U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-09-2012, 03:15 PM
 
4,647 posts, read 2,720,593 times
Reputation: 1090

Advertisements

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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-09-2012, 03:17 PM
 
9,905 posts, read 12,980,778 times
Reputation: 5464
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 03:20 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
1,290 posts, read 1,702,464 times
Reputation: 806
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 03:21 PM
 
Location: Southern California
15,088 posts, read 16,938,924 times
Reputation: 10273
It was close. It was practically an even split, I think.

[if the vote was one week earlier or later it could easily have been Romney's]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 03:27 PM
YAZ
 
Location: Phoenix,AZ
7,067 posts, read 11,443,347 times
Reputation: 6281
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIKEETC View Post
It was close. It was practically an even split, I think.

[if the vote was one week earlier or later it could easily have been Romney's]
Not even close with the electoral college.

Romney still could've pulled it off with a majority vote (popular), but Obama would've taken it with Ohio and Florida.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 03:29 PM
YAZ
 
Location: Phoenix,AZ
7,067 posts, read 11,443,347 times
Reputation: 6281
Quote:
Originally Posted by dman72 View Post
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.
It was BS.

John Kerry?


You didn't want that guy as president.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 03:29 PM
 
4,647 posts, read 2,720,593 times
Reputation: 1090
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIKEETC View Post
It was close. It was practically an even split, I think.

[if the vote was one week earlier or later it could easily have been Romney's]
Do you also admit that the 2004 race was close?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 03:30 PM
YAZ
 
Location: Phoenix,AZ
7,067 posts, read 11,443,347 times
Reputation: 6281
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmjv View Post
Do you also admit that the 2004 race was close?
You didn't want that guy as president, trust me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 03:30 PM
 
Location: Southern California
15,088 posts, read 16,938,924 times
Reputation: 10273
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragontales View Post
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.

[and I'm not a Bush fan]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 03:32 PM
 
Location: Southern California
15,088 posts, read 16,938,924 times
Reputation: 10273
Quote:
Originally Posted by YAZ View Post
Not even close with the electoral college.

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]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top