Your friend was probablly talking about when they called the race for Obama. Romney had the popular vote still at that point but that was before all the west coast states reported their numbers which made up the difference and then some
Your friend was probablly talking about when they called the race for Obama. Romney had the popular vote still at that point but that was before all the west coast states reported their numbers which made up the difference and then some
The big problem is that the republicans thought that they were going to win the elections because some people would not go out and vote.
And that is never a good thing in a democracy when your main strategy to win is hoping that a certain percentage of the population doesn't vote ( in this case it was the young, black and latinos voters).
As long as they base their strategy on this, they will not win...
badgenome said: It goes against electoral protocol, but you should try asking this "Greg Johnson" character for your vote back. Nicely. Then you can give it to Romney, and it will magically make him win... somehow. |
He should give it to John Stein instead.
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
Republicans mainly attract the white man's vote. So long as the Latinos, Blacks, Minorities and Women do not vote, The Republicans stand a much better chance of winning.
spurgeonryan said: Because someone explained to me that he was just missunderstood. He was not saying he did not care about the poor, just they already have help, and he was not saying the Rich can do whatever. He was saying that middle class needs our help the most right now. He was saying that the auto industry would have gone in to bankruptcy like many businesses do and everything would have been alright in the end. Sure a few pensions would not get as much money, and some 80 dollar salaries would maybe be cut in half for a while, but they would be alright. As it is GM is cut into thirds. Owned by Canada, America, and the Unions. Any profit that they make goes to there over 100 billion dollars in pensions.
Obama is for turning us into a socialist country. He does not think that Americas should have any responsibility for their mistakes. If the interest rates for houses were not lowered so much that the poor could buy nice things then it never would have crashed. Banks gave loans to anyone and everyone and lo and behold they could not afford them and the forclosure crisis happened. Now Obama wants to do the same thing with student loans. The problem is that just like the housing crisis, when the colleges see that there is an even lower interest rate, they will raise tuition. So there will be even more debt to pay off. I was told that Obama had his chance. If you bring in a CEO to help a business and that CEO has the business still in debt (even more so than BUSH Ceo) then you fire him. He had his shot and you let him go. But, I was told that since the poor of the country did not realize that, along with women and minorities, that they voted for Obama again.
He told me many other things, but I forget most of them. Is this true? Should I have voted for Romney? Was he actually the right choice?
Do not blame me for the next four years. I voted for Greg johnson. |
Just a bunch of propaganda to scare you. Neither Romney nor Obama are going to be responsible for all these things people are talking about. Also, Socialism works quite well for some countries. This guy you were talking to most likely has no idea what Socialism is. Also, Obama isn't a socialist. I would know.
I didn't vote for either, and it didn't matter because romney won my state. And even if romney won congress is still split.
The problem is deeper than just president A or President B.
Though I'm not a socialist, a socialist system ran well withi the U.S. government is better the current solution of everyone bickering, passing craptacular things that don't make sense.
Another problem is nobody is fiscally responsible. Conservatives haven't been fiscally responsible either (bush), like they're supposed to according to their ideals. I'd rather have a competent capitalist or a competent socialist approach as there's ways for both of those to work, and have worked. But, they both have drawbacks.
I think the two sides need to get together and say fuck it we need to do something and have a plan more than 6 months in the future, and make it work. There's going to be negative things no matter what.
I felt Romney was a terrible choice for the Republican party. Then again, who wasn't? The party is going through a schism and while they were trying to retain their command on the population so that they have a chance of winning an election they needed some well tailored candidate that could attract the new vocal extreme conservatives and provide a level of moderation. Of course that's kind of hard to do and while everyone felt that Romney, a strongly moderate republican, would be the most likely person to beat Obama under normal circumstances.
With right extremism they risked loosing the election so the Republican party fought hard to find another suitable candidate. After that not panning out it went back to Romney, but in order to appease the new constituency Romney had to "appear" more conservative than he actually was. Which is why he ran a campaign full of lies, ambiguity, and switching positions. It was a rough campaign but it kept the extreme right around, but not enough of the moderate in order to win the election as that group became more disgusted with the way the campaign was run.
Essentially the Republican party prevented the emergence of a conservative third party, the Tea Party. While still a pseudo party, they never really formed in the way they could have in the Republican party wasn't holding on to their constituents for dear life. The thing is though, the Republican party could very well be on its way out anyway, especially after loosing this election. Sometime, maybe not next election, maybe not the election after that, but there is a good chance that Texas will become a Democratic state and that will make it ever so difficult for a Republican to be elected as president. While that in itself won't destroy the party per se but it will shift the political climate. Unless the Republicans adapt to the new demographic of the country, of course. There still is the extreme right movement though, and there might still be a chance for a sustainable multi party situation.
Of course things could always change with the democratic party and there is always the factor of large sums of money in our election process.
Before the PS3 everyone was nice to me :(
I ended up not voting due to 2 reasons.
I got lazy, tuesday was my day off and I had no vehicle.
When I registered to vote I asked them if I would get spammed by people or anything they said nah. I got spammed by people knocking on my door and mail. I would not have registered if I knew this would happen.
Either way I think you should vote for represenatives and senators, not rly president.
Farsala said: I ended up not voting due to 2 reasons.
Either way I think you should vote for represenatives and senators, not rly president. |
I got 5 people knocking on my door in the last week for Obama... that wasn't because I registered though
Izo said: Judging from the last 4 years I can safely say it was a mistake to vote for Obama today. I can only assume the next 4 years will get even worse. |
This.
If nothing changes (which I know nothing will) the US debt will grow to $22 trillion by 2016. I wonder how many times Obama will raise the meaningless debt ceiling the next 4 years.
Yeah legalizing gay marriage and whatever else he's done is great, but doesn't do much to fix the embarassing economy the United States is facing.