Obama first since Ike to win 51% twice

[Dot Com]

"Let's get real: The main reason Obama won reelection was that he won landslide majorities (with an average margin of victory of 21.5%) among the two lowest economic groups, i.e., the least successful and least educated among us."

In other words, the low-information stupid freeloaders.

"Speaking of educated, Obama also won by a landslide among high school dropouts (64% to 36%)."

In other words, the hopelessly misguided hypocrites who are hell bent on transferring their hatred and and envy and jealousy to the young ones, whom they expect to pay for their own financial irresponsibility, far down the road,

ummm..... where are those quotes from n00b?

 

[mikegriffith1]

Let's put it this way:

If the election had excluded people who had received food stamps in the preceding 12 months, Romney would have won.

If the election had excluded the bottom income group--the least educated and least successful among us--Romney would have won.

If the election had been limited to college graduates, Romney would have won.

If the election had been limited to those who pay 67% of all federal taxes, Romney would have won.

If the election had excluded high school dropouts, the popular vote would have been a virtual tie.

Obama supporters can brag all they want about OBama's reelection, but the raw fact of the matter is that he owes his "victory" to the landslide majorities he received from the two lowest income groups.

 

[Dot Com]

Let's put it this way:

If the election had excluded people who had received food stamps in the preceding 12 months, Romney would have won.

If the election had excluded the bottom income group--the least educated and least successful among us--Romney would have won.

If the election had been limited to college graduates, Romney would have won.

If the election had been limited to those who pay 67% of all federal taxes, Romney would have won.

If the election had excluded high school dropouts, the popular vote would have been a virtual tie.

Obama supporters can brag all they want about OBama's reelection, but the raw fact of the matter is that he owes his "victory" to the landslide majorities he received from the two lowest income groups.

link for the 3rd one. links are not "optional" n00b.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Obama first to win reelection with less votes than he got the first time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

BHO owes his election to women (single and married), Hispanics, other minorities, and those terrified of America's ultra right and libertarian wings.

Let's put it this way:

If the election had excluded people who had received food stamps in the preceding 12 months, Romney would have won.

If the election had excluded the bottom income group--the least educated and least successful among us--Romney would have won.

If the election had been limited to college graduates, Romney would have won.

If the election had been limited to those who pay 67% of all federal taxes, Romney would have won.

If the election had excluded high school dropouts, the popular vote would have been a virtual tie.

Obama supporters can brag all they want about OBama's reelection, but the raw fact of the matter is that he owes his "victory" to the landslide majorities he received from the two lowest income groups.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Reagan 1980: 59.79%
Reagan 1984: 58.80%

?

Reagan got 50.7% in 1980.

Yep. Wonder where the hell he got his numbers.

United States presidential election, 1980 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I got them from Wiki. But I rechecked and you guys are right.

Reagan 1980: 50.7%
Reagan 1984: 58.7%

Obama 2008: 53%
Obama 2012: 51%

(Source: Procon.org)

Reagans numbers went up.

"Obama first Prez with more than 51% in both elections." You see how the Press spun that?

 

[Meathead]

Forget it. No matter how it's spun, 51% and only the Senate is not going to make a mandate. He's got two years to try to work with the House, and after the next congress is sworn in, he's done.

 

[Harry Dresden]

ALL hale Obama..

Umm........... Staph, you old spelling Nazi, have a look at that again.

you should talk Rocks.....spell weapons for us.....

 

[mikegriffith1]

Let's put it this way:

If the election had excluded people who had received food stamps in the preceding 12 months, Romney would have won.

If the election had excluded the bottom income group--the least educated and least successful among us--Romney would have won.

If the election had been limited to college graduates, Romney would have won.

If the election had been limited to those who pay 67% of all federal taxes, Romney would have won.

If the election had excluded high school dropouts, the popular vote would have been a virtual tie.

Obama supporters can brag all they want about OBama's reelection, but the raw fact of the matter is that he owes his "victory" to the landslide majorities he received from the two lowest income groups.

link for the 3rd one. links are not "optional" n00b.

Romney won among college graduates by 4 percentage points, 51% to 47%. Just look at the exit polling data:

Election Exit Polls Provide Mountain of Data | PBS NewsHour

2012 Fox News Exit Poll | Politics | Fox News

Obama won among high school dropouts by 29 percentage points, 64% to 35%.

Obama won among the lowest income group by 28 percentage points, 63% to 35%, and that group accounted for 20% of voters.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

?

Reagan got 50.7% in 1980.

Yep. Wonder where the hell he got his numbers.

United States presidential election, 1980 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I got them from Wiki. But I rechecked and you guys are right.

Reagan 1980: 50.7%
Reagan 1984: 58.7%

Obama 2008: 53%
Obama 2012: 51%

(Source: Procon.org)

Reagans numbers went up.

"Obama first Prez with more than 51% in both elections." You see how the Press spun that?

Those numbers show that Americans overall have lost confidence in seeing a stronger economy developing under Obama. The problem is the Republicans have yet to bring a strong conservative alternative for the nation to rally behind again.

Now that Obama and the liberals are getting the wish list they've always wanted through higher taxes, any excuse for the growing debt and high unemployment numbers will only go to strengthen the country's need for better alternative from the Republican party. The question is will Republicans finally learn from their past mistakes of selecting a weak moderate, as independents only choice for finally building a strong America.

 

[FJO]

Reagan 1980: 59.79%
Reagan 1984: 58.80%

WRONG!!

Reagan 1980 - 50.75%
Reagan 1984 - 58.77%

 

[FJO]

This election was a resounding defeat for the Republicans. They lost the popular vote for the Presidency AND for both houses of Congress. If not for extreme gerrymandering they would not control any of the 3 branches of the federal government.

In short, the election results were as bad as they could conceivably get for Republicans. This is especially true because of the extreme effort of the Republicans to oust President Obama - an EPIC FAILURE!

If this was not a mandate of the Democrats, it was at least a solid vote of confidence.

It was also a VERY clear statement that MAJORITY of the American people disapprove of the Republicans. It was all but a total reprimand of the TEA Party.

So it seems that there was a clear mandate by the American people - a mandate for the Republicans to STFU and cooperate with the Democrats.

^ that

The vote is valid, Freewill's whining is based merely on unhappiness.

Why we not win in this election cycle, Freewill, is that the electorate is on to the weirdness of the ultra right and the libertarian wings.

The electorate's thinking generally is "Obama is not all that good, but he is a super star compared to the bozos on the Republican weird grass fields. We have no idea what they are eating."

^ and that

Sorry I can't provide an equally amusing and witty cartoon, but let me say this:

Donkeys are from Mexico or from inner city slums.

 

[blackhawk]

I gave my opinion on the question I'm going to ask earlier in this thread but I would like to see some other views. Since there is a lot of mandate talk here what exactly does one have to get from a election to have a so called mandate?

 

[Avorysuds]

What you should notice (but you don't because you're a fuckin idiot) is that 8 years later Obama pulled as many votes as Bush, BUSH. Obama was shy about 14 million votes in 2012 in comparison, he should have pulled more votes over time, not less, as Democrats in fact did.

The Democrat party is shrinking by vote count, very quickly. Go back and look at the numbers, growing and growing, never shrinking... Then Obama's second term is won and BAM! 3.8 million LESS votes than the 2008 election. That's shrinking.

 

[Avorysuds]

Reagan 1980: 59.79%
Reagan 1984: 58.80%

WRONG!!

Reagan 1980 - 50.75%
Reagan 1984 - 58.77%

So do you now admit Reagan was a great President, oooor is he still horrible according to you because he didn't win less than 1% more than Obama did... Even though his second term he grew his support dramatically.

Maybe I read you wrong and you always though Reagan was a great President.. I dono... This thread is stupid lol.

 

[Avorysuds]

BTW, the numbers show that Obama lost 2% of the voter base... If you look deeper you see that Republicans actually gained ground on Democrats since 2008.

I guess you see what you want to see when you're a nutter. The numbers don't like, Democrats are losing votes.

 

[FJO]

Reagan 1980: 59.79%
Reagan 1984: 58.80%

WRONG!!

Reagan 1980 - 50.75%
Reagan 1984 - 58.77%

So do you now admit Reagan was a great President, oooor is he still horrible according to you because he didn't win less than 1% more than Obama did... Even though his second term he grew his support dramatically.

Maybe I read you wrong and you always though Reagan was a great President.. I dono... This thread is stupid lol.

You don't find a greater Reagan fan than me.

I drove 800 miles to pay my respects to President Reagan in the summer of 2004, then I stood in line, and finally making it to under the Dome and saying a prayer for him.

I gave a short interview to CNN thanking the President to liberate my relatives in the communist old country.

My post was trying to illustrate that a GREAT president gains voters when his second term is about to be realized. The post I replied to - wrongly - indicated that Reagan had a fewer percentage that elected him for his second tern than for his first one.

My earlier post quoted the correct numbers. Obviously you never saw them.

 

[Mac1958]

The cartoonist must be a frequent visitor to this board.

.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Reagan 1980: 59.79%
Reagan 1984: 58.80%

Reagan got 50.7% in 1980.

And Reagan won the 1980 election by 9.7 percentage points. So his margin of victory was nearly 40% larger than Obama's 2008 margin of 7.2%.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Moron, look at Romney's vote against McCain's.

You phuckers from the ultra right and libertarian loon wings cost us the election. You drove away millions of voters from the GOP.

BTW, the numbers show that Obama lost 2% of the voter base... If you look deeper you see that Republicans actually gained ground on Democrats since 2008.

I guess you see what you want to see when you're a nutter. The numbers don't like, Democrats are losing votes.