patrick.net

Romney lost because Obama had every network but Fox singing his praises about "How great he did in his first term".
Young folks aren't only pissed off at Obama, they have had about enough of our News outlet's SHIT up to fucking here...

Just count those that have ditched cable since 2012. Facebook and all other social media has jumped the Shark. Like everything else that the Liberal's have had the upper hand on in the last 5 years.
They have let it all slip away from their slippery slimy little fingers.

"Oopps, you just dropped Loupe's vote. ...and is that a Green energy grant? GOOD Lord compose your self Man! You're spilling social betterment all over my low paying job!"

CaptainShuddup says

Romney lost because Obama had every network but Fox singing his praises

So you think the entire electorate is as stupid as Republican voters are and only do what the teevee tells them to?

Obama would not have won with a less than 43% of the vote.

We can quibble all day long over a point or two either way, but more than 7% that's when the shit will hit the fan, I don't care who it is gets in office.

All Republican politicians need to pay attention to this, but I'm sure they're well-aware of it. Seeing as how they've so far done nothing to change the trends, they're likely to keep losing elections.

Call it Crazy says

Also, tell us now how that same age group feels about Obama after the roll out of Obamacare and the lack of jobs for them.

And why would they vote for the GOP? Given that the GOP has the lowest general approval ratings in history tells me younger people aren't going to be clamoring to vote for Republicans.

But in all seriousness, there is a trend here. Once you get past the boomer generation therein lies the change. Those who came after that generation and the subsequent generations up to the present vote more heavily Democratic. This increase and the result was obvious in the last election and will probably become further pronounced with coming elections because like I said- the GOP is basically carrying on with business as usual and thus they haven't done anything to ensure any reversal in that trend.

Call it Crazy says

Just remember, voting HAS consequences..... If they come whining in a few years, oh well....

That sounds like projecting to me: " You young-un's will be sorry if you vote for Obama... someday....."

Let me know when that actually happens.

All I know is I'm treated more like James Earl Jones, than John Earl Jones, when I talk to the youth today about politics and racial problems this administration invent to keep us divided.

Back in 2008, they were programmed and conditioned to automatically retort any political question that they could not answer or had any thought or knowledge on with. "You're just a racist" and "You're on the wrong side of history". This wasn't one or two this was a whole generation that has been indoctrinated by a Liberal Education system to retort by shutting down and attacking the person that challenges what they were taught.

The Cool aid is wearing off, if you don't recognize that, then that's fine. I can see it plain as day. I actually live, talk and interact with the people that mainstream Liberals claim they are connect with, but then at the same time. They think people that work less than 30 hours a week, making only minimum wage, should be straddled with the burden of their whimsical Social engineering at everyone's expense. And especially those they reckon to connect with.

CaptainShuddup says

Romney lost because Obama had every network but Fox singing his praises about "How great he did in his first term".

Obama didn't need any help. All he had to do was let Romney talk.

Homeboy says

Obama didn't need any help.

The networks systematically went one by one through each of the contestants in the asshole contest and built them up, then tore them down, and left them all in a big steaming pile of shit.

This is not normal, there are favorites early on, and they stay that way until the primaries. The predictions are all over the map. Our networks makes it easier to predict who win or lose an election. And their biggest priority early on, is to eliminate any threat from an free thinking independent candidate that may cause them trouble and not tow the bow down to the corporate master line.

If Weiner had been a Republican Comedy central would have invented a new official wiki word to describe what a creep his is. Instead the networks tried to rebound him a year later as a NYC Mayor contender. But Weiner wouldn't couldn't keep it in his pants.

CNN's 2012 Presidential exit polls show the demographics very clearly. Democrats carried almost every demographic except weekly white churchgoers. There are enough of that group that Republicans fooled themselves into thinking they had a majority of the electorate, when they didn't. They had a majority among white voters, but with substantial exceptions. Mark Shields put it most succinctly: Republicans can win a midterm, where the turnout is fewer than 90 million voters; the Republicans don't win general elections, where the turnout is more than 120 million voters.

Basically, Republicans' only majority issue is Obamacare, so that's all they can talk about. On all other issues, Republicans have losing positions where their dwindling number of mostly elderly supporters are literally dying off.

The question in 2014 and 2016 will be, can you find a Democrat who opposes Obamacare, or a Republican who has majority positions on other issues. Currently, the dynamics within each major party preclude that result. The voters choose the lesser of two evils.

Regarding 2012, even those who disagreed with the Democrats about certain issues (e.g. Obamacare) recognized that the Republicans were worse. Whatever problem people might have, the question is, how on earth would that be better if Mitt Romney had won. The closest thing to an answer is, there would be so many worse problems that they'd take your mind off whatever problem is bothering you now.

curious2 says

Regarding 2012, even those who disagreed with the Democrats about certain issues (e.g. Obamacare) recognized that the Republicans were worse.

Well 2016 the Democrats will seem worse, it will seem that the Republican candidate will be trying to free up $14000 income that the Government is forcing them to squander in an ineffective healthcare albatross that has hooked us all around the neck. Even Harry Reid's staff members don't want the fucking thing.

The Republicans may be bad, but any enemy of my enemy is my friend, that is how they won me over after all, after the Democrats turned into an evil Corporate sponsored fascist regime. Then went way off point on how they claim they help the little guy. The little guys biggest threat in the WORLD is the American Democrat political machine.

I don't think you'll be able to reach the youth on that "We're here to help the poor." when the Liberals did far more to put them there hoplessly and desparatly seemingly for ever, with no plan of action, talk or even thought on how to change their predicament with out dreaming up new ways to saddle them with an even bigger debt. Either now through outrageous tuition fees or later on for the rest of their life, they'll be paying for the do nothing deficits that are spiraling out of control. Then the more you do, the more employers claim they can't hire under these conditions. And the Liberals just laugh and crank the dial on full speed a head.

"We're from the DNC we're here to help!"

(BWAAAHAAAHHAAAAHHAAA)

curious2 says

CNN's 2012 Presidential exit polls show the demographics very clearly. Democrats carried almost every demographic except weekly white churchgoers. There are enough of that group that Republicans fooled themselves into thinking they had a majority of the electorate, when they didn't. They had a majority among white voters, but with substantial exceptions. Mark Shields put it most succinctly: Republicans can win a midterm, where the turnout is fewer than 90 million voters; the Republicans don't win general elections, where the turnout is more than 120 million voters.

GOP results were somewhat correct, the 2008 Obama voter stayed home. Both teams saw this in their surveys as the election approached. So what happened to the 2008 Obama voter, where did they go ? It was a narrow win by Obama.

thomaswong.1986 says

GOP results were somewhat correct, the 2008 Obama voter stayed home. Both teams saw this in their surveys as the election approached. So what happened to the 2008 Obama voter, where did they go ? It was a narrow win by Obama.

That's probably a pleasant thing to try and believe for rightly concerned Republicans. As mentioned previously, the 2012 election showed the largest popular vote margins for Obama in well over a generation. I have yet to see any real data that indicated that "people stayed home".

But even if we pretend they did, then that means its even more of an uphill battle for the GOP in the future: Their reliable base are not enough to win.... even if people supposedly stay home...

Call it Crazy says

Did you look at that chart??? 60% of the 18-29 year olds voted for Obama... You tell me where they get the input for their political choice...

Also, tell us now how that same age group feels about Obama after the roll out of Obamacare and the lack of jobs for them.

The age bracket will shift further to the right down the road.. its always been true!
and as you pointed out.. its already started...

No more Q/A .... Mr.. President Boxer or Briefs ?

edvard2 says

But even if we pretend they did, then that means its even more of an uphill battle for the GOP in the future: Their reliable base are not enough to win.... even if people supposedly stay home...

with age comes wisdom... who knows, you might switch as well !

CaptainShuddup says

And their biggest priority early on, is to eliminate any threat from an free thinking independent candidate that may cause them trouble and not tow the bow down to the corporate master line.

Exactly. The contest came down to one candidate promising us Obamacare, and the other having already delivered Romneycare. It came down to a coin toss: heads I win, tails you lose, as far as the power elite manipulators were concerned.

edvard2 says

the 2012 election showed the largest popular vote margins for Obama in well over a generation.

I don't understand why people make partisan comments that are obviously false, easily disproved. In 2008, Barack Obama won by more than 9 million votes, i.e. 69 million vs 60 million. In 2012, President Obama won by fewer than 5 million, i.e. 66 million vs 61 million. He became the first President ever re-elected with fewer votes than he got the first time. Literally millions of people who voted for him in 2008 chose not to do that again in 2012, but they didn't vote Republican either - because the Republicans were worse. The vote totals alone show at least three million, but the actual number is higher, because millions of elderly McCain voters in 2008 had since shuffled off this mortal coil and were replaced by younger people who had voted for Obama in 2008.

I guess this is why I can't be a loyal partisan. Facts, especially numbers, stick like a splinter in my brain. I can't just chant along with the counter-factual catechisms, e.g. "largest margins in well over a generation." If you're going to ignore the facts, why limit yourself - say it was unanimous for Obama, and that he turned water into wine and ended world hunger. Maybe I'm just not smart enough to imagine the same imaginary world and live in it too; like Mark Twain's advice, I have to tell the truth, because that way I don't have to remember either web of partisan lies.

thomaswong.1986 says

with age comes wisdom... who knows, you might switch as well !

Not sure you've read my previous posts but I switched from Republican to Democrat a long time ago once I got out in the world and saw reality.curious2 says

I don't understand why people make partisan comments that are obviously false, easily disproved. In 2008, Obama won by more than 9 million votes, i.e. 69 million vs 60 million:

I am equally puzzled by "people" who claim that someone making a factual comment would then counter that claim without what appears to be doing a lot of research in advance.

I'd suggest looking at this convenient chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin

Call it Crazy says

I think it was his glasses again..

At least I can see through my glasses. That versus the seeming blinders some of the others wear here.

edvard2 says

I'd suggest looking at this convenient chart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin

LOL - I link to certified results from the federal election commission site, you counter with a chart on Wikipedia. Typical. Worse, you haven't even read your own chart, which ends in 2008. Try looking at the table directly underneath the chart. Try sorting it by % of popular vote. Try reading down the list. This is the trouble with relying on Wikipedia charts to do your homework for you: it isn't a substitute for checking actual sources, and it doesn't make you seem smart; quite the opposite really. The Internet makes vast information available to everyone, but if you insist on seeing only what you want to see, you don't really learn much; wisdom begins with finding actual facts.

I did look at that chart closely and what I would suggest for you to do is to spend about 2 seconds looking at the "percentage of popular votes" numbers and compare that to other Presidents, of which listed go back several hundred years.

Call it Crazy says

Well, he IS an Obama voter, after all.....

And I assume ( correct me if I am wrong) voted for Romney, who didn't win.

edvard2 says

As mentioned previously, the 2012 election showed the largest popular vote margins for Obama in well over a generation. I have yet to see any real data that indicated that "people stayed home".

There was a wider margin just four years earlier, won by the same guy, with a vote total millions higher. The population increased during those years. Was your point that you don't know those voters stayed home, they might have gone fishing instead? I'm sorry if I misunderstood.

curious2 says

There was a wider margin just four years earlier, won by the same guy, with a vote total millions higher. The population increased during those years. Was your point that you don't know those voters stayed home, they might have gone fishing instead? I'm sorry if I misunderstood.

The point I was making in regards to "people staying home" was that this seemed to be common saying amongst Republican voters, that young people would stay home. There is some data shows this, but even so, the shift in voting demographics which seems to favor Democrats has also shifted to a point where even IF democratic voters stayed home, this shift in turn compensated for that, and hence a further indicator of that demographic becoming more decisive. No hard feelings and I apologize as well.

That was well put, and thank you. I'm sorry for having used sarcasm earlier. I felt irritated by the numbers sticking like splinters in my brain, but I should have suppressed that feeling and let the numbers speak for themselves. The bigger picture is definitely the demographics are moving in favor of Democrats' positions on nearly all issues except Obamacare.

edvard2 says

There is some data shows this, but even so, the shift in voting demographics which seems to favor Democrats has also shifted to a point where even IF democratic voters stayed home, this shift in turn compensated for that, and hence a further indicator of that demographic becoming more decisive.

An empty 8 years.. I really doubt you will see "candy flavored elections" in the future. It will no longer be "he isnt white, he is one of us" voters. The future voter will ask more questions and it will be much tougher than relying on simple demographics thanks to ObamaCare... "Fuck me side ways,, i gotta pay more in health care costs".

curious2 says

The bigger picture is definitely the demographics are moving in favor of Democrats' positions on nearly all issues except Obamacare.

By all issues.. it will certainly include the top 5.... Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, Jobs and Jobs.

thomaswong.1986 says

curious2 says

The bigger picture is definitely the demographics are moving in favor of Democrats' positions on nearly all issues except Obamacare.

By all issues.. it will certainly include the top 5.... Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, Jobs and Jobs.

The forces of globalization and automation will ensure that the "jobs" especially for middle class will be harder to come by as time goes on. Our private sector unionization is at paltry 7% so we can expect the gap between the haves and have nots to widen in "knowledge based" economy. It's basically gonna be an all out blitz.

dublin hillz says

The forces of globalization and automation will ensure that the "jobs" especially for middle class will be harder to come by as time goes on

we had automation and globalization before, its no stranger ... yet will still had
the same jobs even in Santa Clara county. It is possible, as long as you have
the right leadership to make it happen.

thomaswong.1986 says

By all issues.. it will certainly include the top 5

Both parties talk about jobs, but I'm concerned that Obamacare may become the decisive issue. I'm trying to deal with it now, but the invasive questions bother me, and the misleading questions too. For example, "Does this person want health insurance?" That's complicated. I don't want the policies they're selling, but if I click no, I get punished. It feels like a cavity search where they're telling me, "Don't act like you don't like it." Since the promises ("no more medical bankruptcies," "preventative care will [somehow?] reduce hospital emergency visits," "if you like your plan you can keep your plan," "you can keep your doctor," etc.) will all be easily disproved by 2014 and 2016, I worry that people may harbor the resentment and anger that turns rape survivors into activists. And that's just among the people who actually sign up; another 30 million are expected not to sign up, and risk liability for the penalty in addition to coping with a medical environment where provider prices are artificially inflated by subsidized insurance.

curious2 says

Both parties talk about jobs, but I'm concerned that Obamacare may become the decisive issue.

well we should have talked about it, but instead we got distracted...thats whats
occupying your time now. and if your a business owner with the above questions
thats not good ! efforts could have gone elsewhere to broaden your operations.

curious2 says

Literally millions of people who voted for him in 2008 chose not to do that again in 2012, but they didn't vote Republican either

Maybe people are waking up to the charade that the reform that they are desperate for is ever going to come from this corporate sponsored reality TV show.
I for one am (re)dropping out of this lesser-evilism.
Withholding consent feels more empowering than serial excuse making and disappointment.

Reality says

It came down to a coin toss: heads I win, tails you lose, as far as the power elite manipulators were concerned.

Funny how we loss anyway huh? Funny how God kids like that.

Call it Crazy says

I wonder if all these Obama voters in 2012 came from this list.... you know, they didn't want their gravy train taken away....

Yeah. And Obama's so evil, he built a time machine and went back to make the number of food stamp recipients go up when BUSH was president, too.

Good thing we had that republican president from 1993-1997 who reduced the number of people on food stamps. LOL.

Homeboy says

Good thing we had that republican president from 1993-1997 who reduced the number of people on food stamps.

I reckon that was about when Clinton, betraying his liberal roots and constituency, kicked the poor schmucks to the curb with his Welfare Destruction Act.
Looks good on your chart though, and I bet it earned him beaucoup "speaking engagements" post Presidency.

Homeboy says

Good thing we had that republican president from 1993-1997 who reduced the number of people on food stamps. LOL.

WSJ’s Mary Kissel: Democrats Voting Against Bill Clinton’s Reforms for Food Stamps

http://www.mediaite.com/online/wsjs-mary-kissel-democrats-voting-against-bill-clintons-reforms-for-food-stamps/

While many Democrats are insisting that the GOP is simply taking food away from hungry and impoverished people, they said, the GOP is actually insisting on instituting reforms that were embraced by President Bill Clinton when he signed a successful welfare reform law in the 1990s. “What has happened to the party?”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) is a United States federal law considered to be a fundamental shift in both the method and goal of federal cash assistance to the poor. The bill added a workforce development component to welfare legislation, encouraging employment among the poor. The bill was a cornerstone of the Republican Contract with America and was introduced by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL-22). Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, fulfilling his 1992 campaign promise to "end welfare as we have come to know it"

A central pledge of Clinton's campaign was to reform the welfare system, adding changes such as work requirements for recipients. However, by 1994, the Clinton Administration appeared to be more concerned with universal health care, and no details or a plan had emerged on welfare reform. Newt Gingrich accused the President of stalling on welfare and proclaimed that Congress could pass a welfare reform bill in as little as 90 days. Gingrich promised that the Republican Party would continue to apply political pressure to the President to approve welfare legislation.

While Clinton was getting a BJ from Monica, Gingrich pushed reform in Congress.

In 1996, after constructing two welfare reform bills that were vetoed by President Clinton,[18] Gingrich and his supporters pushed for the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), a bill aimed at substantially reconstructing the welfare system. Introduced by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr., the act gave state governments more autonomy over welfare delivery, while also reducing the federal government's responsibilities.

Oh, I see. If something you like happens under a democrat president, it was in spite of him, but if something you DON'T like happens under a democrat president, it's BECAUSE of him.

Too bad those 45 and up didn't turn out more: after all, they have such an awesome track record of picking presidents in the past.

in 2008, the Democrats could sell any lie, they didn't sell "Obama" persay, they sold "Someone else".

I'd like to see the DNC sell "Down with the incumbents" in 2016.

It's the GOPs turn to sell "Someone else", it wont be a tough sell either.

I just hope some independent gets enough traction, but I'm dreaming the 55,000 American Liberal networks and media sources would NEVER allow that to happen.
They can sell "Oooh he bad, he very bad" just as well as they can dress a terd up in a suit and sell that motherfucker.

That was what Obama said, Romney was the only mother fucker talking about jobs an work.