This post is actually an email response sent to my blog – it’s pretty good, so I’m going to use it un-cut! The writer shall be referred to henceforth as ‘The Game’.

While I believe that the presidential race is important, there are much bigger issues at hand that can be fixed to help with the national issues. The federal government (everyone who works for them that isn’t in the House, Senate, or White House) that handle the day-to-day are possibly the biggest roadblocks that we have. Lets start out with some math.

As an employee of the private sector, I get 12 Holidays off and 4 hours of Paid Time Off (PTO) every paycheck, roughly every 2 weeks. PTO is used for personal leave or sick leave, there is no distinction between the two – and in most private businesses, this is the case. Knowing there are 365 days a year, we can average out that there are 260.7 work days in a year (365/7*5). Subtract out my federal holidays, and that is 248.7. Subtracting my paid time off (12 days a year), its 236.7. Now if we take that and divide that out, I only work 64.85% of the days in any given year. This is standard inside of the private industry.

Federal employees get 10 holidays, but their breaks are a bit different. They get 4 hours of PTO and 4 hours of sick leave at the end of each paycheck (again, roughly every 2 weeks). If we apply the same math to this number, it looks like this. (((365/7*5) – 10) – 24)/365 =  62.10%. On the high end of the government spectrum, people get 8 hours of PTO, 8 hours of sick leave a pay check. The same math, the percentage looks like this: 55.53%

To put these numbers in perspective, that means that a public employee will work AUTOMATICALLY 2.7-9.5% less than a private employee. This does not count ‘teleworking’ or paid leave for other reasons.

While this number seems insignificant, see how quickly it can rack up. For every 1 million spent on government employees, they are spending 27,000-95,000 for works to do nothing.

Again, these numbers might not add up, but lets remember one thing: These are public employees, not private. If a private employee takes money for doing nothing, it hurts the company – but if the public employee does it, it hurts the people and ultimately the country.

But lets look at the public employees and their rise to power, or the numbers that give them that kind of power. Lets put this into a scenario: You have a large number of people covering a wide range of social classes, wealth, and education. The private sector is not hiring people fast enough, or doesn’t want to, and your unemployment numbers start to go up. You need people to get a job so the numbers will go down, but you cant tell private companies to hire. The best thing you can do is give tax breaks, but that only works so well. The better solution, and the one that is obviously taken, is to hire these people in the public sector: from low paid workers to higher education positions. The issue is that since private sector already got the best, the public sector is getting (mainly) what the private sector didn’t want.  This leads to the following:

-Low work output
-dysfunctional offices
-burden on the public
-bad work

What can we get from this? That the road to federal collapse is federal hiring of these people – the private sector rejects – who wouldn’t survive otherwise. Instead of having those high unemployment numbers because it looks bad, they would rather hire them, have the low numbers, and pay or it all later. When these folks only work at their reduced percentages listed in the first part of this, the federal government is only working at a third of the speed that it should be – which in itself is costing more than every dollar in spending over the past few decades.

THIS is the problem. While the oval office gets a majority of the attention, it is THIS that is causing the ruination of the country.

Well said.

Now imagine this - the money that goes to these government agencies? Goes through several filters and changes hands several times (losing some in the process, with money going to political allies and cronies), before it’s even handed off to the Bad News Bears. Where it goes is determined by silver tongued former lawyers who really have this mindset for business and economic prosperity:

Funfact: Market conditions matter, if people don’t want to hire more people, they won’t. Look at places where you have the liberal utopias, where Republicans can’t get elected, or do and get destroyed by legislatures. (See: The Governator, Arnold made it 6 months before the legislature took over.) Detroit has had endless tax increases to pay for entitlements, and it destroyed businesses there. That city is suffering as a result. Businesses are fleeing states like California and NJ due to taxes to go to freer states like Texas. This is not some abstract vacuum, this is the real world, this stuff happens in real time.

Some dinguses (some with high IQs and a sense of entitlement)  look at at our economy with the market-creationism mindset: “If government doesn’t just do the everything, then how do free markets exist?” They think picking winners and losers is a good idea. It’s an idea that’s as stupid as saying it’s greedy to keep your own money, but it’s virtuous to volunteer the money of others for pet causes you like. (Wait..)
Places like that are exactly the kind where businesses do not want to operate if given a choice in the matter.

How much damn money we waste:
-If we passed the Buffett rule, it would bring in enough money to run the government for 11 hours. 18 if you use obama’s math.
-If you soak the profits of health insurance companies, (Taking the wildly ideological “point” that profits are evil), it would pay for our healthcare system for 2 days. What you do for the other 363 is a mystery.
-If we took all the evil profits of Walmart and Exxon-Mobil, we would be able to pay for 4 days of government spending (2011).
-If we took every penny from the Fortune 500, it would only pay for half the stimulus, or about a month of spending.
-Take all the ad money for the Superbowl, we’d pay 36 minutes.
-If we took every penny over 250k made by people in the US, it would only cover 4 months of spending.
-If you took every dime from the 300 billionaires in the US and the 100 “almost billionaires” under them, we would make it 73 days.
-Estimates on the “cost per job created” (Temporary jobs) of the Stimulus runs between $250k, to $4.1million (if you believe the CBO).

Visually.
See that blue line? That’s what we spend.
See that red line? That’s our revenues.
After the tech bubble popped in 2000, and then we got 9/11 revenues fell short of the very rosy projections done by the CBO during the Clinton years. We also had a military to rebuild. But hey, check it out, those “evil” Bush tax cuts actually took in more revenue, grew the economy too (and the rich payed a greater share of their income) JUST LIKE such policies did under Reagan, JFK, and IIRC the last guy was Coolidge. But hey, facts are mean. We can obfuscate reality with politically correct and virtuous sounding language all we want – but it won’t make our economy grow faster the way letting people keep their own money will.

Clearly spending is a good idea, right? Hey, lets just raise taxes, that’ll fix everything right?

Being fast and sloppy - on average we only get about ~18%ish revenue of the GDP, with little regard of what the tax rates are. Solution: Lets just spend more money, even if the economy doesn’t grow as fast… because… slowing down the car means.. we’ll get somewhere faster…

The government is just a process of digestion for our tax dollars. By the time the grilled cheese sandwich of our money that’s taken from us gets filtered through government, the thing that is expelled from the anus of government is not quite what we remember. It looks like food to some, sure, but it’s obviously the losing alternative.

Even after close to a week of debate, the “Battleplan” for 2016 is not immediately obvious. Something like this is going to take more time and more debate than a week and a few papers. I’d planned on taking a shot at drawing up the battle plans myself but…

Reality:
- It’s very hard for a younger guy living in a single coastal blue state to sit here and design a platform and candidate that an entire nation’s Republican- and potentially Republican voters would show up for. I’m never a fan of “elites” (often self anointed  sitting in a room designing solutions for many, no matter how smart they are, or believe they are – I want plans by the many, not by the few.

So here’s what I think we should do. We should design a process by which we get to select from several people willing to take the job, with different opinions, stances, and takes. We would then give them time to show us their platform, we would watch them debate, see how they handle interviews. We would have votes in battleground/swing states too! Oh snap, that exists, it’s called the Primary, dontchaknow.

Parties lose elections, people seem to forget that the Dems were run out of town in 1994, and after the Election of Dubya, (twice), some sat there wondering if it was over for the DNC. History has shown that betting that the party would have died is stupid. Will the GOP change a bit? I hope so, I think we can evolve, I think we can adopt parts of Obummer’s ground game strategy. I think we should do a better job of communicating with a broader base of voters too.
I want to see how the primary shakes out. This is my fantasy ticket.

You want to see historic? First Robot VP. Breaking the aluminum ceiling.
Tech-cist voters might distrust Optimus, but no one is stronger on Defense issues than he is. Is he ready to step into the shoes should Rubio be unable to perform his duties? No doubt.

What you really came to see: Lemme tell you how I really feel about what happened.
-What the hell was this country thinking? This is a guy who had a sum total of 144 total days of Senate experience when he ran for office (and we have the results to prove it). This is a guy who was only known to us because of a speech in 2004 that looked unimpressive to me at the time, and is less so now. Here’s the sparknotes, it’s typical Obama. Seemingly “moderate” rhetoric packaged to low information voters that sounds beautiful, and it’s hopelessly idealistic. That’s what Obama is known for though, for talking about “visions”, which is applying expensive wrapping paper to age old political promises, with no hope or plan of delivering them. Won’t prevent him from spending tons of our money and wasting our f**king time doing it though.
Obama is the guy who tells his girlfriend how he might want to marry her some day – which is how he’s stringing her along to get what he wants. Dude isn’t saving up for a ring, he doesn’t want kids, he wants none of those things. Obama is not going to be the moderate Obama mask he wears for State of the Union addresses, we’re going to get the same crap we’ve been getting. Spoiler Alert for the next State of the Unions: It’s STILL Republican’s fault, and we need to waste more even money in Government programs “invest”.

-The guy had “do anything you want” majorities in the House and Senate for 2 straight years, the guy spent the sum total of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (1.5 Trillion) in deficit spending on “social programs  for 4 straight years, and we have nothing to show for it. An economy has recuperative powers all of its own, and sectors that can lead to new growth. You don’t always get to choose what parts of an economy are healthy and what aren’t. Right now we’re primed for growth in the Energy sector, we just have to say “lol okay”. But we can’t do that, because it’s “mean” or racist or something stupid like that. I find it amazing that the left is so married to the “economic creationism” models, as if prosperity in a sector just exists by throwing dollars at it like rain. It doesn’t work that way. We’re pissing away money at companies like Solyndra to start them up, and to subsidize their products that aren’t competitive in the market; and we’re subsidizing the costs of very expensive hybrid cars too. We’re pissing away money in technologies that just aren’t ready yet, when a relaxing of regulations could allow car manufacturers to sell the efficient diesel cars in the US that the Euros have access to. But no, we can’t have that, we have to try to let our Government play Dr. Frankenstien with areas of the economy that it has chosen to be winners.

- I believe the NFM (Non-Fox-Media, a large majority of the newspapers, late night shows, and every TV network but one.)  had a role in the re-election of Barry Soetoro (I mean, Barack Hussien Obama). This guy’s record sucks, and his administration is scandal ridden. If Obama was Republican, he may have even been impeached.

See here’s how press bias works. There is no mass conspiracy, there is no Illuminati  or any of the other things you may have heard from the Paulbots (That includes this “reptilian overlord” conspiracy. I’d say google that because I’m not kidding, but I’ll save you the trouble: It’s aliens.)  The Press is by and large, left sympathetic, right critical/skeptical. That’s about it. It’s ingrained into their culture, from the academic up to the pro leagues. That simple. It’s not some heinous design, they don’t sit around scheming on how to sabotage Republicans, it’s much less complex than that. However the results…

The CIA scandal with Valarie Plame? We had mountains of articles and hours of news coverage on it. Don’t know who Valerie Plame is? That’s because it was a nonscandal. Want to hear another one? Troopergate. CNN was all over this story in the lead up to the 2008 Presidential election. It’s such an issue that it’s been totally forgotten. But hey, Americans being left to die in a 6 hour firefight being watched on a livefeed in Washington, being denied air support several times? Then the Whitehouse comes out and lies about it for WEEKS? Who cares, Bigbird is more important.

Fast and Furious? 6 minutes of coverage on one network for a week sounds about right, even after the Attorney General of the US is historically held in contempt. Troopergate? Abu Gharib? Huge story for the left wing favorite NY Slime, weeks of front page news for them. Say, why aren’t we hearing about the poor now that Obama is re-elected? Stories about that always surface when we have an R in the Whitehouse. Why aren’t we hearing nightly reports about the troop death toll like we did during the Bush Administration? – we are still fighting in Afghanistan. No bitching about the thousands of Private Military Contractors left in Iraq  (that’s “mercenaries” in bed-wetting journalist speak) left to do the work in Iraq? I mean James Cameron so beautiful demonstrated the left’s opinion of PMCs in Avatar, why isn’t their use a story now? SEALs are being reprimand for assisting the development of a video game, but it’s okay that Whitehouse political appointees leaked sensitive information to Hollyweird writers to make a movie to make the f**ker look good? This is not a problem? The press is not jumping up and down over this? House Speaker Pelosi had low approval ratings when she was refusing to hold a vote on oil drilling during that gas crisis, but we’re hearing about the congressional approval rating now when they oppose Obummer. Say, what would the American people have said  if they found out Dubya tried to reform Fannie and Freddie, but the Democratic legislature refused? Would it have been harder to sell the “Boosh’s fault” meme? Can we have a story on that “obstructionism”, or do we only talk about it when it benefits the left? Don’t answer that, the answer is obvious and has been on display.

- Hey, what’s going to happen with Iran now that President “Tell Vladamir I’ll bend over for him have more leeway after the election” got re-elected? Is Vladamir going to get his leeway? Can Vlad put hair on Obama’s chest instead?

-We’ve already seen the layoffs begin in the private sector because of the costs of ObummerCare. Not well covered on MSNBC, but it’s occurring. See not only did or benevolent government make healthcare more expensive (by bolting the largest government bureaucracy ever conceived on top of 1/6th of the economy), they also redefined full time workers as anyone working 30 hours. The solution of businesses whose employees do not have create enough revenue producing activity to cover those cots of their employment? They will now be working 29 hours. This is great, we’ll all be “underemployed” making less money and paying more in taxes, (and paying more in the rising costs of college tuition) for the foreseeable future. This is our own try at the European socialist welfare state experiment. Hope everyone likes it.

-So when Obama says “compromise” on the “fiscal cliff’ (the thing we’re conveniently talking about now, post election, because Binders Bigbird and bayonets was more important before it) , does he mean we’re going to go the Romney-Route and slow the growth of government, vs cutting it, vs letting it grow at the astronomical rate it is now? Or is this code for what it meant last time, when Obummer told Republicans in 08 that “We won”, or in 2010 when he told them to “sit in the back”. Spoiler Alert: It means “do what Obama wants, and you’re getting smeared whether you do it or not next cycle.”

-So does this mean we’re going to approve that KeystoneXL pipeline now that Obama doesn’t need the donations from Hollywood’s environmental activists? (Millionaires are only bad if they provide people with jobs or are executives, not if they’re entertainers or athletes). Can we build another oil refinery or two, because we haven’t since like 1975? I mean this would reduce the cost of our gasoline, the costs of shipping goods and services up and down the economy. No? Great.

-So is the United States not racist anymore?

-Does Europe “like us”? Does this mean we’ll get more sanctions on Iran in the Useless Nations governing body? No?

- I’ve heard a really laughable meme being passed around the young default-democrat groupthink crowd lately. It’s simple, Republican voters are the dumb ones. I usually hear this from people whose knowledge of the Republican party begins at Jon Stewart, and ends with Facebook debates with this blogger. See, for members of many in the press and hollyweird, R’s are Will Ferrell’s W Bush, Todd Akin, etc. Often times the first time they hear an actual Republican speak unedited and unfiltered, is when someone like Michael Steele goes on MSNBC and is allowed to talk, and they find themselves saying “hey wait a minute…”

To the press, to the left, the only Republicans they want to talk about are the dinguses. There’s no interest in that Wisconsin Democrat Tammy The Socialist “lets defund the troops bodyarmor” Baldwin, or the guy in Virginia who said his Republican opponent’s military service made him “uniquely unqualified to serve”. Who can forget Hank “Guam Tipper” Johnson? Joe Biden’s election week gaffes? He made like 3. One of them was like “There’s not a day in office that I’ve been proud to be Obama’s VP.” Yep.

What about the embarrassingly ironic fact that many of Obama’s cabinet picks were denied due to TAX EVASION? That’s right, Tom Daschle, Richardson – some DNC heavy hitters, didn’t pay their own taxes. IIRC Sebelious didn’t either, but she has no problem with the Obamacare taxes. Funny that the party of “lets increase taxes” can’t pay its own damn taxes. (Not surprising when you find out conservatives donate more blood and more money to charities than do liberals). Btw: Tim Geithner who had issues paying taxes, same guy who was running the regulatory agency in the district that missed Bernie Madoff, is now our Treasury Secretary). But hey, Republicans are the dumb party. I mean Bill Clinton figured out how to work with R legislative majorities, Reagan and that “idiot” W figured out how to work with democrats in their legislatures – genius Obummer can’t figure it out, but Republicans are the dumb ones. This is a naive view that exposes the parochial nature of the view holder’s understanding of politics. When every bad guy Republican gets a spotlight and TV time, and the D’s get swept under the rug, and everyone of these kiddies favorite professors is a liberal (Diversity on campus: where you have zero republicans in your sociology department.), and all of their favorite pop culture figures are D’s, its’ easy to paint R’s as dumb.

Know what? I think I can accommodate this opinion. Lets do a social experiment, libs love these: Only people paying Federal income taxes should vote on how their money gets wasted ”invested” by government officials trying to look good to get re-elected. Lets see how the vote changes. Obviously, those ‘dumb” voters won’t be able to vote, surely the democratic party wouldn’t suffer, ja comrade? Ha!

The winner, by Technical KnockOut, and still, polling belt holder, Nate Silver.
Winners include, Barack Hussien Obama, and the “Free Shit Army” that voted for him.

As of right now barring a “Dewey defeats Truman” moment we’re looking at 4 more years of Obummer.
Big bird, binders, and bayonets have won.
To me, nothing really changes. I’m no fan of Obama or his message as he ran, while he was in office, during his campaign, and after this re-election. This was a screw up by the American people. To blame it on Mitt Romney and the NFM would be easy. The right gave up its role in the influencing of our culture, and it is now paying the price.

More articles to come. Because another winner of this election, is the “Right Wing Media”. Gasoline was just thrown onto that fire.

All anecdotes, no data from me yet
Sorry guys, no science, just stuff. I’m posting this as a live reaction before the results come in.

This experiment on polling and media, is, awesome. The left’s media machine or the “mainstream media” should be really renamed the “Non-Fox-Media” as a quick and lazy name. The truth is the right’s media is much bigger and more influential now than it was in 2008, that’s a fact. The two medias are telling two stories, in their polls and stories.
Rumblings say CNN is saying there’s record African American turn out in VA and OH.

The RWM (Right Wing Media, not to be confused with WMR, Willard Mitt Romney), is reporting massive, massive turn out in Republican strongholds, and very low turnout in Obama’s 08 areas.

I was also shown this data Re: Rasmussen’s voter ID numbers, when compared to the electorate of each cycle.

I see myself reacting two ways tonight.

Either this:

Or the reaction of this fellow, at 2:32.

——————————————–

I just took a look at the DrudgeReport, RWM site, and saw this:

Exit Polls:  
R: NC, FL
O: OH, NH, PA, MI, NV
Toss up: VA, CO, IA

If that’s the case? Then Romney’s done. Romney needs to win OH, as well as VA, CO, IA.
IMHO Obama winning NH PA MI NV was expected. OH signals trouble. Granted, these are exit polls, it’s not over yet for either candidate. For all we know this race could go on for weeks, recounts, and legal battles.

—————————————————-

Exit polls 2:
R: NC, FL
O: NH, PA, MI, NV
Toss up: VA, CO, IA, OH

On the RWM, the memes being peddled are twofold. First is that exit polls have NEVER favored Republicans.
The second, is this image.

Answer: It depends on which turn-out model you use. It’s been used to determine the polling. Do you believe that the historically high record- Democratic turn out of 08 is going to repeat itself? Or do you believe that’s not the case?
Either way, bold predictions have been made.

On Wednesday, there will be eggs, there will be faces, there might even be recounts, we don’t know. It really is amazing how there are so very different takes on this race, the issues, etc. It’s no wonder that even those who have poured over polls and been following the cycle for all 4 years – find it hard still. As of right now I have two different posts, one for each candidate winning.

If you believe in the 2008 models:
-A friend’s been watching CNN, he commented that if you watch that network, Obama’s got this. Now CNN’s a clearly left leaning network, but less so than some others. On the Occutard Facebook page I recall seeing comments where some dumbass young liberals were accusing the network for being a “right wing puppet karl rove swift boat Boosh’s fault outfit” or some other drivel. If you have dumbasses like them accusing CNN of being a right wing outfit, they’re not a liberal kool aid network, at least not all the time, with all stories, all anchors, etc. Whether you’re “social science ivory tower” blue, or a “blue dog democrat”, odds are there’s a believe that Obama has this.
-If you believe the CBS/Quinnipiac/NYT polling with the +8 Dem Voter ID samples, Obama has VA, FL, OH, and might even pick off Georgia.  If you believe this model, Romney is finished. The strategists predicting Romney winning 279 EV or greater are just “in denial”. If this is the case, Obama more or less holds close to his electoral win of 08, narrower win in the popular vote.
-This is your map.

If you don’t believe in the 2008 2.0 models:
-You remember that Obama over-polled by about 1.65% on average in 2008 to begin with.
-You remember that in the places Obama personally campaigned in ’09-’11 cycles, it was really a death kiss for those candidates. The Dems really are 0 and 3 in the past 3 cycles.
- Then Romney wins either 279ish or more. It can range from a nail biter to a landslide. There’s convincing data for this case.
-Gallup has Romney up, but I’ve doubted Gallup so I’m going to Rasmussen, the firm I trust.
Rasmussen has Romney winning and/or Obama under 50 in NC, FL, VA, OH, NH, WI. They have MI, PA, and MINN staying Obama. I’d love to see Romney carry those states, but I think that’s kind of a pipe-dream.
-The enthusiasm gap is bad for Democrats, he’s way under 2008, these numbers look more like 2010. The race should not be close in Wisconsin, it appears it is in many polls. A tie race depending on who you go by.

Talking heads, models, and anecdotes
-Rove and Barone has R-Money winning this. George Will does as well. (To be fair, he’s a journalist, not quite the pedigree of the first two guys I mentioned. And there’s a ton of journalists on the left that believe Obama has this.)
The University of Colorado’s study has Romney winning the race, they’ve been correct since 1980 when they started.
-If you want to use the 94% correct anecdote of the Washington Redskin’s home game before the election, they lost to a 1-5 Carolina Panthers at home today.
-Obama’s early voting margin in 2008 in Ohio was the margin he won the state by. Remember that historically Republican candidates usually are a few points ahead in Ohio of their national polling. Republicans are doing very well in the early voting in this state, Dems nowhere near 2008. They’re also having problems filling rallies in that state for the D’s, the R’s are actually filling the damn things for a change. Keep in mind this is an Obama who could not fill the venue in the NC convention, and it had to be moved to a smaller arena.
-Republican turnout for early voting in crucial states is way above last cycle. Obama, way behind.
-There are now polls that have Mittens up 1 in Michigan, tied at 49 in Wis, barely down in PA, and leading in PA counties obama carried by double digits in 2008. Obama’s not breaking 50 in any of these. Even if undecideds break +60% for Romney, a historically safe guess, Obama’s in deep shit.
-Romney’s doing very good with independents and undecided voters, bad news for Obama.
-There are more polls this cycle than there were last time, many of them using old/odd turnout models. Some of them engaging in push-polling, (like the CBS/NYT poll, those firms being among the least accurate in 08, overstating Obama’s margin). If they overstated Obama’s margin in 08, surely, surely they aren’t now?
–If you use the same polls that have Obama winning (CBS/NYT/Quin), and then deflate the turnout models, Romney’s winning these states. Considering those polls were among the least reliable last cycle, overstating the D-turnout, and they’re using the same numbers this time- it would not be impossible to wonder if the polls are “wronger”.

-Now Nate Silver (liberal) of the NYT has Obummer winning this. Let’s be fair though, he may be liberal, but what about his model. He could be a martian-ist, a single issue voter that wants Newt’s moonbases, but if his model works it works. Now there’s a rumor that the Obama campaign shared their internal polls with Nate in 08 hence his accuracy. I disagree. You can do the math with his model yourself and get his results.

His model has the teflon-messiah winning. His model however, hinges on the accuracy of state polls, and it’s batting .200 in tough to call very close race states. (Factoring in inaccurate predictions in 08 in Indiana, and the senate races in 2010 particularly Nevada amongst others to arrive at the .200 number). Nate’s model also would have had issues in 2000 and 2004 as well if you want to give it a run with the numbers in that election. I give Nate kudos for having courage and believing in his model, he’s consistent. But I’m not sure how correct he is.

Prediction:
- Romney wins either 279 or more electoral votes. I hope to science I’m right.

6 steps to Orwellian labels
Now that more of the low information voter young liberals have begun paying attention to the race, I have to watch my newsfeed blow up with tons of these gems. (Note: I live in the North East, I’m a younger person, many friends are in academia or the arts fields). To say that Republicans or conservatives (the kiddies don’t differentiate) “hate” women is a baseless strawman argument, it’s like a lower-back tattoo for someone’s political gullibility. Here’s how it became a common meme in the discourse.

Step 1: Self important people have knighted several issues and causes as issues for a given number of groups they profess to support, as special. Said people are often social agitators, community organizers, some academics, members of the press, Hollywierd actors, etc. They take many shapes and forms.

Step 2: Those who disagree with the anointed’s stances on said issues, are thus against those people. Not merely against the policies or ideas on those issues, no, that’s not enough. Such opponents must actually HATE these people. Now assigning motives to people is a tricky business as is.. But in this game of jumping to conclusions, if you string together enough feel-good-ism-cliches, you MUST have said something smart.
Note: all/most of those “haters” have individuals close to them in their lives who belong to those groups. They must somehow hate those people too. If you’re a female conservative, you must hate yourself! And your friends. And your mother. and your co-workers.
Think about the absurdity of the charge now.

Step 3: Throw out logic, acquire communication skills. Now if you’re Andrew Sullivan, you can claim that racism is the reason why Obama would lose in 2012, because people who vote for a guy one year, and then 2/4yrs later vote against him SOLELY because they became racist in that period of time. Point out the coincidence that many of the states in are in the south (Also, many are not) and thus, it’s a new confederacy. If you make a case that has enough lipstick on it, idiots will believe it and repeat it. Especially if the author of said garbage is said to be especially wise.

Step 4: Throw out evidence. It is not important to actually know anyone who truly professes to hate these groups, there is a “they” (that you’ve never met or seen, just told about) that does. Is the “redneck’ thing a stereotype, or is it “true”? Never been outside of the North East? Must be true!

Step 5: Repeat this idea over and over and over again until it becomes a part of the discourse. When enough people believe it,  it can be used in verbal battle.

Step 6: Instead of having a real argument, opponents of remotely conservative-anything can now accuse said individuals of hating something, due to the distance of their opinion from the commonly liberal held group think’s ideas. Bush’s attempts to reform Fannie and Freddie pre-collapse were shut down by the Democratically controlled legislature, because it was somehow racist. (I’m not kidding.)
Mitt Romney, who does not favor massive and punitive tax hikes on “the rich”, which would slow the economy and would not likely close the budget-deficit gap (If you believe Liberal economist-God John Maynard Keynes anyway) must somehow hate the poor. Now that was a serious jump to conclusions, and a stupid argument for sure- but hey if the President says it, on the campaign trail, in an Election year,  it must be true, da comrade? After all, even the talking head that shares his ideology and wants to see him elected agrees!

Presto. Now even a no-nothing hollywood actor can be an expert on the issues after watching a few slanted news reports.
————————————————–

Some on the left today use Government as their Church, academia’s material as their scripture, Hollywood types as their priests,  and Science as their God. Political correctness is the third commandment, skepticism of anything that can be painted as traditional is the 2nd, and total belief of left-wing ideology is the 1st.

———————————————–

-I’m shocked by the amount of prejudice being showed to Mitt Romney for his Mormon faith. Why do the radical elements of Islam get a special place of privilege (due to political correctness) Yet mocking Mormonism is “funny”, allowed, and okay. Colbert has definitely done his part on this. See if someone says something that can be built into a diss at Islam after totally misconstruing it’s meaning  gently massaging it, becomes a firing offense (See: Juan Williams).

——————————————

-Apparently “We can do betta”, the line Romney used during the debates, is a Kennedy line. It’s an interesting thought. JFK was a wealthy guy, pro-military (created the Green Berets), pro-tax cuts (he instituted them during his administration, they worked), a Massachusetts guy, and someone with a Religion “problem” depending on who was bloviating. Romney’s all of the above. Now the two men are not perfectly analogous, (ex: JFK having been an adulterer) but there are similarities, and it’s amazing to see Romney attacked for some of that by modern day Democrats. One of their own beloved Presidents would not have flown in today’s party/media climate. It shows you just how far left they’ve lurched, despite the very loud repeated accusations of the other side doing this. The right was saying this about the left in 08, the message was not repeated by the “Balanced” media. When this lurch left resulted in a Republican resurgence in 2010, candidates elected on the promise of reducing size of .gov and spending, the “lurch right” meme appeared.

———————————————-

- The fear mongering  on the young left Re: Social issues that Republicans have not had an interest in since 2008 is ironic, considering those knuckleheads thought radical Islam was a non-issue. Every time we show foreign policy weakness and a lack of seriousness to our problems, we bet the lives of Americans. A dead Ambassador paid the price for the administration’s incompetence in this area.

———————————————–

- If Obama wins, he’ll do what, exactly? The guy had both houses in the legislature in super majorities for 2 years, glowing support from the American public, a free pass from the media – and he followed the liberal playbook. He spent the sum total cost of both Iraq and Afghanistan’s wars over 10 years, 1.5 Trillion as *DEFICIT* spending on top of our budget as a “temporary” measure to “help the ocominy”. He then spent this amount for 3 straight years. We now have higher unemployment than when he took office. Remember – you’re a millionaire when you make 250K, and refusing to alter or reform decades old bloated entitlement programs is “progress”. Somehow.

-This guy blew it when he had everything on his side. He then, as legislators in the Oval office often are – proved unable to work with “the other side’. Clinton did it, that “idiot” W bush managed to do it, Reagan did it, but the genius Barack Hussien couldn’t figure it out. He will never see such good favor again, and the only thing he did while had it, was give speeches and sign bills Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi put on his desk over the objections of the American people.

-The guy was constantly a day late on taking a stance on unfolding issues (Egypt’s revolution, the Gulf Oil disaster), waiting until public opinion had picked their side. He would then give a speech and do very little. He’d vote “present” moment after moment. This guy is constantly blaming – and not holding accountable - administration members, whether it’s Benghazi or Fast and Furious. But the press, who wrote hundreds of articles on Valarie Plame, who ran story after story on Abu Gharib – has no interest in scandals where American service members died.

————————————————

This administration should have been the end of the credibility of many liberal feel good ideas. That they were going to be transparent- when we’ve seen lie after lie on big scandals involving dead Americans. They were going to prop up a green energy sector. Didn’t work but they’ve got us on the hook for subsidizes  and we’ve lost billions in tax payer dollars – payoffs to campaign donors. They were going to uphold the Constitution, meanwhile their President is not enforcing laws on the books.

They got “their guy”, and they could have arguably done anything they wanted. It didn’t work. This should have discredited Liberals, instead they’ve found ways to blame things on Republicans, their default mode.

——————————————-

This administration isn’t 20 points behind in the polls due to the compliant news media, and a lowering of standards. For things liberal, there are excuses from the intelligentsia. For things conservative, the bar is higher. 7 Minutes of delay by Bush on 9/11 was inexcusable to them. Obama’s repeated obvious mis-truths by the Obama administration for weeks was… somehow not inexcusable, and today it’s not even newsworthy. Major networks as of today have mysteriously not given it a second of coverage for close to a week leading up to the election.

Dan Quayle, H Bush’s VP was an idiot for miss-spelling potato, adding an E. Palin must have been an idiot, after all Tina Fey’s line “I can see Russia from my house” was attributed false to Sarah herself. But Joe Biden, who revealed the location of the bunker Cheney spent time in, had 2 gaffes today alone – nada. He had this gem the other day too:
‘There’s Never Been A Day In The Last Four Years I’ve Been Proud To Be His Vice President’”

Nothing? No blow up on this? And the media is fair, right? Only if you’re so far to the left that you find yourself agreeing with them a lot.

It looks like Obama’s debate performance hasn’t really turned the tide of the race. There’s disagreement on that, but that’s something that goes without saying.
There are people who still believe the Earth is flat, someone having a different opinion doesn’t automatically make it correct.

Here are some shockers.
Wisconsin is tied 49-49 today. As has been the case in elections going back, an incumbent under 50% is in a hurtlocker. Undecideds break against the incumbent historically, no matter how large or small that group is. George W Bush in 2004 is the lone exception in recent times. Wisconsin’s also a state that’s had a fully functional Republican ground game due to the Walker-recall herpderp that’s been going on for years now. The brand has never been stronger there.

Romney’s personal favor-ability is up big time, Obama’s has fallen. Several polls bear this out. In some, Romney’s actually winning that. The trend is still clear- between the negative ads and Obama’s snide behavior in the debates, they’ve now seen Barry the politician. He’s no longer the sunny optimistic guy he was in 2008. In 2008 he had a new promises, he was going to heal the racial divide in the nation, he was going to cool down the Red vs Blue battle. He did none of the above, he inflamed all of that. Now he’s a negative ass . I think people are done with this guy.

In some polls the “gender gap” has been erased. I personally think that’s wishful thinking, we’ve seen a “gender gap” in the elections going back decades. (Note: The gender gap has a further breakdown, married women are more likely to be Republicans). What to take from it: is that there’s a shrinkage in the gap, right now the gap is very small. That is really bad news for a Democratic challenger.

Derp and Polls.
I’ve put up a post Re: the Anti-Rasmussen meme, to explain just how dumb that rhetoric is to someone that didn’t simply turn on the TV this month and accept what he’s being told. “Distrust Rasmussen? that’s cause you’re an idiot” http://captainobviousblog.com/?p=976

So this is what the liberals think the race looks like right now. 
2 days ago I went on Huff and Puff to see what their breakdown of the electoral map is.  One word: Denial.

North Carolina has been: Romney 52%, Obama 46% since the 18th. The “Obama slide” has continued now for a while. Even Juan Williams subtly admitted last night on FNC that North Carolina “might not be competitive anymore”. It’s easily leaning Romney, easily. Dems have been pulling the ground game there as well as R’s to focus it in other state. < That’s reporting that should convince you, if you want to toss out all polling.

Huff and Puff on the 24:
CO: O +1%
VA: O +1%
FLA: R + 1%

Now let me show you this. Using the gold standard:
CO : R + 4%
VA: R + 3%
FLA: R + 5%

Huff and Puff has O + 4 in PA. Rasmussen has it similar, as of 10/18. Truth be told, while I’d love for it to shift R, I don’t know if we’ll see it this cycle.

So here’s what I’ve done. I’ve stapled down the results. If there’s a tie and the incumbent is under 50%, I use the historical trend of undecideds breaking against the incumbent to give them a narrow win in the state. Note: I made this map before the numbers showing a damn TIE in Wisconsin today.

253 Obama
285 Romney


Lets factor out OH, PA, and IA as “too close”.
233 O
261 R   as of right now in my estimation.
Of course things can change.

This idea that Obama’s in command electorally is just bogus, and a media meme. If you’d like to see the depths of derp in modern liberalism, take a look at democratic underground’s web forum. That’s a sad bunch. They’re in panic mode every day over this.

The coming hurricane, an October Game-changer?:
I wonder if this could work for Zero, if he gets a “Katrina moment” where he “does things right”. He can make a big speech and take credit for a cleanup effort, he can really make it a campaign speech and politicize it like he did with Gabrielle Gifford’s deal or Bin Laden. The guy’s a pro at being a tactless braggart and politicizing things. I wouldn’t be surprised if he does that with this hurricane. I also wonder, if Chris Christie, governor wrecking ball can steal the thunder – or if Mitt plays well, or if this is just a “locking in” of the political cycle’s results while the media worries about a storm.

Here’s my quick reaction:
Like many debates, this one is going to take a few days and hindsight to really “Score” properly. Also expect some stupid October surprise. Obama’s campaigns have disqualified opponent after opponent before he got to the Presidential scene.

Let me first say, best overall moderator, hands down. By: *all* the metrics.

Zero:
Obama made the base feel warm and fuzzy on the inside. He did not look weak, he showed spine, he was aggressive. He continued the negatives on Romney angle and gave good soundbytes too at moments. Did the usual “that’s not true”, droned on a bit here and there. Didn’t have too many “uhs”, not too many stop and goes. He ran his offense.

RMoney:
I think Romney looked very Presidential overall tonight, his goal- so say some pundits. He did it, no doubt. The final closing remark looked like a State of the Union. Romney’s goal was to run the football, run out the clock, no interceptions, no fumbles.

What I thought:
-Personally I think it looks like anywhere between a draw and a Romney ass-kicking depending on who you were rooting for. “The 4th quarter” was all Romney’s. Any time the topic went to the economy Romney started putting up points. At times Obama sounded like a student who was caught trying to figure out an answer to a question that the Professor put on the test, but was not taught in class. If I was a Democrat I’d kinda be upset the foreign policy debate got sidetracked into some economic stuff, that had huge roles in the 2 other debates.

-Obama attacking Romney on GM was the interception of the night. Romney’s rebuttal was awesome. A community organizer wanted to debate a business man, on business. He got what he asked for, I think Romney won that exchange and may pick up points in Michigan. Obama had an unconvincing reply.

-Romney had good ‘indictments’ Re: China, The apology tour, Israel

-Romney played to moderates. Obama to his base. Romney also played it self, not wanting to be painted as “W BOOOSH” or a “War-monger” by the bedwetting sect of the media. He wanted to avoid all possible negative press, even if it meant having a less impressive performance. He accomplished that.

-Overall I think Obama kinda sounded like a desperate prick tonight. The problem is that he looked that way when compared to Romney. I think he went a little too far on the tone, he got really random on the negatives too. He doubled down. I don’t think that was wise, then again I’m not sure what else he could have done. I think his personal likeability numbers will continue to fall a bit.

Fin: Obama needed a blowout tonight, even if he “won” by the MSNBC scoreboard, it was most unimpressive. Not decisive.

Gallup’s polling as of 10/18 had Romney up 52% to 45% . A column I read today raised my brow, unless I was momentarily blinded – if Gallup is to be believed (mentioning again, Gallup is the polling firm I panned), there’s data suggesting Romney leads in NM, WI, PA, and Michigan. Larry Sabato also recently panned Gallup.

It looks like something interesting happened here in the debate. Romney lost on points, but won the arguments on the economy, taxes, and having “a plan”. Obama has not offered a plan (other letting the current tax law expire for a small % of Americans already paying 70%+ of our tax revenue), as even the Washington Post made mention of, IIRC the NYTimes did similarly. Obama needed to knock Romney out in that town hall debate; instead he was “present”. In the first debate, he was ‘the empty chair’.

Obama’s personal favorability numbers are falling, this after watching him personally attack Romney, and months of negative ads. Some believe this is why a lot of “Kill Romney” style ads are supposedly being pulled from swing states. Others argue that Obama is going to double down on that strategy. (“Kill Romney” being the strategy of:  disqualifying Romney for really stupid reasons.) Idiots believed them momentarily. I think retrospect will make these non-issues seem as ridiculous as they should have the entire time.

When Americans tuned into the debate actually saw the man, -not Obama’s attack ads, not his blaming the GOP in speeches, not the media’s sympathy to Obama and total lack of sobriety in reporting straw-man accusations as if they were fact? It changed people’s opinions on Romney. So many people were getting to know this guy and his plan for the first time in these debates.

I’m thinking Obama needs to do 3 things to win -
1) Is knock out Romney convincingly in the last debate. It’s a tall order, I believe this 3rd debate is a home game for Romney, one he was prepping for all week. I personally think this guy is pissed he had a draw with Obama, he wants to win it next Monday. Romney’s also a good debater, he’s never been “shut out” in a debate. He can generate unimpressive offense if someone like Newt Gingrich is on the stage having a great night – but he never gives “zero”, and he can have breakout moments.

2) Obama needs to come up with some kind of crazy new plan that people like. Obama hasn’t had a real vision for the future in 2 years. After the days of Harry Reid and Pelosi putting things on his desk for him to sign ended? The guy was reduced to executive orders, and demagoguing opponents in speech after speech. He needs to come up with a real substantive plan now, not specific things he likes, but a plan – and he has to articulate it in the debate that’s a foreign policy debate – and the American people have to believe all of it – and that has to spread – and Mitt Romney needs to do an impression of a stale carrot for the duration of the debate. Even in that format, say, a “State of the Union” address? He’s had 4 of them, and they look almost identical when played back to back. We’ve heard this guy speak over and over again for years, his brand is saturated, I don’t think there is an “up” to go for him.”

Say Obama then gives his “plan”, then the media needs to cover it favorably and uncritically- and I’m not convinced they will, I think they’ve somewhat soured on Obama. They’re sympathetic, sure – but the power is gone. The rise of new media has helped but… I’m thinking it’s falling morale on the left. They don’t like Romney, but they’re no longer beaming and insufferable zombies of 2008. “Sorry Barack, I like hanging out but, it’s getting dark out now and my Mom wants me to come home for dinner.” 

3) Dude needs an October surprise.  Maybe that “leaked” strike on the middle east works. Maybe this thing Gloria “please pay attention to me” Alreid’s supposed whatever will turn out to be something. Or maybe it will turn out to be nothing, like many of the things that ended Obama’s challenger’s campaigns at all the lower levels of elective office. Obama’s such a dirty campaigner that really anyone would have done for his GOP opponent – the formula and the attacks were going to be the same.

Eh, who knows if that will corral everyone’s attention. It would have to be like the best October surprise of all time. Romney eating a live puppy for being poor? Um… A video of Obama flying? No idea. It would have to be this good.

3rd debate shape-up. 
-Obama’s just been unconvincing, and he’s working against his saturated brand. When he’s gone negative on Romney it’s hurt his personal like-ability, the thin sheet of balsa wood that is the bridge over his sewage river record and wacky left-wing vision.
-On foreign policy, thus far it really looks like Obama has a small playbook. He “Got Bin Laden”, escalated Afghanistan then announced a withdrawl date, dawdled for months on announcing troop numbers, and pulled out of Iraq, leaving roughly 6,000 “Private Military Contractors” (also referred to as “mercenaries” by bed-wetting-know-nothing-journalists) behind to do the job.  And Romney was “playing politics” by being mad that the administration’s herpderpery led to the deaths of an ambassador and 4 other Americans. (Several American Law Enforcement Officers were killed in the Fast and Furious scandal, as well as hundreds of Mexicans, but hey, Watergate is the big f**kin deal for some reason O.o)
Obama will also state that his apologies “repaired our image overseas” as if there’s this “image bar”, and as if this common to liberals – naivete re: foreign policy has helped us any. Spoiler Alert: It hasn’t.
-Call me crazy here but I think Romney likes Foreign policy- he did excellent in the foreign policy debates in the GOP primary, and he looked natural doing it. He outshined Rick Santorum who loved to remind people he was first in line to ring the Iran alarm. He schooled Jon Huntsmann (guy was an ambassador to China) on China.
-Obama’s “Uhhhh, Romney… outsourcing to China…” Remarks will hurt his image, will not look credible when Romney talks about holding China accountable. It also opens Obama up for a devastating counter punch when Romney gets to talk about Obama’s own accounts. This could be a “pick 6″ for Obama. I hope he throws that pass. I hope Mittens responds as expected.
-Scoring that 2nd debate, the townhall, on points? Obama won it, he had answers, he had energy, the base loved it – and Mitt Romney kept increasing his lead in the polls anyway! Why so? For one they’re putting their money to use. Two, it looks like “lets turn on the TV and find out who to vote for” crowd really showed up for that first debate. Three, because in the first and second debates, polls showed that people believe he’s a flat out better on the major issues of taxes energy and debt. The social issues that are important mostly to young people, single issue voters, people in the soft-social-”sciences”, and academics? Those things are not as important to most voters. They are not the great issues of the day. Think about this… Obama had a good game, he stuck to the plan. He threw slime on Romney, the referee even put a form tackle on a player before a goal-line and threw suspect flags… People walked away thinking “That Romney guy… has a plan, is a business man, has a tax plan, has an economic plan, hmm..” I don’t think Obama can win by a huge margin in this third debate.
-Romney’s not infallible, but he’s that QB that doesn’t throw interceptions. I don’t think he will hurt his momentum.

“Alright alright what do you really think”: I wouldn’t be surprised if this debate sinks Obama. I think he has some non-answers or “canned-talking points” answers that look bad. He may even come out with a new “plan” or promises for overseas things. See this is a guy whose strengths really where in stroking the liberal errogenous zones with promises paid by others Re: Social issues. Can he really give a plan for the whole country in all the major issues, in a dynamic foreign policy debate where Mitt Romney is going to be blitzing him on every play? I don’t think it’s doable.

I think Obama spikes the football on getting Osama for the hundredth time, which really impresses no one anymore. That capital has been used up. No one has forgotten it. I think he doubles down on the negatives vs Romney, accusing Romney of “playing politics”. I think Romney counter punches effectively on some of these, I think he runs back one of these as a “pick-6″. I think he comes across again as an effective leader, a good guy – nothing like the negative Obama ads, and he gives people that “you know… maybe…” feeling that started in debate 1. I mean shoot if Mitt knocks it out of the park? Then what else can Obama do? Save for pray that the publicity-starved Alreid has some kind of special anti-Mormon-Kryptonite.