Tools
As I write this, liberals everywhere are panicking. A Pew poll released on October 8 had Mitt Romney up 4 percent over Barack Obama nationally. A national Gallup tracking poll of likely voters had Romney up 2 percent. And everywhere—on Twitter, on progressive blogs, even in what we laughably used to call "the real world" before the internet snaked through our phones and ate our brains—Democrats are ready to call the race in favor of the opposition.
For instance, Andrew Sullivan turned into a giant wailing babyman on his blog, pronouncing that at the end of the first (admittedly disastrous) presidential debate, President Obama "instantly plummeted into near-oblivion," whatever the fuck that means. After writing that post, Sullivan clambered into his crib and cried himself to sleep in his little footie pajamas. Because Andrew Sullivan is a mewling fucking coward—and you are, too, if you're panicking right now.
Stranger Personals
Here's the thing. You can't stake your emotions on a single poll. Hell, you can't stake your emotions on seven polls. A poll is a photograph, a snapshot in time. Like a movie, you have to assemble many of those photographs together, in successive order, to create a narrative. Keep reading Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight blog at the New York Times, keep reading the Monte Carlo poll simulations that Darryl Holman at Horse's Ass (Horsesass.org) has been running (Holman actually predicted the outcome of the 2008 presidential election with greater accuracy than Silver, missing only that bonus electoral vote that Obama picked up in Nebraska), and you understand that no single poll can predict the outcome of the election.
And let's look at history. Have you ever seen Ronald Reagan's first debate against Walter Mondale in 1984? Reagan was rocking his early onset Alzheimer's for all it was worth, giving answers that were bloated, pause-ridden, and basically impossible to follow. But the thing about great politicians is that they never make the same mistake twice, and Reagan came roaring back to dominate the next two debates. The history of polls, too, is heavy with these kinds of potholes: John Kerry was edging ahead of George W. Bush among likely voters during this week in 2004. In September of 2008, a Gallup tracking poll of likely voters had McCain/Palin up 10 points over Obama/Biden. Surely you remember these moments in the 2008 campaign, where bloggers—including Sullivan—and hardcore liberals wrung their hands and predicted the end of the Obama campaign. We struggled as hard as we could to foretell doom and gloom: Google "Obama Bradley effect" if you need a refresher.
Look: Momentary panic is natural, especially when it's about something as huge and portentous as an election. But you fail as a grown-ass human being if you just wallow in your fear like a child or a dog hiding under a bed from peals of thunder. If you're that fucking scared, go do something. Donate money to the Obama campaign and to other causes you believe in. Even better, donate your time to causes you believe in. That'll take your mind off the panic. Don't give in to this defeatist bullshit. Dust yourself off, take a deep breath, and be a fucking adult. 
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.
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.
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.
Wow. If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is.
4
It mystifies me that you people at the Stranger link to and quote Andrew Sullivan. He's pretty much wrong about everything.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I read his blog from time to time because I think he links to interesting stuff, but his analysis is so, so, so bad.
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.
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.
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…
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…
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.
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.
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."
13
Moreso, that worrying 3-point lead among likely voters in the Gallup daily tracking poll has, after just a couple days, completely vanished!
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.
15
I think the panic is completely justified. Just wait til I release my campaign's "unskewed" internal polling.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
30
Correction: "The one exception, when Eisenhower was re-elected in 1956 in spite of an uptick in unemployment ... "
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.
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.
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.
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"
And troll @19, you obviously have never owned a wig. A rinse and set for them is serious business, not a "swishy antic"
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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!
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!
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.
Perfect description about the mood these past few days.
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.
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!
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.
Go back to Simon Says. Geesh.
46
Liberals should have started panicking when Obama appointed Gates and Geithner (and many others like them) to his administration.
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.
48
Oh wow, Paul Constant starts off citing a Pew poll --- so, does this mean that Constant agrees with previous Pew polls??
Like the one claiming that America has a "liberal media"???
Instead, what Constant should do is take a close look at the well-planned, psychometrically-weighted poll releases, and how they are designed to skew, mold and misdirect public opinion and consensus. (For some peculiar reason, some of us actually mistrust polls financed by oil companies and banks, dood!)
Later, Constant cites a blog at the New York Times, the same paper which claims that populist Hugo Chavez of Venezuela to be a "strong man" and an "autocrat" --- total bullcrap! (Yes, very infrequently some hint of truth leaks out of the New York Times, but only very infrequently.)
Later still, Constant mentions the Reagan-Mondale debates --- oh puhlease, dood, Mondale was such an establishment fraudster!
Finally, Constant takes issue with the polls indicating John Kerry ahead --- as if they weren't to be believed (they were non-Pew polls) --- when they were indeed correct!
Had Constant ever withdrawn his head from his skanky butt he would know that three of the members of the Cuyahoga County Elections Board were convicted (and at least several served jail time) for election fraud, while the entire elections board was summarily fired with prejudice!
This specific event threw the election in Ohio in Bush's favor, illegitimately against Kerry, bolstering those polls favoring Kerry over Bush!
Constant's refrain to "donate" reminds me of how Jane Hamsher (firedoglake.com) urged readers to donate to her web and elsewhere for the "public option" during the health insurance legislation --- knowing full well that the public option had long since been dropped.
Ditto those recent recall elections in Wisconsin to attempt to oust Gov. Wanker, with the same percentage of union households voting once again for Gov. Wanker.
The people are beyond dumbed down, otherwise there would be massive national support for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party, instead of these two Wall Street "choices" we are once again presented with.
More...
Like the one claiming that America has a "liberal media"???
Instead, what Constant should do is take a close look at the well-planned, psychometrically-weighted poll releases, and how they are designed to skew, mold and misdirect public opinion and consensus. (For some peculiar reason, some of us actually mistrust polls financed by oil companies and banks, dood!)
Later, Constant cites a blog at the New York Times, the same paper which claims that populist Hugo Chavez of Venezuela to be a "strong man" and an "autocrat" --- total bullcrap! (Yes, very infrequently some hint of truth leaks out of the New York Times, but only very infrequently.)
Later still, Constant mentions the Reagan-Mondale debates --- oh puhlease, dood, Mondale was such an establishment fraudster!
Finally, Constant takes issue with the polls indicating John Kerry ahead --- as if they weren't to be believed (they were non-Pew polls) --- when they were indeed correct!
Had Constant ever withdrawn his head from his skanky butt he would know that three of the members of the Cuyahoga County Elections Board were convicted (and at least several served jail time) for election fraud, while the entire elections board was summarily fired with prejudice!
This specific event threw the election in Ohio in Bush's favor, illegitimately against Kerry, bolstering those polls favoring Kerry over Bush!
Constant's refrain to "donate" reminds me of how Jane Hamsher (firedoglake.com) urged readers to donate to her web and elsewhere for the "public option" during the health insurance legislation --- knowing full well that the public option had long since been dropped.
Ditto those recent recall elections in Wisconsin to attempt to oust Gov. Wanker, with the same percentage of union households voting once again for Gov. Wanker.
The people are beyond dumbed down, otherwise there would be massive national support for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party, instead of these two Wall Street "choices" we are once again presented with.
49
@46, anon1256, makes a great point.
"Liberals should have started panicking when Obama appointed Gates and Geithner (and many others like them) to his administration."
And author of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (to overturn Glass-Steagall), Neal Wolin, and Gary Gensler, and Mary Schapiro, and Larry Summers (fired first Black-American woman to receive a PhD in math from Harvard, for pointing out their endowment fund investment strategy -- which they ended up losing $2 billion on -- was flawed), and Diana Farrell (number one jobs offshoring specialist in North America, editor of the book, Offshoring, and author of the McKinsey Global Institute report urging that all American jobs be offshored), and Larry "I love Walmart" Fuhrman, and Peter Orszag, and Hillary Clinton (who in turn appointed Bush inner circle types like Marc Grossman and Victoria Nuland, etc.), and Roger Hormats, and Eric Holder, and Lanny Breuer, and all those Monsanto lobbyists, and all those pharmaceutical lobbyists, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
That was the time to panic, doods!
"Liberals should have started panicking when Obama appointed Gates and Geithner (and many others like them) to his administration."
And author of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (to overturn Glass-Steagall), Neal Wolin, and Gary Gensler, and Mary Schapiro, and Larry Summers (fired first Black-American woman to receive a PhD in math from Harvard, for pointing out their endowment fund investment strategy -- which they ended up losing $2 billion on -- was flawed), and Diana Farrell (number one jobs offshoring specialist in North America, editor of the book, Offshoring, and author of the McKinsey Global Institute report urging that all American jobs be offshored), and Larry "I love Walmart" Fuhrman, and Peter Orszag, and Hillary Clinton (who in turn appointed Bush inner circle types like Marc Grossman and Victoria Nuland, etc.), and Roger Hormats, and Eric Holder, and Lanny Breuer, and all those Monsanto lobbyists, and all those pharmaceutical lobbyists, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
That was the time to panic, doods!
50
@33, Catalina Douchey,
Yeah, I recall the Mother Superior at the orphanage I grew up in, sarcastically once quoting someone saying the exact same drivel you just repeated.
Only it was a German voter who voted for Adolf Hitler back in the early 20th century, douchey!
Yeah, I recall the Mother Superior at the orphanage I grew up in, sarcastically once quoting someone saying the exact same drivel you just repeated.
Only it was a German voter who voted for Adolf Hitler back in the early 20th century, douchey!
51
@25, Some old douchey,
"Please, convince me that electing Gore would have been "just the same" as electing Bush."
You appear to forget that it was the Lieberman/Gore ticket v. the Cheney/Bush ticket, in each case the dominant swine was the VP slot (and those crooked douchetards in congress referred to Lieberswine as the "conscience of the senate" --- ROFL to the max!!!!).
You also appear to have forgotten when Gore's been involved with lately, like creating a $5 billion carbon trading fund with his two Goldman Sachs buddies --- yet another extension of that shadow banking scam.
"Please, convince me that electing Gore would have been "just the same" as electing Bush."
You appear to forget that it was the Lieberman/Gore ticket v. the Cheney/Bush ticket, in each case the dominant swine was the VP slot (and those crooked douchetards in congress referred to Lieberswine as the "conscience of the senate" --- ROFL to the max!!!!).
You also appear to have forgotten when Gore's been involved with lately, like creating a $5 billion carbon trading fund with his two Goldman Sachs buddies --- yet another extension of that shadow banking scam.
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.
Not that anyone who signs your paycheck is going to care that we're all laughing at you or anything like that.
53
Here is MisterG gloating again about Rmoney being ahead in corporate polls, but hell no, he ain't no wingnut ...
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.
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.
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.
56
@55: Hmmm...once again, you've proven that the only brainless and self-deluded individual around here is yourself, wingnut.
57
poor auntie. A little late to play the screeching bitch, ain't it? Nice try, though, at least by Seattle standards.
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.
59
@57: OH!!! I get it now--"Mister G" stands for Mister Gas---because you're full of hot, polluted air!!
60
auntie, don't worry, you'll feel better in three or four days. What's worse, the bloating or the cramps?
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.
Good boy.
62
@60: Poor boy--didn't you know that sitting all day in gridlock, choking on gas fumes can actually kill you?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
More Public Editor
RSS
Twitter
Comments (65) RSS