President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden were re-elected Tuesday night, defeating Republican challenger Mitt Romney and his vice-presidential running mate Rep. Paul Ryan.
NBC News called the presidential election for Obama around 10:15 CST. The president sent a message on Twitter at 10:14 saying simply, "This happened because of you. Thank you."
The Obama campaign won the most expensive presidential race ever, with both parties raising about $2.6 billion. The race was filled with negative campaigning on both sides, from President Obama attacking Romney’s business experience with Bain Capital to Romney lambasting Obama’s handling of the economy.
The race tightened during the final months of the campaign, with gaffes and surges from both candidates. After a weak performance after the Republican Convention, Romney surged following Obama’s listless performance after the first presidential debate. Nevertheless, the president cemented a lead in battleground states heading into Tuesday’s election.
Obama won Minnesota and its 10 electoral votes.
Obama’s performance in the state wasn't surprising, considering Minnesota has voted for the Democratic candidate in past presidential elections, dating back more than five decades.
And yes, hypocrisy is part of the problem too. To practice what you preach is also a form of effective and honest communication. How is one supposed to effectively convey a set of values that they do not hold to themselves?
The GOP is sitting back and allowing this slander to become the mainstream opinion on conservatives. They are doing nothing to rebut these insults. You wrote, "It sounds like you expect women and minorities to vote differently based not on the actual principles of the GOP". If the widespread belief of the public is that the principles of the GOP are racist and antiwomen, why would they ever vote Republican? The true principles of conservatives are not being communicated. What is being communicated is the misportrayal of them. If something is not being communicated, how can it be perceived? Remember the "war on women"? You are pretending that was not a main Democrat talking point this election cycle. It was. If that talking point was so insulting to women, then why wasn't there a public outcry against it? There was no outcry because people believed it. People believed it because it was not successfully rebutted by the GOP.
A quote from the article: "As for Obama, even excluding 2009, his spending has averaged 24.1 percent of GDP – the highest level for any three years since World War II." Everyone knows that there was a surplus during the Clinton years, so how you could say that Obama's deficits were less than a surplus is really quite something. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost about a trillion dollars. The cost of the Bush Tax Cuts will cost about a trillion dollars over the next decade. That is $2 trillion. The debt now is $16 trillion, and it was about $10 trillion when Bush left office. Here's another article for you: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/
By the way, what you are doing to my comments is spin. You're spinning my explanation of the lack of effective communication on the part of the GOP as a condescending insult to minorities and women. Like the GOP should not need to communicate its principles, because if the public was smart enough, they would just know them and the motives behind them. In the debates, should Romney have just stood there silent with a blank stare, refusing to rebut anything Obama was saying so as not to insult the audience, because an intelligent audience would know Romney's positions and rebuttal? To actually have to verbalize his rebuttal was very insulting and condescending to the audience. That must be why he lost the election.
Gas will be 6$ to 7$ dollars a gallon. Businesses, will have an even greater difficulty doing business in the USA. We will be nothing more than a consumer nation that will leach off of the rest of the world. How pathetic have we become? 50% of you now own this yourselves, 100% of it! You are what you see in the mirror - In Obama you elected a self serving, lying, Constitution hating, Declaration of Independence loathing, racially dividing, class envying socialist. Nice work America. Good Luck.
http://stillwater.patch.com/articles/marriage-amendment-foes-claim-victory-in-mn The problem is that there are so many in the Republican party that believe and follow people like Limbaugh, and then they go out and start preaching it themselves. I told one of those people on Wednesday that he should realize that all his preaching is what helped get Obama re-elected. If you preach anger, bigotry, and the bible, people will react appropriately...which is to fight against it. For the record, I am not saying it is you, I am saying it is the millions who have been duped by the clowns in the public forum that your party leaders are too terrified of to reject or condemn in any public way....THEY hold too much power over the ignorant that believe their messages of anger and hate.
A successful rebuttal to being painted as racist, bigoted sexist religious zealots is not to nominate flip-flopping candidates. A successful rebuttal to these labels is to nominate a strong conservative capable of intelligently articulating conservative values, who can explain how conservative positions are not motivated by racism, bigotry, sexism, and religious zealotry.
America has 2 parties; the Dangerous and the Stupid. I'm a member of the Stupid.
Instead of trying to understand that liberals and homosexuals are not "forcing" anything on them, conservatives argue that gay marriage will be "forced" on them. Do you know how ridiculous this sounds? It sounds like we will force you to marry a man. We are not forcing our morals on you, you can still hold your morals, whereas your party wants to force your morals on the rest of us through legislation. THIS is the big difference, and although I love your honesty in the last couple days, I don't know that you are understanding this important point.
And on Democratic spin, Democrats need not spin with Republicans like Todd Akin, Alan West, Steve King, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachman, etc.,and the demonstrable flip flops of Romney and Ryan...all they have to do is report the facts...what could be more persuasive ? And all that chatter about how Romney worked with Democrats in MA...a check would reveal that in his four years as Governor with a Democratic legislature he issued over 800 vetoes 707 of which were overridden by the legislature...that just doesn’t sound like working across the aisle.
As soon as the Republicans understand that they cannot force their morals (no matter how they justify it) on others, then they will again become relevant. Until then, the party does really look to be serving only white, heterosexual, Christian men. Embrace birth control and you will see a shift. Tolerate homosexuals....in other words, live and let live, and you won't appear so self righteous. Start (you have) denouncing the extremes in the party, and you will be back in play. Look to the members of your party that are more representative of the electorate to run for office, and your party will once again become strong. These things are hurting Republicans and hopefully more will come to understand this point.
Regarding "Branding" let's be honest - both sides do plenty of branding and of course the "True Believers" on each side say that the other side is being unreasonable and are attacking while they are only telling the truth. We both know that "Branding" is used to rile up the base and try to "scare" middle road voters who decide general elections - and to avoid having to actually deal with uncomfortable realities that in a Republic style government no side gets everything they want and everyone has to compromise somehow. Then the problem is when one side has an all or nothing position that things get interesting because then the other side has no reason not to engage at that level. However, much of the branding comes from within the Conservative movement (Liberals do it also don't get me wrong) but Conservatives are "eating their own" when someone strays from the hardcore line. Just look at the Republican Primary - Rick Perry was crushed for his immigration views because he dared to look at reality, Republicans who dare to utter the word "Compromise" in D.C. are being primaried and are losing to other Republicans who promise "No Compromise" (and then some of these Republicans go on to lose the race to a Democrats who should not be winning in some of these states).
Gay Marriage - originally gays (and their supporters) pushed for "Civil Unions" with full "Legal" equality however, Conservatives fought that (and some still don't support that concept) so after fighting that battle for a short period of time it made no sense for them not to go for full marriage equality (I believe that they would have ended up there either way but we will never really know since Conservatives would not allow Civil Unions to become reality). Conservatives fought Marriage Equality (successfully) for the better part of three decades, however, the tide has turned and Marriage Equality is winning in states and sooner or later the Supreme Court will no doubt declare it legally recognized in all states. So, on this one Conservatives really have no one to blame but themselves for a short term winning - long term losing strategy.
If charities could handle everything, looking back on medical care Ronald Reagan backed by a Republican Senate and a Democratic House passed the horribly flawed "Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act" that forces ER's to help people without providing any means of reimbursement. Further, Republicans would have never pushed through Medicare Part D - again - unfunded. Then we end with the ACA that has issues but that passed largely on the fact that Republicans refused to deal with health care in the past other than passing massive government mandates - that are unfunded - to "push the problem down the road" and unfortunately for Conservatives they ran out of time and were blindsided by a Democrat who got through the ACA (for better or worse). Once the ACA passed, Conservatives tried but were unable to convince enough voters to vote Obama out so that they can could work on undoing it. so now it is and will be the law of the land.
But the long term Liberal fight to get Single Payer (IMHO) will eventually be successful due to Republicans not doing anything to fix the problems in the current system to stop what Liberals ultimately want. Liberals view the government along with charities as the two large scale organizations to help the poor, hungry, sick so while they don't donate as much to charities they do favor increased government assistance and they know that taxes would go up. You are correct that Conservatives need to be better messengers, however, I view it differently than you in the effect. I believe that Conservatives know that many of their positions are losing positions in a General Election and therefore obscure their beliefs and messages so their lack of communication is by design, not due to an inability to message their beliefs. What I do hope for is in 2016 that Conservatives will send up a nominee who is a real Conservative and who will clearly and articulately express solid Conservative concepts (fiscal, social, etc...) and not back down or refuse to engage if the discussion becomes uncomfortable. Likewise, I hope that Democrats would field the same type of person from the other side. Then we can have that debate and let the voters decide.
I do not believe birth control is immoral, and if I was able to afford to provide health insurance for our employees, I would choose an option that provided that coverage, but I also respect the right of others to hold their opinion on it as well. If someone does see it as immoral, they should not be forced to provide access to it. You need to understand that the Republican Party does not see birth control as immoral, rather we respect the right of people to hold that opinion. We do have a current definition of marriage, which is man-woman. That has always been that way, and no conservatives are trying to change anything about that. We are not the ones doing the imposing. Our position on that point is 100% defensive, not in the least offensive. As in the DEFENSE of Marriage Act. If you are in the defensive position, you cannot, by definition, be doing the imposing.
I had an entire paragraph about birth control but I just saw your last comment so I deleted it. I will say that the sooner the republicans come to this understanding, the better. Birth control is a great defense against unwanted pregnancy....so is abstinence, but since abstinence is not right for everyone, we MUST consider what will work (in 2012) to avoid unwanted pregnancies.
Third, you wrote, "I believe that Conservatives know that many of their positions are losing positions in a General Election and therefore obscure their beliefs and messages so their lack of communication is by design, not due to an inability to message their beliefs." I would substitute only one word; that is I would substitute "know" for "believe". They believe their positions are losing positions, and I think that they are wrong. I think that if Conservatives put up a strong, articulate candidate in 2016 who won't back down, we just might be pleasantly surprised.
So many of the republican positions on social issues are based on "tradional" Christian values, which is fine for them, but not for everyone else. Keep your faith and morals, they are yours, no one wants to take them away. But forcing these things on others, in a time when America is becoming more tolerate (recognizing the bigotry of the past) is no longer feasible, as the election results showed.
This is an important point, because gay marriage is being held hostage by people who simply don't agree with it, not because there is a great threat to our country. I read your post about that man (his name escapes me now) and his studies, but I also found a lot of information discrediting him. I look at society now, at how real homosexuals live their day to day lives, and I see people who want the same tax and legal benefits as married couples currently receive, that's all. What I do not see is people who throw a gay pride parade everyday in their homes. Their children don't go to school and teach other children to be gay, they simply act like children. Some don't even know of the difference because they are raised with love and tolerance. Gay marriage will become legal, and the more opposition, for whatever reason, the more divided we become.
Religion is only being used as an example when religion has being used to force legislation.
Who is John Galt?