and Bob Sheiffer on This Week said this was a close election? He said"Did it give President Obama a mandate with some political capital because after all, even in battle ground states it was close" WTF 332-206 Bob?
Now we all know the opposite of this conclusion,
There he goes again.."this election was close"
With all the facts, could anything bring these Republican hacks to admit the Republican agenda was rejected...
There is one thing he said that made sense "The millionaires could have gotten a much better return by contributing to charity"
I would add to that..our education system.
1. In many of the battleground states it was a blowout.
Which is why Nate had the odds for Obama at around 80%.
But this is as it always is. Bush wins by narrow margins both times and it is a mandate and a come to Jesus moment for the democrats. Obama slaughters McCain and Money Boo Boo, and it is time for the Democrats to get serious about compromising.
Speaking of which, not once during the campaign was it mentioned that starting literally 1/20/2009 the republican congressional caucus swore an oath to do nothing except work for the defeat of Obama, that they refused to negotiate in good faith on any legislation, that they set a record in the senate for most filibusters, and that Obama repeatedly attempted to coax them into any compromise at all by offering up deals that made most of us here shit our pants in outrage.
=== I'm sorry, your war may not be available at this time. Please try again later. ===