Well, when people are unhappy with the government and economy, often they blame the current political party. Bush had a very low approval rate (30%) so a lot of people were tempted to vote democrat. And although there were lots of people who voted for him just because he was black, there were definitely people who refused to vote him in just because he was black. Plus, statistically, black people tend to vote democrat anyways. On top of that, lots of republicans didn't like Palin, so that probably hurt McCain as well. I think Obama would have won either way, but he would have won by a lot less.
Actually, there were people that were admittedly racist and they said, on one of the news channels that I used to watch, they would vote for Obama just because they know he wouldn't get in.
On a somewhat unrelated note, McCain probably would have won if he didn't have Palin as his vice. Considering he's old, people didn't want him to die and then have her be president.
Or maybe they just didn't want an effing nutcase like McCain to be pres. Just sayin.
lol I'm sorry but if you really think Obama is even close to doing that, or wanting to do any of that you have been listening to too many conspiracy therories and you need to get your head back to reality.
so a nutcase like Obama is better? NDAA, all that's need to be said.
Yea and mccain and palin werent any less "nutty"
well in retrospect they seem like a better option than Obama and 1st lady madame deficit. I would think at least they would not be so hasty in transforming our country into a totalitarian police state. and I assure you that if Obama is reelected he is gonna go all out, gun bans, imprisoning dissenters, martial law, U.N. presence, etc. They've already made the preparations, and once he doesn't have to worry about a reelection then the shit WILL hit the fan. is that "nutty" enough for you?
McCain doesn't like babies to be killed. Who's the nutcase?
You can't judge a candidate just because of their stance on a single social issue.
Presidents should be elected for economic and foreign policy, not social issues.
Shouldn't the individual who is voting be the one to decide which issues are important?
The president has more direct control in economic issues. It's silly to vote in social ones, because there's not a lot they can do to enforce their point of view.
This is even more true with the current economy.
Thanks to Obama
Actually, they have pretty much equal control over social and economic issues. It doesn't really matter what the issue is, the president only has limited room to enforce their opinion. And yes, many people would agree with you that it is more important to vote on economic policy. But I get tired of people saying what is most important to vote on. Whatever is most important to you as the voter is the most important issue. That's the whole point of having a voice in the election of government officials.
It's rather silly to vote for a candidate on a social issue because the most they can do is encourage Congress to pass a law in their favor, and sign/veto the law. While with economic and foreign policy, they have much more control over what happens.
If someone thinks that abortion is the most important issue and they vote for a candidate because of that... well, more power to them, but it's ignorant voting and shouldn't be encouraged.
Yeah he wants them killed, because they can't go to the hospital, or because a random maniac can possess guns or because they have to go to war, for no reason
You can thumbs down it, but doesn't change the fact that after these kids are born they need to live a good life....
I agree. They do need a good life, I'm just not a big fan of internet arguments.
if they wanted a historical election, they would have voted for clinton to be the first women. they were just doing that because if obama didnt win, poeople would say that whoever didnt vote for him was racist.
Just the way people would have been accused of being sexist for not voting for Clinton or "age-ist" for not voting for McCain? It would have been a historical election no matter who won. McCain was very old and came with a female VP (who a lot of people didn't trust the country in the hands of), Clinton was female/ former first lady, and Obama was black and young. If people wanted to make history or not be considered prejudice, they could have voted for any of the candidates. I personally think Obama won because of his promise of change.
Change regarding his policies, that is. I would like to believe people are not voting just to have a historical election or to not be considered prejudiced.
Yes, that would have also been a historical election, and of course they would have played the racism card, but do you really think that his political stance was the only thing to persuade his voters?
Nobody wanted Palin. That simple.
If anyone voted for Obama because they wanted a historical election, they're fucking idiots. Period.
A Democrat was going to win in 2008 no matter what. Sarah Palin's stupidity didn't help the Republican cause.
We didn't want a moronic hockey mom as a VP, especially when McCain was so old he looked like he was going to die the day after inauguration.
Yeah... must be nice to come from such a privileged and sheltered background that you can convincingly feign ignorance of the conditions under which unwanted children grow up. Have fun judging what you don't know anything about; conservatives are good at that.
Hey, I'm not trying to offend anyone, I was just wondering if anyone agreed with my idea. No need to get hateful. Yes, I have been blessed, but along with everyone else, I've had my share of problems. I do have compassion for others although I will admit that you are right, some conservatives aren't a lot of times. However, I do think that liberals tend to rebel just for the heck of it. They're good at that :)