Why the President won re-election

It’s been an interesting couple of days reading all the theories as to why Mitt Romney lost the election.

In fact Mitt Romney did not “lose” the election, Barack Obama won it.

I have read almost all the articles siting reasons for Romney’s loss and they all have validity, but they overlook one simple fact.

The electorate wants to still believe in Barack Obama.

Looking at the exit poll, and I think by now we should appreciate the danger of ignoring polls. The statistic that jumps out is 53% still blame George W Bush for the economy. Through the months of the election cycle, the number of people who still blamed Bush for the country’s current problems always lingered at the 50% mark. It was a statistic that bothered me.

It was a statistic that showed me that the electorate did not want to blame the current President for the country’s current problems. When President Clinton told the American people ” No President could have fixed the economy in four years,” he told the people what they wanted to hear. He gave them something to believe.

Don’t get me wrong all the arguments about Obama’s negative campaign are valid and portend a future of even more campaigns filled with negativity. The President’s campaign combined that with the message; “it’s not my fault.”

The electorate chose to believe him, they simply did not want to fire him. How else do you explain an easy willingness to support him after one photo-op and over-the top praise from a Republican Governor.

I’m not prepared to discuss the Governor, as a New Jersey Republican these have been some very difficult days.

In the end the electorate gave Barack Obama a second chance not based on rational thought or policies, they did so because they felt he should have more time.

Some of my biggest mistakes came from actions that were based primarily on how I felt.

So, let us recap. Four years ago, Barack Obama was elected President on “hope and change.” President Obama was re-elected on the argument that he needs more time to achieve his “hope and change.”  Basically, the electorate repeated it’s actions of four years ago expecting different results.

In remembering Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity:  “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”

One can only conclude: the electorate has gone insane!

About these ads
This entry was posted in politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Why the President won re-election

  1. Hello says:

    I voted against Mitt because he didn’t give me anything in debates or on his website that made me think he was a better candidate than the guy I voted for. During debates, Mitt would come out and say he had a 5 point plan, but never expanded on that. Obama came out and said he had a 3 point plan and he actually talked about these 3 points. Romney said his plan would help our economy, but never said what the details were that would help the economy.

    He released his plan on his site far too late to help him.

    • Bret Rickert says:

      Wrong his plan had been there from the start. He began with 59 points narrowed it down to 5. He did say how his plan would help the economy you just didn’t hear it. Exactly how is more of Obama’s plans going to help?

      • Dustin says:

        That’s a prime example of the naive, brainwashed, uninformed, kind of American who only saw a couple feet in front of them rather than the cliff at the horizon. If they want the whole country to be the same class, we will be, and that’s the lower class. There’s no incentive to create a business anymore, and who do you think does all the hiring? The government? Hah! I’d rather have a raise at my place of employment than a tax break.

      • Bret Rickert says:

        Not much for me to add to that comment.

  2. Vipul Redey says:

    I would totally have voted Mitt if he were the pragmatic, fiscally conservative, socially moderate Massachusetts governor I knew. No way was I going to vote for the Christian Taliban though – Between Paul Ryan and the Tea Party, there was way too much crazy on that ticket!

    • Bret Rickert says:

      So you knew what he was, but believed what the oppositon presented.

      • Stacey says:

        Knowing what he WAS, sure. But as his campaign continued he became very different than what he was.

        As governor he was almost as centrist as Obama with regards to economic policies and fairly centrist with regards to social policies. Why he changed his tone to appeal to the minority crazy from the evangelical right I’ll never know. It was his biggest mistake.

      • Bret Rickert says:

        As “centrist as Obama?”
        Sigh.

      • Mazer Rackham says:

        How do we know which one of them he really was? He played both parts so well that either one could have been real and either one could have been fake.

        Ryan on the other hand, we know exactly where he stands. He’s defined himself entirely by his obstructionism and his “path to prosperity,” which might as well be called the “path to continued prosperity (for those already incredibly prosperous).”

      • Bret Rickert says:

        First, Republicans won in2010 to obstruct and second, what is Obama’s path?

      • Mazer Rackham says:

        Correct, the number one goal of the republican party was to make Obama a 1 term president:

        This is an ASTOUNDING admission. This means that if given a choice between helping the economy and hurting president Obama, they would choose to hurt president Obama!

        Once you reach this point, any argument about the actual merit of the president’s policies goes out the window. All of your rational reasons as to why specific elements of his plan are bad, are illegitimate, because you’ve already admitted that even if his policies were good, you would oppose them. This is a shame, because surely there are valid and useful ideas that the republicans could have contributed to our country over the past 2 years, as opposed to literally shutting down the entire government.

        As for Obama’s path… here:

        http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.pdf

        Have fun reading. It’s much longer, more nuanced, and better researched than the Ryan Romney plan, which runs a lot like this:
        Step1: cut taxes and eliminate regulation for all industry
        Step2: ???????
        step3: Profit!

      • Bret Rickert says:

        Yes, he said that on Decmeber 10, 2010 after the election and I only wish they succeeded. Perhaps these companies would not have just announced lay-offs due to Obamacare.http://www.examiner.com/article/scores-of-us-businesses-announce-closings-and-layoffs-due-to-obama-s-re-election Where was that in Obama’s plan?

      • Vipul Redey says:

        I’m voting for an administration, not just a guy. And a Romney administration would have been overstuffed with religious loons of Taliban-esque proportions starting with the Veep! I’m a minority, and the positions I saw each of the Republican candidates taking on social issues in the primaries were beyond distasteful to me. When a buncha nut jobs stand up there and to a man, disavow global warming or evolution, insist they’re pro-life while refusing to give up their semi-automatics (or acquiesce to life-saving healthcare for all), and demonstrate outright xenophobia and/or misogyny, I can’t help but go “WTF???”. I do want small government that gets out of the way of business and lives within it’s means, but there are some things that are just more important.

      • Bret Rickert says:

        Really, you rhetoric will be your undoing. You got what you wanted. Enjoy the next four years.

      • Vipul Redey says:

        ??? This is a dialogue, I thought, and I’m more than happy to be convinced I’m wrong. Perhaps you shouldn’t be soliciting feedback if you are so convinced about the infallibility of your positions.

      • Bret Rickert says:

        How do you have a conversation with someone who compares anyone in this country to the Taliban? Your rhetoric is so over the top I could not even begin to convince you of anything nor do I wish to try. My post was about people voting their feelings and your comments only support that assertion. Again, you got what you wanted, you won. Congratulations and enjoy the next four years.

      • Vipul Redey says:

        When key individuals in an administration insist that the law of the land needs to unquestioningly be based on THEIR flawed interpretation of principles espoused in less enlightened times and places more than a thousand years ago = Taliban, right?
        I’m an independent. I look left and I see incompetence. I look right and I see crazy. I picked incompetence, because it’s the less messy alternative. Peace out!

      • Bret Rickert says:

        Taliban= 9/11. As for the rest of what you said, we will just disagree.

      • Vipul Redey says:

        Al Qaeda = 9/11, dude… Not the same thing!

      • Bret Rickert says:

        Your right, my point is the Taliban is associated with terrorism and many other atrocities. To compare any American politician to them is the equivalent of saying Obama is a Muslim, it’s ludicrous. Does that better explain why your rhetoric is your undoing? You are comparing Americans to these people
        “The Taliban and their allies committed massacres against Afghan civilians,[28][29][30] denied UN food supplies to 160,000 starving civilians[31] and conducted a policy of scorched earth burning vast areas of fertile land and destroying tens of thousands of homes during their rule from 1996-2001.[32][33] Hundreds of thousands of people were forced to flee to United Front-controlled territory, Pakistan and Iran.[33]“

  3. Steve says:

    We should not stand in the way of the will of the people and let them have the tax increases they so desire.

  4. Aaron Pugh says:

    I find it laughable that anyone would try to paint the Obama campaign as any more negative than the Romney campaign. As a conservative and a Mormon, I found Romney’s campaign to be dismal and embarrassing. I actively voted for Obama for 2 reasons:

    1) At least I know what to expect from Obama having experienced the last 4 years. Romney offered few, if any, details on the vast majority of issues. And sorry, after his constant disregard for facts/the truth, I wasn’t about to give him the benefit of the doubt looking at his record as Gov. of Mass. And despite your scoffing above, Obama is extremely centrist. Some of us Republicans need to realize that giving an inch isn’t always giving a mile.

    2) I did not want Romney to be the representative of the LDS church that he would inherently be as such a powerful public figure. I suppose it’s a shame he didn’t win and have a chance to demonstrate that he might, actually have some integrity.

    • Bret Rickert says:

      Your comment comfirms my post. Contrary to how you feel Obama did run the most negative campaign http://tbrickert.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/confirmed-the-most-negative-campaign-in-history/. As for the rest of your malarkey, I’ll leave it to others to decide.

      • Aaron Pugh says:

        Firstly, this chart your article links to says it came from ‘political’… Is that Politico? I’m trying to find the original source, since the text surrounding the chart has nothing to do with the actual graph – which is always helpful.

        Secondly, this only incorporates TV and Cable ads. It doesn’t even incorporate Radio or Internet ads, let alone any of the actual speeches, falsehoods or any other kind of negative campaigning that can and does exist.

        Thirdly, who are what is defining these things? Because of the lack of source, I’m trying to figure out just exactly what they mean by Positive, Contrast and Negative ads. Regardless of the their definitions, my second point still stands. This is a very narrow view of the entirety of a campaign and can easily be used to skew this kind of opinion.

        I’m not saying Obama ran an amazing campaign – or a fully legitimate one. However, if you were to account for the blatant lies and misconceptions each candidate gave throughout the entirety of the campaign – I think Romney would be in the lead of most dishonest. But I don’t have a graph that I can link to out-of-context to ‘prove’ this – so I guess I’ll concede to you.

  5. Thomas says:

    Another definition of insanity would be to empower someone who is homophobic and against equality, as the leader of a country.

    You will argue that your article is about the economic situation America is in and how Obama won the election based on promises he made four years ago and not on the merit of his current policies.

    But you have followed the republican status quo by not mentioning Romney’s policies on gay rights and saying your decision was based solely on his economic policies. You can’t cherry pick policies with your vote, you vote for his full administration, not just his economics.

    To quote Doug Wright – “Look me in the eye, speak with a level clear voice, and say, ‘My taxes and take-home pay mean more than your fundamental civil rights, the sanctity of your marriage, your right to visit an ailing spouse in the hospital, your dignity as a citizen of this country, your healthcare, your right to inherit, the mental welfare and emotional well-being of your youth, and your very personhood.’”

    • Bret Rickert says:

      You are the one cherry picking. Just because a person believes marriage should be between a man and a women does not make him homophobic or against equality. I bet you voted for Obama 4 years ago when he held the same beliefs on marriage as Romney. Everything you FEEL Romney was a threat to he wasn’t. Hey, you won enjoy the next four years.

      • Thomas says:

        “As president, Mitt will not only appoint an Attorney General who will defend the Defense of Marriage Act – a bipartisan law passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton – but he will also champion a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.” – I didn’t just FEEL that was a threat to equality, I knew. Trust me, I will LOVE the next four years.

      • Bret Rickert says:

        I’m happy for you.

  6. Marivel Clemmer says:

    Good site you have here.. It’s hard to find quality writing like yours these days. I honestly appreciate individuals like you! Take care!!

  7. Pingback: Hello 2013! | T.B Rickert's Call

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s