Harry Boy

I'm a conservative and the reason I was shocked was "I never beleieved people could be that stupid" to put that Clown back in there, as Oliver Stone said the other day "Obama is scary" Obama has to be scary for a left wing loon like Stone to come out publicly with something like that.

__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)

In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself

Triumph

Romney had nothing to give the X, Y generations, minorities and illegals. He opposed everything Obama had to give. Romney opposed the auto bail outs. If the economy falters again, Obama would be more prone to push for another auto bail out and not Romney. The "Have Nots" despise the people that "Have" and believe they should give up more of what theyve earned. Obama will see to that if he has his way. Romney wouldnt.

All Romney could promise is a job.

Obama brought free health care and free citizenship with his reelection. If the economy doesnt improve, many of his voters still will have free health care and unemployment. The illegals will have citizenship and free health care.

You go with the sure thing. Romney wasnt the sure thing even if he was best suited to turn the economy around.

Patters

In other words, you vote your interests. Romney represented the interests of some, but not a majority of Americans. He promised the wealthy lower taxes, the militarists lots of military spending, and an economic plan that he failed to explain (massive tax cuts and massive deficit reduction). He promised the religious groups that he would use government to impede women's rights, and strongly implied that he would allow discrimination against gays and Hispanics. He promised the working poor that they would get less help from the government. He promised the middle class tax breaks, but never convinced people how he would do it -- his promises of tax cuts didn't ring true to enough people, and besides that a lot of people would rather have government services like healthcare than tax breaks.

DarrylS

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

IcyPatriot

If the economy was a larger factor on the election then Obama would be ordering a huge transition right now. But it wasn't a huge issue - Romney is known in the voting world as a financial expert of some kind. His VP has the same reputation. There were many more issues out there and they are issues people vote more democrat than republican on.

People can crunch numbers and point fingers ... I'm not wasting my time. The GOP needed a more rounded candidate or a more rounded VP. Why Romney picked a VP that plays to the same issues was stupid. A Latino or woman VP who leans left socially would have helped a ton - especially at campaign events. ryan did not even deliver Wisconsin.

the forest Gump thing applys again ... "Stupid is as stupid does".

RI Patriots fan

And now for the facts....

The American people reelected at least 51 out of the 55 Tea Party Representatives back to the House (say it ain't so).

Historically, mid-term elections have gone against the incumbent President's party 17 out of the last 20 elections in the House and 15 out of the last 20 in the Senate. The average loss in the House is 28 seats and the average loss for the Senate is 6 seats.

Remember what happened in 2010....after your "mandate" in 2008? Utter historical destruction for the Democrats.

So enjoy the next 2 years because the mid-terms are going to right the ship setting us up nicely for 2016

PatsFanInVa

Oh, the house is carved up for people to stick once they're in now. Losing 4 out of 55 teabaggers was a narrow escape, but the house of drunks is pretty much a self-sealing deal.

10 pubbie senate seats up for grabs, 23 Democratic ones... and the Dems actually expanded their majority.

Here's the thing: teabaggers can't pull any more stunts, or somebody primaries them in two years. The great moderate purge will be reversed one way or another in the pubbie party... and I would love for it to be because the teabaggers break away and run under the Tea Party ticket next election.

Here's a clue: You can't outflank the bat-guano crazy teabagger crowd on the right. What's left? OOPS I told you.

I'm more a fan of watching it all unfold than making big bold predictions -- I mean, look how idiotic all the con-men looked when it turned out there was a landslide they were on the wrong side of.

Obama's got a mandate. Teabaggers have 2014 to worry about. Grover Norquist has an inane pledge to send around and a rapidly fading fad brand.

We'll see how the next couple months go.

Elections have consequences

PFnV

PatsFanInVa

By the way, you know pubbies have the house now, right?

Patters

The Tea Party is pretty much dead. West, Mourdock, Akins, Walsh, all lost. Thanks to gerrymandering (which is completely legal), many Tea Partiers did hold onto their seat, but that pretty much screws the Republican Party more than the Democratic Party. The Republican Party I think will be forced to work with moderate Democrats and reject it's Tea Party wing. Some right wingers are saying the Republicans should simply allow the fiscal cliff to happen, but if they do that, the Democrats will come right back with a middle class tax cut to their liking putting the Republicans in an impossible position. How the midterms will play out is anyone's guess. The Republicans thought with something like 22 Democratic Senators and only 12 Republican Senators up this time they would make gains, maybe even gain control of the Senate. Instead they lost. There is nothing for the Republicans to celebrate. They were soundly rejected by the American people and are reducing to scrambling for an immigration amnesty because the demographics are against them. The same thing happened to the Republicans in the 1930s when the Democrats began embracing in a big way the immigrant population, while Republicans insisted on remaining the party of the Anglo-Saxons. Too many Republicans never learn. They are stuck in the past.

RI Patriots fan

So the Tea Party gerrymandered 51+ seats...lol. Just plain lies. Every party gerrymanders seats when they have control, yet they still loss control when the people decide they want a change.
If you didn't happen to notice, very few incumbents lost their seats including, in strength...The Tea Party.
If the American people really wanted to take the Tea party out, they could have taken them out. I'm sure you remember the 2010 elections right? You guys lost 63 seats in the House....remember?
So let's recap....the American people throw the Dems out of the House in 2010 with a historic 63 seat turnover. Then in 2012, they reelect at least 51 Tea Party candidates and give a very solid majority right back to the Republicans.
Basically, except for a few seats in Congress that have zero effect on the balance of power, we have the exact same situation that we had before the election.
Yes, overWHELMING victory for the Dems

BTW, in regards to the midterms...any election is anyone's guess. But there are historical tendencies in elections that are pretty consistent and one of them is mid term turnover for the party of the President. Hey, if you want to whistle by the graveyard, that's just fine by me but don't be surprised if the trend holds and you lose double digit seats in the House and and control of the Senate at the midterm.