Senate [In-Depth Discussion] United States presidential election: 2012

The bubble the GOP lives in at this point is breath taking. Never have I ever seen they would fall this low and become so ignorant of reality and everything around them. From the birtherism, to the "handouts" talk despite people making >$250,000 voting for Obama, to the polls lying until Romney was up then they were the truth, that 47% of the country being on food stamps...the size of their fabricated myths and lies is breathtaking that they can turn around and pretend they didn't say it or simply lie with a straight face as if they're not pulling something out of their ***.

Glenn Beck, Dick Morris, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Riley, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, John Sununu.....to anyone who voted for Romney, those are your spokes people right there. How does that make you feel....honestly?

 

Speaking of the GOP bubble.

When asked to explain, he offers this proof for his lack of racism.


Wait for it. You already know what it is.

 

wait wait. "nobody in town knows anyone who's black... im not racist... i know a black guy"

hmmm

 

And yet it's a mystery how they came to town and voted. That's some great post-election outreach the GOP is working on.

 

moving, nvm.

 

Building on what I said earlier, Dave Wasserman has a spreadsheet on Google Docs that shows the current vote totals and compares them to 2008. Currently, Romney is 53072 votes below McCain's final total in 2008. Obama is currently 5647347 votes below his 2008 final total. Both totals are still expected to increase, albeit by smaller and smaller amounts as time goes on.

So, it looks like my prediction was pretty spot-on. Romney is going to essentially match McCain's 2008 total, and Obama will be 5-6 million votes below his 2008 total.

 

And yet, when all is said and done, Romney's percentage of the popular vote is likely to fall below 47.5%, rounding his total percentage down to 47%. Delicious.

 

And my overall predictions for the election were pretty accurate as well, including Romney struggling in the debates. He did well in the first one by putting one one of the best pathological lying performances in history and doing it with great confidence, while the President was off his game. Romney made a huge error in the second debate (and several smaller but still significant ones), and just got routed in the third debate. The Democrats did well in the Senate, and of course Obama was re-elected, carrying Virginia, which you believed he would not do.

I said Obama would be fine. He was fine.

 

It is rather satisfying that after 4 years of temper tantrums, Romney got less votes than McCain. I wish I was Karl Rove, so I could say I spent $300 million of other people's money on....nothing.

 

so we're saying overall even less people voted this time around than initially thought? what the **** is that all about?

 

I have only one thing to say to finish up on the 2012 election cycle.......





71 Electoral Votes

Obama 303-71=232
Mitt 206+71=277

Cost him the election, let that be a warning to the GOP for 2016, these people are here to stay.
And they are a force that won't be scorned, abused and side-lined without penalty.

 

You already posted that.

And Romney bent over backwards to get Paul supporters.

 

It was the stupid, awful spirit of libertarianism that was behind the 47% comments. They, after all, are the ones who are so deeply contemptuous of people getting help from the government.

 

Those Ron Paul numbers don't really mean anything. One, even if every single person who voted in the primary in fact voted for Romney, that accounts for less than half of his total votes in Florida and Ohio. Two, in those same states, less than 100k people voted for someone other than Romney or Obama, which is fewer people than voted for Ron Paul. So at least a portion of Ron Paul supporters either voted for Romney or stayed home.

Now, it is interesting to note that if Romney had won the votes of everyone who voted for a third party in Florida, he would have won the state. That does not hold true in Ohio, however.

 

Soo...handicapping R'money is the feather in the cap, 'eh? The Paulbot's grand scheme: if they can't win then you'll hinder him to the point that the man who stands for everything libertarians are against can get re-elected? That's some brilliant strategy there. Maybe next time your lot can flush all the toilets in malls all over the country. Fight the tyranny of government-regulated water! Or, your encore after that could be honking your horns so loudly that seismologists pick up on the noise, thus confusing government activities. Yeah! You really show them who's boss.

 

@FID hilarious dude

But Obama won and I am glad, I was never one that said oh no another 4 more years of Obama and the country is ruined forever. Romney was such a fool in the primaries that he poisoned the well for people who might have held there noses and voted for him. I followed it from day 1 and there so many shenanigans pulled from there side that it created blowback for those that would have come on side, that is a fact.
It's a lesson that the GOP must learn the hard way, dirty politics has always been part of the game, but when even Romney delegates were saying this BS at the RNC this year, you knew he had crossed the line in utter stupidity. And in 4 years those Ron Paul Libertarians will back and saying we dare you to try it again, cause it didn't work out so good last time. Then they will be forced to put up Rand Paul, to accommodate them.

 

He is also assuming that Romney's total doesn't count any Ron Paul supporters, more likely then not a number of them probably ended up voting for Romney even after Paul's supposed disenfranchisement.

 

I just saw this interesting graphic



Now, obviously, the Romney campaign and Republicans and general genuinely deserved more criticism than Obama and the Dems, but sheesh.

 

Ah yes, the pro-life libertarian. His namesake Ayn would be proud.

 

The numbers in that graph don't make any sense to me. Is there a link on this to allow better discussion? The bars are clearly percentages, but they don't add up, at all, to anything reasonable. And of course, are they counting things like "Obama is going to win" as a tone to be positive for Obama even though that's an objective assessment?

 

I don't really agree with that. I think Ron Paul and his followers' brand of libertarianism is stupid because of its naivete about about human nature and unsophisticated economic idealism. But I don't really think it's so excessively mean-spirited and uncompassionate in the way the far right-wing of the Republican party is

 

That Ron Paul chart is rather irrelevant. You're assuming that all of those voters didn't vote in the General Election and would have voted for Romney, which simply is not true. Using anecdotal evidence, all of my friends that supported Ron Paul in the primary voted for Romney (except for one). I regard the Paul fanaticism as rather cultish, naive, and inconsistent

 

It's not EXACTLY 47%, but it's close enough

Looks like Romney lost with 47.43%. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

I wouldn't say it's the libertarian wing of the GOP that led to that mindset.

http://www.international-economy.com/TIE_F11_Friedman.pdf