Old and Busted Delusion: The 2010 Midterm Election Results Underscore the Wild Popularity of Obama's Agenda. New and Hot Delusion: Obama in a Landslide in 2012! [Dan Cleary]

Interesting theory.

Things are looking up for Barack Obama.

You might not think so, given the flow of news lately. His foreign policy has met with limited success, at best. And, back home, unemployment is mired at 9.6 percent. Earlier this month, in a major political blow, Democrats lost more than 60 seats and control of the House of Representatives.

So what is there for Mr. Obama and his supporters to cheer about? Try this: Based on the facts at hand right now, Mr. Obama is likely to win the 2012 election in a landslide. That, at least, is the prediction of Ray C. Fair, a Yale economist and an expert on econometrics and on the relationship of economics and politics.

As best I can tell, this fanciful prediction appears to be based on a delicate blend of about 10% wonkish, highfalutin gobbledygook and 90% "Let's cross our fingers and pray that the economy miraculously rebounds over the next two years, despite all the obstacles Democrats have eagerly set in place to prevent that from happening."

But I'm just a moron. What do I know?

h/t: Newsbusters.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 11:25 AM



Comments

1 Foreign policy is in shambles. North Korea has a new enriching facility. Good job Mr. President.

Posted by: CDR M at November 21, 2010 11:27 AM (5I8G0)

2 Ray C. Fair and Paul Krugman have a special relationship; they are both fucking morons.

What is it about economists? Are they all stupid?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo ( NJConservative) at November 21, 2010 11:28 AM (LH6ir)

3 Awesome! Socialism is back!
Future generations hardest hit.

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at November 21, 2010 11:31 AM (r1h5M)

4 Wish Casting!

Posted by: Ron at November 21, 2010 11:31 AM (6vVHf)

5 Ray C. Fair, Yale Economist came to this conclusion after carefully surveying all 3 of his roomates and the online community that he has befriended at MoveOn.org.

Posted by: Marie at November 21, 2010 11:31 AM (GuTKr)

6 That, at least, is the prediction of Ray C. Fair, a Yale economist and
an expert on econometrics and on the relationship of economics and
politics.

Just wondering ... what's Ray Fair's track record of predictions in econometrics? Did he predict the credit crisis (or anything surrounding it)? LOL. Even the Retard-in-Chief is laughing at this economic witchdoctor's "prediction", though that's because the Indonesian knows that he isn't even shooting for a second term; he's determined to carry out all of his planned destruction in his first term - and to go out with a real bang.

But, this is about par for the course for Yale. Stupid musings coming from the faculty. If this were some community college preofessor, people would just alugh at the idiocy, but coming from Yale ... Whoa! Yep, that's what the Ivies are all about - living off of their reputations while stupidities and idiocies spill out of the mouths of their "experts".

Posted by: iknowtheleft®© at November 21, 2010 11:33 AM (G/MYk)

7 One and done. The infatuation is finished -- once the moo falls from the moo-Siah, it can't be replaced.

Posted by: tarpon at November 21, 2010 11:35 AM (g0QB8)

8 What is it about economists? Are they all stupid?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo ( NJConservative) at November 21, 2010 11:28 AM (LH6ir)
Pretty much. It's a soft-science that attracts mediocrity like flies to shit. Economists try to compensate for this with arrogance.

Posted by: iknowtheleft®© at November 21, 2010 11:35 AM (G/MYk)

9 If only Obama could make the connection that airline passengers are also voters...especially white ones.

I've been looking and so far, all the horrendous stories and accompanying pictures of sexually molested passengers are white. Where's the outraged Muslims refusing to submit? Or African Americans? Or Hispanic Americans?

If I'm wrong about whites being targeted, I'll gladly stand corrected. Wish I could find reports of minorities being harassed by the TSA...

Posted by: Mjdzfun at November 21, 2010 11:36 AM (DM6DH)

10 It's New York Times. What else needs to be said?

Obama sells papers for them- just by being in office. Why do you think Murdoch contributed more to Dems in 2008 than the GOP?

'Cause like Rush, they're better for business...

Posted by: Mr Wolf at November 21, 2010 11:36 AM (Nht4m)

11 I can't disagree with the notion that if the economy turns around then all will be forgotten and he could very well win in 2012.

Posted by: profligatewaste at November 21, 2010 11:38 AM (b3rrc)

12 Go easy on me. I'm just trying to land a gig with the administration.

Posted by: Ray C. Fair at November 21, 2010 11:39 AM (4Kl5M)

13 Wait... "Yale"? Isn't that the place along with Harvard that has stacked Goldman Sachs with winners that produce statements like this: "“Goldman Sachs Says U.S. Economy May Be `Fairly Bad’”"

Don't worry, my brother, I see the Green Shoots!

Posted by: alexthedude at November 21, 2010 11:39 AM (Odqby)

14 I can't disagree with the notion that if the economy turns around then
all will be forgotten and he could very well win in 2012.

Right, and this is the one grain of truth way down at the very bottom of Fair's elaborately-spun fantasy of blue smoke, wishful thinking, and bullshit.

Posted by: OregonMuse at November 21, 2010 11:41 AM (3WrnJ)

15 Problem with his theory is that the economy is NOT turning around...
The Housing debt crises is still out there, ready to explode. There has been NOTHING done to fix this...
Regularoty instability and Gov. overreach is STILL going to go on, and may very well accelerate.
Tax structure is STILL not fixed... and in 2013 a healthcare tax of 3.8% on unearned income goes into effect. Businesses and people still can't make any longterm plans.
We are STILL not using our own resources, and in fact Obama et al are making it HARDER to use our resources.
Nuc plants are STILL not being built... as they are still caught up in Regulatory hell...
So unless some of this changes? economy will not recover, and Obama looses in an EPIC Fail.

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 21, 2010 11:42 AM (AdK6a)

16 All we need is a half way decent candidate and he is done.
No way he wins re-election.

Cant overcome his poll numbers in battleground states.. no way they miraculously recover 20+ points.

Posted by: Timbo at November 21, 2010 11:44 AM (ph9vn)

17 With all the BS that the Lame Duck is passing or considering (DREAM, Farm Bill, Reparations to Black and Indians Bill, et cetera), I can't fathom how Odipshit willl avoid the flak in 2012.

Posted by: billygoat at November 21, 2010 11:47 AM (5qJM5)

18 Yeah. Like "Ray C. Fair" is a real name. Was his analysis supported by "C. Mike Hunt"?

Posted by: andycanuck at November 21, 2010 11:48 AM (ocvEI)

19 16
All we need is a half way decent candidate and he is done.
No way he
wins re-election.

Cant overcome his poll numbers in battleground
states.. no way they miraculously recover 20+ points.


Posted by: Timbo at November 21, 2010 11:44 AM (ph9vn)That's the magic right there...and their eventual emergence as the 'chosen one'.

Posted by: billygoat at November 21, 2010 11:49 AM (5qJM5)

20 ObAmbi's best hope for re-election was a sweep of both houses and a complete repudiation of Liberal ideas.

Even better hope was dismantling all of the beaurocracies like Homeland Security, TSA, EPA, DEA, etc. etc. and letting the economy heat up like a big dog. If enough jobs were created, the general population might even look upon the importation of more labor (immigrants) as a good thing.

Instead they are going about it in exactly the wrong way. Lock everything up via regulation by unelected trolls ... raise taxes ... unemployment of good old americans at 10% (17%). Anyone want to guess the unemployment rate of illegal immigrants. I'll bet it's less than that of Detroit or Harlem or New Orleans.

Posted by: Mephitis at November 21, 2010 11:51 AM (ehXLT)

21 That's the magic right there...and their eventual emergence as the 'chosen one'.



Posted by: billygoat at November 21, 2010 11:49 AM (5qJM5)

I wish there was someone who stood out. I dont have a favorite yet.

Posted by: Timbo at November 21, 2010 11:51 AM (ph9vn)

22 Of course he'll win in a landslide in 2012. Everybody I know votes Democrat!

Posted by: Yale Economist at November 21, 2010 11:54 AM (DoLn0)

23 Posted by: Romeo13 at November 21, 2010 11:42 AM (AdK6a)

The Democrat party is very good at getting out the vote -- much better than the Republican party. And let's not forget their interesting talents for creative vote creation. The MSM is solidly Dem, and Obama(pbuh) will have the bully pulpit of the presidency.

It will be an uphill battle no matter what.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo ( NJConservative) at November 21, 2010 11:55 AM (LH6ir)

24 I'm hoping that somebody like Pence and his Presidential hair can avert this landslide.

I'm getting on the Christie bandwagon, too...

/fat guys ftw!

Posted by: Original Mikey at November 21, 2010 11:56 AM (DoLn0)

25 Actually, I think this is a good sign.

The libs are in high, high denial. You know, stuff that requires several different types of psych drugs, not just one.

Just keep f*cking that chicken. Proclaim that we should be the USSA. Go full on commie Democrats, the country wants you to do it!

And get yourself voted out of office by a landslide.

/any Republican '12!

Posted by: shibumi at November 21, 2010 11:57 AM (OKZrE)

26 As best I can tell, this fanciful prediction appears to be based on a
delicate blend of about 10% wonkish, highfalutin gobbledygook and 90%
"Let's cross our fingers and pray that the economy miraculously
rebeounds over the next two years, despite all the obstacles Democrats
have eagerly set in place to prevent that from happening."

Well, all that and the fact that Ray C. Flair is a practically a dyed-in-the-wool Obamafan, commencing in October 2007 and to the tune of $4,600, according to Newsmeat.com. The NYT might just as well report a WH economic adviser says Obama will win in 2012.

Posted by: Dusty at November 21, 2010 11:58 AM (CRg7J)

27 He could turn out to be right, though not for the reasons he thinks. First, we have to see how our new Republican House turns out. Will they be an effective check on Obama and the Left's disastrous agenda, or will there be enough deal makers among them that these horrible programs continue to get through?

If after 6 months or so it becomes apparent that they can hold, then business will start to feel more confident about the predictability of the future business environment, and they (hopefully) will start investing. That will mean an upswing in the economy and more hiring.

And if all that comes to pass, who will the electorate give credit to for the turnaround? Will they believe Obama when he claims that his policies finally made the difference, or will the Republicans get the nod for stopping the ruination?

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at November 21, 2010 11:59 AM (NWgiO)

28 Why does France still get invited to NATO summits? Those backstabbing holsters of cock can go piss up a rope. And they can pay for their own missile defense shield, the Vichy fucks.

Posted by: Waterhouse at November 21, 2010 12:00 PM (bi3em)

29 90% "Let's cross our fingers and pray that the economy miraculously
rebeounds over the next two years, despite all the obstacles Democrats
have eagerly set in place to prevent that from happening."

That's been the Democrat MO since 2009. They passed a Stimulus bill with no real stimulus in it in the assumption that the economy would recover on its own and they would take credit for it.

They, naturally, do not consider the cancerous effects of their own policies in keeping the economy in a doldrums, but still hope to reap the good press when it recovers in spite of them...which it never does.

Why change strategies now?

Posted by: nickless© at November 21, 2010 12:00 PM (MMC8r)

30 How dare you ignorant proles question the expert wisdom of an expert economist from Yale, who also has expertise in econometrics, and probably a bunch of other really smart stuff.
Don't you realize he's an expert?
You "people" should know your place.

Posted by: Ivy Leaguer at November 21, 2010 12:00 PM (ADeN1)

31 I wish there was someone who stood
out. I dont have a favorite yet.


Posted by: Timbo at November 21, 2010 11:51 AM (ph9vn)
Exactly...

Posted by: billygoat at November 21, 2010 12:01 PM (5qJM5)

32 Mr. Obama is likely to win the 2012 election in a landslide.

Hahahaha, I have my doubts that he will even run. In any case, if he does, I assume by "landslide" they mean that he will be buried under a million tons of shit.

Posted by: Vic at November 21, 2010 12:03 PM (e4sSD)

33 So throwing a trillion at AFSCME, SEIU and ACORN didn't do the trick? Toss a few hundred billion atNEA and AFT, stat!

Posted by: Nobel Prize Winner at November 21, 2010 12:04 PM (sOtz/)

34 Where does he enter "widespread, irreversible, visceral revulsion" into his economic model?

Posted by: Wm T Sherman at November 21, 2010 12:07 PM (5YgO+)

35 The trick to beating the Keyan will be keeping a front runner from appearing too soon.

Posted by: Marie at November 21, 2010 12:07 PM (GuTKr)

36 I could easily live with Palin/Pence and Palin/DeMint.

Mitt is a anal plug.

Huck is a used anal plug.

Posted by: eman at November 21, 2010 12:08 PM (CbwqF)

37 36,

This.

Posted by: eman at November 21, 2010 12:09 PM (CbwqF)

38
Everybody sing along with me!

One pill makes you larger
And one pill makes you small
And the ones that mother gives you
Don't do anything at all
Go ask Barack
When he's two feet tall

Posted by: Ray C. Fair at November 21, 2010 12:09 PM (vbh31)

39 The left likes this fantasy and often point to Reagan in 1984 and Clinton in 1996. However, neither analogy works. In the case of Reagan, even before his bad midterm (and the GOP losses were in the low 30s, IIRC) there were positive signs the economy was starting to rebound, leaving the Gipper 2 full years of decent to robust economic growth. In the case of Clinton, the prescence of a third party candidate (Perot) underminned the efforts of Bob Dole. In this case, the likely (well....so called likely, I doubt it) third party candidate, Micheal "Nanny" Bloomberg is likely to siphon votes from Obama.
So......I can see Obama winning (there is a scenerio for that....and do not forgot he is going to get about 99% of an larger African-American vote) but a landslide.....nope.

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 21, 2010 12:10 PM (OWjjx)

40
The only reason the New York Times has any subscribers is to line the bird cage and to put down for the dog to crap on.

Posted by: sTevo at November 21, 2010 12:10 PM (VMcEw)

41 #33 Hahahaha, I have my doubts that he will even run. In any case, if he
does, I assume by "landslide" they mean that he will be buried under a
million tons of shit.

He might emulate LBJ? Hmmm...who would be the Dem nominee for President then? I doubt Slow Joe would take up the mantle.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at November 21, 2010 12:11 PM (9hSKh)

42 The article is bullshit. If you actually read the paper on Prof. Fair's website, he pretty clearly states that the economy would need to radically improve.

It thus comes down to what the economy will be in the next two years, whichis, of course, what the equations are all about. If the recovery is robust, which my economic model predicts will begin to happen in the middle of 2011, Obama wins easily. If the recovery is only modest, the election will be close, with an edge for the Republicans. If there is a double dip recession, Obama loses by a fairly large amount.

In other words: no shit. If the economy improves substantially before 2012, a lot of people will be willing to give Obama a chance at a second term. That's hardly radical, or RINO thinking.

Posted by: Alex at November 21, 2010 12:12 PM (yY28H)

43
The trick to beating the Keyan will be keeping a front runner from appearing too soon.

Posted by: Marie at November 21, 2010 12:07 PM

Add not letting the NYT and Wapo pick the candidate, as with McLame.

Posted by: huerfano at November 21, 2010 12:13 PM (QgmBR)

44 36
The trick to beating the Keyan will be keeping a front runner from
appearing too soon.

Posted by: Marie at November 21, 2010 12:07 PM (GuTKr)
True -- whoever 'it' is, they will undergo media scrutiny that in unparalleled to Odumbshit.

Posted by: billygoat at November 21, 2010 12:13 PM (5qJM5)

45 37
I could easily live with Palin/Pence and Palin/DeMint.





Mitt is a anal plug.





Huck is a used anal plug.

Posted by: eman at November 21, 2010 12:08 PM (CbwqF)
I like Palin, I just don't think she can win.

Posted by: billygoat at November 21, 2010 12:14 PM (5qJM5)

46 He might emulate LBJ? Hmmm...who would be the Dem nominee for President then? I doubt Slow Joe would take up the mantle.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at November 21, 2010 12:11 PM

Well, Joe Biden is no Hubert H. Humphrey.

Posted by: huerfano at November 21, 2010 12:14 PM (QgmBR)

47 If you actually read the paper on Prof. Fair's website, he pretty
clearly states that the economy would need to radically improve.

You mean the NYT...lied? I'm shattered.

Posted by: nickless© at November 21, 2010 12:14 PM (MMC8r)

48 The trick to beating the Keyan will be keeping a front runner from
appearing too soon.

And capping the Soros money spigot.

Posted by: sTevo at November 21, 2010 12:15 PM (VMcEw)

49 He might emulate LBJ? Hmmm...who would be the Dem nominee for President then? I doubt Slow Joe would take up the mantle.
Well...Obama is probably going to run again. Assuming he is as narcassistic as many believe, what type of narcassists is going to think that there is a better candidate than him?
But, cause its Sunday Morning and I am avoiding climbing on the ladder to put Christmas decorations up on the roof, lets play along with the Obama does not run and who steps in: odds on favorite is, of course, Hillary, followed by Russ Feingold from the Left and Evan Bayh from the right (these terms being defined by what Democrats define as a right - i.e., I won't take your gun today...I will wait a couple of weeks). Of course, Kuchinich will make his 4 year annual waste of time and money effort. If, for some strange reason, Hillary says no....Fast Eddie Randell.

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 21, 2010 12:15 PM (OWjjx)

50 yea, sure.
Unemployment will be above 9% - 9.5% at least until 2013.
As for the 9.6% rate, that is set to go up above 10% within the next year. Why?
"“Starting December 1 thru April 2011, approximately 4.6 million unemployed workers will begin rolling off of the Federal emergency unemployment compensation and extended benefits programs. If congress does not extend the program, instead of receiving up to 99 weeks of benefits, the unemployed will only be eligible for the standard 26 weeks of benefits. About 200,000 workers will fall out of the programs each week while new job growth will be lucky to exceed 100,000 per month. By the time all the Federal EUC/EB benefits expire, the total will amount to an annualized hit to personal income of $70 billion.""

Posted by: johnc_recent_EX-dem at November 21, 2010 12:16 PM (ACkhT)

51 48
If you actually read the paper on
Prof. Fair's website, he pretty
clearly states that the economy would need to radically improve.

No matter the pumping being done to this economy (by the Fed AND the media), I do not see significant improvement by 2012...we're going to ride a flatline till then...if we're lucky.

Posted by: billygoat at November 21, 2010 12:17 PM (5qJM5)

52 * and congress voted down the extended UE extension in the last week.

Posted by: johnc_recent_EX-dem at November 21, 2010 12:17 PM (ACkhT)

53 and congress voted down the extended UE extension in the last week.

Posted by: johnc_recent_EX-dem at November 21, 2010 12:17 PM (ACkhT)
They will blame the Republicans for that.

Posted by: Vic at November 21, 2010 12:18 PM (e4sSD)

54 Add not letting the NYT and Wapo pick the candidate, as with McLame.
Yes, because these newspapers are sooo influential in conservative circles.
Look, can we just be frank for once: McCain won not because of the NYT or Washington Post. It wasn't open primaries. It wasn't the MFM. It was a combination of 1) bad field and 2) bad candidates with bad strategiesand 3) the field did not narrow down to McCain v. someone early enough. You still had Huckabee and Romney out there fighting to be the number 2 to take on McCain....thus splitting the anti-McCain vote and allowing McCain to win primaries with 35%.

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 21, 2010 12:18 PM (OWjjx)

55 They will blame the Republicans
for that.


Posted by: Vic at November 21, 2010 12:18 PM (e4sSD)
...they already are.

Posted by: billygoat at November 21, 2010 12:19 PM (5qJM5)

56 "They will blame the Republicans for that."
They already did, but the theory doesn'thold considering many dems, the defeated ones voted against it as well, apparently they are deluded enough to think that will get them relected in '12. And stupid enough to think that voters have not figured out how this "moderate dimocrat" game/packaging is played.

Posted by: johnc_recent_EX-dem at November 21, 2010 12:20 PM (ACkhT)

57 #50 Well...Obama is probably going to run again. Assuming he is as
narcassistic as many believe, what type of narcassists is going to think
that there is a better candidate than him?

True, yet narcissists also cannot stand criticism and if the economy hasn't radically improved (which it probably won't or if it does, we'll have massive inflation), he isn't going to risk soiling his reputation even more by running again. He has already done his socialist duty by having the government take over major sectors of the economy, and crossed the health-care hurdle.

And remember that Obama is quite lazy. If he feels that he's "earned" some RR, he'll drop the 2012 Presidential Run and hit the Book/Golf tours with gusto, no regrets.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at November 21, 2010 12:21 PM (9hSKh)

58 It was Ross Perot in '92 who said of economists: "you ever meet a rich economist? You think you would since they're supposed to know so much about money"

Posted by: kbdabear at November 21, 2010 12:23 PM (vdfwz)

59 I was watching a report on Fox about conservatism, and as it focused on Nixon and how he really was a liberal, it reminded us of all the good things Nixon "gave" us. EPA, OSHA, and affirmative action are just three of his "gifts" Growing government the way Nixon did is the opposite of conservatism. I believe all of those layers of regulation set up the economy that beset us during the late 70s and early 80s. Obama has empowered these alphabet soup regulators with more power. Our economy will get worse as long as BHO is in office.

If a new president is elected and that person is a Republican, I demand that the Community Reinvestment Act be repealed by March 1, 2013. I also believe that enforcement of CRA (regulation) is directly responsible for the financial meltdown.

Posted by: Holger at November 21, 2010 12:23 PM (V9Q+f)

60 McCain won not because of the NYT or Washington Post. It wasn't open primaries.

McCain won because of two things both are equally stupid and it appears we haven't really fixed either one yet.:

"Only McCain can beat Hillary" IOW the stupid, electability argument;

and

"Winner take all primary rules".



Posted by: Vic at November 21, 2010 12:24 PM (e4sSD)

61
Unless the Republicans can master the arts of vilification politicization, Obama will win in 2012.

When the Democrats say they need to perfect their message, they mean they need to up their game of politicization and demagoguery.


Posted by: microsoothsayer at November 21, 2010 12:24 PM (ek7S8)

62 Where does he enter "widespread, irreversible, visceral revulsion" into his economic model?

Posted by: Wm T Sherman at November 21, 2010 12:07 PM (5YgO+)
Exactly. No matter what the economy does, we are still going to have the America-hater in the White House, taking positions on the opposite side of the American public over and over and over. He's going to have his regulators perverting and twisting everything they can get their greasy little hands on. He's going to be harrassing Americans (as the TSA is now doing) and defending muslims. And on and on.No matter what the economy is doing, the only people who are going to be voting for the Indonesian are those who hate America and want this nation permanently changed - kneecapped. That is what a Hussein 2012 run would be all about, the economy notwithstanding.

Posted by: iknowtheleft®© at November 21, 2010 12:24 PM (G/MYk)

63 Given forecasts of the three economic variables, forecasts of the vote shares
can be made. Table 6 presents three forecasts per equation.

For the first, the economic forecasts, dated October 29, 2010, from my US model are used. These economic forecasts are fairly optimistic. The per capita growth rate in 2012 (G) is 3.69 percent, and the number of good news quarters (Z) is 6. (Through the third quarter of 2010 there has been only one good news quarter during the Obama administration; the US model is forecasting that there will be five more through the third quarter of 2012.) Inflation (P) is predicted to be low at 1.42 percent.

These economic values lead to 55.88 percent of the two-party vote share for Obama. The Democratic share of the two-party House vote is predicted to be 49.91 percent. So Obama gets a larger vote share than he did in 2008, which was 53.69 percent, and the Democrats improve their House vote share from the 45.90 percent value in 2010.

Table 6
Forecasts for 2012

Democratic Share of Two-Party Vote
Presidential Equation (V p)
55.88 - October 29, 2010, economic forecast
49.12 - Modest economic recovery
46.44 - Double dip recession

On-Term House Equation (V c)
49.91 - October 29, 2010, economic forecast
46.05 - Modest economic recovery
44.51 - Double dip recession

.
So, if the impossible happens and the economy does the exact opposite of what it's been doing, Obama wins in a landslide.

okay.....

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 21, 2010 12:24 PM (3wadv)

64 Econometrics? Meh, that's so 2009. I'm creating the new science of blending economics and politics. Economolitics is where it's at, baby! Krugman is an early adopter and look where it's gotten him!

Posted by: Marmo at November 21, 2010 12:24 PM (1KSBb)

65 And remember that Obama is quite lazy. If he feels
that he's "earned" some RR, he'll drop the 2012 Presidential Run
and hit the Book/Golf tours with gusto, no regrets.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at November 21, 2010 12:21 PM

I say that King Barry will definitely run again, he believes his own bullshit and that of the sycophants that only HE can save the world

Posted by: kbdabear at November 21, 2010 12:24 PM (vdfwz)

66 Its Jack Bauer. And he's coming for me!

Posted by: President Who at November 21, 2010 12:25 PM (GxI0E)

67 This also ignores the increased Balkanization of America. Obama and the Dems have viciously, and repeatedly, played the race card to turn out blacks and hispanics against the, presumably white, Repubs. They've done this for many years. Bush in 2004 presided over a booming economy -- how much of the black vote did he win? 11%.

The Dems work hard to make sure that blacks and hispanics vote tribally. For every action there is an opposite reaction and we are seeing more tribal voting by whites against the, presumably anti-white, Dems.

This is not good for the country, but perhaps an inevitable result of the policies and tactics of the last few decades. Dems start off each election with at least 20% of the vote locked-up -- no matter the state of the economy, no matter the quality of the candidates, no matter the policy positions. Alvin Greene just won 80% of the black vote in South Carolina as a half-retarded, unemployed sex offender who lived in his parents basement! 80%!

Right now the Dems have 20%+ locked up while whites are supposed to dispassionately analyze the issues and vote on who has the best overall ideas for the economy in some universalist, Kantian sense.

Personally I don't want anybody to vote tribally or for narrow racial or sectarian reasons. But it's unrealistic to expect white people to not follow the lead of the black and hispanic vote. Especially as whites shrink as a % of the population. It's easy to by high-minded when you are 90% of the vote. Non-hispanic whites are already in the mid-60s and headed for under 50% by 2040 or so. I expect tribal white voting to increase going forward.

I also expect America to be an/ unhappier, poorer, more corrupt country as this process plays out. Much like Latin America. Multe-ethnic societies tend to be violent, corrupt societies. And the welfare state tends to be diverted towards graft and away from the truly needy.

Posted by: ed at November 21, 2010 12:26 PM (QcFbt)

68 You know it's very disturbing to see signs of mental illness in a person but I'd have to say in this instance not so much. Imagine what will happen if we win back the Senate and the presidency in 2012? Won't it be fun to watch?

Posted by: ac at November 21, 2010 12:26 PM (L42x0)

69 I need to take a Dammitol.

Posted by: Pelayo or Holger, guess at November 21, 2010 12:30 PM (V9Q+f)

70 I am the very model of a cocksucking apologist
I've information wishful and deluded, I'm a communist

Posted by: Jeff Sommer, Ace Reporter at November 21, 2010 12:31 PM (5YgO+)

71 61 >>> McCain won because of two things both are equally stupid and it appears we haven't really fixed either one yet.: "Only McCain can beat Hillary" IOW the stupid, electability argument; and"Winner take all primary rules".
----------------------------------------------

Not to mention the fact that the voting electorate was sick of GW Bush and wanted to give the other team a try. That they opted for a Socialist shows they aren't motivated so much by ideology as reactionary emotionalism.

Posted by: Sweet Lucifer Morningstar at November 21, 2010 12:38 PM (q/Y+m)

72 I keep reading 'conventional wisdom' that Sarah can't win.

I like Sarah, but she can't win .... I say Bullshit.

She can't win if she does not run. And she will never be the darling of the media, as they are scared to DEATH of her.

I think she CAN WIN. I think there is so much pent up desire for a plain spoken conservative SMALL GOVERNMENT candidate who will actually try and do something that she can and WOULD win.

Anyone anywhere get the kind of crowds that she gets for campaign appearances or book signings or any other public appearance? Not that I know of.

We will all see what we see. But remember it will be thru the prism of the MSM, and you will not be able to tell what is actually happening.

Posted by: Mephitis at November 21, 2010 12:39 PM (ehXLT)

73 Anyone who can win a primary can win the general. As we found a couple of weeks ago, it STILL boils down to who gets their people down to the poll to vote.

That big predicted 75-100 wave depended on the Rs getting down there and the Dems saying at home. Well, the Rs went down but so did the Dems.

What we wound up with was the Rs took back districts and States that they should have kept but lost in the disasters of 2006 and 2008. They also took some Blue districts in red States like SC-5.

But they didn't win the heavy blue States because the Dems did NOT stay at home.

Posted by: Vic at November 21, 2010 12:45 PM (e4sSD)

74 Much as I hate to admit it, I think Obama is a lock for 2012. Maybe not by 7 points the way he did in 08...I think it will be closer this time. But, despite what the polls say about x Republican being able to beat Obama now, that's not going to matter in 2 years, once they start playing the race card, and Obama turns on his charm for the x percent of the population who is influenced by his charm, and the all the dirty tricks at the polling places.

Palin? I think she's a nice PERSON, and she's definitely a star, but not even all Republicans will vote for her. It will be a really bad year if the only two choices will be Obama and Palin. I live in a reliably blue state (Maryland), so it won't matter who I vote for anyway.

Posted by: sillyme at November 21, 2010 12:49 PM (+zLTj)

75 Mr. Obama is likely to win the 2012 election in a landslide.
Es verdad! I show him how!

Posted by: Hugo Chavez at November 21, 2010 12:50 PM (T9+P7)

76 waiting for that Mark Zandi from Moody's clown to appear to defend Fair.

Posted by: eddiebear at November 21, 2010 12:51 PM (GYMcf)

77 I join the argument that Barry should commit to one term in order to protect his "legacy". Hell, I'd even call him a 'great' president until history catches up to reveal him for the idiot, ideological narcissist that he is.

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at November 21, 2010 12:54 PM (r1h5M)

78 It thus comes down to what the economy will be in the next two years, which is, of course, what the equations are all about. If the recovery is robust, which my economic model predicts will begin to happen in the middle of 2011, Obama wins easily. If the recovery is only modest, the election will be close, with an edge for the Republicans. If there is a double dip recession, Obama loses by a fairly large amount.
Uh, Ray, what do econometric equations say about people's emotional reaction to external circumstances, hmmm? What is the fucking equation, anyway?
Number of votes = (Unknown economic conditions unexpectedly improving) X (people's unknown but large flakiness factor)^78
Can't miss with that.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at November 21, 2010 12:57 PM (T9+P7)

79 Obama wins by a landslide in 2012 because;

1. The fed prints funny money until the presses overheat
2. More money is borrowed and spent on keeping hacks employed
3. Tons of subsidy money is thrown at "green companies"
4. Taxes are jacked way up and it's good because everyone knows that the government knows best how to handle your money

5. Then a miracle happens ...

Posted by: kbdabear at November 21, 2010 12:58 PM (vdfwz)

80 Ray never misses. He called the 1980 election for me in a landslide. Thanks, Ray!

Posted by: Jimmy Carter at November 21, 2010 12:59 PM (T9+P7)

81 Yeah, second that. Thanks, Ray!

Posted by: George H. W. Bush at November 21, 2010 12:59 PM (T9+P7)

82 Uh, Ray, what do econometric equations say about people's emotional reaction to external circumstances, hmmm? What is the fucking equation, anyway?

THAT is the equation!

Posted by: RUK at November 21, 2010 01:00 PM (vdfwz)

83 Remake of True Grit is coming.

Posted by: Holger at November 21, 2010 01:00 PM (V9Q+f)

84 "As best I can tell, this fanciful prediction appears to be based on a
delicate blend of about 10% wonkish, highfalutin gobbledygook and 90%
"Let's cross our fingers...."

No, the "90%" is ACORN (or whatever it is called in '12), Presidential Directives that bypass Congress, some terrorist activity, massive vote fraud and another dose of white race guilt trumped up by the media and hack, race-baiting politicos.

Sarah Palin will also help. If she's the Repub nominee and hasn't done what's necessary to attract unconvinced voters, is endlessly pimped by her relentless fanboyz (who react to any criticism of her like a herd of rabid pitbulls) and receives the vile treatment she has been getting from the MFM, Osama Obama could win in a walk.

Unless Congress grows a pair and impeaches his treasonous ass, that is.

Posted by: MrScribbler at November 21, 2010 01:01 PM (Ulu3i)

85 He could be right; if the GOP nominates Christine O'Donnell as its candidate in 2012.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at November 21, 2010 01:02 PM (YPivX)

86 Here's how you beat Obama - Texas has introduced legislation that REQUIRES candidates to produce their long-form BC to be placed on ballots in their state. Guarantee many many other states will follow.

Then what.............?

Posted by: Sukie Tawdry at November 21, 2010 01:05 PM (jbCcb)

87 I can win it! Sack up, you pansies!

Posted by: Saracuda at November 21, 2010 01:06 PM (RKpGM)

88 Based on horse and bull shit. This story is a laugher. Clearly the auther is nothing but an academic fuckstick communist.

Posted by: Sparky at November 21, 2010 01:06 PM (r0u40)

89 Sarah Palin is a proven leader.

She has stood up to the MFM, Democrat politicians, and President Divot far more and far better than any other likely Presidential candidate.

The Palin anti-fanboyz have their own devils to face.

Posted by: eman at November 21, 2010 01:07 PM (CbwqF)

90 Sarah Palin has a trait needed in every good President: courage.


Posted by: eman at November 21, 2010 01:12 PM (CbwqF)

91 #26, that is actually a BIG DEAL. The NYT should have disclosed that he gave the max to Obama.

Posted by: AmishDude at November 21, 2010 01:12 PM (BvBKY)

92 94,

So 2009.



Posted by: eman at November 21, 2010 01:14 PM (CbwqF)

93 Quit, Hell. I outflanked them. See any of the little pricks sue me lately?

Posted by: Saracuda at November 21, 2010 01:14 PM (RKpGM)

94 It is absolutely impossible for 'Teh Won' to win re-election in 2012. I'm not overlooking the potential for a Demo to 'primary' him out in 2011/2012 and go on to become POTUS. But B.O. himself? Barry is 'one and done', and the reason? One word: California.

Posted by: alwyr at November 21, 2010 01:15 PM (w2++y)

95 Sarah Palin is a proven leader.Proven leaders don't quit.Oooooooooh.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 21, 2010 01:08 PM (Y5XF1)
Please. She was written off when she resigned, but she did exactly what she said, in her resignation speech, she would do and she kicked butt all over the place.I get really sick and tired of this tremendously stupid "SHe quit!! Waaaaaah!" scream. Politicians resign their seats on a moment's notice and no one cares. But Palin leaves the Governor's office in order to release Alaska government from becoming bogged down defending against attacks on her (while in government) and to free herself at precisely the time when America needed a major pushback to Barry of the Third World ... and you're still bitching about something that happens every friggin' day. Why don't you complain about people holding one government office but spending 18 hours a day working to get another? Now, that would include Palin, but it would include everyone else and point out a serious problem among our political class. Sarah resigning from the Governorship was one of the first moves to finally right this sort of thing - that everyone else does and you seem to have no problem with.

Posted by: iknowtheleft®© at November 21, 2010 01:16 PM (G/MYk)

96 I have often said that economics is the science of finding a best-fit straight line through a single data point.
Then I read a Goldberg File in which he points out (quite indisputably) that the only time Keynesian stimulus could even argued to be successful was during the Depression. Most of us know that's not true, but even if it were...
One data point.

Posted by: AmishDude at November 21, 2010 01:16 PM (BvBKY)

97 The campaign answer

Kitteh videos

Posted by: kbdabear at November 21, 2010 01:17 PM (vdfwz)

98 "Only McCain can beat Hillary" IOW the stupid, electability argument;

Hmmm, where did I read this? I can't quite recall.

Posted by: huerfano at November 21, 2010 01:18 PM (QgmBR)

99 Clearly the auther is nothing but an academic fuckstick communist.

Posted by: Sparky


Oh, Fair isn't that bad. Liberal no doubt and an admitted Kerry voter, but the real leftism going on is the spin from the Times and their fellow travelers.

Fair is, however, is a bit -- odd. From a 2004 interview with the New York Times' Deborah Soloman:

SOLOMAN: Are you a Republican?

FAIR: I can't credibly answer that question. Using game theory in economics, you are not going to believe me when I tell you my political affiliation because I know that you know that I could be behaving strategically. If I tell you I am a Kerry supporter, how do you know that I am not lying or behaving strategically to try to put more weight on the predictions and help the Republicans?


I mean, what sort of male talks like that to a girl -- outside of one manufactured as part of the HAL 9000 series?

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 21, 2010 01:18 PM (3wadv)

100 If the 2012 nominee is a 2008 primaries retread, we're screwed

But a 2008 retread is just what Karl Rove wants.

Posted by: kbdabear at November 21, 2010 01:19 PM (vdfwz)

101 Did Barack Obama quit his Senate seat? Did Joe Biden quit his? (Does he know whether he did or not?)

Posted by: Saracuda at November 21, 2010 01:19 PM (RKpGM)

102 Proven leaders don't quit.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States

1962: "You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around any more."
1968: "Hi boys, remember me?"

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 21, 2010 01:22 PM (3wadv)

103 But if I chose the cup nearest me, I would be a great fool...because you would have anticipated that I would...

Posted by: Vizzini at November 21, 2010 01:22 PM (RKpGM)

104 Well. Ray C. Fair© is a Yale economist after all...

I'm not sure how this rates with those who have degrees from other Ivy Inststies but at least Ray C. Fair© can say, he was never chased from office as the president of fucking Harvard by the shrieking Erinyes of PC docrine like Larry Summers was.

This guy is from fucking Yale people...

An institution most noted lately for it's publication of a book with the title "The Cartoons that Shook the World" after censoring said earthshaking cartooons from being fucking published under their imprint.

Also, "Sex Week at Yale University" finally got Ron Jeremy the legitimate podium from which to promulgate his nuanced and very salient insights about modern culture and sexual mores in 2008.

Were it not for the efforts of former undergrads like Constance, a freshman English major who was quoted as saying "I'm just here 'cause I love porn." I can't imagine how ruinous my day to day life decisions might turn out if I didn't have some graduate from such a prestigious institution NUDGING me to make "better" life-choices.

Ahh, the Ivy League...

Is there no stupidity they are incapable of inflicting on the more decent, competent and rational sorts around them?

No?

I thought not.


Posted by: Deety© at November 21, 2010 01:22 PM (Jb3+B)

105 And did they take their oath of office for the Senate with a codicil, "unless I get a better job"?

Posted by: Saracuda at November 21, 2010 01:23 PM (RKpGM)

106
If the R's don't figure out the best and brightest for a candidate, it could be true.

It's not that Obama isnt beatable - even easily beatable; It's that the party of R sometimes regurgitates candidates like McCain and Dole...
We need a Reagan.

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at November 21, 2010 01:24 PM (0fzsA)

107 Tough shit, because she did. Regardless of her reasons for it, it will be an issue if she runs for President and it will be very damaging to her.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States

True, but only to dimwits.

Posted by: eman at November 21, 2010 01:27 PM (CbwqF)

108 Old and Busted: Unicorns!!!
New and Hot: The Overlord intelligence from Childhood's End.

Posted by: FireHorse at November 21, 2010 01:28 PM (sWynj)

109 Tough shit? You want tough shit? I'll show you shit that can pull a dog sled!

Posted by: Saracuda at November 21, 2010 01:29 PM (RKpGM)

110 118,

The Quitter Meme has you in its grip.

Posted by: eman at November 21, 2010 01:31 PM (CbwqF)

111 I turned $500K in legal bills into a $12 Million W-2 form. Find somebody else who can do that, and I'll campaign for her.

Posted by: Saracuda at November 21, 2010 01:33 PM (RKpGM)

112 120,

Stupidity is the issue for some, blind contempt is the issue for others.

Both are fairly intractable.

Posted by: eman at November 21, 2010 01:34 PM (CbwqF)

113 SOLOMAN: Are you a Republican?

FAIR: I can't credibly answer that question. Using game theory in economics, you are not going to believe me when I tell you my political affiliation because I know that you know that I could be behaving strategically. If I tell you I am a Kerry supporter, how do you know that I am not lying or behaving strategically to try to put more weight on the predictions and help the Republicans?

SOLOMAN: All right. What party are you? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when I declare and we both drink, and find out who is right... and who is dead.

FAIR: But it's so simple. All you have to do is divine from what you know of me: am I the sort of man who would put the political poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. You are not a great fool, so you can clearly not choose the party I put in front of you. But I must have known that you were not a great fool, I would have counted on it, so you can clearly not choose the party I said.

SOLOMAN: Can I make my guess then?

FAIR: Not remotely. Because third world revenge fantasies come from Indonesia, as everyone knows, and Indonesia is entirely peopled with muslims, and muslims are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so you can clearly not choose the party I put in front of you.

SOLOMAN: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

FAIR: Wait til I get going! Now, where was I?

SOLOMAN: Indonesia.

FAIR: Yes, Indonesia. And I must have suspected you would have known the third world revenge fantasy's origin, so you can clearly not choose the political party I didn't say.

SOLOMAN: You're just stalling now.

FAIR: You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? I work in making econometric predictions, which means I'm exceptionally smart, so I could've told you the right party, trusting on my mental strength to save me, so you can clearly not choose the party I put in front of you. But, I've also bested any Spaniard in econometrics, which means I must have studied - at least a little - and in studying I must have learned that man is mortal ... and stupid, so I would have put the party claim as far from my true self as possible, so you can clearly not choose the party I didn't say.

SOLOMAN: You're trying to trick me into buying something. It won't work.

FAIR: IT HAS WORKED! YOU'VE BOUGHT EVERYTHING! YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT PARTY I SUPPORT!

SOLOMAN: Then I will make my choice.

FAIR: You will, and you choose - What in the world can that be?

FAIR: [FAIR gestures up and away from the table.

SOLOMAN looks. FAIR mutters the other party]

SOLOMAN: What? Where? I don't see anything.

FAIR: Well, I- I could have sworn I saw something. No matter.First, let's drink. Me from my glass, and you from yours.

SOLOMAN, FAIR: [FAIR and SOLOMAN drink]

SOLOMAN: You're a Democrat!

FAIR: You only think I'm a Democrat! That's what's so funny! I switched parties when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go against an Indonesian supporter when the death of AMerica is on the line"! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...

Posted by: iknowtheleft®© at November 21, 2010 01:36 PM (G/MYk)

114 The Palin thing is interesting, but I don't think she'll win the nomination. If internet intensity were enough to win elections, Ron Paul would be president. What people used to think was her negative was the fact that she criticized The Messiah and libs just couldn't handle it.
I don't think that's it. I think it's actually bigotry and bigotry of two sorts. First, she's a woman. The so-called feminists are the worst to go at people like Palin, O'Donnell, Angle, Whitman, Fiorina, Bachmann, et al. They hold nothing in reserve and their attacks are more personal and vicious than is ever leveled at a man.
Second, she's working class. She has risen above her station. She wasn't born to the right people, she didn't go to the right schools, she isn't in the right crowd and she certainly doesn't think the right way.
Ever wonder why so much effort is expended in universities regarding diversity, race, class and gender? They are the bigots and they know it. Further -- as people like Chris Matthews continually reveal -- they assume everyone else is a bigot.
They're social climbers. They spend their lives figuring out who to kiss up to and who to avoid. They don't meet someone for 30 seconds without figuring their income, parentage, education and social standing.
As for Palin herself, hating her has become socially acceptable and a way for those who aren't in the elite, but who like to think themselves to be smart, to feel good about themselves.
The Left will find ways to hate Palin. That is what keeps their energy up -- hate. When they hate, they are energized. The political landscape is littered with the bodies of those the Left has decided to hate. They have their bete noir, they have to. Hate is what drives them. If any leftie denies this, just mention the following names: Ronald Reagan, Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, George W. Bush and Sarah Palin. It's visceral and, among the footsoldiers, it's irrational. They define themselves by who they hate. They need an Emmanuel Goldstein.
If Sarah doesn't run, she will be the lightning rod who will absorb the energies of the electric hatred of the left. She will be bad cop.
2012, it will sort itself out. Reagan had to bring on George "voodoo economics" Bush to unite the party. Something will happen, nobody will be happy with it, but we can prevail.

Posted by: AmishDude at November 21, 2010 01:38 PM (BvBKY)

115 123,

The two events are connected?

Why did she leave office?

Posted by: eman at November 21, 2010 01:38 PM (CbwqF)

116 Did Barack Obama quit his Senate seat? Did Joe Biden quit his?No, they were elected President and Vice-President, respectively.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at November 21, 2010 01:22 PM (Y5XF1)
Yeah ... BiteMe was great. He ran for TWO friggin' offices at the same time. You love that, huh?And Barry effectively quit his Senate seat two years in in order to run for Precedent and then really quit it to get a nicer office. More great stuff that you support. You're a peach.

Posted by: iknowtheleft®© at November 21, 2010 01:39 PM (G/MYk)

117 Watch the lines at my upcoming book tour and explain that to me more slowly how I have an image problem.

Posted by: Saracuda at November 21, 2010 01:40 PM (RKpGM)

118 Well said, AmishDude.

Posted by: eman at November 21, 2010 01:41 PM (CbwqF)

119 Did Barack Obama quit his Senate seat?



Posted by: Saracuda



Technically. For most of his time in the Senate he stopped showing up for votes because he was too busy campaigning.

See: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/votes/missed/

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 21, 2010 01:41 PM (3wadv)

120 Is this an ad hominem attack on an institution that doesn't even address the points being made by the scholar from said institution quoted in the post ?

Well, sure it is!

I'm just following the tradition laid out by Bill Buckley.

Who you all looove so much, and demand that I emulate, if I'm to be taken seriously, now that he's safely dead.

Yannow who else is dead?

Micheal Jackson, that's who!




Posted by: Deety© at November 21, 2010 01:42 PM (Jb3+B)

121 129,

C'mon Dude.

You sound like palin steele now.

If you don't like her and it's just instinctive, admit it.

I admit that I like her to a large degree just because of an intuitive reaction. I like to think I've tested that reaction well. Perhaps not.

Posted by: eman at November 21, 2010 01:45 PM (CbwqF)

122 SOLOMAN: Are you a Republican?FAIR: I can't credibly answer that question. Using game theory in economics, you are not going to believe me when I tell you my political affiliation because I know that you know that I could be behaving strategically. If I tell you I am a Kerry supporter, how do you know that I am not lying or behaving strategically to try to put more weight on the predictions and help the Republicans?SOLOMAN: (Drops him with a wicked right cross, spits, steps across his prostrate form) Fuckin' pussy. Simple question, simple answer.

Posted by: Deborah Soloman at November 21, 2010 01:45 PM (T9+P7)

123 You sound angry.

What was your reaction just when you found out McCain had picked her?

Posted by: eman at November 21, 2010 01:48 PM (CbwqF)

124 You bet'cha.

Posted by: Saracuda at November 21, 2010 01:50 PM (RKpGM)

125 Talking about operating at the margins... His formula assumes that the Democrat nominee gets over 48% of the vote no matter what... "VP = 48.39 + .672*G - .654*P + 0.990*Z"

I would interpret his formula as follows, " Between the media and the union help, we automatically get a near majority of the vote. All we have to do is convince 2% of independents to vote against our opponent and we win." If that's the correct interpretation, you know why all the ads are negative. No need to convince the base, just make a couple of points vote against the GOP and we win.

Not a very sophisticated model if you ask me.

Posted by: MSfromtheOC at November 21, 2010 01:51 PM (hzlmN)

126 Sorry, Democrats win, not we win.

Posted by: MSfromtheOC at November 21, 2010 01:52 PM (hzlmN)

127 Every time Palin comes up around here, both sides take out their butthurt feelings from the last 'debate' and it turns into one pathetic sissy-slapfight. Sheesh.


Posted by: nickless© at November 21, 2010 01:56 PM (MMC8r)

128 141,

That is interesting. You liked her at first and then turned away as time went by,

I liked her before she was picked and the admiration increased as time went by.

Agree to disagree, I guess.

Posted by: eman at November 21, 2010 02:02 PM (CbwqF)

129 I called you a name?

I said you sounded like palin steele because I wanted you to see how trollish your responses sounded (at least to my ear).

Posted by: eman at November 21, 2010 02:04 PM (CbwqF)

130 Only if another Mitt McHuckabee is nominated to run against him.

Posted by: Valiant at November 21, 2010 02:15 PM (UKSRV)

131 New and Hot Delusion: Obama in a Landslide in 2012!

I am content for the Democrats to believe this.

Posted by: toby928™ at November 21, 2010 02:39 PM (S5YRY)

132 How many times did we hear, in 2008, that Obama's was a "historic" candidacy? The problem with "historic" anything: it is much harder to predict future performance based on past results. What does Messr. Fair propose to do? Predict future performance based on past results. Fail.

I have my own set of predictions based on past results, which I think will hold up much better than his. Obama, to this point in his term, has shown every sign of being an ABC (arrogant, blinkered, and condescending) liberal with no ability to compromise on major matters. Having failed to learn anything because of his ABC nature, he will now continue to be same. Consequently, he will be slaughtered in 2012 if the Republicans nominate anyone of substance who 1) shows the ability to get things done, especially in the fiscal realm, and 2) provides evidence of being able to cooperate with members across the aisle without sacrificing key principles of conservative governance.

Of course, at this point, we all recognize that's still a big "if."

Posted by: Demosthenes at November 21, 2010 02:46 PM (ldS0M)

133 We need a Reagan.

No. I don't think we do, actually.

Reagan's most exceptional quality IMHO was his ability to explain some abstruse policy ideas to the "average American" and move the "conservative intellectual thought" ball forward.

Your "average American" is feeling the "unintended consequences" of progressive policy choices hard and fast, right now.

We don't need an intellect like Reagan, not at this particular moment.

What we need is someone who can credibly stop the bleeding and do some fucking triage.

What we all need, and I mean ALL OF US libtards and moonbats too, is to get someone like Chris Christie into the oval office!

STAT!

As a philosophical and morally aesthetic preference, I'm not too keen on the President being a de facto "King of the World!".

But it is what it is.

Barack Obama is not entirely wrong in his constant complaint that he was left with a huge shit-sandwich.

He is though, a giant pussy for persistently fucking whining about it.


Posted by: Deety© at November 21, 2010 02:55 PM (Jb3+B)

134 "I can't disagree with the notion that if the economy turns around then all will be forgotten and he could very well win in 2012."
There is zero chance goofball, both because of the economy and because the strongly disapproving are done with O, forever.

Posted by: gary gulrud at November 21, 2010 03:03 PM (/g2vP)

135 Ray C. Fair also runs a second-hand underpants business on the side.

Posted by: CrustyB at November 21, 2010 04:21 PM (qzgbP)

136 Econometrics . . . HA! I did a paper in my history of economics class in college about this guy Joseph Schumpeter, sorta the father of econometrics. At first he worshiped the idea, then thought it was all nonsense, and, in the end, came to the realization that using equations to try to *explain* economics was a good idea, but to use them as if they were magical formulas that would give us the entire truth was really stupid. Guess which path the Keynesians took? That's right! Succumbing to the rampant scientism in the West, they jumped right on board the "economics is a science we can predict and control" ship and sailed it right into the economic apocalypse that we're all now experiencing. Interesting thing, and this even from Wikipedia (not always the best source):

"Schumpeter's most popular book in English is probably Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. This book opens with a treatment of Karl Marx. While he is sympathetic to Marx's theory that capitalism will collapse and will be replaced by socialism, Schumpeter concludes that this will not come about in the way Marx predicted. To describe it he borrowed the phrase "creative destruction", and made it famous by using it to describe a process in which the old ways of doing things are endogenously destroyed and replaced by new ways.
Schumpeter's theory is that the success of capitalism will lead to a form of corporatism
and a fostering of values hostile to capitalism, especially among
intellectuals. The intellectual and social climate needed to allow entrepreneurship
to thrive will not exist in advanced capitalism; it will be replaced by
socialism in some form. There will not be a revolution, but merely a
trend in parliaments to elect social democratic
parties of one stripe or another. He argued that capitalism's collapse
from within will come about as democratic majorities vote for
restrictions upon entrepreneurship that will burden and destroy the
capitalist structure, but also emphasizes non-political, evolutionary
processes in society where "liberal capitalism" was evolving into
democratic socialism because of the growth of workers' self-management, industrial democracy and regulatory institutions.[8] Schumpeter emphasizes throughout this book that he is analyzing trends, not engaging in political advocacy."

Pretty on the money - though, as it says, he was looking at trends, NOT what was necessarily causing them. For that, again, I'd look to Blessed Seraphim Rose's "Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution and the Modern Age."

the sinner,

Patrick

Posted by: Patrick at November 21, 2010 04:40 PM (Mfc9p)

137 All we need is a half way decent candidate and he is done.
No way he wins re-election.

Cant overcome his poll numbers in battleground states.. no way they miraculously recover 20+ points.

Posted by: Timbo at November 21, 2010 11:44 AM

And that's just it right there. This doesn't happen in a vacuum. Obama actually will be campaigning against someone else in addition to his own record. The choice will be between 4 more years of Obama or taking a chance on someone else. Don't underestimate the stupidity of the American people to stay with the 'familiar'.

Michigan could have gotten rid of the utter failure Jenny from the block Granholm in 2004. They were in a one-state recession and getting worse. She went up against a decent candidate in businessman Dick DeVos. Michiganders re-elected the failure and the State nosedived even worse.

In 2012, the GOP has to

(1) have a good candidate who will
(a) attack Obama on his failed policies
(b) articulate to the American people WHY they are bad and WHY they failed
(c) present clear alternative policies to the American electorate and
(d) articulate why those policies will work

and (2) work to GOTV to overcome the Democrats and MF-ing media GOTV, vote fraud, media lies and smears, etc.

If people think the Obama machine is just going to roll over and allow him to be defeated in 2012, they are sorely naive. That machine -- ACORN, Democrats GOTV, MF-ing media smears and lies, etc -- will be all-in to get him re-elected and retain their power. This is about a LOT more than Obama the President. This is about his entire Administration and all the people involved who have all the power right now. They will not be giving that up without a huge fight.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at November 21, 2010 05:25 PM (NITzp)

138 The Democrat party is very good at getting out the vote -- much better than the Republican party. And let's not forget their interesting talents for creative vote creation. The MSM is solidly Dem, and Obama(pbuh) will have the bully pulpit of the presidency.

It will be an uphill battle no matter what.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo ( NJConservative) at November 21, 2010 11:55 AM

Yep. He could go on live TV and perform a abortion, then perform a TSA groping, then get on his knees on a prayer rug and pray to Mecca and he STILL would have 40-50% support of the American people and 100% support of the MF-ing media propaganda machine.

2012 will not be easy at.all.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at November 21, 2010 05:29 PM (NITzp)

139 What I cant understand is the crazy democRATS like Kirsten Powers on fox today actually saying that Republicans are 'delusional' if they think the midterms were about Obamas policies... I just can't put myself in a place where I could EVER believe that. She actually thinks the devestating democRAT defeat was because Obama was 'obstructed' by the Republicans or something..
In what world can one have those views and NOT be forcably restrained with a strait jacket? Seriously she must be bubblegirl or something.

They've REALLY screwed up this time boys and girls! The economy here in CA is so bad just about everyone I know has either lost their job, or is barely breaking even. Really fucked up out here!
As for king Obama who has turned our great country into a police state in less than 2 years... well ... we all know he's a malignant narcissist. Read up on the famous psych profile of uncle adolf before the end of the war and see what it says. When they are confronted with the truth of their failure and inferiority, well... read it. Quite a few parallels involving parents and their formative years. This could be another historical first for a US President. But I hope I'm reading Obama all wrong and he'll start cutting taxes and programs and the economy will start booming again.
Kirsten, don't forget to take your HALDOL sweety!

Posted by: John Frum at November 22, 2010 02:03 AM (qQG8/)

140 I'd say the Democrats' main delusion is that the economy will magically recover, despite all of the damage they've done to it, mostly by putting other policy objectives (like "fairness" or "global warming") ahead of prosperity. A country that does not respect prosperity will not keep it.

Under these circumstances, the economy is unlikely to bounce back in two years. The only way Obama could turn the economy in his favor is if Obama can trick the public into believing that it's all the Republicans' fault. The public doesn't always thoroughly educate themselves before voting, but it is pretty good about not letting the people in power weasel out of responsibility. So, no, Barack Obama won't be reelected based on the economy.

If he is reelected, it will be because independents and/or conservatives reject the Republican nominee because of the politics of personal destruction. (this is why Palin should NOT run)

Posted by: Daryl Herbert at November 22, 2010 02:54 AM (m4EcY)

141 Off topic, but I thought you'd enjoy this.
Check out:

http://www.cartoonnetwork.com/tv_shows/batmanbb/index.html

Episode: "Cry Freedom Fighters!"

The very last minute of the Batman video has a funny Obama reference, where Obama gets dissed.

Posted by: phil at November 22, 2010 05:01 AM (cBaCB)

142 hello everyone,im wholesale supplier online



Welcome to our website



===== http://www.1shopping.us/ =======



accept paypal and free shipping



We need your support and trust!!!



Dear friends, please temporarily stop your footsteps



To our website Walk around A look at



Maybe you'll find happiness in your sight shopping heaven and earth



You'll find our price is more suitable for you.



And we shall be offer you free gift about MP4 if you more order.



===== http://www.1shopping.us/ ========

Posted by: fsafs46 at November 22, 2010 08:04 AM (ugJNE)

143 Cheap Genuine Microsoft windows 7 product key only $9.99www.microsoftwindows7key.com Sales 100% Genuine Microsoft Windows 7 Product Key,Microsoft Office 2010 Product Key,MICROSOFT Windows 7 Boxed Software,Microsoft Office 2010 Boxed Software.All products issued from Microsoft directly.we guarantee every key 100% activation,lifelong active,permanent online update,Or full payment back.
Free shipping + provide free link for windows 7 digit download

Posted by: windows 7 key at November 22, 2010 08:23 AM (DJqsv)

144 Late again to the party, but.....

Which states that McCain won in 2008 does anyone think will flip to Lord Zero in '12? I can't see any.

I can see several states that Obama took flipping back red, and hard. All we need is a decent candidate.
Obama was elected by the white vote in 2008...whether out of guilt, old-time Democrat loyalty, etc. Problem is, now most of them understand that they've been duped and will not, NOT vote for him again.

Posted by: Luca Brasi at November 22, 2010 10:07 AM (YmPwQ)

145 The week before the November 2 elections, the cover of Yale University's undergraduate student bulletin - whose name I forget - pictured an invasion of zombies with the story line, "The Republicans Are Coming!" Yale has done such a great job of indoctrinating these sad little peasants that they don't even realize Count Dracula has progressively sucked out their blood. Now they wander the streets moaning, "Black skin! High taxes! Ruinous spending! Bigger gov'mint! Power to the looters!" Mindless dunces like this have lost more than they will ever know.

The point is that nothing said by anyone from Yale deserves the slightest respect, much less credibility. Can't talk to 'em, can't reason with 'em. Reality is outside their precious universe. They are all simply Useful Idiots.

Posted by: Tulsa Jack at November 22, 2010 11:16 AM (EW43y)

146 Company was founded by replica handbags Louis Brandt in 1848 in a gucci handbags small town La Chaux-de-Fonds. From replica gucci political and fake louis vuitton economical points replica omega of view, that was a period of trouble. A replica iwc series of revolutions replica tag heuer broke out in all replica breitling parts of Europe. The replica rolex enterprise gucci handbagsrepresented an 'assembly workshop' where luxury rolex wristwatches replica watches were produced. And hublot replica it took Louis Brandt.

Posted by: jssw at November 22, 2010 07:42 PM (hcEGy)

147 But as opponents of the current administrations we have to keep up the pressure. They are dedicated to their goal of changing the fabric of the nation, and this kind of thing is a good fake watches cheap fake watches fake BREGUET watches replica wristwatch new wristwatch replica cartier wristwatch replica swiss watches AAA swiss watch replica swiss iwc watch fake watches replica hublotexample of their attempt to create a nation of sheep.

Posted by: jssw at November 22, 2010 07:48 PM (hcEGy)

148 I greatly benefit from your articles every time I read one. Thanks for the pandora bracelets info, it helps a lot.my love pandora bracelets. lovely pandora charm bracelets.girl's favorite pandora beads.

Posted by: pandora bracelets at November 22, 2010 11:47 PM (g9UYB)

149 I feel so happy UGG to have the chance to make a speech. The title of my speech Uggs is Protect the Environment, Protect Ourselves. I hope you will like it. Everybody UGG boots knows waste paper and used coke cans ugg australia are discarded everywhere. You might ugg sale have seen plastic bags flying in the sky and getting caught in the trees when the wind blows or maybe you have seen old cans floating in the rivers and polluting the water. Our environment is the place in which we live, but it is being ruined by us. There is a story about house and trees. It is said that a man’s house ugg boots uk was surrounded by a lot of trees. Though the wind was strong, that man could have a good rest under the trees. How comfortable the life was! One day, that man wanted to enlarge his house, so he cut down all the trees. Then the autumn came without the protection. The strong wind blew the roof of the house into the sky. The whole house was gone with the wind. What a pity! But that’s the price people have to pay for destroying in the ecology balance. People shouldn’t be short-sighted. Protecting the environment is everyone’s task.

Posted by: xcvcxvse at December 01, 2010 09:46 PM (6zHrR)

150 buy fleece lined leggings

Posted by: buy fleece lined leggings at December 15, 2010 02:47 PM (7fapR)






Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.0357 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0146 seconds, 159 records returned.
Page size 111 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat