A few last-minute thoughts as we go down to the wire...

[R.Mackey]

1. Out of all the fortunes rising and falling, one person who's played the game well is Governor Christie. I never thought of him as anything other than a gasbag -- I don't think of him much at all, he's a governor in a state 3,000 km away, so he doesn't affect my life much. But he's proven to be much more intelligent than I would have expected.

He was courted as a VP candidate and gave a high-profile (if dull) speech at the Convention, then he was the only one not lowering expectations before the first Presidential Debate. And now, with the race all but lost, he's seamlessly changed horses and become a newborn moderate again, doing so in a way that is infinitely more convincing than Romney's duplicity. He'll take very little flak from the conservative base, but he's looking very good to independents and moderates... all for doing his job.

I'd keep an eye on him.

2. I have many reasons to vote against Romney, but one additional reason is that I'm not comfortable with President (Hillary) Clinton. If Obama wins tomorrow I expect her to serve and retire, but should Romney win, I believe she'd run to reclaim the White House, and I believe she'd win. Many folks would probably like to see that, but I wouldn't.

Now, understand that I don't hate her guts -- I actually voted for her (holding my nose as I did so) over Obama in the 2008 California open primary. I didn't think Obama was ready, and I wasn't impressed with McCain or Romney. Turned out I was wrong. Obama has his share of failures but he was both competent and moderate.

Meanwhile, Hillary has been decent as SecState, and competent as a Senator before that, but I am still concerned that she'd fall back on (Bill) Clinton-era policies that are no longer relevant. Dynasties in general are bad for the Republic. Her entry into the race would also have a chilling effect on the next wave of Democratic hopefuls. Keep her around, keep her as an ambassador or something, but her "turn" is over.

3. The current Republican closing argument for Romney seems to be that only he can deal with a fiesty, ideologic, intransigent Right-dominated Congress. Why would a moderate or an independent be impressed by this? Doesn't this argument amount to awarding bad behavior?

For that matter, why would a conservative be impressed by this argument? The static Congress is a feature, not a bug, to any strict Originalist. The Tea Party exists in part to prevent new laws and especially anything stinking of "judicial activism" or "executive overreach." So the last thing they want, if consistency is a priority at least, is to elect some waffling weathervane of a dealmaker.

I don't get it. But then, Romney's losing, so I can't be the only one.

4. Much has been made of The Enthusiasm Gap, and clearly Obama never had much chance to repeat the pop culture phenomenon that presaged his 2008 election. Having said that, I've seen about as many signs this year as in 2012, and I saw them earlier. A few days ago I even saw a homebuilt loudspeaker vehicle -- dozens of klaxons mounted on a Scion, Blues Brothers style -- rumbling along Lake Avenue here in Pasadena, preaching the good news for Obama. I've never seen one of those before.

Enthusiasm may have changed, matured perhaps, but it's not gone. Or maybe it's just that nobody was ever excited about Romney.

The potential was there, to be sure. One of the shooting ranges I frequent has a sublease that sports a semi-trailer sized sign, reading "ONE AND DONE: Boot out the Kenyan in 2012" -- it's been there since 2009. The fervor to oppose Obama was frightfully strong, both among the voting public and among elected Republicans, yet it just never felt like it jelled.

5. I'll be standing in line at 0700 tomorrow. I usually vote absentee, but for whatever reason I decided to get a feel for the crowds this year. Not that California's vote is in doubt.

We do have a slate of ballot initiatives, however, subtending the full range of emotions.

Get out and vote. I don't care for who or what, just do it. It's exercise for the mind. It gets you in the mindset of being an owner, not a customer, of these United States. So go already.

 

[Almo]

Get out and vote. I don't care for who or what, just do it. It's exercise for the mind. It gets you in the mindset of being an owner, not a customer, of these United States. So go already.

This.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I agree with your thoughts on Gov. Christie. He'll be back.

 

[Meadmaker]

I agree with your thoughts on Gov. Christie. He'll be back.

When he said that he didn't care about presidential politics in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, maybe he should have added, "unless I'm a candidate."

 

[Puppycow]

3. The current Republican closing argument for Romney seems to be that only he can deal with a fiesty, ideologic, intransigent Right-dominated Congress. Why would a moderate or an independent be impressed by this? Doesn't this argument amount to awarding bad behavior?

For that matter, why would a conservative be impressed by this argument? The static Congress is a feature, not a bug, to any strict Originalist. The Tea Party exists in part to prevent new laws and especially anything stinking of "judicial activism" or "executive overreach." So the last thing they want, if consistency is a priority at least, is to elect some waffling weathervane of a dealmaker.

I don't get it. But then, Romney's losing, so I can't be the only one.

How Mitt Romney turned flip-flopping into a virtue

At least 21 newspapers that endorsed Barack Obama in 2008 have endorsed Mitt Romney in 2012. Half of these endorsements are couched in the hope that Romney hornswoggled Republican primary voters and will govern as a moderate. “Like his primary rivals,” editorialized Florida Today, “we never bought Romney’s newfound conservative purity. During the presidential debates, Romney wisely resumed his identity as a pro-growth pragmatist.” And “pro-growth,” in the Space Coast region covered by Florida Today, means helping out NASA. Romney has pledged to do that without pledging to increase the budget.

 

[R.Mackey]

How Mitt Romney turned flip-flopping into a virtue

Yeah, I cited that article in my other thread. But apparently there is a limit to how hard someone can pander, after all.

Provided he doesn't stage a miraculous win at this point, that is.

 

[mikedenk]

2. I have many reasons to vote against Romney, but one additional reason is that I'm not comfortable with President (Hillary) Clinton. If Obama wins tomorrow I expect her to serve and retire, but should Romney win, I believe she'd run to reclaim the White House, and I believe she'd win. Many folks would probably like to see that, but I wouldn't.

Just curious, what makes you think this? I think she'll be in great shape for a 2016 run.

For that matter, why would a conservative be impressed by this argument? The static Congress is a feature, not a bug, to any strict Originalist. The Tea Party exists in part to prevent new laws and especially anything stinking of "judicial activism" or "executive overreach." So the last thing they want, if consistency is a priority at least, is to elect some waffling weathervane of a dealmaker.

The "reaching across the aisle" stuff is squarely aimed at independents/moderates IMO.

 

[R.Mackey]

Just curious, what makes you think this? I think she'll be in great shape for a 2016 run.

It's just a feeling. But consider this: In 2016, she'll be 69 years old! That's closing in on Zombie Reagan territory.

Assuming Obama wins, by 2016 either he'll be an impossible act to follow, or (more likely) the pendulum will start coming back the other way. I think Hillary could easily win a referendum against an incumbent Romney, but as a fresh race, her running as the "incumbent" but forced to go through another primary -- which was grueling for her last time -- I think she'd sit it out. I also think she should.

The "reaching across the aisle" stuff is squarely aimed at independents/moderates IMO.

Agreed, but there are some aisles that aren't worth reaching across. That seems to be the way the hard right wants it. Sure, everyone would love a miracle worker who could bring the House to reason, but realistically there ain't no such person. There is only the person willing to lay down in the mud with them, and he'll come up smelling no more a rose. At least that's how I see it.

 

[Brainster]

I don't think of him much at all, he's a governor in a state 3,000 km away, so he doesn't affect my life much.

I'll be standing in line at 0700 tomorrow. I usually vote absentee, but for whatever reason I decided to get a feel for the crowds this year. Not that California's vote is in doubt.

My favorite NASA engineer appears to have undershot the distance from CA to NJ.

2. I have many reasons to vote against Romney, but one additional reason is that I'm not comfortable with President (Hillary) Clinton. If Obama wins tomorrow I expect her to serve and retire, but should Romney win, I believe she'd run to reclaim the White House, and I believe she'd win. Many folks would probably like to see that, but I wouldn't.

I don't think she's a realistic candidate for 2016; she'd be 69 on election day, a few months younger than Ronald Reagan, the oldest man to be elected to the presidency for his first term. Of course, she would be relatively spry compared to Joe Biden, who keeps talking about making a bid next time around and who is six years her senior.

For that matter, why would a conservative be impressed by this argument? The static Congress is a feature, not a bug, to any strict Originalist. The Tea Party exists in part to prevent new laws and especially anything stinking of "judicial activism" or "executive overreach." So the last thing they want, if consistency is a priority at least, is to elect some waffling weathervane of a dealmaker.

Easy question; I think he'll strike a better deal than Obama.

4. Much has been made of The Enthusiasm Gap, and clearly Obama never had much chance to repeat the pop culture phenomenon that presaged his 2008 election. Having said that, I've seen about as many signs this year as in 2012, and I saw them earlier. A few days ago I even saw a homebuilt loudspeaker vehicle -- dozens of klaxons mounted on a Scion, Blues Brothers style -- rumbling along Lake Avenue here in Pasadena, preaching the good news for Obama. I've never seen one of those before.

California. End of story.

Get out and vote. I don't care for who or what, just do it. It's exercise for the mind. It gets you in the mindset of being an owner, not a customer, of these United States. So go already.

On this we can all agree.

 

[R.Mackey]

My favorite NASA engineer appears to have undershot the distance from CA to NJ.

You forgot to allow for Christie's diameter.

Here's to a clean election tomorrow! Cheers.

 

[elbe]

How Mitt Romney turned flip-flopping into a virtue

It's a similar reason to why I'm not particularly worried about a Romney administration, but I still have plenty of concerns.

I think Christie has done well (his verbal smackdown on Steve Doocy won me over) but I honestly don't know much about his positions.

 

[dudalb]

I agree with your thoughts on Gov. Christie. He'll be back.

Christie sees himself as the Nucky Thompson of the New Millinium.

I admit, Nucky in "Boardwalk Empire" is my favorite fictional Politician.

 

[Brown]

I cannot remember a candidate who worked so hard to make me despise him, as Mitt Romney has done.

He showed his yellow stripe early and at virtually every opportunity: he was too afraid to stand up to the nuts in his party; he quaked in his boots at the possibility of having to stand up to any of his mega-bucks donors; he was too chicken to show his tax returns; he was too cowardly to stand by his own record as a governor; he was too much of a pussy to offer any specifics on any economic plans in general or tax plans in particular; he was too gutless to admit that he and his campaign had made some errors or told some whopping falsehoods; he practically peed all over himself at the possibility of being questioned on national television by Jon Stewart or Whoopi Goldberg; and he was too faint-hearted to stand by positions he had publicly taken with cameras running a matter of hours previously.

He also surrendered any hope of getting a mandate from the ballot box, and he did so in two different and independently disgusting ways. First, he made himself bitch-in-chief, complaining mightily in one negative ad after another and one speech after another that the current administration had fouled things up, but without explaining what he would have differently. Second, he changed his position on virtually every major issue without any thought of consistency or integrity.

There are other things Mitt did to earn my disrespect, but being an unabashed yellow-bellied rich bastard and foregoing any pretense of seeking a mandate were two of the most shameful aspects of his run.

If he loses this election--and he DESERVES to lose--then he ought to disappear from the political scene and never be heard from again. And I will say, good riddance.

 

[CORed]

I cannot remember a candidate who worked so hard to make me despise him, as Mitt Romney has done.

He showed his yellow stripe early and at virtually every opportunity: he was too afraid to stand up to the nuts in his party; he quaked in his boots at the possibility of having to stand up to any of his mega-bucks donors; he was too chicken to show his tax returns; he was too cowardly to stand by his own record as a governor; he was too much of a pussy to offer any specifics on any economic plans in general or tax plans in particular; he was too gutless to admit that he and his campaign had made some errors or told some whopping falsehoods; he practically peed all over himself at the possibility of being questioned on national television by Jon Stewart or Whoopi Goldberg; and he was too faint-hearted to stand by positions he had publicly taken with cameras running a matter of hours previously.

He also surrendered any hope of getting a mandate from the ballot box, and he did so in two different and independently disgusting ways. First, he made himself bitch-in-chief, complaining mightily in one negative ad after another and one speech after another that the current administration had fouled things up, but without explaining what he would have differently. Second, he changed his position on virtually every major issue without any thought of consistency or integrity.

There are other things Mitt did to earn my disrespect, but being an unabashed yellow-bellied rich bastard and foregoing any pretense of seeking a mandate were two of the most shameful aspects of his run.

If he loses this election--and he DESERVES to lose--then he ought to disappear from the political scene and never be heard from again. And I will say, good riddance.

Right on the money. This summer I was leaning toward Romney. He seemed to be a moderate Republican, with at least some evidence of being a good executive/manager. While there is nothing new about playing to the party base during primaries and to the swing voters after getting the nomination, Romney has taken it to a whole new level. He is everything I despise in politicians, but an order of magnitude worse than anybody I've seen before.

At this point, I have no idea what he would do as president if elected. His fiscal policies, hazy as they are, don't pass the simple arithmetic test, and I have no idea whether he will put the brakes on the right-wing wackos in Congress or let them push their kooky agenda full speed ahead.

On the foreign policy front, which to my surprise has proven to be Obama's strong suit, I have no idea whether he will continue Obama's moderate and mostly successful course, or start by getting us into a war with Iran (this may be unavoidable if we are determined not to let them get nukes, but I at least have confidence that for Obama, it is the option of last resort),

Obama is not without his faults, but has been, on the whole, a much better president than I expected, though my expectation four years ago were pretty low. With Obama, I at least know from his record what I'm going to get. With Romney, I have no clue, and his complete lack of anything remotely resembling integrity scares the crap out of me.

 

[pgwenthold]

Right on the money. This summer I was leaning toward Romney. He seemed to be a moderate Republican, with at least some evidence of being a good executive/manager. While there is nothing new about playing to the party base during primaries and to the swing voters after getting the nomination, Romney has taken it to a whole new level. He is everything I despise in politicians, but an order of magnitude worse than anybody I've seen before.

At this point, I have no idea what he would do as president if elected. His fiscal policies, hazy as they are, don't pass the simple arithmetic test, and I have no idea whether he will put the brakes on the right-wing wackos in Congress or let them push their kooky agenda full speed ahead.

It just seems weird to me. Romney's strongest case for president, it would seem, would be to ride on his success as Governor of Massachusetts. Imagine, claiming (at least claiming) that he was a successful republican executive in the liberal haven that is Mass, and using that as evidence that he can be successful even in a sharply divided environment. Now, people may dispute his claim of being successful, but he should be able to find some metrics to make that claim.

And if he actually sold himself as the guy who did that, he wouldn't look so bad. However, one thing he has done in this election is to basically disavow himself completely from everything he did as Governor.

So what's left to elect? His track record of...what?

If he discounts his activities as governor, then what is he running on? CEO for President? Hell, why not then Bill Gates?

 

[EventHorizon]

I think Christie has done well (his verbal smackdown on Steve Doocy won me over) but I honestly don't know much about his positions.

I think men of his size generally prefer the woman to be on top.

 

[Tricky]

I'm kinda in the same boat with Brown on this. I came into this election season fully expecting Romey to win the GOP primary and actually glad of it. I thought that at least he was competent and not a loony. Now I don't know if either of those things is correct, and indeed I don't know a thing about him other than that he has no positions, scruples or balls.

 

[carlitos]

1. Out of all the fortunes rising and falling, one person who's played the game well is Governor Christie. I never thought of him as anything other than a gasbag -- I don't think of him much at all, he's a governor in a state 3,000 km away, so he doesn't affect my life much. But he's proven to be much more intelligent than I would have expected.

He was courted as a VP candidate and gave a high-profile (if dull) speech at the Convention, then he was the only one not lowering expectations before the first Presidential Debate. And now, with the race all but lost, he's seamlessly changed horses and become a newborn moderate again, doing so in a way that is infinitely more convincing than Romney's duplicity. He'll take very little flak from the conservative base, but he's looking very good to independents and moderates... all for doing his job.

I'd keep an eye on him.

I agree with your take (give or take 1500 km), but he's getting some flak. My go-to conservative blog has a post on him "jumping the shark," and the commenters are not kind. The comments at Hot Air are worse. Example "donut scented manwhore." They're even giving him grief for swooning over Springsteen, which is silly. But 3ish years is a long time, so we'll see.

 

[eeyore1954]

Get out and vote. I don't care for who or what, just do it. It's exercise for the mind. It gets you in the mindset of being an owner, not a customer, of these United States. So go already.

I agree with this completely. I know my vote practically doesn't count in ny except for one contested house race but yet I do not feel that way when I vote.
For want of a better word I felt empowered.

 

[eeyore1954]

My feeling on Christie is he seems to speak what is on mind. Which usually is a good thing but not always for a politician