Obama: "we didn't have a majority in 2000, 2004" Really? I thought we wuz robbed

[robbedvoter]

But now that he said it, I can change my avatar into "ignoranceisbliss" (or "hope"?)
For anyone ready to "interpret" this - the context was that he is more electable because he'll bring more voters in the process.
And while he does bring some new voters (as other candidates do), ot doesn't make it true we lacked a majority in 2000 and 2004. At least in 2000 people are aware of the popular vote thingy - many about Gore winning Florida. 2004 - not so many - discreet candidates)

[peace13]

1. Those guys just don't get it.

They think none of us are watching or listening. He sounds like he would make a great Pres if he can't remember *hit already! Peace, Kim

[robbedvoter]

5. watching or listening to what? Your own candidate???? That would explain it.

I wasn't addressing this type of fanatic followers though, but people who may care about truth.

[xchrom]

2. it's the alternate reality called ''Hope''. --

or bizarro world.

simply bizarre he should say that.:eyes:

[Renew Deal]

3. We didn't have a majority those years.

So I don't get your point. When was the last time a Democrat got 50.01%?

[Mass]

6. Carter. Actually. Obama could have said we did not get a majority since 1976.

[robbedvoter]

9. My point ism GOP-ers didn't win a natiinal election since 1988. he made it sound

like they've been doing so again and again. Perception in these matters is very important - when one tries - for years to debunk a big lie.

[Renew Deal]

10. What lie are we debunking?

That Bush is president?

[robbedvoter]

12. that Bush was EVER elected

[Renew Deal]

13. Good luck with that one.

That argument flies in Democratic circles, but not in the real world. You can argue 2000 which I do. I don't argue 2004.

[MH1]

19. Shhh...don't disturb them with facts!

[Mass]

4. Did we get 50 % - Because it is what a majority is.

Yes Gore won, and Kerry probably did as well, but did they get 50 % of the votes.

[ccpup]

7. my partner and I almost fell off the couch laughing when he

mentioned the voters he brought over in his Senate Race. He was running against cuckoo bananas bat-shit crazy Allan Keyes who was a resident of Maryland at the time! :crazy:

[THUNDER HANDS]

8. Clinton never got 50% of the vote

and Gore got, what? 48%
Kerry got like, 47% right?

[ClericJohnPreston]

17. You Obamites

always have to go through hoops to twist logic over gaffes made by your never fallible candidate.

You scare me more than any Repub........

[THUNDER HANDS]

18. uh, what?

what are you talking about?

[Samantha]

22. I think Clinton got about 42% (something like that); Gore got a half-million more

than Bush; and we will never truly know what Kerry got.

Obama is NOT going to bring up the contentious theft issue if he wants to wave in some Republicans. That's why he is the candidate and we are not. We prefer the literal truth but in elections such as this the truth does not literally set you free. He needs some of those Republicans to get the edge over his primary opponent.

[robbedvoter]

11. "Majority rules" - he who has the most votes wins - that meaning familiar to anyone?

I knew spinning would ensue - but in "electibility" context he was talking about - majority=more votes than the other guy

[Renew Deal]

14. What you're calling a majority is actually a plurality.

[MH1]

20. Our educational system is really in tatters, isn't it?

[robbedvoter]

23. technically. In elections outcome terms. electability context - still "majority"

It's what Obama was talking about. Parse if you will, it's what he meant - winning elections.

[Satyagrahi]

15. You are misrepresenting what Obama said.

OBAMA: What I do want to focus on, though, is how important it is, when you talked about taking on the Republicans, how important it is I think to redraw the political map in this country. And the reason I say that is that we have gone through the 2000 election, the 2004 election, both of which were disappointing elections.

But the truth is that we as Democrats have not had a working majority in a very long time. And what I mean by that is a working majority that could push through the kinds of bold initiatives that all of us have proposed. And one of the reasons that I am running for president is because I believe that I can inspire new people to get involved in the process, that I can reach out to independents and, yes, some Republicans who have also lost trust in their government and want to see something new.

When you look at Bush and Cheney and their record, the one good thing they've done for us is they have given their party a very bad name.

(APPLAUSE)

That gives us a unique opportunity in this election, and what we can't do, I think, is just to take the playing field as a given. We want to expand the scope of the electorate so that we can start getting a 60 percent majority, more folks in the House, more folks in the Senate, and I think that's something I can do.

http://us.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/21/debate.transcript3/index.html

[burythehatchet]

16. that's not relevant. A talking point is being is being hatched. Do Not Disturb

[madrchsod]

21. oh please! do not confuse me with the truth

the truth is so ...well...the truth.

we can not have people posting the truth...

[robbedvoter]

24. 2000 and 2004 were not disappointing - they were stolen! (thanks for the quote)

[MethuenProgressive]

25. The Reagan fan is just not very good at Recent History.

Obama should go back to school...