Is this a historic day?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

See that's okay, other than "American voters were just sick to death of the crap that recent Republican administrations have been shoving down our throats." which is just hideous.

---

It's better when you can hear the accent.

Dbl post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

The result was more a function McCain's poor strategy than Obama's excellence.

---

So any Democrat could have won?
McCain lost the election, Obama didn't win it.

Lovin the denial, Kev.
Repubs are scrambling to explain that this was McCain/Palin's fault, if only a better candidate was around, he- and it would be a "he" wouldn't it?- could have explained the righteousness of the Republican philosophy.

I would posit that McCain actually did better than anyone had a right to expect and American voters were just sick to death of the crap that recent Republican administrations have been shoving down our throats.

In other words, Obama would have beaten anybody your party put up.

---

That last assumes Obama was unbeatable, period, which is just plain wrong.

McCain did do better than he should have done on the face of things, which indicates Obama'a vulnerability on many points - I would posit that had McCain played a better game, and let Obama have it right between the eyes occasionally, he may even have won.

Suffice it to say that the fact Obama got a mere "solid victory" as opposed to a "landslide" over a candidate like McCain tells the truer story.

Bush beat Kerry by a few percentage points in '04, and you libs started with your "but that isn't a mandate" crap; must you be bitter in victory as well.

Fact is, if Obama was everything you think, he should've beaten McCain like Johnson beat Goldwater in '64.

EDIT-

It was Bush-hate and Obama'a tying McCain to Bush in every way he could (and there was not an appearance by Obama or his surrogates anywhere, anytime, when they failed make the connection) that won him the election.

Period.

:lol:

He didn't win well enough so that's like a fail

FFS Kev, can you hear yourself.

I don't think he can. That's why he posts innit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

That last assumes Obama was unbeatable, period, which is just plain wrong.

McCain did do better than he should have done on the face of things, which indicates Obama'a vulnerability on many points - I would posit that had McCain played a better game, and let Obama have it right between the eyes occasionally, he may even have won.
"Let Obama have it right between the eyes occasionally"?
I have no idea what the statistics say but my impression of the McCain campaign was that it was unremittingly negative.
I can't recall any reasons to vote for McCain, just reasons not to vote for Obama. Between Palin's "pals around with terrorists" mantra and the ACORN nonsense I would say that the McCain camp was always aiming for Obama's eyes but they were such poor shots they kept hitting their own feet instead.

Suffice it to say that the fact Obama got a mere "solid victory" as opposed to a "landslide" over a candidate like McCain tells the truer story.
Bush beat Kerry by a few percentage points in '04, and you libs started with your "but that isn't a mandate" crap; must you be bitter in victory as well.
Interesting how the Repubs love the electoral college when it works for them and hate it when it doesn't.
With even thinner margins of the popular vote in 2000 and 2004 than this time, Repubs were happy to accept a "mandate" based on the electoral college votes and proceeded to unleash eight years of scorched earth neoconservatism.
Now however, Democrats are supposed to step lightly because Obama didn't win by enough votes to constitute a "landslide".
How convenient that would be for you should he follow that advice...in 2012 you'd get to say, "Look how ineffectual Obama was, he got nothing done".

Screw that...go big Obama.

Fact is, if Obama was everything you think, he should've beaten McCain like Johnson beat Goldwater in '64.

EDIT-

It was Bush-hate and Obama'a tying McCain to Bush in every way he could (and there was not an appearance by Obama or his surrogates anywhere, anytime, when they failed make the connection) that won him the election.

Period.

---

How hard do you think it was to tie McCain to Bush?
His record was pretty clear and who else was more of a "maverick"?
And why is it that Republicans refuse to take any responsibility for the "Bush-hate"?
You aided and abetted Bush for eight years and suddenly seem surprised to learn that his- and by extension, your- approach was reviled and hated.
Really, what did you expect?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

:lol:

He didn't win well enough so that's like a fail

FFS Kev, can you hear yourself.

---

Yes, I can.

It's called post-vote analysis.

You aren't familiar, I gather?

Would you regard yourself as uninformed as to the history of your football; never inclined to speak of events recently past.

Will you have anything to say about Calzaghe/Jones on Sunday should (God forbid) Joe lose?

Do you require that I generate an extended post congratulating Obama?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

That last assumes Obama was unbeatable, period, which is just plain wrong.

McCain did do better than he should have done on the face of things, which indicates Obama'a vulnerability on many points - I would posit that had McCain played a better game, and let Obama have it right between the eyes occasionally, he may even have won.
"Let Obama have it right between the eyes occasionally"?
I have no idea what the statistics say but my impression of the McCain campaign was that it was unremittingly negative.
I can't recall any reasons to vote for McCain, just reasons not to vote for Obama. Between Palin's "pals around with terrorists" mantra and the ACORN nonsense I would say that the McCain camp was always aiming for Obama's eyes but they were such poor shots they kept hitting their own feet instead.

Suffice it to say that the fact Obama got a mere "solid victory" as opposed to a "landslide" over a candidate like McCain tells the truer story.
Bush beat Kerry by a few percentage points in '04, and you libs started with your "but that isn't a mandate" crap; must you be bitter in victory as well.
Interesting how the Repubs love the electoral college when it works for them and hate it when it doesn't.
With even thinner margins of the popular vote in 2000 and 2004 than this time, Repubs were happy to accept a "mandate" based on the electoral college votes and proceeded to unleash eight years of scorched earth neoconservatism.
Now however, Democrats are supposed to step lightly because Obama didn't win by enough votes to constitute a "landslide".
How convenient that would be for you should he follow that advice...in 2012 you'd get to say, "Look how ineffectual Obama was, he got nothing done".

Screw that...go big Obama.

Fact is, if Obama was everything you think, he should've beaten McCain like Johnson beat Goldwater in '64.

EDIT-

It was Bush-hate and Obama'a tying McCain to Bush in every way he could (and there was not an appearance by Obama or his surrogates anywhere, anytime, when they failed make the connection) that won him the election.

Period.

---

How hard do you think it was to tie McCain to Bush?
His record was pretty clear and who else was more of a "maverick"?
And why is it that Republicans refuse to take any responsibility for the "Bush-hate"?
You aided and abetted Bush for eight years and suddenly seem surprised to learn that his- and by extension, your- approach was reviled and hated.
Really, what did you expect?

---

The fact you brought up the electoral college indicates your misapprehension.

I said Bush/Kerry, not Bush/Gore, so who is hung up on the electoral college.

If you had been paying attention, you'd have noticed my support for Bush was of a qualified flavor, whereas your aversion to him was blanketly total - in short, your knee-jerk hatred didn't allow you to see any positives whatsoever.

I find tremendous irony in saying to you that while I spent considerable time criticizing him, you could never find favor with anything he did; your modus operandi would have been to find an "oil" motive behind his aid-to-Africa program.

In any case, we have a new program to watch, and I, unlike you, will not begin it by defaulting to fawning worship of the new "messiah".

He will do what he will do, and I will laud or criticize as I see fit.

I look forward to your first criticism of Obama, should it ever occur...though I am not holding my breath. :whistling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

:lol:

He didn't win well enough so that's like a fail

FFS Kev, can you hear yourself.

---

Yes, I can.

It's called post-vote analysis.

You aren't familiar, I gather?

Would you regard yourself as uninformed as to the history of your football; never inclined to speak of events recently past.

Will you have anything to say about Calzaghe/Jones on Sunday should (God forbid) Joe lose?

Do you require that I generate an extended post congratulating Obama?

---

Post-vote analysis? I see where you get your information, from the disfunctional republican ignorant Foxnews, lol lol lol and they call it fair a balance lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

How hard do you think it was to tie McCain to Bush?
His record was pretty clear and who else was more of a "maverick"?
And why is it that Republicans refuse to take any responsibility for the "Bush-hate"?
You aided and abetted Bush for eight years and suddenly seem surprised to learn that his- and by extension, your- approach was reviled and hated.
Really, what did you expect?

---

The fact you brought up the electoral college indicates your misapprehension.

I said Bush/Kerry, not Bush/Gore, so who is hung up on the electoral college.

If you had been paying attention, you'd have noticed my support for Bush was of a qualified flavor, whereas your aversion to him was blanketly total - in short, your knee-jerk hatred didn't allow you to see any positives whatsoever.

I find tremendous irony in saying to you that while I spent considerable time criticizing him, you could never find favor with anything he did; your modus operandi would have been to find an "oil" motive behind his aid-to-Africa program.

In any case, we have a new program to watch, and I, unlike you, will not begin it by defaulting to fawning worship of the new "messiah".

He will do what he will do, and I will laud or criticize as I see fit.

I look forward to your first criticism of Obama, should it ever occur...though I am not holding my breath. :whistling

---

But there is nothing positive about Bush, nothing at all, from stealing two elections, to bankrupt the country, to do away with our personal freedoms, there is nothing positive about his presidence.
The guy is dumber than a plastic doll, he doesn't know right from wrong.
Obama is not amessiah, he is a regular inteligent man, that America hopes he will fix Bush's mess.