In response to:

Why Mitt Lost and it Wasn’t Very Close

Earl29 Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 2:50 PM
No expert is omniscient. I kept hoping Romney would win, but after Sandy, I was unable to believe he would. He wasn't my candidate, but he would definitely be better than Obama.
loadstar Wrote: Nov 09, 2012 8:23 AM
Rather sedulously prolix for a know-it-all gadfly Wednesday Morning QB! And like a wh_ore's dream-- equally pointless.
william6346 Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 5:05 PM
Earl - with all due respect to John, and with no intention to be "in your face" about it, there is a HUGE difference between "not being omniscient" and plying your trade as a professional commentator with SOME supposed resume of accomplishment, forethought, accuracy and rationalism.

For a man in his position to post "expert" observances that border on assurances and guarantees of a Romney landslide right before the election and then, the day after the butt-kicking, to post another "expert" opinion on why Romney lost by a landslide -- presented with practically the same feigned expertise and cool-headed logic but without a hint of apology or even a mild whiff of the aftertaste of the eaten crow is a disgrace.

Memorandum to the GOP: When running an election campaign it is often valuable to select a nominee who represents the rank and file of the Party. This is how other Parties do it. Perhaps you might get on board.

Who?

Well let’s start with who not to select.

There was George H.W. Bush, who, while a nice, honorable public servant, won primarily because of the record Reagan established. He lost because the rest of us thought that when he mouthed the words “Read my lips, go to Texas,” he meant “Read my lips, no new taxes.”  

There was Bob Dole,...