Can President Obama win?

by Stox 16 Sun Jan 22, 2012 4:46 am

First topic message reminder :

Just one small question? can President Obama win the US election? Who will face him for the Republicans and what does Obama need to do too win? or how could a Republican beat him. me, I hope Obama eats the Republicans for breakfast myself. as the Republicans are so back would looking too me

what states with Obama need to win or hold in the US election? what are the key swing states?

by Shirina Thu Mar 01, 2012 5:22 pm

LOL! The Constitution is far more complicated than libertarians in this country think it is. They have lawyers in this country that do nothing but specialize in constitutional law.

by oftenwrong Thu Mar 01, 2012 5:38 pm

It doesn't take long to read the British Constitution.

The British constitution is the set of laws and principles under which the United Kingdom is governed. Unlike many other nations, the UK has no single core constitutional document.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom

by trevorw2539 Thu Mar 01, 2012 8:43 pm

oftenwrong wrote:It doesn't take long to read the British Constitution.

The British constitution is the set of laws and principles under which the United Kingdom is governed. Unlike many other nations, the UK has no single core constitutional document.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom[/quote[/url]]

I suggest that it is not that easy. There are currently 2 sets of laws. The UK and the EU. Great news for the Judiciary. What we used to think was legal is probably not so now. And, of course, vice versa.

What happened to the good old days. Bobby on his bike (ooops - sorry Bobby) and a clip round the ear for cheek. Or a smack across the ar... er -other cheeks. Embarassed

by ROB Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:36 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:
"The President informed Congress, on the 28th of January, 1790, that North Carolina had ratified the Constitution November 21, 1789; and he informed Congress on the 1st of June, 1790, that Rhode Island had ratified the Constitution May 29, 1790. Vermont, in convention, ratified the Constitution January 10, 1791, and was, by an act of Congress approved February 18, 1791, "received and admitted into this Union as a new and entire member of the United States."

Trevor,

That is not a part of the Constitution. This is:
__________________________________________________________________________________________

United States Constitution, Article VII

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

trevorw2539 wrote:
Note 2: The part of this Clause relating to the mode of apportionment of representatives among the several States has been affected by Section 2 of amendment XIV, and as to taxes on incomes without apportionment by amendment XVI.

Amendment 14

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

One man, one vote.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Amendment 16

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Federal income tax is now constitutional. Prior to this amendment, Congress had no power to tax incomes.

trevorw2539 wrote:
Note 3: This Clause has been affected by Clause 1 of amendment XVII.

Amendment 17

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

United States Senators now elected by direct vote of the citizens of each state.

trevorw2539 wrote:
Note 4: This Clause has been affected by Clause 2 of amendment XVIII.

Amendment 18

2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

The federal government and the state governments can enact laws to enforce prohibition.

trevorw2539 wrote:
Note 5: This Clause has been affected by amendment XX.

Amendment 20

1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Basically, Presidential/Vice Presidential terms start and end at noon, 20 January of the year following the election. The rest of the amendment requires congress to meet yearly, and provides procedures for selecting a president if something happens to the president-elect and/or his legal successors.

trevorw2539 wrote:
Note 6: This Clause has been affected by amendment XXVII.

Amendment 27

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

US Senators and US Representatives, usually called congressmen, congresswomen, or congresspersons, cannot raise their own pay during a two year session of Congress.

trevorw2539 wrote:
Note 7: This Clause has been affected by amendment XVI.

Amendment 16

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Federal income tax is now constitutional. Prior to this amendment, Congress had no power to tax incomes.

trevorw2539 wrote:
Note 8: This Clause has been superseded by amendment XII.

Amendment 12

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Sets up the Electoral College, stating that the president and vice president shall be elected by the electors of the states, the Electoral College.

More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election

trevorw2539 wrote:
Note 9: This Clause has been affected by amendment XXV.

Amendment 25

1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Provides procedures to fill the offices of president and vice-president in case of removal from office, leaving office for any other reason, or temporary inability to perform the duties of office.

trevorw2539 wrote:
Note 10: This Clause has been affected by amendment XI.

Amendment 11

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Citizens of one state cannot sue another state in a federal court. Citizens or subjects of a foreign country may not sue a state in a federal court.

trevorw2539 wrote:
Note 11: This Clause has been affected by amendment XIII

Amendment 13

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Slavery is abolished in the United States, its territories, possessions, commonwealths, and wherever its jurisdiction may reach.

by trevorw2539 Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:36 pm

ROB.

I won't quote. Thanks for your reply. Do new citizens have to know all this before they swear the Oath of Allegiance?

Fortunately I have managed to read your post without any traumatic 'coma'. Very Happy

Only in the US could anything be so complicated - oops. Amendment 25. You seem to have plenty of Presidents pro tempore. Only joking.

Anyway, thanks.

by ROB Fri Mar 02, 2012 5:05 am

Trevor,

No problem, my brother. I enjoy teaching a little “mer’cun gub’mint” from time to time.

Here’s a bit more about Presidential succession. If the President of the United States leaves office (God knows we’ve had enough assassinations and attempted assassinations during my lifetime, including a little known attempt on Harry S Truman’s life circa 1951 by, I believe, a Puerto Rican secessionist):

Vice President, who is also President of the Senate;
Speaker of the House of Representatives;
President Pro Tem of the Senate;
Secretary of State;
Secretary of Defense;
Other Cabinet-level Secretaries.

There have been so many changes in cabinet positions that I have lost track of the order of succession after SEDEF, but Wiki should have that list.

Peace, my brother, which is a good substantive translation of Assalamu alaikum.

by Stox 16 Fri Mar 09, 2012 2:55 am

Some very Educational post Rock, I found them most interesting to read myself...

Well posted my good friend.

by Scarecrow Sun Apr 01, 2012 1:54 am

The US is a working contradiction. It currently boasts one of the most productive workforces in the world but in terms of job creation it has the lowest rate out of all the G7 nations. Barack Obama’s planned American Jobs Act has a lot of pressure on it to reform the employment system. There’s a long way to go before the mighty US economic engine returns to the prosperity it saw before the global economic meltdown. McKinsey predicts America must create over 21 million new jobs in this decade, but what kind of jobs will they be? In recent testimony before Congress, Georgetown University professor Harry Holzer, an authority on employment, predicted that high unemployment rates – and, very likely, low wages – would persist for years. “Low earnings will scar millions of young workers for years to come, even when the labour market fully recovers.” And that, say most economists, is a problem that many western countries will face in the long recovery from the Great Recession.

by Red Cat Woman Sun Apr 22, 2012 11:23 am

Shirina wrote:
However, the question is, in your opinions, which will probably vary, 'How much will Romney's Mormon faith colour/affect his Presidency if he did reach the White House?'
Perhaps in any other election, his Mormanism may affect his chances of being elected, and with a small few, his faith still will make a difference. However, the Republican conservatives have been painting a picture of Obama that involves him being everything from a Muslim to an atheist. I think Gingrich even called him an "Muslim atheist" ... I mean, how LOL-worthy is a statement like that? Of course they also frequently shift between him being a fascist and a communist without any apparent understanding of what those two words even mean. If the propaganda machine says he is a Muslim atheist who believes in fascist communism, that's what their followers will parrot. Having it actually make sense is irrelevant.

So back to his Mormon faith, I think most Christians will accept that at least Mormons believe in Christ, the Son of God, which is more than they can say about Muslims, atheists, and Godless commies. Even though his Mormon faith would have been a handicap in a "normal" campaign, the outrageous hatred for Obama (remember, Obama is perfectly imperfect) will shunt issues of his faith to the back of the bus.
'Would it be good for the US'.
Well, comparatively, yes, it would be good for the US. Mind you, not so good that I want Romney in the White House, but if a Republican must win this year, Romney is by far the least of the four evils to choose from. The reason is this: Romney, of course, is a Mormon, and that means he's not going to be able to proselytize his faith from the presidential podium. Only 1.7% of Americans are Mormon, so preaching Mormonism or trying to move America in the direction of Mormonism would be a big joke and nothing more. He can't blather on too much about Mormonism except in terms of his own personal faith since, obviously, Mormonism does not represent anywhere close to a majority or even a substantial minority (atheists and agnostics comprise 16.1%). Yet he can't embrace rabid evangelical Christianity, either, since that would be stepping outside of his own personal beliefs - it would be like a Muslim preaching Christianity. The only option he really has is to stay religiously neutral, and that is always a good thing in politics.
It seems to me that 'religion' in the US has a grip which it is not easy to break.
I know this only too well. Everywhere where I have had vigorous religious debates, the believers and unbelievers were almost always split between two geographical camps. Americans, who always take the side of religion, and everyone else, who more often tend to be agnostic. There are exceptions, if course, but this is the general rule. One of the unfortunate aspects of Christianity is its mandate to convert the heathens and hedonists, and for some, fiddling with US law to make that happen is perfectly acceptable. I see a lot of that ... but I have also seen some surprising concessions from right-wing believers. So they're not ALL bad! Yet it seems there is one thing they all agree on: They hate Obama. More propaganda in action.
Is it TIME for a leader who can concentrate on state affairs without bringing faith into it.
All I can say here is - ABSOLUTELY! We aren't electing an American pope. I don't look to the president for spiritual guidance, for crying out loud, and neither should anyone else. That's simply not his job.
Can they put aside personal preferences and run the US.
The truth is, most presidents do, even if they don't want to. Even though I don't want Santorum anywhere near the White House, for instance, chances are, if he were elected, he would have to abandon much of his ultra-religious rhetoric. It's easy to spout that stuff during the primaries, but in the general election when you have to court ALL the voters and not just your base, a lot of people - including many Christians - simply won't stand for his religious views becoming a part of his politics. George W. Bush won his second term mostly due to his faith and religious beliefs, but the moment he took office, most of that nonsense flew right out the window. He infuriated the Christian conservatives who voted for him, but that's politics. Santorum will most likely do the same because he HAS to. The US Constitution is not on the side of religion when it comes to policy making.

Hi Shirina
Please get Obama elected again.

Red Cat Woman

by Red Cat Woman Sun Apr 22, 2012 11:25 am

Scarecrow wrote:The US is a working contradiction. It currently boasts one of the most productive workforces in the world but in terms of job creation it has the lowest rate out of all the G7 nations. Barack Obama’s planned American Jobs Act has a lot of pressure on it to reform the employment system. There’s a long way to go before the mighty US economic engine returns to the prosperity it saw before the global economic meltdown. McKinsey predicts America must create over 21 million new jobs in this decade, but what kind of jobs will they be? In recent testimony before Congress, Georgetown University professor Harry Holzer, an authority on employment, predicted that high unemployment rates – and, very likely, low wages – would persist for years. “Low earnings will scar millions of young workers for years to come, even when the labour market fully recovers.” And that, say most economists, is a problem that many western countries will face in the long recovery from the Great Recession.

Hi Scarecrow
lets just hope that the US people vote for Obama. as the other lot are quite mad in my view. not that I know a great deal about the US.

by Shirina Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:17 pm

Please get Obama elected again.

Heehee, I only have one vote like everyone else, but rest assured, it will be going to Obama. Very Happy

by oftenwrong Sun Apr 22, 2012 8:12 pm

If Obama can take his mind off gathering Campaign Funding for long enough to run a Campaign, he's Home and Dry!

by Shirina Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:20 am

Obama wins 4 more years! - Page 3 101215_obama_smile_tax_reut_605

*tears up emmigration papers*

by oftenwrong Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:45 am

Commonsense prevails. Worth being awake at 4.30 a.m. GMT to get the result.

Now we have to see whether Obama is given the tools to do the job. For the last four years the Republicans have been able to stifle almost everything he tried to do, with their House majority. Is that going to change? There's an awful lot of the US political map showing the wrong colour.

by Shirina Wed Nov 07, 2012 5:51 am

I'm hoping that the Republicans have learned a lesson from this election. Even now, the analysts are saying that the Republicans have to reinvent itself or it will be a minority party for a long time to come. America is changing demographically, and the Republicans are trying too hard to maintain their shrinking base of White Conservative Christian Men. It isn't going to work anymore. If they listen to the analysts, the Republicans will make concessions this time around. If they don't, they'll doom themselves.

The political map always looks like that, but those broad swaths of red are sparsely populated rural areas ... the GOP can never win with those states because they're practically empty.

by ROB Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:14 am

Can President Obama win?

Evi-damn-dently!

by oftenwrong Wed Nov 07, 2012 1:01 pm

QUOTE: "....those broad swaths of red are sparsely populated rural areas .... they're practically empty."

On the rare occasions when I have been in conversation with American citizens about the "Red Indian" original inhabitants, someone always says, "but they didn't do anything with it!"

by boatlady Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:41 pm

what a relief!

by blueturando Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:36 pm

Wll done to Obama and his team....I am delighted with the result!!!

by snowyflake Wed Nov 07, 2012 7:06 pm

WooHooo!!

Do you think the Obama's do the In-Your-Face-Romney dance in private? Smile

by witchfinder Wed Nov 07, 2012 10:08 pm

I attempted to stay awake and see the outcome, unfortunately I just could not stay awake and went to bed about 1am, I awoke bleary eyed and put the telly on in my bedroom just in time to see the 7am BBC news.

I agree with Shirina - I believe that both the Republicans and the Conservative Party here are slowly dying because of a lack of change, a lack of understanding about the way people think and feel about issues.

For example, in Mr Obamas speech today he refered to "all Americans, black or white", something that would not have been said 50 years ago, he also said "gay or straight", something that I believe no Republican would still say even today in 2012.

AS time marches on and younger generations become adults, the attitudes of society are changing, but core Conservatives fail to see it, fail to grasp it and fail to understand.

Most people now realy dont care if the guy next door is black, Asian, Muslim or gay, and most people do not believe that America or Britain is a Christian nation, instead most people believe its Your Choice, you can believe what you choose, freedom rules.

The idea of freedom as marketed by Conservatives means a woman has no choice, no freedom, and that freedom means only Christianity or as one American put it "Jeudo-Christian values" whatever that is supposed to mean.

But its also political aswell as ideological, people everywhere are getting fed up of big businesses that think only of profit, they are fed up of everything been based on profit and loss with no human dimension, people are getting tired of pure undiluted capitalism with no compassion and no moral conscience.

Well done Mr Obama

by Shirina Wed Nov 07, 2012 10:26 pm

Very well said, Witchfinder.

Well said, indeed.

by Beth fph Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:42 am

The Republicans, today, have been intent on facing the realithy that "WE LOST". They've spent time wringing their hands and wondering, "How could it have happened!?"

Could be they're missing the point. Maybe it isn't so much that they lost as that Obama won. Smile

This transcript is from Hard Ball with Chris Matthews on election eve, 11/06/12 ... the sign off. The link will take you to Daily KOS whre there's a video.

Transcript:

Let me finish tonight with tomorrow’s election.

If.

Tonight it’s all about this: “If.”

If President Obama wins the election, it’s because of some vital actions he’s taken in office.

He rescued the American auto industry, one of those decisions that separates the two parties. This is important. Mitt Romney’s opposition to the rescue of Chrysler and General Motors wasn’t some isolated decision. His entire philosophy was against it.

A second step Obama took was to give legal relief to young people brought into this great country by their parents. When the Congress held him up on the DREAM Act, he did what he could by executive action.

Those he helped are not just the innocents here. They are future Americans because of him, hopeful of their lives, secure in their prospects because of this president. Instead of helping them “self-deport,” as his rival recommended, he welcomed them in our country and cheered them. Again, the action mattered and it separated him from the other candidate in vital ways.

If President Obama wins tomorrow, it’s because of other actions that carry tremendous vitality.

Equal pay for women. It’s the law and its enforceable because of the Lilly Ledbetter Act this president passed into law.

And open service—again, it was this president who established open service in the U.S. military. No more “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” That’s gone. You don’t have to pretend. You don’t have to hide to serve. You don’t have to hide a part of your life to put all of it on the line for your country.
And, as commander-in-chief, he led the action that achieved, finally, the mission of this country since 9/11: justice for the person who masterminded the killing of so many thousands of innocent Americans.

And he ended the American war in Iraq, and is ending it in Afghanistan by date certain.

And it’s been in the headlines what an exemplary job that he’s done leading the recovery effort from Tropical Storm Sandy, done so in a way that perfectly displayed bi-partisan cooperation in a tough situation.
He did that. Barack Obama.

As I said, the word tonight is “if.” If this president is re-elected tomorrow it’s because of the bold, controversial actions he’s taken. His margin of victory will have emerged from his margin of guts. He acted where others might have flinched or flubbed or said “we don’t need government to do these things.”
Now to the biggest “ifs”…

What the American people do tomorrow, what they’ve begun doing since voting first opened in this election.

If Barack Obama is re-elected, it is because of the historic alliance he struck when he asked New York Senator Hillary Clinton to be his Secretary of State. Offering her the most exciting, most distinguished position in the cabinet was a gesture that will go down in the history books. Her acceptance of this high position, along with her requirement of full autonomy in sub-cabinet appointments, was the deal-maker.

I grew up with the phrase “Democrats in Disarray” as a cliché, a headline written up when nothing was new, the old norm, the joke.

Today, tonight, the Democratic Party is united, with former President Bill Clinton losing his voice because he’s worked so hard for the president (the former president spoke tonight in Philadelphia and Scranton as the Obama campaign’s closer). There could be no more dramatic testament to this powerful alliance than what we’re seeing in the campaign’s close.

Powerful. That’s the only word to describe the Obama-Clinton alliance that could define the Democratic Party for years ahead. If Obama wins tomorrow, it’s due in powerful part to what Bill Clinton has been doing for weeks, the excellent work Hillary has been doing for four years.

If President Obama wins tomorrow, it is because of other Americans are doing their part.

Progressives. People on the progressive side of the party have stuck with this president, and stuck strong. Recognizing you can’t get it all, and certainly not all at once, they have seen the full dimensions of this race. They have looked at and heard the words spoken on the other side and have been left with an even surer sense of what matters. If the president wins tomorrow night, it will be because the progressives stuck, stuck hard and worked. They have kept the faith.

If the president wins tomorrow, it is because women learned the hard way that it still matters: the Supreme Court is perilously close to going the other way on reproductive rights, that belief in a woman’s right to think and to care and to be good is not something shared equally across the political spectrum. The crazy things said by certain Republican Senate candidates is not background music; it is coming from the same right-wing mindset that loves nothing, including human freedom, more than it loves the past, indeed, the distant past.

If the president wins it will because all the people who benefited from what he had the guts and foresight to do stand up and do their part. He wins if those who despise racial and ethnic prejudice act wake tomorrow hearing those horrible words that have been called out angrily against this president.
They will vote because they know deep in their suffering souls that those words, that villainy that has been rained on the president – that he’s not legitimately one of us, that he’s not really an American, that he is “lazy,” that he does not really love this country, is not aimed at him alone.

Not by any means.

This diatribe from that side is not aimed at one, lone man. Those words—”food stamps” and “welfare” and “lazy” and un-American and all the rest—have been handcrafted by history to destroy the rightful place in this country of too many good people to be counted. They will not stop from being spoken even if Obama wins to tomorrow. But let those words win tomorrow and you let those who spoke them win. And they will do it with more vehemence and all the more full-throatedness the next time and the next.

So tonight, I think of that word “if” because tomorrow, perhaps late tomorrow, it will be different. We will know who showed up and who didn’t. We will hear of the angry voter out to rid himself of Obama.

The big “if” is whether we will hear the same of the young, the hopeful, the believers in a better country, a fair-er country, a country where opportunity is democratic and American, where justice is reachable, closer to reality because of what we—all of us—do tomorrow.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/05/1156376/--If-Obama-is-reelected-Chris-Matthews-Brings-Me-To-Tears

by methought Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:17 pm

In practical terms there has been a bit of an awakening to acknowledge that young voters, women and ethic minorities have controlled the outcome of the election.

'The exit polls largely told the story. In the nineteen-to-twenty-nine age group, Obama won sixty per cent of the vote. He got ninety-three per cent of the black vote, seventy per cent of the Hispanic vote, and seventy-five per cent of the Asian vote. Fifty-six per cent of women voted for him, as did sixty-three per cent of unmarried people, two-thirds of secular voters, and about four-fifths of gays and lesbians. Romney carried fifty-nine per cent of white voters (male and female), a majority of all Americans aged forty-five or over, and fifty-seven per cent of married people. In ideological terms, Obama forged a liberal-moderate course to victory. Despite his post-Convention lurch to the center, Romney couldn’t win over enough self-identified moderates. In that group, Obama took fifty-seven per cent of the vote.'

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2012/11/victory-for-obamas-america.html#ixzz2BdXVMU11

So....

2016 - Condoleeza Rice against Hilary Clinton??

by Shirina Thu Nov 08, 2012 3:02 pm

Hillary Clinton, I believe, wants to retire from politics, so I doubt very much she'll try a run for the presidency.

by Beth fph Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:13 pm

I have the impression Rice won't give up her private life, nor put her friends through the invasion of privacy a race for the presidency would bring. Could be wrong but it looks that way to me.

Keep an eye on the up and coming. Someone will take the plunge .. wait and see.

by Icelandic Woman Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:28 pm

Hi Shirina!!!
I am thrilled with the outcome of the election!!! So I am guessing you are not going to move away after all Very Happy

I miss you at trivia!!!

Hugs,
Icey

by Sponsored content

Obama wins 4 more years!

Can President Obama win?

Re: Obama wins 4 more years!

Re: Obama wins 4 more years!

Re: Obama wins 4 more years!

Re: Obama wins 4 more years!

Re: Obama wins 4 more years!

Re: Obama wins 4 more years!

Re: Obama wins 4 more years!

Obama economics

Re: Obama wins 4 more years!

Re: Obama wins 4 more years!

Re: Obama wins 4 more years!

Re: Obama wins 4 more years!

Obama wins 4 more years!

Re: Obama wins 4 more years!

Re: Obama wins 4 more years!

Re: Obama wins 4 more years!

Re: Obama wins 4 more years!

Re: Obama wins 4 more years!

Re: Obama wins 4 more years!

Re: Obama wins 4 more years!

Re: Obama wins 4 more years!

Re: Obama wins 4 more years!

Re: Obama wins 4 more years!

Re: Obama wins 4 more years!

Re: Obama wins 4 more years!

Re: Obama wins 4 more years!

Re: Obama wins 4 more years!

Re: Obama wins 4 more years!