Why Nobama

[DesertDom]

You're merely voting for a president. If he fucks up, you have the next chance to correct your decision in two years, by voting republicans into congress.

I do have to agree with you here. When Clinton went off the deep end and tried to socialize a lot of stuff early in his first term, voters woke up and turned Congress conservative in 1996.

How soon the average voter forgets the past. We seem doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.

[lucy]

How soon the average voter forgets the past. We seem doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Indeed, how else could anyone explain that Americans voted for Dubyou twice
But no worries, we're not smarter in Europe, usually.

[hopperboo]

Indeed, how else could anyone explain that Americans voted for Dubyou twice
But no worries, we're not smarter in Europe, usually.

...you know...I have to say I agree.

But honestly, I don't think anyone knew what a mess He would make in the next 4 years.

The only reason he got the predenciy again was because of 9/11. I think people didn't have enough faith in how John Kerry would handle things.



Obviously faith in Bush was misplaced. He may very well go down in history as the worst American president.

I stayed up with politics during this whole running because I don't want to make a mistake again. And I truly don't believe McCain would be a second Bush, or a mistake.



(Haha, I couldn't help myself to post again).

[DesertDom]

Indeed, how else could anyone explain that Americans voted for Dubyou twice
But no worries, we're not smarter in Europe, usually.

That is perhaps an unfair question based on current perceptions vs perceptions of 4 years ago, but go ahead and take your shot.

Bush was riding a decent popularity wave at the time and had broad based support across the political spectrum except for the extreme kook left wing. Kerry was viewed as an east coast european style ( French, worst of all at the time) elitest who had very little broad based support and was supported by most liberals only because he was their candidate.

It is not surprising he lost, the Dems picked a lousy choice at the time. Kind of how the Reps could have picked a much better candidate this time.

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

That is perhaps an unfair question based on current perceptions vs perceptions of 4 years ago, but go ahead and take your shot.

Bush was riding a decent popularity wave at the time and had broad based support across the political spectrum except for the extreme kook left wing. Kerry was viewed as an east coast european style ( French, worst of all at the time) elitest who had very little broad based support and was supported by most liberals only because he was their candidate.

It is not surprising he lost, the Dems picked a lousy choice at the time. Kind of how the Reps could have picked a much better candidate this time.

Bush - 50.7% of the popular vote, Kerry - 48.3% of the popular vote
Bush - 286 Electoral votes, Kerry - 251 Electoral votes

Now exactly where is this "broad based support across the political spectrum" you speak of? Rovian tactics worked in 2004. Fear won.

[DesertDom]

Bush - 50.7% of the popular vote, Kerry - 48.3% of the popular vote
Bush - 286 Electoral votes, Kerry - 251 Electoral votes

Now exactly where is this "broad based support across the political spectrum" you speak of? Rovian tactics worked in 2004. Fear won.

Hmm, the actual numbers speak for themselves.

Bush won a majority of the votes in 31 states vs 19 states for Kerry. Of those 31 states, Bush had a greater than 10% margin of victory in 17 of them. Sounds pretty broad based to me.

Viewed in that fashion, you could call it a landslide, couldn't you?

Given that CA and NY account for 86 electoral votes, take those 2 states out of the count and Kerry would have had less than 170 electoral votes and +- 11 million fewer votes.

I stand by my earlier statements, Bush's popularity was much higher in 2004 and Kerry was a weak candidate.

I am not looking forward to the red / blue map next week, though.

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

Hmm, the actual numbers speak for themselves.

Bush won a majority of the votes in 31 states vs 19 states for Kerry. Of those 31 states, Bush had a greater than 10% margin of victory in 17 of them. Sounds pretty broad based to me.

Viewed in that fashion, you could call it a landslide, couldn't you?

Given that CA and NY account for 86 electoral votes, take those 2 states out of the count and Kerry would have had less than 170 electoral votes and +- 11 million fewer votes.

I stand by my earlier statements, Bush's popularity was much higher in 2004 and Kerry was a weak candidate.

I am not looking forward to the red / blue map next week, though.

Counting states is just acreage, area, square miles. That has absolutely no bearing on the subject. So, if you subtract electoral college votes from Kerry he would have less. Wow...that's insightful. Support of the people is the measure. Bush received a whopping .7% plurality against a weak candidate that ran a weak race. Ah heck, I'm just disagreeing for fun and entertainment.

I will agree on one point though, Bush was much more popular in 2004.....compared to Bush in 2008, that is...22% approval rating. He's tied Harry Truman's rating after he fired Gen. McArthur.

[DesertDom]

Counting states is just acreage, area, square miles. That has absolutely no bearing on the subject. So, if you subtract electoral college votes from Kerry he would have less. Wow...that's insightful. Support of the people is the measure. Bush received a whopping .7% plurality against a weak candidate that ran a weak race. Ah heck, I'm just disagreeing for fun and entertainment.

I will agree on one point though, Bush was much more popular in 2004.....compared to Bush in 2008, that is...22% approval rating. He's tied Harry Truman's rating after he fired Gen. McArthur.

Hmm, I had assumed that you were aware of the Electoral College process. Since the US uses that quaint system, winning a state ( acreage, area, square miles, etc) is the most important thing that can be done in a presidential election. Win the state, get the electoral votes. First one to 270 wins.

**** I am sure that you are aware of the electoral process and were being deliberately obtuse in your response. *****

The point about CA and NY is that they are bastions of liberalism and are usually check marks in the Dem electoral count total. Take those totals away and the race was even more one sided.

I'm not a fan of the Electoral process, does not seem quite right for someone to win the popular vote, but lose the election. But, maybe the writers of the constitution knew what they were doing when they foresaw heavily populated states overshadowing rural states. The system we have now still gives too much power to large populations.

Popular voting totals is not the answer and giving 1 vote to each state is not the way to go either. I'm not sure what the best way would be, but given how things are bogged down, the chances of a constitutional amendment to revise this are slim and none.