Politics

NAACP takes over an early voting station in Houston, advocates for President Obama, hands out water, and moves people to the front of the voting line.

Voters in Colorado accuse voting machines of reporting votes for Romney as votes for Obama.

All kinds of headlines blare the election is too close to call. I'm skeptical. I suspect this is an attempt to boost turnout for Obama. I think Michael Barone is right.

"But it's also true that most voters oppose Obama's major policies and consider unsatisfactory the very sluggish economic recovery -- Friday's jobs report showed an unemployment uptick."

Americans can't stand Obamacare. They know his stimulus boondoggle didn't work. And our economy is terrible. This stuff matters. I think the only reason Romney isn't running away with polls is he comes of as more of a warmonger than Obama at a time when Americans are overwhelmingly tired of war.

"Bottom line: Romney 315, Obama 223. That sounds high for Romney. But he could drop Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and still win the election. Fundamentals."

I think the fundamentals matter.

Here's another good sign for Romney:

"According to the University of California, Santa Barbara American Presidency Project study of the top 100 newspaper editorial endorsements, Mitt Romney has seen a vast wave of switches from 2008 Obama endorsers. Obama, meanwhile, has seen only one newspaper that endorsed John McCain come around to endorse him. At the same time, many newspapers have also switched from Obama to “no endorsement.”


Here are the stats. As of today, 11 newspapers that endorsed Obama in 2008 have now endorsed Mitt Romney."

That's a big switch.

Lawsuit in Columbus claims voting machines software may be corrupt. Already lawsuits in Florida and Ohio. Fears of lawsuits in New York and New Jersey.

I have consistently made the case that this election won't change anything no matter who wins, as expressed here: Language warning:

"Either way, the country will have an authoritarian corporatist warmonger who shits all over the Constitution for its jefe. The only question is whether the jefe will be a left-wing socialist authoritarian corporatist warmonger who shits all over the Constitution – or a right-wing fascist-minded authoritarian corporatist warmonger who shits all over the Constitution."

But I have also made the case that, in the larger sense, this election does matter because we're going to suffer the worst economic collapse in history sometime during the next four years. Not because of anything the president at the time does, but because of a hundred years of Fed theft. It's likely that ideology of whoever wins this election will be blamed. Just like the free market was blamed for the collapse in 2008 because Bush pretended to support free markets, even though he and generations before him were obvious socialists, his rhetoric led to the blame of the mythical free market. If Romney wins, that will repeat itself, but in spades. Bush's free markets will be blamed, Obama's socialism will be help up as resisting the free market collapse, then Romney's free markets will be blamed for the bigger collapse. Obviously this has nothing to do with economic reality, but it will be the perceived reality and it will shape the future. On the other hand, if Obama wins, the economic collapse will be blamed on Obama and socialism, correctly, and the future will be shaped on that blame. As bad as Obama is for our economy, I believe we would be better served in the long run by electing him, because he's an honest socialist, instead of Romney, who's a socialist pretending to support the free market like Bush. But I will never vote for Obama. Back to the article:

"If the left-wing authoritarian wins, it may give anti-authoritarians a shot in the months and years to come. Because the left-wing authoritarian is an honest authoritarian. He says openly that the Great Collective’s will – as embodied by the Collective’s Dear Leader – is paramount. There is no I – only “we.” And he will tell us – at bayonet-point – what it is that “we” shall have and do and not do. This will help to focus matters. It will be clear – or at least, more clear – which side of the line you’re on. It is possible that a viable opposition might coalesce. Not necessarily a physical opposition – not at first. But an intellectual opposition. Enough people may question – and that could lead to action."

Exactly. This guy gets it. We've lost the present. We lost it a while ago. Right now we're fighting for the future, and if Obama wins tomorrow, we have a better chance to win the future.

"On the other hand, if Obama Light wins, it will further de-legitimize and so demoralize anti-authoritarianism – because most people have come to equate the Republican Party with “conservatism” – and “conservatism” with anti-authoritarianism. That means guilt-by-association for Libertarians and other advocates of less (or no) government."

But Romney is not Obama-lite. There's no difference at all. Libertarians like me have been saying there's no difference between Republican and Democrat candidates for president for decades. And that's pretty much been true. But this year, it's more true than ever. Every election, the two parties have been nominating people who were more and more alike. This year they seem to have finally completed the process and you can't tell any difference in policy from one to another. So if a Romney wins, things will get worse the same as if Obama wins, but people will blame markets and freedom so...

"They will in fact demand more government."

Exactly. This guy gets it. This is why nobody should vote for Romney or Obama. Vote libertarian. Write in Ron Paul. Things will be worse if Romney wins.