Perhaps It Is Still Just About Race
We conservatives have analyzed the presidential election from multiple points of view, seeking to explain the loss. Possible factors frequently discussed include:
- Dependency on big government handouts on the part of some pro-Obama voters
- Mainstream media bias
- Romney’s refusal to respond to negative ads
- Democrats outperforming Republicans in get-out-the-vote efforts
All these reasons are surely key to Obama’s reelection. Romney only lost by 400,000 votes in four battleground swing states; the absence of any one of the above three factors could have resulted in a win for Romney.
Yet there is still a feeling of bewilderment among conservatives over the outcome of the election. Per an opinion cited by Ann Coulter:
The reason this election scares me so much is that I fear we’re losing our grip on reality. … Personal finances have always trumped political rhetoric in America — until this moment.
One more possible element to Obama’s reelection deserves sufficient consideration: it appears likely that a substantial percentage of Americans may have voted for Obama in order to demonstrate that Americans have put racism behind us. In October, George Will argued a very similar point:
That Obama is African-American may be important, but in a way quite unlike that darkly suggested by, for example, MSNBC’s excitable boys and girls who, with their (at most) one-track minds and exquisitely sensitive olfactory receptors, sniff racism in any criticism of their pin-up.
Instead, the nation, which is generally reluctant to declare a president a failure — thereby admitting that it made a mistake choosing him — seems especially reluctant to give up on the first African-American president. If so, the 2012 election speaks well of the nation’s heart, if not its head.
In November, days before the election, AllVoices ran the following headline: “A Romney win would legitimize intolerance and racism.” Endless accusations of racism, made by Democrats against Republicans, continued throughout the election, and still continue. This month, the Weekly Standard credits Barack Obama’s victory as “certifying that America was (for the moment) not racist.”
For decades, adults have been told, and more importantly our children are now taught, that America owes penance due to a past history of racism. It is inevitable that this would play a key part in the reelection of the nation’s first black president.
This was a massive error on the part of pro-Obama voters.
Obama is one of the most race-obsessed presidents in the history of the nation, continuously seeking to create hostility between ethnic groups, and particularly toward white voters. Additionally, Obama’s policies are directly tied to numerous crises facing the nation, including the debt crisis, the spending crisis, the unemployment crisis, and the crisis of an Iran that is armed with nuclear weapons and dedicated to using them against America.
Some percentage of pro-Obama voters decided that putting racism in America’s past would be a deciding factor in their vote. Even for his second term, it is an essential piece of the puzzle.
Exactly!
Uh huh. And we gotta prep the battlespace against feminism too.
At least, that’s the way it looks on the surface.
Owing to the massive amount of election fraud, it is impossible to gauge the actual vote percentages of real, live African-American voters. It’s so easy to stuff the ballot box in minority precincts, because everybody expects the vote to be overwhelmingly Democrat.
Yes, the only way to defeat the constant dem charges of racism is to throw it right back at them just as much. Make sure that every time some dem talks about repub party racism, a repub talks about dem party racism. Eventually the mutual charges will so degrade the racism charge that it will become useless for both sides, but as long as dems are the only ones to constantly hurl it, and we get defensive, it is useful for them.
America’s race-obsessed hucksters know how to tap into the PC guilt-ridden ethos of white America. As if anyone alive today had anything to do with slavery in America. As if the playing field hasn’t been evened, atop the backs of white America for several decades. Sheesh.
But no matter. Leftists know no other way, other than to go herd-like into the arms of charlatans in their midst.They wear their progressive bonafides as a sign of enlightenment. Fools and knaves.
So, his second term was effectuated by many factors, including -http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/08/20/americans-hope-to-change-the-occupant-of-the-white-house-an-anti-american-potus-runs-an-un-american-campaign-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/…even though it was obvious that Barack HUSSEIN Obama was running an anti-American campaign!
It certainly is about race, and not in a good way. I suspect that this will continue until at least the current crop of liberal blacks has died.
That Obama was elected in 2008 says little good about America. A man with virtually no personal accomplishments to point to with pride, who socialized with terrorists and sat in a church whose mission was more worshipful of the devil than anything else, is in fact the epitome of what black America embraced.
Today’s black Americans are a highly dysfunctional group. Full stop. Mother’s milk has been “it’s not your fault, it’s racism”. Who among your readers would look at their failing child and tell them “it’s not your fault, it’s because of those people over there”? Who would not think they’re doing that child great harm?
But that’s been the message to black Americans for a long time. Injustice, like suffering, is not a fact of “black” life, it’s a fact of human life. All humans. Lose sight of that and you lose some of your humanity. Suffering unites more than joy, since suffering is a lonely road and it helps to know that others have been there. Blacks are told that white life is a non-stop party, full of everything good raining down, and any suffering or loss is trivial compared to that of blacks. To help avert our eyes from reality, the “magic Negro” is ever-present in movies: blacks who are exquisitely compassionate and quick to love and succor any white person who might have some trouble in life.
It’s impossible to have a frank discussion about race. Even in well-meaning “black” websites racism can’t be excluded as a possibility for the reason someone might fail. Racism exists, and it is rampant amongst blacks, but that isn’t something that can be mentioned.
You are dead-on. We may not be as racially polarized as much as extremely race-conscious today. Imagine any new president picking a cabinet. Or nominating a SCOTUS judge. The answer is not “who is the best choice” but “who is the best choice that fills a racial vacancy”. Or “ensures we’re reaching out to a favored constituency”.
Color-blind society? Will never happen here. It’s only getting worse. In fact, we’ve become hyper-color-focused.
You’re right, and if blacks think they know how to get out the race vote, they ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
Excellent list to which I’d like to add the importance of avoiding from now on any affirmative-action candidates for POTUS. The soft bigotry of low expectations runs very strong in our country’s white community; there is no doubt in my mind that its powerful force drove millions of whites to support Obama’s reelection.
Until the voting AND counting process in every State is tamper proof, not one word of what you just suggested matters.
It wasn’t the candidate that won the race. Chaos won the race. Nothing good comes from chaos. Romney was an incredibly smart candidate, a brilliant student whose grades were so good Harvard permitted him to study for a law degree at the same time in was pursing an MBA. He was successful, hardworking, charitable, articulate, straightforward, honest, had a sterling reputation, loved this country and his life was an open book. He was both a successful governor and business man. His plans to restore American prosperity were reasonable and workable. His plan to overturn the Obamination called healthcare would restore confidence and our rights. The opposition was his polar opposite and that isn’t how democracy works. Democracy insures that the best will win. Not this time. We, the imbeciles, voted to torture ourselves, destroy our country, bankrupt our economy, betray our allies, opting to allow a lunatic to lie and deceive us about acts of terror being nothing more than violence in the workplace or over zealous demonstrations lulling us into thinking that Islamofascist terrorism is no longer a threat as the terrorists plan bigger and more murderous attacks. Are we really willing to kill ourselves for this moron without a single document to prove who he is. The chaos in my election center was stunning. No one knew what to do. We were the oldest most successful democracy in history but in the last election the computers were inoperable by 6:30 am, the instructions to fill out the paper ballot would have the voter cast a ballot for all the democrats!!!!! and the lines grew longer and longer while tempers flared as voters were sent to the wrong districts to vote. I knew Obama had won the election the moment I entered the voting center drowning in chaos. The fix was in long before election day.
“Democracy insures that the best will win.”
Whoever taught you that lied to you, very badly. No one could seriously look at our system and say it’s well designed for selecting the best people to win.
Good point, James Felix.
Democracy is like the TV show Family Feud.
The payoff doesn’t go to right answers but to the most popular ones.
I see little to no relationship between the re-election of this halfAfrican/halfCaucasian individual and America’s history of racism.
The elements I would cite to explain the results a month ago:
1. America’s dumbed down population;
2. The networks, newspapers and assorted useful idiots that influence the alleged “thinking” of said population;
3. The republican candidate himself
The fact that such high percentages of “black Americans” (when did we start attaching all these categorical adjectives to the word “American”?) automatically cast their vote for the incompetent one is a sad commentary on our times.
Correct! The tribal body count wouldn’t have mattered if there was a higher voter turnout. People are staying home in droves (and I believe I will be joining their ranks from now on). Add in the “in-your’face’fraud” that has been taking place and it doesn’t matter who says they went out and voted. It’s who counts the votes that matters.
I understand that two separate surveys show that 6% to 7% of Obama 2008 voters voted for Romney in 2012.
And among blacks, 99% voted for Obama in 2008 and 93% voted for him in 2012.
Note that the percentage of Obama voters who grew disenchanted with him based entirely on his dismal performance is essentially the same among all Obama voters and among black Obama voters.
From this I conclude that 6% of black voters are not hopeless racists. The rest are what Herman Cain calls “Lost to us, forever.”
Voting for Obama to prove that you aren’t racist is just as racist as voting against him because he is black. Will we ever get past this mindset?
Not until the MAJORITY of black Americans jump off the race-baiting “gimme gimme gimme” train.
The reigning race theory in this country for decades used to be that whites would accept black more when they lived and worked in greater proximity, because IGNORANCE of The Other begets hatred and fear. The truth, alas, has been entirely opposite: the more the races are forced into UNWILLING proximity, the more the hatred and fear grows. (EXTREME example: the old saying, so true, that “If you aren’t racialist before you go the prison, you sure will be be by the time you get out.”)
Familiarity breeds JUSTIFIED contempt.
An investment by some voters in wanting to see the first black president succeed certainly played a part in Obama’s win. But there was another, less obvious, factor in play.
Most of the reasons for Obama’s victory appeared to be, at least on the surface, the traditional way politicians get reelected. But the negative advertising was crucial in reaching many voters on a purely psychological level. With no record to run on the Obama campaign had to trash Romney, but, more importantly, it had to persuade many voters from not voting at all. It did this with psychological manipulation. It doesn’t work on everyone, but it does work on some.
If Republicans want to understand how to win national elections in an age when it appears that more elements of the population can be thus massaged they need to bring in psychologists as consultants. The dems had a number of them design the TV ads and they probably also made a contribution to other other aspects of Obama’s campaign. Republican strategists need to get on to this or they will once again be left scratching their heads about an election that should have been in the bag.
I don’t think the pattern of most presidential elections being little more than popularity contests has changed much at all over the years. Polls consistently showed Obama ahead of Romney in the category of “likeability.” Surely this factor served to further stack the odds in Obama’s favor.
Wanting to see the first black president in American history explains Obama’s win in 2008 but how does it explain 2012? We HAVE the first black president. If he lost in 2012, he wouldn’t have been the first incumbent to go down to defeat. John Adams could lose but not Barack Obama? George H.W. Bush could be turned out after one term but it would have been wrong to send BHO into retirement?
The American people have been willing in the past to turn out presidents who didn’t do the job, so why couldn’t Barack Obama be held to the same standard? Instead, even criticism of him is considered racist?
If anything, the Obama presidency proves that Dems (and far too many blacks) will never let go of racism. It’s much too valuable to let go. It’s a power source.
Alas, you are incorrect. We STILL haven’t had an African-American president, defined as a person of African ancestry who grew up in the American black underculture.
What we have now is a mixed-race president raised in a foreign country; his only connection to African-AMERICAN culture he consciously manufactured during his college years with the express purpose of mainstreaming himself into Marxist/socialist intellectual circles (he says so in his own autobiographies, and Dinesh D’Souza examines this closely in both “The Roots of Obama’s Rage” and “2016: Obama’s America”).
Even Morgan Freeman — a prodigious acting talent and political imbecile — insists that Obama (whom Freeman supports!) is not African-AMERICAN.
Having had such good friendships and collegial relationships with NON-American blacks, I’ll admit I’m pretty darn mistrustful of the African-AMERICAN ghetto culture. However, I’ll be DELIGHTED to vote for our first African-American president…when an African-American candidate arises who is authentically libertarian/conservative!
A black candidate obviously has an advantage in winning black voters. For that matter, a Mormon candidate has an advantage in Utah. The main reason Republicans have trouble getting black votes in normal elections is not that they don’t run black candidates but because their platform offers the black electorate very little. Unless you own 168 pizza restaurants, you need Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, the programs that are always in the crosshairs of Conservative politics.
Now you may believe that some pure form of free market economics would make the safety net unnecessary, but most blacks—heck, most people—don’t agree with that. In fact, they don’t believe you sincerely believe what you sometimes say when you are presenting yourselves as friends of the people. It isn’t that a country with a minimal government would lead to general prosperity, but that it would result in a world where the winners get to congratulate themselves and the losers get what the “good people” have decided they deserve—in other words, Mississippi.
And you have been to Mississippi when, Jim? You seem to speak with some knowledge that I, a native Mississippian, don’t seem to possess.
Please enlighten us more.
I’ve spent lots of time in Mississippi. You might also visit the stats on the state. It usually ranks last in education, health, and other measures.
I’m not hostile to the South. Indeed, many of my relatives live there. I’d love to see it get beyond its heritage of ignorance and exploitation.
“It (Mississippi) usually ranks last in education, health, and other measures.” Yeah? And so does California, especially in education, and health too, considering the TB alerts I have experienced, here. How do we explain that? The last time I looked, the Sacramento River was not the Big Muddy.
The main reason Republicans have trouble getting black votes in normal elections is not that they don’t run black candidates but because their platform offers the black electorate very little. Unless you own 168 pizza restaurants, you need Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, the programs that are always in the crosshairs of Conservative politics.
You only “need” those in a society where the initiative of millions – including people of color – has been suppressed in favor of submission to the diktats of a few Best and Brightest as though only they can solve your problems FOR you. Otherwise, people can and will work – alone and/or with others, outside of the coercive force of law – to solve those problems, and in ways far more effective, efficient, and respectful of our rights than what we are doing now.
Now you may believe that some pure form of free market economics would make the safety net unnecessary, but most blacks—heck, most people—don’t agree with that. In fact, they don’t believe you sincerely believe what you sometimes say when you are presenting yourselves as friends of the people.
That is because they have been sold a bill of goods – that they CAN’T get ahead without those Best and Brightest solving their problems FOR them. And worse yet, they have been led to blindly believe that “non-profit” status guarantees immunity from the influences of greed and self-serving agendas upon those who are making decisions “on their behalf” … when the ability to leverage the coercive force of law gives them the power to impose their greed and self-serving agendas to a far greater degree than ANY “rich guy”.
It isn’t that a country with a minimal government would lead to general prosperity, but that it would result in a world where the winners get to congratulate themselves and the losers get what the “good people” have decided they deserve—in other words, Mississippi.
The “losers” in a limited-government society have far more opportunity to be winners, than they get by outsourcing their initiative to that government … or to its union/business/academic proxies … as they are encouraged to do today. And they would have a greater ability to work around the errors of that limited government to continue their pursuit of happiness, than they do when government and its proxies are doing so much FOR them.
Maybe, while conservatives are questioning their message, the rest of y’all should question the fundamental paradigm that Progressives have successfully promoted for almost a century, to the point that it has become conventional wisdom … the idea that seeking profit makes one a threat to the societal order, while the “non-profit” institutions are cradles of benign benevolence that can always be trusted.
You can start with two concepts: first, consider that rich people have VERY little power over your life, unless they can collude with those wielding the coercive force of law to impose their will upon you. Keep in mind that asking government to do more for you, increases the opportunities for just such collusion.
Second, a very practical idea … will raising taxes on the “rich”, when the “rich” includes a lot of people you do business with, result in YOU paying their taxes FOR them through price increases as a result of the higher cost of doing business they may endure?
I think what initially led LBJ – that old New Dealer and protégé of FDR – over the Great Society cliff (saying, in 1964, that the Democrats were f-o-r just about anything and against very little) was the historically simplistic assumption that the 1960s would simply see the Old Left agenda of the 1930s (and the Progressive agenda of the 1900s-10s) finally come to fruition … and nothing much else. And, of course, budding Sorcerer’s Apprentice that the Titanic Texan was by his very temperament and nature, LBJ figured that he and the government he controlled (as Chief Executive and Arm-Twister) could control the Stampede of Identity-Politics that flowed from the Dems’ erection and embrace of all manner of agendas, demands, and programmes.
While you can make an excellent case that the Martin Luther King-led First Phase of the civil-rights movement was indeed the long-needed fulfillment of corrections that in 1964-5 were a century overdue, yet the Second Phase (that kicked MLK to the curb and embraced European ‘revolutionary’ Content and Method, soon to be reinforced by radical-feminism’s deliberate (if slyly unattributed) embrace of Soviet ‘philosophy’) literally required the undermining of any deliberative democratic politics, even as a never-quite-achievable ideal.
(And meanwhile, from July 5, 1971, Nixon had openly and publicly declared that the Great Run of America’s world hegemony (extending from 1945) was just about over and it was going to be a new economic world that Americans would have to adapt to – but that insight was kicked to the curb along with the rest of him in August, 1974.)
So for a national election in the Year of Grace 2012 to continue to try to spin all national political impositions and changes (not to be simplistically imagined as pitch-perfect ‘reforms’)as merely ongoing success in meeting our current challenges is to make LBJ’s mistake all over again: the challenges facing this country now are hell-and-gone from the challenges of 1965, and to continue looking-backward is, to say the very least, not going to lead to progress in resolving our current problems.
You have to start by defunding the Studies Departments full of Marxist Separatists hostile to White Europeans and Western Civilization. We pay them lavishly to promote this crap to young minority people. Gay and Lesbian Studies Departments, Women’s Studies Departments, Middle Eastern Studies departments have been taken over by Islamists and Arabists, African American Studies Departments, Chicano Studies Departments….etc.
Arizona took a tenative step in this direction recently.
All the Republican held states should move to regulate what these departments are promoting.
Can’t agree more. I also think it’s high-time to address the fact that promoting blatant anti-Christian hatred in the academy is unacceptable. It’s actually quite anti-constitutional. Let these instructors of hate go out and get a real job.
Footing the bill for Anti American Anti Christian Anti European Anti White Anti Western Civilization, Anti Capitalist, think tanks…paying people lavishly to intellectually demonize, subvert, deconstruct, undermine you and yours is the height of stupidity. Stop doing it, ASAP.
That the GOP lost this election is very true and it was theirs to lose, but what’s lost in the noise is the HOW of Obama’s win. How did he pull victory from the jaws of defeat?
It was a big win election for Republicans, with the gains in 2010 not only successfully defended but most were expanded on in the House and at the state levels. So with that many conservative voters, just how did Obama pull out a squeaker win when it seems contrary to all the other election results for 2012?
He won due to what I’ve dubbed the ‘social voter’.
Every election has voters who stay home or vote for third party candidates. This occurs in every election, and 2012 was no different with less turnout and many votes going to the Libertarian candidate.
So what WAS different this election? The ‘social voter’!
So let me explain who or what the ‘social voter’ is and why this is what tipped the scales in Obama’s favor (that tiny bit that put him over the top).
When polling services post results of their polls they often times label the people polled as ‘likely voters’, because in any election you see only 1/3rd to 2/3rds of eligible voters turn out to vote (how many is almost always tied to the issues, such as gay marriage or taxes, etc). ‘Likely voters’ are usually how many out of that 1/3rd to 2/3rds of voters might actually turn out that election.
Then there’s always a least 1/3rd of the electorate that simply do not vote at all, period. They simply have no political life and do not pay attention to politics.
The ‘social voter’ would not be a part of the ‘likely voter’ group, they would be part of the group you could label as ‘unlikely voters’ and specifically fall into that 1/3rd of the electorate that *never* votes (the ‘non-voter’).
While voters who stay home or vote for third party candidates are usually accounted for in campaign analysis, election models ignore that final 1/3rd of non-voters because they usually have zero impact on an election. An important enough statement to repeat, non-voters are never factored into a political race as they have no real impact on the outcome…
The normal way to win an election is to turn the ‘unlikely voter’/'non-voter’ into a ‘likely voter’, but in Election 2012 the final 1/3rd ‘non-voters’ were mobilized in large numbers by being turned into ‘social voters’, which was done by giving them a reason to vote that isn’t related to the issues they have no interest in.
The ‘social voter’ isn’t an uninformed voter as traditionally understood, the ‘social voter’ is a non-voter that votes anyways, he’s voting to keep his idol on the island or on the dance floor…
Now imagine that your base is bummed out and instead of getting the 2/3rds of your base out to vote, you can only count on 1/3rd to 1/2 of them to show up at the polls. But the opposition is more excited and is likely to have at least 1/2 of their base or more show up and kick your butt.
What if you could tap into that 1/3rd of non-voters by hobnobbing with stars like Beyoncé or Jon Stewart, voters that nobody is expecting to show up at all, to fill the gap and win the election for you?
That’s exactly what happened here, Obama won by energizing the non-voter to cast that single vote to let him stay on the island. Yes, they left the rest of the ballot blank allowing the conservative wins in the the other races, and that’s why it’s effects were not seen in any of the other races that day…
The interesting thing about this analysis is that if you throw away the outcome of the Presidential race as a ‘statistical flyer’, the rest of the results shows a very unified country that is right of center and are more in line with the University of Colorado election results predictions from their computerized election model (which had a stellar record at predicting outcomes until now).
I’ve brought up the concept of the ‘social voter’ to several people and most make the mistake of thinking only issues voters come out to vote (or more accurately, all voters are issues voters).
Or they make the mistake of thinking I mean ALL the Democrat voters were ‘social voters’, which is just not the case. The ‘social voter’ was simply that little bit of oomph that got Obama across the threshold primarily in the swing states (were the strategy was concentrated) and was the only thing different from earlier elections and flew under the radar for those ‘not in the know’ (I mean, non-voters don’t affect elections do they? Unless they vote anyways…)
Yet the concept of the ‘social voter’ explains so much, such as why Media Matters and other left wing polling was closer to what happened in the Presidential race (they were aware of the ‘social voter’ strategy and needed to take it into account for internal polling they were doing for the Democrats).
It also reconciles why the Presidential race went differently than the rest of the races. You remove the ‘social voter’ block from the vote counts and it matches the right wing pre-election polling results more closely (as do the non-Presidential races ).
You add in the results of the exit polling and the fact that Obama won with less this time around than he did in 2008, and it’s clear something happened. One could jump to a conclusion of widespread and rampant voter fraud, but I chose to discount that and looked at what scenario fit the ALL facts at hand.
You take into account several things that were going on and it was clear what happened. Among those things were Obama eschewing hard news shows (and I use that term loosely here) in favor of social venues such as The View, Letterman and Jon Stewart and hanging around with Beyonce and Jay Z, et al.
And the buses being operated every day and all day that there was early voting that anyone could get on and be taken to the polls with the instructions while en route on how to cast a ballot for Obama.
They can do it again next election too…
Early on, I recognized that Obama was running for Homecoming King. But I missed that he was mobilizing the 9th grade to do it. Should have recognized it – we did something like that when I was in the 9th grade. We voted in a cery popular 9th grader – but the administration vetoed it.
So Obama is our first genuine Celebrity President – or maybe that was Reagan. In a way, all those generals we used to elect were Celebrity Presidents, I suppose, but they were really Warriors. Bill Clinton came close. Maybe that’s why the MSM hated so much on Sarah Palin – the rare Republican with the potential to be a Celebrity, which of course she did afterwards.
But you do need a Celebrity to have a Celebrity President. I don’t see one for the Democrats in 2016. You are right – if they can find one, they will win again. But if the Republicans find one, he’ll be demonized by the MSM and lose. And the old standby of the Warrior loses to the Celebrity in our demasculinzed society, as did McCain to Obama.
Maybe, if we get the disaster that seems likely, Celebrity Preisdents will be tarnished for a while.
I thought Romney’s chance for being elected Homecoming King was to embrace the dark side and say: “I’m J.R. Im the Turnaround Artist. And you need me because I know what I’m doing and this pissant Celebrity doesn’t.” But he ran as a Republican instead…
BTW- the Obama’s could use the ‘social voter’ strategy to pull off an Obama/Obama ticket in 2016 (Michele as President and Barry as VP, no kidding!).
And while you’re at it, you can REPEEATEDLY assure voters that you’ve stopped beating your wife as well.
You’re being bullied and played.
Need to learn some game.
Agree and amplify.
Hi Vik,
Big “duh” to you on this.
Good grieg.
If this is the game we have to play to win we may as well not play. I’d suggest changing the game.
You talk about people who voted for Obama in order to atone for past mistreatment of blacks. I don’t think I see all that much of this. What I think I see more of is people who voted for Obama in order to stick it to whitey.
It’s payback time.
White Europeans better organize for their own protection and well being.
•Democrats outperforming Republicans in get-out-the-vote efforts
Not only that, I believe the Democrats want to win at all cost, the Republican has too much bickering among themselves, they would rather lose than have someone elected in office that they think is going to cause trouble (ex: Allen West).
This article is nothing but pure hogwash put forth by the establishment GOP. Romney lost because he wasn’t a conservative and he wasn’t backed up fully by the base on Election Day, and that includes yours truly.
So your pig headedness along with others like you have now re-elected the worst president in your pathetic life to prove a stupid point. This man obama will take us down such a dark hole that it will take decades, if ever to recover. Hope your children and grandchildren thank you for your stupid decisions.
Thank you, mixitup, someone had to tell robert and others of his ilk the cold hard truth. Morons.
The bottom line is if we can’t restore this country back to what it was then it isn’t worth saving. We make up the majority of voters in the GOP and we’re going to take it over or they’re going to pay a price that will resonate for decades to come. A few more years of Obama and you’ll be begging to elect a right wing conservative.
Redistribution is spelled retribution