The election results this November will be horrifying.

[dawg]

I expect Obama to win with around 52% of the popular vote. Think, for a minute, what that means:

It means that 48% of voters are willing to support a party that wants to radically transform our society. We already have one of the weakest safety nets of any industrialized nation. Romney and Ryan would shrink our small safety net down to a spider's web. They would take us to a place that no modern democracy has ever gone before - to a world where families are, essentially, on their own.

In a sane country, Romney and Ryan would not get over 30% of the vote. Certainly no high-profile business leaders would be backing them publicly. The only other first-world politicians with views this extreme are European fringe-party candidates.

Focus groups, when shown the details of the Ryan budget, simply refuse to believe that it's true. But it is true; that really is their agenda.

If more than 40% of my countrymen vote for these plutocrats, I'll be horrified. Democrats, all sane people actually, need to go into full-fledged battle mode in order to educate people about the radical nature of today's Republican Party. The time for remaining silent is over. The time for false equivalencies is over.

There is nothing conservative about proposals to radically alter a society's institutions and completely upend the current social contract.

[uppityperson]

1. I know, it is awful. People are emotional beings and fear rules intellect. It is horrifying.

I expect Obama to win, but the numbers who will vote for such awful stuff are incredible. "it's better than Obama who is the worst thing to happen to our country". No, it's not. And it's not. And I agree, there is nothing conservative about these proposals. Fear rules.

GOTV, more than ever. And I don't understand how people can be so afraid or vindictive that they are so willing to cut their own throats.

[TeamPooka]

2. The lesson here is that Political Parties can change, but people don't.

[Scuba]

3. If it's really that close we'll lose to Diebold/ESS/Sequoia.

[B2G]

4. If it's that close, it'll go to the SC again

I can't take that. It had better be a resounding margin.

[dawg]

6. I don't think it will be close enough in the electoral college for them to steal it.

But the huge popular-vote majorities R&R will get in states like Georgia will result in a fairly small difference in total votes cast.

[leftstreet]

5. People vote for 'status quo' or 'change'

Obama ran on change. Now he's running on status quo.

It's up to the voters.

[Freddie]

20. Not a bad campaign idea

"Last time we asked you to vote for change
This time we ask you to vote for Don't Change:
Don't change Medicare
Don't change Social Security
Don't change these benefits that YOU EARNED just so Wall Street and Big Insurance get an even bigger piece of the pie!"

[dawg]

23. You're good!

I really like that.

[Loudestlib]

35. Do you mind if people use that?

[Freddie]

39. (blushing) please do!

[docgee]

37. How do you kick a comment??

lol

[dkf]

53. I don't understand what voting for no change entails.

If you don't do anything you're actually supporting cuts because the numbers won't work out in the long term.

To keep benefits as is you must advocate change to increase revenues, ie taxes.

Why after all this time do people think they can get their benefits by sitting around in blissful ignorance with no action?

[uponit7771]

64. +1!

[bigwillq]

7. And I am sure that 48% think that 52% want to radically transform our society.

I am sure that 48 believe that 52 are scary and horrifying.

More than 40% will vote for RRR.
It'll be very hard for folks to changes other folks' minds. Most are set in their beliefs.

[dawg]

12. I'm sure they think that too, but that doesn't make it true.

It would be one thing if the Republicans were running simply to repeal the ACA and maintain the Bush tax cuts. I would strongly disagree with those positions, but they probably do fit the definition of "conservative".

But these guys want to totally unravel the safety net. And it isn't just liberal speculation - they spell it out for us in their own policy proposals.

People are not set in their beliefs at all. Almost no voters thought these were good ideas before the Republicans proposed them. They have instantly changed their minds on the issues so as to suit their politics.

What people are locked into is their "team".

[bigwillq]

14. I agree with the team part.

But people are set in their beliefs.
Do you think the Chick-Fil-A folks are going to change their mind anytime soon on gay rights? I don't think so.

[Cosmocat]

38. instantly changed their minds on the issues so as to suit their politics

That is it in a nutshell ...

Clinton balanced the budget and in the 2000 election they actually ran on how horrible it was to have a balance budget or surplus because you can't trust government - they will use it to buy up everything. That was part of what Bush II ran on.

Now, of course, the world is coming to an end because of the deficit they are pretty much solely responsible for.

In the mid/late 90s when Clinton was saying Islamic fundamentalists were a threat, the Rs screamed WAG THE DOG and said he was just trying to scare people for political reasons.

Bush didn't take them seriously, and let 9-11 happen. They, of course, blamed Clinton and spent a half decade using 9-11 for political advantage.

They scream FOREVER about small government and keeping government out of our lives - they castigated anyone who would not support the most intrusive piece of legislation in our lives, the Patriot Act, as appeasing the enemy - wtf that is/was.

During that time, you COULD NOT criticize the Commander in Chief when troops were in the field!

That shit of course, ended in January of 2009.

There is about 40% of the country that will follow the republican party over whatever cliff it tells them, and they will eat shit and demand everyone else eats it with them if the republican party tells them to.

[Ter]

65. This

n/t

[cleduc]

8. "If more than 40% of my countrymen vote for these plutocrats, I'll be horrified."

Just remember that a big chunk of the media has been bought via Citizens United and the billionaires.

And the GOP are presenting the most dishonest presidential candidate in US history.

In other words, a bunch of those 40% (many working two jobs or very busy to survive and don't have a lot of time to dig for the truth) will be voting on the basis that they got sucked into a massive effort to lie to them. Ad in the 10-20% who are racist and you'll get your %.

[Initech]

9. That's what happens when people's minds are warped by AM hate radio and a talking points news network.

[Vincardog]

10. It will not be "40% of my countrymen" at most it will be 40% of the voters. Consider that 50%

of my countrymen will decide that the elections are a farce and choose not to participate.
Face it neither party is offering the radical changes we need to change the direction in this country.

[hughee99]

11. I think the most disturbing part will be that between 60 and 80% won't care enough

to even vote.

[redqueen]

18. Well so many work so hard to convince others that there's no difference between the parties...

disenfranchised groups usually have little incentive to believe otherwise to begin with... Occupy has a lot of the 'Obama is just as bad' sentiments going around...

Makes one wonder.

[Freddie]

21. Yes the "Obama isn't left enough so don't bother voting"

folks are evil, no other word, sorry for offense.
Maybe putting Ryan on the ticket persuade them otherwise.

[redqueen]

25. Whether evil or simply stupid...

the result is the same.

I wish they'd all just STFU and go read some history books.

[Freddie]

30. My idiot BIL voted for Nader

In PA, so no harm done really, but still.
He's seen the error of his ways since then.

[nxylas]

40. There are a ton of those in Common Dreams comboxes

I'm convinced they are a Republican operation. Some of them barely bother to hide it, urging progressives to vote for Romney because, um, if he wins, things will get so bad that the people will finally wake up and vote for a true progressive. Yes, that's it.

[firehorse]

13. In Ryan's 14 year experience he has only passed 2 bills, how could he possible change anything?

He's a failure at his job. I don't see how Romney/Ryan can change much. Seriously.

[Amonester]

15. "go into full-fledged battle mode" at www.barackobama.com :)

http://www.barackobama.com/

To: Volunteer, Make calls, Join dashboard, Attend an event, Host an event, Donate, and many more options.

More often than not, it's not really a full-fledged battle, but a rather FUN thing to do (meeting great people), whatever the option!

[unblock]

16. money and greed are powerful forces and not to be underestimated.

generally speaking, humans in general and americans in particular will readily accept greed just as long as it isn't completely, nakedly obvious. any thin veil will suffice, even if it's illogical or demonstrably false.

cutting taxes will increase government revenue? sure, cut my taxes!
cutting taxes will cause massive trickle down? sure, cut my taxes!
cutting taxes will cause an explosion of private sector jobs? sure, cut my taxes!
and just the bottom line, cutting taxes when i'm doing fine and don't need the extra money will benefit me more than cutting the safety net for when i'm not doing fine and really DO need that money? sure, cut my taxes!

the tone of the political debate really shifted with the 1980 election. republicans always sold greed, but reagan made it folksy and fashionable, and republicans have only amped it up ever since.

democrats need to be ivy league-educated, rhodes scholar, head of the law review, squeaky clean, brilliant orators, highly charismatic, perfect candidates; republicans can be inarticulate, idiotic criminals -- just so long as they peddle tax cuts and corporate loopholes.

[redqueen]

17. Are these estimates reliable?

I don't trust official results. See Ohio, 2004.

[dawg]

19. They are "dawg" estimates. :P

We will see how reliable they are in a few months.

[dawg]

22. I just wonder what else their "base" would be willing to go along with.

Replacing the income tax with a regressive sales tax?

Sterilization of welfare recipients?

A poll tax?

A property requirement for voting?

A literacy test for voting?

A ban on teaching evolution in public schools?

Wholesale privatization of the public schools?



I know some of you may think I'm being a little silly with some of these ideas. But if Republican voters are willing to swallow turning Medicare into a voucher program and allowing adult children to be impoverished to pay for their parent's nursing home care because of Medicaid cuts, what else would they be willing to go along with?

At what point would those Republican-voting office park dads and soccer moms finally draw the line?

[KamaAina]

27. A literacy test for voting? That'd be the end of the repuke party!

[xxqqqzme]

42. Not if they are

making up the test.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

34. I've seen all those positions advocated in my local paper's online forum

Then add a huge helping of racism and stir.

One math-challenged genius even proposed a 10% flat tax (not unusual, I know), but then said that people with incomes below $10,000 will be exempt because "the government doesn't need their $100." I'm hoping that that poster is a math-challenged high school student who is too young to vote anyway and has no idea how a $1500 income tax would cripple a person making $15,000 a year.

[xxqqqzme]

43. I don't see any problem w/

the first three. They are all in favor of drug testing now, sterilization is just one little step away. I think property requirement is coming on fast (if you don't own property, you are not invested in the country or some such lame ass excuse). The last two are being implemented. The schools in Louisiana have been privatized by way of disaster capitalism.

[Posteritatis]

24. Isn't the vote breakdown usually not far from that range in American elections?

I'm used to some pretty dramatically swinging percentages in the Canadian experience, but I thought it was quite rare that there was more than, oh, a ten-point difference between presidential candidates in the popular vote?

[dawg]

26. It's almost always close.

The problem is that it remains that way, no matter how extreme one of the two political parties becomes. This time, they literally threatened to default on legal U.S. obligations for no apparent reason other than political blackmail. Yet they are still considered a perfectly viable choice for half the voting population.

On social issues, they have gone so far as to threaten access to birth-control. I never in a million years thought that a modern political party could get away with something that extreme.

How far would their supporters let them go? I never thought it could get even this far. I was wrong.

[heaven05]

36. sheep

sheeple are easily led. there is precedent in modern times for how easily led people are with lies, distortion and outright fear mongering. A lot of people don't want to think for themselves. I've seen that in too many fringe and extremist groups/religions.

[Liberal_in_LA]

28. yep. It means that only 4% of the population is between reproductive freedom and return to back

alley abortions.

[MyshkinCommaPrince]

29. Too few parties.

We need more political parties in our democracy, but we always end up with two. Each of the two parties drags along with it numerous voters who may agree only with one or two planks in a platform, disagreeing with the others. Not every person in that 48% percent would be supporting Wannabe Fascism. The problem isn't those voters, it's the way our special blend of democracy has come to function. We need more parties.

[dawg]

31. Our winner-take-all system makes votes for third-parties self-defeating.

I wish we had a parliamentary system and instant run-off voting, but we do not.

[MyshkinCommaPrince]

44. Correct.

We have to deal with the reality of our existing system, but its flaws should still be pointed out. Just sayin', y'know.

[xxqqqzme]

45. Yes - a parliamentary system

also forces parties to work together to form coalitions to get a majority.

[DonCoquixote]

54. which allows for ugly compromises

and people like Steve Harper to stay in despite the fact that 60 percent of his countrymen hate him.

[walruswasrob]

66. As bad as he is...

I would rather live in a Harper Canada than a Mitt America.

[DonCoquixote]

67. time will tell

Though frankly, Harper is doing a good job of making the sort of changes you cannot heal. It may not be different in a few years time.

[NRaleighLiberal]

32. Don't forget - scads of people don't vote. So it is either better or worse than we all realize!

[msongs]

33. how about giving people something worth voting for :-) nt

[nxylas]

41. I'm more afraid of the Congressional results than the Presidential election

I can see Obama scraping a narrow victory but Repukes gaining control of both houses of Congress, leaving another 2-4 years of deadlock.

[Jamaal510]

46. Considering that some folks will vote 3rd party, I think 52-48% is a little high.

But I concur--what's horrifying is that the Grand Obstructionist Party is always guaranteed at least 40% of the vote, thanks in large part to brainwashing techniques from the not-really-liberal media and AM hate radio. The big whigs on the other side know how to exploit people's fears and their ignorance about how politics works, and they have clever ways of wording things to convince people to vote against their interests, whether it's "economic freedom" (which really means more spending power for millionaires while everyone else gets taxed higher) or "limited government" (a euphemism for cuts to working-class services and less business regulations). The only way more voters on the other side of the spectrum will wake up to reality is if something even more disastrous than the '08 recession happens, such as what happened on the Family Guy episode about the Tea Party.

[dawg]

48. I'm still in shock over 2010.

I thought the 2008 crash would have been enough to keep the Republicans out of power for a decade or more. Instead, their voters were willing to believe the crash was entirely due to banks being forced to make loans to poor minority families. (By the Bush Administration, no less)

[DissidentVoice]

59. I wasn't surprised

The electorate has a very short attention span, and Republicans knew it.

They're also very (too) good at taking BS and wrapping it in God, Guns, Guts and the Flag and selling it to that electorate.

They did it in 1994 and 2004. Nothing new under the sun.

[INdemo]

47. There are those(the wealthy) that have thrown $$ at these radicals that has caused

many,especially first time voters to believe their radical agenda..These people don't care about our Democracy.As long as they have have their wealth they could care less.

[Z_California]

49. Don't worry

Their base is dying faster than they can brainwash new victims. Demographics are way in our favor.

[Kennah]

50. I would like to believe that ...

... and a 60-40 Obama win would be huge. A lot of people would be forced to STFU because the people decided they wanted Obama Change. However, 40 percent of voters voting for Rmoney Hood is rather frightening.

[Z_California]

60. True Story

The ignorance of the common American is alarming and sad.

[ananda]

51. I think Obama will win by a landslide, with coattails!

nt

[AverageJoe90]

56. If all goes well, and with no successful election fraud.......

That may indeed just happen.

[DissidentVoice]

52. If Romney/Ryan wins...

...then I expect that this election will be the last "free" election in this country.

The problem is that the Republicans have been good at taking BS and wrapping it in God, Guns, Guts and the Flag.

Now the far right radio and TV gasbags have one of their own on the ticket they'll promote Romney because they want Ryan!

I am frightened. I don't mind admitting it. I am a disabled veteran who, if not for Social Security, VA, etc., would be destitute or dead, and that seems to be what the far right wants.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

55. Most Senior family members, friends and neighbors

I have known over the years were in the the exact same position as you. My MIL and two
of her Lady friends pooled their SS resources and lived happily independent of their families
far into old age. I can't imagine our Seniors voting for a candidate proposing what the Ryan
budget demands.

Another thing to consider is younger boomers would be required to financially support their
elderly parents. Do really believe those still working and struggling to make ends meet are
going to welcome that responsibility when they are still recovering from sending kids to
college or supporting kids still unable to to fully finance their own independence? I don't think
so. This issue effects everyone, not just Seniors.

Take nothing for granted, but Willard and his TP mate are going to be very unpopular come November.

[DissidentVoice]

58. I'm not a senior citizen...

I'm relatively young at 46 years old, so I don't qualify as a "senior citizen."

However, I am on full disability, documented over the years by both civilian and Air Force medical types.

I am married and my dear wife does her best to deal with a disabled husband.

So many people are surprised that as a Christian (Lutheran) and a veteran, I'm not an ardent GOP worshipper. I cannot stand what they believe in. I think they are evil, especially the ones at the top, but behind-the-scenes in control: Grover Norquist, Rush Limbaugh and other assorted hate radio flamethrowers.

They have succeeded in demonising "liberals," and at painting things like universal health care as "socialism" and "un-American." So what if it is socialism? I'd rather be a "socialist" than a TP Objectivist!

I think this is just another step in the Republican social Darwinist scheme.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

62. I apologize for making an assumption

about your age. This is just a reminder for me how
many people other than Seniors depend on Social
Security.

I agree with everything you wrote especially the last
sentence. For the first time in my life I feel being a
woman is going to put me in jeopardy in ways I can't
begin to imagine if these thugs get in office.

RMoney is a lose/lose proposition for everyone except
a tiny sliver of the very wealthy.

[DissidentVoice]

63. No apology necessary

Don't worry about it.

It's just sort of natural to think "Social Security" = "over 65."

What boggles the heck out of me is how many of these same Senior Citizens will vote for the very people throwing them under the bus. Like the Tea Party, a lot of them are retired people and they say they don't want "socialized medicine," yet they say "hands-off Medicare!"

[grantcart]

57. I expect it will be 54-45. But that isn't the important number.

What is the percent for people 40 and under.

Every year that the Republican Party continues to appeal to an aging reactionary core the greater the canyon between the parties in the upcoming generation, and that will take them decades to reverse.

[mvd]

61. I agree. While Obama doesn't get me..

very enthusiastic with center right policies (health care a Repuke idea from 20 years ago, banks still too big to fail, no prosecutions of big financial crisis players, trade policy, taking a balanced approach to the budget when we need one tilted against the rich, etc.), Ryan is a choice that confirms Romney wants to go back before the New Deal. How anyone could vote for that is beyond me.

[Hotler]

68. Nothing is going to change until.....

more people feel the pain. As long as NASCAR, NFL, MLB and basketball continue to sell out there is not enough pain. A small part of me says let the repugs have 2012 then the pain will come and all those with the "I have mine fuck everyone else." attitude will feel the pain just like the rest of us. It's time to let the repuhgs and tea party folks vote against their own best interest and feel the pain.