What a landslide looks like
- Thread starter Cancel 2018. 3
- Start date
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
love the fact 'the dude' aka stoner, can't describe what a landslide is...he has to rely on his party leaders to tell him what a landslide means
poor, poor pot head
poor, poor pot head
Boooosh!
Stop looking back. You have work to do, a lot of stuff needs fixin'.
Time to move Forward!
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
Well, when discussing how conservatives would have reacted to a similar margin for Romney in a win, it seems somewhat valuable to look at how said conservatives reacted to recent victories that their party had at the Presidential level.
Obviously, this makes you uncomfortable. Mainly because it shatters whatever point you were trying to make.
Understood. It doesn't change the facts. Two to three million votes is not a landslide. Numbers don't lie regardless of what Romney supporters might 'say'. They would be equally as wrong in calling such a margin a landslide.
Exactamundo.What matters is that Romney lost.
That is all.
You won, we lost.
There is work to be done. Let the Repubs step aside, vote Present and allow the liberals usher the new utopia in. This is going to be a whole new level of fabulous.
Let's move Forward.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
The solid south makes maps like this virtually impossible for the party they're not currently favoring.
Socrtease
Verified User
This is a stoopid thread. The WHOLE purpose of it was to show that the Republicans would have thought that winning 332 EC votes was a landslide, and I can guarantee Yurt that HAD Romney won by the same margin Obama did, by wednesday morning every right wing talking head would have called it an EC landslide. But instead, you want to make this an argument about what a real landslide is. We get it, 1980 and 84 were landslides. Rove lowered the bar because he KNEW that by Wednesday the mouthbreathers on the right would be parroting it and by January it would have been the truth. (Disclaimer: my use of mouthbreathers on the right is not meant to paint the WHOLE right as mouthbreathers)
I hate to break it to you there great thinker but just because you say a thing...mouthbreather...it doesn't mean that people take you literally. You really don't have to post disclaimers.
Otherwise well said and while it may be 'stoopid' it's what passes for 'discussion' or 'debate' around here when it involves rabid righties.
Besides, we've been having some harmless fun.
Otherwise well said and while it may be 'stoopid' it's what passes for 'discussion' or 'debate' around here when it involves rabid righties.
Besides, we've been having some harmless fun.
Bfgrn
New member
Hey asshole, YOU were the one who started this thread. I am merely pointing out how people on the right would have portrayed a Romney win by the SAME margin. I also pointed out that by popular vote, the Democrats should have control of the House of Representatives. Would that make the coming fiscal cliff debate and tax policy debate TOTALLY different? Can you be honest for ONCE in your life YURT?
I recall after George W. Bush won the 2004 election by EC 286 to 251 the media declaring a mandate. And Bush made it clear he believed he has a mandate.
Bush in 2004:
"You asked, do I feel free. Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style. That’s what happened in the — after the 2000 election, I earned some capital. I’ve earned capital in this election — and I’m going to spend it for what I told the people I’d spend it on, which is — you’ve heard the agenda: Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror..."
The right’s new line: Obama has no mandate
Charles Krauthammer said on Fox News last night. “So this is not a mandate in the number [of electoral votes], or in the way that he campaigned… He won by going very small, very negative.”
House Speaker John Beohner, a bit later in the evening: “With this vote, the American people have also made clear that there is no mandate for raising tax rates.” And it’s everywhere on Twitter: no mandate, no mandate, no mandate. “Amazing how quickly Obama Has No Chance went to Obama Has No Mandate,” Time magazine writer Michael Grunwald noted.
The lack of a mandate, according to Krauthammer, comes from two things: Obama’s negative campaign and his small margin of victory. So what would a real mandate look like? Krauthammer helpfully explained on Fox News Sunday the weekend after President Bush was reelected in 2004:
I think it was a huge issue that the president was weak in his first term. He had less of the power and strength and capital, as he speaks of, than he does today. And now that he’s been elected with a large majority, or a significant majority, and with a mandate, I think part of that mandate is to get the right judges, by his likes.
Bush won with 286 electoral votes to John Kerry’s 252, and with a 2.4 percent margin in the popular vote. Obama currently has 303 electoral votes to Romney’s 206, and he’s likely to add to that the 29 votes from Florida, which hasn’t been called yet, for a grand total of 332. It’s to early to tell on the popular vote, but it will be between 2 and 3 percent.
So Obama won by a far bigger margin than Bush in the electoral college and comparable margin in the popular vote, but Bush got a mandate and Obama didn’t?
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
actually, as I have shown in another post.....285k votes in four states and Romney would have won with 272......that is hardly a landslide....
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
I agree, Reagan didn't lose WV.....
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
???....the mandate Bush had was a same party Congress.....the first time that had happened in my life time, and I'm too lazy to see how long it was before that....granted, he fucked it up royally......
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
and they would be wrong about romney. that is is the point of this thread.
obviously over your head.