If Bill Clinton had won with 53% of the vote instead of 43%, do you think he'd have been hit with the Republican Revolution? He was vulnerable because "symbolic protest votes" denied to him AND to Bush made it clear where his political support WAS LACKING, and that 57% of the voters voted against him. When liberals lose, their agenda is weakened; Romney is a liberal that REPUBLCANS would be responsible for electing. If Obama is elected in a race where 66% (best case scenario) of Americans voted AGAINST him, his enemies in his own party will have more pull in opposing him, and his enemies in the other party will, as well. Being a minority in political vote count AFFECTS THE POWER DYNAMICS. Does that explain it to you?
However, I’m happy to have given you an opportunity to hawk your seething Romney rage for the 10,000th time.
The same MO Romney supporters had here four years ago: attributing any rejection of him to shallow things like rage, hatred, anger, bigotry, childishnes -- anything but the truth: Attribute my rejection of him to the fact that he is a demonstrated liberal with a record of advancing the very causes I've been voting Republican all these years to OPPOSE.
You think my motive is rage? I know that my motive is common sense.
“You think my motive is rage? I know that my motive is common sense.”
Good for your sanity that your motive is common sense. There are plenty of common-sense reasons for opposing Romney. On the other hand, there’s been no shortage of obsessive, seething rage posted about Romney hereon...recently, more frequently and with more passion than is expressed about the Communist that is feverishly implementing every destructive policy possible, while spending our taxes campaigning for another 4 years to operate unbridled by re-election concerns.