belialx90

Nov 11, 2012

I think the Republicans only chance is to redefine themselves into a "No Mayos" party platform.

 

smashingmayo

Nov 11, 2012

Wrong. I am the classic independant based on total truth and not partisan.
RuralRouter

Nov 12, 2012

I dunno,

In spite of  being the guy who we've all been told has all this likeability and personal popularity, Obama somehow couldn't do any better than 51% (approximately)of the votes cast.

And that was against a 'hard-hearted' jobs-outsourcing, out-of-touch millionaire stiff like Mitt Romney.

I really don't think that the Republicans are in nearly so bad a shape as a lot of you so desperately want to believe.

 

 

 

smashingmayo

Nov 12, 2012

People just say they like him because they think it makes up for slavery, which zero of the african-americans went through.
dgbdc

Nov 12, 2012

Free cookies.

Everyone loves cookies.

Although that might smack too much of socialism.

Chaeddd

Nov 12, 2012

While all the electoral votes Obama got make it seem like he won a landslide, if you look at the popular vote the margin is not very wide. The republicans may take back the white house, but they need someone highly electable who is a Christian and not super rich.

Romney proved he was unelectable when he failed to beat John McCain.

During this years Iowa Caucus, the republicans should have got organized and not voted for any of those second stringers and said they will boycott unless the GOP can come up with some decent candidates.

smashingmayo

Nov 12, 2012

Eh, why would they need a Christian when Obama is apparently not one?
MsOtis

Nov 12, 2012

Bush lost the popular vote by .5%.

It really doesn't prove anything sbout Obama to say he only won by 2% as if that isn't very much.

Even in Bush's second run, he only won by 2.1%.

The winning percentage varied thru the years based on how many candidates, and whether it was a first or second term for the candidate. There's only been a few who won the popular vote by a huge margin.

It's the electoral votes that show the biggest difference, usually.

A fun fact: Lincoln, a Republican, ran against three other candidates. He won by over half a million votes (with less than 5 million total voters), getting 180 electoral votes, versus the 123 votes total for the other three candidates. 82.2% of the voters turned out to vote.

 Lincoln by a landslide.

smashingmayo

Nov 12, 2012

Yes it says plenty. It says that neither party is far ahead of the other like you and other crazies claim.
RuralRouter

Nov 13, 2012

MsOtis,

No, the margin doesn't prove anything about Obama, but a 2% margin also doesn't prove much about the Republicans.  I don't remember any political parties disappearing after those other elections you cite. Lincoln won by a landslide, and yet, somehow, there is still a Democrat party in existence today.

belialx90

Nov 13, 2012

Chaeddd

Nov 13, 2012

Lincoln did not win by a landslide. He got about 40% of the popular vote, that is 10% below a majority. O K he could have gotten a lot more if the slaves were allowed to vote.

Lincoln failed to get even 1 electoral vote in the south, this did'nt really matter because the North had a population that was so much larger that all he needed to win was the Northerner's electoral votes.

WTF would anybody want to live in the south before they had air conditioners?

Actually this isn't much of a victory because presidents who win an election in a year ending in zero get shot or die in office.

Side--Effect

Nov 13, 2012

Jefferson Davis got 97% of the vote.

Check your geography; there are an awful lot more people living closer to the equator than people living at your latitude and north.

Pilank

Nov 16, 2012

Maybe now, but in 1860 there was no air conditioning so most people lived in the cooler north.

Side--Effect

Nov 16, 2012

Nope. All of Africa; the majority of Asia, South America, Australia are closer to the equator. Only the majority of Europe and half of North America are farther north.

Currently there are about 1.1 billion people in the US and Europe. Asia alone has over 4 billion. Add in the others for another 1.5+ billion and you see that an overwhelming number of humans on this planet live closer to the middle. It's always been that way.

During the Civil War there were considerably more people in the northeastern region of the US, but the question was why would anyone want to live in the south before a/c and the answer is that's where most people have traditionally lived; closer to the equator.

Have you ever heard of people freezing to death? That happens in the north, not so much in the south. Shorter growing seasons in the north as well. In the tropics food grows all year.

Had the Pilgrims landed at Cape Canaveral or Myrtle Beach instead of Plymouth Rock they'd have fared much better.

rip59

Nov 17, 2012

I hate agreeing with Cat.  Painful.  LOL.  From Hilton Hd. to Ft. Lauderdale  is ideal.  The Cape to Merritt Island is probably the most beautiful oceanic terrain I have ever seen.  Beautiful clothing optional beaches.  Paradise.  I can only imagine the pilgrims hanging out at my favorite nude beach.  LOL.  

Pilank

Nov 17, 2012

You are talking about the coast. They get cooling breezes from the ocean. The inland part of the south is too hot.

smashingmayo

Nov 17, 2012

Love when this gets bumped ebcause it makes me lol that people think a party who retained the majority in the house is desperately in need of change. The party who came within 1-2% in 3 states of winning.
MsOtis

Nov 17, 2012

When I say "landslide," I'm only talking about the electoral vote. Because, citizens, the electoral vote is what counts in getting elected. The popular vote is usually pretty close, or the winning candidate may not even have 50+% of the votes. Doesn't matter.

Example: W.Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, but still became President.

Pilank

Nov 17, 2012

The economy was bad this year so we would  expect that a president trying to get re-elected would lose. Especially a president the the republicans chose because he would be easy to beat.

Post a comment