about the “ignorant” vote.

I break it down many ways but one way is to suppose the electorate is 40% Rep, 40% Dem and 20% Ind (which means the ignorant easy to sway people that don’t pay attention unitl election day. Just watch any Frank Luntz “group of undecided voters” after a debate, they are just plain idiotic)

So my premise is that you only have to sway 10.1% of these voters to win. Now this election has a great orator, never off the prompter, sounding like a centrist that is going to cut everyone’s taxes, AND MOST importantly a media that is repeating over and over that he is the second coming and can do no wrong and only he can save us from all our misery.

It is actually quite easy given the prior paragraph.

at the Presidential level. One way to know that is the fact that like her or not, Sarah Palin generated infinitely more buzz than the Presidential candidate. For everyone else it was either referendum on George W. Bush or a referendum on a blank slate named Barack Obama, who made it easy for anyone to project what they wanted on to.

The odds of history were the rarity of three consecutive terms and bad economy at election time. Add to that the gop congress moderate governance; bush’s muteness to defend himself and the gop’s fear of the pc police.

Yet, Obama was such a far left terrible candidate that McCain had moved ahead post-Palin until the credit crisis, which McCain blew.

Yes, we had too many voters ignorant of the late 70s and how conservative Reagan policies fixed the failed liberal ones that Obama and the dems advocate and too many were spoiled by the late 90s tech bubble as being normal and had forgotten about 911 since Bush was so damn successful.

that is why we lost

He lost some middle of the roaders because of immigration … he certainly lost EXCITEMENT and MONEY over immigration.

But mostly, he was hamstrung by the combination of Bush plus 8 years of Republican president PLUS the GOP losing its way on spending.

And that does not matter. What you may see as ‘to be ridiculed’ is not that at all. It is a travesty. I don’t care in the least if you do not believe what follows, care to call it whatever you wish, or in any other way decide to be infantile about it.

The truth of the answer is simple: Americans elected Obama instead of McCain because the gutless wonders of the Bush Administration’s Department of Justice dropped the ball, failed to unseal and failed to prosecute. It is just that simple. The American people were withheld the information they needed to make a valid decision about what Obama is, who his controllers are and what they have been doing INSIDE the government since 1993.

You don’t really think George W. Bush ran the executive branch do you? Did you ever ask yourself what the DOJ assistant AG meant when he claimed to be replacing people in the civil rights division with ‘good Americans’?

The American people react. The more the press made Obama out to be the second coming the more they believed it and there was going to be only ONE THING that would have stopped that from happening. TRUTH of what Obama is and who actually pulls his strings.

The information that points to that truth has been before a federal court since 2005. It is sealed and secret. But it will remain that way only until the book linked below is published. How can I write such a book that spills the beans on the entire fiasco? I’m at the heart of it. I am the victim of the initial crimes perpetrated by the shadow government.

And I’m damn tired of being quiet about it. My county is taking a nose dive BECAUSE justice did not act in time.

And John McCain advised me in writing to take it to court as I had a legal case. So I did. I have the letter and the follow ups and DAMMIT MCCAIN KNOWS IT.

the text of the entire page is changed.

I think the major problem was that Obama successfully tied McCain to Bush (the constant referral to the ‘Bush-McCain government of the last 8 years’), and John McCain never really tried hard enough to separate his policies from those of Bush. I think that things may have been different if McCain had picked Pawlenty as his VP pick, rather than Palin, who wound up being a 3 ring circus with all of the family stuff and rookie missteps with the press, unfortunately.

Naturally, the media played into that a lot as well, with their constant lambasting of Bush over the last year of his campaign, and their wonderful use of selective soundbytes.

Oprah’s followers were going to vote Obama no matter what, even if he’d been caught strangling kittens.

The average black voter was going to vote Obama, just because.

The 18 year old college kid who has no idea what they’re voting for was going to vote Obama, because it wouldn’t be cool to vote for McCain (plus, caring about global warming gets chicks).

3 trillion dollars, 3 months, and zero progress later, they’re all still making excuses for The One.

At this rate, though… 2012 looks to be a good year.

Letting the rabid MSM get away w/ 8 years of Bush is dumb caused tremendous damage.

People are generally smart w/ their pocketbook but many dumb with their votes.

Repeat Bush is Dumb a few million times and people will believe it and all the headlines like gospel.

Bush instead chose the high road to failure, choosing not to confront the political headline name calling terrorists. Keeping Scott McClellan as press sec for more than 31 seconds was just further evidence of his major blunder.

Had Bush brought in a few good mouthpieces like Tony Snow earlier, we’d be in a different position today.

1. The Republican “brand” was severely damaged by the perceived ineptitude of the Bush administration,the corruption scandals that hit congressional Republicans,and a war-weary electorate.
2. Even after his selection of Palin, a significant number of the conservative base either didn’t show up on Election Day or did without the usual enthusiasm that generates contributions and volunteer workon McCain’s behalf.The man was (is) hardly beloved by conservatives and for good reasons.
3. McCain’s stupid decision to accept public financing doomed him against the onslaught of the Obama fundraising machine.
4. Obama got away with appearing to be a centrist because of the media being in his suit pocket,and McCain being so egotistical that he thought just being a war hero and having a reutation for being nobly independent would win him the day.He attacked fellow Republicans more than he went after Obama.
5. McCain’s inability to unite Congressional Republicans behind a plan to address the financial crisis made him appear weak and indifferent to the plight of the American people.The election was lost from that day on.
I agree with the premise that we actually did better than expected given the perfect storm created by these factors.Obama certainly received no mandate to create a socialist America,and I believe it is the ignorance of a significant portion of the electorate that is actually allowing the political”axis of evil”(Obama-Pelosi-Reid) to get away with it.

translation…..no SOLID CORE VALUES!

McCain was the ultimate saugage line factory worker. He didnt care what was coming in or what was going out just how it got done. McCain was intthe Senate too long. All he’s cares about is how business in D.C is conducted not what is conducted.

Like it or not, Obama talked broad themes and gave people a vision. McCain went into the debates on a crusade to fight earmarks. I dont care what you think about the issue, it is not an issue to base a presidential campaign.

- earmarks
- bipartishanship
- campaign finance
- lobbyists
- transparency

Its all about process. Not substance. McCain and his ilk care more about how things get done and not what gets done. Its the sign of a man who has been in D.C. too long. Proper governeance is nice, but not a national platform.

- liberty
- security
- prosperity

Those are the three issues that should be the base of a national platform, not good governance/

More voters vote on who they like more

Bush was more likable then Gore and Kerry
Obama came off more likable then McCain who seemed very rigid

Style wins a lot more then we care to admit

They seem derived after-the-fact by the losers to explain the opposition’s success. Its like how my younger brother once tried to explain away an F in math because the teacher didn’t like him. Well, the teacher probably doesn’t like you, but that has more to do with the fact that you don’t listen or study than some personal vendetta. When an overwhelming majority of voters cite a tanking economy as their number one concern and that McCain’s poll numbers went south after Lehman Brothers collapsed, the loss doesn’t seem to complicated.

Economy and Bush fatigue. That’s why the Republican Party lost. Only once since F.D.R. has a political party won three straight presidential elections. With unemployment rising, investment banks cratering, the dow plunging, and an unresolved, controversial, and unpopular war still raging, voters had good reason to demand new leadership – given Democratic gains in the House and Senate over the past two years suggests this is strongly the case (This is not to contend Obama offered anything of the sort, only to suggest he appeared at a time when an electorate usually noted for its conservatism proved malleable to his bland appeals for change and unity). Since WWII, no party has held the White House when the incumbent’s approval rating is in the 40s, let alone the 20s.

Paying attention to patterns can make the study of history reductive, but claiming that the outcome would have differed if the Republican candidate were more likable, appealed to the base, honed his message more effectively, picked a different VP, not done x,y,z, is delusional. Our only hope was a fractured and dispirited Democratic Party or some horrendous Obama scandal. The former failed to occur and nothing we brought forward gained traction, perhaps because media outlets stifled such stories, but given concerns over the economy, real and imagined scandals surrounding Obama night have appeared to voters as diversionary tactics.

What could the Republicans run on? Not “four more years.” Not prosperity. Not peace. No amount of style or spin could detach the Republican Party from an unpopular incumbent. The only viable platform was “Things aren’t great now, but the Democrats would be infinitely worse for x, y, z.” Given the opposition had no record and could plausibly call for optimism, it seems only a truly incompetant Democratic campaign could have squandered the victory.

I think too many people were just voting for the guy who looked so cool.

I sent this letter to the editor, of course it was never published:

I am an old gray-haired guy who has seen many Presidential elections, but this year the difference between the two candidates is more striking than I can ever remember.

One candidate is a man of unquestionable integrity, who will stand on his principles, principles based on the Constitution. The basis for this candidate’s policies will be the Founding Fathers, who never intended a system that takes from one citizen to give to another. This candidate endured torture in the service of his country and never once bad-mouthed Her. This candidate would never send his staff to meet with Hamas. He knows the nature of the dictators and radicals that oppose us.

You don’t have to wonder whether this candidate associated with radical or corrupt individuals. This candidate has no ties to organizations that try to corrupt the election process. This candidate doesn’t ask for earmarks. This candidate is up front about where his political contributions come from. He didn’t take huge political donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This candidate will not lie to you.

This candidate, of course, is John McCain.