Re: Obama II

In terms of the popular vote, as of now Obama has 61,174,297 votes,
while Romney has 58,172,063 votes (source:
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/main?hpt=hp_inthenews). A
difference of 3,002,234, so a fair margin and decisively winning the
popular vote for Obama.

Damon.

On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Warren Adams-Ockrassa
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 07:17:25 -0200, ALBERTO VIEIRA FERREIRA MONTEIRO
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> So... What about Obama's reelection?
>>
>>
>> Here in Brazil, we had the impression that the Republicans "chose" the
>> worst possible candidate, someone they put there to lose. Or maybe the
>> Democrats voted in the Republican primaries to make him win.
>
>
> I've got a somewhat different take on it from Dan, I think. The extreme
> 'right' in the Republican party is a shrinking minority, however little they
> want to admit the fact, and however voluble their protests to the contrary
> might be. Rick Perry is an example of the kind of candidate they would have
> preferred.
> The Republican mainstream probably knew better; if they felt the same way as
> the extremists Perry would have floated a lot longer than he did.
> Of all the other candidates, Ron Paul seemed the most sensible, but he had
> two things going against him: 1. He had a history of permitting extremely
> racist sentiments to be promulgated under his imprimatur; and 2. He was far,
> far more intelligent than any of the other candidates and, indeed, a fair
> margin of the electorate. Americans shy away from intelligence.
> So no, Romney was the best pick of the available options, as far as the
> Republicans saw him, I think. He wasn't *too* smart, wasn't *too* radically
> 'right', wasn't *too* moderate/centrist. He also wasn't too consistent, as
> his constantly changing campaign evidenced (he was reversing himself a
> couple of times a month by the end).
> No one deliberately floats a candidate they think will lose - what would the
> profit be in that? And if the Democrats had been stealth voting to undermine
> the Republicans, they would've picked someone clearly batshit loony, like
> Perry.
>>
>> Did anyone over there ever think that Mitt Romney had _any_ chance?
>
>
> Well, all but about 225,000 voters, yes. That's how narrow the popular vote
> margin was, last time I checked, between Obama and Romney.
> Dan was right about the debate performance, as well. Romney came out
> swinging and clobbered Obama in the first debate. The second and third were
> solid comebacks, though the third debate - being about foreign policy - was
> not watched by many Americans. (Our foreign policy is 'kill em all and let
> god sort em out'.)
>
> Biden did pretty well against Ryan in the VP debates, as well, calling him
> out repeatedly whenever he went outside the bounds of what most of us call
> 'reality'. Obama did the same thing with the second debate, calling Romney
> out when he lied, letting himself talk himself into corners, and so on.
> Nonetheless, Romney's approval went way, way up after the first debate, and
> it really did seem to energize him and his supporters. The electoral map
> doesn't show just how close the popular vote really was - and it was close.
>  --
> Warren Adams-Ockrassa
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
>