The networks have refused to call this out of fear of losing advertising dollars. It’s over. By a wide margin.
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
# 167 Paddy-O
“#166, The last election to show a mandate was in 1980.”
NOT TRUE!!! Look up the definition of mandate!
#168
You’re right. Winning by even one vote gives the Pres a mandate.
Crap, market drops by largest % of any day after Pres. election in history.
169 Paddy-O
Technically yes but Obama won by 7 million plus and 186 electoral votes. That is a wide margin for most presidential elections.
169 Paddy-O
Besides Regan in 1980 only had about 1 million more popular votes that Obama had last night.
Reagan 43.9 million
Carter 35.5 million
#172
Yes, but ours is not a popular vote system. It is designed around states electing the Pres. How many states did Carter & Reagan win? A lot.
Oh and a higher percentage than Reagan
Reagan 50.75%
Obama 52.08%
So I guess you think Obama has a mandate right? Since you think that Reagan did.
#174 Per the definition anyone who wins has a mandate.
What I was talking about (incorrectly calling it a mandate) was a land slide. See how many electoral votes Reagan took. I think Carter in ’76 cleaned the Repubs clock also.
I think Reagan took 49 states when he won. Obama came nowhere near that.
# 173 Paddy-O
That is such a lame argument for who has a mandate. Everyone knows you can win every state and only have 50 votes more in the popular vote.
That DOES NOT MAKE A MANDATE!!
#176 “That DOES NOT MAKE A MANDATE!!”
Winning makes you have a mandate. You are correct as per the definition that you had me read.
So, Obama does have a mandate. I’m not arguing that, you corrected me.
Landslide? No. Reagan & I think Carter were the last Presidents to do that.
# 175 Paddy-O
There are 538 Electoral votes. Obama won by 186. He had more than double what McCain had. That is a land slide. It isn’t the biggest landslide but it is a landslide. When you combine his Electoral margin with the popular vote margin it is without question a landslide.
# 177 Paddy-O
Fuck he won by more votes than John McCain had!!
If you can’t call that a landslide I hope you don’t have kids because you will cause them to have to seek mental help as adults.
#176,
“That is such a lame argument for who has a mandate. Everyone knows you can win every state and only have 50 votes more in the popular vote.
That DOES NOT MAKE A MANDATE!!”
I think it’s all a matter of interpretation. If the primary issue had still been our continued military operations in Iraq, then Obama winning against McCain would clearly indicate that people supported his position about leaving Iraq and refocusing on Afghanistan. I would consider that a mandate.
However, there would be no mandate for some periphery plan of Obama’s to push through a nationalization of all soybean farms (just as a made up example).
#178 & 179
It is a matter of opinion. I don’t consider that amount to be a landslide. I consider ’64 ’72 & ’80 as examples of a “landslide” victory.
It’s an opinion.
# 180 Sea Lawyer
“If the primary issue had still ”
The primary issue was the economy! Obama had a very clear plan for the economy. He won. That is a mandate.
# 181 Paddy-O
“It is a matter of opinion.”
To some degree yes but there is a general consensus of the approximate level that defines a landslide in a presidential election. The boundaries are around 300 to 400 electoral votes. Yours is at the very far side of the definition. It is one only met a few times in history. The problem with your definition and opinion is that it completely ignores the popular vote. In your “idea” of landslide a candidate could win by 50 votes and you would call it a landslide because they won all 50 states. Can you not see the flaw in that reasoning?
I will remind you Regan only received 50.75 % of the votes Obama received 52.09%. That is a wider margin of victory than Reagan
#182 “In your “idea” of landslide a candidate could win by 50 votes and you would call it a landslide because they won all 50 states. Can you not see the flaw in that reasoning?”
Ours is not a popular direct vote system. So, by our system as laid out in the Constitution it is not flawed. Now, if we change the Constitution to a popular vote system then yes, it wouldn’t be a landslide. But, we have the system we have…
#164 – “At least with a presumably incompetent government agency, the charter would be TO provide health care.
Therefore, even if they do a bad job, they would do a better job than a competent entity designed to avoid providing care.”
I understand where you’re going, but the statements do not logically follow. IF there was a government charter to provide health care, you could never write enough legislation to ensure quality care for all who seek the care. The ONLY acceptable solution is for the decisions to be made by patient and doctor without outside interference.
Additionally, imagine going to the DMV for your heart transplant. Sorry, I won’t play that. At least the free market still gives you the freedom of choice. You can pay $100K for your transplant here, or you can choose to go to India and get it for $6K and have money left over for business class travel, 5 star hotel, and still pay less. Smart insurance companies are even now offering coverage for some procedures to be done internationally because they save money and get equal quality care.
To hack apart a Churchill quote, the free market is the worst way to allocate resources on the planet, except for all the other ways of doing it.
# 183 Paddy-O
“Ours is not a popular direct vote system.”
Yes I am aware of that and it is flawed, both the electoral college and your reasoning. When it is possible for a person to get fewer votes and win there is a definite flaw in the system and it does not represent the will of the people to elect their representatives.
Regardless of popular vote, your definition for landslide (by electoral votes) falls way outside any reasonable definition and way outside the accepted range. Like I said he had more than DOUBLE the votes that John McCain had. That is an ass whooping or a landslide or a wide margin. Call it whatever you want it is a LARGE victory.
# 185 Thomas
You fucking republicans are in such denial right now. You will do anything to try and diminish the ass kicking you received last night. Well if you want to compare Reagan to Obama….Right now Obama is beating Reagan. Reagan only had 50.7% on his first election.
#186 “Regardless of popular vote, your definition for landslide (by electoral votes) falls way outside any reasonable definition and way outside the accepted range.”
I gave recent examples. Please site recent examples that fall within that definition you gave.
#187
Since it has been 45 years since you have won the Presidency handily I can see how you might think that. Obama won handily. Landslide? Please. You need to take 70-80% of the States in the Electoral College to claim a landslide.
Obama Wins! Stock Market Loses!
# 188 Paddy-O
Some of the ones you listed, not all, plus 1992.
In 92 Clinton got 370 and 5 miilion more popular vote.
The range is for when you START calling it a landslide.
189 Thomas
Wrong!! We did it in 1992.
# 189 Thomas
“You need to take 70-80% of the States in the Electoral College to claim a landslide.”
Where did you get that bullshit deffinition?
Welcome to the Paddy-O/J show. Now a word from our sponsors…
# 194 hhopper
Is Thomas side show mel?
#88 dexton7…
wonder how’d i missed that… if he
has backing from the Bilderberg Group
then all bets all are off. there is no
way hell he’d ever go against the
“establishment”
that explains how a virtual unknown
got on the presidential ticket so fast.
what little history we have on obama was
mostly written by him..or made to appear that
way. call me a synic, but the timing of his
grandmothers death was too convenient. she was a
lose end imo.
-the economic thing on Nov 15th will tell all.
will he be for America, or for the new world
currency/government..
the worst part of it all is if i heard him
right, he’s all for (global) carbon taxes.
the carbon tax scam is THE perfect instrument
to control the econmic/industrial output and
prosperity of not only both 1st and 3rd worlders,but for the small business and joe plumbers of the world as well..
-wonder how people will respond to
Enviropolice tipped off by civilian
obama certified, envirosnitches.
hate to say it, but the brainwashed
Obamazoids are going to be seriously
let down in thinking that obama is for
the people, -let alone the “little”
people. he’s the new central
bank backed puppet.
if you think the neocons stomped
all over the constitution, wait till
you see what an unchecked left
government lead by a bank backed
meglomaniacal elitist will do.
free speech, right to bear arms,
right to political dissent..will
be mere shadows of their former selves,
if not history.
i really hope i’m 150% wrong on
all this. but history as well as
current events are all pointing
to some hellish days coming very
soon. the next 150 days or so should
be very telling..
-s
#193 –
From Wikipedia, for what it’s worth, “Thus, a landslide victory can be either over 55.5% of the popular vote or over 60% of the electoral vote.”
#191 Yep. 1992, That could be called a landslide by your earlier parameters.