It would be nice if those DUers who

[malaise]

consistently laughed at those of us who called this election for Obama early and told us how close it was going to be, acknowledge that they were wrong. ReTHUGs received a major shellacking in both the Presidential and Senate elections.
The Presidential election was over the day Obama took out Bin Laden - after that it was his campaign team's superior ground game; and their consistent messaging re women, minorities, fairness and decency. Pathological LIARs like Rmoney and Lyan did not fool the American electorate.

Despite its flaws, the American political system is legitimate and was always going to pass this test.

[JaneyVee]

1. They received a shellacking in the House vote too. Too bad for gerrymandering.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

2. +1 nt

[malaise]

13. Yep - it's hilarious how they are now using the gerrymandering

as proof of a Mandate in the House.

[Honeycombe8]

3. I thought it was going to be close. I have nothing to apologize for....

I thought he would win the popular vote by a bit, and I predicted a conservative 290 EVs, and admitted it was a conservative prediction.

I have nothing to apologize for. That was based on the polls. Obama did win the popular vote by a bit. And he got two states I wasn't counting on (but knew he MIGHT win, but I didn't include in my prediction AND he didn't need them to win)...VA and CO.

FL...I certainly didn't count on that, because it was so close, and remembering 2000. AND Obama didn't need it.

I have no more to apologize for than someone who predicted a landslide, which didn't happen.

I see myself as being correct, although not exact. I'm not a statistician, after all. Why the hard feelings against those who didn't predict the EXACT outcome? What's that all about?

Who laughed at you? Let's see some names.

(Let's not forget that Obama won decisively, but the battleground states he won...they were in fact narrow wins in many instances. He didn't win PA by as large a margin as we expected, or OH, or WI. My point was...a win is a win, and that was good enuf for me! And the data pointed to it. He had been leading in most of the battleground states for some time, as Silver pointed out. That spoke volumes to me.)

[malaise]

18. No need for names

The question is why did you think it was going to be close?
Were you influenced by the lies and spin by ReTHUGs and M$Greedia.
Even so called liberal pundits were pushing this shit, but I have long suspected that they were merely earning their Christmas bonuses and playing it safe in case it was stolen. Their producers needed a horse race but there was nothing there - starting with Rmoney.
The Obama campaign is the most professional outfit I have ever seen and from the voter suppression was exposed early I knew they had this thing covered. Rove's shit was too old to work and men were way ahead of him this time.

[Honeycombe8]

26. I went by data. Not pundits. Those who thought he'd win a landslide, that was wishful thinking

and a "feeling." Like Romney's followers.

The data did not predict, to me, a likelihood of winning, say, Virginia. Romney had been leading in VA for some time. It was only the last day or two that Obama ticked ahead slightly in VA. So I didn't count it. I hoped, but didn't count it. He also didn't need it, so it wasn't very important to me. I didn't give VA a lot of thought, once I realized Obama would PROBABLY win. (I always still acknowledged, as Nate Silver did, that there was a POSSIBILITY of a Romney win.)

The popular vote WAS close. Which was my prediction, based on teh NATIONAL data. I never saw anything to indicate that Romney would win the popular vote, as pundits and media said.

I was pretty close. 290 EVs vs 303, on election night. I simply didn't count CO and VA because Romney had been leading there until late in the game, or in the case of CO, it would change frequently and always still be VERY close.

I was right, as I see it. My point was: he's been leading in almost all the battleground states for some time; therefore, he would win. The fact that someone else included a state I did not, or did not include a state that I did...minor points. A difference of a couple of states.

[malaise]

30. The popular vote was not close at all

Obama won by over 3million

[Honeycombe8]

44. Yes. About 1.5%. I hadn't realized it had gone up that much from FL. Election night it was 1%.nt

He ended up getting about 50.8%.

[brush]

51. And still counting

That 50.8 is going to go up as there are ballots still uncounted in several states.

[OldDem2012]

39. Let's see...the President wins by at least 3 mill pop vote and more than 100 EV....

...just my opinion, but that doesn't really meet the textbook definition of "close".

Oh, by the way, there are still a few million votes that have yet to be counted....all in heavily Democratic areas.

[OldDem2012]

43. Adding a recent post by DUer Creek Dog....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021781670

Final Obama-Romney vote totals (Romney ends up at 47%)

Last edited Sat Nov 10, 2012, 08:57 AM USA/ET - Edit history (3)

So many are wondering, guessing at final turnout, final margins for the overall popular vote. So I did a little estimation.

I took the outstanding votes estimated per state, applied the existing margin per state, assumed it carries (it may not).

Here's where we would end up (about 80% of the remaining vote is in states Obama won):

Current Counted Votes
Obama: 61.6 million (50.5%)
Romney: 58.5 million (48.0%)
Others: 1.9 million (1.5%)
Total: 122 million

Remaining votes: 10.6 million
(Obama/Romney): 6.5 million/4.0 million

Estimated Final 2012 (2008)
Obama: 68.1 million / 51.3% (69.5 million/52.9%)
Romney: 62.5 million / 47.1% (59.9 million/45.7%)
Others: 2.0 million / 1.5 % (2.0 million/1.5%)
Total: 132.6 million / 0.9% increase from 2008 (131.4 million)

I'd love a bigger margin, but if Romney ends up at 47%, that will be too beautiful to beat.

[lalalu]

32. Well said.

[hfojvt]

56. seems to me it WAS close

Margin of victory

Virginia 114,000 13 EV
NH 40,000 4 EV
Iowa 87,000 6 EV
Ohio 107,000 18 EV
Florida 64,200 29 EV

simply flip 207,000 Obama voters into Romney voters in the right states and Rmoney is in the money.

207,000 votes out of 122 million cast. That's a .17% margin of victory in practical terms.

We were THAT close to going out forever.

[InsultComicDog]

67. you can make a similar case for most elections

[hfojvt]

71. Many elections have been close

2000, 2004, for example. 1968, 1960.

Look at 2008. McCain had 173 electoral votes. So he would need 97 more to win

So

Indiana 28,391 11 EV
NC 14,177 15 EV
Florida 236,148 27 EV
Colorado 215,004 9 EV
Minnesota 297,945 10 EV
New Mexico 125,590 5 EV
Ohio 262,224 20 EV

7 states and 589,740 votes

Not nearly as close

And it gets even tougher picking up 111 EV for Dole in 1996 or 159 EV for Dukakis in 1988 or 221 EV for Carter in 1980.

[cynatnite]

4. What would be the point?

Of course, the House never changed.

[Evergreen Emerald]

5. I always thought that Obama would win...until

until the voter suppression became apparent. The stories of long lines, court rulings that allowed muddied messages, machines that switched votes all coupled with the confidence that Romney and his cohorts had in their success--scared me. They could only win if they cheated.

I saw Stephanie Cutter Wednesday evening indicate that we should not worry about voter suppression. When she said, you get out and vote, and we will make sure your vote counts--that calmed my nerves. But, I have to admit, I was a bit nervous Tuesday when the suppression stories started coming out.

[cali]

6. I'll happily admit I was wrong. I have no problem doing so.

Though I disagree that it was a done deal that the President was going to win the day bin-Laden was killed.

I did think we'd be fine in Senate races.

I also don't think the American political system is anything close to legitimate or that this election proves that. I think it's a bloody, ununiform mess, flooded with questionable money that can't really be traced, rampant with voter suppression and gerrymandered within an inch of its life.

Furthermore, I'd like to note that Mittwitt was a truly awful candidate with a terrible campaign staff. And a good pathological liar certainly can fool the American electorate.

This political system is certainly NOT legitimate- despite the re-election of the President and impressive gains in the Senate along with modest gains in the House.

[malaise]

9. What is legitimacy? n/t

[cali]

14. Uniform laws in each states, getting rid of Citizen's United

Far more checks on voting machines- for starters.

[malaise]

19. No - legitimacy is the view of citizens that the government rightfully earned its right to rule

You are speaking about an efficient and professional electoral system and I agree with you 100%.

[cali]

23. actually, what you suggest is simply one interpretation

A legitimate system is one which has the components necessary to make elections, well, legitimate.

[malaise]

27. I said legitimate political system not

electoral system. I agree with you re Citizen's United but the billionaires wasted their money while enriching M$Greedia and consultants like Rove. The fact that they could not buy the elections is more proof that the political system is legitimate and sound - citizens were engaged and decided to participate despite the electoral obstacles imposed by ReTHUGs in a FEW states.
The fact that the Judicial branch of Government (local and Federal) shut down the voter suppression further demonstrates that the political system is legitimate.

[Honeycombe8]

31. I hope (against hope?) that Congress tackles this issue. The RIGHT to vote EASILY

is paramount.

People with diabetes or other illnesses, a cold, arthritis, bad knees, etc., simply CANNOT stand in a line for hours to vote. It'd be bad enough to wait in a room with chairs, but to make people stand for that long means that some people will not be able to vote. That needs to be fixed! That is unconscionable. And I would say that, whether the voters are Republican or Democratic or Libertarian.

[BlueCaliDem]

52. I would opt to take Rick Hasen, professor of Law & Political Science

at UC Irvine, advice. He is also the author of "The Voting Wars".

He says we can circumvent presidential and mid-term election fraud by making these Federal elections . . . Federal. It is constitutional and it only takes Congress to pass a law to do it.

Rachel Maddow had a piece on this the day after the election:

http://video.ca.msn.com/?mkt=en-ca&vid=3907d68d-04ec-4b09-8df9-98017b98bfc4&from=sharepermalink&src=v5:share:sharepermalink:&from=dest_en-ca

[Honeycombe8]

11. I thought it was a slam dunk after the Dem Nat'l Convention. Then the 1st debate happened.

And the drop in polls after that, gave me pause and worried me. That was based on data. Then when he picked up in the polls again, did well in the next 2 debates, the data reflected, again, that he would win.

I go by data.

[malaise]

21. Only the media could push the view that one debate could decide the plethora of issues

affecting American citizens. Who hosts the debates and ring up their ratings - the stupid ill-informed media - those greedy mofos who spew BS most of the time.

How could two empty-suited, pro-rich, pathological ReTHUG liars, spewing racist and ruling class BS win an election off one debate?

[Honeycombe8]

22. It wasn't the issues alone. It was performance. As Obama himself joked...

he had a nice long nap during that first debate. It was his performance. No one even remembers the questions.

[malaise]

29. Debate performance?

You thought American citizens were going to replace real performance with a 90 minute debate.
That BS propaganda was pushed by ReTHUGs, their hacks and a few over-exited members of the liberal media.

[OldDem2012]

40. I seem to recall that Romney lied and flip-flopped constantly during that first debate.....

....but instead of flaming the crap out of him for doing so, the MSM lauded him as the "winner" of the debate!! Just a couple of decades ago the media would have run the lying charlatan out of town, and quick!

I would argue that the President didn't take "a nice long nap", but the MSM did, and they will never recover from the damage they've done to their own credibility. I was particularly disappointed in the behavior of a number of "journalists" at MSNBC who ran around shrieking that the sky was falling. Only Bashir, Sharpton, and O'Donnell stayed steady after the debate and the days following.

I was also disappointed in the number of DUers who bought the idea that a major flip-flopping liar could win anything, much less a debate.

[malaise]

41. 100% correct

I watched Brokaw and Williams praising the pathological flip flop of a lying ReTHUGand nearly tore my hair out. And yes even DUers thought he won the debate lying about everything. Even Tweety, Rachel and Ed Shultz ignored the lies for 24 hours.

[Honeycombe8]

46. Yes, Romney lied. But the fact is....Obama lost. Yes, Romney's a lying SOS....

That doesn't negate the fact that....Obama lost the first debate. No one needs a pundit to tell them that. I saw it myself. Millions saw it. They didn't need anyone to tell them.

Obama acknowledges it. He LOST. Get over it.

(Here's a tip: If your debate opponent lies, and you let him repeat lie and lie without countering the lie or calling him on it, or speaking the truth yourself, you have lost the debate.)

[Ikonoklast]

69. I got it exactly right.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021465556

You...not so much.

[Honeycombe8]

47. You weren't watching the same MSNBC I was watching during and after the 1st debate.

Everyone at MSNBC was horrified, and Big Ed was angry, that Obama let his debate opponent spout lie after lie, without calling him on it.

But it's not about the media. Did you watch the debate? If you didn't notice, well I did....Obama lost. He had a bad night. Obama acknowledges it. Move on with your life.

[OldDem2012]

57. Yes, I watched those screamers at MSNBC and was horrified by their bad behavior.....

....and their total inability to call Romney on every single lie. Tweety and Big Head Ed were total embarrassments as far as I'm concerned. What MSNBC debate did you watch?

And yes, it is indeed about MSM's failure to call out Romney the instant he began lying until it was clear to EVERYONE in the country that you don't win debates by lying your ass off. It wasn't that long ago that the media would have run Romney out of town for such a performance.

You're welcome to your opinion, but you're not going to force it on me or anyone else that doesn't agree with you. If you have a problem with that, then you need to move on with YOUR life and find another board.

[Honeycombe8]

45. Sigh. This isn't a controversy. Obama lost the 1st debate hands down.

His numbers in the polls began to sink and didn't start recovering until after the 2nd debate, which he won.

Did you watch the comedy night...when Obama and Romney and other politicians spoke? When Obama himself joked about his performance at the first debate?

This is not an issue that's debatable. It's settled. He lost big time. Romney stepped out of the way and let him lose. He lied repeatedly, and Obama just let him.

Obama had a bad night. He's HUMAN. Get over it. Move on.

Read fivethirtyeight.com, articles discussing the first debate....factually. This is not opinion. This is data.

[Honeycombe8]

48. Yes, a debate is about DEBATING. It's not about fact checking...

when determining who won. It's a sparring match.

When Romney lied, which he did...what determined the winning and the losing was that...the debate opponent ALLOWED IT and didn't call him on it.

The purpose of a debate is to do JUST THAT....one-up your debate opponent in DEBATING. It's a speaking, argument PERFORMANCE.

Obama lost, when he let his opponent lie repeatedly without calling him on it. Obama stuttered, was not prepared, and his manner of speaking, which is naturally halting and thoughtful didn't lend itself well in that particular situation.

Obama had a bad night. It's not about truth. It's about DEBATING. Got it?

That's why Obama's numbers sunk in the polls and stayed there until after the 2nd presidential debate, which Obama won.

[OldDem2012]

58. Hmmm. "It's not about fact checking"????....

...You're parroting the GOP plan of action....why is that exactly?

It is indeed about the FACTS, got it?

That's why Romney LOST the election, got it?

Have a nice day discussing this with someone who's willing to swallow your nonsense.

[Honeycombe8]

63. No. The PEOPLE decide who won. Not fact checkers afterwards. Millions decided

that Obama lost. Not necessarily that Romney affirmatively won. Two different things, really. At least to me.

I see why you're upset. Romney lied. That's the point. The other debater, Obama, didn't point out that he had lied, or do anything about it. That's the purpose of the debate. So the lies were left to stand, leading a lot of people, who didn't knkow better, to believe what Romney said. Obama's numbers in the polls went down after the first debate.

It's really not a subjective thing....that the people in the country determined Obama turned in a dismal performance at the first debate. It's backed up by data. Obama himself acknowledges it. He's not God. He had a bad night. He won the next two debates and recovered.

[malaise]

62. IF a debate is not about fact cheking

then it has no place in an election campaign for the highest office in any country

[Honeycombe8]

66. The PEOPLE decide who won. If a debater lies, and the other debater doesn't call him on it...

then the lie is left to stand as truth. The people who are not following politics closely (that is, most people) don't know that debater #1 lied. But even those who do know, noticed Obama's performance. He wasn't able to speak coherently on some of the issues, he stuttered, he seemed unprepared. People noticed. Even Obama jokes about it ("I had a nice long nap during the first debate&quot .

Facts SHOULD be checked and pointed out. That IS done afterwards. But those 70 million who were watching that debate are not watching any of that. They don't know any of that. If the idea is to get votes (which it is), you have to convince those 70 million on that night, that YOU should be President.

The people decide who won and who lost, or rather...who they would or would not vote for. It's THEIR decision. Not Tweety's or mine or yours. That's how a debate is judged: by what the people think about the performances, and that is reflected in the polls.

Obama's numbers went down a good bit after that first debate, and they stayed there until the 2nd debate. Which Obama won (the PEOPLE decided that Obama won it).

Nate Silver discusses all this. And it's reflected in the polls. I don't understand why some people on DU are having a problem with this. All my Democratic friends noticed, hoping it wouldn't cost the election. It was common knowledge for most people who saw the debate. It happens. He's not God. Obama had a bad night.

Debates are about debating. It's an art, a skill, or whatever you want to call it. It's not just standing there and spouting your positions on issues. You are sparring with your opponent, back and forth...pointing out untruths, errors in their judgment, and in the meantime, showing your speaking and persuasion skills, your leadership and quick thinking.

[Honeycombe8]

50. Here ya go. Funny stuff.

And this:

The media didn't determine who won. 70 million people watched the debate, and based on that, a lot of them decided not to vote for Obama. It's clear that most of those 70 M thought Obama was absent at the debate. A lie that goes unchallenged to someone who doesn't know, is left to be thought of as truth.

I love Obama. No one is a bigger supporter. But I don't live in a bubble. I can see what's what, even through my subjective eyes.

[OldDem2012]

59. Ignore. nt.

[Honeycombe8]

60. I know you can't see this, but for the record: If you can't take facts, why are you in a forum like

DU? There are others out there, where they don't bother with the truth.

The jokes are Obama's jokes. Not mine. And he was very funny.

[Safetykitten]

7. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021741756

[malaise]

35. Good post

[NNN0LHI]

8. As for our political system being legitimate and always passing the test?

Imagine if Florida was the deciding state this election and we were waiting until noon on Saturday for them to count their votes. You know damn well the Republicans would have figured out a way to steal it by now.

Florida has some work to do in this area. Too important of a state to be run like a banana republic during their elections. It is shameful.

Don

[malaise]

24. So there were three or four states with problems - serious electoral problems

but the electoral system is one part of the political system and if there were very few problems in 47 states, then it is a minority of states where ReTHUGs tried to undermine the electoral system. What's more civil society, elements in the media and the judicial branch of government (local and Federal) put the ReTHUG legislators in their place and shut down the voter suppression. They lost - the political system is more legitimate now than in 2000 (Florida) or 2004 (Ohio) so the system worked.

Just wait for the charges to follow and men and women will be charged for trying to subvert the electoral system.

Yes, the US political system remains legitimate - despite its flaws.

[lalalu]

10. I predicted

President Obama would knock Romney out during the next two debates and would win just as Nate Silver stated.

So I get to dance and sing "Who's Bad"

[Honeycombe8]

15. Me, too. I just didn't dare dream he'd get over 300 EVs. But he didn't NEED to.

That was good enuf for me.

[malaise]

36. DUer Statistical gave me some serious lessons

( as in tore me a new one) re Nate Silver in a previous election and I benefited from those lessons. Silver is first rate.

[Turbineguy]

12. Maybe the credit goes to the voting public.

It turns out that fewer Americans are as gullible and easily manipulated by RW hate as some thought.

[malaise]

33. Absolutely - they believed that if they turned out

they would prevent this seriously flawed candidate from buying the government - hence the system is legitimate.

[obamanut2012]

16. I trusted Nate Silver and his numbers

And I -- and his numbers -- were gloriously right! I also could see lots of pushback against the worst of the Teabaggers, and Deadbeat Dad Walsh mocking a military hero and amputee, along with the "legitimate rape" candidates, just hammered that nail into the coffin sooner.

[malaise]

37. People are not gullible

They have been waking up

[obamanut2012]

49. And, I think this election was a huge grassroots rising

Against racism, homophobia, extreme anti choicers, election buying, etc. People of all genders, races, backgrounds said, "WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH!"

Obama was handed a hugemandate, and I do NOT want him "sitting down" with Romney, or calling Boner and the rest. They can come to him. Pelosi will crack the whip in the house, and Reid needs to take her steel and do the same in the Senate.

Enough with reaching across the aisle. KICK ASS!!!!! And make America better for everyone!!!!!

[madokie]

17. In my heart of hearts I knew that we were going to prevail

I admit that I was cautiously optimistic but down deep I knew we had this one. Better yet our President and Vice President had this. I learned years ago to never say never, to never count the chickens before they hatched if you will so from that I was prevented from out right declaring that we are going to win this one. I guess its a superstition I have

[malaise]

38. I was calming folks here

[KurtNYC]

20. About 2 weeks before the election DU was pervaded by paranoia

Many who looked at the election with clear eyes were called trolls or worse. A group of thugs were allowed free reign to drive users away from DU. Ugh.

[malaise]

25. And that is why we need this thread

We want our DUers who were bullied to return and those who were wrong to acknowledge that they were wrong.

[ladjf]

28. It didn't "pass the test" in 2000. nt

[malaise]

34. And Bush remained illegimate in the eyes of huge numbers because

what went down suggested that the political system was not legitimate.
The Supreme Court appointed Bush - not American citizens. And then we had some very strange happenings in Ohio in 2004.

American citizens corrected it by 2008 and here in 2012 Rove could not pull this one off. That suggests that the system is way more resilient than some persons believed.

[redqueen]

42. Legitimate, but seriously flawed.

We were helped by Romney being such a fuckup and Obama being incredibly charismatic.

The problems in 2004 could happen again if we get another candidate like Kerry.

I wouldn't be getting overly confident about how legitimate our process is as if that guarantees that 2000 and 2004 could never happen again because enough people are aware or much will be done. There is a lot to be done. Many of us had the same expectations you did before, when previous elections were stolen (i.e. that people would be punished... instead, at least one major player was on MSNBC on election night talking about how there was no effort to supress the vote... funny, that).

[proverbialwisdom]

53. Election integrity concerns were valid, in view of the MSM narrative hyping a big Romney win.

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/12537-why-the-democrats-and-media-deny-election-rigging

Monday, 05 November 2012
By Ben Ptashnik, Truth-out, Op-Ed

"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it. Truth stands, even if there be no public support. It is self-sustained."
Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi

It has been an axiom of the election reform movement since the 1970s that "sunlight is the best antiseptic." For that reason I spent more than a decade, including my two terms as a Democratic state senator in Vermont, attempting to shine a glaring light on the pernicious nature of money in politics. Much later, my political antennae led me to believe that finance reform was only one side of the coin, and that it is equally important to focus an antiseptic light on the machinery of elections - what is commonly called election integrity.

That our computerized voting machines could be hacked, even in the good old US of A, has been pronounced a national threat by no less than the Department of Homeland Security. The fact that the machines are ripe for fraud has been proven repeatedly by computer scientists from Yale, Princeton, Johns Hopkins, Rice, Stanford University, the GAO, the Brennan Center for Justice and government-commissioned studies in states like Ohio and California. The Department of Energy Argonne National Laboratory - usually entrusted with matters of nuclear security - easily hacked into voting machines in a few hours with $26 dollars in parts.

Meanwhile, in this coming election, thousands of these privately programmed and serviced voting machines are counting the votes that will fundamentally affect the balance of power in US politics, perhaps irreversibly.

So it is vexing to me that, while our country is veering precipitously to the right, with dire consequences for the planet and society, some commentators in progressive and liberal media institutions refuse to believe that the GOP may not limit itself just to dirty tricks and voter suppression. These erstwhile defenders of democracy and justice immediately and emphatically deny the possibility that certain rogue right-wing elements, and GOP operators like Karl Rove, could possibly be complicit in rigging elections. This denial is preposterous; these right-wing operatives have proven that they will lie and cheat, so why would they not steal?

<>

These stories are forcing a fundamental question into the public sphere: Should private corporations be allowed to control the machinery and software of elections without serious oversight?

<>

[jberryhill]

54. I told everyone it was in the bag, and no need to vote

Next time, for sure, the message we should focus on is "Don't worry, there is no way we can lose."

[malaise]

73. I agree with the view that caution is necessary and people should tell others

to GOTV but I did not like the way were attacking those who were confident of victory.

[jberryhill]

74. People get nervous in different ways

It's the kingdom of paranoia here before a vote.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

55. I thought the outcome became obvious during the Repub primaires.

When the likes of Santorum, Cain, and Bachmann forced Romney to paint himself into a very small, very indefensible, very rightwing corner where there were very few votes to be had.

From there on, the whole business just became a long expensive bore.

[DonRedwood]

61. I WAS wrong...I said he'd take North Carolina too.

(and I thought Georgia and Arizona would be closer...misourri too

[Marrah_G]

64. Sorry this isnt a sports event, no one needs to apologize to anyone else

If people were worried, they were worried.

[liberal_at_heart]

65. 48% of America still voted for someone we laughed off the stage

We are a divided country. I am glad Obama won the popular vote though. I was not looking forward to hearing all the republicans gripe about the popular vote.

[upi402]

68. The "flaws" need to be fixed this time, however

We escaped between the horns but clean elections are a MUST-DO, imho.

[bluestate10]

70. The hair on fire "we could lose" types got to me too. I was sick of their fear. nt

[PCIntern]

72. Malaise, I'll tell you really got on my nerves here...

I, and many other posters would make a point about how this or that looked pretty good to me and several reliable respondents would then post: well, we need to GOTV! Or, "Are you planning to vote?" Or: "Dont get cocky", with a pic of Harrison Ford as Han Solo.

Give me a frigging break...how many DUers didn't vote? How many people actually read this and what the hell was the difference if I went into Election Day feeling good about things? WTF was it to them? It's a frigging message board read by next to nobody in the grand scheme of things...if I said that things looked good in PA! Would that mean that one of our Pennsyvania brethren here wouldn't bother to vote, or to assist with the campaign? I don't think so.

Imagine if you were working in Chicago for the campaign, and you turned to your supervisor and told him or her that thought that this county looked good for Obama, and you were subjected to "Don't get cocky, kid." Or "yeah maybe but we still need to get out the vote!!!1" every time you opened your mouth? You'd go running for the door. I almost did here.

[malaise]

75. Very well said

I understood the fear of complacency but I found the 'taking the wind' out of the sails of those of us who knew we had the better candidate, a much better media campaign and the better ground game rather annoying and disheartening.

By the way targeting the 'bane of the LIAR's existence' very early was freaking brilliant.
We should include the Occupy movement for making folks understand the 1% candidate's real interests.

I am still trying to figure out how people saw Rmoney as competition against Obama.

[PCIntern]

76. To answer you last statement...

I quote, I believe, Sununu, "you just have to look at him..."

[malaise]

77. LOL

They'll be looking at that black man for four more years because they are the minority.

[DCBob]

78. I think what bugged me the most were the hand ringers and nervous nellies..

some of whom I suspect were trolls just trying to discourage us.

[jimlup]

79. I will confess that I was saying it would be "close"

Only because I was nervous about the Repuke's trying to steal Virginia, Ohio and Florida.

Otherwise I was right down the line with fivethiryeight.com. So I think you shouldn't be calling out everykone who said it "would be close".

Frankly it was close in the popular vote. And it was scary. Going in we didn't really know for certain what the Repukees would try to pull. For me - saying it "would be close" was more of a coaching statement to my fellow DU'ers. I really didn't want us to start celebrating too early.

[Iggy]

80. "Pathological Liars Rmoney and Ryan did not fool the American electorate"

uh, I get it, but the fact is MILLIONS of people still voted for the liars.

since many of these people are in the One Percent, that means people in power have a seriously F***ed value system and world view. these are the doofs pushing back against doing something about climate change, etc.

IMHO, we're still years away from having parity representation in congress to deal with this nightmare. the senate is almost half comprised of millionaires.