Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There was a much greater youth turnout than was expected. That is how Obama won. Had there have been the expected turnout Romney likely would have had this.
Most people were predicting the youth to turn out in less numbers this cycle. Obama hadn't delivered the hope and change they were so hyped about four years ago and many are still living with their parents, unable to get their careers off the ground in this economy. Instead they turned out in greater numbers largely because of Obama's endorsement of gay marriage back in May and to keep Romney, who they perceived as a religious wacko, out of office.
Yes.
We've already established that 'most people' (ie, you and a some others who just didn't get it) decided that, rather than look at the best actual evidence we have for how the youth vote turns out when Barack Obama runs for President, (ie, the 2008 election) instead you would make assumptions to the contrary and go by hunches that, by golly, just happen to jibe with the way you wanted things to turn out.
We've established how and why you blew it.
And yet, here you are, defending those bad assumptions. Defending the fact that you went by hunches rather than look at the evidence. Insisting that those foolish assumptions and irrelevant hunches were, indeed, reasonable.
So it seems to me you are not nearly as interested in learning something from your recently-manifested ignorance as in excusing it. By perpetuating it.
You blew it.
And you lost.
I'd advise you to try taking some responsibility for that, but I am of the mind that if you guys want to learn nothing, and proceed to both another election in the future, I'll be pretty happy with that eventuality.
We've already established that 'most people' (ie, you and a some others who just didn't get it) decided that, rather than look at the best actual evidence we have for how the youth vote turns out when Barack Obama runs for President, (ie, the 2008 election) instead you would make assumptions to the contrary and go by hunches that, by golly, just happen to jibe with the way you wanted things to turn out.
We've established how and why you blew it.
And yet, here you are, defending those bad assumptions. Defending the fact that you went by hunches rather than look at the evidence. Insisting that those foolish assumptions and irrelevant hunches were, indeed, reasonable.
So it seems to me you are not nearly as interested in learning something from your recently-manifested ignorance as in excusing it. By perpetuating it.
FLASH: Dewey Beats Truman! You readit here first folks.
So not only are you wasting time on a messageboard (which admittedly we all are sadly guilty of) but you are piling on your timewaste by posting on what should be expired threads.
I can't believe I just wasted my time addressing your timewaste.
So not only are you wasting time on a messageboard (which admittedly we all are sadly guilty of) but you are piling on your timewaste by posting on what should be expired threads.
I can't believe I just wasted my time addressing your timewaste.
sour grapes
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
