Obama did not win by a majority

Kurmugeon said:

Bring it! This will only be resolved by a civil war.

Click to expand...

Each of your postings get more and more ridiculous. Please stop, your making a fool of yourself.

joko104 said:

I don't dispute that he won. Rather that the majority of voters voted to reject him And obviously he did NOT receive a "mandate." Last time he did. This time he did not.

The last plurality but rejected by the majority candidate was W Bush's 2nd term - and it appears by almost exactly the same total margin. We all know how well that worked out for us - a lame duck president a majority of voters rejected.

Click to expand...

First, winning is not just getting to a line in the sand first. it is accomplishing the goal. Mitt ran for the finish line while Obama picked up the things he needed to win. If you can prove to me that the majority is always right every time then you have a point, otherwise having a majority is meaningless in the right and wrong argument.

Oh, and obama isn't bush. We have yet to see what he does in his second term.

joko104 said:

The media, so far, has REFUSED to publish TOTAL votes casts, to try to make it falsely seem that Obama won a majority of the votes by 3 million and by 50.45% of the total vote.
That, of course is a lie.

By vote totals - so far as it isn't over AND Florida NOT yet totalled, 3rd party and independent candidates received 1.43% of the vote. Thus, out of 119 million votes, Obama did not win with 50% of the vote. Obama won with 49% of the vote.

51% of American voted AGAINST PRESIDENT OBAMA. We need to remember a MAJORITY of Americans voted against him. He has NO mandate.

EVERYONE NEEDS TO REMEMBER THAT. Note it over and over. Obama's win was only 49% of total votes cast. He received a PLURALITY, and NOT a MAJORITY.

Click to expand...

Who cares. He won the EC vote. He is president. Don't continue on for another 4 years of idiotic complaints. There is plenty of real and substantial stuff to complain about his policies.

joko104 said:

The FACT IS, a MAJORITY of voters voted that they did NOT want Obama to remain president. He gained a technical plurality, not a majority. The majority of voters rejected him and his agenda.

Click to expand...

This sort of reasoning is a well-known fallacy. It's a species of false dilemma.

Look, suppose I go into a diner and have a slice of pie. I have apple, lemon meringue, and pecan to choose from. I decide I'd like a slice of lemon meringue. Does that mean I'm deciding to repudiate pecan and apple--that I somehow have disdain or hatred for those kinds of pies? Of course not...it just means I'd like a slice of lemon meringue. Now, it might be an additional fact that I really do hate apple and pecan pies. But this need not be the case for me to choose lemon meringue--and usually, it isn't the case that I hate the other choices on the menu, and that I am choosing lemon meringue because I have absolutely ruled the rest out.

Presumably, votes for president aren't cast by quite the whimsical process by which one decides to get a slice of pie from a diner. But one principle that would be universally applicable, or nearly so, is that no voters, by voting for one particular candidate, absolutely abhor the rest. At least many Mitt Romney voters, for example, would have been pretty happy if the Constitution or Libertarian party candidates had won. Similarly, I suspect many Obama supporters would have been perfectly happy if the Socialist or Green Party candidates had won. And here's the rub: probably at least some Mitt Romney voters aren't suicidally upset that Obama won, and probably at least some Obama voters (such as myself) wouldn't have blown their brains out had Mitt Romney won. A few would have.

In other words, a vote for one particular candidate is not necessarily a vote, psychologically speaking, against all the others. For your point to have any force, that's what would have to be the case...

**** Florida!