Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Finny
No, either Obama or Romney wins, that is reality.

You have this 'advanced plan' thinking Obama will be 'weakened' if he wins reelection!

When Democrats win elections, they always see it as a mandate, no matter how close the election.

100 posted on 08/06/2012 10:32:06 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (Pr 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation:but sin is a reproach to any people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies ]


To: fortheDeclaration
No, either Obama or Romney wins, that is reality.

Never said otherwise. Indeed, we are assured of one of those two outcomes. What third party votes can manipulate is the degree of mandate the winner receives.

117 posted on 08/07/2012 8:05:28 AM PDT by Finny (A deal with the devil is ALWAYS a losing proposition. Voting for Romney to avoid Obama is just that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies ]

To: fortheDeclaration
When Democrats win elections, they always see it as a mandate, no matter how close the election.

Tell that to Bill Clinton. You are a fatalist, no more a "realist" than an optimist who sees the world through rose-colored glasses. The only difference is that your glasses are dung-tinted.

Bill Clinton was elected the first time on a plurality of 43%, and two years later, was hammered with the Republican Revolution. He and the MSM could have claimed his win as a "mandate" (though they never did, as they wouldn't if Obama won on a 43% plurality) but he no more had a mandate than Chaz Bono has balls. Illusions are still illusions no matter who declares otherwise. Clinton was elected the second time on a plurality of 49% -- and was impeached two years later.

Had HW Bush won re-election, or had Clinton won a majority either time, the Republican Revolution and Clinton's impeachment would probably never have happened. Those two pluralities clearly favored conservatives.

And Clinton was liked and popular overall, even though most Americans voted for somebody else both times. Obama, on the other hand, if you take off your crap-tinted lenses and look at things as a realist, is becoming more and more loathed by the very people who once supported him. Obama is held in contempt by quite possibly a very large majority of Americans; he lacks any of Clinton's charm.

There is good, solid reason to vote for a plurality in 2012. Because if Romney wins in a landslide, he will marginalize conservative Republicans and have the numbers to prove his claim of a "popular mandate" to justify his telling conservatives to sit down and shut up. Romney is a documented, demonstrated extreme liberal statist. Wishing he will change once in office, especially if he won on a landslide, is height of delusion.

124 posted on 08/07/2012 8:40:47 AM PDT by Finny (A deal with the devil is ALWAYS a losing proposition. Voting for Romney to avoid Obama is just that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies ]

To: fortheDeclaration
When Democrats win elections, they always see it as a mandate, no matter how close the election.

Word. And the media will tell the sheeple they have that mandate and the RINOs will tell the sheeple that the president deserves his chance to implement the policies the public elected him to do. It will be 2009 all over again.

126 posted on 08/07/2012 8:46:20 AM PDT by OrangeHoof (Our economy won't heal until one particular black man is unemployed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson