Erick Erickson is rich today. Must read!!

[smorkingapple]

http://www.redstate.com/2012/11/07/status-quo-ante/

We know in American politics that nothing is permanent. The question we are going to have to assess is whether Barack Obama’s coalition is a Democratic coalition or a Barack Obama coalition. My personal opinion is that Barack Obama built a winning coalition for Barack Obama and it may not translate to a long term Democratic coalition. Just ask Minority Leader Pelosi and that now endangered creature known as the Democratic Governor.

As the jockeying for 2016 begins soon (and it will begin very soon) we will find out.

The Obama campaign ran a very good campaign. The Republicans did not. There was no fraud. There was no stealing the election. There was just a really good ground game from Barack Obama and a lot of smoke and mirrors from Team Romney and outside charlatans, many of whom will now go work for Republican Super PACs making six figure salaries, further draining the pockets of rich Republicans when not on television explaining how awesome and expert they are. Whether you can bring yourself to say it or not, like it or not, Barack Obama is, today, your President.

There will be a lot of blame to go around, but, if Republicans are honest, they’ll have to concede that the Romney campaign ran a bad campaign and only almost won because the President had a bad debate. Romney could not even win his home state, his second home state, or his vacation home state.

[Historic NY]

1. Romney could not even win his home state,

his second home state, or his vacation home state Yikes....

[TroyD]

10. I kind of like that line, actually

I don't normally like Erickson, but that might be one worth quoting.

[johnnyrocket]

13. Yea, what? Who thought he had any chance of winning MA??

That's a ridiculous statement by Ericson.

[chelsea0011]

2. Good ground game? Yes, Obama did have that but,

the pundits have pointed out the shifting demographics and if the RW continues to ignore this, they are toast for years to come. What I find interesting is that the RW uses lower voter turnout primaries to put the worst of the worst against Dems in elections and then get beat. It's a catch 22 I think Dems will enjoy for years to come.

[aquart]

3. There was fraud by the metric ton.

Our turnout overwhelmed it. To say there was no fraud...is to really, really, really irritate me.

[smorkingapple]

6. STOP THIS SHIT PLEASE!!!

Turnout DOWN vs 2008. Obama still won.

Jesus Christ, get off the 9/11 Truther shit. Voter fraud, suppression, etc MADE NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL and has not been proven to work.

If this was their best shot to "steal" an election, they suck balls at it. Don't help them by feeding into the fear and loathing machine.

[Bibliovore]

8. It didn't change the winner of the presidential election *this* year...

...but it may well have done so in the past (witness all the reports of Republican-leaning irregularities in Florida in the Bush years), and it may have affected some downticket races this time around.

This may have been the best shot at election theft this time around, but there's no reason not to make it harder for anyone to steal elections in the future. And as President Obama noted in his victory speech, we need to fix (among other things) ridiculously long wait times at polls. Perhaps this year's added focus on such issues will make it easier to legislate positive change on that front.

[smorkingapple]

9. If it's ever close enough to make a difference, boo on us and whoever we nominate

It should never be close enough to make a difference.

Gore and Kerry were terrible candidates who committed political malpractice during their campaigns. It's their fault they allowed Bush to be close enough where it could be "stolen" from them. PERIOD.

But I agree we need to fix the long lines and ballots. It should take 5 mins to vote nothing more or less.

[Bibliovore]

11. Ideally we'll always have fantastic candidates

Last edited Wed Nov 7, 2012, 10:39 AM - Edit history (1)

And ideally they'll always be gaffe-free, and the weather will never cause problems and nobody will ever try to swift-boat someone. And ideally nobody will ever steal an election. But as life isn't always ideal, and as election-stealing attempts are never okay, I'd like to see it made harder for people to even try. [Edited to add: Such as by requiring electronic voting systems to have a verifiable paper trail, and requiring a voting-population-balanced distribution of voting machines to polling places, and independently run voting such as in Europe, and so on.]

It can be argued that it's Gore's and Kerry's fault (or the fault of those who voted for their nomination) that Bush was close enough that the election could have been stolen, but it can also be argued that it's our fault as a democracy if we ignore or allow attempted theft of any election, however close or whoever the candidates.

[aquart]

12. Well, lookee what you lumped together.

Golly, let's not investigate voter suppression because some shrieking assholes might lump us with the crazies.

They really don't want to do time for the crap they pulled, do they?

Well, I want them to. I know what white collar prosecution does to spoiled brats and I'm looking forward to it.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

4. Imagine if the economy bounces back

the Dems have nowhere to go but up.

The GOP is in major, major trouble if they don't purge the teabaggers and extremists as voices of their party.

[rateyes]

5. And, Paul Ryan didn't win his home state.

[Cosmocat]

7. For a lunatic fringer republican

a sober and cogent collection of thoughts.

I think the lack of movement in the House is not unusual in a presidential reelect year.

People can only focus on a few things at a time, and they were really locked into Obama/Romney, then a lot of people with senate races.

It very easily can be that the republicans are skating on thin ice with the House. If they just flat oppose working with the President, they could easily be held accountable for it in two years. The economy should continue to improve at a slow, but clear pace, and this president will continue to remain personally likeable. With him no longer working toward reelection, he likely will be viewed fairly positively. And, the republicans have to bring something to the table that makes SOME sense, not just oppose everything from the President.

IF they can't get past their nature, and spend the next two years trying to impeach him over some trumped up nonsense like Benghazi, they could absolutely have problems.

The media frame is always good news for Rs/bad news for Ds, and somehow a president winning reelection and the dems picking up seats in both chambers and keeping control of the senate is somehow bad news for this president.

But, I just think the Rs have a lot more risk over the next four years.

[carjackistan]

14. One thing I unfortunately agree with:

"My personal opinion is that Barack Obama built a winning coalition for Barack Obama and it may not translate to a long term Democratic coalition."

I hope this changes in the next two years, and Obama puts effort into building the Democratic brand. Not just in campaigning and fundraising, but from an ideological standpoint. We need a charismatic president standing by and championing popular Democratic ideas.

A Republican House may be the legacy of the 2010 election. It's disappointing we couldn't do better in the house during a year with the presidential race on the ballot...usually tougher for us to get good turnout in the off years. Will be difficult to overcome the redistricting for the rest of the decade, but if the party and the President can focus on that battle as well as they did the Presidential and Senate races this cycle, anything is possible.

[democrattotheend]

15. This is a pretty classy statement

Coming from a Republican blogger. And I agree that Obama's coalition may or may not be sustainable depending on who runs in 2016. Obama shows that we need candidates who will excite us, make us proud to vote for them...not just the lesser of 2 evils.