A presidential election forces us all to make up to three decisions: who to vote for, who to hope for, and whether or not to vote in the first place.
Here is what I plan to do on Tuesday: I will not vote for President, but if someone held a gun to my head and forced me to vote for one of these two candidates, I would vote for Romney over Obama. All that said, I hope Barack Obama gets elected for reasons vaguely similar to Steve Sailer’s. Steve says that he has a lot of Obama material and hopes he’s able to use it over the course of the next few years. I believe that Obama does provide us with plenty more material which will lead to a fuller exposure of liberalism. We can’t throw away this opportunity to give liberalism its full examination.
In the American Conservative symposium, Robert Murphy and Sheldon Richman trotted out the typical libertarian argument against voting. Whereas most normal people just say that their vote doesn’t matter, libertarians argue that voting in non-battleground states is an act of economic irrationality. Richman says that one runs the risk of being struck by lightning while venturing out to engage in this civic behavior. Such an argument assumes that every action we take through the course of the day is filled to the gills with economic rationality. Sometimes I just drive and drive around my town because I like to mix up my day a little bit. I burn gas for no good reason and have nothing but my own subjective unmonetizable satisfaction to show for this. Point being, why should voting be held to such a high standard of rationality compared to the many other things that we do in our lives which actually make no sense? Besides, that type of argument ignores some of the other value that voting provides: we get to tell others about who we voted for (or didn’t) and why; we get to root for our pick. In this way, voting is entertainment and it carries as much value as rooting for a sports team which offers us no positive economic benefit.
But guys like Murphy who make that particular argument in a symposium sort of ignore the whole point of a political endorsement. When you make an endorsement (or don’t), you’re pretending that a lot of people are going to listen to you. The endorser should just assume that lots of people in battleground states will take their opinion seriously and vote accordingly. So while the individual voter’s vote value nears zero because of the strong red or blue shading of their state, they have the potential to impact votes in contested locales. Endorsers should be of two minds then: how are they going to behave and how do they think others should behave. The libertarians here should drop the argument against economic rationality and just say that neither candidate provides a good enough reason to vote in the first place.
But back to my pseudo endorsement.
In the full-term I hope Obama wins. I voted for Obama in 2008 because I was partly swept up in Hope and Change. I was tired of Bush’s wars. I also did naively hope that Obama’s presidency would solve the racial divide which we’ve seen has obviously not diminished over the course of four years. If liberals are going to be assuaged, there will be much more love lost on this front and Obama’s various foibles over his term have made this clear. Part of me felt that we finally needed a referendum on modern liberalism, and I hope to carry that experiment to its full capacity. ObamaCare is the biggie. I don’t think that it will become any more entrenched than it already has become due to the Supreme Court ruling which upheld it. Under Obama’s watch it will be implemented by 2014, but I hold out (naive?) hope that it will quickly be dismantled after its self-evident failure. Obama, and liberals, will own this thing, and I believe it will fail on a national scale and will ultimately hinder liberalism in general.
Who do I think would be a better President in objective terms? I’d pick Romney. An improvement in the economy would mask very many of our current problems, and I do think that Romney’s focus on it would positively impact the mood of the country. And I appreciate that Romney would at least check – in the way that a major league pitcher checks the runner at first base – spending and the deficit. They say that conservatives forget about that rhetoric when they get into office, but I believe that Romney cannot escape that particular plank. On immigration: Romney provides a stronger check than does Obama. I do not care about abortion rights. This is almost beyond the political realm at this point. And just on pure style points I have developed a very strong aversion to Obama for his pandering to the female vote. Last election’s Hope and Change masked this particular stinky cologne.
So to sum up: I am not voting for President; I hope Obama actually wins the election and shows us in a most definitive way (8 years being most definitive) that liberalism is a failure; if I were viewing voting in purely non-cynical terms, I would endorse Mitt Romney to others, especially in states where a vote actually means something.
Like this:
Like Loading...
The worst outcome is an Obama win in both the electoral college and the popular vote… the best outcome is an Obama win in just the electoral college but him losing the popular vote.
If you live in a safe Obama or Romney state, you should vote for Romney.
Nothing much changes, either way, here, because the House and Senate aren’t changing much, and are divided, which basically neutralizes the ability of the WH to engage in grand gestures and limits it to tinkering through the administrative agencies. Granted, the latter is still impactful, but much more easily revised/overturned later than legislation tends to be.
Of course, both parties are acting as if it’s a critical election, but it really isn’t — either way, not much is going to change as a practical matter other than posturing.
My own guess is that Obama is going to hold on and win a narrow(ish) EV victory because his boys Plouffe and Axelrod kept their eyes on the ball in terms of what states to really hammer on, and he will win enough of these states to win in the EV. I expect that the PV will be very tight either way. The biggest question at this point is who actually shows up to vote. Many of the polls (and poll oddsmakers like Nate Silver) are making assumptions that the electorate in, say, Ohio is going to be D+8 or D+9, both of which would be higher (i.e., more Dem) than it was in 2008 — which is pretty hard to believe to be honest. This is why you have poll, like the Quin poll, saying that Obama is going to narrowly win Virginia, while losing independents in Virginia by ~20 points — you only get there by assuming that the electorate is going to be very +D on Tuesday. Now, that *could* happen, and if it does, it will be a bigger victory for Obama than some are expecting. But if the electorate is even a bit more balanced (say, D+3 or D+4), Obama is going to have much, much closer contests in places like Ohio, Virginia and Iowa. It will be very interesting to see if the pollsters assumptions about the composition of the electorate turn out to be right, because from where I am sitting they seem counterintuitive (although I admit I could just be wrong in my own read of where the electoral energy is this cycle).
When Obama won the first time, blacks and plenty of other people were euphoric for a day or so. I don’t think they are going to feel that way again.
This is very much in line with my thoughts — not actually voting for Obama but hoping he wins. And being ready for Holder’s flash mob brigades. It seems that Americans had done more waking to the realities of liberalism in the past four years than they had in all the previous forty.
On the national level I am a single-issue voter: immigration. And the combination of bad economy and Obama’s lackadaisical interest in the subject has done more to reduce immigration than good economy and Bush’s zeal in the issue. I fear that Romney is a bottom-line business type who will make increased immigration a priority.
I never fell for hope and change. I did however fall for post-911 neoconism.
You continue to be naive if you think O Care will ever be repealed once it goes into effect. We have one chance to repeal it, right now. By 2016 it will be too late. Which other major entitlements have been repealed?
It won’t be repealed, period. Liberals would scream about leaving Grandma to die in a ditch. Politicians will tinker with it around the edges to try to “fix” it, which will just make it worse.
Read up on the British NHS because it’s your future.
Another great article to remind us why Chuck waits tables for a living.
Even if Obama fails beyond the worst failures of GW Bush, no one is going to think “liberalism is finished”. Not even conservatives. Sorry.
You might as well vote for Romney because your ideas about 4 more years of Obama turning into some sort of “wake up call” or an “epiphany” are nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of someone who thinks that liberals, the media and the general public will give a fuck if he runs the entire country into the ground. If they haven’t taken Obama to task now, why would they after 4 more years? They won’t and they would have no reason to as it would mean endangering their own positions and hence endangering themselves. Plus conservatives won’t do anything about it either – except maybe complain meekly (and continue to not vote).
Also, an Obama win will do nothing but energize the left and provide them with all the “proof” they need to forge ahead with even more bizarre ideological programs and cultural ruin in our schools, businesses, government.
You faggoty right wingers have this gay fantasy of “rebuilding” civilization after some “great fall” occurs but you have no clue what the fuck you are talking about. As if you would have a say in anything (you who don’t even vote and most of you who couldn’t even win a public debate against a 19 year old liberal college girl). LOL! There is no great fall coming and electing Obama will not bring about any “fall or decline” but will only serve to further energize the left. His failures, even if unprecedentedly massive, will we swept under the rug or blamed on the right and the sheep will swallow it down like a jizz-gobbling whore working the Sunset Strip on a Friday night.
“libertarians argue that voting in non-battleground states is an act of economic irrationality. Richman says that one runs the risk of being struck by lightning while venturing out to engage in this civic behavior.”
Yeah, another great quote from an autistic libertardian nerd. As if we needed another example, but hey – I like to laugh at them as much as the next guy.
I agree with WTF Chuck (who otherwise sounds like a cocksucker). Liberals will never blame liberalism for causing failure. Your belief in the opposite is almost delusional (almost as delusion as voting for Obama in 2008).
America as a successful country is finished. In 15 years or so the mainstream will work that out and an epitaph will be written – which will lay the blame on all policies except the ones actually to blame.
Nice summary of your thoughts. I feel pretty similar, except I wasn’t an Obama supporter 4 years ago. I’ve been disappointed still. I’d add that it has been fun watching lbieral friends defend the same actions and behaviors that evil Bush did. Besides your points, I see a currency crisis coming within the next 4 years, and would rather see that be on Obama’s watch. The only way for govt spending and banking reform to happen is for it to be forced by external factos. A currency crisis, while horrible, seems to be the only way we’ll see meaningful financial reform. Without financial reform, our economy will be running at stall speed or in reverse.
I get this horrible feeling Obama squeaks it out due to Ohio, wins an electoral victory w/o a popular vote win, and with the possibility of Benghazi problems, the US gets a crippled lame duck president. We dont need that right now. I’d argue that the Dems dont need that right now since the 2014 election map looks tough for them.
I dont think enough people will wake up until the current system’s endgame. A forced reduction in complexity and the socialist safety net will only cause change. Easy money can paper over bad social engineering for only so long.
The libertarian argument assumes no state/local/tax issues are worth voting on either.
I also did naively hope that Obama’s presidency would solve the racial divide which we’ve seen has obviously not diminished over the course of four years.
Really, Chuck?
What did you think Obama was going to do, inspire negroes to pull up their pants and motivate black males to actually raise their children?
“Liberals will never blame liberalism for causing failure. Your belief in the opposite is almost delusional”
It doesn’t matter. My argument and as I understand it Chuck’s is that there is no hope of meaningful improvement even under a well-intentioned Republican president. All that can do is delay the decline ever so slightly. Forevermore, I actually think that a well-meaning GOP administration will accelerate ethnic replacement via their pro-business enthusiasm for immigration.
The only hope is to convert the nation and a substantial faction of its elites away from liberalism. The communists ideology did not fall because Gorbachev ushered in an economic recovery. It collapsed because of Soviet bankrupcy that occurred on Gorbachev’s watch. The ruling class saw that you can no longer pour from an empty ideological vessel, the Russians stopped pretending to believe, and communism was tossed aside.
The moral and economic bankruptcy of liberalism is our only hope. Together with the die-off of the baby boomer and civil rights generation, it may happen.
The choice between Romney and Obama is not a choice between Librealism and Conservatism, it is a choice that has been presented to us by Massachussets and the Vampire Squids of Wall St, the two wings of the old fraternity. That is, it is no choice really.
I Romney wins it is possible that he will destroy the republic more quickly by committing the US to a war in Iran at Israel’s behest. Rock on!
Camlost,
I voted Gore and Kerry before and was something of a pie-eyed liberal in my teens and early 20s. I had hope for many great things even up until last election. At that time I also was not tuned in on racial issues. You seem to think that the issues on people’s radars and their opinions on different topics don’t change over time. Mostly I thought that a black President would sweep away the complaint that this country is fundamentally racist but instead grievance mongers seem to have only doubled down on the effort.
Actually, I do remember hearing some black people say that the election of Obama made them think this country is less racist.
As long as white people exist, blacks are going to perceive racism. I heard this first from PA, and I have come to believe it is true.
PA has me pegged in regards to Y’s and Podsnap’s comments. Who ever said that liberalism in general will ever concede the failures of their ideology? I didn’t say that. What I did say is that Obama’s presidency marks the first 8 year run of pure unadulterated non-triangulated liberalism and that it will show itself to be such a failure that only the more hardcore liberals will embrace the label thus diminishing their political power.
PA – I kind of buy your argument about immigration. It is the most important issue and Romney might be worse than Obama.
I think you could get a change in mainstream opinion on immigration – if an argument against it could be made on left wing lines – eg unemployment, high house prices in big cities. The left ‘owns’ immigration – no change can be made on immigration from the right. Either because they don’t want to (the Repubs) or they won’t be able to – for example Pauline Hanson (lower class right winger) tried this in Australia and it failed – the screams of racist are too much for any public figure to bear.
So the change has to come from the left. The left wing arguments against immigration are pure old school leftism – concern for the working class. Whenever I talk to any middle class person about my anti-immigration views I couch everything in old left terms – “What about the working class ? It’s OK for you to be in support of immigration – your job isn’t under threat” etc Otherwise I get called a racist – I get angry and things go downhill. If I was American I would harp on and on about the destruction of the black working class caused by immigration – thus giving me immunity from the racist chant.
The problem is that guys like Obama are not old left – they don’t give a fuck about the working class. They only care about identity issues. Look at the mainstream media – papers and the websites like Huffpo, Gawker etc (ie the people who will crucify anyone who dares criticise immigration) – they are all new left – a bunch of middle and upper class snobs who actually despise the white working class.
So I agree with you that the only way you can get a change in immigration is from the left – the problem is that you need the old left – and I don’t know where those people are any more.
People commenting on how dumb it was to think the election of Obama could make blacks improve should look back to 2008 reporting. Do some google searches for articles in 2008 just about the Obama mariage. This was a theme that the media pushed about the election and the Obama marriage. The media kept saying they’d set an example for blacks. Silly but it happened. This was part of the sales pitch.
If four years of Barry Soetero aka Obama hasn’t convinced you that liberalism is a failure doubling that will not either. Barry and his regime has committed enough treasonous/impeachment shenanigans to sink the Titanic and not even a squeak from anyone in DC left or right. Barry can’t even show you his birth certificate. Barry has been carried, protected, elected, and possibly reelected by the phalanx of media and liberal shills. I have already voted in this election and it was for the White man.
Fair enough Chuck – you are talking about the undecided middle. I still don’t really agree.
You are still a young guy and I think you need a few years of watching politics to see that there is no reality in politics. The made up narrative is what is important. For every government of the past a simplified narrative takes over – there are a number of narratives some positive and some negative. The prevalence of those narratives depends on the relative power of the opinion makers. At this point the opinion makers in America are very sympathetic to Obama. Of course, on the ground he is relatively unpopular because a lot of people are suffering. But that pain will fade (or at least its connection to Obama will fade) and at that point a narrative will be adopted.
I can’t see anyway that the overall narrative for Obama will be a negative one. It will only be negative if you change the opinion makers – the colleges, the bien pensants, the MSM etc.
The “I don’t vote at all” position represents a triumph of liberalism. Nothing is local anymore, everything is national. You may not care about local tax ordinances, regulations, etc., but they care about you. Regardless of the arc we’re on as a nation, I prefer to keep more of my money and not live in a shithole.
The presidency is overrated. The president sets the tone, though Obama acts more like a dictator via his use of czars and other congress-avoiding means. Even though my state is solidly Romney, I have absolutely no qualms about my vote for him. Is he perfect, no, but I just want a competent manager, not a savior in pol form.
As to predictions, Ben Domenech is no Pollyanna and he makes an interesting case for a Romney win via an undertow election.
“the only way you can get a change in immigration is from the left –the problem is that you need the old left”
This isn’t exactly my argument. The old left is dead, so the left is unlikely to do anything proactive about ending immigration. The hope for that, and for the end of liberalism in general, lies in two things: one, the Obama administration has shown itself to be somewhat indifferent on the subject of immigration, whereas Bush, McCain, and even Reagan were actively pro-immigration for economic reasons. Romney is a business man. Immigration is good for business.
Two, the younger new left, for all their identity stuff, do not remember 1962. They aren’t ego- and emotionally invested in all the baby boomer shit from that era. They’ve never, in their life, seen a well-dressed, honest black man be told to stay away from a white drinking fountain — all they’ve seen is 50 Cent, flash mobs, and angry Laquisha. The baby boomer left believed in an epic black takeover of the vast social capital of white American’s working classes in hopes of giving blacks a chance to be white. The new left believes in… free pills for ugly college sluts. Or something.
Two, the past four years of this administration have made Americans much more cynical about liberalism in general. I remember the 1980s and 90s well — in some ways, Americans were more indulgent of liberalism because most had not felt its pain. Today, there is much less of that generosity; the average family is angry. Even the leftists are more angry, as on one hand they have more power, you on the other hand they sense it’s pyrrhic power over a decaying country.
Unlike the old left and the baby boomer civil rights left, the new left has nothing to promise, nothing to create a chime of hope for. Thus, their hold on power is thin and sustained by inertia and cynicism. More Obama is how you expose them more quickly, and expose liberalism as another god that failed.
There is no way this election should be as close as it is right now given the state of the economy, and that says something dire about the demographic seismic shift, both racial and social, happening within the US. Normally, 8-10% official unemployment would be more than enough to unseat an incumbent, but this is no longer a normal electorate. The old “it’s the economy” rulebook has been tossed out the window.
PA makes a good point that Obama may very well wind up being better for pro-border control advocates due to his inattentive disinterest in the matter. A pro-open borders zealot like neocon Romney (should we take him at his word) might do more damage to the most important variable in the formula of America’s destiny as a successful enterprise and cohesive nation.
So, that said, an Obama win could actually be a good thing in that it would accomplish two alt-right goals — shine a Klieg light on unconstrained liberalism, and (unintentionally) control the borders to a manageable trickle instead of a quasi-genocidal deluge. Four more years of Obama may discredit leftoidism so thoroughly that a larger share of whites move into the rightist camp, thus (temporarily) nullifying the racial demographic tsunami pushing the country to the left.
Unfortunately, there is a catch: the Supreme Court. Most regrettably, the President has immense power in which justices get chosen as candidates to sit on the most powerful court in the land. Unreconstructed anti-white radical leftists of the sort who would have been laughed out of prominent legal circles sixty years ago now preside over national matters of great import because of Obama. Obama is the reason Kagan and Sotomayor, two sophistic freaks, one dangerously smart, the other dangerously dumb, whose animus toward the native stock of America (yes, there is a native stock) is so clear, are pulling levers of judicial power over all our lives.
This is the one thing that keeps me from full-throated ulterior motive support of an Obama reelection. If it were not for the consequences of Presidential prerogative choosing Supreme Court candidates, rooting for an Obama reelection would not so recklessly invite national disaster. Could you imagine a Court of a majority five Sotomayors and Kagans deciding major cases? That this *one* issue should tilt the scales so heavily against a reasonable, long-term outlook voting preference suggests that the system for choosing Supreme Court nominees is broken, and needs to be reformed.
Damn, I forgot the Supreme Court in my argument. Several justices are older and unlikely to make it four more years regardless of who wins. This could be a balance shifting election. Obama could tilt it toward a 6 or 7 liberal majority.
“Unfortunately, there is a catch: the Supreme Court”
John Robert’s vote for Obamacare disabused me from holding much hope in Republican justices. In fact, I don’t see any incipient rollback or even arrest of liberalism via constitutional means at this point. I only see it happening when liberalism collapses under its own weight.
Also remember that the GOP is the beta party, and as beats they try to appeal to the alpha Dem party on their liberal bonafides. George W Bush sucked Ted Kennedy’s cock — but not even the lowest municipal democrat functionary would suck Bush’s dick.
The dynamic is similar to how a third-tier podunk liberal arts college is even more PC than Harvard, in an effort to alleviate its inferiority complex and impress its superior. Such are the Reps to the Dems. Useless.
So while I hope that Obama is reelected, I won’t actually vote for him or endorse him, for reasons of personal hygiene.
It’s funny that you got caught up in Hope and Change because it was the exact opposite for me – the Obama phenomenon and the unbelievably biased pushing of him by the media was the primary motivation for me finding the alt-right (Sailer).
The only justice that would be a great loss and is closest towards that age (death or retirement) is Scalia, but he’s too much of a bulldog to give up while Obama is in office. I could see Ginsberg going but her replacement would be a wash.
PA:
“Also remember that the GOP is the beta party, and as beats they try to appeal to the alpha Dem party on their liberal bonafides.”
This is an accurate appraisal if, as someone recently noted, the left has the status and the right has the wealth. (Leave aside for the moment the fact that a sizable chunk of the ruling class is lefty and wealthy. Perception is what matters.) In the modern West, (and probably throughout the eons), status trumps wealth. The nauseating sight of beta righties sucking up to alpha lefties, (despite righties ostensibly having more wealth), while lefties relentlessly belittle even moderate righties with gleeful abandon, provides damning evidence that lefties do indeed hold more status among the movers and shakers.
This dynamic perfectly conforms to game theory which hinges on social status differentials as the one differential to rule them all. The question now is how to reframe the reigning status hierarchy so that the suck-up polarity is reversed. Like i’ve been saying, bemused mockery and an absolute dedication to never apologizing to, wavering in the face of, or appeasing lefties who throw snarky conniption fits is a must, and a prerequisite to (re)capturing the alpha high ground. The current crop of GOPers — Hi, Rich Lowry! — are utterly neutered, so any progress will need to come from fresh, smart talent with a working set of balls who either do an end-run around the MSM gatekeepers, or know how to manipulate the MSM to get their message through the “OMG, it’s the risen Hitler!” news filters.
Kennedy is older as well, but has enjoyed being the swing vote quite a bit. We have truly been under the “Kennedy” court for almost a decade now. The SC nominees have always been a reason to support Romney.
There’s a cadre of operatives in the current WH admin that argue for a Ginsberg force out and ram through of a nominee using reconciliation procedures during the post-election cycle if Romney should win. It’s OK to laugh, but it’s real. These same figures are pissed she didnt resign when she was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.
Heartiste hits it on the head, which many commenters must feel, if the election is this close with an incompetent like Obama up for the Ds, then the US has already lost. Enjoy the decline.
The Supreme Court is eventually going to be all left-wing anyway. No Republican is going to put another Scalia on the bench and no Congress would ever confirm him.
There is no one the liberals I know fear more than Scalia.
“I fear that Romney is a bottom-line business type who will make increased immigration a priority.”
He is what Derbyshire calls a chamber of commerce republican. Either candidate, however, is open borders. No one will really stem the tide of orks poring into the US.
“Read up on the British NHS because it’s your future.”
I agree and I also think Chuck has underestimated this one. I don’t think there will be a return to american health care exceptionalism. There will be universal coverage soon, get used to it.
Romney will probably win the popular vote by narrow margin, while Obama will probably win the EC by a narrow margin, maybe 275-263.
Like Brendan said, not too much will change re: law and policy because either man will have to deal with a divided Congress and won’t be able to get much of anything passed without compromising.
An Obama win would likely hasten the economic collapse due to higher taxes, ever expanding deficits and Obamacare; a Romney win might postpone this collapse thanks to a temporary surge in consumer confidence, if nothing else, and perhaps a “reform” of Obamacare. But the out-of-control spending will continue either way, so America’s eventual economic collapse is still assured barring incredible and unforeseen developments (like actual spending cuts).
“There is no one the liberals I know fear more than Scalia.”
That is true, Lara. And do you know why? Because Scalia has balls, and he’s not afraid to display them. That’s the main reason. Scalia has the conviction of his beliefs. Secondarily, Scalia is whipsmart. The combo sends libs howling from under their skirts.
Romney will probably win the popular vote by narrow margin, while Obama will probably win the EC by a narrow margin, maybe 275-263.
My own guess is something like Obama 286, Romney 254 — based on my “guesses” that Romney will win VA, NC, NH and FL and that Obama will win the other swings — i.e., OH, PA, WI, IA, CO, and NV. If Romney pulls CO or IA, it gets a lot more narrow like your scenario, and if he wins both, it’s razor thin. Of course, if Romney can flip OH, and wins my “guess he will win” states above, he wins with 270 on the nose. I just don’t think he’s going to get there in OH.
Heartiste mentions the Supreme Court. This is important, but there are four words that are almost as important: “lower courts” and “Federalist Society”.
The president makes dozens, possibly even hundreds, of appointments to the lower-level federal courts over the course of his term in office. These judges serve two functions important to conservatives: (1) they constitute a large pool of experienced, proven candidates for the Supreme Court for future Republican presidents to appoint and (2) by making good, constitutionally sound decisions at the lower levels, they can help to keep dangerous precedent from ever reaching the Supreme Court in the first place. The Supreme Court only takes on a very small percentage of cases every year. The hundreds that don’t make it past the appellate level remain the law of the land in their respective jurisdictions and the ones that do at least force the liberals on the Supreme Court to overturn precedent (which isn’t unheard of, but some of them are at least reluctant to do this).
The Federalist Society is important because most presidents, especially Republican ones, aren’t lawyers and don’t have the knowledge of the legal system, or the necessary time, to read through thousands of legal decisions and journal articles by hundreds of attorneys, professors, and jurists to figure out which ones would make solid Federal judges. Thus, they trust the Federalist Society to do this for them. Luckily, the Federalist Society is the exact opposite of an ACLU or SPLC. It is a trustworthy organization with the best interests of our Republic at heart.
Chuck,
You should at least vote so that your silence is not construed as approval or consent. Just write in a name or vote for a different candidate. If large enough numbers did this is would provide a signal to the political market that there is a profitable segment of the electorate that can be captured with different policies and real change.
@Saint Louis – Great point on the Federalist Society. It has created a good pipeline and is far superior to the American Constitution Society, which was the liberal answer to it. ACS has been a disaster that has produced Eric “MY People” Holder and Harold Koh.
A major turning point in appointments was when Sen. Ted Kennedy destroyed Bork’s SC nomination and politicized the SC nomination process beyond repair (created the verb ‘bork’). Prior to that, it was the POTUS’ power to nominate and the Senate made sure the nominee was competent enough. Look at the aforementioned Scalia’s nomination vote. 98-0 I think. No way does that happen today. Kennedy changed that. No liberal will bring this up as it is another negative that they created and that the press and historians cover.
I agree with you on everything, except than I’ll be voting.
I voted for Romney, not because I like him (although I do think he’s probably a nice guy, even if we disagree on many points) but because I wanted to vote against Obama. I don’t have a whole lot of faith in an imminent collapse (~4-8yrs) that forces people to shed their liberal fantasies. In the meantime, I’d prefer for there to be jobs, to have a job, and to have a president that’s accountable for his actions/inactions.
Since some are making predictions, I’ll go on record as saying Romney wins the popular and the EC. I’ll have to play with the maps to get more specific with the numbers. Obama isn’t campaigning like his internals look good. 12 is more Kerry 04 than Obama 08.
With Pennsylvania and Michigan likely staying blue this time, it looks like it’s going to come down to Ohio. With it Romney probably wins, without it he probably loses. There are possible comeback scenarios for both Romney and Obama in the event of an Ohio loss, but neither is likely.
My guess is that Obama wins the election by holding Ohio, Wisconsin, Nevada and New Hampshire. I think he loses both Virginia and Florida, and perhaps Iowa and Colorado as well, but he won’t need them.
Ohio is clearly the key, I agree. Whoever wins Ohio is almost certainly going to win the way the other dominoes are looking to fall.
“Voting” is the mechanism utilized to dampen the inevitable friction that is continuously created between rival radical liberationists. Subconsciously, the notion of “voting” is rooted in an understanding of life as one of divided loyalty (mainly divided loyalties amongst one’s SELFs). “Voting” indicates that there is at the end of the day more than one legitimate authority on which to base a final decision. From a white Supremacist’s perspective, this is an entirely false reality.
And because the trend in “our way” of “voting” is towards “universal suffrage” then the anti-reality of “voting” is even further infected. Mathematically, pure “universal suffrage” means a SINGLE VOTER decides who is the “legitimate authority” to make a final decision. All before him are simply setting the stage and all after him are useless extras. In fact, it is that single voter who is the “legitimate authority.” In a system that is entirely linear and concrete, this single voter is either randomly destined or particularly chosen to be tyrant by way of “universal suffrage.”
A very devilish system.
Is anybody else worried about the way the vote is shaping up? Polls indicate that white guys and their wives are for Romney and everybody else is for Obama.
With the freeze out and demonize alinisky tactics used to success here, you will see ugly racism in the future as the formula is repeated. Say goodbye to competancy or ideology or political policy difference, or anything else, future politicians will focus on demonizing identifiable groups. And if the white guys and their wives demo declines as a part of the population, other groups will get thrown in with them.
I’m giving Ohio to Romney and predicting he gets 285 in the EC to Obama’s 253. Popular vote = 52% – 47% (heh.)
“Steve says that he has a lot of Obama material and hopes he’s able to use it over the course of the next few years.”
And how’s that material working out for him (and you)? He’s begging for donations on Amazon or Google Checkout or something. What a fucking savvy electorate we have. We might as well lower the voting age to nine and get it over with, rather than hold out hope that America has any grownass adults anymore.
“but I hold out (naive?) hope that it will quickly be dismantled after its self-evident failure.”
Yes, very naive. Roberts’ ruling should have been the final wake up call, it was for me. The odds of it being repealed are very low. Too many people don’t understand how the main reason healthcare has gotten in to this predicament is that government has been messing with it since FDR. Government has run 40-50% of the healthcare industry for 50+ years now through medicare/medicaid. Yet, fake tits get better and cheaper, same with laser eye surgery. I wonder why… free market competition? Dentistry seems to be heading towards relying on insurance more and more though and costs go up. At least my dentist gives me a 10% cash discount. Of course, who knows what the insurance companies actually negociate to pay.
Your endorsement considerations do not seem to take in the anti-male stance of the Dems.
Whist neither party could be described as penis-friendly, the Dems are positively hostile to the non-gay cock.
On this basis alone you should vote Romney as the lesser evil.
Over at the TAC blog a number of contributors seem to be dreaming of some third party arising phoenix-like from the ashes of a defeated GOP. After 4 years of Obama there is no such credible force (5%+ of the electorate) – so isn’t it time to wake from this dream?
Y on 11/2 @7:57am pretty much wholly summed up my thoughts on this matter. “The Derb” also said he would not vote in this election for similar reasons. That the lack of vote would then cause Whites who have been fed liberal lies from the cradle to somehow just “wake up”. What a fucking joke, they will continue drinking the kool-aid just like any good cult follower right up until it stops their beating heart just like the kool-aid once did for other indoctrinated sheep. Secondarily, Heartiste also posits the second and perhaps even more insidious outcome of Barry getting re-elected. Total control by VERY far leaning liberals in 2 branches of government. Checks & Balances? That is for old dead white men, we own this ma’fucka now son, what?!
For me, this election is a referendum on Obamacare, and I’m voting no.