obama like a Kansas tornado.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Because he gave BO a plethora of soundbites showing how much of a uniter BO was in a crisis, working with Republicans smooch smooch smooch.

    Like I said, I hope he gets rewarded by NJ voters in his next election. (Hint: he probably won't) He said he didn't give a damn about politics after the storm... I hope that attitude continues in 2016 when he gets the presidential campaign itch.

  • Paul.||

    Because he gave BO a plethora of soundbites showing how much of a uniter BO was in a crisis, working with Republicans smooch smooch smooch.

    I dunno, Tulpa, given McCain in 08 and Romney in 12, sounds like Christie is the perfect "more moderate" candidate the GOP is looking for?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Nah, he fucked the team. Fucking the team doesn't make you a moderate, it makes you a dick.

  • ||

    Also, his '70's style gas rationing isn't going to do him any favors in 2016.

  • Alice Bowie||

    c'mon guys...it was a hurricane.

    Christie is not a bad guy.
    I wish Bill Maher would stop making fat jokes about him.

  • Ken Shultz||

    What he did was bad.

    He almost certainly got something from Obama for it, too.

    Those kinds of endorsements are the currency that politicians trade in, and if Christie didn't get something from Obama for what he did? Then he's the dumbest politician from New Jersey ever.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Corzine is a stout competitor.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    It's a Catch 22. If he got something, he can't talk about it during the gubernatorial elections of 2014 without jeopardizing his national stature even further.

  • ||

    What he got was Obama to do as little as he could to help Cory Booker out in 2014.

    I'm sure Obama saw that as a cheap play anyway, since Booker is likely on his shit list after his Bain defense.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    And dead to me, for that matter.

    The pundits say his brown-nosing Obama was the right thing for NJ. Well that's great -- I hope he doesn't have any need for Republican/ltdgov support outside NJ ever again.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Ah, I see the next round of Republican purity purges are beginning right on schedule.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Um, do you think the Republican party as constituted has the right politicans and people in place?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    No, but I don't think getting rid of Chris Christie does anything to help that.

  • ||

    He wont be purged, he'll just end up like Giuliani when the 2016 primaries come around.

  • Omni||

    RE: Hurricane Sandy, Chris Matthews once again knows how to say the right thing..."I'm so glad we had that storm last week"

    http://www.realclearpolitics.c....._week.html

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I saw exit polling from one state (forget which one) that like 8-9 percent of voters based there vote on Obama's reaction to Sandy.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Why are all u people surprised that in an Economic disaster like the one we are experiencing the people in need vote LIBERAL?

    Did you truly expect these people to vote for the guy that would cut their SAFETY NETS?

    The upward mobility is not happening the way it use to happen.
    Yea, we have a lot of millionaires but too many people broke.

    If you don't want Yugo Chavez, Barak Obama, and the like elected, Conservatives/libertarians should lighten up on cutting entitlements.
    Stick to economic and personal freedoms.
    Stick to ending the wars...all of them.
    Lay off on the killing of safety nets.

    Just as the republicans need to lose the religious right, you all need to lose the mean-guy attitude to the bottom 45%. And maybe they would vote for you.

    Face it, Obama was a crappy president. Romney is a moderate. And, they still voted in Obama.

    I'll tell u this though, if Obama was WHITE, he would have LOST.

  • ||

    *lip quivering*

    But...I like being mean to the parasites and other assorted poor people.

  • hotsy totsy||

    By the by, abortion is illegal in "Yugo" Chavez' Venezuela. Sucka apparently owns every single vagina in the country.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    If you don't want Yugo Chavez, Barak Obama, and the like elected, Conservatives/libertarians should lighten up on cutting entitlements.

    So the game is now "your money or your life"? Pay up or we unleash the fucking Jacobins/Brown Shirts on you?

    Does the term "ochlocracy" mean anything to you? If not, get familiar, NOW.

    Just as the republicans need to lose the religious right, you all need to lose the mean-guy attitude to the bottom 45%. And maybe they would vote for you.

    A man has no obligation to think kindly of his robber.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Yea, and that attitude that people on disability, unemployment, food stamps is a robber will get our party NO WHERE.

    Remember, as private businesses get shutdown to be replaced by WALMART.

    As educated high-paid american professionals get replaced by Foreign cheap labor.

    As full-time good paying jobs turn into part-time nigger pay jobs with no benefits.

    AS ALL THESE THINGS HAPPEN, less people will vote LIBERTARIAN....I PROMISE.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Yea, and that attitude that people on disability, unemployment, food stamps is a robber will get our party NO WHERE."

    And nobody's saying they are. The all-powerful government body which extracts that money through use of force is.

    If I take money from you at gunpoint, and turn around and give a minute portion of it to a blind man, does that un-rob you?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Remember, as private businesses get shutdown to be replaced by WALMART.

    Yeah, 'cause it's not Wal*Mart is....a private business or anything. And what the hell buinses is it of mine or yours if one private business beats another in free market competition. Odds are I should be happy because it's served its customers better.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    "Political systems must love poverty—they produce so much of it. Poor people make easier targets for a demagogue. No Mao or even Jiang Zemin is likely to arise on the New York Stock Exchange floor. And politicians in democracies benefit from destitution, too. The US has had a broad range of poverty programs for 30 years. Those programs have failed. Millions of people are still poor. And those people vote for politicians who favor keeping the poverty programs in place. There’s a conspiracy theory in there somewhere."

    -P.J. O!

  • Zeb||

    I think there is something to this. You can't do everything at once. And I think that convincing people that policies of economic freedom are actually good for the poor and put smaller companies on a more equal footing with large corporations would be an easier sell, and provide more immediate benefits to people in general than cutting entitlements or the safety net. We need to spend a lot more time explaining how economic freedom is good for ordinary people and is not good for giant corporations (or at least is not a special favor to them).

  • Bill Dalasio||

    So, summarizing your argument, if we want to reduce the size and scope of government, we should accept the thing that's most causing the size and scope of government to expand wildly out of control.

  • ||

    "Did you truly expect these people to vote for the guy that would cut their SAFETY NETS?"

    Actually, we have a more optimistic view of human intelligence than that. This optimism turned out to be misplaced, but nonetheless, we expect that people have enough self esteem not to consider themselves subjects and children of the benevolent state. Turns out, no such self esteem exists. Elections really and truly are an "advance auction in stolen goods," as H.L. Mencken once wisely put it. We would also hope that people would be more analytical and reactionary towards the gas shortages created by price controls in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, and that this analysis would extend beyond the heartstring of seeing their parents, Cristie and Obama, hand an hand together. Again, this hope and optimism in humanity was greatly misplaced. We apologize from the bottom of our heart for even caring.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    SO does this mean Obama is finally going to pay off her mortgage and gas?

  • Sudden||

    No, but we might.

  • EdwardsC||

    Guys, we're only one tax increase away from prosperity!

  • ||

    I'm glad BO won. In fact, I'm fucking giddy that the incompetent fuckstick appears to have a mandate. IMHO, the only way for things to change is for the whole god damn house of cards to collapse. And BO is going to make that happen sooner than Mittens would.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Spinning the wheel of disaster isn't a good way to get the sort of change you desire.

  • ||

    But it can be great fun depending on where the wheel lands.

  • Bingo||

    I'm with Troy. Time to up the alcohol & drug intake and disregard social conventions.

  • Paul.||

    More like "revving up the engine of disaster", but umm, I'm going to disagree with you on this.

    Clearly, four years of Obama wasn't enough to make people say, "Hang on!", so yes, some of believe that maybe four more will be instructive.

    To be candid, when the Zombie apocalypse is upon us in 2016, and Romney is our only counter choice, I may finally vote for him then.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Is it like the Wheel of Time?

  • Paul.||

    More like the wheel thingy in Thunderdome.

  • ||

    I don't have anything to lose. Not a house, a car, a 401K, nothing.

    If people want to drive this train over a cliff. Fine. Full speed ahead.

    And if all these middle class fucks who do have something think this guy is on their side. Good. I hope they get their fucking good and hard. They deserve it.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    And they say that libertarians don't believe in a vengeful god.

    Suffice it to say, I am more concerned about the people that didn't want this getting shafted even hard, than I am about the outside possibility that some Obama supporter, somewhere will feel the poetic justice of their situation.

    BTW, I hope your situation improves.

  • ||

    "I am more concerned about the people that didn't want this getting shafted even hard, than I am about the outside possibility that some Obama supporter, somewhere will feel the poetic justice of their situation."

    The people that didn't want it can't be shafted any harder anyway. I'm more interested at this point in poetic justice against their opressors.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Learned helplessness is a bitch.

  • ||

    "the only way for things to change is for the whole god damn house of cards to collapse."

    After watching last night's support for the status quo, I am inclined to agree with you.

  • hotsy totsy||

    I'm betting on the economy to downspin even further with Obama's next term. Maybe enough to shake some sense into some people. Obama claimed that it was Bush who wrecked the economy and after his hard work and guidance as President, it was now starting to recover.

    The only silver lining is because Romney seemed hell bent on a trade war with China, the economy probably would have also taken a turn for the worse, and then the "free market" gets blamed.

  • Paul.||

    That China trade war shit was the stuff that actually made me reel back from Romney. Most of what he said was either "meh" or didn't strike me as meaningfully different than Obama.

    Even his 'repeal' of Obamacare was, by his own admission, going to leave in all the shit that made Obamacare bad.

    But his saber rattling with China just seemed, awful.

  • Alice Bowie||

    I can't wait 2 hear what u people would say if the economy actually turns around.

  • Paul.||

    Me 2.

  • ||

    I'd say that it's pretty resilient, and only 3 years late.

  • ||

    I guess I would have to eat my word as I cash a bigger paycheck. OMG that would suck.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    I can't wait 2 hear what u people would say if the economy actually turns around.

    How about you hold your breath while waiting for it?

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    It'd likely be similar to what I'll say when perpetual motion is finally perfected.

  • ||

    I'd say that economies recover on their own, even despite growth-inhibiting policies.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Jug Ears is a "we need more regulation. Corporations are evil" prat. If the economy turns around on his watch, it will be in spite of him, not because of him.

    Not that he won't get credit. Or claim it. Hell, if he had any sense of shame, he would have turned down his Nobel.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    I'll say "Yay! About time! Four frigging years is too goddamned long for a recovery to really take hold!". But, honestly, I'm not too afraid of being put into a postion of having to say that. Remember, we're on the upside of a business cycle. It's possible that we could see things turn upward from here. But, it's not really very likely at all. The much, much more likely inflection point for the economy is on the downside. And it's not like there's a shortage of catalysts for a downturn out there - the European banking-government circle jerk, the fiscal cliff. Hell, even if everything goes exactly perfectly at this point Q4 numbers are going to look pretty hellcacious.

  • Proprietist||

    Gary Johnson's broken a million (1.0%) according to http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results

  • XM||

    I'm becoming somewhat pessimistic on all the foreboding talk of "looming fiscal cliff" or "unsustainable spending". It's true, but the consequences probably won't manifest in a way that we like to imagine it - massive ghost towns, empty malls, random riots that burns towns, or any kind of "great depression" scenario that wakes up the nation from their slumber and lead to action.

    In truth, if unemployment hit 15% tomorrow and Apple came up with a new iphone, they'll be long lines outside their stores. Every mall and movie theatres will be packed on the weekends. The 1% everyone hates still brings in tons of revenue somewhere.

    To be honest, I'm don't buy that this is a true "depression". The one great depression America had was probably TAME compared other economic catastrophe that ushered in all kinds of dictators. The nation is still enough of a powerhouse that they can still gloss over problems by printing out money or bailing out industries without being hit by the kind of (IMF) crisis that gripped Asia in the late 90's.

    The nation is having a tougher time than they're used. But I think something more grave needs to happen before voters start to change their minds about some things.

  • Paul.||

    OT late breaking observation by... ME!

    Gas was over $4 a gallon here in washington until... what, three days before the election? Then it dropped nearly $.50 a gallon in three days.

    Coincidence?

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Whenever I hear Obama say "difficult compromises" I think he really means "Republicans need to see it my way".

  • Paul.||

    I thought it just meant I had to get out my wallet.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    I always thought it meant we had to move our hands to the same regions to greese up.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Elections have consequences. Something my "principled non-voter" friends don't understand/care about.

  • Paul.||

    A lot of the principled non-voter friends (as I recall) lived in heavily fortified blue states. Their vote would have had the same effect as voting for Donald Duck (as you once postulated many moons ago).

    But yes, I agree, they do have consequences, and I voted for Gary Johnson (who's showing 1% here in Washington). I'm hoping the ripples of that are seen as consequences.

  • Jerryskids||

    Yes, elections do have consequences. Generally, the consequence is ass-raping. We do understand that. What we think you fail to understand is that the ass-raping is going to happen regardless of who wins the election.

  • Sevo||

    Tulpa (LAOL-PA)| 11.7.12 @ 2:00AM |#
    "Elections have consequences. Something my "principled non-voter" friends don't understand/care about."

    Yes, they do, and voting for Robama gets you what you deserve.

  • Paul.||

    Medical Marijuana wins handily in Washington. Charter schools looks to have pulled ahead in Wa. Gay Marriage wins as well.

    Dems take practically every race in Wa. Cantwell showing 60%.

    Remember when the wisdom was that the opposite party tended to make gains during the incumbent president's second term? Or was that midterm elections?

    Fuck, it's getting late.

  • Lyle||

    Four more years of progressives feeling good about themselves

  • Paul.||

    Do progressives ever not feel good about themselves?

  • Epicdelusion||

    Smug mother fuckers, ain't they? They are some notoriously bad "winners" too.

  • Paul.||

    Look at the bright side, everyone! As I said before, Barack Obama has done one (1) good thing by my estimation: He has eviscerated Global Warming as a national topic. Four more years of that, we won't even know what anyone is talking about when they talk about "climate change".

  • John C. Randolph||

    I'm just kind of wondering how long it will take for Rand Paul to rescind and apologize for his very ill-advised endorsement of Willard.

    -jcr

  • RoninX||

    Regardless of who won, I knew I wasn't going to be thrilled with the outcome of the election. Is it better to have an adversary you fight face-to-face or an "ally" who will stab you in the back at the first opportunity?

    It's going to be annoying as hell listening to liberals declaring this as a victory for "progressive" values. But at least we know where Obama stands, and that the GOP House will be willing to put up a fight. I still have no idea what Romney truly believes or what he would have done if elected, but I'm sure the GOP would have just followed along regardless.

  • coma44||

    Barack Obama Wins a Second Term. Now What?

    Time to go Gault.

    Shut down, walk away and leave it to the talentless #$%@'s.

  • Stephdumas||

    A bit off-topic, Michigan voted "no" on proposition 2 for the "Protect our jobs"
    http://reason.com/blog/2012/11.....ips-in-mic
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....80767.html

    Perhaps I'm too optimist but could be possible then Obama and the Democrats inherited a phyrric victory in a more long-term?

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Ok, the American Imperium is now a virtual certainty. Obama has had a small selection of foreign policy successes (he's done reasonably well with China, for instance) but when it comes to the Middle East he's in over his head and doesn't even seem to be aware that he's under water. Not good. Sometime in the next four years his bumbling is going to result in a serious terror attack on the U.S., which his administration will have fumbled because it is in the nature of Liberal Democrats to underestimate the effectiveness of the violent. And the populace will well and truly lose its collective temper. The anti-war Left spent the Bush years (among other idiocies) trying to claim that we had lashed out in unreasoning rage after 9/11. The world will get to see what America in an unreasoning rage looks like. It ain't gonna like the lesson.

    By the time the country recovers its composure, sometime in the mid 2020's, we will be governing much of the Middle East. We may have broken the European Union (it will depend on how fast the cockroaches in Brussels figured out that they had to get the f*ck out of our way). A lot of the Fashionably Radical will be in jail, and so will various borderline Islamic operatives. And there won't be any good way to go back.

  • T o n y||

    I have my microscope at the ready to detect whatever decrease in personal liberty will result from the full implementation of Obamacare.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 11.7.12 @ 9:37AM |#
    "I have my microscope at the ready to detect whatever decrease in personal liberty will result from the full implementation of Obamacare."

    Shithead, it's obvious that ignorance is such as to blind you.
    No amount of technical assistance will help.

  • Sevo||

    Alice Bowie| 11.7.12 @ 1:38AM |#
    "I can't wait 2 hear what u people would say if the economy actually turns around."

    Dunno. FDR managed to keep the depression going for, oh, 8 years. Obama's pretty stupid; maybe he'll go for a tie.

  • Loki||

    Barack Obama Wins a Second Term. Now What?

    Why, "FORWARD", of course. All the off the motherfucking cliff, that's what.

    At least pot is legal here in CO. Maybe I can dull the pain of these next four years. Unfortunately we have leftist retard governor who will undoubtedly salute and say "yes sir" when Eric Holder's goon squads show up.

  • dsc9wfree||

    Only hope: Rand Paul 2016.

  • Willis||

    At this point, I don't see how the GOP go with someone besides Rubio in 2016 at this point, look at the bench.

    Jindal is a no until he gets some new vocal chords.
    Paul Ryan's political future just got tainted, doubt that the GOP would pick him for 2016 at this point.
    Christie is a fuck no.
    Nikki Hayley, maybe as a VP.
    Rand Paul, very possible VP pick.
    Jeff Flake is also up there as a more than likely GOP pick.

    Of course the GOP could run Scott Walker, John Kasick, or Bob McDonell.

  • Coach Panto||

    There is no way to recover the liberty we once had.
    What we need to do now is go to war.

    If you have a statist friend, get rid of it.
    If your spouse is a statist, split up.
    If your adult kid is a statist, cut it off.
    If you can fire a statist, fire it.
    If you have a statist colleague, minimize dealing with it.
    If you can cause a statist to lose business or social standing, do it.
    If you can cause a statist organization problems, do it.

    This conflict has become a religious war. It's meritocracy vs parasitism.

    Which side are you on?

  • ||

    I'm on yours. It's hard to believe anymore in appeals to reason.

  • Epicdelusion||

    This isn't cool. Same shit the leftists do.

  • Sam Grove||

    Grammar police.

    "And even if the law survives legal challenge, the practical challenges of implementation, especially in resistant red states, will be a huge challenge."

    The practical challenges will be a challenge?

    also:

    "The Supreme Court, meanwhile, has rules its individual mandate constitutional."

    has ruled....has ruled.

  • Epicdelusion||

    Reason writers are all drunk when they do this shit man. give some credit. Perfect grammar is a sign of totalitarianism.

  • Lisa||

    Although I would have preferred Romney to win, I don't blame libertarians for Obama's re-election. I blame the people like the idiots I worked with today. Some actual quotes:

    "Yay! Now rape won't be legalized" (seriously)

    "Social Security won't be stolen from old people!"
    me: "You know the program will run out of funds regardless of who's in office, right?"
    "Pshaw!!! Do your research! We'll just rearrange the money. It will be fine"
    (at that point, I came to my senses and stopped wasting my breath)

  • Epicdelusion||

    I never debate politics with anybody in real life. Stick to message boards, easier to ignore idiots... plus you can alt+tab to youtube whenever you want.

  • ||

    I love it that a literary construction at least as old as Victor Hugo and possibly as old as Homer is identified here as a "screenplay formula".

    I hope it means Suderman is really, really young.

  • manial||

    IThe Main Stream Media is a concubine of the Democratic party (or vice versa- a debate for a later time) and unless that is neutered the Republicans have zero chance of winning on a national stage going forward. The MSM lies and avoidance of issues like Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the economy, gas prices, unemployment, impact of Hurricane Sandy, relations with Israel and our other allies, the slide of the dollar, and one can go on and on with list of deceit and lies from the likes of CBS, NBC, ABC, and every major US newspaper. They did what they think is their job to get Obama elected, and where was the Republican Party and many so called conservative pundits? Stop whining and making excuses, do something, embarrass the press into doing their jobs. The Republicans need to make a national stage of the lies and misinformation coming out so the American people can really see what is going on, unless something is done no Republican will ever sit in the white house again. For me that is the lesson of the 2012 election, the Republican party and every Republican and conservative must declare war on the MSM. Imagine if a 100 million or more US citizens stop buying newspapers, stop watching ABC, CBS, NBC and affiliated local and cable provided stations like ESPN, Disney, HBO for a year, it would send these companies into a panic as ad revenues and bottom lines plummet. Cast another vote, Vote against the MSM until they start telling the truth!

  • nikea||

    This energy “rebound effect” has important implications for efforts to restrain climate change through conservation. Various studies have suggested that improvements in efficiency could reduce energy consumption enough to cut global carbon dioxide emissions by as much as 25 percent during the http://www.drdrebeatsbydreau.com/ next four decades. But this is a highly controversial area of scholarship.

  • nikea||

    The GOP will have an internal battle for direction — and possibly a civil war: Screenplay formula requires that late in every http://www.nikefootballcleatstrade.com/ story, protagonists hit their lowest points, and then spend a few minutes in what’s known as a “long dark night of the soul,” where the protagonist ponders what he’s learned and comes to grip with who he really is. After its second successive presidential loss, the Republican party is likely to perform a similar public http://www.cheapfootballcleatsairs.com/ soul searching, perhaps with a long-simmering public battle.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online