I've seen a landslide. This was no such thing. If you want to know what a genuine landslide looks like, have a look at the 1984 electoral map & popular vote. Neither side has a mandate for their policy positions here. It ends up looking very much like a maintaining of the status quo. The one thing we can say with certainty is that making statements which alienate large segments of the population is a means to lose an election.
I still don't understand why Republicans think Obama is the worst thing ever but Romney would save this country...Romney is so moderate he may as well be a Democrat, and that's the message he ran on too. He wanted to reach across the isle, and although eh changes his positions all the time, I really believe he would do that, because that's how he was as a governor. You may not like Obama, but don't give me this BS that Romney is sooooo much better. Even Romney wouldn't agree with you.
When will you guys get it through your heads that it doesn't matter how many votes a guy gets as long as he gets the right votes? Do you even know why Obama won and why Romney lost? Do you know how many popular votes it took for Obama to win?
In a Presidential election the candidates have to appeal to enough voters to change their minds and to vote for him. His base voters don't give a rat's behind what he says. They will vote for him regardless. And he doesn't have to get all of the votes, just the right ones. Presidential votes are not equal. Some are worth more than others.
I don't disagree with any of this, but what's your point? It wasn't a landslide. Let's look at the definition of mandate, shall we? "An official order or commission to do something". That something is open to debate. If the idea is that a win by any margin gives the winner a mandate to pursue implementation of their advocated policies, why would that be something to crow about? No, it's clear that in context politicians throw around the word mandate as if it meant they have not just a small margin of popular support, but enjoy broad support for their policies by wide, insurmountable margins. Which is why some people are pretending this was a landslide - to make it seem as if support for Obamas policies is bigger than it really is. Further evidence: Democrats didn't retake the House of Representatives. Clearly the voters think there needs to be a check on presidential power from the other party. If someone wishes to call a slim win with only small gains in the House & Senate a "landslide" and a "mandate", they had best not think those characterizations will go unchallenged.
You stop the bleeding before you try to heal the wound. DUH. Stop the car before it goes off the cliff. DUH How many more friggin examples do I have to give people like you?
It was a landslide by the number of electoral votes Obama won. That makes it a mandate. The fact that just a small number of people bothered to vote is irrelevant. Maybe next time the Repubs won't suppress the vote.
Yeah it was pretty odd how all we heard for months (from both sides) is how high enthusiasm is for the republicans. And all those reports on tuesday of record number of voters, especially in republican precints. Yet oddly, less votes were cast than for McCain. Really is odd, isn't it? You idiots are so stupid though, you seem to think only 1 side can rig an election.
Nonsense. That, or we've really lowered the bar. A landslide used to be something in the neighborhood of 500+ electoral votes, or a spread where the winner won upwards of 55% of the popular vote. 332 electoral votes is not a landslide. 50.4% of the popular vote is not a landslide. A landslide sweeps away or buries the opposition. Reagan over Mondale in 1984 is a landslide. Obama over Romney in 2012 doesn't even come close to being that kind of mandate. And just so we're clear, I'm not a Republican, nor do I consider myself a conservative. Doesn't mean I'm not going to call bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on this "landslide" and "mandate" crapola. Strawman, as I haven't said anything about the percentage of turnout.
Nothing in your post has anything to do with Obama, Romney, America, politics, or anything else that is remotely related to the subject of this thread. Instead of making inanely silly analogies followed by expletives, and stupid, false unwarranted assumptions about my personal character, make a real argument and stay on topic by constructing an articulate, well thought-out post. I find most people in America to be generally open-minded and if one is willing to make an ernest attempt at a civil, intellectual conversation about politics, common ground can be found. Now, I'm going to give you one more chance to respond intelligently to this: Take it or leave it, but if you believe you're right and you want to convince other Americans to do what you think is right, you should take it.
The lower turnout can be largely in part attributed to Sandy and the voter suppression laws. The fact of the matter is when Obama was 1st elected he carried 28 states. This time around? 26 states. The only states you guys got back was Indiana and North Carolina. Obama won with 62 electoral votes to spare. A mandate if I ever saw one.
Ya know, I'm all for personal choice in a lot of things. Drugs, alcohol, sex, rock 'n roll, abortion, missing church on Sunday, whatever. I just have trouble with the prostitution thang because, if prostitution was a personal choice, hookers would be doing it for free. I don't go to work out of choice. I go to work because I gotta pay the bills.
While Romney got fewer votes than McCain he won 2 more States and received more electoral votes. Romney was the perfect candidate for the Repubs. The problem was that Obama was a better candidate for the Dems although he did receive fewer votes this time. Care to take a guess as to how many people actually elected the President?
Then you should say what you mean. Do you know how many people voted for electors to elect Romney? A bit more advice: When an actual argument is presented, I'll address it. But I'm not going to be baited by pointless rhetorical questions. There is no point in trying to persuade those who will not be persuaded. Those who choose to think this was a "landslide" and a "mandate" reveal their worthless partisanship. There's really nothing more to say.
The point I'm making is that only 38,660,173 Dem votes actually mattered in this election. It was those people who elected Obama by giving him control 0f 303 electoral votes. Romney could have received every vote in the States he carried and he would have still lost the election. From a practical matter Obama didn't even have to be on those ballots in the States Romney carried. He still would have won the election. Romney lost because he was the perfect candidate for the Repubs. But Obama won because he was a better candidate for the Dems. The Repub message simply doesn't appeal to the Dems. There's not enough Repubs in the Blue States for them to carry those States. The Dems don't have to win any Southern or Plains State. They have to maintain a majority in their Blue States and they will continue to win every Presidential election for the foreseeable future. As long as the Dems carry California they should continue to win.
