Did the first debate end up changing anything?

posted at 9:21 pm on November 9, 2012 by Allahpundit

One last election wrap-up post to finish off a grim week. Dave Weigel went back and looked at the national electoral map generated by one poll-aggregation site as it stood on October 3, the day of the Mile High Massacre. Result: It looked … exactly like the eventual electoral map did. If you’re using 10/3 as your point A and 11/6 as your point B, you’re plotting a straight horizontal line.

But the polls, per RCP, did move a lot in those 33 days. Check out how Romney’s national numbers soared:

Who cares about the national numbers, though? They were wrong, weren’t they? Well, here’s what happened after the debate to the state polls in Virginia:

And in Florida:

And in Ohio:

Electoral analysts will be debating for years why Romney’s momentum stalled, whether it was debates two and three that cooled him down or whether debate one was a simple bounce like any other that was destined to fade or whether it was the, er, hurricane. But look again at the Ohio graph; he never quite grabbed the lead there, did he? In fact, in several key swing states, Romney never led in a single state poll after August, even during his post-debate surge. He never led in Nevada, never in Wisconsin, and never in Pennsylvania except for that one Susquehanna poll sponsored by the state Republican Party. In Michigan, he led exactly once. Even if he had maintained his momentum in the three states featured above — Ohio, Virginia, and Florida, worth a combined 60 electoral votes — and ended up winning them, he still would have lost the election very, very narrowly. That’s the sort of advantage that Obama had. In fact, let me share with you three of the more frightening paragraphs I’ve read this week:

The starting electoral map in 2012 offered Democrats 431 ways to win and 76 for the Republicans. This includes Wisconsin as a swing state, which I think we have learned it never really was, campaign bluster aside. Discounting that state, it was 230 ways for the Democrats to the Republican’s 26 (and that includes ties!). From the first day, 2012 was played entirely on the Republican side of the 50 yard line wether they wish to acknowledge it or not.

Since 1992, New Hampshire has only gone red only once, in 2000. Similarly, Iowa has only gone for red once in 2004. Of the total 60 electoral votes during six election cycles, Republicans have only won 10 of them and it wasn’t even during the same election. Does ‘swing state’ really apply then, when you lose 85% of the time? With the base of states that Democrats have won in 6 straight elections of 247 and adding in New Hampshire and Iowa, it appears Democrats can routinely count on starting with 257 electoral votes, just 13 shy of a win.

Such a beginning electoral map would leave Republicans with 3 paths to the White House and one of them involves winning both Colorado and Nevada, states Democrats have now won twice in a row by fairly large margins.

This is what people mean when they say the GOP needs to “expand the map.” Not all of this is structural; the Examiner makes a good case that some of the reason Obama’s won two elections comfortably is Obama himself. Maybe young voters and black voters won’t turn out as much for a less charismatic, non-historic nominee. Maybe the Democratic ground game of 2016 won’t be quite as sophisticated as Obama’s once his staffers are no longer involved. My point, though, is that not everything has to go right for them. The Democrats have such a huge margin of error now that even if they had somehow fumbled away the big three above, they still win. Daunting.

For what it’s worth, GOP “insiders” polled by National Journal say they favor Marco Rubio in 2016. (Democratic insiders favor Jeb Bush.) Chris Christie finished fifth among them, behind even Rick Santorum, even though he leads in New Hampshire according to PPP’s first 2016 poll. After consulting extensively with my very sophisticated model, I project Christie’s odds at the nomination as being … low.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

The MSM is the true enemy here, not Mitt Romney. Shamefully many don’t seem to want to come to grips with that.

Dark Star

THANK YOU!!
As long as they are allowed to lie about the GOP, suppress bad news about the dems, and promote the dems and their candidates we are fighting with one hand and leg tied behind our backs.

I have said for years we need to take over the media, school system, and legal system. It’ what the left did and it is finally paying dividends.

Hard Right on November 9, 2012 at 11:27 PM

Okay, I realize that Mitt had some problems with the base. In the last two months, it appeared he ran a campaign that was pretty much focused on the 5-6% undecideds in the middle, and I understand some conservatives considered him to be too much of a RINO. I also understand that his ORCA turnout program turned out to be a big bust. However:

1. Just about every poll I looked at showed the GOP leading in enthusiasm, usually by double-digits.
2. Every EV report I saw had the GOP out-performing its 2008 numbers.
3. The Gallup and Rasmussen party affiliation polls both showed the GOP ahead, and Rasmussen has a great track record.
4. The Gallup and Rasmussen tracking polls all had Mitt leading for most of the last month.
5. Mitt was drawing huge, enthusiastic crowds, and it seemed to build as Nov. 6 approached.
6. And then on election day, Mitt’s numbers tanked, falling short of 2008 turnout by 11%. As you can see, turnout had been increasing every four years when you add in population growth – until 2012.
7. I’ve heard that Team Romney’s internal polls were similar to Gallup/Rasmussen.

2000 7% increase over 1996
2004 19% increase over 2000
2008 7% increase over 2004
2012 11% decrease over 2008!

All of this has been bothering me a lot, and it just doesn’t make any sense. At the moment, I’m close to concluding that this election was stolen from us. If you think about it, it wouldn’t be that difficult. They could focus on a few selected counties in Ohio, Virginia, and Florida.

1. I’ve looked at reports from Philadelphia and Cleveland where Obama got numbers that couldn’t be true, such as 100% turnout and 99% of the vote.
2. I’ve discovered that not ONE SINGLE MILITARY ABSENTEE BALLOT was counted. This was outrageous. I’ve read reports about the government dragging its feet to get ballots mailed out – and then the ballots were received the day after. And the absentee ballots that were sent to our troops in Afghanistan burned up in a plane crash. I don’t know how many total ballots were not counted, but I know Mitt would have gotten around 65-70%.
3. There are three different kinds of software that was used to tabulate votes on these machines – and I’m looking into whether this software could be hacked or not.

Am I crazy or paranoid? I don’t know folks, I think everybody probably feels that there just wasn’t something right about this election.

TarheelBen on November 9, 2012 at 11:36 PM

Am I crazy or paranoid?

TarheelBen on November 9, 2012 at 11:36 PM

Both.

bileduct on November 9, 2012 at 11:38 PM

TarheelBen on November 9, 2012 at 11:36 PM

I hate sounding like a conspiracy theorist, but honestly thats what this FEELS like. I kept hearing about huge lines at Republican Precincts, about absolutely abandoned precincts in traditionally Democratic districts, then when the counting is all done I end up seeing that it was the democrats that had the huge turnout.

Again, i HATE sounding like a conspiracy theorist, but the disconnect between what I saw on the ground and what the numbers SAY happened is just too vast.

I’d LIKE to see somebody do an absolutely meticulousness count of the ballots. I’d like to see somebody explain why it was some precincts suddenly found more voters than were registered. I’d like to see this whole election painstakingly reconstructed to see if we get the same result.

Even if we just, underestimated democratic enthusiasm, it’d STILL be worth it to know EXACTLY what precincts we could improve on.

PS: This is why we should have strict effective laws to prevent voter fraud. Even if there is indeed no real voter fraud, like democrats claim, in todays climate the other side is always going to suspect a stolen election whenever its close.

If we lost, I want to know with a dead certainty. I don’t want to sit and wonder if our whole democracy is rigged for the next four years.

WolvenOne on November 9, 2012 at 11:55 PM

Voted for Romney and McCain moron. Lot of good it did me.

thphilli on November 9, 2012 at 10:42 PM

You did the practical and responsible thing. It didn’t work out.

We’ve been given two RINOs in a row. Romney win or lose we knew what we’d have to do now.

No shame in doing the adult thing.

kim roy on November 9, 2012 at 11:59 PM

Am I crazy or paranoid? I don’t know folks, I think everybody probably feels that there just wasn’t something right about this election.

TarheelBen on November 9, 2012 at 11:36 PM

You’re not crazy, and you’re right to be paranoid. These bastards will stop at nothing to bring this country down.

Romney won every state in which there was a voter ID law.

Right Mover on November 9, 2012 at 11:59 PM

Right Mover on November 9, 2012 at 11:59 PM

You are right but another thread had your contention contradicted. Michigan was cited.

Only a few states have picture ID laws.

Well, Michigan has a requested voter ID law and was carried by Dems. That is not the same thing. I wish people wouldn’t spread stuff like this. Comments like it are why I can’t stand NBC.

Since we had to hear it about healthcare, I think that every industrialized nation has an ID law. The open borders folks I know want no voter ID laws, either.

Makes you wonder.

IlikedAUH2O on November 10, 2012 at 12:32 AM

WolvenOne on November 9, 2012 at 11:25 PM

this whole “independent” thing just strikes me as weird. Are there really people out there who picked Romney considering what the country has been through over the past four years but changed their mind because a hurricane hit and Obama walked around for a few hours?

They admired Obama’s walk around New Jersey but didn’t have a problem with the commander-in-chief’s handling of Benghazi? They don’t have a problem with Obama going to a fund-raiser during Benghazi?

And did some “independents” just not vote because things got “too negative”? Didn’t they see that the negativity was all on the Obama side?

Wow.

And political strategists want to “target independents” every election by abandoning principles?

How exactly do you target this voting group? It seems to me that they would pick the other candidate because they don’t like a certain candidate’s bumper sticker.

Talk about a “finger to the wind” voting block.

Joseph Russo III on November 10, 2012 at 1:26 AM

TarheelBen on November 9, 2012 at 11:36 PM

You’re right to trust your eyes and your instincts. The reason so many are calling foul on this election is because it stinks. I know how to take a loss and move on- which I did in ’6 and ’08.

But people are engaged in attempting to rewrite history to make it agree with the narrative their trying to advance. That the Obama campaign at the end was desperate and devoid of any rational argument for re-electioin(Big Bird, Binders of women), that Romney’s tour-de-force performance in Denver didn’t have the effect that we all saw it did, that he wasn’t getting massive crowds that political campaigns only dream about full of people who were genuinely enthused.

I saw it. You saw it. They’d like us to forget it. Not going to happen.

sartana on November 10, 2012 at 2:28 AM

Are there really people out there who picked Romney considering what the country has been through over the past four years but changed their mind because a hurricane hit and Obama walked around for a few hours?

-Joseph Russo III on November 10, 2012

No. There might be a very small amount of Dems who were dejected after Obama’s colossal failure of a first term but who were still planning to vote for him again anyway and just told a pollster that it was the storm that did it- because the media planted that idea in their heads through their incessant reporting on how the storm benefits Obama.

But to say a Romney vote flipped over the storm, or a Dem who planned on not voting got up voted just because of the storm is just idiotic. This is the media managing perception rather than reporting facts.

And did some “independents” just not vote because things got “too negative”? Didn’t they see that the negativity was all on the Obama side?

The negative ads were aimed at first, killing Romney, and then to discourage disgruntled Dems from voting for him.

Romney mostly beat the negative ads from the Summer with his first debate performance. The image that the Dems projected of him were dispelled when they saw Romney and heard his message.

Logic would dictate that as many Independents were turned off from voting entirely just by the negative ads, there would be just as many of them who voted for Romney out of disgust with the White House strategy. And logic applies here as much as the media would try to convince us it does not. There is not some mystical, inscrutable voter psychology that can only be discerned by people specially trained to understand it. If an explanation doesn’t make sense, then it probably doesn’t apply.

And it’s ridiculous to assert that the storm changed the election. The answer to the question of how in the hell Obama earned more votes than Romney with such a crappy record and after running such a pathetic campaign is simple-

He didn’t.

sartana on November 10, 2012 at 2:50 AM

30,000 in Ohio to see Romney on Friday night, 30,000 to see him and Ryan in Pennsylvania on Sunday night, record numbers of early voters and reports from around the country on election day of massive turnouts and packed polling places but 14 million less voted this time then in 2008? Are the bloggers here at HA that stupid or do they think we are that stupid? In 2008 I walked into my polling place, walked up to the table, got my ballot, voted and was back in my truck in 5 minutes. I went to my same polling place this time and was there for nearly 2 hours.

Maybe the conservative pundits and dopey rino bloggers are afraid to say it, maybe (as I’ve long suspected) are really not very intelligent or maybe don’t even care but the election was stolen.

peacenprosperity on November 10, 2012 at 2:52 AM

All this hand wringing is getting annoying.

I realize the pundits are getting bored now, post-partum election depression and all that, but maybe they should all just settle down and go out and get drunk or something.

1992 is a heck of a year to cherry pick to do these kinds of analyses.

“Well….. the Republicans haven’t won North Oshkosh since 1988……”

The fact is: the Republicans have only won once in Timbuktu or wherever since 1988, because they’ve run one charmless stiff after another….since 1988. Fortunately, in 88, 00, and 04 we lucked out because, somehow, the Democrats managed to find bigger stiffs who were even more charmless to run against them.

I’m not cutting Bush, Dole etc,-I think they were all decent and smart guys. And I admire both Bush and Dole for their wartime service, and W. for his service in the Guard.

But the fact is that these guys don’t appeal to that half of the electorate known as….women. They could care less about heroism or tough leadership. They prefer weepy beta males like Clinton and Obama.

Get this: Romney was, in some sense, probably the best candidate the Republicans have had since Reagan.

Think about that for awhile.

It’s a wonder the Republicans have managed to do as well as they have the last 20 years.

Dreadnought on November 10, 2012 at 4:04 AM

But the fact is that these guys don’t appeal to that half of the electorate known as….women. They could care less about heroism or tough leadership. They prefer weepy beta males like Clinton and Obama.

Get this: Romney was, in some sense, probably the best candidate the Republicans have had since Reagan.

Think about that for awhile.

It’s a wonder the Republicans have managed to do as well as they have the last 20 years.

Dreadnought on November 10, 2012 at 4:04 AM

Well, I don’t think it’s so much their weepy personalities, as it is their Big Government free stuff agenda. The reason Democrats do so well with single women is the lure of Big Government being their sugar daddy, taking care of you. Our only hope is to convince these voters that our message of economic empowerment and individual liberty will make their lives better. It takes a special candidate who can really articulate conservative principles. Romney was fairly good at it – but Reagan was the best by far. Bush 43 did okay, with his “compassionate conservatism” thing – and he was a fairly down-to-earth guy which always helps. It’s an amazing thing in our politics, but if you look back over the years, the candidate that usually wins is the one that people decide they’d “rather have a beer with.”

TarheelBen on November 10, 2012 at 4:15 AM

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/the_rumble/2012/09/mitt-romneys-epic-incompetence

I’ve been following politics for many years; I’ve written a book on presidential campaigns and I’ve delved quite a bit into the minutiae of the 2012 campaign. And I’m increasingly convinced that Mitt Romney is the worst national politician I’ve ever seen.

He was unable to offer a single tax loophole that he wanted to close.

On health care, Romney said that he wouldn’t get rid of all of Obamacare, even though he’s been saying for months that repealing the law will the first thing he’ll do upon taking office.

Embarrassingly, only hours after making this statement he reversed it . . . twice. As Steve Benen noted, “over the course of one day, Romney went from supporting full repeal [of Obamacare] to partial repeal, while taking four different positions on protections with those with pre-existing conditions.”

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/09/17/in-response-to-reports-that-the-romney-campaign-is-incompetent-the-romney-campaign-announces-a-major-shift-in-strategy

Stuart Stevens, Mitt Romney’s top strategist, knew his candidate’s convention speech needed a memorable mix of loft and grace if he was going to bound out of Tampa with an authentic chance to win the presidency. So Stevens, bypassing the speechwriting staff at the campaign’s Boston headquarters, assigned the sensitive task of drafting it to Peter Wehner, a veteran of the last three Republican White Houses and one of the party’s smarter wordsmiths.

Not a word Wehner wrote was ever spoken.

Stevens junked the entire thing, setting off a chaotic, eight-day scramble that would produce an hour of prime-time problems for Romney, including Clint Eastwood’s meandering monologue to an empty chair.

The shift, which is to include much more emphasis on Romney’s policy prescriptions, means he is scrapping the most basic precept of his campaign. From the time he began contemplating running again after his loss in the 2008 primaries, Romney’s theory of the case has been a relentless and nearly exclusive focus on the listless economy.

I always assumed that, since the Romney campaign has had four years to plan for this Romney/Obama matchup, they must’ve had a plan for the general election. I figured this plan would include some way for Romney to battle his unlikeability, and to frame the president as a failure while framing Mitt Romney as a competent businessman. But this news is proof that they didn’t have any kind of a plan at all, or that their plan was hopelessly naive.

sharrukin on November 10, 2012 at 4:45 AM

All of this has been bothering me a lot, and it just doesn’t make any sense. At the moment, I’m close to concluding that this election was stolen from us. …..
TarheelBen on November 9, 2012 at 11:36 PM

Let’s just say that at the early voting location in Columbus Ohio nobody was asked to submit I.D. and van loads of Somalis were brought in and had interpreters helping them vote.

Something smells.

CW on November 10, 2012 at 6:50 AM

Romney failed to get the vote out…
plus a whole bunch of other reasons…

albill on November 10, 2012 at 7:11 AM

Let’s just say that at the early voting location in Columbus Ohio nobody was asked to submit I.D. and van loads of Somalis were brought in and had interpreters helping them vote.

Something smells.

CW on November 10, 2012 at 6:50 AM

It was only a matter of time before the black people committing voter fraud rumors began.

So predictable.

urban elitist on November 10, 2012 at 7:22 AM

1. I don’t buy into the theory that we’ve reached a tipping point demographically. It’s down the road but we’re not there yet. Just look at how Republicans are doing at the state level. We now control 30 state governorships and legislatures. So Republicans can win if the playing field is level.

2. We lost the election by a total of some 350,000 votes. That doesn’t sound to me like the swing states weren’t true swing states. Every time somebody wins OH it’s always by a handful of votes. This time around it was @111,000 votes. Even PA was lost by a fairly small number of votes. Obama didn’t win because he had so many more paths to victory. He won because a whole lot of Republicans stayed home.

3. Sooner or later the Republican party must deal with the national media’s bias. Republicans, particularly House leaders and Senators, should boycott their Sunday shows. At a minimum we should refuse the use of their biased moderators in debates. We should challenge the premises behind their questions much more often than we do. We shouldn’t have to fight a two-front war every election cycle.

4. We have to do something about our primaries. Too many debates, too many lousy candidates with no hope of winning at the national level. Cain had no realistic prospects. Neither had Santorum who would have imploded like Akin and Mourdock. Bachmann would have gone the way of Angle and O’Donnell. Paul was on an ego trip. He had no real chance to win the presidency yet, like Santorum, he did what he could to wreck Romney’s chances. And all the candidates needed to put away their knives to observe the 11th commandment.

5. Rush didn’t help with his commentary from the sidelines–which only alienated and divided Republican factions even further. That went for bloggers, too–for Redstate and Freerepublic especially. Erick Erickson should go soak his head. He, like Rush, did a lot of damage.

writeblock on November 10, 2012 at 8:06 AM

I think the first debate wound up hurting Mitt because the win in the debate made Mitt think he could play defense in the home stretch and so he didn’t go on the attack on things like the massacre in Lybia

unseen on November 10, 2012 at 8:10 AM

I would only add one thing to your analysis that Democrats have a permanent lock on 257 electoral votes. If there is a fundemental shock to the system like finacial collapse it won’t just be the editorial boards of the newspapers in Iowa to abandon the democrats.

Till now surivial didn’t depend on getting rid of the democrats. People can play with issues like gay marriage, binders, big bird and birth control pills till all of a sudden they can’t afford a tank of gas due to the economy and the democrats environmentalist wackos. If thesystem collaspes like I think we all agree it has to their will be a realignment of priorities against the democrats.

I saw O’Reilly telling Dr. Sabato the next 4 years go the same the democrat party evaporates. The Nazi’s looked pretty powerful in 1940. By 1945 they weren’t too popular with the German people. Ditto Japan. Total destruction has a way of realigning the entire nation.

Conan on November 10, 2012 at 8:15 AM

I saw O’Reilly telling Dr. Sabato the next 4 years go the same the democrat party evaporates. The Nazi’s looked pretty powerful in 1940. By 1945 they weren’t too popular with the German people. Ditto Japan. Total destruction has a way of realigning the entire nation.

Conan on November 10, 2012 at 8:15 AM

Really? We’re Nazis now?

urban elitist on November 10, 2012 at 8:18 AM

writeblock on November 10, 2012 at 8:06 AM

Mitt misread the election. It was a base election. Obama understood that Mitt didn’t. Mitt needed to reach out and give his base skin in the game he didn’t they stayed home he lost. The GOPe either has to embrace their base or find a new base. They went for option 2 this time around and fell short same as McCain tried to do in 2008. At least at the end McCain was smart enough to see the rror of his ways and call in a conservative for his VP to drive turnout. Mitt wasn’t smart enough to see the need. The GOP base stayed home. Mitt lost.

unseen on November 10, 2012 at 8:21 AM

The first debate was the only time during the entire campaign that Romney looked good. Before and after that debate he was awful. Just awful.

Every criticism that was leveled against Romney during the primaries inevitably came to pass. His very presence as the nominee depressed turnout beyond anything imaginable.

Maybe spending 6 months ridiculing Republicans and consevatives who weren’t ready to get on their knees for Romney wasn’t the best form of GOTV. Telling us to stay home or vote for Obama wasn’t the optimal approach.

The GOP sucks ass, and as a lifetime conservative, I honestly can’t see any reason to vote for them, ever. And “The Democrats suck more!” just isn’t a good enough reason, as Romney and his supporters just found out.

Spliff Menendez on November 10, 2012 at 9:42 AM

I think the first debate wound up hurting Mitt because the win in the debate made Mitt think he could play defense in the home stretch and so he didn’t go on the attack on things like the massacre in Lybia

unseen on November 10, 2012 at 8:10 AM

He didn’t go on the attack on anything. Before or after the debate.

The only reason Romney won the first debate is because Obama looked so pathetic he won by default. It’s not like he was awesome or anything.

Spliff Menendez on November 10, 2012 at 9:45 AM

FUN FACT: Obama Lost in Every State
with a Voter Photo-ID Law

http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/2012/11/fun-fact-obama-lost-in-every-state-with.html

Was the election stolen? Remember all those lawsuits by Democrats demanding that any voter identification laws be repealed? Well, now we know why they filed them. They needed to steal the vote in certain key states so that Obama could be reelected.

Curiously, Obama lost in every state that requires a photo ID to be produced before voting. A list of closely contested state elections with no voter ID, which narrowly went to Obama include: Minnesota (10), Iowa (6), Wisconsin (10), Nevada (6), Colorado (9), New Mexico (5) and Pennsylvania (20).

Galt2009 on November 10, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Mitt misread the election. It was a base election. Obama understood that Mitt didn’t. Mitt needed to reach out and give his base skin in the game he didn’t they stayed home he lost. The GOPe either has to embrace their base or find a new base. They went for option 2 this time around and fell short same as McCain tried to do in 2008. At least at the end McCain was smart enough to see the rror of his ways and call in a conservative for his VP to drive turnout. Mitt wasn’t smart enough to see the need. The GOP base stayed home. Mitt lost.

unseen on November 10, 2012 at 8:21 AM

What is the “base” actually? It’s a coalition of factions, each with its own agenda. Our problem is they’re often at each others’ throats. But which of them is truly conservative? Santorum was considered a true conservative by many. But he was cozy with unions and pushed programs that expanded government. Huckabee was a populist who had no problem raising taxes. So who was the true conservative? I liked and admired Rudy, a fiscal Reaganite. Yet he was a rino to the very people who embraced Santorum and Huckabee. Then there are the libertarians and the neo-cons. They are all your “base,” all consider themselves true conservatives. But unlike the Democrats, our guys are in constant conflict, and carry grudges to ridiculous extremes. They do a lot of real damage to the nominee. Is this any way to win a presidential election?

writeblock on November 10, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Recapping Romney’s campaign-his swing state strategy almost worked-had a mere 150,000-200,000 undecided voters changed their minds in Ohio, Virginia, Florida & Colorado (or NH) -Romney would now be president-elect despite being on the south side of 2.5 million popular votes.

Because of Obama’s minority status and the fact that an adoring MSM turned a blind eye to all his foibles, Obama was all but invincible to any opponent and this should not be forgotten. Overlooked were a national debt which now increases at a rate of 5 BILLION DOLLARS A DAY and criminal mismanagement and cover-up at Benghazi–a scandal so serious that it makes Watergate look like failing to feed a parking meter by comparison.

As for debates-it could easily be argued that Kerry beat Bush and Jimmy Carter beat Regan-for all the good it did them. Debates make little impact on people–sort of like watching a movie–you enjoyed it but a few days later you forget almost all the details. In my estimation, the dumbest argument of all was that Romney should have “put Obama away”in the last debate with a knockout punch on Benghazi.1 The majority of the public didn’t know what or who (Ben Ghazi?) Benghazi was because not only was it covered by by the White House, CIA and State Department but by the MSM as well. 2 Imagine the image of a “rich white guy” beating up a “poor black” over an incident the majority of the public was unaware-this would only have served to INCREASE Obama’s margin of victory.

MaiDee on November 10, 2012 at 10:49 AM

. 2 Imagine the image of a “rich white guy” beating up a “poor black” over an incident the majority of the public was unaware-this would only have served to INCREASE Obama’s margin of victory.

MaiDee on November 10, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Your pathetic argument sucked up to this point. At this, it became about as reasonable as cutting off your head to fix a toothache.

astonerii on November 10, 2012 at 10:53 AM

astonerii Take your thorazine as the doctor prescribes and play with your toy soldiers.

MaiDee on November 10, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Fraudulent election. How many of them dem-election workers destroyed ballots. How many machines changed votes? There is no way in hell Romney did worse than McCain and no way he lost the popular vote either.

Rusty Allen on November 10, 2012 at 11:37 AM

I am appalled that military votes were not counted and that Florida removed military members from the voter rolls.

Rusty Allen on November 10, 2012 at 11:38 AM

In today’s electorate, I don’t believe Ronald Reagan could have overcome the fact we’ve reached the tipping point. More people want the government freebie more that the freedom and liberty on which this country was based. They are blinded to the folley of giving up this liberty for the govenment handout and it will eventually catch up and hurt them badly. And I believe in a very short while. Obama has no plan to get this economy rolling and business simply won’t invest just to give more to the IRS…its that simple and it will happen. As a believer, I think this wonderful land of ours may have already completed its objective in the Greater plan and will continue to become irrelevant. I’m no prophet, but I’ve felt this way since Slick Willie was elected.

Deano1952 on November 10, 2012 at 11:59 AM

As predicted by many, there was no way the media were going to let Obama be a one term President.

Until Republicans start getting in media’s face (not just writing on blogs) about their liberal bias in this country and Dem cheerleading and putting them on the defensive, Republicans are at a distinct disadvantage no matter who the Republican nominee is.

It has nothing to do with the base. Especially, the inflated numbers socons are always putting in here about their numbers. You can’t even get a socon to win in a Republican primary vote, except in a couple of backwards states.

Moesart on November 10, 2012 at 12:15 PM

All things being equal, Obama lost all 3 debates. HOwever, debate #2 wasn’t an apparent loss until later so, those who only watched the debate and didn’t follow anything afterwards, knew that Romney was flustered by Candy Crowley’s response to Obama. I believe that one time, that one piece, changed the whole course of the debates because how could he bring it up again after it was settled in debate #2?

I believe he was sandbagged on that one question and, in 2016, the Republicans had better have better control of the debate moderators. Candy Crowley should be permanently banned from ever being a moderator again, after that performance. She pulled the rug out from Romney on that one and he never really recovered.

Also, Obama was just plain arrogant, in debate #3 and Romney never really played on it. I believe I would have called him on the aircraft carrier thing, but hindsight is 20/20.

bflat879 on November 10, 2012 at 12:33 PM

It is not Romney, Candy Crowley, Obama’s arrogance… it’s a lazy and politically moronic electorate that can’t be bothered to learn how this country works. They love being spoonfed their voting tendancies by Katy Perry, Jersey Shore and Bruce Springsteen. They don’t think for themselves or perhaps at all. It will eventually bite them and maybe wake them up, but perhaps not soon enough. Look at those man on the street interviews where so many don’t even know who the VP is, or current polical events. They are zombies more or less. This!!

Deano1952 on November 10, 2012 at 1:08 PM

I would have voted for the ham sandwich if that’s what my choice was between the current occupant and the gop nominee. Maybe we were blinded by our fervent desire to rid the country of this socialist regime and didn’t see their ground game coming even tho their turnout was 10M less than in ’08. Hadn’t heard that the military ballots weren’t counted. Didn’t the msm tear Bush up over that.

Kissmygrits on November 10, 2012 at 3:13 PM

How many so-called “conservatives” argued there was no difference between Romney and Obama? Sure Romney’s campaign left something to be desired. But we still lost only by a small margin in the four states we needed. It’s sickening how selfish and politically ignorant some of our own are. We nominated an exceptional man and a lot of Republicans stayed home sulking. Obama’s vote was not that impressive. All we needed was to get what McCain got in ’08. Our own people lost this thing.

writeblock on November 10, 2012 at 4:02 PM

At the moment, I’m close to concluding that this election was stolen from us. If you think about it, it wouldn’t be that difficult. They could focus on a few selected counties in Ohio, Virginia, and Florida.

1. I’ve looked at reports from Philadelphia and Cleveland where Obama got numbers that couldn’t be true, such as 100% turnout and 99% of the vote.
2. I’ve discovered that not ONE SINGLE MILITARY ABSENTEE BALLOT was counted. This was outrageous. I’ve read reports about the government dragging its feet to get ballots mailed out – and then the ballots were received the day after. And the absentee ballots that were sent to our troops in Afghanistan burned up in a plane crash. I don’t know how many total ballots were not counted, but I know Mitt would have gotten around 65-70%.
3. There are three different kinds of software that was used to tabulate votes on these machines – and I’m looking into whether this software could be hacked or not.

Am I crazy or paranoid? I don’t know folks, I think everybody probably feels that there just wasn’t something right about this election.

TarheelBen on November 9, 2012 at 11:36 PM

30,000 in Ohio to see Romney on Friday night, 30,000 to see him and Ryan in Pennsylvania on Sunday night, record numbers of early voters and reports from around the country on election day of massive turnouts and packed polling places but 14 million less voted this time then in 2008? Are the bloggers here at HA that stupid or do they think we are that stupid? In 2008 I walked into my polling place, walked up to the table, got my ballot, voted and was back in my truck in 5 minutes. I went to my same polling place this time and was there for nearly 2 hours.

Maybe the conservative pundits and dopey rino bloggers are afraid to say it, maybe (as I’ve long suspected) are really not very intelligent or maybe don’t even care but the election was stolen.

peacenprosperity on November 10, 2012 at 2:52 AM

I’m getting sick and tired hearing all the opinions through totally rose colored post election glasses that Romney really blew this election. Yes, he shouldn’t have backed off but he choose to “look presidential” to the independants and remove the stereotype.

No, what numbs me is that this election was lost fare and square, by vote suppression on such a massive scale

Even worse, than Romney could be turning this country around and instead we get 4 years more into our entry into hell

audiotom on November 10, 2012 at 4:12 PM

All we needed was the same vote McCain got in four states. We didn’t get those votes. Why? There was only one reason. We were not united behind our candidate. We were divided among ourselves. Just look at the primary season, how prolonged it was, how viciously Republicans attacked one another. It’s sickening. So much riding on so little. The whole world was at stake and we blew it.

writeblock on November 10, 2012 at 4:57 PM

30,000 in Ohio to see Romney on Friday night, 30,000 to see him and Ryan in Pennsylvania on Sunday night, record numbers of early voters and reports from around the country on election day of massive turnouts and packed polling places but 14 million less voted this time then in 2008? Are the bloggers here at HA that stupid or do they think we are that stupid? In 2008 I walked into my polling place, walked up to the table, got my ballot, voted and was back in my truck in 5 minutes. I went to my same polling place this time and was there for nearly 2 hours.

Maybe the conservative pundits and dopey rino bloggers are afraid to say it, maybe (as I’ve long suspected) are really not very intelligent or maybe don’t even care but the election was stolen.

peacenprosperity on November 10, 2012 at 2:52 AM

The new birtherism is born.

libfreeordie on November 10, 2012 at 5:22 PM

The simple fact of this election is that Team Obama was able to scare more voters about what could happen to them in the next 4 years than Romney was.

I would also say that many, many on our side underestimated how much of the country still doesn’t trust ANY Republican to run things. We may have been too optimistic about that. It was too soon after the Bush debacle for people to trust us again.

rockmom on November 10, 2012 at 5:28 PM

BTW, that Romney rally in PA did have an impact. Obama barely carried Bucks County after winning it by almost 10% in 2008. Just wasn’t enough to overcome the 450,000 margin out of Philly.

rockmom on November 10, 2012 at 5:31 PM

I would also say that many, many on our side underestimated how much of the country still doesn’t trust ANY Republican to run things. We may have been too optimistic about that. It was too soon after the Bush debacle for people to trust us again.

rockmom on November 10, 2012 at 5:28 PM

This makes no sense at all. We control 30 states!! Some, like PA and WI, are heavily Democratic. Rudy won NYC, for heaven’s sake! Why is that? Because when people get hit in the pocketbook, they suddenly wake up to reason. Republicans win because people know they lower taxes, they balance budgets, the push for responsible government. In four years–after Obama makes a bigger mess–we’ll be back in business. Meanwhile Republican governors are throwing a shoe into Obamacare by refusing to take over the excanges. Let Obama try to fund them and run them.

writeblock on November 10, 2012 at 7:29 PM

Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Virginia:

These states were never in play, we just engaged in wishful thinking because we really wanted that ahole Obama out of office.

Dick Morris should be banned from appearing ….anywhere!

Sherman1864 on November 11, 2012 at 5:01 AM

Does no one remember the phrase “Reagan Democrats”? These people hate the modern Democratic party and yet we can’t seem to offer them anything but out-of-touch arguments about tax policy. Do better with the white working class, win elections. You don;t have to change much at all; this election was won on the slimmest of margins, whatever their “inevitable electoral math” says.

alwaysfiredup on November 11, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Virginia:

These states were never in play, we just engaged in wishful thinking because we really wanted that ahole Obama out of office.

Sherman1864 on November 11, 2012 at 5:01 AM

Ohio, Virginia and Florida were all three very much in play; the margin was around 100,000 votes in each state.

alwaysfiredup on November 11, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 2