Posted on 23rd September 2012 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, , ,

Neil Howe details why Obama will win. Essentially, Romney is a clueless candidate.

2012 Election Update: Romney in Retreat

Regrettably, I’ve been away from this blog too long—the result of too much travelling and a bit too much work.  I’m hoping for an easier fall and winter.

Seven weeks have passed since I looked at the generational dynamics behind the Obama-Romney contest, when the overall balance seemed fairly even.  Now, it’s tipping clearly if not decisively for Obama.  RCP currently shows a 3.3 percent national margin for Obama, but this probably understates the incumbent’s advantage: RCP records not a single national survey giving Romney even a minimal margin since Gallup’s tracking poll in late August.  Global futures markets like InTrade now tip 70/30 for Obama.  (If you’re confident Romney is going to win, you can at least expect to make some money.) And for true gloom and doom for Romney, take a look at this new Pew survey.  It shows Obama ahead by 8 percentage points overall among likely voters, and leading Romney on almost every issue and every scale of likeability.

The last month has been genuinely and relentlessly awful for Mitt Romney.

First came his selection of Paul Ryan as VP, which reinforced the male-white-accounting-econowonk side of the ticket (not exactly where Romney needed reinforcement—and there were so many great alternative VP picks roughly Ryan’s age) while tying Romney to a very specific plan to cut the cost of Medicare.  Nothing could have pleased Axelrod and Plouffe and others in the Democratic HQ more than to change the topic of conversation from how slowly the economy is recovering under Obama to how much Romney wants to throw seniors over the cliff.  I actually agree with most of the fundamental elements of the Ryan plan (incentives and budgets for health-care providers are surely coming, like them or not).  But hey Romney, wait until you’re President and appoint Ryan as your director of OMB or your head of CMS.  But add him to your ticket?  Probably not the best idea.

Second, there was the GOP’s lukewarm convention.  The Democrats’ wasn’t much either, but then again they didn’t have to prove anything: Everybody already knows who the Obamas and Clintons are.  The GOP had to persuade the public why the presidential mantle of office should be transferred to this relative unknown.  They needed to put the Democrats on trial for keeping America mired in the worst economic mess since the Great Depression.  They needed to excoriate the other party for the suffering of America’s unemployed and underemployed middle- and lower-income citizens (just as the Democrats surely would have done to the GOP had a Republican been the incumbent).  But the Romney campaign did very little of this.  Instead, they talked about budget-balancing, too much regulation, and Obama’s “anti-business” attitudes.  Wow.  And with the growing danger of war or broader war mounting in the Mideast and East Asia, the GOP could have mounted a principled critique, say, of Obama’s track record on his policies of engagement with Iran, Russia, and China.  But no.  Virtually nothing at all on national security issues, which subsequently (and remarkably) allowed the Democrats at their convention to look responsible in an area where their party has been perennially vulnerable.

OK, a missed opportunity with the convention.  But (and here’s number three), Team Romney subsequently failed to follow up with any of the policy strategy and detail he “didn’t have time for” earlier.  Instead, he has been dogged by gaffes and garbled misstatements in poorly staged impromptu interviews—while getting rhetorically outmaneuvered at every turn by Team Obama.  The worst fumble of all was his off-the-record suggestion that the growing share of Americans who pay no federal income taxes (“47 percent”) are essentially lost to the Republican Party.  Mindboggling.  This poor, struggling, laid-off, and dependent 47 percent in fact constitutes a growing constituency for the GOP (a point I will return to shortly).  Rather than express outrage that today’s horrible economy has stripped them of their livelihoods and independence, Romney is throwing them under the bus.

It’s almost as though Romney is channeling Herbert Hoover and can’t recall Ronald Reagan.  When he tries to talk like a conservative, George Will recently commented, Romney sometimes sounds like one of those robotic German spies in vintage WWII movies: He’s memorized lots of facts, but he’ll never know who Stan Musial is.

Fourth, and most recently, comes Ben Bernanke’s announcement of QE3 and an “indefinite” guarantee of near-zero interest rates, which was soon followed by a sizeable surge in the Dow.  For the first time—even though the real economy hasn’t done much of anything–Obama is matching or even overtaking Romney in his perceived ability to handle the economy.  A very large and somewhat amusing gap has now appeared in how political partisans now view the economy.  Back in early August, 71 percent of Republicans and 62 percent of Democrats said they were hearing “mostly bad news about the economy.”  Today, 60 percent of Republicans continue to say that—but only 15 percent of Democrats.  That’s a 45-point spread.

Is the economy doing much better?  I say no.  I don’t think it’s doing better at all.  (Indeed, I think it’s likely we have already entered a new recession and just don’t know it yet.)  So I think the GOP—which is now hopping mad at Bernanke for giving the economy a “sugar-water high” just weeks before the election—is quite mistaken about Bernanke’s motives.  Chairman Ben did not go “all in” with QE3 because he wants to be re-chosen as Fed head by Obama.  He did it because he knows the economy is in really deep trouble.  (I will come back to this in another post.)

So what are Mitt’s odds at this point?  Quite honestly, they aren’t great, and if I had to make a wager right now I would certainly bet on a modest Obama victory—a smaller voter margin than 2008, but not a cliffhanger.  As for Congress, the House will certainly remain in GOP hands (Pelosi’s sudden optimism seems delusional) and the Senate will probably be split 50-50 right down the middle.

Of course, a comeback is possible.  It’s a tall order.  For Romney to rally and win, some combination of the following three-and-a-half things will have to happen.

(1) Romney has a great debate performance.  Without it, he’s toast.  With it, he could get back into the running.  The boost could be big precisely because voter expectations at this point are so low.  And because lots of voters still don’t know him very well—aside from the gaffes they hear about in the news.  According the surveys, voters are really looking forward to the debates: Fully two-thirds now say they will be “very” or “somewhat” helpful in deciding which candidate to vote for, the largest share since Clinton-versus-Bush, Sr., in 1992.  Keep in mind as well that Romney got plenty of practice debating in the primaries and often performed very well in them, showing plenty of wit, humor, and grace under fire.

(2) National security goes critical, which will probably hurt Obama. It’s hard to recall a recent election–maybe Clinton-Dole in 1996?—in which foreign affairs has played such a minor role.  Which is incredible when you think we now have 70,000 troops fighting in Asia (and getting shot at and killed by our own uniformed “allies”) together with thousands more fighting more surreptitiously, with and without deadly predators, in dozens of other far-flung nations.  And the temperature is now getting hotter on most fronts, with Islamist violence clearly rising, Syria gripped in civil war, Egypt and much of North Africa run by new and unstable regimes, Iran and Israel (and inevitably the United States) near the brink of war in the Persian Gulf, and, most recently, a new risk of war in the China Sea.  At some point, geopolitics may well burst into 2012 election like a wild and uninvited guest–to the White House at least, which will likely be put mostly on the defensive.  Romney may or may not be able to leverage the opportunity.  In any case, Obama doesn’t have enough time left for a “wag the dog” response.

(3) Another bad shoe drops on the economy, which will certainly hurt Obama.  Obama “owns” current economic performance in 2012 nearly as much as Hoover “owned” it in 1932.  Most Democratic partisans understand this, explaining their desire to play up positive news and to rejoice at the Fed-triggered revival in the Dow.  Voters mostly think that Obama is trying hard, and so long as GDP and employment are growing ever so slightly (unlike 1932, obviously), they may go along with his argument that he is at least much better than the GOP alternative.  But what if these numbers, which are now merely flatlining, suddenly turn decisively down between now the election, raising new and urgent talk of yet another recession?  Perceptions about Obama’s “slow progress” and “incomplete” grade on the economy would, in this case, quickly shift—on the issue that everyone agrees is most on voters’ minds.

I promised three-and-a-half things, so let me add one more consideration that is related to the condition of today’s economy and is more speculative.  I want to talk for a moment about class and income deprivation, and how these may feed into a new sort of partisanship.

To mention class, of course, is to raise perceptions that nearly everyone figures work against the GOP.  And a recent Pew report (“Yes, the Rich are Different”) makes it clear just how tough it is, once the words “rich” and “poor” are mentioned, for most voters to say much that’s flattering about the GOP.

The report, which is well worth reading for its own sake, tries to analyze how Americans think about class.  When most Americans are simply asked what they think about “the rich,” the responses reflect an revealing mix of praise and damnation.  On the other hand, most Americans agree that rich people are more “intelligent” and more “hardworking” than the average American.  (More “hardworking” is, I think, a new development: Fifty years ago I’m quite sure most Americans would not have said that.)  On the other hand, most Americans also believe that the rich are much more likely to be more “greedy” and “dishonest” than the average American.

Yet it’s when the report assesses changes over time, especially from 2008 to 2012, that its findings really tip hard against the GOP.  Point (1): Americans across-the-board, in both parties, feel that since 2008 the gap between the rich and poor has been widening.  Point (2): Most Americans, again in both parties, feel this widening is a bad thing for our country.  Point (3): Most think that the Republicans will help mostly the rich and that the Democrats will help mostly the poor and middle class.  Point (4): Most think point (3) is especially true for Mitt Romney (at least, those who knew enough about Romney to have an opinion).  This is a veritable syllogism of bad news for the Romney camp.

So now let me bring your attention to another Pew survey, which appeared at nearly the same time: “A Closer Look at the Parties in 2012: GOP Makes Big Gains among White Working-Class Voters.” It comes to conclusions which, while not contradicting the other report, point in a totally different direction.  It’s fascinating to contemplate these two reports side by side.

The report starts with the unsurprising finding that total voter identification by party has faded somewhat for the Democrats since 2008 (from 51 to 48 percent) and has gained somewhat for the GOP (from 39 to 43 percent). Not including “leaners,” the GOP has a net gain of 3 percentage points. Yet here’s the surprise: More than all of this total gain for the GOP has occurred in the lowest income brackets.  Among the highest income brackets, the Democrats have actually gained share.

The report shows, in addition, that minorities at all ages are just about as Democrat-favoring in 2012 as in 2008 (and more than in 2004), while nearly all the Democrat identification losses are among whites–and virtually all of these losses are among lower-income whites.  (High-income whites are just as pro-Obama today as in 2008.)  In 2008, whites were strong pro-GOP in every income bracket above $50,000.  In 2012, they are strong pro-GOP in every bracket above $30,000.

The same holds true if you substitute education for income.  College-plus America (with a four-year degree or more) is more pro-Democratic in 2012 than it was in 2008; college-minus America (everybody else) is more pro-GOP.

You’re welcome to view the crosstab data yourself, graciously provided by Pew.  Let me summarize the main findings in the following graphic.

So how do we make sense of these very different perspectives?  My own view is that, yes, a sense of class awareness—and class division—has grown since 2008 in ways that tarnish the image of the GOP in eyes of America’s have-nots and have-lesses.  But these are also the Americans who have been hurt the worst over the last four years in unemployment, lost income, lost wealth, and foreclosed homes.  (See the new annual CBO report on income and poverty for the gory details.)  Their sense of class grievance is overweighed by their sense of performance failure on the party now in the White House: This is Obama’s economy, he failed, it really hurts, and I don’t want four more years of this.  Wealthy Americans just aren’t feeling the “really hurts” part.

Overall, from 2008 to 2012, the share of all Americans who call themselves “lower” or “lower-middle” class has grown from 25 to 32 percent.  (This itself is a disturbing finding, again brought to us by Pew Research.)  More than all of that 7 percentage point increase has gone to the GOP.  The share of GOP supporters who call themselves “lower class” has jumped from 13 to 23 percent while the “lower class” share of Democratic supporters has risen much less (from 29 to 33 percent).

Moreover, areas that do not traditionally vote Democratic, but swung blue for Obama, appear to be swinging back the most in this election. The Midwest, South, and Mountain regions show large declines of 6 to 9 points in net support for Democrats over Republicans, while traditionally bluer regions like New England, the Mid-Atlantic, and the West Coast show little or no decline.  (This is reflected in the rural/urban split in my table.) In other words, traditionally Republican voters who “took a chance” on Obama and are hurting in today’s economy may be feeling buyers’ remorse.

Whether all this affects the outcome of the election is uncertain. Clearly, the aftermath of the Great Recession provides the GOP with some real opportunities for a full-throated populist message.  Just as clearly, Mitt Romney is probably the candidate least equipped to deliver such a message.  The “47 percent” miscue says it all.  And for this reason, the GOP is now likely to lose the election.  (You notice that I called this merely “half a point” for Romney.)

Yet there are other implications likely to follow from this growing two-way rip tide of class tension in America.  Ominously, it may portend a further widening of the blue-red polarization of America once the 2012 exit polls are counted, with a growing regional and urban-rural split in voter preferences.  We may see the disappearance of the “purple” states that appeared in 2008, and the reappearance of more bright-blue and bright-red states.  By 2016, assuming Obama wins, a crowded and all-Gen-X field of GOP primary contestants may choose to tack far more in the populist direction than did McCain in 2008 or Romney in 2012.

And what about voting by generation?  The huge generational gap remains: The Silent will swing way to the GOP this year, and the Millennials will swing way to the Democrats.  But on top of this preference, there is certain to be a distinct class twist.  You can expect the huge anti-Obama margin among seniors to acquire an extra passion among the hard-beaten, Tea-Party, “heartland” edge. Likewise, you can expect the huge pro-Obama margin among young adults to pick up its greatest energy among collegians and among affluent and urban young professionals.  According to the New York Times’ recent feature story on non-college Millennials, many of them are struggling but few of them plan on voting for Obama.  More to the point, however, few of them plan to vote for Romney either—or even feel they are in any way on his radar screen.

  1. Hollow man says:

    Yes, he will win.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

    23rd September 2012 at 6:15 pm

  2. Stucky says:

    I’m sure Howe is correct …..

    …… because predicting election outcomes is so fuckin’ reliable

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

    23rd September 2012 at 6:26 pm

  3. ThePessimisticChemist says:


    He’s got a 50-50 shot at being right. In one case he’s prophetic, in the event he’s wrong, well I’m sure he already has that article written.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

    23rd September 2012 at 6:43 pm

  4. Colma Rising says:

    The bookies don’t twist the odds in sports because their favorite team’s playing, and they won’t let their partisan leanings do so. The 70/30 is the most telling of the stats for the reason above as well as the inclusion of details many don’t take into account like the Electoral College.

    So no, PC, it’s not 50-50. Yes, Her Stuchenvoter, non-partisan odds-players do call elections often and like Hollow Man, barring those events listed, the overall electoral situation points to an Obama victory.

    Now the million dollar question: Does the person selected to be President really affect macro outcomes written in the tea leaves?


    If you believe that either choice will slow or hurry any outcome, and actually have the hollow hope that one over the other will be better, there is a lot of reading for you to do.

    A LOT.

    That may be more productive than getting an ulcer or succumbing to hypertension over a phantasmal belief in fundamental differences.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

    23rd September 2012 at 7:07 pm

  5. Maddie's Mom says:

    “Essentially, Romney is a clueless candidate.”

    By design?

    I think the GOP just needed someone who could fog a mirror.

    Mitt must’ve been the best fogger they could find.

    Seriously, don’t you get the feeling he’s just going through the motions? I sure do…like McCain in ’08.

    This one’s been pre-determined.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2

    23rd September 2012 at 7:16 pm

  6. Jackson, who will be voting for Ron Paul, says:

    Intrade, the betting-on-elections site, is the most accurate predictor of national election outcomes. Commenters say Intrade called right every state in the Big O’s 2008 victory. Check out the Obama-Romney race by typing in “Intrade” on the Google search line.

    Of the other polls, Rasmussen has the best record.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    23rd September 2012 at 7:24 pm

  7. SSS says:

    No other convenient place to post this, but since Admin knows Neil Howe and will likely watch the comments on this thread, here goes.

    The Arizona Cardinals just put a classic beatdown on the Philadelphia Beagles, 27-6. Philly QB Michael “All Dogs Go to Heaven” Vick is lucky to be alive, literally. If Arizona’s Darnell Dockett hadn’t pulled a hamstring, Vick would be either in a hospital or the morgue.

    Vick is a thug, pure and simple. Philly’s only hope for the future is Vick’s backup, former University of Arizona quarterback Nick Foles. In the meantime, Arizona wide receiver Larry Fitzgerald, the NFL’s Mr. Class Act, is back, baby.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2

    23rd September 2012 at 7:41 pm

  8. Stan says:

    Of course Obama will win.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2

    23rd September 2012 at 7:45 pm

  9. DaveL says:

    My best hope is for another four years of gridlock.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

    23rd September 2012 at 7:50 pm

  10. Administrator says:


    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

    23rd September 2012 at 7:53 pm

  11. AWD says:

    Ann Coulter: Democrats ‘Dropping the Blacks and Moving on to the Hispanics’

    During the “This Week” roundtable’s discussion of the politics of immigration reform and the Latino vote, conservative commentator Ann Coulter made the provocative claim that “Democrats are dropping the blacks and moving on to the Hispanics,” while arguing that immigrant rights should not be considered civil rights.

    Coulter’s comments came as President Barack Obama and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney continue vying for the critical Latino vote, with both participating in town hall interviews on Univision last week focused on issues important to the Hispanic community.

    Former Clinton Labor secretary Robert Reich argued that Romney has failed to appeal to Latinos on key immigration issues, from calling for self-deportation to threatening to veto the DREAM Act.

    “We have Governor Romney who is basically taking a position that is anti a large and the fastest growing segment of the electorate,” Reich said on the “This Week” roundtable.

    While criticizing President Obama for failing to aggressively pursue immigration reform in his first term, Univision anchor Jorge Ramos said that “if Republicans don’t do something with immigration … they’re going to lose not only this election, they might lose the White House for a generation.”

    Coulter quickly interjected, “That’s why the Democrats are dropping the blacks and moving on to the Hispanics,” seeming to claim that Democrats are more aggressively courting the Latino vote than the African American vote, which polls show is firmly behind President Obama.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    23rd September 2012 at 8:00 pm

  12. AWD says:

    What will a white-minority US look like?
    By Daniel Nasaw BBC News Magazine

    Future generation Americans could look increasingly like bi-racial baseball player Derek Jeter

    The US has reached a demographic tipping point, with most babies born now belonging to minority groups.

    According to the US Census bureau, black, Hispanic, Asian and mixed-race births made up 50.4% of new arrivals in the year ending in July 2011.

    Much of the change is driven by high birth rates among the Hispanic population.

    The official notice foreshadows the day, expected in the 2040s, when non-Hispanic whites – like the group that founded America – will be in the minority.

    In the new US, what will change – and what might remain the same?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

    23rd September 2012 at 8:03 pm

  13. llpoh says:

    I have been saying for two years that Obama would win. Smokey, bless him, has been saying the same thing.

    And despite the odds, who does the GOP put up? A rich Mormon. Fuck me dead. I have nothing against the rich – I would love to be one of them. I do tend to dislike Mormons, not for their religion, but for the way I have been treated by the ones I know. But to stand a rich guy given the class warfare taking place at the moment The height of stupidity. And to stand a Mormon given the Christian backgrounds of the GOP faithful? Stupidity again. To choose Paul Ryan? Yikes!

    I mean, it is as if the GOP want to lose the election. And just maybe they do – maybe they realize it is beyond salvation, and are setting their ights on 2016.

    Who knows. But they surely look screwed this year.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0

    23rd September 2012 at 8:13 pm

  14. Destin says:

    Falcons are 3-0, the wheels have fallen off for the whodat Aints, Schiano has the Bucs playing Big Least style football and Cam Newton needs a brain transplant. None of you Yankees ever talk about the NFC South anyway but now none of us have to.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    23rd September 2012 at 8:31 pm

  15. SSS says:

    DaveL says: “My best hope is for another four years of gridlock.”

    Me, too.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0

    23rd September 2012 at 8:42 pm

  16. Steve Hogan says:

    Obama wins in November. A serious currency crisis hits in 2013. Heh.

    Think about what awaits us. The bond vigilantes come out to play, there’s a frantic rush out of the dollar. What’s our former community organizer going to do? After he’s done pointing fingers at Bush, the Chinese, speculators, or Republicans, the problem is still there. The bills can’t be paid. The checks will bounce.

    The responsible option involves extracting the government from the economy and allowing the malinvestments to be liquidated. The bondholders lose their money, the banks go under, the depositors take it in the shorts. Unemployment skyrockets and interest rates go to the moon. A deflationary depression, but it lays the foundation for a legitimate recovery in a few years.

    The tried and true option, and the one I predict Barack and Bennie will choose: Monetize, monetize, monetize. The dollar implodes. Surging prices lead to federal price controls, rationing, shortages, rioting and martial law. The middle class, once the envy of the world, is completely wiped out almost overnight.

    Yes, it should be interesting to see what our savior does when faced with this choice. Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3

    23rd September 2012 at 8:44 pm

  17. Administrator says:

    Gridlock worked from 1994 until 2000.

    Gridlock will mean $1.3 trillion deficits every year.

    Gridlock will insure collapse by 2015.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1

    23rd September 2012 at 8:53 pm

  18. SSS says:

    “Gridlock will insure collapse by 2015.”

    I can live with that (I think).

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

    23rd September 2012 at 9:00 pm

  19. Zarathustra says:


    Speaking of epic beatdowns, my beloved Ducks, despite a slow start, thrashed the Arizona Wildcats 49-0 yesterday evening. :) Thanks U of A and also LSU for the #2 ranking.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

    23rd September 2012 at 9:21 pm

  20. Hollow man says:

    You can’t forget the cheating at the voting booth factor. I belive the Democrats have the edge there. It is goverment workers counting the votes. Do not forget the illegal that will vote too. No voter pic id required. All they need is a 9 digit number forged = one more obama vote. We will get what we deserve. A king or whatever you want to call him.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3

    23rd September 2012 at 9:28 pm

  21. Specie says:

    Romney was the only one invited to the Bilderberger meeting this year. QED

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    23rd September 2012 at 9:36 pm

  22. Hollow man says:

    Excellent observation, could be king romney

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    23rd September 2012 at 10:18 pm

  23. Ron says:

    Between the ASU beatdown of Utah and then the Cardinals=Eagles game it was a good weekend for watching football here in az.
    The country is full of idiots so Obama well win.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    23rd September 2012 at 11:44 pm

  24. Bruce says:

    If the Republicans really want to take control of this Nation they would not want to get elected right now or re elected. What they should want is an almost total Democrat government. Then the Democrats have to bear full responsibility. And the next four years should damn any one or any party who is in control. Why not let the democrats hang themselves. Why put your head in a noose that’s already in place, is going to drop no matter what and is going to swing with anyone who sticks their head in it.

    The Republicans can take everything back four years from now and be seen as the white knights. Then they can rape and pillage everything that’s left of the country if it’s still operating.

    But things could get so bad that it might not be a good idea to be a politician of any kind. It might be best to try to fade out, fade away or hide. It could be that in three or four years from now when you renew your hunting license it will come congressman tag.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

    23rd September 2012 at 4:39 am

  25. flash says:

    AWD- While criticizing President Obama for failing to aggressively pursue immigration reform in his first term, Univision anchor Jorge Ramos said that “if Republicans don’t do something with immigration … they’re going to lose not only this election, they might lose the White House for a generation.”

    So the choice is either flood the nation with more third world immigrants and lose the Republic, but keep the Whitehouse or clamp down on illegal immigration, keep the Republic and lose the Whitehouse?

    We incessantly hear the “we’re all Americans” screech for both parties of Wall street curs, but in reality the pandering has nothing to do with a united America and everything to do serving the tribal special interests of blacks ,latinos and jews.

    Th truth is American politicos seeking office have become nothing more than race pimps, one and all.

    The best interests of America is not being served by either party, but the various race identifying tribes are.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

    23rd September 2012 at 7:38 am

  26. flash says:

    Almost forgot….NHES

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

    23rd September 2012 at 7:38 am

  27. Gar says:

    The ‘election’ is nothing more than theater. The alleged winner has already been selected.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

    23rd September 2012 at 7:49 am

  28. specie says:

    Yes Gar. What is amazing is how few arrive at the only logical conclusion.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

    23rd September 2012 at 8:07 am

  29. Stucky says:

    ” …. who does the GOP put up? A rich Mormon. ” —— llpoh

    Only partially true.

    The American PEOPLE voted in Romney. (I do believe there were other candidates running.)

    The same Americans who keep voting in stretch Pelosi.
    The same Americans who keep voting in faggot Bawney.
    The same Americans who keep voting in fascist Reed.
    The same Americans who keep voting in 95%+ of scum sucking incumbents.

    That’s who’s at fault here.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

    23rd September 2012 at 8:27 am

  30. Maddie's Mom says:

    When did anyone but rich people run for president?

    It IS their game. Po’ folks need not apply.


    Gridlock forever.

    It’s all I can ever remember.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

    23rd September 2012 at 9:36 am

  31. Administrator says:


    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

    23rd September 2012 at 2:12 pm

  32. Bob says:

    Bruce, I believe you are at least half right.

    The other half is that the old republican party is just as likely to fade out of existence as the Democrats are. I have a lot of sympathy for those who say re-elect Obama and let him take the blame, but I gag at the thought of voting for him — thus the Ron Paul/Gary Johnson urge.

    One of the characteristics of a deflationary depression is that it usually doesn’t last very long — the pain is unbearable. But the aftermath can be felt for over a decade. This was the pattern of the (up to now) Great Depression. So we can only guess how far along political changes will be by the time 2016 rolls around. I wonder if we will still be a single country by then, or whether a breakup will be underway. I suspect there may be a socialist movement, a libertarian movement, a fascist movement and who knows what else actively tearing the country apart by then.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    23rd September 2012 at 2:13 pm

  33. Stucky says:

    Kind of hard (for me) to criticize Romney’s tax return when he donated $4,000,000 to charity … and didn’t take the deduction.

    Plus, his low tax rate is the result of income generated from investments …. which is taxed at a lower rate.

    Me no likey Romney so much …. but not because of his tax returns.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    23rd September 2012 at 4:22 pm

  34. Administrator says:

    Intrade now puts Obama’s chances at better than 70%

    September 24, 2012, 12:37 PM

    President Barack Obama is gaining enough momentum in his re-election bid to the point where self-described “prediction market” Intrade now puts his chances of winning on Nov. 6 at more than 70%.

    Friday marked the first time that Intrade put Obama’s chances of winning right at 70% in more than a year and his chances have increased slightly since then. It was the first time Obama’s probability of winning hit the 70% level since May 2011, when terrorist leader Osama bin Laden was assassinated by U.S. forces.

    Intrade charts show that Obama’s chances have steadily improved since the Democratic National Convention was held in Charlotte, N.C., and a series of perceived missteps by his challenger, Republican Mitt Romney. Last week it was revealed that Romney told a gathering of donors that he believed 47% of the country pays no income taxes and believes they feel “entitled” to aid from the rest of the nation. The controversial remarks, surreptitously taped, were accompanied by a number of other statements that could thwart the former Massachusetts governor’s chances.

    Intrade is pricing “shares” that predict an Obama victory at $7.13 apiece, while shorts on such an event are going for $7.02. At last check, there were more than double the number of short shares compared with buy shares for an Obama victory.

    There are other signs the president is picking up steam. is now giving Obama 3.7-point edge over Romney 48.6% to 44.9%, in its average of polls, and the incumbent is starting to push his gains outside the margin of error — or is already there, depending on how high the bar is set. Some polls put margins of error at 3 points or less while others put it at 4.

    Still, if the margin of error is raised to 4 points, Obama supporters have another reason to rejoice — at least at this stage in the election process. The RealClearPolitics average of polls for Ohio and Virginia give the president a 4.1% and 4.5% margin of victory, respectively, in those two battleground states. And those, coupled with the series of states that Obama is expected to win, give him enough electoral votes to secure victory in November.

    RealClearPolitics also is showing another big shift in voter sentiment in the state of Wisconsin, where Obama has opened up a lead of nearly 8 points in the web site’s average of polls. That contrasts sharply with last week, when Obama held a scant margin of less than 2 points over Romney in a state that has been considered up for grabs this election year. The failure to mount a successful recall against Republican Gov. Scott Walker and the fact that Romney running mate Paul Ryan represents one of the state’s districts in the House, made the state a target for the Romney campaign.

    Wisconsin has voted Democratic in the last six elections. While Obama easily took the state in 2008, both John Kerry in 2004 and Al Gore in 2000 squeezed out narrow victories there.

    – Russ Britt

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

    23rd September 2012 at 4:27 pm

  35. LLPOH says:

    Stuck – If you think the GO powers didn’t arrange for Romney to win, I have some nice land in Southern Florida you may be interested in.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    23rd September 2012 at 9:46 pm

  36. LLPOH says:

    “GOP” above.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    23rd September 2012 at 9:46 pm

  37. Dave Doe says:


    This crap is getting so depressing – I think I’m just going to vote for the twins.
    Thank God Hope comes in a D Cup.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

    23rd September 2012 at 10:39 pm

Leave a comment

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.