Popehat Official Post-Election Day Reaction Guide

54 Responses

  1. Zack says:

    One thing this election made me realize: Repubs have introspection to do now. Really should've been done after 2008, but 2012 is the real wake-up call. This was an election that, in 2004 and before, would've been an easy win. Romney would've been measuring drapes in September, and the only question would've been how much he would've won by.

    It's not that the Republican coalition has shrunk in the number of groups- just in their importance. Republicans won, very, very handily, the white, non-union blue-collar, white collar, and suit+tie votes.

    Dems won minorities, women, and union workers. Same as most other elections, except this time it was enough to win.

    Republicans like me, I guess, need to ask ourselves the question we should've been asking ourselves for 30 years: What can we do to reach out to african-americans and latinos without violating what we believe are our principles? Essentially the same question the dems had to ask themselves (except regarding different groups) back in 1984, after Reagan's landslide.

    I was going to elaborate on that with my personal suggestions, but that would've made this into a blog post of my own. Short version: I think repubs should embrace urban renewal, immigration reform, and marijuana legalization as forms of outreach to voters that they have previously been ignoring.

  2. Ancel De Lambert says:

    I shalute you, shir! You guysh are the grestest, the total besht. Hehe, that shounds like breasht! Hahahahaha! I'm gonna take a nap. Snnnkkkkkk.

  3. Derrick says:

    I think those are astute questions to ask, Zack. And I agree that those were the right adjustments to make in 2008. That's not what happened, and I'm pretty sure that's not what's going to happen this time either.

    Got a long way to go and a lot of crazy to deal with first.

  4. Typenschild Delete says:

    Zack -are those groups of who dems won and who repubs won based in facts or more a general feeling? Anecdotally, 99% of my acquaintances friends and coworkers voted dem, but none of them fit your 3 dem categories. Maybe that's just a function of living in the PNW

    Will Republicans really ask how to reach out to others without compromising their principals? Maybe they should just admit that perhaps their principals aren't shared by the majority of the country.

  5. wgering says:

    Yay, it's over! Now we can focus on what's really important: the 2016 election!

    Seriously, how do politicians get anything done? The minute they're elected, they start thinking about how to get re-elected. Consecutive terms are the worst.

  6. Orville says:

    I describe myself as conservative Zack, but the cray cray that the Republicans have been showing lately is the elephant in the room that needs to be addressed before I vote GOP again.

  7. G Thompson says:

    Congratulations to America… you elected a politician!

    ;)

  8. John Barleycorn says:

    Where is Toto?

    Here Toto…Here Toto….?

    BTW is it true Toto has a habeas corpus tattoo on is inner upper lip?

    Looks like the POTUS doesn't want another dog according to his acceptance speech, that could trouble. I got the vibe he doesn't even really like dogs. I bet poor Bo would run away if the staff did not keep an eye on him. ;) Heck the challenger did not even acknowledge Bo in his concession speech.

    Anyway, I feel sorry for all you that voted today. It was a mighty fine picnic you missed and the cake was off the hook.

    Don't worry you can always bake a cake next time around. You should seriously think about it.

    Voting will not solve your problems, dream of the day when everyone from sea to shinning see sits down to a picnic on "election" day.

    Now take me to your "leader" rumor has it Toto is being detained.

  9. Chris R. says:

    I am a Libertarian, so I don't agree with either major party whole heartedly. However I can't vote for a candidate who's fiscal policies I agree with, when his social policies are maligned with mine. I put people before cash. This often times precludes me from choosing a GOP candidate when the choices are between either a Dem or Rep.

  10. Fred says:

    Jut a nitpick: It's "than buying", not "then buying".

  11. Gal says:

    I'm just relieved that the Supreme Court will remain sort of split down the middle as far as political leanings go.

  12. Jess says:

    The bad news, Obama got re-elected. The good news, he can't get re-elected again.

    @John Barleycorn. My preferred alcholic beverage is vodka and I also like cake. So recently tried this new stuff – cake flavored vodka. It was terrible.

  13. Zack says:

    @Typen: that's based on what I read pre-election about the demographics, which from what I've heard were essentially exactly what was expected by national polls. A lot of Republicans had questioned a lot of the numbers, believing that the tide had turned from 2008, and the Dem's best groups would not turn out, and republicans would turn out in higher than polled numbers.
    "http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/29/changing_demographics_wont_mean_the_end_of_republican_party_115941.html" for a preliminary source; that's from when Mitt was up, but the percentage in terms of the demographics remained roughly constant until Election day.
    "http://www.sacbee.com/2012/11/06/4966431/2012-election-exit-poll-shows.html" for a visual source.

    Mitt won 59% of white voters, and it wasn't enough to carry him to victory, because of Obama's enormous margin with non-white voters.

    So that's not just blind speculation on my part, it's the facts on the ground. Republicans, in any previous elections, would have won. Changing demographics is why Republicans lost 2012- not a mismatch of values. Republican values are still in-line with what most of the country wants, it's just that the republican party has been ignoring a decent chunk of the electorate with its social policy platform. Once republicans adapt their platforms and their ground-game to the 21st century, republicans will be able to continue getting elected without sacrificing their values.

  14. MathMage says:

    Zack, that would still seem to be dodging the question of WHY Republicans have so little traction with women and non-white voters. After all, perhaps the issue is that Republican values are NOT in line with 'what most of the country wants', and then Republicans WILL have to sacrifice some of their values in order to regain electability.

  15. Zubon says:

    Nate Silver was the most sensible, reality-focused person in this election, aware of both the strengths and limitations of the positions he took. We failed to elect him.

  16. Zack says:

    @MathMage My belief is that Republicans, essentially, are just misrepresenting themselves. They're listening to the older establishment rather than the younger people who represent a more diverse group than the establishment candidates do. And if you look at policy measures, there are plenty of policy measures republicans can take, but that they haven't tried to because they've been too focused on the base. There's plenty of room to pitch the republican tent broader without compromising what it believes in- and most of that merely involves bipartisanship and accepting the facts on the ground that they are unable to change.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/2012-exit-polls/table.html

    Romney won relatively easily among those who said a candidate that "shares my values" is the most important part of their vote, among those who wanted a strong leader, and among those who said they wanted a candidate with a "strong vision of the future". He LOST, massively, among voters who said the most important part was that the candidate "cares about people like me".

    So it's not an issue of values being out of alignment- it's an issue of marketing.

  17. Damon says:

    I logged off a MMORG to see a story about Romney ahead of BOB, became shocked, shocked, then realized it was missing a hell of a lot of states, regained my composure, and went down to the basement and watched "The Fifth Element". Sadly, the bottle of scotch was not opened as I started to fall asleep as Korbin Dallas started kicking ass on Floston Paradise. I woke up this morning to BOB's win with didn't surprise me much….

    Repubs–fail on selecting a dynamic candidate. Jesus, if you can't get a win with this economy, there is no way you can in a recovering one.
    .

  18. Kathryn says:

    @Zack
    I think you are calling "caring about people" a marketing need rather than a value. The GOP will have difficulty marketing itself as a group who cares about people (non white, non rich, non male, anyway) until it actually incorporates some evidence of that care into its platform.

    I think we agree that the GOP social policies are seriously hindering its viability. I don't think that better marketing will fix that, I think that they will have to make some tough decisions about who in the base they are willing to lose.

  19. Zack says:

    @Kathryn: 'caring about people' really is more about marketing; it will involve alterations to the social platform, but that was the whole point behind Obama's media blitz in June/July, was to define Romney as an out-of-touch rich guy. Romney's done a lot to care for his communities- he's been in touch with his workers, in touch with fellow mormon parishoners, he just failed to bring that across in his public persona, speeches, and ads.

    Ironically, in an election that was supposed to be about the economy, focusing purely on the economy hurt romney- people learned about his economic side, but he never really established his personal side like Obama did in 08 and since. He put out adds about his policies and politics, but almost never one talking about himself personally.

    I agree that probably the republican party will need to offend some of the more old-school elements to expand the tent, but there are certain elements (one or two planks) of the party's social platform that really define it, and really can't be changed without alienating virtually all of the conservative base, myself included. But virtually all of the other social policies can be altered, and should be at least re-examined.

  20. the other rob says:

    The people have spoken – the bastards! They said "We want free stuff."

  21. Anonymous says:

    "The people have spoken – the bastards! They said "We want free stuff." "

    Yeah see, this is the point where if you fail to understand your opponents, you will continually fail to defeat them.

    I am a doctor. My mother is a doctor. My father is the chief accountant at a major bank.

    We all vote socialist.

  22. Zack says:

    @Anonymous: To be fair, that means you're all a part of the post-graduate group, which tends to break Democrat in leanings anyway and did so this election again. So although anecdotal evidence is useless in most cases, it's even more useless here, where your anecdotal evidence merely supports existing demographic data.

  23. Anonymous says:

    @Zack: "@Kathryn: 'caring about people' really is more about marketing;"

    Nope. It's a political platform that the republicans don't want anything to do with.

  24. Charles says:

    @Zack

    I'm curious about which parts of the Republicans' social positions you do and don't consider core. Certainly the ones which prevent me from voting from them are very near and dear to the conservative Christian constituency they hold dear.

    That said — a lot of what hurt Romney this cycle was the failure to nail down a set of values and stick with them. He gave off quite a vibe of saying whatever he thought the people in front of him at the moment wanted to hear… which would have turned me off even if it weren't for the social issues in question.

  25. Anonymous says:

    Not only are we post-graduates, we're all in Europe so voting socialist actually causes things to happen :P

    But my point to the other rob was mainly that just because he doesn't understand a political platform other than "I want to maximize my personal gains" doesn't mean it isn't there. It's easy to vilify your enemies, e.g. "Conservatives and Libertarians just want to benefit from an already-unfair social system and they don't even want to pay the taxes necessary to keep it running," but if you mistake your political slogans for actual fact, you're never going to get anywhere.

  26. Daryl Herbert says:

    Remember what happened after 2004: Democrats blamed Bush for everything. They conveniently forgot that his worst mistakes were ones that Democrats had voted for (going to war in Iraq) and said he was shredding the Constitution for things they supported (waterboarding, Gitmo, etc.). The anger and resentment built up until the dam broke in 2008.

    What's coming in 2014/2016? The economy will not improve. Decadent liberals like to pretend that debt and deficits don't matter, but that's just not true. Without a path to reduce the deficit, pay down the debt, and make entitlements affordable, the economy will not improve. Obama won't tackle any of those difficult challenges. When he said he wanted to cut spending? He lied. Net spending cut? Lie. Not raise taxes on people making less than 250k? Lie.

    The economy will not improve. The supposed recovery is not happening, not the way it's been reported. Since the election is over, there is no reason to maintain the illusion that the economy is improving. Voters will see that Republicans were right about re-electing Obama, and that they were lied to about the prospects for recovery.

    There is no more "national debt" or "federal deficit." There is only the Obama debt and the Obama deficit. By the time 2016 comes around, he will have added at least another 4 Trillion, probably 8 Trillion. That means the majority of the national debt will have been added during Obama's presidency. Even if Republicans have some blame for some of the debt, we will forget that. Obama is going to own the national debt. I mean, the Obama debt.

    Democrats have shown they can get their client voters to the polls on election day, even with a bad economy and a poorly-performing President. Can they do it again in four years, when the economy is worse and Obama is a national joke? Republicans have a big job ahead of us: to shit on Obama relentlessly, to spread resentment for him in the general culture, so that the dam of resentment can break in 2016.

    Democrats have an easier job: while Obama and his corrupt cronies steal everything that isn't nailed down, tax everything that is nailed down, give away bailouts and subsidies, and run up the debt, they need to find a way to blame it all on John Boehner. Even while Obama sidesteps Congress, fails to pass a budget, uses czars to make law without Congressional approval, etc. they'll have to pin all of the bad things of the next four years on the House Republicans.

  27. Anonymous says:

    "Republicans have a big job behind of us: to shit on Obama relentlessly, to spread resentment for him in the general culture, so that the dam of resentment could break in 2012."

    Alright, that didn't work.

    What's your plan for the next 4 years? Are you actually going to help fix the country this time around?

  28. DMC-12 says:

    The populace has spoken and their modern day version of "Release Barabbas!" is "Freedom is too damn hard – we want more Snookie, cheap Doritos, Honey Boo Boo and Kim Kardashian's ass!"

    My goal for the foreseeable future is how to enjoy this wonderful country while avoiding the pockets of Bamaphone Republicans along my way. I guess it's like walking through your backyard when you both haven't mowed the grass in a while or cleaned up after your Great Dane.

    PS: And no I never guessed I'd be adding "Bamaphone" to my spell checker. Sigh.

  29. Todd S. says:

    All hail Silver! I'm happy to say I've met him, and he's a really nice guy. Of course, that was during the BP days-maybe fame has gone to his head! (But I hope not.)

    I'm pretty happy that Gary Johnson did well, sad that he didn't do even better, and trying to find a silver lining in that Obama only won a plurality of the popular vote, not a majority (that last part could change when all the votes are finalized).

  30. Patrick H says:

    I think Romney was just a poor candidate. He had no central "shtick" other than flip flopping on everything. He had nothing that would motivate general or low information voters to come out and vote. One of CNN's exit polls said that 63% of voters do NOT want to raise taxes, yet they STILL voted majority for Obama. What does that tell you?

    The GOP needs a candidate with a personality- something the Dems are good at getting (Clinton, Obama).

  31. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Zach: I'd like the Republican party to practice what it preaches on the size of government and balanced budget issues, but the only Republican president that actually reduced the debt in my lifetime was named William Jefferson Clinton.

    But that doesn't matter, since almost nobody seems to actually keep track of such things when voting and the democrats are (excepting only Clinton) no better.

    Likewise, I'd greatly appreciate it if the Republican party could acknowledge reality and drop its anti-science stance, because reality, when ignored for too long, has a tendency to bitch-slap all of us hard. But again, people don't seem to vote on this.

    So, since your question was on how to win, here is how to win.

    To reach out to minorities, what is needed is the Republican party must stop stop pandering to the bigots. Between the voter suppression attempts [1], republican immigration laws, "defense" of marriage, general hippie punching [2], etc, its clear that the Republican party is the party that panders to the bigots.

    And this is the one big difference between the parties.

    Such a strategy worked in the days of Nixon, when the demographics were far more favorable, and they could code things more covertly.

    But these days, the percentage of bigots is way down and the communication is now uncoded: those who you don't want to hear the dog whistles hear the dog whistles. E.g. "Family Values" was supposed to be heard only by those who hate gays. But the gays hear it now, and as a result vote Democratic. "Immigration Reform" from a Republican usually means "You LOOK illegal, show me your papers", and the hispanics hear it and as a result vote Democratic.

    You can only pander to the bigots when:
    a) The bigots are a suitably large fraction of the population
    b) The victims of the bigots are suitably small and/or don't detect your pandering.

    Neither is the case anymore.

    And its not like guys like this won't continue to vote Republican if the bigotry goes from the party as a whole. So why pander to them?

    [1] Its well admitted when nobody is supposed to be listening that the republican lead "Votor ID" laws are about suppressing minority votes. E.g. the one passed in Pennsylvania was supposed to ensure that Romney would win.

    [2] Now I'm all for a little hippie punching, but I prefer to let reality land the bitch-slaps.

  32. Gal says:

    Looks like some people didn't bother reading the guide.

  33. Daryl Herbert says:

    I did read the guide. I disagree with the suggestion not to be an asshole.

    Democrats got away with suggesting that Bush had advance knowledge of 9/11, and let it happen anyway. That he went into Iraq for oil profits. That he lied about WMD (as opposed to intelligence agencies being mistaken). I'm not talking about random anonymous idiots on DKos. I mean John Kerry said that about Bush.

    Mitt Romney's sharpest barb against Obama is that he's a well-meaning nice guy who isn't "getting the job done" and four more years would mean a weak economy. His surrogates weren't much more vicious. The gloves must come off. Which is not to say that I want to see any racist attacks against Obama.

    I can't police my side and stop idiots (or impostors) from making racist attacks, but I know the vast majority of Republicans don't have patience for that any more than they have patience for Todd Akin's stupid comments.

  34. corporal lint says:

    One of my favorite things about Nate is that he talked a couple of times about how he got all 50 states right in large part due to luck. A couple of late polls moved Florida from something like a 49.8% chance for Obama to something like a 50.2% chance. A 0.4% swing is mostly statistical noise, but because it crossed the magic 50% boundary it made Nate a genius. He acknowledged this, which is a testimony to his humility and and another demonstration of his understanding of statistics and their meaning. Also, he's shown that accurately projecting elections is a lot easier than accurately projecting baseball players.

    On the election, if Republicans only take simple messages away from this ("people like free stuff", personality wins elections, all they need to do is shit on Obama) they're going to get murdered in 2016. These reactions remind me of the Democrats in 2000 rather than in 2004. The message the Democrats took from 2000 was something like: Bush is an idiot, Diebold, Karl Rove, vote suppression, racism. That was simplistic and stupid and the result was John Kerry and a loss in an election that a competent party would have won. The Republicans likewise didn't react competently (at least at the level of the Presidential race) to 2008 and so lost an election that they really, really should have won. If they do it again in 2016 they'll get mauled, especially as long-term demographic trends make their current program look less and less like a winner.

    @Daryl, do you really think that only Democrats have been saying mean things over the last 4-8 years? That's certainly not my experience.

    Finally, if 2016 is Hilary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush then I'm moving to Canada, because the USA will have demonstrated that we are one enormous drama queen.

  35. Zack says:

    @Nicholas Weaver: It'd take too long for me to respond to all your points with data, so suffice it to say that I disagree with you about the motivations behind republican policies.

    I believe that, many times, a cigar can be just a cigar- and that the voter ID laws, and immigration reform efforts really are about upholding and enforcing the law, which is a concept I agree with, but believe in this case that they can go about more effectively.

    I disagree with the idea that republicans are anti-science, but would agree that all politicians are science illiterate (in essence, misunderstand science significantly), and this illiteracy might be higher on the republican side than the democratic. However, I believe that the younger generation of republicans has a scientific literacy on par with the democrats, and this election will greatly reduce the power of the older, scientifically-illiterate establishment, and if not, then time will do the job.

    Again: I think Republicans could return to their federalist roots on the "marriage" issue by doing an end-run around the democrats, and make everyone happy by removing the word "marriage" from federal and state governments altogether. Acknowledge "domestic partnerships" instead, have them function like business partnerships with terms of initiation, continuation, and severance, with provisions for division of fault in case of misconduct by one party (i.e., cheating), with a standard form created for the contract to streamline the process. This also avoids problems down the line when poly-amory gets involved, and allows for 'chains' of these contracts to be established, essentially making it a general solution to the whole 'domestic living arrangements' equation.

    Speaking as a Christian, the only issue I have with gay marriage right now is the word itself and potential issues with conflicts of conscience; call it anything else, and don't force pastors to sign papers if they don't agree with the couple's relationship, and I'm fine with it. The word 'marriage' is a religious word, and really doesn't belong to the government at all.

    I think, in the end, that that's most republican's problem with it as well. Again: I believe that when they say "family values", they really do mean "what they believe a family ought to be", they really do mean 'family values'.

    I'd say don't attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by a lack of understanding. It's the same policy I try to keep in mind when evaluating Democratic prejudices and failings.

  36. Brian says:

    Voted Gary Johnson…was drunk…still drunk…in class.
    Wooooo democracy!

  37. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Zach: What I mentioned about Reality tending to give bitchslaps? Look at reality.

    Voter ID laws are admitted by Republican leaders in unguarded moments to be about suppressing likely Democratic voters. The number of cases of voter impersonation fraud is minuscule, and when it happens, its prosecuted soundly. For every fraudulent vote stopped by a Voter ID requirement, it would stop hundreds of thousands of legitimate voters. This is by design.

    White guys in Arizona wouldn't need to prove that its legal for them to be there, even though they could be illegal immigrants from New Zealand. Only Hispanics get the "Papers Please" immigration treatment. This is by design.

    And "Marriage" has legal protections not present in domestic partnerships. Domestic partners, gay or straight, don't get the federal tax benefits. Federal law is quite clear in the republican lead "Defense of Marrage" movement: domestic parters do not count: You're married or not. This is by design.

    Domestic partners don't necessarily get the other rights either, such as inheritance without a will, the right to make health decisions if the other is indisposed, the rights in divorce, etc. There is actually a cottage industry of laywers who draw up contracts for gay couples so that they can at least hope to have such rights by contract law, rights that a married couple takes for granted.

    The Republican party has made it quite clear that they know what they are doing here. They are pandering to the bigots and the small minded. It isn't a lack of understanding, but a deliberate strategy. [1]

    As for anti-science? All you have to do is look at the common Republican views on "Teaching the controversy" and the views on global climate change [2], and its clear that the Republican leadership seems intent on rejecting reality.

    By nature, I'm an Eisenhower/Clinton/(Goldwater without the racism) Republican. But the current Republican party I can't vote for, because the leadership has made clear its the party of ignorance, and at the same time proving no better (and sometimes way worse) than the Democrats on fiscal issues.

    So I will either protest vote (my presidential choice was "NONE OF THE ABOVE"), or hold back my vomit and vote for the Democrat.

    [1] Of course, ignorant bigotry is still bigotry.

    [2] Even if global climate change is low priority, a large carbon tax is a really good idea: pay down some of our monster debt. And its easy to get a lower bound on the externalities on carbon even in the absence of global warming: we've spent over a trillion dollars in that @#&)@#(*)( pit of the Middle East, money we wouldn't have spent if we didn't have a need for oil. The Iraq war was not solely about oil. But our care for the region as a whole is.

  38. Dave says:

    I really do wish, speaking as a libertarian, that the republicans would get their shit together. The reason being, I believe is that if they act like this in 2016 the result would be the same.

    Even though when it comes down to it, and I really do not support either party, the country needs more than one party in power. Take a look at politics here in Maryland, or South Carolina, as an example. Also as much as I would hope for a strong third party to happen, with the electoral system shaped the way it is I do not foresee it happening in my lifetime.

    I do think Zack is right about one thing though. Younger Republicans need to tell the older establishment "Thanks for your service, here's your gold watch, and there's the door." This is ancedotal on my part, but the younger republicans I've talked to seem to get it. Let's hope that the establishment listens to them.

  39. Todd S. says:

    Since there is baseball and politics on this thread, here's a post from a baseball writer about why he doesn't vote GOP anymore. (Warning: long.)

    http://www.ranyontheroyals.com/2012/11/the-gop-and-me.html

  40. John Barleycorn says:

    @Jess

    Jess as far as vodka and voting goes it gets infinitially worse.

    http://www.halfassedproductions.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/loopy.jpg

    Sadly things do seem to be trending towards "infused" substitutes to replace reality. Sort of like all the twisted reasoning voting folks use to explain things to themselves and others.

    However, on the bright side, a fruit loop inspired vodka just as your expermentation with cake flavored vodka does trend well for a cross section of demographics and chances are very good that all the last three POTUS' daughters probabaly have and or will
    get past 1.75 BAC wasted on a flavored vodka concotion at some time before they actually run for public office themselves. Don't ask me why this is a good thing but it is.

    So I hope your expermentations with the upward trending, some would argue absurd, desire of distillers to outdo themselves with flavored vodka ideas over the last twenty years has taught you a lesson Jess.

    You see there is nothing wrong with getting a little dirty on your Election Day picnic. So just rember voting is not reality nor is a second cut "infused" vodka.

    So next time Jess, go all the way on your picnic. Get dirty. Just dont forget to bring plenty of ice to chill the glass wear, just the right olives, brine in proportion to your dirty desires and palet requirements, and whatever you don't forget shaking is for leprechauns, homosapians should stirr at least twenty times and if you like it extra dirty a few more times to reach blissful incorporation. If you happen to forget your strainer don't panic just get creative.

    Oh yeah, least I forget, if you like it dry let me know as not all vermouth has the spine to abstane from the polls either.

    Well, it sure does seem like a lot of voting is going on around here which is most unfortuniate. However, I hope all have learned that nothing can replace the real deal when it comes to peace, freedom, or cake even if it involves vodka.

    Have a pleasant day even if you infuse reality or drink gin.

    And don't forget there is a picnic out there just waiting for you. So, next time you are contemplating that voting thing don't device yourself with civic duty delusions or other such nonsense because wheather you want to accept it or not there are thousands of picnics with cake going on out there.

  41. Pierce Nichols says:

    What the GOP needs to do is run the culture warriors, race-baiters, and science-deniers out of the party. They recovered from the Goldwater thrashing precisely because they sent the Birchers packing; time for some more house cleaning.

  42. Jess says:

    As a Texan I think we should entertain plan B – secede.

    @John B – one should never ruin a good dirty martini with vermouth.

  43. corporal lint says:

    @John B – one should never ruin a good dirty martini with vermouth.

    This is so wrong. A martini without vermouth is like a BLT without tomato or like a peanut butter & jelly sandwich without jelly. It's like Crosby, Stills, & Nash without Graham Nash. You might like it better that way, but it ain't the thing that you're calling it.

  44. Kevin Malone says:

    Just watched the election to see the look on everyone's face when Ohio quickly goes to Obama, as I knew since the summer and as Nate Silver has been saying would happen for months. Also, liked switching between Democracy Now with its sober discussion and CNN with its super-excited fast-paced horse-race the fate of the world hangs in the balance coverage of an election that was already in the bag for the incumbent.

    Voted Green. Because I am insane. Also because I vote for who I agree with, not the lesser evil.

  45. AlphaCentauri says:

    The Republicans lose because they have primaries. The most electable candidates in November can't win the Republican primaries. And they're digging themselves a deeper hole by pandering to the crazies, causing more moderate voters to register Independent or Democrat. The Republican Party used to the the party of fiscal responsibility, but they have become the party of doing lip service to it while spending billions by putting an entire war "off budget." How can anyone who cares about fiscal responsibility take them seriously?

    And complaints about "big government" hampering business, while trying to pass unenforceable laws about abortion and homosexuality? No matter what your ethical views are, it's idiotic to waste political capital repealing Roe v. Wade when it became a moot point once home pregnancy tests became available and internet pharmacies started selling methotrexate.

    As far a making gains with minority voters — that's not going to happen as long as Karl Rove is their model for effective campaign strategists. The more they try to suppress minority turnout, the more minorities are coming to value their voting rights. Voter ID will come back and bite them in the ass, because when it's harder to get a real ID than a fake one, when voters have to seek help from "community organizers" to get the paperwork they need (like copies of birth certificates and marriage certificates) as well as to get rides to the DMV photo ID centers, they're just helping the Democrats organize their base.

    BTW, the argument about it curbing fraud is flaming bullshit. Almost no one commits voter fraud one at a time, in person, when people are walking in and out of the polling place. It's risky and inefficient. Large scale ballot stuffing is done behind the scenes by election personnel using the identities of people who haven't voted — voting for dead people is the classic case, but if large numbers of voters fail to show up because they don't have photo IDs, it makes it EASIER to commit voter fraud on a large scale.

  46. John Barleycorn says:

    @ Corporal Lint & Jess

    Let’s not vote on it, shall we?

    I do think you both have very valid points though
    It does seem as though the extra dry vodka martini is now served from coast to coast and most points in-between without vermouth. However, I think Corporal Lint makes a very refreshing point about what’s in a name. I get the feeling Corporal Lint may indeed also know the difference between a Rob Roy and a Manhattan. Not saying Jess does not. Mind you, I learned long ago never to underestimate a Texan who likes vodka especially one who still drinks vodka.

    Like I said, “…if you like it dry let me know as not all vermouth has the spine to abstain from the polls either”.

    That being said even in Texas I think Jess should be able to find just the right vermouth that when added and adjusted by the drop may very well not only add a new twist to her dry martini and Texas but may also immeasurably enhance her next picnic that is if she choose to actually go on an election day picnic at some point in the future.

    One final point, if I may, do not let the shakers distract you as they are simply convinced that one has a choice which must be exercise and are known to become nearly irate if you simply flow right into the stir but trust me where vodka is concerned the only true path to the perfect Zen Chill is the proper stir.

    Here is a cartoon from Mr. Fish for all of you on the reservation voters that should convince you to do as I do and not vote at all or at least convince you to have a drink this afternoon.

    http://www.clowncrack.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/TheSmellabration.jpg

    For all you off the reservation voters all I can say is think about it over a drink next time before you actually do it. There is a picnic guarded by white rabbits out there waiting for you.

  47. AlphaCentauri says:

    @John Barleycorn — if not voting is how you express your opinion, go for it. But don't criticize those who do. If everyone did as you do, what would the result be?

    The US has had a peaceful transfer of power over and over for over 200 years. That's unprecedented in history. The fact that the system is far from perfect isn't a reason to abandon all attempts to reform it.

    There are Teaparty candidates in office. A lot of us aren't happy about that. But they are expressing the will of those who voted them in, not those who stayed home.

  48. Anonymous says:

    "The US has had a peaceful transfer of power over and over for over 200 years."

    . . . uhm

  49. Anonymous says:

    Ach, some of that was cut off.

    The bit I was objecting to was the "Unprecedented" bit.

  50. David says:

    If there was an election between proper FPS gaming and the godless hordes who think it's acceptable to use analog sticks to aim, I would have been way more engaged in voting this year.

  51. Derrick says:

    It's easier to circle strafe!

  52. James Pollock says:

    "As a Texan I think we should entertain plan B – secede."

    Speaking as an American, I ALSO suspect that it would improve America if Texas left (based solely on too many people who are Texans first, Americans second). Of course, the border fence would need to be longer. I wonder if we'd keep our military bases? Or would it be more like the Middle East and Central America… places we invade to keep the resources flowing our way.

  53. AlphaCentauri says:

    @Anonymous — Athenian democracy was discontinuous, didn't last much more than 200 years, and was on a microscopic scale compared to the US. The American Bar Association has ten times as many voting members as Athens did.

  54. M. says:

    I love Texas in principle, but I don't like living here or the politics. Go ahead and secede. It'll breathe new life into my ploy to get refugee status in some other country. Although they'll probably just look at my political history and deport me to either San Francisco or Boston.