Somacandra: Man On A Mission: there comes a point when denying the obvious is just utter self-delusion.

For an Obama supporter, that moment should probably be delayed until fairly soon after the actual polls close. Early to bed, early to rise, work like hell and organize.

THIS. I am not taking *anything* for granted, even if Obama is leading by 10 points the day before the election.

hubiestubert: It's a bit early, but this is looking more and more like Romney's election to lose.

He has a lukewarm reception, and a President that has significant support, and a LOT of money was blown through for the Primary--and to be fair, I think we had such a swell of candidates and aggressive campaigning in order to extract as much cash as possible from the folks who kept throwing money their way even when it was far too late.

This election cycle is not so much about momentum, but grabbing as many dollars for warchests as possible, for the Senate and House elections, as well as for the RNC for future campaigns. This doesn't mean that Democrats can slack off, but Romney is already campaigning poorly, and when he has to go into the debates, he's going to be facing Obama for the first time as a real candidate, as opposed to a "concerned" outsider. He's hampered by his own record, and his ability to morph, which is going to cost him dearly once the Primary is officially over.

If Romney can't pull it together, he's done in politics. Pure and simple, and he's going to have to just console himself on his money. Which, to be fair, will probably be the better thing for him than trying to pull the GOP together after this divisive campaign season.

At this point, he's in. He's not the seasoned vet that folks wanted. He's not a pillar of Conservative thought and principle either. I don't see him pulling this out, but I will welcome him fading into the background.

I think the biggest weakness of Mitt Romney is that nobody in the Republican Party from the RINOs to the Tea Party members are excited about him at all. He is the "Anybody but Obama" candidate. He does not have a "cult of personality" around him like President Reagan, President Clinton, President Bush or President Obama had/has. Unless the economy does a total crash like in President Bush's last year or President Obama makes a scandalous mistake (real, not the conservative outrage of the week), he should win the election. The real contest will be in 2016, especially if Hilliary Clinton doesn't run. Because like with Dick Cheney, the Democrats don't have a "successor in waiting" of a Vice President.

Angry Hatter: FTA: Interesting: If Romney wins all the toss-ups and Pennsylvania, it's a 270-270 tie.

Umm, no it isn't. 270+270=540. Where'd they get the extra two electoral votes from?

Thomas and Scalia.

RexTalionis: Karl Rove's got a reason to overstate Obama's chances.

Nothing gets your opponent's vote to go down like complacency in their supporters. Nothing gets your people's vote up like making them terrified that the other side will win.

And Democratic voters are the most complacent of all. For some reason, they require a lot of extra beating over the head before they'll get off the couch to vote for their interests. Republicans? They'll go out and vote for dog-catcher in the middle of a snowstorm.

Anyone who thinks it's going to be smooth sailing for Obama is fooling themselves.

I assume he's trying to paint the picture worse than he actually believes it is in order to drum up additional support, but it could easily do the exact opposite. There are millions of conservatives who don't think much of Romney to begin with - given his his slim chances of winning depicted in this map, why would they want to throw good money after bad?

jso2897: It will get better when we Boomers die. You have been sold a bill of goods. You have seen all the newsreels of hippies dancing naked, and been convinced that that was the Boomers when we were young, and then we sold out.
No.
The hippies, and protestors, and war resistors, and people of conscience were never more than about 15% of our generation. The Boomers you are dealing with now are the cowards and conformists who always followed orders - and now, they are out for revenge. How do you think a certified retard like Ronald Reagan ever became President?
Thankfully, we are dying soon - but the 85% of us who are nasty, repressed losers are going to hurt this country as much as they can before they die.
And cutting social security or some shiat will only hurt the innocent. Y'all youngsters need to start VOTING. NOW.


Yeah, it's pretty amazing the difference between perception and reality on the Boomers. Boomers grew up at a time when America really was still fairly rural, and things like a non segregated society was still a novelty. People don't realize that for every kid spinning around in a circle on Haight/Ashbury in 69, there were 30 others in Nebraska or Kansas who hated them and everything they represented.

LordJiro: Kibbler: You know, it hardly matters. Rmoney or Kenyan, we'll have an obstructionist Congress unwilling to do anything except bicker.

This.

The optimist in me says that maybe, after Obama wins a second term, the Republicans will cooperate a LITTLE more, since getting him out of office wouldn't, in theory, still be a priority.

But the optimist in me is shriveled and pathetic. The realist in me knows that the Republican will keep up their obstructionist nonsense to gain power in '14, and then again in '16. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to impeach Obama at least once.

The Republicans are far too off the deep end to return to sanity without a major, MAJOR electoral loss.

It will get better when we Boomers die. You have been sold a bill of goods. You have seen all the newsreels of hippies dancing naked, and been convinced that that was the Boomers when we were young, and then we sold out.
No.
The hippies, and protestors, and war resistors, and people of conscience were never more than about 15% of our generation. The Boomers you are dealing with now are the cowards and conformists who always followed orders - and now, they are out for revenge. How do you think a certified retard like Ronald Reagan ever became President?
Thankfully, we are dying soon - but the 85% of us who are nasty, repressed losers are going to hurt this country as much as they can before they die.
And cutting social security or some shiat will only hurt the innocent. Y'all youngsters need to start VOTING. NOW.

Kibbler: You know, it hardly matters. Rmoney or Kenyan, we'll have an obstructionist Congress unwilling to do anything except bicker.

This.

The optimist in me says that maybe, after Obama wins a second term, the Republicans will cooperate a LITTLE more, since getting him out of office wouldn't, in theory, still be a priority.

But the optimist in me is shriveled and pathetic. The realist in me knows that the Republican will keep up their obstructionist nonsense to gain power in '14, and then again in '16. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to impeach Obama at least once.

The Republicans are far too off the deep end to return to sanity without a major, MAJOR electoral loss.

No one yet has mentioned that Turdblossom has Texas as merely leaning Republican. Only a 7% lead. If Texas is really that close, Turdblossom could be on target with the numbers.

TomD9938: DarnoKonrad: TomD9938: Some of the Presidents own supporters come off as wanting him to be martyred... and it's damn creepy.

I'm sure some do. Not that your anecdote constitutes a trend.

Tiny number, yes.

/anyone know what Fark flood protection is BTW?
//wasnt allowed to post right away and was given that as the reason.

I can make really fun generalizations about things just by using the word "some."

Some Romney supporters are emo kids who just want to vote to cut themselves.
Some Obama supporters are white supremacists just hoping he fails so they never have to see a black president again.
Some Ron Paul supporters believe they are androids, devoid of emotions.

Tiny numbers, I'm sure... but the points really needed to be brought up.

PonceAlyosha: bugontherug: No. Conservatives trudge to the polls in every election. This is widely known.

It is known. Actually, Republicans do disproportionately better because the make up of the federal legislature and style of executive elections unfairly favors the south and other sparsely populated areas. That's the main cause of liberal and moderate disaffection, if several million city dwellers are only worth the same as several hundred rural folk, why should they turn up? Their vote literally counts less.

I agree with your assessment of the electoral college's impact on voter weight. I disagree with your assessment that it plays any real role in liberal disaffection. If it does, it is indirect, in that it pushes public policy significantly to the right of where progressives want it to be, causing them to feel alienated. But I doubt very many progressives sit out on election day thinking "it really burns my ass that some Wyoming assclown's vote gets weighted more than mine." Frankly, I doubt if very many people understand that aspect of the electoral college at all.

bugontherug: No. Conservatives trudge to the polls in every election. This is widely known.

It is known. Actually, Republicans do disproportionately better because the make up of the federal legislature and style of executive elections unfairly favors the south and other sparsely populated areas. That's the main cause of liberal and moderate disaffection, if several million city dwellers are only worth the same as several hundred rural folk, why should they turn up? Their vote literally counts less.

Guntram Shatterhand: bugontherug: Mr. Rove is pushing the meme that Obama can't lose, in order to depress interest in the election, and voter turnout on election day.

Obama can lose. All that has to happen for him to lose is progressives to internalize the belief that he can't.

I think that's what Rove is trying to do, but what it ends up doing is ignoring the anger the Republicans have stoked on the Democratic side. Rove might be thinking that this will rally the right-wing, but it's obvious that the Republicans lost the narrative when it comes to rallying their own base. They're angering people, alright...it's just the people who vote against them, which Obama benefits from.

The politics of anger have flipflopped (heh) in the last twelve years. Now the Democrats are using it, and they're not far off from the Republican anger about human rights and such.

I hope you're right. I'd like for progressives to finally be pissed off enough to get off their asses like they did in 2006-2008. If the last few years haven't convinced them that Republicans are malicious people willing to hurt the country to score political points, nothing will.

PonceAlyosha: bugontherug: quatchi: Agree with the previous poster who opined that this might be Rove trying to scare the base into getting active by overstating Obama's lead.

This has something to do with it. It also has to do with making progressives feel overconfident. Why? Because progressives stupidly refuse to go vote because:

1) they feel certain the Democrats will win, or
2) they feel certain the Democrats will lose, or
3) the Democrats "don't inspire them," or
4) election day weather is bad, or
5) election day weather is unusually good, or
6) they don't want to have to stand in a long line at the polls, or
7) they need to take the garbage out.

God damn I hate progressives. Idiots.

/I am a progressive.

So in short, the same list that applies to every other group ever.

No. Conservatives trudge to the polls in every election. This is widely known. It's why Republicans usually do better in the midterm elections. It's why pundits talk about how bad weather benefits Republicans. It's why everyone knows Republicans do better when voter turnout is low. Progressives have real problems recognizing the importance of voting, and it is reflective of serious character defect among them.

I was about to say "sorry if this upsets you." But I'm not. Maybe if it pisses you off enough, you'll go to the polls whether or not Obama "inspires" you this year.

bugontherug: God damn I hate progressives. Idiots.

/I am a progressive.

Agreed.

/Also a progressive who hates progressive idiots.

quatchi: Agree with the previous poster who opined that this might be Rove trying to scare the base into getting active by overstating Obama's lead.

This has something to do with it. It also has to do with making progressives feel overconfident. Why? Because progressives stupidly refuse to go vote because:

1) they feel certain the Democrats will win, or
2) they feel certain the Democrats will lose, or
3) the Democrats "don't inspire them," or
4) election day weather is bad, or
5) election day weather is unusually good, or
6) they don't want to have to stand in a long line at the polls, or
7) they need to take the garbage out.

God damn I hate progressives. Idiots.

/I am a progressive.

MurphyMurphy: why would the master of puppets have such a thing on his website?

It could be to keep ramping up the base so they take this seriously and get behind mitt.

Then again on the opposite side of the coin MITT'S BEST CHANCE IS THAT DEMOCRATS BECOME CONVINCED THEY DON'T NEED TO GO OUT AND VOTE

This. It's no doubt a little bit of both. The Republicans will benefit from a low turnout election, because invariably the people who don't turn out are progressive voters. Conservatives trudge their asses to the polls year after year. And they vote Republican, even when they're not enthusiastic about their candidate. That is why the right is winning in this country. And that is why the right deserves to win. And progressive refusal to vote, and to vote Democrat is why the left deserves to lose.

The Name: Democratic voters are the most complacent of all. For some reason, they require a lot of extra beating over the head before they'll get off the couch to vote for their interests.

But it's so comfortable on the couch.

Seriously, though, I think left-leaning folks have been systematically disillusioned. We are traumatized by the myriad, complex failures/betrayals/cooptions of all the leftist revolutionary programs of the last century.

I think we (progressives, leftists) do recognize that the old Gods are dead -- but even the radical left has been trapped in a complex process of mourning-forgetting; too trapped to think and act in new ways.

The best idea, the most innovative one, the left (generally speaking) has proffered in the last few decades is the basic income -- but is it not clear that this is the same obscene ideological bribe involved in charity, that the same (ontological!) hypocrisy of throwing capital at a problem that the very structure of the global capitalist system, with its permanent underclasses, limbo and rogue states, permanent underdevelopment, etc., is itself causing -- the idea of charity or basic income is radically insufficient.

There is a paucity in how we envision radical egalitarian images of democracy. This at least is one of the chief problems with many progressive movements, the reason they tend to subvert their goals in critical ways. At any rate, voting for progressive candidates is all well and good for moderate liberals, but this should just be a start.

Think about the system itself; don't get blackmailed into this moral conservative game of finding the root of our problems in individual guilt -- but rather in the way the system is structured in order to compel certain kinds of behavior. (Ethics versus morality is the basic difference between left and right, in this sense.)

Interesting to note that every month we learn of the passing of some notable person who gave this country and our society a lot by being there and doing stuff, and then we realize that Karl Rove and Dick Cheney still survive day after day.

TomD9938: Richard Roma: TomD9938: Oh look, it's the return of the assassination fantasies from four years back.

You're right. Right-wingers never descend to terrorism when things don't go their way.

[www.veteranstoday.com image 486x451]

Way to use the blood of children to your own ends.


It's just true. Along with a fark-ton of other examples.

Hurray! Victory is assured, so we may as well stay home.

/not gonna work, Karl

The Name: RexTalionis: Karl Rove's got a reason to overstate Obama's chances.

Nothing gets your opponent's vote to go down like complacency in their supporters. Nothing gets your people's vote up like making them terrified that the other side will win.

And Democratic voters are the most complacent of all. For some reason, they require a lot of extra beating over the head before they'll get off the couch to vote for their interests. Republicans? They'll go out and vote for dog-catcher in the middle of a snowstorm.

Anyone who thinks it's going to be smooth sailing for Obama is fooling themselves.

Exactly. Nothing gets people to vote like anger, and today's Republicans are as angry as humans can get without being in the middle of a killing spree.

Interesting: If Romney wins all the toss-ups and Pennsylvania, it's a 270-270 tie.

Sweeeet. We could have one Republican President installed into office by the Supreme Court and the next installed by the Tea Party in the House of Representatives. Living up to their name - they're definitely not for democracy.

kmmontandon: Somacandra:
For an Obama supporter, that moment should probably be delayed until fairly soon after the actual polls close. Early to bed, early to rise, work like hell and organize.


As someone in California, there's not much that makes less sense than being gung-ho organizing and working for Obama. Romney has about as much chance here as Fred Phelps.

-------------------------

In 2008 the Obama campaign in California organized frequent weekend trips where it bused California volunteers to Nevada to canvass for votes. So there's absolutely a reason to be involved as a Californian. It wasn't some crazy coincidence that Obama took a state Bush won in both 2000 and 2004 and blew it open into an 11 point Dem win.

PS I would guess they're gonna try the same thing with Arizona this year.

Somacandra:
For an Obama supporter, that moment should probably be delayed until fairly soon after the actual polls close. Early to bed, early to rise, work like hell and organize.


As someone in California, there's not much that makes less sense than being gung-ho organizing and working for Obama. Romney has about as much chance here as Fred Phelps.

DamnYankees: BritneysSpeculum: DamnYankees: Way too early to be caring about these maps.

You are probably right because generally speaking, the results of the elections are out of the candidates hands. That said, assuming no exogenous effects between now and November (a big assumption of course with the mess in Europe), this polling foretells a lot, namely that people just don't like Romney.

This is true - I don't mean polling in general doesn't matter. I mean the state by state stuff really doesn't. For example, take North Carolina - it's not a relevant state to the election. If Obama wins it, it means he's won the election in a landslide - there's no scenario where the President wins NC and loses the electoral college. If he loses NC though, it doesn't tell us anything at all. He might win and he might lose.

Really the only states that matter in terms of really telling us his chances of winning are FL, OH and VA. And its just too early to know with regard to specific swing states.

The reasons these maps are important in May is because it shows Obama and Romney where it's worth spending money. If South Carolina is even a question, Obama goes after it and forces Romney to spend to defend.

Basically, the more states are in play, the more expensive running becomes, and the more it favors the candidate with a strong fund-raising machine. If most states are a lock, then a candidate can invest time and energy visiting every county in OH/FL/VA/whatever, and dilute the money issue.

Right now, Obama has a huge edge, and a much wider donor base, but you never know what a few billionaires could do with the SuperPACs and other mechanisms.

I will laugh mightily if Obama take Arizona.