Subscribe via RSS Feed

What Will Change? Nothing, Really.

[ 118 ] November 18, 2012 |

Tomasky is pretty much correct that the initial Republican reaction to the defeat will be to couch the same unpopular, pro-plutocratic policies in language that sounds as if they care about poor people. Obviously, the “there’s no dirtier pool than saying that a Republican candidate believes the stuff in the Republican platform and the Ryan budget” stratagem is one manifestation of this. I’m also reminded of the Bush years. You may remember Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson being talked about as the soul of a new conservatism, conscience of the White House, etc. Turns out what he meant by that was to talk about how upper-class tax cuts were great for poor people. That’s the idea.

…wait, all the GOP’s problems have been solved. Sarah Palin — tanned, rested, and ready!

Gay marriage? Palin opposes it. But she is also a strong advocate of states’ rights, and I’m betting she’d be fine with letting states and their voters grapple with the issue on their own. Remember that all of America didn’t swing toward approval of gay marriage on Nov. 6. Three reliably blue states and their voters did. If she were smart, Palin would recruit a member of her impressive gay fanboy base — yes, she has one — to help run her campaign. I nominate Kevin DuJan of the widely read gay conservative blog HillBuzz, a Palin stalwart since 2008.

Hard to see any flaws with this plan. “Sure, she wants to deny my fundamental human rights, but she likes neoconfederate rhetoric and hired a PUMA who’s a dumbshit even by PUMA standards to run her campaign. Sign me up!”

Comments (118)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Tybalt says:

    We’ll be hearing about a lot of things trickling down in the next couple of years, but I suspect we’ll be smelling even more.

  2. Colin says:

    I just heard Patrick McCrory (governor-elect of North Carolina) saying Obama won not because of his policies, but because of his organization on the ground, and basically coming out and saying that Republicans don’t need to change their message or their policies, they just need to have better structure.

    • Tybalt says:

      I think he’s probably right at least with regard to this election. The Democrats in 2012 cleaned the Republicans’ clock on technique, organization, and retail politics. Especially at the top of the ballot.

      The Republican message/policy isn’t healthy going forward in the long term, but it does retain some strength in the short term and possibly the medium… notably large pluralities of resenting whites in growing states. If they can make serious efforts to refine their effort, they might well still be in reasonable shape to continue this idiocy for the next two presidential cycles, and they are almost sure to hand us a whipping in 2014.

      • Davis X. Machina says:

        …they might well still be in reasonable shape to continue this idiocy for the next two presidential cycles, and they are almost sure to hand us a whipping in 2014.

        Take the spite and the points. Spite will always cover even if it doesn’t win outright.

      • they are almost sure to hand us a whipping in 2014

        They didn’t hand the Democrats a whipping in 1998.

        But, then again, in 1998, the Republican Party was still acting crazy and embittered over their loss two years earlier to a President that they held in great personal contempt, and provoked a huge backlash by dramatically over-reaching while pushing a ginned-up scandal – all in the context of an economy that had improved dramatically over the past two years.

        So, yeah, we’re dead meat. Lightening doesn’t strike twice.

        • Murc says:

          I wouldn’t say the backlash was huge, joe.

          The Democrats had an economy that was not just improving, but was flat-out GOOD, a President who was personally popular, and a by-then-standards crazy Republican Party.

          They translated those advantages into treading water in the Senate and picking up five in the House.

          Now, I’d be thrilled if we did the same thing in 2014, but let’s not kid ourselves here; the midterms are traditionally tough for the non-Presidential party.

          Let’s not forget 2010, which is probably more instructive than 1998.

          • Davis X. Machina says:

            In 1998 you had impeachment backlash, and the “What the hell are those Gingrich people doing” factor.

            What comparable turn-out goosers were there in 2010? What comparable turn-out goosers will there be in 2014?

          • NonyNony says:

            Let’s not forget 2010, which is probably more instructive than 1998.

            Except that in 2010 Democrats controlled the House.

            Sooo … not really seeing the parallels there either. I’m not sure either case is more or less instructive than the other.

          • I wouldn’t say the backlash was huge, joe.

            You wouldn’t say the backlash to the Ken Starr investigation was huge?

            They translated those advantages into treading water in the Senate and picking up five in the House.

            As opposed to every other sixth-year midterm since World War Two, in which the President’s party lost dozens of seats.

            • JoyfulA says:

              I despised Clinton from the time of his lies about Sista Souljah and voted for Perot twice. My personal backlash to the investigation and impeachment was that I’d have voted for Clinton in 2000, had he been able to run for a third term. The rank injustice, even persecution, was that appalling.

              Oh, and I had another personal backlash: I haven’t turned on NPR since then.

              • Bijan Parsia says:

                Having Dinesh D’Souza going on about Jesse Jackson being an ambulance chaser is what killed them for me.

                • JoyfulA says:

                  NPR started supplementing its middle-of-the-road news with guest commentators who were as loony right-wing as some of the callers on C-SPAN’s Republican line. D’Souza would fit into that crew.

                  And I voted for Jackson twice in the primaries.

                • Bart says:

                  Didn’t D.D. convert to the LDS for the polygamy?

            • John says:

              Not even just since World War II – Republicans had big gains in 1938 and 1918, Democrats had significant gains in 1926 and okay gains in 1902. If we count 1874 as the sixth year for the Republicans (in 1866 the Republicans won a landslide running against the president, so it hardly seems fair to count that), that was another Democratic landslide. 1858 was also a big win for the Republicans.

            • rea says:

              As opposed to every other sixth-year midterm since World War Two

              That would be Eisenhower and Reagan, right? Two of three?

          • Colin Day says:

            the midterms are traditionally tough for the non-Presidential party.

            Aren’t they usually good for the non-Presidential party? 1998 being an exception

      • wengler says:

        It’d be bad form to predict 2014 without knowing what happens between now and 2014. If the Republicans double down on crazy, they can literally destroy the federal government between now and then.

      • Bruce Baugh says:

        This is a question I’ve been asking myself too: How do you account for analyses like those from Wang and Silver showing very, very close-to-reality outcomes in their models from the start of the year?

        Also, one could say (and I do) that Obama’s policies and values made it possible for him to approve and support the kind of campaign he got, while Romney’s policies and values do not.

      • John says:

        Arguably, even more with the Senate than with the presidency – in most states, Romney ran ahead of the Republican Senate candidate.

        Democrats seem to be much better at winning Senate seats in strongly Republican states than Republicans are at doing the reverse. In the next Congress, there will be eleven Democratic senators from states Romney won by ten points or more (Begich, Pryor, Donnelly, Landrieu, McCaskill, Baucus, Tester, Heitkamp, Johnson, Rockefeller, Manchin). There will be only two Republican senators in states Obama won by ten points or more (Collins and Kirk). Of course, Romney won by 10 or more in significantly more states than Obama, so this is absolutely necessary for maintaining a Democratic majority, and also a good explanation for why the Democrats are often much less effectual than the Republicans, whether as a majority or a minority.

    • tonycpsu says:

      Ah yes, the middle management approach to electoral politlcs:

      Step 1. Move some boxes around on the org chart.
      Step 2. ???
      Step 3. Electoral victory!

      Please proceed, Governor-elect.

  3. Left_Wing_Fox says:

    Gay marriage? Palin opposes it. But she is also a strong advocate of states’ rights, and I’m betting she’d be fine with letting states and their voters grapple with the issue on their own

    Really? So, supports the repeal of DOMA then? That’s clearly federal overreach.

    Of course, asking her that would be an “unfair attack”. How dare we ask her to articulate her positions. It’s expecting the impossible from the inarticulate.

    • Scott Lemieux says:

      The only more states-rightsy a policy get get is the federal marriage amendment I’m sure Palin also supports, just like the constitutional amendment that would make abortion first-degree murder in all 50 states that’s in the Republican platform.

  4. I for one will be really pissed off if Sarah Palin becomes the standardbearer for the GOP. I think I speak for all liberals in saying I will be really, really pissed off. Also, very angry.

    • Scott S. says:

      And scared. Don’t forget scared. Holy cow, am I scared.

    • Scott Lemieux says:

      Palin/Tebow ’16! I’m terrified, like when my team is playing the Jets and I see Mark Sanchez lining up as a wide receiver. (Note: the theory of the Jets’ offense is more plausible than the idea that Bristol Palin would cause single mothers to vote Republican.)

      • c u n d gulag says:

        Well, if you’ve got half a brain, you don’t line RG3 up as a WR – or at least more than once.
        Sanchez? Not too stupid – if you don’t mind him getting hurt just in case a pass actually came his way.
        After all, Teabow proved that as a WR, he’s a running college QB.

        If I were Sanchez, and they stuck me in the slot, I’d be taking that as a hint that I might just not be indispensable.

        The Jets are a stone-cold mess.

      • It would make more sense to run Mark Sanchez for President and line up a local weather reporter at wide receiver.

    • NonyNony says:

      I also am pre-emptively very angry at the thought of Sarah Palin running for President. Nothing pisses off this liberal more than that thought.

    • tonycpsu says:

      No. Stop. Don’t. /Wonka

    • If any Republicans are reading this: It’s a rage, but sort of an impotent rage, that fills me when I think about that happening.

    • Incontinentia Buttocks says:

      Let me add my voice to these lamentations! Romney lost ’cause he was a weak candidate. But with a strong candidate like Sarah Palin, the GOP would be sure to win! Please don’t run Palin, Republicans!!!

    • Warren Terra says:

      A Palin candidacy would be almost exactly 50% of an enormous idea. Half-vast, you might say.

    • Tnap01 says:

      This terrifies me so much that I am going to feed aborted fetuses to my Mumia idol while chanting “No Sarah!”

    • Cheap Wino says:

      What would be even worse if she opened her 2016 run by recruiting a large number of candidates for the 2014 mid-terms and then vigorously supported them. That would really irk me. Jesus, I hope she doesn’t do that. It gives me shivers just thinking about it.

  5. c u n d gulag says:

    Well, in all fairness, a lot more rubes, suckers, and marks, fell for the grifters “Compassionate Conservatism,” than when they are open in their hatred and disdain, like Romney & Ryan, and whole swaths of Congressional and Senate candidates.

    The Republicans CANNOT change.
    Not without splintering off their hate-and-fear-filled base – who may form a 3rd Party – or make the Tea Party that party.

    So, their only option is to apply new coats of paint to their 19th Century philosophy, and sell it as some sort of a kinder, gentler, and “Greener” solution.

    • ploeg says:

      Yes. It’s not that the entire governing philosophy is contrary to the interests of most people who vote Republican (let alone the interests of the country at large), it’s that Mitt put the case for said governing philosophy “inelegantly“.

      Or as Doghouse Riley said elsewhere, “Buck Up. You’re The Party Of Tradition. So Wait Two Months And Then Act Like Nothing Happened, The Way You Always Do.

      • c u n d gulag says:

        I don’t mean to be overly simplistic, but there’s plenty of evidence that “Modern Conservatism” can be defined by who and what they hate and fear.

        If you agree – then you’re part of their hate and fear tribe, and are welcomed with open arms.

        If you object, or dare to even try to explain that there’s nothing there to hate and/or fear, then you are part of the enemy tribe.

        Conservatives are reactive creatures, not proactive ones.

        They wait to see what the position of the opposition (Liberals) take on something is, and then come to their position – whatever is diametrically opposed to that Liberal position.

        It’ll be a long, long time, before they can come around on women’s, gay, and civil and economic rights – if ever.

        Their solution in the next Presidential Election will be to have a brown or female member of their tribe on the ticket. In other words, paint over their philosophy in some other color besides “White Male.” Maybe the rubes, suckers, fools, and marks, will buy it – after all, Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann DID once lead in their primaries.

        And that’s about as far as they’ll go. Their base won’t let them.

      • JazzBumpa says:

        I’m fairly certain Romney actually is a gormless dweeb.

    • I dunno, if they could figure out a way to give rich people money AND give candy to babies I suspect there’d be a lot of happy diabetic babies around.

      • Anonymous says:

        I dunno, if they could figure out a way to give rich people money AND give candy to babies I suspect there’d be a lot of happy diabetic babies around.

        What would actually happen* is that they would use the free money to steal the candy while caling the babies filthy moochers

        *what actually does happen, every day, everywhere

      • NonyNony says:

        You mean a lot of happy diabetic rich people and a lot of crying babies, I think.

        Republicans would only hand out candy to babies if they also rigged the game to make sure the candy made it into their buddies hands afterwards.

        • Jonas says:

          If you really want babies to have candy, you give it to wealthy people, then some of that candy will trickle down. It’s a hell of a lot more efficient than giving a baby candy.

      • Warren Terra says:

        You forget Austerity. It’s not enough that the Makers get the adulation and wealth they deserve, through negative taxation if at all possible. The Moochers must also suffer, for their own good, even if their suffering offers no direct benefit to the Makers. The suffering reminds them of their place, and provides an incentive to strive harder. Thus: no candy.

  6. MAJeff says:

    If she were smart, Palin would recruit a member of her impressive gay fanboy base — yes, she has one — to help run her campaign. I nominate Kevin DuJan of the widely read gay conservative blog HillBuzz, a Palin stalwart since 2008.

    A fanbase of one lunatic. Seriously, Kevin DuJan? This nut was selling “Obama frequented gay bathhouses” stories to the tabloids. He’s even less connected with reality than Sarah Palin is.

  7. FMguru says:

    There was a period of about four days when Republicans toyed with the idea of accepting that the electorate had changed since 1980 (since 1968, really) and that they’d need to change their policies to match. But that passed quickly, and they’re back to convincing themselves that everything’s fine, they just got outhustled, stuck with a bad candidate and worse luck (that hurricane!) and a crooked media, not to mention all the electoral fraud and unfair way that people love to vote for black politicians because it’s soooo politically correct. The policies are as sound as ever – they just need a marketing refresh, a new coat of paint, a way to appeal to these Lah-TEEN-ohs they’ve been hearing about.

    They’re pretty much where the Democrats were in the early 1980s, trying to imagine that the New Deal coalition could be reassembled with just the right message or messenger (the Republican yearning for the next Reagan to appear and save them hasn’t reached the level of liberals wishing for a reincarnation of JFK to appear, but it’s close).

    Go to 270towin.com, stare at the map (of an election where the Democrat was a black guy named Hussein running with 8% unemployment), click on the states, and try to come up with a strategy that will win the 2016/2020/2024 elections for Republicans. Romney was 64 EVs short of winning. What states did Obama win are they going to take back to get those 64 EVs? How are they going to keep the Dems from solidifying VA and FL and locking up NC and AZ and eventually TX as demographics continue to change?

    That’s quite a cul-de-sac they’ve driven themselves into.

    • There was a period of about four days when Republicans toyed with the idea of accepting that the electorate had changed since 1980

      I’m convinced that half of that was the NKVD looking for defeatists to exile.

    • Taylor says:

      the Republican yearning for the next Reagan to appear and save them hasn’t reached the level of liberals wishing for a reincarnation of JFK to appear

      What else would you call Barack Obama in 2008?

      • FMguru says:

        A fairly quiet echo compared to 1980 (where they catastrophically ran his drunk brother against the incumbent democrat for the nomination), 1984 & 1988 (Gary Hart’s “New Ideas”), and 1992 (where the Bill Clinton = New JFK analogizing was so thick, at times it assumed physical form and could be walked on).

        I got more of a sense that Obama was burdened with the liberal hopes and dreams of his being the next FDR, not JFK.

    • JazzBumpa says:

      So, with a Rethug party of continuously diminishing presidential chances, and a permanently gerrymandered Rethug house, we can look forward to an ongoing replay of the last two years for the next several decades.

      Lovely.

  8. Rand Careaga says:

    Here’s someone in Louisiana who doesn’t intend to take this month’s defeat lying down. Who says Republicans can’t be proactive?

    WE do not elect the President. The Electoral College elects the President. But if enough of them do not cast their vote – then the responsibility falls onto the House of Representatives to choose the next President.

    MAKE THE CALLS!!!
    If just 17 RED States agreed to NOT cast their votes in the electoral college – then it goes to the House. And if pressured – they just might do it.

    We do NOT have to convince ANY democrats – at all.

    All we have to do is convince 1/3 of the States to NOT cast their electoral college votes.

    Well more than 1/3 of the States did in fact vote as RED States. And they too can see the obvious, wide-spread vote-fraud which has taken place.

    So, if the Electors in 17 States which Romney won decided to NOT cast their electoral college votes — then the electoral college does not meet the requirement as defined in the Constitution. And in such a case, the electoral college is thereby null and void. The matter then goes to the House.

    The scheme can be found in greater detail here.

    • ploeg says:

      And the 12th Amendment says:

      The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.

      So if only Romney states go for this, you can forget about this working. Obama still gets a “majority of the whole number of Electors appointed.”

      • The person having the greatest Number of votes for President…

        But he won’t get any votes if the electors don’t vote.

        I’m sure the scheme is nonsense, but I don’t think that is why.

        • Murc says:

          The scheme is nonsense in the sense that’s it isn’t gonna happen.

          But in terms of technical possibility? It isn’t the Electoral College that’s bound by the 2/3rd limitation, but the HOUSE. That is, 2/3rds of the states need at least one representative present if the House is to vote.

          In order for this scheme to work, they’d need to kick Obama’s electoral vote total down to less than 50% of the total number of electors appointed. And that just won’t happen, period.

          • NonyNony says:

            In order for this scheme to work, they’d need to kick Obama’s electoral vote total down to less than 50% of the total number of electors appointed. And that just won’t happen, period.

            Right. This only works if states that voted for Obama refuse to send electors for the vote. If all of the states that voted for Obama send their electors, then he has the majority of the electors regardless of what the states that voted for Romney do.

            To make this idjit’s scheme work, the Romney voters would all have to show up and vote but some big states that have Republican controlled governments but voted for Obama would have to refuse to appoint electors. And then, once the governors and other state officials dealt with the massive uprising on their streets that would result from that kind of dicking around, the votes would be cast for Obama and he’d be President anyway.

            (Because trust me – the people of Ohio might put up with a lot of crap from our governor, but if he pulled a stunt like that the reaction he got would make the reaction he got from the whole Senate Bill 5 debacle look like kids at a playground).

            • Scott P. says:

              The electors have already been chosen, and elected. That, in fact, is what we were doing on November 6, even if the names of the electors don’t usually appear on the ballots.

              • John says:

                Republican controlled states could do what the Florida legislature threatened to do in 2000 and appoint their own slate of electors to vote for Romney.

          • It isn’t the Electoral College that’s bound by the 2/3rd limitation, but the HOUSE.

            …and only for the selection of the President by the House, not for the counting of the EVs.

            Got it.

        • ploeg says:

          If only Romney states don’t vote, then Obama’s EC majority increases. Same number of votes for Obama, fewer for Romney.

          And in any case, the majority is calculated on the basis of electoral votes cast, so if a state doesn’t vote, this reduces the number of electoral votes that Obama would need to win.

          (It’s unclear that the states would be able to change how they select electors at this late point anyway, but even if they were able to do so, the plain language of the 12th Amendment prevents them from pulling a stunt like this.)

          In any case, if the southern states thought that they could scuttle Lincoln’s election by doing this, don’t you think that they would have tried it?

    • Now with a big Red Disclaimer that essentially says “the author of the article has admitted that it is a pile of steaming odiferous crap”.

  9. Rarely Posts says:

    I love the new, pervasive description for Maryland, Maine, and Washington State:


    America didn’t swing toward approval of gay marriage on Nov. 6. Three reliably blue states and their voters did.

    I love it because they can’t describe these states with their typical liberal-hate language. Even the right-wing can’t imagine the “limousine liberals” and “latte drinkers” of Bangor, Baltimore, Portland, Tacoma, and Towson voting their “San Francisco” values. I love that they can’t express their disdain for white out-of-touch liberals (the only time they hate-on whites) because Maryland is almost 30% Black, Washington has a substantial minority population, and then Maine is overwhelmingly white. Rural Maine also doesn’t exactly reflect the “urban” vote that they despise.

    It’s true these are “reliably blue” states, but they also have decent “blue collar” populations as well. They’re also States that it is somewhat hard to characterize as “non-American” in the way that they hate on people from Manhattan and San Francisco, because they’re so diverse from each other. Maine and Maryland and Washington all voting for gay rights really shows a broad-based movement for equality across this Country.

    Also, I love that they are conceding three such different states as “reliably blue.” If you can’t even run in the Pacific Northwest, in the rural North East, or in the urban and suburban Mid-Atlantic, you should be worried. Meanwhile, Democrats really can run in almost every region. We still have trouble in the West and South, but we’re swinging chunks of the old Confederacy (Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida), and we’re very competitive in almost every Western State that has a big enough population to get more than 4 electoral votes, aside from Utah.

    • Warren Terra says:

      Even the right-wing can’t imagine the “limousine liberals” and “latte drinkers” of Bangor, Baltimore, Portland, Tacoma, and Towson voting their “San Francisco” values.

      If only. Pierce County (Tacoma) voted against the referendum. I’m proud of my natal state, but I’m not naive: the progress really is heavily concentrated in Seattle and a few artsy counties.

      • MacCheerful says:

        But, the vote in Pierce County was very close – 50.42/49.58, a difference of less than 3,000 votes out of more than 300,000. Given the number of rural conservative votes it is likely that the big city Tacoma was for the referendum (and thus equal marriage).

        If you wanted to be technical. And I just noticed from the website at records and elections that an East side county – Whitman, was narrowly in favor of marriage, based on late votes. Probably because of Washington State University.

        http://vote.wa.gov/results/current/Referendum-Measure-No-74-Concerns-marriage-for-same-sex-couples_ByCounty.html

      • STH says:

        Thank goodness for Seattle. I have to live over here on the east side among the Jesus freaks and have the execrable Doc Hastings as my Congressman, but having Seattle vote in all those Dems makes it all worthwhile. (Oh, and then there’s the booming economy over here because of all that sweet government money, but I’ll be polite and not mention that. After all, Republicans believe in self-sufficiency, not handouts, so I’m sure none of them work at Hanford.)

  10. Joe says:

    An um amusing aspect of the new book on the USSC “The Oath” is O’Connor and Souter commiserating with each other on how bad their party has gotten. I believe her words were “it’s terrible.”

    If she were smart, Palin

    well, that’s an easy target …

  11. Ya know, that write-up of Sarah Palin is terrific, except that nowhere in it does it address the fact that Sarah Palin is a moron.

  12. montag says:

    It’s not a stretch for Allen to say that Palin is the new Reagan. She’s not that bright, is not exactly curious about the rest of the world, has some truly wacko ideas and generally believes things that are patently untrue, but would benefit the top 1%. She’s also quite a fearmonger about Russia, as was Reagan. Both were incompetent governors of their states before embarking on national politics.

    Both she and Reagan depended heavily on cosmetics–particularly cheek rouge–to create a simulacrum of vitality, both had about equal success in show business, and both have a record of needing crib notes to remember their lines (Reagan’s vaunted 3×5 cards, and Palin’s palm cheat sheets). Both have spouses that were advertised as powers behind the throne. Both have a visceral dislike for non-white America, gay people and “multiculturism.” Both have cultivated an aura of the rugged west around themselves. Both have pandered to fundamentalist Christians, and both have attracted advisors to them that have extremist views about militarism and American expansionism.

    For those reasons and more, Republicans ought to (but likely won’t) be mindful of what Karl Marx said: “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.”

    • herr doktor bimler says:

      “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.”

      And the third time as a re-make of “Dumb and Dumber”.

    • wengler says:

      Reagan was eventually accepted and liked by the Republican establishment and then became their god.

      Palin will never be liked or accepted by the Republican establishment.

    • N__B says:

      Is it true that Reagan had a secretary named Palin, and Palin had a secretary named Reagan?

    • mark says:

      Reagan didn’t bang Glenn Rice of NBA fame like Palin did. That might hurt her figuratively if she runs for POTUS in the future.

      Grayson has it right. Its about money to her, nothing else.

    • STH says:

      Yeah, but he was an actor and could bullshit like crazy. Palin obviously can’t do that.

  13. DrDick says:

    I have said from the outset that the GOP would double down on the crazy after this loss. This would seem to confirm that prediction.

  14. Joel Patterson says:

    So I don’t think Sarah Palin is going to give up her lucrative pundit role for the difficulties of actually being a candidate (it’s not fun). But, I was at home sick last night, watching Marco Rubio talk to Iowa Republicans on C-SPAN. He’s much more likely to run.
    The problems he defined for them were basically “too many single mothers” and the solution was less regulation, and lower taxes on the top 1%.

    • Uncle Ebeneezer says:

      Lower taxes on the Makers™ would obviously result in the creation of more online dating sites, and thus less single mothers. Problem solved!

  15. Funkhauser says:

    From the article:

    In 2008, Palin, running as my party’s vice presidential candidate, was widely supposed to have cost John McCain the election. But that wasn’t so. A national exit poll conducted by CNN asked voters whether Palin was a factor in their voting. Of those who said yes, 56% voted for McCain versus 43% for Barack Obama.

    Me fail statistics? That’s unpossible!

  16. herr doktor bimler says:

    One recurring theme in the recriminations is teh failure of ORCA. The underlying idea seems to be that Nate Silver’s analysis was WRONG WRONG WRONG and right-leaning pollsters were correct, but the election-day database conniptions* just happened to lose a few percent of Romney voters in a few swing states, just enough to make Silver’s predictions come true.

    * Probably the result of sabotage.

    • ploeg says:

      The seeming success of Nate Silver’s analysis only confirms that Nate Silver was in on the fix from the beginning.

      • herr doktor bimler says:

        The ORCA failure (if “failure” is the right word for something that achieved its purpose of enriching grifters at the expense of the Romney campaign) was definitely icing on the FAILcake, and deserves pointing and laughing just as much as the rest of Romney’s clown-car cavalcade. But it played no part in the predictions of a Romney loss (for which his vile policies and repugnant personality were sufficient).

        So I can see why the Republican analysts are preferring to dwell on ORCA.

        Not hearing so much now about the other narrative, in which Romney was defeated by the success of Democrats in tarring him with the brush of being a plutocratic h8r (and their “profligate spending”).

  17. Unsympathetic says:

    Republicans love to talk about how much life would be perfect if the Bible ran the US.

    However, they also want to eliminate the minimum wage.

    These two stances are 100% in controversy with each other.

    Israel under Rome had strict wage laws that demanded MORE payment [as a percentage of GDP] to workers than today’s minimum wage. How do these Republicans think the fourth commandment (keep the Sabbath holy) was kept? Wishful thinking?

    Workers were in fact paid enough such that they didn’t need to work on Sundays to have enough of an income to live.

    • Scott S. says:

      Ehh, Christians are quite well-known for being able to memory-hole anything in the Bible that doesn’t match up with their political and social beliefs. They’re pretty sure there’s something in Leviticus that says the minimum wage is evil. Plus everyone knows Jesus only healed people who were wealthy and had their own insurance.

  18. laura says:

    Meanwhile, President Obama, although winning reelection, lost far more voters than the Republicans, with nearly 7 million fewer voters checking his name on their ballots than did in 2008.

    This talking point is out of date.

    • John says:

      We’re down to 5.7 million fewer Obama voters than 2008. Romney also now has nearly as many votes as McCain. Anyone who opines about total number of votes before the votes are actually counted deserves not to be taken seriously.

  19. J Edgar says:

    BoingBoing fell in love with the new, improved, reasonable Republicans (not those poopy Democrats)

    House Republicans release watershed copyright reform paper
    Cory Doctorow at 10:16 am Sat, Nov 17
    http://boingboing.net/2012/11/17/house-republicans-release-wate.html

    I could have told them …

    Cowardice: Gutless House Republicans retract copyright paper in less than 24 hours
    Cory Doctorow at 11:58 pm Sat, Nov 17
    http://boingboing.net/2012/11/17/cowardice-gutless-house-repub.html

    • Warren Terra says:

      I was pleased that Doctorow et al jumped on the R’s when the R’s openly folded within a day (which was dumb politics: all the R’s had to do was ignore their own report), but was rather flabbergasted that Doctorow et al took the report seriously and somehow couldn’t remember that the SOPA/PIPA fight was all about providing a backbone to enough Democrats that they’d block a disproportionately Republican effort to impose insane copyright rules.

      • John says:

        My sense was that SOPA/PIPA kind of cut across party lines, with substantial numbers of both Democrats and Republicans on each side. Is that wrong?

        I’d add that, from the descriptions I’ve read, that report seems pretty solid, and if the RSC had stood behind it, I’d give them props for it.

  20. JazzBumpa says:

    I had to scroll back up to the top of that L.A. Times Palin article 3 times to reassure myself that I wasn’t reading the onion.

    In fact, I’m going back for another look.

    • Warren Terra says:

      As I have repeatedly been told on this very board, Poe’s Law is a harsh mistress.

      (Any similarity between “Poe’s Law” and “Pa-lin” is entirely serendipitous).

  21. Joe Biden says:

    Don’t worry, folks. You guys got a homeboy in the deal who gets it. Literally folks, literally. A homeboy.

    BIDEN 2016!

    • Warren Terra says:

      The bit where the Weekly Standard blogger assumes “Homeboy” must refer to the Black President, and must later be informed that Biden might havebeen refer to himself, is classic.

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

  • Switch to our mobile site