Page 1 of 2

You love him really

Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 11:36 pm
by Gob
Barack Obama is the first president in more than five decades to win at least 51 per cent of the national popular vote twice, according to a revised vote count in New York eight weeks after the November 6 election.

State election officials submitted a final tally on December 31 that added about 400,000 votes, most of them from provisional ballots in the Democratic stronghold of New York City that were counted late in part because of complications caused by hurricane Sandy.

Nationally, Mr Obama won 65.9 million votes, or 51.1 per cent, against Republican challenger Mitt Romney, who took 60.9 million votes and 47.2 per cent of the total cast, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Mr Obama is the first president to achieve the 51 per cent mark in two elections since the Republican Dwight Eisenhower, who did it in 1952 and 1956, and the first Democrat to do so since Franklin Roosevelt, who won four consecutive White House races. Mr Roosevelt received 53.4 per cent of the vote - his lowest - in his last race in 1944.

Mr Obama, 51, benefited from political factors that included a lack of serious opposition for his party's nomination or from well-known third-party challengers, and an absence of social unrest, scandal or foreign-policy disasters during his first term, said Allan Lichtman, a history professor at American University in Washington.

''Under the big picture, this was an entirely predictable election outcome,'' Professor Lichtman said.

The President won the popular vote in 26 states and the District of Columbia, totaling 332 electoral votes, or 62 more than the 270 needed to win the presidency. Mr Romney won 24 states with 206 electoral votes. Mr Obama won 365 electoral votes in 2008.

Mr Obama will take the oath of office on January 20, a Sunday, and give his inauguration speech at the Capitol on January 21.

Turnout in this year's presidential race was about 129.1 million, down from the record 131.3 million four years ago.

Mr Obama's vote total fell by about 3.6 million votes from his record 69.5 million in 2008, when he was elected the nation's first black president.

In that race he won 52.9 per cent - with a victory margin of more than 9.5 million votes over the Republican candidate, John McCain - amid a financial crisis that took hold at the end of George W. Bush's presidency.

The unemployment rate, 7.8 per cent when Mr Obama succeeded Mr Bush in January 2009, rose to 10 per cent that October before falling to 7.7 per cent last November.

Mr Obama is the second president since World War II to win re-election with a jobless rate above 6 per cent. The other was the Republican Ronald Reagan in 1984.

''He was able to campaign against the economy back in 2008 because it was Bush's problem,'' the political analyst Rhodes Cook said. ''It got reversed. He got stuck with the economy this time.''

Mr Romney, a former private-equity executive and governor of Massachusetts, failed to parlay voter anxiety about the economy into a victory.

While Mr Obama's national vote percentage fell by about 2 points from four years ago, he improved on his 2008 performance in six states, including New York, where his 63.3 per cent was the best by any presidential nominee since 1964.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/obama-poll- ... z2H9Bhbymc

Re: You love him really

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 12:11 am
by Lord Jim
This is a rather dishonest means of measurement....

Barack Obama is the first Presidential candidate to have won 50% plus one of the popular vote (the true standard for "majority") in two consecutive elections since Ronald Reagan...

Not "five decades ago"....

In 1980, Ronald "Winner Of The Cold War" Reagan won 50.7% of the popular vote, with a third party candidate in the race (John Anderson) who garnered 6.6% of the popular vote....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... tion,_1980

While it's true that the bulk of Anderson's vote would have most likely gone to The Idiot Carter, had he not been in the race,(Anderson was running as a "liberal republican") it would be ridiculous to suggest that Mr. Reagan wouldn't even have gotten three tenths of one percent of Anderson's anti-establishment vote...

Re: You love him really

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 12:18 am
by Gob
Says you. :P

Re: You love him really

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 5:42 pm
by Miles
Perhaps LJ should be Reagans biographer. I'm reasonably certain that he could make it exceptionally good reading. :nana :ok

Re: You love him really

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 5:59 pm
by rubato
I saw this on the online news. Surprising. 51% x 2 elections does not look like a high bar to cross. I guess its a reminder of how close the popular vote usually is.



yrs,
rubato

Re: You love him really

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:17 pm
by oldr_n_wsr
So what.
All I know, be it repubs or dems, that I am now getting 2% more of my pay taken from me. Payroll tax, to me is still an income tax. So much for the fiscal cliff.

Have a nice vacation Obama $2+ million on our backs.
:fu

Oh, and they are still spending like there is no tomorrow.
Tighten the belt you dickheads.

Oh and thanks for passing the $9billion for sandy which is nothing more than your meeting the obligation you made when you forced the people to take out flood insurance.

And where the heck did all the money go that was raised during bookoo concerts and xxxxx-a-thons for the victims of Sandy????
Seems Mastic Beach and other places didn't get hit (I KNOW BETTER).

All in hte fed should put up, or shut up or be shot.
:arg

Re: You love him really

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 5:14 pm
by Crackpot
you weren't equally congradulatoyry of Obama when he introduced the payroll tax cut. (or when he (wrongly IMO) fought to extend it.)

Re: You love him really

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 5:53 pm
by Long Run
Yes, as silly seeming as the Bush tax rebate check seemed, it was a better way to implement temporary tax relief than reducing the tax rate and then having to raise the tax rate, which provides a negative shock to the economy (and is widely perceived as a tax hike, especially after 3 years of the lower rate).

Re: You love him really

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 5:57 pm
by Long Run
On the main topic, Obama's percent of the vote says as much about the mediocrity of his opponents as it does about the support for him. I think the key number is the one that says Obama's approval rating is up to 57% -- this indicates that whether you voted for him or not, you want him to succeed at the big issues the country/world face. Question is whether he will largely disappoint as he did in 2009-10 (leading to the huge swing in Congress) or whether he will become a better leader.

Re: You love him really

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 7:18 pm
by dgs49
Fifty-one percent, at least a third of whom were simply bought with taxpayer money. Probably more like half.

We have seen the enemy and he is us.

No matter how you slice it, the American public flunked this test. Big time.

Re: You love him really

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 7:46 pm
by Scooter
Yeah, imagine if they spent all their time on internet discusssion boards boasting about their imaginary law degrees, what they could have accomplished.

Re: You love him really

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:32 pm
by Lord Jim
whether you voted for him or not, you want him to succeed at the big issues the country/world face.
I would like to think, that given the problems we face, the overwhelming majority of Americans feel that way. I certainly do.

Re: You love him really

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:09 am
by Andrew D
Miles wrote:Perhaps LJ should be Reagans biographer hagiographer.
He already is.

Re: You love him really

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 1:16 pm
by oldr_n_wsr
Lord Jim wrote:
whether you voted for him or not, you want him to succeed at the big issues the country/world face.
I would like to think, that given the problems we face, the overwhelming majority of Americans feel that way. I certainly do.
Me too.

Re: You love him really

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:01 pm
by Andrew D
Well, that's all nice and feel-good dandy.

But what is success?

Is success eviscerating the social safety net while pandering to wealthy individuals?

Or is success solving the debt/deficit problem by demanding that those whom society has made it possible to be rich pay for that privilege?

Which is it?

Is success helping those in need, or is it doing the bidding of those who want nothing more that further self-aggrandizement?

Re: You love him really

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 5:46 pm
by Long Run
Andrew D wrote:* * *

Is success eviscerating the social safety net while pandering to wealthy individuals?

Or is success solving the debt/deficit problem by demanding that those whom society has made it possible to be rich pay for that privilege?
* * *
Is success helping those in need, or is it doing the bidding of those who want nothing more that further self-aggrandizement?
Solving our major problems won't happen until Obama stops with the campaign rhetoric - ala your hyperbolic statements -- and actually figures out how to start governing a country where over half the people don't like his solutions (even as they like him personally).

Re: You love him really

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:51 pm
by Andrew D
Solving our major problems is unlikely to happen as long as false one-sidedness -- aka your putting the blame entirely on Obama while ignoring the incendiary rhetoric on the other side -- reigns.

In 2011, Obama agreed to more than a trillion dollars in spending cuts. In 2011, what tax increases did the Republicans agree to?

It was not Obama who caused the first downgrade in history of the US's credit rating. It was congressional Republicans. It is not Obama who is threatening to bring the US at least to the brink -- and perhaps over it -- of defaulting on its obligations. It is congressional Republicans.

Where is your criticism of them?

Re: You love him really

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 10:13 pm
by Andrew D
Long Run wrote:... over half the people ....
Over half the people?

Over half the people voted to be rid of the Republicans.

Over half the people voted for a Democratic President. Over half the people voted for a Democratic Senate.

And -- the Republicans' desperation to run away from this fact notwithstanding -- over half the people voted for a Democratic House of Representatives.

The gridlock in Washington has a simple cause: Republicans.

If the Republicans had not rigged the election, the Democrats would be in control of the House. That is what the American people voted for.

If the Republicans were not abusing the filibuster in a way never before seen in the whole of US history, the Democrats would be in actual control of the Senate.

The American people were confronted with a choice. They made their decision: "We trust the Democrats to be in charge of all of it."

But the Republicans in Congress have consistently subverted the will of the American people.

Over half the people?

When Republicans talk about "over half the people," they only embarrass themselves.

Re: You love him really

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 10:17 pm
by Long Run
Point proven.

Re: You love him really

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 10:48 pm
by Andrew D
Yes. Mine.