Stop Fucking Panicking, Liberals - The Stranger | Comments

Back to article

Comments

1

Amen Mr. Constant, and thank you for posting this. Yes, the debate performance was less than stellar (and it's important to remember it was just the performance piece, substantively Mr. Obama was the clear winner, not that you'd know that), it was ONE DEBATE. The election is still a month away, with 2 more debates and a VP debate yet to come.

I'm reminded of that GIF from the last election cycle, the one where Mr. Obama is standing at a lectern and someone typed "Chill the fuck out, I got this". Chill the fuck out people and work for your candidate or cause. It's all you can do.

jcsmith2 on October 10, 2012 at 12:29 PM

2

Calling all rats.

Plenty of cheese on the U.S.S. Romney.

Supreme Ruler Of The Universe on October 10, 2012 at 1:33 PM

3

Stop panicking about the election you guys! by Paul Constant.

Wow. If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is.

Urgutha Forka on October 10, 2012 at 1:38 PM

4

It mystifies me that you people at the Stranger link to and quote Andrew Sullivan. He's pretty much wrong about everything.

DOUG. on October 10, 2012 at 1:40 PM

5

Paul, weren't you one of those feeding the flames by warning us we better donate to Obama as recently as late last week?

Cato the Younger Younger on October 10, 2012 at 1:42 PM

6

Minor correction: you wrote "Reagan was rocking his early onset Alzheimer's for all it was worth" when it should be "early stage Alzheimer's". "Early onset Alzheimer's" is used to refer to Alzheimer's when it shows up at an unusually young age, like in someone's 50s. In 1984 Reagan was 73, so that's not early onset.

I have always been... east coaster on October 10, 2012 at 1:43 PM

7

Totally agreed. It's reasonable to be concerned, but panic isn't warranted yet. If Obama bombs the second debate, *then* I'll be panicking.

I have always been... east coaster on October 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM

8

What @4 said.

I read his blog from time to time because I think he links to interesting stuff, but his analysis is so, so, so bad.

Asparagus! on October 10, 2012 at 1:54 PM

9

Not panicking, just a little more concerned than previously.

Looking for the good in the evil here, hoping it will be a kick in the pants to make sure everyone rooting for the President actually VOTES for the President.

Can't take anything for granted in this election.

Bugnroolet on October 10, 2012 at 2:00 PM

10

Right.

According to those who study the electoral college vote, Romney has risen from an only 12% chance of winning the election to a 28%.

So calm down, people.

If you're gonna worry about anything, worry about -- whether they win or lose in November -- what your lawmakers are on track to screw up Social Security during the lame duck session:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/10…

judybrowni on October 10, 2012 at 2:16 PM

11

Yeah. Andrew Sullivan was especially bad about this, but liberals in general: two weeks ago, y'all were saying that the question wasn't if Obama was going to win, but how much he was going to win by. Now y'all think your guy is toast.

This is like a basketball game where, with the home court advantage, the visiting team just shot a three to pull barely ahead at the beginning of the third quarter.

redemma on October 10, 2012 at 2:16 PM

12

There was this same panic when McSame got a boost from his dingbat VP selection in 2008. I recall reading an article then that stated much the same thing: "relax - Obamanater can still win."

The_Shaved_Bear on October 10, 2012 at 2:23 PM

13

Moreso, that worrying 3-point lead among likely voters in the Gallup daily tracking poll has, after just a couple days, completely vanished!

Timrrr on October 10, 2012 at 2:42 PM

14

Nope. Not panicking. A little more stressed out and unhappy about it, but fuck, we survived the anti-presidency of George Walankabamamama Bush. Even fucking Reagan didn't manage to kill us all.

The Max on October 10, 2012 at 2:46 PM

15

I think the panic is completely justified. Just wait til I release my campaign's "unskewed" internal polling.

therealtrueauthenticrobmckenna on October 10, 2012 at 2:48 PM

16

I like Dan's hypothesis from this week's podcast. I hope that was exactly what Obama wanted, because that's just shrewd and a bit amusing.

ScienceNerd on October 10, 2012 at 2:48 PM

17

Andrew Sullivan being hysterical about something?!?!? That's weird

on October 10, 2012 at 2:56 PM

18

Does this mean that the voting party is back on? If so, I need to get my wig cleaned.

Catalina Vel-DuRay on October 10, 2012 at 2:56 PM

19

Oh man! You're so zany and loveable Catalina what with your swishy antics and all!

on October 10, 2012 at 3:08 PM

20

The better reason not to panic is that it will make no difference which of these two are elected. If you woke up from a coma today that you fell into in 2006 you'd have no clue Bush wasn't still in charge after reading the news. The R vs. D choice is insignificant when it comes the President of the US. Congress won't balance the budget, taxes will change and some people will be upset, random tragedies will happen, people will find and lose jobs, US dollars will continue to be printed out of thin air, the US will continue to intervene in foreign affairs, no Federal government departments will be abolished. Stop being Democratic partisan tools as if it's significant to the welfare of the country. Vote third party.

cliche on October 10, 2012 at 3:11 PM

21

Obama hasn't even started drilling down on all the lies. Romney is racing too far ahead with dozens more each day. It should be pretty easy to dissect it in the next debate, although I thought 47% would be easy pickings.

biffp on October 10, 2012 at 3:22 PM

22

@3 and @5, thank you.

LJM on October 10, 2012 at 3:34 PM

23

Way to go Paul! Good peptalk! Now let's go out and win this thing! Both AARP and children in Pakistan need to know we're not going to change horses midstream.

dirac on October 10, 2012 at 3:52 PM

24

I also recommend www.electoral-vote.com

ourkind on October 10, 2012 at 4:48 PM

25

@20 Hey, the 2000 election just called, it wants its hipster political talking points back.

Please, convince me that electing Gore would have been "just the same" as electing Bush. Really. Go ahead. I'd *love* to hear your arguments.

I'll send them to Baghdad, they'd find them hysterical.

Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In on October 10, 2012 at 7:46 PM

26

@9: Agreed.

auntie grizelda on October 10, 2012 at 8:54 PM

27

The difference this time, ass-munch, is that these polls are actually fucking accurate and Romney is going to take Obama to the woodshed two more times. Boo-fucking-hoo.

Romneyite on October 10, 2012 at 9:56 PM

28

thanks for saying it, @25. somebody had to.

ellarosa on October 10, 2012 at 10:44 PM

29

Ah history. Okey-doke. Let's have a look at history, Paul. On yer mark, get set, go!

In every election since 1948 except for one, if the unemployment rate did anything but go down in the second quarter (April through June) of an election year, the incumbent party lost the White House. See for yourself

In years where the rate was unchanged, the incumbent party lost very narrowly. The one exception, when Eisenhower was re-elected in 1956 in spite of an uptick in inflation, is easily explained by noting how low the rate was that year. Plus, let's face it, Adlai Stevenson was the original Walter Mondale.

Why would the unemployment indicator work? Three reasons. First, because "whether you have a job" is a damned good proxy for how optimistic you might be about the in-crowd. Second, the overall rate is a damned good proxy for how optimistic a lot of people might be. Third, because any moves in unemployment affect the economy with a time lag, changes after June don't show up in general spending or public morale until after the election.

Now look at this year. The second quarter was flat. History says Obama will lose by a whisker, just like Al Gore did in 2000, Gerald Ford did in 1976, Hubert Humphrey did in 1968, Richard Nixon did in 1960.

History's a bitch, Paul. Maybe for your next act, you can give us the history of Kool Aid, because you've been drinking it by the gallon.

Mister G on October 10, 2012 at 11:06 PM

30

Correction: "The one exception, when Eisenhower was re-elected in 1956 in spite of an uptick in unemployment ... "

Mister G on October 10, 2012 at 11:10 PM

31

@20

I take it that you don't know anyone in the military do you?

My fiance is in the Army National Guard and we are scared to death that Romney will win. If he does, it's dangerous for my fiance. Not only is Romney a saber rattling moron, he has also once proposed privatizing the VA.

In other words, go fuck yourself you Nader loving piece of shit.

passionate_jus on October 10, 2012 at 11:34 PM

32

#31, I agree. I want Obama to be re-elected. I'm just not entirely sure thar Obama wants Obama to be re-elected. Can't entirely blame him. The presidency is the worst job in the world.

Mister G on October 11, 2012 at 1:08 AM

33

The problem with idealistic young things like our dear Cliche @20 is that even if Rocky Stein or Jill Anderson or Dr. Nader (or any of the other flashes in the pan, politicos du jour) were to get elected, they would still be a disappointment to the cliches of the world. Those sorts of people demand politicians have 100% strident agreement with them at all times, or all is lost. Five days into any of those administrations, they'd be telling us how bitterly disappointed they are, and how they are just like the Democrats.

And troll @19, you obviously have never owned a wig. A rinse and set for them is serious business, not a "swishy antic"

Catalina Vel-DuRay on October 11, 2012 at 6:46 AM

34

@33, some of us don't want Presidents who kill American's without due process or have secret kill lists like this one has done and has.

Cato the Younger Younger on October 11, 2012 at 7:52 AM

35

http://electoral-vote.com/

I see no reason to panic. Obama's got the EV's in spades.

ctmcmull on October 11, 2012 at 8:31 AM

36

Obama is not a shoo-in at all. He can easily lose.

Mister G on October 11, 2012 at 11:22 AM

37

Repeat after me: Presidents are elected by the Electoral College not the popular vote. Obama almost certainly will win Washington -- and the West Coast.

If you have the means donate to the campaign or work for it in a state that is up for grabs. I am able to do neither so I am going to my best to simply tune the election out.

artful_bodger on October 11, 2012 at 1:19 PM

38

Here's another way to look at it: If Paul Constant were informed that his job depended on predicting the election, I doubt he'd be swaggering quite as much here. Instead, he'd be telling everyone that it's too close to call.

But, you see, Paul isn't paid to be accurate. Just like the clowns at Fox News, he is paid to tell his customers what they want to hear. And what do The Stranger's readers want to hear? Not that Obama just might lose.

So, if I'm Paul Constant, knowing that my job pretty much depends on drinking the Kool-Aid, only a different flavor than what they drink at Fox, I will drink the Kool-Aid. There's really no downside risk, is there Paul?

Mister G on October 11, 2012 at 2:13 PM

39

p.s.: To everyone else, always watch out for people whose paycheck depends on them lying to you. Even if they are lies you prefer to hear. No, especially if they're lies you prefer to hear. Those are the most dangerous kind.

Mister G on October 11, 2012 at 3:23 PM

40

@29: All that means NOTHING. Bet you feel smart, though, regurgitating all that historical data.

2012 is not 1956, 1960, 1964, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, or 2008.

Wow, do I ever feel smart typing in all that data!

TheBadSeed131313 on October 11, 2012 at 5:06 PM

41

One of the producers on the Maddow show interviewed a pollster who said, "When your poll numbers are bad for the conservatives, they want to kill you. When your poll numbers are bad for the liberals, they want to kill themselves."

Perfect description about the mood these past few days.

Canadian Nurse on October 11, 2012 at 6:33 PM

42

#40, howdy Sarah Palin wannabe! Except you're even dumber. At least she was willing to go back to Reagan for her history. Yours started yesterday.

Mister G on October 11, 2012 at 8:26 PM

43

p.s.: And here the left thinks they're the smart ones, and that the wingnuts are the anti-intellectuals. Another conceit bites the dust!

Mister G on October 11, 2012 at 8:27 PM

44

@27: Said the brainless twelve year old robot troll without a future who's too chicken to actually register an account, let alone offer any intelligent reason at all to support Romney.
Go back to Simon Says. Geesh.

auntie grizelda on October 12, 2012 at 9:30 PM

45

@36, @38,@39, @42, and @43: Over-caffeinate much?

auntie grizelda on October 12, 2012 at 9:35 PM

46

Liberals should have started panicking when Obama appointed Gates and Geithner (and many others like them) to his administration.

anon1256 on October 12, 2012 at 10:43 PM

47

auntie griz, you'd better read the latest from the autistic dude at the New York Times. It's slippin' away as we speak.

Mister G on October 13, 2012 at 12:42 AM

52

So, Paul Constant, when will we see your great mea culpa column, in which you talk about how you mocked the ides of a Romney comeback on Oct. 3rd, and in the subsequent 10 days Obama lost two-thirds of his lead over Romney in Nate Silver's meta-survey?

Not that anyone who signs your paycheck is going to care that we're all laughing at you or anything like that.

Mister G on October 13, 2012 at 8:08 PM

53

Here is MisterG gloating again about Rmoney being ahead in corporate polls, but hell no, he ain't no wingnut ...

anon1256 on October 13, 2012 at 10:55 PM

54

@47: Which columnist from The New York Times are you referring to?
I read a lot of Paul Krugman's articles.

As I said, I agree with @9. I'm not panic-stricken----yet, if at all, but concerned about the dire possibility of the U.S. degenerating to a Third World Batshit Banana Republic under a Republican stranglehold.
Rethugs and their lackeys truly want he end of the world.

Which reminds me, has anyone heard the latest doomsday date set by the Reverend Harold Camping? I would have chosen April 1st myself.

auntie grizelda on October 13, 2012 at 11:41 PM

55

#53, not "gloating again about Romney being ahead in the polls," but reminding Paul Constant, you, and the other Kool-Aid guzzlers that you are every last bit as brainless and self-deluded as Sarah Palin ever was or will be.

Mister G on October 14, 2012 at 1:33 PM

56

@55: Hmmm...once again, you've proven that the only brainless and self-deluded individual around here is yourself, wingnut.

auntie grizelda on October 14, 2012 at 7:12 PM

57

poor auntie. A little late to play the screeching bitch, ain't it? Nice try, though, at least by Seattle standards.

Mister G on October 14, 2012 at 9:20 PM

58

@57: Screeching bitch? LOL! You're the one choking on exhaust fumes, bubba wingnut. I'm laughing my ass off at you, since you still haven't figured it out yet.

auntie grizelda on October 15, 2012 at 5:16 PM

59

@57: OH!!! I get it now--"Mister G" stands for Mister Gas---because you're full of hot, polluted air!!

auntie grizelda on October 15, 2012 at 5:18 PM

60

auntie, don't worry, you'll feel better in three or four days. What's worse, the bloating or the cramps?

Mister G on October 16, 2012 at 3:58 AM

61

@60: You'd know a lot more about bloating and cramps than I ever would, Gasman. Take a laxative, and lie down.
Good boy.

auntie grizelda on October 17, 2012 at 8:28 AM

62

@60: Poor boy--didn't you know that sitting all day in gridlock, choking on gas fumes can actually kill you?

auntie grizelda on October 17, 2012 at 8:33 AM

63

Um - sorry to state the obvious, but in addition to "dusting yourself off, taking a deep breath, and being a fucking adult," you should probably vote.

MrGumble on October 17, 2012 at 12:55 PM

64

17 October 2012.

The Mormon has widened his lead, states are turning redder faster than the leaves on the trees, Obama is breaking speed records trying to escape the black hole of his record, and it being passed on by anyone who wishes to be reelected.

Liberals aren't panicked, that's what Zoloft is for.

Slam1263 on October 17, 2012 at 8:15 PM

65

@64: That's what you want us to believe, isn't it? Nice try.
Mr. Gasman employed YOU as his lackey to tell us
that it's over. Well, I don't agree, and will vote accordingly
for whom I feel best represents ME as a woman, taxpayer,
U.S. born citizen, and VOTER.
And Moron Republican Frat Boy doesn't cut it.

Is the REAL reason why you, Gasman, and other cavemen so rabidly support Romney is because none of you GET IT, and THAT'S why you're NOT GETTING ANY?

auntie grizelda on October 18, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Editors' Picks

Chinatown Protests “Homelessness Megaplex”

Montana Wants to Make Life Hell for Trans People

A Militia Adopted Three Highways in Washington

Lieutenant Uhura and the Death of American Progress

Young at Heart

Meteor Showers and Makeouts: The Stranger Does Day In Day Out

is a proud member of the

media network

Masthead Ad Info & Rates Jobs at The Stranger Contact Privacy Policy Terms of Use Takedown Policy Find The Stranger Near You

Support The Stranger

All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134