elections Archive

0

Hello, Fellow Massachusetts Independents on this Super Tuesday

By
Tom OHare
– March 6, 2012

Hi. I vote Democrat pretty much all the time, but I don’t want their campaign literature, and I’m too disgusted with them 50% of the time to consider myself a member of the party, so I’m registered as an Independent. That Said! If you are an Independent, Massachusetts has an open primary, and you can go to your polling place this morning and switch your party affiliation to Republican and Fuck. With. The. Democratic. Process. So do it! I’m voting for Rick Santorum, baby, because the longer this shit show drags on, the more money Mitt Romney has to spend sealing his otherwise inevitable nomination.

Exercise your right to be a rabblerouser. Vote Santorum. For the children.

0

The GOP just got that much crazier

By
Trevor Macomber
– February 28, 2012

Apparently, the sisters from Maine have just been reduced to a single sib. According to USA Today (among others):

One of the Senate’s few remaining Republican moderates shocked the political world on Tuesday and announced she would not seek re-election this year.

Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe announced she would not seek a fourth term because she is tired of the polarization and partisanship that has permeated Washington in recent years.

“Unfortunately, I do not realistically expect the partisanship of recent years in the Senate to change over the short term,” she said in a statement explaining her decision to retire.

Maine’s junior GOP senator, Susan Collins, said in a statement that she was “absolutely devastated” by Snowe’s decision to leave the Senate. Snowe was first elected in 1994. Collins was elected in 1996.

On the one hand, given Snow’s career-long moderate-ism and the fact that Maine has awarded its four electoral votes to a democratic candidate in each of the last five elections, this is an excellent chance for the Dems to pick up a seat in the Senate. On the other hand, with Snow’s departure, there’s basically only the equally rational Collins (full disclosure: she’s a cousin) and a handful of other ‘pubs keeping the entire senatorial party from devolving into a Caligula-level shit show.

1

Shit that doesn’t matter

By
Tom OHare
– February 8, 2012

Rick Santorum won three primaries last night.

Doesn’t fucking matter. Romney’s still gonna be the nominee.

Update by Trevor: For me, the most hilarious part of this whole kerfluffle can be seen in the last paragraph of this article in The Guardian today:

Following last night’s contests, Romney has only 107 delegates, well short of the 1,144 he needs to win the nomination. Santorum has 45 delegates, Gingrich 32 and Paul nine.

‘member a couple years ago how we voted for the next president of the United States on the same day and then actually found out the results that night? ’member how satisfying and conclusive that result was? There’s a reason it’s not spread over weeks and weeks, and that reason is what I like to call the doctrine of equal information.

[...]

If we were to hold general elections over a span of multiple days, it would mean that voters would have access to disparate information when making their ultimate decision. After all, every extra day a candidate is given to campaign is an extra day for him to put his foot in his mouth and/or save a kitten from an oak tree. If Iowa votes for a president based on one finite set of factors, and those factors are undermined the very next day by new information coming to light that affects how the voters of New Hampshire cast their ballots without offering any redress for perturbed Iowans, it would result in each state essentially voting for two different candidates (candidates being nothing more than a representative amalgam of what we think they believe and how we feel about that) in the form of a single person. Talk about unrepresentative democracy. (Seriously, talk about it. I’ll wait.) Yet that’s exactly what happens at the primary level during each and every presidential election cycle.

The whole thing makes me mad enough to blog redundantly about it!

1

What the fuck is there to even talk about?

By
Tom OHare
– January 31, 2012

Andrew Sullivan is blathering on about how Romney’s projected 47% to 32% victory over Gingrich in Florida is “not a good sign for Romney looking ahead to Super Tuesday.”

What?

Presumably it’s because “the South” won’t vote for Romney, since the ever-important Florida panhandle hasn’t returned enough results yet to satisfy Sully, and of course, the Florida panhandle has simply always been the bellwether of presidential politics. Yeah. This guy gets paid to analyze American politics. I don’t quite get it, either.

Here’s what happens Super Tuesday, as anyone with half a fucking brain has been able to foresee for quite some time: Romney wraps up the nomination. The other idiots go home. End of fucking story. Can we stop talking about this horseshit and start talking about what’s actually going on in the world?

Jesus Christ. Thank you.

0

Piling on Santorum

By
Trevor Macomber
– January 11, 2012

No, not like that. Yikes, get your minds out of the butt-butter gutter, would you? I’m talking about Ricky-boy’s fifth place finish in New Hampshire yesterday — just behind Newt Gingrich. (And believe me: nobody wants to be just behind Newt Gingrich, least of all Rick Santorum.)

It’s a tough, uhh, pill to swallow after a virtual first place tie in Iowa last week, and even tougher when you factor in how Romney, a Mormon, also earned 45 percent of the Catholic vote, while Santorum, a Catholic, earned a mere eight percent.

So there’s that.

There’s also this: a video of Santorum getting booed during a Q&A session in New Hampshire last week after a convoluted tête-à-tête about marriage rights:

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

His personal beliefs aside, I actually think Santorum conducts himself rather well during the affair, remaining reasonable and open to discussion despite the pointed nature of the questions. On top of which, his interrogator — who had already been munching on word salad up until that point — totally pussies out when Rick responds with the “totally wacky” counterexample of, (basically), “Hey, if two men should be allowed to marry, then why not three men, if being happy and not hurting anyone are the main criteria for marriage?” (Totally wacky, right??) Anyway, the reason I mention the video is not because, against all odds, Santorum isn’t wearing a sweater vest in it, but because it’s basically yet another long-winded example of his (and many other people’s) easily encapsulated view that marriage is an inviolable biblical construct between a man and a woman, end of story.

Or, to put it another, catchier way:

There are two major problems with this vaguely clever bon mot, however:

1) Most inviolable biblical constructs were violated long ago. Behold, a fantastic infographic from r/atheism Redditor and brilliant pseudonym selector, jesusonadinosaur: 

Why don’t you ever hear anyone defending these thousand-year-old traditions! Rapists deserve a new toaster too, don’t they?

2) While I guarantee that I’m not the first person to bother pointing this out, it’s worth reiterating that, even if you only tote such rhyming signage as an approximate illustration (rather than a literal indication) of your interpretation of Genesis, by explicitly advertising such views vis-a-vis the first man and woman on earth, you are simultaneously implicitly supporting incest. Don’t look at me like that: it’s a simple fact that, if Adam and Eve really were the first and only people around at the time, then their children would have had to have a ton of hot brother-on-sister sex in order to populate the planet. But hey, I’m not here to judge. If you want to embrace incest over homosexuality, go right ahead. Hell, you’d certainly be in good company, since God himself obviously subscribes to the adage that, “If you can’t keep it in the pants, keep it in the family.” He could have avoided the whole debacle if he’d just kept breathing life into clay after creating Adam, but I guess he thought it was more important to take a day off instead. Remind you of any other powerful bodies…Congress??? 

2

Feel the Huntsmentum!

By
Tom OHare
– January 10, 2012

Brendan somehow scored tickets to the Jon Huntsman gala in New Hampshire tonight, so we’re going to drive up to Manchester and sit in a bar surrounded by Republicans for the evening. I’ll have a full write-up tomorrow, but can I just mention that it’s a bit weird that the Google auto-fill for “Jon Huntsman” suggests “Jon Huntsman daughters”? I mean, that’s a bit weird, right?

It is.

Anyway, it should be fun. If I remain sober (unlikely) I’ll try to interview some people. If I get drunk, I’ll just harangue everyone. Priorities!

0

But what does Todd Palin think?

By
Tom OHare
– January 9, 2012

Hey, everyone, guess what! Todd Palin announced his super-official Republican Presidential endorsement today! You know what that means? It means that our Very Serious press corps is all over this story like white on rice, or brown on rice, or yellow on rice. It really depends what kind of rice you’re eating! (Hint: this rice makes you go blind, bleed internally, and is not FDA approved):

Sarah Palin’s husband is endorsing Newt Gingrich for president, Todd Palin told ABC News today.

But Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and John McCain’s 2008 Republican running mate, has yet to decide “who is best able to go up against Barack Obama,” Todd Palin said.

Palin said he has not spoken to Gingrich or anyone from the former House speaker’s campaign. But he said he respects Gingrich for what he went through in the 1990s and compared that scrutiny in public life to what Sarah Palin went through during her run for the vice presidency.

Todd Palin said he believes that being in the political trenches and experiencing the highs and lows help prepare a candidate for the future and the job of president.

He did not criticize any of the other candidates and said his “hat is off to everyone” in the Republican race.

THIS IS NEWS, PEOPLE! BREAKING NEWS! Where to begin?

FIRST OF ALL, we’re talking about Todd Palin. He is Sarah Palin’s husband. In that capacity he has gone snowmobiling, fathered 16 children, and , uh, lived in Alaska. Maybe he caught some fish, too, I dunno. Anyway, so this is obviously a very big deal, know what I mean? It would be like asking Pat Nixon who she endorsed, except that her endorsement, by virtue of being delivered from the grave, would carry a little more gravitas, even if it was anonymously sourced, due to an aide’s “inability to speak about the matter on the record, since Pat Nixon is dead and the endorsement was revealed to a shaman deep in the Ecuadorean rainforest, who then communicated it via a translator while both were high on peyote and firewater.” Or something. You get what I’m saying. This is a big deal. Todd Palin just endorsed Newt Gingrich, y’all. Wise the fuck up.

SECONDLY, this? “[Todd Palin] respects Gingrich for what he went through in the 1990s and compared that scrutiny in public life to what Sarah Palin went through during her run for the vice presidency” — this might be the most important statement from an American politician since the Monroe Doctrine. THAT WAS IN 1820, PEOPLE! WE’VE GOT A JUGGERNAUT ON OUR HANDS! Clearly, what Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich endured in their time in the public spotlight was shameful, shameful. I mean, people HELD THEM ACCOUNTABLE FOR SHIT! That’s insanity! What kind of country do we live in, a communist one?

Didn’t think so, librul media.

THIRDLY, “hats off to everyone” in the Republican field? Even Mitt Romney? That guy’s practically a socialist. I’ll excuse it, because it’s Todd Palin, and as mentioned, he just delivered the 21st century equivalent of the Emancipation Proclamation, but by golly if I’m not a bit flummoxed. Flummoxed, I say. Mitt Romney will be the death of the Republican party, the American way, apple pie, moms, fetuses, and God Him or Herself. Okay, Himself (what am I, a lesbian?), but you get the picture. At least, I hope you do. Todd Palin is the picture, and he just caught fifty pounds of salmon with his bare hands, strutted up to the cold Alaskan beach front with his shirt off, and endorsed Newt Gingrich for President. Now is not the time to let your guard down, even if he did take his hat off for Mitt Romney.

FOURTHLY, another excerpt:

Gingrich’s ability to overcome the obstacle and still move up in the polls showed his ability to campaign and survive, according to Todd Palin, who said Gingrich is not one of the typical “beltway types” and that his campaign has “burst out of the political arena and touched many Americans.”

Do you know what I think of when I think about the phrase “beltway type”? I think about Levi Strauss, and Lee, and Calvin Klein, and Osh-Kosh-b-Gosh. I think about jeans, because when I wear jeans I wear a belt, and the “way” to be the “type” of person who wears “belts” is to wear jeans. But I never see Newt Gingrich in jeans. Have you ever seen Newt Gingrich in jeans? I have not. Oh, sure, maybe he’s worn them once or twice, but certainly not enough to be called a “belt” “way” “type.” I mean, the guy’s a former Speaker of the House, lobbyist, and current Presidential candidate. If that’s what a “belt” “way” “type” is, you can sign me right up. It’s better than wearing jeans, that’s for sure.

LASTLY, Sarah Palin. I’ll tell you what, I admire her restraint. The Republican field this year has been a little bit like a game of hot potato. It’s smart not to commit to a candidate too rashly. It would be embarrassing, after all, if she bet all her money on the Romney potato and the Santorum potato exploded into a slick, white mash. She has to show caution and resolve. She has to act Presidential. If she’s going to go around the country pretending to run for President for the rest of her life, after all, she may as well know the part. What I’m saying: hedge your bets, Sarah. Choose wisely!

The end.

(via)

3

Liveblog of the 79th Republican Presidential Debate

By
Tom OHare
– November 22, 2011

Topic: FOREIGN POLICY

I am going to regret this.

7:59 PM: Wolf Blitzer is lying to his audience on CNN.com. He’s saying that it hasn’t gone live yet, but it has. GOTCHA!

8:02 PM: This is a fucking joke. CNN takes its cues from, like, Survivor or some shit. Each candidate has his name read with inspiring music in the background, a little back story. (Oh, but they didn’t give back story for Huntsman or Santorum. Scandal!)

8:04 PM: Wolf Blitzer – “TWEET THIS SHIT, FACEBOOK THIS SHIT, GET THE WORD OUT, YO, THIS DEBATE’S GONNA BE ILL!”

8:06 PM: We do the national anthem before debates in this country. That’s how you know our candidates are serious.

8:09 PM: Rick Perry – “I’m married, btw. I know we’re talking about national security, but hey I’m asking for your vote.”

8:10 PM: Mitt Romney – “Yeah, I’m campaigning in the general already.”

8:11 PM: Herman Cain – “Yeah, something!”

8:11 PM: Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann – “My relatives were veterans, Happy Thanksgiving, peace, love, and rock and roll.”

8:12 PM: Why’s everyone talking about wives? Anyway, Huntsman’s going to trounce in this debate if he ever gets a question.

8:13 PM: Wolf Blitzer just called Ed Meese “honorable.”

8:13 PM: Ed Meese proceeds to ask leading question about how wonderful the Patriot Act is. Question goes to Newt Gingrich, who brings up “nuclear weapon” scenario in defending Patriot Act. “WE’LL BE IN DANGER FOR THE REST OF OUR LIVES!” Quote. Jesus. Strengthen the Patriot Act? Jesus. “Ive spent years studying this stuff”??? Jesus. Newt Gingrich is a clown.

8:16 PM: Ron Paul gets applause, not votes.

8:17 PM: Bachmann is with the American people AND the Constitution, okay? Let’s not forget that, people!

8:18 PM: Bachmann – “Today we deal with wireless functions.” “The underwear bomber.” “We don’t give Miranda warnings to terrorists.” Applause.

8:20 PM: Perry wants to privatize the TSA to get rid of the unions. Yes.

8:22 PM: Perry calls Obama’s intelligence-gathering a failure, forgets that Obama, you know, got bin Laden.

8:23 PM: Santorum just said that Abe Lincoln ran all over civil rights? PLZ TELL ME I DID NOT HEAR THAT RIGHT. “Obviously Muslims would be someone you’d look at.” NO, I HEARD IT RIGHT, AND IT JUST GOT APPLAUSE.

8:25 PM: Let’s get our Muslim-bashing on with Herman Cain.

8:31 PM: “Pakistan as a nation is kind of like, too nuclear to fail.” – Michele Bachmann, the 21st Century’s incidental Mark Twain.

8:35 PM: Romney asserts that introducing Suharto to the Indonesians led them toward “modernity” and that we should do the same with Pakistan. Holy fucking shit, what a nutter.

8:38 PM: “We’ve already thrown a bunch of money down the hole that is the the Afghan war, might as well throw some more.” – Mitt Romney

8:41 PM: “We’re gonna kill people in your country whether you want us to or not.” -Newt Gingrich. Applause.

8:42 PM: I don’t even know what Rick Santorum is talking about. One thing’s for sure, though, Al Qaeda will be on our shores shortly.

8:45 PM: Went to the bathroom, came back. CNN apparently cannot persuade an advertiser to spend good money on the intermission.

8:47 PM: That was an awkward moment.

8:49 PM: How are we going to help Israel wage war on Iran, guys?

8:50 PM: And Ron Paul sinks his candidacy by rambling about Israel. Gets applause anyway. Paultards. *shakes head*

8:51 PM: Cain assures us that he knows that Iran is mountainous.

8:52 PM: I can’t believe I live in a country where this is the opposition party. Furthermore, I can’t believe it’s the most powerful country in the world.

8:53 PM: Why does Wolf Blitzer give Newt Gingrich deference with his, “I know you studied this”-es? Does Newt Gingrich take care of his dog during the week, or something? #justwondering

8:55 PM: You just want to throttle these people. What the fuck are you talking about the president has been steadfastly against energy independence? You dumbshits don’t even believe in science? Jesus gives us all we need. And holy fuck did Michele Bachmann get all Biblical right there.

8:56 PM: AND NOW, TO PROMOTE A VOICE THAT’S NEVER BEEN HEARD BEFORE… PAUL WOLFOWITZ!

9:00 PM: The answer to the question, btw, is, “FUCK YES WE CAN AFFORD FOREIGN AID, IT’S A RAINDROP IN THE OCEAN THAT IS OUR BUDGET AND IT HELPS PEOPLE,” not, “I’m not sure we can afford it, because our troops and our military,” or Ron Paul freaking out.

9:02 PM: Romney isn’t good on foreign policy, huh?

9:03 PM: Newt Gingrich – “DRILL, BABY, DRILL!!!!” Applause, of course. The crowd is Heritage Foundation and AEI people.

9:09 PM: Rick Perry’s been the Commander-in-Chief of the 20+ thousand National Guardsmen of Texas, y’all.

9:11 PM: If I could shoot myself in the face and wake up tomorrow and be fine — like, if that were a real possibility and there was no pain or anything — I would do that right now.

9:13 PM: And… the guy asking the question doesn’t know the difference between a deficit and a debt. Or, deliberately confuses them in the question knowing that no one will call him on it. Hmm.

9:15 PM: Strangely, in the context of balancing the budget, Republicans never mention revenues. Neither do moderators. It’s all cuts, never, “Hey, guys, we’re Congress, let’s just raise taxes on rich people and everything will be all hunky-dory!” Wolf Blitzer is hosting some pretty shameful shit. Maybe this is why nobody takes his network seriously?

9:24 PM: The Iranians run the Mexican drug cartels, Rick Perry? Wha??

9:25 PM: Ron Paul shows his true colors. End the war on drugs, and cancel the welfare state. This is your candidate, Paultards.

9:29 PM: More nonsense from Rick Santorum. Yawn.

9:33 PM: ILLEGALS! GAHHH!

9:34 PM: Isn’t illegal immigration a domestic issue anyway, guys? Can we not beat up on Mexicans just once in our national discourse? Just once? PLZZZ?

9:37 PM: Still on illegal immigrants. Newt Gingrich basically says that if you’ve gamed the system for 25 years, you’re cool to be here. If you’re a more recent illegal immigrant, we deport you. “Right guys?”

9:40 PM: We’re taking another break, apparently. I was hoping this would be over soon.

9:44 PM: Oh, wow. They gave David Addington a question, too. Cool!

9:46 PM: Rick Perry doesn’t seem to understand that there’s a revolution going on right now in Syria. At least, he didn’t mention it.

9:48 PM: Huntsman is auditioning for 2016.

9:50 PM: If this shit isn’t over in 10 minutes, well… I am.

9:51 PM: “Economy so strong! Military so strong! Very nice!” – Mitt Romney

9:54 PM: Jesus Christ, I can’t believe I’ve spent two hours watching this shit.

9:56 PM: Something about Latin America being responsible for 9/11? I don’t know, I guess it’s time to “modernize” them or something.

9:57 PM: My God, these people are insane.

9:58 PM: That’s all. You’re welcome. You’ll excuse me if I turn off the post-game recap, won’t you?

0

Democrats write for the Wall Street Journal?

By
Trevor Macomber
– November 22, 2011

I tend to develop a taste for Tevas whenever I try to publically analyze politics, but after reading yesterday’s WSJ opinion piece by two Democrats literally begging Obama not to run next year in favor of Hillary Clinton, I couldn’t resist taking another whack.

Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen begin with an appeal to the history books:

When Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson accepted the reality that they could not effectively govern the nation if they sought re-election to the White House, both men took the moral high ground and decided against running for a new term as president. President Obama is facing a similar reality—and he must reach the same conclusion.

A couple things here: Truman (1945-1953) and Johnson (1963-1969) both ascended to the presidency after their predecessors died in office and thus spent a substantial amount of time as president before being voted in on their own merits during the subsequent elections.

Working in reverse chronological order, Johnson was inextricably linked with the most unpopular war in American history, which drowned out every other accomplishment on his CV and left him electorally fucked from the get-go. However, not only is there no single issue today that is perceived as negatively as the Vietnam War was (and still is) in Johnson’s day, Obama isn’t even the first entity most people blame for our current political albatross: a dead-fish economy.

According to the recent McClatchy-Marist Poll, conducted Nov. 8-10,

a nearly 2-1 majority of voters think that President Barack Obama inherited, rather than caused, today’s slumping economy, and more Americans trust him to create jobs than they do the Republicans in Congress.

Continuing along our reverse presidential timeline, thanks to FDR’s ill-advised and subsequently short-lived fourth term, Truman had basically already served two full terms before the 1952 elections. Yeah, he could have run again, but only on a technicality, and there’s no indication that he had any desire to do so anyway.

From Wikipedia:

In 1951, the U.S. ratified the 22nd Amendment, making a president ineligible to be elected for a third time, or to be elected for a second time after having served more than two years of a previous president’s term. The latter clause would have applied to Truman in 1952, except that a grandfather clause in the amendment explicitly excluded the current president from this provision.[197] However, Truman decided not to run for reelection.

So after their stirringly irrelevant introduction, Mssrs. Caddell and Schoen go on to suggest that Obama

should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president’s accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Excuse me while I WTF??? to myself for a few minutes over here. Maybe sentiments have changed since I last looked, but isn’t Hillary as polarizing a figure for Republicans as Obama is? Isn’t she married to the most reviled Democrat of the last 30 years? How can the authors possibly deem her more capable of governing than Obama when the only thing that seems to matter these days is not original ideas backed up by nonpartisan data and expert consensus, but merely which capital letter you carry next to your name? Are they really so naïve as to believe that one Democrat is more likely to be successful than any other in navigating the poisonous bipartisan swamp known as Congress?

Newsflash: from the point of view of most Republicans, it’s no longer specifically Obama whose policies are Singularly Evil and Destructive — it’s Democratic Philosophies in general. Look at the president’s actual list of pursuits and accomplishments in the White House. The dude is a classic weak-sauce centrist, yet in the hyperbolic rhetoric of the GOP, he has led us to the veritable verge of communims and/or socialism (depending on which histori-political analogy you’ve chosen to be ignorant of) in three short years as president.

To suggest that Hillary Clinton is the answer is to cop to an inexcusable political tonedeafness. Who cares if

President Obama is now neck and neck with a generic Republican challenger in the latest Real Clear Politics 2012 General Election Average (43.8%-43.%). Meanwhile, voters disapprove of the president’s performance 49%-41% in the most recent Gallup survey, and 63% of voters disapprove of his handling of the economy, according to the most recent CNN/ORC poll.

In case you’ve forgotten, Obama isn’t running against “generic Republican challenger” in the general election — he’s running against an actual Republican challenger, who at this point is guaranteed to be either someone so unexciting that he has come in second place in basically every poll ever taken (Romney), or someone who has actually finished first in a poll…but by law was only allowed to remain there for a couple of weeks until the next flavor of the month went on sale (in order: Trump, Bachman, Perry, Cain, and now Gingrich, with random calls for the never-even-running Barbour, Palin, and Christie thrown in for fun).

After some more nonsense about how Hillary somehow “has the ability to step above partisan politics, reach out to Republicans, change the dialogue, and break the gridlock in Washington” where other Democrats do not, the authors end with a melodramatic plea to the other leaders of the big “D”:

If President Obama is not willing to seize the moral high ground and step aside, then the two Democratic leaders in Congress, Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, must urge the president not to seek re-election—for the good of the party and most of all for the good of the country. And they must present the only clear alternative—Hillary Clinton.

Right. Because nothing inspires bipartisan accord like a Clinton.

(For the record, in a normal political climate, I actually think Hillary would make a great president. I just think it’s a zero sum game switching out Obama for her in 2012. Alas and alack that my secret hope for a Clinton/Obama package in 2008 through 2016, followed by an Obama/Who cares? continuance from 2016-2024 never materialized.)

***

P.S. If the authors’ hopes magically come true next year, I’ve already got my Halloween costume all picked out:

 

Hilarity Clinton

Hilarity Clinton

0

Public Service Announcement

By
Tom OHare
– November 8, 2011

Today is the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Assuming there are elections in your piece of America, you should go vote in them.

Page 1 of 212