The vast majority of America voted for Romney, but a few small regions of high density occupied territory got Obama elected. The blue areas have learned that they can live off taxes paid by the red areas.
At least 85% of the country finds themselves facing taxation without representation.
This is not a sustainable situation, by any stretch of the imagination.
Don’t lose any sleep over it. Things will even themselves out over the long haul.
By the time of the next election, I’ll be surprised if there is such a concept as a “private sector job” any more. The whole map will be blue (strange color for a bunch of Marxists, I have to admit) – and then everybody will be happy.
The phony war is over – get set for an Energy Tax. The Republicans have decided that if they can’t beat him, they might as well join him.
“House speaker says he’ll consider tax increase
WASHINGTON (AP) — House Speaker John Boehner offered Wednesday to pursue a deal with a newly-re-elected President Barack Obama that would raise taxes “under the right conditions” to help reduce the nation’s staggering debt and put its finances in order.”
http://news.yahoo.com/house-speaker-says-hell-consider-tax-increase-203526602–politics.html
I find this Republican policy a little strange. Let the Democrats raise taxes and then the Republicans can run on a platform of reducing them. Right now there seem to be a lot of voters out there who think they can vote Democrat but will be protected from Democratic policies by Republicans.
Maybe they should let cows vote.
Obama won the popular vote. He also won the Electoral College. This post makes no sense.
“Obama won the popular vote.”
Whatever that means.
In 2008, 131 million people voted – 69.456M for Obama, 59.934M for McCain.
In 2012, 118 million people voted – 60.660M for Obama, 57,817M for Romney.
I’m having trouble picking out that “popular vote” concept you mention.
I can’t help you think.
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:12 PM, Real Science
reposted from SUYTS space
The fact that it is reported that 2.1 million less republicans voted this year shocks me.
Every where Romney went his crowds were far larger and more enthusiastic then McCain’s four years ago. I personally know of three Demcratic friends who were going to vote for Romney this year. All the poles recorded a more energised republican base. The early ballot counts for the republicans were far higher then four years ago, accurately reflecting this. This means that the republican voting day vote was down about eight percent, completely contradicting the polled republican enthusiasm.
The polls of democratic energy indicated much less enthusiasm for Obama. Obama’s crowds were down very significantly. The early ballot count of Obama supporters likewise indicated this, down significantly. The Obama supporter election day turnout accurately reflected all of this with a turnout down about seven million on election day, and nine million in total.
Why do all the democratic indicators line up, but the one republican election day turnout contradicts all other republican indications? This means that not only did 2.1 million less republicans show up, but not one additional independent turned to Romney, (in the ENTIRE NATION) despite all the polls indicating far stronger independent Romney support, and not one (in the entire nation) democrat switched sides. (This mean that the three I know lied to me, or were three more then the entire nation) All told, about nine million total less Obama votes, and ZERO switched to Romney, and 2.5 million less republicans voted in what was universally declared to be a more enthuiastic republican year. Every republican I talked to was damm enthusiastic this year, far more then for McCain.
Something feels very wrong! Pure supeculation, but the easiest way to make several million votes dissapear is through a computer. I hate computer voting almost as much as I hate climate models. All those lines of code, doing what? Does anyone know how may votes were collected via computers? How can we examine this? How can spot checks be done to make certain our votes counted? (A computer could easily show everbody who actually did vote, but get the count wrong.) Did the counties with hand marked ballots show a differenent demographic, more accurately reflecting expected turnout, then the computer counted counties in battleground states?
If this post intrigues anyone please feel free to clean up the unavoidable (alas) gramatic errors and copy it to any blog you wish.
Cheers
David
“The polls of democratic energy indicated much less enthusiasm for Obama. Obama’s crowds were down very significantly. The early ballot count of Obama supporters likewise indicated this, down significantly. The Obama supporter election day turnout accurately reflected all of this with a turnout down about seven million on election day, and nine million in total.”
I’ve said on here a number of times that the democratic voters was not overly impressed with Obama’s performance. People are not happy with the choices they’re getting.
So, if we say the democratic voters turnout was far less than expected, that does not help Rush’s argument that all democratic voters are just looking for a free meal and a free phone.
Missing the point of the post entirely
It seems apparent that the Republicans blew it by nominating a moderate. Also, Romney bought into moving even more to the center during the debates. The net result was loss of enthusiasm on the part of the Tea Party crowd, who are obviously sick and tired of backing spineless establishment RINO jellyfish.
The republicans have the very high hurdle of media bias to contend with. There have been numerous occasions where if the show were on the other foot, Obama would have been toast. IMO, Romney did the best he could with what was essentially a stacked deck.
Big media is a big part of the problem. Fortunately their influence continues to wane.
Libz are fond of claiming that the red areas of America correlate to the old Confederate states – not quite.
Looks like DuPage County IL, which was a staunch GOP area only about 20 years back, has gone blue. That’s a pity.
It’s ridiculous that GOP candidtates have to go through the likes of the George Stephanopoulos and Candy Crowleys of the world. Why does a Mitt Romney even submit himself to a debate moderated by these people? Until we can get a handle on the out of control Democrat/Media combine we’re screwed. It is like a football game where the Donks kick of from 50 yard line, the Pubs kick off from their own endzone, and the Donks get every single call.
I also find it a bit weird that every polling place that I’ve been to in the last several years is staffed by what appear to be old NPR lovin’ members of the League of Women Voters.
We have a two party system, the “urban” party, and everyone else.
I spent much of a day grasping for a spear to skewer your presentation here.
We’ll have to amend the Constitution – 1 electoral vote per 1000 square miles?
We’ve come to the place of mob rule, and the mob is a bunch of lazy, thieving duffers. The only solution is reorganization, like occurred in 1776.
If acreage could vote, Romney would still not be president. They’d probably have elected a tree.
What a stupid comment
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Real Science
If you look at the individual counties in Pennsylvania, the margin of victory for Obama for the entire state was less than the vote margin he got in Philadelphia county (551000 to 91000). The 460000 vote margin in that one county was all he needed to win. It was also the most lopsided win by % to each candidate.
Any chance that the forced removal of all republican observers from dozens of precincts in that district made any difference? Why would they force the observers out? What would motivate such an action?
You could fix it by disenfranchising anyone who pays less than a certain amount of income tax. Those that get their mortgage and gas paid by the government wouldn’t get a vote.
After the Revolutionary war, some states used property ownership or taxpaying as requirements for voting, which allowed women the chance to vote. “No taxation without representation.” Some states allowed anyone who served in the military a vote, and by 1790, every state had eliminated any previous religious requirements for voting. Consequently, somewhere in between 60-70% of adult white men could vote. At the same time, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Vermont gave free African-Americans to vote.
This makes perfect sense to me. If I am living under the care of another, should I be allowed to decide what and how much that party should be required to give me? Of course not. As long as I am not wanting for the basics, and someone else is providing, I have no room or right to complain.
What about folks who worked for 20 years, made a bunch of money, and now lives on tax-free (remember they’ve paid taxes on the money before it was invested) dividends?
It would not change a thing, if they are taking from me, I choose for them. Just because one is retired and on SSI does not mean one does not pay taxes. I would assume someone as well healed as your example would be paying plenty in property taxes and not sucking ar the goverment teet.
Now if you will excuse me, I do not have the time or patience to write a new tax code, I’m on vacation as of about one hour ago and a beer is calling my name, sweetly.
You let yourself down with such foolishness. The reality is that the taxpayers in these blue areas have historically been subsidising the rest of the country and they still are. Plus 50% of voters is still 50% regardless of where they are. If you apply the same barmy logic to all your work then don’t expect to be taken seriously.
I can’t help it if you are a moron
Too funny!
A trend version of this is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/07/us/politics/obamas-diverse-base-of-support.html