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.
The margin was small though which is very, very scary!
It wasn't really. The election was actually over quite quickly considering the unemployment rate and how much of the electorate is always red or blue regardless of who the candidates are. In the end I think he's had 3m more votes than Romney and it was a landslide in the electoral college.
People who favored Obama really don't understand what this country needs as a leader. For some reason we ended up electing (twice) a guy who wasn't raised in America, who believes in redistribution of money, who has never achieved anything of note and spent a career voting present in the Illinois legistature and later in the senate. Obamacare is not the new NHS-it doesn't make doctors or build hospitals or clinics. He's disastrous on energy policy, especially with regards to the Keystone pipeline and the NPR-A petroleum reserve in Alaska.
I wasn't too hot on Mitt when he was first presented but as I learned more I realized that we had an opportunity to elect an accomplished, generous and good hearted man who gives freely of his time, talent and cash to charity. Apparently the American electorate chose the guy who they think will dig into the pockets of the "rich" and give it to them, not realizing that a government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have. I feel a bit sorry for those who gave up everything to come here for the American dream as they are going to get shortchanged. That dream of opportunity just got traded for an obamaphone.
Slightly dubious record with regards to elections and 'close' counts in that neck of the woods... or so it seems to me anyway.
You asked the question ... Do you not think it might be worth waiting for an answer before you make a judgement?
Problem No 1: The number of days allowed for 'early' elections was reduced - although the number of opening hours was increased slightly. (they may need to re-think that.)
Problem No 2. The election wasn't just a vote for who would be prezz. There were votes for Senators, congressmen, Sherrifs, Tax Collectors, School Board Supervisors (I'm not sure why there should be a political conflict for Sheriff ... do Democrats and Republicans have different laws? If there'S a Democrat tax collector (not a tax setter) does he set a higher rate for Republicans? - I don't know, but Americans do like ot elect their Civil Servants.
Problem No 3. (And this is where it gets really silly ...and the root cause of the delay.) Th Florida Ballot included 11 'Constitutional' changes. (Tax law changes.)
Apparently, the last time the State of Florida put tax law changes into a ballot, somebody complained that the ballot didn't include enough detail about the changes and the Florida Supreme Court upheld the complaint.
So this time, each of the 11 law changes was detailed (I won't use the word 'explained' - the 'explanation was in legally- comprehensible terms. The average voter doesn't speak 'legalese' but that's what the Supreme Court wanted ... and that's what they got.
It was estimated (probably a very conservative estimate) that to read and understand the ballot form would take 20 minutes. Every voter did have access to the form earlier, but there was no requirement to access and read it. Many didn't bother.
So they went into the voting room (having queued) got their ballot, sat down for 20-30 minutes while they read it and the rest of the world queued behind them.
And that's why it took so long. (We went to our local precinct at midday (but remember, most of the voters couldn't go until after work) walked straight in, got the form (having read it beforehand ... like what they said we could do... and were out 10 minutes later.)
Every voter could have read the form first, worked out who he or she was going to vote for, walked in ready to vote and been out within a few minutes.
It would (I understand) be 'unconstitutional' (Or would that be unconscionable?) to expect people to think.
There was no problem with the Florida 'system' - but the Florida people were another matter. I was amazed that we had our own voting 'precinct' - for about 1500 people. Most of us are retired and knew that we were supposed to know what we were doing before we got there, so the precinct had done its job by lunchtime.
The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity and hydrogen is lighter than stupidity.
Given that working voters often can't go to the polls until after work and given that they don't bother to read the ballots earlier. perhaps there should be some changes.
I agree. Romney put up a good fight and it was worryingly close for a time. What an achievement though for Obama.
What, exactly, did Obama achieve? What was your 'worry' - That a man with holey underpants might end up in the White House? It wasn't a competition to elect the 'best man for the job' it wa sa competition to 'stop the bogeyman from getting in' and Obama's team did a better job of persuading the people that Romney was the bogeyman than did Romney's team.
Neither of them managed to portray himself as 'the leader which America needs to take us into the future'
On Tuesday morning:
the Senate had a Democrat majority.
The House of Representatives had a Republican majority.
Obama was President.
On Wednesday morning:
the Senate had a Democrat majority.
The House of Representatives had a Republican majority.
Obama was President
And the people who ran the election campaigns were 6 Billion dollars richer.
Who achieved what? (Apart from the people who ran the campaigns.)
Obama didn't get a massive mandate for change - and he's stuck with a Congress which hasn't altered much since the last time he wasn't prepared to compromise.
I respectfully remind you that the US system is not like that in the UK. Obama's party are the minority in the house of representatives (so the people obviously don't want them to have control)
4½ years ago Obama made a load of promises - most of which he didn't manage to keep. If - in 3½ years time he's getting there. people are going to say 'What took you so bloody long?' If he can't do it (and he couldn't during the last 4 years [and he started out with everybody on his side] the Dems are in a hole.
The best he can do is 'break even'.
We don't know what Romney would've done (he's not got a track record as a President.)
Obama does have such a track record and he didn't do what he said he was going to do.
I've heard some Brits say 'Obama will be a better President for us'.
Really? Romney doesn't appear to hold the Brits in very high esteem (I'm sure you've read the Telegraph article earlier this year) but Obama hates the Brits. They tortured his grandfather (so he says) when his father was in the Mau Mau.
"The race to the US presidency was a close one and nobody really expected a sweep for President Barack Obama in a situation where the country still has to be pulled back from the worst recession it has faced since the Great Depression, along with high unemployment. Under such circumstances, President Obama’s victory, making him only the second Democrat since World War II to gain a place in office twice, marks a remarkable achievement. His policies at home, with greater benefits for the poor and middle class, clearly struck a chord with the American people, with 39 per cent of them saying that the economy had improved under him."
Obama didn't 'sweep' anything. He got just over 50% of the popular vote. (The Americans have this odd 'electoral college' system [a bit like the EU system where one Luxemburgo's vote is worth that of 15 Spaniards] and they have to live with that, but the Trib's article is clearly biased.
39% of Americans rewckon Obama is doing a good job. So what about the other 61%?
Quote:
I heard yesterday that Obama has invited Romney to get together to discuss ideas to help move the economy forward. I hope Romney takes him up on it. While I could never agree on Romneys views on tax or healthcare, there's no denying his financial track record. These two could be a force to be reckoned with if they put their heads together.
How would that happen? It's not as if Obama is a Prime Minister and Romney is the leader of the opposition!
Obama heads an Administration. He has to get his policies (and one of those is the budget - which he has failed to settle for some years now) through the house of Representatives, then the Senate.
Do you really think he wants (or expects) Romney to do his work for him?
The US is in deep 'doo-doo' and I certainly won't be cashing in my pension during the next 4 years.
I can just about afford to do that.
Many British pension funds are heavily vested in the US.
Remind me again, how happy was the stockmarket to hear that Oh, Bummer! was still in a job?
It wasn't really. The election was actually over quite quickly considering the unemployment rate and how much of the electorate is always red or blue regardless of who the candidates are. In the end I think he's had 3m more votes than Romney and it was a landslide in the electoral college.
I was thinking along the lines of a few million votes difference, meaning that so many millions of people actually voted for Romney. That is what is scary! Same for 2008 and the repug candidates.
People who favored Obama really don't understand what this country needs as a leader. For some reason we ended up electing (twice) a guy who wasn't raised in America, who believes in redistribution of money, who has never achieved anything of note and spent a career voting present in the Illinois legistature and later in the senate. Obamacare is not the new NHS-it doesn't make doctors or build hospitals or clinics. He's disastrous on energy policy, especially with regards to the Keystone pipeline and the NPR-A petroleum reserve in Alaska.
I wasn't too hot on Mitt when he was first presented but as I learned more I realized that we had an opportunity to elect an accomplished, generous and good hearted man who gives freely of his time, talent and cash to charity. Apparently the American electorate chose the guy who they think will dig into the pockets of the "rich" and give it to them, not realizing that a government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have. I feel a bit sorry for those who gave up everything to come here for the American dream as they are going to get shortchanged. That dream of opportunity just got traded for an obamaphone.
"A guy who wasn't raised in America..." He was born here, lived in Indonesia for a while as a child, and mostly educated here. I think the fact that he had the advantage of seeing another culture first hand gives him an advantage in understanding other countries.
"who believes in redistribution of money"...............So we should have no taxes? In our dreams! But in real life you need the tax money. You don't need the filthy rich who don't even have to work, getting richer and richer off the backs of the workers. The greedy bankers, the CEOs, Big Oil--they already have much more money than anyone could possibly need and yet they want more tax cuts and favoritism while they get even richer at our expense.
What has Romney done? He came to our state (Mass.) and ran for governor--I didn't even know he was a resident here but apparently he has massive homes all over the country. As governor he didn't do much of anything and he wasn't even around that much. We do have health care in this state and it was enacted during his time in office but yet when he was running for president he vowed to "repeal Obamacare." What is he FOR and what is he AGAINST?
"not realizing that a government big enough to give you..." All this lashing out against "big government"---go ahead and try to get along without a government or with your "small" government, whatever that is.
"....and cash to charity" Romney does give a lot of cash--to the Mormon Church. How does that serve to help most Americans? At least the government has an overview of the entire country and so is better qualified to determine who receives aid. Private charities are fine too but they will give to those who fit their beliefs while others are left out.
I don't think someone who thinks they can balance the budget by enacting massive cuts is going to help this country. He believes in firing people to save money and sending jobs overseas. Pres. Obama could achieve what we all want and this country would be a lot better off if the Republicans in Congress would co-operate and help out instead of voting against everything he proposes. That the Republicans took an oath to vote AGAINST anything Obama wants, speaks volumes about their priorities. They don't care much about the country.
People who favored Obama really don't understand what this country needs as a leader. For some reason we ended up electing (twice) a guy who wasn't raised in America, who believes in redistribution of money, who has never achieved anything of note and spent a career voting present in the Illinois legistature and later in the senate. Obamacare is not the new NHS-it doesn't make doctors or build hospitals or clinics. He's disastrous on energy policy, especially with regards to the Keystone pipeline and the NPR-A petroleum reserve in Alaska.
I wasn't too hot on Mitt when he was first presented but as I learned more I realized that we had an opportunity to elect an accomplished, generous and good hearted man who gives freely of his time, talent and cash to charity. Apparently the American electorate chose the guy who they think will dig into the pockets of the "rich" and give it to them, not realizing that a government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have. I feel a bit sorry for those who gave up everything to come here for the American dream as they are going to get shortchanged. That dream of opportunity just got traded for an obamaphone.
This is nonsense. Could America do better than Obama? Sure, but its certainly not found in a plutocrat like Mitt Romney or any of the other imbiciles the Republican Party produced through the primaries. Fox News maybe ranting about people wanting 'stuff' from the government (which is an unbelievably shallow analyses) but the truth is that people rejected Romney's cloud coo coo land economic policy: one which was to cut taxes for the wealthy (although he claimed it was 20% for all) whilst increasing military spending, rolling back regulations and repealing the affordable care act. He would have appointed Supreme Court justices that would have led to an overturn of Roe V Wade and tried to chop funding for important organizations like planned parenthood. His fiscal policy would have increased the deficit and furthered the problems that have been growing for decades: inequality, inefficient resource distribution and unfunded much needed infrastructure investment. He may have started a trade war with China, who knows what with Iran and offered unwavering unconditional support for Israel.. how dangerous.
Obama on the other hand has been disappointing in many ways, but the truth his he has actually handled the economy rather well. He prevented a depression by passing the (successful) stimulus - although it was too small, saved the auto industry (something Romney would have let go through Chapter 11), passed a financial regulatory reform bill (that has seen the likes of Citibank shore up its balance sheet and still exists!) and ensures that banks cannot over leverage, he passed a health care bill that extends insurance to millions and regulates the insurance companies, killed Bin Laden, ended the crazy wars in the Middle East, and is unlikely to start any more!! He's done this whilst being systematically blocked by the republicans at EVERY opportunity.
Obama has rejected the austerity measures in Europe that are creating near zero growth: projections are for 0.3 this year and 0.1 next year, whilst the US is growing at 2.3% with unemployment falling gradually. The Romney/Ryan plan would have been a huge 180, and lets be honest, a revisit to the same old policies that created a lot of today's problems.
I was thinking along the lines of a few million votes difference, meaning that so many millions of people actually voted for Romney. That is what is scary! Same for 2008 and the repug candidates.
Millions voted for fiscal responsibility is "scary"? Oh, and "repugs"? Must I really point out how childish it is to call names?
This thread needs to vacate to the politics forum, as it has nothing to do w/either the UK or the US.
Oh, and OP - I'm sorry you still have a Royal Family. We ditched that load 200+ years ago.
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.
