Well, the votes are in, the race is called.
So what does it mean?

Does this mean that expansive liberal policys (the liberal agenda) is accepted now? Does it mean the death of social conservatism?

Also, Your thoughts on what this election says about:
1) The pollsters and such saying Romney would win (even when most polls showing otherwise
2) Rassmussan credibilty (and by extension, Gallup's "new" method of polling that was made of fail)
3) Healthcare
4) the "spin" from the left that turns out isn't spin but was simple facts
_____

Personal note:
I don't believe that this is a -mandate- for pure liberalism.
America is a centerist (socially center left, fiscally center right) country. I think what truely clinched the deal was the image of Obama and Christie working together..people liked bipartisanship, liked a working government. I think people also rejected the venom against Obama overall thats been going on for years now..tone more than substance.

In saying that, the Reps have to understand what happened..they must now compromise here and there as per the will of the american public. trim up spending, but revenue must also be addressed in regards to budget balancing..and drop the social conservatism overtones/clean the nuts out of your party, and lead already verses just be the obstructionists. America -is- a progressive country...help drive the car towards a more perfect union for the many, or get out of the damned car.

Judging by all the gunfire in my area I'd have to assume Obama has won already LoL

obama won as many predicted, except the msm which tried its hardest to make it seem close to attract viewers.

it looks like romney doesn't even exist anymore. he's probably hiding in the bathroom as his ego was just completely obliterated.

i guess he and his money can keep each other comfy. i bet he just realized that money is just numbers. nothing more nothing less.

Romney is saying they didn't lose yet...

...


Lets see how this pans out.
(Karl Rove is flipping out)

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Well, the votes are in, the race is called.
So what does it mean?

Does this mean that expansive liberal policys (the liberal agenda) is accepted now? Does it mean the death of social conservatism?

Also, Your thoughts on what this election says about:
1) The pollsters and such saying Romney would win (even when most polls showing otherwise
2) Rassmussan credibilty (and by extension, Gallup's "new" method of polling that was made of fail)
3) Healthcare
4) the "spin" from the left that turns out isn't spin but was simple facts
_____

Personal note:
I don't believe that this is a -mandate- for pure liberalism.
America is a centerist (socially center left, fiscally center right) country. I think what truely clinched the deal was the image of Obama and Christie working together..people liked bipartisanship, liked a working government. I think people also rejected the venom against Obama overall thats been going on for years now..tone more than substance.

In saying that, the Reps have to understand what happened..they must now compromise here and there as per the will of the american public. trim up spending, but revenue must also be addressed in regards to budget balancing..and drop the social conservatism overtones/clean the nuts out of your party, and lead already verses just be the obstructionists. America -is- a progressive country...help drive the car towards a more perfect union for the many, or get out of the damned car.

I don't think that anybody that is rich like Romney should EVER run for president because they don't represent the U.S. I am not saying that everything Obama does is perfect. But at least with Obama as president and the fact that he is a democrat, there is more of a chance that the rich will have more pressure put on them to help the poor and the middle class.

I have another interest that I know many may not get, but I want people to really study what the word "mormon" means. Please study that word, because there is a lot of people that suffered deeply under the hands of the LDS church for the cause of truth. People such as Grant Palmer who wrote "Insider's View of Mormon Origins" and he was one of the best people that ever was an LDS member. He was disfellowshipped because he told the truth about the roots of the LDS religion. That the book of mormon is a fictitious book and is not an ancient history of people from the american continent.

People like Simon Southerton who wrote : In Search of a Lost Tribe, as a DNA expert, gave truth to the cause of indians of ancient america were not hebrew.

Because of Joseph Smith and his White Horse Prophesy, so many thousands of LDS thought
Romney was the one to come in on his white horse and turn the christians to understand that mormons the full gospel truth. The truth needs to come out about the word "mormon" and that it is a fictitious word.

If you were elected by a minority of Americans from the east coast all the way to California and only truly represented the urban cities of the North East and tip of Florida would you say that social conservatism is dead? I mean I suppose if you were a raging communist who thought lies were truth and the truth was a lie I suppose you could.

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
Good job douche bags, I hope the last 4 years were a treat for you all, as the next 4 will only be much worse.

Go obama woop woop.

Douche bags? really?

Listen. The right wing fringe nut media has been absolutely demanding Romney will win.
he lost..large.
Maybe all your concerns (again, fringey concerns) are also inaccurate..perhaps spend a bit of time looking at moderate factual (omg, liberal bias) sources for information..I mean, at this point you have to concede that at least on the voting polls (rassmussan and such) have been spinning reality.

Or you can simply believe the worst..which is also fine I guess..when you don't think anything good will come, and some good things do come, its a pleasant surprise..but your going to give yourself ulcers with such angst.

(is that considered a pre-existing condition?)

I that thought Romney would win. The money was behind him. The regime was behind him. His switching stands on issues hurt him late. So did the Can Drive. I was reminded of McCain wandering the halls of power, looking busy...

Hard to stand up to the president in a crisis.

Originally posted by ararisq
If you were elected by a minority of Americans from the east coast all the way to California and only truly represented the urban cities of the North East and tip of Florida would you say that social conservatism is dead? I mean I suppose if you were a raging communist who thought lies were truth and the truth was a lie I suppose you could.

Ahh if only cows could vote...

Just a small thing. It looks like Rasmussen was right on. They gave Romney a small lead in the popular vote and that's what it looks like now. They never predicted a Romney win. My faith in them is strengthened.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Bipartisanship moreso than gridlock. people get angry at gridlock, but working together...ultimately that is what people want.

And agreed with you. This is a rejection of tactics moreso than a embrace of ideology.

I think the left and right have shot so far in each direction, there's no way there will be bipartisanship. Not gonna happen. Just my opinion.

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Bipartisanship moreso than gridlock. people get angry at gridlock, but working together...ultimately that is what people want.

And agreed with you. This is a rejection of tactics moreso than a embrace of ideology.

I think the left and right have shot so far in each direction, there's no way there will be bipartisanship. Not gonna happen. Just my opinion.

Well, the drive to make BO a one term potus is now gone..
Economy is turning around, and even if a hamster won, in 4 years, the economy will be looking good.
So, I think now, if only for image for 16, the reps will be wanting to get claims to fame verses just create gridlock.

Frankly, now is the best time for bipartisanship.
If you consider the Clinton presidency, the bulk of bipartisanship was in the second term..same with Reagan, etc...

Maybe not full acceptance but we should at least expect more concessions, less obstructionism.

We need some level of government, it must benefit all of society (not just the elite) and it must be lean and functional.

I don't think that's too much to ask the GOP to cooperate with.