Poll analysis: No, the hurricane didn’t beat Romney

posted at 4:21 pm on November 13, 2012 by Allahpundit

I know you’re bored with post-election number-crunching but (a) ruling out silly force-majeure explanations makes the “how can we reform the GOP?” debate easier and (b) I wrote on this last week and feel obliged to follow up. My working theory then was that even low-information voters aren’t easily impressed enough to let the glorified presidential photo op that is “storm crisis management” swing a national election. And the exit poll data seemed to back that up. Notwithstanding the alarming 15% chunk of voters who said O’s hurricane response was the “most important factor” in their vote, it turned out that very late deciders broke only a bit more heavily for O than earlier deciders did. The hurricane may have padded his margin slightly but it didn’t swing the outcome.

Now here’s Sam Wang, one of the statistical modelers who called the election beforehand, “unskewing” the national polls by noting that O outperformed their predictions by roughly 2.4 points on average on election day. If you add that 2.4 points to the national poll averages in October, then you realize a few things:

– President Obama led national opinion on every single day of the final two months of the campaign.

– During this period, the only event to meaningfully move national opinion was Debate #1, which led Mitt Romney to close two-thirds of a 6-point gap between him and President Obama – overnight. Some of this gain was reversed in the closing two weeks of the campaign.

– Sandy’s measurable effect on opinion was no more than 1.0%, and even this might have reversed by Election Day.

So Bickers and Berry’s claim that “the president clearly benefited from the ‘October surprise’ of Superstorm Sandy” is unsupported by data.

Wang’s graph of the unskewed national polls shows a small blip towards O over the last few days following the storm but then a slight trend back towards Romney, suggesting a small but fleeting Sandy bounce. At the Journal, though, Gerald Seib argues that Obama’s poll uptick in the election’s closing days actually began a few days before Sandy made landfall, not after:

The picture emerges from a look back at the averages of polls conducted in the nine most hotly contested battleground state polls compiled by Realclearpolitics.com. Between Oct. 2 and Oct. 26, Mr. Romney gained ground in all nine of those states, though not enough to take a clear lead in any except North Carolina.

But then, between Oct. 26 and Oct. 30—the day the hurricane hit the East Coast—the Romney move up came to a halt. In that period, his support was flat in polling in four of the battleground states, he actually lost a point in his support in three of them, and gained a single point in two.

In other words, Mr. Romney had hit a plateau just before the hurricane shook up the political system.

Seib’s conclusion didn’t seem to match up with the RCP national poll average that I looked at last week, which showed Obama surging back into the national lead right around October 29-30 — just as Sandy was making landfall on the east coast. That coincidence made me think that maybe the storm did help push O’s numbers upward. But if you look at the national poll averages at HuffPo and TPM, which are based on a slightly different sample of national polls than RCP’s average is, then it makes more sense. Here’s what HuffPo’s looks like:

The first thing worth noting: Unlike RCP’s average, HuffPo’s average never showed Romney in the lead, a result that jibes with Wang’s “unskewed” model. The second thing worth noting is that, while Romney got within two-tenths of a percentage point on October 21, Obama’s lead started expanding the very next day — fully a week before Sandy made landfall. By October 27, two days before landfall, it was up to six-tenths of a percent. TPM’s national-poll average had the race closer but if you zoom in there, you find a similar result, i.e. that Obama passed Romney on October 26 and maintained his lead to the end. Not that any of these national numbers matter; the lesson of the election is that the state polls were more trustworthy. The point is, though, that both state and national seem to show a late break towards O, presumably fueled by undecideds finally making up their minds, that started before Sandy struck and created an opportunity for him to play Concerned Leader. The million-dollar question is why. Why couldn’t Romney close the deal with fencesitters?

If you missed Karl’s post last night about the flawed national polls, now’s the time to catch up. Gallup, it seems, may have been tripped up, ironically, by the fact that it screened its sample of registered voters too rigorously to try to find likely voters. In the past that was necessary because turnout on election day tended to show a redder electorate than you’d expect from a sample of registered voters. There were more Democrats out there, but GOPers could make up the difference because they were likelier to vote. Obama’s achievement this year was to turn out enough “irregular voters” that the electorate ended up looking like a poll of registereds, not likelies. In fact, go compare Gallup’s own tracking polls of likely voters versus registered voters and see how they did. Among likelies, the final poll was Romney by one. Among registereds, the final poll was … Obama by three. Gallup had the correct answer all along. They, and we, just made the wrong assumption about turnout.


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

Why have you been ignoring the blatant election fraud in Cleveland and Philadelphia?

http://wannabeanglican.blogspot.com/2012/11/massive-election-fraud-in-cleveland.html

WannabeAnglican on November 13, 2012 at 4:23 PM

I know you’re bored with post-election number-crunching but (a) ruling out silly force-majeure explanations makes the “how can we reform the GOP?” debate easier and (b) I wrote on this last week and feel obliged to follow up.

I’m really not tired of number crunching at all. We desperately need hard data, and you’re one of the few providing it instead of panicky “Quick! Amnesty!” posts we’re getting blasted with from pundits across the web. Appreciate the hard work. Hope we see more reasoned analysis in the future.

Doomberg on November 13, 2012 at 4:26 PM

President Obama led national opinion on every single day of the final two months of the campaign.

So basically we’re being told that Romney never had a chance? Not exactly the most comforting news.

Doughboy on November 13, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Quite aside from the immediate effects of particular policies, Barack Obama has repeatedly circumvented the laws, including the Constitution of the United States, in ways and on a scale that pushes this nation in the direction of arbitrary one-man rule.

Now that Obama will be in a position to appoint Supreme Court justices who can rubber stamp his evasions of the law and usurpations of power, this country may be unrecognizable in a few years as the America that once led the world in freedom, as well as in many other things.

Barack Obama’s boast, on the eve of the election of 2008 — “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America” — can now be carried out, without fear of ever having to face the voters again.

This “transforming” project extends far beyond fundamental internal institutions, or even the polarization and corruption of the people themselves, with goodies handed out in exchange for their surrendering their birthright of freedom.

Obama will now also have more “flexibility,” as he told Russian President Medvedev, to transform the international order, where he has long shown that he thinks America has too much power and influence. A nuclear Iran can change that. Forever.

Have you noticed how many of our enemies in other countries have been rooting for Obama? You or your children may yet have reason to recall that as a bitter memory of a warning sign ignored on election day in 2012.

– Thomas Sowell, today

Schadenfreude on November 13, 2012 at 4:28 PM

So, Christie2016 is still on then?

HerneTheHunter on November 13, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Losers and decency lost.

Charlatanic thugs won.

Silky gloves never beat thuggery.

The land deserves the destruction. It’s self-inflicted.

A relatively free people always, always, always deserve their ‘leaders’.

Schadenfreude on November 13, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Doomberg on November 13, 2012 at 4:26 PM

I agree. I’m sick to death of all the professional opinionators. Amnesty! Now! Ditch conservatism! Now!

INC on November 13, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Didn’t someone say there’d be no more polls? Doesn’t this include poll analysis?

*curls up in fetal position*

kim roy on November 13, 2012 at 4:30 PM

So, Christie2016 is still on then?

HerneTheHunter on November 13, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Sure, with Crist, on the D ticket…Laurel ‘n Hardy.

Schadenfreude on November 13, 2012 at 4:31 PM

So let’s see. it wasn’t Sandy. It wasn’t missing voters (which are still missing), it wasn’t the candidate and it wasn’t the campaign. Romney was just destined to lose no matter what. Is this supposed to help Romney or something? Because I don’t think anybody, including Axelrod, believe Obama wasn’t very beatable this election.

Rocks on November 13, 2012 at 4:33 PM

How can we compete when millions of Obama voters get Obama-Phones?

sentinelrules on November 13, 2012 at 4:33 PM

So basically we’re being told that Romney never had a chance? Not exactly the most comforting news.

Doughboy on November 13, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Let’s face it; the country is nearly lost. And if the GOP caves on immigration; it will be lost forever.

Norwegian on November 13, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Quite aside from the immediate effects of particular policies, Barack Obama has repeatedly circumvented the laws, including the Constitution of the United States, in ways and on a scale that pushes this nation in the direction of arbitrary one-man rule.

Now that Obama will be in a position to appoint Supreme Court justices who can rubber stamp his evasions of the law and usurpations of power, this country may be unrecognizable in a few years as the America that once led the world in freedom, as well as in many other things.

Barack Obama’s boast, on the eve of the election of 2008 — “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America” — can now be carried out, without fear of ever having to face the voters again.

This “transforming” project extends far beyond fundamental internal institutions, or even the polarization and corruption of the people themselves, with goodies handed out in exchange for their surrendering their birthright of freedom.

Obama will now also have more “flexibility,” as he told Russian President Medvedev, to transform the international order, where he has long shown that he thinks America has too much power and influence. A nuclear Iran can change that. Forever.

Have you noticed how many of our enemies in other countries have been rooting for Obama? You or your children may yet have reason to recall that as a bitter memory of a warning sign ignored on election day in 2012.

– Thomas Sowell, today

Schadenfreude on November 13, 2012 at 4:28 PM

But messaging. Or binders. Or my special interest group wasn’t addressed appropriately. Or we were not pandered to.

Where’d you find this Schadenfreude? Is there more to read?

kim roy on November 13, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Romney lost because Republicans didn’t vote. How difficult is that to understand? Superbowl Sunday, and the Rs sat on the couch drinking their coors light wondering why the returns were so bad. YOU SAT OUT THE F-IN GAME, THAT’S WHY!

tdarrington on November 13, 2012 at 4:34 PM

The point is, though, that both state and national seem to show a late break towards O, presumably fueled by undecideds finally making up their minds, that started before Sandy struck and created an opportunity for him to play Concerned Leader. The million-dollar question is why. Why couldn’t Romney close the deal with fencesitters?

Too much of an early negative campaign blitz? They went with cool over competence? At the end of the day, they decided it was better to stay on the horse we’re on, and that boils down to liking and being comfortable with Obama. His propaganda was effective in shielding him from the rotten economy, and he wasn’t held accountable for it. That’s the only way to explain how people re-elect a guy when they also feel like we’re going in the wrong direction.

changer1701 on November 13, 2012 at 4:35 PM

But pass amnesty anyways.

Oil Can on November 13, 2012 at 4:35 PM

thanks AP.

CoffeeLover on November 13, 2012 at 4:35 PM

So basically we’re being told that Romney never had a chance? Not exactly the most comforting news.

Doughboy on November 13, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Take heart, blanket amnesty for all will fix that. I know this because Ed told me so.

JPeterman on November 13, 2012 at 4:36 PM

The million-dollar question is why. Why couldn’t Romney close the deal with fencesitters?

Thomas Sowell 11/12:

Mitt Romney now joins the long list of the kinds of presidential candidates favored by the Republican establishment — nice, moderate losers, people with no coherently articulated vision, despite how many ad hoc talking points they may have.

Robert Reilly, 02/08:

When Mr. Romney was running for president four years ago, he said in an interview that the first thing he would do in the White House would be to bring in some business consultants. In other words, Washington is a management problem.

This is a profoundly mistaken Republican notion that goes back at least to Herbert Hoover . . . More recently, Republicans like Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush and John McCain may have been more accomplished in the political realm but all struggled with what Bush 41 famously called the “vision thing.” Time and again, they’ve been defeated by Democrats proclaiming such things as the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the New Frontier, the Great Society, and “hope and change.”

The Great Communicator Ronald Reagan, who spoke mostly in moral terms, was the magnificent exception. He understood that Washington is not a management problem; it is a political problem. Everything the government does is necessarily political, because governments decide not only who gets what, but why. These choices define a candidate’s politics, but they must be conceived and expressed in terms of moral priorities.

Political language is inherently moral, not managerial. It must convey visions, not just plans. It must explain why some things are good and others bad. Instincts are never enough. You need to have thought about politics in the philosophical sense to know what is going on….

If you cannot articulate the cause for which you are fighting in moral terms, you will lose. Because they cannot do this, businessmen suffer from a sense of illegitimacy when they come to Washington. When your opponents scent this vulnerability, they go in for the kill.

INC on November 13, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Have you noticed how many of our enemies in other countries have been rooting for Obama? You or your children may yet have reason to recall that as a bitter memory of a warning sign ignored on election day in 2012.

– Thomas Sowell, today

Schadenfreude on November 13, 2012 at 4:28 PM

So Sowell thinks there’s something to fear with and Obama presidency? Makes him a racist.

the_nile on November 13, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Hannity just forced Lanny Davis to admit that there was election fraud & that the Philly vote totals are mathematically impossible.

JA on November 13, 2012 at 4:37 PM

280 million voting age people in the country. 115 million voted. 165 million stayed home. If even 10% of their lazy asses were repubs, that would be 16.5 million, and a landslide for Mitt.

tdarrington on November 13, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Gallup’s historical polling data confirms that no incumbent President has ever gotten a boost from a major storm like this.

The most recent example would be Pappy Bush; he was generally praised for his response to Hurricane Andrew but still lost the election a couple of months later.

Del Dolemonte on November 13, 2012 at 4:38 PM

This election started in the PRIMARIES where Romney attacked conservatives and conservative values. There was no reason to expect ALL Gingrich and Santorum voters to simply forget. No clearer statement could be made than pushing the Tea Party to the back of the bus at ‘their Republican party’ convention. Remember that vote to grab even more power for centralized control of the party over the objections on the floor?

Remarkably, at one point in a primary debate in Iowa, Romney claimed he was going to eliminate the department of education. In the last couple of weeks of the campaign, Romney claimed he wanted an entirely new federal education program. How could Romney expect to carry Iowa?

Many conservatives had no idea what a President Romney would stand for, so they stayed home.

Freddy on November 13, 2012 at 4:39 PM

So let’s see. it wasn’t Sandy. It wasn’t missing voters (which are still missing), it wasn’t the candidate and it wasn’t the campaign. Romney was just destined to lose no matter what. Is this supposed to help Romney or something? Because I don’t think anybody, including Axelrod, believe Obama wasn’t very beatable this election.

Rocks on November 13, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Well I always thought Obama was very beatable, but I conceded all along that if the Dems turned out in the numbers those seemingly skewed polls indicated(D+7, D+9), he would win reelection handily. It ended up being D+6, so it was a closer margin than 2008, but it was still a turnout election nonetheless and the Democrat Party did a much better job than the GOP.

Doughboy on November 13, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Romney lost because Republicans didn’t vote. How difficult is that to understand? Superbowl Sunday, and the Rs sat on the couch drinking their coors light wondering why the returns were so bad. YOU SAT OUT THE F-IN GAME, THAT’S WHY!

tdarrington on November 13, 2012 at 4:34 PM

A+++++

Del Dolemonte on November 13, 2012 at 4:39 PM

I’m really not tired of number crunching at all. We desperately need hard data, and you’re one of the few providing it instead of panicky “Quick! Amnesty!” posts we’re getting blasted with from pundits across the web. Appreciate the hard work. Hope we see more reasoned analysis in the future.

Doomberg on November 13, 2012 at 4:26 PM

+1

Has AP given his opinion on the Amnesty Bandwagon?

sauldalinsky on November 13, 2012 at 4:40 PM

OT:

Has Allen West been possessed by “Obama the election loser” spirit that would not let go no matter what?

I remember so many on this blog claimed hell and heaven that Obama would NEVER leave even when he lost.

WTF is up with West? Can someone tell him to pull his panties up….the legitimate rapist won.

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on November 13, 2012 at 4:41 PM

The only point I’d make against the overall analysis is that in that very timeframe in which Obama was starting to move back up in the polls is when Sandy was really starting to make headway in the headlines and overwhelm pretty much everything else. Obama benefits from that on several fronts:
1) He gets to look presidential before the storm hits by discussing the seriousness of the matter.
2) He gets to look presidential by making sure everyone knows that he’s on top of the matter.
3) Benghazi is pretty much wiped off the face of the earth as far as a brewing political firestorm.
4) Jack-hats like Krugman get to espouse their broken-windows BS as a panacea for all that ails us (“See, the economy just needed some aliens attacking to give it a boost! Win!”).
5) Romney loses all momentum on every front because he has to tone down his attacks. That blood he was beginning to draw? Nevermind!
6) The press makes sure that their wonder-boy gets a win by comparing his yet to actually take place response to Sandy to Bush’s inept and racist response to Katrina. And by Bush, we obviously know that really means Republicans/Conservatives/Libertarians/Tea Partiers.

So … yeah, no impact at all, because the timeframes don’t match up….

nukemhill on November 13, 2012 at 4:42 PM

This shows Mitt was always behind.

Of course he was.

The base never elects an Establishment Republican. Never.

At least never since the Nixon debacle.

If the GOP wants a win they have to embrace the Tea Party Conservatives and a Conservative candidate. Otherwise they will lose every four years.

The GOP in the Convention may have signed their death warrant when they illegally approved two rules against the majority. That is exactly what the Whig Party did that led to their end.

Steveangell on November 13, 2012 at 4:42 PM

It still boggles my mind that any conservative could have sat out the election!

CoffeeLover on November 13, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Many conservatives had no idea what a President Romney would stand for, so they stayed home.

Freddy on November 13, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Then they’ll get what Obama stands for, and they’re just as deserving of it as those that voted for Obama are.

changer1701 on November 13, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Hannity just forced Lanny Davis to admit that there was election fraud & that the Philly vote totals are mathematically impossible.

JA on November 13, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Things you won’t read about at HA.

JPeterman on November 13, 2012 at 4:45 PM

OT:

Has Allen West been possessed by “Obama the election loser” spirit that would not let go no matter what?

I remember so many on this blog claimed hell and heaven that Obama would NEVER leave even when he lost.

WTF is up with West? Can someone tell him to pull his panties up….the legitimate rapist won.

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on November 13, 2012 at 4:41 PM

There are reports of massive voter fraud in his district. A partial recount already cut into Murphy’s lead. And the courts are refusing to allow a full recount. I don’t blame him for continuing to fight. Why are the courts so afraid of going through every ballot again with West’s lawyers monitoring?

Doughboy on November 13, 2012 at 4:46 PM

The hurricane did not beat Romney. But a ham sammich did.

SparkPlug on November 13, 2012 at 4:47 PM

OT:

Has Allen West been possessed by “Obama the election loser” spirit that would not let go no matter what?

I remember so many on this blog claimed hell and heaven that Obama would NEVER leave even when he lost.

WTF is up with West? Can someone tell him to pull his panties up….the legitimate rapist won.

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on November 13, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Allen West is doing something that the rest of the GOP doesn’t have the stones to do: Question dubious results.

Should he just grab his ankles and move on when there were discrepancies?

He’ll stop when the numbers add up appropriately. Shouldn’t we all be advocating for that?

kim roy on November 13, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Slight flaw with this analysis.

Two weeks before the election, there was good reason to believe that Republicans would have better turnout over Democrats. Poll after poll showed Republicans far more enthusiastic about voting, in fact polls showed this consistently for the entire year.

This only changed in the final week of the campaign, when abruptly a few polls showed Democratic enthusiasm surging to Republican levels. The only event of any significance during this time, was Hurricane Sandy.

What Hurricane Sandy did, was take a number of Democratic voters, whom would have otherwise stayed home, and instead switched them to voting for Obama. Seeing their boy, up on the stage, acting Presidential, was enough to get them excited about him again.

I mean, heck, these are the same people that got excited when a bunch of white guys stood on a stage and railed about abortion for three days straight at the democratic conventions.

Very few people switched from Romney to Obama over the hurricane, but Obama likely wouldn’t have had such good turnout without Sandy.

WolvenOne on November 13, 2012 at 4:50 PM

In 59 Philadelphia voting divisions, Mitt Romney got zero votes
http://articles.philly.com/2012-11-12/news/35069785_1_romney-supporters-mitt-romney-sasha-issenberg

Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia who has studied African American precincts, said he had occasionally seen 100 percent of the vote go for the Democratic candidate. Chicago and Atlanta each had precincts that registered no votes for Republican Sen. John McCain in 2008.

“I’d be surprised if there weren’t a handful of precincts that didn’t cast a vote for Romney,” he said. But the number of zero precincts in Philadelphia deserves examination, Sabato added.

“Not a single vote for Romney or even an error? That’s worth looking into,” he said

.

Chip on November 13, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Can we all agree that Romney lost the election, and retire him to the Ash Heap of Failed Presidential candidates?

Romney is done. Retire the picture.

portlandon on November 13, 2012 at 4:51 PM

This shows Mitt was always behind.

Of course he was.

The base never elects an Establishment Republican. Never.

At least never since the Nixon debacle.

If the GOP wants a win they have to embrace the Tea Party Conservatives and a Conservative candidate. Otherwise they will lose every four years.

The GOP in the Convention may have signed their death warrant when they illegally approved two rules against the majority. That is exactly what the Whig Party did that led to their end.

Steveangell on November 13, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Mitt Romney had the nomination locked up in the springtime. That gave conservative voters half a year to come to terms with the choice being either him or 4 more years of Obama. And it’s not like Romney took the nomination away from some imminently more qualified candidate who the base was more willing to embrace. The rest of the field flamed out when given the chance to step up.

Sorry, but if any conservative or Republican voter sat this one out, they were in effect voting for Obama’s reelection.

Doughboy on November 13, 2012 at 4:52 PM

PS: Early voting for democrats was also down nation wide, right up until election day. This suggests that the enthusiasm that carried Obama, was likely a very late development.

WolvenOne on November 13, 2012 at 4:53 PM

You make a good case that Romney never really had a lead or a chance. If so then he didn’t lose it in the last week, he was losing all along.

That said, I think your argument about the impact of Sandy is arguably wrong. Media coverage of the storm didn’t begin the day it made landfall. Reporting ramped up the previous week. Sandy had already hit Cuba and made landfall in the Bahamas on 10/25(death toll 43 by 10/26). By Sunday 10/28 Sandy was the major story with Obama making a pre-hit visit to FEMA.

Look at that HuffPost polling graph and you see the gap was pretty steady at 0.3 pts from 10/11 to 10/25. Then it takes off right as Sandy coverage did in the US. Maybe it didn’t swing the election but it moved it from close call to out of reach.

John Sexton on November 13, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Why have you been ignoring the blatant election fraud in Cleveland and Philadelphia?

http://wannabeanglican.blogspot.com/2012/11/massive-election-fraud-in-cleveland.html

WannabeAnglican on November 13, 2012 at 4:23 PM

It doesn’t make sense to me, either. Ohio results don’t “decisively” show Obama as winning and the election should never have been tossed to him as it was.

I ANTICIPATED voter fraud this election as so many others here and elsewhere did — meaning it was assumed it’d be won by Obama BY FRAUD and not by issues or actual votes and it looks like it was.

If Congress doesn’t do something about this, who will? Who CAN?

Lourdes on November 13, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Romney got beat by a dumbed-down, easily-led, bought-off electorate.

End. Of. Story.

SAMinVA on November 13, 2012 at 5:00 PM

I want to know exactly how we lost Ohio.

faraway on November 13, 2012 at 5:00 PM

I never imagined that the electorate would still be D+6. I was wrong on that. End of story. But PPP apparently didn’t know either. They said it was a hunch. I wonder how much the polls affects people’s vote. One thing that bothered me is that throughout the election cycle, people were always more likely to claim that they thought Obama would win. So are polls useful for convincing people to vote a certain way?

MrX on November 13, 2012 at 5:00 PM

In other words, Mr. Romney had hit a plateau just before the hurricane shook up the political system.

Seib’s conclusion didn’t seem to match up with the RCP national poll average that I looked at last week, which showed Obama surging back into the national lead right around October 29-30 — just as Sandy was making landfall on the east coast. That coincidence made me think that maybe the storm did help push O’s numbers upward. But if you look at the national poll averages at HuffPo and TPM, which are based on a slightly different sample of national polls than RCP’s average is, then it makes more sense.

If the election had been one week later, Obama would have lost because the reality of the Obama Awfulness would have had time to sink in, as regards the NJ, NY, hurricane-affected suffering.

I agree that Romney had a peak a short while prior to the NOv. 06 election. Many of us were tired, I could sense it in the population the week, two weeks, prior to the election.

Lourdes on November 13, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Hannity just forced Lanny Davis to admit that there was election fraud & that the Philly vote totals are mathematically impossible.

JA on November 13, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Things you won’t read about at HA.

JPeterman on November 13, 2012 at 4:45 PM

HA is not the place for you if you want controversial topics.

slickwillie2001 on November 13, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Many conservatives had no idea what a President Romney would stand for, so they stayed home.

Freddy on November 13, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Then they’ll get what Obama stands for, and they’re just as deserving of it as those that voted for Obama are.

changer1701 on November 13, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Establishment Republicans are arrogant to the max.

GW Bush became Establishment in his second term he handed all of government to Obama through his big spending ways.

The GOP congress helped big time with all the Establishment Republicans porking up the budget and spending nearly as fast as the Democrats.

Yet they somehow think we should trust them and vote for them. At least if Obama spends the Democrats get blamed. If Romney did it the GOP would get blamed and we would lose everything in 2016.

I believe that we are better off winning in 2016 even if it means four more Obama years.

Steveangell on November 13, 2012 at 5:04 PM

The Republicans nominated an echo and not a choice…and lost again.

You would have thought they would have learned after 2008…but no.

Hey, I know, more echo’ing will fix things right up!

18-1 on November 13, 2012 at 5:05 PM

So leftists, do we take those deaths out of Obama’s “win” column?

tom daschle concerned on November 13, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Romney got beat by a dumbed-down, easily-led, bought-off electorate.

End. Of. Story.

SAMinVA on November 13, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Absolutely right. $2B later and it was all about getting a free, gently used, Motorola flip phone and receiving government checks so you can eventually turn it into an Iphone. The only cost – take a minute and go vote.

sherry on November 13, 2012 at 5:06 PM

I believe that we are better off winning in 2016 even if it means four more Obama years.

I think that is probably correct. Romney would have left all of Obama’s policies in place – including Obamacare and only fiddled at the edges. Of course this is presuming that America in 2016 is in anyway recognizable.

18-1 on November 13, 2012 at 5:07 PM

You have the worst President ever, presiding over the worst (and I use this word tongue in cheek) recovery ever, with the most despicable administration ever, with the most scandals ever and he wins. It is the voting public that has become lazy and uninterested in a future for the next generations. Sickening.

Deano1952 on November 13, 2012 at 5:07 PM

I believe that we are better off winning in 2016 even if it means four more Obama years.

Steveangell on November 13, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Please discover what the LD50 is of your medication, multiply the figure by two and ingest.

tom daschle concerned on November 13, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Doughboy on November 13, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Why is it that many here fail to wrap their minds around the fact that voting against Obama was a potential losing proposition.

Romney failed to excite pretty much any voting group other than his base. You know, the 25% he commanded throughout the primaries..

CTSherman on November 13, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Karl Marx:

“It’s not the voters that have the power, it’s the vote counters”…paraphrase but that’s what I remember.

right2bright on November 13, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Hannity just forced Lanny Davis to admit that there was election fraud & that the Philly vote totals are mathematically impossible.

JA on November 13, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Things you won’t read about at HA.

JPeterman on November 13, 2012 at 4:45 PM
HA is not the place for you if you want controversial topics that do not help the DNC and Establiehment Republicans.

slickwillie2001 on November 13, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Fixed and bolded fix.

Steveangell on November 13, 2012 at 5:08 PM

More ex post facto BS about why we should continue to listen to the people who couldn’t find their asses with both hands. And does nothing going forward.

rayra on November 13, 2012 at 5:09 PM

To say that people are angry about the election fraud is a huge understatement. This petition for a recount is up to almost 84,000 and climbing every second.

http://www.petition2congress.com/8222/petition-recount-on-2012-presidential-election/

JA on November 13, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Hannity just forced Lanny Davis to admit that there was election fraud & that the Philly vote totals are mathematically impossible.

JA on November 13, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Oh … so Hannity found enough voter fraud to steer Pennsylvania to Willard? LMFAO – don’t think so bro.

What does it matter? Willard lost the nominally red states of Virginia and Florida. If he can’t take states with righteous numbers of real Conservatives – he deserved to lose.

Now tell me why Willard got less Mormon votes than McCain did huh? Seriously man – not only was he a bad candidate – he was a bad manager.

HondaV65 on November 13, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Third debate played a role maybe? Seems unlikely.

SAZMD on November 13, 2012 at 5:11 PM

I find it funny people focus on what a couple senatorial candidates said as an excuse of why we lost. We lost because we are nominating people who can’t talk. Mitt hurt the GOP this year more than anyone esp. down ticket. Does anyone doubt that Newt wouldn’t have jumped on desk of Cowly and embarrassed both O and Cowly. It was an easy shot and Mitt just stood there like a stooge. And to let Obama get away with explaining why gas was at $4 was horrible.Of course the same guys that sold us Mitt are now about to sell us down the river on a whole host of crap. Maybe now is the time to get out of the way and let this liberalism fail on it’s own. If it wasn’t for the feds we would probably get to watch the melt down in CA.

rik on November 13, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Romney lost because Republicans didn’t vote. How difficult is that to understand? Superbowl Sunday, and the Rs sat on the couch drinking their coors light wondering why the returns were so bad. YOU SAT OUT THE F-IN GAME, THAT’S WHY!

tdarrington on November 13, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Yes it is that simple… We simply did not turnout all our voters… On the other hand we could not take advantge of the 8-9 million people who voted for Obama in 2008 and stayed home in 2012… If we were able to convince 1 out of 3 of these voters to join us then we could have won…

mnjg on November 13, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Why have you been ignoring the blatant election fraud in Cleveland and Philadelphia?

http://wannabeanglican.blogspot.com/2012/11/massive-election-fraud-in-cleveland.html

WannabeAnglican on November 13, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Good News: Obama Won County in Ohio with 108% Voter Registration
http://www.punditpress.com/2012/11/good-news-obama-won-county-in-ohio-with.html

Ohio voter registration list nearly 500,000 smaller than in 2008: Statistical Snapshot
http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2012/09/ohio_voter_registration_list_i.html

Registered Voting age
9/2/2012 population

Wood 102,224 106,258 98,213

Galt2009 on November 13, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Yet they somehow think we should trust them and vote for them. At least if Obama spends the Democrats get blamed. If Romney did it the GOP would get blamed and we would lose everything in 2016.

I believe that we are better off winning in 2016 even if it means four more Obama years.

Steveangell on November 13, 2012 at 5:04 PM

And what guarantee is there that we’ll win in ’16? That’s been the flaw in your argument since you started touting it months ago. I don’t understand the logic in giving Obama 4 more years on the off chance we win later. The Dems have a number of strong candidates to choose from, and if you’re thinking they’ll be held accountable for Obama’s two terms you simply haven’t been paying attention.

changer1701 on November 13, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Romney lost the election when he passed Romneycare including the crony-mandate and lead the anti-gun movement. Romney lost the election when he supported bailing out his crooked banking buddies paid for through generational theft and counterfeiting money. All of the “expert” analysis about the nuances of this particular election is just a bunch of BS based on billions of dollars worth of misleading propaganda.

When I correctly predicted the outcome of the 2012 POTUS election several months ago during the primaries I wasn’t looking at the propaganda and the short-term polling trends, I was looking at the big-picture in America and the long-term trends.

FloatingRock on November 13, 2012 at 5:13 PM

OT: Petreus/Broadwell case getting weirder?

portlandon on November 13, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Oh … so Hannity found enough voter fraud to steer Pennsylvania to Willard? LMFAO – don’t think so bro.

What does it matter? Willard lost the nominally red states of Virginia and Florida. If he can’t take states with righteous numbers of real Conservatives – he deserved to lose.

Now tell me why Willard got less Mormon votes than McCain did huh? Seriously man – not only was he a bad candidate – he was a bad manager.

HondaV65 on November 13, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Maybe it’s because halfwits like you voted for Obama and sent money to Fauxahontas. Yes, folks, he did.

Did Palin not running really send you this far into dementia?

kim roy on November 13, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Why have you been ignoring the blatant election fraud in Cleveland and Philadelphia?

http://wannabeanglican.blogspot.com/2012/11/massive-election-fraud-in-cleveland.html

WannabeAnglican on November 13, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Good News: Obama Won County in Ohio with 108% Voter Registration
http://www.punditpress.com/2012/11/good-news-obama-won-county-in-ohio-with.html

Ohio voter registration list nearly 500,000 smaller than in 2008: Statistical Snapshot
http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2012/09/ohio_voter_registration_list_i.html

Registered Voting age
9/2/2012 population

Wood 102,224 106,258 98,213

Galt2009 on November 13, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Nothing to see here… move along… move along.

kim roy on November 13, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Steveangell on November 13, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Whine whine whine whine, sheesh, aren’t you an emo little goth kid.

“Oh I hate this, I hate that, I hate Republicans, I hate Romney, I’m a conservative but I’m suuuuure glad that Obama won.”

Yes, millions of people will remain out of work, will languish in poverty, will have their freedoms slowly stolen from them. But gosh darned it, its a darn good thing that those people that bruised your tender little ego got what they deserve.

Real mature of you. :P

WolvenOne on November 13, 2012 at 5:18 PM

If we were able to convince 1 out of 3 of these voters to join us then we could have won…

mnjg on November 13, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Every attack against a fellow Republican told these voters to stay home. The attacks against Republicans lost you the election. It really is that simple.

Although this was the only election since Nixon that a liberal Establishment Republican had any chance what so ever and he still lost.

Never again. Never, never again believe these Establishment Republicans they are liars. They know they are helping the DNC win but continue decade after decade in doing so. Stupid Republicans still allow them to do it though. GOP the Stupid Party.

Steveangell on November 13, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Dear leader would be in favor of mining but only the kind that would boost his reelection chances. Taxes will go up next year on everybody not just the rich like him and then the bottom really drops out in ’14 when more of Ocare is implemented.

Kissmygrits on November 13, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Did Palin not running really send you this far into dementia?

kim roy on November 13, 2012 at 5:17 PM

He was a huge Perry supporter, actually, and started to sour on the GOP shortly after his defeat if memory serves. He moved into the Perry camp sometime before the primaries began in earnest.

Doomberg on November 13, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Why have you been ignoring the blatant election fraud in Cleveland and Philadelphia?

WannabeAnglican on November 13, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Because he’s not a gullible, tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorist. You’d be wise to do a bit more reading.
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/11/13/the-myth-of-141-turnout-in-st-lucie-county-florida/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57548626/romney-earned-zero-votes-in-some-urban-precincts/?tag=categoryDoorTopNews;catDoorTopNews

cam2 on November 13, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Real mature of you. :P

WolvenOne on November 13, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Right me Mitt lost.

But conservatives are blamed not the Establishment Candidate Conservatives said by 60% they did not want.

But sure I am the immature one.

Steveangell on November 13, 2012 at 5:21 PM

THE KUBLER (AND “JA”) MODEL FOR CONSERVATIVE SLAVES …

STAGE 1: Denial — “This can’t be happening!”; “WTF THIS MUST BE VOTER FRAUD!”; “Gawddamn it – the American People are fu$ked up!”

STAGE 2: Anger — “Why us? It’s not fair!”; “How can this happen to us?”; ‘”Who is to blame?”; “Let it burn!”; “I don’t care anymore!”

STAGE 3: Bargaining — “Maybe next time can we haz us a real conservative candidate Mr. GOP Ayatollah? No? Okays – you want more tea sir?”

STAGE 4: Depression — “This $hit’s gonna crash into the ground so what’s the point?”;

STAGE 5: Acceptance — “It’s going to be okay – we did get our asses kicked, and probably for good reason.” Maybe next time we shouldn’t run a guy with a socialist healthcare system named after him?

HondaV65 on November 13, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Every attack against a fellow Republican told these voters to stay home. The attacks against Republicans lost you the election. It really is that simple.

Steveangell on November 13, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Oh, are you still angry that people dissed your boy Akin. That lousy disgusting, idiotic, selfish, drooling moron of a candidate that cost us a seat, and who hurt the party nationally?

Hello Moron! The Evangelical voted turned out, and they voted for Romney! Meanwhile, idiots like Akin couldn’t win even in states like Missouri!

So guess what, it wasn’t Romney that hurt the party, it was idiots like Akin!

WolvenOne on November 13, 2012 at 5:26 PM

OT: Jill Kelley works for the State Dept

faraway on November 13, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Sure, I am the immature one.

Steveangell on November 13, 2012 at 5:21 PM

I’m glad we could come to this understanding.

WolvenOne on November 13, 2012 at 5:29 PM

HondaV65 on November 13, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Why so panicky at the thought of an investigation into election fraud?

JA on November 13, 2012 at 5:29 PM

GOP the stupid party with a stupid nominee….(when will they ever learn)!

Pragmatic on November 13, 2012 at 5:30 PM

So guess what, it wasn’t Romney that hurt the party, it was idiots like Akin!

WolvenOne on November 13, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Those 10 million that stayed home spoke loudly. We will not vote for Mitt Romney the guy that feels we are a bigger problem than Clair.

You have the right to diss fellow Republicans but when you do you absolutely lose votes. The Conservatives stayed home but they did not call on Establishment Republicans to leave after they won their primaries.

The plank does not make an exception for Rape. It is you who are not in line with the majority of Republicans. Todd was in line with the plank Mitt was not. Todd broke no law. No politician has ever left a race for a stupid statement. It was 100% wrong to ask Todd to do so.

No many of us will never forget back stabbing Establishment Republicans that stab us in the back year after year.

Steveangell on November 13, 2012 at 5:37 PM

I’m glad we could come to this understanding.

WolvenOne on November 13, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Too stupid to understand I was using sarcasm?

Steveangell on November 13, 2012 at 5:39 PM

So guess what, it wasn’t Romney that hurt the party, it was idiots like Akin!

WolvenOne on November 13, 2012 at 5:26 PM

OH, PA, WI, MI, didn’t care about Akin, it was a bump in the road…Romney lost because he didn’t have a base, beyond his religious affiliation…he was a moderate of all moderates…

He won the nomination by attacking conservatives, once they were gone, he had no one to attack…

Think, he got less votes than McCain, and that was after 4 years of Obama, where he actually had a dismal record, McCain didn’t have that huge advantage.

right2bright on November 13, 2012 at 5:42 PM

No many of us will never forget back stabbing Establishment Republicans that stab us in the back year after year.

Steveangell on November 13, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Well enjoy your purist pity party. What you don’t seem to understand is that with four more years of Obama, you just took ten steps backwards to acheiving your fantasy government team.

salem on November 13, 2012 at 5:44 PM

mittens sucked and still sux! RIP mittens!

Pragmatic on November 13, 2012 at 5:47 PM

OH, PA, WI, MI, didn’t care about Akin, it was a bump in the road…Romney lost because he didn’t have a base, beyond his religious affiliation…he was a moderate of all moderates…

He won the nomination by attacking conservatives, once they were gone, he had no one to attack…

Think, he got less votes than McCain, and that was after 4 years of Obama, where he actually had a dismal record, McCain didn’t have that huge advantage.

right2bright on November 13, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Are you nuts!? I heard random people on the street talking about Akin in late October! You really think the Democrats would let people forget about that for one measly second!!??!!

Let me put it to you this way. Before the Akin comment, Romney was leading by 2-3 points in that Gallop poll of Registered voters. After the Akin comment, he was behind in the same poll and stayed there right up until Gallop switched to Likely Voters.

Among Registered Voters, in the same poll, Romney never again took the lead, NEVER!

The amount of damage that man did to the party was incalculable! It was no mere bump on the road!

WolvenOne on November 13, 2012 at 5:51 PM

If you cannot articulate the cause for which you are fighting in moral terms, you will lose. Because they cannot do this, businessmen suffer from a sense of illegitimacy when they come to Washington. When your opponents scent this vulnerability, they go in for the kill.

INC on November 13, 2012 at 4:37 PM

This quote from Robert Reilly is spot on. Richard Nixon, in his book “Leaders”, spells out that businessmen make horrible political leaders. Willard accepted his RINO consultants’ pretty Powerpoints on a “referendum on the economy”, while Obama and his minions were kicking him in the head relentlessly with steel toed boots.

kingsmill on November 13, 2012 at 5:53 PM

The election fraud was Mitt Romney. What a stiff! The irony is that the GOP nominated a Mormon, and yet we all needed a drink on Election Night.

Yes, I crawled over the proverbial broken glass to get to the polls last Tuesday, but then, I did the same for Bob Dole. And I didn’t like him, either! I did my duty last week, even after lambasting Willard–in support of Newt–throughout the primaries.

But never again will I support a Republican candidate selected and and recommended by Republican insiders, pundits, consultants, and Karl Rove. Especially a well-born preppie. They nominated a . . . what? A plutocrat? You cannot be serious! And they can dump Preibus, too.

I mean, when Willard picked Paul Ryan, it was like Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas) hiring his young, eager protege, Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen). Willard just couldn’t bring himself to pick a veep who wasn’t white bread. Not that Ryan is a bad guy. He has a long and prosperous future ahead of him, moonighting at H. and R. Block.

The Republican Party had several better choices, like Palin, Gingrich, and Mike Huckabee. If Huckabee had been nominated, he’d be the President-Elect today. I’m not sure about Gingrich or Palin, but it would have been lots more fun.

Yet the Republican Party nominated an obvious loser. Didn’t Ann Coulter originally say if the GOP nominated Romney he will lose! Why, yes, I think she did. That’s what she said! Willard’s campaigbn slogan should have been, “In your heart you know he’s white!”

America just doesn’t want a Harvard man with a net worth of $500 million or so who desperately wants to tell people why the rich are paying too much in taxes. If they did, Steve Forbes would be President today.

Emperor Norton on November 13, 2012 at 5:56 PM

mittens was/is/always will be a lousy choice for any political office (Democrat or Republican)!

Pragmatic on November 13, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Crunch all the numbers you want, but you still can’t leave God out of the equation. I posted on HotAir some time back that this election would be “meaningless,” and it was. Friends, America is no longer in man’s hands; America is in the Hand of God, and not for good.

Since June 1998 the Lord has spoken to this ministry about America over 120 times. Here are His latest Words:

“I CANNOT ABIDE HER”

Friday, 12 October 2012: The Holy Spirit directed Julie aside this evening, shortly before our regular Word session. This is His interpretation to her tongues. This is the relevant paragraph.

“For the Lord would say unto His people, This day have I unleashed a power against America that will quickly upend her and knock her off her feet. I have set My Hand against her and have determined a ruinous judgment for her. Her stagnating economy and her blighted people will not recover but will be swept away to destruction. I have cast all her hopes away and have set her down in the dust. I am making her rush to her destruction, for this thing must be done and must be settled. I cannot abide her any more.”

The truth is, America is going to be invaded and ruled over by the Assyrians. We now have our first two female presidents: Valerie Jarrett tells the Obama fem what to do. These two fulfill Ezekiel 7:24; the “worst of the heathen” now possess the White House and all the others. Jarrett is Iranian, Obama is Kenyan.

Friends, you cannot escape God’s Word or His Words! America is headed for destruction, and there is no “right candidate” to change that!

Please, have ears to hear, because it’s going to get very ugly very soon.

Gordy on November 13, 2012 at 5:56 PM

You want to know, WHY it bothers me so much when people blame Romney? Because, in doing so they dodge any form of responsibility, and deny any recognition that perhaps we as a party need to change our tactics.

People keep yelling and screaming about turnout, while ignoring that it was the less politically active that didn’t turn out. They scream that they need somebody more conservative when activists candidates fared far far worse.

It doesn’t seem to occur to them, that maybe we need to do better selling our message to minorities. Maybe we need to be more careful not to scare single women, or that maybe we need to do better turning the politically inactive into informed voters.

Nope, they are so certain that they already have the votes to win, that God himself couldn’t tell them differently! 9_9;;

WolvenOne on November 13, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Let me put it to you this way. Before the Akin comment, Romney was leading by 2-3 points in that Gallop poll of Registered voters. After the Akin comment, he was behind in the same poll and stayed there right up until Gallop switched to Likely Voters.WolvenOne on November 13, 2012 at 5:51 PM

This would be news to the Northeast RINO losers who went down in bitter defeat attempting to “me too” the Left on social issues. Akin had zero influence on the national election. Romney and the RINOs panic, in abandoning Akin, then licking the boots of the Left and the media kept Evangelicals at home. Romney attempted to compete for Obuma’s voters: an epic fail. He was an embarrassment.

vilebody on November 13, 2012 at 6:03 PM

It doesn’t seem to occur to them, that maybe we need to do better selling our message to minorities. Maybe we need to be more careful not to scare single women, or that maybe we need to do better turning the politically inactive into informed voters.

Nope, they are so certain that they already have the votes to win, that God himself couldn’t tell them differently! 9_9;;

WolvenOne on November 13, 2012 at 6:01 PM

I resent your invocation of the “god term”. We must not alienate the godless by invoking a mythical entity. These are voters who would flock to a revamped Republican party that mirrors the Left.

vilebody on November 13, 2012 at 6:07 PM

So, then we are to conclude that our Nation really wants socialism then? That’s even more depressing.

ericdondero on November 13, 2012 at 6:08 PM

This would be news to the Northeast RINO losers who went down in bitter defeat attempting to “me too” the Left on social issues. Akin had zero influence on the national election. Romney and the RINOs panic, in abandoning Akin, then licking the boots of the Left and the media kept Evangelicals at home. Romney attempted to compete for Obuma’s voters: an epic fail. He was an embarrassment.

vilebody on November 13, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Sadly, you’re living in a fantasy land. Evangelicals turned out in fairly large numbers, and voted for Mitt. Romney also won Independents by a fairly decent margin, which is more than could be said for most Republican candidates.

Single Women, were out in record numbers. Hmm, I wonder why!

Let me clue you in, Evengelicals, as a portion of the population, have been shrinking for twenty years! Akin’s position on Abortion is only shared by 10% of those calling themselves Pro Life. Akin was brought up by Obama and the Democrats every chance they could get, and the pounced on Murdock when he made vaguely similar comments!

You can keep telling yourself that Mitt failed because he wasn’t a bible thumping southerner, but you’re telling yourself a complete bed time story. The fact of the matter is, candidates like Akin are WILDLY out of the mainstream, and damage anybody even vaguely close to them.

Basically, YOU are fringe, and the fringe cannot win elections!

WolvenOne on November 13, 2012 at 6:11 PM

vilebody on November 13, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Conservatism is a secular philosophy for governance, there is no inherent link between conservatism and spirituality.

WolvenOne on November 13, 2012 at 6:13 PM

I believe that we are better off winning in 2016 even if it means four more Obama years.

Steveangell on November 13, 2012 at 5:04 PM

.
Sure, Hillary… The first Woman President… will be a piece of cake. She is Toast !

All the vagyna talk will be so 2012. ugh.

Moses, at least, had a place to go……….

FlaMurph on November 13, 2012 at 6:14 PM

No many of us will never forget back stabbing Establishment Republicans that stab us in the back year after year.

Steveangell on November 13, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Well enjoy your purist pity party. What you don’t seem to understand is that with four more years of Obama, you just took ten steps backwards to acheiving your fantasy government team.

salem on November 13, 2012 at 5:44 PM

You are the one that has no idea.

Obama is President because of GW Bush and him becoming an Establishment Republican enacting large parts of the DNC agenda. He got Medicare Part D tried to get Amnesty and got legislation forcing banks to loan money that led to the 2008 Great Recession. He then passed the huge Tarp program wasting nearly a Trillion dollars.

Romney would have been a repeat of this. It would have led to the same result a 2016 Obama win with a super majority House and Senate. When given the choice of one of two Democrats the people always hire the real one. Romney basically in the last debate agreed with Obama on nearly every policy. Romney was Obama lite.

Steveangell on November 13, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Comment pages: 1 2