Robert's Virtual Soapbox

(or, The Sanctimonious Professional Leftist's Blog)
JANUARY 2, 2012 5:27PM

Four more years! (Of paralysis and stagnation…)

Rate: 2 Flag

Republican presidential candidate Santorum campaigns in Sioux City

Reuters photo

WTF is the matter with Iowa? Repugnican Tea Party presidential candidate Rick “Man on Dog” Santorum — known primarily for having his surname usurped to describe a sexually oriented substance — campaigns in Sioux City, Iowa, yesterday. Although Santorum has a snowball’s chance in hell of ever making it to the White House, Iowans reportedly might make him their No. 1 choice when they caucus tomorrow.

It has been amusing watching the wingnutty “Christo”fascists trying to crown their anti-Mitt-the-Mormon candidate. Texas Gov. Prick Perry had his day in the sun before he gave an apparently drunken appearance in New Hampshire in which he acted like a giddy schoolgirl, and Herman “Grab-Ass” Cain also seemed to be the perfect anti-Obama (as uber-harpy Ann Cunter herself remarked of Cain, “our [the Repugnican Tea Party's] blacks are so much better than their [the Democratic Party's] blacks”), until his star finally came crashing to the ground. Even Newt “Blast from the Past” Gingrich appears to have fizzled out already; he himself says that he won’t win Iowa tomorrow.

Now there is talk of former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who lost his last election (his senatorial re-election bid in 2006, in what Wikipedia says was “the largest margin of defeat ever for an incumbent Republican Senator in Pennsylvania”), possibly winning the Iowa caucuses tomorrow.

So what if Santorum does? Establishmentarian candidate John McCainosaurus came in at fourth place in the 2008 Iowa caucuses yet went on to win his party’s presidential nomination nonetheless.

Mitt Romney is expected to win in New Hampshire’s primary on January 10 regardless of what happens in Iowa tomorrow, and if he wins Iowa, too — and he might — then it’s all over for the anti-Mitts.

It is fairly safe, I think, to bank on a contest between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in November 2012.

Prediction market data now give Obama almost a 54 percent chance of winning re-election.

That sounds about right to me. Obama won 53 percent of the popular vote in 2008 to McCainosaurus’ 46 percent, and while Obama’s base is demoralized (while I gave him hundreds of dollars and my vote in 2008, I, for one, won’t vote for President Hopey-Changey again in November 2012 or give him another fucking penny), the Repugnican Tea Party fascists aren’t exactly excited about Mitt the Mormon from Massachusetts, either.

Obama will, I predict, eke out an undeserved re-election, and we’ll have four more years of paralysis and stasis, another four years of gridlock and stagnation.

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
The weirdest thing about your link to the political oddsmaker IMHO is the chance of Democrats winning back control of the House of Representatives, which he pegs at 32%, but all in all the smart money bets on Republicans controlling both House and Senate, and it wouldn't take much of a fluke to bump Obama off his narrow lead.

Yowza! Total Republican control! In spite of the odd little fact that on almost every issue, the public is way more liberal than either party.
Jeez! Enough with the happy talk all the time!

(but I guess you're right...)
I was really hoping Ron Paul would win the Iowa Caucus. I know, crazy dream. Americans would never vote for an anti-imperialist. They love bombing innocent children and women too much.

He did come in third with roughly 26,000 votes. That gives me some hope.

A vote for either Obama or Romney would be the same thing. There is no difference between the two, they work for the same people. The only one that is not a puppet is Ron Paul.
I can't get past Ron Paul saying that he stands for keeping the government out of people's personal lives but opposes women's right to an abortion.

I guess that we can add misogyny to the list (privacy and self-determination are only for men), along with Paul's homophobia and apparent white supremacism, given his widely reported racist/white supremacist newsletter.

Don't get me wrong -- if I could construct a Frankencandidate I'd use SOME parts from Ron Paul, but overall, as a whole, Ron Paul is unacceptable.

We don't have ANY acceptable -- and viable -- candidates for the November 2012 presidential ballot.