Voters re-elect President Barack Obama.
Marriage equality sweeps in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington.
And we seem to have more women in the U.S. Senate than ever before. Sen. Warren. Sen. Baldwin.
(Image swiped from Advocate.com.)
I’m from MN. I can’t believe it – both marriage and voter ID voted down. Sorry about still keeping Bachmann – but she now has to live with the knowledge that her state on POPULAR VOTE voted down two big amendments that were big for her.
My temple worked so hard to defeat both amendments. We worked so hard – i still can’t beleive it. This wasn’t won on a technicality of leaving an oval blank ment a no vote, but by an actual popluar majority
This was supposed to be my first comment. Not sure how I forgot about it.
Sorry about still keeping Bachmann
Damn, I thought she lost.
We need to do something about the House two years from now. Wish we’d done something about it yesterday. Progress was made, but not enough.
And thank you beyond anything I can dream of to all the straight voters who voted for marraige equality.
More openly gay Senators than ever before, too.
Also, LEGAL POT, wooooo!
Who? And Yay Massachusetts for legalizing medicinal marijuana. Sad that the assissteed suicide bill failed but I expected it to.
Tammy Baldwin, now Senator for Wisconsin.
YES YES YES
I have faith in the American people again.
Congratulation to Mr Obama and his team and as a Canadian “I” better just leave “IT” at that until I start a new blog sometimes next year!
I hear ya folks! You’re your own worst enemy Victor!
Don’t jinx it. I’m allowing myself a bit of relief atm. :) If Rmoney won, it would really feel like everything’s too far gone.
Maybe if more Republican candidates were turned away from the polls when they went to vote, they would rethink the voter ID laws.
I’m realistic, the GOP House is not going to change their tune: blocking any progress by the Presidient is still the order of the day. Tea Partiers will scream even louder.
But now the Affordable Health Act is going to stick. And thanks to the Republicans, they’ve get Obama’s name a firm place in history; a hundred years from now it may still be “ObamaCare”.
Women have a larger say in government, with more women Senators than ever b efore.
And America is showing signs of real movement away from a homopohic bias in government policy.
So I’m hopefully that “the best is yet to come/”
Hope you’re right about “the best”, Rick. What worries me is that we still have a catastrophically divided Congress, with one side almost certainly determined to reject any sort of compromises that could start solving problems. (“Bipartisanship” never meant “do it our way or we’ll hold the country hostage until you give in”.)
I’m hoping that Obama will stay in touch with the inner bulldog who turned up for the second debate with Romney, and force a few issues until the tea party either backs down or unmasks their indifference to the good of their country. We’ll see.
But at least, by a hair-thin popular margin as I write, the country has backed trying to make things better.
Honestly, I’m a little suspicious. Don’t get me wrong, I’m pleased as punch that marriage equality went through in all four locations it was on the ballot, and I’m relieved that Obama’s remaining our president, and I’m fretful that the legislature will continue its obstructionism without a filibuster-proof majority in the senate/with a Republican majority in the House, but…
The fact that all of the swing states that have returned results swung Obama… well, I hope our side didn’t stoop to anything illegal.
This is the difference between democrats and republicans. Democrats can’t believe they won without cheating, Republicans can’t believe they lost without cheating.
The trait of self-doubt always goes to those who need it least.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity?
The swing states that went Blue, basically all went blue at the margin that the polls were showing they were going to go leading into the election. Nate Silver and Princeton Election Consortium basically all had every state falling exactly as it did fall, and almost all to nearly the exact popular vote margin in each of those states, as well. To suggest that Democrats cheated at this point is to suggest that the pollsters were all terribly wrong, and then that Democrats cheated in such a way to make the actual outcome appear to be exactly the same as what the pollsters were predicting to begin with.
Sure, it’s possible, but at this point it seems far more likely to be that the pollsters were actually just correct, and there wasn’t any hanky-panky.
If you’ve been following 538 or any of the blogs monitoring state polling, the numbers we’re seeing out of the swing states are about what was expected. If anything, fewer votes for Obama than were projected, in some cases. This race was only ever really close on a national level.
I’m sure they haven’t.
The “swing” states have been polling strongly for Obama for the past week or two. Nate Silver has been giving Obama a better than 60% chance in all of them for over a week, and over 70% for the last few days. The only “swing” state that was actually a tossup by Silver’s measure was Florida, which had moved from leaning towards Romney to being too close to call.
If you scroll down to the individual state-specific polls at Silver’s site, you’ll see that in the “swing” states that Obama won, the latest polls almost all had him ahead between 1% and 5% Both a significant margin that late in the race and a consistent lead in all the different polls, whatever their methodology and sampling.
The media has largely been looking at the closer national numbers, and quoting them when talking about state-specific expectations in the declared “swing” states. Also selectively quoting close polls, such as Rasmussen, which tends to favor Republicans, while ignoring those that were more clearly for Obama.
A tight election makes for a more dramatic story, and better ratings.
Two things: First, the results from the swing states roughly matched predictions. Nothing suspicious about that. Second, NOT all swing states went to Obama. North Carolina narrowly went to Romney.
Second, NOT all swing states went to Obama. North Carolina narrowly went to Romney.
A good point. And Silver had North Carolina leaning for Romney, projecting 50.6% of the votes for Romney and 48.9% for Obama, with Romney having a 74% chance of winning the state. So no surprises even there.
The media was focused on the swing states that were leaning for Obama, because those were the ones that had to change for Romney to win. The close race in Florida and Romney leading in North Carolina were less interesting, because even if they changed to Obama, it wouldn’t change the outcome.
The fact that all of the swing states that have returned results swung Obama… well, I hope our side didn’t stoop to anything illegal.
Maybe I’m misremembering after a long night, but I seem to remember the North Carolina results coming in pretty early. And, as I recall, that seemed to be the swingiest of the swing states. Many of the others had reliable (if small) Obama leads for ages.
People have already addressed the statistics, but I’d also like to point out that Ohio had a Republican Sec of State who had been flagrantly trying to disadvantage voters in democrat-leaning districts, not to mention the sketchy last-minute secret application of tabulation machine software patches. This has brought a lot of scrutiny to voting in Ohio, which would have made it more risky for anyone on any side to monkey with the results there. Husted’s hanky-panky opened up a clear path for challenging a hypothetical Romney win in Ohio via litigation… and also managed to seriously piss off much of the federal judiciary in the region.
So there’s the cynical view on why we shouldn’t worry about our side having done anything illegal in Ohio. :)
I live in a so-called swing state. And I don’t know how Romney got any votes here. Swing states aren’t really swing any longer, not with the Republicans going completely and utterly off the deep end.
I thought swing states are called such because the polls show they are not solidly Republican or Democrat, meaning it changes with each election?
Are swing states determined differently?
Also, two other questions I’d like factual answers from: Cracked had an article http://www.cracked.com/article_20134_8-election-myths-you-probably-believe_p2.html on low voter turnout where they claimed that voter turnout is calculated in the US by taking the number of people who voted and dividing them against the number of over-18-year-olds, not against the number of people eligible to vote (citizen, not criminal, not stricken from the rolls etc.)
Is this true? If yes, why? You do have voter rolls of who’s eligible, so you can find out the total number and do statistics correctly, right?
The other item was a Snopes article http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/picture.asp about how people posting pictures of their ballots might – depending on state law – be punished for that by discarding their vote.
In some states it’s illegal to display a voted ballot, and in some circumstances voters who do so might potentially violate laws that would theoretically allow their votes to be thrown out. Much of the law in this area is uncertain, however, and we’re unaware of any cases in which voters have had their ballots invalidated due to sharing pictures of them on the Internet.
Now, the whole thing is weird for me (why would people want to take pictures of their ballot and post it? Why would the state care about it?), but the really scary thing is: Do you guys not have secret and anonymous elections? If a state can discard the ballot of Joe Smith for taking a picture of it, that means that the state can identify which ballot belongs to Joe Smith. (And no, it’s not “the ballot that matches the picture according to the votes cast” because dozens of people can have cast the same ballot combination). This idea is very scary to me, where each election they explain to the volunteers why the “secret and anonymous” part of voting is so damn important (and there are people around from at least one dictatorship who can remember the difference).
Swing states are the ones where neither candidate has so large a margin of victory according to pre-election polls that it’s possible with any degree of certainty to call the state without counting the votes. My state went nearly sixty-forty for Obama and everyone knew it would; the official call came about two minutes after polls closed here. Any state polling a mere 52-48? Swing, because it might have a history of going a particular direction, but if the 48 side got sufficiently fired up and the 52 side sufficiently complacent, the 48 side might win.
@ Muchner Kindl,
We do have secret and anonymous ballot elections in the US, so I’m not sure how the heck you could throw out a specific someone’s ballot after the fact. Maybe if an election judge/observer caught them in the process, or they’d voted by mail or provisionally and their envelope hadn’t been opened yet, but that’s it.
There are reasons for laws against photographing your own ballot — if someone wants to buy your vote they’ll want evidence that you voted the way they are paying you to. And directly buying/selling votes is illegal. (Politicians promising not to raise taxes on X or Y group doesn’t count as buying votes.)
There are reasons for laws against photographing your own ballot — if someone wants to buy your vote they’ll want evidence that you voted the way they are paying you to.
Which still doesn’t prove anything. You can take a picture, destroy the ballot and get a new one at the desk, after all. Or you can take one picture and copy it to 20 friends to get payment.
Because it’s impossible to identify one specific ballot with one specific voter, votes can’t be bought. Bringing a camera into the picture doesn’t change that.
But Mikkaelsen from snopes suggesting that there are laws on how to throw out a vote, that worries me. (Though snopes is generally more obsessed with patriotism first than with facts – I once emailed her about that “soldiers carry desks into classroom to teach a lesson” and asked her how exactly soldiers are enabling education and not normal taxpayers, but I didn’t get any response.)
The status is undetermined, so maybe Snopes needs time to research the law. (Why a federal election doesn’t have federal laws that apply instead of local laws is of course another one of those “that’s how we do it because … sovereignity!!” cases.)
snopes is generally more obsessed with patriotism first than with facts
I’m a longtime reader of the site and I’ve never detected that kind of bias. Most of the Glurge section at Snopes questions the mythology behind those allegedly heartwarming takes. I know many people who accuse the site of being liberal and being “hostile” to the Second Amendment.
And your question about “how exactly soldiers are enabling education and not normal taxpayers” suggests a misinterpretation – it was probably intended to mean that soldiers put their lives at risk to protect the freedoms and rights of their fellow citizens, such as a right to a public education. That hagiography is deceptive when one looks at the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Mikkelson’s response below the letter seems free of that misplaced worship. But that doesn’t change the fact that the incident happened.
Not all the swing states (said the North Carolinian disappointed in her state).
Not all. North Carolina went for Romney and last I heard Florida was still up in the air. But I wouldn’t waste your time worrying abnout it the right wing is sure to be proclaimubng the election stolen any minute now.
Which would be damned hypocritical considering who actually tried using voter suppression strategies to steal the election. And if that one former NSA analyst is correct, various other strategies too, dating back several years at least.
…wait, this is the right wing we’re talking about, being labeled a hypocrite is a badge of honor. Never mind.
Reid is going to try to change the Senate rules so that bills can’t be completely blocked by a minority.
I’m not sure that’s wise. Some bills need to be blocked, and if that doesn’t happen before it gets to debate on the Senate floor… Figuring a way to make sure the minority can’t abuse the filibuster the way Republicans have been, that’s absolutely essential, but I don’t think getting rid of it, or changing it enough that a sufficiently determined senator or ten cannot block things with it, would be a good idea. Best thing to do would probably be to insist that every threatened filibuster must be a real filibuster–orate like Bernie Sanders did or read from the DC phone book, I do not fucking care, but if there’s going to be a filibuster there needs to be a senator giving a speech every moment of the filibuster.
It’s something about the consent procedure, the one that allows them to filibuster without doing anything else. (I’m not up on the ins and outs of the Senate rules; I gather they can get somewhat arcane.)
Some bills need to be blocked, and if that doesn’t happen before it gets to debate on the Senate floor.
Um, what? Why? A bill is introduced if the majority of parliament members votes for it, and it passes both houses, right? (Some need to pass only one house, some are read several times, but that’s the principle. If the second house votes against it, it can be put into comitee, or read again in the 1st house, and altered, and either passes anyway or dies, depending on details). So if a bill isn’t popular enough to have majority support, why should it be blocked? If it can go through, why should it be blocked?
That isn’t quite how it works over here– http://www.schoolhouserock.tv/Bill.html there educate yourself, Schoolhouse Rock is fairly painless. And quite often a popular bill is an abhorrent bill. The Defense of Marriage Act used to be an abhorrent bill, and it’s only in the past couple of years that it’s stopped being a popular law, and I wish to fuck it had been successfully filibustered.
I don’t see how that’s different from the principle – it goes through the Senate, then the House. Only that it must pass through a comittee first, because … elitism? Power plays? Here, many laws do come from comitees because they meet to discuss a topic or problem in the first place, and it’s good to have experts when formulating a proposed law. But politicans can also bring them directly.
Basically, the filibuster means that if a majority party wants to ram through a bill that’s really awful to a >40% minority party, and they (minority) think it’s worth it because it’s that bad, they can keep it from passing. It’s done some good in the past, I’m pretty sure, helping to prevent some tyranny-of-the-majority stuff. But without having to actually filibuster, it’s become much abused.
Carstonio’s vent of the day – why do people even listen to this hateful asshole?
Bill O’Reilly says another reason Romney might lose Ohio, and thus the election is that “50 percent of the people… want stuff.” They think Obama will give them free stuff. Latinos, blacks, women, they all want stuff. Obama would have never been reelected by the old establishment. He explicitly makes it a racial thing: “Obama wins because it’s not a traditional America anymore. The white establishment is the minority. People want things.”
OH NOEZ, NOT WHITES IN THE MINORITY.
At long last! But can this Irish-Italian American finally be considered not white again? It’ll speed up the process!
I’d be willing to bet that it’s closer to 100% of people who “want stuff”.
It’s just the Right’s narrative that when rich people want stuff, and avail themselves of the opportunities the government provides, they’re “smart” – but when poor people want stuff, and avail themselves of the opportunities the government provides, they’re “parasites”.
I, no joke, heard someone say that Obama’s $10 million means he doesn’t understand the average person, spends money wastefully and probably acquired it illegitimately, but Romney’s $250 million means he’s a good businessperson.
Isn’t that ten million nearly all because when Obama first hit the national stage we all bought books he wrote?
I’d just like to let you know that this comment won 100% of my electoral votes (and popular vote as well)
“People want things” – Yeesh. As if the “white establishment” – rich white men, amirite? – hasn’t always wanted money and power and the rest of the population to look down on.
Yeah, I thought greed is good, but I suppose that’s only if you’re an white, male rentier. File under: Morality, slave-master.
File under: Morality, slave-master.
The modern Republican party in a nutshell.
If you want to understand today’s Republican party, start with the Civil War and the years preceding it, from about 1840 on. The earlier the better, of course. Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson is the standard text to get you started. After that, I recommend slave narratives: Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl by Harriet Ann Jacobs, for instance.
It’s weird to read about Republicans being on the correct side back then, of course. It’s really sad that they took up the Confederacy’s limp and filthy banner after the Democrats dropped it. Until we can come to terms with the first three hundred+ years of our history, the sin of slavery etched into the nation’s soul (to be purple), we will never stop paying for the consequences of that evil our country perpetrated. And the ideological descendants of the slave masters will keep stomping us into the dirt.
Good description of the Confederate banner, really the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. I think of it as forever stained with the blood of Martin Luther King and Medgar Evers and all the other civil rights martyrs.
The Confederate flag was stained with the blood of hundreds of thousands of slaves as soon as it was created. It was about nothing but defending the so-called “right” of rich white men to do what they pleased to black people. It was stained by the rape of every black slave girl, the forced servitude of every black person, the cries of every black wife whose husband was “sold South”, of every black parent whose child was torn from them. That flag is one of the most heinous symbols humanity has ever conceived.
No disagreement about the brutal horrors of slavery. My purely technical point is that the X flag was never the official flag of the Confederacy – that was the Stars and Bars instead. Part of a larger pattern of Southern historical revisionism. One of the great lost opportunities in US history is that the South won the peace after losing the war – the convinced later generations that the root case of the conflict was anything but slavery, labeling it as “Northern aggression” even though the South started the war.
The X flag was revived by 20th-century segregationists in defiance of civil rights, first highly visible with Strom Thurmond’s racist Dixiecrat campaign in 1948. It may have been a local banner in the 1860s, but by the 1960s there was no question that it stood for racism. And as someone who grew up in the 1970s, I’m still infuriated about the deceptive rebranding of the X flag as a allegedly regional banner. When I see the flag, I think of George Wallace’s pinched look of fury, firehosing of civil rights demonstrators, burning crosses, lynchings, and John Lewis suffering beatings for wanting to exercise his right to vote.
When the yearbook group at my high school, Placename South, looked at that banner, they saw something that meant ”south”, so hey, let’s put it on the yearbook cover! And this was in Wisconsin, so, really, WTF?? Sometime around ’86-’88.
Wow, that is some high grade stupid there. On more than one level.
I actually don’t think we could have done that at my high school. The students had control of the year book, but there were limits. I’m pretty sure the Confederate battle flag was on the wrong side of the line.
Also, the yearbook adviser would have had a meeting about it and explained why that just wasn’t right and didn’t we want to rethink the design? I just can’t see it going to the printer with the Stars & Bars on the cover.
The Stars and Bars flag was actually a lookalike of the US flag with just three stripes, and was the first official flag of the Confederacy. Not the same as the flag with the X. That symbol was part of the so-called nation’s later official flag,
As I commented on a friend’s Facebook post where he asked “OK, what’s next?”:
Next, we can all quit our jobs and live off the dole. After all, that’s what the conservatives were all (well, mostly) telling me I was voting for.
I’d be bored to tears in a week. I’d also have the damnedest time paying my credit cards, not to mention difficulty expanding my library. And it is entirely probable that my facespace human interaction with people other than parents and siblings would top out at two hours a week, which I’m told is bad for me.
Man, O’Reilly would freak out if he watched an Australian election campaign. Our politics is all about wanting things. I’m pretty sure I’ve never heard an Australian–on any side of politics–talk about how liberty is opposed to constraints and we need to vote for liberty or some such crap. Instead, we get “Party X will do this”, “Party Y will do this” and you decide which one you prefer. We also get ad hominem attacks ad nauseum–you should vote for Party X because Party Y couldn’t raffle a chook in a pub–but not ideologies divorced from stuff.
O’Reilly might find this horrifying and I guess that makes us slaves to something or other, but hey–turns out a lot of the things we want include health care, not being shot, guaranteed working conditions etc etc. And let me be the first to assure him that white, upper middle class folk are not shy about demanding government give them the things they want.
couldn’t raffle a chook in a pub
*fascinated* Why would one wish to raffle a chook in a pub? What does that mean?
I mean, I have a high school friend who emigrated to Australia, so I recognize the word “chook” from her pictures of her chickens, but the entire phrase is utterly baffling to me apart from context. And I’m wondering if I’m missing some other meaning of the word.
*fascinated* Why would one wish to raffle a chook in a pub?
Well, why wouldn’t you? Chook raffles are incredibly popular in small rural towns–the Friday night chook raffle was just about ubiquitous when I was growing up in said towns.
In the country towns I grew up in they’d raffle a chook every few hours on the hour on Friday nights, make a few dollars for some local cause, a handful of people had a nice little win, no one lost anything significant, and you get the enjoyment of low-stakes gambling in a community environment.
To clarify, it’s a roasting chicken, not a live fowl (usually). Meat trays are also very popular–an assortment of cuts, usually beef and lamb, a few sausages. Tickets are really cheap–they were 10 or 20c each in the 80s (maybe 50c now cos of inflation). It’s incredibly easy to organise–you just announce the raffle, everyone in the pub buys a few tickets, and someone goes home with the meat for a Sunday roast.
To say someone couldn’t raffle a chook is a pub is to call them utterly incompetant. Equivalent phrases are “couldn’t organise a piss-up in a brewery” and one about brothels that I don’t think is used any more.
Makes sense, just utterly unfamiliar. Then again, I don’t frequent bars enough to know about parallel American customs.
I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that bar culture and pub culture are quite different. Is it commonplace to bring your family to a bar for dinner?
So half fifty-fifty drawing, half turkey bingo?
I’m going to have to look both of those things up :)
Fifty-fifty drawing: sell a bunch of tickets (usually one for a dollar and six for five), divide the takings in two, and half goes to the hosting organization or the host’s charity of choice and the other half to the holder of the winning ticket. Fairly common, I understand; certainly every square dance I’ve ever been to, in several areas of the US, has done one. Turkey bingo: like ordinary bingo except the prizes are a frozen turkey for Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner, and sometimes other things but the turkeys are the big draw. No idea how common it is.
Unfortunately, Obama is not that different from Romney anyway. Even the Political Compass people noticed that:
Congrats to my American friends — particularly non-self-hating women, LGBTs, PoC, and just progressives in general — on having dodged a bullet, and maybe even made a little progress.
Upon reading the headline this morning, the one thing running through my head was the classic “The Yankees win the pennant! THE YANKEES WIN THE PENNANT!”
Um. Just a lot happy that Maryland passed the two I most wanted to pass, marriage equality and dream act. YAY US! Cause we all win with these–the more kids getting good educations and decent jobs, the more taxes are collected to pay for more kids getting good educations and good jobs, and so on and so forth. Or so I see it.
Thanks for putting my mind at ease, guys. (Not sarcastic).
This is the best election I can remember in a long time. I was driving home from work at 11:30pm doing little fist pumps as they were projecting swing state after swing state to go blue.
Also, I wish Nate Silver would let me use the time machine that he clearly has.
1) Relieved to cautiously happy that Obama won and that we kept a majority in the Senate. Now just show some backbone, guys.
2) Happy that we defeated the fuck out of the “God wants your uterus” camp. (Much as I have a soft spot for grandfatherly types, Mourdouche’s speech…yes, you’re being “attacked for your beliefs”, insofar as your “beliefs” are misogynist idiocy.) And that so many states are passing SSM into law. And that MA went with medical marijuana, even if we were dorks about right-to-die.
3) Surprised nobody has made “O-face” jokes yet. Everyone in the country = classier than me, apparently.
4) Sliiiiightly hung over.
I’m very pleased that Obama received more than 2.5 million votes than Romney (so far). That’s a solid enough lead that we can safely say he won both the electoral college vote *and* the popular vote!
I think one thing needs to be clarified for those who haven’t been following this election’s marriage equality votes closely. Three more states now have marriage equality—Maine, Maryland & Washington. This is the first time marriage equality has become law through popular vote rather than legislative action
Minnesota did not vote on marriage equality and still doesn’t have it. As Hilary said, what Minnesotans did was reject a proposed amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as one man, one woman. Minnesota is the first state to reject such a constitutional amendment that actually made it onto the ballot.
For years now we’ve been hearing that people should be voting on the civil rights of their fellow citizens. Homophobes have been pushing the idea that it’s wrong for legislatures to do their jobs by ensuring equality before the law because they felt confident that they could always win in the voting booth. Last night they were proven wrong. I think in a few years we’ll look back on 11/6/12 as the day that the tide definitively turned in favor of marriage equality.
Congratulations and a hearty thanks to everyone who worked so hard to make that happen. Savor your victories because they’re sweet and they will lead to more. And because they’re making the haters cry bitter tears of impotent rage.
Washington state (where I live) brings me a bit more joy than California (where I used to live) on the equal marriage front – not only has marriage been approved by popular vote, but that vote was affirming what the legislature passed a year or so ago.
That means there is pretty much no path for challenge in the courts.
They’ve already been preparing for voters to swing to pro-marriage. Hence all the cries of “But if the voters approve it, that violates our rights! A majority trampling on a minority!”
They can blah, blah,blah all they want. They’re still losing and they’re going to continue to lose. And they know it, too, which makes pointing and laughing especially enjoyable.
I like the way Ta-Nehisi Coates phrased it:
“Civil rights should not be subject to a ballot measure. But no matter. Tonight in Maine, Maryland, and Washington, the movement for marriage equality took on its opponents, on their field, under their rules and defeated them.“
Honestly, last night was just a win for democracy in general. The EC worked in line with the popular vote. We learned that you can’t just buy an election with unlimited money and unlimited lies. Marijuana reform in two states. Marriage equality in four states.
I really love my country, even when it’s citizens vote for terrible people. But, last night really made me proud, because I think that it proved just how much better America is now than it was even during the 1990’s.
I’m sure that, probably starting today, it’ll be back to the same partisan anger, bickering, and stupidity. But, I think that’s good, too. I’m especially proud of our country today. And especially worried about where the GOP goes from here, to tell you the truth.
I’d like o think that this defeat, especially of Akin and Mourdock and the failures to ban same-sex marriage, would prompt the GOP to move to the center on at least some of the social issues. Unfortunately, I suspect that they’ll probably double down. They will attribute Romney’s defeat to the fact that he wasn’t radical enough, that he didn’t kowtow to the far-right in his party enough, and resolve to double down for midterms.
I mean, I hope not, but I don’t know.
I’m really torn about this issue. A part of me wants to see Republicans keep piling on the racism, misogyny and homophobia, since this election seems to have shown that’s a losing strategy.
The other part is terrified of them doubling down and somehow [i]winning[/i], though…
. Unfortunately, I suspect that they’ll probably double down. They will attribute Romney’s defeat to the fact that he wasn’t radical enough, that he didn’t kowtow to the far-right in his party enough, and resolve to double down for midterms.
I hope they do.
Because I believe they’re wrong and America will see that and give them the thrashing they need to finally collapse and reform as something resembling a sensible conservative party.
And if they’re right, and America really wants them to double down and be twice as hateful and monsterous, well, I’d prefer to know.
Look at the lack of landslide, as pointed out earlier. Too many white guys whoted for rich old guys after believing Fox. Too many women still voted for the “legitimate rape” guys. Too many religious people voted against the “secrect muslim”. If it were 10% or even 30% (crazification factor), we could watch them implode. But in many cases it’s close to 50%, not only the bad Electoral college system, but also in popular votes.
You’re playing with fire wishing for that. Although I sadly believe they will do that regardless, because they’ve been doubling down after lost elections for decades now.
Look at the lack of landslide, as pointed out earlier. Too many white guys whoted for rich old guys after believing Fox
I spent a lot of time yesterday thinking on this, and I came to an understanding. It’s bad. But it’s not as bad as you think it is, and here’s why:
If you’re a white guy who isn’t gay or poor, then you had a certain luxury in this election: you didn’t have to inform your vote by the fact that one side didn’t think you were fully human or that the actual candidate seemed to be a psychopath: you could just vote based on whether you think that on balance, conservative policies are better or liberal policies are better. And while I think that there actually is a concrete and demonstrable right and wrong answer there, I’ll allow the possibility that there is room for a plurality of views on the subject, and history has shown that *in isolation from everything else*, this country is indeed split roughly evenly between those who think that liberal policies work better and those who think that conservative ones do.
Now, I may think that straight, christian, middle-class white guys are suffering a lack of empathy if they choose to make their decision in that kind of isolation. But those who do make the decision on that basis would surely break left as often as right.
So what we’re really taking about when we talk about how only 39% of white males voted for Obama is this: in total isolation of the realities of how badly off the rails the GOP has come from being a legitimate and honest conservative party, we would expect 50% of white males (and 50% of any other demographic for that matter) to vote for Obama, and 50% for Romney.
So the real number is 11%. 11% of white men decided that even though in isolation they are not sympathetic of conservative politics they should throw in and do their part to defend white male privilege. (And let it not be forgotten. A very large percent of women, african-americans, QUILTBAG folks, non-christians, and latinos, even though they did not in isolation feel a kinship with liberal policies, decided to vote for the party that wasn’t actively trying to kill them.).
As I said in my previous post. If this is a winning strategy for the GOP, then I would rather they do it and we all know it. I’d rather know that there’s no hope for this society so I can stop wasting my time trying to keep civilization from burning down when what the people really want is a bonfire.
If you’re a white guy who isn’t gay or poor, then you had a certain luxury in this election: you didn’t have to inform your vote by the fact that one side didn’t think you were fully human or that the actual candidate seemed to be a psychopath: you could just vote based on whether you think that on balance, conservative policies are better or liberal policies are better.
Sorry, I don’t buy that. Unless you mean that in the sense that consies seem to define themselves these days: not interested in facts about what the problems are, only scaremongering, and not interested in which strategies work, only ideology.
Because even if you aren’t poor, the way the economy goes affects everybody. You need to be drooling stupid to not know that. And somebody who uttered complete idiocy like Romney, not only flip-flopping but having no real strategy beyond 1. lower taxes for the rich 2. Magic 3. Profit/ jobs when articles everywhere pointed out that what was known of his strategy can not work in the real world with real numbers. It’s not a question of “I don’t believe in giving hand-outs and making people dependent on them, I want to get them back on their feet”, it’s believing that the figures about economy from Obama are not true, but Romney’s figures are reasonable.
I’d rather know that there’s no hope for this society so I can stop wasting my time trying to keep civilization from burning down when what the people really want is a bonfire.
I can understand talking like a misanthrope from frustration, but still – in an older post, Fred pointed out that poor people want to improve govt., because they can directly see the effects of bad govt. It’s the rich people who want to play anarchists and overthrow the govt. because they don’t directly see the effects or can delude themselves that they will be isolated from the crash by their money. So please, don’t say that.
Because even if you aren’t poor, the way the economy goes affects everybody. You need to be drooling stupid to not know that. And somebody who uttered complete idiocy like Romney, not only flip-flopping but having no real strategy beyond
Liberals this time around had to vote for the guy who orders drone strikes and has US citizens executed without a trial, who bailed out the banks without so much as a slap on the wrist for trashing our economy, and who only came out in support of marriage equality because his VP forced the issue.
If I can say, in good conscience, “Look, Obama might not be our ideal candidate, but Elizabeth Warren isn’t running, and if we won’t support our own side, they’re never going to have the power to move this country leftward” I can hardly be surprised if there’s some conservatives who say “Look, Romney’s not our ideal candidate, but John Huntsman isn’t running and if we won’t support our own side, they’re never going to have the power to move this country rightward.”
I can understand talking like a misanthrope from frustration, but still – in an older post, Fred pointed out that poor people want to improve govt., because they can directly see the effects of bad govt. It’s the rich people who want to play anarchists and overthrow the govt. because they don’t directly see the effects or can delude themselves that they will be isolated from the crash by their money.
I prefer to appeal to people’s better nature. If it turns out they haven’t got one, then it’s time to pack it up and go home.
My conspiracy-theorist coworker is deliciously silent this morning.
It’s a good day in so many ways.
Give him/her time.
A sigh of relief heard ’round the world.
Yes, it’s very nice that Obama won, but he still has to deal with Congress. And it’s full of idiots, still, Bachmann among them. That’s kind of mind-boggling, that 50% of voters in Minnesota actually thinks Michelle Bachmann should be in Congress. And while it’s nice to see that Missouri is not quite unhinged enough to put Akin in the Senate, 40% of the voters there still supported him.
Just sayin’. All of our problems are still here. And the group of people being expected to help solve them does not fill me with confidence. If they were all like Obama, maybe, but they’re not. A lot of them are like Bachmann and Akin. And get used to hearing the name Ted Cruz (and probably ridiculing most of the things that come out of his mouth), he’s one of our U.S. senators now. He won by a 15% margin. He vows to oppose Obama on virtually everything, so we have that to look forward to.
50% of voters in Michelle Bachman’s congressional district, you mean. Not 50% of voters in Minnesota.
Sure, point taken. Sorry about that error.
But still, 50% of the people who could have voted for her did so even after all the moronic things she’s said.
All of our problems are still here.
That was the frustrating thing all along. Unless the house changed hands (it didn’t) and the filibusters stopped in the Senate (remains to be seen) the presidential race was a choice between more of the same gridlock as the last two years (Obama) and fucking catastrophe (Romney) not a hard choice to make, but not one that fills you with joy either.
I remember when the Senate remained in Democratic hands in 2010 and there was discussion about them changing the rules to get rid of the filibuster. It didn’t happen, which many speculated was because Democrats didn’t want to get rid of a tool they might need when they are in the minority – which makes some sense.
But I wonder why they can’t change the filibuster rules to make them actually have to filibuster – keep talking, rather than just declare that they’re invoking it. I remember about 2? years ago, when Bernie Sanders did an old-fashioned filibuster and didn’t even read from the phone book, but instead talked for hours about income inequality and the needs of the poor and middle class in this country. Millions ended up watching it on YouTube and C-Span.
So if they want to keep the filibuster, make it count. Make it something that will cost you, so if you do it, you have to be really committed to it. If the Democrats don’t do that, is it not only because they want to keep the tool, but are too lazy to make it a costly tool? Or am I missing something?
This is what I want. I think there’s value in having the filibuster available, but it should go back to being a rarely used tool and IMO the way to do that is to go back to making it cost you. Neither party should be able to simply invoke at will to ensure that a super majority is de facto necessary to pass legislation.
What value is there in any filibuster? If you can’t produce your arguments and convince the other side in the allotted time of 15 or 20 minutes – and the other people from your party who agree with the bill can’t, either – why would ranting or reading the phone book for several hours, or proving that you can stand for hours without needing to go to the toilet convince anything?
Isn’t it basically still a toddlers’s tactic “I can’t convince, so now I’m holding my breath till I turn blue instead”?
The point of a filibuster isn’t to convince the other guys. It’s to make noisily and publicly clear that this bill is unacceptable and that all other business of the Senate is not allowed to go on until either the bill is withdrawn or the people filibustering all keel over from exhaustion. This works better when the threat of a filibuster is not enough to kill a bill and also when there is not a threatened filibuster every time something with Democratic support gets to the Senate floor.
So what place does it have in a working system for responsible adults? Bills that are unacceptable because they deny rights should not be introduced at all because infringing the basic rights violate the constitution – but you have the problem there that a lot of rights like healthcare, marriage equality, a roof over your head or food, are not listed there. You’d need to amend the constitution and bring it up to date, but since too many USians revere the constitution without caring about it, it’s unlikely, I guess.
Bills that are unacceptable because they deny rights should not be introduced at all because infringing the basic rights violate the constitution….
That’s not quite how that works. Any bill can be introduced & voted on, regardless of constitutionality. After it passes, if it does, then it’s up to the courts to decide whether it’s constitutional or not, and if it isn’t, then it might even stay on the books, but never be enforced, because any lawyer would just cite that precedent. In practice (again), they tend not to introduce unconstitutional bills because they won’t have any effect anyway, but sometimes, they just have to push that envelope or hope for a friendly Supreme Court anyway.
I said “should” not “can”.
Our parties do also introduce bills which the minority party then calls unconstitutional and, if they can’t stop it in parliament, takes to court. The difference is that our Constitutional Court judges take immense pride in being as neutral as possible, instead of leaning ostenatiously towards consies or liberals. They are also limited for terms, not by lifetime, and consider it an honor to be chosen, and would not want the chancellor to use them to influence the court in one direction.
They also return laws not currently under debate – the decades-old method of counting the seats after election has now been declared unfair, so the parliament has to think up a different method to convert votes into seats until the next election rolls around. Too bad you can’t take all that gerrymandering and vote ID laws to the Supreme Court.
Bills that are unacceptable because they deny rights should not be introduced at all
And anyone who wants one and can take care of it should have a pony, but sadly they do not.
Do the lawmakers in your country really never introduce bad bills? Or does every bad bill get voted down? Is your system of lawmaking really working that well?
Humans being what they are, I’m guessing the answer is no. Bad bills get introduced for a variety of reasons. There are a variety of means that can be used to counter them. One of the means that the US has is the filibuster and if the rules governing its use are sensible and properly enforced it can be a good one. I
No, and I didn’t claim to. However, I see quite a degree in difference between “passing a law that many consider a bad idea” and “passing a law like DoMA to activly restrict people’s rights”.
When the Red-Green coalition introduced a law for gay marriage (federal level), the consies grumbled, but it passed during majority in the first house. In the second (state) house, the black consie states changed it so to only recognize “domestic partnership” instead of full marriage, and gays have to go to a notary (and pay more) for that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Germany But when the consies got majority again, they didn’t pass a law to recall this or anything.
Furthermore, Families are protected under constitution (from the start), but are not specified as to which type (single-parent, man-woman parent, patchwork, gay parents – all are families), so the Constitutional court ruled that unequal treatment of gay partnership-families and hetero-marriage-families was unconstituntional.
The last time I remember that one party (the blacks) recalled a law prominently (instead of just tweaking it a bit) which the other side passed was the infamous “Exit from the Exit” and that bit them in the ass hard.*
One of the means that the US has is the filibuster and if the rules governing its use are sensible and properly enforced it can be a good one.
Even if I were to grant that assumption, that’s not how it’s been done the last decades. The Repubs simply threaten one and the Dems fold, but if the Dems should use one, they are too wimpy to actually do. So it doesn’t even achieve it’s stated purpose.
*During Red-Green majority, one of the issues important to the minority partner Green was an “Exit” (Ausstieg) from nuclear power production. But since previous govt.s had promised the industry decades-long subsidies and other bonuses, they couldn’t simply write a new law to stop nuclear energy without running the risk of being taken to court for breach of contract. So the govt. and the industry sat down for months and haggled out a compromise. The green base was not happy for taking too long instead of right now; the industry was not happy for having to stop at all, but both sides had finally agreed, seeing which way public opinion was going. So the govt. passed the law. Then Angie and the consies came to power and hurriedly did an “Exit from the Exit” nullifying the compromise and going back to previous status – without even putting in additional clauses, like requiring the companies to update their 40-years old reactors to current safety standards or keep the concrete from cracking, or adresseing the 100+ incidents in one reactor in one year which were not reported though being obliged by law. Most of the population went “Doh, idiots, what about safety? Don’t you see the companies making millions of money without doing anything in return?” Then Fukushima blew up, and the majority of population walked on the streets in protest saying “if the japanese with their high-tech can’t control them, Siemens can’t either, stop now!” and Angie’s approval fell to bottom. So Angie did a 180 and made a new exit in a couple of weeks – without input from industry and breaking the old contracts (because she didn’t re-use the old compromise from before). So the industry threatened to take the govt. to court, and the population said “Thanks for finally listening to us, but Doh, idiots, if the companies sue you, we pay with our tax-money, couldn’t you have done it smarter?” (Currently the companies seem to have recognized what a PR debacle sueing would be).
That was one thing that really bothered me in 2009, when suddenly the “Gang of 14” and “nuclear option” were taken off the table, as soon as they became inconvenient for the GOP.
That’s kind of mind-boggling, that 50% of voters in Minnesota actually thinks Michelle Bachmann should be in Congress.
Not really. Representatives like Bachmann aren’t voted on by the whole state, only the people in her Congressional district (#6). It contains about 700,000 people in total, and she won by very slightly over half of them — a razor thin margin, which is perfectly believable.
Also note that Bachmann’s district is rather obviously gerrymandered to allow her to always win. That she only just won is a bloody good show from the Democrat in those circumstances.
A few months from now I’ll go back to being a disillusioned leftist complaining about drone strikes and indefinite detention, but for now I’m really happy that we won’t have to deal with a Romney Presidency.
Plus, as a Marylander I’m really proud of my state for being one of the first to vote in Gay Marriage.
(And yeah, it seems like Bachmann managed to hold on by a thin margin, but we can’t get EVERYTHING we want. At least Akin, Mourdock, and West all lost.)
How many Marylanders do we have in here, anyway? I just moved out here at the end of August and am surprised to suddenly notice so many.
There are lots of Marylanders on Slacktivist–always have been. Even some of us former Marylanders come down for a visit now and again.
cjmr (now in MA)
I will say this: Maybe some of these results will convince the Republican powers that be that fucking crazy, anti-white, anti-woman, anti-gay isn’t the way to win elections and they will start marginalizing the people they shouldn’t have let in all along. Maybe the assholes like Akin will fade into obscurity as they deserve to. Maybe. Not soon enough for me, though.
You’d think, but given that in recent years US elections for President are hinging on relatively slender margins over 50% of the popular vote with gaps of less than a million votes or even 500,000 separating them, this almost exact 50-50 split is concerning, especially given that Romney said and did things that should have insulted the intelligence of anyone not making $200,000+ a year.
Take a look at Bill Clinton’s elections: he won with massive margins over his Republican opponent.
Take note: Bill did what no Democrat has since been able to do: He cracked the “solid south” and took EC seats from southern states, not just the north and West Coast.
Hell, look at Bush Senior. His lead was a comfortable ~7 million votes.
You’ve got to go back to 1968 to really see this kind of 50-50ish split where Nixon got ahead by like 500k votes.
The increasing polarization of US politics and the fact that the country is almost equally divided right down to what would (should) be statistical margins of error –
That’s a recipe for semipermanent partisan gridlock, even when one of the two seems to be boxing with one hand tied behind their back.
When looking at the margin of victory in the popular vote I think we really have to consider the “beating the spread” factor though and I feel like people are forgetting to do that. This election was supposed to be a cake walk for the GOP because (thanks largely to their obstructionism in pursuit of power) the economy is still bad.
Well, they wanted to make him a one-term President and failed. Now any reasonable person would abandon that kind of behavior, but knowing Republicans as I’ve done for ~15 years or so, they will promptly double down on the hatchet jobbery and pull a Gingrich in 1995, where he overstepped himself, threw a tantrum over something petty, got it in the news and took the wind out of the sails of his attempt to hold the US Government hostage against Clinton.
Yes. That image above uses the term “landslide.” This was not a landslide. Right now, the margin is about 3 million votes. Out of almost 120 million votes. Obviously, that doesn’t represent all of America, but still. Let’s not get into Bush fantasyland, where his modest victory over Kerry was proclaimed a “mandate.”
Maybe yes, but a friend informed me today in grumbles that he read that the GOP’s already strategizing for 2016, and their strategy appears to be “we need a more conservative candidate.”
So I imagine next election, we’ll have a democrat running against Charlie Fuqua.
their strategy appears to be “we need a more conservative candidate.”
Unless they decide to return to some previous definition of “conservative” (which would be nice, actually), they’re rapidly going to sail beyond what can be found in reality and have to start canvasing fictional universes for their candidates.
John Galt 2016
We’ve just dodged Nehemiah Scudder 2012.
Good Lord, no thanks.
Sorry, another thing: this highlights the importance of off-year elections. Governorships and state legislatures are the ones who most directly affect your lives. If you only vote every 4 years, you’re part of the problem. You’re part of the reason why Congress is full of people who hate Obama.
And now for you regularly scheduled reminder that it is rather rude to conflate mental illness with “anti-POC*, anti-woman, anti-gay”. While there’s an argument to be made that a lot of the Republican powers-that-be are genuinely sociopathic, please be at least that precise. Calling them the generalized slur “fucking crazy” spatters a lot of people who are already burdened with disporportionate social stigma. Cut it the fuck out.
*I’m assuming LL meant that, and that “anti-white” was a typo.
Right. As a sociopath, I take offense to being compared to Republicans with disgusting values and hateful creeds. :o
A useful link for people who want to avoid ableist slurs while also using the full richness of English invective:
Yes, sorry, I meant anti-minority. Got ahead of myself there.
Otherwise, I’ll use the words I want. You’re free to not like it. But there’s nothing you can do about it.
At the very least, when you use words that are hurtful to people with mental illnesses, or with physical disabilities or who are poor or female or a gender/sexual minority or some other ethnicity or whatever your next flavor of the week is, do it with full fucking knowledge that YOUR CHOICE OF WORDS IS DELIBERATELY HURTING PEOPLE.
Watching the results come in here in Washington state was a little harrowing. The counting of these things goes from the east to the west, and the state east of the cascade mountains is culturally much more “rural heartland” than the “latte-sipping urban” western half of the state. Understandably, for a while it looked like marriage equality was not going to pass here.
Until the western counties got voted, their much more substantial population quickly shifting the weight of the whole issue around to “Yes”. That was a relief!
GAY MARRIAGE GAY MARRIAGE GAY MARRIAGE!!!
P.S. Another Marylander proud as hell of his state right now. FUCK YEAH!
That was pretty much the second paragraph of my dad’s e-mail to me today, without the “fuck” part because he doesn’t swear in writing.
It really was a wonderful anti-bully sweep. No to bullies of gay people, no to bullies of women, the poor, and on an on.
The song I’ve got on repeat this morning.
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf052uxFF58"I Saved The World Today — Eurythmics
…which is I Saved The World Today by the Eurythmics, since disqus doesn’t feel like including my link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf052uxFF58
My song for today is “We are the Champions” by Queen. Seems apropos, considering. Yup, proud happy Marylander here.
This is going to sound a little weird, but were you at an election-watching party in Pentagon City last night? There were a bunch of people there from all corners of the DC metro area, and when Ohio was called for Obama, someone promptly cued up “We Are The Champions” on a laptop.
No, I was tucked up at home not watching the returns because I didn’t want to jinx them. On the other hand, I did a totally happy happy dance holding the newspaper over my head this morning, after reading the headlines and finding out who and what won. I just like the group Queen a lot, and I think Freddie Mercury would have loved that the Marriage Equality bill was passed by popular vote.
I am kind of loving the amount of butthurt I’m seeing from social neocons in the occasional comment thread, too. “Well, I guess we’ll just have to abandon MORAL PLATFORMS now, since half the country wants TOTAL DEPRAVITY AND INFANTICIDE.”
Yes. Yes we do. Go hang out with the Amish.
The impotent tears of social troglodytes taste remarkably like delicious, delicious candy.
The Amish wouldn’t have them. The Amish community is built on everyone helping each other and on pacifism. Really truly thoroughgoing “even if they hit you, you cannot respond in any way except to maybe pray” pacifism. And the Amish don’t proselytize Also, Amish people aren’t allowed to have much stuff, and they practice a very strong work ethic. No fully-loaded SUVs — not even any clunky old junkers. A horse and a carriage, and the carriage has to be modest too. And Amish women are not considered sex objects by their communities.
If I were given a choice between living with the Amish or living with Republicans, I would choose the Amish in a heartbeat. Though I’m certainly glad I don’t have to make that choice. Also, I’d try to bargain to Mennonite instead of Amish.
This is an excellent point, yeah. I was going with a generic “several centuries behind the times” point, but you’re right. I have no idea who *would* take them, really: while the geek community has its share of neocons, I don’t think they’d do too well trying to inflict their views on a RenFaire at large, either.
16th century witch-hunters. Hopefully they’d end up with one of those groups whose tools were turned against them by a grieving and furious community.
Considering that the Rennie crowd (Of which I’ve been one as faire goer, actor and merchant) has a strong and ironic overlap with the neopagan movement that would be a resounding no.
I have no idea who *would* take them, really:
P0ssibly one of those ‘anything goes’ countries in Africa or Asia. The GOP might have problems with religion, though – not that the principles seem to differ.
Would also like to note that in addition to the ballot initiatives in MD, ME, and (probably?) WA, and the voting down of the marriage inequality amendment in MN, and the election of Tammy Baldwin in WI: the Iowa Supreme Court Justice who was up for a retention vote (because of the Varnum decision which legalized same-sex marriage in IA) has been retained by a 54-46 margin.
In 2010, the three SC judges up for retention votes were all removed, by about 55-45 margin, something which hadn’t happened since this process was put in place in 1962, so the judge’s retention last night suggests that Iowa has grown up a bit in the last couple years.
Additionally, the Republicans in the Iowa legislature have been trying since 2009 to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot to undo Varnum, but have been blocked by a single Democrat in the Iowa Senate (Gronstal, of Council Bluffs). Gronstal won re-election, the balance of the Iowa Senate was unchanged, and Democrats gained seats in the Iowa House. So they can’t get it on the ballot (constitutional amendments require votes by both houses of the legislature, on two consecutive years, and Gronstal is preventing the Senate from taking that vote), and if they could get it on the ballot, there’s reason to think that the voters would strike it down regardless.
As a gay, married Iowan, I’ve been worrying about quite a bit since 2009 that the state might collectively decide to dissolve my marriage, so the above is particularly good news for me.
I’m one of those Marylanders who spent a little time in Virginia helping out. For those not from the U.S., consider this: the capital of the Confederacy, a state that in 1967 fought to maintain its Racial Integrity Act, banning marriages between whites and non-whites, and which has reliably gone Republican since the Voting Rights Act passed in 1965, shifted into the blue column in order to elect a liberal African-American. Twice. (Yeah, I know he’s a center-right politician by any sane outside-of-the-U.S. measure. To Virginians he looks like a liberal.)
I am so happily amazed by that fact. (I’m also from Virginia, so I’m proud not only of my adopted state–MARRIAGE EQUALITY!–but of my home state.) The country has changed in ways that I have often found deeply disturbing, but last night’s returns . . . yeah, forward!
But we definitely need to take this opportunity to get serious about vote suppression. Neither the Ohio nor Florida Republican parties are even trying to hide it any more.
There is still a chance to make book titles like that relevant and not naively optimistic, but it’s going to take the Blue Dogs understanding that they cannot keep being DINOs and expecting to maintain some kind of stable status quo when the Republican Party has been actively pushing to destabilize an otherwise functioning political system.
So it’s kind of a post-election tradition* for me to let out a hearty “Ha HA,” a la Nelson Muntz, when I’m driving along and I see a campaign sign for the losing candidate. I’m nonpartisan, in that I do this irrespective of the loser’s party affiliation.
I will say, however, that I take more satisfaction from spotting a sign for a losing Republican…
In any case, on my drive home from work today, my laughter was pretty feeble by the time I’d run the gauntlet of sign after sign promoting Romney/Ryan on a particular stretch of road. It was exhausting.
Totally worth it, though.
Also, while I don’t live in Maryland – though I do live right next door – I echo the FUCK YEAH! Same goes for those states I don’t live near that came out in support of equality**.
*I would like for it to be just the one day, because by election day plus two, I really want the eyesores taken down.
**ETA: Or at least came out against enshrining discrimination into law.
Just how badly did O’Reilly lose his shit, anyway? (O_O)
When you consider that O Reilly is considered a comparative moderate among conservative pundits nowadays (No, really, he is) one can only imagine what folks like Limbaugh and Beck are going to be saying.
This post will give you the gist, and it’s worth it to hunt up the video.
Hmm. IDK, he didn’t SEEM to be yelling, but that was probably because Sean Hannity will have his own little rant sooner or later.
This may be a personal definition thing. I don’t think yelling is a necessary part of losing one’s shit. O’Reilly said the quite thing loud. He put it right out there—-traditional America = white men, things were better when the white men didn’t have to tolerate all this backtalk from the N*****s and the women.
You’re supposed to use a dog whistle for that stuff, not a air horn. When BillO has a grip he knows that. He’s built his career on it. IMO forgetting it so thoroughly = losing his shit.
And the fact that there are so many white people even today who seem to want those ‘glory days’ back for when white people were social superiors…
I have to wonder just how so many of them can look at themselves in the mirror every morning and not ask themselves why they can’t just accept that Barack Obama symbolizes a United States where all people can live in peace and harmony (and now I sound like Katara or Aang, heh).
Did you hear about the time O’Reilly shared about Al Sharpton taking him to Sylvia’s soul food restaurant in Harlem? Apparently, BillO was shocked to have had a pleasant experience. People were politely dining, a few folks recognized him and came over to greet him, and no one was shouting at the waitresses, “Hey, where the hell is my muthafuckin’ iced tea?!!!”
That story. Good lord. Didn’t he say something about being surprised that there were forks?
Bill definitely has a history of being quite racist (in that way that allows other racists to say that he’s not), but he doesn’t usually say that traditional America, which is the good America, is white men who didn’t have to put up with this shit. His election night screed just seemed really blatant to me in a way that most of his crap isn’t quite.
Huh? I thought the blacks were all dying out because Planned Parenthood is a racist ploy to kill black babies through abortion? Isn’t that what the Repubs. claimed? (While hating on welfare mothers who have children instead of aborting them, but are too lazy to work, instead staying home with their kids and getting “stuff” from the state.)
the Confederacy’s limp and filthy banner
That is *some* jujitsu reframing of the conservative South’s imagery. Wow.
How so? I used to live in Mississippi. Unless something has dramatically changed in the last ten years (which I doubt), folks in Mississippi still speak of the War of Northern Aggression. And I just checked: Biloxi MS school district might no longer contain a school named after the house of the Confederate president, but it does still contain a school named after the Confederate president himself.
Seeing things as they really are isn’t “jujitsu reframing”. If you’re one of those poor deluded souls who thinks the Confederacy was about anything other than keeping black people as slaves in order to rape them and force hard labor from them and rip their families apart to sell them as chattel, you severely need to go read Battle Cry of Freedom — just as Step One. You’ve got a whole lot of lies to unlearn.
I am less glad that Romney was defeated than I am glad that the Romney strategy was defeated.
He tried to make it free to lie. All through history, candidates have misrepresented, exaggerated, misled. But Romney did not care whether the things coming out of his mouth were true or false. And if he’d won, that would be it for honesty in politics, because if there’s *no* cost to lying, there’s no reason not to lie — in fact, if you tell the truth, the other guy just has to say “My opponent is wrong and also he eats babies” and then you lose.
But Lying Lost. So there’s still hope.
(Also: Why the frack have I heard word zero on the news about Puerto Rico voting for statehood? There were few enough reports about it being on the ballot at all, and it took me until noon to find anyone reporting the results)
My thoughts on the election, fwiw, are here: http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/2012/11/some_thoughts_on_the_election.html
Why the frack have I heard word zero on the news about Puerto Rico voting for statehood?
1. They didn’t exactly. They has a 2 part vote. First part was maintain the status quo or change it. The second part was, if the status quo changes how should it change, independence or statehood. The majority voted to change the status quo. The majority of people said that if it does change it should change in favor of statehood. Some of the people who picked statehood on the 2nd question said that they’d rather leave things as they are on the first question. If statehood went to a straight up or down vote I’m not sure it would pass.
2. Even if Puerto Ricans did vote for statehood it’s not going to happen any time in the near future, because the GOP won’t allow it to. They just lost the Latino vote by a huge margin and Marco Rubio isn’t going to be able to solve that problem for them. They’re not about to allow another contingent of brown people to have full statehood and the political weight that goes with it.
I think it’ll happen eventually, but it’s still going to be a good long while.
I lost track of how many of us checked in, but I’m another Marylander. (Originally from elsewhere, but happily living in Baltimore county since 2008.)
In California, the Democrats now have a supermajority in both houses. We’re hoping that the budget will be passed more or less on time, instead of weeks-to-months late. (And that taxes will be raised enough so that we can afford to have schools and parks and highways that aren’t suffering from neglect. )
Yeah California! Good luck with future budgets because when I lived there that ish was OOC.
Well in theory the party with the majority represents the majority of the voters, so their bills should go through – with the understanding that infringing on minority rights in general is not allowed and not nice; and with the thought at the back of your head that next term, your party could be in the minority, so you play nice so the others don’t start payback.
But that requires halfway sane politicans and halfway sane people electing them and giving their opinion. Since your population elects tea partiers and beyond right-wing republicans…