Guest Post: Why President Obama Was Reelected

Tyler Durden's picture

Via James E. Miller of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada,

It’s a safe assumption to make that the reelection of Barack Hussein Obama to the office of the United States Presidency will be talked about for decades to come. In history textbooks, 2012 will be referred as a momentous election year when the nation came together and collectively decided to stick with a president through the thick. Like Franklin Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and other “transformative” presidents before him, Obama will be praised for keeping the country together in the midst of economic difficulty. In sum, he will be called a popular figure who triumphed over America’s old guard and lead the nation into a new era of solidarity and renewed social tolerance.

The lavishing has already begun with prominent voices on the left like Paul Krugman declaring the “new America” has made Obama their champion. It’s being said in major newspapers across the world that this new incarnation of the American experiment is much more attuned to the struggle of minorities and the downtrodden. They went with a President who will use the divine power of the federal government to lift the disenfranchised onto the platform of dignified living.

Like most of what passes for accepted history, this is downright propaganda. The country as a whole wasn’t frightened over sudden change by throwing out the incumbent. It wasn’t a declaration of a new, more diverse America. Shaping a new destiny wasn’t on the casual voter’s mind on November 6th.

There is a rational explanation for the President’s reelection which doesn’t invoke a deep or complex meaning. The only way to explain the outcome is in the simplest and direct prose: the moochers prevailed.

Obama’s winning tactic was to do what any respectable man does when he wishes to have something; he bought it. From cell phones and contraceptives to food stamps and unemployment benefits, the Obama administration kept the money flowing to ensure a steady turnout on Election Day. The coup de grâce was painting his opponent as a second coming of Dickens’ Scrooge that was ready to cut the voters from their trust funds.

The campaign made no attempt to hide this tactic. In an online video, celebrity Lena Dunham was tapped to extol the virtues of government-supplied birth control. The advertisement was aimed at a younger generation already guaranteed access to their parent’s health insurance till they turn 26 (and then morph simultaneously into full grown, self-sufficient adults). The video was a great demonstration of the campaign strategy but it was topped by one woman from Cleveland, Ohio who exemplified the public trough mentality on camera. Commonly referred to as the Obama-phone lady, this woman was so enraptured by her “free” cell phone and other welfare entitlements, she was determined to “keep Obama in president” to use her exact words. Though clearly dimwitted, Ms. Obamaphone was a phenomenal orator of the President’s message of goodies in exchange for votes.

Though it worked splendidly, Obama’s strategy was not brilliantly crafted from the minds of experts. It was the same bread and circus routine employed by the Romans and applied to modern demographics that relish in a victim-like mentality.  Women, the youth, blacks, Hispanics, and the elderly were all catered to through subtle patronization and outright payoffs.  It was the same tactic employed by the Roosevelt administration when the New Deal got underway. As journalist John T. Flynn wrote of the popular 32nd president:

It was always easy to sell him a plan that involved giving away government money. It was always easy to interest him in a plan which would confer some special benefit upon some special class in the population in exchange for their votes.

The 2009 auto industry bailout was Obama’s great tribute to Roosevelt. By infusing two auto giants with the federal government and still maintaining the appearance of their private ownership, the President convinced a majority in the battleground state of Ohio to put him back in the White House. Criticizing the auto bailout was the last nail in the coffin for Mitt Romney’s presidential aspirations.

None of this is to say the election of Romney would have meant the much needed axing of the welfare state and state-subsidized dependency. The army of bureaucrats tasked with cutting checks in the name of kindness would still work to expand their budgets. The wealthy interests the former Massachusetts governor looked to appease were welfare queens in themselves and would likely receive all the state coddling money can buy.

Obama won the election by catering to the worst of all human traits: envy. He demonized the rich while promising to take more of their income and give it out in the form of entitlement payments. Under his presidency, the attitude of the takers will continue to swell as they clamor for more privileges. Anybody who speaks out against the Robin Hood scheme will be called an unconscionable xenophobe and a hater of the poor. The protestant work ethic will slowly be choked into submission through deliberate iconoclasm launched by the political class and their pet media pundits.

The opponents of capitalism will keep blaming money and greed for all the ills of society. They will also keep wearing fashionable clothes and coordinating protests on their smartphones while drinking caffeinated drinks that cost the same as some third world country’s average salary. They will scoff at hard work when it’s the sweat and labor of generations before them that has created the living standard they enjoy today. Under their tutelage America will be brought into its final form of, as right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh accurately defined it, a “country of children.”

Economist Thomas DiLorenzo sums up the key to Obama’s victory in this pungent bit of fine wisdom:

Every time Romney made one of his “let’s get the economy going again” speeches extolling the virtues of hard work he terrified the millions of welfare bums and parasites and motivated them more than ever to stand in line for hours to vote for Santa Claus Obama, their “savior” from having to work for a living.  (It’s always the low opportunity cost class that has the “luxury” of spending half a day or more standing in a line).

With Obama’s reelection comes the onward march of American society’s degeneration into that of the lazy, bitter masses forever on the lookout to loot a hapless minority still trying to make an honest living. The coming brave new world will be filled to the brim with self-righteous individuals eager to shuffle around the Earth’s gifts to achieve some kind of equality. In the process, none of them will produce a lick of good outside of satisfying their own disturbed need to dominate. It will be rule of the inept over the capable. Barack Obama will lead the way. He will be replaced in four years with someone that follows the same doctrine. The collective age of the country will continue to collapse till it reaches just shy of an unclothed infant wailing for succor. Except it will be grown men doing the crying and no one around to feed him because the sensible among us has already left.

The people have spoken and made it so.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Pladizow's picture

Why President Obama Was Reelected?

Beacuse the majority of Americans are stupid!

But the same could be said if Romney was elected.

imaginalis's picture

Moochers = Bankers

Moochers = Corporations

true brain's picture

that one is easy. no analysis needed. Ron Paul voters stayed home.  Could have pushed Romney over.

haha; last laugh on you Romney and all of you RINO wack jobs.

economics9698's picture

Black voted 93% for Obama
Asians voted 72% for Obama
Latinos voted 71% for Obama
Jews voted 69% for Obama
Whites voted 59% for Romney

no taste's picture

Obama was not re-elected because Americans are moochers. (Well, the Wall St criminals are.)

Obama was re-elected because the only approved alternative was indistinguishable from Obama.

Karl Rovian - adjective - characterized as an epic failure resulting from hubris.

TruthInSunshine's picture

All your bases are belong to the Military-Defense Contractor-Banking-WallStreetFinancial Complex ("us"), bitchez.

Release the Kraken, Cracka Jackas!

francis_sawyer's picture

Stockholm syndrome... (& Obamaphones)... (& the wise choice to keep Chewbacca off the stump)...

kaiserhoff's picture

Two reasons:  Parasites outnumber producers, and the new Stalin got the slavish support of the Jew owned media.  May they get what they deserve.

no taste's picture

Stupid trolls often make bigoted remarks.

The 0.05% do not outnumber the 99.95%.

And Fox isn't part of the PTB media?

Also Netanyahu rather seemed to favor Romney.

Perhaps you should go back to troll school.

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

How did Obama win?

He cheated.

"To give you a taste of what I’m doing now I’ll share this with you.  I’m using a Florida outcome in a specific district to try and wrap my head around all of this.  Three counties.  Martin, St. Lucie, and Palm Beach.  Martin is controlled by Republicans and the turnout #s match what all our national trending showed. Big enthusiasm for the Republican candidate.  Republican vote dominated Martin County.  St. Lucie and Palm Beach are the real tests and is where the #s really start to signal something is wrong.  St. Lucie leans Democrat. Palm Beach is Dem dominated.  St. Lucie showed marginally less votes for Democrats % wise.  Republicans enjoyed some cross-over which is what all the national models were indicating.  In Palm Beach County which is Dem. dominated, voter turnout was even more depressed than prior elections, especially for the Democrats.   But the Democrats won the district.  The Republicans lost. Basically, the Democrat-dominated counties seem to be where some very odd #s came back. And if this is the model they utilized last night, they had to have done it in multiple counties for every swing state.  That kind of coordination would be huge.  And it would need the help of operatives from the other side.  So I’m sitting here trying to figure out if the #s represent real voter outcome, which means almost all our internals were way the f-ck off, or how they pulled off fraud.  That will take time.  It won’t matter for this election, but it will make us better prepared for the next one.  Either way, I got to focus and make calls, and try to figure this sh-t out."

jeff montanye's picture

i voted for gary johnson but the canadian (?) author of the original post seems quite the buffoon.  as noted above, the big moochers are the too big to fails and the military industrial complex.  

Paul Bogdanich's picture

The word "moochers" in the article is unnecessarilly inflamatory and innacurate.  It is innacurate because it leaves out all the social security and medicare recipients and focuses attention on a bunch of myths that don't really exist in any substantial proportion like welfare queens and what not.  So I prefer the term "takers" to denote anyone receiving government assistance however well deserved (disabled veteran) or not.  What gets me though is the intentions behind the events.  The hispanics delivered for democrats voting 68% democratic and sent a clear message to republicans that irrespective of any other considerations they want imigration reform and guess what, they are going to get it.  It is a top priority even for rational republicans.  A minority for sure but still a priority.  Similarly the black population voted 93% for Obama for principally emotional reasons as near as I can tell and here is the part I find incomprehensible, they demand nothing.  They suffer 24% unemployment, are functionally relagated to living under distressed violent conditions, they are allowed no upward mobility, not even symbolic peoples of color in any senior administration positions and they to are going to get exactly what they demanded which is nothing.  No change in their condition.  I do not understand why that block voted as they did and demanded nothing in return.  It is unfortunate that leaders like Malcom X were not allowed to reach maturity as he at least would have had the voice to provided some context on what one could have done if one felt compelled to vote for Tom.        

11b40's picture

First, black people know that nothing is exactly what they get from republicans.  They live it.  It is in their bones.  Instinct and experience tells them all they need to know about their choices come election day.

Then there is that ther little bit of reality republicans like to either ignore, or more likely behind closed doors, mock.  The democrat party is like a rainbow.  Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, women, gays....all can truly find a home in the democrat party, and advance.  It is patently untrue that they get nothing from the democrat party.  They are a real PART of the democrat party.

And while I'm at it, most Americans are not moochers.  Virtually every man wants to work....but where are the jobs?

The real moochers and parasites are in the FIRE industries, which produce nothing and skim from everyone....especially finance, and the multi-national corporations who have bought the political class to write the laws in their favor.

Moochers my ass.

redpill's picture

The actual name is the Democratic Party, fyi.  And minorities certainly do get something out of the party:  higher unemployment rates.


Stupid sheep.


geekgrrl's picture

This claim is not true.


   period                 start  end  chng   President      Party
Jan 1949 Jan 1953    4.3   2.9  -1.4   Truman         Democrat
Jan 1953 Jan 1957    2.9   4.2  +1.3   Eisenhower I   Republican
Jan 1957 Jan 1961    4.2   6.6  +2.4   Eisenhower II  Republican
Jan 1961 Jan 1965    6.6   4.9  -1.7   JFK/Johnson    Democrat
Jan 1965 Jan 1969    4.9   3.4  -1.5   Johnson        Democrat
Jan 1969 Jan 1973    3.4   4.9  +1.5   Nixon          Republican
Jan 1973 Jan 1977    4.9   7.5  +2.6   Nixon/Ford     Republican
Jan 1977 Jan 1981    7.5   7.5   0.0   Carter         Democrat
Jan 1981 Jan 1985    7.5   7.3  -0.2   Reagan I       Republican
Jan 1985 Jan 1989    7.3   5.4  -1.9   Reagan II      Republican
Jan 1989 Jan 1993    5.4   7.3  +1.9   Bush, GHW      Republican
Jan 1993 Jan 1997    7.3   5.3  -2.0   Clinton I      Democrat
Jan 1997 Jan 2001    5.3   4.2  -1.1   Clinton II     Democrat
Jan 2001 Jan 2005    4.2   5.2  +1.0   Bush, GW I     Republican
Jan 2005 Aug 2008    5.2   6.1  +0.9   Bush, GW II    Republican

The data speaks for itself.

BigJim's picture

May I re-introduce you to a word you almost certainly already know, but appear not to have considered applying to this? -> 'Lag'

Not that I carry a torch for Republicans, mind you... 

geekgrrl's picture

The whole thing is a mess because there are a ton of factors that go into the unemployment rate, and it's not clear to me that the party of the presidency has much to do with it. But at least I had a justification for refuting redpill's unsupported claim. Fed policies and market conditions probably have more to do with it than anything, but I am happy to look at any empirical data supporting redpill's point.

geekgrrl's picture

Hey redpill, how 'bout your respond to my counter-claim to your statement that democrats increase unemployment rates?

Got any data to back up your claims?

I'm not interested in defending democrats, but facts are facts.

Paul Bogdanich's picture

My question was not why support democrats over republicans my question was why not demand some specific policy changes for the continuing suport?  Young blacks have essentially been converted to fodder for the for profit prison system so how about an end to the insane war on drug sentencing guidelines?  Or something else, I don't know.  The statistics indicate that the community at large is not exactly "living the dream" so one would think said community would like to change a few things at least.  But to blindly support these candidates and then demand nothing seems counter productive to me.  It's not like they genuinely care about their non campaign contributing constituients you know.  

FMR Bankster's picture

Didn't you get your Obama phone? There were several million given away in Ohio with lots of free time every month.

Manthong's picture

All I know is that most people trust that the same regime that measures and reports GDP, inflation, payroll and employment and effects “policy” will measure and report votes and effect elections accurately and honestly.

I understand the cognitive dissonance there, but good luck with that.

no taste's picture

You should meet more interesting people.  One non-leading, carefully-worded question usually gets people to say what they really think.

old naughty's picture

"...will be talked about for decades to come"

I am not nearly as optimistic.

Manthong's picture

About honest regime elections..

Obama lost in every state with voter photo ID.

Captain Kink's picture

Krugman is obviously angling for the Bernank's job.

smithcreek's picture

Lots of people on this site all gung-ho to point out how Romney would have been just as bad, banksters this, politicians that, blah blah blah.  They miss the big point though, and this article gets it right.  Whether or not Romney would have been just as bad, right or wrong the public perception is Romney = work and responsibility for self, Obama = handouts and nanny state.  This is the first election in my lifetime that there was no pretense to hide that difference and the people voted for nanny state.

Let them all fail's picture

It seems like everyone on here is ignoring social issues. While financial issues are at the top of people's minds right now, I have found many people, primarily women, more worried about social and women's issues and which led them to vote for Obama.

Obviously some people were worried they might lose government assistance if Romney was voted in which must have helped Obama's tally. However, it is way too simplified to just say that moochers win and hard-working people lose...there are other issues at stake as well, even if the two parties are less different than they want people to think. The PERCEPTION, as you state, is that Obama = gov't assistance, more taxes for the rich, less aggressive foreign policy, more rights for women and gays, more focus on education. Whether accurate or not, many people are drawn to these, and to think that everyone voting for Obama is a moocher who supports a nanny state is misguided.

Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

Women's issues.  Birthcontrol.  Romney wasn't advocating the abolition of birth control.  He was basically saying you should pay for it yourself.  Its not even that expensive.  We live in a I shouldnt have to pay one thin dime for healthcare in any way shape or form, be it a finger prick or cancer treatment.  This leads to infinite demand on the finite amount of available healthcare.  When healthcare is shitty for everyone, no one will even remember what good healthcare was.

whstlblwr's picture

This is a fucking shitty article, and Ludwig von Mises continue this line and you will lose. The teaparty started because banker parasites mooched from the productive part of US. In this election, if parasites won, then predators lost. That is a simple-minded argument.

Many people I know voted for Obama because of liberal social issues, environmental protection. Even Blooomberg endorsed Obama. I think the number one reason is social unrest that would happen with Romney win. They are both the same and work for the corporations. If you believe Romney is different, you are stupid. Did you see his plan to deal with the deficit?

Nick Jihad's picture

People are not always honest about why they vote for one candidate over another. Not honest with you, and often not honest with themselves. People won't admit that they are voting their envy, because they know it makes them look bad. So they mouth pre-fab phrases about reproductive rights, etc., that were provided to them esepcially for that purpose.


whstlblwr's picture

Voting their envy? I hope you don't believe this. Are my rich friends with boats and live on lakes voting Obama for envy? NeoCons you lose. You lose public support and apparently CIA. Keep telling us that America cares what happens in the bedroom, likes to drill in parks, take away rights from women, and you will lose more elections. Maybe if Romney didn't toe the line for BIG OIL,he would have greater support. His big solution to handle the debt was to start government subsidized pipelines.

GOP would have a better chance for pubic support to move platform to small government, balance the budget, follow the constitution.

Louie the Dog's picture

GOP would have a better chance for pubic support to move platform to small government, balance the budget, follow the constitution.

What constiturional rights did the GOP want to take away from women?  Where does the constitution state that you cannot "drill in parks"?  "Big Oil" fears Obama!?  Really?  And "subsidized pipelines"?  Give me a fucking break.   What does an Obama parasite want their messiah NOT to subsidize?  You're just another liberal hack hitting the forums trying to convince Romney voters that the only way they will ever win an election is to become a parastic leech like yourself.  OK, you're right.

Harbanger's picture

+1 You cant up or down with italics.

whstlblwr's picture

LOL, GOP fucked up when they treated RP supporters like scary infiltrators trying to steal their party. You guys are trying to message this as the parasite sucking from the productive host won the election. Yeah, right, maybe take it up with the CIA.

Obama = bailouts for banks, autos, multinational corporations, wall street over mainstreet, handouts for healthcare companies, oil companies support over people (BP), hide Fuckishima, how can I forget huge support for military industrial complex, drones

Romney = bailouts for corporations (support TARP) wall street over mainstreet, handouts for healthcare companies, oil companies support over people, support for military industrial complex, drones

Shut up, we know they are the same. I could go on and on to prove they are the same if I had time to look all of it up.

bigkahuna's picture

The republican party wants nothing to do with Paul and his supporters. The republican party would rather have a democrat elected that have a Ron Paul type conservative. Their republicrat masters would not be pleased at all. 

Totentänzerlied's picture

As I said elsewhere, I have had 3 Obama voters use the women's issues excuse and each of them claimed Romney would make contraception and abortion illegal (somehow). These people are out there. They are not a fucking minority either - they won this election.

In reality, Romney could have promised free contraception and free abortions and these Obamessiah cultists still would not have even considered voting for him because he isn't The Chosen One.

The author of this article underestimates the force of Obama's cult of personality - which is understandable, because, as far as I know, Obama is the first person to have no known personality and yet have a personality cult ... how? he's The fucking Chosen One, that's how.

geekgrrl's picture

I would have voted for Obama if it had been close in my state. It wasn't so I voted for Jill Stein to try to get matching funds for the Greens. I generally don't believe in voting because there is rarely a difference between the candidates, but in this case there was a big difference in that one party's platform is inclusive of minorities, and one is not.

I can't speak for other women, but for me it was more than just abortion. It was the string of outrageous comments like there is such a thing as "legitimate rape" and talk about no abortions even in the case of rape. And all this time, the Christian conservatives, who I might mention, are very upfront and outspoken about their intent to impose their religious beliefs on American civil law and how this is a Christian nation, were ratcheting up their rhetoric to off-the-charts crazy. Legislatures were passing personhood laws where the fetus attains personhood status, which is again off-the-charts crazy.

Republicans made conservative social positions the center of their platform, and yet many men fail to see the rationality of voting against a man (Romney) who was so flip-floppy that even Republicans were unable to determine his real position on a range of issues. Had Romney won, social conservatives would have taken this as approval of their drive to Christianize American law, and it is my opinion that this scared the hell out of a lot of people, minorities of all kinds, and got a lot of them out to the polls.

All this talk about moochers and free phones is just the old welfare queen meme repackaged. It exploits prejudice to convince people to vote against their own economic interests. Miller might have more credibility in making his argument if it were supported with a quantitative comparison of government freebies given to people versus banks, corporations, non-profits, and trust funds. Until I see that, I'm not buying his argument.

Cast Iron Skillet's picture

Geekgirl, exactly right. I could never vote for Romney, because I want to live in a free country, not a Christian country. Everyone should be free to practice the religion of their choice without having "Christian values" being anchored into law.

If the Republicans (or the Democrats) had fielded a candidate with liberal social values combined with fiscal responsibility (and yes, I believe the two are compatible), I would have voted for him or her.

The blather about moochers and free phones is bigoted neocon bullshit.

Jackagain's picture

So you think that only atheists should get elected? BTW....Mitt is a Mormon, not a Christian.

Cast Iron Skillet's picture

Nope. I think religious persuasion of the candidate should not matter when voting, because religious belief would never be cast into law.

Mormonism is a Christian sect that branched off from Protestantism.

geekgrrl's picture

There is a great deal of similarity between the religions, especially attitudes towards women, and I didn't see nary a peep out of Mitt about any of the war on women rhetoric. I don't care about religion, I care about religion imposing itself into matters of civil law. It's in the first amendment for a good reason.

geekgrrl's picture

I feel very sorry for the men who downvoted this post.

geekgrrl's picture

My ideal candidate would also be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But Romney is no fiscal conservative, and his lack of any stable positions meant (to me at least) that had the winds of change blown even further into rightwingwackostan, he very well may have let the Christian right push through all sorts of religiously-based legislation and then signed it. I think the country as a whole said to the traditional majority that this is no longer a white christian nation. It belongs to all of us. (notwithstanding the view of the oligarchs of America, who I am certain do not share that view)

The real irony, in my view, is that many Christian red state Republicans have still not clued into the fact that Republican economic policies are not in their best interests. The social dominators that rule the party have exploited religious believers by tempting them with the carrot of creating a Christian state. I'm not seeing either party calling for Corzine's head. I'm not seeing either party talking about whacking the ludicrous military budget. I'm not seeing either party serious about ending the Fed. Both parties are talking about cutting social programs. I'm just not seeing a big difference fiscally, so I can't understand why so many people here believe Romney would have solved our fiscal problems. The economic plan is not party-dependent; it's print, print, print. This election was a rejection of social conservatism. (IMO)

Ident 7777 economy's picture






" My ideal candidate would also be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But Romney is no fiscal ... "



Dream on neophyte; you ain't gonna get there from here in this life.






geekgrrl's picture

Au contraire. There are many open-minded (read: socially liberal) Republicans in the Pacific Northwest, and I even count some as my friends, although they do have a heavy libertarian lean. Also on the East Coast where I grew up there are many live-and-let-live fiscally conservative Republicans. I'm curious, why do you think this is an impossibility?