Barack Obama, our next President

[sonicfilter]

What's the state of mind this weekend of the conservative outrage machine? With regard to liberals, I think it's fair to say as of Saturday that most of us (excepting your allowed-for percentage of nervous nellies) expect Barack Obama to win. If he somehow doesn't, we'll be surprised and deeply depressed. But provided the outcome doesn't involve some kind of Florida-style shenanigans, in a couple days' time, we'll come to terms with it.

Meanwhile--conservatives? I think that they are certain that Mitt Romney will win and that all information to the contrary is a pack of lies; that they will be completely shocked and outraged if he doesn't; that, if he loses, it will be the inevitable product of foul play; and that therefore they'll immediately start scouring the landscape looking for parties to blame and will keep themselves in a state suspended agitation for...days, weeks, four years, forever. Which wouldn't matter to the rest of us but for the fact that they'll continue to have the power to screw up the country.

The conservatives I read, and certainly my conservative commenters, just can't wait for Tuesday, when the American people will arise out of their torpor and finally send Obama to the dugout. I'm continually struck--nay, impressed, even--by the iron certainty with which they say this, and by their unswerving ability to pluck out the favorable polls (getting fewer and farther between, incidentally) and throw a bucket of ice-cold water on the ones they don't like.

Objective reality says Obama is ahead. But to conservatives, there's always something wrong in objective-reality land, always a reason to claim that the world is in fact spinning in the opposite direction. Quinnipiac has too many Democrats! PPP is a Democratic firm! This one oversampled blacks, that one Latinos. And of course, these objections are never merely just stated. They're the rhetorical equivalent of dirty nuclear bombs. Conservatives on Twitter howl derisively at these polls as if their purveyors are offering alchemical cures for venereal disease.

We're all prey to "confirmation bias," as Paul Waldman called it in his American Prospect column Friday. We look at the polls that we know will be more likely to show the result we want to see. With Republicans, that has meant Rasmussen, obviously, and Gallup. With liberals it has meant...well, virtually every other polling operation under God's golden sun, more often than not, because the simple fact remains that Obama has led in most polls for a year, nationwide and statewide.

But there's confirmation bias, and there's denial. Pennsylvania is up for grabs? If you say so, wingosphere. But Obama's led in 53 straight polls there, journalist Eric Boehlert tweeted yesterday. In the last two days we've seen about 20 different state polls. Obama led in 18. If my guy were on the business end of results like those, I'd be psychologically preparing myself.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11...

If Obama wins, the excuses will start coming; the excuses will mushroom into reasons why the victory was illegitimate; then the next mission will be to oppose Obama at every turn.

[Alloramadai]

yepperz wrote:

Nate Silver finds President Obama with an 84% chance to win the presidential election and that the barrage of swing state polls showing him leading Mitt Romney represents "powerful evidence against the idea that the race is a 'tossup.'

A tossup race isn't likely to produce 19 leads for one candidate and one for the other -- any more than a fair coin is likely to come up heads 19 times and tails just once in 20 tosses.(The probability of a fair coin doing so is about 1 chance in 50,000.)"

"Instead, Mr. Romney will have to hope that the coin isn't fair, and instead has been weighted to Mr. Obama's advantage. In other words, he'll have to hope that the polls have been biased in Mr. Obama's favor... They could be biased. Based on the historical reliability of polls, we put the chance that they will be biased enough to elect Mr. Romney at 16%."

Doesn't look good for the visiting team. But they leave in the middle of the 3rd quarter.

[Romney-Ryan 2012]

Nuculur option wrote:

<quoted text>
That's nice.
Chris Christie is Barack Obama's BFF, now supporting and campaigning for Obama!!
You were right, Christie is a cut above the average neanderthal wingnut!!
And now it comes out that Christie was Romney's first choice for VP!!
I'm lovin' it!!
----------
""Politico reports Christie was Romney's first veep choice""
""The on-again, off-again public love fest between Gov. Chris Christie and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is examined today in a long article in Politico.
The online news organization quotes campaign insiders as saying Christie was Romney’s first choice for vice president on the Republican ticket. Romney was so close to picking Christie, Politico reports, that advisors at Romney's Boston headquarters believed he had offered the governor the job.
The story reports that Christie was one of the campaign's favorite surrogates, but that they started souring on him when he showed up late to a few events. Even worse, they feared Christie's brash attitude and tendency to speak his mind would be a liability in the West Wing, leading them to settle on the more understated Paul Ryan.
""
----------
Romney lost Christie, and now Christie will help Obama get re-elected!!

Ans as it turned out Ryan was the correct choice. Cristie turned out to be a traitor.

[abbynormall]

Chicagoan by Birth wrote:

<quoted text>He had to be nice. It's what proper people do. He wants Federal funds to clean up his state. He may not respect the man, but does respect the office. Tell that to the White House workers when "Slick & the "Hil-Bily" left the White House??

I agree. He did what was expedient for the citizens of his state. Obama is a petulant, arrogant, "revenge" driven man in my book. Unfortunately, with FEMA's continued failings, it didn't do him much good.

[Alloramadai]

Lily Boca Raton FL wrote:

<quoted text>Oh brother. Went to see Argo last night, good movie

Sounded good. Glad to know you liked it!

[TheIndependentMa jority]

Nuculur option wrote:

<quoted text>
That's nice.
Chris Christie is Barack Obama's BFF, now supporting and campaigning for Obama!!
You were right, Christie is a cut above the average neanderthal wingnut!!
And now it comes out that Christie was Romney's first choice for VP!!
I'm lovin' it!!
----------
""Politico reports Christie was Romney's first veep choice""
""The on-again, off-again public love fest between Gov. Chris Christie and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is examined today in a long article in Politico.
The online news organization quotes campaign insiders as saying Christie was Romney’s first choice for vice president on the Republican ticket. Romney was so close to picking Christie, Politico reports, that advisors at Romney's Boston headquarters believed he had offered the governor the job.
The story reports that Christie was one of the campaign's favorite surrogates, but that they started souring on him when he showed up late to a few events. Even worse, they feared Christie's brash attitude and tendency to speak his mind would be a liability in the West Wing, leading them to settle on the more understated Paul Ryan.
""
----------
Romney lost Christie, and now Christie will help Obama get re-elected!!

Christie knew he has his work cut out in Jersey, and Christie also has a thing called PRIORITIES-- thank goodness for Jersey, was all that interetsed in jumping on the bullshyte bandwagon.

I KNOW I was right-I am good judge of true character-AND the LACK there of, in people.

Christie and Obama "BFF's"??

How old are you-12?

As Christie might bluntyly say-Grow the hell up and Get real.

ROMNEY/RYAN/CHRISTIE et al 2012!
REAL Leadership FOR ALL of America again!

[yepperz]

Obamatosis wrote:

another major NY newspaper--THAT ENDORSED OBAMA IN 2008:
Our choice for America’s future: The Daily News endorses Mitt Romney for president
Four years after endorsing Obama, News finds the hopes of those days went unfulfilled
America’s heart, soul, brains and muscle — the middle- and working-class people who make this nation great — have been beset for too long by sapping economic decline.
So, too, New York breadwinners and families.
Paychecks are shrunken after more than a decade in which the workplace has asked more of wage earners and rewarded them less. The decline has knocked someone at the midpoint of the salary scale back to where he or she would have been in 1996.
Then, the subway fare, still paid by token, was $1.50, gasoline was $1.23 a gallon and the median rent for a stabilized apartment was $600 a month.
Today, the base MetroCard subway fare is $2.25, gasoline is in the $3.90 range and the median stabilized rent is $1,050, with all the increases outpacing wage growth.
A crisis of long duration, the gap between purchasing power and the necessities of life widened after the 2008 meltdown revealed that the U.S. economy was built on toothpicks — and they snapped.
Nine million jobs evaporated. The typical American family saw $50,000 vanish from its net worth, and its median household income dropped by more than $87 a week. New Yorkers got off with a $54 weekly hit.
Our leaders owed us better than lower standards of living, and we must have better if the U.S. is to remain a beacon of prosperity where mothers and fathers can be confident of providing for their children and seeing them climb higher on the ladder.
Revival of the U.S. as a land of opportunity and upward mobility is the central challenge facing the next President.
The question for Americans: Who is more likely to accomplish the mission — Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?
Four years ago, the Daily News endorsed Obama, seeing a historic figure whose intelligence, political skills and empathy with common folk positioned him to build on the small practical experience he would bring to the world’s toughest job. We valued Obama’s pledge to govern with bold pragmatism and bipartisanship.
THE HOPES OF THOSE DAYS WENT UNFULFILLED.
Achingly slow job creation has left the U.S. with 4.3 million fewer positions than provided incomes to Americans in 2007. Half the new jobs have been part-time, lower-wage slots, a trend that has ruinously sped a hollowing of the middle class.
The official unemployment rate stands at 7.9%, marking only the second month below 8% after 43 months above that level. Worse, add people who are working part-time because they have no better choice and the rate leaps to almost 15%. Still worse, add 8 million people who have given up looking for employment and the number who are out of jobs or who are cobbling together hours to scrape by hits some 23 million people.
Only America’s social safety net, record deficits and the Federal Reserve’s unprecedented low-interest policies have kept the label Great Depression II on the shelf.
New Yorkers have fared no better. The state is alone among the 50 in suffering significantly rising unemployment over the last 12 months, with the rate now at 8.9%. The city’s pain index is 8.8%, and the five boroughs have been trading down in salaries.
The trend over the Obama years: Goodbye to middle- and high-income jobs in New York City; hello to positions that pay less than $45,000 a year.

CONTINUED...

Here's a much more meaningful endorsement Jane..........

Mr. Burns endorses Mitt Romney

http://www.youtube.com/watch... #!

"The Simpsons'" evil billionaire explains that the presidency is "the God-given property of the Republican Party"

Lol,,,carries a lot more weight.

[Nuculur option]

carol wrote:

<quoted text>
Now, now, PDupont.
The Democrats controlled Congress from January 2007 through January 2010.
The market finally collapsed under the weight of all those bad mortgage loans that Democrats couldn't seem to give out enough at the end of 2007.
Bush tried to warn Congress that F&F needed some regulating as far back as 2003.
The Democrats in the Congressional hearing to rein in F&F in 2004 called it a "public lynching".
Them's the facts.

Carol doing what she does best; talking thru her ass.

You've had 4 ars to produce the legislation that the Dems passed and Bush didn't veto, yet you have offered nothing bur vauge lies about Bush warnings.

Where is the legislation that the Dems passed over VBush's veto

Warnings?? He was President, you doofus!! Wih the bully pulpit he could have influenced his Republican friends, who could have come up with far more than 'warnings'.

Bush destroyed the economy with unfunded wars and stupid tax cuts, which greqw the deficit without improving the economy. The capital gains tax cut had NO impact on GDP, but a big impact on the deficit.

You, who are so poor you scrounge for used furniture and buy crappy used cars, have no understanding of the economy. You seek Government loans for your daughter's education, yet pretend to be a 'I'm not dependent on Big Government', which is exactly what you dirt poor Florida frauds are all about.

See ya on Tuesday.

[abbynormall]

TheIndependentMajority wrote:

<quoted text>
ROMNEY/RYAN et al 2012
Simply because of th qualified EXPERIENCE required for REAL Leadership for ALL of America again-NOT just some!

Obama...."Vote for REVENGE!"

Romney....."Vote for the LOVE of America!"

[Romney-Ryan 2012]

yepperz wrote:

<quoted text>
More fact twisting from the Topix pretzel.
Economic data show more growth under Democrats...
Mitt Romney routinely criticizes President Obama’s record as a steward of the economy, because the recovery since the financial crisis has been slow.
If he is elected, Romney says, he would boost economic growth to 4 percent, double the current level — a rate that would outdo every Republican administration going back to 1953.
But despite the view held by many that the GOP is the party of economic prosperity and soaring stock markets, the opposite has historically been true. Over the past six decades, Republican administrations have produced median economic growth of 2.6 percent. Democratic administrations, meanwhile, have produced a median growth rate of 4.2 percent.
SOURCE: STANDARD & POOR’S; FIGURES THROUGH SEPT. 4; NED DAVIS RESEARCH; GRAPHIC: GEROGE PATISTEAS/GLOBE STAFF
“The market actually does better under Democrats than Republicans, not just the S&P 500, but earnings and the economy,’’ said Sam Stovall, chief equity strategist at S&P Capital IQ.
An even closer parsing of financial data reveals another surprising fact: Markets have been at their best when there’s a Democratic president and a Republican Congress. Historically, that combination has turned out 15 percent average annual returns, compared with 5 percent returns with a Republican president and Democrat-controlled Congress.
Another popular line of argument is that the economy and stock markets fare well under Democratic presidents because of policies that were put in place by their Republican predecessors.
Romney has argued that tax cuts, not government spending, are best for fueling economic growth. Under President George W. Bush, who implemented a number of tax cuts, corporate earnings grew at a median 14.2 percent annually from 2001 to 2008. Under Obama, they have risen 51.8 percent.
http://bostonglobe.com/business/2012/11/01/st...
"Them's the facts".

The Boston Globe huh? Probably nothing slanted about that article.

[TheIndependentMa jority]

abbynormall wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree. He did what was expedient for the citizens of his state. Obama is a petulant, arrogant, "revenge" driven man in my book. Unfortunately, with FEMA's continued failings, it didn't do him much good.

"Prance and dance" poliTICS.

It's obvious who had a handle on things in Jersey ;-).

(REAL LEADERSHIP-not prance and dance!!)

ROMNEY/RYAN/CHRISTIE et al 2012!

[Nuculur option]

Romney-Ryan 2012 wrote:

<quoted text>Ans as it turned out Ryan was the correct choice. Cristie turned out to be a traitor.

Anyone who is stupid enough to call a Governor a 'traitor' for doing the right thing for his State is way beneath contempt.

Christie ensured his place as leading candidate for the 2016 Republiclown Presidential race.

While you remain a loser.

You're going to cry over the shellaking you'll take on Tuesday, ya wingnut!!

[TheIndependentMa jority]

Nuculur option wrote:

<quoted text>
Carol doing what she does best; talking thru her ass.
You've had 4 ars to produce the legislation that the Dems passed and Bush didn't veto, yet you have offered nothing bur vauge lies about Bush warnings.
Where is the legislation that the Dems passed over VBush's veto
Warnings?? He was President, you doofus!! Wih the bully pulpit he could have influenced his Republican friends, who could have come up with far more than 'warnings'.
Bush destroyed the economy with unfunded wars and stupid tax cuts, which greqw the deficit without improving the economy. The capital gains tax cut had NO impact on GDP, but a big impact on the deficit.
You, who are so poor you scrounge for used furniture and buy crappy used cars, have no understanding of the economy. You seek Government loans for your daughter's education, yet pretend to be a 'I'm not dependent on Big Government', which is exactly what you dirt poor Florida frauds are all about.
See ya on Tuesday.

You have issues with people who have to live with in their means?

Not everyone lives fwee off the givverment doles.

ROMNEY/RYAN/CHRISTIE et al 2012!
Leadership with INTEGRITY-FOR All of America again-NOT just some!!

[Alloramadai]

TheIndependentMajority wrote:

<quoted text>I heard an interesting quote--watching two documentaries last night-one on Romney and one on Obama.

The particular quote was referencing the debate over the stimulus package and the wide spread hesitancy to hand out more dollars for the failures in auto industry to waste. A significant incline to the national debt. A repeat of what had already been done.
The quote was a pretty good indicator of the past four years of obamunism strong arm commie type tactics- on obamas stance on pushing MORE debt onto the American public and his response in reasoning for doing it was "I won".

Even the "pro-documentary" makers-had a problem with that.

And well they should.

It was childish, arrogent, self-serving and blaring as to the level of "intelligence" that REALLY exists within.

Kind of sad and pathetic really--just like the past four years have been.

ROMNEY/RYAN et al 2012
Because America needs some REAL Leadership again!

I'd be interested in seeing these. What were they titled?

[Nuculur option]

Romney-Ryan 2012 wrote:

<quoted text>
The Boston Globe huh? Probably nothing slanted about that article.

It's funny to watch you nitwits run away from a discussion, proving how lame you are.

Attacking a respected publication only proves you to be a shallow old white fool.

Come back when you're smart enough to discuss the issues, and not attack the messenger, dimwit/

[Romney-Ryan 2012]

abbynormall wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree. He did what was expedient for the citizens of his state. Obama is a petulant, arrogant, "revenge" driven man in my book. Unfortunately, with FEMA's continued failings, it didn't do him much good.

FEMA might be doing nothing but at least "evil" corporate giant Proctor & Gamble is doing their part. They have sent Tide Laundry trucks to the N.J. and N.Y. areas and are doing people's laundry. Now at least the residents can freeze in clean clothes.
HEY FEMA! WHERE ARE THE GENERATORS? WHERE ARE THE TEMPORARY TRAILERS? AND WHERE THE HELL IS OBAMA?!?!

[abbynormall]

Alloramadai wrote:

<quoted text>
But he is winning, Carol

Depends on which poll you note, which pundit you listen to, which article you read, and what you want to believe.

No one will know until after Tuesday. That's a fact.

[Alloramadai]

Romney-Ryan 2012 wrote:

<quoted text>I've never been a big fan of either of these men and as I'm watching the fiasco in N.Y. and N.J., people starving, freezing, dying, due to these union-owned politicians' incompetence, I'd have to say "yes".

Sounds like the old days when the big guy was paid to offer protection. I'm shocked that this way of life continues.

[TheIndependentMa jority]

Romney-Ryan 2012 wrote:

<quoted text>Ans as it turned out Ryan was the correct choice. Cristie turned out to be a traitor.

Bullshyte.

Christie is EXACTLY what America needs MORE of.

Actually WORKING (not prance and dance and chants) Government, FOR the PEOPLE, BY the PEOPLE, OF the PEOPLE.

ROMNEY/RYAN/CHRISTIE et al 2012!
ALREADY Saving America!!!!!!!!!!

[yepperz]

Romney-Ryan 2012 wrote:

<quoted text>
The Boston Globe huh? Probably nothing slanted about that article.

SOURCE: STANDARD & POOR’S; FIGURES THROUGH SEPT. 4; NED DAVIS RESEARCH; GRAPHIC: GEROGE PATISTEAS/GLOBE STAFF

Take it up with them.