November 05, 2008


... to the 44th, and first African-American, President of the United States, Mr. Barack Obama.

(Y'see how that easy that was? No, "HE CHEATED!! WE WERE ROBBED OF THE ELECTION!" conspiratorial nonsense that we on the right have had to endure the last eight years from the likes of these putzes.)

Posted by Hube at November 5, 2008 06:05 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Dude. You couldn't credibly make those sorts of comments because it wasn't even close. Dude.

Posted by: Bronwen at November 5, 2008 09:51 AM

Nice. Are YOU turning into a moonbat now, too? Give me a royal break.

Posted by: Hube at November 5, 2008 09:56 AM

Yeah, it is difficult to argue about a landslide. Considering Bush won due to a SCOTUS halted recount in 2000 (and lost the pop vote)... and Kerry lost by like 3 electoral votes... you think that had anything to do with the complaints in 2000 and 2004?

Posted by: Dorian Gray at November 5, 2008 11:42 AM

Um, nice try moonbat. Bush beat Kerry by 35 electoral votes in 2004, quite a bit more than THREE. And spare me the SCOTUS bit in 2000. Every news org. showd Bush winning the state ANYWAY. And you've no one to blame for how 2000 turned out than Gore and the FLSC, among a few others.

Thanks for proving you're a mental midget yet again. Now go back to your DL cave and stay there.

Posted by: Hube at November 5, 2008 12:04 PM

BTW moonbat, did Nixon sue everyone and demand recount after recount in 1960? Just curious ...

Posted by: Hube at November 5, 2008 12:05 PM

Have to one could possibly dispute an election like this. Not even remotely similar.

In 2004, the election could have flipped on one of a couple states that were very close, and Bush finished 16 EV's past 270. NC likely Obama, putting him nearly 100 electorals over the top, somewhere around 365.

Posted by: FH at November 5, 2008 12:26 PM

Boy, you moonbats sure are MISSING THE POINT.

Now, what about 1960 again?

Posted by: Hube at November 5, 2008 12:27 PM

Or what about 1976 for that matter? Where were the calls about fraud/stealing/disenfranchisement then?

Oh, and would DL have had a congratulatory post about McCain up today had the election gone differently? Yeah, right.

Posted by: Hube at November 5, 2008 12:34 PM

I do have to say that if McCain presented himself for the entire campaign the way he did in his concession speech, things could have been different. I was really impressed.

Posted by: h. at November 5, 2008 01:12 PM

Oh please, h. You've NO idea, do you?

Try this:

Posted by: Hube at November 5, 2008 01:13 PM

Apologies, my comment doesn't really add to the debate... but I just want to point out:

Hube, 6; Commenters, 0.

And I sense a shutout, too.

Posted by: Matthew K. Tabor at November 5, 2008 03:00 PM

Speaking of moonbats and "stolen elections" did you happen to hear your old pal Liz ranting about Mike Castle on DTR today? Hillarious! "The numbers don't add up, they called it early, blah blah blah!" Must have been those sneaky Israelis again.

Posted by: G Rex at November 5, 2008 03:47 PM

Rex: She did NOT. OMG. There's no end to her insanity.

Posted by: Hube at November 5, 2008 03:54 PM

Boy, you moonbats sure are MISSING THE POINT.
Now, what about 1960 again?

What about 1960? Not only isn't that year comparable climate-wise (might as well compare Bonds to Ruth straight-up while you're at it) -- but also electorally. It makes no sense in response to Bronwen's comment. It was a nice dodge, though.

The only appropriate response, forensically, would be to either concede the point that maybe you were wrong to claim the GOP is doing something the Dems wouldn't in similar circumstances -- or to cite similar circumstances! That is, a time when there was a 360-160-ish win by the GOP and the Dems responded by whining.

Then, Mr. Tabor, he'd be 6-0.

Posted by: FH at November 5, 2008 07:59 PM

Y'know, PLEASE. Both 1960 and 1976 were close enough that the GOP could have screamed, hollered and whined that they were robbed just like you moonbats did the last two elections. (In 1960 a mere smattering of vote changes could have changed the electoral landscape and you know it -- IL and TX alone. Can you say Richard Daley and LBJ? You can't go by just the pure electoral #s.) You want a dodge? THAT'S the dodge YOU keep taking. The fact is that you moonbats are a bunch of pantywaist crybabies, while contrariwise historically the GOP has bowed out gracefully, despite squeakers.

Why do you think that is?

Posted by: Hube at November 5, 2008 08:21 PM

You're missing the point. Sure, 1960 and 1976 were close enough the GOP could have screamed. Well done. In *close* elections, the GOP is classy and the Dems suck. Sure. Not Bronwen's point. You didn't respond to it.

Your statement in this post - to which these commenters are responding - is what people are objecting to. You compare THIS election to close elections. Which is silly.

Posted by: FH at November 5, 2008 08:30 PM

A'ight, a'ight, I'll concede that point as given. My words in the post were actually meant in the generality. But something tells me the DL crowd and the Liz Allens around would be screaming if the result was the same, but the candidates' position reversed....

Posted by: Hube at November 5, 2008 08:35 PM

... especially if all the news about ACORN, no security checks on campaign donations, refusal to disclose donor info were all part of McCain's campaign ...

Posted by: Hube at November 5, 2008 08:37 PM

What was that about an "electoral blowout?" How close are all these states in the pop. vote? How much it take to change 'em? How would this [obviously] affect the electoral vote?

Imagine if the situation were reversed!!


Posted by: Hube at November 6, 2008 09:25 AM

The link:

Posted by: Hube at November 6, 2008 09:26 AM