by Scott Creighton
UPDATE: They are already working hard to spin these numbers. One “expert” from George Mason University estimates the turnout was 60% of eligible voters. Take a look at the numbers below and tell me how in the hell someone could honestly come to that conclusion…
UPDATE 2: Diane Sawyer was shitfaced during the entire ABC coverage last night. She was hammered and serving as the co-host of ABC’s election night coverage. That gives you a little insight into what a joke this is to these people. At one point it looks like George is about to tell her to get her drunk ass off the anchor desk. It’s pathetic. ABC presented a drunk lush as their face of the election all night long. Fitting really.
UPDATE 3: (H/T David) Glenn Greenwald and I see this kinda differently to say the least:
“So the delirium of liberals this morning is understandable: the night could scarcely have gone better for them.” Glenn Greenwald
UPDATE 4: How nice. Paul Ryan didn’t have to give up his seat in congress for his fake run for office.
National Headlines: “W” BEATS “O”!!!
In an near record setting low turnout rate (which may in fact be a record setting low turnout rate) and with an estimated 18 million more eligible voters, Barack Obama garnered less actual votes than George W. Bush did in 2004 and secured a smaller percentage of the votes than “W” did.
In short, in their re-election bid campaigns, Barack Obama just lost to George W. Bush. Chew on that for a while.
Despite the increase in eligible voters, 14.8 million fewer votes were cast this year than in 2008 and of those the Democrats lost more votes than Republicans at almost a 3 to 1 ratio… and the pundits are talking about an “Obama Mandate”?
These numbers tell us a VERY different story than what the pundits are saying right now.. The fact is, the policies of Obama administration are driving the people of this country AWAY from participation in government, not toward it. They selected Romney to fail and he did everything he could during the campaign to ensure that Obama would remain in office, but the only thing driving masses of voters away from Obama, is Obama’s policies. And that’s a fact. Another fact is those policies are less popular than W’s warmongering and lying to get us into war in 2003. That’s a fact as well.
Barack Obama is going to be the next president of the United States. Romney was hand picked to lose. This is what I have been saying for over a year now. Not surprisingly, the MSM and the super-pundits are claiming the Obama brand of Neo-conservative Liberalism now has a mandate from the people:
“Both sides claim, with some justification, a mandate from the voters.” AP
“President Obama’s reelection represents a victory for the Democratic ideal of activist government and a mandate for more of it” AlterNet
“Another close presidential election — accompanied by split control of Congress, with Republicans maintaining control of the House and Democrats holding the Senate — might lead many to the conclusion that President Obama doesn’t have much of a mandate. Quite the contrary; he can have a robust mandate if he chooses to use it.” Baltimore Sun
While the victory may not be that questionable (the republicans are already being derided for choosing horrible candidates Romney and Ryan and running a horrible campaign) the “mandate” certainly is.
Truth be told, in some ways, the Democrats lost this election well, they lost more votes that the Republicans did and in fact more people voted for Bush in 2004 than they did for Obama last night. Let me explain…
Filed under: Election 2012, Scott Creighton | 12 Comments »