I don’t understand the bolded part. I thought the Republicans mostly controlled Congress until 2006.
Wow, I actually think he *was *a terrible candidate who ran an absolutely abysmal campaign. And that’s why he lost. And I don’t just mean that from an ideological standpoint.
Um, nope. The GOP controlled Congress between 1994-2006, excepting the 107th Senate, only for two years (2001-2) when Jefford switched to Independent and caucused with Dems.
This is true.
You know, you spent the time before the election going on and on about how Obama was going to lose and how all the polls are wrong if they said otherwise. Liberals, Democrats, and people who actually know stuff kept telling you that you were wrong, that yours was the one that was biased. To your credit, you admitted that you were wrong
Now less than 24 hours later you’re doing it again.
Not that I hold out much hope that you’ll change your ways, but listen to me: the fact that you were so utterly and completely dead wrong about the election SHOULD give you pause to question your other deeply held beliefs. You were just proven wrong, publicly, loudly, spectacularly. Consider that next time a liberal or Democrat tells you that you’re wrong, maybe agree that he’s right. The 3 things you posted are a fantasy, they were never true, and if I were you and wanted to actually be honest and learn a little humility here, I’d tell myself that wherever you got the wrong information, automatically assume those are wrong and biased, and start believing what the rest of us are telling you
More than that, if you look into history it isn’t bad economies per se that stop presidents getting re-elected, it’s economies getting worse. The US economy is now definitely distinctly perceptibly improving. Damn slowly, erratically and patchily, but it is unmistakably happening.
Unemployment is declining - again, far too slowly - but it is the direction things are going that affects people, not so much their absolute state. People feel better with 8% unemployment declining than with 6% increasing, because they feel they themselves are less likely to get canned, or more likely to be able to get a job if they don’t have one.
The economy is a real issue. Obama generally wasn’t blamed for creating the mess.
Supply side trickle down economics is considered by a reasonable amount of voters to be a crock.
Mitt ran on: it’s Obama’s mess, i’m going to cut taxes on job creators, and I’ve got a bunch of swell ideas on how to turn around the economy and create jobs that i’ll share after I’m elected, and those 47% free loaders.
Romney never ever shared a credible plan on the economy nor on job creation.
Hopefully not too many, because it’s a complete fairytale, you know.
Naw, just a 90% fairytale, 95% tops.
I thought that was a bit off, but didn’t check. Wow–that is like the exact opposite of what Saint Cad was trying to sell. Impressive.
The Republican policy when in power is to spend like you are going on one last binge before you die, and while you’re at it cut taxes on those rich enough to partially offset your spending (because deficits don’t matter).
Maybe people were saying they agreed with the fictional Mitt Romney character the Mitt campaign tried to create, but it turns out that they didn’t want any part of electing the real Mitt Romney.
So basically OMG, you are not interested in understanding anything. You want to continue living in the alternate reality spun for you by forces that are cynically manipulating you for their own ends. You’re going to continue to deny facts, you’re going to continue wallowing in conspiracy theories and you’re going to continue flying in the face of electoral, mathematical and scientific fact.
Why did you start this thread?
But let me just take this chance to encourage you and the dwindling tribe of Angry White Men that constitute the Republican vote.
Keep on going. Keep alienating women, ethnic and other minorities. Go for that rapist demographic. Keep peddling those same ‘Christian values’ that would have Jesus puking his guts out. Keep dancing to the tune of the rich elites in whose interests you serve.
Keep on listening to Rush and all the other media types pissing down your neck and telling you it’s raining.
Keep on losing elections.
I see many good answers in the thread, but, assuming you really did come to learn, OMG, the best short answer was
But …
Oh. Well, maybe you didn’t come to learn.
You are right about one thing, though. This election was the GOP’s to lose; polls said “generic Republican” would win. They spent almost two years to find a candidate, but spent much of the energy considering lunatics like Bachman, Palin, Paul, Cain, Gingrich, etc. Among those considered, Perry might have had the best shot, not in spite of his limited intellect, but because of it – that was after all a major selling-point for GWB. Unfortunately for GOP chances, stupidity and alcohol don’t mix well; Perry shot himself down; GOP was left with the weakest serious candidate for the Presidency since Dukakis.
Sane Republicans continue to flee the party, so it will be fun to see who you guys run in 2016.
I’m not getting the alcohol reference :- just for my information,would you mind clarifying it ?
In some of Rick Perry’s public appearances, his manner has made people wonder whether he was under the influence. – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPqcW3KXODk
I can’t find CNN’s exit polls so let’s just look at the Fox News ones. Something about these exit polls: they were done only in-person on election day. Absentee and early voters, who were a large fraction of all voters this year, skew Democratic.
That 1% difference is hardly worth crowing about. Anyway, 1% of those who favored the President’s economic plan found enough reason to disagree with him to vote against him, but 4% who liked Romney’s economics voted against him anyway.
This is true but it doesn’t conflict with what was given above, being that outside of economic policy, Romney is much more of a stinker than Obama is.
Sloppy question since you can tell from some of the other answers that some who are “Worse today” don’t blame it on Obama, but still, so what? 2 out of 3 voters said they were doing the same or better.
I think what you’re trying to allege is that Obama voters live in a bubble separated from real economic information. Have you examined your own beliefs? What has led you to believe the economy is worse? Unemployment is unchanged, we avoided deflation, inflation is in check, and GDP and corporate profits are at all time highs, and the stock markets are all recovered to near pre-crash conditions. And we’re beating Europe if you compare our recovery to theirs. So how is it that the economy been so disastrous again?
The Alternate Reality Bubble he lives in kept telling him so.
Saint Cad, the discussion about conservative facts being at odds with reality is in another thread. But everything you wrote is a perfect example. Thanks!
One more, using that Fox exit poll.
As stated above, 48% of the electorate think Obama will do the better job economically. 49% think Romney.
Great.
Now let’s look at the burning issues. For 59% of the electorate, the economy was the most important factor of their vote. Of these, 47% voted for Obama, 51% voted for Romney. So, one way of looking at it if you accept Fox’s numbers, is that Romney votes are slightly over-represented here (but more likely, it’s margin-of-error stuff or, just as importantly, one issue does not make a vote.)
So there is nothing irrational about the electorate that I see based on their voting on the economy. If the voting public were one dimensional, and the only thing that mattered was the economy, based on the answers given in the exit poll, Romney was only up by 1 point. One point. But voters are multidimensional, and a rational voter votes more than economic interest.
But you can cherry pick that poll to hell and back and find reasons why Romney should have won if you wanted to. It was only a two-point race. But nothing I see suggests what you wrote: “Apparently, the economy and economic well being is now an abstract construct with no tangible meaning to the majority of the electorate.” A quick simplistic overview of the numbers suggests to me a self-interested and rational electorate.
I never understood Romneys’ (and other repubs) chant about “Government doesn’t create jobs!!!” But then then Romney went around the country and shouted “I will create 12 million jobs!!”
Sooo… you blame Obama for not creating jobs even tho you say the government doesn’t create jobs? Then you run on a platform of “I will create 12 million jobs!”?
The messaging never made any sense to me, and I suspect to quite a few others as well.
To be fair, ‘Generic Repbublican’ and ‘Generic Democrat’ nearly always poll better than actual candidates do. People can project whatever traits they want, resulting in an ideal candidate in their head, which is different for everyone and which no real candidate can realistically live up to for everyone at the same time (although Romney damn sure tried).