Obama Victory - Two massive issues in play

So Obama won by a nice electoral vote margin;

This leads to two important matters -

1. How could this happen in a poor economy?


2. Shouldnt every conservative here now hang their head in shame for bashing us libs over the head with the definite prospect of a Mitt Romney victory for months and months? I mean come on, youve been doing this crap for a long time, what do you want from us? Arent you really just crazy stupid people?

 

As west coast numbers come in, the Popular vote has widely swung in Obama's favor as well now.

And as for you getting your justification from your opposing side... it won't happen. Same thing would have been if Romney won... no liberal would have come out and been like... "well... we were wrong..."

 

Most presidents since 1984 experience failure in their second terms. Obama will be no different. Without the House of Representatives his agenda will be largely stymied.

 

What ethical justification is there to "stymie" a man whom the people have re-elected and whose policies they clearly support?

Any politician who does so, should be ejected from office. Politicians are there to represent the people, not themselves.

 

Good luck with that. politicians are bought and paid for... the people who vote for them are only a means to and end. When you're only choices are Candidate A backed by Companies A, B, and C... or Candidate B, who's backed by Companies X, Y, and Z... Your vote has no power to change the equation. The only way to change it is to bring about new law governing lobbying... And Who do you suppose gets to write and vote on these laws?

 

Whatever that means... US political system is different, but not so different a politician can afford to ignore the wishes of the electorate.

Whoever pays, the people have the vote. The vote put Obama back into power.

Some "Companies" might have preferred a Republican, but Obama is for the people and he is in power. Again. The Right can't continue to ignore what the people have clearly shown they want. They have no mandate. Obama does.

 

Uhh... have you researched the role of the president? While it's been largely a dramatic show they put on about how they will make law their promises, Their role isn't lawmaker. You elected congress to do that. Obama doesn't have a "mandate" and congress has to follow him.

And the us political system isn't different. Why do you think no 3rd candidate has any real shot at winning? Because they aren't backed by all these companies who can fund their election wars. If you are faced with two candidates who will obviously not have their constituents as their primary focus, you don't get an imaginary choice that doesn't exist... You only get to pick one. They only need to put on a good show, not actually work for the people who elected them.

 

It's not the economy, stupid!

 

Congratulations Obama!

This victory should shut the rabid wingnuts up for a while, as they eat their own words and lick their tails... lololololololol

 

Interesting comments, does anyone think the cons on this forum have the balls to come back to us and explain how they could brag about coming victory for so long?

Do these people realise that if theyre so wrong about this theyre likely wrong about so much else?

 

to be fair just about any 1 who makes a candidate x will undoubtedly win thread is crazy and or stupid even if they happen to guess right

 

Nobody can "predict" who is going to win.

I voted for Ron Paul in the primary. Romney was my last choice of the serious contenders. I voted for him, thought he had a decent shot to win. The popular vote was close.

It is going to be hard for the GOP to win when this many people are relying on the government for a hand out. An entitlement culture has been created here.

 

Rightwingers are bad losers.
Expect 4 more years of thread after thread about Obama's birth certificate, and about trivia such as Michelle's shoes only sore losers cling on to.

 

Nah, I think it's more that the GOP obviously has no chance with Leftists, but they've also gone so far towards the Authoritarian Right that they've Alienated the Libertarian Centrists.

 

So I've been observing this from Australia.

Maybe it's a cultural difference between Australia and the US, but maybe running on a platform of pro rape wasn't a good choice?

 

I don't consider myself a centrist. Technically conservatism is far right, as is libertarianism. The authoritarian right is farther to the left, because they indeed want bigger government

 

Nobody ran on a platform of "pro rape". One moron said that... who wasn't even involved with the election. Of course the liberal media blew it our of proportion. Romney didn't mind abortions in the case of rape, incest, or mother in danger.

The liberals are good at getting the minuscule social issues and getting people to vote on those... rather than economic values that are way more important.

Romney was never going to outlaw abortion, nor would any republican. If that were the case it would have been done under one of the republicans we have had since the Roe v. Wade case... and there has been quite a few.

 

You do realize that your bating average on prediction is not exactly stellar, don't you?

 

I expanded on this in another thread. Authoritarian and Libertarian are neither left nor right, they are up and down.

Authoritarian Liberal: Sees Big brother as the solution. Condemns the Libertarian for their views on liberty impose on the Gov's ability to maintain order effectively.
Authoritarian Conservative: Sees Big business as the solution. Condemns the Libertarian for their views on liberty impose on Business Ability to maintain control on access to their product.
Libertarian Liberal: Sees Gov as a means to enrich the lives of the less fortunate. Condemns the Authoritarian for wanting to Impose on Liberties.
Libertarian Conservative: Sees Business as a means to enrich the lives of the less fortunate (Believes in NPOs like nobody else). Condemns the Authoritarian for wanting to Impose on Liberties.

 

IMO, that is the problem/failure of long running democracies. Democracy only works in a "new democracy". Power and apathy takes over after that.

 

Left and right doesn't even mean capitalist and socialist like so many people think it does.

 

Wrong. . . Mourdoch was running. . . And he lost!

 

Ahh but Roe v Wade can only be overturned by the Supreme court. And a Justice has to step down before another can be appointed. It's not like a Republican can come in and just say they want to change the interpretation of the law. Even if a law was passed, Any court could overrule it based on Roe v Wade, because it was ruled unconstitutional.

 

It is not the hand out, silly, it's the extremist nature of the tea party who, in their arrogance have swallowed all the validity and common sense of the REAL Republican party!

 

I would actually argue to the contrary when it comes to the second term for presidents. What I've seen is that first term presidents are so focused on "their agenda" that they fail to understand that they are the president of the entire nation and not just of their political supporters. From Reagan, to Clinton to even Bush II their second terms were better than their first.

It is true that the Republican controlled House and Senate Republicans can continue to divide the Congress to prevent any movement forward but they lack the reasons that they previously had. It's no longer about defeating Obama in the next election so perhaps they will work with the president during the next four years. The immigration laws can be fixed, the deficit can be dramatically reduced by increases in tax rates for the wealthy plus reducing excessive expendatures such as the DOD budget. Common sense solutions that both Republicans and Democrats both support can be implemented if the Republicans in Congress are willing to compromise for the benefit of the nation.