Despite outspoken public support for presidential candidate Mitt Romney during the 2012 election, Kid Rock says that at this point, he’s “f***ing embarrassed” to be a Republican.

Right now, Kid Rock is in the middle of planning a tour, and trying as hard as he can to keep ticket prices at $20. The difficulty stems from ticketing fees and states that have outlawed paperless ticketing, which Kid Rock says is his own party’s fault.

“That’s one of the times I’m f***ing embarrassed to be a Republican,” Kid Rock said in an interview with Rolling Stone. “It’s f***ing Republican lawmakers passing those laws, you dumbasses. They already did it in New York and they’re trying to do it in Michigan. I’ve even called some of those guys to try and stop it.”

Though it’s not just Republicans, says Kid Rock. Ticketmaster, the always controversial concert retailer, has also been charging huge service charges.

“They’re taking a f***ing five-dollar service charge,” Kid Rock said. “It’s 25 percent of the f***ing ticket! That’s f***ed up, but I’ve beaten them up as much as I can. Then Walmart stepped in and agreed to charge just $20, and it includes parking.”

He also criticized artists like The Rolling Stones for overcharging concertgoers, saying that artists and groups with “huge f***ing egos” are a big problem in the music industry. ”The Rolling Stones are charging $650 per ticket! That just makes me speechless. I love the Stones, but I won’t be attending.”

These days, Kid Rock considers himself more Libertarian, and says he ”isn’t in bed with anybody.”

Mitt Romney’s celebrity support during the 2012 election amounted to a pretty short list, and Kid Rock was mocked in the music industry for his outspoken support of the fallen candidate. Still, he has frequently proven that he can be a pretty stand-up guy when it comes to politics.

He made a PSA with uber-liberal actor Sean Penn during election season that encouraged bipartisanship and understanding between the parties, and told President Obama “no hard feelings” when he ran into him at a post-election event.

Are you a fan of Kid Rock?

[Image via: Harmony Gerber / Shutterstock.com]

Kid Rock ‘F—ing Embarrassed’ To Be A Republican [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

St. Peter, MN – An 86-year-old woman is accused of voter fraud after casting two ballots during last year’s presidential election. Her explanation? She has dementia and forgot she voted already.

Grandmother Margaret Schneider of Minnesota has never gotten so much as a parking ticket in her entire life, but now she’s staring down a felony charge with a possible $10,000 fine and a five-year prison sentence for voter fraud. During the 2012 presidential election, Schneider cast two ballots: one absentee, and one in person.

“I’ve always voted — ever since I’ve been old enough to,” she explained to her local Fox affiliate. “It’s driving me crazy, I’ll tell you the truth,” she said of the letter that informed her that she had been charged with voter fraud.

Schneider says that she has dementia, and that she struggles at times to remember her own grandchildren. She does daily word-find games to try to keep her mind sharp, but she is unfortunately fighting a losing battle. She says that losing her memory is frustrating enough without having to deal with voter fraud charges now leveled against her.

“It’s very hard to remember everything,” Schneider says of her struggle. “Why didn’t they tell me to go home? That’s what I’m trying to figure out,” she said of the employees at the polling booth.

Somewhat fortunately, Michelle Zehnder Fisher, the county attorney, says that while she’s required by law to file charges against Schneider, she’s not interested in seeing her imprisoned.

“If I have probable cause to believe the crime occurred, I do not have discretion to charge,” Fisher said. “I have to charge it.”

Part of the problem is that voter fraud requirements differ from other crimes.

“I’m given discretion in every other aspect of my job,” she said. “I would like to have that same discretion in voter cases.”

Do you think that the state should go easy on Margaret Schneider? It’s not exactly like the last election was close, was it?

KMSP-TV

Woman Accused Of Voter Fraud: ‘I Forgot I Voted’ [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Ann Romney blames the media, happily she says, for not giving her hubby Mitt a fair shake in the 2012 election — causing the progressive caucus to have unpleasant pangs of glee at the suffering of another given the way the vote shook out.

In case you missed it, Ann Romney and Mitt came out again to do their “entitled to the presidency” song and dance again last night, intent on remaining the bad guy in an 80s movie married to the villain from Hairspray.

Now that the White House is securely in the hands of President Barack Obama, Ann Romney blames the media (and not the Americans utilizing the unfair system of democratically voting for the candidate they overwhelmingly wished to remain in office) for Romney’s stunning loss and even more amazing bungling of the race. It’s just almost too good to watch, like we should feel guilty they just keep laying down for a snickerfest.

But it’s hard as Ann Romney blames the media to have any sympathy at all for the former GOP power couple and their wounds-licking. To recap, what really galvanized the anti-Mitt sentiment was the infamous 47 percent video, in which Romney essentially told a room full of people richer than God that he’d abdicate any sense of duty to about half of Americans — moochers, he suggested, people who don’t carry their weight or contribute to the country’s financial health, in his estimation.

Let’s just recap again what Mitt said about Americans and personal responsibility:

” … there are 47 percent who are with [Obama], who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it — that that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what … my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

May we?

Okay. So what Ann Romney blames the media for (note, Mitt is not expected to take any responsibility for the words that fell out of his mouth here) is not being fair to her husband, in telling people he said the things he said. Again?

Ann says:

“He was not given a fair shake. People weren’t allowed to see him for who he really was … I am happy to blame the media … I think that any time you are running for office you always think that you are being portrayed unfairly, and, you know, we — of course, on our side believe there is more bias in favor of the other side. I think that, you know, that is a pretty universal.”

As Ann Romney blames the media, would it be too far out of line to suggest the Romneys take a moment and reflect on how they could have handled the election differently, given they so closely value personal responsibility? Is the irony of this complaint really entirely lost on them?

Ann Romney Blames Media For Mitt’s Loss, Progressive Schadenfreude At An All Time High is a post from: The Inquisitr

Ann Romney is “happy to blame the media” over husband Mitt’s 2012 presidential election loss.

The Romneys appeared together on Fox News Sunday, with the almost First Lady revealing that she is “mostly over” Mitt’s 2012 loss, and saying that the media was unfair to him during his campaign. She said that she is “Happy to blame the media” for his loss.

“‘I’m mostly over it. But Not completely. You have moments where you go back and feel the sorrow of the loss, and, so, yeah, I think we are not mostly there yet,” Ann said.

She also mused on what it might have been like had Mitt Romney been elected president.

“I am like a shelion when it comes to defending Mitt. I know his heart, I know his abilities. I know he would have been a fabulous president and I mourn the fact that he is not there. It would have been much better for America if he had been there right now,” she said.

Ann Romney also blamed the press, saying that they never gave Mitt a fair shake from the get-go. She believes that the mainstream media contributed to his poor public image.

“He was not given a fair shake. People weren’t allowed to see him for who he really was,” she said.

She was then asked by Wallace if she blames the media for the 2012 election, to which to replied: “I am happy to blame the media.”

“I think that any time you are running for office you always think that you are being portrayed unfairly, and, you know, we — of course, on our side believe there is more bias in favor of the other side. I think that, you know, that is a pretty universal,” she said.

According to USA Today, Ann also swatted rumors that she was considering running for office herself, but confirmed that she had been asked by Dancing With the Stars to compete on the upcoming Season 16.

“I would’ve loved to have done it,” she said. “I’m not really as flexible as I should be.”

What do you think? Is the media to blame for Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential election loss? Watch the video of Ann Romney’s interview on Fox News below, via Mediaite:

Ann Romney ‘Happy’ To Blame The Media For Mitt’s 2012 Loss [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Sounds like there were problems with voting in Florida in the 2012 election after all.

Back in November, there were reports that Florida voters had to wait in line for up to nine hours in order to cast their ballot. Governor Rick Scott denied the reported difficulties at the polls, and said that it was “very good” that Floridians were able to get out and vote.

The 2012 election saw a new wave of voter fraud/suppression criticisms and conspiracies, and though very little of substance came from that line of rhetoric, a new study shows that tens of thousands of Florida voters did indeed turn back and go home because of the long voter lines.

Theodore Allen, associate professor of industrial engineering at Ohio State University, said that as many as 49,000 voters in Central Florida gave up on their candidate and went home because of problems at the polls. It wouldn’t have really mattered if they had stayed and voted anyway, as about 19,000 would have backed Romney with the rest of the votes going President Obama’s way.

That, and Romney would have lost even if he won Florida.

The Orlando Sentinel published the results of Allen’s research, and opined “that Obama’s margin over Romney in Florida could have been roughly 11,000 votes higher than it was, based just on Central Florida results. Obama carried the state by 74,309 votes out of more than 8.4 million cast.”

Since the elections, Scott has admitted that there might be a problem with Florida’s electoral infrastructure after all. He told CNN in December that “we’ve got to restore confidence in our elections,” and said that ballots were too long, polling places were too small, and the number of days set aside for early voting were too few.

What do you think? Are you surprised that Florida had trouble with yet another election?

2012 Election: Long Lines Kept 49,000 Florida Voters At Home [Report] is a post from: The Inquisitr

HBO is planning a sequel to their political film Game Change, this time focusing on the events of the 2012 election.

Game Change the original was a 2012 film based on the 2008 presidential election, focusing specifically on the McCain/Palin ticket. Senator John McCain was played by Ed Harris, and his VP running mate Governor Sarah Palin was played by Julianne Moore. The film was based on the 2010 book of the same name by political journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann.

Now, Halperin and Heilemann are working on a follow-up, titled Double Down: Game Change 2012, and HBO is interested in making a film sequel based on that book.

Penguin publisher Ann Godoff told The Hollywood Reporter: “John Heilemann and Mark Halperin reinvented the campaign narrative with Game Change. Their new book Double Down will, of course, break news; but more importantly, it will create the lasting story of the 2012 race for the presidency.”

The book is already being optioned by HBO, and Mediaite reports that the writer-director duo behind the the first Emmy Award-winning film is likely to return: Jay Roach as the director and Danny Strong penning the script.

Obviously, there’s no casting information available yet, but we can see Jason Sudeikis and Jay Pharaoh reprising their Saturday Night Live roles as Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama, respectively. It might be cool to see Moore return as Palin for a Fox News commentator cameo, as well.

Side-note: read the AV Club‘s take on the announcement of Game Change 2: Electric Boogaloo if you have a minute. It will make you laugh.

HBO Planning ‘Game Change’ Sequel About 2012 Election is a post from: The Inquisitr

GOP House Representative Allen West is on his way out, but vowed that his political career isn’t yet over, comparing himself to Abraham Lincoln and saying that the 16th president also only served one term in Congress.

The controversial politician told NPR on Friday said that his recent defeat hasn’t turned him sour on politics, saying “Abraham Lincoln only served one term in Congress, too.”

You’ll recall that West contested Florida election results on the 2012 election, demanding a recount in several counties. Though it seemed pretty clear that he had lost his re-election bid to Democratic challenger Patrick Murphy, he recently conceded defeat to his opponent two weeks after the election. Beforehand, he told his supporters that he may run for office again in the future.

His immediate plans for the future were vague. In the interview, he said that he’ll continue to “stand up and fight for this country.” He also brought up his daughters, saying that he wants “to make sure that they grow up in a great America that provides them all the opportunities that it provided to their mother and father.”

“I think the most important thing that has to happen up here in Washington D.C. is to restore honor, integrity, and character to the political system and process that we have. And also, we have to make sure that people are here for, not their self-interest or special interests, but for the American interest.”

Guess who else only served one term in Congress? President Barack Obama. But we’d guess that West wouldn’t be caught dead comparing himself to him.

Here’s an audio clip of West’s interview with NPR, via Mediaite:

Rep. Allen West Compares Himself To Abraham Lincoln [Audio] is a post from: The Inquisitr

President Barack Obama is keen to keep Florida Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz on as the Democratic Party’s chairwoman, according to a Democratic official.

Wasserman Schultz has been the chair of the Democratic National Committee since early 2011, and party leaders give her some of the credit for helping Obama take her home state of Florida in the election, reports The Huffington Post. Wasserman Schultz is also partially credited with expanding the Senate majority and picking up more seats in the House in 2012.

Seems like a job well done for Democrats, which is why Obama is asking DNC members to back her when they meet in January after his second presidential inauguration.

Wasserman Schultz, 46, is a breast cancer survivor and mother of three. She has represented the Democratic Fort Lauderdale area since 2005 and is well known as a “workhorse” and outspoken liberal who isn’t afraid to face Republican opponents on live television.

She fought hard for President Obama in Florida throughout the 2012 election, which helped the president snatch a close win in the traditional swing state in November. Wasserman Schultz is also Jewish and highly supportive of Israel and has fought critics who argue that Obama is anti-Israel on the issue. She is also a talented fundraiser, with Democrats crediting her with attracting donors who were skeptical of supporting President Obama for a second term.

Wasserman Schultz supported Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democratic presidential primary.

What do you think of Debbie Wasserman Schultz staying on as chair of the DNC? Is she the right person for the job?

President Obama Wants Debbie Wasserman Shultz To Remain DNC Chair is a post from: The Inquisitr

Failed Republican Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, is getting the full CSI style postmortem as his political backers dissect his unsuccessful run for the White House. Opinions have been varied and interesting; some blame Romney for his constant flip flop on the issues, his infamous 47 percent comment, and his failure to launch an all out attack against Obama, while others accuse the President of voter fraud, class warfare and buying the election by spending over a billion dollars.

In their infinite wisdom, analysts even laid the blame on the superior computer technology used by the Democratic Party to get out the vote. They point to the abysmal implementation of the ORCA software used by Romney campaign workers to contact potential voters and wonder if their candidate might have carried several key states if only the program had worked as intended.

While this sort of thinking can drive even a sane political consultant mad, there a few reasonable and rational voices on the horizon. One of them is Stuart Stevens, the chief strategist for the Romney campaign. In his fascinating Op-Ed for the Washington Post, “Mitt Romney: A good man. The right fight,” Stevens took a thoughtful look at his candidate’s Presidential aspirations.

Stevens addressed the lack of support for Romney by the Republican establishment. The fight for the nomination was an ugly display of partisan politics and we must wonder how many undecided voters chose not to support Romney because of the disapproving rhetoric of his own political party. How many loyal Republicans decided not to vote for Romney, or not to vote at all, because Mitt simply wasn’t the perfect Conservative?

“I appreciate that Mitt Romney was never a favorite of D.C.’s green-room crowd or, frankly, of many politicians. That’s why, a year ago, so few of those people thought that he would win the Republican nomination. But that was indicative not of any failing of Romney’s but of how out of touch so many were in Washington and in the professional political class.”

Stevens, for his part, feels that Mr. Romney was a good candidate who made a valiant bid for the White House. He passionately defended Romney’s policies and the selection of Paul Ryan as his Vice Presidential running mate.

“(Romney) raised more money for the Republican Party than the party did. He trounced Barack Obama in debate. He defended the free-enterprise system and, more than any figure in recent history, drew attention to the moral case for free enterprise and conservative economics.”

“When much of what passes for a political intelligentsia these days predicted that the selection of Rep. Paul Ryan meant certain death on the third rail of Medicare and Social Security, Romney brought the fight to the Democrats and made the rational, persuasive case for entitlement reform that conservatives have so desperately needed. The nation listened, thought about it — and on Election Day, Romney carried seniors by a wide margin. It’s safe to say that the entitlement discussion will never be the same.”

Most of Obama’s supporters are under the impression the President received a overwhelming mandate from the American people, but in reality a small amount of the total vote cast made the difference in the battleground states. As usual, the overall voter turnout was disgraceful, with only 57.5 percent of the eligible voters even bothering to go to the polls on Election Day.

Obama entered the election with all the advantages of the incumbent and actually performed poorly when compared to the winning percentages of other Presidents running for re-election. In every election since the beginning of the 20th century, only Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush had a smaller margin of victory than President Obama. Stevens raised several valid points about the so-called Obama edge.

“There was a time not so long ago when the problems of the Democratic Party revolved around being too liberal and too dependent on minorities. Obama turned those problems into advantages and rode that strategy to victory. But he was a charismatic African American president with a billion dollars, no primary and media that often felt morally conflicted about being critical. How easy is that to replicate?”

Ultimately, Mr. Stevens reluctantly understands the failures of his own party. However, while he grudgingly admits the Republicans need to change their thinking on several major issues, he still views the candidacy of Mitt Romney through rose colored glasses.

“Yes, the Republican Party has problems, but as we go forward, let’s remember that any party that captures the majority of the middle class must be doing something right. When Mitt Romney stood on stage with President Obama, it wasn’t about television ads or whiz-bang turnout technologies, it was about fundamental Republican ideas vs. fundamental Democratic ideas. It was about lower taxes or higher taxes, less government or more government, more freedom or less freedom. And Republican ideals — Mitt Romney — carried the day.”

“On Nov. 6, that wasn’t enough to win. But it was enough to make us proud and to build on for the future.”

Reality has an awful way of smacking the true believer right between the eyes. Obama carried the day, not Romney and it is Barack Obama who will be sworn in for a second term on a cold January afternoon in 2013. While the President and his wife dance the night away at several gala balls, Mitt will be pumping his own gas back in Massachusetts.

The Republicans are completely out of touch with many of the issues that concern the voters in the 21st century and if they don’t wake up to the truth, the next election will be an unmitigated disaster. Our nation has been re-made and if the Republican party wants to play a role in the future of America, the time has come to evolve and grow along with the voters.

Mitt Romney Meets ‘CSI’: Backers Dissect The Failed Campaign is a post from: The Inquisitr

Commentary | Mitt Romney adviser Stuart Stevens basically brags about how little the campaign wanted your vote in a recent op-ed on which we reported yesterday.

That a Romney adviser brags in a major newspaper about the campaign’s inaccessibility to the majority of voters sadly seems to come as no surprise given the strategy we saw, but the grand mal hubris still exhibited by some Republicans — even top advisers to presidential campaigns — still seems like Missing The Point: Level, Olympic Medalist.

On the eve of Mitt Romney’s visit to the White House for a post-defeat luncheon, the Romney adviser brags in a Washington Post op-ed (published, incidentally, just before White House spokesman Jay Carney kindly extended an invite to the losing candidate to chill with the President) that, while his guy only got a karma-laced 47 percent of the vote, the other 53 percent were votes the Romney/Ryan camp didn’t want anyway.

In the subtly not-very-gracious piece we mentioned in a previous post, Stuart Stevens boasts that, while Romney got far fewer votes than Barack Obama, the votes he failed to cinch were garbagey, poor and minority votes no one really wants anyway. In fact, the Romney adviser brags, white voters came together in crazy-cohesive numbers to attempt to unseat the incumbent. (Gee, they must have been really excited about Mitt Romney! Wonder what that was about.)

Stevens sneers that it’s “safe to say that the entitlement discussion will never be the same,” before saying, out loud:

“On Nov. 6, Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income. That means he carried the majority of middle-class voters. While John McCain lost white voters younger than 30 by 10 points, Romney won those voters by seven points, a 17-point shift. Obama received 4½ million fewer voters in 2012 than 2008, and Romney got more votes than McCain.”

Get the picture? No? Let’s digitally enhance it for you a bit, shall we?

“There was a time not so long ago when the problems of the Democratic Party revolved around being too liberal and too dependent on minorities. Obama turned those problems into advantages and rode that strategy to victory. But he was a charismatic African American president with a billion dollars, no primary and media that often felt morally conflicted about being critical. How easy is that to replicate?”

Suffice it to say, the pathos in that one tiny paragraph from an article in which a Romney adviser boasts that Mitt is basically White America’s Real President is enough to populate a whole series of articles here on The Inquisitr. How could an underdog like Mitt Romney, son of a lawmaker and CEO himself, with more money than God, hope to beat a poor black kid who fought his way up to president of the Harvard Law Review and, eventually, leader of the free world?

(Because, as Stuart Stevens so bravely points out, if we know anything it is that white people have it very rough in this day and age, particularly white people like Mitt Romney who have to constantly apologize for their good fortune.)

In any event, another Washington Post entry from another conservative, Jennifer Rubin, highlights again what the Romney camp has been so reluctant to admit, as have many of their GOP fellows.

It is not the “Obama gifts” that made voters abandon Romney. It’s not the way things are being said. It’s the actual meaning behind them, a meaning that is still abundantly clear as we again watch a thing like the Romney adviser who brags about losing middle-class and white voters to the other guy. It’s a clearly stated and pervasive underlying belief that Stevens feels fine speaking aloud — rich, white votes count more.

Rubin explains:

“But Stevens fails in precisely the way in which the campaign failed: a refusal to acknowledge real and material incompetence by himself and others on the campaign. The piece stubbornly refuses to express regrets or apologies for a campaign that, as evidence has come forth, makes ‘The Perils of Pauline’ look like the Rockettes.”

Recalling “a campaign with grossly defective polling, weirdly ineffective ad buying and a get-out-the-vote operation that will forever give Orca whales a bad name,” she deftly describes how even now, with nearly a month to reflect on what happened on November 6, Stuart still doesn’t “get it,” much like his boss:

” … that tautology pretty much sums up the attitude during the campaign, in which “in his world” the press was at fault, Obama was at fault, conservatives were at fault, the other pollsters were at fault and foreign policy hawks were at fault but never the Boston team … It would be fitting, and certainly less grating, if Stevens included some real acknowledgment that the narrow loss is, in large part, attributable to the errors (we now know) he and his fellow, well-paid advisers made. He writes as if the only thing he didn’t do right was have a winning campaign. Hardly.”

Rubin’s words echo the sentiments of many on the other side of the aisle reading as the Romney adviser brags about the loss of non-white, non-rich voters — it seems so fitting that “entitlement” is the hill on which the campaign chose to die this election cycle.

Because the Romney adviser’s boasts point out that if there is anyone who felt entitled in this campaign, it was their squad. And when faced with a loss, all they have to offer is thinly-veiled insult about envy and greedy gift-seeking from an American populace that ultimately wasn’t buying what they were selling.

How did you feel about Stuart Stevens’ post-election reflection in the WaPo‘s pages?

Romney Adviser Brags About Loss Of Middle-Class Vote, Critics Charge is a post from: The Inquisitr

In an editorial for The Washington Post, Stuart Stevens, the chief strategist for the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, defends the fallen GOP candidate, calling him “a good man” in “the right fight.”

We haven’t heard much from Romney in the weeks since the 2012 election, aside from a few social sightings and a controversial explanation as to why he lost the presidency. In a lengthy op-ed for The Washington Post, his chief strategist Stuart Stevens defends Romney from his post-election critics, arguing that a good man and a good candidate was lost somewhere in the fog of gaffes and attack ads.

“I appreciate that Mitt Romney was never a favorite of DC’s Green Room crowd or, frankly, of many politicians,” Stevens begins. “Nobody liked Romney except voters. [...] He bested the competition in debates, and though he was behind almost every candidate in the primary at one time or the other, he won the nomination and came very close to winning the presidency.”

Stevens also defends Romney because “he raised more money for the Republican Party than the Republican Party did. He trounced Barack Obama in debate. He defended the free-enterprise system and, more than any figure in recent history, drew attention to the moral case for free enterprise and conservative economics.”

He concedes that “The Obama organization ran a great campaign,” and admits that “the Republican Party has problems,” but concludes by defending Mitt Romney not from Democrats, but from Republicans:

“When Mitt Romney stood on stage with Barack Obama, it wasn’t about television ads or whiz- bang turnout technologies, it was about fundamental Republican ideas versus fundamental Democratic ideas. It was about lower taxes or higher taxes, less government or more government, more freedom or less freedom. And Republican ideals — Mitt Romney — carried the day.”

You can read Stuart Stevens’ full column at The Washington Post.

WaPo Op-Ed Calls Mitt Romney ‘A Good Man’ In ‘The Right Fight’ is a post from: The Inquisitr

According to Donald Trump, the GOP should really start appealing to minority voters if the party wants to start winning elections again.

Immediately after the 2012 election, conservatives and pundits said that in order for the GOP to remain competitive within the political climate, they have to re-package their message to appeal to minority demographics. They’ve been hammering the new message almost daily, and now controversial business mogul Donald Trump has added his opinion to the mix.

In a NewsMax article Monday, Trump said that the GOP needs to start selling the merits of their message to minorities in order to defeat Democrats in future elections:

“Republicans didn’t have anything going for them with respect to Latinos and with respect to Asians,” he said. “The Democrats didn’t have a policy for dealing with illegal immigrants, but what they did have going for them is they weren’t mean-spirited about it. They didn’t know what the policy was, but what they were is they were kind.”

Trump also mocked Mitt Romney’s “self-deportation” plan as a “crazy” and “maniacal” idea, which caused him to lose the vote of “everybody who is inspired to come into this country.” Trump also said that the GOP should approach immigration reform as an “incredible problem that we have with respect to immigration, with respect to people wanting to be wonderful productive citizens of this country.”

Mediaite notes that the irony of Trump’s latest assertions is that he himself did a lot of damage to the GOP brand with his continued zeal in chasing the “birther” conspiracy, calling President Obama’s nationality and right to govern into question very publicly and on several occasions. This, they say, probably didn’t go over well with minority groups.

What do you think of Donald Trump?

Donald Trump: ‘The GOP Should Really Start Appealing To Minorities’ is a post from: The Inquisitr

Actor Jamie Foxx is stirring some controversy in the conservative blogosphere this morning after saying that we should give honor to God and our lord and savior Barack Obama during an awards show on Sunday.

The Oscar-winning actor made the curiously flattering comments about the newly re-elected President Obama at the Soul Train Music Awards, which aired over the weekend.

“First of all, give an honor to God and our lord and savior Barack Obama,” Foxx proclaims in the clip.

BET, the station that aired the Soul Train Music Awards, reportedly used this clip during promotional rounds leading up to the program.

Though it’s not quite as bad as the cold headline appears (Foxx pauses between “God” and the rest of his comment to allow for applause) the dramatic verbiage makes it pretty clear who Foxx supported during this election cycle.

Regardless, Foxx is receiving a ribbing for his words from conservative bloggers like Noel Sheppard, who responded “I guess Obama really IS the messiah.”

Foxx is not alone in expressing his happiness over President Obama’s second term re-election. Many other celebrities have made similar comments since Election Day. Another Oscar-winning actor, Daniel Day-Lewis, referenced Clint Eastwood’s now-infamous “empty chair” RNC appearance during an acceptance speech, telling “President Obama” that he’s grateful for his re-election (despite his admission that as a Brit, he doesn’t have much say).

Here’s the video of Jamie Foxx giving honor to God and “our lord and savior Barack Obama.” What do you think of his comments? Controversial? No big deal? Sound off!

Jamie Foxx: ‘Give Honor To Our Lord And Savior … Barack Obama’ [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

One would have never suspected Mitt Romney to be a Twi-hard. The former GOP presidential candidate took his wife to see Twilight: Breaking Dawn 2 on Saturday and grabbed a slice of pizza with supportive patrons after the show.

Though Romney missed out on a chance to become the next President of the United States mere weeks ago, he hasn’t quite gone completely into hiding since his election loss. While President Obama is busy charting a course for his next four years in office, Romney has slipped away from the campaign spotlight in favor of activities that regular joes are up to, including taking his honey to see the conclusion of the Twilight franchise.

According to TMZ, Romney and his wife were spotted entering a cineplex in Del Mar, California on Saturday for a showing of Twilight: Breaking Dawn 2. After the show, the Romneys went to a local pizza place for dinner along with two young men, where they spoke with patrons and posed for pictures.

Highlighting yet another dramatic difference between Romney and President Obama, the latter received a special screening of Lincoln last week at the White House alongside several members of the film’s cast and crew.

Romney hasn’t completely disappeared from the spotlight since losing the 2012 election. Though the GOP candidate hasn’t done press rounds yet, he spoke with his donors last week and explained that he lost the race because of the various “gifts” that President Obama promised to young and minority voters. This comment has since proven to be Romney’s final election gaffe, as many politicians and pundits on both sides of the aisle have condemned this sentiment.

The deeper question, whether Mitt Romney is Team Edward or Team Jacob, is still unknown. In light of Romney’s perceived flip-flopping on political issues throughout the election, we’d guess that he’s one, both, and neither depending on who’s asking.

The former candidate spoke to donors last week

Mitt Romney Drowns Election Sorrows In ‘Twilight’ And Pizza is a post from: The Inquisitr

Earlier this week rising GOP star Bobby Jindal took issue with Mitt Romney’s election loss excuse that he couldn’t compete with President Obama’s “gifts” to minorities. Joining the debate is New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a GOP star in his own right, who also disagrees with the “gifts” comment.

Appearing on MSNBC’s Morning Joe Friday, Christie agreed that former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s assessment of his election loss was off the mark. In a conference call with donors, Romney suggested that President Obama only won re-election because of the “gifts” he promised to minorities and young voters throughout his campaign.

Asked if he agreed with Louisiana Governor Jindal’s criticism of Romney’s “gifts” comment, Christie responded “Yeah, sure,” then attempting to move on to a discussion about his fellow Republican governors.

Still, he was pressed for deeper comment:

“You can’t expect to be a leader of all the people and be divisive. You have to talk about themes, policies that unite people, and play to their aspirations and their goals and their hopes for their family and their neighbors.”

Should Romney move on? “That’s up to him. Listen, Mitt Romney is a friend of mine. I understand he is very upset about having lost the election and very disappointed. Christie added that Romney is a “good man.”

“Do I wish he hadn’t said those things? Of course. But on the other hand, I’m not going to bury the guy for it,” said Christie.

Whether justified or not, Mitt Romney is quickly becoming the rhetorical punching bag for the “old” GOP, and many party members are distancing themselves from their one-time candidate in an effort to rebuild their clout.

Here’s the video of Chris Christie on Morning Joe, disagreeing with Romney’s “gifts” comment:

Chris Christie Also Disagrees With Romney’s ‘Gifts’ Excuse [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Former first lady Barbara Bush thinks that people should stop whining and get over President Barack Obama’s recent re-election.

Bush said that she’s ready to move past this election cycle on Thursday, and despite her own personal support for Mitt Romney, she says that America needs to accept that Barack Obama is once again the president, reports Reuters.

“I’m tired now of the elections,” Bush said at a forum on America’s first ladies. “People spoke. Move on, get on with it. I want to do other things and not to be ugly.”

Sitting alongside daughter-in-law and former first lady herself, Laura Bush, Barbara issued a warning to both parties during the Enduring Legacies of America’s First Ladies conference at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library.

“They are going to have to compromise,” Barbara Bush said. “It’s not a dirty word.”

Shifting to lighter fare, moderator Mark Updegrove, director of the LBJ library, asked the Bush women if anyone can be prepared to be the first lady. Both answered “yes.”

“If you are the wife of a governor or the wife of a vice president, I think you can be prepared for it,” said Barbara Bush.

“Or if your mother-in-law was the first lady and you watched her,” Laura Bush said. “I feel I really had a huge advantage.”

When asked about the biggest public misconception held by Americans against husband George W. Bush, Laura replied “That he was a heedless cowboy character.”

What do you think? Do you agree with Barbara Bush that Democrats and Republicans ought to work together? Should we get over President Obama’s re-election and move on with setting our country right again? Sound off!

Barbara Bush: ‘Stop Whining About Obama’s Re-election’ is a post from: The Inquisitr

When will people learn to stop saying stupid things on Facebook? We have yet another case concerning a social media threat on President Obama’s life that got 28-year-old Christopher Castillo of Florida arrested.

Secret Service agents visited the young man’s home in November to ask him about his violent comments against President Obama, and the situation quickly deteriorated from there, according to The Smoking Gun.

On November 1, prior to Election Day, Castillo wrote the following on his Facebook:

“That’s the last straw, if he gets re-elected I’m going to hunt him down and kill him watch the life disappear from his eyes.”

Based on a concerned citizen tip-off, Secret Service agents followed up on these threats November 8, visiting Castillo’s home in Melbourne.

The felony complaint form indicated that the agents, trying to determine Castillo’s motives behind the Facebook rant, asked him what he would do “if the President was standing here right now?”

Castillo, apparently not realizing that being investigated in-person by the Secret Service is a pretty big warning sign that you’re in deep trouble, replied that he’d “b**** slap him, and beat the sh** out of him.” He also said he’d scream and call President Obama a terrorist.

Florida Today interviewed Castillo’s father, Frank Castillo, who said that his son wouldn’t actually make good on his violent threats against the president, but that he understands Secret Service’s concern.

“A lot of people say things on Facebook that they don’t mean, and I understand the Secret Service has to do what they have to do, it’s their job,” he said. “I would imagine they would find some people out there that really are loose cannons. Christopher is not one of them.”

WDBO reports that Castillo recently lost his job, and that he’s in a “fragile mental state.” A judge ruled this week that he will be released from custody after he’s sized-up for a GPS monitoring device.

Once again, it’s okay to be upset with the 2012 election and with President Obama. But threatening to kill him is wrong, and if you put it on Facebook, you better believe you’re going to get a visit from the Men in Black.

Florida Man Threatens To Kill Obama On Facebook, Is Unexpectedly Arrested is a post from: The Inquisitr

The conservatives just don’t get it. They are still trying their best to convince themselves that Romney was cheated out of the Presidency by a totally unscrupulous Obama Campaign. They refuse to accept that Romney did a great job of unraveling his own candidacy and they just don’t understand that the majority of American voters look on the election as a popularity contest  Now, to add salt to the wound, they are claiming that Obama would have lost the election if the Petraeus scandal had been revealed prior to the election.

Cliff Kincaid, conservative pundit and Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism, went on at length today in his column for GOPUSA. Strangely enough, Kincaid reveals that it was two Republicans that had the information about Petraeus dumped in their laps by an FBI whistle-blower weeks before the election. After dutifully passing the tip on to the FBI, the two Republicans clammed up and kept the information to themselves.

“Despite the explosive nature of the allegations, two Republican members of Congress, Dave Reichert and Eric Cantor, decided to pass on the information to the FBI director and take no action themselves. They didn’t even inform their colleagues on the House Intelligence Committee or in the House leadership. It was a terrible mistake on their part that enabled Obama to escape the damaging repercussions of the scandal right before what many conservatives called the most important presidential election of our lifetimes.”

Several serious allegations have arisen about who knew what and when. The Washington rumor mill is in full destroy mode and all bets are off on what they will come up with next. There have been accusations that the beleaguered General may have compromised national security by revealing classified, top secret information to his mistress. There have been claims that Holder knew about the affair weeks before the election and deliberately withheld information from the White House, the military and the Justice Department.

Even Rush “blame it on welfare” Limbaugh got into the act with his paranoid comments. Rush seems to be hoping and praying Petraeus will reveal some damaging testimony about Obama now that he is no longer head of the CIA.

“It’s a reasonable thing to think he might have been blackmailed over this. And it’s reasonable to think he might have wanted to get out from under the blackmail by resigning, and so now everybody’s waiting with baited breath for his testimony.”

Limbaugh was just getting warmed up and he had several more startling accusations to spew before he was done with his attack.

“If Petraeus goes in there and says anything different than what he said on September 13th, do you know the world of hurt that he’s in?”

“He’s going to the get the question, ‘Were you lying then or were you lying now?’ … ‘Are we to believe you now, or are we to believe you then?’”

“If you have some hope or prayer that there’s gonna be some huge treasure trove of ‘Gotcha Obama’ from Petraeus’ testimony, it isn’t going to happen. A, he’s not gonna commit perjury, he’s not gonna say something different than he said last time; and B, whatever they’ve got on him, they’ve got on him.

“They were able to kick him out of office, they were able to blackmail him, do whatever with this affair business. They kept it. They knew what was going on. They held it in check until they needed it. But the idea that somehow Obama’s going to be made to take the hit on this Benghazi thing, it isn’t gonna happen. The Democrats get away with it. That’s the lesson. No dispute will be finished and resolved until the Democrats win it.”

“There is not gonna be one kernel of truth of what happened at Benghazi come out of any of this. It ain’t going to happen. I mean within two weeks of Obama being re-elected, you think they’re going to open the doors and the floodgates for people to go in and get to Obama? It isn’t gonna happen. … You have to understand what’s going on here, folks. There is a circle-the wagon operation around Barack Obama that nobody’s gonna penetrate. That is abundantly clear.”

So the beat goes on, the conservatives get even more paranoid and it looks like we are in for several more years of stalemate in Washington, D.C. The saddest part of this whole demented episode is that while the Republicans and Democracts continue their incestuous warfare, it is the American people who are the real losers. We really to get our country working again, but it looks like America will have to plunge off the proverbial cliff before anyone in government even realizes that we have struck the bottom.

Petraeus Scandal Could Have Sunk Obama According To Conservative Pundits is a post from: The Inquisitr

Mitt Romney has finally broken the silence on his 2012 election loss, telling his top campaign donors on Wednesday that “the gifts” President Obama had extended to minority voters earned him a second term.

In a campaign donor call, Mitt Romney expressed his disappointment in President Obama’s re-election, saying that neither he nor his top aides expected to lose, reports the LA Times. He said that his own team ran a “superb” campaign with “no drama,” chalking up Obama’s win to “the gifts” the administration had given to blacks, Hispanics, and young voters throughout his first term.

Romney said that Obama’s healthcare coverage promise to voters making $25,000 to $35,000 was “highly motivational” to those voters as well as other minority voters. He also said that the Obama administrations efforts to depict Romney as “anti-immigrant” were successful and that his promise of “amnesty” to children of illegal immigrants helped him with the Hispanic vote.

“The president’s campaign,” he said, “focused on giving targeted groups a big gift — so he made a big effort on small things. Those small things, by the way, add up to trillions of dollars.”

Romney continued: “I am very sorry that we didn’t win. I know that you expected to win. We expected to win…. It was very close, but close doesn’t count in this business.”

The former GOP candidate said that he’d “gotten beat up pretty bad” following the primaries, and his first presidential debate rebound wasn’t enough.

He also said that he wants to keep the donor team connected somehow, “so we can stay informed and have influence on the direction of the party, and perhaps the selection of a future nominee.”

“Which, by the way,” Romney laughed, “will not be me.”

Do you think Mitt Romney is right about why he lost the 2012 election?

Mitt Romney: I Lost Because Of Obama’s ‘Gifts’ To Minorities is a post from: The Inquisitr

After a contentious and hectic election, former VP candidate Paul Ryan is returning to work in Congress, and admitted in his first round of post-election interviews that he’s “tired” of presidential politics.

The veep candidate also shared his opinions regarding why the GOP lost the 2012 election, saying that President Obama managed to turn out his base better than his own party. Ryan admitted that he is “disappointed” with the GOP’s loss, saying that it’s “pretty sad,” that Mitt Romney wasn’t able to secure the presidency. Still, Ryan believes that the 2012 election wasn’t a mandate for President Obama as much as it was a mandate for bipartisanship and compromise.

“We need to start talking to our colleagues to find common ground,” Ryan told WISC-TV. He also told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that “divided government didn’t work in the last two years. We’re going to have to find a way to make it work in the next two years, because these fiscal issues are getting worse, not better, because of time.”

“I don’t think we lost it on those budget issues, especially Medicare,” Ryan opined. He also stressed his bipartisan motives, acknowledging that his plan for spending and deficit reduction won’t pass on its current merits. “We’re not going to be able to fix this country’s fiscal problems along the way I thought we should have,” he said.

Ryan will return to what is perhaps his most crucial role within Congress: His seat at the head of the House Budget Committee. There, he will play a key role in talks meant to solve the problem of the coming “fiscal cliff,” and hopes that Democrats and Republicans can compromise on a solution.

“Yes, you can increase revenues without having to raise tax rates. Our fear is that if you raise tax rates you hurt economic growth. You hurt small businesses. So through tax reform you can get higher revenues without damaging the economy. We think that’s the better way to go,” Ryan said, adding:

“In order to get things done, in order to reach common ground, both sides need to put out, not just rhetoric, but specific ideas on the table. Then you negotiate. We’re hopeful that the president will begin to show some leadership on this and some other issues so that we can begin to get common ground.”

On his loss, Ryan commented: “It’s bittersweet. The sweet part is I’m back home on the block I grew up on, with my friends and family,” he said in an interview with the Wisconsin State Journal. “The bitter part is we lost a major presidential election at a critical time.”

Will Ryan himself make a run for the presidency in 2016? “I think everybody’s tired of talking about presidential politics, I am,” he said.

Paul Ryan Calls Congress Return ‘Bittersweet,’ But Says He’s ‘Tired’ Of Presidential Politics [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Every election needs a “fall guy,” and controversial radio pundit Rush Limbaugh is apparently the GOP’s.

On Monday night, Limbaugh addressed the GOP blame game, particularly the notion that Mitt Romney lost the 2012 election, in part, because of conservative talk radio. Limbaugh attacked the GOP “ruling class,” and argued that the Democrats and left-wing media are to blame for the GOP’s losses, especially with the Latino community.

“Just as I predicted, ladies and gentlemen,” Limbaugh began, “this election was lost because of your host, Rush Limbaugh. I am the primary reason.”

“There are others, but I’m the primary reason the Republican Party lost,” he continued. “And I am, by the way, the primary reason the Republican Party will keep losing, until I am denounced by the Republican Party.”

Rush placed the heaviest onus for the GOP’s loss on the Democrats, which is kind-of sort-of a funny way of telling it exactly like it is, a la “you lost because you didn’t get enough votes.”

Limbaugh posed a question to Republicans: “Do you really think that the Democrat Party will ever allow you Republicans to be seen as pro-Latino and pro-immigration?”

Further, Limbaugh said that the left will seize upon any individual on the right who makes a dubious claim, and paint that perspective as shared party-wide: “the Democrats and the media will focus on that person and say, ‘See? The Republicans really are anti-immigrant!’”

“The Democrats will always come up with a position that tests the Republicans’ limit,” Limbaugh said. “They’ll always find some extreme position that the Republicans just can’t agree with in order to be able to claim the Republicans are anti-female, anti-woman, anti-abortion, anti-immigrant.”

Here’s the audio of Rush Limbaugh “taking the blame” for the GOP election loss via Mediaite:

Rush Limbaugh: ‘I’m The Primary Reason The GOP Lost’ [Audio] is a post from: The Inquisitr

According to Grover Norquist, the founder and president of Americans For Tax Reform, the secret to President Obama’s re-election is simple. The president’s strategy of portraying GOP opponent Mitt Romney as a “poopy head” paid off.

“The president was committed; elected on the basis that he was not Romney and Romney was a poopy head and you should vote against Romney and he won by two points,” Norquist said on CBS’ This Morning Monday. “But he didn’t make the case that we should have higher taxes and higher spending, he kind of sounded like the opposite.”

The show’s host, Norah O’Donnell, fought this claim. “Well, I’m not sure that’s what the president called Mitt Romney, Grover,” she said. “That’s not the debate that was had … he said very clearly throughout the debate that the wealthiest Americans should pay more and he won eight of the nine battleground states and Republicans failed to reclaim the White House or the Senate.”

“What about the exit polls that show a broad support for raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Are you wrong?” she asked.

“Well, again, you saw those ads that suggested Romney gave people cancer in Ohio for months and months unanswered. You can trash an individual and get people to vote against him,” he replied. To defend his point, Norquist pointed to Republican governors who won elections on a pledge to eliminate state income taxes. O’Donnell dismissed those as state issues.

Many Republicans, most notably Karl Rove, have struggled to make sense of President Obama’s re-election over challenger Mitt Romney. It’s a matter of personal perspective, but we think “Obama won because he called Romney a poopy head” is probably the best explanation yet. Whether or not Mitt Romney is indeed a “poopy head” was unfortunately not addressed.

You can check out a clip of Grover Norquist saying that President Obama won by calling Mitt Romney a “poopy head,” via CBS This Morning at The Huffington Post.

Grover Norquist: ‘Obama Won Because He Called Romney A Poopy Head’ [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Recently re-elected President Barack Obama took some time out of his busy schedule to extend a heartfelt “thank you” to his campaign staff for helping him get re-elected. Reflecting House Speaker John Boehner, who is known for bubbling into tears at the drop of a hat, Obama shed his own tear or two during his viral address.

Obama’s campaign released the five-minute video in which the president thanks members of his staff at his Chicago headquarters, but the address is also meant for those who worked on the Obama campaign across the nation.

The president began by talking about his work as a community organizer in Chicago, saying that his work “changed me much more than I changed the communities,” continuing that working on his re-election made him feel like he “had come full circle.”

He then became quite emotional, and wiped away tears.

“I became a man during that process. And so when I come here and when I look at all of you, what comes to mind is not that you guys actually remind me of myself, it’s the fact that you are so much better than I was, in so many ways,” Obama said.

“I’m absolutely confident that all of you are going to do just amazing things in your lives,” he said. “What Bobby Kennedy called the ripples of hope that come out when you throw a stone in a lake — that’s going to be all of you.”

“That’s why even before last night’s results I felt that the work that I had done in running for office had come full circle, because what you guys have done means that the work that I’m doing is important. And I’m really proud of that. I’m really proud of all of you.”

As the gathered crowd cheered and applauded, Obama concluded:

“Whatever good we do over the next four years will pale in comparison to what you guys end up accomplishing for years and years to come,” he said. “And that’s been my source of hope. That’s why when people over the last four years when people ask me about how do you put up with this or that and the frustration of Washington, I just think about you.”

Here’s the video of President Obama crying while he thanks his campaign staff:

President Obama Pulls A Boehner, Tearfully Thanks Campaign Staff [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Meet Blake Burman, a reporter for Miami’s Channel 7 News sent to cover the 2012 election on Tuesday night. Apparently, with all of the famous figures wandering around on Election Day, it can be painfully and awkwardly difficult telling them apart.

This local news gaffe, brought to you by Channel 7, is approaching viral status on YouTube with over 150,000 views in just a few days. In the clip, a befuddled yet eager looking Burman is hanging out at Camp Obama at the height of Election Day and nods to his left where stands musician will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas, giving an interview to another reporter.

Burman identifies will.i.am as Wyclef Jean.

He then interrupts this important broadcast, looking off-screen where a Channel 7 crew member is apparently screaming “WILL.I.AM! WILL.I.AM! YOU FOOL!” to which Burman self-corrects: “WALE! Excuse me, Wale,” he says. “Got my artists mixed up.”

When his earpiece finally starts working again, Burman shamefully admits “Uh, will.i.am. Good grief. Man, I am tired. It’s will.i.am, I’m sorry.”

Third time is a charm, right?

Another subtle point of humor in this clip: Blake Burman is actually mistakenly introduced by the reporter at the home studio leading into his clip. “Uh, I think we’re going to go back to … Mike Blake.”

“Blake Burman,” his co-anchor corrects.

Poor guy’s colleagues don’t even know who he is. But now, thanks to the video, everyone on the internet does. And Mr. Burman, if you’ve been frantically Googling yourself since your reporting gaffe to make sure no one thinks you’re a racist: Don’t worry. We don’t think you’re a racist. But it’s painfully obvious that you’re not into hip hop.

It’s not exactly “Boom Goes the Dynamite,” but here’s Blake Burman’s awkward Election Day reporting fail:

All Black Musicians Look The Same To This Confused Election Reporter [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

GOP strategist Karl Rove, who engineered much of the success of the Bush administration, has emerged as a sort of anti-Nate Silver in the days following the election.

Karl Rove was not too long ago seen as a teflon political pundit, one able to spin any situation to favor his allies. And where Rove wound up getting it horribly wrong in Tuesday’s election, upstarts like Silver got it way right — without the millions and million in backing of Rove’s Super PACs.

Before the dust settled, Karl Rove drew attention as the election came to a sudden and stunning conclusion, at least from Republicans. While cries of “skewed polls” and a biased liberal media trying to discourage conservatives marked the GOP-leaning press for much of the lead up to the big showdown, the truth no longer could be denied.

The numbers had been right all along, as had Nate Silver — and Karl Rove melted down. As Fox called Ohio for Obama and the election was deemed over and done with by all major networks, Rove desperately tried to argue that Ohio was still in play and that Romney could emerge, against all data, a winner.

But no one listened, and Rove’s feverish attempts at delegitimizing math became a Wednesday-morning laughingstock. Democrats were quick to attack the GOP bigwig, but his own party is also losing respect for Karl Rove — an anonymous GOP operative described by the Washington Post as “well connected” just told the paper:

“He has lost his mojo … He has become total spin, including spinning himself.”

Another acknowledged to be not fond of Rove told the Post that while Rove ruled for a while, his methodology is dated and clearly no longer bears fruit:

“Crossroads was a failure and Rove’s core strategy of base-centric GOP politics is a failure … There are not enough white men for the Rove view to work anymore.  His time is past.”

But yet another observes that until such time someone can unseat Rove in fundraising, his 2012 failures will not herald Karl Rove’s curtain call:

“Until there is someone who can supplant [Rove] with the relationships with the millionaires/billionaires, he’s got a role … He’s the preeminent personality in the party right now, and the donors (at least most of them) believe the super PACs played a vital role in keeping this close and making it not as bad as it could have been.”

Do you think the Karl Rove GOP will stand aside for a fresher vision, or do Rove’s past successes mitigate his poor showing in 2012?

Karl Rove Takes Massive Reputation Hit After Contesting Fox’s Ohio Call is a post from: The Inquisitr

Why Romney lost is the hot topic in the aftermath of the 2012 Presidential Elections. The opinions are flooding in from all corners, ranging from partisan issues to demographics to economics. Some blame Romney himself for his eternal flip-flopping, derisively called “Romnesia” by Obama, or the choice of Paul Ryan as the VP.

Like Bill Clinton said, why Romney lost is claimed to be just the raw math. While Clinton claims that on partisan issues that more of the US population agrees with Democrats rather than Republicans, the math is even more fundamental to the US election system. Based upon the electoral system predictions like those made by Nate Silver, even if Romney had won the popular vote, which he did not, then it was still very likely that Obama would still win the necessary 270 electoral votes.

The math also does not lie when it says that why Romney lost is because Republicans were simply not voting. According to Fox News, more Democrats than Republicans voted, with a startling six percent lead of 38 to 32 percent. Things have not changed too much since 2008 when Democrats also outnumbered Republicans 39 to 32 percent. These facts are especially stark when you consider that, according to Rasmussen Reports, Republican party affiliation was at a record high for this election year. During August, 37.6 percent of the US population considered themselves Republican with Democrats trailing at 33.3 percent. Less than half of the Independents voted for Obama.

About 75 percent of Mormons are also Republicans. That Romney was a Mormon apparently did not play a large part in why Romney lost. In fact, Religion Dispatches Magazine claims that Romney was not Mormon enough:

“Romney’s mistake has been to avoid explaining the most open secret of his leadership, namely just how Mormon he is. He ought to have unveiled the relationship between his particular religious sensibility and his ideas for American success. He should have announced at every pit stop that he had met the world through his missionary work; that he came from a good Christian home that emphasized the principles of hard work and self-sacrifice; that he keeps a weekly calendar guided by the principles of Stephen R. Covey; and keeps a marriage because he believes those commercials are right—diamonds are forever, and so is this bond. He should have proclaimed his financial success was the result of all this earnestness, and explained private equity as just another way to organize free enterprise. Not because it’s a crafty re-framing of his biography, but because it is also true: it’s true to the very thing his supporters find so solid, and his detractors find so discomfiting, about Romney.”

Young voters under age 30 were once again a key demographic, representing 19 percent of the vote or one point higher than 2008. Even so, young voters did not back Obama as strongly this time: 60 percent compared to 66 percent in 2008.

Looking further at the demographics, we turn to Dick Morris on Fox News who had previously claimed Romney would win “by a landslide” this year:

“The key reason for my bum prediction is that I mistakenly believed that the 2008 surge in black, Latino, and young voter turnout would recede in 2012 to “normal” levels. Didn’t happen. These high levels of minority and young voter participation are here to stay. And, with them, a permanent reshaping of our nation’s politics.

“In 2012, 13% of the vote was cast by blacks. In 04, it was 11%. This year, 10% was Latino. In ’04 it was 8%. This time, 19% was cast by voters under 30 years of age. In ’04 it was 17%. Taken together, these results swelled the ranks of Obama’s three-tiered base by five to six points, accounting fully for his victory.

“I derided the media polls for their assumption of what did, in fact happen: That blacks, Latinos, and young people would show up in the same numbers as they had in 2008. I was wrong. They did.”

Ann Coulter thinks it is simply because Obama was the incumbent:

“[I]t remains true that it’s very hard to take out an incumbent. In the last hundred years, Republicans have taken out a sitting president one time and that was Ronald Reagan in 1980.”

The Republicans seem to be backing Romney’s 47 percent comment based upon this letter from a Philly writer:

“With Tuesday night’s election results, some things just seem to have changed forever. The re-election of President Obama was really quite predictable; a large percentage of the population that has no cares or worries about what is the right course for our nation votes for this changing culture. Their only worry is all of the “stuff” they feel entitled to: food stamps, medical coverage, birth control, abortion on demand and more! The Protestant work ethic that built this country is no longer the standard; the words of JFK twisted into a cruel, new reality: Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. May God bless America!”

When it comes to the economy, 62 percent of people believe Obama inherited these economic problems from President Bush and that he was doing a slow but steady job improving it. The improving jobs numbers right before the election probably helped seal this opinion. What is especially amazing is that no one has ever won a re-election before with this high level of unemployment.

Economist Ben Stein told Bloomberg News his opinion:

“He didn’t have a sharp enough message on how he was going to fix the economy, and he was an energetic but unfocused campaigner.”

Opinion writer John Tomny, writing for business magazine Forbes, explains why Romney lost on economics:

“It was Romney’s economic advisers who cost him the election. Columbia business school dean Glenn Hubbard is too much of a skeptic on China trade, and he was misguided when he advocated policies that would increase demand for housing at a time when markets were calling for less investment in the sector. Harvard economist Greg Mankiw supported a cheaper dollar, a policy that is damaging to Americans’ efforts to save and invest. American Enterprise Institute economist Kevin Hassett supported a misguided work-sharing idea where companies would reduce hours for some employees and create more jobs for others, missing the point that job creation comes from expanded investment, rather than slicing a finite pie. On taxes, Romney failed to explain his plan in the debates, and retreated from the idea that the 1% boost the economy, rather than drag it down. In an election that should have been a landslide, writes Tamny, Romney ‘had the wrong people whispering in his ear about economic policy.”

Even Hurricane Sandy is getting flack for the Presidential race and why Romney lost. While I thought the power outages and destruction caused by the storm might turn out to be Obama’s October Surprise, Americans changed their opinions in favor of Obama because of FEMA’s fast response. “After being criticized in the media for focusing on ‘small things’ like Big Bird and ‘Romnesia,’ Sandy offered Obama a chance to once again look presidential,” CNN writes.

Why Romney lost is a topic filled with speculation. One thing is for certain: both parties are already gearing up for the 2016 election in a time when Congress and the President should be focusing on the upcoming financial cliff.

Do you have your own reasons for why Romney lost?

Why Romney Lost: Opinion Roundup is a post from: The Inquisitr

If you need more proof that Roseanne Barr was serious about her presidential bid, you came to the right place. The actress and comedienne actually scored some votes. More than 8,000 to be exact.

Barr, who was running for president on the Peace and Freedom ticket with anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, garnered more than 8,000 votes in the Sunshine State of Florida, according to the Division of Elections. Those 8,008 votes put Roseanne in fifth place overall in Florida, behind the Democratic, Republican, Libertarian and Green party candidates with .1 percent, notes MSNBC.

ABC News reports that in California, Roseanne secured a sixth-place finish with 36,762 votes, though thousands more opined online that they’d rather see porn legend Ron Jeremy as the leader of the free world.

Roseanne had originally tapped country music icon Willie Nelson as her vice presidential running mate, though he ultimately backed out. Her campaign platform included a resource-based economy, the forgiveness of student loans, and mot notably, the complete legalization of marijuana.

Roseanne took to Twitter after receiving notice of her voting tally to express her gratuity to her fans and everyone who went to the polls in the actress’s name.

“I thank the people who voted for me — most of you were first-time voters that would never have voted for Obama or for Romney,” Barr tweeted today.

to my fans: yes I will start being funny again now!

— Roseanne Barr (@TheRealRoseanne) November 7, 2012

No word on whether or not Roseanne is planning on packing up and moving to Colorado now that recreational marijuana has been legalized in that state.

Did you vote for Roseanne?

More Than 8,000 People Wanted Roseanne To Be President In Florida is a post from: The Inquisitr

Just in case you were wondering, the cast of MTV’s Teen Mom gave their initial reactions over the election, and the politics surrounding the historical election, which saw President Obama winning a second term. The cast of Teem Mom from their respective seasons took to Twitter to share their play by play reactions over the big night, voicing their disdain for voting, their candidates, and much more. Not surprisingly, some of the Teen Mom cast members have a right wing approach, and some just didn’t bother to vote at all.

Catelynn Lowell from season one of Teen Mom, caused a little confusion for her followers when she posted her original tweet, “It’s Election Day You lose every right to bitch about the president the second you don’t vote! That’s y I don’t complain about it.” That tweet, that has since been deleted, stirred some of her fans up with in addition to other tweets that were later deleted, “No, no, no!! You must vote.” Followed by, “I don’t vote because I believe they all lie and r just saying what we all want to hear.”

When she was questioned about how she was using her Twitter to voice her opinion on not voting, Lowell tweeted again in defense, by stating, “nope just said what I do didn’t tell anyone to do anything. Plus I voted. Voted for Obama last time.” However, one should be aware that Lowell is contradicting herself, as she was a spring chicken at the  young age of 16 during the 2008 election, which made her illegible to vote.

While Lowell was confusing her followers with her contradictory statements, Tyler Baltierra kept it simple in his own words. It’s obvious to see that all the election talk in general was bothersome to him:

Politician=Liar, Manipulator, Trained Speaker. Any1 can make an empty promise. Electoral College decides, not the people #sickofthiselection

— Tyler BaltierraMTV (@TylerBaltierra) November 6, 2012

Gary Shirley, who’s always on again off again with his baby mama, Amber, who is currently incarcerated, expressed his opinion on the election results, stating:

I just wanna most importantly #Vote for my daughters future than vote for mine.

— Gary Shirley (@ItsGaryTime) November 7, 2012

However, Shirley tweeted  conflicting responses when his followers complained about his supposed Obama endorsement, which lead to a series of confusing tweets. Shirley stated, “Who said I voted for him? Who said I even voted,” Gary continued tweeting another statement, “Who said I didn’t vote?” After blocking the anti-Obama follower, he singled out the person and called them, “really dumb” and blocked her.

Farrah Abraham from season one of Teen Mom didn’t mince her words when she announced via Twitter who she was voting for on election day:

Can’t wait to #VOTE tomorrow #ROMNEY all the way !! Congrats:)

— FarrahAbraham (@F1abraham) November 5, 2012

#ROMNEY thanks for a tax break & making life easier for parents! — FarrahAbraham (@F1abraham) November 5, 2012

  On the opposite side of the fence was Jenelle Evans, who was all for Obama’s victory, and playfully tweeted her reaction:  

“If you havin election problems I feel bad for you son ,I got 44 presidents and Mitt Romney ain’t one” omgggg haha seriously made me laugh. — jenelle evans (@PBandJenelley_1) November 7, 2012

Corey Simms, another Teen Mom cast member seemed to be absolutely devastated at the win of President Barack Obama tweeting:

“Wow…. We are soooooooo screwed!!! I’m so in shock right now!!! Good luck to everyone hope y’all make it in the next 4 years!!”

Do you agree with the cast of Teen Mom?

The Cast Of Teen Mom Reacts To The Presidential Election is a post from: The Inquisitr

Stacey Dash is really upset that Mitt Romney didn’t win the 2012 election. We know this because she sent TMZ a 1,344 word rant about her post-election depression.

The actress was previously best-known for playing Dionne in Clueless but entered the public stage yet again ahead of the 2012 election with a controversial endorsement of GOP candidate Mitt Romney. “How can this be? She’s a woman! And African-American!” the internet cried. Thereafter, she received incredibly disturbing, even racist, criticism via Twitter.

In light of President Obama’s uncontested re-election, Dash has apparently been hard at work typing up a rebuttal to the entire 2012 election, having produced an impressive 1,344 words on the subject.

“Dash touches on sleeping, hanging chads, her baby, her DNA, Osama Bin Laden … and she also refers to herself in the 3rd person,” says TMZ.

We don’t know if Dash’s epic 1,344 word political rant is impressive or sad, but, hey, it exists.

“Perhaps I publically endorsed Romney from a slightly naive place, thinking that I could speak my voice without being criticized in such racially charged and hateful tones,” Dash said in the letter. “People get it wrong. My vote for Romney isn’t a vote against Obama. That’s not how full participants in the democratic process operate. We vote for candidates and we vote for issues.”

And more:

“An elderly woman stands in the same grocery line pinching pennies to buy a can of soup while a woman is buying marshmallow fluff with food stamps…,” she wrote. “Ultimately I know that what Stacey Dash thinks about who will be the next president of the United States isn’t that important in the scheme of things- but I feel a desperation for the country. The fact is, that when the two parties are not working together, it makes things worse!”

Dash’s 1,344 word rant concludes: “I am hopeful that President Obama will lead us to becoming the great United States of America that thrives.”

You can read Stacey Dash’s 1,344 word rant in its entirety at TMZ.

Stacey Dash Pens 1,344 Word Rant On 2012 Election, Disillusionment is a post from: The Inquisitr

On Wednesday, a CNN panel of journalists suggested a possible future for fallen GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney: President Obama’s Secretary of Business.

With President Obama’s re-election secured, his cabinet will see some shuffling over the next several months. Suggestions for new offices have been thrown out over the past several weeks, with “Secretary of Business” popping up from time to time.

CNN host Wolf Blitzer suggested that Obama would benefit from appointing a few Republicans to his vacating cabinet positions, and suggested the POTUS court Mitt Romney for “Secretary of Business.”

“Look at what the president did last night in his speech,” Republican strategist Alex Castellanos said. “He said he was going to call Mitt Romney and talk about how to move forward together. That was incredibly generous and also incredibly smart politically.”

Blitzer suggested President Obama make a bold choice and appoint Mitt Romney to a secretary position, potentially of the Treasury.

“As soon as the president talked about Mitt Romney and calling him up, the social media was abuzz with the idea, what about appointing Mitt Romney as the secretary of Commerce,” senior political analyst David Gergen remarked. “Wouldn’t that be an interesting thing? I think it’s probably a non-starter, but it does emphasize, he does need a CEO business person.”

“The president suggested the other day maybe creating a new secretary of business,” Blitzer said.

“What if Mitt Romney was in that cabinet?” host Suzanne Malveaux wondered. “I mean, he brought Hillary Clinton, kept her close to him, by his side. So, you never know. It could be part of the strategy.”

The idea of a Secretary of Business has been floated before, with Obama himself suggesting it last week on MSNBC. Though his name hadn’t yet been attached to it, Mitt Romney scoffed that the office would amount to just “another bureaucrat.”

“I don’t think adding a new chair in his cabinet will help add millions of jobs on Main Street,” Romney, as a candidate, told a crowd of supporters in Virginia. “His solution to everything is to add another bureaucrat.”

Though the 2012 election unquestionably went to President Obama, keen observers have wondered what to make of the state of the electorate.

When you combine exit polling data on specific policies, the closeness of the popular vote, and the GOP’s renewed control over the House of Representatives despite the lowest Congressional approval in recent history, it seems unclear what the American voter is asking for.

Bipartisan solutions have become popular talking points lately, with President Obama reaching out to Romney for a post-election chat, a call for the election’s winner to govern as an Independent, and now, a suggesti0n from CNN for President Obama to work closely with Conservatives.

Here’s the video of CNN‘s Mitt Romney as Secretary of Business recommendation, via The Raw Story:

Next For Mitt Romney: President Obama’s Secretary Of Business [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Former Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has never been one to mince words. On Wednesday, he very simply explained why pundits such as himself, Karl Rove and Dick Morris incorrectly predicted that Mitt Romney would win the 2012 election and become our nation’s president: “We were wrong.”

“I’m just going to say bluntly, we were wrong,” Gingrich told CBS host Charlie Rose.

“I think Karl Rove, Michael Barone, Dick Morris, a whole group of us, frankly, misunderstood what was happening in the country. We thought with 8 percent unemployment — or approximately 8 percent — with gasoline the price that it was, etc., that it would be almost impossible for President Obama to be re-elected. He deserves enormous credit. His campaign deserves credit.”

Gingrich said something similar on CNN‘s Starting Point with Soledad O’Brien as well:

“I was wrong. I think you’re going to find that whether it’s Michael Barone or Karl Rove, the whole group of us, we all thought we understood the historical pattern and the fact that with this level of unemployment, with this level of gasoline prices, what would happen.”

Following these comments, Gingrich shared what he believes the GOP should do next:

“Republicans are going to have to take a very serious look at what happened and why did it happen and why were we not more competitive at the presidential level.”

Gingrich continued: “The Republican Party has to be open to and listening to people who are going to be a major part of our future and unless we do that, we’re going to be a minority party,” he explained.

“Now, I don’t think that means you automatically embrace every new idea that President Obama sends up to Capitol Hill, but I think you do have to have an attitude towards the Latino population — not necessarily towards the president — that is much, much more inclusive than it has been in the past.”

Here are the CNN and CBS videos in which Newt Gingrich admits that he was wrong about Mitt Romney:

Newt Gingrich: ‘We Were Wrong About Romney Winning’ [Videos] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Last night, Karl Rove contested the Fox News declaration that President Obama had been re-elected and has since been mocked by rival media outlet MSNBC.

During Tuesday night’s Election Day coverage, Fox News was among the first to call the presidency for the incumbent Barack Obama, after polls in battleground state Ohio swung toward his re-election. Karl Rove appeared on Fox with Bret Baier and Megyn Kelly, who announced their projection that President Obama had won his re-election bid.

Rove appeared to be quite upset and disputed the call, confronting the network’s “decision desk” about their results. Rove’s assertion that the call was premature was noticed, and subsequently mocked, by commentators on MSNBC.

“I don’t mean to cross-advertise here, but I want to note that conservative cable news network Fox News Channel – Fox News Channel called Ohio for Obama, but the on-air talent is refusing to concede that they believe it,” Rachel Maddow said on Tuesday night.

“Can you define that word ‘talent’ for the people who are not in this industry? They happen to have positions. It doesn’t say anything about their quality,” said Chris Matthews.

Rove himself returned to Fox News on Wednesday morning to talk about the GOP’s post-election strategy and what the party ought to do moving forward with eyes on 2016.

“If we’re going to win in the future, Republicans need to do better among Latinos, and they need to do better among women — particularly single women,” said Rove. “The Republican Party had better pay attention to the Latino vote.”

Rove was not asked about his seeming meltdown the night before, nor did he himself bring it up.

Karl Rove Silent Regarding Fox Election Dispute Last Night [Videos] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Conservative, failed presidential candidate, and Tea Party-favorite Michele Bachmann of Minnesota will keep her seat in Congress, according to multiple reports and projections.

The controversial representative has been projected to win re-election over Democratic challenger businessman Jim Graves, reports Reuters. The close race had Bachmann leading Graves by just 3,256 votes (which is under 1 percentage point) from more than 351,000 votes cast in the Minnesota 6th Congressional District with 98.2 percent of precincts reporting.

Minnesota law only requires a recount if the margin of victory is less than half a percentage point, cementing Bachmann’s re-election just barely. She said in a statement:

“It has truly been an honor and a privilege to represent the people of Minnesota’s sixth district in Congress, and I am humbled that they have placed their trust in me for another term.”

Called a “conservative firebrand” by Raw Story, Bachmann played a crucial role in the growth of the controversial Tea Party movement and achieved nationwide renown after her failed bid for the GOP presidential ticket earlier this year. In light of her failed candidacy, her opponent criticized her of losing concern for her district, though the attack didn’t take effect enough to keep Bachmann from another term.

Interestingly, she has never won more than 53 percent in the district, winning by three percentage points in 2008. This election looks to be Bachmann’s tightest win yet. Continued the statement:

“I am extremely grateful to my dedicated volunteers for spending countless hours knocking on doors and making phone calls. I pledge to continue to work every day to create jobs and do everything I can to make life more affordable for Minnesota’s families. Our children and grandchildren deserve a future filled with opportunity in a country that is safe and secure, and that’s what I’m fighting for in Washington.”

In addition to Michele Bachmann, VP candidate Paul Ryan has also been re-elected to his Congressional seat.

Michelle Bachmann Projected To Keep Her House Seat is a post from: The Inquisitr

Though President Obama unquestionably earned another four years in the White House, many will be dissecting the precise numbers in the 2012 election for days, not to contest President Obama as the clear winner (he is) but to learn what we can from the state of the electorate.

With 303 electoral votes compared to Mitt Romney’s 206, President Obama is indeed the uncontested winner as votes continue to be counted. However, many are curious as to how the popular vote (the raw number of votes) came out as well. Did Obama regain the mandate he had in 2008?

With a 2.6 million popular vote lead over Mitt Romney as of this posting, it seems as though President Obama has indeed regained the 2008 mandate, a green-light for him to proceed with his vision of the United States.

However, keep in mind that the GOP retains control over the House of Representatives despite historically low approval ratings for Congress, meaning that at the end of the day, the political climate of the next two years won’t be so dramatically different from the policy lull of the last two.

Additionally, though the final numbers are not yet in, voter turnout is said to have dropped by roughly 11 percent since 2008, meaning that the voter spread in 2012 was somewhere between 2008 and the mid-terms in 2010.

It’s hard to say exactly what the country is thinking or how the electorate feels in 2012. It’s readily apparent that the country is still deeply divided. Obama’s 2.6 million lead over Mitt Romney with the popular vote sounds like a lot on its own, but the actual numbers make it look a lot closer. As of this posting:

Obama: 59,937,520

Romney: 57,254,983

Be wary of the numerous media outlets (or haughty Facebook friends) who call this election a clear endorsement of President Obama or a particular policy of his. If anything, the 2012 election was a rejection of Mitt Romney, not necessarily of the GOP. If the closeness of the popular vote (as of now) means anything, it’s that President Obama didn’t get a green-light from the nation this time: It’s a yellow.

President Obama Cinches Popular Vote Ahead By 2.6 Million is a post from: The Inquisitr

Commentary | The Democratic party has retained control of Senate, with Democrats keeping their 51 seat majority, Republicans losing a net of 2 seats so far, and Independents grabbing the leftovers according to Fox News. There are still two seats being contested for control of Senate, but, even combined with the complete support of Independents, that is not enough to give either party a supermajority which is necessary to push a vote past a filibuster.

In addition, the Republican party has retained control of the House according to Fox News, with Republicans winning 231 seats so far, the Democrats losing a few to bring them down to 190, and Independents apparently have not won a single House seat.

But there are 14 House seats still up for grabs with votes so close that those districts are probably doing a recount before announcing for certain. In 2010, Republicans won 242 House seats, so it is possible the Republicans may lose a couple House seats overall or perhaps gain a small increased advantage.

So is Congressional gridlock inevitable? With the control of the Senate and the House, as well as the Presidency, remaining the same, essentially nothing has changed since before the 2012 Election. The Legislative branch’s primary responsibility is to pass laws that affect our nation. But that job has not been getting done.

Now that elections are over, the number one priority facing Congress is to deal with the looming Financial Cliff. This term describes the $607 billion plus negative effect on the economy due to tax increases and government spending cuts, which will be triggered by the automatic sequester slated to start taking place on January 1, 2013. The only reason we have an automatic sequester is because both parties in Congress and the President could not reach an agreement despite years of attempts. This cannot be blamed on a filibuster by the Republicans since Congressional rules explicitly do not allow budgets to be filibustered. This is why the control of Senate is so important.

The House Republicans have been passing many budgets to avoid the Financial Cliff only to get shot down each time by Senate Democrats. The Senate has not been able to pass a budget in years. Even Obama’s attempts at creating a budget were voted down unanimously by fellow Democrats. Republicans were hoping to gain control of Senate in order to pass a budget.

This Financial Cliff triggered by the automatic sequester has businesses and investors very worried about the possibility of a double-dip recession that could potentially plummet the country into a full-blown economical depression.

“It doesn’t matter who’s (in charge), both sides (of the political aisle) will have to deal with the cliff,” says Linda Duessel, according to USAToday.com.

Wall Street wants this fiscal cliff and the overwhelming Federal debt to be tackled immediately. Why is this so important? If Congress does nothing, according to the Chicago Tribune, ”investors will think twice about lending the U.S. government money at low interest rates, which would strain the economy, widen the deficit and hurt the dollar. It also raises the possibility that major credit-rating agencies will cut the U.S. debt rating.” Again.

“Tackling the fiscal cliff will be the first order of business,” says Craig Johnson, a market strategist at Piper Jaffray. “If we can get any sort of sign that the cliff will be avoided or minimized, it would lift another piece of uncertainty from the investment landscape.”

I personally predicted the Obama win, and I’ve even told friends that I do not think the Republicans should want to have won the Presidency. Why? There is the perception that whichever party controls the Presidency is in the driver’s seat. Whoever drives over the financial cliff gets the blame. Call me pessimistic, but I believe that a financial cliff of some type, and thus further recession, is inevitable in the next two years. This now means that Obama and the Democrats will be blamed for the economical destruction if this scenario plays out like I think it will.

What do you think: Will the control of Senate remaining the same mean this Congressional gridlock will continue straight over the Financial Cliff?

Control Of Senate: Congress Gridlock And Automatic Sequester Means Financial Cliff Inevitable? [Commentary] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Stacey Dash and Melissa Joan Hart should start a support group or something. The Sabrina the Teenage Witch actress tweeted her support for GOP candidate Mitt Romney yesterday afternoon and was naturally shredded in 140 characters or less by a multitude of Twitter users.

She began yesterday with a warning: “I may get political today but just stating my feelings, not intending to sway anyone or get into arguments,” which really only tells us two things. One, that prefacing a confession of her personal views with a disclaimer shows that Hart already, in some part, expected the reaction she got, and two, that she clearly has no idea how the internet works.

Then, the tweet heard ’round the world:

“Can’t get too political in only 140 chac but for those asking, I’m voting #RomneyRyan.”

Like Stacey Dash, Hart was immediately inundated with criticism for simply and fairly harmlessly sharing her political views. Of course, she definitely had a number of supporters, but her detractors were many. The most disturbing part of the criticism pointed at Melissa Joan Hart?

They took it out on her career as a 90s teen icon! (WARNING: Some Twitter users have potty mouths).

.@melissajoanhart Explain that one, Clarissa.

— Jonathan Grunfuttock (@peesemould) November 5, 2012

@peesemould lost all my childhood respect for @melissajoanhart — Dave (@pixonu) November 5, 2012

@melissajoanhart On behalf of women everywhere, may I say ‘Fuck you, bitch!’ Washed-up has-been cunt. — Basia Milewicz (@BasiaMilewicz) November 6, 2012

Hart has been defending herself on Twitter all day, which you can follow here. But sharing her GOP support apparently wasn’t the worst decision:

Wow! Ive actually gained 15,000 new followers but I bet some are just to bitch at me. Welcome guys and gals!

— Melissa Joan Hart (@MelissaJoanHart) November 6, 2012

What do you think? Is Melissa Joan Hart a woman-hating, racist homophobe? Is your childhood just ruined now?

Melissa Joan Hart Tweets Romney Support, Twitter’s Childhood Dies is a post from: The Inquisitr

The pop culture phenomenon known as “Gangnam Style” has finally reached the highest office of these United States. When asked about the craze, President Obama simply remarked, “I think I can do that move.”

We can’t speak to President Obama’s confidence in the turnout of the 2012 election just yet, but he seems pretty secure in his dance moves. The hardest-hitting question President Obama has been asked yet was put forth by an interviewer curious as to whether or not the POTUS had caught Gangnam fever yet.

On Tuesday, during a radio spot with WZID-FM in New Hampshire, President Obama was pressed on the issue, asked whether or not he or Michelle would eventually do a rendition of South Korean rapper PSY’s international viral hit, which is currently sitting just over 6.5 million views on YouTube.

“I just saw that video for the first time,” Obama replied. “I think I can do that move. But I’m not sure that the inauguration ball is the appropriate time to break that out.”

“Maybe,” he concluded, “do it privately for Michelle.”

“Gangnam Style” has spawned numerous public odes and parodies across the internet including a US Naval Academy version, a Saturday Night Live mock-up, and a Late Show with David Letterman clip that superimposed GOP candidate Mitt Romney’s head on the Gangnam dancer.

Personally, I think that the inauguration ball would be the perfect venue for a re-elected President Obama to go “Gangnam Style” with Michelle. PSY would probably have a heart attack.

For the tens of you who haven’t seen it, here’s PSY’s “Gangnam Style.”

Here’s Obama’s “Gangnam Style.” It’s a fake, but we can dream.

President Obama Talks ‘Gangnam Style,’ Thinks He Can Pull It Off [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

What is controversial filmmaker Michael Moore up to today? He’s chronicling Election Day for a documentary project … about Election Day.

Election Day does indeed have a markedly different feel from a regular day in this country, so a documentary project about America’s national pilgrimage to our nearest polling stations isn’t a bad idea, overall. Furthermore, Moore’s plan to document Election Day on the grassroots level is a fascinating one, if he weren’t solely focusing on Obama supporters.

“Here we go! Take an Obama election day photo and tweet it to me with 2012 photos & I’ll post on my site,” Moore said to his 1.2 million Twitter followers.

The idea is to have a running slideshow on Michael Moore’s main website of Obama supporters presumably displaying an “I Voted” sticker or something of that nature since cell phones and cameras are generally not allowed or severely restricted at polling stations.

Days ago, Moore contributed an op-ed to The Huffington Post in which he lamented the fact that a stunning 90 million Americans plan on not voting in the 2012 election cycle. In Moore’s eyes, it is simply unacceptable for those 90 million votes to not go to the incumbent President Obama.

“Each of us knows Obama-supporting non-voters. They’re your cousin, your coworker, your friend from the choir at church. Identify just one of them (best of all if they’re in a swing state) and pledge to get them to the polls. You can try to convince them with all the good arguments as to why they should vote for the O, but I think the best way to do this is to ask them personally, just this once, to do this for you. Not for the country. For you.”

You can follow Michael Moore on Twitter here, and as you can see from his feed, the filmmaker is actually doing a lot of good things on it by providing valuable election resources and encouraging people to vote. We just wish he wasn’t telling … not asking, telling … people who they should vote for.

Michael Moore’s Election Day Plans: Documentary Filmmaker Makes Documentary is a post from: The Inquisitr

Today is Election Day, and though actress Roseanne Barr is running for president, she can’t count on a vote from ex-husband Tom Arnold.

Just in case you’re late to the table, Roseanne Barr of Roseanne fame is indeed running for president and will appear on the ballot in some states. According to OTRC, she’s running for the California-based Peace and Freedom Party, promising an end to the war on drugs, to bring our soldiers home, guaranteeing clean water and organic food, to fix the broken economy, implementation of a single-payer healthcare system, and finally to ensure equality for all.

It’s not a Stephen Colbert-style joke, Roseanne is very serious about her presidential bid (so she says), but one person who isn’t taking her very seriously is her ex-husband, Tom Arnold, who scoffed at the idea of voting for her.

Arnold told TMZ “I’m voting for Obama, but for God’s sake let Roseanne have her pot … she’s 60.”

That last jab is a poke at Roseanne’s running platform. We stated it fairly and moderately above, but the actress has made no secret of her love for marijuana. In fact, legalization is pretty much the only thing she’s running on, all that other stuff is secondary.

Her campaign website states:

“The legalization of marijuana is the way to end all Drug Wars and stop the monopoly of the subsidized prison systems. Our government and corporations are getting paid every time someone goes to prison for non-violent crimes due to marijuana arrests. Drug laws need to be rewritten to make them sane and people based. We need to end the prohibition on marijuana and legalize it.”

It’s not a bad platform, and that point alone will likely account for whatever votes she ultimately receives. Though the 2012 election is still too early to call, we’re going to go ahead and venture a guess that the words “President Barr” won’t make it into the common language tomorrow.

Would you vote for Roseanne Barr?

Tom Arnold Won’t Be Voting For Ex-Wife Roseanne Barr is a post from: The Inquisitr

Rush Limbaugh attacked President Obama on his radio show Monday, commenting on the now-infamous “voting is the best revenge” comment.

“I told you that’s what this guy is all about, and here he is now voicing it himself, off prompter, by the way. This was not written. The real Obama surfaced, and they’re struggling trying to explain this,” Limbaugh said, according to the show’s transcript.

Last Friday, President Obama told voters in Springfield, Ohio that “voting is the best revenge,” sparking a deluge of GOP criticism and a clarification by the Obama campaign.

“And the message [President Obama] was sending is if you don’t like the policies, if you don’t like the plan that Gov. Romney is putting forward, if you think that’s a bad deal for the middle class, then you can go to the voting booth and cast your ballot,” Obama campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki told reporters Saturday. “It’s nothing more complicated than that.”

Mitt Romney responded to President Obama’s comments, saying that American citizens shouldn’t vote for “revenge” but for “love of country,” which Limbaugh seemed to support in his Monday show.

“Love of country is exactly what propelled 2010. Love of country is exactly what caused a massive uprising by the Tea Party and the grassroots and a massive Democrat landslide defeat in 2010,” Limbaugh said. “Make no mistake about it, it was love of country that generated that, and it’s love of country that has only intensified since then. It has not evaporated in any shape, way, manner, or form.”

Limbaugh also made his own 2012 election prediction, saying “Romney will win big.”

Rush Limbaugh Talks Obama’s ‘Voting Is The Best Revenge’ Comment is a post from: The Inquisitr

Give it a rest! The Romney campaign has confirmed that the GOP presidential candidate will make a couple of final stops today, which is Election Day. Can you guess where Romney will be showing up? None other than battleground state Ohio.

Chasing that final demographic, Romney will go to Ohio (and Pennsylvania) on Election Day for a last-minute voting grab before the polls close, the votes are counted, and the president is picked.

The Romney campaign’s announcement is something of a surprise since Romney was originally supposed to wrap up his campaign with a late-night rally on Monday in New Hampshire. Both Romney and Obama have been fighting hard in Ohio to win the state, and recent polls have tipped back and forth favoring each candidate, if only slightly.

Should Romney be campaigning on Election Day?

Sure! Both Obama and then-opponent John McCain did the same in 2008, with Obama holding an Election Day event in Indiana, winning the state. McCain held rallies in New Mexico and Colorado on Election Day but lost them both.

“It’s terrific that Mitt Romney’s campaigning today, he’s also going to vote, but he’s going to be in Pittsburgh as I understand it and Cleveland, you know we’re going to push this right to the end,” said Ohio Senator Rob Portman, in an interview with Fox News.

Asked if Romney could win without Ohio, Portman said it was “possible, but tough.”

“I wouldn’t want to take the risk of losing it. There’s a possibility you could put it together through other states but I think we are going to win in Ohio, I’ve got a good feel for this on the ground, I didn’t feel this in 2008 frankly.”

Pennsylvania, Romney’s other campaign stop, hasn’t voted for a Republican presidential candidate since 1988.

President Obama, for his part, has no campaign plans for Election Day, reports Boston.com. He officially brought his campaign to a close last night in Des Moines, Iowa.

Mitt Romney Is Campaigning Today (Election Day) In Ohio is a post from: The Inquisitr

Paddy Power is an Irish Bookmaker that finds the Obama odds for winning the 2012 election to be overwhelming. So overwhelming, in fact, that they have paid actual money out to their betters two days ahead of the election day!

“Romney gave it a good shot and is doing well in the popular vote, but we suspect he’s had his moment in the sun and is likely to be remembered more for his legendary gaffes than presidential potential,” the Irish bookmaker said on Sunday according to The Washington Times.

Irish bookmaker Paddy Power is known for making early correct predictions along with early payouts. In January 2008, Paddy Power declared the Democratic primaries nomination over and paid out out on then-senator Obama to be the Democratic presidential nominee. This was months before anything became official at the Democratic convention, and Obama still had to lead a frightful campaign against Hillary Rodham Clinton. Later in 2008 during the general election, Irish bookmaker Paddy Power once again called the bets for Obama a full two weeks before voting even began.

For the 2012 election, the Irish bookmaker’s Obama odds have put 650,000 Euros on the line, which when exchanged for US dollars at current rates is more than $830,000. Predictions based upon the electoral college maps have Obama getting favorable odds to repeat his presidential term, so 75 percent of betting has gone his way in recent weeks. Personally, while the electoral vote estimates are likely to be correct, I find it astounding that betters who might have picked Romney would accept their losses without blinking. That’s a lot of money!

Do you think the Irish bookmaker Obama odds are correct?

Irish Bookmaker Obama Odds: Declares Election Over Early And Pays Bets is a post from: The Inquisitr

Nearly 40 percent of Americans won’t vote for President in the US election, according to MSNBC. This number is considerably lower than other Western democracies.

Out of the 169 countries that tracker voter data, the United States ranks 120th. The Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance states that this effectively puts the country between Dominican Republic and Benin.

The reasons why people won’t vote this year range from inconvenience to cynicism about the election process. Many individuals also stated that the people way conduct themselves during elections contributed greatly to their decision not to visit the polls.

The Washington Post estimates that upwards of 50 million people will skip this year’s Presidential election. This number is a combination of folks who are not registered to vote and those who simply decided not to cast their vote. This number is up from 45 million in 2008.

Michael McDonald, a political scientist at George Mason University, believes that a lot of voter apathy has to do with fatigue.

“Part of the issue is we have too much democracy,” he explained. “We’re just voting a lot in the U.S.” He added that Americans have the opportunity to vote at least once a year. This in turn makes people feel as though the process is nothing more than a hassle and an inconvenience.

Lyle Scruggs, a political scientist at the University of Connecticut, explained that quite a few Americans feel their votes don’t count in the grand scheme of things. Many have taken issue with the Electoral College, which finds the presidential candidates focusing on swing states while ignoring countless others.

“If we had a popular-vote election of the president, where which state you lived in didn’t matter, you would likely see many more national campaigns trying to mobilize a much more national constituency,” Scruggs explained.

Will you cast your vote in the US election? Do you think there should be consequences for those who decide not to visit the polls?

US Election: 40 Percent Of Americans Won’t Vote For President is a post from: The Inquisitr

A bookie in the UK has already called the 2012 Election in the incumbent Barack Obama’s favor. What’s more, he’s already paying out bets on the future leadership of the United States.

Though the polls have been tilting back and forth all day between President Barack Obama and his GOP opponent Mitt Romney, Paddy Power, one of the largest bet shops in Ireland and the UK, is already shelling out coin to those who laid odds on a second term for Obama.

(A “bet shop,” for the uninitiated, is a book-maker that places bets on anything and everything, notes MSN.)

CBS reports that 75 percent of UK bet-placers laid their odds on President Obama, so the payout probably isn’t all that lucrative. The bet shop is likely just cutting its losses: though individual payouts will be slim, the pre-election payout bill runs well over $500,000.

“Romney gave it a good shot and is doing well in the popular vote, but we suspect he’s had his moment in the sun and is likely to be remembered more for his legendary gaffes than presidential potential,” Paddy Power said in a statement. “The overall betting trend has shown one-way traffic for Obama and punters seem to have called it 100 percent correct.”

Just because Paddy Power is already paying-out doesn’t mean that you still can’t place bets. A “punter” can still get in on the action and lay a bet on any aspect of the race. Here are the odds:

“It’s 100 to 1 that President Obama and Mitt Romney will get the same number of Electoral College votes; 11 to 1 that Romney will win the popular vote but Obama will win where it matters — in the Electoral College; 50 to 1 that the opposite will happen, and 16 to 1 that Obama will win in a landslide. Point-spread bets are being taken as well.”

Though the early payout has gotten Paddy Power a few headlines, it’s likely that they just feel the way the rest of us do: Impatient for all of this to end, so that we can get back to the things that matter. In the case of the bet shop, that probably means horses.

Who do you think will win the election?

Bookie Declares Obama The Winner, Already Paying Out Bets On 2012 Election is a post from: The Inquisitr

Commentary | In less than 24 hours Americans will go to the polls to elect a President. Tomorrow’s election has been called the most important election in American history by pundits, journalists and supporters of both candidates. While that may turn out to be a slight exaggeration, there is no doubt that this election is crucial to the future of this nation.

On the surface, the two candidates seem to be total opposites. President Obama is a true believer in the far-reaching power of a strong Federal government, which he favors over state’s rights and a strict interpretation of the Constitution. He relies on Executive Orders and advocates placing more power in the hands of the President.

Mitt Romney is a highly successful businessman who amassed a personal fortune of over 250 million dollars. He earned his credentials as the President and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the 2002 Winter Olympics. His hard work as an Olympic Organizer launched his political career and led to his election as Governor of Massachusetts.

Neither man had much experience in government prior to running for President. Obama served one term as a US Senator. Romney served one term as a Governor. While Romney touts his business experience and faults Obama for lack of financial knowledge, the Democrats say Romney has no foreign policy expertise.

Obama portrays himself as a man of the people. He attended university on scholarships and worked for years as a community organizer. He has constantly attacked Romney as one of the landed gentry, who is out of touch with the middle class. He accuses Romney of supporting the ultra rich at the expense of the poor.

Romney appears to have taken the high ground in the campaign. Much to the dismay of many of his Republican supporters, he has resisted numerous opportunities to criticize Obama over a wide variety of issues, including the fiasco in Libya. Even after the Democrats slandered Romney over his tax returns, he refused to retaliate by mentioning Obama’s sealed personal records.

The polls have been unpredictable at best and we wonder if anyone really has a feel for the pulse of this election. Democrats have put on their poker face and exude confidence. Republicans claim the American people are fed up with four years of Obama’s failures and will sweep the President out of office on Tuesday.

While no one can be sure who will win tomorrow, one thing is entirely clear; Americans need to exercise their greatest freedom and vote. Our nation has a dismal record on election day, with the lowest voter turnout of any Western nation. We are reminded of the days when El Salvador was finally freed from the vice grip of Somoza and people walked for days through the jungle just to vote. Over 90 percent of that tiny nation managed to vote, while here in America we are lucky if the turnout hits 50 percent.

There is no excuse. It doesn’t matter who you support. What matters is that you utilize the power you have been given and take the time to cast your vote. Tomorrow is America’s day of decision and your participation is needed.

Election Day, Tuesday, November 6, 2012: America’s Day Of Decision is a post from: The Inquisitr

Polling stations in Ohio and Florida have experienced dramatically long waiting lines, prompting politicians and pundits on both sides to point the finger at the opposing party. But who is to blame? Is it simple partisan hackery or do both sides carry some responsibility for the restricted early voting controversy?

Early voter turnout has favored President Barack Obama, so it’s only natural to think that the policies and initiatives of the GOP are making it tough for voters to cast their ballots. Particularly singled out is Florida, where reports this weekend suggested that some voters had to wait as many as seven hours to cast their vote.

Andrew Cohen for The Atlantic sees this as unabashed partisanship on the part of the GOP who are so afraid of Democratic turnout that they purposely restrict the early voting period to keep people from the polls.

“This is happening not because of a natural disaster or breakdown in machinery. It is happening by partisan design. Alarmed by the strong Democratic turnout in early voting in 2008, Republican lawmakers, including Governor Rick Scott, reduced the number of early voting days from 14 to eight.”

Cohen also singles out Ohio, which has attempted to pass similar initiatives blocking early voting, or at the very least, truncating it to prevent Democrat votes from making a difference in this election. Though the many examples suggested by Cohen were usually struck down in court, he argues that voter suppression is a clear initiative on the part of the GOP, who hide under a mask of “stopping voter fraud,” which has proven largely nonexistent.

However, the voting fiasco in Florida has received criticism from right-leaning figures as well. Former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman (R) said on MSNBC Monday that the Florida voting debacle made us look like a “third-world country.”

“I don’t know what went on in Florida, but I do have to say that in this day and age, it’s inexcusable that in this country, we have anything like this going on. I’ve led delegations around the world to watch voting and this is the kind of thing you expect in a third-world country, not in the United States of America.”

Whitman also shot down conspiracy cries that the GOP are purposefully keeping voters from the polls. “I don’t believe it’s a big Republican plot because if it is, it backfired mightily and others might want to take a good look at it,” Whitman said.

Furthermore, if it is indeed a “big Republican plot,” it’s not one that has wide support. Controversial New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, normally a vicious GOP bulldog, has made special concessions for victims of Hurricane Sandy, allowing them to vote via fax and email, increasing early voting access.

Furthermore, while more Democrats may have turned out for early voting, Whitman notes that they may not have voted with the party line. Time will tell.

Here’s Christine Whitman on MSNBC. Do you agree with Andrew Cohen that the GOP are behind voter difficulties in Florida and Ohio, or are there enough examples of Republican figures disavowing and working against this assumption to discredit it? Sound off below the video:

Early Voting Controversy: Critics Say GOP Is Keeping Voters From The Polls In Key States is a post from: The Inquisitr

With Election Day less than 24 hours away, the battle continues between Obama and Romney until the bitter end. In an effort to entice voters to swing in their direction, each candidate held events in four states, according to Business Line.

Obama and Romney continue commenting on each other’s campaign promises as they make attempts at winning over new territory during this election. During his speech in Cleveland, Ohio, GOP Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney told potential supporters:

“You have watched what has happened in this country over the last four years with an independent voice. You hoped that President Obama would live up to his promise to bring people together to solve big problems but he hasn’t and I will.”

Obama, in an attempt to energize his own based, added:

“If you listen to what Governor Romney says, it basically is: Be very, very disappointed, because not every problem has been solved; not everyone who wants a job has one; not everyone’s income is rising. Be disappointed. Forget what caused it. Don’t pay too much attention to what our solutions are. Just be disappointed — and look at me, I look like a President. And I talk like one. And I’m telling you it’s all going to be all right if you elect me.”

Obama has been traveling his campaign trail with former President Bill Clinton standing as an out-spoken supporter at his side. While the incumbent has plenty of support against his rival, many speculate this is going to be a very close race.

How do you feel about the word wars occurring between Obama and Romney?

Climatic Moments: Obama And Romney Battling To The Bitter End is a post from: The Inquisitr

Ten-year-old Sophia Bailey Klugh penned a touching letter to President Obama, approving his support of marriage equality and relating her own story about living with not one, but two great dads. For the heartfelt letter, young Sophia has earned a response from none other than President Obama himself.

Sophia wrote:

“I am so glad that you agree two men can love each other because I have two dads and they love each other, but at school kids think that it’s gross and weird, but it really hurts my heart and feelings…. If you were me and you had two dads that loved each other and kids at school teased you about it, what would you do?”

President Obama took some time out of his busy campaign schedule, amid his last minute push for votes in the waning hours until Election Day, to respond to Sophia personally. Here is what he wrote:

“Thank you for writing me such a thoughtful letter about your family. Reading it made me proud to be your president and even more hopeful about the future of our nation.

“In America, no two families look the same. We celebrate this diversity. And we recognize that whether you have two dads or one mom what matters above all is the love we show one another. You are very fortunate to have two parents who care deeply for you. They are lucky to have such an exceptional daughter in you.

“Our differences unite us. You and I are blessed to live in a country where we are born equal no matter what we look like on the outside, where we grow up, or who our parents are. A good rule is to treat others the way you hope they will treat you. Remind your friends at school about this rule if they say something that hurts your feelings.

“Thanks again for taking the time to write me. I’m honored to have your support and inspired by your compassion. I’m sorry I couldn’t make it to dinner, but I’ll be sure to tell Sasha and Malia you say hello.”

Election Day is tomorrow, and though the economy is the issue driving many to the voting booth, social issues like marriage equality are also on the mind of many. What do you think of President Obama’s response to Sophia Bailey Klugh, the ten-year-old girl with two gay parents? Here’s a photo of the letter via The Huffington Post:

President Obama Responds To 10-Year-Old’s Letter About Her Two Fathers [Photo] is a post from: The Inquisitr

What will happen if Mitt Romney wins the 2012 election on Tuesday? Will it be the end of our nation as the left would have us believe? Will it be America’s saving grace as the right would have us believe? A small consensus is emerging which says that should the GOP candidate take the Oval Office, it won’t really matter much at all in the end.

A speculative op-ed roundup shows everything from panicked fear to casual fatalism in the case of a Mitt Romney win. The New Statesman is perhaps the most concerned about a GOP presidency, with Nicholas Wapshott writing that the GOP will “impose their reactionary social agenda on the half of the US they disagree with,” including the “reversing [of] landmark civil rights, gender equality and sexual orientation legislation,” concluding that if the Senate goes GOP, “both houses of Congress, the court and the presidency will all be in the hands of conservatives and there will be no check on what they enact.”

That doesn’t sound familiar.

On the other hand, if Romney should lose, it might be Conservatives who race over the border to Canada. Nigel Horne of The Week points out that our neighbors up north, long-thought to be happy citizens in a progressive model what with universal healthcare and all, are actually a lot more conservative than we think. Case in point, Canadian musician Rufus Wainwright lives in New York now because Canada is currently its most Conservative in decades “which I hate,” he says.

Furthermore, Politico notes that if Obama wins, despite being a “seriously vulnerable incumbent,” that “the Republican Party will have to go through a painful process of self-examination and internal debate in order to explain what went so badly wrong.”

So what’s the truth? It’s likely somewhere in the middle of severe expectations on either side. Interestingly, a perspective is emerging that a Romney presidency will fall short of both hopes and fears. Matthew Yglesias of Slate says that if Romney wins, “his agenda probably won’t be as far reaching as conservatives would like, or as liberals fear.”

“The starting point is to realize that Romney has been overpromising and liberals have been overworrying about it. The fact of the matter is that unless current polling is badly mistaken, even if Romney wins, Democrats are overwhelmingly likely to hold a majority in the Senate, meaning swathes of his stated agenda will be dead on arrival.”

What do you think will happen if Mitt Romney wins the 2012 election?

What Will Happen If Mitt Romney Wins? Probably Not Much is a post from: The Inquisitr

Early voting results show that roughly 30 million people have already voted by mail or in person in 34 states and Washington D.C. These Americans have braved the chaotic long lines and the unprepared polling places. While none of these votes will be officially counted until Election Day on Tuesday, some battleground states are stating the party affiliation of early voting results.

While people tend to vote along party lines, and thus it could be said that the early voting results favor Obama, the largest noticeable trend that can definitely be confirmed is that Democrats prefer early voting compared to Republicans who are apparently waiting until Election Day. Obama having a lead based upon early voting results is not certain, but this has not stopped both campaigns from trying to claim victory from the early voting results.

“What we’re seeing consistently … is that there is a general underperforming in places where President Obama needs to do well and there’s an over-performing in places where Governor Romney does well,” Romney’s political director Rich Beeson said on “Fox News Sunday.”

On the same show Beeson’s Democratic counterpart, David Axelrod, had this to say:

“I’m not suggesting we’re going to win by the same margin we won in 2008. They are comparing themselves to John McCain, who had virtually no ground operation in many of these states.”

Axelrod is speaking about how Obama overwhelmingly won the early voting results back in 2008. Axelrod continues:

“So, yes, they are going to do a little better than McCain did, and we may not do as well as we did in 2008, but we’re doing plenty well – and well enough to win this race.”

The following numbers were provided by thegazette.com:

Colorado

Votes: 1.6 million

Democrats: 35 percent

Republicans: 37 percent

Florida

Votes: 4.3 million

Democrats: 43 percent

Republicans: 40 percent

Iowa

Votes: 614,000

Democrats: 43 percent

Republicans: 32 percent

Nevada

Votes: 702,000

Democrats: 44 percent

Republicans: 37 percent

North Carolina

Votes: 2.7 million

Democrats: 48 percent

Republicans: 32 percent

Ohio

Votes: 1.6 million

Democrats: 29 percent

Republicans: 23 percent

When it comes to these early voting results, according to enstarz.com “[t]hese numbers were sourced from state elections agencies and the United States Elections Project at George Mason University. Colorado, Iowa, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina and Ohio are also among the nine swing-states which are considered the most competitive states among the candidates in the election. In connection with the findings, Politico predicted that President Barack Obama will win all the Electoral College votes available in Colorado, Iowa, Nevada and Ohio – a total of 39 electoral votes. In comparison, Politico predicted that Mitt Romney will receive all electoral votes from Florida and North Carolina – a total of 44. Their polling data is provided by RealClearPolitics.”

Early Voting Results: Obama Has Turnout Lead is a post from: The Inquisitr