Barack Obama Announces He Is Gay

It's a metaphor.

First off: I told you this election was going to be exciting. Secondly, I totally heard Obama's gay now. Maybe I misread the headline, ahdunno I was in a hurry, but I'm preeetty sure he wants to marry a man. Maybe Biden? (I secretly hope it's Boehner...)

Alright, that's stupid, sorry. But it's the premise that excuses these awful shoops that I giggled over for a good twenty minutes. This is how I choose to learn the basics of graphic design, folks. Sidenote: It's right around the time you reach the third page of Google Image results for "Gay Men Kissing" that you start to wonder where your life is going.

This one too, why not.

So, my favorite part about all this? (Aside from the gay jokes?) It shows the difference between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama as politicians. This is a total flip-flop, and while most people assumed he was pro-Gay Marriage, the announcement was not prompted by some sudden personal conviction. It was a political necessity.

But so far the response hasn't been a horrified recoil by his constituents, as Mitt Romney's recent attempts to move toward the middle have elicited, but rather jubilation. This is how you tell politicians apart. This is the line of demarcation.

Still, while I think this will turn out to be a really good decision, flipping positions like this is risky. And North Carolina is a potential battleground that just outlawed the thing Obama now supports. Why the hell would he do this now? My sense is that, like anything else in politics, you have to follow the money.

The gay money.

Chuck Todd said recently that "gay money" was the new Wall Street money.

 

To rub that point in the President's face, the creator of Will & Grace (the show that single-handedly made gay dudes people) even wrote a big fat check to the Re-Elect campaign, on Joe Biden's behalf. Bitchy or just catty, you decide, but I'm sure he feels it was effective enough. The response from fundraisers so far? Positive.

But the polling here points to a more perilous situation nationally, and a treacherous tightrope to walk. Same sex marriage may be a loser overall in swing states, and my little election map prediction relies on states where a plurality of voters are now seemingly at odds with the President.

That's the great thing about good politicians, though. I'm pretty sure this is a winner for Obama and Democrats. And I'm pretty sure, were Romney doing the same thing with a similarly perilous conservative position, it wouldn't be for him. 

Even if this blows up in Obama's face, this is great politics. And great fun. That leaves the score so far at...

Politics: 1  
Soccer: 0

I've Got A Raging Election

Aw man, it's official! It's happening! I'm stocking up on popcorn, signing up for newsletters, and giving my phone number to anyone with a clipboard. I'm in this thing, dude. And despite having perhaps the two most boring candidates to ever compete together as my options, I'm excited!

I'm excited entirely because of this. This is the current electoral map, as per the NY Times. It's a close race, for sure, but it gets more interesting when you start to play with the numbers. Give it a shot - look at polling in any of the swing states (Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and New Hampshire). Let's go ahead and give each candidate the states they're most likely to win.

BAM. Race over. And not just a win, a healthy win. Obama wins in this scenario if he cedes the South entirely (including both Carolinas and Virginia and shifting resources from Florida because fuck Florida) and fully embraces and supports Hispanic turnout. He could even lose either New Mexico or Colorado - but not both - or New Hampshire, any any other random <10 delegate state, and win.

A massive negative campaign against Romney in traditional media throughout CO and NM, positive campaign among Latino media, this is entirely possible. And this isn't even necessarily Obama's best case scenario - that one involves VA and/or TX and/or SC. Yeah, not likely, but more likely than Romney taking, say, MI or WI.

Or, let's say Romney and his SuperPACs have the West on lockdown. Let's imagine he finally formulates the magic position that flips Obama's overwhelming majority with Latinos. What could the potential map look like then?

Here, Romney wins by holding all of his lean states and taking CO, NM, NV and NH. If he loses any of the states with 10 or more delegates, he loses the election. This is pretty well best case scenario for Romney and it's still a pretty narrow win. NH is not a likely get, for example. This makes me very confident in Mr. Obama.

So, three of the most important takeaways from the lay of the land right now.

1. Latino turnout looks to me to be the most decisive factor of the race.
2. Obama has more to lose than Romney has to gain.
3. Fuck Florida.

And another interesting quirk: if Romney get's exactly 269, tying with Obama, the House decides who wins the election.

It strikes me this election will be like soccer. If you don't follow the intricacies of the game, it'll seem pretty boring. But, that's only because the action and the players are inherently uninteresting..

Dear Liberals

Dear liberals,

Please stop making sports analogies. It does not make you sound like regular folk, it makes you sound like the nerd you are.

-JD

PS: This is what I mean. Just listen to these nerds grasp at air hoping anyone else on the show knows what they're talking about. Just because March Madness is a thing doesn't mean everyone needs to pretend to care about it.

Double Standard

I just want to drop a quick note here, just for easy reference. If you encounter a conservative that claims that Barack Obama's actions would have been completely unacceptable under George W. Bush (here's an example), please tell them to shove it. As a personal favor to me.

This is a silly argument for two reasons:

1. They're complaining that nobody is complaining. Berra-esque.
2. Bush was a conservative.

This doesn't indicate a double standard in the media or the public, though, but with the people complaining. They're comparing apples and oranges. Obama is doing really conservative things, and getting a pass for that because he's a progressive.

Bush did the same thing. Big spending, big government? Not conservative ideals. And Bush got a pass because he ninja'd it through with a bunch of batshit conservative initiatives. So, again, the double standard only applies to the big dummies claiming there's a double standard.

The Insanity of Ron Paul

Like other people on the internet, I like Ron Paul. I'm with the majority of my generation in supporting his opposition to our wars on Iraq, Afghanistan, Terror and Drugs. I like the idea of personal liberty, and his staunch support for what is a fundamental right forgotten all too often. I find the way he talks to be, quite frankly, goddamn adorable - like he's about to give me a chocolate bar and a copy of The Fountainhead and pinch me on the cheek. I want to have Thanksgiving dinner with him and get into a long discussion about the role of government in a modern society.

The down side to Ron Paul, though, is that he's fucking crazy.

Pictured: Mel Gibson

You might be thinking that's just a biased opinion - and you might be right, ahdunno. But I have evidence to support my assertion, so hear me out. Imagine, just for a moment, he's nothing more than a doddering old fool with a hardly a legislative achievement to his name who, much like Mel Gibson's character in Conspiracy Theory,  happened to stumble on an actual impending crisis and that happenstance unleashed everything that followed. With that frame of mind, don't a few things make a little more sense?

His racist newsletters, for example. There are two possible versions of events here. Either he knew about the hateful language and was okay with it, or he published multiple newsletters with his name on them without a single care as to their actual contents. I tend to believe Paul's just a racist old guy, like nearly every other old guy I've ever met, but either way that's some crazy stuff. Note also that for his official explanation he picked the crazier of the two already-crazy options; His name and reputation were on the line and he was making millions of dollars off these newsletters, but he never had the wherewithal to actually read the darn things? How quirky.

Jackson contemplating
unilateral invasion of Canada

It should be noted, also, that his first response to the newsletters as campaign fodder wasn't to disavow his bigoted statements, but rather to defend them, as a campaign official told the Houston Chronicle the statements, "mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson." (This respect for Jackson coming despite Paul's apparent disdain for the Civil Rights movement.) Also, there's video of him acknowledging the newsletters in 1996, and again not so much as distancing himself from the hateful language in them. Curioser and curioser.

But that's not all! Some people are starting to actually talk about some of Paul's batshit economic ideas as he rises to prominence. Like, switching to the gold standard - a move the entire world has been moving away from for a variety of reasons. Or abolishing the Federal Reserve, something not done since our last lunatic President, Andrew Jackson.

I like the fact that even when he's saying something loopy, Paul says it with practiced conviction. I like that he stands up for what he believes in despite political headwinds. But that is not a good thing in the face of an impending general election - Paul will be forced at some point, inevitably, to either defend a crazy belief until its absurdity is clear, or hedge and lose credibility as the tough-talk candidate. Can't you just imagine Barack Obama nonchalantly devastating Paul by pressing him on his belief that the Civil War shouldn't have been waged? Or, similarly, that equality is a state's rights issue?

Of the entire GOP field, Paul is one of maybe two guys I genuinely like. I would love to see him win his party's nomination. But part of that conviction has nothing to do with our similar beliefs, or my fascination with his Furby-esque speaking presence, but rather my abiding conviction that he would lose handily to Democratic opposition in a national election.