Obama's final win in Florida gives him 332 electoral votes

Comments (28)

Glad the media called it. No point in voting anymore since they make the decisions.

Nov 10, 2012 1:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jmfree wrote:

Looks like we’re going to get lots of sour pusses complaining about how the “unfair media” threw Florida for Obama.

News: Romney LOST! And in a big way.

But don’t ever, ever admit that to yourself.

Nov 10, 2012 2:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Glad to see the Dear Leader squeaked by in another state.

Nov 10, 2012 2:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sjfella wrote:

Floridians have never been accused of being very bright.

Nov 10, 2012 2:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
americanguy wrote:

“Fair and balanced” FOX was calling Romney the winner right up until Romney made his concession speech. Carl Rove was declaring Romney the winner until the end of the broadcast. Limbaugh had said earlier that Romney would win by a landslide as did his fellow radio hate mongers.
Meanwhile, President Obama won by over 60%.
(only electoral votes elect a President in the USA)
Big laugh on the Obama haters.
And the Obama haters are still whining and crying like 2 year olds throwing a tantrum. Beyond belief of normal behaviour for anyone.
A Mental illness perhaps?
I think a study should be done to determine if Republicans have some type of genetic defect or mental illness.

Nov 10, 2012 2:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Tiu wrote:

Do they realize it’s the 21st century?

Nov 10, 2012 2:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Calvin2k wrote:

This message board reveals why Romney lost: all his supporters are 11 years old and are therefore not old enough to vote.

Nov 10, 2012 3:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
whuppsadaisy wrote:

Sounds like a mandate to me Mr. Speaker.

Nov 10, 2012 3:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
seagreen wrote:

As a resident of Florida, to the world and the rest of the country, I am truly embarrassed and would like to apologize.

Nov 10, 2012 3:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse

We’re going to send more Canadians down to Florida to help them run an election. Simple….. put an X by the name and the people at the pole count them after the voting time. It’s easy. By the way, you have mis-spelled Florida…… make it “FLORI-DUH”.

Nov 10, 2012 3:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
IntoTheTardis wrote:

Why did the GOP lose everywhere but the Deep South and the Empty West? They believed their own propaganda and thought all of the polls that showed Obama ahead were part of a huge conspiracy. They thought Nate Silver was a Democratic operative! With any luck they’ll keep on believing their own bullshit the next time around, too. Facts and science are all a liberal plot in their stunted brains.

Nov 10, 2012 3:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:


Do you really think that half of the country has some type of genetic defect or menatal illness because they disagree with you? Statements like that from both sides of the aisle only comes from mental midgets.

Nov 10, 2012 5:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Bagehot wrote:

This puts a nail in the coffin for the Rove-Tea Party era in the GOP. Ohio, PA, Florida. Independents, women, Hispanics, just about every segment that is increasing participation (black rate of turnout actually down slightly) is not buying the Repub brand. The goober crowd (Nugent, Trump, Victoria Jackson) isn’t helping either. Right now, the GOP, not the Dems, is the race party, and they seems to not get how real women live and think.
If you’re a real conservative (natsec & business, not this culture nonsense), you better think of something. Right now, you don’t have a party.

Nov 10, 2012 5:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
stopthebiasbs wrote:

Who cares

Nov 10, 2012 6:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
divinargant wrote:

Both represent the representation of the status quo and all that that implies. The election bears no credibility since neither will do any heavy lifting on crucial issues and, once again, the system has succeeded
in keeping global central planners/bankers in control. So, how much difference does this distraction really make.

Nov 10, 2012 6:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

Looks to me like women and minorities are rescuing this country from the hands of, what has become, the tyranny of the white male. Certainly not all of us have supported this “conservative”, anti-democratic movement, but apparently a majority of white men have. I’m hoping that era has come to an end so that, once again, we can return to building an American community.

How ironic that white males are often heard complaining about the us and them mentality of minorities, when the real problem with that attitude is coming from the white men themselves. The idea is to be free to be who you are in this country, but to also be able to come together to solve our nation’s problems as they arise. Republicans haven’t been very successful at doing that.

We need to quit fearing other races. Xenophobia really doesn’t make any sense. I’ve spent a lot of time working with, dating, hanging out with people from all races, backgrounds, and from different countries. Frankly, I fail to see much difference between the races. We’re all kinda nuts.

Nov 10, 2012 7:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:


Fiscal Conservatives should go ahead and jump ship to the Libertarian party. It requires a bit of open mindedness for those who are not completely socially liberal, and for the NeoCons. When one opens their eyes though, the costs and failure of prohibition and American Imperialism is plain to see.

Nov 10, 2012 7:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
nirmasuma wrote:

The re-election of President Obama is a travesty of
democracy. While the percentage of popular votes and the
number of States in which he got majority are just a little
more than what his opponent got, his electoral votes show
as if the election was a landslide for the President. Adding
to this funny procedure is the enormous amounts spent by both
parties which almost gave the presidency to the most undeserved

Nov 10, 2012 9:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:


You really like stereo typing people don’t you. You realize what you are said is pretty racist right? What exactly are the racist/sexist motivated policies of the Republicans. Pro lifers believe that the fetus is a life and abortion is murder. That is not sexist motivation. Most people who are against affirmative action are for equality for everyone, not special rights for a specific group over another. Illegal immigration is illegal, if 20 million people came from Canada illegally they would be against them like they are against the hispanics coming from central and south America. That isn’t racially motivated.

Yes there are racists in the Republican party, just like there are racists in the Democrat party. Democrats use race and gender to pit people against each other continuously. Personally I am sick of hearing all of the evil white man comments and for all the calls of racism when like you I’ve spent a lot of time working with, dating, hanging out with people from all races, backgrounds, and from different countries.

Racism will never end as long as Democrats keep telling all of the minorities that the evil Republicans are all racists and hate minorities. The Democrats are promoting racism and sexism in America. They do so for the votes.

Nov 10, 2012 10:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Robert76 wrote:

So, nirmasuma. Just how is the re-election of President Obama “a travesty of democracy” and the two wins by “W” was ok by you?

Get over it. We have elected……then re-elected a bi-racial man as a President. This is not the end of the world. He will continue to try to fix this country…..if Boehner and McConnell will get out of the way.

Nov 10, 2012 10:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

TheNewWorld..looks to me like you’re guilty of what you are accusing Flashrooster of doing…stereo typing

TheNewWorld quote “Racism will never end as long as Democrats keep telling all of the minorities that the evil Republicans are all racists and hate minorities. The Democrats are promoting racism and sexism in America. They do so for the votes.”

Really? Any links to prove that this point?

Nov 11, 2012 1:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

nirmasuma…I love you guys that whine over the inconvenience of reality. It was in fact a Republican that led the charge for the Constitutional Amendment that declared the the “Electoral Vote decided the outcome” and a Democrat who first fought against it. Vet a subject before you look like an idiot on the web.

Fourteenth Amendment
Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment allows for a state’s representation in the House of Representatives to be reduced to the extent that state unconstitutionally denies people the right to vote.
On May 8, 1866, during a debate on the Fourteenth Amendment, Thaddeus Stevens, the leader of the Republicans in the House of Representatives, delivered a speech on the amendment’s intent. Regarding Section 2, he said:[13]
The second section I consider the most important in the article. It fixes the basis of representation in Congress. If any State shall exclude any of her adult male citizens from the elective franchise, or abridge that right, she shall forfeit her right to representation in the same proportion. The effect of this provision will be either to compel the States to grant universal suffrage or so shear them of their power as to keep them forever in a hopeless minority in the national Government, both legislative and executive.[14]
Federal law (2 U.S.C. § 6) imposes a de jure mandate for the reduction of a state’s representatives to Congress (and thus its Electoral College membership) should the right to vote at any election “named in the amendment to the Constitution, article 14, section 2″ be denied or abridged.
[edit]Bayh–Celler Amendment
The closest the country has ever come to abolishing the Electoral College occurred during the 91st Congress.[15] The presidential election of 1968 ended with Richard Nixon receiving 301 electoral votes to Hubert Humphrey’s 191. Yet, Nixon had only received 511,944 more popular votes than Humphrey, equating to less than 1% of the national total. George Wallace received the remaining 46 electoral votes with only 13.5% of the popular vote.[16]
Representative Emanuel Celler (D – New York), Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, responded to public concerns over the disparity between the popular vote and electoral vote by introducing House Joint Resolution 681, a proposed Constitutional amendment which would have abolished the Electoral College and replaced it with a system wherein the pair of candidates who won at least 40% of the national popular vote would win the Presidency and Vice Presidency respectively. If no pair received 40% of the popular vote, a runoff election would be held in which the choice of President and Vice President would be made from the two pairs of persons who had received the highest number of votes in the first election. The word “pair” was defined as “two persons who shall have consented to the joining of their names as candidates for the offices of President and Vice President.”[17]
On April 29, 1969, the House Judiciary Committee voted favorably, 28–6, to approve the proposal.[18] Debate on the proposal before the full House of Representatives ended on September 11, 1969[19] and was eventually passed with bipartisan support on September 18, 1969, being approved by a vote of 339 to 70.[20]
On September 30, 1969, President Richard Nixon gave his endorsement for adoption of the proposal, encouraging the Senate to pass its version of the proposal which had been sponsored as Senate Joint Resolution 1 by Senator Birch Bayh (D – Indiana).[21]
In its October 8, 1969 edition, the New York Times reported that 30 state legislatures were “either certain or likely to approve a constitutional amendment embodying the direct election plan if it passes its final Congressional test in the Senate.” Ratification of 38 state legislatures would have been needed for adoption. The paper also reported that 6 other states had yet to state a preference, 6 were leaning toward opposition and 8 were solidly opposed.[22]
On August 14, 1970, the Senate Judiciary Committee sent its report advocating passage of the proposal to the full Senate. The Judiciary Committee had approved the proposal by a vote of 11 to 6. The six members who opposed the plan, Democratic Senators James Eastland of Mississippi, John Little McClellan of Arkansas and Sam Ervin of North Carolina along with Republican Senators Roman Hruska of Nebraska, Hiram Fong of Hawaii and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, all argued that although the present system had potential loopholes, it had worked well throughout the years. Senator Bayh indicated that supporters of the measure were about a dozen votes shy from the 67 needed for the proposal to pass the full Senate. He called upon President Nixon to attempt to persuade undecided Republican Senators to support the proposal.[23] However, Nixon, while not reneging on his previous endorsement, chose not to make any further personal appeals to back the proposal.[24]
Open debate on the proposal finally reached the Senate floor on Tuesday, September 8, 1970[25] and was quickly faced with a filibuster. The lead objectors to the proposal were mostly Southern Senators and conservatives from small states, both Democrats and Republicans, who argued abolishing the Electoral College would reduce their states’ political influence.[24]
On September 17, 1970, a motion for cloture, which would have ended the filibuster, failed to receive the required assent of two-thirds of those Senators voting, which was necessary for the motion to pass.[26] The vote was 54 to 36 in favor of the motion.[24] A second motion for cloture was held on September 29, 1970, this time failing 53 to 34, five votes short of the required two-thirds. Thereafter, the Senate Majority Leader, Mike Mansfield of Montana, moved to lay the proposal aside so that the Senate could attend to other business.[27] However, the proposal was never considered again and died when the 91st Congress officially ended on January 3, 1971.

Nov 11, 2012 1:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Karl Rove must be in a straight jacket with this one. There are different level of intelligence. Karl Rove definitely wants us to know how smart he is and Axelrods that gets the job done.

Nov 11, 2012 3:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bemore2day wrote:

nirmasuma: “Adding to this funny procedure is the enormous amounts spent by both parties which almost gave the presidency to the most undeserved candidate.”

First of all, the dollars raised and spent by Obama were only about $100,000.00 more than Romney. This is a drop in the bucket in advertising dollars. The reality seems to be that the obscene amount of money used in this election didn’t really seem to impact the final vote that much.

Secondly, although much can be debated about the Electoral College and its need or relevancy in today’s voting process, the fact remains that this is how we vote in America and Obama won hands down!

Let’s look back at the popular vote:

Kennedy won 0.17% over Nixon
Carter won 0.51% over Ford
G.W. Bush won -0.51% over Gore (yes, he lost the popular vote, but won in the Electoral College)
G.W. Bush won 2.46% over Kerry
Obama wins 2.4% over Romney (not the final number, until Florida FINALLY finishes its count)

This margin of victory is nothing new and still is considered an overwhelming win in our voting system. Bush actually WON the election, but lost the popular vote, yet was was still out president.

In 2004 Bush, with only a 2.46% victory over Kerry, claimed he had a mandate and political capital to “spend” in moving forward his agenda with the legislative branch after his victory.

This is how our system works, it is not a “travesty,” get over it.

A win is a win even if its by only a million votes. It’s way better than Bush winning by a negative 0.51%!

Nov 11, 2012 5:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Whipsplash wrote:

With Florida finally in, that makes the election pretty much a butt kicking by Obama. Well done Mr. President!

Nov 11, 2012 11:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
hoxfan wrote:


I wish I hadn’t wasted so much time reading those scientific studies on how people who watch Fox News are less informed than people who watch no news. Your posts quite eloquently prove that point.

Your party’s attempts to marginalize the 47% (ie minorities) through voter suppression and self deportation were all brilliant strategies. Keep up the good work!

Nov 12, 2012 9:34am EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

I want to hear again about how all the polls were liberal lies and Romney was going to win this, no matter what the ‘liberal polls’ said.

Good times. You conservatives can lie to yourselves all you like, but election day has a way of… not caring. Romney beating Obama. That’s a good one. We’re still laughing.

Nov 13, 2012 3:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dna53 wrote:

The thing that really bothers me is : all of the networks said the polls called this race ” too close to call”. I think the networks were trying to make this more than it was in actuality . Or how could all of these polls be so off the mark? Makes me wonder?

Nov 13, 2012 4:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.