Did anyone see Obama's infomercial on tonight? He bought millions of dollars worth of prime time air on TV to sell himself even more. Obama has far more money that McCain that affords him the right to carry out such antics. This brings up two questions that I have. The first of which is, why would he do such a thing when the election appears won by him? Is he really still concerned about losing? It would seem to me that if you are leading the thing to do is leave well enough alone. Why take any more risks? Secondly, if the Democrats represent the poor, as many here would claim, then where did all that money come from that went to Obama's campaign? It would seem that the powers that be have a great interest in seeing Obama win.
Of course, the electoral college seems to be in the bag but perhaps they are concerned with the popular vote. After all, it would be embarrassing if he won the election without the popular vote. Kinda like how the popular vote seemed to favor Hillary even though she ended up losing.
I am suprised that a profound republican, such as yourself, was not familiar with why Hillary got so many votes, but lost the caucus vote.
The right wing terrorist, Rush Limbaugh, launched a Vote for Hillary campaign on his radio show with the intent to cause "rioting in the streets of Denver" during the Democratic convention.
Rush is indeed a Nazi terrorist.
Originally posted by whodeyIt's not over until the votes are counted. He's absolutely right to keep running until the end.
Did anyone see Obama's infomercial on tonight? He bought millions of dollars worth of prime time air on TV to sell himself even more. Obama has far more money that McCain that affords him the right to carry out such antics. This brings up two questions that I have. The first of which is, why would he do such a thing when the election appears won by him? ...[text shortened]... ote. Kinda like how the popular vote seemed to favor Hillary even though she ended up losing.
It would seem to me that if you are leading the thing to do is leave well enough alone.
And if the polls are wrong or off (as they sometimes are) then people would laugh that he had this ability to campaign until the end, but instead coasted.
In the 100 meter dash you run until you're finished not until you get to the 98th meter - you don't stop until AFTER you've crossed the finish line.
After all, it would be embarrassing if he won the election without the popular vote.
You mean like GWB did? Was that embarrassing for him?
Originally posted by caissad4Rush has that much influence, eh? It makes one wonder then why McCain won the Republican nomination since Rush railed against him winning it.
I am suprised that a profound republican, such as yourself, was not familiar with why Hillary got so many votes, but lost the caucus vote.
The right wing terrorist, Rush Limbaugh, launched a Vote for Hillary campaign on his radio show with the intent to cause "rioting in the streets of Denver" during the Democratic convention.
Rush is indeed a Nazi terrorist.
Originally posted by whodeyThe powers that be? I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about.
It would seem that the powers that be no longer care what the popular consensus is.
I think if Obama won the election, but not the popular vote then it would be a legitimate victory - he won by the election system that we in the US have.
I'm sure there are arguments against the electoral college and maybe we should change that system, but that would have to be a very serious thing to change and we had better make sure it's better! Maybe Palin can run on that platform in 2012?
The thing is that it seems according to this source (I just googled the question):
http://www.presidentelect.org/art_evpvdisagree.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College#Contemporary_conflict_over_the_Electoral_College
It seems only 4 times has the loser of the election won the popular vote. That's not very often.
I would say that if a president wins via the electoral college and not the popular vote then they won, but they don't really have the right to say that they have a strong mandate.
Originally posted by PsychoPawnBush didn't win the popular vote?
It's not over until the votes are counted. He's absolutely right to keep running until the end.
It would seem to me that if you are leading the thing to do is leave well enough alone.
And if the polls are wrong or off (as they sometimes are) then people would laugh that he had this ability to campaign until the end, but instead coasted. ...[text shortened]... tion without the popular vote.[/i]
You mean like GWB did? Was that embarrassing for him?
Wiki says he did! Bush: 62 + million, Kerry: 59 + million.
I must have read it wrong.
I must have read it wrong.
GRANNY.
Originally posted by smw6869Bush didn't win the popular vote in 2000 - 50,456,002 for Bush, 50,999,897 for Gore.
Bush didn't win the popular vote?
Wiki says he did! Bush: 62 + million, Kerry: 59 + million.
I must have read it wrong.
I must have read it wrong.
GRANNY.
He crushed Kerry in 2004.
Originally posted by smw6869You read the wrong election.
Bush didn't win the popular vote?
Wiki says he did! Bush: 62 + million, Kerry: 59 + million.
I must have read it wrong.
I must have read it wrong.
GRANNY.
In 2000:
Bush: 50,456,002 (47.87 % )
Gore: 50,999,897 (48.38 % )
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/prespop.htm
Originally posted by PsychoPawnGore should be thanking his lucky stars for that defeat. If he'd had access to the White House Chef for eight years he would have popped like a big ugly zit.
You read the wrong election.
In 2000:
Bush: 50,456,002 (47.87 % )
Gore: 50,999,897 (48.38 % )
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/prespop.htm
Originally posted by whodeyKinda like it went for Gore?
Of course, the electoral college seems to be in the bag but perhaps they are concerned with the popular vote. After all, it would be embarrassing if he won the election without the popular vote. Kinda like how the popular vote seemed to favor Hillary even though she ended up losing.
