Monday, 7 November 2016

On Sale 34 Years Ago: "The Deciding Vote"

Cerebus #44 (November 1982)
aka The "Wuffa Wuffa Wuffa" Issue
Art by Dave Sim

Diamond Order Code: OCT140536


Carson Grubaugh said...

Wow, talk about a well timed release-date anniversary! I vote Goat.

Tony Dunlop said...

Which one?

Bill Ritter said...

Probably my favorite issue of Cerebus.

Dave Sim said...

Thanks, guys. I was sure I was going to take a life-long "pasting" for all the corner-cutting I did so I could do a quick issue so we wouldn't fall too far behind the monthly schedule while on Tour. I probably should have done MORE quick issues!

Anonymous said...

The very first issue of Cerebus I ever saw was this one. I was 14 years old. Loved everything about it, and still do! Thank you Dave.

Jeff Seiler said...

The vote difference in New Hampshire, as of 8:23 p.m., CDT, is 72 votes. Hello, little farmer guy!

Jeff Seiler said...

Okay, I've been saving this one for nigh-on eight years:

In 2008, post-election, I wrote and asked Dave whether he had any prediction, as an outsider looking in, about the upcoming Obama presidency. Dave responded that he thought that if President Obama could keep it in his pants, he could be a good president.

Half right, Dave.

And then Dave asked me to keep that prognostication under my hat for a while. I think eight years qualifies as a long-enough "while".

Jeff Seiler said...

As of 11:25 pm, CDT, Clinton's lead in New Hampshire is 18 votes! Break out the snowshoes. Now, 4 minutes later, 99 votes ahead.

Jeff Seiler said...

Now Trump ahead by 15 votes at 11:33 pm. !!!

Jeff Seiler said...

In NH. Wuffa, wuffa, wuffa!!!

Carson Grubaugh said...

Yeah, this is starting to look pretty prophetic right now, isn't it? Spooky. Good reason for people to start re-evaluating some of Dave's other points.

ChrisW said...

Ok, what can we do to bring out the Cirinist vote in Lower Felda? Granted, as I write this, Trump has 276 electoral votes, but that just means the girls have to be a little bit more clever, you know what I'm saying?

Jeff Seiler said...

As we all have been told, "it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings" and, at approximately 1:05 a.m., CDT, The Fat Lady's campaign manager announced that The Fat Lady would not be singing (conceding) tonight.

Remember the trouncing that L'Orange got for saying he wouldn't concede?

Remember The Fat Lady quoting Michelle as saying, "When they go low, you take the high road" (or words to that effect)?

What a hypocrite!

She always has been; and, now, the country has shown that they're, finally, fully on to her.



We have the orange-haired, loud-mouthed, irresposible, rude, possibly racist, misogynistic (yeah, I said it), unprepared-to-run-a-country-that-is-divided-50-50 idiot. Or, evil genious.

Not sure which.



ChrisW said...

Womyn! I mean the womyn! have to be more clever, but that's easy for them because they were born that way!!! Please don't hurt me! :(

Jeff Seiler said...

Van Jones, a very articulate, very good-looking, very liberal, African-American member of CNN's post-election panel, earlier tonight, called this election result a "whitelash" against the Democrats. Presumably, if one were to be gracious, he misspoke when he meant to say "backlash".

Things that make you say, "Hmm...".

Hello, neighbors! Can anyone say, "disingenuous"?

Carson Grubaugh said...

I saw, and cringed at, the 'whitelash' comment as well. I was hoping tonight's results would teach the Left a lesson about crafting these kinds of divisive rhetorical gems, but, no, it is just going to get worse. *sigh*

Jim Sheridan said...

Didn't the expression "Let's take America back" basically DECLARE a whitelash? The Trump campaign was eagerly divisive, and its followers eagerly bought into it. To suggest otherwise seems disingenuous.

Carson Grubaugh said...


Yes, but the Left has been generating these kinds of inherently divisive terms/slogans for a while now: white/male privelage, mansplaining, manspreading, Black Lives Matter, etc. If there was a 'whitelash' it was, in large part, a reaction against the exact kind of demonizing language from the Left that 'whitelash' itself is. "I was with you until you told me you don't want me."

Also, exit polls are showing that Clinton received LESS women, hispanic and black votes than Obama, whereas Trump gained in the hispanic and black relative to Romney. So the white-male backlash narrative doesn't hold up as representing anything near the entire picture. To simplify down to that is just going to push even more people away from the Left. I am one of those who was pushed away. Berkeley-educated Liberal through-and-through, who was forced into abstaining from casting a vote because of this mess.

Erick said...

Carson, you are being willfully ignorant.
Black Lives Matter is not a racist phrase. It means Black. Lives. Matter. It does not mean or imply that Black Lives matter anymore than other races, but it is instead a reminder that too often Black lives have not mattered to the police. This is not just about Blacks being killed by police, but it is a response to generation after generation of Black's being harassed by police for no crime other than being Black.
It is about letting people of all races know that Black Lives (and Black Life)matters just as much as White lives and life.
For people to be so deliberately ignorant of what the movement is and is not about speaks volumes about them.
And we have had this 'conversation' before

Jim Sheridan said...

"Yes, but the Left has been generating these kinds of inherently divisive terms/slogans for a while now: white/male privelage, mansplaining, manspreading, Black Lives Matter, etc"

Or "Light vs. Void"