President Obama Re-Elected - Page 1411

On November 09 2012 02:10 msl wrote:


Serious question: Are Americans really pasionate about politics despite their system being being broken or because of it?

On November 09 2012 02:17 Flakes wrote:

Serious answer: Despite our sensationalist media, we have like 50-60% voter turnout

On November 09 2012 02:07 kwizach wrote:

The page specifically says they only added the money raised/spent by one SuperPAC for each candidate. Factor in the other SuperPACs supporting each candidate, and you'll see the money was actually on Romney's side.

edit: see here ("overall spending" line).

On November 09 2012 02:17 acker wrote:

For presidential races at least. The off years have significantly less turnout (30-40% or something like that).

On November 09 2012 00:46 Jockmcplop wrote:



I don't agree with using the word uneducated here. In fact, people are too educated when it comes to politics for the US to go without a war. Some people believe that war is a necessary fact of politics, exactly because all the research into political systems seems to suggest this (not saying i agree).
In any case, war has little to do with the president anyway. I remember Daniel Ellsberg (the high level governmental adivsor during the Vietnam war, who leaked the Pentagon Papers) saying that the president will have 100 days after an election where they can have some influence, and after that it tends to be the heads of departments (ie the CIA, DOD, NSA etc.) who make most of the important decisions, or twist situations in a way that leaves the president with no choice.
Notice not many candidates will bring up ending wars to gain support from the people. The political discussion doesn't even exist, anywhere in the world.
I'm sorry for sounding a little tinfoilhattish but its pretty much career suicide to honestly believe in ending war abroad.

On November 09 2012 01:58 acker wrote:
Physics TA had Elizabeth Warren as his professor back at Harvard Law. Apparently she's Garrus Vakarian incarnate on consumer law.



This is a question of what people think is crazy, not what is crazy. You're still conflating the two issues.

If everyone on the planet thought that the earth was flat, that doesn't mean round-earthers are crazy.

On November 09 2012 02:18 theJob wrote:



Allright, my bad. I thought it was total fundings.
However if we look at the ad spending in key states Obama overwhelmingly outdid Romney which pretty much supports the theory.

http://www.businessinsider.com/infographic-obama-romney-final-ad-spend-2012-11

On November 09 2012 02:02 Bippzy wrote:
Just no dude, I think you are finding reasons to bash the republican party. Of course in a nearly 50-50 race republicans will predict themselves to win through whatever means possible. Yes, politicians in both parties say stupid things. Denying science and reality? Seriously, no.

They are against spending craptons of money because global warming may be occurring at a maybe earth destroying rate.

My entire family is republican. I am not old enough to vote, so I don't pick a side but I obviously lean right. But the one thing that I chastise both sides for is presenting very slanted views of republicans or democrats. I was arguing with someone the day before the election because they though that Obama's campaign was anti-woman. How the hell could either campaign be that?

On November 09 2012 02:31 ZasZ. wrote:
It did prior to us having factual evidence that the earth actually was round.

I'm not conflating anything. You may not agree with their beliefs (I certainly don't) but unless you are a psychiatrist and have evaluated them, calling them crazy is an opinion. You think they are crazy, but you can't say they are crazy for the same reason they can't say snakes can talk. You have no evidence.

On November 09 2012 02:32 kwizach wrote:

Actually, your link is about online ads, not ads in general. Here's an article that details ad spending in the battleground states by the candidates and the associations supporting them. You'll see the Romney camp outspent the Obama camp in several states Obama ended up winning.
edit: I don't have the time right now to find another source to back up the numbers, so take them with a grain of salt.

The reports authors said they believed Obama's advertising advantage may explain why polls in key states have shifted his way in recent weeks.

On November 09 2012 02:02 Bippzy wrote:

I don't think you can actually delude yourself into thinking that Republicans are anti-intellectual. And you certainly don't believe Romney didn't have something in the same vein working for him. The real story of that news article, imo, is that they consolidated databases and that allowed them to wield the data to a much a greater extent in helping the Obama campaign.



Just no dude, I think you are finding reasons to bash the republican party. Of course in a nearly 50-50 race republicans will predict themselves to win through whatever means possible. Yes, politicians in both parties say stupid things. Denying science and reality? Seriously, no. They are against spending craptons of money because global warming may be occurring at a maybe earth destroying rate.

My entire family is republican. I am not old enough to vote, so I don't pick a side but I obviously lean right. But the one thing that I chastise both sides for is presenting very slanted views of republicans or democrats. I was arguing with someone the day before the election because they though that Obama's campaign was anti-woman. How the hell could either campaign be that?

On November 09 2012 02:36 theJob wrote:


Obama outspent Romney not only on internet ads.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/03/obama-romney-ad-spending

On November 09 2012 02:36 theJob wrote:


Obama outspent Romney not only on internet ads.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/03/obama-romney-ad-spending

On November 09 2012 02:36 theJob wrote:


Obama outspent Romney not only on internet ads.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/03/obama-romney-ad-spending

On November 09 2012 02:39 Zergneedsfood wrote:
I think the main problem is that there's this conception of Republicans as homophobic, xenophobic, zealous, racist people. A lot of is untrue but it's perpetuated by a select few people whose inability to control what they say on air is really hurting the party's perception. :/

On November 09 2012 02:32 micronesia wrote:

Without citing poll results it's difficult for people to argue either way that the members of a party are or are not anti-intellectual, or any other apparently negative quality. However, the most outspoken conservatives and conservative media definitely give this and many other negative impressions. This isn't necessary much of a reflection of the party itself, of course.

If the republican party does not deserve these types of criticisms, and the conservative media does (as I've already mentioned), then you seem to be in the minority along with the conservative media rather than the republican party, based on this qualifying statement you made.


Yes, both sides definitely do a poor job of characterizing the other party. It's pretty childish.

On November 09 2012 02:39 Zergneedsfood wrote:
I think the main problem is that there's this conception of Republicans as homophobic, xenophobic, zealous, racist people. A lot of is untrue but it's perpetuated by a select few people whose inability to control what they say on air is really hurting the party's perception. :/

On November 09 2012 02:46 Jockmcplop wrote:


Its not only childish, but its extreme bordering on dangerous. To the rest of the world, and election in America looks like a civil cold war. The amount of hatred and anger that both sides place on each other, as if forgetting that you are all humans, and that you are all americans.