The Worst President in history has been reelected

[Bern80]

And as unpopular as he may be, Romney is hated even worse.

You can claim that all you want, but the true difference is statistically meaningless such that to claim Romney is disliked significantly more or in a way that means anything is simply not true.

Eyes wide shut, hoss.

Numbers don't lie....'hoss'. A difference of 1.3% in 'popularity' in a sample size of 120 million is statistically meaningless.

 

[rightwinger]

Again you overstate the popularity of Obama. There are about 240 million eligible voters in the U.S. Obama got 60.5 million of their votes. That's about 25%. Hardly a show of faith of the American people.

If we had counted the votes of those who did not vote last Tuesday, Obama would have won 180 million votes

Proving once again that Obama had a mandate

your numbers don't add up. There are 240 million, give or take, eligible voters. 118 million of them voted for one candidate or the other. That's a difference of 122 million. You're only 58 million off. The second problem is your assuming for whatever nonsensical reason that those 122 million would go to Obama.

Of course they add up

Obama received 60 million votes

120 million people didn't vote, we can assume they all would have voted for Obama which would give him 180 million votes

 

[gallantwarrior]

Again you overstate the popularity of Obama. There are about 240 million eligible voters in the U.S. Obama got 60.5 million of their votes. That's about 25%. Hardly a show of faith of the American people.

Those who do not vote forfeit their right to have their candidate opinions considered.

Obama won by 3 million votes and is the popular choice to be our President

You really don't want to be honest about the numbers do you? We wouldn't want to have to deal with actual facts that show your guy is not nearly as popular with people as you claim would we? First you tried to claim overwhelming support because he won by 24% of the electoral vote, which is not an accurate gauge of opinion. Your trying to cling to this notion that Obama has the support of the bulk of the nation. He just plain doesn't. The fact is he received just 25% of eligible and was elected by less than 20% of the population. He won by a mere 1.3% of those eligible voters. I don't see how any can claim with low numbers like that that Obama is somehow hugely popular with Americans

You are now in a liberal "fact-free zone", their minds are made up. Please do not attempt to present facts, hard numbers, or reliable citations. All will be denied because you are now in a liberal "fact-free zone".

 

[gallantwarrior]

Those who do not vote forfeit their right to have their candidate opinions considered.

Obama won by 3 million votes and is the popular choice to be our President

You really don't want to be honest about the numbers do you? We wouldn't want to have to deal with actual facts that show your guy is not nearly as popular with people as you claim would we? First you tried to claim overwhelming support because he won by 24% of the electoral vote, which is not an accurate gauge of opinion. Your trying to cling to this notion that Obama has the support of the bulk of the nation. He just plain doesn't. The fact is he received just 25% of eligible and was elected by less than 20% of the population. He won by a mere 1.3% of those eligible voters. I don't see how any can claim with low numbers like that that Obama is somehow hugely popular with Americans

Such has been the case with all US elections at least since 68. Fact is the President is popular with everyone except angry white males.

That's anything but a fact.

 

[House]

You can claim that all you want, but the true difference is statistically meaningless such that to claim Romney is disliked significantly more or in a way that means anything is simply not true.

Eyes wide shut, hoss.

Numbers don't lie....'hoss'. A difference of 1.3% in 'popularity' in a sample size of 120 million is statistically meaningless.

3 million votes is significantly more than 1.3% of the 121... oh hell, let's give you some extra... even 122 million voters that showed up at the polls. Anything outside of actual vote counts are meaningless blather spouted by butthurt losers.

 

[Bern80]

If we had counted the votes of those who did not vote last Tuesday, Obama would have won 180 million votes

Proving once again that Obama had a mandate

your numbers don't add up. There are 240 million, give or take, eligible voters. 118 million of them voted for one candidate or the other. That's a difference of 122 million. You're only 58 million off. The second problem is your assuming for whatever nonsensical reason that those 122 million would go to Obama.

Of course they add up

Obama received 60 million votes

120 million people didn't vote, we can assume they all would have voted for Obama which would give him 180 million votes

So now the people who didnt' vote do count for something? I thought you said they didn't. And exactly what evidence do you have for the assumption that all the eligible voters that didn't vote would have voted for Obama?

 

[rightwinger]

your numbers don't add up. There are 240 million, give or take, eligible voters. 118 million of them voted for one candidate or the other. That's a difference of 122 million. You're only 58 million off. The second problem is your assuming for whatever nonsensical reason that those 122 million would go to Obama.

Of course they add up

Obama received 60 million votes

120 million people didn't vote, we can assume they all would have voted for Obama which would give him 180 million votes

So now the people who didnt' vote do count for something? I thought you said they didn't. And exactly what evidence do you have for the assumption that all the eligible voters that didn't vote would have voted for Obama?

Sinced we are both making assumptions on how 180 million apathetic Americans would have voted....I am assuming they all would have voted for Obama

What is your assumption?

 

[dblack]

Of course they add up

Obama received 60 million votes

120 million people didn't vote, we can assume they all would have voted for Obama which would give him 180 million votes

So now the people who didnt' vote do count for something? I thought you said they didn't. And exactly what evidence do you have for the assumption that all the eligible voters that didn't vote would have voted for Obama?

Sinced we are both making assumptions on how 180 million apathetic Americans would have voted....I am assuming they all would have voted for Obama

What is your assumption?

I can't really assume much useful about them. But know for a fact that some of the 60 million who voted for him, don't like him much at all. They simply disliked Romney more.

The point is, as long as 'lesser-of-two-evils' prevails, simply winning the election can't be seen as a mandate.

 

[Bern80]

Eyes wide shut, hoss.

Numbers don't lie....'hoss'. A difference of 1.3% in 'popularity' in a sample size of 120 million is statistically meaningless.

3 million votes is significantly more than 1.3% of the 121... oh hell, let's give you some extra... even 122 million voters that showed up at the polls. Anything outside of actual vote counts are meaningless blather spouted by butthurt losers.

1.3% is the difference between 60.5 million and 57.5 million, genius. Obama got 1.3% (or 3 million more votes (stated your way)). If one was trying to conlcude from that who was more popular, more hated, less hated.....whatever, one could not do so, because 1.3% is not a large enough disparity to statistically conclude much of anything at all.

 

[Bern80]

Of course they add up

Obama received 60 million votes

120 million people didn't vote, we can assume they all would have voted for Obama which would give him 180 million votes

So now the people who didnt' vote do count for something? I thought you said they didn't. And exactly what evidence do you have for the assumption that all the eligible voters that didn't vote would have voted for Obama?

Sinced we are both making assumptions on how 180 million apathetic Americans would have voted....I am assuming they all would have voted for Obama

What is your assumption?

I'm making very few assumptions about how it would have broken down. But most reasonable people will have the objectivity to see the ridiculousness of the idea that 100% of people that could vote, but didn't, would all have voted for the same guy. Again, I'm open to any evidence you may have that would show otherwise.

 

[rightwinger]

So now the people who didnt' vote do count for something? I thought you said they didn't. And exactly what evidence do you have for the assumption that all the eligible voters that didn't vote would have voted for Obama?

Sinced we are both making assumptions on how 180 million apathetic Americans would have voted....I am assuming they all would have voted for Obama

What is your assumption?

I can't really assume much useful about them. But know for a fact that some of the 60 million who voted for him, don't like him much at all. They simply disliked Romney more.

The point is, as long as 'lesser-of-two-evils' prevails, simply winning the election can't be seen as a mandate.

You are making assumptions to cover for the fact that your preferred candidate lost

Simply winning an election makes you President of the United States

That is all that matters

 

[BlindBoo]

You really don't want to be honest about the numbers do you? We wouldn't want to have to deal with actual facts that show your guy is not nearly as popular with people as you claim would we? First you tried to claim overwhelming support because he won by 24% of the electoral vote, which is not an accurate gauge of opinion. Your trying to cling to this notion that Obama has the support of the bulk of the nation. He just plain doesn't. The fact is he received just 25% of eligible and was elected by less than 20% of the population. He won by a mere 1.3% of those eligible voters. I don't see how any can claim with low numbers like that that Obama is somehow hugely popular with Americans

Such has been the case with all US elections at least since 68. Fact is the President is popular with everyone except angry white males.

That's anything but a fact.

I stand corrected. Everyone except for alot of angry white men and to a lessor extent a few angry white women.

 

[rightwinger]

your numbers don't add up. There are 240 million, give or take, eligible voters. 118 million of them voted for one candidate or the other. That's a difference of 122 million. You're only 58 million off. The second problem is your assuming for whatever nonsensical reason that those 122 million would go to Obama.

Of course they add up

Obama received 60 million votes

120 million people didn't vote, we can assume they all would have voted for Obama which would give him 180 million votes

So now the people who didnt' vote do count for something? I thought you said they didn't. And exactly what evidence do you have for the assumption that all the eligible voters that didn't vote would have voted for Obama?

My assuming that Obama would have taken the vote from every apathetic voter is as valid as your assumption that only 25% of eligible Americans supported Obama. To make that assumtion, you presume that none of the 180 million supported him

My assumption is closer to the truth

 

[dblack]

You are making assumptions to cover for the fact that your preferred candidate lost.

No. I'm not.

Simply winning an election makes you President of the United States

That is all that matters

Plenty of other things matter. In particular, what - if anything - an election victory tells us about the 'will of the people'.

 

[rightwinger]

You are making assumptions to cover for the fact that your preferred candidate lost.

No. I'm not.

Simply winning an election makes you President of the United States

That is all that matters

Plenty of other things matter. In particular, what - if anything - an election victory tells us about the 'will of the people'.

The "will of the people" elected Obama to a second term

Get over it

 

[dblack]

You are making assumptions to cover for the fact that your preferred candidate lost.

No. I'm not.

Simply winning an election makes you President of the United States

That is all that matters

Plenty of other things matter. In particular, what - if anything - an election victory tells us about the 'will of the people'.

The "will of the people" elected Obama to a second term

Get over it

Blow me. I don't really care much about the election. Obama winning was a best-case-scenario among the (very shitty) likely outcomes.

The question is whether the result of the election amounts to an endorsement of all, or any, of Obama's policies. There's good reason to believe it doesn't. You can sit there and spout snarky babble, or you can join the conversation.

 

[EriktheRed]

Some folks just haven't taken this election very well:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mGVPUcCMCx4]November 6th: Hitler Finds Out Obama Won Re-election - YouTube[/ame]

 

[EriktheRed]

No. I'm not.



Plenty of other things matter. In particular, what - if anything - an election victory tells us about the 'will of the people'.

The "will of the people" elected Obama to a second term

Get over it

Blow me. I don't really care much about the election. Obama winning was a best-case-scenario among the (very shitty) likely outcomes.

The question is whether the result of the election amounts to an endorsement of all, or any, of Obama's policies. There's good reason to believe it doesn't. You can sit there and spout snarky babble, or you can join the conversation.

An endorsement by who?

 

[House]

Numbers don't lie....'hoss'. A difference of 1.3% in 'popularity' in a sample size of 120 million is statistically meaningless.

3 million votes is significantly more than 1.3% of the 121... oh hell, let's give you some extra... even 122 million voters that showed up at the polls. Anything outside of actual vote counts are meaningless blather spouted by butthurt losers.

1.3% is the difference between 60.5 million and 57.5 million, genius. Obama got 1.3% (or 3 million more votes (stated your way)). If one was trying to conlcude from that who was more popular, more hated, less hated.....whatever, one could not do so, because 1.3% is not a large enough disparity to statistically conclude much of anything at all.

3 million votes is plenty to conclude which one is more/less popular and/or hated

It's rather simple math, hair splitting is the last refuge of the sore loser.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

and the funny thing is... in many of those dead red states, the folks who routinely vote republican ARE less fortunate... and lazy and stupid and routinely getting handouts themselves.

Yeah, but that's only those leftists who govern and live in the blue cities and counties, within that red state.

like these folks, no doubt.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y54rcz_L5Q4"]Mississippi Rednecks that vote republican - YouTube[/ame]

No, more like these folks.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI"]Obama Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage!!! - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio"]Original Obamaphone Lady: Obama Voter Says Vote for Obama because he gives a free Phone - YouTube[/ame]