Quoted Text

Barack Obama First President Re-Elected With Less Popular, Electoral Support Second Time Around
Ed Krayewski|Nov. 19, 2012 11:26 am

With just over 63 million votes this cycle and just under 70 million in 2008, President Obama became the first president to be re-elected to the office with less votes than he was first elected with since every state moved to deciding electors by popular vote. Prior to that, only George Washington got less votes in his re-election; he faced no opposition and only a few thousand people in a few states actually voted. Franklin Roosevelt, the only president to be re-elected three times, received less popular and electoral votes in his second and third re-elections.

President Obama is also projected to receive 33 fewer electoral votes. His 332 expected this year, along with his 2008 take, is still the highest count this century. Bill Clinton received 370 in 1992 and 372 in 1996. Those totals, on the other hand, were the lowest since Jimmy Carter in 1976. No president has won re-election with less electoral votes except Woodrow Wilson, who promised to “keep us out of the war” but still got 158 fewer electoral votes in 1916, when the field wasn’t split three ways. As for Obama getting us out of the wars; not true on Iraq and increasingly clearly not true on Afghanistan.

Obama becomes the 17th president, out of 43, to be elected to a second term. With most states reporting 100 percent of their votes, about 125 million people voted, six million fewer than 2008. The Census Bureau estimates the 2010 population of voting age at 237 million. At 26.5 percent of that total, President Obama sees a mandate from the middle class. Republicans, meanwhile, whose standard bearer got 25 percent of the voting age population and who kept control of the House, see a mandate of their own.

US Presidents who have NOT managed to get 51% of the popular vote in both of their 2 terms:
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
Abraham Lincoln
Grover Cleveland
Woodrow Wilson
Richard Nixon
Ronald Reagan
Bill Clinton
George W. Bush

These numbers show that Obama has more popular support among the American people than did
George Washington Thomas Jefferson James Madison and even Ronald Reagan!

Quoted from CICERO

President Obama became the first president to be re-elected to the office with less votes than he was first elected with since every state moved to deciding electors by popular vote. Prior to that, only George Washington got less votes in his re-election;

George Washington... and Barack Obama.  Yes!  They do have a lot in common!!!

The Obama Mandate...
The Democrats won:
~ 50.6% of the votes for president, to 47.8% for the Republicans;
~ 53.6% of the votes for the Senate, to 42.9% for the Republicans;
~ and...49% of the votes for the House, to 48.2% for the Republicans.
~ Electoral vote 332 to 206.

Sounds like a Mandate!

Quoted Text

Obama becomes the 17th president, out of 43, to be elected to a second term. With most states reporting 100 percent of their votes, about 125 million people voted, six million fewer than 2008. The Census Bureau estimates the 2010 population of voting age at 237 million. At 26.5 percent of that total, President Obama sees a mandate from the middle class. Republicans, meanwhile, whose standard bearer got 25 percent of the voting age population and who kept control of the House, see a mandate of their own.

26.5% of the voting public cast a vote in support of Obama.   That means 73.5% did not support him.  44% of the voting public didn't support EITHER of them, they didn't bother to vote because most know it's a joke.  

If voting made a difference, the government would make it illegal.

Quoted from CICERO

26.5% of the voting public cast a vote in support of Obama.   That means 73.5% did not support him.  44% of the voting public didn't support EITHER of them, they didn't bother to vote because most know it's a joke.  

If voting made a difference, the government would make it illegal.

Like you, there are many Americans who consider voting a waste of time.  I'm glad that those people
DON'T VOTE!

That 44% could elect a candidate... but they don't care enough about their country to bother.

Cic thinks that because he didn't vote in this election, he is absolved from all blame... in reality, the opposite is
true.

To Cicero and those who didn't bother to vote in this last election:
"I Didn't F*ck It Up "

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sdn3O6aaMNc

Quoted from Box A Rox

That 44% could elect a candidate... but they don't care enough about their country to bother.

No, they don't care to legitimize a corrupt federal government.  Many Americans don't get a boner participating in a rigged democracy that gives the appearance of consent to a ruling class that determines how much of my money they feel they are entitled to, or what countries they are going to bomb or invade, and how much debt they are going to enslave my children with.  

Those that don't bother to vote care more about individual liberties than the totalitarians like yourself that vote in hopes of winning a simple majority in order to push your ideology onto people for whom you disagree.  So you can "tax the rich" or FORCE everybody to purchase health insurance, or FORCE the Catholic Church to offer contraception.  It's totalitarians like YOU that enjoy the rigged democracy because it gives you little tyrants joy in forcing your views onto those that don't agree with them.  Those that don't vote understand, regardless of the outcome, both candidates are only concerned about power and control over people’s lives, like yourself.

Quoted from Box A Rox

Cic thinks that because he didn't vote in this election, he is absolved from all blame... in reality, the opposite is true.

To Cicero and those who didn't bother to vote in this last election:
"I Didn't F*ck It Up "

I'm not saying my decision not to vote is to absolve me from all blame.  My decision not voting is not consenting.  I don't care which rule makers to blame, I don't consent to the crooked arbitrary rule makers.   I don't consent to the arbitrary war makers.  Picking one criminal over another in a system that is filled with corruption isn't an act of civic duty or patriotism.  It's an act of foolishness.

Quoted from CICERO

I'm not saying my decision not to vote is to absolve me from all blame.  My decision not voting is not consenting.  I don't care which rule makers to blame, I don't consent to the crooked arbitrary rule makers.   I don't consent to the arbitrary war makers.  Picking one criminal over another in a system that is filled with corruption isn't an act of civic duty or patriotism.  It's an act of foolishness.

Cic claims he's part of the Majority 44%, yet he refuses to vote for anyone... even a libertarian candidate.

When you don't vote, you can always claim that you played no part in the process... "I played no part
in what THEY do".  You are 'indifferent' to those who will govern you so you will be governed by the wishes
of others.

Consider this:
“The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference.
The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference.
The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference.
And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.”
Elie Wiesel

Quoted from Box A Rox

Cic claims he's part of the Majority 44%, yet he refuses to vote for anyone... even a libertarian candidate.

When you don't vote, you can always claim that you played no part in the process...

Consider this:
“The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference.
The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference.
The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference.
And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.”
Elie Wiesel

When the two major parties make the rules on who can be listed on the ballot(which excludes most other 3rd party candidates), when the major media(or mass media) gets to decide the topics for the public debate and can decide who is allowed to participate in the debate.(No Ralph Nader, Ron Paul get's 89 seconds of response time in primary debates), and when bank and multinational corporations which fund the two major parties can pump their propaganda onto the federally controlled airwaves, it isn't a choice between to two different candidates but vote consenting to the rigged system.  

Sure, I could vote for Ron Paul, or Ralph Nader, or whoever, but all that does is validate the system that has been so heavily rigged against them, instead I feel a non vote in this corrupt two party system would be more meaningful and have more affect on change than a vote for that person.

My choice not to participate is far from indifference.  I have total concern.  I have made a conscience decision that non participation in a corrupted democracy would have a much greater impact on the corrupt system than my participation to validate it.  If the participation rate in presidential elections began to drop below 50%(which is only 6% less than this year), the ruling elite would have a problem on their hands.  So if I had the choice between Ron Paul getting 6% of the vote or the national popular vote for president dropping below 50%, I'll take the low voter turnout, because that means real change will begin to happen.

Quoted from Box A Rox

US Presidents who have NOT managed to get 51% of the popular vote in both of their 2 terms:
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
Abraham Lincoln
Grover Cleveland
Woodrow Wilson
Richard Nixon
Ronald Reagan
Bill Clinton
George W. Bush

These numbers show that Obama has more popular support among the American people than did
George Washington Thomas Jefferson James Madison and even Ronald Reagan!

You really showed your lack of knowledge of political history with the above statement.

It really isn't appropriate to compare George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison with presidents elected from say Andrew Jackson onward since the campaign/political process was much different in the early days of our Republic  (fewer persons eligible to vote, different rules for selecting the members of the Electoral College, etc.).   Therefore, it like comparing apples to rutabagas comparing their elections with later presidents.

Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan won reelections by HUGE margins (15% or more) in the popular vote and the electoral vote.   Obama did not win reelection by even a 5% margin in the popular vote. Therefore, your statement that Obama has more popular support than the presidents listed is not only flawed but clearly incorrect.

Quoted from CICERO

When the two major parties make the rules on who can be listed on the ballot(which excludes most other 3rd party candidates), when the major media(or mass media) gets to decide the topics for the public debate and can decide who is allowed to participate in the debate.(No Ralph Nader, Ron Paul get's 89 seconds of response time in primary debates), and when bank and multinational corporations which fund the two major parties can pump their propaganda onto the federally controlled airwaves, it isn't a choice between to two different candidates but vote consenting to the rigged system.  

Cicero is making excuses for his indifference... With 40% of the vote, you could create a viable candidate
and the mass media would follow the story.  If 40% of voting age Americans supported his candidacy, both
Republicans and Democrats would be a minority party and only get "get's 89 seconds of response time in
primary debates."

Cic is one of those guys who likes to stand on the sidelines and complain, as long as he can say... "I Didn't
Vote For Him"... Of course, Cic didn't vote for ANYONE!