Cool. Several interesting stats. Romney got a small majority of college graduates (would be interesting to break that down a bit more into Scientists, Engineers, Ag majors and the like vs. History, Poly Sci, other "arts" etc.). One would probably expect that those whose financial position has improved over the last four years might vote for Obama, and that the opposite would be true for those worse off, but why did Obama have an 18 point advantage with those whose situation was unchanged? Would like to see who was in the "financially better" group too (how many are in the private sector, how many in the public).
Here is a REAL big one: 38% of the electorate identified as Democrat, 32% as Republican, and 29% as independent. The independents determine the election and even though the Republicans got a slim majority there, it wasn't enough to overcome the initial advantage of the Dems. A crucial lesson here should be that if ALL the Democrats get out and vote and ALL the Republicans get out and vote, and we split the independents equally, the dems will win every time. Let me say that again: if ALL the Democrats get out and vote and ALL the Republicans get out and vote, and we split the independents equally, the dems will win every time. That's why driving the independents away is a real problem.
So would General Motors be a Government Job ? so does that make them Government Motors
read your statement again ....on one hand you say the President creates or eliminates one type of job
but then you turn around and say the President doesnt open or close a business :confused:
More thought from more top Republicans:
Top Republicans say Romney didn’t offer specifics
LAS VEGAS — Top Republicans meeting for the first time since Election Day say the party failed to unseat President Barack Obama because nominee Mitt Romney did not respond to criticism strongly enough or outline a specific agenda with a broad appeal.
In conversations at the Republican Governors Association meeting in Las Vegas, a half-dozen party leaders predicted the GOP will lose again if it keeps running the same playbook based on platitudes in place of detailed policies. Instead, these leaders asserted, the party needs to learn the lessons from its loss, respect voters’ savvy and put forward an agenda that appeals beyond the white, male voters who are its base.
“We need to acknowledge the fact that we got beat,” Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said in an interview. “We clearly got beat and we need to recognize that.”
Little more than a week after Romney came up short in his presidential bid, the party elders were looking at his errors and peering ahead to 2016’s race. Some of the contenders eying a White House run of their own were on hand and quietly considering their chances. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie scheduled a private meeting on the sidelines with Haley Barbour, the former Mississippi governor who is widely seen as one of the GOP’s sharpest political operatives.
Other potential White House contenders such as Jindal, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker were outlining a vision for the party in coming elections.
“We need to figure out what we did right and what we did wrong, how we can improve our tone, our message, our technology, our turnout — all the things that are required to win elections,” McDonnell said. “We are disappointed, but we are not discouraged.”
In the hallways at the conference, the governors and their top advisers uniformly blamed Romney’s loss on an uneven communications strategy. They said Romney allowed himself to be branded a corporate raider who put the interests of the wealthy above those of middle-income voters.
“We didn’t have effective means by which to counter the attacks the Obama-Biden campaign took against Mitt Romney and his team,” Walker said. “I just don’t think you can let that go unanswered.”
Jindal, however, attributed Romney’s loss to a lack of “a specific vision that connected with the American people.”
“His campaign was largely about his biography and his experience,” Jindal said. “But time and time again, biography and experience is not enough to win an election. You have to have a vision, you have to connect your policies to the aspirations of the American people. I don’t think the campaign did that and as a result, this became a contest between personalities and — you know what? — Chicago won that.”