Print Page   |   Contact Us   |   Report Abuse   |   Sign In   |   Register
Sign In

Forgot your password?

Haven't registered yet?

Latest News


Online Surveys
Election 2012 - What's Your Hubinion?
Thread Score:
| 2
Thread Actions

11/6/2012 at 12:57:17 PM GMT
Posts: 62
Election 2012 - What's Your Hubinion?

Election Day 2012

It's over....12,000,000 less voters than in 2008.   Obama receives 10,000,000 less votes than in 2008 and GOP fails to capitalize.

What's your Hubinion?

Last edited Wednesday, November 07, 2012
11/6/2012 at 1:26:11 PM GMT
Posts: 15

I'm going to vote now. Should be an interesting, and long, evening of watching returns. If there are any big surprises ie departures from polling forecasts, they'll come early.

11/7/2012 at 3:27:44 PM GMT
Posts: 62

What do you think, Schmutz? 

1.  Obama won all the same states except for 2 from 2008 on the elector map, Indiana and North Carolina broke Romney.

2.   Overall voter turnout down.   Approx. 12,600,000 less people voted in 2012 than 2008  (116 mil compared to 129 mil )

3.   Obama wins popular vote 59 million to 57 million but support is way down compared to his 69 million in 2008.    

4.  With overall voter turnout down, shockingly Romney got 2 million less votes than McCain!   If Romney got as many votes as McCain, he would have won.   

5.  Women...Went for Obama 56% in '08 vs 55% in '12   zzzzzzzz......wake up GOP.   Shouldn't be that hard.

6.  At the end of the day, the incumbent won and the people, though not as many, decided to give him another 4 years to finish the job he promised he'd start. 

The story of this election is voter turnout and APATHY!



11/7/2012 at 7:20:02 PM GMT
Posts: 15

I think either would have made a fine president.


Last edited Thursday, November 08, 2012
11/13/2012 at 4:43:58 AM GMT
Posts: 62
Sheesh....I finally got a minute at 10:45 p.m. on a Monday night to read your original post and it's gone. Sad

11/13/2012 at 7:16:53 PM GMT
Posts: 15

Meh- it was too ranty. Too much schadenfreude at Karl Rove's expense. Suffice to say that I'm delighted that man's career as a power broker in American politics is over.

Short version- I'm not surprised at the outcome, outside of Florida which I thought would go for Mitt. I predicted 303-235. Guessed 49 of 50 states correctly. Had FL gone for Romney, I'd have hit the bull's-eye. My opinion is that the GOP needs a make-over; something that makes the party more attractive to the various ethnic groups that voted for Obama in overwhelming numbers. They need to shake off the influence of the religious right, which i believe cost them Senate seats in Indiana and Missouri. There's already plenty of infighting going on. Some are saying that's what needs to happen, while others are insisting the party needs to stay with its traditional platform. Mitt's strength in this election was with white voters, over the age of 45. That is a shrinking demographic.

The GOP has won the popular vote once in the last 20 years. That was in 2004. By 2016, Hispanics, African Americans, Asians will make up an even larger part of the electorate. My personal opinion is that the GOP has a choice moving forward: Change the program, or be left in the dust.They cannot afford to treat half the country like they're the enemy.

Look at it this way- Romney could have taken Florida (29)- Ohio-(18)- and Virginia (13)-- and he'd have still lost 272-266. Time for a new electoral strategy, and that means enlarging the tent. Gotta make the platform more attractive to women and minorities, which means they have to soften their position on abortion, gay marriage, and immigration. That's not to say I disagree with their position on immigration, because I think something has to be done about 10-15 million people working in this country who are here illegally. Nonetheless, by taking the hard line on immigration, which is to say suggesting illegals "self-deport", the GOP loses large numbers of votes with minorities who are here legally. Obama cleaned Mitt's clock among Hispanic voters, and I think that's why. Obama took Florida because of a huge turnout in Miami-Dade, and I know those weren't Snowbirds. Cubans-here legally-went for Obama in droves.


This was a big election, although people may not think so at the moment. Boehner and McConnell have got to stop stonewalling. People want to see Congress get something done. The gridlock, caused largely by Boehner and the House Republicans, isn't going to cut it for another 4 years. I'm not surprised to hear Boehner is willing to negotiate now, what with the fiscal cliff right over the hill. The debt needs to be addressed, and that means no more Bush Tax Cuts for people making $250K or more.Obviously Obamacare will now go into effect. Also, there are 2 or 3, or maybe even 4 Supreme Court spots that may be filled in the next 4 years. That could be a huge swing. Interesting times we're living in.

11/13/2012 at 8:33:00 PM GMT
Posts: 3

obama is the least qualified president we've ever had-and look what its done for us us?? $ 17 trillion in debt, and we'll be $ 23 trillion before he's done. The only solution he has is to raise taxes on "millionaires and billionaires" (which means household incomes of $ 250,000).  He has divided this country more than any president in history, and flushed our health care and our economy  down the toilet.  There will be a lot of pain and misery around the corner-and it will be the fault of the dummies who voted for him. 



11/13/2012 at 11:09:05 PM GMT
Posts: 15

Well no, actually the proposed debt reduction solution involves reduced government spending and tax increases in equal amounts. That was triggered by the "supercommittee" being unable to work out a debt reduction deal, Triggers that were agreed upon by both parties before the debt reduction negotiations began. Keeping in mind that we don't crown a king, but rather elect a president, the federal budget is the work of Congress. Power of the purse-strings and all's in the Constitution, you could look it up..

The Great Recession had already started when Obama took office, thanks in large part to Wall Street criminals who, oddly enough, were the same scumbags who got bailed out by GW Bush's $750billion TARP fund. If we add the Iraq War and the Afghan War, both of which were unfunded thanks to GW's brilliant, hard line, conservative fiscal responsibility,we arrive at a rough dollar amount of $3.5Trillion. It's hard to be precise on the Iraq War cost yet, since we still haven't started rebuilding what we blew up...something we promised we would do. Add GW Bush's Medicare Part D, which runs about $52billion a year,and we're up around $4Trillion.

Under the brilliant leadership of President Romney, we'd have tied military spending to GDP (4% according to Mitt, or not, depending on which side of his mouth he was talking out of), which would have added $2Trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years. Apparently, $750billion a year just doesn't cut it for the people in the Military Industrial Complex.

Speaking of dummies, anybody who was in favor of the Iraq War, Medicare Part D, and the TARP bailout of the bankers really has no solid footing when it comes to taking a stand on government spending, and additionally, likely doesn't understand just how bad GW Bush was for the future of the country. He was the worst president in our nation's history, and the second place guy isn't even close. You want to blame half the country for Barack Obama? The single person most responsible for Barack Obama getting elected president in 2008 .....was George W Bush.

11/14/2012 at 12:46:27 AM GMT
Posts: 3

Of course it's not obama's fault, and if he was president in 50 years-he'd still be blaming someone else.  His only experience is an Illinois state legislator (he didn't do anything but campaign as a U.S. Senator) where he and his democratic friends have given Illinois the grand distinction of the worst state fiscally of all 50 states-and of course that wasn't his fault either. And neither is the 84 billion in unfunded Illinois pension liability that we can never pay for.


As far as the war-the democrats own that too and without their vote it would never have happened-period the end.


I agree-we should not have baled out Wall Street - or the union auto workers pensions! But that got obama votes so what the heck!


obama is an abortion, and years from now are grandchildren are going to ask what we were thinking.  I of course have a clear conscience, and tell them that I didn't vote for the idiot-but there was a lot of people who wanted free stuff and for others to pay their way-and a lot more with their heads in the sand.

11/14/2012 at 1:29:35 AM GMT
Posts: 15

The Democrats own the Iraq War too, period, the end?

61% of House Democrats (126-82) opposed the resolution.

3% of House Republicans (6-215) opposed the resolution.

42% of Senate Democrats (21-29)  opposed the resolution.

2% of Senate Republicans (1-48) opposed the resolution. One guy, Lincoln Chafee, had the guts to stand up against the party

Jim Jeffords, the only Independent at the time, voted NO.


So that's 39% of the Dems, and 97% of the Republicans in the House of Reps, and 58% of Dems, and 98% of the Republicans in the Senate who voted in favor of invading Iraq. Clearly it was a Republican initiative, but I guess you could say it's the Dem's fault because they didn't stop it. Yeah, let's go with that!! (Oh and Barack Obama was opposed to invading Iraq.)

This site has awesome features that Internet Explorer 9 doesn't understand. Download free Firefox browser.