Not the best thing for Canada, but whatever. I guess it's good. I honestly would have rather had Mitt, he at least wanted to invest in our oil. It's going to get developed anyways mind as well make money on it. Obama is too environmentally conscious even though the U.S pollutes a lot. Can't say Canadians are better, I think we are the top per capita polluters on Earth.
Well, I, for one, am pretty happy with the outcome. Obama was, IMO, quite obviously the best choice on social issues. However also on the economy, I think he had the best vision. Partially, I'm damning with faint praise there, though, as mostly Obama's vision is close to "let's treat problems as they come along, and do the least damage possible". Romney, on the other hand, never managed to convince me. A lot of it was, IMO, based on a very optimistic assessment with no basis in reality. A lot of it, to me, sounded like "if we tax companies and the upper-income bracket less, they'll thank us by creating more jobs". I am, frankly, sceptical about it being so simple. I'd honestly have been afraid that a Romney presidency would have ended in less tax income for the government, not that much spending reduction (shaving off here and there, but also increasing the military expenditures), and most companies absorbing the first rounds of tax cuts as profits, instead of hiring more people or improving the wages of those they already employ (and thus not really improving the economy). Also, whenever he was pressed on numbers, the answers were vague and (to me), not satisfying to convince me he really had a vision. So, yeah, I preferred Obama on social issues, and think he's the least bad on economy. All of this, of course, as a European, who only follows it from abroad. That said, in Europe we didn't forget the disaster that was Romney's European tour. He managed to casually insult several nations. If even Poland felt it necessary to point out they didn't invite him, it might mean there's something not quite right with his diplomatic instincts... Very good analysis, I think. And I do believe the only way for the GOP to come back is to relax on social issues, accept that immigration is not just to be solved by putting up a wall. If they're going to be relevant, I'm hoping they'd do it by going back to the style of Eisenhower and Nixon (say what you want on how it ended, his presidency was for the most part pretty effective and, I'd say, mostly on the ball), and otherwise being as laissez-faire as possible on social issues. However, I do feel that to do that, it might be a bit of a trek through the desert. Such an approach would instantly alienate the far-right loony fringe, while I'm not so sure you'd instantly replace the loss of that bloc with other groups that large parts of the GOP (or at least very visible parts of the GOP) just spent an entire campaign alienating. The dems would have some legitimacy in pointing out that a sudden reversal on so many issues is just an insincere ploy. So doing this might lose you the election of 2016 already. Then again, doubling down on the current strategy would lose as well. In the long run, though, I would be pretty happy if there was a party that could provide a real, yet constructive opposition, instead of sliding towards being a parody of itself.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2012/11/07/US_ELECTION_DAY3_0811.pdf Zoom in to see lots of funky stats. And look at Utah! :| The age stats in particular are very interesting.
If you are going to stress yourself due to something silly like this, I suppose you can. It's probably more likely that Obama will have a sudden heart attack and die than that occurring though.
Nov. 6th was an ENORMOUS "F--- you!" to religious bigotry in America. I'm sure it will feel the burn of this massive loss for a long, LONG time. At least until it's annihilated completely, anyways. I enjoyed every minute of watching Obama crush Romney's hopes and dreams.
Was really happy to find out the results. The results of Romney being voted in would've been felt over here, I'm sure. I don't understand Americas political system though. How is it a democracy if you only have two parties, and the party that is best funded will probably win? Isn't that kinda what destroyed the Roman Republic? Just muses from an ignorant 18 year old. I just don't understand how American is considered democratic just because it allows their people to vote. The people governing the country are seriously hampered by what they have to do to get elected. How is Obama for example ever going to be free to push for radical changes if the companies he's taken money off to win his campaign are against those radical changes?
The results of the Obama win are definitely being felt over in a bigoted "Christian" (very anti-gay) board that I like to spy on. They're devastated. It's like they've lost all of their hope. I won't lie and say that I don't sincerely enjoy it...
I'm hearing that Hilary Clinton has said she's interested in running in 2016. I know that's a long way away, but I honestly have to say, she will have my vote if she does. Lol.
The two-party system is basically an effect of the "winner takes it all" system. The party that gets the most votes takes the district or state, with nothing left for the other party (or parties). It also means you could get weird results, like 10 parties competing, and the largest party getting only 11% of the vote, but still more than all competition. This, in the end, means that the only way to be absolutely sure you get the most votes is by getting more than 50%. So it rewards parties who make a sort of coalition ahead of time. The Democrats and Republicans are best to be thought of as five or six smaller parties, who would rather work with each other than with the other coalition. In the end, it creates some oddities, which are different from what you get in a multi-party system, but not necessarily less democratic. What destroyed the Roman republic was more complex than their voting system. Partially, it was because their senate was originally designed for ruling a city-state, and not all that well set-up for ruling the world-spanning empire it had become. Another part of it was that it wasn't terribly democratic. In effect, the democracy mostly only applied to the aristocracy, with some token input from the population. In the end, this was untenable. And, of course, also the fact that the gigantic armies needed to conquer half the world ended up deciding that they might just as well conquer Rome itself and rule it. Not saying the US system couldn't do with some improvements, but I don't think it's unlikely to collapse and become a dictatorship either.
