Election Maps to Make You Say Hmmm

It's over... well, is it?  

 

President Obama has won another four years in office, or rather Governor Romney lost the bid to take over.  By all indicators Romney should have won, and won handily - so what happened?  While the Romney campaign went with respectable ideals, they underestimated the Obama campaign's ability to get to the people they needed.

 

Look at the election map (courtesy of Foxnews.com w/Florida copied in by me) here:

Or a more detailed map here (courtesy of Freedom's Lighthouse) here:

Most of the country is actually "red" for Romney!  Very few are "blue" - but where they are blue it is in more densely populated areas (with the exception of a couple sparsely populated counties in Arizona).  The point here is that the Democratic machine out campaigned the Republicans in these key areas.  They also did not so much campaign on ideals of what they wanted to do for the future, rather the focus was on scare tactics projecting (often lies) about what a President Romney would do.  The "scare" worked.  The "focus" worked.

Now, on the other hand - going back to President Nixon, notice the pattern!

When a Republican wins - he gets nearly the whole country, but when a Democrat wins, he only gets key states.  Does that make you say "hmmmm?"  

For those who may be too young to have known all these years:  

2012= Obama; 2008= Obama

2004= GW Bush; 2000= GW Bush

1996= Clinton; 1992= Clinton 

1988= GHW Bush

1984= Reagan; 1980= Reagan

1976= Carter

1972= Nixon; 1968= Nixon (not pictured).

It is also interesting to note that every president since Nixon has been elected to two terms with the exceptions of Carter and GHW Bush.  Carter lost due to extreme economic crisis and the Iran hostage crisis; GHW Bush lost in a three-way race where Perot took a good chunk of the votes which would have gone to him, allowing Clinton to get in for his first term.

How Can It Be?

Question: How can a liar and a failure actually win the presidency?  

Answer:  People believe the lies and can't believe the failures.

Painting the Target in Benghazi

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10/bombshell-us-troops-would-not-have-been-painting-assets-on-ground-unless-their-was-air-support-overhead-but-white-house-called-off-attack/

Why would US support personnel be "painting the target" if there were no assets in the air to actually HIT a target? Who "called off" the counter-attack in Benghazi?  If it wasn't "called off" - then who "disobeyed orders?"  President Obama has stated he said to do whatever is necessary to protect American lives.  IF that "target was painted" and IF either the drone or other military assets were in the air to "see" that "painting" and the counter attack was NOT made, who decided NOT to attack back?!  

That brave former Navy Seal GAVE UP his position in "painting the target," something he would NOT have done if the assets were not in the air to ACT upon that "painting."

This keeps getting worse and worse!

Who Won Hofstra Debate?

OK, my take on this debate is that both candidates "came out swinging" this time.  This says a LOT more for President Obama compared to the first debate.   It was more like a "brawl" this time around.  Both made points.  Governor Romney made a mistake (several times) in asking open-ended questions of the President.  In a debate one should never ask a question to which they either a) don't already know the answer to, or b) have not already telegraphed the answer to, leaving your opponent no alternative than to give the answer you expected - that is, if both your expectation and your opponent are honest.

Overall, on substance I believe Governor Romney still "wins" - but in "debate points" I may lean toward President Obama.  The problem is, while he wins the debate points - once the "fact checking" takes place, he loses the actual argument.  For those who just watch the debate and do not watch for the fact checking, I believe there's a slight edge to the President.  For those who do wait for the fact checking, I believe the evidence will be overwhelmingly in Governor Romney's favor.  So, while Obama "wins the night" (barely), Romney actually "wins the debate."  One fact I've already heard verified was where Gov. Romney claimed a 50% drop in drilling contracts - the fact is it's over 60% for off-shore drilling and about 33% for on-shore drilling (Chris Wallace).  To that point, I must add, Governor Romney asked a specific question, "How much did you cut them by?"  President Obama diverted and answered about how much oil is being drilled... he answered a question which Romney didn't ask.

Who Won?
National Journal:  Obama wins debate points - but ultimate verdict is uncertain (in short, a tie).

A "Quick Poll" on Huffington Post says Obama wins:

 CNN says "Obama comes on Strong, Romney holds his ground."  Their poll suggests Obama won, but also conceded that the results were within the margin of error.

The Global Post states that while Obama "held his own" it also says "but Romney didn't lose much."

Foxnews says it's a split decision - Democrats say Obama won, Republicans say Romney won.

The bottom line is, after President Obama's dismal showing in the Denver debate, he needed a grand slam, knock it out of the park victory tonight in order to quell Governor Romney's momentum - and while Obama was more aggressive, Romney stood his ground - or as the Global Post put it, "Romney didn't lose much."  Therefore, President Obama didn't get the kind of win - if there was any "win" at all for him - he needed this time round so I predict that Romney will continue to overtake Obama - and in some polls, he already has.

When One Debates a Fool...

Cutting Taxes DOES Work! So Said JFK!

Even one of the greatest Democrat Presidents of the United States agrees!  Cutting the tax rate will increase the tax revenue - not only did John F. Kennedy say this, but so did Ronald Reagan, it the FACT is it is absolutely TRUE!  Governor Romney and Senator Ryan are proposing virtually the SAME THING that President Kennedy proposed!  Was President Kennedy wrong?  If it was right then, it is right now!

Scott<<<
  

Sesame Workshop Response to Obama Ad

To paraphrase, they want Big Bird removed from the Obama campaign's recent anti-Romney ad.  Sesame Workshop (the host of Sesame Street, and Big Bird) is a non-partisan organization which does not support any political party or candidate.   You can see their response here.

The attack stems from Governor Romney's comment from the first presidential debate held last Wednesday where he said, "I'm sorry, Jim, I'm going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I'm going to stop other things. I like PBS, I love Big Bird. Actually like you, too. But I'm not going to -- I'm not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for. That's number one."  President Obama's attack ad sarcastically states that Big Bird is "a menace to our economy" and that Governor Romney is "taking on our enemies no matter where they nest."  Now, is that what Governor Romney REALLY said?  No!  He said he likes PBS and LOVES Big Bird - but he cannot justify sending money to support PBS (including Sesame Street) if we have to borrow that money from China to do it.

Romney's side has used an image of "The Count" and references Big Bird and Elmo - counting the number of times the Obama Campaign has referred to Big Bird and Elmo compared to how many times Lybia or "Plans to Fix the Economy" have been mentioned.  

Again, Sesame Workshop requests their trademarked characters be left out of the political campaign ads.  The Republican image is not as offensive as the Democrat one, but both should respect the wishes of Sesame Workshop.