You may be right, but there is evidence that maybe not. Obama got far fewer votes than he did in 08, and the GOP held the House, and that was a pretty conservative GOP slate of candidates.
For your theory to really make sense, 2010 would not have happened, Scott Walker would have lost his recall, and Obama would have gotten over 70 million votes last night.
Since none of that happened, my theory, that maybe if we actually articulated why we are right and they are wrong, the result might have - and I stress might have - been different.
"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."
As a people, how far away from the very basis of our Constitutional protections we have come!
A President's election majority may have hinged, largely, on a population group who preferred him over his opponent because of his willingness to support that "hand of force" which "destroys" both the life and liberty of children in the womb.
I have both religious and political reasons for last night’s loss.
Since no king is raised or lowered without God’s approval, then it is entirely legitimate to think in terms of religious history when looking at this election. My personal opinion long has been that Jehoshaphat is the correct parallel for this age. His unholy alliances sowed seeds of future disaster for his nation.
On the political side, I believe the Romney victory in the primary is entirely attributable to his huge money advantage over all his competitors, so saying “They couldn’t even beat him.” is a lot like spurning me because I can’t compete financially with Bill Gates. It’s true, of course, that I can’t, but when is such a comparison appropriate?
In terms of the race, Romney was too timid. He did not engage on the most important issues, and when a hot one was dropped right in his lap, Benghazi, he failed to pick it up. Obama, of course, had no problem using Hurricane Sandy.
In terms of running mate, I’m fairly sure that Romney chose him to provide a 2nd path to victory. That was a reasonable thought. It didn’t work out because Ryan was unable to win his own state, a long-time Democratic stronghold. Romney’s thought was shallow, though, because he should have asked himself which of his home states he expected to win.
One has to wonder if hard-working Senator Rob Portman from Ohio had a better chance to deliver Ohio. I’m certain that Rubio would have delivered Florida and a lot of Hispanics nationwide. I can only think that Rubio turned Romney down or perhaps Rubio didn’t want to go through the birther gauntlet. Even Susana Martinez of New Mexico could have lessened his woman problems and Hispanic problems.
My guess is it was the alternative route theory that won the day. That’s OK. It was wrong, but it was OK.
I’m convinced that the Michael Barones of the political world have bloated resumes. He, Morris, Rove and their like were wrong or were soothsaying. Wrong I can forgive. But, if they were being “reassuring” for political reasons, then I seriously resent it. I want the facts, and people who purport to traffic in facts need to be held to a higher standard. That goes for Rasmussen, Gallup, and others.
Apparently, the D+6 turnout model appeared to be the correct one, and the pollsters we love to hate were right, and we were wrong.
The future of this nation hinges on how quickly it goes into depression, because a fiscal cliff is coming. They are gambling that huge tax increases will bring in the revenue to hold off that day of reckoning, but those are economy killers, not economy growers. Besides, they will be sucked up into the new ObamaCare expenses that are, last I heard, something like 2.5 trillion more than CBO originally (and politically) projected.
Tough times, serfdom, and a hopeless future might be enough to drive this nation to its knees once again.
Its hope is Providence. May His guiding hand be merciful as judgment is exacted on the American nation.