Home » Headline, News, Video

President Obama wins electoral vote by large margin

7 November 2012 By Jonathan Munshaw, News Editor 12 Comments
Illustration by Devin Smith/ The Towerlight

Illustration by Devin Smith/ The Towerlight

President Barack Obama was re-elected to a second term in office Tuesday night with 303 electoral votes, beating his challenger Mitt Romney who received 206 votes.

Obama, who initially was down in electoral votes after Romney won Kentucky and Indiana, relied on Western states to capture his second term in office, especially California, which gave the president 55 electoral votes.
Despite Obama’s large victory in the Electoral College, Romney was neck and neck with Obama in the popular vote, tying at 49.3 percent, according to the Huffington Post.
At its tightest point, Romney was winning the popular vote by 335 votes, according to CNN.
While Romney was able to maintain a stronghold in southern states, including Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama and Georgia, Obama was able to win several key swing states, especially Ohio and Virginia, which gave the president a combined 31 electoral votes.

YouTube Preview Image

The only state currently undecided is Florida, where Obama is leading by 0.6 percent.
Senior Antwan Little, who attended the Student Government Assocation’s election night party in Paws, said he was elated when he found out that Obama won re-election.
“I think our country can move forward now,” Little said. “People can stop concentrating on getting the president out of office and start working with him.”
Obama’s recent victory was radically different than his first against Arizona Senator John McCain, in which he won in a landslide election to become the nation’s first black president.
Towson College Republicans President and Towerlight contributor Rachel Eldringhoff said the Electoral College should be changed.
“Even if Romney won, I still believe the electoral system needs to be changed,” she said. “At the beginning of the night I had faith that Romney and Obama would be neck and neck, but Obama won major swing states that pushed him up easily to 270. I feel that the next four years will see change but in the left direction.”
Although Republicans did win some major seats in the House, Romney was unable to convince enough voters that he provided a strong alternative to Obama.
“I believe in America, I believe in the people of America,” Romney said during his concession speech. “I ran for office because I am concerned about America. We have given our all to this campaign, and I so wish I had been able to fulfill your hopes, but the nation chose another leader, and Anne and I will continue to pray the president will be successful in guiding our nation.”
The results showed a difference between racial lines, as Obama was able to capitalize on a diverse turnout among voters.
Only 72 percent of the electorate was white, which is the lowest percentage since 1976, according to ABC exit polls. Obama’s 58 percent advantage over Romney among non-white voters allowed him to shore up his coalition of voters that included women and other ethnic groups, including Latinos, who voted for Obama 69 percent of the time, according to ABC News.
If that number stays the same, it would be a larger margin than in the 2008 election, when Obama defeated McCain 67-31 percent among Latino voters.
After Romney’s concession speech, Obama took the stage in Chicago to a roar of applause to give his acceptance speech for the second time in his political career.
“America, I believe we can build on the progress we’ve made and continue to fight for new jobs and new opportunity and new security for the middle class,” Obama said. “I believe we can keep the promise of our founders, the idea that if you’re willing to work hard, it doesn’t matter who you are or where you come from or what you look like or where you love. It doesn’t matter whether you’re black or white or Hispanic or Asian or Native American or young or old or rich or poor, able, disabled, gay or straight, you can make it here in America if you’re willing to try.”


  • TU Alum 2006 said:

    In terms of the popular vote, Obama won by roughly 50,000. I wouldn’t consider that a wide margin.

    Any intelligent person would also agree that the electoral college should be done away with entirely.

    On the bright side though, in four years Obama will have no one to blame but himself for where this country is at.

  • SMH said:

    Right… because any intelligent person would be happy to see the country in a bad place in order to say nanny nanny boo boo to the other party.

    Stay classy, ’06

  • Peace said:

    Hate is an ulgy word. It not about who won or loss. This country has been divide for four years. Why waste four more years dividing us even more. This is not a high school football game. Our actions and attitudes can build or destroy. Its time to build.

  • TU Alum 2006 said:

    In response to peace:

    I love it. That imaginary world is exactly what Obama pushed to get him elected in the first place. Hope. Change. Let’s unite as a country.

    How’s that working out for you?

    Things are going to get very bad.

    Anyone who thinks that taxing the rich a little more, as Obama has so often mentioned, will get us out of this mess is an idiot.

  • Nadia Natafgi said:

    As a fun fact to the unenlightened commenter above, the Democratic party was the conservative party until the 1960′s civil right movement…so whatever point you were trying to make there is null and void.

  • jeffrey said:

    Thanks Nadia. You have just shown how once again college age kids have no idea what or who they are voting for. No idea about what the issues are except what your professors tell you. I love how interview after interview I have done and video after video shows this.. Why are you voting for Obama and the Democrats? Uh, gay marriage, dream act… Thats all kids think about. No concept of the deeper issues. No concept of how we are facing a massive economic crisis and if we dont fix that first the dream act and gay marriage wont matter.
    Also, do a little more research into the Democratic Party then wikipedia. It might be enlightening for you..Slavery takes many forms other then overt chains…. Think about it. I wish you kids would learn the facts. Stop voting based on what Jay ‘Z’ and Beyonce tell you… I really fear for the future…

  • jeffrey said:

    I forgot to add, in reference to the video above. I noticed how a couple of the kids said we are moving forward. The one young lady said were “going somewhere with Obama”… Where are we going? To financial ruin? Economic collapse?

  • Poor Richard said:

    “Where are we going? To financial ruin? Economic collapse?” That was George W. Bush.

    Unless I misunderestimated, he is the one who de-regulated the banks and let big business run themselves into the ground. He is the one who started an un-justified war that cost the taxpayers $1 Trillion and tens of thousands of lives. He is the one who handed Obama a divided nation and a nose-diving economy.

    The great thing about this country is that compromise is what it’s founded on. The pitiful thing is that it is usually the conservative Republicans that are un-American and do not want to compromise with the Democrats.

    Where did this division come from? Thank George W. Bush for his mis-informed shoot-from-the-hip leadership and foolish response to terrorism. Apply the same logic in December 1941 and we would have gone to war with China.

  • R. Simms said:

    @TU Alum 2006 – Thank you Chicken Little!

  • jeffrey said:

    Still Blaming Bush eh? When will Obama and the Demoncrats ever take responsibilty. Typical liberal mindset. Its not my fault….

  • jeffrey said:

    Here is an interesting read from the Wall Street journal That I posted before but the Toiletlight editors removed….

    “So what’s missing?
    ■There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms supporting slavery. There were six from 1840 through 1860.
    ■There is no reference to the number of Democratic presidents who owned slaves. There were seven from 1800 through 1861
    ■There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms that either supported segregation outright or were silent on the subject. There were 20, from 1868 through 1948.
    ■There is no reference to “Jim Crow” as in “Jim Crow laws,” nor is there reference to the role Democrats played in creating them. These were the post-Civil War laws passed enthusiastically by Democrats in that pesky 52-year part of the DNC’s missing years. These laws segregated public schools, public transportation, restaurants, rest rooms and public places in general (everything from water coolers to beaches). The reason Rosa Parks became famous is that she sat in the “whites only” front section of a bus, the “whites only” designation the direct result of Democrats.
    ■There is no reference to the formation of the Ku Klux Klan, which, according to Columbia University historian Eric Foner, became “a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party.” Nor is there reference to University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease’s description of the Klan as the “terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.”
    ■There is no reference to the fact Democrats opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. The 13th banned slavery. The 14th effectively overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision (made by Democratic pro-slavery Supreme Court justices) by guaranteeing due process and equal protection to former slaves. The 15th gave black Americans the right to vote.
    ■There is no reference to the fact that Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was passed by the Republican Congress over the veto of President Andrew Johnson, who had been a Democrat before joining Lincoln’s ticket in 1864. The law was designed to provide blacks with the right to own private property, sign contracts, sue and serve as witnesses in a legal proceeding.
    ■There is no reference to the Democrats’ opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1875. It was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Ulysses Grant. The law prohibited racial discrimination in public places and public accommodations.
    ■There is no reference to the Democrats’ 1904 platform, which devotes a section to “Sectional and Racial Agitation,” claiming the GOP’s protests against segregation and the denial of voting rights to blacks sought to “revive the dead and hateful race and sectional animosities in any part of our common country,” which in turn “means confusion, distraction of business, and the reopening of wounds now happily healed.”
    ■There is no reference to four Democratic platforms, 1908-20, that are silent on blacks, segregation, lynching and voting rights as racial problems in the country mount. By contrast the GOP platforms of those years specifically address “Rights of the Negro” (1908), oppose lynching (in 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928) and, as the New Deal kicks in, speak out about the dangers of making blacks “wards of the state.”
    ■There is no reference to the Democratic Convention of 1924, known to history as the “Klanbake.” The 103-ballot convention was held in Madison Square Garden. Hundreds of delegates were members of the Ku Klux Klan, the Klan so powerful that a plank condemning Klan violence was defeated outright. To celebrate, the Klan staged a rally with 10,000 hooded Klansmen in a field in New Jersey directly across the Hudson from the site of the convention. Attended by hundreds of cheering convention delegates, the rally featured burning crosses and calls for violence against African-Americans and Catholics.
    ■There is no reference to the fact that it was Democrats who segregated the federal government, at the direction of President Woodrow Wilson upon taking office in 1913. There \is a reference to the fact that President Harry Truman integrated the military after World War II.
    ■There is reference to the fact that Democrats created the Federal Reserve Board, passed labor and child welfare laws, and created Social Security with Wilson’s New Freedom and FDR’s New Deal. There is no mention that these programs were created as the result of an agreement to ignore segregation and the lynching of blacks. Neither is there a reference to the thousands of local officials, state legislators, state governors, U.S. congressmen and U.S. senators who were elected as supporters of slavery and then segregation between 1800 and 1965. Nor is there reference to the deal with the devil that left segregation and lynching as a way of life in return for election support for three post-Civil War Democratic presidents, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.
    ■There is no reference that three-fourths of the opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Bill in the U.S. House came from Democrats, or that 80% of the “nay” vote in the Senate came from Democrats. Certainly there is no reference to the fact that the opposition included future Democratic Senate leader Robert Byrd of West Virginia (a former Klan member) and Tennessee Senator Albert Gore Sr., father of Vice President Al Gore.
    ■Last but certainly not least, there is no reference to the fact that Birmingham, Ala., Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor, who infamously unleashed dogs and fire hoses on civil rights protestors, was in fact–yes indeed–a member of both the Democratic National Committee and the Ku Klux Klan.

    -By JEFFREY LORD, Wall Street Journal.

  • Aziz said:

    It is sad how people call Hillary shady wiohtut stating a fact. Hillary has always been concerned about the less fortunate. When Hillary was in high school she raised money to help the immigrant workers and even did baby sitting for the imigrant worker’s babies. Hillary has always been a very smart, successful, and determined woman. When Hillary went to visit Harvard a professor told Hillary there were already too many female lawyers, so Hillary decided to go to Yale instead where she met Bill Clinton. Hillary has always gotten a bad rap from some people. When Bill Clinton became governor, Hillary was a successful lawyer and this bothered some people because they expected a governors wife not to work. When Hillary went to Wellesley College and noticed there were not a lot of African Americans on campus, she organized a two-day student strike and worked with Wellesley’s black students to recruit more black students and faculty. I do not understand why someone would vote for McCain if Hillary is VP. Voting for McCain means another Bush Jr. The only people benifiting from voting Republican are the elite 3 percent of Americans that make $200,000 or more a year because they get better tax better tax breaks than the 97 percent of Americans that make less than $200,000 per year.

Leave your response!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

Formatting help »

By posting a comment you acknowledge and accept the following policy. Any material published on TheTowerlight.com may be used in the print edition. The Towerlight reserves the right to remove any comment from our website at any time for any reason. Online comments do not reflect the views of The Towerlight.