Slashdot Mirror


Romney Campaign Accidentally Launches Transition Web Site

stevegee58 writes "The Mitt Romney presidential campaign accidentally launched a transition website the day after the election. Sporting a 'President Elect' seal and a catchy new tagline ('Smaller, Simpler, Smarter') , the site was up briefly before the gaffe was discovered and the site taken down. Fortunately an alert blogger, Taegan Goddard, found the errant site and published some screen shots."

185 comments

  1. Someone didn't get the memo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    That site wasn't supposed to launch until Utah secedes.

    1. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      That site wasn't supposed to launch until Utah secedes.

      Somehow, I don't think we'll be going to war over that one.

    2. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 3, Funny

      He's too liberal for Utah.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    3. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Utah can't secede unless it takes Idaho or Arizona with it, because it would be landlocked.

    4. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Look at the electoral map by county. If all of those red counties unite and choose to secede, they'll control a good chunk of the oil, coal and farmland. Not to mention access to the gulf of Mexico for shipping. That might explain why the "department of homeland security" has been buying all that ammo lately.

    5. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 5, Funny

      Syria is Utah's path to the sea!

    6. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by Andy+Prough · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Texas would beg to differ, I'm sure.

    7. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by MichaelSmith · · Score: 0

      Okay thats funny

    8. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Utah can't secede unless it takes Idaho or Arizona with it, because it would be landlocked."

      So what? Lots of countries are landlocked

    9. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      So are Arizona and Idaho.

    10. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Yep, we'll kick your asses like we did the last time. Please, please try to secede. It will give us a good excuse to take out the trash.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    11. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Texans make jokes about the French, but when the rubber met the road, guess who was tossing down their muskets and begging for mercy from the Union before Sherman or any other general set foot on their soil?

      Just wanted to bring up historical fact to curb bravado.

    12. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How long can Texas keep the Bible Belt afloat?

    13. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by cvtan · · Score: 1

      Maybe he is President-Elect of Utah.

      --
      Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    14. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Truly one of the best posts ever. Brilliant. Absolutely fucking brilliant.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    15. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by Grayhand · · Score: 1

      That site wasn't supposed to launch until Utah secedes.

      So long as they take the rest of the red states with them I'd vote for it!

    16. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      and you will run out of food

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    17. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      Transport ships come up the Columbia river to the port in Lewiston Idaho all of the time

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    18. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by jamstar7 · · Score: 2

      That site wasn't supposed to launch until Utah secedes.

      Somehow, I don't think we'll be going to war over that one.

      Well, we did before, back when it was Deseret...

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    19. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More likely we'd be buying it for pennies on the dollar.

    20. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by Brad1138 · · Score: 1

      Hopefully, not very long...

      --
      If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
    21. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by Brad1138 · · Score: 1

      I really wish I got this...

      --
      If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
    22. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by tuck182 · · Score: 1

      Utah can't secede unless it takes Idaho or Arizona with it, because it would be landlocked.

      Just because a state is on the US border doesn't mean it's on the ocean. There are other countries in the world, and it turns out we're next to some of them.

    23. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah all those people on welfare voting republican. lol.

    24. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      That site wasn't supposed to launch until Utah secedes.

      Somehow, I don't think we'll be going to war over that one.

      Well, we did before, back when it was Deseret...

      Its less desirable now though

    25. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the scary part is that he still got some 40% of the votes.

    26. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Barges come up the Rhine to Switzerland too, but it's still pretty fucking landlocked.

    27. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Do you think in today's very public world, we would still go to war if a state seceded?

      I am not advocating either way - although I do have my days where I wish we could.

    28. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let them secede. They will quickly devolve into infighting among the various believers that some mysterious creature created them. I predict a significant drop in their population within 5 years.

      captcha: patriot. lol

    29. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by Phreakiture · · Score: 2
      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    30. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by crazyjj · · Score: 1

      But without Utah, where will we get our....our....huh....National Parks?

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    31. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by crazyjj · · Score: 3, Informative

      If all of those red counties unite and choose to secede, they'll control a good chunk of the oil, coal and farmland.

      Yeah, that was a large part of the Confederate States of America's reasoning too. "We've got the cotton and farmlands! The yankees will surely fall before us!"

      Guess how that turned out.

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    32. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by thrich81 · · Score: 1

      " good chunk of the oil, coal and farmland" -- which the red county inhabitants will gladly trade away cheaply to get the precursors for their meth labs.

    33. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      Its less desirable now though

      ...since nowadays, we *can* actually fly to Mars instead, you mean?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    34. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by niado · · Score: 1

      Well uh, it wouldn't be called "war" today, it would be called crushing an uprising. Enough power is consolidated in the federal government that any state seceding is not militarily practical in any way.

      The last time it happened was so messy because the states that seceded, while certainly at a military disadvantage, had enough parity with the rest of the union that they couldn't be overrun easily. This is far from the case now.

    35. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by ak3ldama · · Score: 1

      Solid red stater here who tries to vote against the prevailing party line as much as possible to restore a little balance... The things mentioned here are absolutely a road to the bottom. These resources are important and help to aid in the over all build of our nation and as such are important but they are on their own poverty level. Having a strong farming and range land mixture in years like we have had lately can be a strong stabilizing force. The last recession barely hit many parts of the midwest. In the town I live in housing prices were stabilized by a university, a couple bigger businesses that did not need layoffs, and a surrounding farming industry that has been buoyed by good production and prices (this summers drought was not overly harsh on the area.)

      Now we all have lots of guns and (hopefully ammo) but I always joke with people that say such things: "Yes but how many of us own a first aid kit?" Such talk is thus very silly. No one here wants to turn into Syria, but that is one area where Obama is wrong. He said in (the last?) debate that our streets are not a warzone and we thus do not need assault weapons - but sometimes streets do turn into warzones... That said I still preferred Obama over Romney for lots of reasons, just not enough to vote for him over Johnson. In the state of South Dakota I am happy to "throw" away my vote on someone with ideals.

      --
      "but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
    36. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But without Utah, where will we get our....our....huh....National Parks?

      I get where you're coming from but I've gotta say, I really enjoyed my visits to both Zion and Bryce Canyon National Parks. Highly recommended.

    37. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by barjam · · Score: 1

      I always took this for granted until I took a close look at the most active bread basket areas along with the 2012/2008 election results. The strong bread basket area actually went blue. Blue counties would be fine for food anyhow. Plus they would have California so they would have the good food not just bread. ;)

    38. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by Glothar · · Score: 1

      Was that a joke?

      I grew up in the Great Plains, a land that votes crushingly Republican on a bi-yearly basis. And yeah, the rich people there voted for Republicans. But the poor people voted for them, too. The major demographics that voted Democrat were the young (18-24... before they finished college and moved to other states) and those with Masters degrees.

      Now, remember that pretty much all of those states exist due to constant government-based welfare in the form of subsidies and infrastructure funds that the states absolutely cannot cover by themselves. In Northern Virginia, when we need to improve a road, we pay higher taxes. When South Dakota needs to improve a road, they whine to the federal government, and everyone else pays for it. And while they do that, they lower their own taxes because... well... taxes suck and they all want to keep their money.

      Thus the irony of the squishy middle of the US. They love to trumpet how important they are and how the rest of the country/world/universe would suffer if they weren't there, but forget that the rest of the country is paying them for everything they produce, and propping them up with federal tax dollars.

      If Iowa ever decided to secede, the proper response would be to treat them like any other country we trade with. Put up tariffs and make them negotiate for trade. Six months later, its population would be wailing about immigrating back to the US to flee the starvation and poverty of an independent Iowa.

    39. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Well uh, it wouldn't be called "war" today, it would be called neutralising an insurgency.

      FTFY

      Oh it's just Americans murdering other Americans. Nothing important.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    40. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by DirtyLiar · · Score: 1

      it would be called crushing an uprising

      Nope. "Internal Police Action".

      --

      THINK! It's patriotic

    41. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by niado · · Score: 1

      Haha yes, that wording is probably more appropriate.

    42. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, remember that pretty much all of those states exist due to constant government-based welfare in the form of subsidies and infrastructure funds that the states absolutely cannot cover by themselves. In Northern Virginia, when we need to improve a road, we pay higher taxes. When South Dakota needs to improve a road, they whine to the federal government, and everyone else pays for it. And while they do that, they lower their own taxes because... well... taxes suck and they all want to keep their money.

      Hey dumbass, Virginia mooches off the federal government just as much as South Dakota!

    43. Re:Someone didn't get the memo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All I know about Texas is they were the one who begged to join the union in the first place circa 1840.

  2. oops by russlar · · Score: 2

    He's channeling his inner Rick Perry.

    --
    Anybody want my mod points?
    1. Re:oops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was thinking Herman Cain.

  3. Icing on the fail cake by sandytaru · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hopefully the Republicans can find a better candidate than a used car salesman next time. And hire a better IT staff.

    --
    Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    1. Re:Icing on the fail cake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      And hire a better IT staff.

      Like Obozo's IT geniuses that allowed foreign contributions on his website and never bothered to correct it?

    2. Re:Icing on the fail cake by sandytaru · · Score: 2

      Considering how many times they hit me up for money over the campaign (and I tossed in three bucks each time) they got a lot of American cash, too.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    3. Re:Icing on the fail cake by gatfirls · · Score: 2

      They should probably run a democrat.

    4. Re:Icing on the fail cake by Grayhand · · Score: 1

      Hopefully the Republicans can find a better candidate than a used car salesman next time. And hire a better IT staff.

      They're having trouble figuring out those newfangled punch cards. They hope to get some younger blood in the IT department for the next election, some one under 70 that can mange one of those tape driven jobs!

    5. Re:Icing on the fail cake by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      All I'm hearing is "waaaaaah"...

    6. Re:Icing on the fail cake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Obozo? Really? You're some fucking libtard commie hippy trying to hide the truth of your liberal agenda.

      It turns out that his REAL name was recently discovered on a North Korean birth certificate that was written in Arabic with ink made from the ashes of holocaust victims and the constitution. It turns out to be Osama Mohammed Chinese-Invasion Terrorist Muslim Nigger bin Laden Mexican Hitler Rapes-Kids Atheist Death-To-America.

      If you didn't hate America so much, God would have told you that already.

    7. Re:Icing on the fail cake by Carewolf · · Score: 2

      They should probably run a democrat.

      Wasn't that what they tried this time, but then asked him to lie about how conservative he was?

    8. Re:Icing on the fail cake by udachny · · Score: 1

      He is a democrat, that's why he lost. He lost back in June when during the RNC convention he basically promised to out-Obama Obama (protect Medicare, protect SS), that was it, he was done.

      Why vote for a Democrat running on the Republican ticket if there is one running on the Democrat ticket?

    9. Re:Icing on the fail cake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Gary Johnson was the basically democratic candidate, and they chose to not give him the time of day.

    10. Re:Icing on the fail cake by Coisiche · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hopefully the Republicans can find a better candidate than a used car salesman next time. And hire a better IT staff.

      And don't have an agenda that only benefits a shrinking percentage of the population; or at least don't piss off the growing part of the electorate so much.

    11. Re:Icing on the fail cake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Romney never struck me as a used car salesman. He seemed more like the owner of a huge chain of car dealerships. The kind of guy that would shake hands with employees, slap guys on the back for a "Good job, Nameless Sales Drone #27!", look through binders of women to fill secretarial and other positions, and joke with a room full of executives and shareholders that "47% of the employees don't matter because they're replaceable", or chuckle that he'd just fired the head of a dealership because they "Only" took in 20% profit last quarter. In other words, I'd have more respect for the guy if he was a used car salesman.

    12. Re:Icing on the fail cake by mikehilly · · Score: 1

      This comment is why we need a way to rate/track funniest comment of the day/week/month/year! I laughed for about 5 minutes :)

    13. Re:Icing on the fail cake by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      What a great idea! I think I'll use my handy time-machine and go back to 2000 and create it. Hang on....

      (da da da dat dadadada...)

      ...

      Done. Here it is: Seen on Slash. Enjoy!

      I wonder what else I can do with this time machine? Oh well, back to Slashdot...

    14. Re:Icing on the fail cake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Obozo? Really? You're some fucking libtard commie hippy trying to hide the truth of your liberal agenda.

      It turns out that his REAL name was recently discovered on a North Korean birth certificate that was written in Arabic with ink made from the ashes of holocaust victims and the constitution. It turns out to be Osama Mohammed Chinese-Invasion Terrorist Muslim Nigger bin Laden Mexican Hitler Rapes-Kids Atheist Death-To-America.

      If you didn't hate America so much, God would have told you that already.

      I heard it was written in ink made from ashes of holocaust victims and the blood from aborted babies. I have it on VERY good authority that he is not only an atheist, but a satanist as well and that his secret agenda is sell America to the chinese for a controlling portion of KFC.

    15. Re:Icing on the fail cake by gamanimatron · · Score: 1

      That got modded flamebait? Really??? Hey moderators: WHOOSH!

      --
      cogito ergo dubito
    16. Re:Icing on the fail cake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one wants to vote for 'Smaller, Simpler, Smarter'

      and things like fema closing for bad weather in new york and the bucky ball story are just side stories of no concern to anyone

    17. Re:Icing on the fail cake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lie? Yes.
      Democrat? No.
      Liberal Republican? Sure. You know that Repubican IS what he considers himself, right? And that Republicans are the group of people that voted for him. All in hopes that he was lying about how liberal he is / was

      Democrats were afraid that he'd had the same sort of change of heart that John McCain had had 4 years ago (Remember the isle-crossing, hand-reaching, pre-2008 John McCain? He disappeared as soon as the Republicans realized that he was actually serious about Deputy Dawg, I mean Independent Senator Joseph Lieberman as his running-mate. THAT sure didn't last long.), and that Romney really MEANT the things he said. Or at least would ACT like he meant them.

  4. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do you explain this to your boss?

    They should hold on to the site, you never know what the final count will be once Florida finishes.

    1. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, most of the campaign staff is now unemployed, so I'm not sure they care that much. Romney's lucky that's the only thing that went up after the loss...

    2. Re:LOL by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Funny

      They should hold on to the site, you never know what the final count will be once Florida finishes.

      Yeah. Florida might find another eighty electoral votes somewhere.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    3. Re:LOL by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not Florida, alone, but technically, the Electoral College ballots aren't counted until early in January.

      There is a bit more leeway than one would think, although the results, as they now stand are extremely unlikely to change.

      Most states electors are bound by law if they don't vote the way they have been tasked, however, electors in the following ttates are not bound by Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate:
      ARIZONA ARKANSAS DELAWARE GEORGIA IDAHO ILLINOIS INDIANA IOWA KANSAS KENTUCKY LOUISIANA MINNESOTA MISSOURI NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW JERSEY NEW YORK NORTH DAKOTA PENNSYLVANIA RHODE ISLAND SOUTH DAKOTA TENNESSEE TEXAS UTAH WEST VIRGINIA

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    4. Re:LOL by blade8086 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh Hi Boss!

      Since I don't give a crap about your campaign, or politics, and this is the only REAL website I've ever done,
      and this site is all I did during your campaign, I thought I'd publish it live for a few hours assuming some news outlets
      would pick it up, so that I could then reference it for future work, and have important media clippings to reference
      as well. Hope you don't mind - and if I do, oh well, what are you going to do, fire me?

      Is probably what I'd say.

    5. Re:LOL by DaHat · · Score: 2

      Takes one to know one... his concession is not binding in any way (just ask Al Gore)... it's simply a respectful thing to do.

      In the unlikely event that a large batch of Obama votes turn up in Virginia, Ohio & Florida as fraudulent and the electoral college swings to him... the presidency is his, concession or not.

      Will any of the above happen? Probably not... but you show your ignorance of the system.

    6. Re:LOL by Andy+Prough · · Score: 1

      Not that Florida would save him - but "un-conceding" is apparently a legal option that Kerry explored in December, 2004, due to voting-machine-fraud allegations from Ohio.

    7. Re:LOL by Raenex · · Score: 1

      In the unlikely event that a large batch of Obama votes turn up in Virginia, Ohio & Florida as fraudulent and the electoral college swings to him... the presidency is his, concession or not.

      Check Cartman's house.

    8. Re:LOL by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In the unlikely event that a large batch of Obama votes turn up in Virginia, Ohio & Florida as fraudulent and the electoral college swings to him... the presidency is his, concession or not.

      That would be the largest legal battle the country has ever seen. Given that Romney's campaign shut down so quickly that staffers found their credit cards had been canceled when they tried to pay for cabs on the way home from campaign headquarters, I kind of doubt he has the machinery in place for that kind of fight.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    9. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not Florida, alone, but technically, the Electoral College ballots aren't counted until early in January.

      There is a bit more leeway than one would think, although the results, as they now stand are extremely unlikely to change.

      Most states electors are bound by law if they don't vote the way they have been tasked, however, electors in the following ttates are not bound by Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate:

      ...

      But if the electors don't vote the way they're bound by law to vote, there's no way to undo the "illegal" vote.

      You can punish the elector - maybe. But the "illegal" vote still stands.

    10. Re:LOL by PraiseBob · · Score: 2

      You should check your math-
      Ohio is worth 18, Virginia 13, and Florida 29. That totals to 60. Obama is (estimated) to have 332 electoral votes, and Romney has 206.
      Swapping out 60 votes still leaves them at 272 to 266.

    11. Re:LOL by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Well, most of the campaign staff is now unemployed, so I'm not sure they care that much. Romney's lucky that's the only thing that went up after the loss...

      http://crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2012/11/biotch.jpg

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    12. Re:LOL by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      In the unlikely event that a large batch of Obama votes turn up in Virginia, Ohio & Florida as fraudulent and the electoral college swings to him... the presidency is his, concession or not.

      That would be the largest legal battle the country has ever seen. Given that Romney's campaign shut down so quickly that staffers found their credit cards had been canceled when they tried to pay for cabs on the way home from campaign headquarters, I kind of doubt he has the machinery in place for that kind of fight.

      Perhaps he's saving that money for the legal fees. ;-)

    13. Re:LOL by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Perhaps he's saving that money for the legal fees. ;-)

      Hah! Yeah, that must be it.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    14. Re:LOL by Arancaytar · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you never know, it might end up 303 vs 225 instead of 332 vs 206. And everyone knows 225 > 303 in Republican math.

    15. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Can somebody please get Morgan Freeman to explain this for me?

    16. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You think you're being facetious. You think you're joking.

      But you're wrong, they actually are this psychotic: I’ve got egg on my face. I predicted a Romney landslide [325-213] and, instead, we ended up with an Obama squeaker [332-206].

      The modern GOP is what happens when you market bullshit, then fall for it so hard you can't even realize you've fallen for your own BS when it's pointed out to your face.

    17. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if the electors don't vote the way they're bound by law to vote, there's no way to undo the "illegal" vote.

      No, those LAWS typically call for jail and or fine for the wayward voter, and a replacement elector to vote the intended way.

      However much people forget, the individual States in the United States have a lot of leeway in making their own laws. In an extreme case, in theory, 38 "red" states could cause a 50-state wide change, constitutionality...

    18. Re:LOL by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The electors are picked by the state parties. They're die-hard partisans who've drunk more of the campaign kool-aid than anyone. It's not like people who have been working to elect Obama for years are suddenly going to change their minds and vote for Romney or vice versa.

      In the rare instances when electors have switched their votes, it's usually been for someone else in the same party and wouldn't affect the outcome of the election. For instance, there's been speculation that some of the Romney electors might cast votes for Ron Paul, but obviously that wouldn't change Obama's numbers either way.

    19. Re:LOL by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 1

      But what if parasitic aliens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Body_Snatchers) infect the minds of the electors, or less sci-fi-sh: blackmail them into voting for the other candidate? It's highly unlikely in an election where there's a large gap between the winner and the loser, but what if the difference is down to a vote or two that can easily be offset by doing something funny to a handful of electors?

    20. Re:LOL by narcc · · Score: 0

      You're using that wacky voodoo science math. Try using Republican math.

      (You should get something like Obama: 12, Romney 1,000,000 -- Just a rough estimate.)

    21. Re:LOL by rastos1 · · Score: 1
      From that link

      But clearly not the taxi bills belonging to some of those most loyal to Romney. Maybe that's what you get for taking a job with a multi-millionaire ...

      Apparently he did not get rich by writing a lot of checks.

    22. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that the same as Trump math, according to which Obama failed to get the majority of the popular vote? :)

    23. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i read that as "...plus he's already conceited...". and it still made sense...

    24. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's okay. Only 47% of them were canceled. They can share a taxi ride paid for by the 53% that weren't.

    25. Re:LOL by niado · · Score: 1

      You should check your math- Ohio is worth 18, Virginia 13, and Florida 29. That totals to 60. Obama is (estimated) to have 332 electoral votes, and Romney has 206. Swapping out 60 votes still leaves them at 272 to 266.

      Correct! Any path to the presidency for Romney would have assumed Fla. (which he may still get, but unlikely and moot now), Va., Ohio, and one small battleground - Iowa and NH were generally considered the most likely (or, least unlikely) candidates.

    26. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nate Silver is going to have to rename his blog I suppose. fivethirtyonehundredandeightteen.nytimes.com

  5. They're going to miss that guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Late night comics, I mean. The rest of us, not so much.

    1. Re:They're going to miss that guy by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Late night comics, I mean. The rest of us, not so much.

      http://crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2012/11/Election_night.jpg

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  6. Smaller, Simpler, Smarter by joh · · Score: 5, Funny

    Choose any two.

    1. Re:Smaller, Simpler, Smarter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I chose mine. Obama is smarter. Biden is simpler.

    2. Re:Smaller, Simpler, Smarter by Enry · · Score: 1

      Government is smaller since 2008.

    3. Re:Smaller, Simpler, Smarter by dalias · · Score: 2

      And Romney is smaller...where it counts. :-)

    4. Re:Smaller, Simpler, Smarter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I chose mine. Obama is smarter. Biden is simpler.

      And [insert political hot-button issue here] is smaller! Ho ho! What levity!

    5. Re:Smaller, Simpler, Smarter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Choose any two.

      My exact thoughts.

      We've been thru this siren chant for how many times? And how many times it was just smaller, not simpler and obviously not smarter. I wonder when will Republicans learn to organize their own house and don't come up with this Scrooge-like bull.

      Einstein put it the best way: "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."

    6. Re:Smaller, Simpler, Smarter by AwesomeMcgee · · Score: 4, Funny

      In the votes! Oh!

    7. Re:Smaller, Simpler, Smarter by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      Government is smaller since 2008.

      except guvmint people (including military personnel) replaced by contractors.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    8. Re:Smaller, Simpler, Smarter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely Republicans should be all for replacing Government with Private Enterprise?

    9. Re:Smaller, Simpler, Smarter by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

      Well, technically, that's Reaganomics - it's how he "shrank" government but increased spending. Obama was handed a 1.3T deficit by the outgoing previous president (GWB signed that budget into law), and ended with a 1.1T deficit. 2013 Projected deficit by OMB is ~700B. That's a lot of scratch, but it's still less red ink than the red party.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    10. Re:Smaller, Simpler, Smarter by Enry · · Score: 1

      Especially since the red party took a surplus and turned it into a massive deficit.

    11. Re:Smaller, Simpler, Smarter by travbrad · · Score: 1

      Only if it's them doing it. Anything Obama does is automatically wrong.

    12. Re:Smaller, Simpler, Smarter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forget, when it's a republican president and a republican majority congress, then "deficits don't matter".
      Deficits are only important when there are democrats in charge.

  7. LOL: I thought you said conceited... by mschaffer · · Score: 1

    Both are appropriate.

  8. Can we forget about him? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    It's over, Johnny. It's over...

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Can we forget about him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But all the rednecks are still quivering fear now that the big bad nigg...er...black man is gonna steal der guns and sell out dis country to the mooslems!

    2. Re:Can we forget about him? by Raenex · · Score: 4, Funny

      Shouldn't Ted Nugent be dead or in prison by now?

    3. Re:Can we forget about him? by Grayhand · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't Ted Nugent be dead or in prison by now?

      I grew up in Michigan, trust me he is, take your pick!

    4. Re:Can we forget about him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Ted Nugent is the clown the 1% use to distract the 47%^H^H^H poor, rural republicans while they legitimately rape our country for profit. His job is safe.

    5. Re:Can we forget about him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I think his promise was by April 15th of next year. At least he's irrelevant at this point.

  9. Not a mistake, this was expected. by aurashift · · Score: 5, Funny

    Romney is famous for flip-flopping. Even if someone told him he lost, he thinks he won. And he did. That's the beauty of not taking a stance and not taking NO for an answer. God bless you Romney. God bless us all. (Except the gays)

    1. Re:Not a mistake, this was expected. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Romney is famous for flip-flopping. Even if someone told him he lost, he thinks he won. And he did. That's the beauty of not taking a stance and not taking NO for an answer. God bless you Romney. God bless us all. (Except the gays)

      Are you by chance open for a position as speechwriter in 4 years? There are a lot of openings expected to need filling in the RNC.

    2. Re:Not a mistake, this was expected. by high_rolla · · Score: 2

      Or it was all part of his plan. Maybe, just maybe, if he can convince enough people that he did in fact get elected then it might just maybe come true. And if that doesn't work he can just disappear by putting his hands over his eyes and saying 'Ha! now you can't see me.'

      --
      Ryans Tutorials - A collection of technology tutorials.
  10. Haha by mozumder · · Score: 5, Funny

    that's because we liberals can do whatever we want and you conservatives can't!

    ha ha! sucks to be you!

    1. Re:Haha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was the conservatives who were mean and ruthless? Huh

    2. Re:Haha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Republican decision methodology: constrain choices to what they believe right, choose what benefits self.

      Democrat decision methodology: choose what benefits self.

      So, it's not that the Republicans can't do something (yes, I know this isn't what you meant, but it's instructive) -- it's that they choose not too. They really are the party of the idealists, believing one should be permitted to do almost anything (limited gov't) but expected to do the right thing (conservative morality). The Democrats, on the other hand, discount the idea of absolute right/wrong. To them, all ideas are equally valid. Well, unless it's a Republican, Christian, etc. idea that constrains, in which case they quickly become the party of intolerance. Some folks might not like them, but at least the R's aren't intellectual hypocrites.

    3. Re:Haha by SleazyRidr · · Score: 0

      Either that's complete flamebait, or you actually believe that rubbish. Either way I don't think I can help you.

    4. Re:Haha by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      So, because Republicans constrain their choices before they attempt to benefit themselves, they're better?

      Or is it because of how they constrain their choices? (presumably, by using the Bible)

      The former just makes no sense, the latter is called "begging the question".

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
  11. Glad I didn't vote for him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I were an American I'd be shouting "The government can't make jobs!"

    Well, any government that isn't communist and/or a dictatorship, that is.

    1. Re:Glad I didn't vote for him by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Here's how it works- government comes up with a "policy" or something that has no effect, but looks like it might do something on the surface. Independently, the job market improves. Result - the government takes credit.

  12. "Fortunately" by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Fortunately" a blogger captured this? Why exactly is this a fortunate thing? It's not like the site shows Romney doing something wrong, or trying to cover up something. Is there something particularly great about the site design that can benefit us in some way? Perhaps it contains some great scripts that we are now fortunate to have access to?

    Someone made a mistake, and you say it is a "fortunate" that they can now be made fun of because of it. Politics aside, let's simply not act like assholes please. Also, be thankful that your mistakes don't turn into Slashdot stories.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:"Fortunately" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Fortunately" a blogger captured this? Why exactly is this a fortunate thing?

      Because it's funny, and we'd like to see it? Not everything related to politics needs to be serious.

      Someone made a mistake, and you say it is a "fortunate" that they can now be made fun of because of it. Politics aside, let's simply not act like assholes please. Also, be thankful that your mistakes don't turn into Slashdot stories.

      Everything that is funny is at somebody's expense. That's not being an asshole. Not having a sense of humor and getting offended by it is being an asshole.

    2. Re:"Fortunately" by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Politics aside, let's simply not act like assholes please.

      But isn't that what politics is all about?

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    3. Re:"Fortunately" by artor3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's fortunate because it's humorous. It's like that time that Biden asked the guy in the wheelchair to stand up and greet the crowd. Momentarily funny, ultimately meaningless.

      It's not like anyone's feelings are getting hurt here. The IT guy who posted it goofed, but no one knows or cares who he is. The posting doesn't reflect on Romney at all, and even if it did, so what? His political career is over regardless, and all he's got left is his piles of money, good health, and loving family. Do you really think he cares if people poke fun at one of staffer's slip-ups?

    4. Re:"Fortunately" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why exactly is this a fortunate thing?

      Well, as someone who used it as a platform to spout drivel about how it's not fortunate, it was fortunate for you that he did.

      You probably don't feel that way anymore, though.

    5. Re:"Fortunately" by siddesu · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, it is, for one thing, providing a very interesting glimpse into the mindset of the people who ran Romney's campaign. I also recall them talking about their transition team in early July. Add to that the famous unprepared Romney speech, and you get quite a diagnosis.

      I personally have a hard time believing they were so detached from reality all the way through the campaign that they'd focus on inessential tasks like selecting a transition team early and preparing this mockup rather than focussing on the platform and their campaign.

      It is really telling how close to lunacy the Republican party leadership is.

      Which is sad, really, as weak competition in politics only further lowers the quality of politicians. Adverse selection in action, so to speak.

    6. Re:"Fortunately" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was likely intentional i.e. "see all you stupid people this is what could've been! A compassionate, caring plutocracy in total power! You foolish peasants! Oh btw, I'm great at website design, as you can see, & security too! Wheeeee! Hire me!

    7. Re:"Fortunately" by siddesu · · Score: 0

      Very unlikely. Given that even the serious Republican-leaning press (and right-leaning punditry worldwide) was mocking Romney midway through the campaign quite savagely, it is hard to see it this way. It reeks more of desperation and total disorganization than intent.

    8. Re:"Fortunately" by Grayhand · · Score: 1

      "Fortunately" a blogger captured this? Why exactly is this a fortunate thing? It's not like the site shows Romney doing something wrong, or trying to cover up something. Is there something particularly great about the site design that can benefit us in some way? Perhaps it contains some great scripts that we are now fortunate to have access to?

      Someone made a mistake, and you say it is a "fortunate" that they can now be made fun of because of it. Politics aside, let's simply not act like assholes please. Also, be thankful that your mistakes don't turn into Slashdot stories.

      I'd call it a simple mistake except the guy didn't even bother with speech if he lost. All together it comes off arrogant as hell for such a close race!

    9. Re:"Fortunately" by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

      I would have guessed the "Romentum" stories were just for the rubes and that the actual GOP leaders and Romney's people knew better that the odds were against them.

      But the reactions to their loss put all that in doubt... seems the Party really was eating their own dogfood.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    10. Re:"Fortunately" by siddesu · · Score: 2

      Yeah, it was math vs. gut feeling this time too, and math won again.

    11. Re:"Fortunately" by nobodyman · · Score: 1

      I'm of two minds. On one hand I think it's "ok" to laugh about this because it is such a trivial thing. I'm guessing the person(s) responsible for doesn't mind terribly much — I mean it's not like s/he has to be worried about being fired.

      But on the the other hand, I think reveling in schadenfreude and antagonizing 49% of voters is a good way for Dems to get screwed in the midterms (again)

    12. Re:"Fortunately" by fm6 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Fortunately" because it's interesting to see what they planned. And because it says a lot about their mindset that the only contingency they had planned for was victory.

      I've always been fascinated by a document that turned up in Dwight Eisenhower's papers. It was a letter to his superiors taking sole responsibility for the failure of the D-Day invasion! Of course, he never sent it, because the damn thing succeeded, and he got credit for it, which is as it should be. But it says a lot about him that he was ready to face the very real possibility of total failure, at a huge cost.

      Contrast this with the current Republican crowd that always cherry-pick their facts to support what they want to believe. (And I mean you, Carl Rove.) Maybe, just maybe, the stupidity of this is finally going to become apparent, and we can go back to having political arguments that are based on honest differences of opinion instead of Destroy The Enemy at All Costs crap.

    13. Re:"Fortunately" by siddesu · · Score: 1
    14. Re:"Fortunately" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The transition teams are good places to put well-connected idiots, where they can feel like they're going to do something important but are kept out of the way until they can't do any real harm. (Alternaltively, you get them nominated for one of the other side's safe seats and hope everyone else ignores them.)

    15. Re:"Fortunately" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A concession speech doesn't really have that much originality: Thanks everyone for your help, congratulations to everyone who was elected, better luck next time, etc. Any competent politician should be able to do it off-the-cuff, and this way he has an excuse for anyone he offended by not thanking prominently enough.

    16. Re:"Fortunately" by sunspot42 · · Score: 0

      >It is really telling how close to lunacy the Republican party leadership is.

      It's really FRIGHTENING how close to lunacy the Republican Party leadership is. They clearly believed their own B.S. These clowns aren't just liars, they're delusional. Like, Baghdad Bob delusional.

      I guess this is what happens when a major political party is comprised of fundamentalist religious fanatics with an average IQ of about 80, the senile, and a small crust of wealthy inbred fools who've never worked an honest day in their lives and couldn't run a successful taco stand without daddy's money and connections.

    17. Re:"Fortunately" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      " Maybe, just maybe, the stupidity of this is finally going to become apparent, and we can go back to having political arguments that are based on honest differences of opinion instead of Destroy The Enemy at All Costs crap.

      Do you really think Romney engaged in "Destroy The Enemy At All Costs"? He had a perfect chance to go after Obama on Benghazi, but chose not to. He could have gone after Obama on Fast & Furious but chose not to. Sure there were other things he attacked Obama on, but he also showed restraint.

      On the other hand Obama had ads claiming Romney caused a woman to die of cancer. There were countless lies about a non-existent "war on women" and of course who can forget Smilin' Joe and his "They're going to put y'all back in chains!" comment? Listen to Obama's own campaign advisers and they'll tell you that their plan was to attack Romney on everything they could -- they couldn't run on Obama's record, so they made the election about small things.

      The people have spoken (some more than once) and Obama won the election. Now the market has spoken, and it looks like the American people lost. The Dow Jones average is way down, multiple layoffs announced, etc. And this is before the 2nd term has even started. We've got over $16T in debt and they want to raise the debt ceiling again. We're headed "Forward" all right, right over the fiscal cliff.

      Sadly, the only thing Obama is any good at is campaigning.

    18. Re:"Fortunately" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not like the site shows Romney doing something wrong, or trying to cover up something.

      Oh, I beg to differ!
      Romney actually DID win, the site was reverted by the secret UN army Obama has amassed and stocked with ammunition, delivered of course by black helicopter. So it's fortunate we have saved this proof of the real election, so that it can be framed and hung on the wall of the headquarters of the Patriot Resistance.

    19. Re:"Fortunately" by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I personally have a hard time believing they were so detached from reality all the way through the campaign that they'd focus on inessential tasks like selecting a transition team early and preparing this mockup rather than focussing on the platform and their campaign.

      Quite the contrary, planning ahead is one of the qualities you want in an elected official.
       
      Nor necessarily were they 'focused' on selecting a team or preparing this website, that's what staff and advisers are for - so that multiple things can be handled in parallel.

    20. Re:"Fortunately" by siddesu · · Score: 1

      What "contrary" are you talking about, and what "planning ahead"? Romney was trailing throughout the campaign, and it was quite obvious that he won't be elected for at least the last 10 days. You want your country to be lead by delusional people like these?

    21. Re:"Fortunately" by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      "Fortunately" a blogger captured this? Why exactly is this a fortunate thing? It's not like the site shows Romney doing something wrong, or trying to cover up something. Is there something particularly great about the site design that can benefit us in some way? Perhaps it contains some great scripts that we are now fortunate to have access to?

      Someone made a mistake, and you say it is a "fortunate" that they can now be made fun of because of it. Politics aside, let's simply not act like assholes please. Also, be thankful that your mistakes don't turn into Slashdot stories.

      It's funny because it fits in with the Republicans view of the universe - if we say something is true it is true. So, in Repuniverse; ohio is still in play, Obama suppressed the vote, and Mitt is getting inaugurated in Jan.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    22. Re:"Fortunately" by argStyopa · · Score: 2

      FWIW it would have been pretty incompetent if they DIDN'T have such a site prepared. (shrug)

      --
      -Styopa
    23. Re:"Fortunately" by nine-times · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Fortunately" a blogger captured this? Why exactly is this a fortunate thing?

      Because it's just this kind of gaffe that could cost Romney the election!

    24. Re:"Fortunately" by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Why is it that all the ACs seem to be batshit crazy Republicans? Is this a trend?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    25. Re:"Fortunately" by gameboyhippo · · Score: 1

      I agree that making fun is of no purpose, but it is interesting to see what the site would look like from a what-if perspective.

    26. Re:"Fortunately" by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      it was quite obvious that he won't be elected for at least the last 10 days

      Well according to Gallup, Romney was leading among registered voters in the third week of October and was tied with Obama as recently as the last week. Romney was leading among likely voters for the entirety of October through November 5. "Obvious", it was not.

      I also recall them talking about their transition team in early July

      So you said his team was planning in July, but then you turn around and claimed it only became obvious in the past few days. What makes this "delusional"?

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    27. Re:"Fortunately" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it that all the ACs seem to be batshit crazy Republicans? Is this a trend?

      It's not that ACs are "batshit crazy Repubilcans", it's that Slashdot has rampant left-wing groupthink. Say anything remotely moderate, quote facts that disagree with Obama and you're labled "batshit crazy".

      Turns out that many Slashdotters (myself included) know this and don't want to burn karma, so anything of this nature gets posted AC just to avoid a predictable backlash from the more "compassionate and caring" from the /. community.

      I'm sure you'll disagree, but the truth hurts.

    28. Re:"Fortunately" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it was quite obvious that he won't be elected for at least the last 10 days

      Well according to Gallup, Romney was leading among registered voters in the third week of October and was tied with Obama as recently as the last week. Romney was leading among likely voters for the entirety of October through November 5. "Obvious", it was not.

      I also recall them talking about their transition team in early July

      So you said his team was planning in July, but then you turn around and claimed it only became obvious in the past few days. What makes this "delusional"?

      I don't fault the Romney campaign for putting together a transition team; without one you don't look like you're playing to win.

      The delusional part is that Romney was only ever ahead or tied in the popular vote; the electoral math showed all along that Romney would have to more or less run the swing state table whereas Obama only needed to pick off a few.

    29. Re:"Fortunately" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've got over $16T in debt and they want to raise the debt ceiling again. We're headed "Forward" all right, right over the fiscal cliff.

      Sadly, the only thing Obama is any good at is campaigning.

      What is your alternative to raising the debt ceiling? Spending cuts and tax increases big enough to obviate the need will cause another recession, regardless of how they are proportioned. Defaulting will cause a worldwide magnitude 9+ financial earthquake.

      Given that we can borrow for next-to-nothing, the best course is modest spending cuts (yes, to the military--more than the next 13 largest militaries combined is crazy) and tax increases (yes, on the wealthy--that's where the money is--with an exemption for the few who actually are "job creators") coupled with yet more borrowing.

      (Sorry, yet-to-be-born grandchildren and great-grandchildren, but the "conservative" party cut taxes and increased deficit spending in a time of war, both parties contributed to the housing bubble, it really was the best we could do at the time.)

      BTW, I'm an independent who has voted Republican for President except for Perot, and, this time, Obama.

    30. Re:"Fortunately" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not that ACs are "batshit crazy Repubilcans", it's that Slashdot has rampant left-wing groupthink. Say anything remotely moderate, quote facts that disagree with Obama and you're labled "batshit crazy".

      Apparently you missed the poll a couple of weeks ago showing roughly equal numbers of Democrats and Republican/Libertarian respondents.

      You're butthurt. Get over it.

    31. Re:"Fortunately" by fm6 · · Score: 1

      "Burn Karma"? I'm one of your left-wing groupthinkers, and I get downmodded all the time. Suggesting that the 2nd amendment isn't sacred is particularly likely to do this.

      What I want to know is: when did rightwingers become such crybabies?

  13. Are we sure it's an accident? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No publicity is bad publicity. Maybe it's a "here's what you would have gotten" kind of thing, so that when the depression that's been masked by 4 years of Federal Reserve QE once again bursts to the surface, they can point to it. Nevermind that the depression is the result of decades of cumulative policy failure from both sides of the aisle. The party on the sidelines will make hay out of it.

  14. Dewey defeats Truman! by derfy · · Score: 1

    Woo!

  15. bigger, Bloated, Backbreaking!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Elections have consequences.

  16. Rove did it by QuincyDurant · · Score: 1

    After Romney carried Ohio.

  17. Where's the growl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm used to hearing growling after a long list of states.

  18. Leave Romney Alone by codepunk · · Score: 1

    Romney and Bain Capital do not have time to worry about a simple presidential loss. Obama won they have to swing into full outsourcing sales mode which will not be very, very easy. You see Romney and Bain did not loose, they won and won big.

    --


    Got Code?
    1. Re:Leave Romney Alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I suppose you were going for a "Funny" mod. Perhaps you should read up on the outsourcing under Obama. You know, the guy that "saved Detroit"...

      "We need to look no further than General Motors’ own figures to learn that GM outsources almost two thirds of its jobs overseas. Less than one in five GM vehicles are manufactured in the United States.

      To be exact: GM’s December 31, 2011 annual report shows General Motors of North America accounting for 98,000 of the 207,000 GM jobs worldwide. But 12,000 of these jobs are in Canada and 11,500 are in Mexico. Accordingly, GM has 74,500 jobs in the United States and 122,500 abroad, even after Obama’s touted surge in Detroit jobs. Almost two thirds of GM’s jobs are in other countries."

  19. Not sure I see the problem. by nobodyman · · Score: 1

    I mean, heck, the Romney campaign is transitioning, right? The only problem is in the details, and Romney doesn't like to get into that sort of stuff until later.

  20. subject by Legion303 · · Score: 1

    Schadenfreudelicious.

  21. Re:mod dQ0wn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I’ve always wondered why people post this sort of incoherent nonsense. It’s not even spam. Is it just GNAA trollers trying to collect more downmods than others? Or are they trying to game the system by posting junk for mods to spend their points on, thus missing real troll posts?

  22. Screen caps? by LateLurker · · Score: 1

    where are the screen caps? I want to see this.

    --
    To do something well is so worthwhile that to die trying to do it better cannot be foolhardy.
  23. history lessons by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

    "...begging for mercy from the Union before Sherman or any other general set foot on their soil?"
    ???? Uh, small as they might be, the last land battles of the "War of Northern Aggression" were fought in Texas.

    Previously, Galveston had been recaptured from Union forces in Jan 1, 1863 and remained confederate until June 18-19, 1865, "Juneteenth".

    Then the final Union attempt to take Texas in September 1863, a Union invasion fleet with 5000 Federal troops was repulsed at the Battle of Sabine Pass.

    PS. Before you even start, I live way north of New York...

  24. They didn't lose! by biodata · · Score: 1

    They just got smaller smarter simpler votes.

    --
    Korma: Good
  25. Utah holds the secret to getting more supporters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All Willard needs is to convert the votes of the dead the same way some in Utah are converting the religion of the dead.

    But how does one get them to the polls?

    http://www.jewishgen.org/infofiles/ldsagree.html

  26. tongue twister by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slogan fails because it's hard to say - Smaller, Simpler, Smarter - Sm Si Sm - not easy to articulate it.

  27. Let's be clear on this fact... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This wasn't an accident. This was a last shot to the current standing President of the United States of America.

    Nobody is stupid enough to have this happen accidentally; even Bush was reported saying "Harsh, man, harsh..."

    CAPTCHA = attests - see, even /. agrees with these statements.

  28. alternative history by zodwallopp · · Score: 1

    There must be a lot of this kind of 'backup win/lose' sort of publication, someone should be collecting it all for an alternative history museum. It could be filled with never-launched websites, newspapers printed one way or the other, inventions that never happned because someone beat them to the punch a day earlier. The world is full of paths that never get taken but someone thought ahead and was prepared for the opposite.

  29. How to fix the problem: by OutSourcingIsTreason · · Score: 1

    Romney needs to go on an apology tour.

    --
    "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Mussolini
  30. A Better Amercia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is merely the start of Amercia. With Romney as president, Amercia will be even better than ever.

  31. Onion Becomes Real by pergamon · · Score: 1

    This sounds like an Onion-perpetrated prank to continue their "Romney not giving up just because he lost the election" schtick.

  32. Obamatrons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the Obamatrons go: Bahhhhhhhh!

  33. Dewey Defeats Truman by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 1
    And why is it funny? Someone made a mistake not because they prepared for an option, but because they ran with the option prematurely and incorrectly. Kinda like the Al Haig "I am in charge here!" or the "Dewey Defeats Truman" headline.

    .

    Hell, even Truman made fun of the newspapers for incorrectly predicting his loss to Dewey: "Dewey Defeats Truman" said the headline, and there's a picture of a grinning Truman laughing at the headline! If the president-elect can laugh at a newspaper's premature prognostications, then certainly we can too.

    Even if the only reason that the web-site became live was so that the site-designer could crow to his/her mom(s): "Hey Ma, look what I did! And they didn't even bother doing their part and win even though I did my part to make the website!"

  34. Re: Eisenhower's D-day docs by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 1

    That's interest to read about Eisenhower. Where is that particular document found? Wasn't he the "The Buck Stops Here" president? That' would make sense. It does say a lot about him that he's willing to own up to and take responsibility for his actions, whether the outcome is good or bad.

  35. Re: Eisenhower's D-day docs by fm6 · · Score: 1

    I don't have source for the Eisenhower doc. If you want to google it, feel free.

    Harry Truman was the one with the "The Buck Stops Here" sign on his desk.