Obama Wins 2012 elections, Implications for India and the World

[amoy]

Re: Why Obama Won

Someone tries to see it through the mix of "top contributors" (supporters)

Based on the list the Wall Street seems overwhelmingly pro-Romney.

 

[Singh]

Re: Why Obama Won

obama won due to.

woman votes

Non white votes

Seal 6 movie aired all over america 2 days before election

I just caught a glimpse of the seal 6 movie, and they were showing India, and stuff written in Hindi...

 

[pmaitra]

Re: Why Obama Won

obama won due to.

woman votes

Non white votes

Seal 6 movie aired all over america 2 days before election

Gas prices have been ridiculously low for weeks prior to the election.

 

[Joji]

Re: Why Obama Won

Obama win is not a surprise. Why media is highlighting it like that? In last 50 yrs there are only four presidents who have not been re-elected.

1. Lyndon Johnson
2. Gerald Ford
3. Jimmy Carter
4. George Bush Sr.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Re: Why Obama Won

To say that anyone opposing Obama's policies is a racist is beyond pathetic. The appearance of such an article in an Indian newspaper is, sadly, only to be expected. That only whites can be bigots is now a given in any political discussion.

I will say, since I must by definition be a racist (and often accused of that on DFI), that America has its affirmative-action president, and is now destined for mediocrity.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Re: Why Obama Won

obama won due to.

woman votes

Non white votes

Seal 6 movie aired all over america 2 days before election

Women were sold on the idea that Romney would ban contraception.

Non-whites were convinced that Romney is a racist.

The news media did their job very well.

 

[Yusuf]

Re: Why Obama Won

To say that anyone opposing Obama's policies is a racist is beyond pathetic. The appearance of such an article in an Indian newspaper is, sadly, only to be expected. That only whites can be bigots is now a given in any political discussion.

I will say, since I must by definition be a racist (and often accused of that on DFI), that America has its affirmative-action president, and is now destined for mediocrity.

i dont remember who and when accused you of racism.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Re: Why Obama Won

While you celebrate Obama's victory, his Afghan policy is to take all US troops out by next year.

What does that mean for India and Pakistan?

Discuss.

 

[Iamanidiot]

Republicans got the racist tag also add to that the Bible belt affiliation

 

[Bangalorean]

Re: Why Obama Won

While you celebrate Obama's victory, his Afghan policy is to take all US troops out by next year.

What does that mean for India and Pakistan?

Discuss.

Personally, I think that's not going to happen.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Republicans got the racist tag also add to that the Bible belt affiliation

The idea that there is a monolithic evangelical Christian faction which supports only Republicans is not valid, in my mind. Also, I think a greater % of African-Americans are church-going people compared to the white population. The Hispanic population is also very religious overall.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Re: Why Obama Won

Personally, I think that's not going to happen.

US Afghan withdrawal needs a separate thread

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Re: Why Obama Won

i dont remember who and when accused you of racism.

Well, that is just as well.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Re: Why Obama Won

Gallup: 2012 election had the largest gender gap in recorded history - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

 

[Rage]

This does not answer the question of why Obama won per se; but that he did win, despite pundits calling the race a toss up, should come as no surprise. His victory was statistically sound. State polls have been historically consistent and reliable indicators of who's in the lead. And when you use those polls, tempered with the results of certain economic and other policy, image and decision variables, you get a pretty good aggregated idea of the outcome.

Here's one guy who predicted Obama's election victory- right from the start, using polling based on Gallup's national tracking poll, stuck to his guns even as pundits called him a nutjob and called the outcome....exactly:

BBC News - Drew Linzer: The stats man who predicted Obama's win

 

[W.G.Ewald]

 

[Blackwater]

Re: Why Obama Won

Women were sold on the idea that Romney would ban contraception.

Non-whites were convinced that Romney is a racist.

The news media did their job very well.

i meant the same

 

[pmaitra]

Re: Why Obama Won

Women were sold on the idea that Romney would ban contraception.

Non-whites were convinced that Romney is a racist.

The news media did their job very well.

+1.

To add to that, I think the following factors did matter:

• Romney was personally in favour of some kind of health benefit, because he has one of his own in his state. However, he had to re-tune his comments on that. The hawks in the Republican camp ensured that.
• Romney had to go soft on abortion, and choice, and had to show that he preferred that every baby was born, regardless of the circumstances they were going to be born in.
• Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock's comments on rape didn't help either.
• Romney was very cut throat about the potential demise of the struggling US auto makers, an that alienated the Detroit periphery. However, Romney was bang on the money. As an anecdote, if these 'engineers' can take a truck (Ford F-150), and make a Luxury SUV (Lincoln) out of it, then these companies really need to close down. The Germans, Japanese, and the Koreans make cars with passion and national pride. The US makes cars, predominantly, to rip people off. Giving revenue more importance than the product doesn't always work.
• Romney and Obama both went though on illegal immigration, but Romney sounded more cut throat, although, in reality, Obama has acted more harshly than others in the past decade.
• With unemployment all over the place, bailouts, subsidies, and state benefits, were the kingmakers. Obama has, to the detriment of long term American interests, fully exploited this largesse loving citizens' sentiments.

Overall, the Republicans came across as a group of religious bigots, too wealthy and out of touch with the poor folk, and selfish. Personally, I think the Republicans lost the cause the moment the Tea Party Faction hijacked the entire Republican campaign, completely sidelining the Libertarian Faction, which has massive youth support, and more practical and progressive policies on abortion, economy, foreign policy, and sound fiscal solutions to cut deficit.

I must admire the Republicans for at least choosing Romney. The last nominee, McCain, was utterly disappointing IMO.

 

[Mad Indian]

Please read this enlightening excerpts from an interview with Warren Buffet...

CNBC Transcript Part 2: Warren Buffett on Taxing the Rich - US Business News - CNBC
CNBC Transcript Part 3: Warren Buffett Defends His 'Tax the Rich' Call - US Business News - CNBC
CNBC Transcript Part 4: Warren Buffett on the 'Buffett Rule' - US Business News - CNBC


And this one from an American Congress non-partisan body...

Tax hike for wealthy Americans won't kill growth: CBO | Reuters


BTW, there's nothing socialist about taxing the rich. American taxes for their richest used to be higher in the 50s, 60s and 70s...

ANDREW: I don't want to go there. Let's get back to Warren Buffett and Becky, who's in Omaha this mooning. I got a question if you'd indulge me, Warren. I've been doing a little bit of research while you've been talking. Now just about the tax rate, which you've talked about the tax rate — higher tax rate in the '50s and '60s being 52 percent, but the effective tax rate during that period on the .01 percent, and there's a study — I'll send it to you — says the effective tax rate on a .01 percent back then was actually 71.4 percent in the 1960s and 74.6 percent in the 1970s. And my question is, would those rates fly today and what would the impact on the economy be. And I ask that in the context that in the '50s and '60s some people would argue — and we had a number of people emailing already — suggesting that the wind was at our backs, if you will when you think about the economy during that period.

CNBC Transcript Part 4: Warren Buffett on the 'Buffett Rule' - US Business News - CNBC

Dude? Seriously? SO if your points were indeed valid, why were they taken out?

Also, why should the rich be taxed more? Because they are smarter with their work and money?

Higher tax rate drag down the economy in the long run in any country. From the socialist paradises(Sweden, Norway etc) to dysfunctional socialist states. DO read about them. Their economic out and their whole economy was built purely on Capitalism. But now, they(Nordic states) are barely surviving.. Its only a matter of time before they collapse on their own.. And still they lag behind USA in wealth creation- guess why?


And you never addressed the point Devil made. Increasing Tax on Rich will increase the price on the purchasing end(.ie middle class people like you).


Now whats sad for USA about this is that, this also the time when China is opening up more to allow more investments. I bet these overtaxed Americans will find a golden land for their money by investing in emerging markets. So, We should congratulate each other, With America on the road to self destruction, it will be the turn of the Asian countries, with liberal markets to get higher growth and economic output. USA -0 , Developing world- 1

 

[Mad Indian]

Many people blame Bush's tax cuts for the revenue loss and the American fiscal mess. NOW what people dont understand is that the Bush administration created a mess of the economy , not be reducing the revenue collection(it actually increased because of the lowered taxes) but because of the increased expenditure in the name of wars. Now please tell me how on earth is Obama's plan to reduce debt going to work if it is by increasing the expenditure?

Basically the Democrats won this election on a load of Horse crap atleast on the economic front and a lot of negative propaganda about the Republican party making it sound like the party of evil