The Worst President in history has been reelected

[rightwinger]

Republicans have already beaten Benghazi to death. How much did it help Romney?

Oh, not hardly. Republicans haven't even begun to beat Benghazi to death. Keep dreaming. Further, that you act so blasé with respect to the Benghazi issue? Disgusting.

News alert to Republicans

Benghazi is not 9-11

Neither is it the attack on the USS Cole
The attack on the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut
The downing of a 747 in Lockerbie
The Iran Hostage Crisis

We have faced terrorist attacks for 35 years, some under Republican Presidents, some Democrats.

But keep beating that dead horse Republicans

 

[expatriate]

News alert to Republicans

Benghazi is not 9-11

Neither is it the attack on the USS Cole
The attack on the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut
The downing of a 747 in Lockerbie
The Iran Hostage Crisis

We have faced terrorist attacks for 35 years, some under Republican Presidents, some Democrats.

But keep beating that dead horse Republicans

exactly. when the marine barracks in Beirut was blown up, what was Ron "republican demi-god" Reagan's response? DIDDLY. HE pulled out the rest of our troops and left the country and never did SHIT to avenge one of those deaths. NOTHING. And STILL republicans can't stop themselves from spontaneously ejaculating at the mere mention of his name.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

cool tidbit: Obama got LESS of the white vote than Dukakis did. hmmmmmm.

and I love those red and blue maps... I love how republicans cling to them as if they were some magic security blanket.

You lost. red counties have lots of prairie dogs and not very many people. Blue counties: not a lot of prairie dogs and more people. That big red chunk in the middle: that's america's breadbasket.... it's mile after mile of WHEAT... and CORN... and SOYBEANS... and a couple of redneck farmers. That's IT. If you could get corn and wheat to vote, you'd win all the time.

You can dismiss the map all you want but it shows the Democrat influence diminishing in 2012 from areas of which they previously had a presence. Now, whether or not it means they moved to a different area of the state, the map doesn't depict this. But, as they move to differing areas of the state, even if that's the case, there are also folks of whom replace them and, clearly, they aren't Democrats.

However, if you don't want to take the map seriously? Well...then, we'll go by the percentage of the popular vote. In the 1996 elections, Slick got 49.2% of the vote, while Dole got 40.7%. So, that's almost a split in half between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party. In the 2000 election, Bush received 47.9% of the vote while 48.4% went to Gore. Again, nearly a split in half between the Republican Party and Democrat Party. In the 2004 election, Bush got 50.7% and Lurch got 48.3%. Again, nearly a split in half between the Republican Party and Democrat Party. In the 2008 election, Obamination got 52.9% and McCain got 45.7%. Again, although it's not as big of a split between the Republican Party and Democrat Party, it's still pretty close to half. And, lastly, in the 2012 election, of course, Obamination got 50.6% and Romney got 47.8%. Again, nearly a split in half between the Republican Party and Democrat Party.

Furthermore, whether or not corn can vote is irrelevant as this nation's elections are based on the electoral vote. And, last I heard, those areas of which the population density is greater where the left dominate, their population hasn't increased enough to give them a whole lot of extra electoral votes. Also, between April 2010 and July 2011, the states with the greatest percent increase in population were some of the red states while places of which are dominated by Democrats are amongst the bottom. Places like New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Michigan and Rhode Island are at the bottom of the list for population growth. And, since population size dictates how many electoral votes a particular given state will receive? You guys had better stop aborting your children and make sure you have a lot of them and make sure they grow up to be leftists. Amongst some of the red states with the highest population growth are Texas, Utah, North Dakota, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina and South Dakota. In fact, it wasn't really just not too long ago that Utah earned an extra electoral vote, due to a higher population. And, additionally, don't forget. Electoral votes can be removed as a state's population decreases. So, if you've got a lot of pissed off Republicans living in New York, for instance, and they decide they've had enough of that leftist infested state and decide to move? This reduction in that state's population has a negative impact on that state's electoral vote number.

So, you might be wise and start looking at the bigger picture and start learning a little bit about the way things work in this country.

And...oh, lastly, I'll bet you weren't worried about whether or not corn could vote in 1992 and 1996 and, just as a reminder to you, the corn belt is right around where your chump is getting his votes. You might want to think about not being such an uneducated drip and look at a map of where the corn belt is. Tell your leftist friends in Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois and Ohio corn doesn't vote.

Regarding 2016... I'm not worried about who we have coming down the pipe... I know that, according to GOP talking points, this was the very worst president in the history of the universe... you should have been able to run a cardboard cutout of a generic man and beat him.... you sent the best and the sharpest and the guy who beat all your other bright lights in a vigorous primary battle... and he got his ASS kicked.... he lost every single battleground state. (but to your credit, he did win most of the corn and wheat producing areas...good for you!) Who you gonna send up next? paul "loser" Ryan? It doesn't matter..... the chances of you guys shooting yourselves in the foot with your next nominee are pretty good, from my perspective... but for now... I get to bask in the glory of waking up every morning and having Barack Obama as my president and knowing that that very thing pisses you off. I'll worry about 2016 when the time comes... for now... my guy won and your guy was a LOSER. That's good enough for today.

And, that's the only reason you elected him...right? To piss Republicans' off? LOL! I suspect, soon, the only one that's going to be pissed off and laughing out the other side of your face, is you. And, remember, Republicans got their asses kicked in 1992 and 1996. You know what happened after that. And, remember, you lost two states this time, which you won in 2008.

I don't care how red the map is... that's acres and prairie dogs. I care where the people live... and I find it interesting that the demographics of those people is changing. You can scoff about the fact that Dukakis won more of the white vote than Obama did and STILL got his ass kicked, when Obama kicked ass.

WTF has Dukakis got to do with anything fruitloop? And, as is demonstrated below, I don't know where it is you necessarily get the idea the demographic is changing.

That means that America is no longer a country of old angry white folks anymore. Your party has hitched its future to folks using walkers or who will be using walkers anytime soon.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, how long are you going to stick to this leftist talking point? We've been hearing this worn out spiel for the last twenty years. It's getting as old as listening to the BS spiel about how Republicans are supposedly going to let grandma starve because she has to choose between her heart medicine and food. Give your tired crap a rest. Further, bigoted against old folks...are ya'? Maybe it's you who is going to let grandma starve because she has to choose between her heart medication and food...eh?

Latinos and Asians and Blacks are the emerging demographics in this country and democrats won all of those groups. We even won hispanic CUBANS who have ALWAYS been in the GOP's pocket.

Hispanics and blacks have given Democrats their vote since at least 1976. This really isn't anything new. And, at the time these elections were held, I don't know as their demographics necessarily differentiated between Latinos and Hispanics so I don't particularly know what the breakdown was and whether or not the statistics for those Hispanics voting included Latinos. But, in the 1976 elections, blacks and Hispanics chose the Democrat candidate 83% and 82% respectively. In the 1980 elections, blacks and Hispanics chose the Democrat candidate 83% and 56% respectively. In the 1984 elections, blacks and Hispanics chose the Democrat candidate 91% and 66% respectively. In the 1988 elections, blacks and Hispanics chose the Democrat candidate 89% and 70% respectively. In the 1992 elections, blacks and Hispanics chose the Democrat candidate 83% and 61% respectively. In the 1996 elections, blacks and Hispanics chose the Democrat candidate 84% and 73% respectively. In the 2000 elections, blacks and Hispanics chose the Democrat candidate 90% and 62% respectively. And, in the 2004 elections, blacks and Hispanics chose the Democrat candidate 88% to 53% respectively. And, in all that time, the populations of all races were increasing. So, none of this is really new.

Further, here's a demographic you'd better start taking into consideration soon. And, that is, that demographic which probably doesn't even really know how to define itself as it's of mixed race.

And, lastly, here's a couple of county-by-county maps from a 2000 Census which shows the percentage of the population which is black and Hispanic. Now, if you notice, much of the area with the largest black population and Hispanic population, curiously enough, they're the ones who keep voting Republican.

So, with this, I think you're making more out of things than what they really are.

Oh... I am sure you'll put somebody up in some election in the future who will beat the democratic candidate. I don't think you are dead yet... but I DO think that, unless you figure out how to deal with immigration and to tell the religious wackos in your party who want to make presidential elections about abortion and homosexuality to stfu.... you will continue to garner the lion's share of the white vote, and little else.

So you're saying it's only whites who are opposed to illegal immigration and homosexuals?

And listen... I was born and raised in the Land of Lincoln. I understand corn country better than you do. And the reason that Ohio and Illinois and Michigan and Iowa not only grow corn but vote democratic is because there is a strong manufacturing (labor) base there that is not as pronounced as in Kansas and Nebraska and many of the other redneck cornbelt states.... that, and they just raise them smarter in the Land of Lincoln than they do everywhere else .

Apparently you don't understand corn country better than I do, since you didn't know a majority of corn country is the area from which your chump is getting many of his votes. And, if they raised them smarter in the "Land of Lincoln" than they do everywhere else? They wouldn't be electing IDIOTS, like those in the "Land of Lincoln" did.

And don't worry about me... I will keep laughing about this election for a long time regardless of how toxic the atmosphere in the states becomes. My life will go on pretty much unchanged no matter what goofy stuff you all do up there.

Don't flatter yourself. I don't nor do I have any desire to worry about you. And, you go ahead and keep on laughing...Mary.

 

[expatriate]

big talk for a guy whose boy just got his ass kicked. And if the significance of the Dukakis/Obama comparison regarding percentages of white voters is lost on you, I guess I really don't find that surprising. And clearly, if you personally don't find anything wrong with your party's stance on immigration or on abortion or on gay rights, then, by all means, don't change a fucking thing. I am 100% OK with your party holding firm on your positions on those issues.... they were such winners for you this time around, weren't they? LOL In Maine, for example, gay marriage was on the ballot... it was opposed by the tea party governor half way into his term who, when we won election two years ago, also had coattails that brought in republican control of both houses of state government - something that hadn't happened in 40 years. Two years later... Obama versus Romney.... gay marriage on the ballot... Obama crushes Romney, gay marriage wins big, both democratic congressmen reelected, a democratic leaning independent takes Oly Snowe's seat and BOTH chambers of the state legislature go back in the hands of the democrats. Really... stick with your policies on those issues... they are surefire winners, no doubt! ROFLMFAO!!!!!

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

News alert to Republicans

Benghazi is not 9-11

Neither is it the attack on the USS Cole
The attack on the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut
The downing of a 747 in Lockerbie
The Iran Hostage Crisis

We have faced terrorist attacks for 35 years, some under Republican Presidents, some Democrats.

But keep beating that dead horse Republicans

Yeah but, of those incidents listed above, which one was it where help was denied and a general was relieved of his command because he chose to help?

 

[rightwinger]

Yeah but, of those incidents listed above, which one was it where help was denied and a general was relieved of his command because he chose to help?

Monday morning quarterbacking can find fault in them all

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

big talk for a guy whose boy just got his ass kicked.

Oh, so you thought Republicans would just run to the corner with their tail between their legs? Further, seems you and your minions have mighty big talk, as well as mouths, for people who claim they are so worried about Republicans and their guns.

And if the significance of the Dukakis/Obama comparison regarding percentages of white voters is lost on you, I guess I really don't find that surprising.

There is no significance.

And clearly, if you personally don't find anything wrong with your party's stance on immigration or on abortion or on gay rights, then, by all means, don't change a fucking thing.

There is nothing wrong with my party's stance on immigration and abortion and, there's no such thing as "gay 'rights'".

I am 100% OK with your party holding firm on your positions on those issues.... they were such winners for you this time around, weren't they?

They had nothing to do with "this time around". These were the least of voters' concerns. Fact is, you actually think that Obamination somehow won on his merits. Pffft! Try again...stimpy. There were a myriad of factors which allowed your punk-in-chief to win and, not a single one of them had a damn thing to do with immigration, abortion and alleged "gay 'rights'". Had to do with rigged elections, Democrats trying to "piss off" Republicans, people who don't like Mormons and, gullible brainless fuckwads who will believe anything the left-wing media tells them.

LOL In Maine, for example, gay marriage was on the ballot... it was opposed by the tea party governor half way into his term who, when we won election two years ago, also had coattails that brought in republican control of both houses of state government - something that hadn't happened in 40 years. Two years later... Obama versus Romney.... gay marriage on the ballot... Obama crushes Romney, gay marriage wins big, both democratic congressmen reelected, a democratic leaning independent takes Oly Snowe's seat and BOTH chambers of the state legislature go back in the hands of the democrats.

First, Obama crushes Romney...in Maine? HOLY SHIT...NOW THERE'S A SHOCK!

Second, gay marriage passes...in Maine? HOLY SHIT...NOW THERE'S A SHOCK!

Third, that you're so gleeful over Angus King taking Snowe's seat and that you presume he's going to caucus with Democrats? LOL! That's not what he said. But, since this is...Maine? If he does? HOLY SHIT...NOW THERE'S A SHOCK!

Now, come back with something other than...Maine. Cuz, I think folks in Maine's brains have been smashed by trains...or something.

Really... stick with your policies on those issues... they are surefire winners, no doubt! ROFLMFAO!!!!!

We will stick with those issues. We just have to deny leftists their talking points in trying to twist those issues into something they aren't and make them stop lying.

 

[regent]

News alert to Republicans

Benghazi is not 9-11

Neither is it the attack on the USS Cole
The attack on the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut
The downing of a 747 in Lockerbie
The Iran Hostage Crisis

We have faced terrorist attacks for 35 years, some under Republican Presidents, some Democrats.

But keep beating that dead horse Republicans

exactly. when the marine barracks in Beirut was blown up, what was Ron "republican demi-god" Reagan's response? DIDDLY. HE pulled out the rest of our troops and left the country and never did SHIT to avenge one of those deaths. NOTHING. And STILL republicans can't stop themselves from spontaneously ejaculating at the mere mention of his name.

Well Reagan then came back to the Americas and invaded Grenada, and Grenada has not been a danger to America since the invasion. it didn't pay to fool with Reagan.

 

[LibertyLemming]

1) Abraham Lincoln - While Lincoln is revered by so many, he did great damage to the country. He supposedly ended slavery, but that was just an effect of his war. Slavery would have come to an end anyway, and it could have been done peacefully. Lincoln waged a massive war, which killed over half a million people. That is when the country was much smaller. It was easily the deadliest war in American history, at least for Americans. It severely diminished states' rights and centralized the national government. His policies definitely had a lasting effect that we are still paying for today. He was really a brutal dictator in many ways. He killed and imprisoned those who disagreed with him. I am glad to say that it is highly unlikely that any president today could get away with the things that Lincoln did to his fellow Americans.

2) Woodrow Wilson - He presided over the Federal Reserve Act, the 16th Amendment, and the 17th Amendment. These three things all happened in his first year of office. In 1913, we got the Federal Reserve, the federal income tax, and the direct election of senators (another killer of states' rights). This alone would have been enough to put him in the top five. On top of it, he put America into World War I and instituted a draft, much like Lincoln. With American entry into World War I, it set the stage for the spread of fascism, World War II, and eventually the cold war. Wilson was awful on all accounts, foreign and domestic.

3) Franklin Roosevelt - Roosevelt was horrible on economics. He instituted his "New Deal", which gave us Social Security. He continued the Great Depression by not allowing the free market to work. He really began the massive welfare state in America. While Roosevelt is looked on highly by many for his leadership in World War II, I beg to differ. He provoked the Japanese into attacking America by imposing oil embargoes and other restrictions. There is even a good chance that he knew the attack was going to happen at Pearl Harbor and did not warn anyone. This really makes him a mass murderer. He may as well be since he loved his "Uncle Joe" Stalin so much. As a libertarian, there is one positive thing that Roosevelt did during his reign in office. He ended alcohol prohibition. This was a great thing for liberty and the violent crime went way down, even in the midst of the depression.

4) Lyndon Johnson - It would not surprise me if Johnson had a hand in the assassination of JFK. It turns out that Jackie thought that. Johnson, of course, was a war president. He is responsible for the deaths of millions of Vietnamese, along with many others. While America was already involved in Vietnam when Johnson became president, he is the one who lied Americans into war and really started the violence. On the domestic front, Johnson gave us his "Great Society" that was anything but great. He started up Medicare and Medicaid and began his "war on poverty". He was really a disaster in every way.

5) Harry Truman - Truman belongs on this list because he used two atomic bombs, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians. It was not necessary to end the war. The Japanese were already willing to surrender. For this alone, Truman belongs on this list. He also presided over most of the Korean War. On economic issues, Truman was also bad. The one good thing that he did was that he didn't do anything at the end of the world war. Due to his lack of action, the economy was finally able to recover for the first time since the 1920's.

Although I think Teddy needs to be in the top 5, I like this list. I'd put GWB and Obama in the top.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

News alert to Republicans

Benghazi is not 9-11

Neither is it the attack on the USS Cole
The attack on the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut
The downing of a 747 in Lockerbie
The Iran Hostage Crisis

We have faced terrorist attacks for 35 years, some under Republican Presidents, some Democrats.

But keep beating that dead horse Republicans

exactly. when the marine barracks in Beirut was blown up, what was Ron "republican demi-god" Reagan's response? DIDDLY. HE pulled out the rest of our troops and left the country and never did SHIT to avenge one of those deaths. NOTHING.

Well...this is not necessarily true.

1983 Beirut barracks bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And, in effect, we could argue that the 1986 bombing of Libya was payback for the Beirut bombing, as well as the bombing of the discotheque.

And STILL republicans can't stop themselves from spontaneously ejaculating at the mere mention of his name.

Well, no, it's only leftists who ejaculate over their der Leader's name. They're the ones who swoon and get tingles down their legs.

 

[Truthseeker420]

News alert to Republicans

Benghazi is not 9-11

Neither is it the attack on the USS Cole
The attack on the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut
The downing of a 747 in Lockerbie
The Iran Hostage Crisis

We have faced terrorist attacks for 35 years, some under Republican Presidents, some Democrats.

But keep beating that dead horse Republicans

exactly. when the marine barracks in Beirut was blown up, what was Ron "republican demi-god" Reagan's response? DIDDLY. HE pulled out the rest of our troops and left the country and never did SHIT to avenge one of those deaths. NOTHING. And STILL republicans can't stop themselves from spontaneously ejaculating at the mere mention of his name.

Well Reagan then came back to the Americas and invaded Grenada, and Grenada has not been a danger to America since the invasion. it didn't pay to fool with Reagan.

? lol

 

[Londoner]

After four years of the Republican propaganda machine at FoxNews and rightwing talk radio proclaiming Obama as the worst President in history, the American people have said that they prefer him to the policies and talking points of Republicans.

How should Republicans respond?

Conservatism, at its best, is supposed to conserve the organic social consensus of a people as represented in the majority will.

Indeed, the definition of a radical is someone who wants to impose a set of policies on the majority.

The GOP is now the radical party. When the majority does not vote their way, they respond by attacking the people and calling them lazy slobs who vote for whoever will give them more stuff. The old Republican party trusted the common man. Not so, the new radical GOP which wants to impose its policies on the stupid, lazy majority. This is not the Conservatism of Edmund Burke, who wanted to protect, defend and celebrate the will of the people - not change or belittle it.

God help us. The Rightwing is now way more radical than the Left ever was. Bill O'Reilly is now the grumpy old man who doesn't like what Americans want. So now he wants to change America from the top down by imposing his policies on the lazy and stupid. A real conservative has faith in "The People", whom he holds sacred.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

After four years of the Republican propaganda machine at FoxNews and rightwing talk radio proclaiming Obama as the worst President in history, the American people have said that they prefer him to the policies and talking points of Republicans.

How should Republicans respond?

Conservatives used to defend the actual will of the American people over a narrow economic group.

They still do. Seems you must somehow have the misguided notion that a majority of the American people support half the nonsense the left supports.

Read your Edmund Burke. Conservatives used to defend the organic consensus of the people as represented by the will of the majority.

Indeed, the definition of a radical is someone who wants to impose a set of policies on the majority.

So in other words, someone who wants to impose a law against murder, is a "radical"?

The GOP is now the radical party. When the majority does not vote their way, they respond by attacking the people and calling them lazy slobs who vote for whoever will give them more stuff.

Isn't that the case and, they're telling the truth?

The old Republican party trusted the common man. Not so, the new radical GOP which wants to impose its policies on the stupid, lazy majority. This is not the Conservatism of Edmund Burke, who wanted to protect, defend and celebrate the will of the people - not change or belittle it.

Fuck Edmund Burke. Edmund Burke is so like 215 years ago. Edmund Burke didn't envision half the crap that exists today.

God help us. The Rightwing is now way more radical than the Left ever was. God help us.

Oh puhlease...give your pile of shit a rest.

 

[expatriate]

After four years of the Republican propaganda machine at FoxNews and rightwing talk radio proclaiming Obama as the worst President in history, the American people have said that they prefer him to the policies and talking points of Republicans.

How should Republicans respond?

Conservatives used to defend the actual will of the American people over a narrow economic group.

They still do. Seems you must somehow have the misguided notion that a majority of the American people support half the nonsense the left supports.



So in other words, someone who wants to impose a law against murder, is a "radical"?



Isn't that the case and, they're telling the truth?

The old Republican party trusted the common man. Not so, the new radical GOP which wants to impose its policies on the stupid, lazy majority. This is not the Conservatism of Edmund Burke, who wanted to protect, defend and celebrate the will of the people - not change or belittle it.

Fuck Edmund Burke. Edmund Burke is so like 215 years ago. Edmund Burke didn't envision half the crap that exists today.

God help us. The Rightwing is now way more radical than the Left ever was. God help us.

Oh puhlease...give your pile of shit a rest.

you bore me. Your side got its ass kicked and you're too big of a mule to simply admit it.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Conservatives used to defend the actual will of the American people over a narrow economic group.

They still do. Seems you must somehow have the misguided notion that a majority of the American people support half the nonsense the left supports.



So in other words, someone who wants to impose a law against murder, is a "radical"?



Isn't that the case and, they're telling the truth?



Fuck Edmund Burke. Edmund Burke is so like 215 years ago. Edmund Burke didn't envision half the crap that exists today.

God help us. The Rightwing is now way more radical than the Left ever was. God help us.

Oh puhlease...give your pile of shit a rest.

you bore me. Your side got its ass kicked and you're too big of a mule to simply admit it.

That's okay. Your side got it's ass kicked in 2000 and 2004. And, you were no doubt too big of a mule to admit it, as well. Don't act all indignant and shit.

 

[expatriate]

They still do. Seems you must somehow have the misguided notion that a majority of the American people support half the nonsense the left supports.



So in other words, someone who wants to impose a law against murder, is a "radical"?



Isn't that the case and, they're telling the truth?



Fuck Edmund Burke. Edmund Burke is so like 215 years ago. Edmund Burke didn't envision half the crap that exists today.

Oh puhlease...give your pile of shit a rest.

you bore me. Your side got its ass kicked and you're too big of a mule to simply admit it.

That's okay. Your side got it's ass kicked in 2000 and 2004. And, you were no doubt too big of a mule to admit it, as well. Don't act all indignant and shit.

Not acting indignant at all. I Will readily admit that John Kerry got beat in 2004. To suggest that Al Gore "got his ass kicked" in 2000 is laughable. in 2012, the GOP got its ass kicked. and I think that is not only GOOD for America, it's also pretty fucking funny given how many of your fellow goobers on here were so confidently and obnoxiously predicting the exact opposite. hey... You can stay all cocky and sassy if that helps you make it through the night, but the fact of the matter is: your side LOST. That makes you a LOSER. Tap dance around that all night long, motherfucker.

 

[theHawk]

After four years of the Republican propaganda machine at FoxNews and rightwing talk radio proclaiming Obama as the worst President in history, the American people have said that they prefer him to the policies and talking points of Republicans.

How should Republicans respond?

My guess is they will double down on stupid. Obama did not win because he was black. He did not win because he gives free stuff to people. He won because the states are lined up in his favor. You saw it last night, there was only so much Romney could do with the alignment of states.

The Northeast and West are permanently blue. The rust belt is turning that way. That is a major block of electoral votes. Republican policies are tailored to the whims of the bible belt Red States. Ban abortion, block citizenship for illegal aliens, attack gays, attack unions, attack education...blame everything on welfare queens

Unless Republicans can appeal to Hispanics and young women they will lose more states. Florida will turn permanently blue, so will Ohio. States with large hispanic populations (Arizona, Texas) will turn to Battleground States

This will mean Republicans will be unable to win the White House or the Senate. Republicans will become a second tier party

How will they respond?

Double down on dumb

"Obama did not win because he was black"

Yea, as if the Hussein would of ever even won the Dem Primaries in 2008 if he hadn't been. As if the thousands on blacks in urban districts in the blue states would of showed up in droves to vote for a white man.

It would also help the GOP if they stopped nominating moderates. McCain, Romney...its a joke to think either of these guys are "far right wingers".

Personally, I could care less if I am a minority in my opinions about abortion, illegals, unions, and the corrupt education system we have. I wouldn't change my opinion just because of the outcome of an election. Just because legions of idiots outnumber us slightly doesn't make them right. If women want to vote in liberals who will ruin our country with trillion dollar debts just to protect their "right" of abortion, then so be it, it will be our undoing as a nation.

If we as a nation are going to prioritize welfare, high taxes, trillion dollar deficits, abortion, high unemployment and weak foreign policy, then we aren't going to last long.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

you bore me. Your side got its ass kicked and you're too big of a mule to simply admit it.

That's okay. Your side got it's ass kicked in 2000 and 2004. And, you were no doubt too big of a mule to admit it, as well. Don't act all indignant and shit.

Not acting indignant at all. I Will readily admit that John Kerry got beat in 2004. To suggest that Al Gore "got his ass kicked" in 2000 is laughable. in 2012, the GOP got its ass kicked. and I think that is not only GOOD for America, it's also pretty fucking funny given how many of your fellow goobers on here were so confidently and obnoxiously predicting the exact opposite. hey... You can stay all cocky and sassy if that helps you make it through the night, but the fact of the matter is: your side LOST. That makes you a LOSER. Tap dance around that all night long, motherfucker.

Oh, but Al Snore DID get his ass kicked. LOL! To lose the election, no matter by how much, is to get your ass kicked. And, the fact of the matter is this. I forgot to mention the 2006 Congressional elections. You guys got your asses kicked pretty much then...too. And, lastly, no, the only loser here is you. I didn't vote for that putrid wretch you like to call your p-r-e-s-i-d-e-n-t. Or, more like...King.

 

[oldernwiser]

After four years of the Republican propaganda machine at FoxNews and rightwing talk radio proclaiming Obama as the worst President in history, the American people have said that they prefer him to the policies and talking points of Republicans.

How should Republicans respond?

My guess is they will double down on stupid. Obama did not win because he was black. He did not win because he gives free stuff to people. He won because the states are lined up in his favor. You saw it last night, there was only so much Romney could do with the alignment of states.

The Northeast and West are permanently blue. The rust belt is turning that way. That is a major block of electoral votes. Republican policies are tailored to the whims of the bible belt Red States. Ban abortion, block citizenship for illegal aliens, attack gays, attack unions, attack education...blame everything on welfare queens

Unless Republicans can appeal to Hispanics and young women they will lose more states. Florida will turn permanently blue, so will Ohio. States with large hispanic populations (Arizona, Texas) will turn to Battleground States

This will mean Republicans will be unable to win the White House or the Senate. Republicans will become a second tier party

How will they respond?

Double down on dumb

I'd agree with that. Republicans came out with a message that just didn't ring with the majority. They spent 4 years trying their damnedest to get a Democrat out of office and failed. Now they sit in a very unenviable position of having to try to cut entitlements, which will cost them seats, or having to vote for a tax hike, which will also cut their funding (those that signed the pledge) and cost them seats (those conservatives who hate tax hikes more than anything). Looks to me like they doubled down on dumb already, but haven't paid the dealer yet.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

After four years of the Republican propaganda machine at FoxNews and rightwing talk radio proclaiming Obama as the worst President in history, the American people have said that they prefer him to the policies and talking points of Republicans.

How should Republicans respond?

My guess is they will double down on stupid. Obama did not win because he was black. He did not win because he gives free stuff to people. He won because the states are lined up in his favor. You saw it last night, there was only so much Romney could do with the alignment of states.

The Northeast and West are permanently blue. The rust belt is turning that way. That is a major block of electoral votes. Republican policies are tailored to the whims of the bible belt Red States. Ban abortion, block citizenship for illegal aliens, attack gays, attack unions, attack education...blame everything on welfare queens

Unless Republicans can appeal to Hispanics and young women they will lose more states. Florida will turn permanently blue, so will Ohio. States with large hispanic populations (Arizona, Texas) will turn to Battleground States

This will mean Republicans will be unable to win the White House or the Senate. Republicans will become a second tier party

How will they respond?

Double down on dumb

"Obama did not win because he was black"

Yea, as if the Hussein would of ever even won the Dem Primaries in 2008 if he hadn't been. As if the thousands on blacks in urban districts in the blue states would of showed up in droves to vote for a white man.

It would also help the GOP if they stopped nominating moderates. McCain, Romney...its a joke to think either of these guys are "far right wingers".

Personally, I could care less if I am a minority in my opinions about abortion, illegals, unions, and the corrupt education system we have. I wouldn't change my opinion just because of the outcome of an election. Just because legions of idiots outnumber us slightly doesn't make them right. If women want to vote in liberals who will ruin our country with trillion dollar debts just to protect their "right" of abortion, then so be it, it will be our undoing as a nation.

If we as a nation are going to prioritize welfare, high taxes, trillion dollar deficits, abortion, high unemployment and weak foreign policy, then we aren't going to last long.

Well, the thing is, they THINK they outnumber us. They forget there are probably about 76.1 people who are between the age of 0-17. This nation has a population of approximately 311.6 people in the United States. The number of those who voted in this election was about 121.7 million. Subtract 76.1 million from the population of this country and you get about 235.5 million people who are 18 or over; old enough to vote. Subtract 121.7 million from the 235.5 million people who are old enough to vote and you get about 113.8 million people who didn't vote. And, since we can only guess as to how this 113.8 million people would have voted if they would have chosen to vote? I don't know as if anyone has a legitimate claim to say anyone outnumbers anyone else. We have no idea how that 113.8 million people who didn't vote would have voted if they would have voted and, we have no idea as to what their ideals are. We can only guess. However, since I think a good number out of that 113.8 million people who didn't vote, didn't do so because they weren't necessarily satisfied with the Republicans' choice for a presidential candidate (whether it be he is a Mormon, too moderate, whatever)? I think I can feel somewhat confident in presuming that a majority of them likely lean more towards the policies of conservatives. I mean, really, out of that 113.8 million people who didn't vote, how many were leftists who chose not to vote for Obama? I highly doubt very many.