Comprehending the Results

I have a hard time comprehending these results. I understand why Obama won in 2008 (financial crisis, new flashy guy, lots of promises), but what motivated an Obama voter in 2012? The great job he did on unemployment? the successful stimulus? the shrinking deficit? the fufilled promises to be bipartisan and transparent?

Mitt Romney was a solid candidate. He performed well in the debates, focused on the economy (#1 issue), made no major mistakes, and was good on the stump. However he lost by about 2%.

Victor Davis Hanson made a good analysis of the potential blame

1. Dependency Majority
2. Tactical Errors, Unforeseen Circustances
3. Too far to the right

He notes that regarding #2, Obama made his fair share of mistakes. I'd like to add to his #3 that in 2004, if you supported civil unions (but not gay marriage) you were a hero. In 2012, you would be a hater if you supported nothing less that full gay marriage. I'm not sure how moving a little left will be enough either.

That leaves #1, which I have also long feared.  The desired place for Democrats is to have 53% of the people receiving benefits and entitlements paid for by 47% of the electorate. That way the 47% are powerless to reverse course, while the 53% keep voting them in to keep the largesse flowing. Generous public union contracts and green energy subsidies, among others, ensure a flow of taxpayer money back to Dem candidates through donations. These outfits act like launderers for direct taxpayer funding of Democrat candidates.

Another good article is by Armstrong Williams. "This (election) represents a national repudiation of reality: we have tossed out the doctor because we don’t like his prognosis. The spending addict does not want an intervention; he wants more spending, no matter what."

They don’t care about things like the national debt or even a job as long as unemployment insurance is perpetually extended. It was just a few years ago that traditional marriage amendments (on the state level) passed even in liberal states. Now gay marriage amendments passed in those states. Democrat economic ideas won’t work, but telling people or explaining history isn’t enough. They will have to live through it.

People bought the spin: "Obama inherited a huge mess and it take more than four years for recovery."  That would have been fine if Obama said that all along. However, Obama promised a 5% unemployment rate if stimulus passed, which it did, but unemployment is still 7.9%. He promised to cut the deficit in half, but has doubled it. With strong controll of Congress from 2009-2011, Obama could pass whatever he wanted, so he couldn't realisitcally blame "an obstructionist Congress". He did, and people bought it. A failed result overall, but people think Obama cares. We may not live in a result-orientated country anymore.

Obamacare will never be reversed now and will add to the dependency on government. In Canada, healthcare is free but sometimes actual care gets denied. It doesn't mean the nationalized healthcare will ever away, because the number of sick people can't overturn the majority of healthy people who like their illusionary free care. Sick people who get denied treatment, don't live long enough to build any political momentum or vote in many elections anyway.

Obama will also be able to make more Supreme Court appointees. Scalia and Kennedy is 76. Ginsburg is 79 and Breyer is 74.

The media also worked overtime for Obama. If Obama was a Republican you would have seen different stories:

• Daily stories about hardships of the unemployment
• Stories about underemployed people
• Stories about the REAL unemployment rate (unemployment figures exclude people who gave up looking for work)
• Lots and lots of stories on Libya and coverup (remember all the stories on Cindy Sheehan or Valerie Plame?).