[Official Thread] OBAMA WINS RE-ELECTION

[salm]

Even if one of two options is better than the other you can still invest in the future and trade in short or mid term negative effects for long term positive effects.

[Eframepilot]

Early voting has started in a number of states. Given the current poll numbers, well...

In Iowa, Democrats have requested early voting ballots over Republicans by a ratio of six to one. Not a good sign for Romney...

Would you be so kind as to link to a source and any historic trend data?

I will dress my links

It certainly won't match the level of national attention garnered before the first-in-the-nation caucuses last January, but Iowa is about to reprise its status as an early barometer of the presidential race.

On Thursday, Iowa will become the first swing state to begin early voting. Once it has been gradually rolled out nationwide, early voting is expected to be even more consequential than was the case four years ago -- perhaps all but foretelling the winner of the presidential race before Election Day comes around on Nov. 6.

For months, staffers and volunteers at the Obama campaign’s more than five dozen Iowa field office have worked relentlessly to encourage Democrats to request absentee ballots, which any registered voter in the state is allowed to fill out and submit before the polls open officially in six weeks.

As of Monday, registered Democrats had requested 109,709 such ballots in Iowa, while Republicans there had requested less than one-fifth of that total (20,458).

[Dominus Atheos]

To be certain, their talking points are different, but both of them would continue deficit spending, foreign interventionism, and the useless, failed, and expensive "war" on drugs. I'm just not enough of a sucker to swallow the talking points hook, line and sinker like so many.

And those are the only three policy points that matter.

Yeah, pretty much. The economy, endless wars against emotions, and (I'd just say personal liberties in general) are 3 of the most important issues facing the country right now.

I haven't heard anything from either candidate that would make me think that the actions they would take are any different then the actions their opponents would take.

[Terralthra]

To be certain, their talking points are different, but both of them would continue deficit spending, foreign interventionism, and the useless, failed, and expensive "war" on drugs. I'm just not enough of a sucker to swallow the talking points hook, line and sinker like so many.

And those are the only three policy points that matter.

Yeah, pretty much. The economy, endless wars against emotions, and (I'd just say personal liberties in general) are 3 of the most important issues facing the country right now.

I haven't heard anything from either candidate that would make me think that the actions they would take are any different then the actions their opponents would take.

Governor Romney plans to enact further massive tax cuts to the richest taxpayers, while not significantly cutting most spending (military, medicare, social security). Obama does not. That doesn't seem like an economic difference?

[Broken]

To be certain, their talking points are different, but both of them would continue deficit spending, foreign interventionism, and the useless, failed, and expensive "war" on drugs. I'm just not enough of a sucker to swallow the talking points hook, line and sinker like so many.

And those are the only three policy points that matter.

Yeah, pretty much. The economy, endless wars against emotions, and (I'd just say personal liberties in general) are 3 of the most important issues facing the country right now.

I haven't heard anything from either candidate that would make me think that the actions they would take are any different then the actions their opponents would take.

Here's an action that can be mapped out from previous administrations; Supreme Court nominations. Do we really want to give Romney the possibility of nominating a couple individuals to the Supreme Court, especially if the Republicans also manage to grab the Senate. I have not been terribly thrilled by Obama either, but I simply do not want an even more "severely conservative" Supreme Court either.

[Patrick Degan]

Just roll the idea of "Mr. Justice Bork" around in your heads for a while...

[Lord Falcon]

Here's my take on it. Romney wants to increase tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and leave the 47%, who he sees as welfare dependent freeloaders, to starve. He only wants to serve the rich, not the country. President Obama said it himself; he has to be president for ALL Americans, not just a small percentage, as Romney obviously views us.

Plus, all the voter suppression going on. This is horrifying me. 51 million people — I'll say that again — 51 million people might be unable to vote if they continue to make it so difficult to acquire the proper papers and allow them to vote. What is the Justice Department doing about it? Nothing! They're letting them get away with these highly illegal and immoral acts! WHY? This is un-American. It's unconstitutional. It is WRONG.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Ye gods do calm down.
First off no one is letting "them" just "get away with it" The voter suppression laws are being challenged on every front. The one in Ohio has been put on hold until after Nov (in which I predict it being forgot about)
The ones in Florida are being held up in court right now and even the Supream coourt has come in to stop several parts (trying to shorten voting times in key districts)
And of course in Penn the Supream court has now charged the lower court with reviewing it. The law may be "kind of" in place right now and causing trouble, but Penn is deeply in Obama's grip. There would have to be 10's of thousands of voters who didn't vote at all for Romney to have even a chance at this point.

Which is the main reason for posting here. It is an observation about the similarities between this election and 2004.

After four years of Bush, there was a large amount of America going "I don't like Bush, I think America is in a bad place, but no one can tell me why I should vote FOR Kerry."
Now in 2012, we have something similar. There are a lot of first time and independent voters who have gone "Obama disappointed, I think the economy is bad, but don't have a reson to vote FOR Romney."

Now there is a lot of other differences. For one, Kerry had a very good chance of beating Bush back then, now Romney will have to pull a miracle to go aginst the growing trend in most swing states.
The point is right now the GOP as a whole cannot come up with a good reason America can vote FOR Romney, only why they should vote AGINST Obama.

[Dalton]

Republicans have shifted into the Land of Delusion, where all the polls are skewed and wrong and where Romney is actually ahead.

[Patrick Degan]

Republicans have shifted into the Land of Delusion, where all the polls are skewed and wrong and where Romney is actually ahead.

That's the message that they're feeding to their sheep to accomplish one of two aims:

1) to justify a defeat by any margin by laying the foundation for their own doltschluss mythology —since as we all know, elections are "legitimate" only if Republicans win, or

2) to justify a close victory and nullify claims of dirty tricks to cover up for the voter suppression efforts as well as whatever other tactics are being employed to depress turnout.

If it's option 1 that goes into play following a Romney defeat, it serves the overall purpose to taint Obama's legitimacy. If it's option 2, the overall aim of casting doubt on the accuracy of polling data is served, which falls into line with the general GOP war on facts and truth being fought to sever this country and the people from objective reality altogether.

[Lord Falcon]

Can we talk about Romney's stance on abortion for a while? That is also a big issue in this election, especially among women voters. Most women, I've discovered, don't support abortion, just the right to choose. And Romney, from the way it looks, wants to outlaw abortion even in cases of rape. Not surprising, since a few Republicans have admitted they consider rape the same thing as unmarried sex.

[Dominus Atheos]

Can we talk about Romney's stance on abortion for a while?

No one knows. He used to be pro-choice, then in the primaries he claimed to be pro-life, and in the actual election he hasn't said anything.

That is also a big issue in this election, especially among women voters. Most women, I've discovered, don't support abortion, just the right to choose.

What did you think before, that liberals want abortions to happen?

And Romney, from the way it looks, wants to outlaw abortion even in cases of rape.

No he doesn't, where did you get that idea? It's a bunch of other Republicans that want to do that, but there's no indication Romney is among them.

Not surprising, since a few Republicans have admitted they consider rape the same thing as unmarried sex.

Don't strawman your opponents. Have you seen what happens to creationists who come here and assume we must be mad at god or something? They get torn to shreds.

The social conservatives believe that life begins at conception. Whether or not the mother was raped doesn't change that fact, so they have no choice but to believe that exceptions to anti-abortion based on that are wrong. It's one of the few beliefs those nutjobs have that is actually internally logically consistent.

[Dominus Atheos]

And those are the only three policy points that matter.

Yeah, pretty much. The economy, endless wars against emotions, and (I'd just say personal liberties in general) are 3 of the most important issues facing the country right now.

I haven't heard anything from either candidate that would make me think that the actions they would take are any different then the actions their opponents would take.

Here's an action that can be mapped out from previous administrations; Supreme Court nominations. Do we really want to give Romney the possibility of nominating a couple individuals to the Supreme Court, especially if the Republicans also manage to grab the Senate. I have not been terribly thrilled by Obama either, but I simply do not want an even more "severely conservative" Supreme Court either.

Obama seems to actually believe it when he says no litmus tests. Don't be so sure his nominations are going to be reliable. Did you miss it when Sotomayor kept talking about what a strong Catholic she was?...

[FaxModem1]

http://thegrio.com/2012/09/27/samuel-l- ... the-fk-up/

Samuel L. Jackson cusses for Obama campaign: ‘Wake the f**k up!’
by James Braxton Peterson | September 27, 2012 at 11:53 AM
Comments 32
Print

Few things make me as giddy as hearing Samuel Jackson cuss. Yes, he cusses – he doesn’t curse. The acclaimed actor stars in a new Obama ad, modeled after Adam Mansbach’s best-selling faux children’s book, Go the F**k to Sleep. It’s being released online this week and it’s a scream — literally.

Samuel Jackson, with the help of Little Suzie, literally screams ot an all too typical-looking American family in a nearly 4-minute web ad created by the Jewish Council for Education and Research boldly titled: Wake the F**k Up.

If you’ve been asleep for the last couple of years you might have missed the meteoric emergence of Mansbach’s now classic “children’s” book. Its genesis was a Facebook post crafted by Mansbach in frustration with his own daddy duties.

But the genius of the book is its attention to the children’s book form even as it embraces the fantasy of a profane response to the routine challenge of putting our children to bed. Wake the F**k Up takes just enough cues from this winning formula.

It screens like a political ad, but Jackson’s (and ultimately Little Suzie’s) profane interventions just might jolt voters/viewers out of their apathy and their nonplussed malaise – unfortunate results of the political fatigue that the current election cycle has been so adept at producing.

On the heels of the now notorious 47 percent video, this clip’s nursery rhyme narrative clearly constructs the distinctions between President Obama and former Governor Romney on a wide range of issues (health care, the economy, the social safety net, education, etc) – even as Little Suzie and Jackson continue to pull us out of our political slumber.

In an early scene, Jackson abruptly appears in front of the flat screen in the living room and directly addresses Lil Suzie’s parents: “…and he’s against safety nets; if you fall, tough luck./So I strongly suggest that you wake the fuck up.”

The narrative of the ad follows Little Suzie –after she wakes up – through her home, as she rhymes reasons why her parents, her brother, her sister, and her grandparents should wake up. The sleep analogy should not be lost on any of us. A “good” voter turnout for a presidential election is below 50 percent. A candidate can privately dismiss the 47 percent and the 1 percent has collected enough wealth to buy nearly 100 percent of our political system. These are not the times to be disaffected citizens.

In one telling scene, Little Suzie explains the ways in which Romney is anti-civil rights, citing voter suppression, his stance against gay marriage, and his unwillingness to support the Dream Act as critically obvious evidence. Consider the fact that these important constituencies, the LGBT community, the elderly, the young, as well as black and brown communities, do not often consider themselves as a quilted voting bloc, but in the simplest way – through the voice of a child – the centrality of civil rights in this election becomes crystal clear.

If Jackson’s ad enjoys even a tiny fraction of the frenzied viral success and circulation of the children’s book upon which it is craftily based, then voters will be treated to an ad that simultaneously makes all of this season’s political ads seem inferior and forces those of us who have been lulled to sleep in this process to finally wake up.

James Braxton Peterson is the Director of Africana Studies and Associate Professor of English at Lehigh University. He is also the founder of Hip Hop Scholars LLC, an association of hip-hop generation scholars dedicated to researching and developing the cultural and educational potential of hip-hop, urban and youth cultures. You can follow him on Twitter @DrJamesPeterson

The ad in Question:

[Lord Falcon]

Romney said he was for abortion exceptions in cases of rape and incest, a short time later, his campaign people corrected him. What does that say about him?

[Dominus Atheos]

Source?

[Crossroads Inc.]

Republicans have shifted into the Land of Delusion, where all the polls are skewed and wrong and where Romney is actually ahead.

This is very much the case, the GOP is doubling down on their "Delusion Doctrine" basically indoctrinate the base to believing that a Romney victory is totally and utterly certain, and then, when he ultimately losses the election, told that the only possible reason for his lose was massive voter fraud on the part of Democrats.

We saw this to a smaller extent in 2008 with the election of Obama, when the Tea Party first sprang up and went Apeshit.
Part of the reason why cries of "Rampant Voter Fraud" on the right are so prevalent, is because they tell themselves it is the only possible way they could have lost the election.
Following right wing news sights and blogs, you can already see this starting with numerous stories about either A: "All the polls are wrong and Romney is ahead" or B: "If Romney is behind it is because of dirty tricks and fraud by democrats"

[Lord Falcon]

I have a question that may be relevant. How many people here think Romney will either do well in the debate, things will the stay the same, or he will be crushed? I personally think it could go either way, that he could keep things the way they are, but I'm more inclined toward him just losing badly. He can't give very specific answers because he's gone his whole campaign without giving very specific answers. He has to be very careful about what he says, lest he piss off his Tea Party base, and during a run for president, you HAVE to tell people what your plan is. Romney hasn't done that yet, only given vague promises. So, what do you guys think?

[Flagg]

I have a question that may be relevant. How many people here think Romney will either do well in the debate, things will the stay the same, or he will be crushed? I personally think it could go either way, that he could keep things the way they are, but I'm more inclined toward him just losing badly. He can't give very specific answers because he's gone his whole campaign without giving very specific answers. He has to be very careful about what he says, lest he piss off his Tea Party base, and during a run for president, you HAVE to tell people what your plan is. Romney hasn't done that yet, only given vague promises. So, what do you guys think?

I think Romney will do better than most people expect of him in the debates. He seems to do well in structured events like that. Of course all he will be doing is lying through his teeth, but what else do you expect from him?

[Lord Falcon]

Yeah, but if he doesn't give specifics, it will add to this overall image of secrecy that surrounds Romney's plans. People don't want to vote for someone they don't know, and what's out there about him, the rumors and the actual facts, would be worse without him giving specifics. In my opinion, at least.

[Flagg]

He doesn't have specifics to give. That or they are so onerous it would damage him. But the way these debates are set up allows for obfuscation and misdirection like you wouldn't believe.

[Dalton]

Mitt gets easily irritated when pressed. It ought to be an interesting debate; I for one think he's going to get crushed. Biden I'm not as optimistic about.

[Dalton]

Source?

Here you go. Inbetween a bunch of other Romney lies.

[Lord MJ]

Biden handled himself well in the 2008 debates, but considering who he was debating, that doesn't really matter much. Best thing for Biden is to be armed with facts. Paul Ryan may bring the charm, but Biden can still win with facts.

Obama on the other hand has a steeper hill. Romney needs to just appear capable of assuming the president. Obama not only needs to have facts, but some amount of charm and wit in repudiating Romney's arguments and attacks, and find some way to make Romney look like a fool.

[weemadando]

Biden can destroy Ryan should he be "let off the leash" in the debates.

If the Obama campaign is willing to let Biden actually talk like he can and take a verbal hatchet to Ryan (and probably the moderator too) then it could be spectacular.

Of course, the Republicans would somehow say that saying mean words like "can you actually answer a policy question?" means Biden is irresponsible.