Obama Thanks Supporters After Winning Re-Election

[thaibeachlovers]

...

I'm sure the republican policies are wrong, but I don't hate republicans.

Good for you. I DO hate some many republicans. I think that is a rational response when faced with bigotry.

That said, the plus side of the republican party identifying itself as the party of bigotry, inequality, coded racism (a la Donald Trump, birthers, voter suppression, etc.), and intolerance has stopped working for them politically like it used to do. The public opinion and demographics tide has turned so taking those positions now hurts more than it helps.

ok, I kind of understand. I can think some people are stupid. And I can not like them. It's just a big jump to hate them. BTW, there are some posters over in the thailand news section who hit #1 & #2 already, what is it with those jerks over there?

Anyway, point being hate is about a real, irrational emotion and I see it usually linked with vilifying the other side. None of that leads to clarity. If I am clear about the fact that Republicans played the race card in this election and understand why... If I see that they want to give "stuff" in form of tax breaks to the supper rich and understand which policies do that and why, it makes it easier to react, discuss and vote in a way that makes sense to my values and interests.

Which is what doesn't happen when a bunch of lower middle class republicans vote for the party that is going to do nothing for them and everything for the rich.

As for bigotry, I just saw the numbers. 88% of the Romney voters were white. 88%. That is frickin amazing.

Considering that over 90% of black voters voted for Obama I fail to understand what point you are making.

[geriatrickid]

Maybe this is one reason the election doesn't fix that. A clip of very informed voters.

If this edited video clip is intended to prove the ignorance of those people that voted for Obama, it fails.

Do you honestly expect the typical US voter to know who Barney Frank is? The man wasn't even up for election. The fact is that if you were a resident of Vermont and I asked you to list the Congressional delegation from Nebraska, you would not be able to. Can you name one mmmber of the House Ways & Means committee? If I asked an Englishman what the role of the House of Lords was, do you think he/she could answer correctly? What if I asked a Canadian to name one Parliamentary secretary or explain what the Privy Council was. what do you think the chances of obtaining a coherent answer would be? What if I asked an Australian to contrast state vs federal government powers? Do you think I'd get an intelligible answer? Do most New Zealanders even know what legal rights the Maori have?

Edited November 12, 2012 by geriatrickid

[SteeleJoe]

...

I'm sure the republican policies are wrong, but I don't hate republicans.

Good for you. I DO hate some many republicans. I think that is a rational response when faced with bigotry.

That said, the plus side of the republican party identifying itself as the party of bigotry, inequality, coded racism (a la Donald Trump, birthers, voter suppression, etc.), and intolerance has stopped working for them politically like it used to do. The public opinion and demographics tide has turned so taking those positions now hurts more than it helps.

ok, I kind of understand. I can think some people are stupid. And I can not like them. It's just a big jump to hate them. BTW, there are some posters over in the thailand news section who hit #1 & #2 already, what is it with those jerks over there?

Anyway, point being hate is about a real, irrational emotion and I see it usually linked with vilifying the other side. None of that leads to clarity. If I am clear about the fact that Republicans played the race card in this election and understand why... If I see that they want to give "stuff" in form of tax breaks to the supper rich and understand which policies do that and why, it makes it easier to react, discuss and vote in a way that makes sense to my values and interests.

Which is what doesn't happen when a bunch of lower middle class republicans vote for the party that is going to do nothing for them and everything for the rich.

As for bigotry, I just saw the numbers. 88% of the Romney voters were white. 88%. That is frickin amazing.

Considering that over 90% of black voters voted for Obama I fail to understand what point you are making.

Logical fallacy in your retort. What percentage of Obama voters were black? That's the proper comparison. (I know he got about the usual percentage of white voters for Democrats.)

Forgot to mention: the fact that 88% of the Romney voters were white is not evidence of bigotry. Both of you and the poster you replied to need to work out some things about causality and correlation etc

Edited November 13, 2012 by Scott

[SteeleJoe]

Oh, found it: 24% of Obama voters were black. Hmm...doesn't sound quite so good as a comeback when you compare apples to apples

I just saw the numbers. 88% of the Romney voters were white. 88%. That is frickin amazing.

"Considering that 24% of Obama voters were black, I fail to understand what point you are making".

[What would the point be?FWIW I guess it would be ' Romney gets almost all of his support from his own race. Obama gets multiracial support (relying on his own race for less than a quarter)]

Guess Steely Dan ad Baloo should also take note of the now correct reply.

[beechguy]

Oh, found it: 24% of Obama voters were black. Hmm...doesn't sound quite so good as a comeback when you compare apples to apples

I just saw the numbers. 88% of the Romney voters were white. 88%. That is frickin amazing.

"Considering that 24% of Obama voters were black, I fail to understand what point you are making".

[What would the point be?FWIW I guess it would be ' Romney gets almost all of his support from his own race. Obama gets multiracial support (relying on his own race for less than a quarter)]

Guess Steely Dan ad Baloo should also take note of the now correct reply.

Well considering the ratio of blacks to white in population, how would they have produced a higher percentage?

Edited November 12, 2012 by beechguy

[SteeleJoe]

Oh, found it: 24% of Obama voters were black. Hmm...doesn't sound quite so good as a comeback when you compare apples to apples

I just saw the numbers. 88% of the Romney voters were white. 88%. That is frickin amazing.

"Considering that 24% of Obama voters were black, I fail to understand what point you are making".

[What would the point be?FWIW I guess it would be ' Romney gets almost all of his support from his own race. Obama gets multiracial support (relying on his own race for less than a quarter)]

Guess Steely Dan ad Baloo should also take note of the now correct reply.

Well considering the ratio of blacks to white how would they have produced a higher percentage?

Indeed.

So, I guess that concludes it. Your comparison was specious, the percentages are of little value in determining bigotry, and Obama not only got almost all of a majority of his own race as supported but, unlike Romney, a considerable amount of support from other races.

[Jingthing]

The republican party doesn't appeal to the vast majority of black people in ANY recent presidential election. Doesn't matter if the candidate is black or not! The three constituencies that are basically married to the democratic party are blacks, Jews, and gays. In recent years the democrats are locking up some new constituencies: Latinos, Asians, Arabs, Muslims, and single women in general. The biggest prize is the Latinos. That shift is HUGE. The republicans have: majority of whites, men in general, older straight white men in particular. In other words, they've got a big problem (yeah!).

Edited November 12, 2012 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Oh, found it: 24% of Obama voters were black. Hmm...doesn't sound quite so good as a comeback when you compare apples to apples

I just saw the numbers. 88% of the Romney voters were white. 88%. That is frickin amazing.

"Considering that 24% of Obama voters were black, I fail to understand what point you are making".

[What would the point be?FWIW I guess it would be ' Romney gets almost all of his support from his own race. Obama gets multiracial support (relying on his own race for less than a quarter)]

Guess Steely Dan ad Baloo should also take note of the now correct reply.

Well considering the ratio of blacks to white how would they have produced a higher percentage?

Indeed.

So, I guess that concludes it. Your comparison was specious, the percentages are of little value in determining bigotry, and Obama not only got almost all of a majority of his own race as supported but, unlike Romney, a considerable amount of support from other races.

You have to look at other evidence such as the recent poll showing republicans are overwhelmingly more overtly racist than democrats.

Republicans were far more likely than Democrats to show some sign of anti-black bias. Seventy-nine percent of Republicans exhibited an explicit anti-black attitude on the more direct questions, versus thirty-two percent of Democrats who did the same.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/27/poll-majority-of-americans-are-racist-against-black/

Edited November 12, 2012 by Jingthing

[SteeleJoe]

Oh, found it: 24% of Obama voters were black. Hmm...doesn't sound quite so good as a comeback when you compare apples to apples

I just saw the numbers. 88% of the Romney voters were white. 88%. That is frickin amazing.

"Considering that 24% of Obama voters were black, I fail to understand what point you are making".

[What would the point be?FWIW I guess it would be ' Romney gets almost all of his support from his own race. Obama gets multiracial support (relying on his own race for less than a quarter)]

Guess Steely Dan ad Baloo should also take note of the now correct reply.

Well considering the ratio of blacks to white how would they have produced a higher percentage?

Indeed.

So, I guess that concludes it. Your comparison was specious, the percentages are of little value in determining bigotry, and Obama not only got almost all of a majority of his own race as supported but, unlike Romney, a considerable amount of support from other races.

You have to look at other evidence such as the recent poll showing republicans are overwhelmingly more overtly racist than democrats.

Agreed. That's the sort of thing one should look at.

[Hugo6]

...

I'm sure the republican policies are wrong, but I don't hate republicans.

Good for you. I DO hate some many republicans. I think that is a rational response when faced with bigotry.

That said, the plus side of the republican party identifying itself as the party of bigotry, inequality, coded racism (a la Donald Trump, birthers, voter suppression, etc.), and intolerance has stopped working for them politically like it used to do. The public opinion and demographics tide has turned so taking those positions now hurts more than it helps.

ok, I kind of understand. I can think some people are stupid. And I can not like them. It's just a big jump to hate them. BTW, there are some posters over in the thailand news section who hit #1 & #2 already, what is it with those jerks over there?

Anyway, point being hate is about a real, irrational emotion and I see it usually linked with vilifying the other side. None of that leads to clarity. If I am clear about the fact that Republicans played the race card in this election and understand why... If I see that they want to give "stuff" in form of tax breaks to the supper rich and understand which policies do that and why, it makes it easier to react, discuss and vote in a way that makes sense to my values and interests.

Which is what doesn't happen when a bunch of lower middle class republicans vote for the party that is going to do nothing for them and everything for the rich.

As for bigotry, I just saw the numbers. 88% of the Romney voters were white. 88%. That is frickin amazing.

Considering that over 90% of black voters voted for Obama I fail to understand what point you are making.

it's a subtle point isn't it....

88% of the Romney vote was white

think about that for a moment

...

OK, now do you get it?

56% of the voters for Obama were white, and the remainder were other ethnic groups.

Romney did not get 88% of the white vote. But it is almost the only vote that he did get... 12% of the votes for him were NOT white. The rest ... wonder bread, man... Really really white

That makes it clear why the campaign was blowing the racial dog whistle in the last month of the campaign. In order to win, their only chance in fact, they had to get a lot more white guys out to vote.

That's a remarkable stat and points to how bad the republican party's problem with minorities really is. Really, that is not to slam the republicans - for that I've got other reasons. But if you are a republican and serious about the future of the party, this little tidbit has got to have you worried.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Scott

[Jingthing]

Let the republicans KEEP their regressive losing ways. The more they fail, the more America succeeds.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Jingthing

[SteeleJoe]

it's a subtle point isn't it....

88% of the Romney vote was white

think about that for a moment

...

OK, now do you get it?

56% of the voters for Obama were white, and the remainder were other ethnic groups.

Romney did not get 88% of the white vote. But it is almost the only vote that he did get... 12% of the votes for him were NOT white. The rest ... wonder bread, man... Really really white

That makes it clear why the campaign was blowing the racial dog whistle in the last month of the campaign. In order to win, their only chance in fact, they had to get a lot more white guys out to vote.

That's a remarkable stat and points to how bad the republican party's problem with minorities really is. Really, that is not to slam the republicans - for that I've got other reasons. But if you are a republican and serious about the future of the party, this little tidbit has got to have you worried.

Quality.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[keemapoot]

As Republicans start de-constructing the big loss, it's good to see some prominent Republicans (like Newt Gingrich who also predicted a landslide for Romney) facing this intelligently instead of in denial.

On Monday, the former speaker of the House sounded reflective on the "Today" show, saying, "We need to stop, take a deep breath and learn." He added, "The president won an extraordinary victory. And the fact is, we owe him the respect of trying to understand what they did and how they did it.

Gingrich said, "But if you had said to me three weeks ago Mitt Romney would get fewer votes than John McCain and it looks like he'll be 2 million fewer, I would have been dumbfounded.""

"For the conservative movement and the Republican Party to succeed in the future (and while they are not identical the two are inextricably bound together) we will have to learn the lessons of 2012. An intellectually honest and courageous Republican Party has nothing to fear from the current situation."

He said If "I was that far off, what do I better need to learn about America?" <deleted>, all he has to do is read this forum and he would get the basic reasons. These guys talk about this alienation of the Republican party by non-whites as if it's the first time they've every thought about it or seen it.

[samran]

^^

It was the first time they've thought about it or seen it.

The GOP analysis pre election was thought echo chamber stuff. But it was convincing too. I and many others thought that somehow the polls were wrong and that the election was much closer than it actually was (I also suppose that it was always in the media's interest to talk up a close match).

The first clue I had that Obama had it in the bag was election morning, when Obama went off to have a game of basketball and Romney continued campaigning. A bit like students on the morning of a big exam. The ones who were prepared take the morning off and relax, the ones who didn't study up to the last minute.

[StevieH]

obama won the single women voting block by 38%. that's just unheard of really, a margin that big. and the inference is clear - republicans, hands off our bodies and issues. stop being so religiously extremist about issues like abortion and contraception or continue getting handed your asses in elections.

[bendejo]

I'm off to Burma - turns out the same time Obama was going to be there.

Outside the Burmese embassy this morning in BKK getting my visa and two older American gentlemen, let me just say, mentioned the Obama's trip. One bloke could barely bring himself to spit out Obama's name, prefering instead "well there is no point going in the 19th as that.......P-P-President is going to be there' (and no, he didn't stutter otherwise).

Thought is was funny but watching him say it you could see the anger and blood pressure rise and the Rush Limaugh-esq rouge face that rotound 'conservatives*' have managed to perfect.

I guess I've seen me an Obama hater then.

*conservatives in inverted comma as they give conservatives a bad name.

I've come across a few Americans who make faces of disgust and say this president is the worst. When asked why they usually say something that makes no sense or repeat something they heard on Fox recently.

I think the GOP is just fine as it is, maybe needs to be less liberal. They should show their true colors with pride. Propose mandatory chastity belts for women as a new tactic for all this rape debate. English as the mandatory language, speak it or self-deport. All children should be baptized in the delivery room regardless of the religion of the parents. Universities produce nothing but elite snobs, shut them down! And course the most important issue for those poor families struggling to make ends meet: cutting taxes for the rich.

Santorum in 2016!

[bendejo]

...

The first clue I had that Obama had it in the bag was election morning, when Obama went off to have a game of basketball and Romney continued campaigning. A bit like students on the morning of a big exam. The ones who were prepared take the morning off and relax, the ones who didn't study up to the last minute.

Actually, in the US, it is considered bad form to campaign on election day. I've been watching elections since 1960 (though sometimes not very closely) and this is the first time I've seen that. Even FN mentioned how unusual it was.

While I'm not an Obama lover I am certainly happy to no longer have to see Mitt's salesman's smile.

[Jingthing]

Let's not be ridiculous. There was no way Americans were every going to vote for exposing themselves to that "alien smile" on television for four to eight years! (Reports are he had to practice for several hours just to develop that smile. Mr. Natural he wasn't.) After all Americans may have low standards, but that doesn't mean they have NO standards.

click it

click it

click it

Kamau Bell of Totally Biased put it well. He said America having a black president was bound to create an opposite reaction. Nominating as he called Romney, the whitest man in the world. While W. Bush USED to appear very white, Bell noted that Bush compared to Romney, Bush looked positively JAMAICAN!

Edited November 13, 2012 by Jingthing

[YourMomma]

I might get to see Obama on Sunday - going into GH with musicians from my faculty. I'll tell him "Whats up" for all of you!

[bendejo]

The first time I saw Mitt on TV was January 2008. He looked really weird. I figured it out: as they teach them in salesman school making eye contact is crucial to getting people to trust you. He was "making eye contact" with the camera, and thus with the millions of people watching. A human being would have figured out that doesn't work. I made him look like Max Headroom. Sometime in the past 4 years he figured out it doesn't work.

Still, the thing about Mitt is he never made a stand, so it really was an empty campaign. Hard to believe he didn't see that, maybe executive arrogance. To me one thing someone said tells it all, for all those clowns who piled out of the little car for GOP primaries:

Herman Cain was being interviewed just after the fall of Gadaffi. The interviewer asked him what he would have done with Libya. "Libya, which one was that?" He mused aloud for at least 30 seconds, then said "I don't know what he (O) did, but I would have done it different and it would have been better."

[Chicog]

The first time I saw Mitt on TV was January 2008. He looked really weird. I figured it out: as they teach them in salesman school making eye contact is crucial to getting people to trust you. He was "making eye contact" with the camera, and thus with the millions of people watching. A human being would have figured out that doesn't work. I made him look like Max Headroom. Sometime in the past 4 years he figured out it doesn't work.

Still, the thing about Mitt is he never made a stand, so it really was an empty campaign. Hard to believe he didn't see that, maybe executive arrogance. To me one thing someone said tells it all, for all those clowns who piled out of the little car for GOP primaries:

Herman Cain was being interviewed just after the fall of Gadaffi. The interviewer asked him what he would have done with Libya. "Libya, which one was that?" He mused aloud for at least 30 seconds, then said "I don't know what he (O) did, but I would have done it different and it would have been better."

On the contrary, after the first debates, both he and Ryan were credited with engaging the TV audience more than their opponents - which is just as well considering how vacuous were their messages.

[geriatrickid]

Interesting to see how the "black" vote is discounted and dismissed as somehow it is not of the same value as the votes of other people. The last time I looked, the afro american population are legal citizens of the USA. They serve in the military, pay taxes, are gainfully employed and are for the most part an integral part of the American social fabric. Why then, is there such a derisive attitude to this demographic?

I do not anticipate Afro Americans being stripped of their right to vote, despite the best efforts of some Republican controlled areas of the USA. As such, the GOP is going to have to respond to the needs of this demographic in the same way the GOP responds to the interests of other groups such as the energy lobby, AARP, NRA, Billy Graham's minions, the conference of Catholic bishops, Mr. Adelson and others.

[StevieH]

still, at least they're taking the ass-kicking well.

[Jingthing]

In some precincts in Philadelphia and Cleveland, Romney got ZERO votes. I can imagine that in a tiny town of 10 people, but in an urban area? Wow! Well played, Mitt.

http://www.cbsnews.c...rban-precincts/

The Phildadelphia Inquirer reported today that, in 59 precincts in inner-city Philadelphia, the GOP nominee received not a single vote. And according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, nine precincts in Cleveland returned zero Romney votes.

Now is maybe a time to say something nice about Romney. While he is now politically finished, it turns out he WILL have a major historical legacy. Romney originated Obamacare and Obamacare is here to stay.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Jingthing

[poanoi]

Nothing strange with that,

everybody in Cleveland no? minority got an Obama phone

[Dancealot]

[theslime]

Social Security is an entitlement for which I and every other working American have already paid. I contributed for 50 years for my government "stipend".

I never drew unemployment, food stamps or welfare of any sort. You may be the expert on that, I do not know.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Samran, give me a little time to do some things around the house. Let me address one thing before I complete my chores.

Your suggestion that we cut out all agricultural subsidies will save about $20 Billion per year. You have just covered the cost of 2 days and five hours of government operations. Congratulations.

How about cutting the EPA, DHS, Energy Dept., Education Dept., foreign aid, Labor Dept, Czar Dept., ad nauseum? This is only the start of my suggestions.

Are you an Anachist? Did you get Expelled by the Education Department? Obviously let those honest Loggers and miners into Yellowstone and <deleted> places like the Congo.

I'm a little confused by your post.

Are you wondering if I am an anarchist or the Anti-Christ?

The Education Department has noting to do with expelling students, but even considering your little faux pas about that...No, I have never been expelled from any school. How about you?

Yellowstone is a national park. I don't think anybody is threatening to log or mine in Yellowstone. Care to pass on any rumors about that?

The Congo is doing very well "<deleted>" itself without any help from me.

Im a little confused by some of your post

Are you pointing out a spelling mistake, with the missed r in anarchist, or do you think I believe in a negative fake saviour.?

Your post pointed out that you would like a cut in the EPA- What, and let Industry self regulate.

Cut the Labour Dept.- The US working poor are already on pathetic wages and by cutting back services they would be slaughtered

at Wage negotiations

Cut backs on Foriegn Aid only goes to show how Greedy we are in the Capitalist first world.

I see you didn,t mention cutting back on Military spending. Well I know two sure fire way,s off quickly balancing the Budget.

Dont fight wars for Energy and Tax those that can afford to pay more.

I am sending an sms to the big O.

[StevieH]

I see you didn,t mention cutting back on Military spending. Well I know two sure fire way,s off quickly balancing the Budget.

Dont fight wars for Energy and Tax those that can afford to pay more.

i am yet to read a response from a republican in this thread as to how the romney/ryan economic plan for increasing 'defence' spending by $2 trillion and cutting taxes by 20% constitutes improving the US economy. they seem deafeningly silent on the issue.

[SteeleJoe]

Now is maybe a time to say something nice about Romney. While he is now politically finished, it turns out he WILL have a major historical legacy. Romney originated Obamacare and Obamacare is here to stay.

Yes, let's give him credit for that.

I'll say something else positive about him: the story is that there was a strong drive on his side to contest the election and go the litigation route but that he personally nixed that immediately.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[thaibeachlovers]

Let's not be ridiculous. There was no way Americans were every going to vote for exposing themselves to that "alien smile" on television for four to eight years! (Reports are he had to practice for several hours just to develop that smile. Mr. Natural he wasn't.) After all Americans may have low standards, but that doesn't mean they have NO standards.

click it

click it

click it

Kamau Bell of Totally Biased put it well. He said America having a black president was bound to create an opposite reaction. Nominating as he called Romney, the whitest man in the world. While W. Bush USED to appear very white, Bell noted that Bush compared to Romney, Bush looked positively JAMAICAN!

So you are saying that Americans vote based on how the candidate smiles, not on minor details like policies!

Don't bother saying that Romney didn't have any policies as you usually do. You can say that all day, but it doesn't make it true.