It seems obvious that the landslide that was needed did occur.
While there's no question that Obama won the election, it's hardly the "landslide" the left thought it was going to be, no matter the GIGANTIC map the New York Times plastered up.I guess the Times wants to push the notion that nearly half the country lives in that tiny little section of red.
No question though, your map is the one liberals have placed above their beds on the ceiling.
Here's the *other* map the Times buried within:
Here's the USA Today map:
***************<br><br>This space left intentionally blank
But in this election, I believe Obama was an unknown to many people, so no matter how much he spent, it would be difficult for him to win by such a landslide.
Yes but the caveat here is that we've never had an unknown candidate so heavily and positively promoted by the mainstream media, beginning four years ago. Add that to the over $500 million in campaign advertising plus the "most important election of your lifetime" fear factor against a President who has been so heavily demonized by the mainstream media, and against a candidate that wasn't a homerun with Republicans. To all of this add a tanking economy on the cusp of the election. Given all of this, along with a week long "someone hand me another towel" victory dance, you'd think it would've been Obama by a much, much larger margin.
***************<br><br>This space left intentionally blank
Well I for one did not think that at all and Bush was wise to stay out of it - What I did see in McCain was the old Republican Mantra and you can only re-paint an old "Ford Maverick" so many ways if you know what I mean
So an election is on "price per pound" basis? A commodity? It ain't the cost, Matt. It's the result. I don't care if it cost half a dollar or half a trillion dollars. The GOP gets a time out so they can figure out what they've done wrong and the U.S. can start cleaning up its front yard.
What's your point? Did you ever think of the possibility that it wasn't just the mainstream media that was demonizing Bush? Perhaps it was the rest of the intelligent world as well? Check the Gallup site sometime for global attitudes towards the current administration, not all of whom watch whatever you call the "mainstream media."
When someone like you says "the mainstream media had it out for Bush," one can choose to take that statement one of two ways. 1) at face value, which means you're saying "the media that reflects the attitudes of mainstream Americans had it out for Bush," which I suppose could be true, given that people who work in the media are Americans (in spite of what some conservatives believe) and certainly for most of the past 4 years, most intelligent Americans have had enough of Bush. So, yes, guilty as charged. As a mainstream American, I say right now, if being biased against George Bush is a crime, then lock me up. I think I can guess where they'll put me (rhymes with "Bitmo").
2) Or, and this is more likely, when someone like you uses the phrase "mainstream media," you mean (in typical Orwellian fashion) the exact opposite. To you the "mainstream media" is a bunch of latté-drinking East Coast elitist liberals with a crypto-communist agenda, backed by shadowy international cartels bent on undermining the American dream, against whom "Real Americans" only have a few beleaguered allies, like Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and "The Drudge Report." Well, wait a minute, isn't Rush Limbaugh mainstream? He's got millions and millions of dupes listening to him all the time! And the extremely well-heeled Fox organization? What are they, pirate radio? OK, fine, the Drudge Report website looks like it was put together by a myopic 4-year-old, but that doesn't automatically make it "underground."
The whole notion of the Bush administration, which was essentially the spearhead of a decades-long initiative led by conservative think tanks funded by corporations and well-heeled evangelicals, being some sort of underdog in a battle against the "liberal press" is just laughable. If Bush is an underdog, so is the Chinese Men's Gymnastic Program.
Anyway, I think I have figured that you are essentially saying the following: "If your guy Obama is so great, and given all of the elements stacked in his favor, however unfairly, why didn't he win bigger?" Which is to say, I guess, that Obama doesn't really have the support of real Americans.
First of all, maybe he's not so great. Maybe he only looks great next to George Bush. I mean, I voted for Obama, but frankly, if my choices were between a flaming bucket of poop and George Bush, my first thought would have been "Well, at least the flaming bucket of poop won't appoint any more Samuel Alitos."
Second, look at the demographic of who voted Obama in--it's all over the socioeconomic map! After a campaign in which McCain and Palin basically harped on "small town values," they got what they wished for--small town voters. the problem is most Americans don't live in small towns and small town values are a divisive illusion fostered on us by people like Lee Atwater and Karl Rove for the past 30 years.
Finally, John McCain ran an incredibly inept campaign. Former admirers of McCain and even people like me, who used to think "he's not bad for a Republican," had to endure the painful spectacle of McCain tearing off big chunks of his integrity and throwing them into the coal chute just to keep the campaign going, the biggest chunk being the selection of Sarah Palin just to please the decidedly no longer mainstream Republican "base" of anti-intellectuals and evangelicals. This decision had the unfortunate twofold effect of alienating a lot of swing voters and seriously calling into question McCain's decision-making ability--what did he use, a Magic Eightball to pick her? McCain could have won if he'd stayed away from Bush moves.
Addressing your "fear factor election of a lifetime" comment: Certainly this was a historic election. Unfortunately, it turns out the most important election in most of our lifetimes happened in 2000, and based on the attitudes of most of the world and 76% percent of Americans, it didn't go at ALL well.
George Bush, the "guy most Americans would rather have a beer with than Al Gore" at that time, got drunk on power, got in brawls with the rest of the bar customers*, locked a bunch of people in the john wihout telling them why, slapped the Constitution down on the table and took a big dump all over it, and will shortly, FINALLY, be escorted out of the bar, but not without sticking us with a bar tab we'll be paying for generations.
But really, going back to your original comment: "If your guy Obama is so great, and given all of the elements stacked in his favor, however unfairly, why didn't he win bigger?" Again, I have to ask, what's your point? He still won. You sound like a poor-sport Little League dad. Look at today's Gallup poll:
PRINCETON, NJ -- The extent to which Barack Obama is experiencing a post-election wave of good will from Americans is evident in the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking results, from Nov. 9-11, in which close to half of political conservatives -- 45% -- say they are "confident in his ability to be a good president." About the same percentage (46%) disagree.
That's not exactly an iron-clad mandate but it sure is better than Bush's 24% approval rating among everybody.
So why don't you wait and see what happens? Maybe this guy has a chance to (at the very least) clean up some of W's mess. At best, maybe he'll put the US back on the right track toward honor, peace, and sustainable prosperity.
*Let me clarify: He got in a fight with the guy in the bar that actually threw the first punch, but rather then finish that guy off, he decided to take a swing at another guy sitting at the bar giving him dirty looks just because the guy in question had a history with his dad and some of his business partners. So now, we still haven't finished off the first guy, who's probably waiting in the parking lot with some more scumbag friends. Meanwhile, he did finish off the second guy, because it was no kind of a real fight, but now we've moved into the second guys' house and the only way we can keep his relatives from killing each other over the property is to have them focus all their energy on how much they hate us.
Edited by H. Habilis (11/13/0810:20 PM) Edit Reason: clarified
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.