President Barack Obama has been elected to two terms by the electoral college. Obama was able to capture 303 electoral votes by winning key battle ground states such as Ohio, Florida, and Virginia. Romney was only able to get 206 votes.
Going into the election, I was confident of Obama’s victory and in Nate Silver’s predictions. All his predictions held true.
Many complain that Obama didn’t do enough in his first term. This may be true; however, he did have a lot to lose. Being too aggressive could have given him a bad reputation for not wanting to work bipartisan (even though no Republicans were willing to work with him either), and may have cost him this election. This time around, I am sure he will do what needs to be done in order to fix this country.
Many are also confused as to why Romney lost. There are many reasons, but the most prevalent is his far-right leaning. Many moderate conservatives did not agree with Romney’s far-right ideals, and they gave their votes to Obama because of it. Obama isn’t right-winged, he is just a moderate left. This made him appealing to all those voters weary of Romney.
After this election, I now look forward to four more years of progress and change. Four more years of a better economy, better job market, better foreign affairs, better education, equal rights, and better regulations on business. Electing Obama is the first step to a better America.
casey • Nov 14, 2012 at 7:37 PM
OMG people the top 1% pay half the taxes. we have half the country literally supporting the other half. we have the highest corp tax rate in the world. i make less than 50 k a year but have good health insurance that will be getting slashed because under obama care if ur insurance is valued at more than 9 % of your pay both u and ur employer have to pay a luxury tax. now every resturant in america tbat tries to give there people enough hours to live on are cutting those hours back to 28 to try and stay in buisness, and in case ur wondering i used to be a resturant manager and most operate on a 5 to 8 percent profit margin so no they arent making a ton of money and in fact if things dont run smoothly they tend to loosemoney. obama and these taxes are killing everyone. making less than 50k a year im pay about a third of my pay to the government already in one deduction or another. get a grip on reality we can not pay for his grand social dreams
Former Student* • Nov 9, 2012 at 8:56 AM
This is the time where I stop giving Obama the benefit of the doubt. He needs to get both sides to agree to stop the pending fiscal cliff that which is inevitable if they do not get this done. My family is not gonna pay $4700 more in taxes…just saying. This is also the term where Republicans need to stop c***blocking Obama without raising taxes to wealthy and cutting spending at the same time. The economics is not there. I know, I know..that raising taxes to the wealthy is only small part of the solution but its a step forward. Even Warren Buffet agrees with this — Yes, the billionaire investor. For Democrats, reduce the spending in social services. I know I might get bashed for this but without reducing spending, there will be no economic growth because most people rely only on those social services provided by the government. I thinking raising taxes for the wealthy and reducing spending is a good compromise but I guess those politicians do not see it that way.
Jack • Nov 10, 2012 at 1:25 PM
We also have this 19% chunk of our budget devoted to defense… Maybe we could shave a few billions off of that.
Former Student* • Nov 10, 2012 at 6:03 PM
This is where I have problem. I sure want the government to shave spending on defense but right now it is not wise to do so. Why you may ask? We are still fighting a war in Afghanistan. A significant reduction in defense budget will truly risk the lives of the men and women fighting overseas. Maybe we should end the war first and without war, there’s significant less spending on defense.
Also we are spending so much on defense because we are alway “at war” or the US felt we are always at war.
Jack • Nov 11, 2012 at 1:44 AM
Where do people think that enormous deficit that Republicans are always blaming on Obama came from? LOL. I don’t understand why people think that we should cut Medicare/Medicaid and Social Services (aka the stuff that rich people don’t need), which millions of America need to get by. Calling the lower and middle class Americans who need government assistance “lazy” is just so plainly ignorant. When people say they want smaller government, it’s because THEY don’t need the government. Disgusting.
John • Nov 8, 2012 at 10:09 PM
Obama’s second term is significantly weakened by the House still being under Republican control and the Senate having a rather weak Democratic majority. Obama can’t really do much – not that I can blame him myself.
Rebecca Yun • Nov 8, 2012 at 9:51 PM
I’m not sure if it is a typo (it probably is), but Dan’s last name is misspelled in the caption under his mugshot.
It’s funny, because it says “Potus” which is the abbreviation for the President of the United States, who just so happens to be the subject of the article.
Editor • Nov 8, 2012 at 9:57 PM
Fixed. Thanks for catching that Rebecca.
Mitt_Junior • Nov 8, 2012 at 7:36 PM
I would be afraid not getting elected because i WASN’T able to get things done. If you’re going to become the president of the unites states no matter what you have a lot to lose.
Fun Fact:
90% of african americans voted Obama.
Justin Sia • Nov 8, 2012 at 2:53 PM
How could you look forward to four years of prosperity when he hasn’t even given us four years yet?
Told. Get at me bro.
Isabelle Davis • Nov 8, 2012 at 8:31 PM
Justin, how do you expect to get any respect from the other side if you use such immature responses like “Get at me bro” or “Don’t hate me cuz you ain’t me”? I want to see both sides of the issue but it’s really hard to listen to repeated unprovoked comebacks from people I’m already inclined not to agree with.
Also, prosperity wasn’t going to just fall into America’s lap seconds after a huge recession. You can’t use that as an expectation for the next four years. No, we will probably not skyrocket to a completely healthy economy for a couple more years, but we have been and we will continue to slowly recover. That’s what has to happen when there is such a divided country and a Congress that doesn’t do anything.
a;lsdflasjfk • Nov 8, 2012 at 9:58 PM
Isabelle,
Improvement at any level is unattainable when the best suggestion Obama can offer is to raise taxes on the wealthy. For the next for years, the wealthy will be paying for “big government” or the government programs that Obama wants to create. For the next for years, and for as long as a Democrat is in office, the American population’s work ethic will deteriorate even further as they realize that hard work and struggle is not necessary when the rich pay 40% income taxes to support the rest of the population. Those ungodly income tax rates on the wealthy are engendering a lazy, welfare-dependent America. Why should anyone work hard anymore when the President will force the wealthy to provide for everyone?
John • Nov 8, 2012 at 10:40 PM
In the words of a Republican, “there you go again”.
Obama may not be doing the best job on the economy, but let’s take a look, historically, at Republican economic results:
J. CALVIN COOLIDGE (1923 – 1929) – Economic policies were initially prosperous but lead to the most significant financial collapse in American history almost immediately after he left office.
HERBERT C. HOOVER (1929 – 1933) – Attempts to deal with the Great Depression without spending government money ultimately did nothing to help the country pull out of it’s issues and lost re-election by a landslide.
DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER (1953 – 1961) – Didn’t really interfere with the New Deal policies or the current economy at the time, which was mostly controlled by Labor Unions; most prosperous economic era since Coolidge.
RICHARD M. NIXON (1969 – 1974) – Recession was around the corner, and had to use executive price controls in a vain attempt to hold on to the declining economy. But guess what happened when he left the presidency?
GERALD R. FORD (1974 – 1977) – Major recession began and hurt jobs badly. Can’t comment much. Nice guy though.
RONALD W. REAGAN (1981 – 1989) – Reintroduced supply-side economics, a policy that lead to several years of economic growth with a hard landing and recession in the late 1980’s as he left office and following thereafter. Also, increased spending and the deficit by massive margins, setting the stage for each succeeding president to do so as well.
GEORGE H. W. BUSH (1989 – 1993) – Went back on his pledge and against Republican policy and raised taxes, which lead to a very, very slow economic growth that didn’t take full effect until nearly immediately after he left office.
GEORGE W. BUSH (2001 – 2009) – Cut taxes, but increased spending majorly in two wars. I’m not going to be a token modern liberal and beat up on Dubaya, but he follows the same patterns as Reagan and Coolidge – good economy at first, terrible fall as they near leaving office.
The overall pattern is Republican presidents will have shorter spurts of growth and then the economy dies after they leave. Now, this would seem like ‘blame the next guy’ – but an incoming president inherits their predecessor’s economy for the first nine months. Thus why Obama lost so many jobs at first, and why the senior Bush was actually a decent president. That’s also why Coolidge is to blame for the Depression, Bush for the current economy, Nixon for the Ford-Carter economy, and possibly Reagan for the early ’90’s recession but that one is more debatable.
Now let’s examine Democratic presidents of the same eras:
FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT (1933 – 1945) – The economic policy that pulled us out of the Great Depression came from this man, a former Governor of New York. He changed the way banks run, the way the Stock Market works, and nearly changed the American judicial system, too. When he began to relax his tight control on the economy in the late ’30’s it began to recede again, and then World War II and succeeding Baby Boom was the seal of the New Deal.
JOHN F. KENNEDY (1961 – 1963) – I don’t really know of his economic policy or it’s results. Kennedy’s era was dominated by other concerns. I assume he inherited and maintained Eisenhower’s good economic record.
LYNDON B. JOHNSON (1963 – 1969) – Again, don’t really know much on his economy. His era, again, was dominated by other concerns.
JIMMY CARTER (1977 – 1981) – In between Ford and Reagan… didn’t really do a bloody thing for the economy, focused on the larger issues such as foreign policy and human rights, but between economic issues and the Iran hostage crisis, costed himself him the election
WILLIAM J. CLINTON (1993 – 2001) – Four years of balanced budgets and federal surpluses with bipartisan support from the Republicans including House Speaker Newt Gingrich. I don’t think anymore needs to be said of that. Inherited some of the senior Bush’s more helpful policies as well.
The pattern with Democratic presidents is truthfully, much less consistent – but overall, it seems Democrats created a great economy from a dark one and managed to maintain it, even during the Eisenhower era, through for up to thirty years, given my foggyness on the sixties. Whereas the most recent Republican administrations besides Eisenhower, have generally been economic bubbles – great for a short time, but then dead within two terms.
This is history, this is facts.
jim • Nov 8, 2012 at 10:50 PM
Do you expect me to read this list?
Summing up 4 years of leadership with one or two sentences about how “good” the president was if Democratic and “bad” if Republican is hardly a compelling argument.
Save me some time and do a little analysis, not regurgitation that supports your views.
Justin Sia • Nov 10, 2012 at 10:15 AM
Yeah… I actually read the list, and it was just a waste of time.
A lof of the president “summaries” you had invovled the words “I think” or even “I’m not sure but….” If you’re going to do a fact check on something, at least involve facts, not opinions. Don’t expect me to get won over by your views if they’re biased and based on opinions one person has put together.
Regarding Clinton, ever heard of economic trends? During the Clinton era, our economy was driven so high and out of control that we had to have some sort economic decline one way or another. To say that Bush directly caused the economic troubles we’re in right now cannot be truly verified. Also, I just want to say that Clinton was very lucky to dodge the 9/11 attacks. If he would’ve gone to war, Clinton would’ve been the one to blame for the mess of war, as is any president who issues a declaration of war. Please note that this paragraph is based on facts.
While you’re checking your facts at the door, make sure to check your bias as well.
Dan Poskus • Nov 8, 2012 at 10:41 PM
I am sorry Mr. or Mrs. Keyboardfaceslam, I missed the part where you gave a proposal on what to do with all of the hungry families struggling to get by. I guess letting them starve while the rich fly gold jets is a viable option…
jets gold blahblhab • Nov 8, 2012 at 11:05 PM
What’s keyboardfaceslam? Since you work for the NWN, It would be in your interest to not engage in immature verbal attacks against your readers.
The solution is not to tax the upper middle class.
They have worked hard and earned a higher education which has enabled them to “fly gold jets.”
For one thing, the government can be more careful about doling out money.
Too often, people become lax in their search for jobs since welfare benefits suffice, and it becomes all too easy to become dependent on government money.
People who have lost their jobs in the recession certainly deserve to be supported with unemployment benefits for a limited–keyword: limited–amount of time.
I’m not an economist so I don’t have any solution. Neither do you.
But I do know that people who are employed and work hard for their money should not be forced to pay for government programs to support those who don’t.
It creates a society so different from the independent, hard-working, “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” kind of America which has allowed it to be the strongest nation on Earth.