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 11-13-2012, 04:59 AM
 
33,159 posts, read 39,134,921 times
Reputation: 28521

Advertisements

Obama won by supressing the vote.

No Obama won because the only other option was a bunch of RWNJ's
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-13-2012, 05:02 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,712 posts, read 11,022,659 times
Reputation: 5600
Let me understand the gist of this thread, Obama's negative ads against Romney is considered "voter suppression?" Voter suppression is when one prevents voters from voting. Nobody who saw those ads were prevented from voting.

This is just the loony right-wing's sour grapes. They lost fair and square.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 05:02 AM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,794 posts, read 13,594,333 times
Reputation: 7921
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
I see the Cons are on a tin-foil hat parade this week on CD.
I see you don't have an argument either, just spewing name calling. I haven't seen any alternate explanations for the drop in vote totals. Obama got 7 million less votes, and Romney got less votes than McCain, despite the fact that R's were considerably more enthused about Romney than McCain.

But Pres. Obama found the one path to victory: supress the conservative leaning indy/swing voters, the kind who "vote the person, not the party." How else do we explain the 85% negative ad number mentioned by Medved? Why did Mr. 'Audacity of Hope' turn so negative this time around?

Medved's theory fits together quite well. It was a smart strategy by Team Obama, and it worked. Congrats. Any alternate theories out there? Or just semantics & name-calling.....?????
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 05:06 AM
 
Location: Columbia, SC
16,433 posts, read 9,288,071 times
Reputation: 6174
I would think that the republican's time would be more productively spent doing some soul searching to figure out why they don't appeal to a majority of Americans rather than looking for a scapegoat.

If negative campaigning was the deciding factor, the constant Kenyan/Muslim/socialist/communist/liberal/Mussolini/Marx/Hitler/racist/alien/deathsquad/blahblahblah from the RWNJs for four years would have sent President Obama (I LOVE saying that) packing long ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 05:55 AM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,794 posts, read 13,594,333 times
Reputation: 7921
Quote:
Originally Posted by wade52 View Post
Obama suppressing votes?

You and Medved are funny boys.
Still waiting for a coherent argument, an alternate theory to explain a) the depressed voter turnout of 2012; b)the 85% negative ad rate from Team Hope and change. Medved offers an explanation that fits. The only response from the left so far is a) namecalling; b)semantics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 06:13 AM
 
Location: USA - midwest
5,945 posts, read 4,716,594 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
Still waiting for a coherent argument, an alternate theory to explain a) the depressed voter turnout of 2012; b)the 85% negative ad rate from Team Hope and change. Medved offers an explanation that fits.
It fits the desperate loony right wing longing for some explanation (however crazy) other than "we lost and our agenda was soundly rejected."


Quote:
The only response from the left so far is a) namecalling; b)semantics.
Neener.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 06:23 AM
 
4,414 posts, read 3,224,792 times
Reputation: 2319
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
Supression fits just fine here; look it up:
Suppress - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary



There may be other words that are better, but obviously Medved used this word to play off the common Dem meme about vote suppression. Anyway, I suspect these posts are a typical effort to derail into a debate over semantics. This seems to be a common tactic from the left when they can't face the reality of an issue.
No, negative does not mean the same as suppressed. This is whining, pure and simple. One wishes there didn't have to be negative campaigning, but in the face of "Muslim/Kenyan/socialist/bail-out/... what other options are left when there's no discussion of actual ideas and policies.

Seriously, the bootstrap pulling, party of personal responsibility needs to man-up and figure out why they found themselves in this positions again.

Also, that's not what a meme is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 06:31 AM
 
Location: Columbia, SC
16,433 posts, read 9,288,071 times
Reputation: 6174
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
Still waiting for a coherent argument, an alternate theory to explain a) the depressed voter turnout of 2012; b)the 85% negative ad rate from Team Hope and change. Medved offers an explanation that fits. The only response from the left so far is a) namecalling; b)semantics.
Real simple. In the South (I know for a fact) a lot of people stayed home because they couldn't hold their noses tightly enough to vote for a heathen (Romney) or a ni**er (Obama).

You get a better candidate, you get a better turnout. Obviously from the election results, President Obama was the better candidate and created more interest, therefore more turnout.

As far as the negative ad rate, the last four years have been one long negative ad by the republicans against the Kenyan/Muslim/Socialist, ad nauseum. Sweep around your own door.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 06:33 AM
 
14,253 posts, read 14,752,548 times
Reputation: 13616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Mon View Post
No, negative does not mean the same as suppressed. This is whining, pure and simple. One wishes there didn't have to be negative campaigning, but in the face of "Muslim/Kenyan/socialist/bail-out/... what other options are left when there's no discussion of actual ideas and policies.

Seriously, the bootstrap pulling, party of personal responsibility needs to man-up and figure out why they found themselves in this positions again.

Also, that's not what a meme is.
Yep ... the whining is nauseating.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 06:51 AM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,794 posts, read 13,594,333 times
Reputation: 7921
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Mon View Post
No, negative does not mean the same as suppressed. This is whining, pure and simple....Also, that's not what a meme is.
Nowhere did I say that negative means the same as suppressed. If you disagree with this use of the word 'suppressed,' take it up with Merriam Webster. I already posted the relevant definition from them.

And if you're going to claim I misused "meme," at least offer a brief reason. Really, I'm surprised by the lameness of the responses to the thread.
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