Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Face it


"Even if I am being conservative, I don’t see how Obama can lose." --Allan Lichtman

* * *

Graphic "amalgamation" by dunun via a good citizen.

* * *

40 comments:

Bill said...

Here's one way

Bill said...

Lichtman is wrong on 5, 7, 8, and 10.

Anonymous said...

Maybe we should just offer Barack 1 million dollars to drop out so he won't make us lefties look like idiots.

RJ

VideoDude said...

If the Teapublicans would run a real candidate instead of a Flip-Flopper and a crook, then they might have a chance.

Obama/Biden 2012.

Anonymous said...

Ron Paul is about to get his 15 minutes and there's alot to like about libertarianism regarding military interventions and social issues but watch how fast the evangelicals and the hawks crush him.

RJ

Kirk said...

Word of caution: Lichtman has only been right with regard to the popular vote, not the Electoral College. Thus, he predicted Al Gore would win in 2000. Yes, you can blame that on the Supreme Court, but it shows that it's not just who gets more votes, but HOW MANY more votes. Obama supporters should hope for a big enough margin of victory so nothing like that happens again.

Having said that, as someone willing to fogive Obama all his sins and trespasses whenever I watch, or even read a tweet describing, a Republican debate, I'm happily surprised.

Joe said...

Really, can we let the Al Gore thing go?

There have been approximately 12 "recounts" done after the fact in Florida by the media and interested parties. Even if the hanging chads are counted, Gore still loses Florida.

American Presidential elections are not conducted by popular vote, but through the Electoral College. The Founders chose that method for a reason. You can learn why by reading the Federalist Papers.

Gore was not the first candidate to win the popular vote, but fail to garner the Presidency.

Anonymous said...

"Really, can we let the Al Gore thing go?"-Joe

Answer: No. -RJ


Question:
Out of those elections in which a Presidential Candidate won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote either prima facie or through selection in the House of Representatives how many of them were decided after the U.S. Supreme Court intervened and said "If we spend anymore time counting these ballots we're going to disrupt the business of the people, ergo we're calling time and declaring Mr. Bush the winner EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE STILL DISPUTED BALLOTS?"

Of course it is only a trivial footnote that the Governor of the State of Florida was the candidates BROTHER and his state Campaign Manager was Florida Secretary of State, the person responsible FOR CERTIFYING THE ELECTION.

RJ

Joe said...

Read the Court Decision -- they said tha tif a recount was to be done -- it had to be in all precincts, not just Democratic leaning ones. More importantly -- no matter how many times the ballots were counted -- by independent parties (after the fact) using whatever criteria they chose -- GORE STILL LOST THE RECOUNT -- thus Florida, thus the electoral college.

I guess you have the same outrage over voter fraud found in the Kennedy election of 1960? Democrat Governor/Sec State certified clearly fictitious votes...

Perhaps you are also outraged by the falsified petitions that put Obama on the ballot in Indiana for the last election?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Erin O'Brien said...

Previously deleted comment as edited by blog administrator. Changes shown in italics:


I have read the Decision esteemed fellow reader of this blog. The Supreme Court halted the recount because it couldn't be completed in by the "safe harbor" date that would get the Florida slate of electors to particpate in the Electoral College. Now it is true there was a co-ocurring 14th amendment issue in which if a STATEWIDE recount was ordered(which is not what was happening at the time)a standard methodology would have to be devised to guarantee Equal Protection.

I'm outraged over ANY voter fraud. You only now bring up '68 and 2008 to give yourself some sort of perceived advantage. However, since you think this is a valid tactic perhaps you should refer to "Everything the New York Times Thinks About the Florida Recount Is Wrong! Slate 11/13/2001 which blows your claim of "Every recount shows Bush a winner" right out of the water.

And just for shits and giggles in the snarky department perhaps you would like to stipulate that the idea that ACORN was guilty of Voter Fraud or that New Black Panthers participated in Voter Intimidation was a contrived piece of horse hockey. As well as the current internet meme that OWS et al is just a warm-up for OccupyThePollingPlace movement in 2012 that will throw the election to Elmo, The Communist Muppet.

RJ

Anonymous said...

Head meet Wall.

Have A Nice Day.

RJ

Joe said...

Frankly, I am still really pissed about the way Florida screwed Samuel Tilden and my man Thomas Hendricks.

I have not forgotten nor forgiven.

Thomas Hendricks was THE man.

Anonymous said...

Can I get a group hug?

James Old Guy

alphadog said...

RJ,
In retrospect, please tell me what difference it would have made had Al Gore ascended to the big house?
In case you missed earlier breaking news, the Chosen One just fucked the citizens of this country mightily when he, "abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law that allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay"
You may ask "So what, I'm not a terrorist" but I know you're smarter than that.
What I'd like to know is when are people going to wake up to to fact that the two teams that are playing this game are not worthy of our support.

WV: pupples-
my hounds are treated as...

Erin O'Brien said...

In retrospect, please tell me what difference it would have made had Al Gore ascended to the big house?

I don't believe Gore would have sent us into war with Iraq. After that, who knows?

You can muddle the two parties all you want, but Iraq was Bush and Cheney's legacy.

Sorry, alph, no point for you in my book.

alphadog said...

And who gets the point for Afghanistan Erin?
Not to mention my main point which is the further erosion of our rights as American citizens at the whim of our government.

Ah ferchrissake. Another wavy six syllable WV, how do you do it Erin?

Erin O'Brien said...

You tell me, alph. The Afghan war started in 2001 and I'm plenty unhappy about it. I do think that if we hadn't been pouring all our resources into Iraq, we might have been out of Afghanistan my now.

As for the indefinite detention mess, I'm disgusted with it. But most Americans don't seem to care much about their rights as long as the erosion of freedom "keeps us safe." Welcome to the fruition of fear mongering.

At least Obama thought about a veto. I wish to hell he had the stones to follow through with it and stand up to the righties. Maybe he will during his next term.

Joe said...

Hell not all righties want that damn horrible law. i want him to veto it too.

Erin O'Brien said...

Well then, I stand corrected. Good on ya, Joe.

Anonymous said...

Alph @ 3:46. My post was not an endorsement of Gore. It was a response to the idea that all the mystery about FLA 2000 had been resolved. I don't expect to ever know but there are questions that remain.
Ironically as I was writing those posts I was thinking to myself "Wonder why the right is so zealous about this issue, they're getting a 3rd term of Bush right now."
In re: the legislation coming out of DC today. I think if you were to check my archive at this blog you'd find I abandoned the Obama ship along time ago. I think he's abandoned the middle class AND continued the erosion of civil liberties begun after 9/11. I'm pretty sure I'm on record here with those points of view.

RJ

Anonymous said...

Just to jump in briefly, no one has mentioned two issues from Florida 2000 which are/were germane: The butterfly ballot in Palm Beach county, ie "Jews for Buchanan", and the purge of the voter rolls which disqualified many many eligible voters.
In any event, the Supreme Court should never have granted cert in Bush v Gore. It seems the right's solicitude for state's rights is mightily selective.
MR

Anonymous said...

"At least Obama thought about a veto. I wish to hell he had the stones to follow through with it and stand up to the righties. Maybe he will during his next term."-EOB

12/15/11 4:38 PM

The best Republican Candidate in the coming election is Barack OBama. He is a Rockefeller Republican. That position can actually be defended with data as opposed to the meme of "Socialist Community Organizer." When I allow myself to drift into Wonderland I allow myself to imagine a great Capitalist Conspiracy in which the GOP fields a weak field of candidates to oppose BHO because if he's reelected they get to have it both ways-a candidate that gives them everything they want while at the same time giving them a poster boy for their anti-Socialist rants. The best of both worlds.

RJ

Oh yeah-Bradley Manning goes to court today. Interesting timing on the indefinite detention legislation. He's been held and tortured for 18 months now.

Anonymous said...

Trying to get finished("That's what she said")
In Re: Alphs question about Gore in the White House. Pure speculation of course but after 9/11 it was the neocons that had been wanting to go to war in Iraq for years that saw an opening. They may have encountered more resistance with a Dem in the WH.

RJ

Bill said...

Or, you could discuss current issues

Anonymous said...

If we stipulate Eric Holder is a cold blooded killer can we put Henry Kissinger on trial in memory of Christopher Hitchens? My suspicion is this is, as Clarence Thomas would say, "A High Tech Lynching."

RJ

Anonymous said...

Oh yeah(sorry readers, age and decrepity showing) If we convict Holder and Kissinger can we then go after Rev. Moon, the publisher of "The Washington Times", for his abuse of Asian women?

RJ

Bill said...

Or....you could look at the merits of the case against Holder.

Anonymous said...

"Bad Moon Rising: How Reverend Moon Created the Washington Times, Seduced the Religious Right, and Built an American Kingdom"

John Gorenfeld (Author)

A bit dated but a good read when I read it several years ago.

You could probably add tax evasion, extortion, false imprisonment, kidnapping, etc to the allegations we could take to trial if the "Chosen One" ever decended from heaven and his conversations with the saints and the founding fathers into a locale with the proper jurisdiction.

RJ

Anonymous said...

"Or....you could look at the merits of the case against Holder."-Bill

12/16/11 12:42 PM

Bill what I'm trying to do here is cut to the chase. You know as well as I do I don't have access to all the evidence to determine the merits of a case for impeachment against THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. But (and it's a big but, no pun intended) if it is determined he is guilty of all the allegations which the article lists -and here's where I'm trying to take the discussion-would you be willing, if you had the power, to have his culpability be extended to a legal precedent that ANY U.S. Gov't Operative attempting to conduct clandestine operations with lethal weapons be held accountable for "unintended" consequences of said weapons? I mean I appreciate your quest for justice but my sense of it is that if the principles generating the outrage over "Fast and Furious" were generalized to ALL U.S. Gov't Operations there would be a docket longer than the Book of Life on the impeachment tribunals schedule and that the very persons creating the hue and cry for Holder's head would be equally as passionate that such a policy was hamstringing the Gov. in pursuing enemies of the state. If I am right-and I think I'm more right than wrong-the call for Holder's head is nothing more than U.S. Political Theatre as usual.

Cliff Notes: meh.

RJ

Erin O'Brien said...

Very very nice, RJ.

I suppose I should be spending time trying to untangle the Fast and Furious mess, but frankly, I'm so out of my mind over the indefinite detention atrocity I can't handle anything else.

Is this really happening? Really?

Bill said...

Holder is a political hack. He's proven it over and over again. He should be fired. It's a good place to start. It's a waste of time to try to impeach him. He'll be gone in a year anyway. Why should we have an incompetent AG?

Anonymous said...

I agree Bill. Furthermore I think you and I should form a Bipartisan 501(3c) called "Terminate all Incompetent Political Hacks Appointed by The Chief Executive Following Every Election Cycle Just Because We Said So."
I think Mr. Soros and the Koch Brothers already have their checkbooks out.
(Insert perjoratives here that EOB would not reference as "Nice")

I Love You Bill.

RJ

Bill said...

I just knew the consescension was on it's way. But, Holder should be fired and I wish his boss had to balls to do it.

Bill said...

huh. I just read that. How about "condescension" and "its"

Anonymous said...

@RJ-Sorry, it's been a while-I've been tied up in the fact-based community. Fill me in, if you would please: aside from the on-going 'Fast and Furious'investigation, what are the OTHER alleged high crimes and misdemeanors of which Attorney General Holder is accused?

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but 'Fast and Furious' devolves around a failed sting operation in which some hundreds of weapons were allowed through poor planning and miscalculation to fall into the wrong hands. A federal agent was among the victims of one of the weapons.

Every time I hear it mentioned, it reminds me of another incidence in which not hundreds, but hundreds of thousands of weapons were allowed to fall into improper hands, not by accident or poor planning but as a result of deliberate policy. As a direct result of this policy decision, THOUSANDS of representatives of the federal government were killed. Do you remember the incident I'm thinking of? I think the victims worked for the Defense Department. I just don't think the level of outrage about this previous incident arose to a proportionate level of outrage among certain elements of the populace.
Anyway, if you can, help a brother out?
MR
wv: 'nuectu'-sorry, U bombed Pearl Harbor so we nuect U...

Anonymous said...

@Erin @3:54-Senate Democrats were quite complicit in this. The Senate debate was measured in minutes, not hours. It was a comedy.

I personally am of the opinion that Mr Obama should invalidate the detention provision of the Defense authorization act via the use of the Presidential signing statement of which Mr Bush was so fond. But the Republicans in the Congress are immune to shame or to a sense of hypocrisy, and so I doubt the President would attempt such a course.

Ordinarily, I would be more sanguine about this, because the Congress and the Executive haven't the authority to eviscerate the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments. But the current Supreme Court allows no such confidence.
MR

Anonymous said...

@RJ on 12/15-In addition to Mr Bush's brother's position, and the role of Katherine Harris, the spouse of a Justice of the Supreme Court was chairperson of Mr Bush's transition team.
Any guesses who?
MR

Anonymous said...

Forgive me sir but as I've mentioned previously my age and decrepitude are showing.

In re: the AG. I would refer you to The Moonie Times article for a complete listing of Mr. Holders Transgressions.

Second. Your clue sounds suspiciously like EYERAQ or one 'em STANS.

Third. I believe the spouse in question was witness to a "high tech lynching" over an alleged "long dong."

Peace.

RJ

Al The Retired Army Guy said...

@ RJ:

"Oh yeah-Bradley Manning goes to court today. Interesting timing on the indefinite detention legislation. He's been held and tortured for 18 months now."

Tortured? Horseshit. You are wrong. While he's been held at various locations (which Amnesty International protested, of course - I guess no one should be held for anything according to them), he's currently being held at Fort Leavenworth, KS. I've been there. I've also visited the the facilities, and know people who've served there as guards/staff. He's not being tortured, unless your definition of tortured is being subjected to the food (which is good by Army standards).

We will see what happens to him via his courts martial. Saying that he's being "tortured" is disingenuous in the extreme, if my experience is any measure.

Al
TRAG

P.S. No, not political. I'm commenting on someone who said he was being "tortured." Has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with how an individual is being treated in military protective custody.