This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Why President Obama Was Reelected

Tyler Durden's picture


Via James E. Miller of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada,

It’s a safe assumption to make that the reelection of Barack Hussein Obama to the office of the United States Presidency will be talked about for decades to come. In history textbooks, 2012 will be referred as a momentous election year when the nation came together and collectively decided to stick with a president through the thick. Like Franklin Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and other “transformative” presidents before him, Obama will be praised for keeping the country together in the midst of economic difficulty. In sum, he will be called a popular figure who triumphed over America’s old guard and lead the nation into a new era of solidarity and renewed social tolerance.

The lavishing has already begun with prominent voices on the left like Paul Krugman declaring the “new America” has made Obama their champion. It’s being said in major newspapers across the world that this new incarnation of the American experiment is much more attuned to the struggle of minorities and the downtrodden. They went with a President who will use the divine power of the federal government to lift the disenfranchised onto the platform of dignified living.

Like most of what passes for accepted history, this is downright propaganda. The country as a whole wasn’t frightened over sudden change by throwing out the incumbent. It wasn’t a declaration of a new, more diverse America. Shaping a new destiny wasn’t on the casual voter’s mind on November 6th.

There is a rational explanation for the President’s reelection which doesn’t invoke a deep or complex meaning. The only way to explain the outcome is in the simplest and direct prose: the moochers prevailed.

Obama’s winning tactic was to do what any respectable man does when he wishes to have something; he bought it. From cell phones and contraceptives to food stamps and unemployment benefits, the Obama administration kept the money flowing to ensure a steady turnout on Election Day. The coup de grâce was painting his opponent as a second coming of Dickens’ Scrooge that was ready to cut the voters from their trust funds.

The campaign made no attempt to hide this tactic. In an online video, celebrity Lena Dunham was tapped to extol the virtues of government-supplied birth control. The advertisement was aimed at a younger generation already guaranteed access to their parent’s health insurance till they turn 26 (and then morph simultaneously into full grown, self-sufficient adults). The video was a great demonstration of the campaign strategy but it was topped by one woman from Cleveland, Ohio who exemplified the public trough mentality on camera. Commonly referred to as the Obama-phone lady, this woman was so enraptured by her “free” cell phone and other welfare entitlements, she was determined to “keep Obama in president” to use her exact words. Though clearly dimwitted, Ms. Obamaphone was a phenomenal orator of the President’s message of goodies in exchange for votes.

Though it worked splendidly, Obama’s strategy was not brilliantly crafted from the minds of experts. It was the same bread and circus routine employed by the Romans and applied to modern demographics that relish in a victim-like mentality.  Women, the youth, blacks, Hispanics, and the elderly were all catered to through subtle patronization and outright payoffs.  It was the same tactic employed by the Roosevelt administration when the New Deal got underway. As journalist John T. Flynn wrote of the popular 32nd president:

It was always easy to sell him a plan that involved giving away government money. It was always easy to interest him in a plan which would confer some special benefit upon some special class in the population in exchange for their votes.

The 2009 auto industry bailout was Obama’s great tribute to Roosevelt. By infusing two auto giants with the federal government and still maintaining the appearance of their private ownership, the President convinced a majority in the battleground state of Ohio to put him back in the White House. Criticizing the auto bailout was the last nail in the coffin for Mitt Romney’s presidential aspirations.

None of this is to say the election of Romney would have meant the much needed axing of the welfare state and state-subsidized dependency. The army of bureaucrats tasked with cutting checks in the name of kindness would still work to expand their budgets. The wealthy interests the former Massachusetts governor looked to appease were welfare queens in themselves and would likely receive all the state coddling money can buy.

Obama won the election by catering to the worst of all human traits: envy. He demonized the rich while promising to take more of their income and give it out in the form of entitlement payments. Under his presidency, the attitude of the takers will continue to swell as they clamor for more privileges. Anybody who speaks out against the Robin Hood scheme will be called an unconscionable xenophobe and a hater of the poor. The protestant work ethic will slowly be choked into submission through deliberate iconoclasm launched by the political class and their pet media pundits.

The opponents of capitalism will keep blaming money and greed for all the ills of society. They will also keep wearing fashionable clothes and coordinating protests on their smartphones while drinking caffeinated drinks that cost the same as some third world country’s average salary. They will scoff at hard work when it’s the sweat and labor of generations before them that has created the living standard they enjoy today. Under their tutelage America will be brought into its final form of, as right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh accurately defined it, a “country of children.”

Economist Thomas DiLorenzo sums up the key to Obama’s victory in this pungent bit of fine wisdom:

Every time Romney made one of his “let’s get the economy going again” speeches extolling the virtues of hard work he terrified the millions of welfare bums and parasites and motivated them more than ever to stand in line for hours to vote for Santa Claus Obama, their “savior” from having to work for a living.  (It’s always the low opportunity cost class that has the “luxury” of spending half a day or more standing in a line).

With Obama’s reelection comes the onward march of American society’s degeneration into that of the lazy, bitter masses forever on the lookout to loot a hapless minority still trying to make an honest living. The coming brave new world will be filled to the brim with self-righteous individuals eager to shuffle around the Earth’s gifts to achieve some kind of equality. In the process, none of them will produce a lick of good outside of satisfying their own disturbed need to dominate. It will be rule of the inept over the capable. Barack Obama will lead the way. He will be replaced in four years with someone that follows the same doctrine. The collective age of the country will continue to collapse till it reaches just shy of an unclothed infant wailing for succor. Except it will be grown men doing the crying and no one around to feed him because the sensible among us has already left.

The people have spoken and made it so.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 11/12/2012 - 11:55 | 2972559 not fat not stupid
not fat not stupid's picture

ZeroFox News

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 11:57 | 2972568 Pladizow
Pladizow's picture

Why President Obama Was Reelected?

Beacuse the majority of Americans are stupid!

But the same could be said if Romney was elected.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:00 | 2972582 imaginalis
imaginalis's picture

Moochers = Bankers

Moochers = Corporations

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:02 | 2972590 true brain
true brain's picture

that one is easy. no analysis needed. Ron Paul voters stayed home.  Could have pushed Romney over.

haha; last laugh on you Romney and all of you RINO wack jobs.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:05 | 2972610 economics9698
economics9698's picture

Black voted 93% for Obama
Asians voted 72% for Obama
Latinos voted 71% for Obama
Jews voted 69% for Obama
Whites voted 59% for Romney

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:07 | 2972617 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

Sucks to be a minority.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:12 | 2972629 Temporis
Temporis's picture

I welcome our future Chinese overlords...

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:24 | 2972714 no taste
no taste's picture

Obama was not re-elected because Americans are moochers. (Well, the Wall St criminals are.)

Obama was re-elected because the only approved alternative was indistinguishable from Obama.

Karl Rovian - adjective - characterized as an epic failure resulting from hubris.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:44 | 2972734 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

All your bases are belong to the Military-Defense Contractor-Banking-WallStreetFinancial Complex ("us"), bitchez.

Release the Kraken, Cracka Jackas!

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:51 | 2972844 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Stockholm syndrome... (& Obamaphones)... (& the wise choice to keep Chewbacca off the stump)...

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:44 | 2973195 kaiserhoff
kaiserhoff's picture

Two reasons:  Parasites outnumber producers, and the new Stalin got the slavish support of the Jew owned media.  May they get what they deserve.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 14:16 | 2973243 no taste
no taste's picture

Stupid trolls often make bigoted remarks.

The 0.05% do not outnumber the 99.95%.

And Fox isn't part of the PTB media?

Also Netanyahu rather seemed to favor Romney.

Perhaps you should go back to troll school.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 15:28 | 2973600 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

How did Obama win?

He cheated.

"To give you a taste of what I’m doing now I’ll share this with you.  I’m using a Florida outcome in a specific district to try and wrap my head around all of this.  Three counties.  Martin, St. Lucie, and Palm Beach.  Martin is controlled by Republicans and the turnout #s match what all our national trending showed. Big enthusiasm for the Republican candidate.  Republican vote dominated Martin County.  St. Lucie and Palm Beach are the real tests and is where the #s really start to signal something is wrong.  St. Lucie leans Democrat. Palm Beach is Dem dominated.  St. Lucie showed marginally less votes for Democrats % wise.  Republicans enjoyed some cross-over which is what all the national models were indicating.  In Palm Beach County which is Dem. dominated, voter turnout was even more depressed than prior elections, especially for the Democrats.   But the Democrats won the district.  The Republicans lost. Basically, the Democrat-dominated counties seem to be where some very odd #s came back. And if this is the model they utilized last night, they had to have done it in multiple counties for every swing state.  That kind of coordination would be huge.  And it would need the help of operatives from the other side.  So I’m sitting here trying to figure out if the #s represent real voter outcome, which means almost all our internals were way the f-ck off, or how they pulled off fraud.  That will take time.  It won’t matter for this election, but it will make us better prepared for the next one.  Either way, I got to focus and make calls, and try to figure this sh-t out."

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 16:04 | 2973728 jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

i voted for gary johnson but the canadian (?) author of the original post seems quite the buffoon.  as noted above, the big moochers are the too big to fails and the military industrial complex.  

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 14:12 | 2973295 Paul Bogdanich
Paul Bogdanich's picture

The word "moochers" in the article is unnecessarilly inflamatory and innacurate.  It is innacurate because it leaves out all the social security and medicare recipients and focuses attention on a bunch of myths that don't really exist in any substantial proportion like welfare queens and what not.  So I prefer the term "takers" to denote anyone receiving government assistance however well deserved (disabled veteran) or not.  What gets me though is the intentions behind the events.  The hispanics delivered for democrats voting 68% democratic and sent a clear message to republicans that irrespective of any other considerations they want imigration reform and guess what, they are going to get it.  It is a top priority even for rational republicans.  A minority for sure but still a priority.  Similarly the black population voted 93% for Obama for principally emotional reasons as near as I can tell and here is the part I find incomprehensible, they demand nothing.  They suffer 24% unemployment, are functionally relagated to living under distressed violent conditions, they are allowed no upward mobility, not even symbolic peoples of color in any senior administration positions and they to are going to get exactly what they demanded which is nothing.  No change in their condition.  I do not understand why that block voted as they did and demanded nothing in return.  It is unfortunate that leaders like Malcom X were not allowed to reach maturity as he at least would have had the voice to provided some context on what one could have done if one felt compelled to vote for Tom.        

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 14:41 | 2973418 11b40
11b40's picture

First, black people know that nothing is exactly what they get from republicans.  They live it.  It is in their bones.  Instinct and experience tells them all they need to know about their choices come election day.

Then there is that ther little bit of reality republicans like to either ignore, or more likely behind closed doors, mock.  The democrat party is like a rainbow.  Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, women, gays....all can truly find a home in the democrat party, and advance.  It is patently untrue that they get nothing from the democrat party.  They are a real PART of the democrat party.

And while I'm at it, most Americans are not moochers.  Virtually every man wants to work....but where are the jobs?

The real moochers and parasites are in the FIRE industries, which produce nothing and skim from everyone....especially finance, and the multi-national corporations who have bought the political class to write the laws in their favor.

Moochers my ass.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 14:47 | 2973447 redpill
redpill's picture

The actual name is the Democratic Party, fyi.  And minorities certainly do get something out of the party:  higher unemployment rates.


Stupid sheep.


Mon, 11/12/2012 - 18:28 | 2974212 geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

This claim is not true.


   period                 start  end  chng   President      Party
Jan 1949 Jan 1953    4.3   2.9  -1.4   Truman         Democrat
Jan 1953 Jan 1957    2.9   4.2  +1.3   Eisenhower I   Republican
Jan 1957 Jan 1961    4.2   6.6  +2.4   Eisenhower II  Republican
Jan 1961 Jan 1965    6.6   4.9  -1.7   JFK/Johnson    Democrat
Jan 1965 Jan 1969    4.9   3.4  -1.5   Johnson        Democrat
Jan 1969 Jan 1973    3.4   4.9  +1.5   Nixon          Republican
Jan 1973 Jan 1977    4.9   7.5  +2.6   Nixon/Ford     Republican
Jan 1977 Jan 1981    7.5   7.5   0.0   Carter         Democrat
Jan 1981 Jan 1985    7.5   7.3  -0.2   Reagan I       Republican
Jan 1985 Jan 1989    7.3   5.4  -1.9   Reagan II      Republican
Jan 1989 Jan 1993    5.4   7.3  +1.9   Bush, GHW      Republican
Jan 1993 Jan 1997    7.3   5.3  -2.0   Clinton I      Democrat
Jan 1997 Jan 2001    5.3   4.2  -1.1   Clinton II     Democrat
Jan 2001 Jan 2005    4.2   5.2  +1.0   Bush, GW I     Republican
Jan 2005 Aug 2008    5.2   6.1  +0.9   Bush, GW II    Republican

The data speaks for itself.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 20:59 | 2974633 BigJim
BigJim's picture

May I re-introduce you to a word you almost certainly already know, but appear not to have considered applying to this? -> 'Lag'

Not that I carry a torch for Republicans, mind you... 

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 02:56 | 2975351 geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

The whole thing is a mess because there are a ton of factors that go into the unemployment rate, and it's not clear to me that the party of the presidency has much to do with it. But at least I had a justification for refuting redpill's unsupported claim. Fed policies and market conditions probably have more to do with it than anything, but I am happy to look at any empirical data supporting redpill's point.

Thu, 11/22/2012 - 06:56 | 3004164 geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

Hey redpill, how 'bout your respond to my counter-claim to your statement that democrats increase unemployment rates?

Got any data to back up your claims?

I'm not interested in defending democrats, but facts are facts.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 17:03 | 2973909 Paul Bogdanich
Paul Bogdanich's picture

My question was not why support democrats over republicans my question was why not demand some specific policy changes for the continuing suport?  Young blacks have essentially been converted to fodder for the for profit prison system so how about an end to the insane war on drug sentencing guidelines?  Or something else, I don't know.  The statistics indicate that the community at large is not exactly "living the dream" so one would think said community would like to change a few things at least.  But to blindly support these candidates and then demand nothing seems counter productive to me.  It's not like they genuinely care about their non campaign contributing constituients you know.  

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 18:24 | 2974193 FMR Bankster
FMR Bankster's picture

Didn't you get your Obama phone? There were several million given away in Ohio with lots of free time every month.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:27 | 2972727 Manthong
Manthong's picture

All I know is that most people trust that the same regime that measures and reports GDP, inflation, payroll and employment and effects “policy” will measure and report votes and effect elections accurately and honestly.

I understand the cognitive dissonance there, but good luck with that.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:32 | 2972748 no taste
no taste's picture

You should meet more interesting people.  One non-leading, carefully-worded question usually gets people to say what they really think.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 14:06 | 2973279 old naughty
old naughty's picture

"...will be talked about for decades to come"

I am not nearly as optimistic.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 15:03 | 2973483 Manthong
Manthong's picture

About honest regime elections..

Obama lost in every state with voter photo ID.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:11 | 2972637 Captain Kink
Captain Kink's picture

Krugman is obviously angling for the Bernank's job.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:17 | 2972675 smithcreek
smithcreek's picture

Lots of people on this site all gung-ho to point out how Romney would have been just as bad, banksters this, politicians that, blah blah blah.  They miss the big point though, and this article gets it right.  Whether or not Romney would have been just as bad, right or wrong the public perception is Romney = work and responsibility for self, Obama = handouts and nanny state.  This is the first election in my lifetime that there was no pretense to hide that difference and the people voted for nanny state.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:30 | 2972739 Let them all fail
Let them all fail's picture

It seems like everyone on here is ignoring social issues. While financial issues are at the top of people's minds right now, I have found many people, primarily women, more worried about social and women's issues and which led them to vote for Obama.

Obviously some people were worried they might lose government assistance if Romney was voted in which must have helped Obama's tally. However, it is way too simplified to just say that moochers win and hard-working people lose...there are other issues at stake as well, even if the two parties are less different than they want people to think. The PERCEPTION, as you state, is that Obama = gov't assistance, more taxes for the rich, less aggressive foreign policy, more rights for women and gays, more focus on education. Whether accurate or not, many people are drawn to these, and to think that everyone voting for Obama is a moocher who supports a nanny state is misguided.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:45 | 2972811 Beam Me Up Scotty
Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

Women's issues.  Birthcontrol.  Romney wasn't advocating the abolition of birth control.  He was basically saying you should pay for it yourself.  Its not even that expensive.  We live in a I shouldnt have to pay one thin dime for healthcare in any way shape or form, be it a finger prick or cancer treatment.  This leads to infinite demand on the finite amount of available healthcare.  When healthcare is shitty for everyone, no one will even remember what good healthcare was.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:32 | 2972932 whstlblwr
whstlblwr's picture

This is a fucking shitty article, and Ludwig von Mises continue this line and you will lose. The teaparty started because banker parasites mooched from the productive part of US. In this election, if parasites won, then predators lost. That is a simple-minded argument.

Many people I know voted for Obama because of liberal social issues, environmental protection. Even Blooomberg endorsed Obama. I think the number one reason is social unrest that would happen with Romney win. They are both the same and work for the corporations. If you believe Romney is different, you are stupid. Did you see his plan to deal with the deficit?

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:37 | 2973143 Nick Jihad
Nick Jihad's picture

People are not always honest about why they vote for one candidate over another. Not honest with you, and often not honest with themselves. People won't admit that they are voting their envy, because they know it makes them look bad. So they mouth pre-fab phrases about reproductive rights, etc., that were provided to them esepcially for that purpose.


Mon, 11/12/2012 - 14:26 | 2973342 whstlblwr
whstlblwr's picture

Voting their envy? I hope you don't believe this. Are my rich friends with boats and live on lakes voting Obama for envy? NeoCons you lose. You lose public support and apparently CIA. Keep telling us that America cares what happens in the bedroom, likes to drill in parks, take away rights from women, and you will lose more elections. Maybe if Romney didn't toe the line for BIG OIL,he would have greater support. His big solution to handle the debt was to start government subsidized pipelines.

GOP would have a better chance for pubic support to move platform to small government, balance the budget, follow the constitution.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 14:57 | 2973474 Louie the Dog
Louie the Dog's picture

GOP would have a better chance for pubic support to move platform to small government, balance the budget, follow the constitution.

What constiturional rights did the GOP want to take away from women?  Where does the constitution state that you cannot "drill in parks"?  "Big Oil" fears Obama!?  Really?  And "subsidized pipelines"?  Give me a fucking break.   What does an Obama parasite want their messiah NOT to subsidize?  You're just another liberal hack hitting the forums trying to convince Romney voters that the only way they will ever win an election is to become a parastic leech like yourself.  OK, you're right.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 15:10 | 2973526 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

+1 You cant up or down with italics.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 15:31 | 2973565 whstlblwr
whstlblwr's picture

LOL, GOP fucked up when they treated RP supporters like scary infiltrators trying to steal their party. You guys are trying to message this as the parasite sucking from the productive host won the election. Yeah, right, maybe take it up with the CIA.

Obama = bailouts for banks, autos, multinational corporations, wall street over mainstreet, handouts for healthcare companies, oil companies support over people (BP), hide Fuckishima, how can I forget huge support for military industrial complex, drones

Romney = bailouts for corporations (support TARP) wall street over mainstreet, handouts for healthcare companies, oil companies support over people, support for military industrial complex, drones

Shut up, we know they are the same. I could go on and on to prove they are the same if I had time to look all of it up.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 17:25 | 2974001 bigkahuna
bigkahuna's picture

The republican party wants nothing to do with Paul and his supporters. The republican party would rather have a democrat elected that have a Ron Paul type conservative. Their republicrat masters would not be pleased at all. 

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:14 | 2973024 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

As I said elsewhere, I have had 3 Obama voters use the women's issues excuse and each of them claimed Romney would make contraception and abortion illegal (somehow). These people are out there. They are not a fucking minority either - they won this election.

In reality, Romney could have promised free contraception and free abortions and these Obamessiah cultists still would not have even considered voting for him because he isn't The Chosen One.

The author of this article underestimates the force of Obama's cult of personality - which is understandable, because, as far as I know, Obama is the first person to have no known personality and yet have a personality cult ... how? he's The fucking Chosen One, that's how.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 15:53 | 2973694 geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

I would have voted for Obama if it had been close in my state. It wasn't so I voted for Jill Stein to try to get matching funds for the Greens. I generally don't believe in voting because there is rarely a difference between the candidates, but in this case there was a big difference in that one party's platform is inclusive of minorities, and one is not.

I can't speak for other women, but for me it was more than just abortion. It was the string of outrageous comments like there is such a thing as "legitimate rape" and talk about no abortions even in the case of rape. And all this time, the Christian conservatives, who I might mention, are very upfront and outspoken about their intent to impose their religious beliefs on American civil law and how this is a Christian nation, were ratcheting up their rhetoric to off-the-charts crazy. Legislatures were passing personhood laws where the fetus attains personhood status, which is again off-the-charts crazy.

Republicans made conservative social positions the center of their platform, and yet many men fail to see the rationality of voting against a man (Romney) who was so flip-floppy that even Republicans were unable to determine his real position on a range of issues. Had Romney won, social conservatives would have taken this as approval of their drive to Christianize American law, and it is my opinion that this scared the hell out of a lot of people, minorities of all kinds, and got a lot of them out to the polls.

All this talk about moochers and free phones is just the old welfare queen meme repackaged. It exploits prejudice to convince people to vote against their own economic interests. Miller might have more credibility in making his argument if it were supported with a quantitative comparison of government freebies given to people versus banks, corporations, non-profits, and trust funds. Until I see that, I'm not buying his argument.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 16:55 | 2973882 Cast Iron Skillet
Cast Iron Skillet's picture

Geekgirl, exactly right. I could never vote for Romney, because I want to live in a free country, not a Christian country. Everyone should be free to practice the religion of their choice without having "Christian values" being anchored into law.

If the Republicans (or the Democrats) had fielded a candidate with liberal social values combined with fiscal responsibility (and yes, I believe the two are compatible), I would have voted for him or her.

The blather about moochers and free phones is bigoted neocon bullshit.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 17:28 | 2974014 Jackagain
Jackagain's picture

So you think that only atheists should get elected? BTW....Mitt is a Mormon, not a Christian.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 17:45 | 2974071 Cast Iron Skillet
Cast Iron Skillet's picture

Nope. I think religious persuasion of the candidate should not matter when voting, because religious belief would never be cast into law.

Mormonism is a Christian sect that branched off from Protestantism.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 17:57 | 2974109 geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

There is a great deal of similarity between the religions, especially attitudes towards women, and I didn't see nary a peep out of Mitt about any of the war on women rhetoric. I don't care about religion, I care about religion imposing itself into matters of civil law. It's in the first amendment for a good reason.

Thu, 11/22/2012 - 07:03 | 3004167 geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

I feel very sorry for the men who downvoted this post.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 17:45 | 2974078 geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

My ideal candidate would also be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But Romney is no fiscal conservative, and his lack of any stable positions meant (to me at least) that had the winds of change blown even further into rightwingwackostan, he very well may have let the Christian right push through all sorts of religiously-based legislation and then signed it. I think the country as a whole said to the traditional majority that this is no longer a white christian nation. It belongs to all of us. (notwithstanding the view of the oligarchs of America, who I am certain do not share that view)

The real irony, in my view, is that many Christian red state Republicans have still not clued into the fact that Republican economic policies are not in their best interests. The social dominators that rule the party have exploited religious believers by tempting them with the carrot of creating a Christian state. I'm not seeing either party calling for Corzine's head. I'm not seeing either party talking about whacking the ludicrous military budget. I'm not seeing either party serious about ending the Fed. Both parties are talking about cutting social programs. I'm just not seeing a big difference fiscally, so I can't understand why so many people here believe Romney would have solved our fiscal problems. The economic plan is not party-dependent; it's print, print, print. This election was a rejection of social conservatism. (IMO)

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 19:09 | 2974364 Ident 7777 economy
Ident 7777 economy's picture






" My ideal candidate would also be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But Romney is no fiscal ... "



Dream on neophyte; you ain't gonna get there from here in this life.






Tue, 11/13/2012 - 03:10 | 2975363 geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

Au contraire. There are many open-minded (read: socially liberal) Republicans in the Pacific Northwest, and I even count some as my friends, although they do have a heavy libertarian lean. Also on the East Coast where I grew up there are many live-and-let-live fiscally conservative Republicans. I'm curious, why do you think this is an impossibility?

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:44 | 2973193 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

I had an argument with a doctrinaire liberal friend about this just the other day--as usual, you've got a simplistic perspective that probably doesn't have anything to do with most folks' decision process.

The big issue in her mind wasn't birth control, but abortion.

Romney is a devout pro-lifer, and she was concerned about him packing the Supreme Court with justices who'd want to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 14:01 | 2973260 Tom of the Missouri
Tom of the Missouri's picture

Did you explain to your smart friend that overturning Roe vs Wade would do almost nothing to prevent her from getting her next abortion?  At least if she were to live anywhere but Utah or Alabama, that is true.  And even then she could drive a few miles to a nearby blue or partially blue state to have her kid chopped up.   Abortions btw were still widely available everywhere even when it was illegal everywhere and rarely done with coat hangers in back alleys.  Can you say discrete family doctor.  I knew of someone in youth who went to the local Catholic hospital for a DNC procedure to solve her woman problem by her family doctor. He then gave her a prescription for b.c. pills.  She was 15.   Has anyone ever heard of the marijauna and heroin markets?  Roe vs. Wade is about one thing, which is the bastardization  and destruction of the Consitution of the United States by leftist and nothing more.   The country is filled with idiots that should not be allowed to vote.  See my earlier post on women voting.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 14:42 | 2973421 geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

Wow, not only are your facts completely wrong, you're openly misogynistic. Women shouldn't be allowed to vote? Wow, just wow. Stunning.

But you're right. Women will get abortions anyway, they'll just be of the back alley variety. Some might find the odd doctor to help, but one of the big reasons for Roe v Wade was to help eliminate deaths due to botched abortions with coat hangers. Not that I think you'll bother, but you might want to do a little research on the difficulties many women face in getting abortions before you spew your prejudice on a public board.

Fortunately, you look like an older fellow and I don't think you're going to be around much longer. Sometimes that's the only way change happens, especially for older people who are unable to come to grips with a changing world. This is especially true when traditional privilege is challenged: male privilege, white privilege, etc.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 15:12 | 2973517 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

He's probably an older guy who believes women don't always vote in their own self interest.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 16:41 | 2973843 geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

No, he's just a misogynist. There's no need to candy-coat it.

Since 45 percent of men voted for Obama, it would seem that according to that logic, men don't always vote in their own self-interest either. What's his point, that a vote for Romney would be in womens' self-interest? I would love to know what empirical justification he has for that. In my opinion, all Romney would have done differently than Obama is accelerated the transfer of wealth from the poor to the already obscenely wealthy.

Thu, 11/22/2012 - 06:05 | 3004138 geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

LOL. The replies on this thread are telling, as are the downvotes without any justification.

I am coming to the conclusion that most ZHers are pussies who dump on women because they a) can't get it up, and b) have an axe to grind against women. (As for b, see a).

I'm right here if any of you chuckleheads want to respond, but I think it is much more likely you'll hide behind the anonymity here.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 17:13 | 2973951 yochananmichael
yochananmichael's picture

pre RvW 17 states had legalized abortion. If it were overturned, likely 30-40 states would. 

do you care about facts?

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 19:19 | 2974405 geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

I have a friend who is an abortion doctor. She has a bulletproof vest. Believe me, I know the facts. If you have money, you can of course travel wherever, even out of country if need be. It's usually poor women who are trapped, and if the Christian right had its way, there would never be another abortion in this country.

I don't think abortion being illegal in 10-20 states is a positive thing, and again, coat hanger abortions will happen in the absence of medical facilties. What facts, exactly, are you claiming I don't care about?

Thu, 11/22/2012 - 07:17 | 3004177 geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

Three downvotes and nobody has the courage to state their convictions.


Mon, 11/12/2012 - 14:59 | 2973487 Louie the Dog
Louie the Dog's picture

I went to college in Florida in the 1960s.  Coeds that got pregnant went to Alabama for abortions. 

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 15:07 | 2973515 therearetoomany...
therearetoomanyidiots's picture

Don't confuse them with facts

Thu, 11/22/2012 - 06:44 | 3004159 geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

What facts, exactly, might you be referring to?

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 15:56 | 2973666 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

You're obviously a crazy idiot, but no, I made a better point: I pointed out that it didn't really make sense to make a choice of President on the basis of his personal opinion about abortion.

     Roe vs. Wade is about one thing, which is the bastardization  and destruction of the Consitution of the United States by leftist and nothing more.

This FASCINATES me.  How do you figure?  The Constitution says nothing about abortion, and the Founders didn't give a damn about the issue.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 19:07 | 2974358 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

What is it about the Tenth Amendment that no one seems to understand?

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 20:06 | 2974536 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

The Feds get called in when the rights of the PEOPLE are in conflict with the rights of the STATE GOVERNMENT.

What's so hard to understand about the role of the Supreme Court?  The Founders created it for a reason, you know.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 18:26 | 2974201 murpheus
murpheus's picture

blunderdog, my wife gave me the exact same argument.  She's 46 and I can't imagine abortion will be part of her reality in the near future.  Once again, we canceled each other out.  Arrgghhhh!


Mon, 11/12/2012 - 20:10 | 2974544 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Dump her before she drags the country down the tubes. 

Do it now before Obama gets his "Give all the Money to the Bitch after the Divorce" program implemented.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:52 | 2972852 adr
adr's picture

Everyone voting for Obama is a moocher, including the Jews hoping for four more years of ZERO prosecutions for financial fraud. That is like giving a 8 year old kid the keys to Disneyland.

The wealthy already know that they will be able to hide their income from taxation. Their great compassion for the poor comes from the need to keep the poor complacent so they can continue to vote thugs like Obama into office over and over, for their own benefit. They know the middle class will be robbed to pay for welfare, the only group that threatens the domination of the Fifth Ave set.

The wealthy set only contributes to charity out of greed. If the tax deductions for charity were removed, nearly all of the contributions would dry up. That is why they hold the belief that government should step in and do something about the poor. They don't want to take the responsibility of helping. Let them eat cake.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:49 | 2972840 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Sorry, but that's just a crock.  Many who voted for Romney may have seen it that way, but the large majority of those who voted for Obama  did so because they wrongly believe he is not in the pocket of Wallstreet.   The whole moocher versus productive class debate is a Randian fantasy that is believed only by the cult members on Fox, etc who you obviously listen to.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:54 | 2972869 adr
adr's picture

So there are no moochers?

That's a fairy tale if I ever heard one.

Do you ever think the majority of blacks even know anything about Wall Street? Fuck 80% of them can't even find the state they live in on a map.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:01 | 2972919 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

There are plenty of moochers.   Most of the real moochers that you are thinking of don't vote.  Remember, 1/2 of the country doesn't even show up.     Sorry to bust your Randian world view, but this election had nothing to do with productive class versus moochers, except in the fantasy world of Fox News who tried to paint it that way.  I see you are easily convinced by propaganda.  You should think for yourself more.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:25 | 2973086 DeadFred
DeadFred's picture

Moochers, welfare queens, bums- so unPC! They prefer to be called the motivationally challenged.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:46 | 2973203 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

I suspect a lot of the "moochers" are retirees on Social Security (and Medicare) who were concerned about Ryan's agenda and didn't find Romney's placating speeches sufficiently reassuring.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 15:57 | 2973708's picture

Retirees on Social Security have been made dependent involuntarily. Their wages simply disappeared from their paychecks before they ever received them. Getting some restitution for that theft is hardly mooching. And recall that Social Security beneficiaries who have recently retired will not get back as much as they paid in even if they live well past the average life expectancy.


Social Security Now Takes More Than it Gives


But there are actual moochers and looters in the world who take far more than they've ever given if they've given anything at all. Dick Cheney and the Obamaphone lady spring immediately to mind.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 16:40 | 2973811 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

I put "moochers" in scarequotes for a reason.  A lot of folks can't distinguish between a deadbeat who's spent his entire life gaming the system for personal benefit (like Dick Cheney) from a person who for one reason or another came into difficulty and became unable to maintain their own survival expenses (like a triple-amputee veteran).

I believe (based on discussions with my parents and several of their friends) that *many* elderly folks who were traditionally Republican-leaning didn't want to turn out for Romney/Ryan because Ryan had expressly stated he wanted to "voucherize"/end Medicare.  There are a fair number of OTHER Republican-friendly voters who weren't thrilled by Romney's pledge to dismantle Obamacare as soon as he took office.

They tend to turn out.

Obama may be horrible, but anyone with a passing familiarity with the shared reality can see that he hasn't done very much over the past 4 years.  Voting for more INACTION would be appealing to a lot of folks, rather than take the chance on a potential "radical" like Romney who wants to start cutting off checks.

Please note: I don't care much.  I thought both candidates were equally strong offerings that there was just no need to make a choice of my own.  I'm sure if Romney had won he'd have done just as good a job as Obama will.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 16:43 | 2973847's picture

I can't disagree with that.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 16:32 | 2973810 acrabbe
acrabbe's picture


you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. it's not like 80% of blacks are illiterate monkeys. showing your ignorance with that comment i'm afraid...

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 03:59 | 2975400 Kobe Beef
Thu, 11/22/2012 - 07:40 | 3004185 geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

Yes, there are moochers. The Fed, JPM, Citi, and MS, and all the other firms that collect interest on the dollar.

I think your prejudice is clear, and I actually find it surprising to see you express what appears to me as open hostility towards blacks.

In that regard, we are at odds, as I support minorities of all kinds.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:55 | 2972878's picture

In Atlas Shrugged Rand vilified business owners who use the force of government in order to sustain their own failed businesses. But you wouldn't know that because you've never actually read Rand's works.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:58 | 2972899 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?  Imagine lots of people who think correctly that anyone who follows Rand is an intellectual lightweight and probably a sociopath. 

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:08 | 2972922's picture

Have you ever read Atlas Shrugged? Rand presents evil business owners who use government intermediaries to mooch from the people in a most unfavorable light. Do you disagree with that premise?

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:09 | 2972987 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Unfortunately, I read it and I disagree with your assessment beyond the most simplistic black and white treatment of the issue.  Her entire philosophy is based upon a child's view of humanity and a worship-complex of industrialists.   She simply failed to see that industrialists ALWAYS find ways to cheat.   The ones that don't inevitably lose out to the ones that do, unless there are rules and regulations to keep them in check.   She misses that fundamental truth which makes her entire religion a false one.  But please do have the last word on the subject.   Like a good religious zealot, you probably can quote page and verse to make your point.  I on the other hand have had as much of this topic as I can stomach for one day.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:13 | 2973017's picture


She simply failed to see that industrialists ALWAYS find ways to cheat.   The ones that don't inevitably lose out to the ones that do, unless there are rules and regulations to keep them in check. 

But it's government regulation which confers Too Big to Fail status on some corporations and hands them billions of dollars. That corresponds to Rand's vision and not your own. The free market did not enact TARP.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:37 | 2973146 Let them all fail
Let them all fail's picture

Well technically it is that those large banks are so massive and so destructive that they could temporarily crash our markets if they were to fail. The government gave them this status by bailing them out, which is disgusting, but you seem to think that all regulations are bad. Hell, fuck the glass-steagall act and its government backers. Rand didn't even live by her own philosophy later in life....Basing your philosphy off that (very well-written) book is liking basing your philodophy off the bible...its religion, use your own god-damn brain to for your own opinions.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:54 | 2973222's picture

Glass-Steagall was not simply repealed. It was replaced by a larger piece of legislation called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. So you can't blame lack of regulation for the results.


Rand didn't even live by her own philosophy later in life....Basing your philosphy off that (very well-written) book is liking basing your philodophy off the bible...its religion, use your own god-damn brain to for your own opinions.


Rand was forced to participate in Social Security. Like the rest of us it was not her choice.

Why do those who misunderstand Ayn Rand always claim that those who find some value in her works are basing their life on them? I've spent far more time listening to the Beatles than reading Rand and yet I do not live in a Yellow Submarine. There's nothing wrong with being well acculturated.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 14:00 | 2973254 Bay of Pigs
Bay of Pigs's picture

His whole thing is to attack the messenger. 

And it's always on Millers threads. Like clockwork.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 14:02 | 2973261 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

But it's government regulation which confers Too Big to Fail status on some corporations and hands them billions of dollars.

Nope. Competition requires one rule at least. No rule, no competition.

This is this rule that allows people to cheat.

'Americans' with their big feet. Very clumsy.

Government issue regulations but they are not alone. Business issue their own regulations and that allows cheating.

A business can issue regulations on quality and cheats on them.

But as 'americans' know they owe their success to the State and that some 'americans' are not unsure that the State will keep serving them as it used to, well, time to ban the State. Wont work as 'americans' who are still well established will keep pushing up for the State.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 14:12 | 2973297 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture


'Americans' with their big feet. Very clumsy.

Chinese citizenism citizens with their tiny pee-pees. Very funny.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 14:47 | 2973444's picture

Does Chinese citizenism still require girls to bind their feet? Nothing creepy about that!

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 15:31 | 2973617 akak
akak's picture

No, but it does require all of its subjects to bind their mouths ... and their thoughts, especially along political lines.

In Chinese Citizenism, thought-binding is a ruling class thing.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 15:37 | 2973628's picture

Oh, that's right. The Chinese don't bind the feet of little girls anymore. They abort them in an effort to comply with government polices. What was I thinking?

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 17:13 | 2973953 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture


Oh, that's right. The Chinese don't bind the feet of little girls anymore. They abort them in an effort to comply with government polices.

Ah, ah, don't forget that the aborted female fetuses are then composted.

Chinese citizenism citizens are all about the environment.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 17:30 | 2974024's picture

US developed rice has been combined with human DNA. We've reached peak nowhere else to hide citizenism.


The rice with human genes

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 17:34 | 2974036 akak
akak's picture

Genetic blobbing-up is an 'american' middle class thing.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 16:10 | 2973747 Hayek FA
Hayek FA's picture

Government makes rules and regulations to allow their favored industrialists to cheat.


Please try to keep up.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:56 | 2972883 Bay of Pigs
Bay of Pigs's picture

And who do you listen to Mr Know it All?

You really are a miserable prick, and about as half as smart as you think you are. 

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:01 | 2972923 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

The Counties in the swing States had more ballots cast than regitered voters.  That's how the Democrats won!  with the help of Acorn and voter fraud.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:41 | 2973180 voltaic
voltaic's picture

Fox News still pumping Acorn? That was disbanded two years ago and is no longer an organization. Go read a reputable news site and get away from repeats of Glenn Beck.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:50 | 2973220 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

‹^› ‹(•¿•)› ‹^›

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 04:06 | 2975405 Kobe Beef
Kobe Beef's picture

Acorn's merely been rebranded. Same toxin, all new name! Kind of like Phillip Morris. Next you'll be telling us Blackwater doesn't exist anymore either.

Typical marxist smear: lie, then attack the messenger.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:03 | 2972942 toady
toady's picture


I didn't see the Romney = work at all.

More like Romney = layoffs. Once the 1% got those tax cuts it was game over, offshore everything, Bain it all and cash out. $8 a month, just like China.

Not that Obama's any better. Hyperinflation (deflation?) Riots, starvation.

Not much of a choice ..

Ron Paul 2016!

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:11 | 2973006 kingslayer
kingslayer's picture

Haha! Romney = work and responsibility for self! Romney = unscrupulous greed.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 14:10 | 2973290 LMAOLORI
LMAOLORI's picture



The people who voted for obama voted for more of the same corruption anyone else notice the titles of the articles mask the reality of the contents?

An Obama Economic Team to Sweep Wall Street Clean 


When U.S. voters elected Barack Obama president in November 2008, many of us were convinced he would make a top priority of reforming Wall Street, which had just almost succeeded in bringing down our way of life through greed and lack of accountability.

Despite the fact that Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS)JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) andCitigroup Inc. (C) were among Obama’s top 10 financial backers in 2008, we were hopeful we would see a change in the system whereby bankers, traders and executives were rewarded every day to take huge, asynchronous risks with other people’s money.

We also believed that Obama wouldn’t succumb to the backroom maneuverings of the plutocrats and behind-the-scenes money men -- such as former Treasury SecretaryRobert Rubin and former Deputy Secretary Roger Altman -- who were busy advocating a quick return to the status quo and looking to move their friends into positions of great importance in Obama’s Cabinet.

It turned out we were either naive or stupid to think that when candidate Obama spoke about “change you can believe in,” he was including Wall Street.

In ways we may never fully understand, Rubin quickly cast his spell on Obama. Before long, Rubin proteges were appointed to the three most important economic positions in the new administration: Timothy Geithner as Treasury secretary, Lawrence Summers as national economic adviser and Peter Orszag as director of the Office of Management and Budget. For good measure, the administration named Mary Schapiro, the head of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Wall Street’s dysfunctional self-regulatory organization, as chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.


Mon, 11/12/2012 - 15:12 | 2973538 Things that go bump
Things that go bump's picture

The whole article is just some weird sort of penis envy.  I personally held my nose and voted for Obama, or more accurately I voted against Romney.  I was not enthused, but when it comes to the election of the lesser of 2 evils, so sorry, but Obama was the obvious choice.  The Republicans lost before the campaign even began when they hitched their wagon to Romney, so if you want to blame anyone, blame the leadership of the party or youselves. My elderly mother watched him walk off stage and said he walked like a queer (I can't take her anywhere). I told her it was probably just his magic underwear riding up and squeezing his balls.  

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:45 | 2972814 knukles
knukles's picture

How far we have fallen:

If Krugman got the Bernak's job, it would make no difference.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:10 | 2972936 TeamDepends
TeamDepends's picture

After completely losing faith in both the Republitute and Demoncrat parties last week, a bunch of us assembled over the weekend to create a new political party:  The It Just Doesn't Matter Anymore Party (IJDMA).  Needless to say, our first task was to decide who would be our nominee for POTUS.  After several hours of heated debate, backstabbing, bribes, drinking games, and crying, we had our "man".  In a remarkable come from behind victory, Honey Boo Boo edged out a hamster that died a few days ago and Sasquatch.  Next on the agenda is to decide what our slogan will be.  Right now the frontrunners are "More Free Stuff" and "Shut Up, You".  Will fill you in on details as they transpire.  Join us, our time has come.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:44 | 2973191 voltaic
voltaic's picture

Did Sasquatch get most of the disenfranchised Tea Party support?

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 14:13 | 2973303 TeamDepends
TeamDepends's picture

None of it.  It should come as no surprise that the Sasquatch are very far left.  They support the carbon tax, a ban on drilling, Agenda 21, and declaring all forrests no-human zones.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 17:16 | 2973963 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

They'll come around. Just promise them free beef jerky.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 19:53 | 2974498 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

"They support the carbon tax, a ban on drilling, Agenda 21, and declaring all forrests no-human zones."

Of course they would, they're hunter-gatherers. Like the liberals.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:16 | 2972664's picture



Sucks to be a minority.


There are no minorities.  Each of us is an individual. We each comprise a distinct tally of one.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:35 | 2973133 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

That's Greek to a group think liberal.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:58 | 2973247's picture

Some folks feel threatened by diversity. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to media and government or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:12 | 2972639 vast-dom
vast-dom's picture

and 100% of all voters are morons. now go fuck off economics9698.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:17 | 2972671 Pladizow
Pladizow's picture

Did you mean Mormons?

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:19 | 2972688 economics9698
economics9698's picture

Take an Excedrin and pound sand.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:53 | 2972859 Antifaschistische
Antifaschistische's picture

I believe vast-dom is closest to the truth.   Here's the truth, everyone like's to HOPE, but very few people like CHANGE.   Our economic activities and our personal lives are built upon consistency and predictability about tomorrow.  Not change.  At this point, Obama's like every other goon incumbent that gets reelected year after year.   Voters are for the most part, mindless trolls who believe their "party" is like a fraternity and that being "independent" is like being "out of a club".

So...the trolls vote for incumbent because they do all know, that however bad it is, it can be worse, so a vote for an incumbent becomes a defacto vote for nothing....even, if thats not what they get.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:19 | 2973053 toady
toady's picture

A vote for the incumbent is a vote for nothing.

Very good! I haven't heard it stated quite like that. It's usually ;

A vote for the incumbent is a vote for the status quo.

Or something similar .... I like the 'vote for nothing' so much more!

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:17 | 2972678 bigkansas
bigkansas's picture

Hipsters voted %100 for Obama

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:49 | 2972838 1100-TACTICAL-12
1100-TACTICAL-12's picture

I voted for Willard thought it might buy just a little mor time , before we plunged into pure commie / socialist / facist /crony Hell. Not that we ain't alredy well on the way. But my gut tells me things will be'a changing a whole lot faster. See y'all @ the FEMA camp.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:23 | 2972709 CABill
CABill's picture

"Every time Romney made one of his “let’s get the economy going again” speeches extolling the virtues of hard work he terrified the millions of welfare bums and parasites and motivated them more than ever to stand in line for hours to vote for Santa Claus Obama, their “savior” from having to work for a living.  (It’s always the low opportunity cost class that has the “luxury” of spending half a day or more standing in a line)."

And the result?

Black voted 93% for Obama
Asians voted 72% for Obama
Latinos voted 71% for Obama
Jews voted 69% for Obama
Whites voted 59% for Romney

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:32 | 2972744 Overfed
Overfed's picture

Don't forget that 65% said "fuck this shit" and just stayed home.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:56 | 2972886 adr
adr's picture

If the debates were run like SportsCenter and you started the Congressional Fantasy League, complete with Budweiser tie ins, maybe that 65% would have shown up.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:56 | 2972887 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Was there an election???... What did I miss?...

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:36 | 2973137 Renewable Life
Renewable Life's picture

God this article is horseshit and this non sense about racial breakdowns in percentages, is what elected Obama again, is even more fantastical simpleton clown shit!!!

Every election has demographic breakdowns dipshits, I could break it down by: all single women under 35, with dogs, who have had less then two sexual partners in their life, voted for Obama by 78%!!!!!!! What the fuck would that mean!

Trying to extrapolate a national demographic correlation within our electoral college presidential system, is pure fantasy and stupidity! Obama won the fucking election, because he knew exactly how many votes he needed in every fucking county, of every fucking state, that he needed to reach 270 electoral votes! He knew the registration numbers, voter patterns and polling data and if they didn't have enough votes, they sent an army of volunteers into those counties and went door to door registering new voters, then linking those voters with a established voter in that neighborhood, to make sure the new voter, got to the polls!! They used google map technology, old fashioned voter techniques, twitter, Facebook, and targeted their resources like a laser beam!! THAT'S THE FUCKING TRUTH, but if you want do believe that a bunch or Latino and black welfare moms decided they would vote THIS time to keep their food stamps, believe what you want to too!

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:51 | 2973224 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

    Obama won the fucking election, because...

Jeez.  I thought it was just 'cause Romney wasn't a particularly good candidate at this moment in time (lotsa hate against the "1%" has been mobilized) and he ran a lousy campaign.

But then again, I agree with Frum's critique of a few days ago, so....

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 15:46 | 2973669 FrankieNeyeball
FrankieNeyeball's picture

Renewable Life is correct. This was the system in place for the 2008 election ,  maintained and further developed daily in the 4 years since then, repeated with more sophistication for 2012. It was never even close.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:51 | 2972792 knukles
knukles's picture

true brain...

You caught it exactly.
Out here in the Great Socialist People's Republic of Everything's Free and Everybody is Skinny and Happy in Hedonistic Self-Centered California, even a Humongoliod number of Fed Up Democrats were going to vote for Ron Paul.
Yea, and I'm talkin' uber-lefties who'd concluded that Obie was simply a repeat of W... and rightly so...

Not the Republican Party whom they Hate with a Passion. (Just as a huge amount of old fashioned Western Conservatives in the Mold of Barry Goldwater would have voted for Ron Paul, but Not Mittens and His Same Olde Shit Routine)

Had the Republican ran RP, would they have lost the reigious fucking crazy ass right, the neo-cons, the MIC supporters, big oil, pharma, ag biz, etc?  Not likely.
Would they have gained the gay/lesbian marriage, immigration, dope smoking (aka personal freedom), women's issues/birth control, anti NDAA, Patriot Act, TSA search, etc folks?  Yep

The lists go on and on.

The Republicans (Or better yet another party, a second party) have got one bitch load of soul searching to do, for they've essentially made themselves in their current form, Irrelevant

And as long as that be the case, even those (which is one hell of a lot of people) who are not on the dole or even think of them selves on the dole, ain't gonna vote Republican, so the GiveAway will continue.

It was not "only" and exclusively "Mooch" versus "anti-mooch"
That's horseshit

It was an anti-Republican undercurrent that reelected Obie.

A Bazillion people stayed home for shit's sake!

I'd told my neo-con buds that a nomination for anybody but RP would reelect O.
They're pissed at me... as if it was my fault.

Go figure.

edit:  And I'll add this.

You fucking Republicans reelected Obama, so get the fuck over it.
May you be so fucking miserable you need state sponsored psychological care and are declined.
You sanctimonious hypocrites, you're the one and the same who'd been saying that you/we had to do anything to unseat the Democrats and look at what you've brought us.


Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:37 | 2973149 toady
toady's picture

Thank you!

I responded to a comment a few months ago, something about how D's hated Paul, and said all the D's I know loved Paul's 'pro-dope' stance.

Holy Jesus I was called every name in the book! Damn dope fiend, son of a liberal, besmircher of the beloved Ron, blasphemer.

It must have been an east coast, west coast thing. Assume Paul would have done as well as Romney (probably better in the NE) and taken California.

Who would be sworn in come January? Not Obama!

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:59 | 2972908 Waffen
Waffen's picture

The problem is the neocons aren't going to pursue libertarians, constitutionalists and liberty lovers, no they will pursue amnesty and Mexicans.

There is no party interested in working white people.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:54 | 2973234 LMAOLORI
LMAOLORI's picture



I blame it on the Young People and we will see who has the last laugh when all is said and done and you Tax Slaves who voted for him end up picking up at least part of the bill and it will happen eventually!

The 49 Percent That Defeated Romney: Young Voters


Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:04 | 2972598 Thulsa Doom
Thulsa Doom's picture

No, the bankers and corporations are the enablers. Not enough votes there - I thought they were the 1%? I thought they were the slave masters. Can't be a moocher and a slave master at the same time.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:08 | 2972620 yrbmegr
yrbmegr's picture

Why not?  I see no conflict there.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:15 | 2972662 Thulsa Doom
Thulsa Doom's picture

It's the difference between mooching and raping/pillaging. Not too many James Bond villains live in their parents basements, either. Just sayin'.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:20 | 2972695 CABill
CABill's picture

Villains live in their friends basements.  Kids who have parents rarely become street villains.  Or moochers.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:16 | 2972666 Snoopy the Economist
Snoopy the Economist's picture

Thulsa, you are not looking at it correctly. Most of teh 1% are moochers - except they dont care about phones or little food stamp checks they want billions in stimulus.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:18 | 2973046 bsdetector
bsdetector's picture

That's right snoopy. Someone booked some good revenue when those Obama phones were purchased. Where would our GDP numbers be without government spending? There is only one reason why O was re-elected; he is the better man for the job! No need to look for silly rationales.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:27 | 2973094 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

The Govt need stimulus from the Fed to prop up Wall Street because WS funds their entitlement programs.  If they don't the whole unsustainable ponzi system collapses. so they are going to keep foward with the socialist keneysian model until they can't. 

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:55 | 2973239 LMAOLORI
LMAOLORI's picture



And obama happily gave it to them and no prosecutions to boot!

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:20 | 2972696 Ricky Bobby
Ricky Bobby's picture

BS -- Slave masters are the biggest moochers of all, living off the labor of others. The point is when the moochers are attacking the middle from above and below it is Banana Republic time. I can hardly wait; we either end up Like France or Venezuela.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:11 | 2973008 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

After they crash the economy and destroy the middle class, they will try to force us into some new global utopian system.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:46 | 2973201 toady
toady's picture

I'm thinking the $8 a month, Chinese-work-camp style utopia.

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 14:13 | 2973302 LMAOLORI
LMAOLORI's picture



+1 Harbanger That is the New World Order plan global Communism

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:07 | 2972970 Darth Mul
Darth Mul's picture

Slave masters are moochers by definition, fathead.  They outright steal the labor, i.e. are parasitic on the labor of others.

Central bankers are moochers of labor to the highest degree.


Stop being so fucking dumb.


Mon, 11/12/2012 - 20:33 | 2974580 Thulsa Doom
Thulsa Doom's picture

Didn't we just see divide and conquer worked rather well? To lump everyone into the label moocher doesn't really divide much at all, so the conquering part will likely not follow. Understand now?

Hey, I know, instead of calling them slave masters or rapists and pillagers, we can call them moocher and equate evil masterminds to middle-aged kids living in their parents basements!

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:04 | 2972601 icanhasbailout
icanhasbailout's picture

Obama was re-elected because both Democrats and Republicans nominated him

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:27 | 2972722 dugorama
dugorama's picture

I can understand voting for Romnye if you are Mormon, he's part of your tribe.  

I can understand voting for Romney if you work on Wall STreet, he's part of your criminal gang.

I can understand being disappointed in Obama for a long list of reasons.

But I have no concept of how anyone can "be" for Romney.  What does that even mean?  He changes positions more often than I change my underwear. 

The Rs lost (rather than the Ds winning) because they pandered to the far right and presented a candidate who clearly had no formed opinions on any topic  that anyone cares about other than deregulating Wall St and cutting taxes.  Describe to me his postion on: foreign policy or the middle east, the environment, the economy, SS, medicare, anything else.  Cutting regulation and taxes.... that's an old worn out bald tire and doesn't address half of what matters.  I think we all understand that you don't balance the budget by cutting either one.  You don't confront a bloated DHS or DoD with either one.  You don't restore faith in teh markets with either one.  You don't reinvigorate US production with either one.  You don't fix our dreadful education system with either one.  etc etc etc  I was perfectly ready to change presidents, but not to go back to W.    

Mon, 11/12/2012 - 14:19 | 2973325 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

    I have no concept of how anyone can "be" for Romney.

He's in the "Republican" tribe. 

It's mostly that simple, although there are still folks here who are gullible enough to listen to a politician's speeches and take their words seriously.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!