Mitt Romney is enjoying a bigger than expected bump in the polls following Wednesday night’s presidential debate. Why? Spite.
In a two-party system, a.k.a. the two-party trap, disgruntled voters are forced to choose between two almost equally unpalatable candidates. Most of all, they hate the incumbent who caused the problems that they are suffering: in this case, unemployment, underemployment, stagnant wages, no hope of a better future.
Until a few months ago, I would have forecast that Obama’s chances for reelection were basically doomed. In fact, I bet an acquaintance a substantial amount of money that that was in fact the case. But then Mitt Romney went on to commit a series of well reported gaffes that we don’t need to go into here. Why is Romney doing better now? People have been looking for an excuse to vote against Obama. When you are flailing between choices, you tend to lash out against the incumbent. That is what we are seeing today.
After the debate, people saw that Romney wasn’t quite as much of an a**hole as he had made himself out to be on the campaign trail. Well, of course he is exactly as much of an a**hole as that, and no doubt much more than that, but he was “nice” enough in to make them feel okay about choosing to vote against Obama – to demonstrate their anger at Obama for choosing to prolong the Depression. So there’s the bump in the polls. Will it stick? I don’t know. But it’s an interesting phenomenon to watch as a dying system gasps its final breaths.
21 Comments.
1) The idea that Obama “caused” the problems you cite is laughably ridiculous on its face. Ditto for the idea that he chose to prolong the Depression.
2) Please cite the polls you mention- all the one’s I’ve seen remain basically unchanged- Obama still has between a 4 and 5 point lead. Yes, Romney’s likeability went up- but that’s not going to translate into votes.
3) Anyone with half a brain knows that Romney was lying through his teeth in the debate(27 lies in 38 minute) making him MORE, not less of an asshole.
4) The ONLY way the system is in danger of dying is if we are dumb enough to give this election to the Republicans. And I guarantee you, if we do and they kill the system like they’ve wanted to for the past 40 years, you will not like the system that will arise in its place.
@Whimsical: “1) The idea that Obama “caused” the problems you cite is laughably ridiculous on its face. Ditto for the idea that he chose to prolong the Depression.”
There has been ample documentation on this point. Now his advisers concede that they didn’t understand that things were That Bad. So they decided to sit back and let the economy recover on its own. Which is why they pushed for a stimulus that was both too small and not a real stimulus–direct payments to citizens–but a corrupt transfer of federal taxmoney to the banks.
“2) Please cite the polls you mention- all the one’s I’ve seen remain basically unchanged- Obama still has between a 4 and 5 point lead. Yes, Romney’s likeability went up- but that’s not going to translate into votes.”
Not my job to do your research. Romney has picked up 3-4 points in swing states.
“3) Anyone with half a brain knows that Romney was lying through his teeth in the debate(27 lies in 38 minute) making him MORE, not less of an asshole.”
Yeah, well, most people who were watching don’t have a half a brain. They don’t know the facts like us geeks who follow the news daily.
“4) The ONLY way the system is in danger of dying is if we are dumb enough to give this election to the Republicans. And I guarantee you, if we do and they kill the system like they’ve wanted to for the past 40 years, you will not like the system that will arise in its place.”
You’re conflating “system” and “party.” The US electoral capitalist system is the same whether a Democrat or a Republican is in charge. Sure, there are differences in policy. The system remains the same until revolution, by definition.
Unchallenged lies are the equivalent of the truth … especially in a presidential debate.
1) “There has been ample documentation on this point.”
Most of what you claim as documentation has been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked, by both me and others. You just choose to ignore the truth.
2) It’s your job to prove your statments, or you leave yourself open to the claim you are spewing fact-free ODS fueled BS. Of course, if you dont mind being labelled as someone who spews fact-free, ODS fueled BS (or if you’re actually spewing fact-free, ODS fueled BS), and is therefore largely ignored, well that’s up to you.
History as shown I do as much research as you, if not more. And I’m very on top of the polls, and I havent seen a single one that has shown substantial gains (4-5% rise) for Romney in anything other than likeability. In fact, most posters who arent shills (yes, Rasmussen I’m looking at you) say we will not see the impact of the debates until next week’s polling. Now, I’m open to being proven wrong on this, but I’m gonna need a lot more than your “Cause I say so” routine .
3) Yes, the American people are stupid. However, they are not, were never, and will never be stupid enough to elect Romney, gaffes non-withstanding.
4) “The system remains the same until revolution, by definition.”
LOL. There are plenty of other ways besides revolution for the system to change. The easiest one being a long term plan to subvert it from within. The right wing has been working on a plan to change America into a fascist theocracy for 40+ years now. If we are dumb enough to give them control of everything in this election, we will see that plan come to fruition.
How much is “a substantial amount of money”? Is this a common practice for journalists to wager on the events they report and/or comment on?
1) I have to agree with Whimsical that Obama didn’t cause the problems. Failure to address a problem is NOT the same as causing it.
4) I am dreadfully afraid that the US is a Constitutional Representative Democracy. It would be nice to believe that a small group of conspirators decide, every two years, who will get to go to Congress, and every four years, who will get to be President. Obviously, they are much more clever than the Middle East despots who win elections with at least 100% of the vote, so most people believe the US elections are real. If only they weren’t. If only it were a tiny group so that a President like Romney would convince large numbers to revolt and overthrow the US system.
But I fear the election numbers are real. Given a true liberal in ’72, most Americans voted against him. Carter, a true anti-war type, slipped in because the Democratic Congress nailed Nixon, and Ford agreed to step in strictly as a caretaker, then reneged and put himself up for a full-term President. Carter made some big mistakes (i.e., listening to Kissinger, and sending a poorly planned and poorly executed rescue mission that died trying to rescue the Iranian hostages), and then we got Reagan. Clinton was to the right of Reagan, Bush, Jr to the right of Clinton, and Obama basically about as far right as Bush, Jr, but less wasteful, killing goatherds with unmanned drones at a fraction of the cost of Bush, Jr’s ground troops. (Note that, when I posted that as an e-comment to a New York Times article, all the other comments agreed that I was a crazy, anti-American traitor, that every single person killed by Obama was an evil, criminal terrorist who would have killed thousands of Americans had we not been kept safe by Obama’s brilliant actions.)
And here is where I think Whimsical is right: if voters had put in Humphrey, the Party Bosses would have seen that a move to the right wasn’t working and would have moved to the left. More to the point, if the voters had put in McGovern and re-elected Carter, things would not have moved as drastically to the right as they did. But the voters preferred Nixon to McGovern, Reagan to Carter, and Bush, Jr to Gore and Kerry. And if all those elections were valid, as I believe they were, then all those who believe in Democracy can just put their head between their legs and weep.
Assuming we have a Democracy, there is absolutely no support for a revolution. Our only options are for Obama to move the US slowly to the right and kill innocent goatherds with drones, or for Romney to move the US drastically to the right and send in the troops.
***
I like to say that Clinton, by signing the laws that made the sub-prime industry possible, made a start at solving the most painful and persistent problem facing every decent citizen in the US, but left the problem unresolved. Bush, Jr with his massive tax-cuts and other deficit spending on items like wars, moved us along, but did not finish the job. Obama has tried, and made some progress, but we’re still not there. Romney has promised, and looks very much like he’ll succeed, in finally solving once and for all that extremely painful and persistent problem.
I mean, of course, the servant problem.
The topiary isn’t going to trim itself.
michaelwme: “But the voters preferred Nixon to McGovern, Reagan to Carter, and Bush, Jr to Gore and Kerry. And if all those elections were valid, as I believe they were. . .”
That last statement is wrong.
It is so perversely wrong that, for a moment, I thought you were trolling. It’s not. . . ignorant. Ignorance would require one to say nothing on the aforementioned elections. It’s so violently, deliberately stupid that finding out that it was deliberately provacative would release the tension the statement itself causes.
Voter fraud is alive and well in the U.S. and have been some time. Spoilage rates enter the double digits for some populations in the U.S., and which populations get the “worst” vote counts is entirely determined by race. Every shred of empirical proof put Gore in the lead, despite propaganda to the contrary, during the 2000 race, and long before that race happened, Palast had already broke the story showing that thousands upon thousands of (usually brown) people were illegally forbidden from voting due to fraudulent charges of criminal activities — where some crimes were recorded to have happened years after the year 2000.
So sell me another.
Around 50% of eligible voters don’t vote, rejecting the system altogether. We have actual, real-world proof that conventional voting doesn’t matter, so that is a perfectly rational choice, given what those non-voters know. How far do you have to push your own head through your nearest convenient orifice before “most people reject our polling system” becomes “our democracy is working?” I gotta ask, when did that happen, anyway? Ultimately, the idea that we’re a democracy is actually nostalgic mythmaking. Since even a schoolchild knows the U.S. wasn’t a democracy upon its founding, anyone claiming that we’re a functional democracy has to invent a magical period where everyone could vote and have their vote counted consistently, a mystical point in time that can never be put down anyplace in particular. No one but a complete ass would pick a time before women got the vote, and voter intimidation and suppression in the Jim Crow era pretty much does that strip of timeline in, and after that you end up with a much more sophisticated combination of party suppression, legalized bribery, and the aforementioned failure to simply count the votes of people who insist on being brown. Those spoilage rates are persistent.
The U.S. is an oligarchy with some popular input. It has never been anything better than that.
“Assuming we have a Democracy –”
When you assume, you make an ass out of just you. Especially if you shove an assumption where empirical evidence belongs.
Whimsical: “2) It’s your job to prove your statments, or you leave yourself open to the claim you are spewing fact-free ODS fueled BS. Of course, if you dont mind being labelled as someone who spews fact-free, ODS fueled BS (or if you’re actually spewing fact-free, ODS fueled BS), and is therefore largely ignored, well that’s up to you.”
Wow, so you’re going to back that aggresive stance up with your own proof that there is a conspiracy of “lefties” that constantly bring down the democrats, right? I mean, you aren’t so ridiculously and pathetically arrogant that you’d accuse Ted of not backing up a statement that you’re to lazy to google, but then refuse to back up what amounts to a politically-motivated smear, right?
@Whimsical: I love seeing you flail and cry and whine now that the fake luster is off “The One”. You sound desperate and pathetic. You spout every lame cliche about why progressives should blindly support Obama, every last lame tactic. You are a complete pseudo-intellectual, your masters degree is from the University of Daily Kos. Just pathetic.
But it is fun now watching you claim Romney lost, that Romney didn’t get bump, and so on. Nothing will tarnish your undying love for “The One”. LOL!! Pathetic.
If Romney wins, losers like Retarded Whimsical will finally be FORCED to look in the mirror when wondering why Obama was defeated. The enablers are the worst cretins of all, they are worse that the most right-wing loony. They have enabled Four Fucking Years of one of the most ineffectual presidents in history, all because he’s “The One” and can do no wrong. People like myself and Ted did every possible to demand accountability, but it was of no use. Complete losers like RW, Bob Cesca, that Balloon Juice asshole, etc … had Obama’s back at every turn. No matter what Fearless Leader did, it was A-Ok with the phony left. And now we may all pay the price.
If the Revolution were to come (it won’t, but IF it did) – the very first people that should be executed are the Whimsicals, the enablers. Line them up on national TV and execute every last fucking one of them. The country can no longer afford them anymore. Progressives are constantly allowing themselves to be undermined by these phony left cretins, and that MUST stop. As you can tell by RW’s inane diatribes, he/she/it is beyond reason (like the teabagging right). That leaves only one option when dealing with them: force.
@ Exkiodexian. You keep saying “RW”. Do you know who Whimsical is? If so, please to divulge same. Thanks.
Oh ok, right, Retarded Whimsical.
My God – Ex comes across as a crazy hate-filled troll – Check out this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av3q7-a-ayc&feature=share
Sorry, I’ve been away. Just got back. Okay:
Leaders lead. They don’t “plan” for their second term, they plan for their first term. It isn’t “leading” to only fight the battles you can win. In fact, that is the opposite of leadership. Yes, by all means, when you have the luxury to do so, aim for the low-hanging fruit. But only in the best possible circumstances will that strategy allow you to win re-election. That doesn’t mean that a leader should only embark on hopeless causes, but at the very least, a leader should give his followers and supporters a sense that something is going on.
Romney’s actions, especially how he kept steamrollering over Jim Lehrer, put across what some people, oh my goodness gwaciousness, thought was a rude manner. It’s the presidency of the United States. You don’t win it with a baton-twirling number in your bikini and high heels. Romney threw two big hunks of red meat to his supporters and the on-the-fencers:
1. Big Daddy’s gonna take good care of y’all, so just lay back and let me take charge now. Which is what a lot of people want in a leader: someone who they will feel comfortable with in charge.
2. Jim “Tool of the Lamestream Media” Lehrer got shoved aside. I’m surprised Romney didn’t smash a folding chair over his head and then put him in a sleeper hold. But don’t you see? That’s what Romney’s supporters want: to see the intellectuals put in their places.
The only people Romney looked bad to were Obama’s supporters. That isn’t a loss for the Romney camp in any way whatsoever.
At this point, unless a fire breaks out at an orphanage across the street from the White House and Obama pisses it out after pulling all the children to safety single-handedly, I think the only hope Obama has is to somehow completely ace the second and third debates. Because if he screws up the next one, very few people will be impressed by his performance either way for the last one.
@Alex, Agreed. Looks like my $250 bet is safe; Romney will likely win.
People were looking for an excuse to vote for Obama. After the debate, they saw one. (Personally, I think he’s a pig, but whatever.)
@Ted and Alex-
BWHAHAHAH! Thanks for the laugh- one lousy night, and you’re back to predicting a Romney win!?! Please. Romney got a minor (1-2%) bump in the polls that is already fading, and if Obama does better next week, will be gone entirely.
Oh, and @Ted- nice (and accurate) Freudian slip. Please post a picture of your face as you hand over the check or $250 cash to whoever the lucky fellow is.
Alex- yes, the American people want to be taken care of (even though theyve been tricked itno voting in such a way that ensures that wont happen). But they want someone who will ACTUALLY take care of them, not feed them BS for nearly an hour and then screw them. Thats why Mitt’s bump was so tiny and is fading fast as more and more pepole find out that Mitt lied through his teeth.
Could’ve/Should’ve Obama closed the deal in the first debate? Sure. He had a sucky night. It happens. And of course, the race was always most likely gonna close up some- being able to spread unlimited $$$ around to sell BS is gonna have that effect.
But in the end, it’s not gonna be enough. And aybody who doesn’t think “There’s something going on” as you put it- is either a) bound and determined to deny Obama credit for his accomplishments for whatever reason (anything from ODS to racism) or b) simply isn’t paying attention.
@rikster-
That’s because that is EXACTLY what he is. Either that, or a paid political operative for the right wing, which is what my money’s on.
@Sekhmet
Given your entire set of responses to my point boiled down to a) strawmen or b) intellectual heavyweight arguments like “Nuh-uh” or “Cause I say so.” ; I’m comfortable standing behind my claims as proven. You certainly did nothing to disprove them.
Whimsical,
First off, I don’t think one evening’s debate gave Romney the victory. My thinking on how Romney was going to win — which I’ve stuck to for months now — is from Obama’s election back in 2008.
He won. He won big amidst a huge swell of support and enthusiasm. And he did practically nothing with it. He was tentative, and he remained tentative. And that’s the saddest thing about it: He could have tried and succeeded, which would have guaranteed him a second term. He could have tried and failed, which also probably would have given him a second term. But he didn’t try. He took tiny little baby steps. And when Romney stood there on that stage and lied his ass off, why, Obama stood there.
And took it.
If Obama fell into a river and started to drown, I imagine he would whisper for help quite forcefully.
@Alex-
And as I’ve known for months now, Obama’s re-election was a virtual certainty the moment Jon Huntsman dropped out of the race, as he was the ONLY Republican that stood any chance of actually beating Obama.
See, electing anyone else in that “clown car of crazy” (to borrow a wonderful phrase) would mean that either a)we had devolved to the point where we were no longer capable of meaningful self-governance or b) that the national mood had gone suicidal. And I knew, and know, that despite Republican’s best efforts on BOTH those fronts that we simply weren’t THERE yet.
You’re also misreading the 2008 election; nearly as badly as you’re mis-characterizing the Obama administration, in fact. Obama was NOT elected on “a huge swell of support and enthusiasm”. He was elected on a huge swell of distaste and disgust for Bush and Republican policies.
And as I’ve been trying to get the left to comprehend since 2008 (so that they can grasp why their expectations were/are so completely and utterly unreasonable), while they had the same net effect, disgust with Bush and Republican policies IS NOT the same thing as support for Obama and progressive policies.
Sadly, they’ve shown the same unwillingness to grasp this concept as they’ve shown about comprehending their failed electoral strategies, but I’ll keep trying. . .
@Whimsical: “disgust with Bush and Republican policies IS NOT the same thing as support for Obama and progressive policies.”
Obama doesn’t espouse progressive policies.
@Ted
“Obama doesn’t espouse progressive policies.”
I’ve never claimed he does; other than in the sense of that if the left doesn’t get its shit together and change the way they approach elections they’ll never get anyone more progressive then Obama elected.
But I’ve had enough arguments with “progressives” who have tried to tell me that Obama’s election in ’08 was a “mandate” for him to implement progressive policies to be justified in beliving that that view is widespread.
The reality, of course, is what I said above- ’08 results were a result of disgust with Bush and Republican policies, and reading anything else into them is a huge mistake. It is this mistake that has, in my opinion, led the expectations of the left to be so completely and utterly unreasonable, and it is these unreasoanble expectations not being met that is the cause of so much self-inflicited dissapointment on the part of the left.
Ironically enough, had the left not given into their dissapointment and enocuraged instead of supressed turnout in the midterms they’dve been closer to that “mandate for progressive policies” then they actually were; not to mention making the last two years far more pleasant then they actually turned out to be.
@Whimsical: “But I’ve had enough arguments with “progressives” who have tried to tell me that Obama’s election in ’08 was a “mandate” for him to implement progressive policies to be justified in beliving that that view is widespread.
The reality, of course, is what I said above- ’08 results were a result of disgust with Bush and Republican policies, and reading anything else into them is a huge mistake.”
I agree with the above.
The point progressives were making is as follows:
The 2000 election wasn’t a mandate for the GOP to push a radical-right agenda either. Hell, Bush didn’t even win the election. But Republicans almost always willfully misinterpret their victories as mandates for radical change. Reagan did it too. So did Newt Gingrich in 1994. What progressives would like to see is Democrats to do the same, if for no other reason but to tip the balance back to where it was 20 or 30 years ago.
@Ted
That’s not going to happen for two reasons.
One, the DNA of the Democratic party is radically different that the Republican party. We simply don’t believe in riding roughshod over the opposition like that. And that’s not going to change.
Two, progressives electoral strategy for the last 40 years or so have cost them any credibility with politicans and, as a result, politicians are running as far away from progressives as fast as they can- as they have ZERO incentive to give progressives what they want.
Luckily, that CAN change. But its going to have to be the left that changes that dynamic, and their going to have to do it by changing their failed strategy of the last 40 years, and developing some patience.
Sadly, I don’t see that happening.