Quantcast

Socialize

FacebookTwitter

Humanity’s Most Divisive President Set To Be First Since Eisenhower To Get Over 51% Of the Vote Twice

facebook Humanitys Most Divisive President Set To Be First Since Eisenhower To Get Over 51% Of the Vote Twice twitter Humanitys Most Divisive President Set To Be First Since Eisenhower To Get Over 51% Of the Vote Twice tumblr Humanitys Most Divisive President Set To Be First Since Eisenhower To Get Over 51% Of the Vote Twice
untitled31 Humanitys Most Divisive President Set To Be First Since Eisenhower To Get Over 51% Of the Vote Twice

Obama brainstorming ways to further divide America. Mandate toilet rolls facing down? Hire Casey Anthony to babysit Sasha and Malia? Declare definitive winner in Biggie/Tupac dispute?

Humanity’s most divisive figure, Barack Hussein Obama (even his name is divisive-ish!!), is set to become the first president since Dwight Eisenhower in 1956 to win over 51% of the popular vote twice. The Great Divider is currently at 50.9% of the popular vote, and his lead continues to expand as results are still being tallied.

This obviously leaps past George W. Bush, who didn’t even win the popular vote the first time, and it also beats out Bill Clinton, who never made it past a plurality. Obama’s achievement even squeaks past Ronald Reagan, who only won 50.7% of the vote in 1980.

To be fair, Clinton and Reagan had significant third party candidates to contend with and, furthermore, the margin of victory is not necessarily an accurate reflection of a candidate’s divisiveness, but we’ve never let “facts” or “nuance” or “complexity” get in the way of some childish gloating. And so now we shall commence with the childish, entirely unprofessional gloating segment of this blog post: 

Suck it, Marco Rubio

Suck it, Mitch McConnell.

And suck it, Reince Priebus

That is all.

/

*Helpful reminder: Ugly sweaters still available for the holidays on Amazon.com. Go purchase your Aunt Candace something hideous by clicking on this link right now

/

facebook Humanitys Most Divisive President Set To Be First Since Eisenhower To Get Over 51% Of the Vote Twice twitter Humanitys Most Divisive President Set To Be First Since Eisenhower To Get Over 51% Of the Vote Twice tumblr Humanitys Most Divisive President Set To Be First Since Eisenhower To Get Over 51% Of the Vote Twice

24 Responses to Humanity’s Most Divisive President Set To Be First Since Eisenhower To Get Over 51% Of the Vote Twice

  1. Jay Castor

    at

    ANNNNNH!! Wrong answer. America's most divisive president(at least as of late) was George W. Bush. BO doesn't even come close. Though I suppose it's a matter of individual perspective.

    • Linda (The Daily Dolt)

      Linda the Dolt

      at

      I kind of feel like whoever is currently in office is "the most divisive president ever" to the opposing party. Republicans speak kindly of Bill Clinton nowdays, but when he was in office he was absolutely loathed (Ken Starr? Newt Gingrich?). Same for Reagan and the Democrats.

      • Terry Hallinan

        at

        You will be happy to know that I still loathe Bill Clinton.

        But love your website.

        Maybe you shouldn't be too happy about the latter.

        • Jay Castor

          at

          I still loathe the "judicial pervert," Kenneth Starr. He should have just said no to the repugs in pursuing Monicagate. He sold out his judicial ethics to partisan politics, to investigate a private affair that had no impact whatsoever on the running of the country as a whole. Though it did spawn a whole brace of jokes and one-liners, both good and bad. On the other hand Newt Ginrich I merely find extremely annoying, these days.

          • Barjack

            at

            But he had a chance to have his name up in lights . . . and starr in his own television spectacular! How could you deny him? How could HE deny him??

        • Linda (The Daily Dolt)

          Linda the Dolt

          at

          Thx!!

  2. Jay Castor

    at

    I'm still going with "Bush Baby." LOL

    • Linda (The Daily Dolt)

      Linda the Dolt

      at

      Hey I'm with you, man. Regardless of where a person stands on the issues, I will never understand how health care or tax rates can get people as riled up as two wars with hundreds of thousands dead. But somehow it does.

  3. Jay Castor

    at

    In the animal kingdom it's called "misplaced aggression." You know, where the lion being filmed by a wildlife photographer, get's ticked off about something different, yet attacks the cameraman? It must happen with people when it comes to blaming the politician in charge for something that actually happened before he took office. Like targeting Obama for the mega-bank bailout when it was Bush and the congressional repugs that were most responsible for it. But Obama made himself a target by being in office shortly afterward AND going along with it, because he helt he had no choice. Moral of the story? We're basically no smarter than any other mammals, it would appear, even though are brains are larger.

    • Linda (The Daily Dolt)

      Linda the Dolt

      at

      I think that's a part of it, certainly.

      Another part might be the media. Certain outlets may lean left, other outlets may lean right, but all of them (this one included) have a strong bias towards sensational stories that capture audiences. And which of the following is more sensational: "I disagree with President Obama's plan to make slight tax increases on the wealthiest Americans" or "President Obama is the worst/greatest jerk/hero EVARRRRR"?

  4. Jay Castor

    at

    Interesting topic; plenty of food for thought.

  5. Robert Jones

    at

    Tip: by half is divided. The objective is to keep you divided. 51% is like a dream come true for government-banker-globalist elites. It means the people are almost perfectly divided about who's fault it is that they're being continually pillaged and plundered, which, in turn, means the pillaging and plundering can continue freely while they fight over this.

  6. Barjack

    at

    You're all wrong! It was Lincoln, for heaven's sake!

  7. Kat Williams

    at

    The first time Clinton ran, I voted, by proxy, for Hiilary Rodham Clinton's health plan. Too bad about that, "scary woman wants to do good", panic that ensued. So, realizing President Clinton was gonna win fer shure the second time around, I felt free to vote for a candidate of conscience, Ralph Nader. And I can't pretend he would have been an effective president (please refer to President Jimmy Carter's tenure).

    In 2012, fully convinced that Romney is homo sapiorunamuk, and knowing that the electoral college system would keep Illinois safe for Obama, I voted for the Green Party presidential candidate. But, I actually had a reasonable motivation, and a reachable goal in mind. If a party's candidate receives 5% of the vote (popular or electoral college?), that party gets a voice in public debates.

    We need new parties to contribute to the cacophony-or to give voice to people who are currently feeling marginalized, or disenfranchised. We need more than sound bites. We need reasoned, thoughtful debates about how we can best be the United States of America. (Or, just find a way to unite.)

    Love your daily dose of Dolt. "Please keep those cards and letters coming."

    • Chris

      at

      I agree that a legitimate 3rd party would be a very good thing for the US to have. Having every issue boil down to black and white is blantantly unhealthy for the country.

      That said, tactical voting, particularly tactical voting for someone you don't believe could do the job, is a bad idea. You were working on the assumption that most people would vote for Clinton, so you didn't have to. That's a bit like those who assume most people will have their children vaccinated, so they needn't bother.

  8. Jay Castor

    at

    Barjack, we were talking about more recently. Certainly not before the beginning of the twentieth century. Stay out of the bar and off the Jack, for a bit. I know it's hard, THESE days! LOL

    • Barjack

      at

      Hey, Lincoln was shot 74 yrs. before I was born, and I'm 74 right now – so for me, that's recent history. See, it's all relative . . .

  9. Jeff

    at

    What the hell kinda name is Reince Priebus anyway? Don't sound Merkin to me; or does it?

    • googler

      at

      the question was asked who is Reince Priebus

      "Reinhold Reince Priebus"(born March 18, 1972) is the Chairman of the Republican National Committee.

  10. I will never quite get why people call him divisive. There is division, but not because he promotes it. He neither does or says anything that should inspire division.

    http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2012/08/paul-ry

  11. Jay Castor

    at

    Chris, disease prevention isn't exactly like casting a vote for President. Being tactical is perfectly okay. It's also very political. Whatever you think works in the long run, eh? Fay, part of Obama's so-called divisiveness is because he's the first black president in a basically racist, largely white society. That's something he can't do anything about. But the other part is due to the fact that he wasn't able (for whatever reasons) to fulfill quite a few promises he made to his ground troops in 2008. I think the consensus is we need to hold his feet to the fire. Thus, I predict Obama will have even grayer hair by the end of 2016!

    • Barjack

      at

      Uh, some of the "largely white society" whities, like me, are teetering on the brink of extinction – (past our sell-by date) The rest of you better get used to the idea of 'enjoying the company of "others," ' because they will soon be in control of the great dugout of state – not such a bad idea, considering what swamplands the present majority has tried to drive down.

  12. Fascinating blog! Is your theme custom made or did you download it from somewhere? A design like yours with a few simple tweeks would really make my blog shine. Please let me know where you got your design. Appreciate it

  13. Jay Castor

    at

    No spam. Get out!