Obama made history yesterday

[Quantum Windbag]

He was the first president to win a second term with fewer votes than he got elected with the first time, Obama won the election in 2008 with 66,862,039 popular votes, and won yesterday with 60,366,456. which means 6,495,583 fewer people voted for him, while 747,326 fewer people voted for Romney than McCain.

If I were a Democratic strategist I would be terrified, as amateur pundit and lover of liberty, I see hope for the country. The only reason the worst president in modern history won reelection is the Republicans nominated the only person in the primary that made Newt look palatable.

 

[hazlnut]

He was the first president to win a second term with fewer votes than he got elected with the first time, Obama won the election in 2008 with 66,862,039 popular votes, and won yesterday with 60,366,456. which means 6,495,583 fewer people voted for him, while 747,326 fewer people voted for Romney than McCain.

Nixon and Reagan were in 3-way races for their first term elections. And...

FDR got less votes in 1944 than 1940... so...you FAIL.

If I were a Democratic strategist I would be terrified, as amateur pundit and lover of liberty, I see hope for the country. The only reason the worst president in modern history won reelection is the Republicans nominated the only person in the primary that made Newt look palatable.

You're not smart enough to be Dem strategist.

 

[driveby]

He was the first president to win a second term with fewer votes than he got elected with the first time, Obama won the election in 2008 with 66,862,039 popular votes, and won yesterday with 60,366,456. which means 6,495,583 fewer people voted for him, while 747,326 fewer people voted for Romney than McCain.

Nixon and Reagan were in 3-way races for their first term elections. And...

FDR got less votes in 1944 than 1940... so...you FAIL.

If I were a Democratic strategist I would be terrified, as amateur pundit and lover of liberty, I see hope for the country. The only reason the worst president in modern history won reelection is the Republicans nominated the only person in the primary that made Newt look palatable.

You're not smart enough to be Dem strategist.

Run from your record and call your opponent names.....

 

[Trajan]

He was the first president to win a second term with fewer votes than he got elected with the first time, Obama won the election in 2008 with 66,862,039 popular votes, and won yesterday with 60,366,456. which means 6,495,583 fewer people voted for him, while 747,326 fewer people voted for Romney than McCain.

Nixon and Reagan were in 3-way races for their first term elections. And...

FDR got less votes in 1944 than 1940... so...you FAIL.

If I were a Democratic strategist I would be terrified, as amateur pundit and lover of liberty, I see hope for the country. The only reason the worst president in modern history won reelection is the Republicans nominated the only person in the primary that made Newt look palatable.

You're not smart enough to be Dem strategist.

and he got less in 40 than 36....guess you fail too...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He was the first president to win a second term with fewer votes than he got elected with the first time, Obama won the election in 2008 with 66,862,039 popular votes, and won yesterday with 60,366,456. which means 6,495,583 fewer people voted for him, while 747,326 fewer people voted for Romney than McCain.

Nixon and Reagan were in 3-way races for their first term elections. And...

FDR got less votes in 1944 than 1940... so...you FAIL.

If I were a Democratic strategist I would be terrified, as amateur pundit and lover of liberty, I see hope for the country. The only reason the worst president in modern history won reelection is the Republicans nominated the only person in the primary that made Newt look palatable.

You're not smart enough to be Dem strategist.

Did you read my post? I said he won the second term with fewer votes, Roosevelt didn't get fewer votes until his third term, and then again in his fourth.

By the way, I am not dumb enough to be a Dem strategist.

You fail.

Twice.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

He was the first president to win a second term with fewer votes than he got elected with the first time, Obama won the election in 2008 with 66,862,039 popular votes, and won yesterday with 60,366,456. which means 6,495,583 fewer people voted for him, while 747,326 fewer people voted for Romney than McCain.

If I were a Democratic strategist I would be terrified, as amateur pundit and lover of liberty, I see hope for the country. The only reason the worst president in modern history won reelection is the Republicans nominated the only person in the primary that made Newt look palatable.

Apparently you never heard of Taft, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, or Nixon.

 

[Dick Tuck]

He was the first president to win a second term with fewer votes than he got elected with the first time, Obama won the election in 2008 with 66,862,039 popular votes, and won yesterday with 60,366,456. which means 6,495,583 fewer people voted for him, while 747,326 fewer people voted for Romney than McCain.

If I were a Democratic strategist I would be terrified, as amateur pundit and lover of liberty, I see hope for the country. The only reason the worst president in modern history won reelection is the Republicans nominated the only person in the primary that made Newt look palatable.

Convinced me. I will not vote for Obama in 2016.

 

[emilynghiem]

He was the first president to win a second term with fewer votes than he got elected with the first time, Obama won the election in 2008 with 66,862,039 popular votes, and won yesterday with 60,366,456. which means 6,495,583 fewer people voted for him, while 747,326 fewer people voted for Romney than McCain.

If I were a Democratic strategist I would be terrified, as amateur pundit and lover of liberty, I see hope for the country. The only reason the worst president in modern history won reelection is the Republicans nominated the only person in the primary that made Newt look palatable.

Do you think it would have helped if Romney chose Rubio instead of Ryan?
Would that have opened up the process to include both the Latino/Immigration issues and relations to the conservative base (instead of focusing on white voters in midwest/northern swing states)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He was the first president to win a second term with fewer votes than he got elected with the first time, Obama won the election in 2008 with 66,862,039 popular votes, and won yesterday with 60,366,456. which means 6,495,583 fewer people voted for him, while 747,326 fewer people voted for Romney than McCain.

If I were a Democratic strategist I would be terrified, as amateur pundit and lover of liberty, I see hope for the country. The only reason the worst president in modern history won reelection is the Republicans nominated the only person in the primary that made Newt look palatable.

Apparently you never heard of Taft, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, or Nixon.

Apparently you live on a different planet than I do. On the planet I live on Taft, Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover all lost when they ran for reelection. As for Nixon, he won the first time with 31,785,480 votes, and the second term with 47,169,911 votes, and the biggest electoral vote margin in history.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He was the first president to win a second term with fewer votes than he got elected with the first time, Obama won the election in 2008 with 66,862,039 popular votes, and won yesterday with 60,366,456. which means 6,495,583 fewer people voted for him, while 747,326 fewer people voted for Romney than McCain.

If I were a Democratic strategist I would be terrified, as amateur pundit and lover of liberty, I see hope for the country. The only reason the worst president in modern history won reelection is the Republicans nominated the only person in the primary that made Newt look palatable.

Do you think it would have helped if Romney chose Rubio instead of Ryan?
Would that have opened up the process to include both the Latino/Immigration issues and relations to the conservative base (instead of focusing on white voters in midwest/northern swing states)

It wouldn't have hurt.

 

[Charles_Main]

He was the first president to win a second term with fewer votes than he got elected with the first time, Obama won the election in 2008 with 66,862,039 popular votes, and won yesterday with 60,366,456. which means 6,495,583 fewer people voted for him, while 747,326 fewer people voted for Romney than McCain.

If I were a Democratic strategist I would be terrified, as amateur pundit and lover of liberty, I see hope for the country. The only reason the worst president in modern history won reelection is the Republicans nominated the only person in the primary that made Newt look palatable.

So that's your plan? Spend the next 4 years claiming we lost because Romney sucked? Bull shit. Romney ran a very good campaign.

 

[J.E.D]

He was the first president to win a second term with fewer votes than he got elected with the first time, Obama won the election in 2008 with 66,862,039 popular votes, and won yesterday with 60,366,456. which means 6,495,583 fewer people voted for him, while 747,326 fewer people voted for Romney than McCain.

If I were a Democratic strategist I would be terrified, as amateur pundit and lover of liberty, I see hope for the country. The only reason the worst president in modern history won reelection is the Republicans nominated the only person in the primary that made Newt look palatable.

Do you think it would have helped if Romney chose Rubio instead of Ryan?
Would that have opened up the process to include both the Latino/Immigration issues and relations to the conservative base (instead of focusing on white voters in midwest/northern swing states)

It wouldn't have helped enough, if at all. People vote for the president, not the vp. Romney was a flawed candidate and Obama is popular (especially in places like OH, where he is credited with saving the state economy).

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He was the first president to win a second term with fewer votes than he got elected with the first time, Obama won the election in 2008 with 66,862,039 popular votes, and won yesterday with 60,366,456. which means 6,495,583 fewer people voted for him, while 747,326 fewer people voted for Romney than McCain.

If I were a Democratic strategist I would be terrified, as amateur pundit and lover of liberty, I see hope for the country. The only reason the worst president in modern history won reelection is the Republicans nominated the only person in the primary that made Newt look palatable.

So that's your plan? Spend the next 4 years claiming we lost because Romney sucked? Bull shit. Romney ran a very good campaign.

Romney lost because Romney lost. If he had connected with Independents he would have won hands down, they stayed home because they did not care.

 

[R.D.]

He was the first president to win a second term with fewer votes than he got elected with the first time, Obama won the election in 2008 with 66,862,039 popular votes, and won yesterday with 60,366,456. which means 6,495,583 fewer people voted for him, while 747,326 fewer people voted for Romney than McCain.

If I were a Democratic strategist I would be terrified, as amateur pundit and lover of liberty, I see hope for the country. The only reason the worst president in modern history won reelection is the Republicans nominated the only person in the primary that made Newt look palatable.

So that's your plan? Spend the next 4 years claiming we lost because Romney sucked? Bull shit. Romney ran a very good campaign.

He did.

It's liberals who suck, and they take pride in it. There are just more of them than there are of us

 

[J.E.D]

He was the first president to win a second term with fewer votes than he got elected with the first time, Obama won the election in 2008 with 66,862,039 popular votes, and won yesterday with 60,366,456. which means 6,495,583 fewer people voted for him, while 747,326 fewer people voted for Romney than McCain.

If I were a Democratic strategist I would be terrified, as amateur pundit and lover of liberty, I see hope for the country. The only reason the worst president in modern history won reelection is the Republicans nominated the only person in the primary that made Newt look palatable.

So that's your plan? Spend the next 4 years claiming we lost because Romney sucked? Bull shit. Romney ran a very good campaign.

If you call a good campaign one in which you never give specifics, do very few interviews, try to take credit for the incumbent president's popular policies (auto bailout), piss off a state by lying to them a week before the election (the false Jeep ad), and run from your own achievements (Romneycare).

 

[Annie]

He was the first president to win a second term with fewer votes than he got elected with the first time, Obama won the election in 2008 with 66,862,039 popular votes, and won yesterday with 60,366,456. which means 6,495,583 fewer people voted for him, while 747,326 fewer people voted for Romney than McCain.

If I were a Democratic strategist I would be terrified, as amateur pundit and lover of liberty, I see hope for the country. The only reason the worst president in modern history won reelection is the Republicans nominated the only person in the primary that made Newt look palatable.

Your analysis IMO is way off base. Romney was a very good candidate, with a very good campaign for the conservative message up til yesterday. He lost.

Obama is the worst president perhaps ever, yet he was re-elected. That's a fact, at least the second part.

No, the conservatives need to figure out their priorities and how to connect with the changing demographics of the country. Yes, those do matter. Oh some of you may want to cling to what you've known, but you need more than 47% of the electorate to win. Though not in order and God knows that Limbaugh isn't one of my normal sources, they each say something:

In a Nation of Children, Santa Claus Wins - The Rush Limbaugh Show

Two Americas - Michael Barone - National Review Online

Nice Guys Finish Second - By Michael Walsh - The Corner - National Review Online

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He was the first president to win a second term with fewer votes than he got elected with the first time, Obama won the election in 2008 with 66,862,039 popular votes, and won yesterday with 60,366,456. which means 6,495,583 fewer people voted for him, while 747,326 fewer people voted for Romney than McCain.

If I were a Democratic strategist I would be terrified, as amateur pundit and lover of liberty, I see hope for the country. The only reason the worst president in modern history won reelection is the Republicans nominated the only person in the primary that made Newt look palatable.

Your analysis IMO is way off base. Romney was a very good candidate, with a very good campaign for the conservative message up til yesterday. He lost.

Obama is the worst president perhaps ever, yet he was re-elected. That's a fact, at least the second part.

No, the conservatives need to figure out their priorities and how to connect with the changing demographics of the country. Yes, those do matter. Oh some of you may want to cling to what you've known, but you need more than 47% of the electorate to win. Though not in order and God knows that Limbaugh isn't one of my normal sources, they each say something:

In a Nation of Children, Santa Claus Wins - The Rush Limbaugh Show

Two Americas - Michael Barone - National Review Online

Nice Guys Finish Second - By Michael Walsh - The Corner - National Review Online

I actually posted about Romney losing months ago.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...rvatives-should-root-for-a-romney-defeat.html

 

[Trajan]

He was the first president to win a second term with fewer votes than he got elected with the first time, Obama won the election in 2008 with 66,862,039 popular votes, and won yesterday with 60,366,456. which means 6,495,583 fewer people voted for him, while 747,326 fewer people voted for Romney than McCain.

If I were a Democratic strategist I would be terrified, as amateur pundit and lover of liberty, I see hope for the country. The only reason the worst president in modern history won reelection is the Republicans nominated the only person in the primary that made Newt look palatable.

So that's your plan? Spend the next 4 years claiming we lost because Romney sucked? Bull shit. Romney ran a very good campaign.

If you call a good campaign one in which you never give specifics, do very few interviews, try to take credit for the incumbent president's popular policies (auto bailout), piss off a state by lying to them a week before the election (the false Jeep ad), and run from your own achievements (Romneycare).

I agree to an extent BUT, pop quiz- when was obamas last press conference,where in he stood for questions with the WH press corp?

did obamas 'brochure' he put put 2 weeks ago do it for you? I saw it, it was one, two paragraph frameworks/explanations....and NO immigration btw.

how about the false auto industry bankruptcy claim?

 

[Trajan]

He was the first president to win a second term with fewer votes than he got elected with the first time, Obama won the election in 2008 with 66,862,039 popular votes, and won yesterday with 60,366,456. which means 6,495,583 fewer people voted for him, while 747,326 fewer people voted for Romney than McCain.

If I were a Democratic strategist I would be terrified, as amateur pundit and lover of liberty, I see hope for the country. The only reason the worst president in modern history won reelection is the Republicans nominated the only person in the primary that made Newt look palatable.

Your analysis IMO is way off base. Romney was a very good candidate, with a very good campaign for the conservative message up til yesterday. He lost.

Obama is the worst president perhaps ever, yet he was re-elected. That's a fact, at least the second part.

No, the conservatives need to figure out their priorities and how to connect with the changing demographics of the country. Yes, those do matter. Oh some of you may want to cling to what you've known, but you need more than 47% of the electorate to win. Though not in order and God knows that Limbaugh isn't one of my normal sources, they each say something:

In a Nation of Children, Santa Claus Wins - The Rush Limbaugh Show

Two Americas - Michael Barone - National Review Online

Nice Guys Finish Second - By Michael Walsh - The Corner - National Review Online

I actually posted about Romney losing months ago.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...rvatives-should-root-for-a-romney-defeat.html

sam trende also put out a pretty good missive ( posted it but have no idea were) on why the gop should ( in private) not be to broken up if they lose,, as it is sure to get worse no matter who wins....

 

[R.D.]

Your analysis IMO is way off base. Romney was a very good candidate, with a very good campaign for the conservative message up til yesterday. He lost.

Obama is the worst president perhaps ever, yet he was re-elected. That's a fact, at least the second part.

No, the conservatives need to figure out their priorities and how to connect with the changing demographics of the country. Yes, those do matter. Oh some of you may want to cling to what you've known, but you need more than 47% of the electorate to win. Though not in order and God knows that Limbaugh isn't one of my normal sources, they each say something:

In a Nation of Children, Santa Claus Wins - The Rush Limbaugh Show

Two Americas - Michael Barone - National Review Online

Nice Guys Finish Second - By Michael Walsh - The Corner - National Review Online

I don't agree. Conservatives cease to be conservative when they change who we are based on who's voting

If we are forever a dwindling minority it will be a badge of honor considering the path the progressive majority wants to take us down.