Best Educated states vote for liberal blue

[CrotchetyGeezer]

What seems to be happening here this evening is that some on the right are claiming the authority to define the term "mandate" such that it requires not only convincing victories in the popular vote AND the electoral college, but that it also must include control of both chambers of congress as well.

You all should know that that is not a universally accepted definition.

Of course it's not a "universally accepted definition". Not by the left...that is. But, if you think a "mandate" consists exclusively of some margin of victory in the electoral vote? This only demonstrates how incapable of looking at the bigger picture you are. There are numerous factors involved in determining whether someone has a mandate or not. And, to try and narrow it down to ONE single exclusive thing is a joke and indicative of a child-like mind.

and you all should also know that your grousing about it will not change the fact that Obama is still president and that the people are tired of our do-nothing congress and want the president and the congress to quit this petty bullshit and sit down together and give a little and take a little and start finding common ground.

People being tired of the Congress is nothing new and Congress hasn't been very popular for decades. And, screw your notion that now, all of a sudden, anyone should sit down together and give a little and take a little and start finding common ground. Now that your punk is president, NOW it's time to sit down together and give a little and take a little and start finding common ground? LOL! Further, where was this sitting down together and giving a little and taking a little and finding common ground when your punk and his collective got together behind closed doors, excluding our side, and shoved Obamacare on us, even though a majority of the American people were opposed to it? Yeah, don't give me any sermons about "sit down together and give a little and take a little and start finding common ground."

 

[expatriate]

I have never claimed that Obama's mandate came exclusively from his popular vote margin.

His resounding victory in the electoral college far surpasses that of George W. Bush in 2004.

and it is intersting to note that, in the House of Representative, the only body that remained in GOP hands, if one were to count up the votes, nationally, for all the republican candidates and all the democratic candidates, the people cast more votes for democratic congressional candidates than they did for republicans... It was only gerrymandering that allowed your party to prevail there. How is THAT for the people speaking?

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

I have never claimed that Obama's mandate came exclusively from his popular vote margin.

His resounding victory in the electoral college far surpasses that of George W. Bush in 2004.

Who said you did claim that Obama's mandate came exclusively from his popular vote margin? Everyone knows you're claiming his victory in the electoral college is what makes you believe he has a mandate. But, a victory in the electoral college isn't the exclusive factor in deciding whether someone has mandate or not.

 

[expatriate]

I have never claimed that Obama's mandate came exclusively from his popular vote margin.

His resounding victory in the electoral college far surpasses that of George W. Bush in 2004.

Who said you did claim that Obama's mandate came exclusively from his popular vote margin? Everyone knows you're claiming his victory in the electoral college is what makes you believe he has a mandate. But, a victory in the electoral college isn't the exclusive factor in deciding whether someone has mandate or not.

Actually, I don't believe I have said that any one thing "exclusively" gives him a mandate. I merely point out that the definition is somewhat grey, and that for you, or anyone else to claim that you have the right to "exclusively" define what is and is not a mandate is pretty fucking silly. Who do you think you are? Noah-fucking-Webster?

and I notice how you "conveniently" neglected to address the last point in my prior post. Cowardly, but not surprising.

 

[rightwinger]

I have never claimed that Obama's mandate came exclusively from his popular vote margin.

His resounding victory in the electoral college far surpasses that of George W. Bush in 2004.

Who said you did claim that Obama's mandate came exclusively from his popular vote margin? Everyone knows you're claiming his victory in the electoral college is what makes you believe he has a mandate. But, a victory in the electoral college isn't the exclusive factor in deciding whether someone has mandate or not.

Actually, I don't believe I have said that any one thing "exclusively" gives him a mandate. I merely point out that the definition is somewhat grey, and that for you, or anyone else to claim that you have the right to "exclusively" define what is and is not a mandate is pretty fucking silly. Who do you think you are? Noah-fucking-Webster?

and I notice how you "conveniently" neglected to address the last point in my prior post. Cowardly, but not surprising.

The question of a mandate is moot

Obama had a mandate in 2008 and Republicans obstructed everything he did anyway. A mandate does not require the opposition party to do anything

 

[mikegriffith1]

You can manipulate data all day when you break things down by state averages. But let's look at the total vote: Obama won because he overwhelmingly carried three groups: poor voters, lower-middle-income voters, and high school dropouts.

Romney carried all four income groups from $50K and above. Romney also won among voters with bachelor's degrees. And, he won among independents by 5 points.

But all this was not enough to overcome Obama's huge margins of victory among the poor, the bottom tier of the middle income demographic, and high school dropouts.

 

[jillian]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/396358_4856468769128_600775260_n.jpg

hahah

people already knew this already haha

it's more complicated than that.

blue states invest in education.
blue states also tend to be wealthier than red states
poverty and education is mutually exclusive.

 

[expatriate]

You can manipulate data all day when you break things down by state averages. But let's look at the total vote: Obama won because he overwhelmingly carried three groups: poor voters, lower-middle-income voters, and high school dropouts.

Romney carried all four income groups from $50K and above. Romney also won among voters with bachelor's degrees. And, he won among independents by 5 points.

But all this was not enough to overcome Obama's huge margins of victory among the poor, the bottom tier of the middle income demographic, and high school dropouts.

sounds suspiciously like that 47% he said he didn't give a shit about.

coincidence? I think not.

 

[expatriate]

Who said you did claim that Obama's mandate came exclusively from his popular vote margin? Everyone knows you're claiming his victory in the electoral college is what makes you believe he has a mandate. But, a victory in the electoral college isn't the exclusive factor in deciding whether someone has mandate or not.

Actually, I don't believe I have said that any one thing "exclusively" gives him a mandate. I merely point out that the definition is somewhat grey, and that for you, or anyone else to claim that you have the right to "exclusively" define what is and is not a mandate is pretty fucking silly. Who do you think you are? Noah-fucking-Webster?

and I notice how you "conveniently" neglected to address the last point in my prior post. Cowardly, but not surprising.

The question of a mandate is moot

Obama had a mandate in 2008 and Republicans obstructed everything he did anyway. A mandate does not require the opposition party to do anything

well said... I think that, this time around, people are going to be a lot more critical of republican obstructionism than they have been. It seems as if Boehner already has figured that out to a degree.

 

[mikegriffith1]

You can manipulate data all day when you break things down by state averages. But let's look at the total vote: Obama won because he overwhelmingly carried three groups: poor voters, lower-middle-income voters, and high school dropouts.

Romney carried all four income groups from $50K and above. Romney also won among voters with bachelor's degrees. And, he won among independents by 5 points.

But all this was not enough to overcome Obama's huge margins of victory among the poor, the bottom tier of the middle income demographic, and high school dropouts.

sounds suspiciously like that 47% he said he didn't give a shit about.

coincidence? I think not.

That is not even close to what Romney said. He didn't say he didn't care about them as people but only as an election demographic group. He was merely expressing--albeit somewhat poorly--the idea that low-income folks, especially those who are on some kind of government assistance, were not going to be inclined to vote for him. Personally, I think he was mistaken in that idea, but what he said was a far, far cry from saying he didn't care about them as people. His record of service in his church shows he most certainly cares about people.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Interesting that its the poorest people who voted for the uber-wealthy even though Mittens and Ryan said they planned to raise taxes on the poor and lower taxes for the wealthy.

This goes back to the mystery of why rw's voted against their own best interest and against the best interest of the country.

Its also related to why there is now such a long list of really idiotic excuses for why they lost. As a group, they are just plain clueless.

 

[Dreamy]

This goes back to the mystery of why rw's voted against their own best interest and against the best interest of the country

What exactly is my best interest according to you?

I do not believe the Democrats nor Republicans have my best interest at heart. I live in a blue state, lean conservative on some matters and lean away from conservationism on some issues. I am also educated and intelligent. I am upper middle class and I work at a job and pay for all I have and need.

 

[boedicca]

"Best Educated" only in the sense that they have large percentage of the population which have been programmed with with Progressive propaganda...

 

[SniperFire]

"Best Educated" only in the sense that they have large percentage of the population which have been programmed with with Progressive propaganda...

It has been proven that the bottom of the rung education-wise - the gubmint and institutional teet suckers - vote Democrat.

It has been proven that the the very top of the rung education-wise - the gubmint and institutional teet suckers - vote Democrat.


The normal Americans are Republican.

 

[lukelk]

"Best Educated" only in the sense that they have large percentage of the population which have been programmed with with Progressive propaganda...

It has been proven that the bottom of the rung education-wise - the gubmint and institutional teet suckers - vote Democrat.

It has been proven that the the very top of the rung education-wise - the gubmint and institutional teet suckers - vote Democrat.


The normal Americans are Republican.

so what your saying is that the "normal Americans" are the minority, wouldnt that make them NOT normal? SNIPER your a fool, and a tool cheers!

 

[daveman]

And they gave him another mandate in 2012. And you can bet that if Boehner can't get his boys in line and agree to work with this reelected president who most certainly DOES have a mandate from the people, you'll be relearning how to say Speaker Pelosi again in 2014.

And the people DID speak, but gerrymandering allowed their voices to be muted. Are you aware that there were more votes cast for democratic house candidates than there were for republican ones? How's THAT for the people speaking?

So, the people spoke when they elected Obama -- but they didn't speak when they decided the House should remain GOP.

Didn't read my last paragraph. I understand.

Yeah, yeah..."the mean ol' GOP silenced the voice of the people!!"

But, hey, there's some good news: The people of Maryland won a victory against Democratic gerrymandering:

On August 17, Maryland’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, issued a ruling that will subject Maryland’s newly gerrymandered Congressional Districting Plan (MD Senate Bill 1, Chapter 1 of the 2011 Special Session of the General Assembly) to voter referendum on Election Day 2012. The Court of Appeals of Maryland shot down an effort initiated by the state Democratic Party that sought to stop the referendum and silence the voices of Maryland voters.

--

MDPetitions.com launched a successful petition drive to put the Congressional Districting Plan to a referendum November 2012 because the state’s gerrymandered maps minimize the voting power of certain groups. The goal of MDPetitions.com was simple: Let the voters decide.

But the last thing Maryland Democrats wanted was for voters to be informed about how they had carved up the state to the advantage of Democrat incumbents. So they filed a lawsuit to stop the referendum from going forward. Judicial Watch represents MDPetitions.com and defended the petition drive at a hearing before the High Court in Annapolis, MD, last week. And fortunately, our team was successful in persuading the court that the referendum should go forward.

--

On October 20, 2011, Governor Martin O’Malley (D-MD, pictured above) signed the new Congressional Districting Plan into law, drawing heavy criticism from both political parties. Critics maintain the new congressional map is specifically designed to enhance the power of Democrat incumbents while minimizing the voting power of minorities, rural voters and Republicans.​

Looks like MD Dems didn't really care much for the voice of the people, did they?

Too bad. The people get to speak despite Dem efforts to silence them.

 

[daveman]

You need a link to see that Bush and the GOP claimed that his victory over Kerry was a mandate? Really???
Google Bush mandate 2004... Read any one of several thousand of them.

Provide one and I will.

Or is that too much trouble for you?

I guess it was too much trouble.

 

[daveman]

What seems to be happening here this evening is that some on the right are claiming the authority to define the term "mandate" such that it requires not only convincing victories in the popular vote AND the electoral college, but that it also must include control of both chambers of congress as well.

You all should know that that is not a universally accepted definition.

Yeah! The only TRUE definition of "mandate" is "when the Democrat wins"!

and you all should also know that your grousing about it will not change the fact that Obama is still president and that the people are tired of our do-nothing congress and want the president and the congress to quit this petty bullshit and sit down together and give a little and take a little and start finding common ground.

The fact that they voted for the status quo seems to prove you wrong.

 

[Pasco08]

Let's look at it by county, shall we?

Hmmm...looks a little different that way, doesn't it?

Not really......

Obama Won the population centers which tend to be the areas best educated Mitt won the Rurel areas where all the backwords rednecks live.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

You can manipulate data all day when you break things down by state averages. But let's look at the total vote: Obama won because he overwhelmingly carried three groups: poor voters, lower-middle-income voters, and high school dropouts.

Romney carried all four income groups from $50K and above. Romney also won among voters with bachelor's degrees. And, he won among independents by 5 points.

But all this was not enough to overcome Obama's huge margins of victory among the poor, the bottom tier of the middle income demographic, and high school dropouts.

sounds suspiciously like that 47% he said he didn't give a shit about.

coincidence? I think not.

That is not even close to what Romney said. He didn't say he didn't care about them as people but only as an election demographic group. He was merely expressing--albeit somewhat poorly--the idea that low-income folks, especially those who are on some kind of government assistance, were not going to be inclined to vote for him. Personally, I think he was mistaken in that idea, but what he said was a far, far cry from saying he didn't care about them as people. His record of service in his church shows he most certainly cares about people.

The lowest income, poorest educated, least informed vote for him.

Willard the Rat cares about his P&L. He proved that almost every tie he opened his mouth.