[OneWingedShark]

In any other era, we’d see mass resignations and a tidal wave at the ballot box. The former hasn’t happened and the latter remains to be seen.

The reason there was no such tide in 2012 was because, politically speaking, Romney is Obama. In fact, I could see how a Romney presidency could have been worse than a second Obama term: the "issue waivers to the states"-plan for "repealing" obamacare, would give the office of the president a huge extortionate-power over the states (Do what I say, or I'll revoke your waiver.).

In short, people saw right through the Republican party's offering. I'm actually glad that they rejected the Tao of Republican Orthodoxy.

[wastoute]

I posted as much before the election. I said that a Romney would probably accomplish more than Bozo in terms of the progressive agenda. The RINOS. And GOPe would have merrily helped him. I guess the “powers that be” decided there was no way they could turn off the Brown Shirt Media to reflexively demonize the pubbies so they were better off to stay the course with Bozo.

[jamaksin]

In ye olde days "It's the ecomomy, stupid!" was the watch-word. In those times, say leading up to the 2012 elections, the odds of a referendum vote on the handling of the economy winning Obama a second term were zilch.

Several shifts caused an alignment of the stars, planets, ... in his favor, however.

Demographics was one, women's vote was another, ... etc.

It is no longer "the economy" - it is government (at all levels), largess at full open throttle.

So, when it is said "We must invest in education for the future growth of the country. We must ivest in infra-structure, ... " It is accepted as Holy Writ with no mention of an assessment of the monies already spent.

The reply is a vague "What difference does it make now. The money is already spend."

To question anything about the returns on those monies is ... pick a word.