Osler's Razor

Somewhere there's a gay Puerto Rican stoner living in Colorado that's happier than anyone else in the country right now.
 

no. He showed enough of his compassion. He might have had a chance if he had selected a VP who was not wedded and unbending in his economic thoughts. Everyone is going to have to compromise on the pending economic doom and gloom. Young, old and everyone in between and Ryan was still wed to the idea of 'my way or the highway'. Now I think I'll head t Colorado and give pot a try. It's on my bucket list.
 

Not an option. Romney faced great obstacles in re messaging. He had a brief period window in which he could speak directly to the American people in the form of debates. He won that short period in a dramatic way. Everything else was filtered (oftentimes distorted) through the prism of an unfriendly mainstream media. Sure, he made some choices that I might have counseled against, but Romney was not the problem. I have no objections to the campaign he ran.
 

Justin T., Gay Puerto Ricans who smoke pot may never vote Republican. And that’s fine because no party can appeal to every single person. But the problem with comments like yours is that they repel entire groups: gays, Hispanics (and other minority groups), younger voters. It’s becoming clear that no party can win the presidency if it does that.

Prof. Osler, I do think this Romney would have fared a little better in the campaign, but I don’t think he would have won. Republican losses in Senate races throughout the country suggest that policy, more than personality, was to blame.

(By the way, I really like Romney’s distinction between “what a society makes as law and requires other people to do” and what is personally required by faith.)
 

Interesting-- putting together TexPat and Waco Farmer's comments (WF thinks the media gave Obama enough of an edge to win, while TexPat believes policy made the difference), I wonder if the answer is somewhere in between.
 

In terms of the video: it certainly reaffirms what I think should be obvious to any reasonable observer, Mitt Romney is a remarkable person and was a great candidate for president.
 

In re Mark's question: the answer is always somewhere in between. First day in history school: there is no such thing as mono-causality.
 

I think the obvious answer here is that a more moderate, rational Romney would have faired better in important swing states like Ohio and Virginia--and by extension, the election. Had he tempered his stance on issues like immigration and abortion (as per the video), many disenchanted '08 Obama supporters who have resonated with Romney's economic message may have been persuaded to switch sides. But, to borrow from Waco Farmer, the reality here is that a moderate Romney never would have emerged from a Republican primary where temperance on any issue was castigated as tepidity.

@Texpat: I'm not convinced that those Senate races are reflective of the presidential outcome. While candidates like Akin and Mourdock clearly lost on policy (voters "shut that whole thing down"), Romney still carried their states.
 

Why President Obama won:

1. Power of the incumbency.

2. A friendly media at his back.

3. He built a reelection organization completely unprecedented in the history of American politics. If nothing else, the re-elect was incredibly forward-looking in terms of micro-targeting, getting out their vote, and messaging in the places that counted most.

---------------

The reason M. Barone (who actually knows a lot more about politics than Nate Silver) was so wrong is that he was right about the fundamentals, but he was wrong about the numbers. Team Obama understood the numbers better than any campaign before. Barone was right on the fundamentals: a president with this level of (un)accomplishment facing a high quality opponent should lose and lose pretty decisively. But people like Barone and Noonan and even Rove did not understand that the game had changed.
 

I agree that a lot of different factors contributed to the election results. (One big factor was that Obama is a very compelling figure for a lot of people, including me.) But I find it interesting that Waco Farmer liked Romney's unfiltered debate performance, where he hailed the United Nations, crackdowns on free trade, the need for regulations, and a federal role in education. I spent several years working for a Texas member of Congress and never heard such statements from any Republican.

CTL: I agree with you that there were a number of weak Republican Senate candidates. But Tommy Thompson, George Allen, Connie Mack, and Rick Berg did not all lose because of Romney’s uninspiring personality.

I am reluctant to get into an argument about the mainstream media, but I would just note that from my admittedly distorted viewpoint in Washington, DC, I have rarely watched an episode of Meet the Press or opened the Washington Post or New York Times and failed to see smart Republicans represented, front and center.
 

I don’t mean to highjack the thread, but one point for Waco Farmer: You can build the most sophisticated reelection organization in the history of the world, but if you don’t have motivated young (and old) people volunteering to staff it, it won’t matter. I volunteered for Obama in 2008 and in 2012. At every stop along the way – whether at the Iowa caucuses in the dead of winter or at a heavily Republican Virginia polling place on a beautiful Election Day – there were more volunteers for Obama than for any other candidate (and contrary to popular perception, most of us were white).
 

I don’t know about you, but I still cannot wrap my mind around the amount spent by both campaigns for an outcome predictable before having that obscene pile of money thrown at it.
 

Obama in 2008 had 69 million votes. This time he had around 60 million. McCain in 2008 had 59 million votes. Romney this time had 57 million. Obama lost approximately 13% of the voters he had in 2008. That is a huge number. By comparison, Regan, Clinton, and Bush all picked up votes in there second election. Bush and Regan picked up huge numbers, over 10 million. Also, Bush's numbers in 2004 would've allowed him to beat Obama in this election.

I say all that because this wasn't an election about a country that was reaffirming the policies of the president. You don't lose 13% of the people that voted for you if the country thinks you're doing a good job. And the Republicans don't lose voters either. The turnout was lower than 2008 and 2004. The turnout was lower in Ohio, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. All swing states. And this was an election everyone thought was going to be close, which should drive people to the polls.

This was an apathetic electorate that wasn't happy (or at least not satisfied) with the president but was uninspired by his opponent, who ran an abysmal campaign. That combined with the fact that the Obama team had one of the all-time great ground games in presidential politics, and Obama wins.

But to characterize this as an endorsement of the president or his policies seems to be hard to reconcile with the numbers.
 

@Texpat: I'm not taking issue with the personality point--I agree. Still, I think other factors like the incumbency hurdle (Thompson, Mack), party incumbency (Berg, Allen), turnout and enthusiasm explain those races better than some sort of broad repudiation of Republican policies. In the four races you mentioned, the results were holds for the Democratic party, not steals.

Here's the thing I don't quite understand--lot's of folks (to the left) are characterizing this election as a persuasive mandate for the president and a clear victory for the Democratic platform. As I see it, this was a close election (2pts. in the popular vote) where an incumbent with a tremendous organization defeated an uninspiring challenger hobbled by his primary experience. Congress remains divided and the balance of power has not moved an inch. While the composition of the electorate has clearly shifted, it remains to be seen whether the country has moved to the left on policy. Reading too much into this election would be to commit the same mistake as those who saw the 2010 Tea Party wave as some sort of nation-wide repudiation of the president's policies.
 

@Texpat: in re the most sophisticated reelection org in the history of the world (which it was), you get there with a lot of money and paid staffers. Of course, I agree with you that you need an army of volunteers--but that part of the equation is not so extraordinary relative to past history.

@RRL: great point about the actual votes. When I was jotting down those numbers for a few remarks I needed to make yesterday morning, I was astonished and went back and double-checked. Those numbers are very meaningful. Not much has been made of that in the immediate aftermath, but that will change in the coming days and months--as professionals dissect this election.

In re the abysmal campaign, I am sticking to my guns. Mitt Romney was a good candidate who faced a series of devilish dilemmas. He made reasonable choices that proved unsuccessful.
 

As a Democrat, I hope Republicans spend the next four years working on their campaign machinery rather than revising their policies. Thanks for letting me join the conversation!
 

RRL et al-- It looks like the 60 million vote total for Obama does not include Florida (which is, per usual, still counting). A lot of people live in Florida!
 

Osler - actually, my understanding is that Florida is included, which is why it is in the low 60 million range now versus high 59 million range on Wednesday morning. The voter turnout nationwide is listed at around 117-118 million, which would support the 60/57 split. I think that 60 million number is going to end up being pretty accurate. Obviously, if there is some website that indicates Florida is not included I haven't seen it, but would be interested.

Even with Florida, he would still come in 5 million short of 2008. Still hard to reconcile with the, "America Loves Obama and Everything He is Doing" narrative.

Whatever, GOP still has the house. Four more years of gridlock is really all I want anyways. DO NOTHING CONGRESS!
 

In re total votes: experts (Sean Trende for one) estimate that there are approximately 7 million votes out there uncounted. Presumably, approximately half will go to the President. So, expect him to get to around 63 million? RRL still has a point.
 

The story moves on-- and now the Presdent and Congress really really really have to work out a solution to the budget issues.
 

I made this mistake of overestimating the President four years ago. This time I am more cautious. But I will continue to pray for him & the country and hope for the best.
 

As a 'technical' resident of the Banana Republic aka 'Florida'; we just like to do things a little differently.

According to the demographic stats that CNN was scrolling yesterday; I; as a (now) rural, non Church going, left leaning (registered)Independent, middle-aged white woman; do not conform to their scrolling stats. And I am proud of it
 

@Texpat: I was referring to the fact that pot was legalized in WA and CO, gay marriage referendums passed in all 4 states, and Puerto Rico voted for statehood.
 

Justin T., Sorry for the misunderstanding.