Wednesday, November 21, 2012
The man who came in second place for Vice-President this year, Paul Ryan....
Paul Ryan says that President Obama won because of a high turnout in urban areas. The truth is that he is saying this because it makes him feel good. The fact is that President Obama did as well as Democrats usually do in swing states in urban areas. So the President did well there, and that was to be expected. Nothing was new there, but Paul Ryan claims that he knows why he and Mitt Romney didn't win the election. Not true. He doesn't seem to know a darn thing. He needs to come up with a better reason than that. If you look at the 8 swing states that the President won, the President only did marginally better in some of them then the last election running against John McCain, and in two states he actually did worse, and the state of Florida was really the only state where there was a significant increase. This was a state that the President didn't even have to win to win the election. So when Ryan says that the surprise urban turnout that happened this year makes makes him feel better about what happened, but it really doesn't explain WHY it happened. So his thesis is not true.
How about Mitt Romney in 2012 verses John McCain in 2008. Among liberals that are happy that Mitt Romney lost this year, and among conservatives that are claiming that they know the reasons why Mitt Romney lost, there has been a fair amount of bi-partisan Mitt Romney glee over the idea that Mitt Romney even received fewer votes for President than John McCain did in 2008. It turns out that this is not true. It may have looked like that on election night or on the day after the election, but millions of votes weren't counted right after the election, as it may take days and even weeks before you get all of the votes in after an election. The fact is that President Obama beat both Romney and McCain easily. It wasn't even a close election, but believe this or not, Mitt Romney was closer than John McCain. Mr. Romney did beat Mr. McCain in terms of the absolute number of ballots cast, which is neither exciting or may just be population growth depending on your perspective. But if someone tells you that John McCain got more votes than Mitt Romney, no matter why they are telling you this, it is definitely not true.
How about another guy named Dean Chambers. He ran the now famous for all the wrong reasons website "unskewed polls" (http://unskewedpolls.com/). That website became famous in the campaign for being hilariously but very self-confidently wrong about polling in the Presidential election. 'Unskewed polls' said that everyone else's polling assumptions were wrong, and if you fixed them, you would see just how much Mitt Romney was going to win the election by. 'Unskewed Polls' said that Mitt Romney was going to win the State of Florida by more than 4 points. He was supposed to win the state of New Hampshire by 2 points. Mitt Romney was supposed to win the State of Iowa by 3 points. There was supposed to be a Romney blowout in Virginia, as he was to win by 6 points. Mr. Romney did not win the states of Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire or Virginia, let alone by the margins that Dean Chambers predicted. Now, this website becomes the political standard for 'wrong' when it comes to polls. So now that he failed so miserably, what does he continue to do. He brings up a website called 'Barack O'Fraudo'. It's all about voter fraud, and that President Obama stole the election in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Florida. If you look at his map on the website, those four states are marked in black. The excuse of voter fraud is the reason why Dan Chambers says that President Obama won those states. So saying things in politics that make you feel good seems to be the norm on this website. But people need to look at the facts portrayed on this website to the facts that actually happened so they can learn from them. The website is a total joke.
Unfortunately from the Conservative side after the election, people must continue to bear with the lies that continue to come forward from this group of Americans that really don't really seem to know why they lost this year and also in the previous election. If they can't get it right, then how will they get it right for the next election in 2016?
The bottom line is that if the Republican base does not get a good leader and get that person soon, then 2016 and 2020 should be in the bag for the Democrats. President Obama had one of the least popular Presidents that ran for re-election but actually won. This fact is not secret. If there weren't a law stating that a sitting President could only go for re-election only once, then I could safely say right now that the President could be re-elected again, unless the conservative movement could get their act together soon. Even with this said, until the Republican party becomes more organized on the issues and more realistic in their beliefs on a wide variety of subjects, they just will not win election in 2016, but the new Democratic candidate after President Obama will.