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.
Extremely close my ass. First of all he won by three million votes. It was a landslide, and I'm using the definition of landslide as it was set by all those rightwingers who were predicting a Romney landslide. Google Romney Landslide Predictions and check out the numbers these people were ready to call a landslide if Romney was the winner. Dick Morris was predicting Romney would win in a "landslide" of 320 electoral votes. Most of the landslide predictions were around 320 electoral votes although Newt Gingrich was predicting a Romney "landslide" of 300 electoral votes. Seriously, If Romney had won by 32 electoral votes he'd be calling it a landslide.
Remember that "landslide" of 2004 where Bush just trounced Kerry and it wasn't even close? You do? Well I don't because I'm not a stupid con. there was no landslide in 2004. The race in 2004 was way closer than the one we just had.
Bush won by 3 million votes in 2004. Obama won by three million votes in 2012
In the popular vote Bush got 50.7% to Kerry's 48.3% while in 2012 Obama got 50.5% to Romney's 48%. Not a big difference there. The big difference comes with the electoral votes. (You remember them right? The only votes that count? Or did that only apply to the 2000 election) Bush got 286 electoral votes in his 2004 "landslide" that's 46 less then the 332 Obama got in his 2012 "exremely close" race. In fact both of Obama's wins have been larger than both of Bush's wins but that's not really saying much when you consider that, other then his 2000 race where he only got 271 electoral votes you have to go back to 1916 to find a race where the winner got less then 286 electoral votes. Wilson got 277 in 1916 and there were 7 less to get back then too.
The popular vote proves that this election was at least as much a "mandate" (as Bush described it then) for Obama as 2004 was for Bush. The same clowns calling this one close were calling 2004 a landslide. Such BS.
Their new talking point now is if it wasn't for the darn hurricane Mitt would have won easily. The hurricane stopped his momentum. The disaster "forced" Obama to work as a leader in helping the victims.
The popular vote proves that this election was at least as much a "mandate" (as Bush described it then) for Obama as 2004 was for Bush. The same clowns calling this one close were calling 2004 a landslide. Such BS.
Their new talking point now is if it wasn't for the darn hurricane Mitt would have won easily. The hurricane stopped his momentum. The disaster "forced" Obama to work as a leader in helping the victims.
I generally agree with this. The hurricane gave Obama one last opportunity to be seen doing something presidential without the sideshow of campaigning for the job. In the meantime, Romney had to stand down (or look like an axx for campaigning at a time of an emergency) and he essentially disappeared for a week.
If you don't agree, think about another event that had people rallying around the sitting president which certainly gave him a popularity boost - Bush and 9/11. I thought he did a great job (doing what presidents need to do) in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
Romney still could've pulled it off with a majority vote (popular), but Obama would've taken it with Ohio and Florida.
I was thinking of the popular vote.
[you're right - not close in the electoral college]
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.