VABills Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 You people keep telling yourselves the overwhelming majority of Americans were brainwashed and didn't just reject your party, its ideas and its values, if it will make you feel better. But you don't lose seats at every single level of government in almost every state in the union because the media brainwashed the masses. Keep telling yourselves that you aren't out on some extreme end and that the country will wake up in a couple years and put your party and it's abrasive views back in power. 365-173, President Barack Obama. Hey, you can always come to the PPP and get a virtual high-five from the handful of people still clinging to your views. The rest of us, along with pretty much everyone else in the world, are going to celebrate today and get behind President Obama for the next eight years. Way to ignore that he only won the popular vote by 8 million. Way to ignore that he took a huge chunk of minority vote that while always has leaned democrat leaned even more and with higher turnout than previous years. The turnout is a good thing for American politics but don't try to pass off 365-173 as a 2/3 of the people voted for this guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stinky finger Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Do you always call people by their middle name, or only when it serves certain purposes? Is it that he called him by his middle name or is it the middle name that bothers you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Well, we could just call him "H." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Way to ignore that he only won the popular vote by 8 million. Way to ignore that he took a huge chunk of minority vote that while always has leaned democrat leaned even more and with higher turnout than previous years. The turnout is a good thing for American politics but don't try to pass off 365-173 as a 2/3 of the people voted for this guy. It was an electoral college landslide, Sparky, and he won by over 9.5 million votes. You can continue with your "we won the time of possession"-like arguments and rationalizations if that's what gets you to sleep at night, but the rest of America and the world is looking at the scoreboard and it was a landslide. It was also a mandate, something Bush never had. You also conveniently ignore the bloodbath the GOP suffered in the past two elections, losing control of both houses of Congress, multiple state legislatures, and several governorships. I'd say that's a pretty strong rejection of the GOP's ideas. But you've always got your little majority on the PPP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 It was an electoral college landslide, Sparky, and he won by over 9.5 million votes. You can continue with your "we won the time of possession"-like arguments and rationalizations if that's what gets you to sleep at night, but the rest of America and the world is looking at the scoreboard and it was a landslide. It was also a mandate, something Bush never had. You also conveniently ignore the bloodbath the GOP suffered in the past two elections, losing control of both houses of Congress, multiple state legislatures, and several governorships. I'd say that's a pretty strong rejection of the GOP's ideas. But you've always got your little majority on the PPP. Clinton had 43 percent of the popular. Was that a mandate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Clinton had 43 percent of the popular. Was that a mandate? No. Nor did he say or imply Clinton did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Way to ignore that he only won the popular vote by 8 million. Way to ignore that he took a huge chunk of minority vote that while always has leaned democrat leaned even more and with higher turnout than previous years. The turnout is a good thing for American politics but don't try to pass off 365-173 as a 2/3 of the people voted for this guy. Firstly, he won by 9.5 million (7.2%). In 2000 Bush lost the popular vote 544, 000 (.5%) and in 2004 he won it by 3 million (2.4%) I'd say that Obama has a greater mandate than Bush ever even dreamed of-- and said dreams were undoubtedly grandiose. Secondly, WHAT THE F*#K DO MINORITIES HAVE TO DO WITH THIS? Are their votes less important? Or are they just more susceptible to brain washing because they're not white? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 It was an electoral college landslide, Sparky, and he won by over 9.5 million votes. You can continue with your "we won the time of possession"-like arguments and rationalizations if that's what gets you to sleep at night, but the rest of America and the world is looking at the scoreboard and it was a landslide. It was also a mandate, something Bush never had. You also conveniently ignore the bloodbath the GOP suffered in the past two elections, losing control of both houses of Congress, multiple state legislatures, and several governorships. I'd say that's a pretty strong rejection of the GOP's ideas. But you've always got your little majority on the PPP. It was 8.5 Sparky. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/ And the idiots I means dems have had control for 2 election cycles now. yet they continue to do nothing. The mandate to get us out of Iraq never happened because earmarks are better reelection material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Clinton had 43 percent of the popular. Was that a mandate? Tell me, how does what percentage of the vote Clinton received twelve and sixteen years ago have anything to do with this election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 It was 8.5 Sparky. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/ And the idiots I means dems have had control for 2 election cycles now. yet they continue to do nothing. The mandate to get us out of Iraq never happened because earmarks are better reelection material. No wonder your party continues its slide. It was 9.5 million. The CNN numbers aren't generated from the state-by-state final vote tallies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Tell me, how does what percentage of the vote Clinton received twelve and sixteen years ago have anything to do with this election? tell me why what bush did 4 and 8 years ago have to do with this election? And wiki is all fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 tell me why what bush did 4 and 8 years ago have to do with this election? Because Bush is the de-facto head of the GOP party, and has been for the past eight years. The American people could have voted to stick with his failed policies and elect McCain, but they overwhelmingly rejected those policies, for two election cycles now. That's why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Because Bush is the de-facto head of the GOP party, and has been for the past eight years. The American people could have voted to stick with his failed policies and elect McCain, but they overwhelmingly rejected those policies, for two election cycles now. That's why. Bush didn't run. Bush didn't run. Bush didn't run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Bush didn't run. Bush didn't run. Bush didn't run. His regime, his failed policies, his party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 No. Nor did he say or imply Clinton did. Neither did I. Just a question. Is 52 percent a MANDATE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer860 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Because Bush is the de-facto head of the GOP party, and has been for the past eight years. The American people could have voted to stick with his failed policies and elect McCain, but they overwhelmingly rejected those policies, for two election cycles now. That's why. Not really. As in everything in this country it's all about money . Obama agree to accept public financing lied and changed up . Whos know where all his money came from but thats what got him elected .....Money. Policies baloney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Way to ignore that he only won the popular vote by 8 million. Way to ignore that he took a huge chunk of minority vote that while always has leaned democrat leaned even more and with higher turnout than previous years. The turnout is a good thing for American politics but don't try to pass off 365-173 as a 2/3 of the people voted for this guy. Hey, do me a favor, I'd like to see some research on how many more blacks voted for Obama than voted for Gore/Kerry. In any case.. do I really need to say this? At least he actually won the popular vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Hey, do me a favor, I'd like to see some research on how many more blacks voted for Obama than voted for Gore/Kerry. In any case.. do I really need to say this? At least he actually won the popular vote. So did Bush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Hey, do me a favor, I'd like to see some research on how many more blacks voted for Obama than voted for Gore/Kerry. In any case.. do I really need to say this? At least he actually won the popular vote. Blacks were about 13% of the vote this year, about 16 million or so total, compared to 11% in the previous election. Blacks voted about 95% for Obama, but I think it was about 90% for Gore and Kerry. That last one is the only number I am not sure are close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I just heard a guy make a radio call-in and say; "I didn't like it, especially the poem. How can you have a poem that doesn't rhyme? I don't get it." Another child who obviously got left behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts