I hope that in their absolute and utter arrogance, the GOP will NOT disband and begin anew. That way we'll ensure even more years of success in the future.

Too easy! It's not even midnight and it's over. A race reminiscent of an early Ali fight with some unknown amateur that couldn't last past the 2nd round.

Nice try Blip.

I wonder what it will be like for him to wake up tomorrow and realize that all of his money and priviledge amounted to such a staggering loss.

I thought it would be closer than it was. All that time and money to flip two states from Dem to Rep.

geojanes wrote:I thought it would be closer than it was. All that time and money to flip two states from Dem to Rep.

I'm hearing a lot of commentators talk about the waste of roughly $6 billion on this election. Of course, that's just 2 days of federal deficit based on our current run rate.

Looking back, it really is impressive that Reagan was able to win 49 states in 1984 with 525 electoral votes. In fact, it's hard to believe it happened, but it did.

I think one of the many errors of the GOP, taken from their index of errors on how to choose candidates and run recent campaigns, comes from their Reagan nostalgia.

A friend of mine had this to say this morning in his blog and I agree....

"The Republican tendency to wax nostalgic seems perpetual. This mentality of ‘what it was once like in America’ is backward looking versus forward looking. And, more importantly, ignores the math of what it takes to win a majority. The headline news from this 2012 Presidential Election is DEMOGRAPHY. The country has changed and Republicans need to get over their longing for the past."

He goes on to point out...

"Important data points regarding Percentage of Electorate

2008 Hispanic/Latino vote 8%
2012 Hispanic/Latino vote 10%
+2%

2008 Black vote 11%
2012 Black vote 13%
+2%

2008 Young voters 17%
2012 Young voters 19%
+2%

* The white vote is no longer determinative and Republicans need to reach outside the ‘older, white male ’ block if they want to win national elections. Note: In 1988, George H.W. Bush got 60% of the white vote and won election with 400+ electoral votes. In 2012, Romney got 60% of white vote and only got 206 electoral votes and lost popular vote by 2.5 million."

Awesome graphics from the NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/07/us/politics/obamas-diverse-base-of-support.html

I especially like the one showing R/D change: Yes, there were a lot more R votes, but not enough. (What the heck was going on in south central OH? It went more D than in 2008.) I'm also glad they're showing the 2008 change as well, which is even more awesome.

Ray Jay wrote:I'm hearing a lot of commentators talk about the waste of roughly $6 billion on this election. Of course, that's just 2 days of federal deficit based on our current run rate.

Clearly they don't understand economics. It was (perhaps*) a big waste of money for those spending it, but it was also a large amount of money sloshing about the economy, some of which may simply have been saved or put into safe investments. Or at least not spent so quickly and readily.

Think of all the media outlets, printing companies, t-shirt vendors, importers of US flag-based plastic trinkets etc who got custom, and what that could mean for them and their employees.

* It strikes me that without limits, you will always get a race to spend money on elections, and the nature of politics means that if your opponent is buying up ads, you have to too or risk losing support. It could be that spending had quite a big effect, but that the effects canceled each other out.

Besides, it pleases me that some people like Adelson and the Kochs invested so much of their money into a crock. It also raises questions about Romney's ability with money, doesn't it?

danivon wrote:Besides, it pleases me that some people like Adelson and the Kochs invested so much of their money into a crock.

Yeah, that gives me a warm fuzzy feeling too.

The money goes around and around. At issue is whether it is spent productively. I would agree with the notion that it was spent productively if we had engaged in a more meaningful discussion of the issues of our day.

From a partisan's perspective, since the Feds control over $3 trillion of spending every year. $3 billion or one tenth of 1% (and 1/4 of that amount given that it is 4 years) represents a very good investment for the winner. I realize that many are idealistic about the outcome, but for others on both sides (public sector unions, trial lawyers, defense manufacturers, oil companies) it's just a small investment / cost of doing business.

Define 'productively'? If it is moving around, that is economic activity. The more you have of that, the more 'productive' the economy is.

If you mean productive in terms of constructive political discourse, then I agree. It's like how the major powers spent the period around the start of the 20th Century building more and bigger battleships, because everyone else was. In the end, they had to use them (and their big guns and large standing armies). Had they invested in other things, perhaps WWI would not have happened, or would have been more constrained. But at that time, 'international relations' meant grabbing colonies, having as big a stick as possible, and forming mutual treaties.

In US politics, winning elections means buying up ads, even if you have nothing to say except 'the other guy sucks!', so that's what people do. Because it's seen as more effective in getting people to vote for you (or at least not vote for that sucky other guy) than having a grown up conversation about how to run the country.

As we write and read these posts, there are people right now fighting the 2016 election campaign, building up a stock of deadly weapons/smears and attacks, and bypassing the whole 'let us get through the fiscal cliff and try and promote recovery' thing. Why do that, when you can start the blame game for it not happening instead?

danivon wrote:Define 'productively'? If it is moving around, that is economic activity. The more you have of that, the more 'productive' the economy is.

Certainly this type of current spending is less productive than investment type spending (factories & machines in the private economy or infrastructure in the public) from an economic perspective. Having said that, an increase in current spending is better than not in a stagnant economy. Perhaps Citizens United was the Supreme Court's version of fiscal policy!

I have a friend who works for one of the TV networks in Michigan and I can assure you he very much sees all that as productive money well spent, it paid for his bonus...