Obama wins

[odeon]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/11/07/romneys_transition_site.html

[Queen Victoria]

I literally didn't make up my mind who to vote for until the moment I cast my vote.  I felt Obama was blocked by Republican party in Congress.  I'm still not convinced he and his advisers have the negotiating/political skills to achieve what has to be done.  I felt that Romney was out of touch and I knew he wasn't liked by most European governments.

In the end it came down to who I felt showed a stronger commitment to Judeo-Christian teachings about treating your fellow man.  And that was still a tough one because of Obama's abortion stance (Not going to get into that    because I'm still trying to strengthen my thoughts on abortion).

In the end I voted for Obama.  As I say at each President's inauguration, "He won't be the best President we've ever had, but he won't be the worst either.  He's what we've got."

[odeon]

Around 89% of the people polled about the subject in Sweden wanted to see Obama re-elected so no, Romney isn't particularly well liked.

['andersom']

Around 89% of the people polled about the subject in Sweden wanted to see Obama re-elected so no, Romney isn't particularly well liked.

About the same here.

[midlifeaspie]

btw this is a view from half way across the atlantic, and I don't understand american politics as much so accept I could be totally talking out of my ass here, but that is how it looks to me

You seem to understand it better than TA does.

[midlifeaspie]

I don't think the Republicans will win in 2016

Obviously impossible to tell and depends who gest the nomination, but I don't think Obama pissing people off means the Democrats will necessarily lose in 4 years time

The American voters as a whole are pretty predictable, when one side pisses them off, they vote for the other. It is pretty obvious that the Republicans are going to crying foul for the next four years and if they get enough people riled up and kiss enough ass, they win, the same would have been true for the dems if they had lost.

Why didn't they elect a Republican this time then?

What sane person would cast a vote for the Mormon Church to run the United States? That turned a lot of people away, and the fact that Romney put his foot in his mouth too many times.

So ... what you are saying is that your previous analysis where the presidency should switch parties every election cycle can actually be influenced and modified by reality?

[odeon]

Reality can be a bitch.

[Adam]

I don't think the Republicans will win in 2016

Obviously impossible to tell and depends who gest the nomination, but I don't think Obama pissing people off means the Democrats will necessarily lose in 4 years time

The American voters as a whole are pretty predictable, when one side pisses them off, they vote for the other. It is pretty obvious that the Republicans are going to crying foul for the next four years and if they get enough people riled up and kiss enough ass, they win, the same would have been true for the dems if they had lost.

Why didn't they elect a Republican this time then?

What sane person would cast a vote for the Mormon Church to run the United States? That turned a lot of people away, and the fact that Romney put his foot in his mouth too many times.

Well, millions did... And if you look at the republican party, while they might not all be mormons, they're pretty much all religious nutcases, so I don't see what difference it makes really. And you could say the same thing in 2016. You don't know who'll be running then. So maybe you;ll be saying afterwards "well my theory was right, but what sane person would vote fo [.......]?"

[midlifeaspie]

I don't think the Republicans will win in 2016

Obviously impossible to tell and depends who gest the nomination, but I don't think Obama pissing people off means the Democrats will necessarily lose in 4 years time

The American voters as a whole are pretty predictable, when one side pisses them off, they vote for the other. It is pretty obvious that the Republicans are going to crying foul for the next four years and if they get enough people riled up and kiss enough ass, they win, the same would have been true for the dems if they had lost.

Why didn't they elect a Republican this time then?

What sane person would cast a vote for the Mormon Church to run the United States? That turned a lot of people away, and the fact that Romney put his foot in his mouth too many times.

Well, millions did... And if you look at the republican party, while they might not all be mormons, they're pretty much all religious nutcases, so I don't see what difference it makes really. And you could say the same thing in 2016. You don't know who'll be running then. So maybe you;ll be saying afterwards "well my theory was right, but what sane person would vote fo [.......]?"

The problem with his analysis is that he has it exactly backwards.  The people most likely to believe that a vote for Mittens is a vote for the Mormon church to run things are the evangelicals that make up the Republican base, and who voted for him anyway.  The secular Democrats like me think all religions are nuts and don't really put much effort into trying to divide them into camps.  They all believe in a man in the sky, and they all belong to a church who has a leader.  Does that mean that leader runs the country?  I doubt it.  Do I think the Mormon church running the country is a scarier prospect than the Pope, or the head of the Methodists?  No, not really.

[TA]

  How do I have it backwards?

Mormons take their religion seriously and they love power, Catholics and Methodists really don't care. They already run an entire state and a major university, so why would they not want to run an entire country? I'm simply going on past electoral history when I say whoever pisses the most people off loses. Case in point, 2008.

[odeon]

I think he just explained how you have it backwards.

[El]

How do I have it backwards?

Mormons take their religion seriously and they love power, Catholics and Methodists really don't care. They already run an entire state and a major university, so why would they not want to run an entire country? I'm simply going on past electoral history when I say whoever pisses the most people off loses. Case in point, 2008.

Oh yeah, Catholics are SUPER laid-back when it comes to matters of power.

['andersom']

How do I have it backwards?

Mormons take their religion seriously and they love power, Catholics and Methodists really don't care. They already run an entire state and a major university, so why would they not want to run an entire country? I'm simply going on past electoral history when I say whoever pisses the most people off loses. Case in point, 2008.

Oh yeah, Catholics are SUPER laid-back when it comes to matters of power.

Benedictus just asked the local convent to add you in their thanking prayers again. 

[midlifeaspie]

How do I have it backwards?

Can't make it much clearer.  Maybe I don't understand your point?  Perhaps a video could clear things up?

[TA]

How do I have it backwards?

Can't make it much clearer.  Maybe I don't understand your point?  Perhaps a video could clear things up?

 

The point: This has a replay of 2000 written all over it, and America is screwed no matter who wins because politicians don't give two shits about what the people (the 99%) want. They only do their jobs for personal gain. As long as the two parties control the election, the cycle of greed will continue.