First NH Primary Results: Obama wins

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Sydde, Jan 10, 2012.

  1. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #1
    Dixville Notch reports their votes

    First results of the 2012 election:

    Barack Obama, 3 votes
    ––––––––––
    Mitt Romney, 2 votes
    John Huntsman, 2
    Newt, 1
    Paul, 1

    Curious. Looks like NH Republicans like the Mormons, so far at least.
     
  2. MorphingDragon macrumors 603

    MorphingDragon

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Location:
    The World Inbetween
  3. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
  4. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
  5. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #5
    That will change once independents get to know Romney better. There are so many skeletons it's not funny. The guy has flip flopped on everything, even gay rights. His flip flops will be enough to defeat him.
     
  6. imahawki macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2011
    #6
    Nothing in Romney's "closet" is any worse than what Obama is doing now. Obama has bombed on so many campaign promises its depressing. If the economy is still in the lurch, Romney will be president, period.
     
  7. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #7
    And don't forget that Romney will have to pull a McCain and choose some insane right wing whackjob for a VP to please the nutjob wing of the Republican party. Once that happens, the numbers for those independent voters will flip flop faster than Romney will on every moderate position he's ever taken.

    Palin was a big reason that McCain lost, and whichever crazy assclown Romney chooses as his running mate will be the same reason he loses.
     
  8. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #8
    Obama kept a lot of promises too. Some of us remember that.

    This is exactly why Romney will lose.
     
  9. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #9
    Right wingers are going to vote for anyone but BO. So he doesn't need to do anything. Obama should run a commercial that says Romney is a Mormon, end campaign.
     
  10. imahawki macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2011
    #10
    All presidents keep and break... my problem with Obama (whom I voted for by the way) is that he's broken a lot of keystone promises. A lot of the ones that swung an independent towards him are the ones he broke. I feel fleeced and I would vote for a Palin/Bachmann ticket if that was the choice because Obama betrayed me. I trusted him and he betrayed me. The guy had his chance. Not to mention I can't vote for a guy who has it out for me.
     
  11. Sydde thread starter macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #11
    No, Romney will lose because his real first name will get plastered all over the media.

    There was an unpleasant movie in the early 70s where the main character thought he could control a pack of rapacious rats. No parallels there. Associating the name is inescapable.
     
  12. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #12

    Kind of hard to take your post seriously when you say you'd choose a Palin/Bachmann ticket over Obama, or anyone for that matter What promises did he break? How did he betray you? He has it out for you?
     
  13. mobilehaathi macrumors G3

    mobilehaathi

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Anthropocene
    #13
    woah. seriously?
     
  14. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #14
    Can you point me to the promises that he broke where he had the support of Congress, but chose not to honor his promise? I mean, is it President Obama's fault when Congress won't pass something?
     
  15. renewed macrumors 68040

    renewed

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Location:
    Bemalte Blumen duften nicht.
    #15
    Not attempting to veto the NDAA would be a recent example.
     
  16. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #16
    Did the president promise to veto funding for our soldiers or didn't he, as I recall, promise to make smart decisions for the safety of our troops?

    I think you might be talking about the language put in the NDAA by (guess who) that purportedly gives the government the right to indefinitely detain US citizens in the US. He did get the language changed, even though it wasn't as good as he would have liked.

    That's not exactly a broken promise. It's more like he didn't hold a flamethrower to the GOP and force their hands at the expense of our soldiers.
     
  17. imahawki macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2011
    #17
    1) his administration has been LESS transparent than the Bush administration. He promises complete transparency. I was tired of the "I'm the decider" ******** under Bush. Obama gave me more of the same.
    2) Close Gitmo.
    3) Policy based on SCIENCE - yet his administration goes against ALL scientific evidence to forbid over the counter sale of emergency contraceptive - that's exactly the kind of stuff Bush did.
    4) Military tribunals/indefinite detention.
    5) Manned moon mission - not this specifically per se, but the promise to fund American scientific achievement. Instead NASA has basically been killed.
    6) Televising debate over health care reform on C-SPAN (again, this was a specific promise he broke but more generally, we've gotten more closed door, behind the scenes, backroom dealing than ever!)

    The PRIMARY reasons I voted for Obama were promises of transparency, ending backroom dealings, ending some of the human rights violations like indefinite detentions, etc. and secondly, a scientific administration rather than more political ********. I got neither of these. In addition I got class warfare and demonizing success, which I did NOT want.

    No I wouldn't vote for Palin/Bachmann, but I will vote for Romney when he wins the nomination and unless we somehow get to 5.5% unemployment by the election, Romney will be the next president, period.
     
  18. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #18
    We have gotten a lot of backroom deals because... why? Why do you think the Democrats have been willing to go behind closed doors to have discussions with the GOP? Do you think it is because the GOP didn't want to negotiate in public, or because the Dems were giving too much away? If you go back and look, you will see example after example of the Republicans making promises behind closed doors, but their members not voting the way they said they would. In other words, isn't it far more likely that President Obama used back rooms to get the GOP to come to the table after they had refused any compromise? Isn't that more likely than President Obama just likes secret dealings? Come on.

    Over the counter emergency contraception isn't banned. You just need to show an ID because of the potential dangers involved should minors have open access. It is, after all, a potent hormone based medicine.

    Did Obama fail to close Gitmo, or did the GOP succeed in blocking its closure? There is a difference. Same thing goes for indefinite detention and military tribunals.

    Oh, and NASA isn't dead, it's being reborn instead of slowly killed.
     
  19. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #19
    i pretty much agree on all your specific points, especially the idea that when possible policies must be based on scientific evidence.
    but if romney was to be elected, he would be hostage of a strongly anti-scientific republican core, and we would see even less of science-based policies, starting from climate change denials to -god forbid- a resurgence of creationist nonsense. This alone would prevent me from voting any republican candidate until they are cured of the fundamentalists' influence.
     
  20. imahawki macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2011
    #20
    This is a cop out. Obama promised to close Gitmo, period. And hell, Democrats had COMPLETE control for 2 years and ALL they got was a healthcare bill that 54% of the general population opposed. 1) don't promise stuff you can't control and 2) "Invoking the limits of the possible may be a sympathetic excuse for failure -- but it does not transform failure into success." - David Frum on Obama

    ----------

    I don't LIKE the fundamentalist influence but I like Obama crashing the economy, demonizing the private sector, and implementing programs that put more and more of the population dependent on the federal government even less.
     
  21. CalWizrd Suspended

    CalWizrd

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Location:
    NYC/Raleigh, NC
    #21
    I challenge you to name just one policy/legislative action that you are unhappy with that you fault the Democrats for, rather than the Republicans. Come on, just one. There has to be one.

    (side bet to self... there isn't any)
     
  22. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #22
    Sorry, but that is 100% pure BS.

    In order for anything to get passed in the senate, because the GOP will filibuster anything that comes up for a vote, the Democrats need 60 votes.

    The Democrats only had 60 votes from July 7, 2009, when Al Franken finally won the Minnesota recount, to February 4, 2010, when Scott Brown took Ted Kennedy's seat after he passed. Mind you, they only had 60 votes if you include Joe Lieberman, who made a hard turn to the right these past few years (even endorsing McCain over Obama) and is a Democrat in name only, he might as well have been a Republican.

    There was a 7 month period where the Democrats had COMPLETE control if you count Lieberman. Since Lieberman should not be considered a Democrat, then the Democrats never had COMPLETE control of the senate, they only had 59 senators for a period of time, and in our screwed up system, 59 out of 100 is not a majority.
     
  23. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
  24. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #24
    It's not "complete BS" when Democrats/Obama didn't even bring some of these matters to a vote. Filibustering is cowardly - I've always said that. I detest it when Democrats do it, and I detest it when Republicans do it, and I've said so repeatedly in this forum.

    But equally cowardly is to tuck tail and point and sob, "But, but, but if we bring it to a vote they'll filibuster. We should just drop it here and now." Pathetic, especially when you have a supermajority. And for those who decry there never was a supermajority - fine, it is pathetic, especially when you have a supermajority minus one.

    So, no, it is not "complete BS."
     
  25. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #25

    In what universe did Obama crash the economy? When he took office, job losses across the economy were at about 650-700,000 per month following the financial collapse in late 2008. Of course, taking office doesn't mean much, it's when legislation and policy can be into place, something that happened 2-3 months later in mid-2009.

    Since then, the ship has been slowly turned around. Job gains of 200,000 in the last month alone and here's the kicker. In the last 12 months, the Obama administration has presided over more jobs being created than the Bush adminstration saw in eight years. Fact.
     

Share This Page