Romney has lost. Unless ....

|
(41)

Polls aren't perfect, but a lot of polls that come to the same conclusion are rarely wrong, at least not by much, and all the polling data suggests that in the critical swing states, Mitt Romney is SOL. Sure, the GOP camp is keeping up hope, but everyone knows that the odds are heavily in favor of the re-election of Barack Obama. In the spring of 2010, I bet on the Giants winning the World Series at 20-1 (nice payoff, that one), but I wouldn't even take those odds on Romney today.

And since Hurricane Sandy has left Ohio and Pennsylvania relatively intact (no massive poll closures for lack of electrict power), and the voter-suppression laws have been put on hold by the courts, there's really nothing game-changing available to Romney's gang of crooks -- except this.

I'm with the Wonkette folks -- I don't typically buy into the voting-machines-are-rigged-by-secret-Bain-operatives kinds of theories. But we all know the 2000 election was stolen, and I'm pretty sure that Willie Brown and his appointed elections chief, Tammy Haygood, did something fishy (maybe very fishy, judging by ballot boxes floating in the Bay) to prevent a public-power measure from passing in 2001. And we know that the voter ID laws were carefully designed to keep African Americans, Latinos, seniors and students away from the polls this fall. And we know that Romney's backers are among the most powerful and secretive people in the world; if there really were groups like the Bilderbergs and the Masons running the world, Romney wouldn't be allowed in the back rooms (too dumb) but his big-money allies would be there.

Could it be possible that somebody in Romneyland is going to try to pull a modern-day version of the hanging-chad caper?

We'd be fools not to think it's on the agenda. Doesn't mean they can pull it off (and seriously, if the president of the United States doesn't have people who can monitor and put a check on this shit, then he doesn't deserve the title). But if some of those swing states suddenly go all Florida, 2000 on us and start showing up red on the electoral map, it won't be because of Obama's college transcripts.

So go ahead, trolls, tell me how nuts I am. You're probably right; everything's going to be Just Fine.

Comments

"And we know that the voter ID laws were carefully designed to keep African Americans, Latinos, seniors and students away from the polls this fall."

Not to mention deserving members of the deceased-American community!

"In the spring of 2010, I bet on the Giants winning the World Series at 20-1 (nice payoff, that one), but I wouldn't even take those odds on Romney today."

Pauline Kael:

"I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don't know. They're outside my ken. But sometimes when I'm in a theater I can feel them."

Tim, like Pauline before him, lives in "a rather special world".

Not to worry, we can be reasonably assured that Romney won't take SF.

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly Persistent on Nov. 01, 2012 @ 2:47 pm

What? There are plenty of people who are going to vote for Romney. I know some of them. There just aren't enough in the right states to make a difference. That's not my delusion, it's what every credible pollster is saying right now.

 

Posted by tim on Nov. 01, 2012 @ 2:51 pm

"it's what every credible pollster is saying right now."

"credible pollster" = "agrees with Tim"

...and all your "credible pollsters" are assuming Democratic turnout in excess of 2008, offsetting Romney's generally admitted lead among independents in swing states.

Good luck with that - we will know soon enough whether that's true or not.

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly Persistent on Nov. 01, 2012 @ 3:12 pm

" But if some of those swing states suddenly go all Florida, 2000 on us and start showing up red on the electoral map,"

Because Tim absolutely has his finger on the pulse of what people in Ohio coal country, and Rhinelander, Wisconsin think. He meets with them daily.

If people don't vote Tim's way, it must be fraud!

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly Persistent on Nov. 01, 2012 @ 3:07 pm

WHO CARES?!

Does it matter which right-wing pro-war neocon corporate candidate the e-voting machines select for the continuing Corporatocracy (pretending to be a "democracy")? They are both horrible, corporate candidates. Neither corporate candidate deserve to be president or in any other position.

The two major corporatist candidates are nearly indistinguishable:

100 Ways Mitt Romney Is Just Like Barack Obama
http://ivn.us/2012/07/17/100-ways-mitt-romney-is-just-like-barack-obama/

"Far from being polar opposites, the two “choices” offered as presidential candidates by this country’s two main parties are nearly indistinguishable on the substantive public policy challenges USans face."

Posted by Guest on Nov. 01, 2012 @ 6:08 pm

Any of you folks look at the NY Times 538 blog? Widely considered the most reliable in the nation. Says Romney's chances are less than 20 percent.

Posted by tim on Nov. 01, 2012 @ 7:26 pm

"Any of you folks look at the NY Times 538 blog? Widely considered the most reliable in the nation. Says Romney's chances are less than 20 percent."

Please! Romney's chances are precisely 19.2%, as of today - Nate Silver is a big believer in spurious precision.

LOL. Nate Silver - the security blanket for the American Left. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune (hardly a conservative paper) just ran a poll that showed Obama's lead in Minnesota down to 3 points, with a margin of error of 3.5 points (so it is slightly possible that Romney is actually in the lead in Minnesota, according to this poll). Silver's current estimate that Obama will take Minnesota - precisely 98.4%.

Wisconsin, which has been generally running neck and neck in the polls -- Silver has Wisconsin going for Obama with 91.2% probability.

Etc. etc., etc.

There is a pretty good change that Nate Silver will be sticking to baseball statistics after Tuesday.

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly Persistent on Nov. 01, 2012 @ 8:03 pm

Today, from the notoriously right-wing New York Times regarding Pennsylvania:

"But there is a tangible sense — seen in Romney yard signs on the expansive lawns of homes in the well-heeled suburbs, and heard in the excited voices of Republican mothers who make phone calls to voters in their spare time — that the race is tilting toward Mr. Romney."

Silver has Obama with a (precise!) 96.2% chance of winning Pennsylvania.

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly Persistent on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 11:59 am

Demented (who I think actually may be demented) obviously doesn't understand what Nate Silver's percentages actually mean. He (Silver) is not saying that he thinks that 98.4% of the people in Minnesota will vote for Obama. He is saying that, statistically speaking, and based on a LOT of factors, polls, etc., there is a 98.4% chance that Obama will win the state's Electoral votes.

I'm truly sorry that your man, Mittens, is trailing in most of the statistical analyses on the 538 blog. I'm sure you'd have a very different view of that blog if he was shown as being ahead in the race. Funny how that works, huh?

If you want to do some research on Nate Silver and his history of accuracy (or "inaccuracy" as you probably refer to it), check it out. He has quite an impressive record. However I doubt you'll be interested in researching this, as you would rather spew your own "facts" here.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 01, 2012 @ 10:27 pm

" I'm sure you'd have a very different view of that blog if he was shown as being ahead in the race. Funny how that works, huh?"

Uh, no. Posting things with spurious statistical accuracy (three significant digits, in Silver's case) is a huge red flag for anyone versed in statistics.

"He is saying that, statistically speaking, and based on a LOT of factors, polls, etc., there is a 98.4% chance that Obama will win the state's Electoral votes."

So the biggest paper in the state (which is quite left-wing), does a recent poll showing that the race in Minnesota is within the margin of error, and Silver still thinks Obama has a 98.4% chance that Obama will win Minnesota. (How precise!) Silver's dirty little secret is that he systematically overweights pro-Obama polls, and underweights pro-Romney polls, while wrapping himself in the mantle of scientific impartiality. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

"If you want to do some research on Nate Silver and his history of accuracy (or "inaccuracy" as you probably refer to it), check it out. He has quite an impressive record."

Uh, no - Silver considerably understated the Republican surge in the House elections in 2010. His "impressive" track record is limited to elections where the Democrats generally are winning - he doesn't do so well when the Republicans are generally winning.

It's just amusing that Tim is preemptively declaring election fraud if his candidate doesn't win - but then again, Tim also thinks that hurricane Sandy is self-evident proof of global warming, despite the fact that we have been in a quiet hurricane period for the last few years, and there is no historical evidence that hurricanes are getting either more frequent or stronger.

See you Tuesday.

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly Persistent on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 4:05 am

I can't wait to listen to hate radio and read Redstate and Drudge Report on November 6th and 7th. Obama's an imperialist, true enough, but it'll just be fun watching the wingnuts go apoplectic.

Posted by Greg on Nov. 01, 2012 @ 10:28 pm

I don't think that easily-hackable electronic voting machines care whatsoever about polls or what polls say, regardless of which corporate candidate is supposedly ahead and where.

The corporate media will dutifully report: "Well it looks like most (or all) polls were wrong (or correct, depending upon which corporate candidate is selected by the corrupt voting machines and the(ir) corporatist political owners "behind the curtain.")

Posted by Guest on Nov. 01, 2012 @ 10:39 pm

The real election theft happens long before anyone steps into the voting booth. The media has already set the narrative. The rulers of this country have already set the economic agenda. All that's left for us peons is to play out our roles as props in this fictional play they call "Democracy."

As extra insurance to make sure that Democracy Theater doesn't get a little too real, the producers of this sham have put up a whole set of extra little obstacles -the electoral college, restrictive ballot access rules, winner-take-all elections, top-two primaries, felony disenfranchisement, voter purges, ID laws, etc. etc.

By the time things get to the voting booth, it's all been stolen anyway. Further shenanigans can shave off a little more here and there, but I wouldn't expect wholesale changes in results of more than a couple points.

I think the Repukes know it's not their turn in America's own Punto Fijo system (look it up). So as long as it's theater anyway, might as well sit back and enjoy the show, and watch some rednecks go apoplectic. C'mon, it'll be fun.

Posted by Greg on Nov. 01, 2012 @ 11:23 pm

meaningful questions, and the system by which "credibility" as a candidate derives solely from getting early money.

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 01, 2012 @ 11:37 pm

I left out any one of a number of things.

If democracy is a system of government where the people get to decide how they will be governed, then America is one place where there is no democracy. Because here, the economic agenda and foreign policy agenda has already been decided. We just get to choose which team will implement the agenda of the ruling class. Will it be Donkeys or Elephants? Giants or Tigers?

You want democracy, go to Venezuela. Seriously. Because in the recent elections there, they had a real choice. And what people decided made a real, dramatic difference in the economic and foreign policy program of that government. That's what democracy looks like.

It's the difference between real, participatory democracy, and what Hugo Chavez calls "elite democracy." I call it democracy theater. And it's absolutely riveting theater, make no mistake about that! The ruling class puts on a fantastic spectacle for us every 4 years. I admit it, I'm hooked. I can't wait for Nate Silver's latest update, and I eagerly await the drama on Redstate when the series finale ends on Tuesday.

You've already paid the ticket price for admission, so might as well enjoy the show. Just don't mistake it for real democracy. In this country, we wouldn't know democracy if it came up and bit us in the ass.

Which it might. One day. I hope.

Posted by Greg on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 12:28 am

Chavez closes, newspapers, radio stations, TV stations, has thugs that attack dissenters, and to Greg Venezuela is a picture of democracy.

Our freedoms are always under threat from the brain damaged right and left.

Posted by matlock on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 1:27 am

"Chavez closes, newspapers, radio stations, TV stations"

Yeah, that's why after 14 years, more than 2/3 of the media are still in private hands, and they publish garbage that makes FOX News look like NPR. Carter recently said their election systems were the best he's seen anywhere in the world.

What does it take to get your media shut down in Venezuela? Well, the media magnate who went on national TV after the abortive US-backed coup in 2002, and bragged that he and others in the business community planned the coup in his house... yeah, he eventually lost his license. It took 5 more years, and the fact that he was violating Venezuelan minimum wage laws *and* called on the military to rise up and overthrow the elected government a *second* time in 2006. Try that in The Land of the Free, and he'd be lucky to be alive, let alone operating a TV station. Yeah, some dictator that Chavez!

There's still plenty just like him to pick up where his station left off though. Apparently you didn't see any of the fawning coverage of Capriles in El Universal, or the viciously anti-Chavez private TV stations that still have something like 90% of the audience share. Of course not. You get all your information from the US corporate media.

You should just shut up rather than spout about things you know nothing about.

Like I said, we wouldn't know democracy if it came up and bit us in the ass. Thanks for proving my point.

Posted by Greg on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 7:38 am

Too bad that the US military is dominated by right wing christian nut jobs, as Chavez had a progressive base in the military which put him over the top when election day rolled around.

Posted by marcos on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 8:12 am

Puts in mind a phrase used by Robert Scheer in one of the essays appearing in a collection of such called "Thinking Tunafish, Talking Death."

Describing Cokie Roberts, he said she was "a bottomless pit of conventional wisdom."

Nowadays, conventional wisdom -- never a close associate of truth -- has taken a turn for the worse, and is exemplified by the sputterings of matlock.

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 8:13 am

Now that's rich. The right-wing running to HRW to hate on Hugo Chávez. LOL. The right-wing despise Chávez.

I was just curious what HRW had to say about the United States and its police state. From a quick scan of that page I see that they present this lovely phony veneer. No mention of torture, illegal spying, rendition, black sites, illegal droning, suspension of habeas corpus, and the list goes on under Bush/Obama.

So if they can't be objective about the U.S. (or are they in denial as to what's happening?) why would anyone take them seriously about what they have to say about any other country? HRW have an agenda. They're not objective.

The U.S. and it's right-wing sheep have been well-programmed by the corporate media to hate Hugo Chávez.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 2:53 pm

The 2000 election was not stolen. The recount showed W won by more votes than originally thought in Florida.

The 2001 public power initiative failed for the same reason it failed many times before. People don't want public power.

There isn't a shred of evidence for any of your whacked-out zany theories. It's just paranoia and a total unwillingness to believe that the policies you like aren't popular.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 12:28 am

Hope this helps.

Not That It Was Reported, but Gore Won
by Jim Naureckas
Published on Thursday, November 15, 2001 in the Long Island, NY Newsday

IN JOURNALISM, it's called "burying the lead": A story starts off with what everyone already knows, while the real news - the most surprising, significant or never-been-told-before information - gets pushed down where people are less likely to see it.

That's what happened to the findings of the media study of the uncounted votes from last year's Florida presidential vote. A consortium of news outlets - including The New York Times, The Washington Post, Tribune Co. (Newsday's parent company), The Wall Street Journal, Associated Press and CNN - spent nearly a year and $900,000 reexamining every disputed ballot.

The consortium determined that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed the ongoing recount to go through, George W. Bush would still likely have ended up in the White House. That's because the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court - as well as the more limited recount asked for by Democratic candidate Al Gore - only involved so-called undervotes, ballots that when counted mechanically registered no choice for president.

Gore and the Florida Supreme Court ignored overvotes - votes where mechanical counting registered more than one vote - on the assumption that there would be no way to tell which of the multiple candidates the voter actually intended to pick.

But as the consortium found when it actually looked at the overvotes, one often could tell what the voter's intent was. Many of the overvotes involved, for example, a voter punching the hole next to a candidate's name, and then writing in the same candidate's name.

Since the intent of the voter is clear, these are clearly valid votes under Florida law. And Gore picked up enough of such votes that it almost didn't matter what standard you used when looking at undervotes - whether you counted every dimple or insisted on a fully punched chad, the consortium found that Gore ended up the winner of virtually any full reexamination of rejected ballots.

So there are two main findings: The Supreme Court's intervention probably did not affect the outcome of the limited recounts then under way, and more people probably cast valid votes for Gore than for Bush.

If the first finding was the important news, the consortium was scooped long ago: The Miami Herald and USA Today, working as a separate team, published stories in April that argued persuasively that the particular recounts that were halted by the Supreme Court probably would have produced a Bush victory.

What's new is the finding that, since voters are supposed to decide elections rather than lawyers or judges, the state's electoral votes appear to have gone to the wrong candidate. Given that the outcome in Florida determined the national victor, this is not just news but a critical challenge to the legitimacy of the presidency.

So how did the media report the results of the ballot reexamination? Overwhelmingly, they chose to lead with the news that was comfortable, uncontroversial - and seven months old. "In Election Review, Bush Wins Without Supreme Court Help," was The Wall Street Journal's headline on its story, paralleling The New York Times' "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote." That angle would be fine if you believed that the Supreme Court was the most important aspect of the story; but what about the presidency?

Other members of the consortium emphasized the most Bush-friendly aspects of the story: "Bush Still Had Votes to Win in a Recount, Study Finds," was the Tribune Co.'s Los Angeles Times' main headline on its report, matching The Washington Post's "Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush" and CNN.com's "Florida Recount Study: Bush Still Wins." The St. Petersburg Times' Web site put it succinctly: "Recount: Bush." While some of these outlets tried to convey greater complexity in subheads, all these headlines obscure the fact that the outlets' most comprehensive recount put Gore ahead of Bush.

Emphasizing the old and conventional while playing down the new and controversial is a recipe for being ignored, and sure enough, few outlets that were not part of the consortium did much with the findings. A story that may well be mentioned in high school history classes a hundred years from now didn't even merit an editorial comment from most newspapers.

It's tempting to attribute this coyness to Sept. 11, and news outlets' reluctance to undermine the legitimacy of the presidency when the country is at war. But the coverage of the consortium's findings is similar to the way earlier media recounts were handled; even the most preliminary Miami Herald/USA Today ballot stories prompted "Bush Really Won" stories across the country. Similarly, when Bush's inauguration was greeted by raucous marchers contesting his victory, many outlets played down the significance of the protests. The New York Times virtually ignored them.

War or no war, many journalists are instinctively protective of the legitimacy of the institutions they cover, but the job of a journalist is not to promote but to question. The theory behind the First Amendment is that the system will be strengthened by an unflinching look at the system's flaws. In looking back at the results of the Florida election, the media flinched.

Jim Naureckas is the editor of Extra!, the magazine of the media watch group FAIR.

Copyright © 2001, Newsday, Inc.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 2:25 am
Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 7:28 am

The right-wing never let facts get in their way.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 2:54 pm

What about ED LEE's SF Neighborhood Alliance and the widespread "Ballot fraud" taking place in Chinatown ALONG with other voting anomalies buildings in Chinatown ALL returned absentee ballots on the same EXACTday. Especially significant is the "protector" of the voting public DA G Gascone found "insufficient evidence" WHEN he Gascone was the selection for DA just as Ed Lee for mayor (what a coincidence)
The Chron in and editorial this week asks Mirkarimi to "recuse himself" from DV cases ? or decisions? NEVER asked Gascone who BENEFITTED from every vote for Lee was a vote for Gascone!! A criminal syndicate owns and controls EVERYTHING Ed Lee would have owned the ballot boxes on Election day if RM was replaced by his appointee the Sheriff takes the ballot boxes into custody on Election day did the chron say a thing about this ...no. Although John Cote did report this story
DA drops SF Chinatown voter fraud case
John Coté, Michael Cabanatuan
Updated 3:02 a.m., Thursday, September 6, 2012
"A third witness, Adam Keigwin, chief of staff for state Sen. Leland Yee, a rival candidate, said the workers would then keep the ballots and place them in a bag.

State election law forbids anyone from turning in someone else's absentee ballot other than certain family members or a designated resident of the same home.

After the activity came to light, Lee disavowed the effort and denounced it as "moronic."

The unofficial voting station in Chinatown had been set up by the SF Neighbor Alliance, an independent expenditure committee that had supported Lee and was run by many of the same people behind the "Run, Ed, Run" campaign to persuade Lee to abandon his promise to serve only as a one-year caretaker.

Enrique Pearce, the political consultant on both efforts, said at the time that the SF Neighbor Alliance had been engaged in voter registration and outreach about ranked-choice voting.

Jim Stearns, a political consultant on Yee's mayoral campaign, scoffed at the decision not to pursue criminal charges.

"Which part of the video didn't they watch?" Stearns quipped. "I think it just confirms that this is an investigation that shouldn't have been entrusted to District Attorney Gascón in the first place. ... He was on the ballot. He was one of the candidates that these voters were being encouraged to vote illegally for."

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 9:29 am
Posted by D. Native on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 10:18 am

Bizarre? naw... the relevance is you dont have to look far for criminal elements ballot fraud election fraud, the undermining of our Democracy and rule of law being replaced by government by Syndicate who are willing to take away our democracy in fact the Ed Lee /Gascone element is "ongoing" right here right now ACTING and only the citizens here in San Francisco can take action and fight for what is being taken away from them NOW.

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 11:00 am

might want to loosen it a bit.

Posted by D. Native on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 11:08 am

To suggest that video evidence of vote fraud is somehow part of a "conspiracy"... to not interpret Gascon's unwillingness to prosecute the case despite witnesses and such video evidence (he *likes* video evidence, right?) ... now *that* is *really* deranged.

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 12:01 pm

with Romney winning or losing the election which is the whole point of the article. Still Bizarre.

Posted by D. Native on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 12:24 pm

The article ISNT limited to Romney (see below), Willie Brown is involved this is quoted from the article are you afraid of the focus on Willie Brown/Ed Lee ballot fraud electio fraud corruption?
""But we all know the 2000 election was stolen, and I'm pretty sure that Willie Brown and his appointed elections chief, Tammy Haygood, did something fishy (maybe very fishy, judging by ballot boxes floating in the Bay) to prevent a public-power measure from passing in 2001"

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 1:24 pm

his ass guy -- was in the counting room where he had no business being?

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 05, 2012 @ 10:05 pm

I provided FACTS and inforation and my opinion which derives from those facts What anyone thinks is up to them.

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 11:26 am

They overly optimistic in favor of democrats. Just this summer on June 4, PPP and Marquette had Walker with a 3% lead in the Wisconsin recall. What did walker win by? 7%. Gallup shows Romney ahead because it doesn't adopt the same overoptimistic sampling.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 1:42 pm

They overly optimistic in favor of democrats. Just this summer on June 4, PPP and Marquette had Walker with a 3% lead in the Wisconsin recall. What did walker win by? 7%. Gallup shows Romney ahead because it doesn't adopt the same overoptimistic sampling.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 1:47 pm

The Washington Post today noted that its poll indicated that 13% of people who voted for Obama last time are planning on voting for Romney, with 3% still undecided. Since the number of people who voted for McCain last time who are going to vote for Obama this time is statistically not distinguishable from zero, either Obama is going to mobilize what remains of his base at levels considerably above 2008 levels, or a bunch of pollsters are going to be very, very embarrassed.

Come on people! Everyone can tell that enthusiasm for Obama is greater now than in 2008!

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly Persistent on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 2:18 pm

Oh, don't look now, but even Rasmussen is crumbling. See, Ras does this every time. His polls are inaccurate and biased, Incidentally those are two different things in statistics, as Nate Silver will calmly tell you. Ras is both. But I digress. Ras is a propagandist who pretends to be a legitimate pollster. When he's in propaganda mode (for most of the election), his polls are heavily skewed Republican. But he also tries to salvage his rep as a pollster at the end, so he brings his polls in line when the gig is up. That way he can claim that he was pretty close. So now you see his national polls, as well as polls of Wisconsin and Ohio -Obama is now pulling into a tie or ahead.

I've seen this movie before, but I still love the ending. I'll make sure to check in here on November 6th and 7th... in between scanning Redstate and Drudge. Pass the popcorn!

Posted by Greg on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 3:18 pm

Are you unsatisfied with Obama but stay with him out of fear of Mitt Romney becoming president? If you answered yes to more than one of these questions, you are probably in a self-destructive relationship with the Democratic Party.

If somebody you love is addicted to the "lesser" of two evils, please refer them to the following 12 step program.

1. Admit you are in a self-destructive relationship with the Democratic Party.

2. Remove conflicting bumper stickers from your collection. "Shut Down Guantanamo" and "Obama 2012" are mutually exclusive.

3. Understand that kill lists and more unjust war is the wrong kind of change to believe in.

4. Stop lying to yourself. The President is not sucking up to the most powerful interests in the world because he loves you.

5. Cut off all contact with Obama, Holder, Clinton and Pelosi. No more phone calls or writing letters. They are aware of what they are doing and they just don't care what you think.

6. Realize Obama is standing up and fighting. Unfortunately, he's fighting Afghans, Pakistanis, Yeminis, Somalis"in your name.

7. No more excuses. The Republicans are not making Democrats increase domestic spying or deport record numbers of Latinos.

8. Get over your romantic feelings for Democrats and their supposed commitment to poor people. This election cycle, poverty is not on the agenda.

9. Make a list of all war crimes committed under Bush. Cross out "Bush" and write in Obama. Add support for indefinite detention without charge, expanded drone wars, and invasions of two more countries. It's healthy to gag at it.

10. Come to grips with this: The only thing scarier than the Republican Party ( a party full of climate-change deniers, fundamentalist woman-haters and gay-bashers, election stealers and racists ) is a party who continually moves to the right to accommodate them and gets Americans to go along in that direction.

11. Forgive yourself for being taken in by promises that were not delivered, and for ignoring troubling signs, because you wanted to believe in change. But remember, insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting different results.

12. As a result of these steps, you can now carry the message to those who still suffer from an addiction to the Democratic Party. Nothing is as liberating as resisting an evil when you know it's wrong.
Get over your co-dependent addiction to Obama in 12 easy steps!

Posted by Guest on Nov. 05, 2012 @ 6:27 pm

Obama supports fracking and has opened up massive amounts of public land (and coast line) to the energy vultures. Like Romney, he has failed to engage in any real discussion of global warming.

There is only one candidate who is even talking about climate change and that's Green Party candidate Jill Stein. Stein is calling for clean renewable energy, restoration of our forests, rivers and fisheries. Her Green New Deal will create 25 milion living-wage jobs, single payer health care and free public education through college. A vote for Stein will send a strong message to Washington (and the 1%) that the issue of global warming matters to the American people, and that business as usual is no longer an option.

"..since Obama's going to win California by a sizable majority anyway, a protest vote for Stein probably won't do any harm." ~Guardian Staff Writers

Vote for your dreams for a sustainable future, not your fears! Vote for Jill Stein for President!!

Posted by Ana on Nov. 05, 2012 @ 6:50 pm

Like I said above...

Since it's all theater anyway, I'm really loving the show. Listened to Marc Levin (The Shrill One) today. I could just feel his atherosclerotic arteries about to burst as he shrieked how conservatives must "resist tyranny." These people just don't get it. They really don't.

Denial... it's not just a river in Egypt.

Posted by Greg on Nov. 07, 2012 @ 6:05 pm