[Parallax]

Both arguments are unsupported and pretty much speculation, the difference being I don't think I'd float either of them as any kind of opinion worth sharing.

There is only one valid argument. It's the one that says that the majority of voters who cared enough about the outcome of the election to actually vote wanted Mr. Obama to continue as President. EVERYTHING else is faeries dancing on the heads of pins.

---

Last edited by Parallax; 11-14-2012 at 01:28 PM.

[normhead]

There is only one valid argument. It's the one that says that the majority of voters who cared enough about the outcome of the election to vote wanted Mr. Obama to continue as President. EVERYTHING else is faeries dancing on the heads of pins.

ANd I have to say, I had to swallow the same crow after Bush was elected. I couldn't believe it, but I also realized there was no use crying about it, or trying to rationalize it. At some point you have to realize... this politics is a front for government. In Canada we actually make it a point to appoint Cabinet minsters to portfolios they know nothing about. You don't want someone with any kind of expertise gumming up the works now do you? I once asked my father why he didn't get involved in politics. His response " I have more voice as an outside consultant." He worked for both Liberal and Conservatives doing studies that led to real legislative changes. You're chance of actually doing that as an elected representative are very small.

[Parallax]

In Canada we actually make it a point to appoint Cabinet minsters to portfolios they know nothing about. You don't want someone with any kind of expertise gumming up the works now do you?

That is why I have long advocated not voting for any candidate who has served 2 terms or more.

[JohnInIndy]

Ya and if the other guy had won....Obama supporters would be saying the same thing... does it ever occur to you how partisan you are? One could offer the opinion that the Democrats got out to vote because they were more committed to obama's ideals than Republicans were to Romney's, that there was a totally different depth of belief in Obama's supporters than there was in the country club set who support Romney. Both arguments are unsupported and pretty much speculation, the difference being I don't think I'd float either of them as any kind of opinion worth sharing. I get so tired of the Republican mouth pieces standing up saying "the American people want this, or the AMerican people want that". The American people just voted for Obama, so you're all wrong. None of you knows what the "american people" want or you would have won the Presidency. It's extremely arrogant and complete;y disrespectful to the voting public to assume that you know why Obama won the vote. That it was because he was better at getting the vote out. That's just spin. ANd to put yourself in the position to speak for American voters and interpret that decision... who gave you that job?

I didn't say I was speaking for anyone. I was speaking for myself. Thought that would be obvious since you also speak only for yourself. That's the only person you are ever truly qualified to speak for. I however am qualified to speak for you. It's most assuredly NOT my job however it is my opinion of the things I have seen, heard and experienced. Pretty much the same as your wrong opinions.

By the way, looking at the numbers of voters sure it's spin. But conclusions can be drawn from the numbers and exit polling.

As Parallax said above. His reelection means that the majority of those (slim majority pop. vote) wanted him back. It may or may not be the majority of those eligible to vote however.

---

Last edited by JohnInIndy; 11-14-2012 at 02:40 PM.

[normhead]

I didn't say I was speaking for anyone. I was speaking for myself. Thought that would be obvious since you also speak only for yourself. That's the only person you are ever truly qualified to speak for. It's most assuredly NOT my job however it is my opinion of the things I have seen, heard and experienced. Pretty much the same as your wrong opinions.

Obama was more successful than Romney and getting out the voters. Romney failed to get Republicans out. He lost his base and when you lose the base you lost the election.

It looks to me like you're speaking for a whole pile of people, like everyone who voted.

Now if you'd said "Romney didn't get me out" you would have been speaking for yourself. But you didn't, you said "Romney didn't get Republicans out." So you were speaking for a whole pile of Republicans who you claim didn't vote, and also claimed you know why they didn't vote.

You starting to get the hang of this?

[ihasa]

Look at the voting statistics .

The actual issues didn't matter as much in this election. Obama was more successful than Romney and getting out the voters. Romney failed to get Republicans out. He lost his base and when you lose the base you lost the election. Most of the base thought him to be Liberal Lite, some thought Obama Lite.

What about the voters who would actually have preferred the 'liberal-lite' Romney, and were put off by his right-wing posturing? I don't think 'the base' I think you are referring to was the problem; I think they would have voted for a sack of potatoes, so long as it meant ousting Obama out of office.

[wildman]

"What have the Republicans learned?"...

...that the majority of voters took the advice of the right and voted in their own narrow self interest and they perceived that their self interest is better served by the policies of the left than the right?

I suppose that's too obvious and simple.

[jeffkrol]

"What have the Republicans learned?"...

...that the majority of voters took the advice of the right and voted in their own narrow self interest and they perceived that their self interest is better served by the policies of the left than the right?

I suppose that's too obvious and simple.

The fact that MOST people do consider self interest as important.... and actually the right has been trying to encourage voters to vote against their self interest (shared sacrifice meme, which they hypocritically removed the "job creators" from) which didn't go over very well..............


Interesting take.. BUT it denies the fact (o a personal level "Obamacare may cost me more) that MANY liberals actually empathize w/ "others" and vote accordingly..What is good for the many is good for the few.. I still can't understand how creating a "Medicare for all" system and freeing corporations and individuals from an odious financial, physical. and psychological burden can't sell.......on both sides.

Of course there is the "vote for the least harmful" to the economy.. if it helps in the broad picture.. so there is always a "self interest" component..


The far left (who consider Obama a shade shy of a Republican) didn't for their total self interest... only self survival.. and a hopefully more "pliable" candidate..

time will tell


From Romney's remarks on "gifts" ... the choice WAS correct......... it's not the gifts but the attitude.......

[audiobomber]

Interesting take.. BUT it denies the fact (o a personal level "Obamacare may cost me more) that MANY liberals actually empathize w/ "others" and vote accordingly..What is good for the many is good for the few.. I still can't understand how creating a "Medicare for all" system and freeing corporations and individuals from an odious financial, physical. and psychological burden can't sell.......on both sides.

Right! A government should concern itself with the well-being of all citizens. That includes the disadvantaged, downtrodden, poor, marginalized, illiterate, sick, hopeless, homeless, drug-dependent, mentally ill and everyone else. This is for society's own good, because desperate people are not productive and some will turn to violence and crime.

Internationally, "have vs. have not" is the source of most conflict. That's what many Americans fail to grasp. "Health Care? I've got mine, screw you!" is not a reasonable philosophy. Why do Americans think all the other first world countries embrace universal health care and other social programs? It's for the benefit of individuals and society. What's the point of being rich if you're murdered by a criminal or killed in a car crash by an alcoholic?

Republican philosophies are so misguided. A country is healthy or sick based on its entire populace. Having the wealthiest people along with the highest murder and incarceration rates, exclusive health care access, education based on means, etc are why the UN never rates the USA as the best country in the world. American pride (We're #1) is a barrier to improvement.

[audiobomber]

Interesting take on the election from a Canadian perspective we rarely hear
The Blind Leading The Complacently Unemployed Blind - Ezra Levant

There are conservatives in Canada, and Sun News, owned by Rupert Murdoch, is where you will find them. This guy's rant made me nauseous. Every man for himself is no way to run a government.

[boriscleto]

Republican philosophies are so misguided. A country is healthy or sick based on its entire populace. Having the wealthiest people along with the highest murder and incarceration rates, exclusive health care access, education based on means, etc are why the UN never rates the US as the best country in the world. American pride (We're #1) is a barrier to improvement.

Yeah, but we have the bomb!

John Wayne's not dead - he's frozen! And when we find a cure for cancer, we're gonna thaw out the Duke and he's gonna be pretty pissed off. You know why? You ever taken a cold shower? Well, multiply that by 15 million times. That's how pissed off the Duke's gonna be.

I'm gonna get the Duke and John Cassavetes and Lee Marvin (Hey) and Sam Peckinpah (Hey) and a case of whisky (Hey) and drive down to Texas… (Hey, Hey, Hey)

(Hey you know you really are an a**hole)

[jeffkrol]

"What have the Republicans learned?"...

...that the majority of voters took the advice of the right and voted in their own narrow self interest and they perceived that their self interest is better served by the policies of the left than the right?

I suppose that's too obvious and simple.

Actually lets put a face on the "perceived" differences using coffee...

A liberal .. who wants a cup of coffee brews a pot.. leaves pot for others..
A conservative brews pot.. says he "built it" and takes it into his office..




It is that simple...

You can argue all day on who gets the beans.. who opened the borders to allow them who grew them ect.. and all the "systems" in place to bring the infrastructure to the pot...

[Nesster]

I'd say that those who divide us up into 'givers' or 'makers' vs 'takers' should start taking the givng and making more seriously, rather than bitching about the takers. The argument seems to be, I'm with the givers, but damnit, I don't actually want to give.

Also, I'm a net giver, been so my whole life, but I don't see my interests as parallel to the big shots and ultra wealthy, the owners. Why should I, as I'm part of their labor cost, and know very well that the minute the owners figure out how to get rid of me they will. And then I'll be a net taker.

I would think that a majority of small business owners' interests are not parallel to the big business owners'. (Who does the US Chamber of Commerce actually represent?)

Especially when big business has adopted such a short term outlook on everything, and sacrifices quality and service again and again for spreadsheet ratios.

I do not believe that the nearsighted wishes of big business are the best or only possible constituent to the government. Therefore, I don't buy into the maker/taker duality.

[Nesster]

and while I'm bitching... Another thing: the xenophobic social darwinism and big business toadying is bad enough... but I think most Americans see the hypocricy in the party.

So the financial crisis is actually the fault of (democrat) government and politicians, because the government "distorted" the market. But what's left out is WHY did the government distort the markets? Because some right wing think tank came up with the political slogans that made what big business wanted politically feasible. Greater home ownership is a good thing for society, encouraging independence and self reliance? The new derivatives markets need to be free of regulation and transparency because all participants are 'sophisticated' and regulation would merely subvert the efficency of markets?

So they get govt to do their bidding. All is hunky dory till things go bad, then it is government's fault, and the remedy is... less government oversight. So the original cause is also the solution, because this time it is different?

It is like saying the devastation by Sandy is government's fault for zoning these areas etc etc. And it is government's fault if things aren't repaired immediately. But why does government zone the way it does, and why are many emergency responses hampered? Because we need less government to begin with. And don't give me the bs about utilities being corporate crony capitalism, as businesses without government telling them to prepare for disaster sure as hell end up cutting all preparedness to be bone, in order to maximize quarterly profit.

[GeneV]

Actually lets put a face on the "perceived" differences using coffee...

A liberal .. who wants a cup of coffee brews a pot.. leaves pot for others..
A conservative brews pot.. says he "built it" and takes it into his office..




It is that simple... .

Now wait a minute. I make espresso every morning. That means I am only making enough for me, so I am a Republican? But espresso is used to make latte, and only liberals drink lattes......