ELECTION COVERAGE: BBC STYLE

[Gob]

All over!!!

[Crackpot]

Virginia is brown now

[Econoline]

[MajGenl.Meade]

Landslide! Bob Dylan and yours truly! Whodda thunk it?

Re: Obama v. Romney
by MajGenl.Meade » Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:39 am
I'd say it must be Obama by a landslide, certainly in the EC. Ohio will be his. Mutt might manage 34%. I've already filled in my absentee ballot request - politicians may tremble!

So maybe Romney will exceed 38% in the EC.... well within my Marge Inoverra.

(RNN) Nov 6 - After several weeks of media reports and polls saying the presidential race is too close to call, there are now predictions coming out that President Obama will cruise to a landslide victory.

It sounds improbable after Mitt Romney was praised for his first debate performance and seemed to gather strong momentum to revive the GOP base and attract the attention of independent voters, but new polls and a few pundits say Obama will be the clear victor. . . . Using two different (and very complicated) statistical models, Wang predicts either a 98.2 percent chance of an Obama re-election or a 99.8 percent chance. He also sees Obama winning 332 electoral votes while Romney only nabs a mere 206. . . "Don't believe the media," Dylan told a crowd during an Obama campaign rally, according to the Associated Press. "I think it's going to be a landslide."

http://www.wave3.com/story/20013218/ana ... s-disagree

President Barack Obama rolled to re-election Tuesday night, vanquishing former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney . . . The president's laserlike focus on the battleground states allowed him to run up a 303-206 margin in the competition for the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House, the count that mattered most. . .

http://www.680news.com/news/world/artic ... to-come-in

[dgs49]

"Landslide"?

I wonder if we will ever move closer to "democratic" elections and abandon the perverse practice of giving all of a state's votes to the one that wins a majority. This is nothing but custom and not required by the Constitution. Either proportional allocation or determining the electoral vote by the actual congressional district would make more sense and be more democratic.

This election reminded me of the OJ Simpson verdict. All the evidence was right there for the whole world to see, yet the voters failed to see it. I'm only glad that by the time taxes are raised to levels required to sustain Obama's "vision" I will be retired and paying only minimal taxes.

America will get what it deserves.

[Scooter]

The sourness of the grapes have made Dave's lips pucker like his asshole.

[Scooter]

It was nice to see Matty Maroun get his ass kicked in his latest attempt to derail the new Windsor-Detroit bridge.

[Lord Jim]

Well, obviously it would be silly to call this a "landslide" but at least it's clear victory, and regardless of who won I'm glad to see that we're not going to weeks or months of uncertainty over the outcome.

[Gimcrack]

Sadly, Minnesota re-elected Batshit Bachmann.
We still have Klobuchar and Ellison, though.
However, we did reject the Marriage Amendment AND the Voter ID Amendment.

[Grim Reaper]

"Landslide"?

I remember a certain Republican President calling a 51% victory a "clear mandate" from the people to do whatever he wanted.

[Sue U]

Sadly, Minnesota re-elected Batshit Bachmann.

No no! You just got two more years of comedy!

[Crackpot]

It was nice to see Matty Maroun get his ass kicked in his latest attempt to derail the new Windsor-Detroit bridge.

Defeated Prop 5 too.

[Guinevere]

Not only did Mittens lose his "home" state of Massachusetts 61%-38%, he lost the Town of Belmont, where he lives (when not in California) and where he raised his kids, by a 2-1 margin.

[liberty]

BO didn’t win so much as Romney lost. Romney did not reassure the people SS, Medicaid, Medicare would be safe.

I don’t see much changing except there will be more debt and possibly less freedom. Also Iran will have nukes and BO will try to get rid of ours.

[Sue U]

I don’t see much changing except there will be more debt and possibly less freedom. Also Iran will have nukes and BO will try to get rid of ours.

And your evidence for any of this is .... what?

[Big RR]

I might agree that it's likely personal liberties would continue to be eroded under Obama in the name of "security", but I sincerely doubt that it would have been different under Romney (or any of the possible nominees of either party. We will continue to imprison without charge, impede rights to trials, and carry out sentences by executive decree (even for US citizens) because those terrorists threaten our freedom. And the politicians will lap up that additional power.

As for the nukes and iran, I echo Sue's question.

[Gob]

[RayThom]

Are you aware that the most detailed U.S. case for invading Iran will be laid out December 5th in a U.N. address by Ex-Secretary of State Colin Powell? Powell has been quoted numerous times telling all who will listen that "there is no indication that current President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has ever abandoned his nuclear weapons program." Complacency kills," Powell warns, "to do less would really be complacent."

I'm sure it may be true because I think I might have read it on http://www.republicansforchoice.com/

[Big RR]

Well if Powell says it, it has to be true. He'd never lie about WMDs.

[liberty]

Are you aware that the most detailed U.S. case for invading Iran will be laid out December 5th in a U.N. address by Ex-Secretary of State Colin Powell? Powell has been quoted numerous times telling all who will listen that "there is no indication that current President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has ever abandoned his nuclear weapons program." Complacency kills," Powell warns, "to do less would really be complacent."

I'm sure it may be true because I think I might have read it on http://www.republicansforchoice.com/

Look at a map of Iran and then tell if you would invade with an American army. The only way we could ever deal with Iran is with nukes.