Obama supporters, you aren't in fact the majority

@xfahctor (14113)
Lancaster, New Hampshire
April 10, 2009 7:14am CST
So, before you start attacking me, listen. Obama did in fact win the majority of votes. However, more people DIDN'T vote than voted for either candidate. In other words, the total number of people who didn't vote is more than the number of votes Obama recieved. So, going by numbers, people who voted for McCain combined with People who didn't vote because they didn't like either of the major party candidates and felt a 3rd party couldn't win, going by those numbers, nearly 3/4 of people eligable voters DIDN'T support Obama's ideas. So sorry Obama supporters, you are not in fact in the majority in the country. Granted, you at least showed fortitude and went out and voted, but your ideals are not represenative of the majority of the people in this country.
8 people like this
13 responses
• United States
10 Apr 09
Thank you for saying this. Everyone who is trying to shut us up seems to think that 0bama won by a landslide, but 52% of votes does not a landslide make, and it is not indicative of what the majority of Americans wanted to happen.
4 people like this
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
10 Apr 09
I just wish everyone who didn't vote, did. It's sad because the loud minority always over rules a silent majority. We would see a very different whitehouse right now.
4 people like this
• United States
10 Apr 09
Yeah we would! Voters are a small minority, if everyone who could vote, did vote, there probably would have already been a 3rd party candidate in the White House by now.
2 people like this
• United States
10 Apr 09
But the electoral college would never vote a 3rd party candidate in so it doesn't matter if you vote 3rd party. That is why so many people that support 3rd party candidates don't vote. They know the electoral college can overturn them.
2 people like this
@ZephyrSun (7399)
• United States
10 Apr 09
Attacking? You're one of the few sorta conservatives on this site that is respectful. I suppose that the Republicans should have put up a better candidate, or should I say VP candidate. I know several that voted for Obama only because they didn't like Palin.
2 people like this
• United States
10 Apr 09
There are a lot of Republicans who thought there should have been a better PRESIDENTIAL candidate too. I voted for McCain, because I like him and believed in him, but a lot of Republicans did not like him at all and many stayed home rather than vote for McCain. I think Mitt Romney either on the Presidential or VP spot on the Republican ticket could have been a game changer.
1 person likes this
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
10 Apr 09
Well, there was only one republican I would have considered voting for and despite his party affiliation, I don't consider him a republican, but he was washed out early on.
3 people like this
• United States
10 Apr 09
Was it Rudy, Huck or Fred? Or another who left early on? I couldn't support Rudy for President, I'm hoping we get him in NY as our next Governor (although there is much I don't like about the man, he'd be good for the State unlike the dingus that's wrecking up the place now).
1 person likes this
• United States
10 Apr 09
Besides your point that only 52% voted for 0bama, there is the unpleasant reality that many of those 52% no longer support 0bama. As 0bama continues to perform poorly as President, 0bama's support overall is dropping. As time continues, it will drop even more. Let's speculate right now that 0bama's support before his four years is over will be around the level of the US CONGRESS. What's that? 10% or so?
2 people like this
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
10 Apr 09
even bush didn't get that low, though he seemed to try pretty hard.
3 people like this
• United States
10 Apr 09
True, Bush did not get as low as the US CONGRESS. However, Bush was in opposition to the US CONGRESS. Bush was not of the same party as the majority of the US CONGRESS. Bush largely disagreed with the US CONGRESS. 0bama is of the same party as the majority of the US CONGRESS and mostly agrees with the US CONGRESS. Look for 0bama's support to head for the levels of the US CONGRESS. It is inevitable. Don't forget too, that Bush had a popularity of 92% at the high point of his Presidency and still fell quite low. 0bama will never see the immense popularity once experienced by Bush. Therefore, it would not surprise me at all if 0bama fell to lower popularity than Bush merely because he has less distance to fall to reach those levels.
2 people like this
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
10 Apr 09
I am pretty sure Obama has already seen his peak, unless something miraculous happens or we wind up in another war.
1 person likes this
10 Apr 09
You may be correct in a way. However, if you further take into consideration that Obama received the second highest percentage of votes, based on the total population, ever in US history (www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/population-and-popular-vote.html), the validity of your argument starts to change. This election roused more interest in the population than any other over the last twenty years, surpassed only by our actor president, the "Great Communicator" Ronald Reagan in 1984. Then if you add worldwide voting statistics to your argument, it is further diminished. Worldwide only 53 - 77% of any nation's population votes (http://jdasovic.com/2008/01/23/voter-turnout-across-the-world/). So really in every nation you could make the claim that the majority of the nation is not supportive of the current policymaker in power. And finally, there are far more reasons for a lack of voter participation than a lack of voter support. Some would rather not vote because of the reasons you list, but also many could not vote (jobs, sickness, travel and other obligations often keep people from doing many things that they otherwise might), many do not understand the point of voting (the thought may be "my life won't change no matter who is president, so what do I care?"), some people are just non-political, and if we recall, in this country many of our citizens (something like 1 in every 140, http://crime.about.com/od/prison/a/bjs040720.htm) are denied the ballot because they are considered criminals/felons unworthy of the right. To provide such a simplistic argument, as the one you give here, to undermine the effect President Obama is having on the country is uninformed and unfounded. Furthermore, your point in many ways, at this juncture, is a non-issue, moot. President Obama is currently representing the people of this country because he is the president. It is time for the country to get behind this man to make change. He has clearly demonstrated that he does not require complete agreement, merely the spirit of cooperation.
2 people like this
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
10 Apr 09
I was speaking specificly to eligable voters. You do raise a few good points. Of the people who feel their life won't change no matter who is in office, or are simply not political, if you ask these people a few basic questions (and I have, a lot) you discover very quickly the ideologoy they embrace is very much at odds with the democratic party and often with the current republican party as well. Also, of this group, they seem to say with an overwhelming majority, that if they felt a 3rd party "could win", they would in fact vote for them. You combine that number of people with people who voted for McCain and you still have a staggering majority. Now, to your second issue. So what "effect" do you see me as "undermining?" Yes, Obama did in fact win and is now representing the country. However, I will not get behind a president, or any other political figure who I consider to be at odds with the constitution. Obama, and indeed, a large percentage of congress, falls in to this catagory. The constitution should be the gold standard we hold our elected servants to. With out that, nothing else falls in to place. The majority of problems we face in this country can be directly traced back to not holding to that standard. So, again, I will ask, what exactly is the effect you see me as undermining? The continuing erosion of our constitutional republic? If that is what you mean, then, yes, I stand proudly guilty.
2 people like this
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
10 Apr 09
Incidentaly, you should also understand I did not vote for McCain, I am not a republican and have just as many issues with the previous administration.
3 people like this
• United States
11 Apr 09
X, are you off your medication? I am sorry to say this X, but this is one of the most stupid things I have ever heard. This had to come from right wing hate radio, they are the only minds that could come up with such stupidity. If YOUR candidate couldn't get people out to vote, or couldn't take votes away from another candidate is YOUR fault. For someone who talks so much about the constitution, I find it funny that you don't understand that Obama won the majority of votes, and the election. X, it is time to move on, the election is over. GET OVER IT.
1 person likes this
• United States
11 Apr 09
the only thing I'm debating is your ability to argue effectively, debater. So according to you, I should just give up on the Constitution Of The United States Of America just because some turd was elected by an uneducated electorate? On the contrary, now is the time to show people how stupid they were. If we are vocal enough, we will succeed.
• United States
11 Apr 09
Ima, you make is sound like this is the first time this has happened. In 1996 a group of far right wing conservatives got together and researched how Bush Sr. lost the election in 1992. Their conclusion was that we won the war in Iraq to fast, and if he would have wait two years, the American people wouldn't have thrown him out of office during a time of war. Now if the electorate was so educated in the 2004 election, they would have known this and would have thrown Bush out of office (due to the fact that five of the men that came to this conclusion were in his cabinet). The fact is that most elections are not won by an informed electorate, they are won by a manipulated electorate (see 2004 election). Lets all be honest here Ima, the fact of the matter is that the republican party is in BIG trouble. If Obama turns the economy around and gets us out of all of these messes this will be the second time in thirty years that a democrate cleaned up the mess left by a republican, and why would Americans trust them ever again to run the country? What the conservative party needs to do is distance themselfs away from the republican party, or they will be brought down with them. I am not telling you to throw your constitutional rights away (like many republicans have tried to do to me), I am just using my mine to point out that X is just wrong.
1 person likes this
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
11 Apr 09
Since you took off the gloves, I will act in kind. the only stupid happening here is your failure to grasp the point of the thread, but since you can't seem to be able to remove the wool coat I guess I should just pity you instead of insulting you. And your assumption is wrong (as usual), this came from basic truth, not right wing radio, I know your propaganda box has conditioned you to respond like that so, again, I should be pitying you, but I'm finding it harder and harder these days because it is self inflicted ignorance. Are you at all capable of responding with out using something you heard on MSNBC? Your candidate only enjoys the majority of the vote. We can trade poll numbers all day long but they don't mean much to anyone accept to people who can't walk away from Olbermouth and MadDyke long enough to think for themselves for 5 minutes.
@anniepa (25613)
• United States
11 Apr 09
You're right and the same has been true of every election with some changes in the numbers. However, it could be said that since those who were eligible to vote but chose not to made that choice they were casting their votes for "Whomever the most of those who bother to vote picks". Even if they didn't vote because they didn't like either major candidate and didn't think voting for a 3rd party candidate would do any good, they were still leaving it up to the rest of us. Therefore they're part of the "silent (and lazy!) majority" by default. Annie
1 person likes this
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
12 Apr 09
"Therefore they're part of the "silent (and lazy!) majority" by default." THANK YOU! To me, those are the people who deserve what ever dictatorship the people who voted brought in, along with the people who voted it in as well, whatever form or party it comes in with.
1 person likes this
• United States
11 Apr 09
*applause* Thank you for speaking that statistic out loud. Thank you for encouraging thought not guided by the almighty idiot box.
@jonesy123 (3951)
• United States
10 Apr 09
Interesting way of looking at it. I hadn't even thought about it that way. So he isn't really backed by the majority of the country. Nice to know. And yes, as somebody else already pointed out, support is waning. But that was to be expected. Those who thought that they have found a politician who truly meant it this time have found, well just another same old same old.
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
10 Apr 09
Like I said in another comment, if only all those people who could feasably vote, got behind someone else and did. It is truly heart breaking.
@anniepa (25613)
• United States
11 Apr 09
Where exactly is "support waning"? I don't consider a 66% approval rating something to sneeze at! Annie
@jonesy123 (3951)
• United States
11 Apr 09
Lol, the last I heard it was something like 51%. I guess it depends on who does the polling;)
@sablay (36)
• Philippines
11 Apr 09
people voted obama because they want change they are sick and tired of white man governing the white house.they're experementing what if a black president runs the house and i think it's not bad at all.what happened to bush's regime it went down that's why we have now a global crisis.obama is focusing to give americans jobs and benefits that's why people voted him.and why would some americans vote for mccain for he has lots of conspiracy right.
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
11 Apr 09
Um, no, bush's "regime" didn't go down, he couldn't run again, his 2 terms were up. try learning a little bit about our poilitcal process before you comment on it ok? And there were more candidates than just McCain and Obama, again, try to learn a little bit more before you comment on our elections.
• United States
11 Apr 09
Lol, no "conspiracy" behind Obama though...
@sablay (36)
• Philippines
11 Apr 09
the fact of the matter is obama did win and i mean huge baby.it doesn't matter if there are people who didn't vote.but i new it from the start obama will win because here in the philippines our solid obama hear that.and our relatives there voted for obama my friend so where did you got your info.obama is second most popular to reagan a lot of celebrities big star or not supports obama.and most americans wants change and it means no more discrimination anymore.
• United States
11 Apr 09
Great grasp of the situation. I so love the Mob Rules mentality.
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
11 Apr 09
Since you don't even live here you do not have a single CLUE how the majority of the people here think. If your basing this on how stars think, than your onl;y basing what you believe about us on hollywood. I hate to break this to you but hollywood makes MOVIES. Besides don't you guys have your own elections comming up next year to worry about? How about staying out of ours.
• United States
11 Apr 09
I've kinda always assumed the majority of people were dumb. And all ACORN did was get the majority of people to vote. Ergo, ACORN got a bunch of dumb people to vote for 0bama. There are way many sheep than shephards.
@berrys (866)
• Singapore
11 Apr 09
firstly let me just say that I am not racist. however I do think that the majority of people who voted for barack obama was because the citizens of the states wanted to see a non-white man get the presidential title. Everyone sees Obama as the man of change. Granted he did give a hell of a speech but I think people were mainly interested as he wasn't the constant white male in the white house. True Obama could be the best thing for the states economy, but so far he has done little to prove nor deny so.
@gewcew23 (8012)
• United States
10 Apr 09
Even if we go just with the actual vote and break down the numbers Obama's views are not any where close to a majority of American voters. Think about it like this what if some 60 something white male like John Kerry had said the same things as ole Barry had said does any one really believe that john Kerry would have been President. I believe that if Old Mac had gone up against I once served in Vietnam McCain would have been President. Why do I believe this well a lot of voters voted based on color or because Obama was new, and nothing to do with his politics.