You can thank Republicans for Obama’s renewed popularity

[SassyIrishLass]

Dumb, child. You're floundering in your very own thread. Just like the old days LMAO You start a thread, get shellacked and then go all stupid

Ironic given that you don't even know whose thread you are in!

Meh one clown or another, makes little difference. Go wipe your face, you look like a deranged clown, tool

 

[nat4900]

Ironic given that you don't even know whose thread you are in!

Beat me to it, my friend....but, as we all know, can't expect too much sanity from the old Irish......

 

[nat4900]

Listen up you fake professor and I do mean fake, that was hilarious when I outed your dumb ass wasn't it? Google destroyed your faux little persona HAHAHAHAHA But Spindleman had you pegged, a liar and a fraud. I just nailed the lid on your coffin

I don't expect you to really answer with some facts, but what the hell are you talking about? Google, Spindleman, Santa Claus, Easter Bunny???

 

[BluesLegend]

A president cannot change our laws because the congress refuses to, sorry.

Perhaps not the same scope of numbers affected....but here are some of GWB's EOs on immigration: (NO liberal judge objected)

2002....By executive order, expedited naturalization for green-card holders who joined military.

2005....By executive order, deferred deportation of students affected by Hurricane Katrina.

2006....By executive order, enabled 1,500 Cuban physicians to seek asylum at US embassies.

2007....By executive order, deferred deportation of 3,600 Liberians.

You're two wrongs make a right argument is FAIL!

 

[BluesLegend]

Ahahaha Dem's couldn't get their existing voters to turn out what makes you think these Hispanics will vote?

Self-preservation from the closet-racists? (especially on national, presidential elections.)

Go ahead, explain the 2014 election where "vote for us because Republicans are racists" failed. You libs really are having a tough time coming to grips with voters rejecting you.

Republicans do better when fewer people vote. They know it. Which is why republicans do better in off season elections. And why they have been working so hard to make voting more difficult.

But a general election year? Riddle me this batman......since 1988, how many times has the GOP convinced the electorate to vote for their candidate? And how many times have the democrats done the same thing?

More 'mid terms' excuses, in 2006 when Dem's took control of congress you people were singing a different tune. You people said it was a repudiation of Bush, the people had spoken, Dem's were given a mandate. Why are you people talking out your ass now? Never mind the fact that if Obama can't turn out your base nobody can.

Notice you didn't even take a shot at my question. And there's a simple reason: the answer is once.

That's right, the GOP has managed a grand total of once time in the last generation to convince the electorate to vote for their candidate. The democrats in comparison have managed it 5 times. Democrats do better when more people vote. Republicans when less do.

The year 1921, that's 94+ years ago that's how far back you have to go to find a Democratic party beating as bad as they just took. I think you people need to be asking yourselves what went wrong in your party.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Listen up you fake professor and I do mean fake, that was hilarious when I outed your dumb ass wasn't it? Google destroyed your faux little persona HAHAHAHAHA But Spindleman had you pegged, a liar and a fraud. I just nailed the lid on your coffin

I don't expect you to really answer with some facts, but what the hell are you talking about? Google, Spindleman, Santa Claus, Easter Bunny???

Sassy is just an object of derision around here because she has zero credibility. 99% of the time I ignore her puerile posts but her cretinous drivel in this thread was just begging to be b/slapped. Wouldn't surprise me if she PUI. (Posting Under the Influence.)

 

[BluesLegend]

Self-preservation from the closet-racists? (especially on national, presidential elections.)

Go ahead, explain the 2014 election where "vote for us because Republicans are racists" failed. You libs really are having a tough time coming to grips with voters rejecting you.

Republicans do better when fewer people vote. They know it. Which is why republicans do better in off season elections. And why they have been working so hard to make voting more difficult.

But a general election year? Riddle me this batman......since 1988, how many times has the GOP convinced the electorate to vote for their candidate? And how many times have the democrats done the same thing?

Notice you didn't even take a shot at my question. And there's a simple reason: the answer is once.

That's right, the GOP has managed a grand total of once time in the last generation to convince the electorate to vote for their candidate. The democrats in comparison have managed it 5 times. Democrats do better when more people vote. Republicans when less do.

Therefore, the biased SC decision to render obsolete sections 4 and 5 of the Voters' Rights Act.

Further, (and this should scare the heck out of R-Wers) the Census Bureau found that in 2012, for the first time, voting rates of black Americans exceeded that of whites: 66.2% of eligible black voters cast ballots in the last presidential election, compared with 64.1% of whites.

And your plan is to nominate Hillary and drive White voter turn out through the roof?

Obama's won't pass SCOTUS, idiot

Well, paraphrasing Stalin when told that the Pope didn't like the Russians' persecution of Christians........"how many divisions and regiments does the SCOTUS have?"

Bottom line: your ilk CANNOT round up and expel millions....

Not true, we are already deporting 400,000 a year without even trying. Why do liberals tell this lie over and over again?

 

[SwimExpert]

Notice you didn't even take a shot at my question. And there's a simple reason: the answer is once.

That's right, the GOP has managed a grand total of once time in the last generation to convince the electorate to vote for their candidate. The democrats in comparison have managed it 5 times. Democrats do better when more people vote. Republicans when less do.

Are you really saying this nonsense?

What part of my post do you disagree with?

All of it.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Listen up you fake professor and I do mean fake, that was hilarious when I outed your dumb ass wasn't it? Google destroyed your faux little persona HAHAHAHAHA But Spindleman had you pegged, a liar and a fraud. I just nailed the lid on your coffin

I don't expect you to really answer with some facts, but what the hell are you talking about? Google, Spindleman, Santa Claus, Easter Bunny???

Sassy is just an object of derision around here because she has zero credibility. 99% of the time I ignore her puerile posts but her cretinous drivel in this thread was just begging to be b/slapped. Wouldn't surprise me if she PUI. (Posting Under the Influence.)

But yet here you are, clown LOL

 

[Skylar]

Notice you didn't even take a shot at my question. And there's a simple reason: the answer is once.

That's right, the GOP has managed a grand total of once time in the last generation to convince the electorate to vote for their candidate. The democrats in comparison have managed it 5 times. Democrats do better when more people vote. Republicans when less do.

Are you really saying this nonsense?

What part of my post do you disagree with?

All of it.

So you don't think that democratic candidates were able to convince the majority of the electorate to vote for them for president in the last generation?

Because i can show you election results that affirm that they did.

Or is it that you disagree with the fact that republicans have managed the same feat only once in the last generation?

Because i can show you election results that affirm the same.

 

[guno]

You can thank Republicans for Obama s renewed popularity - The Washington Post

The takeaway is that when the action in Washington exposes—and doesn’t smooth over—the fundamental differences between Republicans and Democrats, Obama’s favorability suffers. But when legislators accommodate the White House for the sake of avoiding “dysfunction,” the president benefits.

So if Republican politicians really want to advance conservative legislation, they have to embrace the reality that the only way to win a debate is to have one.​

Gee, what a novel idea! Who would have guessed that engaging in a civil debate would be the way to get their conservative agenda passed?

It only happened throughout the Clinton administration. He worked with the GOP and together they came up with compromises that actually resulted in economic growth and prosperity for everyone.

But the dilemma for the rabid right today is that they hate Obama and don't want to do anything that improves his approval ratings. (Just look at Clinton's high approval ratings and they even tried impeaching him and failed!)

So if the extremist rightwing want to move their agenda they have to deal with Obama looking good.

They can't have their cake and eat it too.

the refusal to look for compromise has come from obama, not congress. His "my way or no way" approach to government has failed and the country is the loser.

Thankfully the old white christian party and their toadies are dying off
The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama

The New New Deal Why the GOP Became the Party of No TIME.com


GOP's Anti-Obama Campaign Started Night Of Inauguration

Robert Draper Book GOP s Anti-Obama Campaign Started Night Of Inauguration

 

[Anathema]

You are free to trash your own credibility by failing to provide substantiation for your claims.

Only one Entity in this Universe who I'm concerned about my credibility with and it's not any one of you.

 

[SwimExpert]

Notice you didn't even take a shot at my question. And there's a simple reason: the answer is once.

That's right, the GOP has managed a grand total of once time in the last generation to convince the electorate to vote for their candidate. The democrats in comparison have managed it 5 times. Democrats do better when more people vote. Republicans when less do.

Are you really saying this nonsense?

What part of my post do you disagree with?

All of it.

So you don't think that democratic candidates were able to convince the majority of the electorate to vote for them for president in the last generation?

Because i can show you election results that affirm that they did.

Or is it that you disagree with the fact that republicans have managed the same feat only once in the last generation?

Because i can show you election results that affirm the same.

Bouncing back and forth between vague claims and specific claims is a logical fallacy. That you can't even figure out how many elections there have been between 1988 and now is a counting and math problem, and an example of how common core is failing our country.

1988 - Bush elected
1992 - Clinton elected
1996 - Clinton reelected
2000 - Bush elected
2004 - Bush reelected
2008 - Obama elected
2012 - Obama reelected.

That's a total of seven elections. Three went GOP, four went Democrat. I won't even bother discussing how your arbitrary selection of 1988 is a further problem.

 

[Skylar]

Notice you didn't even take a shot at my question. And there's a simple reason: the answer is once.

That's right, the GOP has managed a grand total of once time in the last generation to convince the electorate to vote for their candidate. The democrats in comparison have managed it 5 times. Democrats do better when more people vote. Republicans when less do.

Are you really saying this nonsense?

What part of my post do you disagree with?

All of it.

So you don't think that democratic candidates were able to convince the majority of the electorate to vote for them for president in the last generation?

Because i can show you election results that affirm that they did.

Or is it that you disagree with the fact that republicans have managed the same feat only once in the last generation?

Because i can show you election results that affirm the same.

Bouncing back and forth between vague claims and specific claims is a logical fallacy. That you can't even figure out how many elections there have been between 1988 and now is a counting and math problem, and an example of how common core is failing our country.

1988 - Bush elected
1992 - Clinton elected
1996 - Clinton reelected
2000 - Bush elected
2004 - Bush reelected
2008 - Obama elected
2012 - Obama reelected.

That's a total of seven elections. Three went GOP, four went Democrat. I won't even bother discussing how your arbitrary selection of 1988 is a further problem.

Bush didn't win the popular vote in 2000. The GOP couldn't convince a majority of the electorate to vote for their candidate. The Democrats did, with Gore carrying the popular vote by half a million votes. Since 1988....the GOP has managed to convince the electorate to vote for their candidate a grand total of ONCE.

In 2004.

The Democrats have managed it 5 times. 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008 and 2014.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Only the truly radical, America hating, commie leftist hacks and retards are left supporting him.

Who knew that 45% of Americas are "truly radical, America hating, commie leftist hacks and retards"?

Nah, only about half of them are. The rest of them are just plain ignorant and stupid.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Bouncing back and forth between vague claims and specific claims is a logical fallacy. That you can't even figure out how many elections there have been between 1988 and now is a counting and math problem, and an example of how common core is failing our country.

1988 - Bush elected
1992 - Clinton elected
1996 - Clinton reelected
2000 - Bush elected
2004 - Bush reelected
2008 - Obama elected
2012 - Obama reelected.

That's a total of seven elections. Three went GOP, four went Democrat. I won't even bother discussing how your arbitrary selection of 1988 is a further problem.

Bush didn't win the popular vote in 2000. The GOP couldn't convince a majority of the electorate to vote for their candidate. The Democrats did, with Gore carrying the popular vote by half a million votes. Since 1988....the GOP has managed to convince the electorate to vote for their candidate a grand total of ONCE.

In 2004.

The Democrats have managed it 5 times. 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008 and 2014.

Clinton also never won with a majority popular vote, only a plurality

 

[hortysir]

You can thank Republicans for Obama s renewed popularity - The Washington Post

The takeaway is that when the action in Washington exposes—and doesn’t smooth over—the fundamental differences between Republicans and Democrats, Obama’s favorability suffers. But when legislators accommodate the White House for the sake of avoiding “dysfunction,” the president benefits.

So if Republican politicians really want to advance conservative legislation, they have to embrace the reality that the only way to win a debate is to have one.​

Gee, what a novel idea! Who would have guessed that engaging in a civil debate would be the way to get their conservative agenda passed?

It only happened throughout the Clinton administration. He worked with the GOP and together they came up with compromises that actually resulted in economic growth and prosperity for everyone.

But the dilemma for the rabid right today is that they hate Obama and don't want to do anything that improves his approval ratings. (Just look at Clinton's high approval ratings and they even tried impeaching him and failed!)

So if the extremist rightwing want to move their agenda they have to deal with Obama looking good.

They can't have their cake and eat it too.

"Renewed popularity"?

With whom?
The career unemployed?

 

[SwimExpert]

Are you really saying this nonsense?

What part of my post do you disagree with?

All of it.

So you don't think that democratic candidates were able to convince the majority of the electorate to vote for them for president in the last generation?

Because i can show you election results that affirm that they did.

Or is it that you disagree with the fact that republicans have managed the same feat only once in the last generation?

Because i can show you election results that affirm the same.

Bouncing back and forth between vague claims and specific claims is a logical fallacy. That you can't even figure out how many elections there have been between 1988 and now is a counting and math problem, and an example of how common core is failing our country.

1988 - Bush elected
1992 - Clinton elected
1996 - Clinton reelected
2000 - Bush elected
2004 - Bush reelected
2008 - Obama elected
2012 - Obama reelected.

That's a total of seven elections. Three went GOP, four went Democrat. I won't even bother discussing how your arbitrary selection of 1988 is a further problem.

Bush didn't win the popular vote in 2000. The GOP couldn't convince a majority of the electorate to vote for their candidate. The Democrats did, with Gore carrying the popular vote by half a million votes. Since 1988....the GOP has managed to convince the electorate to vote for their candidate a grand total of ONCE.

In 2004.

The Democrats have managed it 5 times. 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008 and 2014.

Point one, the first: 5 +1 = 6, so you still can't count.

Point two, the second: Our system operates on an electoral college. Like or not, it's the way it is. If it were not there, all candidates would have operated differently. Complaining about the electoral college vs the popular vote is meaningless, because in our system the popular vote is meaningless and the candidates treat it as such.

 

[Skylar]

What part of my post do you disagree with?

All of it.

So you don't think that democratic candidates were able to convince the majority of the electorate to vote for them for president in the last generation?

Because i can show you election results that affirm that they did.

Or is it that you disagree with the fact that republicans have managed the same feat only once in the last generation?

Because i can show you election results that affirm the same.

Bouncing back and forth between vague claims and specific claims is a logical fallacy. That you can't even figure out how many elections there have been between 1988 and now is a counting and math problem, and an example of how common core is failing our country.

1988 - Bush elected
1992 - Clinton elected
1996 - Clinton reelected
2000 - Bush elected
2004 - Bush reelected
2008 - Obama elected
2012 - Obama reelected.

That's a total of seven elections. Three went GOP, four went Democrat. I won't even bother discussing how your arbitrary selection of 1988 is a further problem.

Bush didn't win the popular vote in 2000. The GOP couldn't convince a majority of the electorate to vote for their candidate. The Democrats did, with Gore carrying the popular vote by half a million votes. Since 1988....the GOP has managed to convince the electorate to vote for their candidate a grand total of ONCE.

In 2004.

The Democrats have managed it 5 times. 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008 and 2014.

Point one, the first: 5 +1 = 6, so you still can't count.

And my scale is since 1988. And since 1988 there have been 6 elections. So my math is fine.

Point two, the second: Our system operates on an electoral college.

Irrelevant to my point; which is the GOP's abysmal record in convincing majority of the electorate to vote for their presidential ccandidates. In 5 of the last 6 presidential elections, the GOP has been unable to do it. In 5 of the last 6 elections, the Democrats did.

This made all the more relevant by the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact created in response to the 2000 election. States that have joined it have committed to assigning their electors to whoever wins the popular vote. At 160 of the 270 electoral votes necessary to clinch the presidency, they are well past half way to making the electoral college irrelevant. And the election going to the popular vote has strong support among both democrats and republicans.

So I ask again....what part of my post do you disagree with? As so far, everything I've said is accurate.

 

[Redfish]

All of it.

So you don't think that democratic candidates were able to convince the majority of the electorate to vote for them for president in the last generation?

Because i can show you election results that affirm that they did.

Or is it that you disagree with the fact that republicans have managed the same feat only once in the last generation?

Because i can show you election results that affirm the same.

Bouncing back and forth between vague claims and specific claims is a logical fallacy. That you can't even figure out how many elections there have been between 1988 and now is a counting and math problem, and an example of how common core is failing our country.

1988 - Bush elected
1992 - Clinton elected
1996 - Clinton reelected
2000 - Bush elected
2004 - Bush reelected
2008 - Obama elected
2012 - Obama reelected.

That's a total of seven elections. Three went GOP, four went Democrat. I won't even bother discussing how your arbitrary selection of 1988 is a further problem.

Bush didn't win the popular vote in 2000. The GOP couldn't convince a majority of the electorate to vote for their candidate. The Democrats did, with Gore carrying the popular vote by half a million votes. Since 1988....the GOP has managed to convince the electorate to vote for their candidate a grand total of ONCE.

In 2004.

The Democrats have managed it 5 times. 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008 and 2014.

Point one, the first: 5 +1 = 6, so you still can't count.

And my scale is since 1988. And since 1988 there have been 6 elections. So my math is fine.

Point two, the second: Our system operates on an electoral college.

Irrelevant to my point; which is the GOP's abysmal record in convincing majority of the electorate to vote for their presidential ccandidates. In 5 of the last 6 presidential elections, the GOP has been unable to do it. In 5 of the last 6 elections, the Democrats did.

This made all the more relevant by the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact created in response to the 2000 election. States that have joined it have committed to assigning their electors to whoever wins the popular vote. At 160 of the 270 electoral votes necessary to clinch the presidency, they are well past half way to making the electoral college irrelevant. And the election going to the popular vote has strong support among both democrats and republicans.

So I ask again....what part of my post do you disagree with? As so far, everything I've said is accurate.

we don't elect presidents by popular vote. so your entire premise is bullshit.