We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Monday, November 5. 2012
As expected, both sides are already drawing up battle plans in the event of a loss. From what I've seen, most on the Republican side are being fairly pragmatic about it. Basically, "Well, we just didn't get enough votes, dang it — better luck next time." The Dems, however, are already testing out a panorama of excuses. There's a good article on it here.
The closer the race has gotten, the more we've heard the phrase "too close to call" come out of the media.
In the 2000 election, Al Gore won the popular vote but George Bush won the electoral vote and the office. Afterward, there was a plethora of articles arguing that the Electoral College should be scrapped. There was also a bunch in 2004 and we saw a small flurry of them this time around.
The irony is that it's the close elections that argue against their case. Only in an election controlled by electoral votes would we see such minor states (no offense) as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Minnesota making headlines:
Which isn't to say there isn't some controversy brewing:
If the election was based on the popular vote, we'd be hearing nothing but who currently has the lead in California, Texas, Florida and New York. If a member of the media was reminded that people in Michigan also vote, his initial response might be, Why would they bother?
Despite our best efforts to prevent it, apparently my political posts here have achieved recognition on a national level.
And act, it did. And there was a lot more to it than just taking back the House and squelching the 'supermajority' in the Senate:
Well, those of you reading my political posts since that day know well that I've never let the Tea Party spirit slip far from the discussion. I mentioned it a few times during the primaries, and then a few weeks ago:
And this cherished sense of security has lasted right up until just recently, when suddenly little articles like this started popping up. Despite our best efforts to keep this site private so that only the Maggie's Valued Readers™ can revel in these secret delights, it appears the cat's out of the bag:
And catch the key phrase here:
Yeah, well, when the only one talking about it is some no-name blogger on some backwater blog site, I guess that comes under the heading of untold.
Luckily, it's far too late for the MSM to take preventative measures. But for those actual undecideds out there, an article like the above could make all the difference. Some people just need their feelings explained to them.
"What you're feeling is the spirit of the Tea Party, of our Founding Fathers and what they believed in."
"Ah, now I see."
Put another vote in the 'R' column.
Oh, and one ironic note about our 'untold story'?
If Romney wins, it'll be blamed on veiled racism and innate white prejudice and a failure to embrace the new world economy and an aversion to science and a host of other implacable reasons.
In other words, our untold story will remain untold.
So even Team O has picked up on the vibes. Alas. Too little, too late.
Back to that evening two years ago:
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Axelrod, as a democrat, is a shit sack liar. Nothing he wagers should be taken seriously. Romney is going to win, and Axelrod's dick duster will remain intact.
If the subject is powerful mustaches, I'm surprised you didn't ask the tough question:
What about John Bolton's mustache?
Sure, it's powerful -- but is it exceptionally powerful? That's the question I'd be asking.
As for Axe not shaving his off, that's a tough call. It's either publicly humiliate yourself -- or be asked when you're going to publicly humiate yourself by reporters for the rest of your life. I'd guess he'd just do it and hope it recedes to the dust bin of history.
"If the election was based on the popular vote, we'd be hearing nothing but who currently has the lead in California, Texas, Florida and New York. If a member of the media was reminded that people in Michigan also vote, his initial response might be, Why would they bother?"
I keep saying this: without the electoral college making states (as entities) important, who would campaign in Rhode Island? New Mexico? Any of the 20 states with the lowest populations?
Your content is good, Merc, but the name Dr. Mercury is a very cool handle and must help.
As for the electoral college, I will go even farther than Sam L. Candidates would have little motivation to appear anywhere more than ten miles from the top 10 or twenty population centers. The rest of us would get only phone calls and internet pizzazz
I tend to agree -- I said we wouldn't be hearing anything except regarding the Big Four states, but it'd probably be more just the big cities. "Dallas Edges Toward Romney" blares the headline. "L.A. Still in Obama's Hip Pocket". The Electoral College was a truly brilliant stroke by the Founding Fathers and it's amazing that anyone would want it changed.