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.
Harbanger's picture

‹^› ‹(•¿•)› ‹^›

Kobe Beef's picture

Acorn's merely been rebranded. Same toxin, all new name! Kind of like Phillip Morris. Next you'll be telling us Blackwater doesn't exist anymore either.

Typical marxist smear: lie, then attack the messenger.

toady's picture


I didn't see the Romney = work at all.

More like Romney = layoffs. Once the 1% got those tax cuts it was game over, offshore everything, Bain it all and cash out. $8 a month, just like China.

Not that Obama's any better. Hyperinflation (deflation?) Riots, starvation.

Not much of a choice ..

Ron Paul 2016!

kingslayer's picture

Haha! Romney = work and responsibility for self! Romney = unscrupulous greed.

LMAOLORI's picture



The people who voted for obama voted for more of the same corruption anyone else notice the titles of the articles mask the reality of the contents?

An Obama Economic Team to Sweep Wall Street Clean 


When U.S. voters elected Barack Obama president in November 2008, many of us were convinced he would make a top priority of reforming Wall Street, which had just almost succeeded in bringing down our way of life through greed and lack of accountability.

Despite the fact that Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS)JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) andCitigroup Inc. (C) were among Obama’s top 10 financial backers in 2008, we were hopeful we would see a change in the system whereby bankers, traders and executives were rewarded every day to take huge, asynchronous risks with other people’s money.

We also believed that Obama wouldn’t succumb to the backroom maneuverings of the plutocrats and behind-the-scenes money men -- such as former Treasury SecretaryRobert Rubin and former Deputy Secretary Roger Altman -- who were busy advocating a quick return to the status quo and looking to move their friends into positions of great importance in Obama’s Cabinet.

It turned out we were either naive or stupid to think that when candidate Obama spoke about “change you can believe in,” he was including Wall Street.

In ways we may never fully understand, Rubin quickly cast his spell on Obama. Before long, Rubin proteges were appointed to the three most important economic positions in the new administration: Timothy Geithner as Treasury secretary, Lawrence Summers as national economic adviser and Peter Orszag as director of the Office of Management and Budget. For good measure, the administration named Mary Schapiro, the head of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Wall Street’s dysfunctional self-regulatory organization, as chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.


Things that go bump's picture

The whole article is just some weird sort of penis envy.  I personally held my nose and voted for Obama, or more accurately I voted against Romney.  I was not enthused, but when it comes to the election of the lesser of 2 evils, so sorry, but Obama was the obvious choice.  The Republicans lost before the campaign even began when they hitched their wagon to Romney, so if you want to blame anyone, blame the leadership of the party or youselves. My elderly mother watched him walk off stage and said he walked like a queer (I can't take her anywhere). I told her it was probably just his magic underwear riding up and squeezing his balls.  

knukles's picture

How far we have fallen:

If Krugman got the Bernak's job, it would make no difference.

TeamDepends's picture

After completely losing faith in both the Republitute and Demoncrat parties last week, a bunch of us assembled over the weekend to create a new political party:  The It Just Doesn't Matter Anymore Party (IJDMA).  Needless to say, our first task was to decide who would be our nominee for POTUS.  After several hours of heated debate, backstabbing, bribes, drinking games, and crying, we had our "man".  In a remarkable come from behind victory, Honey Boo Boo edged out a hamster that died a few days ago and Sasquatch.  Next on the agenda is to decide what our slogan will be.  Right now the frontrunners are "More Free Stuff" and "Shut Up, You".  Will fill you in on details as they transpire.  Join us, our time has come.

voltaic's picture

Did Sasquatch get most of the disenfranchised Tea Party support?

TeamDepends's picture

None of it.  It should come as no surprise that the Sasquatch are very far left.  They support the carbon tax, a ban on drilling, Agenda 21, and declaring all forrests no-human zones.

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

They'll come around. Just promise them free beef jerky.

Anusocracy's picture

"They support the carbon tax, a ban on drilling, Agenda 21, and declaring all forrests no-human zones."

Of course they would, they're hunter-gatherers. Like the liberals.'s picture



Sucks to be a minority.


There are no minorities.  Each of us is an individual. We each comprise a distinct tally of one.

Harbanger's picture

That's Greek to a group think liberal.'s picture

Some folks feel threatened by diversity. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to media and government or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.

vast-dom's picture

and 100% of all voters are morons. now go fuck off economics9698.

economics9698's picture

Take an Excedrin and pound sand.

Antifaschistische's picture

I believe vast-dom is closest to the truth.   Here's the truth, everyone like's to HOPE, but very few people like CHANGE.   Our economic activities and our personal lives are built upon consistency and predictability about tomorrow.  Not change.  At this point, Obama's like every other goon incumbent that gets reelected year after year.   Voters are for the most part, mindless trolls who believe their "party" is like a fraternity and that being "independent" is like being "out of a club".

So...the trolls vote for incumbent because they do all know, that however bad it is, it can be worse, so a vote for an incumbent becomes a defacto vote for nothing....even, if thats not what they get.

toady's picture

A vote for the incumbent is a vote for nothing.

Very good! I haven't heard it stated quite like that. It's usually ;

A vote for the incumbent is a vote for the status quo.

Or something similar .... I like the 'vote for nothing' so much more!

bigkansas's picture

Hipsters voted %100 for Obama

1100-TACTICAL-12's picture

I voted for Willard thought it might buy just a little mor time , before we plunged into pure commie / socialist / facist /crony Hell. Not that we ain't alredy well on the way. But my gut tells me things will be'a changing a whole lot faster. See y'all @ the FEMA camp.

CABill's picture

"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)."

And the result?

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

Overfed's picture

Don't forget that 65% said "fuck this shit" and just stayed home.

adr's picture

If the debates were run like SportsCenter and you started the Congressional Fantasy League, complete with Budweiser tie ins, maybe that 65% would have shown up.

francis_sawyer's picture

Was there an election???... What did I miss?...

Renewable Life's picture

God this article is horseshit and this non sense about racial breakdowns in percentages, is what elected Obama again, is even more fantastical simpleton clown shit!!!

Every election has demographic breakdowns dipshits, I could break it down by: all single women under 35, with dogs, who have had less then two sexual partners in their life, voted for Obama by 78%!!!!!!! What the fuck would that mean!

Trying to extrapolate a national demographic correlation within our electoral college presidential system, is pure fantasy and stupidity! Obama won the fucking election, because he knew exactly how many votes he needed in every fucking county, of every fucking state, that he needed to reach 270 electoral votes! He knew the registration numbers, voter patterns and polling data and if they didn't have enough votes, they sent an army of volunteers into those counties and went door to door registering new voters, then linking those voters with a established voter in that neighborhood, to make sure the new voter, got to the polls!! They used google map technology, old fashioned voter techniques, twitter, Facebook, and targeted their resources like a laser beam!! THAT'S THE FUCKING TRUTH, but if you want do believe that a bunch or Latino and black welfare moms decided they would vote THIS time to keep their food stamps, believe what you want to too!

blunderdog's picture

    Obama won the fucking election, because...

Jeez.  I thought it was just 'cause Romney wasn't a particularly good candidate at this moment in time (lotsa hate against the "1%" has been mobilized) and he ran a lousy campaign.

But then again, I agree with Frum's critique of a few days ago, so....

FrankieNeyeball's picture

Renewable Life is correct. This was the system in place for the 2008 election ,  maintained and further developed daily in the 4 years since then, repeated with more sophistication for 2012. It was never even close.

knukles's picture

true brain...

You caught it exactly.
Out here in the Great Socialist People's Republic of Everything's Free and Everybody is Skinny and Happy in Hedonistic Self-Centered California, even a Humongoliod number of Fed Up Democrats were going to vote for Ron Paul.
Yea, and I'm talkin' uber-lefties who'd concluded that Obie was simply a repeat of W... and rightly so...

Not the Republican Party whom they Hate with a Passion. (Just as a huge amount of old fashioned Western Conservatives in the Mold of Barry Goldwater would have voted for Ron Paul, but Not Mittens and His Same Olde Shit Routine)

Had the Republican ran RP, would they have lost the reigious fucking crazy ass right, the neo-cons, the MIC supporters, big oil, pharma, ag biz, etc?  Not likely.
Would they have gained the gay/lesbian marriage, immigration, dope smoking (aka personal freedom), women's issues/birth control, anti NDAA, Patriot Act, TSA search, etc folks?  Yep

The lists go on and on.

The Republicans (Or better yet another party, a second party) have got one bitch load of soul searching to do, for they've essentially made themselves in their current form, Irrelevant

And as long as that be the case, even those (which is one hell of a lot of people) who are not on the dole or even think of them selves on the dole, ain't gonna vote Republican, so the GiveAway will continue.

It was not "only" and exclusively "Mooch" versus "anti-mooch"
That's horseshit

It was an anti-Republican undercurrent that reelected Obie.

A Bazillion people stayed home for shit's sake!

I'd told my neo-con buds that a nomination for anybody but RP would reelect O.
They're pissed at me... as if it was my fault.

Go figure.

edit:  And I'll add this.

You fucking Republicans reelected Obama, so get the fuck over it.
May you be so fucking miserable you need state sponsored psychological care and are declined.
You sanctimonious hypocrites, you're the one and the same who'd been saying that you/we had to do anything to unseat the Democrats and look at what you've brought us.


toady's picture

Thank you!

I responded to a comment a few months ago, something about how D's hated Paul, and said all the D's I know loved Paul's 'pro-dope' stance.

Holy Jesus I was called every name in the book! Damn dope fiend, son of a liberal, besmircher of the beloved Ron, blasphemer.

It must have been an east coast, west coast thing. Assume Paul would have done as well as Romney (probably better in the NE) and taken California.

Who would be sworn in come January? Not Obama!

Waffen's picture

The problem is the neocons aren't going to pursue libertarians, constitutionalists and liberty lovers, no they will pursue amnesty and Mexicans.

There is no party interested in working white people.

LMAOLORI's picture



I blame it on the Young People and we will see who has the last laugh when all is said and done and you Tax Slaves who voted for him end up picking up at least part of the bill and it will happen eventually!

The 49 Percent That Defeated Romney: Young Voters


Thulsa Doom's picture

No, the bankers and corporations are the enablers. Not enough votes there - I thought they were the 1%? I thought they were the slave masters. Can't be a moocher and a slave master at the same time.

yrbmegr's picture

Why not?  I see no conflict there.

Thulsa Doom's picture

It's the difference between mooching and raping/pillaging. Not too many James Bond villains live in their parents basements, either. Just sayin'.

CABill's picture

Villains live in their friends basements.  Kids who have parents rarely become street villains.  Or moochers.

Snoopy the Economist's picture

Thulsa, you are not looking at it correctly. Most of teh 1% are moochers - except they dont care about phones or little food stamp checks they want billions in stimulus.

bsdetector's picture

That's right snoopy. Someone booked some good revenue when those Obama phones were purchased. Where would our GDP numbers be without government spending? There is only one reason why O was re-elected; he is the better man for the job! No need to look for silly rationales.

Harbanger's picture

The Govt need stimulus from the Fed to prop up Wall Street because WS funds their entitlement programs.  If they don't the whole unsustainable ponzi system collapses. so they are going to keep foward with the socialist keneysian model until they can't. 

LMAOLORI's picture



And obama happily gave it to them and no prosecutions to boot!

Ricky Bobby's picture

BS -- Slave masters are the biggest moochers of all, living off the labor of others. The point is when the moochers are attacking the middle from above and below it is Banana Republic time. I can hardly wait; we either end up Like France or Venezuela.

Harbanger's picture

After they crash the economy and destroy the middle class, they will try to force us into some new global utopian system.

toady's picture

I'm thinking the $8 a month, Chinese-work-camp style utopia.

LMAOLORI's picture



+1 Harbanger That is the New World Order plan global Communism

Darth Mul's picture

Slave masters are moochers by definition, fathead.  They outright steal the labor, i.e. are parasitic on the labor of others.

Central bankers are moochers of labor to the highest degree.


Stop being so fucking dumb.


Thulsa Doom's picture

Didn't we just see divide and conquer worked rather well? To lump everyone into the label moocher doesn't really divide much at all, so the conquering part will likely not follow. Understand now?

Hey, I know, instead of calling them slave masters or rapists and pillagers, we can call them moocher and equate evil masterminds to middle-aged kids living in their parents basements!

icanhasbailout's picture

Obama was re-elected because both Democrats and Republicans nominated him

dugorama's picture

I can understand voting for Romnye if you are Mormon, he's part of your tribe.  

I can understand voting for Romney if you work on Wall STreet, he's part of your criminal gang.

I can understand being disappointed in Obama for a long list of reasons.

But I have no concept of how anyone can "be" for Romney.  What does that even mean?  He changes positions more often than I change my underwear. 

The Rs lost (rather than the Ds winning) because they pandered to the far right and presented a candidate who clearly had no formed opinions on any topic  that anyone cares about other than deregulating Wall St and cutting taxes.  Describe to me his postion on: foreign policy or the middle east, the environment, the economy, SS, medicare, anything else.  Cutting regulation and taxes.... that's an old worn out bald tire and doesn't address half of what matters.  I think we all understand that you don't balance the budget by cutting either one.  You don't confront a bloated DHS or DoD with either one.  You don't restore faith in teh markets with either one.  You don't reinvigorate US production with either one.  You don't fix our dreadful education system with either one.  etc etc etc  I was perfectly ready to change presidents, but not to go back to W.    

blunderdog's picture

    I have no concept of how anyone can "be" for Romney.

He's in the "Republican" tribe. 

It's mostly that simple, although there are still folks here who are gullible enough to listen to a politician's speeches and take their words seriously.