14 Comments

Robert Cheeks
November 7th, 2012 | 7:13 am

Perhaps we should begin by acknowledging the demise of the Republican Party?

Brian
November 7th, 2012 | 8:05 am

Meh. Do some reading or something.

MPB
November 7th, 2012 | 8:25 am

Mr.Scott- Maybe it has come to a point where this monkey is going to heaven:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNtlGdqY3Vg&

You got half the country crooning here comes my man:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrUp0n2kNvU&

And the other half is asking them, where is your mind:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtK8_j4DgMo&

mm
November 7th, 2012 | 8:52 am

i sure hope that is the prevailing opinion among the dems- that will ensure the resurrection. Honestly, all this talk about the end of one party or the other-or of liberalism or conservatism is beyond foolish. Neither party will “end” the other- at least their respective philosophies in our lifetimes. Their is a reason liberalism & conservatism have been battling it out since the 1780s.

Carl Eric Scott
November 7th, 2012 | 10:06 am

Brian, actually, I have read that book. It’s decent and has its moments, but never lives up to its great title.

MPB, I had a roommate once who fell for the Pixies big-time. I didn’t, even though I did hear those very addictive riffs, and some of the humor, too. He started a punk band (Contra Guerra, 90s San Diego) and remains a Democrat. I didn’t.

If you’re a fan, though, let me know your favorite songs.

Robert, I disagree.

Back to my dailies…black suit, black tie, grim visage, the works.

I’ll say more later if I can, but let us all sincerely thank Pete and Peter for keeping the election/poll commentary here outside the conservative bubble.

Pseudoplotinus
November 7th, 2012 | 11:05 am

“I’ll say more later if I can, but let us all sincerely thank Pete and Peter for keeping the election/poll commentary here outside the conservative bubble.”

Indeed. Especially since it seems I was one of the biggest trafickers on this site of said bubble. For which I aplogize and now promise to foreswear all future punditry.

In penance I will be wander the Italian countryside in exile. I plan on composing an epic poem of heaven and hell cleverly punctuated with my political adversaries who will be poetically defamed for all eternity.

Question: on what level of hell should I consign Paul Krugman and Nate Silver?

John A.
November 7th, 2012 | 11:10 am

Just a bit of curiosity: Are any of you unsettled by the fact that the faux “War on Women” worked? Or the rest of Obama’s negative campaign for that matter?

I understand that campaign politics are not conducted by standards of fairness or virtue, but I have been quite troubled that a campaign like Obama’s can win the Presidency. I can’t say that I’m surprised – I’ve studied enough Political Theory to know the people are not moved by the highest principles. That, however, is no consolation.

Brian
November 7th, 2012 | 11:14 am

Carl, I confess I haven’t read the book, mostly out of fear it won’t live up to its awesome title.

My stoical take on yesterday is that the nation is completely hosed economically anyway, and neither candidate had anything like a plan to address it, mostly because thanks to the MSM the public has no idea just how hosed we are, so why stress about the continuation of the current administration? Sure, it’d be nice to have grown-ups in power who at least pay lip service to our real problems, but it still would have only been lip service, so it’s not like the other candidate would have fixed things.

Like I said, that’s the calm, optimistic, stoical take.

Brian
November 7th, 2012 | 12:57 pm

It’s amazing to me that someone like Tester can be reelected, given his rubber-stamp votes for Obamacare and all the other big government nonsense. I don’t EVER want to hear about how free-spirited and libertarian Westerners are EVER again. EVER.

Gene Callahan
November 7th, 2012 | 1:03 pm

First phase of analysis: ask yourself why all you people were so deluded that you kept thinking “it’s really close” or “it’s a toss up.” Then ask Kate why she was “certain” Romney would win, but she wouldn’t take my bet with odds in her favor that he would not.

Gene Callahan
November 7th, 2012 | 1:06 pm

“but I have been quite troubled that a campaign like Obama’s can win the Presidency”

Hilarious! So a campaign like Romney’s, which went hard right to get the nomination and then swerved back way left to run against Obama, was “principled”?!

Kate Pitrone
November 7th, 2012 | 2:20 pm

Mr. Callahan, I am no gambler. You were right and I was wrong.

John A.
November 7th, 2012 | 4:02 pm

I am not here to excuse Romney’s changing positions between the primaries and general election, nor will I say that he did not pander. But, the “War on Women” in particular was one of the most absurd bits of foundationless fear-mongering during this election. It does not speak well of the electorate when that position is able to garner enough votes to win an election, especially when that line of attack against the Republicans was pursued in order to mask the HHS mandate’s assault on religious liberty.

Robert Cheeks
November 7th, 2012 | 4:47 pm

Carl, I think a ‘principled’ conservative, espousing conservative, small gummint doctrine, anti-obamacommie care, anti-foreign adventurism, pro-small bidness, embracing legal, Catholic, Mexican immigrants, pro-life, anti-homosexual marriage, etc, etc wins easily.

Romney, who was no commie, was too wishy-washy a moderate. And, while I voted for him I knew, if he won, he’d break my heart and betray me. But, he was the one the forced upon us.

We need a new party, a coalition that will draw Reagan Dems and neos, grounded on the olde principles of the first American secessionist movement.