gut;1314880 wrote:LOL, Akin and Mourdock lost because they're morons with diarrhea of the mouth. That only works for Joe Biden.

Thank you Indiana as Karma for voting out Richard Lugar. What a HUGE national security mistake.

BoatShoes;1314877 wrote:Krauthammer cannot admit that the hardcore part of the GOP was repudiated. I'm sorry but the losses by Akin and Mourdock along with the other tea party losses in the last cycle...seem to me that the people aren't into that. It's cost you the Senate twice now...c'mon!

Lugar would have won that Indiana seat by 30 plus points.

Yet the Tea Party would rather be pure and give Dingey Harry another Senate seat than tolerate someone they see as possibly moderate.

It is baffling.

believer;1314885 wrote:And another example of why the Electoral College method of electing the POTUS needs some serious revamping.

Boy, that sounds familiar.......2000 and 2004....

gut;1314878 wrote:My thoughts exactly every time I read you pontificate on the magic elixirs of deficit spending. But you'll get plenty more opportunities to watch and see that policy failing today.

LOL.

People can say what they want about Mitt Romney, but I really do like him and think he's a very good guy. It's ashame he's been given such a bad reputation.

BoatShoes;1314877 wrote:Krauthammer cannot admit that the hardcore part of the GOP was repudiated. I'm sorry but the losses by Akin and Mourdock along with the other tea party losses in the last cycle...seem to me that the people aren't into that. It's cost you the Senate twice now...c'mon!

It wasn't. obama's margin was far slimmer and he barely won as compared to 4 years ago. At least half the nation is still on the side of liberty and fiscal sanity. But your boy is still in the drivers seat as we head off the fiscal cliff; when will he lead; when will he go to work; when will he do what is right?

ptown_trojans_1;1314883 wrote:Ahh, the Senate is still ideology, but the House more so.
And any fiscal solution starts in the House per the rules of the Constitution. So, House, what ya got that can pass in the Senate and get 60 votes?

Harry Reid. Even when the House does introduce something reasonable, Ideological Harry finds a way to block it. This IS a two-way street.

Midstate01;1314884 wrote:Obviously these guys are rich, but what does the losing candidate do? All the elected positions are taken. What do they do for jobs?

They keep cashing checks for favors they granted in their prior positions of power.

What a bland speech by Romney....Wow.

IggyPride00;1314887 wrote:Lugar would have won that Indiana seat by 30 plus points.

Yet the Tea Party would rather be pure and give Dingey Harry another Senate seat than tolerate someone they see as possibly moderate.

It is baffling.

The loss of the Indiana seat is inexcusable. Dick Lugar was a reliable conservative in almost every respect. The fact that they lost that seat really ought to bring about some soul searching for the tea party imho.

believer;1314892 wrote:Harry Reid. Even when the House does introduce something reasonable, Ideological Harry finds a way to block it. This IS a two-way street.

I agree, but half the Congress is in the R hands. They DO have to do something. I have yet to see a damn thing from them.

Poor Mitty only wrote a victory speech. Now that's arrogant to say the least.

IggyPride00;1314887 wrote:Lugar would have won that Indiana seat by 30 plus points.

Yet the Tea Party would rather be pure and give Dingey Harry another Senate seat than tolerate someone they see as possibly moderate.

It is baffling.

What good would Luger be in that seat if he votes the same as the Democrat that replaced him?

gut;1314880 wrote:LOL, Akin and Mourdock lost because they're morons with diarrhea of the mouth. That only works for Joe Biden.

Accept reality.

ptown_trojans_1;1314888 wrote:Boy, that sounds familiar.......2000 and 2004....

And I agreed with it then too. I was glad Bush won but you cannot ignore what the popular vote is saying. Same this time around.

ptown_trojans_1;1314883 wrote:Whatever. I guess leadership does not mean getting relected. I'm sorry, you have no credibility anymore.

Leadership means solving problems ....not campaigning. Your man has the ball; please tell us, how is he going to solve our significant problems? We wait.

Cleveland Buck;1314898 wrote:What good would Luger be in that seat if he votes the same as the Democrat that replaced him?

Outrageous claim. Reaching across the aisle now and again doesn't make him Evan Bayh.

QuakerOats;1314901 wrote:Leadership means solving problems ....not campaigning. Your man has the ball; please tell us, how is he going to solve our significant problems? We wait.

Sure, but I'm sorry, you have validity right now.
Perhaps you should wait for the Obama dictator to enslave you....

believer;1314900 wrote:And I agreed with it then too. I was glad Bush won but you cannot ignore what the popular vote is saying. Same this time around.

I wish the people did not vote for president. The states are supposed to choose the president. The popular vote is as meaningless as it should be.

IggyPride00;1314881 wrote: That Obama almost literally ran the table on swing states when you consider how evenly split the country is is kind of amazing.

Turnout machine. He slipped, what, 4pts nationally and in most states? But they obviously knew precisely where to go and how to get just enough in their base in the swing states.

I don't think Romney ran a bad campaign at all. I don't think nasty attack ads work on an incumbent. It's really quite amazing how Obama won with his record and campaign he ran - fairly poor (even repulsive) strategy, but outstanding execution. Picked-off just enough votes in key demographics and key areas to eke out the electoral win.

Really a remarkable win all things considered. I think there's a pretty fundamental shift in the direction America wants to go. And I think conservative values are, literally, dying out. But this election was about the economy. Really this was a softball. There is something seriously broken in the Repub machine for them to lose this election.

A more subdued take might look at Bush in 2004 and conclude America is virtually incapable of firing an incumbent, no matter the record.

ptown_trojans_1;1314896 wrote:I agree, but half the Congress is in the R hands. They DO have to do something. I have yet to see a damn thing from them.

For those of us who would rather have LESS big government, I'm trying to figure out what the problem is.

BoatShoes;1314902 wrote:Outrageous claim. Reaching across the aisle now and again doesn't make him Evan Bayh.

Ok, I'm sure he differed with the Ds on Bush's wars, but he was more than happy to reach across the aisle on new spending and debt ceiling raises. Good riddance.

gut;1314905 wrote:Really a remarkable win all things considered. I think there's a pretty fundamental shift in the direction America wants to go. And I think conservative values are, literally, dying out. But this election was about the economy. Really this was a softball. There is something seriously broken in the Repub machine for them to lose this election.

A more subdued take might look at Bush in 2004 and conclude America is virtually incapable of firing an incumbent, no matter the record.

agreed

gut;1314859 wrote:Anyway, for everyone gloating over Obama's win the joke will be on you.

I hope I'm wrong. I said the same thing 4 years ago.

Just scanned this thread...and I don't see any gloating going on at all.. Just the usual screwballs crying their eyes out at the election results.

Independents decide all these elections. Collectively, they voted back in a guy who has overseen a pretty bad economy. Pretty much tells me that my former party is viewed as a true shitpile of American politics.

Gonna open up a travel agency booking one way plane rides to Canada.

As for Romney, he can go back to his daytime job and happily ship more jobs overseas. He's damn good at it. Maybe he could open a private school for the deadbeat 47% and explain to them why his party doesn't give a shit about them.

believer;1314907 wrote:For those of us who would rather have LESS big government, I'm trying to figure out what the problem is.

By law, massive cuts happen that impact every program for everyone if the Congress cannot come up with a solution.
Hey, their idea.

So, that is the problem. Cuts, but not in a smart way. Taking a meat cleaver when a scalper is needed.