WombatControl: qorkfiend: I am shocked, shocked, that liberals don't quite match your personal definition of "liberal".

FTFY:

I am shocked, shocked, that liberals don't quite match your personal the dictionary's definition of "liberal".

No one's trying to suppress your freedom of derp. Take those nails out and come down off that cross, it isn't a toy.

WombatControl: the opposite of charity is justice: Take the 2008 electoral map and adjust. I'm predicting any swing states that Obama won by 5 or more points in 2008 will stay with him, less than 5 points go to Romney. That would keep Obama CO, IA, NV, OH, and VA with Romney taking FL, MO, and NC. That gives Obama 303 electoral votes to Romney's 235.

Probably the best option Romney has is not wasting his VP pick on Rubio (FL is going to be close anyways, just throw money at this problem) and instead go for a veep out of OH or PA.

This isn't going to be a repeat of 2008 - not by a longshot. The same factors aren't going to be in play, so looking at 2008 as a baseline doesn't really get you to the dynamics of this race.

MO and IN are fairly safe for Romney. McCain won MO last time, and Obama won IN.

I don't see VA and NC going to Obama this time around. Obama won them in 2008 by getting the African-American vote, the youth vote, and the independent vote strongly behind him. The first two are not going to turn out in 2008-style numbers because they're taking the worst of this economy. The independent vote is far more up for grabs today than it was in 2008. It will be close, but those were states that Obama picked up due to factors that don't exist today.

The polls show OH leaning Obama now, but state-level polling this far out is not that reliable. If Obama wins OH, Romney is probably not going to win. (On the other hand, if Romney wins PA, Obama will probably lose.) That's the state to watch. (As it was in 2004.)

TFA is right - there isn't really that strong a path for Romney to get to 300 electoral votes (unless he wins PA, which is possible but unlikely). But there are several paths he has to get to 270, which is all he needs.

I know the Fark Liberal™ community thinks the race is over and Obama will win by a margin of at least eleventy billion percent, but the math doesn't work that way. But then again, I recall that in 2010 all the Fark Liberals™ were telling everyone t ...

LOL Keep smokin that stuff.

As a Canadian, I am increasingly worried that roughly 1/2 the population of the Superpower along our border is insane...

mrshowrules: coeyagi: mrshowrules: Skarekrough: What I think has been amazing is that already the rhetoric has been ratched-up to near pants-crapping intensity and it isn't even the Summer yet. They haven't even started the debates.

If I were in the news business I would demand all employees take their vacation and sick days now because once the Fall hits it's going to go full-retard.

The rhetoric has been subsiding for a couple months now IMHO. I think the rhetoric peaked in the GOP primary. I'm not convinced it will increase beyond that until October.

You don't think the 200+ million dollars in the SuperPAC war chests are going to be used for reality-based advertisements and the feel-good commercials of the Summer and Fall, do you?

It will be so "full retard" that the Special Olympics is going to step in and file lawsuits.

The avalanche of retardation didn't change the presumptive nominee (Romney) from becoming nominee and another round of it won't change the incumbent President from being re-elected unless the economy tanks.

I never said that full retardation would eventually change the outcome of the race, I am just saying that it is practically inevitable to occur.

WombatControl: Liberalism is supposed to mean support for the rights of the individual, limited interference in personal affairs by the government, and intellectual open-mindedness.

The reason why I'm keeping with the Fark Liberal™ term is that many "liberal" posters on Fark don't support those values. Rather, the term Fark Liberal™ implies someone who is a closed-minded reactionary who puts the power of the state ahead of the rights of the individual.

Not sure why I'm jumping into this argument, but... I consider myself a moderate statist, which probably makes me a lefty liberal on the American political axis, but I'm a strong believer in civil rights. IMO government has a role to play in regulating public goods like air, water, defense, and public health. These are goods that even if a person does not pay for them directly, if enough people do (through taxes or payment for a private service), then the entire public enjoys the benefits at least to some degree. This apparently is an idea that Supreme Court Justice Scalia did not understand and Solicitor General Donald Verrilli could not explain. This is the idea of liberal statism -- that the public, through elected officials and their appointees, needs to have the power to regulate public goods.

Contrast that with conservative statism, which tends to manifest itself in the form of enforcing a view of "moral" individual behavior -- such as harsh sentencing for drugs and various crimes, or limits to rights/benefits for women and homosexuals. And then there's the veiled racism and xenophobia, which is just a tad squicky for me personally.

soup: Commas, really, can be inserted just, about, anywhere in a sentence according, to subby.

And Subject/Verb Agreement do not matter, either, do it?

wippit: As a Canadian, I am increasingly worried that roughly 1/2 the population of the Superpower along our border is insane...

As an American, I am increasingly worried that roughly 1/2 of the population I deal with on a daily basis at work, at the bar, at the post office, at the supermarket, at the movie theater, at Staples, at Home Depot, at the mall, on the highway, in restaurants and at the farking zoo is insane.

You got off easy, bro.

Weaver95: also, speaking as an American...can you PLEASE teach people from Quebec that turn signals aren't just for decoration? I see a lot of people with Quebecian plates on the main corridor north and almost none of 'em can merge with traffic or use their turn signals. thanks! I'd appreciate it.

Fraid not... no Canadians live in Quebec...

/just sayin...

Romney is an unprincipaled lying sack of crap. He should enter into a murder-suicide pact with Ann.

Weaver95: also, speaking as an American...can you PLEASE teach people from Quebec that turn signals aren't just for decoration?

And when you get done with that, how about coming out to California and doing the same?

Lenny_da_Hog: In all fairness. the Republicans have never relied on Reality to win elections.

It is working well for RON PAUL.

wippit: As a Canadian, I am increasingly worried that roughly 1/2 the population of the Superpower along our border is insane...

*coughcoughcoughHarpercough*

/In other news, I've already begun stockpiling popcorn.

Cletus C.: The economy will determine who wins this election.

Sure, if there were two comparable candidates. Alas, the Republicans apparently decided to wing it.

I don't think that there's anyone here who would disagree with the notion that Romney has a hard fight ahead of him.

The problem he faces is that he's fighting to get back the political 'middle-ground' that the GOP ceded to the Democrats years ago, and he's having to try and get it back with the wavering and half-hearted support of a base that doesn't want the GOP to be in the middle-ground.

They don't want to be there, they don't feel that moderation is the way to go, so they don't put their heart into it.

The Democrats, however, have morphed into a central-right leaning party with minorities still fixated on leftist issues, but they are kindly and repeatedly ignored by the majority.

Even with a base that supported him, he'd have a hard time getting that middle ground back against an incumbent President with a number of victories under his belt.

And he's facing the man who gave the order to kill Osama Bin Laden, arguably our generation's version of Adolf Hitler(in terms of national hatred and nothing more, yes, I Godwinned the thread, so what?).

Romney is doomed and everyone knows it. Why do you think no one's leaping to be his VP?

Spaced Lion: wippit: As a Canadian, I am increasingly worried that roughly 1/2 the population of the Superpower along our border is insane...

*coughcoughcoughHarpercough*


Harper's more misguided than insane...

I am now convinced the Politics tab is nothing more than a stomping ground for threadshiatting trolls. I can't remember the last time I witnessed a reasonable discussion.

WombatControl: InmanRoshi: Karl Rove's current electoral map....

[rove.com image 640x478]

That's interesting. If Romney can't win Ohio, he really doesn't have a shot at winning nationally.

What's interesting is that Obama's job approval in Ohio is right at the cusp of where an incumbent is in serious trouble. (47% approval or lower and an incumbent President will generally lose that state.) Obama's approval rating in OH is 47% positive, 49% negative. Numbers like that should be very bad for Obama. But he's over performing those numbers in head-to-head polling.

Your concern is noted.

Which suggests that Romney isn't closing the deal in Ohio - not good news for Romney. But if Romney does as well with Ohio Republicans as he's now doing nationally, those numbers could change.

Still, Romney's going to have to do much better in Ohio to have a chance of winning the election.

No Republican has ever won the presidency without winning Ohio, so I wouldn't exactly call that a deep thought.

Looking at Rove's map, it's clear that Romney has to (1) hold his base and the states leaning to him, (2) sweep the swing states, and (3) take away Michigan, Ohio or Pennsylvania. I don't see how he accomplishes the second, much less the third, but I'd love to hear your ideas.

So it's an article about multiple electoral maps, and the art they choose is... Romney written on a chalkboard?

DubyaHater: I am now convinced the Politics tab is nothing more than a stomping ground for threadshiatting trolls. I can't remember the last time I witnessed a reasonable discussion.

Well DUH

wippit: Spaced Lion: wippit: As a Canadian, I am increasingly worried that roughly 1/2 the population of the Superpower along our border is insane...

*coughcoughcoughHarpercough*


Harper's more misguided than insane...

It was less an implication that Harper is insane, and more an implication that the people who elected him are insane. They have far-right loonies in Canada, too; they're just usually more polite aboat it.

/No I don't mean coins

Bontesla: vernonFL: FIrst of all, the election isn't until November.

Second, THE ELECTION ISN'T UNTIL NOVEMBER.

Short of Obama being associated with a dead girl/ live boy scandal, November is prolonging the inevitable.

I agree.

I'm much more worried about the House and the Senate than Obama's re-election.

After Romney loses I hope Republicans realize the problem of nominating a MODERATE and choose a REAL conservative to run in 2016.

wippit: Harper's more misguided than insane...

Okay, what about the sweatervests, then? You still going with "misguided" for those?

Carth: After Romney loses I hope Republicans realize the problem of nominating a MODERATE and choose a REAL conservative to run in 2016.

Personally, I'm hoping that the loss will catapult them so far off the derp end that they come back around on the side of sanity and nominate Huntsman.

DubyaHater: I am now convinced the Politics tab is nothing more than a stomping ground for threadshiatting trolls. I can't remember the last time I witnessed a reasonable discussion.

So true yet no limited to the tab. Politics in general seems to evolved into religion style discussions where it facts are viewed as no more than opinions that are biased to in one direction or the other.

WombatControl: What's interesting is that Obama's job approval in Ohio is right at the cusp of where an incumbent is in serious trouble. (47% approval or lower and an incumbent President will generally lose that state.) Obama's approval rating in OH is 47% positive, 49% negative. Numbers like that should be very bad for Obama. But he's over performing those numbers in head-to-head polling.

Republicans are about as popular as food poisoning in Ohio at the moment after SB5 (which Mitt on record supporting), and Mitt's stance against the auto bailout isn't going to do him any favors in a state that supplies the materials and inventory for Detroit's automakers.

Carth: After Romney loses I hope Republicans realize the problem of nominating a MODERATE and choose a REAL conservative to run in 2016.

Oh God, please do. Get someone like Gingrich or Santorum into the general. That would go a long way towards fixing the political problems in this country.

/Sure, it'd be because the fascist Republican party would finally be completely marginalized and a sane party could take its place as the opposition, but hey, whatever works.

theorellior: WombatControl: The reason why I'm keeping with the Fark Liberal™ term is that many "liberal" posters on Fark don't support those values. Rather, the term Fark Liberal™ implies someone who is a closed-minded reactionary who puts the power of the state ahead of the rights of the individual.

There's gotta be a more snarky and amusing way to get this across. And, as I said, it's tied in with the League of FAIL too much. Perhaps Open-Minded Farker™ would work?

I think you're on to something there... Tolerant and Open-Minded Progressive Farker™ perhaps? (Bit long though...)

Philip Francis Queeg: Tell us what political description exactly matches all of your views.

I roughly self-identify as a Burkean traditionalist conservative. To borrow a quote from Michael Oakeshott: "To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss."

But there is no "political description" that "exactly matches" anyone's political views.

Spaced Lion: Carth: After Romney loses I hope Republicans realize the problem of nominating a MODERATE and choose a REAL conservative to run in 2016.

Personally, I'm hoping that the loss will catapult them so far off the derp end that they come back around on the side of sanity and nominate Huntsman.

No way. When Romney doesn't win the next nominee will at least be a Christian.

InmanRoshi: WombatControl: What's interesting is that Obama's job approval in Ohio is right at the cusp of where an incumbent is in serious trouble. (47% approval or lower and an incumbent President will generally lose that state.) Obama's approval rating in OH is 47% positive, 49% negative. Numbers like that should be very bad for Obama. But he's over performing those numbers in head-to-head polling.

Republicans are about as popular as food poisoning in Ohio at the moment after SB5 (which Mitt on record supporting), and Mitt's stance against the auto bailout isn't going to do him any favors in a state that supplies the materials and inventory for Detroit's automakers.

It really depends on the attention span of the voters. Mitt's positions change faster than someone using the Kama Sutra as a flipbook.

Spaced Lion: Carth: After Romney loses I hope Republicans realize the problem of nominating a MODERATE and choose a REAL conservative to run in 2016.

Personally, I'm hoping that the loss will catapult them so far off the derp end that they come back around on the side of sanity and nominate Huntsman.

Oh, they won't. They 'might' in 2016, but we have at least one more lol-tastic election in 2014 ahead of us.

I'm firmly convinced that it's Obama's color and background and generally the man himself that his driving them to this level of foam-at-the-mouth retardedness.

Once he gets re-elected and then they know that he'll be gone in 2016, they'll start to calm down and start thinking rationally again and move back to the center, or try to. It depends, really, on whether or not the Democrats are willing to move to the left to allow them that center-right position again.

Carth: Spaced Lion: Carth: After Romney loses I hope Republicans realize the problem of nominating a MODERATE and choose a REAL conservative to run in 2016.

Personally, I'm hoping that the loss will catapult them so far off the derp end that they come back around on the side of sanity and nominate Huntsman.

No way. When Romney doesn't win the next nominee will at least be a Christian.

sigh even I can't type that with a straight face. How do same republicans manage to say stuff like this in public.

moothemagiccow: So it's an article about multiple electoral maps, and the art they choose is... Romney written on a chalkboard?

They can't show a map that has Obama wiping the floor with Romney because that would be a liberal bias.

LordJiro: It really depends on the attention span of the voters. Mitt's positions change faster than someone using the Kama Sutra as a flipbook.

Obama is going to carpet bomb so many ads in Ohio that it's going to be hard for anyone to forget.

WombatControl: Philip Francis Queeg: Tell us what political description exactly matches all of your views.

I roughly self-identify as a Burkean traditionalist conservative. To borrow a quote from Michael Oakeshott: "To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss."

But there is no "political description" that "exactly matches" anyone's political views.

I see. Since you believe that tradition should not be overturned, I would imaging you are against full equality for women and the abolition of slavery, two of humanities oldest traditions.

If you aren't you must be one of those Fark Burkean traditionalist conservatives.

DubyaHater: I am now convinced the Politics tab is nothing more than a stomping ground for threadshiatting trolls. I can't remember the last time I witnessed a reasonable discussion.

I'm going to type this slowly so you can understand it...

suck.. my.. ballz..

Infernalist: Spaced Lion: Carth: After Romney loses I hope Republicans realize the problem of nominating a MODERATE and choose a REAL conservative to run in 2016.

Personally, I'm hoping that the loss will catapult them so far off the derp end that they come back around on the side of sanity and nominate Huntsman.

Oh, they won't. They 'might' in 2016, but we have at least one more lol-tastic election in 2014 ahead of us.

I'm firmly convinced that it's Obama's color and background and generally the man himself that his driving them to this level of foam-at-the-mouth retardedness.

Once he gets re-elected and then they know that he'll be gone in 2016, they'll start to calm down and start thinking rationally again and move back to the center, or try to. It depends, really, on whether or not the Democrats are willing to move to the left to allow them that center-right position again.

My only question is whether or not they'll be capable of moving back to the center. The damage they've done to their brand is...extensive, and many of the base would see a move back to the center as either a betrayal or a capitulation (though to the fringe, the two are probably the same).

They've really painted themselves into a corner; they cannot appease the base and appeal to the center at the same time.

Carth: Spaced Lion: Carth: After Romney loses I hope Republicans realize the problem of nominating a MODERATE and choose a REAL conservative to run in 2016.

Personally, I'm hoping that the loss will catapult them so far off the derp end that they come back around on the side of sanity and nominate Huntsman.

No way. When Romney doesn't win the next nominee will at least be a Christian.

There's where the whole "side of sanity" thing comes into play. There's an enormous difference between an ex-clergyman, and a guy who has said that the LDS church "doesn't have a monopoly on my spiritual life."

/Yeah, I know, hope in one hand, shiat in the other...

WombatControl: Yes, this is over thinking it...

I'll bet no one has ever accused you of that before.

The issue isn't Obama beating Romney. Romney has six more months in which to firmly insert his foot in his mouth and he will do so, repeatedly, eagerly and without understanding why you don't tell people you enjoy firing them or that he's not concerned about the poor. Unless the economy totally tanks, Obama is in.

The real problem is the House and Senate. Romney's SuperPAC's can turn on a dime and start pouring their hundreds of millons of dollars into local races. If the repubs can take back the Senate and hold onto the House, get ready for some real gridlock. The Democrats need to be completely ruthless in holding repub feet to the fire over Social Security, Medicare, women's rights and educational loans. A few dirty tricks wouldn't hurt either. You can bet the repubs won't balk at using them.

I'm voting Republican because I like unfunded Medicare mandates, wars of aggression based on lies paid for with borrowed Chinamen money, sprinkled with tax cuts for the haves and have mores.

Carth: After Romney loses I hope Republicans realize the problem of nominating a MODERATE and choose a REAL conservative to run in 2016.

This is why I kind of wanted Santorum to win the primary. Because when he lost to Obama, that would end the derp of "WE NEED A REAL CONSERVATIVE!" Romney's not a moderate, of course; he's just very accomplished at speaking from both sides of his mouth. But he can give the appearance of moderation because of that, and the derp brigade will cling to that, further killing any chances for reasonable discourse in this country.

qorkfiend: Infernalist: Spaced Lion: Carth: After Romney loses I hope Republicans realize the problem of nominating a MODERATE and choose a REAL conservative to run in 2016.

Personally, I'm hoping that the loss will catapult them so far off the derp end that they come back around on the side of sanity and nominate Huntsman.

Oh, they won't. They 'might' in 2016, but we have at least one more lol-tastic election in 2014 ahead of us.

I'm firmly convinced that it's Obama's color and background and generally the man himself that his driving them to this level of foam-at-the-mouth retardedness.

Once he gets re-elected and then they know that he'll be gone in 2016, they'll start to calm down and start thinking rationally again and move back to the center, or try to. It depends, really, on whether or not the Democrats are willing to move to the left to allow them that center-right position again.

My only question is whether or not they'll be capable of moving back to the center. The damage they've done to their brand is...extensive, and many of the base would see a move back to the center as either a betrayal or a capitulation (though to the fringe, the two are probably the same).

They've really painted themselves into a corner; they cannot appease the base and appeal to the center at the same time.

That 'is' a conundrum, isn't it? They can't even attempt to re-take their traditional center-right positions without betraying the derp brigade that they recruited after Obama took office.

If they try and fail, they'll lose the Derpers 'and' they'll lack the support of the moderate middle. If they don't try to retake the middle, they're doomed to a slow death as they marginalize themselves and push further and further to the right as their efforts continue to fail due to lack of popular support.

It's really their fault and I wouldn't mind seeing the GOP fade away and the Democrats break into two parties.

The Supreme Court is the main reason to care who wins. Think about the past few decisions you've liked or hated (Citizens? Kelo? Heller?) and how another Kagan/Sotomayor or two on the court would have changed the outcome (temporarily changed the constitution, effectively). Then vote accordingly.

clambam: A few dirty tricks wouldn't hurt either. You can bet the repubs won't balk at using them.

But you can bet that they'll be the first to cry foul and whine about the evil soshulist libruls being mean to them.

Party of personal responsibility, my hairy arse.