Give-a-Shitter Status: Broken


This graph shows the difference between Democratic and Republican enthusiasm. There are a number of ways to read this graph. Either we’re back in Nader for President territory going into the 2012 election, or Democrats are more disappointed with Obama than Republicans were with Bush right after Katrina.

I’m sure after President Romney and his Republican Congress shutter Planned Parenthood, appoint enough Supremes to overturn Roe v Wade, privatize the Department of Education, turn Medicare into Vouchercare, and outsource the Treasury Department to Goldman-Sachs, Democratic enthusiasm will return.






218 replies
  1. 1
    Davis X. Machina says:

    It’s as if you didn’t want to Send A Message.

  2. 2
    Hypnos says:

    As a citizen of the Rest of the World I’m trying to see this as a positive development.

    In fact, I am hoping for a Perry presidency. Sure, there’s a risk of nuclear war with Pakistan, but there is a much higher possibility that the US economy will be permanently destroyed, and that seems to be the only way the US is ever going to tackle climate change.

  3. 3

    @Hypnos: I have no idea how you think that would make climate change better here, but I want what you’re smoking. The worse the economy gets, the more environmental protections they’ll strip away to make jobs.

  4. 4

    @Hypnos: I have no idea how you think that would make climate change better here, but I want what you’re smoking. The worse the economy gets, the more environmental protections they’ll strip away to make jobs.

  5. 5
    ericblair says:

    I think this is pretty meaningless; wait for election season to get in full swing before you start soiling your Fruit of the Looms there. Bitching about each other when talk is cheap is what we do best.

    It’s also consistent with goopers losing their moderates, as you’d get less goopers but more concentrated crazy. At the end state of the ablative gooper model, you’ll end up with one mental ward wing’s worth of totally 100% enthusiastic Republican voters.

  6. 6

    I’m sure after President Romney and his Republican Congress shutter Planned Parenthood, appoint enough Supremes to overturn Roe v Wade, privatize the Department of Education, turn Medicare into Vouchercare, and outsource the Treasury Department to Goldman-Sachs, Democratic enthusiasm will return.

    Because nothing generates enthusiasm like the fact that the best argument for your guys is that they are not the bug-fuck crazy other guys. Woohoo!

  7. 7
    Ivan Ivanovich Renko says:

    @Craig Pennington: What?

    Ain’t that fucking reason enough?

  8. 8

    @Craig Pennington: Your choice is between Obama and the bugfuck crazy other guy. Deal with it.

  9. 9
    Ivan Ivanovich Renko says:

    But then, I guess a simple determination that the bastards are not going to destroy my grandkids future can’t really be called enthusiasm, can it?

  10. 10
    JPL says:

    @Ivan Ivanovich Renko: You don’t get. When the minimum wage disappears, there will me millions of folks who after working three jobs a week will rise up and demand change. Of course, they might only be able to demonstrate between the hours of 2 am and 4 am or risk getting fired.

  11. 11
    Yevgraf says:

    Lessons must be taught, and the sepulchural tones delivered by the voices of deeply disappointed left intellectual fucknuts who couldn’t find their own assholes with the aid of a hunting dog and a mirror are just the way to do it. After all, it’s been working so perfectly for the past 40 years, why not give it yet another shot?

    Besides, activating from the bottom up is a lot of work and brings no fame, accolades or cable TV face time. Far better to squeal about how “the base” is being betrayed from the top than to bother trying to either expand the base or develop a genuine groundswell for progressive policies.

  12. 12

    @Yevgraf: I vote for giant puppets.

  13. 13
    Cat Lady says:

    @Yevgraf:

    Whiners gotta whine. It’s what they do best.

  14. 14
    Matt says:

    Why would anyone really be that enthused to vote for Obama? Voting against crazy Republicans will not make you enthusiastic to vote. It will make you depressed to vote. There was a study out in 2008, that show voters become enthusiastic to vote for change. Obama no longer equals change. Also, the economy is not better, so people don’t believe in Obama as much. Sadly some of them believed in magical unicorns and he did not deliver them. For me, I think he has crappy staff members who’ve done him a disservice in dealing with the republican fucks, so I just don’t see him being able to ignite the passion as much as before because people are tired of speeches.

  15. 15
    Klaus says:

    I think Mistermix and his followers again confuse leftwing activists and bloggers with Democratic voters in general. With record-high and -long unemployment, it is any wonder people are not that enthusiastic about voting?

  16. 16
    boffo says:

    To understand exactly what this means for Democrats it should be compared to data from the last time there was a Democratic incumbent president running for reelection.

    Oh wait… Gallup wasn’t even collecting this data then.

    (File this under polling organizations finding creative new ways to create news and Democrats finding new reasons to freak out without really knowing exactly what they’re freaking out about.)

  17. 17
    soonergrunt says:

    OT–sorry mistermix, great topic btw,

    Al-Qaida-linked cleric al-Awlaki killed: Yemen

    By Ahmed Al-Haj – The Associated Press
    Posted : Friday Sep 30, 2011 5:45:27 EDT
    SANAA, Yemen — Yemen’s Defense Ministry said Friday that the U.S.-born al-Qaida cleric Anwar al-Awlaki has been killed.
    The Yemeni ministry provided no details in the statement, which appeared on one of its website.
    Yemeni security and tribal officials said an airstrike thought to have been carried out by U.S. aircraft on Friday targeted a convoy of cars traveling in the eastern province of Marib but could not say whether al-Awlaki was in the convoy.

    Further to this:
    “Yemen had in the past reported the deaths of al-Qaida leaders who were later found to be alive. Al-Awlaki was last reported to have been killed in December 2009.” So I guess we wait and see.

  18. 18
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Klaus: Record-high and -long? Do the 1930s ring a bell or are we starting the clock in, say, 1945?

  19. 19
  20. 20
    soonergrunt says:

    @Yevgraf: There’s a certain subset of lefties who really would rather have a republican government, because they can’t lead or govern themselves, so they feel most comfortable on the sidelines bitching and complaining. They were at their glory when the Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and White House from 2002 to 2006.

  21. 21
    John says:

    and outsource the Treasury Department to Goldman-Sachs

    How is that going to be stopped by voting against the Republican?

  22. 22
    ornery says:

    Beating up on your own side and calling them names might not be the best electoral strategy.

    I wonder if having “President Romney and his Republican Congress shutter Planned Parenthood, appoint enough Supremes to overturn Roe v Wade, privatize the Department of Education, turn Medicare into Vouchercare, and outsource the Treasury Department to Goldman-Sachs” … would actually be enough to get the Democratic ‘base’ to quit punching hippies and get a clue.

    Nah. Who am I kidding … this is Nader’s fault, amirite? No WAY constant, reflexive hippie-punching is taking a toll. It feels good, and so makes remaining Dems *strong like bull* … ready to finally go forth and win win win win.

  23. 23
    harlana says:

    wow, you can’t really control your enthusiasm level, folks. your actions and words, yes, but are people really supposed to lie about their enthusiasm level to avoid a republican being elected? is that really plausible? i don’t quite get the point. no thanks on the Thought Police thing.

  24. 24
    Ash Can says:

    Democrats are more disappointed with Obama than Republicans were with Bush right after Katrina.

    Why would the way Bush handled Katrina be in any way disappointing to Republicans? Feature, bug, etc.

  25. 25
    cmorenc says:

    @Klaus:

    I think Mistermix and his followers again confuse leftwing activists and bloggers with Democratic voters in general. With record-high and -long unemployment, it is any wonder people are not that enthusiastic about voting?

    With this kind of thinking among the electorate, Herbert Hoover would have been a two-term President. Or, assuming FDR won in 1932 despite such thinking, FDR would have been a one-term President in 1936 (and “Liberty” which published a poll predicting his defeat would still be one of the leading print magazines)

  26. 26
    boffo says:

    @soonergrunt

    In Washington, a senior Obama administration official confirmed that Aulaqi is dead.

  27. 27
    cleek says:

    hmmm. i wonder: can anyone remember what happened the last time the little green line was down in the 20s ?

    somewhere, W is chuckling. and living on a pension we’re paying with our tax dollars.

  28. 28
    Baud says:

    We often mock ignorance on the right but Republicans understand the connection between defeating your enemies and promoting your agenda. It’s a lesson democrats refuse to learn.

  29. 29

    @ornery: As opposed to the constant Obama punching that the hippies do? It kind of goes both ways.

  30. 30
    Cat Lady says:

    @ornery:

    reflexive hippie-punching Obama-bashing

    Fixt. Fucking self-awareness – how does it work?

  31. 31
    El Cid says:

    I’m pretty sure, though, that having a bunch of raving threads here about hippies & firebaggers should bring that enthusiasm level right back up.

  32. 32

    @Larime the Gimp: I am dealing with it. And I’ll even vote for the not-bugfuck-crazy candidates. It just doesn’t make me enthusiastic for the not-bugfuck-crazy candidates. Just aghast that the bugfuck-crazy crazy candidates might actually win.

  33. 33
    Micheline says:

    @ornery:
    Beating up on your own side and calling them names might not be the best electoral strategy.

    They can do this because truthfully the Left has no clout. The left only makes up 20% of the population whereas conservatives make up 40%. You do the math.

  34. 34
    ornery says:

    @soonergrunt: There’s a certain subset of lefties who really would rather have a republican government, because they can’t lead or govern themselves, so they feel most comfortable on the sidelines bitching and complaining.

    Championship-level analysis right there. I feel so energized to be part of your team! Awesome!

  35. 35

    Shorter version: Lefties have as short a memory as righties.

  36. 36
    JPL says:

    FDR didn’t have to deal with Boehner. In 2012 we will still have elections for the House and many Senate seats. The repubs were able to paint Pelosi as the problem in 2010 and it would seem that orange man’s ineffectiveness could be used to fire some people up.

  37. 37
    geg6 says:

    @Cat Lady:

    Seriously. Personally, I’ve never been so enthusiastic to vote in my starting-to-get-long life. If the GOP slate and current Congress doesn’t make you thrilled to get out there and vote these assholes out, I don’t know what would.

    But then, I haven’t wished for unicorns and ponies since I was 8.

  38. 38
    Guster says:

    That’s not a GIve-a-Shitter, it’s a Mancheanometer. It’ll ratchet up again when it’s clear who we’re against.

  39. 39
    amk says:

    Once again proving left are electoral eunuchs.

  40. 40
    burnspbesq says:

    @Craig Pennington:

    “Because nothing generates enthusiasm like the fact that the best argument for your guys is that they are not the bug-fuck crazy other guys. Woohoo!”

    Talk is cheap, asshole. If you’ve got something better, describe it in detail. Or GTFO.

  41. 41
    Guster says:

    @geg6: Some people seem wired to avoid the negative: you and me, we want to vote these assholes out.

    But other people seem wired to achieve the positive. Rallying them under the banner of ‘protect the health care reform based on the Romney model, because it’s the best we can do!’ isn’t easy.

  42. 42
    ornery says:

    @Cat Lady: I support Obama and have never made a single comment against him. So you are wrong. You create enemies where there are none.

    Ultimately all the snide attacks against ‘leftists’ dancing in dumb Dem heads simply lost my respect. I don’t think this attack-your-side FIRST ‘thinking’ is good enough to win politically.

    And yet, we are allies. Joy.

  43. 43
    dan says:

    Subtle sarcasm may not be the best way to deliver your message to your target audience.

  44. 44

    @Micheline:

    @ornery:
    Beating up on your own side and calling them names might not be the best electoral strategy.

    They can do this because truthfully the Left has no clout. The left only makes up 20% of the population whereas conservatives make up 40%. You do the math.

    If the left has no clout, then their enthusiasm is unnecessary, as are the perennial “be enthusiastic or ZOMG! President Palin Bachmann Perry!” posts.

  45. 45
    Baud says:

    @ornery: If you support Obama, then you are not a target of Obots. The “leftist” and “hippies” that Obots have a problem with are those who have persistently attacked the President and party for the last two and a half years. Not everyone left of center falls into that category.

  46. 46
    Feudalism Now! says:

    Suck it up buttercup, people are not enthused unless they are bugspit crazy. What exactly is the democrat party offering the voter other than being the less toxic choice? I don’t know if I like to crash slow and painfully, maybe a quick suicide dive with Fuehrer Perry might be preferable. What is enthusing about preventing the worst possible outcome?
    I am not saying Our President hasn’t made some serious legislative gains under a hostile congress, both blue dog and red. But, even if Obama retains the WH, it will be with a Congress in opposition. There could be a Gooper senate. 2008 was a chance to change the Bush darkside. 2012 is a chance to win a battle and lose the war. Woohoo.

  47. 47
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    Democrats are more disappointed with Obama than Republicans were with Bush right after Katrina.

    Republicans don’t think that government can succeed, therefore they weren’t disappointed by Bush’s performance after Katrina. If you follow the graph, enthusiasm seems to be inversely related to the amount of pain inflicted on the country by the president, doesn’t it?

    ETA: mm, what percentage of the voters did these two groups account for?

  48. 48
    boss bitch says:

    Its more than a year away so Obama/Dems have time to bring up that enthusiasm AND Republicans are probably that enthusiastic because they can’t wait to throw Obama out – duh!

  49. 49
    Emma says:

    I was going to make a nasty sarcastic response to one of the posters, but I’ll just say this. I’m right under the cut-off age for Republican shenanigans so there’s a good chance that since I fall into their favorite demographic (Old Farts Who Vote Always) they won’t mess around with my stuff too much. Those of you younger, or with children… it’s your world. Make of it what you will.

  50. 50
    Baud says:

    @Feudalism Now!: Well, if the Democratic rank-and-file shares your view, then maybe the Republicans should lead government. They, at least, have some fight in them.

  51. 51
    SW says:

    Where I live it never makes sense to blame the customer for not buying your shit. Maybe when you spend all your energy for 2.5 years sucking up to your enemies and dissing your base (the professional left?), you end up with no one who really gives a shit about you.

  52. 52
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    @Matt:

    Obama no longer equals change.

    Are we going to have this fight again? I hope the next four presidents are as big a failure as Obama. The country would finally get some shit solved if they were.

  53. 53
    MariedeGournay says:

    @soonergrunt: Who?

  54. 54
    some guy says:

    Mnemosyne finally got his wish, al-Alwaki has been assassinated, along with the US Constitution. it’s a good day for America, now that we’ve finally gotten past the the restrictions of Common Law!

  55. 55
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    @SW: Where I live – Texas – you find out that voting does not equal buying. If I buy a Dr Pepper rather than a Coke, my neighbor doesn’t lose his house over it.

  56. 56
    boss bitch says:

    No one should be worried about enthusiasm right now. We have to make sure people can vote when they need to.

  57. 57
    Short Bus Bully says:

    Great fucking post. I’m too goddamn tired to say anything more than that at this stage, will return after the coffee shits commence.

  58. 58
    Baud says:

    @boss bitch: I hope people will get more enthusiastic when faced with a real-world choice.

    @Emma: I’m with you. Although none of us are perfectly immune, I’m lucky enough to be in a position where I am unlikely to be personally affected by what a GOP government will do. I support Democrats mainly for love of country, but I’ve gotten to the point where I’m not going to lose sleep worrying about people who aren’t going to fight for their own interests.

  59. 59
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    mistermix, you’re an optimist.

  60. 60
    jon says:

    I’m willing to do what it takes to defeat the bugfuck loons of the right. I’m going to vote to remove them at every level of government.

    If anyone thinks Obama would have made as many concessions to Republicans if he had 65 Democratic Senators and 235 Democrats in the House all along, please go fuck yourself. Legislation isn’t easy for a member of the Executive Branch. It’s even harder when the majority of voters decide that the President should have a guano-addled opposition in charge of the Legislative Branch.

    Also, too: Obama could have used his secret unenumerated Presidential powers to pardon Troy Davis. Obama wants to gut environmental regulations. And Obama only pretends to give a crap about women’s rights because he didn’t choose Michelle second for his team in the White House pickup basketball game on June 12, 2009. And Solyndra! And cantaloupes kinda sorta resemble watermelons. Death panels on your table, folks. Death panels on your table.

  61. 61
    Zandar says:

    “Why would I be enthusiastic about voting?”

    Well gosh, Skippy. Ask the large chunk of the population who, at various points in our history, would not have had that right to vote at all due to race or gender and as students of that history are seeing the GOP efforts to limit that right once again, and aren’t taking that right for granted.

  62. 62

    @burnspbesq:

    If you’ve got something better, …

    If Obama wanted my enthusiasm, then he could have stood up for the rule of law. That would have been better. Evidently, he will be satisfied with my vote. That’s all you get with “look how crazy the other guy is.” And complaining that I’m not enthusiastic is unhelpful (if your goal is engendering enthusiasm, that is.)

  63. 63
    lol says:

    @Baud:

    You mean the past six years. Obama incurred the wrath of the left because instead of making angry speeches in the Senate, he focused on passing useful legislation. Then, during the primaries, he didn’t kiss their rings and didn’t run a campaign the way he was supposed to… and still won everything anyways.

    Then, he passed landmark legislation after landmark legislation while not listening to their political advice.

    Obama has refused to listen to the Professional Left and been successful anyways. That’s their problem with him – he makes them look bad time after time.

  64. 64
    Baud says:

    @lol: I know. Look, I would rather the professional left were with us than against us going into this election, but there is only so much you can do. There are other classes of voters that also need attention and are probably more “gettable.”

  65. 65
    Fulcanelli says:

    I supported and voted for Obama before and I will again. Fuck this “primary him” prozac/zoloft/abilify emo nonsense.

    IMO what’s torpedoed Obama – in spite of all he’s managed to accomplish, which is considerable considering the blind, irrational stupidity, greed and rage of the heh, loyal opposition and the lack of support from the temple eunuchs in his own party…

    – He squandered his momentum and ability to drive home a relentless, unified message like he had during the campaign after he was elected.

    – He surrounded himself with a pack of backstabbing wall street shitheels like Summers, Immelt and Geithner at the worst possible time in history.

    – He turned the job of setting the tone and leading the country after a historic financial disaster over to Congress after Big Money, Wall Street and the Feral Right Wing had 30 unfettered years to hardwire DC, the Media and 40% of the country to it’s way of thinking.

    Maybe these fuckups make the emo left depressed and bitter, but me, I’m just more determined to crush my right wing enemies, see them driven before me, and to hear the lamentation of their women. FTW.

    It’s bigger than Obama.

    /rant

  66. 66
    geg6 says:

    @Feudalism Now!:

    What exactly is the democrat Democratic party offering the voter other than being the less toxic choice?

    If that isn’t enough for you at this point of our republic, I believe Ralph Nader has a pony with your name on it.

    And, dude. Way to show your panties in public, with the “democrat party” shit.

  67. 67
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    @SW:

    Just head on over to the other store to buy their shit then. What, their shit sucks too? Then head to another store and check them out!

    Isn’t shopping great!

  68. 68
    OzoneR says:

    So the bully pulpit doesn’t get legislation passed, nor does it excite the base

    hoocoodanode

  69. 69
    James says:

    @Craig Pennington:

    “We don’t prosecute retroactively”
    – a law school graduate

    Good for a laugh, not much else.

  70. 70
    geg6 says:

    @Fulcanelli:

    Maybe these fuckups make the emo left depressed and bitter, but me, I’m just more determined to crush my right wing enemies, see them driven before me, and to hear the lamentation of their women. FTW.

    This.

  71. 71
    Baud says:

    @Fulcanelli:

    It’s bigger than Obama.

    This.

  72. 72
    Chrisd says:

    Wait, is the graph about Democrat enthusiasm or DFH enthusiasm?

    If I’ve learned anything from these Balloon Juice threads, it’s that the real Democratic base is not the DFH’s and further that Obama has been appealing to the base all along.

    Ergo, that graph is a lie.

  73. 73
    Feudalism Now! says:

    The question is not why would you be enthusiastic to vote, it is why would you be enthusiastic to vote Democratic? If I lived in Massachussets, I would be fired up to work my butt off for Elizabeth Warren, but I am in New York and get to vote for Chuck “where’s my Wall Strret peeps at?” Schumer. I can work on Bill Owens reelection but he is going full blue dog. I can try to get Dan Maffei back in his seat.
    I have less money and less time than 2008. I guess that means less enthusiasm too. The donkey does not instill confidence, it is vote against the dark, not a vote for a brighter day.

  74. 74
    ornery says:

    @Baud: If you support Obama, then you are not a target of Obots.

    I just think it’s stupid politics to attack your own side. There’s no upside to it.

  75. 75
    El Cid says:

    What’s the evidence in this chart (therefore stats) that this is a phenomenon attributable to some not-yet-defined “left”? I mean, just as an empirical question.

  76. 76

    As said previously, when the political argument boils down to the Democrats wanting Wall St. to leave a $20 on the nightstand after they’re done screwing us and the Republicans saying they should leave a $5 dollar off coupon instead, it’s not exactly going to make me a shiny happy people voter for Democrats.

    It’s going to make me a pissed off, disillusioned voter who trudges in to the ballot box wondering if the system is too fucking broke to be changed at all.

  77. 77
    Baud says:

    @ornery: It would be stupid politics if it were avoidable. But the level of venom some (not you) on the left have laid on this president calls for some answer.

  78. 78
    ornery says:

    @El Cid: What’s the evidence in this chart (therefore stats) that this is a phenomenon attributable to some not-yet-defined “left”?

    Because Ralph Nader is a poopy-head. Duh.

  79. 79
    OzoneR says:

    @Comrade Dread:

    when the political argument boils down to the Democrats wanting Wall St. to leave a $20 on the nightstand after they’re done screwing us and the Republicans saying they should leave a $5 dollar off coupon instead, it’s not exactly going to make me a shiny happy people voter for Democrats.

    and why is the political argument boiling down to that?

  80. 80
    Phaedrus says:

    How can I be excited about a “stop the Republicans” agenda? I’m so tired of people trying to fear me into voting for their team.

  81. 81
    Barry says:

    mistermix: “I’m sure after President Romney and his Republican Congress shutter Planned Parenthood, appoint enough Supremes to overturn Roe v Wade, privatize the Department of Education, turn Medicare into Vouchercare, and outsource the Treasury Department to Goldman-Sachs, Democratic enthusiasm will return.”

    F*ck you, you hippy-bashing wh*reson. This is the reason that there’s so little enthusiasm, and a sign of it. All that you have now is threatening us with ‘it’ll be worse’.

  82. 82
    OzoneR says:

    @Phaedrus:

    How can I be excited about a “stop the Republicans” agenda? I’m so tired of people trying to fear me into voting for their team.

    Because, honestly, that’s how it works, that’s how it’s worked since 1800.

  83. 83
    Baud says:

    @OzoneR: What the political argument boils down to is this:

    1. The Democrats passed the most sweeping Wall Street reform bill since the Great Depression. The Republicans want to repeal it or water it down.

    2. The Democrats want to make the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes. The Republicans want to give them tax breaks.

    I mean, this isn’t even the hard stuff. I’m as befuddled with the “debate” within the Democratic Party as I am with all the crazy I see on the Republican side.

  84. 84
    Bullsmith says:

    Clearly the fault of leftist intellectual whiners, as other have pointed out. They clearly have the ears of the people, what with all their profile and influence.

  85. 85
    The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik says:

    @Feudalism Now!:

    I think this is a salient point. People might be enthusiastic about specific candidates, but as a whole, people seem to shit on the Dems as much as the GOP simply due to the shitty state of things, and the GOP at least has the Tea Party and their 27% which will never ever ever vote for a ‘libtard’ or hippie ever. I have a feeling this is less about Obama or ‘Obots’ or ‘Professional left’ jousting over Obama’s place in things so much as the utter tanked uselessness of the Democratic party as a whole. It’s a presidential election, yeah, but Obama can only be a lightning rod for so much.

    @Chrisd:

    I do have to say something about this too. The whole crap and wailing about the DFHs, Professional Left, Firebaggers, etc. continues to make me crosseyed because I’m still not sure if I’m supposed to see them as some grand inglorious uprising that’s killing the Dems or such insignificant nothings as to be dismissed and scorned for their uselessness. I’m not terribly convinced this enthusiasm gap is the fault of the ’emoprogs’, especially since fuck all when have ’emoprog’ sentiments actually filtered into the mainstream political cloud in any significant way aside from news channels bringing on Hamsher so they can point and laugh at the entire Dem party by proxy through her.

  86. 86
    OzoneR says:

    @Bullsmith:

    Clearly the fault of leftist intellectual whiners, as other have pointed out. They clearly have the ears of the people, what with all their profile and influence.

    Nope, it’s not, they’re irrelevant. Democrats are never enthusiastic unless they’re out of power and nothing the whining left thinks will solve that problem, will.

  87. 87
    geg6 says:

    @Phaedrus:

    How can I be excited about a “stop the Republicans” agenda? I’m so tired of people trying to fear me into voting for their team.

    Then don’t. Vote for the other one. Or don’t vote at all. But I don’t want to hear your whining when I tell you I told you so.

    @Barry:

    F*ck you, you hippy-bashing wh*reson. This is the reason that there’s so little enthusiasm, and a sign of it. All that you have now is threatening us with ‘it’ll be worse’.

    Hmmmm. My SO wasn’t at all enthusiastic about getting the tests and then finding out he has prostate cancer. But I can tell you, he sure as hell is enthusiastic as all get out to get rid of it, side effects of treatment and all.

  88. 88
    Barry says:

    @cmorenc: “With this kind of thinking among the electorate, Herbert Hoover would have been a two-term President. Or, assuming FDR won in 1932 despite such thinking, FDR would have been a one-term President in 1936 (and “Liberty” which published a poll predicting his defeat would still be one of the leading print magazines)”

    History is useful, and the revisionists are liars.
    FDR had enacted massive improvements during those four years.
    Please check a chart of the economy over the 1930’s.

  89. 89
    gogol's wife says:

    @Craig Pennington:

    Don’t worry. We’ll do it without you. You’re irrelevant.

  90. 90
    gogol's wife says:

    @ornery:

    If you’re attacking Obama relentlessly (as much of the left has been doing since day one), you are not on our side. That is becoming clearer to me every single day.

  91. 91
    gogol's wife says:

    @Phaedrus:

    Don’t vote for it. We’ll do it without you. We don’t care whom you vote for.

  92. 92
    OzoneR says:

    @Barry:

    FDR had enacted massive improvements during those four years.
    Please check a chart of the economy over the 1930’s.

    Senator Huey Long says otherwise.

  93. 93
    geg6 says:

    @gogol’s wife:

    Agreed. They are narcissists. Don’t care about anyone or anything except themselves and whatever single issue has their panties in a bunch.

  94. 94
    OzoneR says:

    @ornery:

    I don’t think this attack-your-side FIRST ‘thinking’ is good enough to win politically.

    emoprogs are not on “my side.” I don’t believe they genuinely care about my issues.

  95. 95
    Li says:

    “I’m sure after President Romney and his Republican Congress shutter Planned Parenthood, appoint enough Supremes to overturn Roe v Wade, privatize the Department of Education, turn Medicare into Vouchercare, and outsource the Treasury Department to Goldman-Sachs, Democratic enthusiasm will return.”

    And, I’m sure that after President Obama, in his second term, ‘compromises’ with the new Republican senate and does all of those things except perhaps the Supreme court appointment (not that the right will matter if everything is defunded) the D voters will be filled with endless enthusiasm; enthusiasm to start a third (second?) party, or perhaps to just commit suicide. Either way, enthusiasm accomplished!

    Why Republican senate? Well, since he has done nothing to fix the money in politics problem, and nothing to fix the terribly flawed and hackable electronic voting machine problem, what is to stop that from happening, from hook or by crook? I know, I know, he’s so weak he can’t do those things, even when he had control of both houses of congress. He is only strong when it comes to punishing whistle-blowers who want to expose Republican crimes (hey, do you think the R’s would win if they were in jail?), or murdering American citizens without trial using flying death robots. I forgot.

    Do commence bashing me for paying insufficient fielty to the big O now.

  96. 96
    Bloix says:

    Most people don’t care very much about politics. They just don’t, and people who do care can snark and yell and be as sarcastic as they want. It won’t change anything.

    So it’s the job of a political leader to inspire people so that they do care. And they don’t have to care very much, just enough to vote.

    If a politician fails to inspire people enough to come out and vote, then he’s a shitty politician. Blaming the voters is a dodge.

  97. 97
    Chrisd says:

    @The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik:

    I do have to say something about this too. The whole crap and wailing about the DFHs, Professional Left, Firebaggers, etc. continues to make me crosseyed because I’m still not sure if I’m supposed to see them as some grand inglorious uprising that’s killing the Dems or such insignificant nothings as to be dismissed and scorned for their uselessness.

    As long as the scorn is deep and constant, does it really matter? It’s the same catharsis regardless of the rhetorical incoherence.

  98. 98
    geg6 says:

    @Barry:

    Well, here’s one that shows GDP falling, falling, falling, falling and then a very slight uptick during those four years. Don’t see how that proves your point.

    http://economics-charts.com/gdp/gdp-1929-2004.html

  99. 99
    OzoneR says:

    @Bloix:

    If a politician fails to inspire people enough to come out and vote, then he’s a shitty politician. Blaming the voters is a dodge.

    Voter turnout in this country as compared to other countries have been abysmal for decades.

    Has every politician been shitty?

    I blame voters, sorry. They shouldn’t have to be given handjobs to show up and make decisions millions around the world have no power to make.

    I think they don’t really want to make them.

  100. 100
    geg6 says:

    @Li:

    Well, since he has done nothing to fix the money in politics problem, and nothing to fix the terribly flawed and hackable electronic voting machine problem, what is to stop that from happening, from hook or by crook? I know, I know, he’s so weak he can’t do those things, even when he had control of both houses of congress.

    And right here is why I can’t take these people seriously.

    Are really so stupid as to not know that Citizens United was decided by the Supreme Court and not Obama? And that the executive doesn’t make law? And that states control voting methods?

    Gawd, the stupid. It hurts.

  101. 101
    Woodrow L. Goode, IV says:

    As is usual, you’ve almost managed to comprehend the issue. As you correctly surmise, one side is excited about what it might be able to do after the 2012 election. The other side is thinking:

    “If we can swing 64 seats in the House, we’ll have 257 seats again. If we can re-elect all 21 Dems, get Bernie Sanders back and win 6 of the other 11 seats, we’ll be up to 59– exactly where we were in January of 2009.

    “Then we can look forward to Max Baucus and Tom Coburn writing laws and Harry Reid begging Susan Collins (Snowe probably won’t get out of the primary) to vote for closure. Yee-haw…”

    If the wingnuts hold the House and have 53 Senate seats after the 2012 elections, there will be a flood of new legislation and we’ll get to hear more of Scott Lemieux’s condescending lectures about why the rules permit Republicans to pass things with 50 votes plus a tiebreaker, but it takes about 85 for Democrats to do it.

    (And, if he returns, why Our Beloved Bipartisan Savior really had to sign whatever it was.)

    Is there ever going to be a point where you feel compelled to reconcile your contradictory positions? Hate to break this to you, but both of the following statements can’t be true:

    1. Hippies are a tiny fraction of the electorate who never have any impact on the outcome and whose positions only make it harder to win races.

    2. The polls show Democrats will be crushed in a landslide and it’s all the Hippies’ fault.

    Can you figure out which strawman you like best and stay with it?

  102. 102
    OzoneR says:

    1. Hippies are a tiny fraction of the electorate who never have any impact on the outcome and whose positions only make it harder to win races.
    2. The polls show Democrats will be crushed in a landslide and it’s all the Hippies’ fault.
    Can you figure out which strawman you like best and stay with it?

    you do realize both your strawman are the same, right?

  103. 103
    Tyro says:

    They can do this because truthfully the Left has no clout. The left only makes up 20% of the population whereas conservatives make up 40%. You do the math.

    Clout is the ability to affect the outcome of an election. If democrats don’t need the left to keep their jobs, then their enthusiasm doesn’t matter, and none of this complaining should be happening.

    Obama just isn’t that good a Democrat. A good American, as far as Americans go, but not a guy who really cares about the state or health of the Democratic Party. And maybe that’s a good electoral strategy for him! If the left has no clout, maybe voters will think , “this Obama guy isn’t really a Democrat, but he’s a good president; I’ll vote for him!” Hey it’s a strategy: I say to him, ” good luck with that.”

  104. 104
    Mino says:

    Hello. This surprises you? Democrats are the sane party, remember. Besides, the Republicans don’t even know who they’ll be voting for. Talk to me then.

  105. 105
    Li says:

    Oh, you’re right, he has no power to control his party and do anything with his former colleagues in the Senate, when it comes to funding things. And setting up alternative funding systems for elections is unpossible. And he has absolutely no influence over the states. They are completely independent entities, which don’t rely upon any funding from the feds at all!

    You know, if we can’t do anything about how elections are funded, and we can’t do anything about Saudi voting machines that can be hacked remotely with ten bucks worth of cheap gear, then what can we do? Tell me, why bother voting at all if the message, the backing of the politicians, and the integrity of voting itself is impossible to fix? If all of that is true, then I can understand the lack of enthusiasm. It seems, by your way of thinking, that even if we do make a choice, it can be taken away from us by cheating or just bought outright by the big money, and there is nothing that the President of the United States can do about it.

  106. 106
    Ash Can says:

    @geg6: Some people just do not understand how the American political system works. They’re convinced that they do, though — maybe they aced a civics test in junior high or something — and, like with their right-wing counterparts, no amount of hammering them with the facts will make them figure this out.

  107. 107
    OzoneR says:

    @Li:

    Oh, you’re right, he has no power to control his party and do anything with his former colleagues in the Senate, when it comes to funding things.

    Boy you’re really stupid. If you can’t see he doesn’t have any influence on the Senate, then you’re really fucking blind. Also funding doesn’t originate in the Senate, it originates in the House.

    And setting up alternative funding systems for elections is unpossible.

    DISCLOSE Act, google it asshole.

    And he has absolutely no influence over the states. They are completely independent entities, which don’t rely upon any funding from the feds at all!

    Again, funding begins IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    Tell me, why bother voting at all if the message, the backing of the politicians, and the integrity of voting itself is impossible to fix?

    Who said it was impossible to fix? It’s impossible to fix if no one fucking votes.

  108. 108
    gogol's wife says:

    @Li:

    Go to some right-wing blog with your comments. We get it that you’ve given up on Obama and the Democrats. Go away.

  109. 109
    OzoneR says:

    @Tyro:

    If democrats don’t need the left to keep their jobs, then their enthusiasm doesn’t matter, and none of this complaining should be happening.

    I don’t think the lack of enthusiasm comes from the left. Gallup doesn’t say where it comes from, but my guess is it comes from the center.

  110. 110
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    @Barry: Yes, and he did it with supermajorities in both branches of Congress. See what happened after 1937 when these majorities disappeared, especially when the conservative Democrats turned against him.

  111. 111
    Alex S. says:

    Others have already said it, but this will change as we approach the election.

  112. 112
    cleek says:

    @Tyro:

    Obama just isn’t that good a Democrat.

    he’s a far better Democrat than the bulk of the self-appointed Democratic base.

  113. 113
    Li says:

    I have yet to give up on the American people, and the principle of justice. I just wish I had someone to vote for, instead of people to vote against, that’s all.

    And OzoneR; to summarize. He has no influence over the Senate. He can’t do anything about the House, and funding, even though he can move money around in the Executive department, or just use signing statements like Bush did. The best reform that we can hope for in elections is the disclose act, which in theory will let policy wonks see who is funding TV commercials and campaigns? Really? So, you want me to be enthusiastic about a person who is powerless in all respects? Except prosecuting whistleblowers and killing people with flying death robots, of course. . . yeah, I can feel that enthusiasm coming on now! I really am an idiot for looking at this scene and feeling despair, thanks for enlightening me!

  114. 114
    Rorgg says:

    Dude… JOE WALSH is my congresscritter. I’m fucking chomping at the bit for election day to come.

  115. 115
    gogol's wife says:

    @Li:

    The president of the United States is not a tsar. Maybe you should give Russia a try. Their president has a lot of power.

  116. 116
    Emma says:

    @Li: May I bash you for being an utter ignoramus who couldn’t pass a simple civics test if they were still required? Go back. Read, say, the Consitution (and maybe James Madison’s Journal thereof), the Federalist Papers, also one or two basic texts (http://www.law.duke.edu/legal_.....llabi.html). Then get back to us and we’ll discuss it.

  117. 117
    Bullsmith says:

    It really is amazing that faced with low enthusiasm among Dem voters, the consensus message to said voters is “go fuck yourself.”

  118. 118
    cleek says:

    @Bullsmith:
    what you’re hearing is an echo.

  119. 119
    gogol's wife says:

    @Bullsmith:

    At this point, that’s right. The people who want to fight will fight, and God willing, there will be enough of us. We’re not prima donnas. We want to save the country from the likes of Perry and Romney and Bachmann. If that’s not enough for you, go sit on your hands and enjoy yourself. I’m sick of all of you.

  120. 120
    Ben Cisco says:

    @Feudalism Now!: Pucker up, buttercup, uh-huh
    I wanna kiss you one time
    Pucker up, buttercup, uh-huh
    I wanna kiss you one time
    (Hey!)
    I wanna hug you
    Buttercup, I wanna show you how
    Hey!

  121. 121
    Li says:

    I have read all of that. . .acutely aware of it, in fact. I wish that our country still operated under those restrictions. We would be living in a much better place. But I’m also aware that every modern US government, and especially this most recent one, has ignored the Constitution and the intent of the founders whenever it suits them. How about those 1st and 5th Amendments, Anwar al-Awlaki? “No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.” How about the complete abrogation of the separation of powers by Bush with all of those signing statements? Or the fact that the 4th amendment is basically a fiction nowadays? Or how about the fact that one of the primary functions of our government these days is bailing rich people out of their gambling mistakes? How, exactly, does that promote the general welfare?

    Really, claims that Obama can’t do things because of the Constitution, when he violates that document on a daily basis, hold no water to me. Claims that he isn’t a Tzar, when he can order American citizens to be killed without trial, seem kind of specious too. Given the current power of the President, which is nearly unlimited really, if Obama isn’t doing something, you can be sure it’s because he doesn’t want to do it. And this is held up by his use of the constitutional powers he has. “Look forward, not backward (*except whistleblowers)” means that criminals get to continue to use their ill gotten gains to buy our elections, and that political criminals get to continue to hold power. He could prosecute; that is entirely in his power, even if we were to suppose that he is in any way bound by that dead letter, the Constitution. But he does not.

    What does that say about his intentions? What does that say about what side he is on? I would say that it suggests he is on the side of the criminals. The fact that his cabinet is straight out of the Goldman board room bolsters this point.

  122. 122
    Bullsmith says:

    @gogol’s wife:

    You really are a Republicans wet dream. How long before the election do I need to take your purity test? What’s the passing grade?

  123. 123
    harlana says:

    trying to shut down the left’s criticisms is really no better than adopting the republican narrative, imho

    disclaimer: I’m an Obama supporter, I feel I have to issue a disclaimer whenever I make statements like the above in order to avoid being attacked by some here. Need to copy and paste this in word for any future defense of hippies considering the level of disgust and hatred for those who do not clap loud enough 24/7, exhibited here.

    Note also, I am NOT criticizing Obama myself. Let me just establish all this and put it forward. I am NOT criticizing the President.

    (sigh)

  124. 124
    B W Smith says:

    @Li: Dude, don’t you have some agricultural work to be doing?

  125. 125
    OzoneR says:

    @Li:

    But I’m also aware that every modern US government, and especially this most recent one, has ignored the Constitution and the intent of the founders whenever it suits them.

    There is a big difference between killing an American citizen who defected to the enemy (been done by many Presidents prior) and magically creating money and spending it without Congress’ approval (never been done)

  126. 126
    harlana says:

    and yes, some criticism of the President here is stupid and sometimes vicious.

    It is not my intention to validate or justify those types of attacks.

    k, i think i am done with the disclaimers for now, i will update them as i go along, if necessary

  127. 127
    OzoneR says:

    @Bullsmith:

    It really is amazing that faced with low enthusiasm among Dem voters, the consensus message to said voters is “go fuck yourself.”

    That used to be my mom’s reaction when I asked for a pony and a thousand pounds of candy.

  128. 128
    Li says:

    Today is an off day. I might stay here all day pointing out why complaining about a lack of enthusiasm, while simultaneously complaining that Obama can do nothing to help our country besides not being a Republican, and celebrating that he can order American citizens to be killed on a whim, is a mite bit inconsistent. And, might I add, how many US citizens have been extra-judicially killed off the battlefield by American presidents before? *crickets* Exactly.

    As for creating money out of thin air; didn’t the FED do that several times over the past several years when they loaned out money far above and beyond what congress authorized?

    Hell, if I can get some other people to tell me sagely how Obama can’t do anything useful because he is bound by the Constitution (snort!) I might have to stop typing because I’ll be laughing so hard.

  129. 129
    OzoneR says:

    @Li:

    And OzoneR; to summarize. He has no influence over the Senate. He can’t do anything about the House, and funding, even though he can move money around in the Executive department, or just use signing statements like Bush did. The best reform that we can hope for in elections is the disclose act, which in theory will let policy wonks see who is funding TV commercials and campaigns? Really? So, you want me to be enthusiastic about a person who is powerless in all respects?

    you were enthusiastic in 2008 when a lot of people pointed out he could end up powerless.

    What about Congress? He’s not powerless if there’s a Congress that agrees with him, or you

    this isn’t just about Obama asshole.

  130. 130
    OzoneR says:

    @Li:

    I might stay here all day pointing out why complaining about a lack of enthusiasm, while simultaneously complaining that Obama can do nothing to help our country besides not being a Republican, and celebrating that he can order American citizens to be killed on a whim, is a mite bit inconsistent.

    Oh please do, it’s fun pointed out how incredibly stupid you are.

    Seriously, if winning required you, it’s really not worth it.

  131. 131
    OzoneR says:

    @Li:

    didn’t the FED do that several times over the past several years when they loaned out money far above and beyond what congress authorized?

    no.

  132. 132
    harlana says:

    The beatings will continue until morale improves! ;)

  133. 133
    Li says:

    True, true. This is why I will be voting for local candidates, and for congress and senate. But the difference between President Goldman and President Sax means less to me with every passing day, I must confess. And given the massive, extra-constitutional power that the office of the executive has gained over the past few decades, that means that we are unlikely to see any real change ever again.

    Oh, there goes my enthusiasm again. I know, it’s all my fault.

  134. 134

    […] in the Pathetic Museum, Republican voters still have more enthusiasm for 2012 than Democrats. But, Mistermix says, I’m sure after President Romney and his Republican Congress shutter Planned Parenthood, appoint […]

  135. 135
    OzoneR says:

    @harlana:

    trying to shut down the left’s criticisms is really no better than adopting the republican narrative, imho

    Not when they’re unfair and illogical criticisms like “why can’t he just ignore Congress and control funding”

  136. 136
    gogol's wife says:

    @Li:

    Yes. It is all your fault.

  137. 137
    OzoneR says:

    @Li:

    Oh, there goes my enthusiasm again. I know, it’s all my fault.

    When you’re saying there’s no difference between Obama, who signed the most sweeping Wall Street regulation bill in decades and wants to get rid of their tax cuts, and a Republican, who wants to repeal said bill and keep their cuts, it IS all your fault.

  138. 138
    Li says:

    Ozone R: http://www.nytimes.com/interac.....aphic.html

    The congress authorized all of that? Really? In all honesty, that’s only scratching the surface compared to the money that has been created by the 0% asset window to 2-3% t-bills carry trade. There are trillions upon trillions sitting in bank accounts gathering interest under that scam, and no congressional authorization in sight!

  139. 139
    Li says:

    Gogol’s wife: Oh, so sorry about that. I’ll just go meditate upon how much worse a Republican president would be for a while and see if that helps.

  140. 140
    OzoneR says:

    @Li:

    The congress authorized all of that?

    yes, hence “the government”

  141. 141
    OzoneR says:

    @Li:

    I’ll just go meditate upon how much worse a Republican president would be for a while and see if that helps.

    it won’t help, but at least it’ll stop making you look so stupid

  142. 142
    Li says:

    OzoneR: Do you have any evidence that the congress authorized bailing out (in many cases foreign) banks by buying trillions of dollars of their bad paper, or just loaning them money at 0% to put into treasuries at 2-3%?

    And at least I’m not stupid enough to say that Obama is restricted in his actions by the constitution on one hand (even as he does nothing to solve these problems within that context) while he is completely ignoring the constitution when it comes to supporting our illegal wars, and our elite criminal class. Either he is bound by that document, or he is not. He can’t be bound by it when it comes to doing good things, but freed from it when it comes to doing bad things. Unless, of course, the constitution is just an excuse for his behavior.

  143. 143
    gogol's wife says:

    @Li:

    You do that. You need to do that.

  144. 144
    OzoneR says:

    @Li:

    Do you have any evidence that the congress authorized bailing out (in many cases foreign) banks by buying trillions of dollars of their bad paper, or just loaning them money at 0% to put into treasuries at 2-3%?

    It was part of TARP.

  145. 145
    Midnight Marauder says:

    @Matt:

    Voting against crazy Republicans will not make you enthusiastic to vote. It will make you depressed to vote.

    Dubious.

  146. 146
    OzoneR says:

    @Li:

    he is completely ignoring the constitution when it comes to supporting our illegal wars, and our elite criminal class.

    The illegal wars he’s working to end?

  147. 147
    slightly_peeved says:

    Before everyone loses their head, how is it a surprise that Democrats are less enthused to go out and vote under Obama then they are under Bush? Content people are never going to be as enthused to go out and vote as much as angry people.

    while simultaneously complaining that Obama can do nothing to help our country besides not being a Republican

    Most sweeping healthcare reform since FDR. Greatest expansion of the social safety net since LBJ. Any American who does not get insurance through their employer will be able to buy the same insurance as their Congressperson, with subsidies if their income is below 400% of the poverty line, and far stricter guarantees on coverage than ever before in the US. And if you live in Vermont, you’ll be getting single-payer in the next few years. If the law stays in, others will follow.

    That’s one part of what he did; something Clinton and Carter couldn’t; something Ted Kennedy could have got if he hadn’t pushed for something better.

  148. 148
    cleek says:

    he is completely ignoring the constitution when it comes to supporting our illegal wars, and our elite criminal class.

    doesn’t the Constitution require a trial, or at least a hearing of some kind, to determine the legality of an issue? or, can we ignore that part and determine legality on our own, if we feel like it?

  149. 149
    Li says:

    And by end, he means maintaining occupation forces in those countries forever. If he wanted to end the wars, he could call the troops home. He is the commander in chief, and last I checked intransigence in the Senate and House have little to do with his power in that regard. And no, that was no part of TARP. The initial TARP outlay was 300 billion. Then 700 billion. I might not be the best person at math, but I tend to think that 9 trillion is a bit bigger than that.

  150. 150
    Li says:

    cleek: Sure! Bring on the trials! But all we are getting now is prosecutions of the whistleblowers that are trying to expose criminality, not prosecutions of the criminals themselves.

    And, by the way, where was Anwar al-Awlaki’s trial held? Heck, they didn’t even charge him with anything!

  151. 151
    cleek says:

    @Li:
    first sentence in the article you linked:

    Beyond the $700 billion bailout known as TARP, which has been used to prop up banks and car companies, the government has created an array of other programs to provide support to the struggling financial system.

  152. 152
    cleek says:

    @Li:

    Sure

    thanks.

    so, i’ll trust you to modify your prior statements about the il/legality of those matters accordingly.

  153. 153
    cleek says:

    @Li:

    where was Anwar al-Awlaki’s trial held?

    Sana’a, Yemen. by the Yemeni govt. he was found guilty.

  154. 154
    Li says:

    Actually, a bit of clarification. Trials are for determining whether the defendant has behaved criminally. Laws are there to determine what actions are illegal. Thus, there is no need to go to trial to state that murder, theft, fraud, torture, and aggressive war are crimes. Laws, both domestic and international, make it clear that those actions are criminal. And, it’s also clear that a lot of those acts are being committed by someone. We just need to investigate who is doing these things, and then prosecute them. Which is not being done, at all.

  155. 155
    OzoneR says:

    @Li:

    And by end, he means maintaining occupation forces in those countries forever.

    LOL, the last troops are leaving Iraq in May.

    And no, that was no part of TARP. The initial TARP outlay was 300 billion. Then 700 billion. I might not be the best person at math, but I tend to think that 9 trillion is a bit bigger than that.

    TARP allocated money, but did not limit the amount the Fed can leverage of its own assests beyond that.

  156. 156
    jon says:

    Li,

    I don’t know who you voted for, but if you voted for Obama because he said he was going to end all those wars, you were hallucinating. He said Iraq was a distraction though we owned it, Afghanistan was the focus, Al Qaeda was to be targeted wherever possible, and the torture regime would end. The Congress didn’t go along with closing GITMO, the focus on Al Qaeda is working, and troop levels in Iraq are decreasing.

    Aside from GITMO, he has done what he said he would. And since that was a Congressional decision not to close it, I’d say he’s still doing exactly what he said he would.

  157. 157
    Barry says:

    @OzoneR: “Senator Huey Long says otherwise.”

    You trust him; I’ll go with what actually happened.

  158. 158
    Martin says:

    Republicans were split on Bush post-Katrina. Half thought he didn’t do enough, while the other half thought that drowning 1000 black people was still a step in the right direction. Not surprised at that result.

  159. 159
    Li says:

    I voted for Obama because I figured that a constitutional law professor might have more respect for that document than his predecessor. Also, because it seemed like Democrats were more willing to call out their leaders when they went astray than Republicans, which have a slavish cult of personality thing going on with their leaders. I was wrong, on both counts; my bad.

    “LOL, the last troops are leaving Iraq in May.” But the CIA and contractors will remain, even if he sticks to that timetable, and I don’t think he will given his past performance. After all, we didn’t build that Vatican sized ’embassy’ just to abandon it.

    “TARP allocated money, but did not limit the amount the Fed can leverage of its own assests beyond that.”

    So, what you are saying is that the FED has the power to create money out of thin air, and spend it on things that the congress would not under any circumstance authorize, using any pretext, no matter how thin? Wow, it seems that we are in agreement after all, how excellent.

  160. 160
    OzoneR says:

    @Barry:

    You trust him; I’ll go with what actually happened.

    what actually happened is there was double digit unemployment in 1932 and 1936, the far left thought he was a sellout to Wall Street, and Roosevelt won 46 states anyway

  161. 161
    OzoneR says:

    @Li:

    But the CIA and contractors will remain, even if he sticks to that timetable, and I don’t think he will given his past performance. After all, we didn’t build that Vatican sized ‘embassy’ just to abandon it.

    An embassy does not equal “occupation” and what “past performance?”

  162. 162
    OzoneR says:

    @Li:

    So, what you are saying is that the FED has the power to create money out of thin air, and spend it on things that the congress would not under any circumstance authorize, using any pretext, no matter how thin?

    no, not even close.

    The Fed is authorized by TARP to create money and use it to stabilize the financial system.

  163. 163
    Li says:

    Have you seen that ’embassy’? It has landing strips, massive bunkers, places to park hundreds of tanks and APC’s, and enough weaponry to lay flat most of the middle east! If that is an embassy, then I am the tooth fairy. As for past performance, I won’t bother you with details that you will promptly forget. If you have already forgotten how many times the pull out has been delayed, then why bother?

  164. 164
    Barry says:

    @geg6: (re – chart of GDP during Great Depression). Using the line ‘Gross Domestic Product’, it actually does prove my point.

    Read the scale.

  165. 165

    Has every politician been shitty?

    Since the mid-20th century, yes.

    SATSQ.

  166. 166
    Bludger says:

    It’s construction versus demolition. You don’t need consensus to burn the house down, you can pretty much do it by yourself.

    Now, no one on either side is enthusiastic about the hard work and compromise it’s taking to repair the destruction.

    I think voters intuitively know this and there is polling to support the premise – voters are not happy with their current situations, but are pretty clear on which path(s) we should take to get out of this mess.

  167. 167
    Li says:

    “no, not even close.

    The Fed is authorized by TARP to create money and use it to stabilize the financial system.”

    I kind of fail to see the difference, frankly. Since we were initially talking about funding in respect to putting pressure on the states in order to get them to use unhackable voting systems, why not use tarp to create money to stabilize the states, and their huge deficits? After all, the failure of state bonds would be a huge blow to the financial system. And then, twist arms by making it clear that more money will be allocated to those states that make their voting systems more transparent, and the voting process more accessible? Heck, if the FED can bail out Deutsche Bank and Societe Generale, I can hardly see why not?

    And of course, this is supposing that Obama had absolutely no power over his own party and their allocation of funding back when he had control of the house, and continues to have no power to twist arms and veto things now. Which is laughable.

  168. 168
  169. 169
    cleek says:

    @Li:

    And of course, this is supposing that Obama had absolutely no power

    strawman.

    over his own party and their allocation of funding back when he had control of the house,

    the House allocates, the Senate has to approve. blue dogs guarantee the watered-down centrism of anything coming out of either.

    and continues to have no power to twist arms and veto things now.

    your faith in the power of “arm twisting” borders on the delusional.

  170. 170
    OzoneR says:

    @Li:

    continues to have no power to twist arms and veto things now.

    For the last two weeks, he’s been twisting arms publicly over his jobs bill, and SENATE DEMOCRATS still won’t put it to a vote.

  171. 171
    harlana says:

    @OzoneR:

    When you’re saying there’s no difference between Obama, who signed the most sweeping Wall Street regulation bill in decades and wants to get rid of their tax cuts, and a Republican, who wants to repeal said bill and keep their cuts, it IS all your fault.

    You know, this is what my disclaimers were all about. The WH is not really paying attention to blog comments or the likes of Jane Hamsher. It’s really not going to rock anybody’s world, unless you let it.

  172. 172
    OzoneR says:

    @harlana:

    The WH is not really paying attention to blog comments or the likes of Jane Hamsher. It’s really not going to rock anybody’s world, unless you let it.

    who cares, it’s still stupid

  173. 173
    geg6 says:

    @Barry:

    Dude, your point seems a bit fuzzy here. I show a chart showing that GDP drops precipitously from 1929 to 1932, when FDR was elected. It does a few little dances on an up and down scale before actually recovering and increasing after 1940. The program that Roosevelt instituted that really got the recovery going was WWII. Did some of his tweaks work? Hell, yes. Just as just as many of them didn’t.

  174. 174
    cleek says:

    @harlana:

    The WH is not really paying attention to blog comments or the likes of Jane Hamsher.

    maybe not.

    but i’ll feel a little more sanguine about Hamsher’s supposed lack of influence when she stops being invited to complain on TV. Greenwald, too. someone out there thinks they have interesting things to say.

  175. 175
    Kola Noscopy says:

    @gogol’s wife:

    Go to some right-wing blog with your comments. We get it that you’ve given up on Obama and the Democrats. Go away.

    Obot poutrage is a beautiful thing to see.

    Stay around, Li. I love to watch them squirm.

  176. 176
    aisce says:

    @ geg6

    Well, here’s one that shows GDP falling, falling, falling, falling and then a very slight uptick during those four years. Don’t see how that proves your point.

    i’m sorry, i just need to cut in here and point out that geg6 is retarded and doesn’t know how log scales work. or how to read a chart.

    us gdp nearly doubled from 1933-1937 as a result of new deal policies. gdp grew at 10%+ a year over fdr’s first term until 1937, when he reversed course fiscally.

    that’s your “slight uptick.”

    shorter me: you know you’re a fucking obot when you have to start lying about the government response to the great depression. you and amity shlaes, two peas in a pod.

  177. 177
    kay says:

    “The oil-producing state senators don’t like eliminating or reducing the subsidy for oil companies, “Durbin tells WLS Radio, “There are some senators who are up for election who say I’m never gonna vote for a tax increase while I’m up for election, even on the wealthiest people. So, we’re not gonna have 100% Democratic senators. That’s why it needs to be bi-partisan and I hope we can find some Republicans who will join us to make it happen.”
    But so far, Durbin concedes Democrats don’t have the votes in the senate to pass it, “Not at the moment, I don’t think we do but, uh, we can work on it.”

    So, we’ve got a bill that is popular with the public, a bill that Obama is selling, hard, every day, Democratic governors want the bill, and there are (mysterious) “some Senators” who are holding it up.

    Obama absolutely deserves responsibility for many, many things in his administration, but pointing to him constantly, on everything, only gives these Senators cover.

    Which is what they want.

    Which Senators are “afraid” to raise taxes in an election year, “even on the wealthiest people”?

    If Durbin is pressuring, and he is, it’s not President Obama he’s pressuring. I wonder who he’s talking to?

  178. 178

    @gogol’s wife: Why are you commenting? The post is a complaint about a lack of enthusiasm. If you don’t care about those who aren’t enthusiastic, then what’s your complaint?

  179. 179
    aisce says:

    @ kay

    who do you think, kay?

    ben nelson (taxes on wealthy during an election year), mary landrieu (oil subsidies), etc.

    the usual gang.

  180. 180
    Mino says:

    Harry Reid is the one giving them cover.

  181. 181
    kay says:

    @aisce:

    I don’t know. I wouldn’t limit “afraid to raise taxes” to those people, however.

    I get the oil subsidies, and I agree there, but taxes? I think fear of tax-raising is a bigger possible universe in a tough election year than “conservative Democrats”.

    I don’t agree with it as a political calculation, I think Democrats and liberals WON the argument on taxes, resoundingly, now all they have to do is bring it home, and Grover Norquist starts weeping inconsolably, but I’d have to look at which Senators who are up actually endorsed that idea publicly.

    “Raising taxes” is now a popular thing to say. That’s a sea-change, in public opinion. If they choke, now, they’re short-sighted idiots, or bought and paid for. They won.

  182. 182
    Loviatar says:

    In Praise of Extremism
    What good did bipartisanship ever do anybody?

    Pew] has found that nearly half of independents are in fact either faithful Democrats (21 percent) or Republicans (26 percent) who simply don’t want to call themselves Democrats and Republicans. (Can you blame them?) Another 20 percent are “doubting Democrats” and another 16 percent are “disaffected” voters, respectively anti-business and anti-government, angry and populist rather than mildly centrist. The remaining 17 percent are what Pew calls “disengaged”—young and uneducated Americans, four fifths of whom don’t vote anyway. There’s nothing about the makeup of any segment of these “all-important independent voters” that suggests bipartisan civility has anything whatsoever to do with winning their support.

    There was never a pragmatist vote out there to get, Obama screwed up, when he had the enthusiasm to get things done he was busy playing the adult in the room. Its too late for the enthusiastic vote, he’ll be lucky if the I don’t want the Insane Klown Posse to win vote puts him over the top.

    For those who constantly blame the hippies, Firebaggers, etc. either we’re irrelevant (because we’re only 20% of the electorate) or we’re all powerful, because we elected Bush (Nader), stayed home and screwed up the 2010 election and are depressing the populace in front of the 2012 election. Please choose one because we can’t be both.

  183. 183
    Li says:

    “the House allocates, the Senate has to approve. blue dogs guarantee the watered-down centrism of anything coming out of either.”

    And watered-down centrism essentially condemns the entire planet to death by an endless series of financial and environmental disasters. And how do we solve that? Most of the bought are in safe districts; only the principled must fight for their seats. My overarching contention is that politics is not going to solve any of these problems, in the short term, and in the medium to long term it will be too late to prevent the brain dead toxic corporate dictatorship that runs most of the world from destroying everything with their greed. At best ‘winning’ politically can give us a slow death rather than a quick one.

    In the end, we are going to have to solve this problem ourselves. We cannot expect anyone who reaps money and power off of the greed and death machine to bring it to a halt for us.

  184. 184
    OzoneR says:

    @kay:

    I get the oil subsidies, and I agree there, but taxes

    if it’s Ben Nelson, it’s Nebraska, Nebraska is way to the right of the country, they have low unemployment there, the economy isn’t terrible. I can see Nebraskans opposing raising taxes, even on the rich.

    They didn’t even support the public option.

  185. 185
    Jeff Boatright says:

    @Larime the Gimp: But the poll or topic is “enthusiasm,” right?

    By your own statements it appears that you are not enthusiastic about your choice, but you’re dealing with it.

  186. 186
    kay says:

    @aisce:

    I would say this, for all this talk about “obots” and naive people who accept what the President says, there’s a weird complete acceptance of whatever a member of Congress says, (or doesn’t say) re: who held up what, or compromised where.

    I thought those counts liberals were doing during the health care debate were great. Get them to put their name on something, or not. Which Democratic Senator will put his or her name on an endorsement of the bill’s tax provisions? If not, why not? It’s a “75%” issue, raising taxes on rich people, and as far as I can tell, from the cheap seats, it’s (now) the Official Stance of the Democratic Party. What’s the hold-up?

    Republicans hold a solid line on “no tax increases, ever”. Do Democrats have a comparable solid line for raising taxes on rich people?

    Obama ran on it, and he says it every day. We know where he is.

  187. 187
    Sasha says:

    “The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity”

    Oy.

  188. 188
    kay says:

    @OzoneR:

    I don’t think you know that. If they’re getting ready to choke on raising taxes, and they don’t have the votes, there’s no risk for a moderate or liberal Senator staying silent. Especially Senators. They never, ever say anything critical about each other, if they’re in the same Party.

  189. 189
    cleek says:

    @Loviatar:

    For those who constantly blame the hippies, Firebaggers, etc. either we’re irrelevant (because we’re only 20% of the electorate) or we’re all powerful, because we elected Bush (Nader), stayed home and screwed up the 2010 election and are depressing the populace in front of the 2012 election. Please choose one because we can’t be both.

    any chance different people will have different opinions as to your influence / responsibility?

  190. 190
    some hippy says:

    outsource the Treasury Department to Goldman-Sachs

    That would be terrible! Vote Obama/Geithner!

  191. 191

    […] tip: Mistermix) { 0 comments } var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true}; Lev filed […]

  192. 192
    harlana says:

    @OzoneR: well keep calling them stupid, then – that is what you want to do – makes no difference to me

    who cares, right?

  193. 193
    lacp says:

    What exactly is being measured by “net enthusiasm?” Enthusiasm for one’s political party? Enthusiasm for one’s candidates? Enthusiasm about voting? Enthusiasm for life? This doesn’t sound like it’s really measuring anything. I don’t think most of the people who are “unenthusiastic” are that way because they’re angry at politicians (though they might be that, too), but because they’re apathetic from being ground down by a shitty economy.

  194. 194
    cleek says:

    @lacp:

    What exactly is being measured by “net enthusiasm?”

    the question asked was:

    Compared to previous elections, are you more enthusiastic than usual about voting, or less enthusiastic?

  195. 195
    geg6 says:

    @aisce:

    I am not lying about it. Did the economy improve during the first eight years of FDR’s presidency? Yes, it did. But it improved a hell of a lot more once the US got into WWII, which is when unemployment finally fell out of double digits and GNP increased as much during those five years as it did during the previous eight years.

    Which means that it was not just FDR’s New Deal that finally pulled the economy out of the shitter. At the height of FDR’s pre-war economy in 1939, we were still at 15% unemployment rate, which had been exacerbated by FDR’s decision to go with deficit control rather than increasing GDP to account for the imbalance between the rate of increase of GDP and the rate of increase in the labor force and productivity. The extraordinary event needed to increase aggregate demand that finally fixed things was WWII.

    FDR did as well as could be expected of anyone, but he wasn’t a magician who fixed it all himself. Events out of his control probably had as much to do with the relatively quick recovery we had in the Great Depression as they have to do with Obama not being able to manage the same thing.

  196. 196
    OzoneR says:

    @harlana:

    well keep calling them stupid, then – that is what you want to do – makes no difference to me who cares, right?

    I really don’t care about people like Li, they’re not worth anything, they’ll never effect public policy, but I’m allergic to stupid

  197. 197
    wrb says:

    @cleek:

    the question asked was:
    Compared to previous elections, are you more enthusiastic than usual about voting, or less enthusiastic?

    Cleek finds the key fact.

    Who could be more enthusiastic than in 2008? That year was extraordinary. What a bogus poll.

  198. 198

    I think the enthusiasm gap stuff is a bunch of nonsense.

    I predict we’re so enthusiastic right now that the new meme is going to be we’re too angry to get elected. Really, wait for it. I’ll put money on it.

  199. 199
    El Cid says:

    @geg6: Of course, WWII ‘was’ the New Deal, as far as the US economy goes, because it wasn’t the war itself which improved things, but the investment, purchases, infrastructure, hiring, training, and so forth justified by the war. Call it New Deal II*: The Embiggening.

    (The actual ‘Second New Deal’ is a bit too archaic a reference.)

  200. 200
    gene108 says:

    To everyone, who is upset by how right-wing Obama is.

    The only way to shift the country to the Left, is the whip the Republicans, at every level, in election, after election, after election.

    If they can’t win on their right-wing platform, they will tack left and the whole debate will tack Left.

    Not voting or supporting Democrats means Republicans win. This is America, where a third party hasn’t been viable since 1800 and the rise of party politics.

    Deal with it, you only get two choices in this country.

  201. 201
    geg6 says:

    @El Cid:

    Well, yes. I thought it was implied, but I should know better here on BJ. ;-)

  202. 202
    aisce says:

    @ kay

    i don’t understand your point?

    that i’m supposed to find it difficult to believe senators like landrieu or ben nelson would be making trouble on financing the jobs act? that i’m supposed to find durbin untrustworthy for some reason?

    clearly, the senate doesn’t even have 50 votes lined up to vote on a paid-for jobs act, let alone 60 to pass it under standard order. that’s why they’re now dinking around with setting off a trade war with china over currency appreciation. they can’t pass anything without enmeshing it with the super committee bill.

    @ geg6

    so you’re now backing off your claim that the new deal economy of 1933-1937 wasn’t a “very slight uptick?” huh, how ’bout that.

    yeah, genius. there was another recession in 1937. real gdp and employment didn’t recover their 1929 highs until the advent of wwii. it’s only the most famous story in economic history.

    what this has to do with an entirely different and unique economic situation eighty years and multiple technological revolutions later, i’ll never know. i leave it up to obots and rightwingers.

    @ southern beale

    bullshit with this street protests thing. that’s fatuous. you know a good place to see whether unusual enthusiasm comes into effect?

    elections. referendums, too, why not?

    you know, like the ones throughout 2011 here. and i would hazard to say that record is rather mixed at the moment. no towering advantage in either side’s favor.

  203. 203
    El Cid says:

    @geg6:

    Well, yes. I thought it was implied, but I should know better here on BJ. ;-)

    It really should be, but ask yourself — when you hear in mainstream discussion that ‘it wasn’t the New Deal but WWII which got us out of the Depression,’ how many of them realize, much less clarify, that WWII got us out of the Depression by the same exact sorts of policies of the New Deal, except bigger?

    In prominent discussion, it sounds like “WWII” or “The War” ended the Great Depression without all that Commie Roosevelt Big Gubmit Soshullism, you know, with all that hiring of people on the federal dollar and so forth.

    Next time you hear someone say that, ask them which part of “The War” or “World War II” got us out of the Depression, and how that translated to jobs and quality of life here.

  204. 204
    Li says:

    OzoneR: “I really don’t care about people like Li, they’re not worth anything, they’ll never effect public policy, but I’m allergic to stupid”

    I don’t feel a need to refute that, I’m just amused.

    Other things that OzoneR doesn’t care about include, apparently, grammar.

  205. 205
    Bullsmith says:

    @Li:

    Doesn’t particularly care about spelling either. I believe he meant affect public policy, not implement it.

  206. 206
    wrb says:

    @Bullsmith:

    Doesn’t particularly care about spelling either. I believe he meant affect public policy, not implement it.

    Both work, actually. Doubt Li will do either.

  207. 207
    wrb says:

    @El Cid:

    WWII got us out of the Depression by the same exact sorts of policies of the New Deal, except bigger?

    Exactly.

    The New Deal turned the tide, stabilizing the country and starting an upward creep.

    But it was too small.

    The bigger New Deal- WWII- got us out of the Depression, because only the excuse of war emboldened politicians to spend as boldly as they should have a decade earlier, which would have ended the Depression then.

  208. 208
    Rome Again says:

    @Matt:

    I’d love to know how much you got paid for that comment. Your post was absolutely perfect. I’m sure your overseers are very happy with your performance.

    No change from Obama? – Osama’s dead, DADT is gone, we have Affordable Healthcare. I can cite for you about 150 different things that have been accomplished under this administration. Sure looks like change to me. It’s not exactly as fast as I’ve wanted it to be, or exactly as I’ve wanted to be, but Obama didn’t campaign stating he was only trying to impress me. Furthermore, I see what Republicans have planned for the future if they win the election. I’m surely enthusiastic about stopping them. I have children. I can’t let Republicans win if I can help it.Your post is a full on failure.

  209. 209
    Rome Again says:

    @Ash Can:

    I wondered the same thing. I heard nothing from Republicans about NOLA after Katrina. They seemed quite calm.

  210. 210
    Rome Again says:

    @geg6:

    If the GOP slate and current Congress doesn’t make you thrilled to get out there and vote these assholes out, I don’t know what would.

    I concur!

  211. 211
    Rome Again says:

    @Baud:

    How can they lead a ship that they believe doesn’t belong on the ocean at all?

  212. 212
    Rome Again says:

    @Zandar:

    Great and timely reminder Zander. :)

  213. 213
    Rome Again says:

    @Fulcanelli:

    Maybe these fuckups make the emo left depressed and bitter, but me, I’m just more determined to crush my right wing enemies, see them driven before me, and to hear the lamentation of their women. FTW.

    Love this! :)

    It’s bigger than Obama.

    Yes, it is!

  214. 214
    OzoneR says:

    @El Cid:

    Of course, WWII ‘was’ the New Deal, as far as the US economy goes, because it wasn’t the war itself which improved things, but the investment, purchases, infrastructure, hiring, training, and so forth justified by the war. Call it New Deal II*: The Embiggening.

    It helped that throngs of unemployed men went to the war, leaving all their jobs open.

    Think about it, what happened when they all came back in 1945-46?

    Recession.

  215. 215
    FuzzyWuzzy says:

    I love the Soviet feel I get from the enthusiastic defenders of Obama. There’s a quasi-religious fervor there that brooks no dissent from right or left, factual or fancy. Fearless leader and the five year plan or it’s the Gulag for you, or the swamps of the Ukraine!

  216. 216
    FuzzyWuzzy says:

    @Rome Again: you have affordable healthcare? Do you live in Canada or something?

  217. 217
    William Hurley says:

    @Rome Again:

    Please do, cite away.

    Include a list – linked or copied – of Obama’s campaign promises too.

  218. 218
    William Hurley says:

    @Fulcanelli:

    Indeed, well put.

    Squander is an excellent way to describe the President’s term thus far.

    He’s been victim of nothing more debilitating than his own impulse to under-deliver and thereby squander.

    and you’re right, it is Bigger than barak.

    can you say, brokered convention?

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] tip: Mistermix) { 0 comments } var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true}; Lev filed […]

  2. […] in the Pathetic Museum, Republican voters still have more enthusiasm for 2012 than Democrats. But, Mistermix says, I’m sure after President Romney and his Republican Congress shutter Planned Parenthood, appoint […]

Comments are closed.