Of course I never voted for the guy, doubt I would have if I had the chance. But in terms of what his supporters voted for I'll give it a kick at the cat since most do not want to be pounced on.
I think that the individual groups had their own personal agenda. The gays probably would like to see being able to get married where ever they live, some women would rather be the one's in control of their bodies rather some politician, people on welfare do not want to be thrown out on the street, some blacks that have a unfounded distrust of white politicians might see it preferable to have a non-white in office.
But people are not one dimensional beings. I see the political stripe of the people here but know very little of the other facets of this group. Does one fish, does the other coach baseball, one may provide help to the needy, some have multiple facets. To just pick one side of a person and then wrap their outlook on that one characteristic does them a disservice. Actually it does the ones accusing them of being one dimensional a disservice as it is easy to discount others and see nothing other than a narrow point of view.
First of all I would like to say I think many who voted for Obama might have gone the other way if a positive alternative was offered. If anything your process of selecting a leader turns people off of a candidate. It is almost like you pick the one person that has the least amount of mud clinging to them and then stand them up as a shiny example to lead the country. Anybody see a problem with that?
But back to why someone would vote Democrat rather than Republican in the last election (Notice I said the party rather than the man) it may come down to ideology, local candidate, and the individual agendas that have been listed previously. On the local level you may not care for the Republican candidate in your area, therefor by default you only have the choice to vote for the other guy. On ideology it could be a different vision of the America. One side says that we are one country and that we stand together as one, the other says that you are all individuals and that the best and the brightest will succeed but those with the advantages of money and upbringing will be first in line. Need I say more?
The best and brightest will always succeed.
As a country we do not need to throw all the others out with the trash.
Yes, Hannity is just a talk show host. His stichk is give me x amount of your time and I will school you in the ways of the chosen (I do occasionally listen, but it doesn't work). In this sense he seems to be a role model for alot of the right wing, discussion is out of the question, if someone offers an opposing opinion they are ridiculed and dismissed as a liberal. The preaching from the rightys is a big reason Americans are turned off by their rhetoric, the arrogance is apparent in the current House and their "symbolic" gestures and rejection of any ideas but their own.
I am always open for discussion but how dare you DEMAND that I see it your way? But as usual the chicken-**** conservative takes his ball and leaves. Someone tell him I am proud to be ignored by this sort of debater.
I'd like to see the total defense spending of the US at twice the total of the rest of the worlds instead of the 3 times what it is now.
I'd like to see Social Security payments to children of deceased and disabled taxpayers stop at 16 years of age instead of 26. They can get a job and this nonsense of everyone needs a college education to stop.
I would sterilize all unwed teenage mothers on welfare after their first child and put them to work doing some constructive work instead of working on their backs
I would agree except for defense spending... IMO the minute the US is even partially vulnerable on any front... someone will try to start a war.
Besides; as I have pointed out before: The HUGE US military is not to protect the US, it is to protect the US$... Do some research and look at what the military does and does not protect... and it will become clear.
We citizens are pawns to the bankers interests... yet I do not see BHO putting the bankers under anywhere near as much scrutiny as he does business... ever wonder why? When we answer that question... we will be on the road to finding the real answers.