When you make a campaign promise, and then people vote for you based on that promise, that's not called buying an election; that's called democracy. Luckily, you put "take from the rich and give to the poor" in quotes, which implies that's an actual quote of his, which implies you have documentation of this so called promise, which I'm certain you'll now present. Or were you just quoting Sean Hannity?Spookymufu wrote:Obama bought the election with promises of his socialistic "take from the rich and give to the poor".
Spookymufu wrote:The less educated people figured he was going to just hand them money, they didnt know how or where he would get it, but they didnt care,
Hmmmm... This Gallup poll from April of 2008 seems to say the EXACT OPPOSITE of your theory that a bunch of uneducated people are the reason Obama won. http://www.gallup.com/poll/106381/obama ... ction.aspx And it turns out that in the final election results, the only educational demographic that Obama didn't win was people with only a high school education. http://www.gallup.com/poll/112132/Elect ... -2008.aspx
Spookymufu wrote: many are also black and figured they needed a black president because it was "their" time.
Hmmm, that's funny, because of all the black folks I worked with at the local Democratic Headquarters in 2008, I heard loads of discussion about health care. I heard tons of conversations about Iraq and Afghanistan. I must have heard the word "infrastructure" a thousand times, but I never once heard anyone talk about "'their' time". Again, I have to ask... did you use quotation marks because that's an actual quote from an actual black person, or because it's a quote from Rush Limbaugh (who, I think we can all agree, is well qualified to speak on behalf of the entire African American population
)? Spookymufu wrote:There were some who hated George Bush so much they would have voted for ANYONE as long as it wasnt a republican.
Yeah, except... George Bush wasn't the Republican that Obama beat. John McCain was. Remember him? The war hero who George W. Bush actually ran a sleazy smear campaign against during the primary back in 2000? Sure, George W. left quite a mess, but Obama and McCain had equal opportunities to offer their ideas for the best way to clean up that mess. 53% of the voting population thought Obama offered better ideas, and so he won. Democracy sure is something, isn't it?
Spookymufu wrote:Many voted for him simply because he was black,
Judging by the racial epithet a passer-by shouted at me out of his truck window as I worked on my Halloween 2008 yard display, and the number of times I hear Republicans refer to his race instead of discussing actual policy issues, I would guess that an equal number of people voted against him because he was black. And I've said it before, and I'll say it again; he is exactly as white as he is black. Why are you so fixated on his race?
Spookymufu wrote:the fact that he could eloquently read a prompter (as long as it was working) just gave them a back up reason.
I love this line of attack from Palin-defending Republicans! The idea that Obama is empty headed unless he has a prompter to read from. But the facts don't bear this out. Obama gives a great speech as read from a prompter, but he is at his best in an interview. He routinely displays a depth of intellect and a grasp of complex issues that destroy the myth of a teleprompter president. Yet look at Sarah Palin. Her convention speech, which she read off a teleprompter, was delivered masterfully, even though someone else wrote it for her (Obama wrote his own). But every interview she does reveals her to be a vacuous talking-point machine, with almost no understanding of any of the issues. Thus, in a typical Republican two-step, you take the greatest weakness of the brightest star in the Republican party, and project it onto the brightest star in the Democratic party, even though the facts don't support the rhetoric!
Spookymufu wrote:And there were several "elites" in such places as Hollywood and New York where it was trendy to vote for Obama
Ooohh, those evil Hollywood elites! They're so powerful! Hey, remember earlier when we were talking about campaign promises? Well, one of the things Obama promised was that he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class, but you know all those Hollywood elites who have all that power? They were gonna get a tax hike! Republicans hate Hollywood, and think all those goofy stars should keep their gobs shut and stay out of politics....
Except, of course, for Saint Reagan.
Spookymufu wrote:.........and lets not forget the liberal media such as NBC and MSNBC who got such a "thrill up their leg" when Obama spoke that they really carried Obama's flag high and were in the tank for him from the beginning.
...but let's conveniently forget all about FOX News, which has been a wing of the Republican party since its inception, and which has, as it routinely brags, the highest viewership in all of cable news! And somehow, despite the highest ratings, the propaganda arm of the Republican party wasn't able to convince enough people that Obama was as evil as they promised daily that he was. Could it possibly be that not all American voters are robotic automatons who blindly do what their tvs tell them to??
Spookymufu wrote:And lets not forget the few that actually agreed with a lot of when he said and voted for him because they liked what he had to say, like he would end the war in Iraq, pull the troops out and bring them home, and so on..........
Right....um hmmm... The "few". Or, to put it another way, the 53% of American voters. Or, to put it still another way, the majority.
Look, I know you have your strongly held views, and it's hard to imagine people might think otherwise. So instead of allowing that the majority of voters just fundamentally disagreed with you, you create this cacophony of baseless theories that help you explain away something that you don't want to accept: that a majority of voters fundamentally disagreed with you. Do you want to hear my theory why Obama won?
The previous Republican President left the country in the worst state it's ever been in, and the Republican presidential nominee was an uninspiring politician who had been in Washington for almost thirty years, who was completely out of touch with the problems of average voters, who offered poor solutions for the problems our country faced, and who selected a frighteningly unqualified vice presidential nominee, despite being the oldest man ever elected president should he have succeeded in his bid. He was running against an intelligent, galvanizing candidate who showed calm under pressure, offered a range of solutions to the problems we faced, and was unencumbered by the grime of decades in Washington. He challenged and defeated the most powerful political organization in Democratic party politics in a century, ran a better structured and better organized campaign than his Republican opponent, defeated him in all three of the debates, and offered a vision of a new way forward for America.
That's a pretty simple explanation, eh?
whether it be the news or some web site that told them their info....
