US Elections 2012 Obama v Romney Official Thread
Discussion
Ozzie Osmond said:
Worth remembering the popular vote was 49:51 or something almost as close so the Republicans only missed by a whisker.
The popular vote was irrelevant.This election was about 12 states. All the campaigning and presidential campaign money was spent in those 12 states. Obama won 11 of them. That's 11 out of 12. That's a landslide. This election was not close.
chris watton said:
unrepentant said:
Anyon who thinks that "bias" at the BBC is anything like what happens FOX is bonkers!
Isn't Fox a subscription channel, though? It is here in the UK, and I am nowhere near right wing enough to even consider subscribing to right wing propaganda. I guess it could be argued that I pay for left wing propaganda though - but that's true to form, the left are great at spending other people's money... 
chris watton said:
unrepentant said:
chris watton said:
unrepentant said:
Anyon who thinks that "bias" at the BBC is anything like what happens FOX is bonkers!
Isn't Fox a subscription channel, though? It is here in the UK, and I am nowhere near right wing enough to even consider subscribing to right wing propaganda. I guess it could be argued that I pay for left wing propaganda though - but that's true to form, the left are great at spending other people's money... If you lived in Hackensack, Noo Joisey it would be in your package.
Willie Dee said:
Reading threads about right-wing reactions to Obama's re-election in the US is a bit of an eye-opener. It seems there are a lot of people who very strongly believed that Romney would win easily, and are now in a state of total disbelief about the fact that he hasn't. They seem to have thought that the majority of the country hated Obama as much as they did, and they genuinely believed what they were saying about all the polls being wrong.
If you live in a red state, get all your news from FOX news and listen to talk radio then you live in a conservative bubble. The morons on the right, whether they be Dick Morris, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Beck or whoever have been telling their often equally moronic viewers and listeners that Romney was winning easily and therefore they are all in shock.I was listening to NPR on the way to work this morning and they had a character called Richard Vigurie on. He's a major conservative figure, chairman of ConservativeHQ.com etc.. He was arguing that Romney lost because his campaign was NOT CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH! Denial is not the word for it.
The reason that I was always so confident is that I have huge respect for David Plouffe and Jim Messina and I knew that their ground game would be stellar. I was sure that, in the target states, they would have an absolute handle on exactly how the vote would turn out and as long as the campaign was confident I never had any doubts that the president would be re-elected, whatever any particular day's polls happened to say. They knew how every district, probably every street, would go in the swing states and they were on top of the game. The Romney campaign just didn't understand how the game worked and farmed out a lot of the crucial work. Obama kept it close and was always on top of it. That's why it was hysterical watching headless chickens spouting bs ad nauseum on here and in other places about the polls being wrong and how when they were adjusted using some right wing bloggers formula Romney was way ahead.
Having said all of that Obama won on his record and the GOP lost because they had a poor candidate and a poor strategy. And unless they can change a lot of things drastically and quickly they will lose next time too.
Edited by unrepentant on Friday 9th November 15:14
XCP said:
Can someone explain how it is that the Democrats have a majority in one elected house and not in the other?
I would have thought the same voters would ensure pretty much the same result in both.
The districts in the house are different from those in the senate and there are far more congressmen. Also the election cycles are not all the same.I would have thought the same voters would ensure pretty much the same result in both.
Obama is not a lame duck. The people have spoken, the dems control the presidency and the senate. There will have to be co-operation now between the house and the president. Both sides have already expressed a willingness to work together and they will.
scenario8 said:
unrepentant said:
Obama is not a lame duck...Both sides have already expressed a willingness to work together and they will.
Forgive a smidgen of scepticism and cynicism creeping into my thought patterns here, Sir. We'll see. Let's just hope people genuinely are prepared to walk the floor. Lord knows we need something to happen to stop a $hitstorm with the impending budgetary changes due soon.JagLover said:
As for your other comment about only rich old white guys losing out under the current era of big government, if you believe that you are deluded. The economy as a whole is considerably weaker than where it should be and the high taxes needed to sustain the wasteful welfare state reduce the incomes of those far lower down the income scale than the 5% you cite.
The economy is weaker than it should be because Obama inherited the worst economic situation since the great depression from George W Bush! We were losing 800,000 jobs a month when Obama came into office! What he has done in reversing that whilst keeping the country out of recession is nothing short of miraculous! Wasteful welfare state? WTF does that mean? Show the waste. Seriously, show waste. And don't spout the usual b
ks about food stamps because SNAP was designed to expand in times of economic difficulty and when Obama came to office in January 09 he faced a ststorm of economic difficulty. And before you go on (as others here have) about public sector workers and government job creation don't bother - there are 600,000 fewer government workers today than when Obama came into office. We now have sustained job growth (32 months of continuous growth and more people are working today than when Obama came into office and faced losses of 800,000 a month), 500,000 new manufacturing jobs since 2010, rising property prices, rising consumer confidence and spending, a revived auto industry (10 quarters of job growth in that industry following 2 years of horrific losses under Bush), companies are being incentivised to bring jobs back to the USA and those that ship them abroad will lose tax breaks, Obama's budget proposals reduce discretionary spending to it's lowest for 50 years, a balanced mixture of spending cuts and revenue increases proposed by Obama will reduce the defecit by $4 trillion over the next decade.
This economy is working and working a damn sight better than most economies on the other side of the pond and that's down to Obama.
vonuber said:
Looking through this photos here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/06/pictur...
It may be coincidental or deliberately displayed as such, but the Obama supporters photographed are so much more diverse in terms of ethnicity and look than the Romney ones, which sort of bears out the polls.
I made a comment to that efect on here after the conferences. The Democrat convention was full of young, old, black, white, brown, male, female, gay, straight etc..http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/06/pictur...
It may be coincidental or deliberately displayed as such, but the Obama supporters photographed are so much more diverse in terms of ethnicity and look than the Romney ones, which sort of bears out the polls.
The RNC was populated almost exclusively by old white people. I called them coffin dodgers, which several old white coffin dodgers on here took offence to.
GavinPearson said:
If you have no coverage you can always go to ER and get treated. They have to treat you by law, no excuses.
Sorry but that's simplistic and true only up to a point.You're a working person on an average wage. Let's say you have no insurance because you have a pre existing heart condition and therefore you can't get coverage because the insurance companies are allowed to pick and choose who they cover. You subsequently have a massive stroke with complications. You get taken to ER. They treat you - "by law, no excuses".
What happens next?
What happens next is you get a f
king great bill, let's say $250k. You make $40k a year, or you did before your stroke, now you can't work. What do you do now? The system here is nothing like the NHS. It is utterly broken and was in desperate need of a complete overhaul which it is now getting. Despite the US government (not your employer or you) spending more per capita on healthcare than the UK government spends we had 47 million people without coverage and the obscene situation where insurance companies, many of whom operate as virtual monopolies, can refuse coverage to people because they may get ill.
Halb said:
unrepentant said:
what happens next is you get a fking great bill, let's say $250k. You make $40k a year, or you did before your stroke, now you can't work. What do you do now?
The system here is nothing like the NHS. It is utterly broken and was in desperate need of a complete overhaul which it is now getting. Despite the US government (not your employer or you) spending more per capita on healthcare than the UK government spends we had 47 million people without coverage and the obscene situation where insurance companies, many of whom operate as virtual monopolies, can refuse coverage to people because they may get ill.
So what happens then? Does the fella just die?king great bill, let's say $250k. You make $40k a year, or you did before your stroke, now you can't work. What do you do now? The system here is nothing like the NHS. It is utterly broken and was in desperate need of a complete overhaul which it is now getting. Despite the US government (not your employer or you) spending more per capita on healthcare than the UK government spends we had 47 million people without coverage and the obscene situation where insurance companies, many of whom operate as virtual monopolies, can refuse coverage to people because they may get ill.
This sort of scenario happens many times a day. Obamacare will ensure that it doesn't happen in the future. Romney would not have changed the pre existing condition wriggle out for insurance companies.
TheHeretic said:
Well, the only reason I went looking for it was the claims that the 'lazy' and the 'want stuff' brigade wanted Obama in office, so I figured seeing which of the states that receive more than they contribute might show something. It seems to according to that table from 2004, (granted, almost a decade ago), so was wondering what it looked like today. It certainly seems to show things opposite what the shock jocks would have you believe, (after listening to Bill O, Rush, and Hannity the other night).
So........ most of the states with the worst educated populace are republican states and most of the states who are the most needy in terms of government assistance are also republican states. 
Who's have thunk it eh?
A couple of other interesting stats from the election.
In 2004 GWB got 80% of the mormon vote. In 2012 Mitt Romney, a mormon, only got 78%.
Romney was born in Michigan, was governor of Massachusetts where he also lives and he has holiday homes in New Hampshire and California. He lost all 4 states.
There was a reporter from the NYT on CNN last night. She was embedded with the Romney campaign and was with them on election night. She said that Romney was "celebrating"? with his family during the evening and was not watching tv. He was being given news by aides who went into the room to update him periodically. She said that eventually he came out and asked "it's gone?" in some disbelief and had to go off to write a concession speech as he genuinely had not prepared one. These people really were in a bubble and had not a clue of what was happening on the ground!
The reporter also described how she observed lines of early voters in Ohio and the Obama people canvassing all of them as to how they were voting, what issues had swayed them etc.. She asked the Romyans if they were doing something similar and their reply was "the juice from that is not worth the squeeze"! As a result they really had no idea what was happening in the swing states and the dem machine knew pretty much how every district and street was going to vote. The result was victory in 11 of 12 swing states and the president actually able to relax on election day while Romney was still flying around canvassing in states he was to lose badly.
In 2004 GWB got 80% of the mormon vote. In 2012 Mitt Romney, a mormon, only got 78%.
Romney was born in Michigan, was governor of Massachusetts where he also lives and he has holiday homes in New Hampshire and California. He lost all 4 states.
There was a reporter from the NYT on CNN last night. She was embedded with the Romney campaign and was with them on election night. She said that Romney was "celebrating"? with his family during the evening and was not watching tv. He was being given news by aides who went into the room to update him periodically. She said that eventually he came out and asked "it's gone?" in some disbelief and had to go off to write a concession speech as he genuinely had not prepared one. These people really were in a bubble and had not a clue of what was happening on the ground!
The reporter also described how she observed lines of early voters in Ohio and the Obama people canvassing all of them as to how they were voting, what issues had swayed them etc.. She asked the Romyans if they were doing something similar and their reply was "the juice from that is not worth the squeeze"! As a result they really had no idea what was happening in the swing states and the dem machine knew pretty much how every district and street was going to vote. The result was victory in 11 of 12 swing states and the president actually able to relax on election day while Romney was still flying around canvassing in states he was to lose badly.
Mermaid said:
unrepentant said:
A couple of other interesting stats from the election.
In 2004 GWB got 80% of the mormon vote. In 2012 Mitt Romney, a mormon, only got 78%.
Romney was born in Michigan, was governor of Massachusetts where he also lives and he has holiday homes in New Hampshire and California. He lost all 4 states.
There was a reporter from the NYT on CNN last night. She was embedded with the Romney campaign and was with them on election night. She said that Romney was "celebrating"? with his family during the evening and was not watching tv. He was being given news by aides who went into the room to update him periodically. She said that eventually he came out and asked "it's gone?" in some disbelief and had to go off to write a concession speech as he genuinely had not prepared one. These people really were in a bubble and had not a clue of what was happening on the ground!
That Obama got re-elected is telling how how bad a choice Romney was IMO. JIndal/Rubio will probably on the ticket in 2016.In 2004 GWB got 80% of the mormon vote. In 2012 Mitt Romney, a mormon, only got 78%.
Romney was born in Michigan, was governor of Massachusetts where he also lives and he has holiday homes in New Hampshire and California. He lost all 4 states.
There was a reporter from the NYT on CNN last night. She was embedded with the Romney campaign and was with them on election night. She said that Romney was "celebrating"? with his family during the evening and was not watching tv. He was being given news by aides who went into the room to update him periodically. She said that eventually he came out and asked "it's gone?" in some disbelief and had to go off to write a concession speech as he genuinely had not prepared one. These people really were in a bubble and had not a clue of what was happening on the ground!
Jindal is another pro lifer with a 100% anti abortion record. He's also anti gay marriage, opposed the American recovery and investment act, supports cutting funding for higher education, wants to build a fence to keep Mexicans out, is anti affordable healthcare etc.. Bring him on!
Joking apart I'd love to think that the GOP will have moved far enough to adopt a practicing Hindu as their candidate in four years time but we'll have to wait to see what rection he gets if he runs.
I think that Rubio is a very bright guy and a charismatic speaker. I'd be surprised if he's not on the ticket in 2016, assuming he wants to be. Maybe it will be Christie / Rubio 2016?
Mermaid said:
Barack Obama adds Florida to White House victory
US President Barack Obama has won the presidential vote in Florida - widening his electoral victory margin over Republican rival, Mitt Romney.
The vote count in the only state which had not declared a result from Tuesday's election gave Mr Obama 50% to Mr Romney's 49.1%, according to Florida state department figures.
Mr Obama has now won 332 electoral college votes - Mr Romney has 206.
I gave him Florida on Wednesday. US President Barack Obama has won the presidential vote in Florida - widening his electoral victory margin over Republican rival, Mitt Romney.
The vote count in the only state which had not declared a result from Tuesday's election gave Mr Obama 50% to Mr Romney's 49.1%, according to Florida state department figures.
Mr Obama has now won 332 electoral college votes - Mr Romney has 206.
So it's official. Of the 12 states that were in play Obama won 11 of them. That's what is known as a landslide. Nicely played Mr President.
martin84 said:
Why are Romney fans arguing over the popular vote? It's your country which decides to elect your leader based on arbitrary numbers by combining the House seats with Senate seats and dividing that number by 50 dependant on population. It's not like you didn't know it'd essentially boil down to the 12 states which actually decide the President rather than all 50. The Republicans knew this before Romney was selected. Romney knew this before he selected his VP.
Because they are desperate to find some small straw to grasp to try and hide the fact that this was a humiliating defeat. I repeat what everyone knows. The election was about 12 states and the 2 candidates campaigned and spent money exclusively in those 12 states. Obama won 11 of them. This is a thrashing, a landslide, practically a clean sweep. Romney was humiliated and with him the outdated and unpopular policies of the republican party. Countdown said:
rohrl said:
retrobob said:
Just to have one last laugh at FoxNews the experts that predicted a landslide to Romney are all now back on telling the GOP what they should do to win next time around.
And quite a few are coming to the conclusion that Romney wasn't enough of a knee-jerk right wing ideologue. Incredible stuff.martin84 said:
From what I've heard a lot of Americans don't like the fact their newspapers are so impartial. British papers nail their flag to the mast quite clearly but throughout the election campaign the American papers were all mostly balanced. The broadcast media though had a clear agenda.
Sort of the opposite of the UK. Weird.
Most Americans who buy a paper buy a local paper. The local papers nearly all make endorsements in the run up to an election. My local papers endorsed candidates for governor, senator, congressmen and local politicians including superintendent of schools. I read USA Today most days on my kindle and I find it very balanced, as is my local paper that endorsed republicans and democrats alike. Sort of the opposite of the UK. Weird.
davepoth said:
unrepentant said:
Most Americans who buy a paper buy a local paper. The local papers nearly all make endorsements in the run up to an election. My local papers endorsed candidates for governor, senator, congressmen and local politicians including superintendent of schools. I read USA Today most days on my kindle and I find it very balanced, as is my local paper that endorsed republicans and democrats alike.
They make endorsements, but generally the reporting in the papers is much more balanced than on TV. Pop over to the Washington Post and see how much of an effort they make to have Republican contributors despite their home market being 90% Democrat.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff