I think it is true Romney lost a lot of "values" voters - they just stayed home. But my fear is the GOP is going to take away from that the lesson that if they had only pushed harder on "defending marriage" or "Biblical values" or stomping out this Godless crazy idea of evolution they would have done better. I think Goldwater conservatism may have a future - i.e. fiscally conservative libertarian hard-headed analysis of what works without the assumption that government is automatically the go-to solution. But the youth vote is never going to support or become excited about a candidate or a party it sees as insensitive or uncaring.

I completely agree that being generous with other people's money and telling young people what they want to hear is demagoguery but so is telling people who are afraid of people not like themselves that their fears not only have merit but identify them as being among the righteous.

Somewhere there has to be a party for people who understand there is no free lunch but who also understand being born on third base is not the same as hitting a triple, that there are people who really deserve a hand up and that actions - and life choices - have consequences. And there has to be some recognition that "your life is not my fault and my life is not your business". And that being entitled is not the same as being empowered, and that the latter requires action on the recipient end as well.

I fear that the Dems will become increasingly the party of bread and circuses and the GOP will flutter into irrelevance fighting a grumpy rear-guard action and seeking Divine Intervention and both parties will marginalize the practical and compassionate people who would be perfectly happy with programs that were results tested and worked and who do not have a vested interest in creating a dependent class for political purposes or a bloated government so that "experts" can run the lives of those to whom they pander while disdaining them.

Taxing the rich is not going to solve our fiscal woes, but within reason would send a signal. Results testing social programs and shrinking government would make people less skeptical about government.

I hope that in the next 30 days they will brush off Bowles-Simpson and this time the President with show some leadership and the congress some balls.

>Not surprisingly I've been having a discussion with a couple people regarding the election. Since I was SO wrong, I have obviously been thinking about why. So last night I decided to watch cable news. I've watched sparingly little outside of debate coverage and then Friday and Monday pre-election when they were all focused mainly with prediction stuff and it was pretty light.
>
>First off, AAARRRRGGGHHHH! How can people stand that on a daily basis?
>
>Ok, so here's what I witnessed. MSNBC was doing what they do, namely demogouging the right as bigoted neanderthals who don't understand the changing demographics of the nation and are completely out of touch with blacks, latinos, women, gays, (insert other identity politic group here). CNN was breaking down the demos and trying to analyze the edges. Fox was trying to figure out what went wrong. Nothing really surprising. However, one number came up that sparked my interest. I do not remember who mentioned it, however, I do know that I only heard it once and against all the other statistics I had been swamped by, this one stuck out like Romney at the Y. Every talking head who referenced the increasing share of the electorate made up of blacks, latinos and "other" over 2008 (13% v 12.2%, 10% v 8.4%, 5% v 4.5% respectively) as compared to the drop in white share (72% v 75%) came to the same conclusion. That those groups dramatically increased their numbers and thus the electorate is shifting and if the Republican party does not self-reflect they are in for continuing failure.
>
>As I'm absorbing all this, it seems to make sense. Then what I think is THE number jumped out. 6 million! As in there were an estimated 6 million fewer ballots cast by whites in 2012 compared to 2008. I was going to spend my lunch today doing some spreadsheet math to see how this affects the "shares" but thankfully someone at RCP has done the analysis.
>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/08/the_case_of_the_missing_white_voters_116106.html
>
>Here's what I see as the heart of my massive failure of a prediction. This election was a referendum on Obama and people are more likely to vote "for" someone than "against". Thus, Romney was an ideal candidate for 1/3 of the Republican party who's most energized portion is clearly the economic conservatives. However, Romney was an awful candidate for the other 2/3 of the traditional Republican base, value voters & defense hawks. I saw the polling make a massive shift after the 1st debate and then pull closer down the stretch. While the averages were showing Obama in a narrow lead I saw the breakdowns of those polled, did some quick math compared to 2008 & 2010 and determined that if the averages are even slightly off in Romney's favor he's going to win Virginia, Florida, N Carolina and Ohio. I then saw Clinton in PA, the Romney ad buys in a couple other states and the Romney/Ryan rallys swelling in the home stretch and thought he had created the excitement to make people vote "for" him rather than "against" Obama. I was wrong. Devastatingly wrong. White voters are what overwhelmingly changed since 2008.
>
>While the Republican party clearly has an issue with reaching minority voters and needs to address their issues far better in the future, that's not why Romney lost. He lost because fewer whites voted for him than voted for McCain. 6 million fewer! They simply didn't show up. Why? I do not know. This was billed as the latest "biggest election of our lifetime", yet 5 million fewer voters total showed up than 2008. Why?
>
>I obviously have some thoughts on the whys but I'd like to hear other opinions as I've now resumed my normal life and will not be watching cable news (outside a major event) until 2014.