So, Shithead...Why Did YOU Pick Him?

[Angrboda]

Given that Obama took 52.9% of the popular vote, I'd say that people at the time viewed his public advocacy to be sufficiently representative of their views to vote for him, which is arguably a reasonable definition of mainstream. Moreover, I don't think there is any substantial evidence that he has wandered significantly from his core positions that he advocated at the time he elected. So by that measure, yes, Obama is significantly mainstream. Do you have any quantifiable measure which would indicate that he is not mainstream?

And regards the notion that our continued presence in Afghanistan is persuading the Taliban of their obsolescence, all I can say is dream on. You obviously have no concept of what is occurring over there. Indeed, our continued presence likely, if anything, strengthens the Taliban's position.

It's strange that Republicans have been very adroit at managing their message, yet having some form of self-destructive impulse in relation to the Presidency. Some of the candidates they field are positively suicidal. And both the last two candidates, who, by themselves, are arguably electable, chose running mates that pissed away a lot of that capital. McCain was an eminently electable candidate. McCain + Palin? DOA. Romney had sufficiently broad appeal to the conservative electorate, but Ryan seems like a fucking boat anchor.

Anyway, regarding curmudgeons, I like to bring up the distinction between skepticism and cynicism. Skepticism is withholding belief until evidence is given justifying belief. Cynicism is withholding belief, regardless of evidence, on the theory that most beliefs are unjustified. Curmudgeonly skepticism is rational, imo; dogmatic cynicism is not. (And this applies to the gentleman who seemed to imply that because a claim was made by a historically leftist and unreliable source, that the claim was therefore unlikely to be true. That's a non sequitur, it does not follow. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.)