Political Cartoons

Nah. They deserve every minute.

From:

the-rukh.livejournal.com

You trh appealing to the right wing base for a day and see how you feel. ;) The constant fearmongering propoganda has put them in a pretty undesirable position.

From:

hardblue.livejournal.com

Yeah, but isn't the sad thing that a Republican is expected to win in 2012 against Obama?

From:

Not to my knowledge.

From:

xforge.livejournal.com

Yes, much as it's sad the Earth is expected to invert and birds start flying backwards and Ernest Borgnine suddenly transforms into Miranda Kerr.

From:

hardblue.livejournal.com

Considering how bad the economy is, I think the smart money is betting on a Republican victory. The Democratic hope is that this field is so batty that Obama might still win re-election in an upset.

From:

Which smart money is saying a Republican victory?

From:

hardblue.livejournal.com

I get that drift from cable-news punditry, and I don't watch Fox News, or only rarely. Republicans look to get stronger in Congress even. I think of how Barney Frank doesn't see much point in sticking around. There's the general rule that a president's bid for re-election is usually a referendum on the economy - good economy, thumbs up, bad economy, thumbs down. I don't think the Obama poeple feel this is going to be easy street, even with a Newt. They have a hard sell to make.

From:

None of that implies a Republican victory.

Republicans look to get stronger in Congress even

I wouldn't be certain of that.

I think of how Barney Frank doesn't see much point in sticking around.

Convincing 300,000 new constituents to vote for you while still doing your job is a big task. I wouldn't consider this a negative sign, either. Dude's been in office for around 30 years, his leaving was bound to happen sooner or later and having to consider a whole new 300k people's interests is a good a reason as any to bow out of a long term job.

There's the general rule that a president's bid for re-election is usually a referendum on the economy - good economy, thumbs up, bad economy, thumbs down.

And there's ten months to go on that.

I don't think the Obama poeple feel this is going to be easy street, even with a Newt. They have a hard sell to make.

Hard sell != seeing a Republican victory on the horizon.

From:

OK, we're talking about a republican victory, so maybe its a misnomer, but the money is still betting on a Republican victory.

Obama is faaar from a shoo-in. President Romney or even Gingrich is as likely.

One of the perils of talking with nothing but people we agree with is that the future comes as a very rude shock to us.

From:

the money is still betting on a Republican victory.

Obama is faaar from a shoo-in. President Romney or even Gingrich is as likely.

You do see how these two things don't exactly play well one after another, correct?

One of the perils of talking with nothing but people we agree with is that the future comes as a very rude shock to us.

Not sure what you're getting at here. I agree with your second statement. I have doubts toward your first. That doesn't mean I think Obama is a shoe-in to win a second term, either. There's a massive difference between "easy victory", "far from a shoe in, other side is just as likely to win" and "money is betting on a Republican victory."

Right now I'm seeing "either side can win". Exactly what in this is a rude shock, and exactly how does "either side can win" translate to "betting on a Republican victory"?

Even Rasmussen is seeing Obama in a dead heat against Romney (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/election_2012_archive/november_2011/election_2012_obama_42_romney_40) (where he's ahead by 2%) and Newt (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/election_2012_archive/november_2011/national_poll_gingrich_45_obama_43) (where he's behind by 2%).

From:

the-rukh.livejournal.com

I could imagine a president Romney, but I just can't see a president newt.

From:

Obama's liberal base has been decimated by his turncoat politics. He'd be in big trouble if the GOP could find a candidate who wasn't a complete joke. IMO, Paul and Huntsman are their only hope.

From:

Obama's liberal base has been decimated by his turncoat politics.

All Obama (or any presidential candidate) needs to worry about are how Independents are going to vote.

If liberals (or conservatives) want to shoot themselves in the foot by just not showing up, then they're going to regret not voting for the person who sometimes "gets it right" as opposed to rarely "gets it right" and wants to reverse what "is right".

From:

Is there some way you can stamp that sentiment into the brains of a few million voters in the next 11 months or so?

From:

If I could, would I be discussing it here or getting paid a rather notably sized salary by the DNCC/DCCC/OFA

From:

Did I say not to show up? Whichever way you lean, 2012 is looking like a great year to vote third party.

From:

Now that's a political cartoon.

From:

Should I take that to mean you believe the monstrous lie that voting third party is "throwing away your vote"?

From:

It's not a lie until we develop a preferential voting system.

Edited Date: 2011-12-05 10:55 pm (UTC)

From:

Nonsense. Third parties may not win elections, but they win by forcing the major parties to compromise or lose votes.

From:

That can be a rather pyrrhic victory at times.

From:

Only if their real ambition is achieving power rather than effecting change.

From:

Elections are pretty much explicitly about your political stance achieving some form of authority.

From:

Yes, but third parties can and often have achieved that without their candidates ever holding office.

From:

Yes, if the person they want to convince wins. If that person loses due to voting for a third party to "show him what for," causing an even more regressive option to win, it seems pretty pyrrhic to me.

From:

The person they want to convince is supposed to lose. That's the whole point. It's not about this election; it's about the next one. And 2012 will be a perfect time to play that gambit, because the leading major party candidates are all basically the same guy.

From:

Must be nice having the ability to wait things out another four years in order to try and make some kind of statement no one will even remember the next time around.

From:

People get paid to remember. They're called analysts, and every candidate has them.

Waiting four years to see the effect of your vote isn't such a big deal. Not when the goal is real change, and both major parties have repeatedly demonstrated their intent to screw us. It's an especially easy pill to swallow in a year when the major party candidates are all basically the same. There is no "even more regressive option", as you put it.

From:

There is no "even more regressive option", as you put it.

You must not be following the GOP promises being made. Obama has some disappointing viewpoints and things weren't 100% done like I wanted, but AFAIK he's not hoping to completely decimate our social service programs and revoke any laws that recognize non-straight individuals as human.

From:

No, he's just doing the same thing in a backhanded way, which is probably even worse because it doesn't provoke the same reaction.

From:

No, he's just doing the same thing in a backhanded way, which is probably even worse because it doesn't provoke the same reaction.

Obama: Expanded Pell grants.
GOP: Fuck Pell grants. Let's kill those off.

Obama: Being attacked due to sexual orientation is now a hate crime.
GOP: No it's not. Nothing should be a hate crime. Hate crimes legislation is unconstitutional.

Obama: Let's cut prescription drug costs for Medicare recipients by 50%.
GOP: Let's privatize Medicare and let it rely on the market.

Obama: Let's extend federal employee benefits to same sex partners.
GOP: Let's undo that.

Obama: Let's fund NGOs/etc even if they provide abortions.
GOP: Let's undo that.

Obama: Let's create legislation to help the disparities between the salaries men and women make.
GOP: Let's undo that.

Obama: Let's reauthorize legislation that provides healthcare to 11 million children.
GOP: Sorry kids. BOOTSTRAPS!

Obama: Let's fund stem cell research
GOP: Let's not!

Obama: Let's not permit insurance companies to deny someone insurance just because they're not in a state of health that wouldn't provide the maximum likelihood that they wouldn't need it.
GOP: FREE MARKETS HATE THIS SOCIALISM.

etc etc etc.

Obama's done things I'm not happy with. I'm not oblivious to the fact that he's done things I am happy with, and would rather not empower those who would reverse those things in order to make a statement about how I'm not fully satisfied with the job Obama's done.

From:

Pell grants should be killed off. All education should be directly funded by taxpayers and free to consumers, like Kucinich advocates.

Obama's been consistently underhanded on gay rights. He's against gay marriage. He half-assed the repeal of DADT, ensuring that it won't be revisited for another 20 years. He stopped defending DOMA, ensuring it will not be reviewed by any court that could overturn it, so it will be on the books for his successor to enforce with a vengeance.

There are no disparities between the salaries men and women make that were not fully addressed by previous laws. Obama was playing lip service to a non-existent issue.

Everything Obama has done with health care has been an unmitigated disaster, worse than the status quo. The GOP would never repeal it; it was all their idea to begin with. They're just saying that to get votes.

Obama has done nothing I'm happy with. And even if he had, there are no bigger issues facing us than the wars, domestic spying, and the loss of our civil rights. On those issues, Obama is in lock-step with the GOP.

From:

This is why the DNC should fund the libertarian or Tea Parties to the maximum extent permissible under the law (which since citizens united and SuperBAC is infinite).

In other words, voting third party is more likely to be throwing your vote away than making the change you want. Unless I'm missing some example from America's history.

Until we get preferential voting.

From: