Why O won and R lost?

[Alan]

Oh, so now you are expecting a discussion on a subject. I thought we were now at the point of dismissing one another using amusing quips, clips, and pics.

I've noticed your doing that since the election but it was a solo pursuit.

[redfox]

Here is an interesting article about Romney's message to his donors about why he lost:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/15/opinio...nts/index.html

[creaker]

Agreed. +1

Maybe the the ones with a majority of dollars - and lobbyists.

[peggy]

Here is an interesting article about Romney's message to his donors about why he lost:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/15/opinio...nts/index.html

That's a good article redfox. Well worth reading. But republicans won't cause they still don't get it.

[Zoebird]

I agree that the analysis is interesting, redfox.

[redfox]

Here is Horsey's cartoon editorial about the topic:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...0.photogallery

[JaneV2.0]

Letter to a future Republican strategist...

http://www.ericgarland.co/2012/11/09...-white-people/

This resonated particularly well with me:

"Deficits and debt - Whenever the GOP is out of power, it immediately appeals to the imagination of voters who remember the Lyndon Baines Johnson (!) administration and claim that the Republican alternative is the party of “cutting spending” and “reducing the deficit.” The only problem with your claim is that Republican governments throughout my entire 38 year life (Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43) have failed to cut spending and deficit and debt EVEN ONCE. I hope you understand that your credibility suffers every time you promise one thing for three decades and do the EXACT OPPOSITE. Egads – if you actually were the party of fiscal responsibility – you might win our votes despite your 13th century view of science!"

It doesn't matter how many charts and graphs and analyses you drag out to show how profligate latter-day Republicans are with other people's money, people will still use "fiscal responsibility" and the GOP in the same sentence.

That was an excellent essay; summed it up perfectly, I thought.

[catherine]

This resonated particularly well with me:

"Deficits and debt - Whenever the GOP is out of power, it immediately appeals to the imagination of voters who remember the Lyndon Baines Johnson (!) administration and claim that the Republican alternative is the party of “cutting spending” and “reducing the deficit.” The only problem with your claim is that Republican governments throughout my entire 38 year life (Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43) have failed to cut spending and deficit and debt EVEN ONCE. I hope you understand that your credibility suffers every time you promise one thing for three decades and do the EXACT OPPOSITE. Egads – if you actually were the party of fiscal responsibility – you might win our votes despite your 13th century view of science!"

It doesn't matter how many charts and graphs and analyses you drag out to show how profligate latter-day Republicans are with other people's money, people will still use "fiscal responsibility" and the GOP in the same sentence.

That was an excellent essay; summed it up perfectly, I thought.

Didn't follow where this post started (I know it was redfox--thank you, redfox), but this blog post is awesome. As someone who wavers around in the center of politics, this made a LOT of sense.

[Gregg]

In a sense politics has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The players, regardless of party, have made so many promises to get elected that they simply can't cut spending if they want to keep their jobs. Little promises like bridges to nowhere and big ones like healthcare for everyone all cost money. The few people willing to stand up and tell everyone how all this really works don't get enough traction to even get invited to debates, much less challenge for office. Successful candidates have become masters of telling us exactly what we want to hear. Truth has nothing to do with it.