Barack Obama Re-Elected President

President Obama defeated Republican Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election.

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.

Nick November 09, 2012 at 03:17 AM
Randy, I am not insulting women. Effective, intelligent communicating is not spoon feeding. Unintelligent people who need spoon feeding are the ones who respond to the name-calling. They are not the sort of people who will respond to intelligent articulation of conservative positions. To engage in this type of communication assumes an intelligent audience. 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?
Randy Marsh November 09, 2012 at 03:29 AM
It sounds like you expect women and minorities to vote differently based not on the actual principles of the GOP, but rather fall for the spin control you are hoping the party is willing to embrace and communicate the next time around. It really sounds as though you feel the majority that spoke through voting on Tuesday did so erroneously rather than making an intelligent decision based on vetting the candidates and their platform. I find that more than a tad condescending, almost like a used car salesman peddling a bill of goods.
ABSG November 09, 2012 at 03:40 AM
Overwhelming??? Hardly....it was 49.99 to 50. The good news for reps is the blood of this countries upcoming destruction will be blamed on you a**clowns!
Nick November 09, 2012 at 01:32 PM
Randy, you are not getting my point at all. If you're pro-life, you're anti-women; if you talk about terrorism, your Islamaphobic; if you're for traditional marriage, you're antigay, a bigot, and a religious zealot; if you want welfare to be reformed, you're racist; if you're against amnesty for illegal immigrants, you're racist and xenophobic; if you're against higher taxes, you only care about rich people. 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.
Nick November 09, 2012 at 01:34 PM
Your comment is a complete and utter lie. Since you suggested Forbes, here is a link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesglassman/2012/07/11/the-facts-about-budget-deficits-how-the-presidents-truly-rank/ 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/
Nick November 09, 2012 at 01:46 PM
And "fall for the spin control", Randy? Are you suggesting that there should be no control of the Democrat Party's spin of conservative principles? People either fall for the spin, or the spin control. The spin is that conservatives are intolerant, sexist, and racist. The spin control is the honest explanation of the true motives behind our principles. So, yes, I would hope that people would fall for the spin control rather than the spin. Personally, I find spin to be a lot more insulting and condescending than the intelligent rebuttal of that spin. 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.
ABSG November 09, 2012 at 02:02 PM
I never thought I would see the day where Americans have grown into a mass of greedy, lazy, self serving, socialists. I never thought I would see this once Great Nation, the envy of ALL nations on earth, crumble to the depths of socialism with the massive pile of debt that looms over our heads with no plan in sight to rid us of this burden. What we have just witnessed is the end of The United States of America as we once knew it. We will never recover from this after 2016. We have tipped the 50% mark and will now pay the price for your greed. We have reached the point that Thomas Jefferson predicted would happen. Once people are able to vote themselves free money at the expense of other hard working people, we are done. You obviously don't care and just don't get it! Mark my words, 20$ trillion dollars will be what we owe at the end of this a**clowns next term. That will be 1$ trillion dollars in interest every year. Unemployment will top out at around 12%-15% and that will be the new normal and it will be okay with everyone, because this guy is....."Cool" - "has a heart and can cry" - "is the modern day Jesus".
ABSG November 09, 2012 at 02:02 PM
continued - 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.
Susan November 09, 2012 at 02:02 PM
Nick, check out this thread - religion and the bible are being used over and over: 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.
John November 09, 2012 at 02:30 PM
Republican, Democrat, Conservative and Liberal. The last two I really get sick of. I think everyone has the traits of both at times and depends on the situation. Here is a title that fits all of us: Americans.
Nick November 09, 2012 at 03:45 PM
Yes, this is what I mean when I say that the GOP needs to be dismantled and rebuilt. The current "spokespeople" of the GOP and conservatives have failed. Blowhards and extremists get all the attention. The Left grabs ahold of this and uses them to paint the whole party with one big, hateful brush. Meanwhile, the GOP seems to try to rebut all of the spin simply by continually nominating wishy-washy candidates. 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.
rob_h78 November 09, 2012 at 04:21 PM
Yes, please keep believing all of that and keep thinking that it was only lazy, ignorant fools that voted to reelect Obama, Increase the Democrat numbers in the Senate, Decrease the Republicans numbers in the House, Legalize Gay Marriage in 3 States, turn back the Constitutional Amendment in MN - yes, please, please, please keep believing this and please tell ALL of your Conservative friends that that is why Republicans lost.
Nick November 09, 2012 at 05:03 PM
The "lazy, ignorant fools" are the current leaders and spokespeople of the GOP. For those who don't know me, I'm a conservative Republican. America has 2 parties; the Dangerous and the Stupid. I'm a member of the Stupid.
Susan November 09, 2012 at 05:30 PM
Nick, you have to understand that being pro-life is not the only reason that terms like "anti-women" or "war on women" have come to be. When the ultra-conservatives argue that "forcing" employers to pay for birth control when they see it as immoral, which several have done here also, you need to realize that, with 98% of women having used birth control, these people are calling almost half the population immoral. A much better solution would have been to accept President Obama's compromise of the insurance companies paying for birth control, instead of the religious institutions. Instead of doing this, we are still hearing about Ms Fluke. Instead of offering different compromises, like the female employee paying that tiny portion of the premium that covers birth control, they want to continue to say that we (as women) want the tax payers to pay for our birth control, or even worse, to pay for the sex we are having! 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.
Bernard P. Friel November 09, 2012 at 05:40 PM
Nick if you had looked at the Forbes article, and your simplistic response makes it clear you did not, you might better understand the relationship between spending and the deficit, and that increase in debt is not necessarily a consequence of the action of a current administration, and that is the case during the last four years , which as the second article points out are not a consequence of Obama administration spending, but of the Bush wars and the Bush tax cuts, and Bush kept his deficits low by keeping most of the cost of those wars off budget, but they did eventually become part of the debt. No one would argue about the huge increase in debt in the last four years, but you ought at least be realistic about how it came about, and not with false simplicity attempt to place it on the Obama administration. 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.
Susan November 09, 2012 at 06:41 PM
One other thing that I heard a lot of women say this year. If Conservatives believe that birth control (even abortion) is immoral, then they should not use it. Women feel that Conservatives are trying to push the "no sex before marriage" idea on everyone. Although this would be the best way to stop unwanted pregnancies, it is not a reality. You cannot stop people from having sex...again forcing your morals on others. Since this is wrong, I would think your party would embrace birth control as it does reduce the number of abortions, but instead, you fight for something that is unattainable...abstinence. Now, I know all the arguments about the specifics of this issue, but here's the problem....we can read between the lines. 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.
rob_h78 November 09, 2012 at 06:48 PM
Nick - (warming several posts follow)... 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).
rob_h78 November 09, 2012 at 06:50 PM
I agree that the Conservative movement is being crippled by people like Limbaugh and others that are on TV and Radio. However, (not to bash but IMHO explain what I believe happened), Conservatives have no one to blame but themselves they pushed these people out into the forefront of their cause and have bowed to them instead of denouncing them because too many Conservatives are simply afraid of their power - and people like Limbaugh were at one time a great asset to the Conservative movement however, they are now more of a liability. 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.
rob_h78 November 09, 2012 at 06:58 PM
Regarding Charity - Conservatives do donate more however, if Charities were able to handle everything we wouldn't need any government assistance but that simply isn't the case. 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.
rob_h78 November 09, 2012 at 06:59 PM
Again, IMHO, Conservatives took (horrible) short term strategies on health care and we somehow ended up with the ACA that (let's be honest) neither Conservatives NOR Liberals like. 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.
Nick November 09, 2012 at 07:36 PM
Susan, I agree with most of what you say. I just have a few objections. First, there is no discussion of any laws against birth control, homosexual relationships, or premarital sex. Talking about the virtues of abstinence is not an imposition. No one is trying to impose it through law. But that does not mean that it should not be held as an ideal. ALL ideals are ultimately unattainable, but that does not mean that people should not hold them and personally strive for them, if they so choose. 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.
Nick November 09, 2012 at 07:46 PM
That said, I do agree that there needs to be a compromise on the birth control issue, as well as the GOP leaders making it clear that they are not anti-gay, that they do not wish to impose abstinence, and that they do not see birth control as immoral. They need to articulate that this is a religious freedom issue, not a religious imposition issue.
Susan November 09, 2012 at 07:53 PM
Nick, we all know why this amendment was put on the ballot, and that was to circumvent an eventual ruling by a judge allowing same sex marriage in Minnesota. This was proactive, not defensive. 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.
Nick November 09, 2012 at 08:03 PM
You have some well-written posts here, Rob, and I agree with the majority of your writing. I have only 3 points of disagreement. First and second, I think it might be a little early to call it on the inevitability of Single-Payer and the imposition of gay marriage by the Supreme Court. 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.
Susan November 09, 2012 at 08:10 PM
Also, I did offer a realstic solution to employers who have objections to paying for the insurance (not birth control) and President Obama cleared the way for religious organizations to stand by their beliefs. The problem is that the leaders still fought against it. They played politics with religion instead of accepting this to be a logical solution. Believe me when I say that insurance companies would rather pay for birth control than prenatal care and the birth of a baby. 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.
Nick November 09, 2012 at 08:11 PM
Yes, absolutely, about birth control. About marriage, it might be semantics, but I would call it proactive defense. Kind of like the first day of the Six Day War, in 1967, when Israel destroyed the Egyptian, Syrian, and Jordanian Air Forces before they got their planes off the ground so they couldn't bomb Israel off the map.
Susan November 09, 2012 at 08:25 PM
I understand your (proactive defense) point, and I know you don't mean it this way, but you are making the comparison between allowing gay marriage, and stopping people who want to kill you and your people. 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.
Heyitsme November 09, 2012 at 08:40 PM
Let's understand something, I am anti-abortion which is not to say I am anti-women. My reason is not because abortion is a morality issue, it is because it is being funded by the government in many cases and abortion is used as birth control instead of contraceptives. That is my objection, liberals/Democrats, do not understand that distinction and love to tell me as a Republican/conservative how my stance is defined. They don't know they assume and they put words into my mouth. Don't lump all conservative/Republicans into the Christian definition that is prejudicial (in other words prejudice against me, labeling me without knowing).
Susan November 09, 2012 at 09:16 PM
I agree with you, Heyitsme, with the only difference being that I think that we need to keep abortion legal because of all negative consequences if we make it illegal. Your side says that if we outlaw it, it will stop abortions. I say that nothing is going to stop abortions, it is just safer when it's legal. I would love to see some restrictions on a couple of the things you mentioned, but it is simply not the case right now. Work on reform, not making it illegal. Religion is only being used as an example when religion has being used to force legislation.
Keith Best November 13, 2012 at 02:08 PM
The uncertainty of the election was holding back employers. They were poised to start hiring with the election of Romney/ Ryan. Now that Obamabots have ended that hope, employers will be laying back because of Obamacare and higher taxes on small business owners. Many are laying off people.You Obamabots have no idea what you have done. Who is John Galt?


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »