Oh YEA! ITS ON!

[ohall]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Does a President who received less votes his second election than his first really have a mandate? And should the ppl who supported him feel good/proud/confident about this fact? I believe Obama is the only President to receive less votes his second election than his first.

As far as the butt hurt, we are all feeling that in spades brother, even the Obama supporters. Really, Obama supporters are probably feeling it a lot worse than the ppl who actually didn't vote for him.

[JamesBW43]

Maybe because everyone including a lot of Obama supporters thought he wasn't going to be re-elected?

Obama and his team did a wonderful job of depressing the vote. I think how successful he was at that task shocked everyone. Now if you feel that kind of result for a 2nd election/campaign is something to be proud of, more power to you man.

Everyone who actually followed the polls and looked at the electoral math knew that a Romney victory was a long shot.

[Spesh]

Does a President who received less votes his second election than his first really have a mandate? And should the ppl who supported him feel good/proud/confident about this fact? I believe Obama is the only President to receive less votes his second election than his first.

As far as the butt hurt, we are all feeling that in spades brother, even the Obama supporters. Really, Obama supporters are probably feeling it a lot worse than the ppl who actually didn't vote for him.

Months later, i still laugh at this hypocrisy.

All the right wing pundits predicted landslide victories because Obama wouldnt be able to rally the support he got during his first election. "It was an aberration", "it was unprecedented and cant be repeated". Now that Obama easily, and some would say dismissively, defeated Romney, what do the "real world" party members have to say? "Ugh, well, he didnt get the votes he did the first time around!".
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Whatever you have to tell yourself ohall. This thread just keeps on giving.

Oh, and by the way, 60% of Obama's ads were negative. Romney? 78%. Not counting the late entries he did immediately before the election. You know the ones im talking about, the Obama is shipping jobs to Italy so they can sell cars to China...or something. I wasnt quite sure, it was so convoluted and desperate that i couldnt keep it straight. Damned amusing though. So which candidate depressed voters again?

[TheWalrus]

Does a President who received less votes his second election than his first really have a mandate? And should the ppl who supported him feel good/proud/confident about this fact? I believe Obama is the only President to receive less votes his second election than his first.

As far as the butt hurt, we are all feeling that in spades brother, even the Obama supporters. Really, Obama supporters are probably feeling it a lot worse than the ppl who actually didn't vote for him.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[ohall]

Months later, i still laugh at this hypocrisy.

All the right wing pundits predicted landslide victories because Obama wouldnt be able to rally the support he got during his first election. "It was an aberration", "it was unprecedented and cant be repeated". Now that Obama easily, and some would say dismissively, defeated Romney, what do the "real world" party members have to say? "Ugh, well, he didnt get the votes he did the first time around!".
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Whatever you have to tell yourself ohall. This thread just keeps on giving.

Oh, and by the way, 60% of Obama's ads were negative. Romney? 78%. Not counting the late entries he did immediately before the election. You know the ones im talking about, the Obama is shipping jobs to Italy so they can sell cars to China...or something. I wasnt quite sure, it was so convoluted and desperate that i couldnt keep it straight. Damned amusing though. So which candidate depressed voters again?

OK... So a President that receives less votes the 2nd time around does in fact have a mandate. It really is a brave new world.

[ohall]

Everyone who actually followed the polls and looked at the electoral math knew that a Romney victory was a long shot.

Pre-Hurricane I believe Romney was 3-5 points ahead of Obama, and basically all the so called experts and polls didn't know who was going to win the day(s) before, because the polls tightened up the week before the election. It's not like Obama won in a landslide the 2nd time around.

[Locke]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Pretty much the creepiest thing I've ever seen. The image of this gif will haunt my dreams forever...

[Locke]

Pre-Hurricane I believe Romney was 3-5 points ahead of Obama, and basically all the so called experts and polls didn't know who was going to win the day(s) before, because the polls tightened up the week before the election. It's not like Obama won in a landslide the 2nd time around.

Nope, completely untrue. Romney never led Obama in any objective poll. Nate Silver had Obama with a comfortable lead the entire campaign season. For whatever reason, this year all sorts of blatantly false polls started showing up. Rasmussen was the worst of them, being off by anywhere from 6-10% on every swing state. It's a sad state of affairs when basic things such as polls are manipulated these days. The days when people hungered for truth and knowledge are gone it seems...

[JamesBW43]

Pre-Hurricane I believe Romney was 3-5 points ahead of Obama, and basically all the so called experts and polls didn't know who was going to win the day(s) before, because the polls tightened up the week before the election. It's not like Obama won in a landslide the 2nd time around.

The election isn't decided by the popular vote. And I'm not sure which "experts" you were listening to, but the math was overwhelmingly against Governor Romney. Romney never led in the EV count, in fact, the President was never projected below 280 EVs. And even when some of the battleground states were within the margin of error, Romney was behind in most of them. In every situation, Romney needed to take several states away from the President while also winning most, if not all, of the toss up states.

Iirc, the day before the election the math gave Romney a 15% chance to win. The only real chance Romney had was if somehow all the statewide polls were completely off base.

[Spesh]

OK... So a President that receives less votes the 2nd time around does in fact have a mandate. It really is a brave new world.

If he received that little votes, does that say more about Obama or Romney?