Replies

You said — “I’ll bet there was a time when you didn’t see it possible for Obama to get elected too.”

—

When he was running in the primaries, I thought that Clinton would get the nomination, at first, but then it became apparent that he was really “pulling it off”. But, that wasn’t so strange, considering it was the “Democrats”. However, when it came to the election, no..., I was *not* so certain that Obama would lose. I was *hoping* that he would lose, but it was also “appearing” that he had a big chance of winning, too — which we now see was very true.

Thus, it was *not* that far-fetched for Obama to win, not in terms of “all the signs” that were given, running up to the election.

HOWEVER, the difference here is in one case, we’re talking about an *election* in which Obama seems to “fit” very nicely the “mindset” of many Democrats. Thus, it’s not surprising. On the other hand, with a Constitutional Amendment, that’s another story all together.

Obama only had to get a “win” (meaning “majority”) in a state where he wanted to get the electoral votes. That’s just slightly over 50% — and that’s all.

With a Constitutional Amendment, you’ve got to go through several hurdles which have a “higher bar” than the 50% marker. You’ve got to get over 66% of the Senate — and — the House of Representatives to even get a Constitutional Amendment started in the first place. If you can’t pass the “high bar” of 66%, you’re not going anywhere.

Then next — you’ve got an *even higher bar* of — 75% — to ratify it. Along with that usually goes a “time frame” too, which is another “bar” to the passage of an Amendment.

Heck! If they couldn’t even get the ERA passed and the deadline was extended, trying to get it passed, I don’t know how anyone expects to get a Constitutional Amendment passed, giving Obama a “lifetime Presidency”.... LOL...

To even “hear” someone even suggest that this is a “rational possibility” makes me question the mental stability of someone suggesting it... :-)