In response to:

Nice Losers

Jeff2422 Wrote: Nov 13, 2012 2:38 PM
I am not sure what time period you are referring to as to campaign spending. Obama kept campaign offices going in the major metros from 08 to just last week. If that spending is included, then the Repubs got out spent badly in time and money. Sowell is usually on point, but this time he is underestimating the ground game. Obama and the Dems are cynical realists and know who will vote their way. Several million non-traditional voters were signed up and list compiled for this election. Obama knew he would have buyer's remorse amongst older and white voters. So he ignored them, calculating some losses, but he more than made-up those loses with minorities, single women, and the young (each group increased its share, especially in swing states)
upnorthlurkin2 Wrote: Nov 13, 2012 2:54 PM
57? well one mistake isn't much I guess
Jeff2422 Wrote: Nov 13, 2012 2:42 PM
Heck, Obama knows one thing, 50.000001% beats 49.999999%. That is all he cared about in 08 against Hillary when he piled up delegates from the caucus states while she wasted her time and money on the proportional states. The man can count. Don't think he knows much else, but he can definitely count.

Mitt Romney now joins the long list of the kinds of presidential candidates favored by the Republican establishment-- nice, moderate losers, people with no coherently articulated vision, despite how many ad hoc talking points they may have.

The list of Republican presidential candidates like this goes back at least as far as 1948, when Thomas E. Dewey ran against President Harry Truman. Dewey spoke in lofty generalities while Truman spoke in hard-hitting specifics. Since then, there have been many re-runs of this same scenario, featuring losing Republican presidential candidates John McCain, Bob Dole, Gerald Ford and, when he ran...