A question about the Obama win

[OKTexas]

Your major premises are straight out of the mouths of the talking heads of the media.

If ALL the US House and US Senate seats had been up for a vote, what do you, blackhawk, think would have been the result?

The President, and many of the Democrats who beat incumbents, ran on Obama's record of accomplishments. When the hysteria and partisan attacks are taken out of the equation, President Obama has accomplished a few great things. Like it or not, Obamacare and the financial reforms are great in the sense they change the landscape

Poor dainty boy, ALL the US House seats ARE up for a vote every 2 years. Did you fail your civics class in Jr. High?

still struggling with Reading and Comprehension 101?

"If ALL the US House and US Senate seats had been up for a vote..."

clue: there is no comma after the 5th word commas are used to separate list items. you are FOX Newsing and hearing "If ALL the US House, and US Senate seats..."

Poor dainty boy, you can't spin your way out of this one, all the house seats were up and you see the result. America voted for the status quo, Moabama got himself a stale'mate, which was much better than he deserved. The 2010 mandate for the house was renewed and they will not roll over for your dear leader.

 

[OKTexas]

that remains to be seen in the 2014 House elections.

lol, so this time don't count?

The American people just very Clearly voted for the Status Quo.

Which was, Nothing at all getting done by either side.

It's insane, but that is what they voted for.

I don't believe voters want the status quo. While they chose to stick with Obama, I do believe most voters, including Democrats, want to see some spending cuts along with some small tax increases, and yes, tax increases on the wealthy. I imagine if the fighting between Dems and Republicans continues to keep us at a standstill ,then Republicans may feel a very harsh backlash in House elections in 2014.

Now, personally, I don't think that is going to happen. I have a theory that says Boehner is going to start playing ball with the Dems. I think he's going to tell the tea party nutjobs to play ball too. The reason I see this happening is that I think Boehner is going to see a big opportunity open up for himself, if he plays his cards right. You see, if he plays his cards right, he could very easily become our next president. On the other hand, if he continues to play obstructionist, he could find himself no longer being Speaker of the House.

Boehner isn't even a effective speaker of the house, he will never be president. And I hope the republicans elect a new speaker for the new congress.

 

[Lakhota]

Why Americans Actually Voted For A Democratic House | ThinkProgress

 

[auditor0007]

lol, so this time don't count?

The American people just very Clearly voted for the Status Quo.

Which was, Nothing at all getting done by either side.

It's insane, but that is what they voted for.

I don't believe voters want the status quo. While they chose to stick with Obama, I do believe most voters, including Democrats, want to see some spending cuts along with some small tax increases, and yes, tax increases on the wealthy. I imagine if the fighting between Dems and Republicans continues to keep us at a standstill ,then Republicans may feel a very harsh backlash in House elections in 2014.

Now, personally, I don't think that is going to happen. I have a theory that says Boehner is going to start playing ball with the Dems. I think he's going to tell the tea party nutjobs to play ball too. The reason I see this happening is that I think Boehner is going to see a big opportunity open up for himself, if he plays his cards right. You see, if he plays his cards right, he could very easily become our next president. On the other hand, if he continues to play obstructionist, he could find himself no longer being Speaker of the House.

Boehner isn't even a effective speaker of the house, he will never be president. And I hope the republicans elect a new speaker for the new congress.

Just saying, he has an opportunity here.

 

[OKTexas]

I don't believe voters want the status quo. While they chose to stick with Obama, I do believe most voters, including Democrats, want to see some spending cuts along with some small tax increases, and yes, tax increases on the wealthy. I imagine if the fighting between Dems and Republicans continues to keep us at a standstill ,then Republicans may feel a very harsh backlash in House elections in 2014.

Now, personally, I don't think that is going to happen. I have a theory that says Boehner is going to start playing ball with the Dems. I think he's going to tell the tea party nutjobs to play ball too. The reason I see this happening is that I think Boehner is going to see a big opportunity open up for himself, if he plays his cards right. You see, if he plays his cards right, he could very easily become our next president. On the other hand, if he continues to play obstructionist, he could find himself no longer being Speaker of the House.

Boehner isn't even a effective speaker of the house, he will never be president. And I hope the republicans elect a new speaker for the new congress.

Just saying, he has an opportunity here.

I understand what you're saying, but the decisions Boehner has made on the debt celing and continueing resolutions that has cost the country so much, has a bunch of folks pissed, I know I will be telling my congressman not to vote for Boehner, of course I told him that 2 years ago and it didn't do any good.

 

[MarcATL]

First I'm not taking anything away from the Obama win not griping complaining or questioning it my question about it is this was it based more on support of his policies or his own personal popularity? I asked this because there was no major shift in the House for the Democrats and only a slight shift for them in the Senate basically the balance of power is right where it was after the 2010 midterms it seems to me if there was major support for Obama's policies you would have seen more off a shift in the Democrats favor in the House and Senate.

Actually, there WAS a shift...most of the Teabaggers were kicked out soundly on their petards.

The message from the American People was simple...they want Congress to work with THIS President.

 

[Papageorgio]

I think the voters have no clue as to what they want. The popular vote for President was slim, many Senate seats were slim, many House races were tight. So, I really think we as Americans don't know what we want. I was listening to a talk show host claiming the victory was a clear mandate for Obama. I didn't get that sense at all. If the Senate does their job and quits sitting on every bill the House puts out there, maybe we can compromise and get something done. But then again, what do we want done?

I'm not so sure that gridlock is a bad thing.

 

[nitroz]

To answer the OP, I believe it was a mix of personal popularity and policies.

Obama had made progress in his years in office and it's not something you can ignore. While the Economy hasn't improved much, it has been stopped from getting worse and it's a big challenge especially with the population increase. We need to make 125,000 jobs nationwide each month just to keep up with the population increase in this economy.

But thats not the only thing, there are many factors that are related to our challenge with the economy and Obama really has tried to help.


When people acknowledged that, they looked at Romney as if he was swill.

 

[The Rabbi]

Playing the race card ,is getting old. Seriously, get over it.

He ran a better campaign than Romney, and in the end voters said they felt Obama was their candidate, and Romney was for the rich. I don't think actual policy had a lot to do with the decision.

Playng the class warfare card is so old.

Romney/Ryan offered a serious vision of freedom and responsibility. Voters chose free shit instead.

 

[NoNukes]

Playing the race card ,is getting old. Seriously, get over it.

He ran a better campaign than Romney, and in the end voters said they felt Obama was their candidate, and Romney was for the rich. I don't think actual policy had a lot to do with the decision.

The Republicans did not even like Romney, they just wanted to vote against Obama.

 

[NLT]

Playing the race card ,is getting old. Seriously, get over it.

He ran a better campaign than Romney, and in the end voters said they felt Obama was their candidate, and Romney was for the rich. I don't think actual policy had a lot to do with the decision.

Obama got 98% black vote. Who played the race card.

 

[editec]

First I'm not taking anything away from the Obama win not griping complaining or questioning it my question about it is this was it based more on support of his policies or his own personal popularity? I asked this because there was no major shift in the House for the Democrats and only a slight shift for them in the Senate basically the balance of power is right where it was after the 2010 midterms it seems to me if there was major support for Obama's policies you would have seen more off a shift in the Democrats favor in the House and Senate.

I think that ultimately it was about political philosophies and Obama's supporter in key states won the day for his philosophy.


There was a small shift in power away from the GOP is both the house and Senate, but those political battles are local, not national.


For instance, here in Maine KING took Snowe's Senate seat.

King's win is probably a win for the Dems even though King is a declared Independent.

King personally thanked Karl Rove for trying out to defeat him. I'll let you decide what THAT means for the GOP's chances in the Senate.

But King did NOT win by hanging on Obama coattails, KING won because KING had lots of support here in Maine.

 

[Votto]

There has been no compromise for four years now Obama and the left showed no interest in it for the first two years of his term that was one of the main reasons for the rise of the tea party ther was no comprise by either side after the midterms and I really don't see anything changing.

Personally I think it a mistake to have an opposition party in power. Why do we want obstrucointists in power?

Maybe in 2014 all the obstructionists will be voted out and we can continue down the utopian road forward, and not backward.

 

[AmyNation]

Playing the race card ,is getting old. Seriously, get over it.

He ran a better campaign than Romney, and in the end voters said they felt Obama was their candidate, and Romney was for the rich. I don't think actual policy had a lot to do with the decision.

Playng the class warfare card is so old.

Romney/Ryan offered a serious vision of freedom and responsibility. Voters chose free shit instead.

That's your opinion, I don't agree that Romney has a clear vision and the attempt by some to suggest that Romney lost because Americans "want free shit" is a great way for the republicans to aviod taking on any personal responsibility for the loss.

 

[AmyNation]

Playing the race card ,is getting old. Seriously, get over it.

He ran a better campaign than Romney, and in the end voters said they felt Obama was their candidate, and Romney was for the rich. I don't think actual policy had a lot to do with the decision.

Obama got 98% black vote. Who played the race card.

It's always fun to make shit up

 

[The Rabbi]

Playing the race card ,is getting old. Seriously, get over it.

He ran a better campaign than Romney, and in the end voters said they felt Obama was their candidate, and Romney was for the rich. I don't think actual policy had a lot to do with the decision.

Playng the class warfare card is so old.

Romney/Ryan offered a serious vision of freedom and responsibility. Voters chose free shit instead.

That's your opinion, I don't agree that Romney has a clear vision and the attempt by some to suggest that Romney lost because Americans "want free shit" is a great way for the republicans to aviod taking on any personal responsibility for the loss.

Since Republicans did not vote for Obama how are they supposed to take personal responsibility for Romney's loss?
Another sound bite debunked.

 

[AmyNation]

Playng the class warfare card is so old.

Romney/Ryan offered a serious vision of freedom and responsibility. Voters chose free shit instead.

That's your opinion, I don't agree that Romney has a clear vision and the attempt by some to suggest that Romney lost because Americans "want free shit" is a great way for the republicans to aviod taking on any personal responsibility for the loss.

Since Republicans did not vote for Obama how are they supposed to take personal responsibility for Romney's loss?
Another sound bite debunked.

Sound bite? Lol from the "Americans want free shit" guy, that's rich.


Putting down a majority of Americans allows your party to aviod talking about what went wrong. You can just broad brush the whole election and say Obama won because people are un-American and lazy, or you could talk about the failures of your candidate, his campaign and his message, and you could talk about the successes that helped Obama.

See that's how you improve, and perhaps win in the future. If you don't recognize your mistakes then you will just keep making them.

 

[LibertyLemming]

I'm praying for Gridlock on almost every issue.

 

[blackhawk]

First I'm not taking anything away from the Obama win not griping complaining or questioning it my question about it is this was it based more on support of his policies or his own personal popularity? I asked this because there was no major shift in the House for the Democrats and only a slight shift for them in the Senate basically the balance of power is right where it was after the 2010 midterms it seems to me if there was major support for Obama's policies you would have seen more off a shift in the Democrats favor in the House and Senate.

Your major premises are straight out of the mouths of the talking heads of the media.

If ALL the US House and US Senate seats had been up for a vote, what do you, blackhawk, think would have been the result?

The President, and many of the Democrats who beat incumbents, ran on Obama's record of accomplishments. When the hysteria and partisan attacks are taken out of the equation, President Obama has accomplished a few great things. Like it or not, Obamacare and the financial reforms are great in the sense they change the landscape

I think your response is just speculation and paint by the numbers liberal talking points that don't address the question asked.

 

[jillian]

First I'm not taking anything away from the Obama win not griping complaining or questioning it my question about it is this was it based more on support of his policies or his own personal popularity? I asked this because there was no major shift in the House for the Democrats and only a slight shift for them in the Senate basically the balance of power is right where it was after the 2010 midterms it seems to me if there was major support for Obama's policies you would have seen more off a shift in the Democrats favor in the House and Senate.

there was no major shift in the house because all the gerrymandering protected repubilcan districts. that won't change. red states are as red as ever, maybe moreso

but there was a shift in the senate to weed out the more extremist right-wingers.

as for the president.. the answer is probably both. people like him and largely agree that he has his priorities straight.

that doesn't mean one agrees with everything he does... same as with any other politician.