My thoughts of the election results.

[zpr]

I haven't been so lost the last few months that I actually expected McCain to pull a win from this. I have been pretty confident for a while that Obama would be the next President of the United States. My vote and my wife's vote both went to John McCain and I still believe that he is the right man for the job. The majority of America did not agree with us. So I have now finished watching Obama's acceptance speech and don't feel any better about the next 4 years. I don't think he will lead us in the direction that we need to go. I'm not looking forward to the next 4 years. I hope I am proven wrong. Regardless of how I feel, I still know that Obama will be my next president and I will respect him the same as I have respected President Bush for the last 8 years. I took an oath 4 times in my life that I will never turn my back on.

I, zpr, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

I will continue to uphold that oath until the day I die. I will always defend my country regardless of who leads it.

[Krasch]

While I too would have preferred a McCain victory, I'm at least hopeful that as a relative newcomer he hasn't goten caught up in the Washington machine.

That being saId, having built his campaign around a nebulous theme of "change" and "Yes we can", he'd best manufacture some real change in Washington or in 2012 the next catchphrase might just be "No you didn't" followed by "Y'er outta here!"

[licupssy]

Fulfilling my right and privilege as an American to vote for who I deemed best for president, I realized that with the drag on of our presence in a Iraq and the economical downturn it be hard pressed for a republican to become president.

Since this is the day after election day and all political promises are already forgotten, may all the future changes be good ones.

Congratulations to Barrack Obama on becoming our next president and as such has can be noted for several first besides being the first black president.
As far as I know he's the first white president to be from more than one race. He's the first president in over 150 years to have been born the citizen of a British colony. He the first president to have been a citizen of a foreign country(Kenya) by birth right. This seems to indicate it may be time to change the constitution to allow naturalized citizens the right to run for president. (Arnold for president in 2012 ~ I'd vote for him!)

[CD]

Regardless of who we all voted for, there is one important fact that we should all agree on. Far left Liberals will hail him as the second coming, and far right Conservatives will hail him as the anti-Christ. If times start turning good, I'm sure there will be two trains of thought... 1) Bush enacted good policies to help us get the economy back on track or 2) Obama brought about positive change on failed Bush policies. The other option is if times continue to decline, which you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out how that will play out in the minds of America.

I personally believe that it didn't matter who was elected, our country got the shit kicked out of it, and it will take YEARS to recover. I think the best case scenario is that the following 4 years will be a better indication of how Obama performed. (And no, I'm got gonna be one of those people who seem to think that the time frame is measured in decades... Reagan fans have that market lock tight since I still hear about his policies helping us even today).

ps I'd probably vote for Gov Schwarzenegger too.

[Krasch]

I've actually met Arnold several times, and I'd vote for him even if he was a Democrat...

[fmb]

Obama has a very big job ahead of him. I haven't spent much time thinking about the domestic front, as most of my thought has focused on the international front. There are many problems going on around the world; Obama will have to address them, try to contain some of them, and attempt to finish/complete/close the remainder. Here are some of the things on my mind:

1) Eastern Europe: in the last few years, the Russians have had a relatively tremendous resurgence in power and influence. Most notably, the Russians have kicked the Georgians backsides, threatened to do the same to other former Soviet bloc nations, and are stirring trouble in the Caucuses.

This creates a problem for our country because NATO is impotent. There must be unity by all NATO countries to accomplish anything. Right now, there is no unity; the organization is fractured. Some countries will be EXTREMELY hesitant to do anything about containing Russia. For example, the Germans are completely energy dependent upon the Russians, and are not going to risk freezing in the winter if they displease Moscow; besides, Germany was the forecast battle ground during the cold war. I don't think Germany wants to see their country as a potential battle ground again.

2) Afghanistan: Obama has stated his desire to focus on the original terrorist battleground and take care of the Taliban. The battle situation in that country is very precarious; the Afghan government only controls the immediate area surrounding the capital. The rest of the country is under the control of local warlords. Commanders of the US and NATO forces have recently stated the war in Afghanistan is not "winnable"; this means a political solution acceptable to all parties (US, UN, NATO, Afghani, and Taliban) must be found.

3)NATO: additional forces from NATO should not be expected. After the fall of the Soviet Union, most western European countries severely curtailed their military budgets. Afghanistan already has their military's stretched thin. Also, with the possible new threat posed by Russia to their east, NATO is stretched thin, very underbudgeted, and not in any situation to offer much help.

Obama cannot expect much help from Europe with any of his battleground problems. The world economic crisis will hit the Europeans harder than the crisis will hit us. Besides, to rebuild the NATO armies could take a decade or longer.

4) Iraq: He cannot remove the troops as quickly as he'd like, no matter how much hell raising this causes at home. Removal of US troops too quickly will leave one hell of a power vacuum in the Iraqi government. The most likely country able to significantly influence this vacuum is the Iranians. An Iranian proxy government in Iraq will not make the Saudis, etc. comfortable. As an aside, if this were to occur, the Iranians would hold significant influence from the Arabian sea all the way to the Mediterranean sea by way of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in the Palestinian territories.

5) Obama will have his hands full with problems around the world. He cannot expect much help from historically Democrat friendly Europe. The Russians will build their power and influence while agitating him in whatever ways possible. The Taliban will continue to fight and don't have a real reason to sit at a table and give any power they have up. Iraq will continue to be a thorn in his side.

6) Although Obama gained a slight majority of the popular vote, nearly 47% of the population didn't vote for him; this should be taken as they don't agree with him, his policies, or how he proposes to handle other problems. He must gain the support of those that did not vote for him; at the same time, he must follow through with most of his proposals and policies to keep his supporters on his side. This will be very tough to accomplish; to build support from those not supporting him, he must give up something in return. In doing this, he cannot give up too much or he risks alienating his support base.

Obama has a very tough road ahead; although I didn't vote for him, I will support him as he helps navigate our country through the rough waters ahead of us.

[shiiboi]

6) Although Obama gained a slight majority of the popular vote, nearly 47% of the population didn't vote for him; this should be taken as they don't agree with him, his policies, or how he proposes to handle other problems.
Barack Obama won 52.6% of the popular vote. In recent history only Ronald Reagan did better than that, in his second election when the economy was at its peak.

No US president since George Washington gets to govern with nearly-universal support. But only once in our history did this cause bloodshed in the streets (of course I'm talking about the Civil War, when 8 States seceeded from the Union in opposition to Abraham Lincoln's election)

FYI, here are some of the statistics for more recent elections.

George W. Bush beat John Kerry with 50.7% of the popular vote.
George W. Bush beat Al Gore with 48% of the popular vote.
Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole with 49% of the popular vote.
Bill Clinton beat Bush Sr. with 43% of the popular vote.
Bush Sr. beat Mike Dukakis with 52% of the popular vote.
Ronald Reagan beat Walter Mondale with 58% of the popular vote.
Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter with 50% of the popular vote.

And just one more bit of trivia:

Warren G. Harding had the highest popular vote total-- 60% over James Cox. Harding is regarded by most presidential scholars as the worst president in history, with nearly no achievements to speak of and an administration rocked with corruption-- several of his cabinet members ending up in jail. His death while still in office remains controversial, with speculation that he was poisoned by his wife for being unfaithful.

[fmb]

Good points, shiiboi! I guess I should've done a better job at making my point. There just wasn't a large majority voting for Obama. Hell, the way the press was talking Obama was gonna win by a huge landslide; the press made it sound as though McCain's votes were only coming from him, Palin, and a couple militia members holed up in Arkansas.

[joerockhead]

After reading FMB's post, I would have to say that he covered my thoughts.

I hope that Obama is the man he has stated he is, I would love to be wrong, because that would meant his country would be back on a road out of the hole we are in.

I really do hope I am wrong. Even though nothing has led me to believe I am.

I wish him luck and success, in getting the Great USA back in the positive realm.

[ravenshrike]

1) Bush enacted good policies to help us get the economy back on track or 2) Obama brought about positive change on failed Bush policies.
Or 3) The bush cash infusions did nothing and Obama doesn't manage to cripple the economy like FDR did and it bounces back to normal levels with a couple of years or 4) the bush cash infusions did nothing and Obama enacts socialist programs and increases taxes on the movers of the economy(all the people who pay capital gains and small corporations, by small I mean any corporations that moves under 3 mil of x a year) thereby crippling the bounce that would otherwise have occurred.


Oh, and the policies that Bush wanted to enact to cushion the housing bubble(and thereby theoretically dodge the secondary lending bubble, it's unsure whether that would have worked. Of course, given them money ex post facto didn't work because the damage was done but moving beforehand might have had positive effect) were completely fucking ignored by congress and thereby the only people blaming Bush are the misinformed, malicious, or moronic.

[joerockhead]

..........Oh, and the policies that Bush wanted to enact to cushion the housing bubble(and thereby theoretically dodge the secondary lending bubble, it's unsure whether that would have worked. Of course, given them money ex post facto didn't work because the damage was done but moving beforehand might have had positive effect) were completely fucking ignored by congress and thereby the only people blaming Bush are the misinformed, malicious, or moronic.


yeah, but the Dem's have better idea's and Obama is giving 95% a tax cut.

[supersatch]

Two points;
First- everyone seems to blame Bush for the economic down turn that sprung from the housing market collapse, when really it was Allen Greenspan that is to blame. As chairman of the federal reserve, he set the morgage rates too low without any safeguards to protect against subprime lenders and what would normally be unapproved borrowers.

Second- a word about the health care situation that went down during the election. John McCain wanted to give a 5,000 dollar tax cut to people so they could afford privatized health care. Maybe the money was a little bit shallow for the price these days, and the reganomical process pretty unorigional, but it's clearly a better option than Obama's plan. Here's why.

You and I both make $250,000 a year. This is the starting point for Obama's supertax to distribute wealth. WE'll say I live in Payola, Kansas and you live in Mahattan, New York. Your first question is "where the hell is Payola, KS?" this is my point exactly.

Food, gas, housing, porn and basically every other expense that you could think of is worlds cheaper than Manhattan. So after taxes, I'm still a rich man, and if you do the research, you're barely making ends meet. Monetary wealth isn't a standardized number held across the nation. It varies from city to city. His plan isn't localized enough to consider living expenses.

This is above and beyond the arguement that I believe that you should keep the money you earn.