I think there are a lot of reasons for the election outcome. Part of it is exactly what Slore has said. Romney did not generate the warm fuzzy feelings that people need from a candidate. That was both partly his fault and partly the Democratic Party's method of campaigning. Romney allowed Obama to define him. They defined him as a stiff, out of touch, plutocrat that would not help those who needed help. His stance on the auto bailout was not understood by most Americans and the Dems were able to pounce on that with gusto. The race issue is still one that will be out there. There were those that did not vote for Obama because of his race and there were those that voted for him because of his race. We'll never know if the two sides just cancelled each other out or if one exceeded the other. Slore, I don't think using Northern Virginia as a guide for a disdain for Romney would be accurate. Most of the folks in that area are dependent on government jobs and even if they are in the private sector, government contracts with their employers. Northern Virginia would be in a much different economic situation if there were massive spending cuts. Even Hurricane Sandy had an influence on the election. It somewhat blunted Romney's momentum and it cast Obama in a different light. One of the knocks on Obama is that he didn't seem "Presidential" in any of the debates, but he came across very "Presidential" in the hurricane aftermath. Franco, I think your comment has some merit. I question what the basic Republican premise is at this point. I think it has been blurred by the far right and that has made it much easier to attack by concentrating on its fringes rather than its center. For many voters the perception that Republicans in general were anti this or that was something that pushed them to vote the way they did. Bottom line is there were lots of reasons for the outcome of the election. Was there one telling factor that tipped the balance? I don't think there was one thing but there was certainly a collection of different things that made the outcome what it was.
Twini, I wasn't focusing on Northern Virginia, but pointing out that 7/10 richest counties voted FOR Mr. Obama. Regardless of how you want to spin the reasons, they must not believe that Mr. Romney was the answer. Again, the 10 counties on that list are not the 47% he decided he wasn't going to worry about.
How winning the Hispanic vote was key: Obama swept back into White House thanks to new powerhouse of American politics | Mail Online There is a graphic in this article that helps illustrate your point (take it with a pinch of salt, it's not the most reliable of newspapers / websites I'm afraid)
If 118 million voted and 13% were black that equates to 15,340,000 votes and if 94% voted for Obama that equals 14,419,600. Do you really think that if Obama was white he would have garnered that many black votes? Do you think that that black turnout would have been that high if Obama was white? Absolutely not. Say only 8% of the vote was black and the split was the same, that would be almost 7 million less votes for Obama. The black vote most certainly carried the election. And if you surveyed the black voters on why they voted for Obama I can guarantee you 90% would say because of his race, not his policies. You can only take from the producers for so long before there are more takers than producers. Look at Greece, Italy etc. The governments are trying to tighten the belt and the entitlement seekers are rioting in the streets. CBO estimates by the end of Obama's 2nd term we will be 22 Trillion in debt. So much for Hope and Change.
Ummm... the rioters are rioting because their respective Governments f*cked them over. The Govts should be held responsible for the corruption, but now the people are the ones suffering, as always. Id go out and throw rocks against the Govt pigs if I was Greek.
Now Rawkus, aren't these socialist governments? Isn't that the type of government you are in favor of? Sorry, but I had to pick on you just a little bit. Rawkus, the big, big problem is that we have very expensive social programs that don't work and our friend Mr. Obama wants to add to those programs. If we were looking at social programs that work, then there would be a lot more of us in favor of what Obama stands for. The problem is those programs do not work and will not work. People have to have an incentive to get off their duffs and work. Why would anyone work if the government is standing there with dollars in hand just waiting to hand those dollars out for those who will not work? Look at the typical American city where the governments have dumped trillions of dollars and for what? The cities are hell holes of crime and poverty and no one wants to change anything. They just keep voting for the same people and the same policies. Do you really think they want to change anything? How about education? Both Bush and Obama dumped billions into education and what has happened? The scores are going down and the kids aren't learning. In spite of this, we still have the antiquated tenure system that protects the incompetent and buries the ambitious who really want to teach. Sorry Rawkis, but I haven't seen anything from any Obama supporter on either side of the border that would even remotely convince any logical person that Obama was a good choice. When I asked the question about why Obama should get elected the responses were that he was black and that he "wouldn't destroy women's rights" which seems to have been part of the Obama propaganda. If you haven't caught it, Obama is still blaming Bush. That's like the captain of the Titanic blaming the ice berg and the left wing media just laps it up like a kitty and bowl of milk. Sad, really, really sad.
The only reason why the republicans want to dismantle social security is because it was signed into law by a Democrat and it's the most successfuly social program ever invented by man. Before social security existed about half of America's senior citizens lived in poverty. Now less than 10 percent does. It amazes me when a righty rails against the so called entitlement programs but never ever mentions corporate welfare. I guess its like out of sight, out of mind. If you don't see it, it doesn't exist.
Blue States are the "Takers"? Actually, no. You may find this interesting. Red States Are Welfare Queens - Business Insider
Mark, I know of no one who wants to dismantle Social Security. The program does have to be changed for it to survive. That is the proverbial elephant in the room. Social Security will be done in the next 25 years if changes are not made. Almost a third of all who are on Social Security are on disability and I'll bet that a lot of those folks aren't really disabled. Of those that I personally know that are on disability, less than a third are really disabled. The changes pushed by the Republicans have been to try to close some of the loopholes in the system and the make the system more viable. We can't just keep on spending without changing those who receive the money and those who pay into the system. Let's put Social Security into perspective. Most of the Social Security trust funds are in the form of government bonds. That means that if the government can no longer pay those bonds for either their principal or their interest, then the whole Social Security system will no longer have any funding at all. In other words, Obama's social programs are being funded by your and my future retirement benefits. If you want to see the real enemies of Social Security then look to the White House and at Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
Interesting article Bruce, but there is more to the story. Much of the "welfare" mentioned in the article is military spending in places like Alaska and Mississippi and there is another very big distortion in the article. The big blue states of California and New York also have the highest cost of living and therefore the highest wages as well as the vast majority of corporate headquarters which distorts the amount of money paid into the federal government. When you look at the total picture you get a much different result.
