Over the last four years, Nevada Senator Harry Reid (Senate Majority Leader) mentioned numerous times that senate filibuster rules needed to be changed.
He said in an interview with Rachelle Maddow on October 27, 2010: "This has to change. It's wrong what they (senate republicans) are doing. The republicans have abused the system and it's going to have to change. There should not be a sixty vote requirement in the senate."
He said on the senate floor May 10, 2012: "if there ever were a time, that Senator's Merkley & Udall were right, that the senate should change the filibuster rules."
On December 4, 2012 Reid said: "We have to change the rules. We can not continue in this way. So I hope we can get something the republicans will work with us on, but it won't be a hand shake deal."
Right after the November elections on November 7, 2012, Reid, at a press conference said: Reporter question: Do you plan to make changes to the filibuster rules? "Yes I do. I've said so publicly & I continue to think that way, the republicans have abused the rule"
So what happens? Harry Reid does a 180 degree turn on filibuster reform in a matter of a few months.
So Reid was all over the media saying that filibuster reform was a HIGH priority.
But today, Reid & McConnell reached a "deal" on filibuster reform that is basically a handshake agreement (the handshake that Reid said was not going to happen in earlier comments) and now the country faces two more years of republican abuse of the filibuster because for whatever reason Harry Reid caved on his filibuster stance.
This "handshake" just asks that senators politely ask if they are going to filibuster any bills coming for a vote!!!
For whatever reason, Reid backed away from meaningful filibuster reform and took a handshake deal where Reid hopes the republicans won't return to business as usual, and filibuster everything President Obama and the democrats in the senate try to get done.
Maybe Reid has something on McConnell & the republicans where he thinks they will play nice in the next two years, but if the last four years is the new republican strategy, then expect more gridlock in the senate.
Big opportunity missed today on filibuster reform, and lot's of progressives, democrats and liberals are scratching their heads and saying "WHAT THE F*#K:?!?!?!
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Friday, January 18, 2013
Friday thoughts
Not major pontification in this post, just some thoughts and facts to pass along!
Do the republicans have an image problem? According to a NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll (Jan 12-15) it seems that they do.
Opinion of..........
GOP - 26% Positive 49% Negative
Dems - 44% Positive 38% Negative
Obama - 52% Positive 37% Negative
One might think, that after the election results, the GOP might get a clue........but it appears the GOP leadership is too dense to grasp reality & they continue on their path of idiocy.
Now that the "Fiscal Cliff" issue has been put to rest (until next time!) the attention turns to the "Debt Ceiling" - With the way the GOP is going, bumbling their way along, I honestly think there's a segment of the republican party that would willingly tank the US & world economy, just to make a point.
Aren't the republicans the party of big business? How can business work and plan ahead when the GOP might stab the economy in the back & take corporate investments down with them?!?!
The GOP majority & led House of Representatives worked a whopping 109 days in 2012! Nice work Mr. Cantor & Mr. Boehner!!
Corporate leaders say Obama policies are holding them back.........not where corporate profits are concerned:
U.S. corporations’ after-tax profits have grown by 171 percent under Obama, more than under any president since World War II, and are now at their highest level relative to the size of the economy since the government began keeping records in 1947, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
Profits are more than twice as high as their peak during President Ronald Reagan’s administration and more than 50 percent greater than during the late-1990s Internet boom, measured by the size of the economy.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-17/corporate-profits-soar-as-executives-attack-obama-policy.html
The National Rifle Association (NRA) has morphed into an lunatic managed mouthpiece for the lunatic fringe.
Do the republicans have an image problem? According to a NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll (Jan 12-15) it seems that they do.
Opinion of..........
GOP - 26% Positive 49% Negative
Dems - 44% Positive 38% Negative
Obama - 52% Positive 37% Negative
One might think, that after the election results, the GOP might get a clue........but it appears the GOP leadership is too dense to grasp reality & they continue on their path of idiocy.
Now that the "Fiscal Cliff" issue has been put to rest (until next time!) the attention turns to the "Debt Ceiling" - With the way the GOP is going, bumbling their way along, I honestly think there's a segment of the republican party that would willingly tank the US & world economy, just to make a point.
Aren't the republicans the party of big business? How can business work and plan ahead when the GOP might stab the economy in the back & take corporate investments down with them?!?!
The GOP majority & led House of Representatives worked a whopping 109 days in 2012! Nice work Mr. Cantor & Mr. Boehner!!
Corporate leaders say Obama policies are holding them back.........not where corporate profits are concerned:
U.S. corporations’ after-tax profits have grown by 171 percent under Obama, more than under any president since World War II, and are now at their highest level relative to the size of the economy since the government began keeping records in 1947, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
Profits are more than twice as high as their peak during President Ronald Reagan’s administration and more than 50 percent greater than during the late-1990s Internet boom, measured by the size of the economy.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-17/corporate-profits-soar-as-executives-attack-obama-policy.html
The National Rifle Association (NRA) has morphed into an lunatic managed mouthpiece for the lunatic fringe.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Tragedy brings change?
Many times in our society, change only comes after a tragedy that shakes the populace in a way that most tragedies don't.
A couple of examples:
Fire codes were unheard of until 147 were killed at the Triangle Shirtwaist Company in New York City in 1911. Main cause of the deaths was the lack of sufficient exiting and what exits that were available were locked during working hours.
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/snpim3.htm
Nearly 500 people died in a fire at the Coconut Grove nightclub in Boston MA on November 28, 1942. The club was designed to accommodate around 500 patrons. The night of the fire, there were around 1000 patrons inside the club. When the fire broke out and became serious, the crush of panicked people trying to get to the limited exits.
http://bostinno.com/2012/10/31/boston-public-library-cocoanut-grove-nightclub-fire-anniversary/#ss__252416_1_0__ss
These fire tragedies and others over the years, have been the catalyst for new fire codes, exiting requirements, fire sprinklers and limiting flammable building/decorative materials used in public buildings.
Bottom line: People have to die for change to be undertaken.
Now we have another tragic shooting in a string of shooting incidents that have become common across the U.S. Shootings by enraged or mentally unstable people are not uncommon, and are almost becoming a monthly event in America. This shooting however, involved the most innocent. Children at an elementary school.
Shootings of politicians and her constituents (Gabby Gifford's incident) didn't bring change.
Mass assault by disturbed high school students against their fellow high school students didn't bring change at Columbine HS in Colorado.
Virginia Tech university was the scene of another mass shooting
A theatre shooting by a mentally disturbed person didn't bring change.
Those deaths of innocent people ranging from high school age to university age to the various ages of theatre and mall goers didn't ring the bell that this recent shooting has.
Sadly it took the mass shooting of elementary school children to make the public sit up and take notice, and start clamoring for some sort of control on assault weapons, high ammo clips and automatic firing weapons.
The time has come for some sort of gun control against the weapons of mass killing. These weapons are not "sport" guns used for hunting or simple target practice. These weapons are military grade killing tools for use on the battle field.
When people counter gun control laws with the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" line or that "we should outlaw cars too, because they kill people", the response should be that cars are must be considered STREET LEGAL and meet certain standards before they are allowed on public roads..............we have controls on drugs, we have controls on food inspection, we have driving laws and even who can drive. It's time to put some controls on guns that are only made for massive killing intent.
The time has come and it's time for congress to act.
A couple of examples:
Fire codes were unheard of until 147 were killed at the Triangle Shirtwaist Company in New York City in 1911. Main cause of the deaths was the lack of sufficient exiting and what exits that were available were locked during working hours.
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/snpim3.htm
Nearly 500 people died in a fire at the Coconut Grove nightclub in Boston MA on November 28, 1942. The club was designed to accommodate around 500 patrons. The night of the fire, there were around 1000 patrons inside the club. When the fire broke out and became serious, the crush of panicked people trying to get to the limited exits.
http://bostinno.com/2012/10/31/boston-public-library-cocoanut-grove-nightclub-fire-anniversary/#ss__252416_1_0__ss
These fire tragedies and others over the years, have been the catalyst for new fire codes, exiting requirements, fire sprinklers and limiting flammable building/decorative materials used in public buildings.
Bottom line: People have to die for change to be undertaken.
Now we have another tragic shooting in a string of shooting incidents that have become common across the U.S. Shootings by enraged or mentally unstable people are not uncommon, and are almost becoming a monthly event in America. This shooting however, involved the most innocent. Children at an elementary school.
Shootings of politicians and her constituents (Gabby Gifford's incident) didn't bring change.
Mass assault by disturbed high school students against their fellow high school students didn't bring change at Columbine HS in Colorado.
Virginia Tech university was the scene of another mass shooting
A theatre shooting by a mentally disturbed person didn't bring change.
Those deaths of innocent people ranging from high school age to university age to the various ages of theatre and mall goers didn't ring the bell that this recent shooting has.
Sadly it took the mass shooting of elementary school children to make the public sit up and take notice, and start clamoring for some sort of control on assault weapons, high ammo clips and automatic firing weapons.
The time has come for some sort of gun control against the weapons of mass killing. These weapons are not "sport" guns used for hunting or simple target practice. These weapons are military grade killing tools for use on the battle field.
When people counter gun control laws with the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" line or that "we should outlaw cars too, because they kill people", the response should be that cars are must be considered STREET LEGAL and meet certain standards before they are allowed on public roads..............we have controls on drugs, we have controls on food inspection, we have driving laws and even who can drive. It's time to put some controls on guns that are only made for massive killing intent.
The time has come and it's time for congress to act.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Dean Heller fails on vote
Yesterday in the senate, there was a vote on a treaty. A treaty for multiple nations to agree to abide with laws that promote accessibility for disable people.
In 1990 President George HW Bush signed the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) into law. This act rewrote the laws concerning accessibility issues that disabled persons face in everyday life.
Supporters of the treaty argued that the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities would simply require the rest of the world to meet the standards that Americans already enjoy under the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act.
http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/un-treaties/270831-senate-rejects-un-treaty-for-disabled-rights-in-vote
This treaty was initially signed by President George W Bush and re-signed by President Obama in 2009. Approximately 153 countries have signed off on the treaty. The treaty was mainly advisory in nature only and not binding. The treaty does not change US law.
Yet, because there was a United Nations element to the treaty, some republicans saw a hidden boogie man in the treaty. As usual over reactions and plain stupidity on the part of republicans played a part in the defeat of this vote, which fell 61-38 (needed a 2/3rds majority since it was a "treaty" vote) just 5 votes short of passage.
Former Senator and presidential candidate Bob Dole was on board literally and firgurativly. Dole a disabled former World War II veteran was on the senate floor in his wheel chair to lend support to and watch the vote take place. Unfortuanely republicans ignored Dole and took the cowardly way out to vote against equal access for disabled people around the world.
Here in Nevada, newly elected Senator Dean heller solidified his position and the republicans party's position that average people mean nothing to them.
Diasbled and need a little access? NO! Dean Heller must have been mighty proud to walk by a disabled Bob Dole sitting in his wheel chair knowing he just willingly voted to DISCRIMINATE against anyone in a similar disabled situation.
Heller will probably spout off how he's a great champion of returning veterans. Well, Mr. Heller just turned his back on those veterans, and all disabled people with his callous, uncaring vote.
Is it any wonder people view the republicaqn party as the party that only protects the wealthy and well off? At every turn the republican party craps on working people, minorities, women and now people with disablities.
Shame on Dean Heller and shame on the republican party.
In 1990 President George HW Bush signed the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) into law. This act rewrote the laws concerning accessibility issues that disabled persons face in everyday life.
Supporters of the treaty argued that the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities would simply require the rest of the world to meet the standards that Americans already enjoy under the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act.
http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/un-treaties/270831-senate-rejects-un-treaty-for-disabled-rights-in-vote
This treaty was initially signed by President George W Bush and re-signed by President Obama in 2009. Approximately 153 countries have signed off on the treaty. The treaty was mainly advisory in nature only and not binding. The treaty does not change US law.
Yet, because there was a United Nations element to the treaty, some republicans saw a hidden boogie man in the treaty. As usual over reactions and plain stupidity on the part of republicans played a part in the defeat of this vote, which fell 61-38 (needed a 2/3rds majority since it was a "treaty" vote) just 5 votes short of passage.
Former Senator and presidential candidate Bob Dole was on board literally and firgurativly. Dole a disabled former World War II veteran was on the senate floor in his wheel chair to lend support to and watch the vote take place. Unfortuanely republicans ignored Dole and took the cowardly way out to vote against equal access for disabled people around the world.
Here in Nevada, newly elected Senator Dean heller solidified his position and the republicans party's position that average people mean nothing to them.
Diasbled and need a little access? NO! Dean Heller must have been mighty proud to walk by a disabled Bob Dole sitting in his wheel chair knowing he just willingly voted to DISCRIMINATE against anyone in a similar disabled situation.
Heller will probably spout off how he's a great champion of returning veterans. Well, Mr. Heller just turned his back on those veterans, and all disabled people with his callous, uncaring vote.
Is it any wonder people view the republicaqn party as the party that only protects the wealthy and well off? At every turn the republican party craps on working people, minorities, women and now people with disablities.
Shame on Dean Heller and shame on the republican party.
Friday, November 9, 2012
2012 Election thoughts - Nevada Congressional Edition
Nevada had four congressional races. Two were competitive and two were pretty easy skates for candidates where their party affiliation dominates their district.
District 1) CD1 is a district dominated be democratic voters and former state legislator & former congresswoman (held CD3 for one term 2008-10) Dina Titus (D) cruised to an easy victory in a seat that should be a gimme for democrats in the coming years.
Titus won in a rout more than doubling up on opponent Chris Edwards 113,377 to 56,357. This race was never really in question and there was little news coming from this race. It's good to have an excellent representative like Dina Titus going back to DC and repping for her district and Nevada!
District 2) This district in most years should lean republican. It has a good portion of GOP voting rural Nevada and covers the northern urban areas of Reno, Sparks, Carson City, Lake Tahoe and Douglas County.
This was the other gimme race, where incumbent Mark Amodei had little trouble winning 161,915 - 101,594 over an absolute unknown (D) in Sam Koepnick. The only interesting aspect to this races was that Koepnick never accepted any democratic assistance at all. In fact some northern democrats wondered if he was a "planted" candidate who got past a more established democrat in the primary. Once the race started Koepnick was little seen and basically garnered what votes he did get on his supposed democratic party affiliation on the ballot.
The thing to look at here is the final vote numbers: Even though Koepnick was virtually invisible, spent no money, took few if any donations and had almost no advertising, he still managed to garner over 100k votes. I think northern Nevada democrats could look at this result and think that if there was a legitimate viable name recognized candidate, that this district could be won by a democrat.
The key here is the primary. Do not let a repeat of the 2012 primary happen where an unknown entity knocks out a real viable candidate.
District 3) CD3 lies totally within the boundary of Clark County encompassing the southern half of the county, down to Laughlin. This is the quintessential swing district as the voter roles are almost evenly split. This is also a suburban Las Vegas area district, with middle to upper class neighborhoods.
The race matched incumbent Joe Heck (R) (who beat Dina Titus in 2008) vs long time state legislator John Oceguera. This race was another that was (and always should be) tightly contested. Heck came out the winner 136,905 to 116, 385, with two IAP candidates siphoning off 18,367 votes, but not enough to say they factored in the outcome of this race.
This race was one of the two (CD4 being the other) that really got the advertising and mailers going. As this is a swing district targeted by both parties, there was local money and a lot of out of state money in this race, with each camp hammering the other. In the end incumbency might have been a bit much to overcome in a centrist district, where there were a good number of Romney signs in certain neighborhoods.
This district should always be a good fight for whoever wants to take the plunge.
District 4) This is the new district in Nevada, added after redistricting in 2011. This is a lean democratic seat voter registration wise, but it is also the most interesting seat because it encompasses the northern half of Clark County (Las Vegas metro area) and the other half of rural Nevada that CD2 doesn't cover.
This race featured state senator Steven Horsford (D) vs Danny Tarkanian (R). Horsford was behind in polling, but when the voters actually cast ballots, Horsford wound up with a surprising margin of victory (120,096 to 101,136, with two minor party candidates combining for 18,684 votes).
This is the race where pollsters erred the most. I think the Obama coat tails helped dramatically in this race, when African Americans showed up to vote in greater numbers than probably expected and that turn out helped Horsford win.
The rural counties all went republican by good percentages (68.9% to 30.7%) but the rural numbers were small enough that a good result in Clark County carried the day. Consider that Tarkanian won the rurals by 9,901 votes and Horsford won the urban area by 28,861 votes. Horsford will be making his first trip to DC as congressman!!
Rural Nevada is and probably always will be the domain of republican votes, but fortunately Clark County is trending democratic with Washoe County becoming a true battle ground.
District 1) CD1 is a district dominated be democratic voters and former state legislator & former congresswoman (held CD3 for one term 2008-10) Dina Titus (D) cruised to an easy victory in a seat that should be a gimme for democrats in the coming years.
Titus won in a rout more than doubling up on opponent Chris Edwards 113,377 to 56,357. This race was never really in question and there was little news coming from this race. It's good to have an excellent representative like Dina Titus going back to DC and repping for her district and Nevada!
District 2) This district in most years should lean republican. It has a good portion of GOP voting rural Nevada and covers the northern urban areas of Reno, Sparks, Carson City, Lake Tahoe and Douglas County.
This was the other gimme race, where incumbent Mark Amodei had little trouble winning 161,915 - 101,594 over an absolute unknown (D) in Sam Koepnick. The only interesting aspect to this races was that Koepnick never accepted any democratic assistance at all. In fact some northern democrats wondered if he was a "planted" candidate who got past a more established democrat in the primary. Once the race started Koepnick was little seen and basically garnered what votes he did get on his supposed democratic party affiliation on the ballot.
The thing to look at here is the final vote numbers: Even though Koepnick was virtually invisible, spent no money, took few if any donations and had almost no advertising, he still managed to garner over 100k votes. I think northern Nevada democrats could look at this result and think that if there was a legitimate viable name recognized candidate, that this district could be won by a democrat.
The key here is the primary. Do not let a repeat of the 2012 primary happen where an unknown entity knocks out a real viable candidate.
District 3) CD3 lies totally within the boundary of Clark County encompassing the southern half of the county, down to Laughlin. This is the quintessential swing district as the voter roles are almost evenly split. This is also a suburban Las Vegas area district, with middle to upper class neighborhoods.
The race matched incumbent Joe Heck (R) (who beat Dina Titus in 2008) vs long time state legislator John Oceguera. This race was another that was (and always should be) tightly contested. Heck came out the winner 136,905 to 116, 385, with two IAP candidates siphoning off 18,367 votes, but not enough to say they factored in the outcome of this race.
This race was one of the two (CD4 being the other) that really got the advertising and mailers going. As this is a swing district targeted by both parties, there was local money and a lot of out of state money in this race, with each camp hammering the other. In the end incumbency might have been a bit much to overcome in a centrist district, where there were a good number of Romney signs in certain neighborhoods.
This district should always be a good fight for whoever wants to take the plunge.
District 4) This is the new district in Nevada, added after redistricting in 2011. This is a lean democratic seat voter registration wise, but it is also the most interesting seat because it encompasses the northern half of Clark County (Las Vegas metro area) and the other half of rural Nevada that CD2 doesn't cover.
This race featured state senator Steven Horsford (D) vs Danny Tarkanian (R). Horsford was behind in polling, but when the voters actually cast ballots, Horsford wound up with a surprising margin of victory (120,096 to 101,136, with two minor party candidates combining for 18,684 votes).
This is the race where pollsters erred the most. I think the Obama coat tails helped dramatically in this race, when African Americans showed up to vote in greater numbers than probably expected and that turn out helped Horsford win.
The rural counties all went republican by good percentages (68.9% to 30.7%) but the rural numbers were small enough that a good result in Clark County carried the day. Consider that Tarkanian won the rurals by 9,901 votes and Horsford won the urban area by 28,861 votes. Horsford will be making his first trip to DC as congressman!!
Rural Nevada is and probably always will be the domain of republican votes, but fortunately Clark County is trending democratic with Washoe County becoming a true battle ground.
2012 Election thoughts - Nevada Senate Edition
The 2012 Nevada Senate race thoughts:
In the senatorial race between appointed incumbent Dean Heller (R) and challenger, current congresswoman Shelley Berkely (D) came down to the late results from Washoe County (Reno-Sparks area). Early in the evening as numbers came in, Berkely had a nice lead with Clark County (Las Vegas metro area) going to Berkely, but as the evening moved along the voted came in from Washoe County, which has been more Heller territory and it proved to be the difference in this race.
Final numbers: Heller 456,640 Berkely 444,513
The weird thing in this race was that the 3rd party candidate (IAP David Vanderbeek) (48,588), along with Nevada ballot oddity "None of these candidates" (44,907) took enough votes (93,495 total) that had those votes been spread to the two main candidates the outcome might have been different since the margin between Heller and Berkely was only 12,127.
To show how much Clark County can dominate Nevada politics, Berkely lost by only 12,127, yet won only one (Clark County) of Nevada's 17 total counties. It also seemed that Obama coat tails didn't come through for Berkely like she needed, as enough Obama voters crossed over and voted Heller, especially in Washoe County.
Part of this cross over vote could stem from the north south rivalry/split/fear that exists in northern Nevada. Historically the Reno area & Washoe, Carson, Storey, Douglas, Churchill & Lyon counties were the population center in Nevada and they held all the cards economically & politically. Since the 1950's the southern end of Nevada began a population boom and Clark County, with Las Vegas, North Las Vegas & Henderson began a growth spurt that would make it the main population center.
Now in 2012, Clark County holds 70+% of Nevada's population and redistricting has shifted more seats to southern Nevada away from northern and rural Nevada. This political shift should mean more power for southern Nevada in state politics. But this could also be the reason we saw Washoe County voters cross over and support Obama and Heller, as Heller is a northern Nevada guy and it's very possible they wanted one of their own in DC, rather than have two southern Nevada based senators (Harry Reid is from Searchlight/Boulder City/Henderson). And with the recent political power shift, knocking off a northerner might have been too much to risk, as if Heller had lost, when might another northern Nevada candidate hold that senate seat?
In the senatorial race between appointed incumbent Dean Heller (R) and challenger, current congresswoman Shelley Berkely (D) came down to the late results from Washoe County (Reno-Sparks area). Early in the evening as numbers came in, Berkely had a nice lead with Clark County (Las Vegas metro area) going to Berkely, but as the evening moved along the voted came in from Washoe County, which has been more Heller territory and it proved to be the difference in this race.
Final numbers: Heller 456,640 Berkely 444,513
The weird thing in this race was that the 3rd party candidate (IAP David Vanderbeek) (48,588), along with Nevada ballot oddity "None of these candidates" (44,907) took enough votes (93,495 total) that had those votes been spread to the two main candidates the outcome might have been different since the margin between Heller and Berkely was only 12,127.
To show how much Clark County can dominate Nevada politics, Berkely lost by only 12,127, yet won only one (Clark County) of Nevada's 17 total counties. It also seemed that Obama coat tails didn't come through for Berkely like she needed, as enough Obama voters crossed over and voted Heller, especially in Washoe County.
Part of this cross over vote could stem from the north south rivalry/split/fear that exists in northern Nevada. Historically the Reno area & Washoe, Carson, Storey, Douglas, Churchill & Lyon counties were the population center in Nevada and they held all the cards economically & politically. Since the 1950's the southern end of Nevada began a population boom and Clark County, with Las Vegas, North Las Vegas & Henderson began a growth spurt that would make it the main population center.
Now in 2012, Clark County holds 70+% of Nevada's population and redistricting has shifted more seats to southern Nevada away from northern and rural Nevada. This political shift should mean more power for southern Nevada in state politics. But this could also be the reason we saw Washoe County voters cross over and support Obama and Heller, as Heller is a northern Nevada guy and it's very possible they wanted one of their own in DC, rather than have two southern Nevada based senators (Harry Reid is from Searchlight/Boulder City/Henderson). And with the recent political power shift, knocking off a northerner might have been too much to risk, as if Heller had lost, when might another northern Nevada candidate hold that senate seat?
Post Election thoughts - presidential edition
Election 2012 is in the books!
Democrats came out faring pretty well over all!
In the presidential race, Obama bested Romney fairly easily 332 (I'm giving Obama the 29 Florida electoral votes since Obama has the lead) to 206. Obama won 27 states to Romney's 23 states, and Obama won the overall popular vote 61,217,568 vs 58,205,105 a 51% - 48% split. (these vote total still subject to change, as not all votes are in yet).
In winning the popular vote, it eliminates the republicans from claiming that Romney, and his polices were more popular and the Obama victory was just a matter of electoral vote totals. Had Obama lost the popular vote it would have been more ammunition for the GOP to continue their recent strategy of obstruction to any type of action President Obama wanted to pursue, as the GOP would make the argument that the majority of voters rejected Obama in favor of Romney.
This win by President Obama totally caught the republicans off guard. My thinking was that the GOP was counting on the much ballyhooed and publicized angst surrounding health care reform and other Obama policies, that Fox News and tea party types opposed with such vocal vigor.
With the noise inside the "conservative bubble" of right wing radio (Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Levin, etc etc.) and the 24 hour propaganda of Fox News, I really think conservatives were blinded in a bubble of their own making and never really looked outside the 365 24/7 static that conservatives listen to. They mistakenly thought that the entire country agreed with their warped thinking, and that there was no way that Obama could win when it came time to cast ballots across the country.
Now the GOP is left to search through the debris of their own political hurricane that was the 2012 election!
Good job to all involved in making a second term for President Obama a reality!!!
Democrats came out faring pretty well over all!
In the presidential race, Obama bested Romney fairly easily 332 (I'm giving Obama the 29 Florida electoral votes since Obama has the lead) to 206. Obama won 27 states to Romney's 23 states, and Obama won the overall popular vote 61,217,568 vs 58,205,105 a 51% - 48% split. (these vote total still subject to change, as not all votes are in yet).
In winning the popular vote, it eliminates the republicans from claiming that Romney, and his polices were more popular and the Obama victory was just a matter of electoral vote totals. Had Obama lost the popular vote it would have been more ammunition for the GOP to continue their recent strategy of obstruction to any type of action President Obama wanted to pursue, as the GOP would make the argument that the majority of voters rejected Obama in favor of Romney.
This win by President Obama totally caught the republicans off guard. My thinking was that the GOP was counting on the much ballyhooed and publicized angst surrounding health care reform and other Obama policies, that Fox News and tea party types opposed with such vocal vigor.
With the noise inside the "conservative bubble" of right wing radio (Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Levin, etc etc.) and the 24 hour propaganda of Fox News, I really think conservatives were blinded in a bubble of their own making and never really looked outside the 365 24/7 static that conservatives listen to. They mistakenly thought that the entire country agreed with their warped thinking, and that there was no way that Obama could win when it came time to cast ballots across the country.
Now the GOP is left to search through the debris of their own political hurricane that was the 2012 election!
Good job to all involved in making a second term for President Obama a reality!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)