Are there any consequences?

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

As of this morning, all the votes have still not been counted. We don't know if turnout was down from 2008, yet.

Yes we do. In 2008, Obama got 69.4 mil. The AP reports this morning that his totals in this election are 61.7. That's nearly an 8 million loss in votes.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

^

He still won the popular vote with a more comfortable margin than GeeDubya in 2004.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by Taco John

Yes we do. In 2008, Obama got 69.4 mil. The AP reports this morning that his totals in this election are 61.7. That's nearly an 8 million loss in votes.

And the media are going to bury that one in the back pages.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

^

He still won the popular vote with a more comfortable margin than GeeDubya in 2004.

Notice how Bush got more votes in 2004 than in 2000? That means something. It also means something when someone has nearly 8 million fewer the next election than the one previous.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

And the media are going to bury that one in the back pages.

Doesn't matter if they do or don't. What is, is.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

Notice how Bush got more votes in 2004 than in 2000? That means something. It also means something when someone has nearly 8 million fewer the next election than the one previous.

it also means something when obama gets 7 million less votes and still wins.

[peacepipe]

lets look at the other end of this, romney inc. had just about everything in his favor high unemployment,slow growth, obama screws up the 1st debate,voter enthusiasm,hatred of obama,paul ryan, but can't even get out more votes than what McCain got in '08.
seems you guys have reached your cieling. at least McCain has a good excuse for his numbers,sarah palin & the financial collapse.

[gyldenlove]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

Your boy lost 7 million votes since last election. Such cockiness is idiotic.

And it's spelled DEFICIT, you brainiac.

Instead of spiking the football and pretending that you have the world at your back (you did this in 09 and it exploded in your face in 10), you need to be asking why so many jumped ship and what you can do in '16 besides construct more Republican vote-blocking conspiracy theories to explain your losses.

Which voting losses would this be? popular vote for presidency, senate or house?

[gyldenlove]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

Notice how Bush got more votes in 2004 than in 2000? That means something. It also means something when someone has nearly 8 million fewer the next election than the one previous.

Some times you score 40 points, some times you score 25 points, but a win is a win is a win - all you need to do is get more than the other guy.

[baja]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

lets look at the other end of this, romney inc. had just about everything in his favor high unemployment,slow growth, obama screws up the 1st debate,voter enthusiasm,hatred of obama,paul ryan, but can't even get out more votes than what McCain got in '08.
seems you guys have reached your cieling. at least McCain has a good excuse for his numbers,sarah palin & the financial collapse.

Plus America was looking at Sara "I can see Alaska from my porch" Palin as a relief hitter for a 70+ year old guy with a medical history.

Edit; Opps see you mentioned that.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

lets look at the other end of this, romney inc. had just about everything in his favor high unemployment,slow growth, obama screws up the 1st debate,voter enthusiasm,hatred of obama,paul ryan, but can't even get out more votes than what McCain got in '08.
seems you guys have reached your cieling. at least McCain has a good excuse for his numbers,sarah palin & the financial collapse.

Good luck hammering this point home. Many of these knobs still don't know that the recession was well underway before Obama was elected.

[TonyR]

Good grief, reading the nyuk nyuk idiot's posts you'd think Obama lost the election!

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

Obama lost 7 million votes from last election to this one. Would you all say this meant Obama was BMOC?

Which right wing media hack, who probably predicted a Romney landslide victory, did you get this talking point from? Does it really make you feel better? Does it make your tears less salty?

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by TonyR

Which right wing media hack, who probably predicted a Romney landslide victory, did you get this talking point from? Does it really make you feel better? Does it make your tears less salty?

Obama lost 7 million votes and it was still the second-most participated election in over 50 years.

Oh and have we mentioned yet that he won?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

Notice how Bush got more votes in 2004 than in 2000? That means something.

It means two things, actually:

1) There are a lot of idiots in red state America.

2) The Bush Crime Family and the GOP are accomplished at the art of rigging elections (not exactly news to people who care about facts and evidence.)

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

It also means something when someone has nearly 8 million fewer the next election than the one previous.

It just doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

You should ask the nearest grownup to explain this thing called the "electoral college" to you sometime.

It's going to be your nemesis for years to come.

[chadta]

really ?

there are no consequences for politicians lying, yet there should be for journalists ?

[manchambo]

Originally Posted by chadta

really ?

there are no consequences for politicians lying, yet there should be for journalists ?

There are sometimes for journalists. Romney lost, after all.

[Missouribronc]

Originally Posted by Jetmeck

Quit making Missourians look stupid.............you know damn well a very large portion of that defecit was and is still cleaning up the mess of the greatest recession in history next to the great depression.

Pull your head out ...your side's policies suck ass or they would have won.........

How do you double the nation's debt and continue to blame it on someone else?

How does this happen?

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by Missouribronc

How do you double the nation's debt and continue to blame it on someone else?

How does this happen?

It's called math. You should look into it.

Care to venture a guess where we would be right now if we HADN'T bailed out Detroit and Wall Street.

My guess is you'd be b****ing that the Dow was down below 10k (for the first time since...well, Bush), and blaming that on Obama too.

Did you fail Econ, or just never take it?

[Missouribronc]

Originally Posted by houghtam

It's called math. You should look into it.

Care to venture a guess where we would be right now if we HADN'T bailed out Detroit and Wall Street.

My guess is you'd be b****ing that the Dow was down below 10k (for the first time since...well, Bush), and blaming that on Obama too.

Did you fail Econ, or just never take it?

Yeah. Math...

Obama has doubled the national debt in four years. Something no one else has done. Ever. I have done the math, and I'm not "failing" econ.

The country can't continue at that pace. And the only "answer" (and I use that term loosely) that we seem to be getting is, "well, it was Bush's fault we spent all this money, and it might get better."

That's a ****ing terrible answer.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by Missouribronc

Yeah. Math...

Obama has doubled the national debt in four years. Something no one else has done. Ever. I have done the math, and I'm not "failing" econ.

The country can't continue at that pace. And the only "answer" (and I use that term loosely) that we seem to be getting is, "well, it was Bush's fault we spent all this money, and it might get better."

That's a ****ing terrible answer.

You didn't answer the question, I noticed. So I'll ask it again, and will keep doing so until you can give a coherent answer. Where would we be without the bailouts?

You also apparently got a "needs improvement" grade in your lower tier reading group, because the answer given by non-partisan sources isn't that it "might" be getting better.

You did get the part right about it being Bush's fault, though, so gold star for you.

[Missouribronc]

Originally Posted by houghtam

You didn't answer the question, I noticed. So I'll ask it again, and will keep doing so until you can give a coherent answer. Where would we be without the bailouts?

You also apparently got a "needs improvement" grade in your lower tier reading group, because the answer given by non-partisan sources isn't that it "might" be getting better.

You did get the part right about it being Bush's fault, though, so gold star for you.

The bailouts are something like 1 percent of the debt incurred. Who's not doing math?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Missouribronc

The bailouts are something like 1 percent of the debt incurred. Who's not doing math?

The voters weren't fooled by the lies and BS you're peddling.

What makes you think you're going to have better luck on this board?

[baja]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

The voters weren't fooled by the lies and BS you're peddling.

What makes you think you're going to have better luck on this board?

I;m thinking the voting machines had a glitch in the "change vote to Republican" program, strange too since it worked so well in 2000 & 2008

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by Missouribronc

The bailouts are something like 1 percent of the debt incurred. Who's not doing math?

And Obama's policies account for just over 10% of the debt incurred over the past 10 years, sooooo...you are the one not doing the maths.