You cannot hope to lose African-Americans by 90%+ and Hispanics by 75%+ (together about 25% of the electorate and growing) and make up the difference elsewhere…it’s just statistically impossible. For example, if Hispanics had gone for McCain in the same numbers that they did for GWB in 2005 the vote totals would have been about 5MM closer (2.5MM less for Obama and 2.5MM greater for McCain). That’s just some quick math figuring that Hispanics are about 12MM or 10% of the electorate and McCain underperformed GWB by 22% in that voting bloc). Working with that as a base, bringing home the disaffected conservatives then becomes enough to swing an election the other way.

I hope we can come to terms with this electoral math soon, before the political realignment that took place in this voting cycle becomes permanent.

The youth: We older folks have been through this stuff before.

csdeven on November 5, 2008 at 3:40 PM

Yes, get ready for Carter-nomics to the power of 10…and that may be the least of our problems.

That many ignorant people in America that actually take the time to vote.

csdeven on November 5, 2008 at 3:40 PM

Absolutely. It’s not like they disagree with you politically, or had issues with McCain, or have always voted Democrat.

It’s none of that. It’s that all of them are ignorant. You’re such a sharp guy.

Fortunata on November 5, 2008 at 3:02 PM

It is amazing isn’t it? That many ignorant people in America that actually take the time to vote.

We can’t forget a few things concerning those who voted for Obama.

Blacks: Mostly folks who feel Obama will fix racism, but the vocal ones voted because he was black and no other reason.

The youth: We older folks have been through this stuff before. These kids have no perspective of how the future relates to the past. The impending failure of socialism under Obama will educate these same voters to pay more attention to substantive issues next time.

The independents: I think they didn’t see one iota of difference between McCain and Obama and went with Obama because he wasn’t a republican. And who can blame them? I didn’t see much difference between the two.

Those are the morons who gave him the election. The rest of the people who voted for him are simply immoral people.

Do you know what delusions of grandeur are, you big hero?

MadisonConservative on November 5, 2008 at 2:49 PM

You fred crackpots are sooooooooo easy to distract.

Bwahahahahahaaa!!!!!

If turnout wasn’t huge, and it appears the GOP turnout wasn’t great.

I think Mac’s groundgame wasn’t there; Obama in a lot of places was more organised than Mac.

When McCain adopted the ‘real change’ mantra, I thought that was the wrong thing. Obama had long ago co-opted that mantra and McCain seemed like he was running to catch up when he said that. “Return to our core principles that made America great”, if you want to say ‘change’, things like less pork and more accountability in Congress.

Sarah Palin could have been more of an asset if she hadn’t been kept on a leash. She’s affable, bright and can give really great, earnest interviews when she’s not being pushed about ‘maverick’ and ‘John McCain this and that’.

McCain didn’t capitalise on Wright and the rest of Obama’s shady connections until really late, either. McCain’s support of the bailout while saying he’s against earmarks and then adding a mortgage bailout on top of it really defused his reform message.

He just didn’t run a great campaign, which is one of the things I worried about because of how he was preoccupied with ‘bipartisanship’ for so long, as if that would just take care of everything and people would vote him in because of it.

Anyway, what’s done is done, and the nightmare has begun. God help us.

I don’t disagree with you on this. But wow are you out of sinc with the election that just happened yesterday. Is this a form of denial?

petunia on November 5, 2008 at 1:18 PM

No. Just applying the “7 Ps” for 2010, 2012, 2014, etc…

*7 Ps = Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance

No point swirling around in yesterdays’ news.

The electorate didn’t care about that stuff. EG: Obama’s associations.

csdeven, they should have cared. Fred’s lobbyist-influenced dealings are in no way comparable to that stuff and would have disappeared in the broad strokes of the campaign brush. I can’t believe that intelligent people voted for Obama because of his character, but rather despite it. Pointless now, though.

saus on November 5, 2008 at 2:43 PM

saus, she was picked for strategic reasons, a gamble against what she could bring nationwide against what others could bring in a single state. Her qualifications for the VP slot are better than Obama’s for the top slot, but there’s nothing a bit of character assassination from the MSM couldn’t do to lead people away from looking at those disparities. Mrs Thatcher suffers, and still does, from the caricature that the MSM made of her.

I exposed fred because it was my civic duty to save the country from him.

csdeven on November 5, 2008 at 2:43 PM

Do you know what delusions of grandeur are, you big hero?

MadisonConservative on November 5, 2008 at 2:23 PM

So now you want to talk about foaming at the mouth? Are you sure, because originally the point was that Allah does what he does to keep traffic up. I exposed fred because it was my civic duty to save the country from him. JTP wasn’t running for office you dolt. His private life was not an issue. fred’s history of lobbying for a dictator and against people suffering from asbestos poisoning is all anyone needs to know about him to realize that he is a greedy person who uses the basic tenets of conservatism to hide behind.

The idiots fell for it until I and others educated them. Thankfully fred’s campaign was destroyed by the truth.

holdfast on November 5, 2008 at 12:45 PM

Yup. The “shy” Tories just stayed home and sat the dance out. And that fluttering feeling that we would lose only really started for me at the credit crunch mess; McCain’s behavior only made him look a bit crazy.
So yes, the crazy optimism was a bit over the top but who could have lasted the last 3 weeks without a bit of mindless cheerleading? It’s a shame we didn’t manage to enthuse more conservative voters to come out, but I think it’s at least as much to do with huge poll deficits as antipathy to the RINO.

paul006 on November 5, 2008 at 12:56 PM

There were some folks who were in denial….but most of us were simply keeping a stiff upper lip so as to not depress voter turnout.

And many, including me, were hopeful because it just didn’t square with reasonable thinking that millions of Americans are so ignorant as to vote a socialist into office.

Yeah. Riiiiiight. You are all over the place….and you have no clue how you want to respond.

csdeven on November 5, 2008 at 2:14 PM

Like I said, foaming at the mouth. You set out to destroy a man the same as Obama set out to destroy JTP. The end result was a horrible candidate who lost us the election, and you have no regrets about insulting the looks of the wife of a fantastic conservative candidate that didn’t make it.

Rabid. Demented. Insane. “Destroy” in your language. That’s just what I said what I said. Cue the “bwahahahahaha” as you revert to your old self.

I truly hope that Obama doesn’t screw up royally. I have my doubts. He walks the liberal walk & recently talked the centrist talk.
But he used to talk the liberal talk.
We are getting a liberal. A radical, leftist who will do his best to bring about “social justice”.
Fortunately, he is not a real leader. People like his speeches, but he does little to inspire in the trenches, where it’s important.
He will have big troubles getting organized, mark my words.

Remember Democrat Congress’ 100 ‘glorious days’. Yeah. We’re gonna get more of that.
I’ll be tuning out for now. It’s all I can do to just stay in the cattle business. Watch your local meat cases. Do you care where your beef comes from?
Does Obama?

I submit that plenty of us saw it. But collectively we wanted to resist demoralization and buck up our fellows across the country. Arguing on your threads was a tactic, AP. How else are we to fight the voter-suppression tactics of the left? Demoralized people don’t volunteer for phone banks, or knock on doors, etc.

RushBaby on November 5, 2008 at 12:25 PM

Very true. And led in the effort by Manlyrash.

Right. That’s what I said.

MadisonConservative on November 5, 2008 at 12:19 PM

Yeah. Riiiiiight. You are all over the place….and you have no clue how you want to respond.

Mitt was a walking billboard for the very crisis that came up. Not that he was involved but he would have made one very easy target.

William Amos on November 5, 2008 at 12:30 PM

The electorate didn’t care about that stuff. EG: Obama’s associations. They worried about the economy and Mitt would have articulated the soulution very nicely.

Indeed, thanks a lot W. I hope history judges you better than your contemporaries.

PackerBronco on November 5, 2008 at 12:36 PM

Add to the blame list Newt Gingrich. It was his House in 1994 that brought fiscal discipline to Clinton’s administration, giving him the first balanced budget in ages. Now Clinton’s party gets to carry that bragging point for the next x# of years. It was that belief what got Hussein the white House.

Were the polls right?
Pretty much, yeah. CNN has the popular vote
at 52/46 as I write this but the numbers are still moving; when I run
the math from the actual vote totals, it’s 53.0/46.9, for a margin of
6.1 percent. The final RCP……