Here are some of my opinions why he lost:

1) Turnout. A lot of younger voters turned out and they voted overwhelmingly for Obama.

2) Apathy. A lot of Republicans don't think Romney is conservative enough and chose to stay home rather than vote.

3) Obamacare. A lot of people hate it, but the tide has turned and more people are in favor of it today then they were when it was first passed. People who benefit from it did not want to lose it and there are plenty of conservatives who benefit from it.

4) Minorities. Obama did a better job of reaching out to Hispanics than Romney.

5) Immigration. Romney has a very anti-immigrant stance.

6) Money. Romney is a true capitalist and many independents feel that big business needs to be reigned in.

7) Taxes. Many people want the rich to pay more.

What surprises me is that the environment was not a topic in this race. An example is global warming. Does that mean that more conservatives realize that they are wrong on that topic?

spotted on twitter, and since we've discussed both in this thread:

[QUOTE]Nate Silver’s great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson’s name is going to be Hari Seldon. #natesilverfacts[/QUOTE]

hashtag #natesilverfacts is a retread of Curtic Cooper facts, but sometimes funny.

[URL]http://natesilverwrong.com/[/URL] went dead very soon.
It w-a-s funny. :-)

[QUOTE=Batalov;317464][URL]http://natesilverwrong.com/[/URL] went dead very soon.
It w-a-s funny. :-)[/QUOTE]

it's hard to pay web-hosting fees with imaginary numbers.

[QUOTE=Prime95;317350]Oh and congratulations to me too. I won $10 on a 2 year old bet that Obama would win re-election![/QUOTE]

You should have bet in gasoline - the amount $10 would have bought 2 years ago would cost closer to $15 now.

---------------------

An election-eve piece by [i]Rolling Stone's[/i] Matt Taibbi:

[url=http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/election-day-is-finally-here-tonight-is-going-to-suck-no-matter-what-20121106]Election Day Is Finally Here: Tonight Is Going to Suck No Matter What[/url]
[quote]What's become clear in the last few weeks is that the last real taboo in America is admitting that the world isn't going to end if the other guy gets elected. The corollary to that taboo is an apparent new national prohibition against having even the slightest faith in the essential patriotism of the other side.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;317431]Since you asked... :-)

I think Romney lost for a lot of reasons.

1) The negative advertising worked. He was painted as someone who loves money and hates the little guy, and people believed it. (His 47% remark didn't help there.) Romney did not show them the man who took a $1 salary at Bain to turn it around [compare that to the CEOs who take million dollar salaries, run a company into the ground, and then take a golden parachute check], took no salary as governor, and no salary as the turn-around artist for the Olympics. A man who gave away his inheritance from his father to charity, but then went and earned his own fortune, of which he donates a huge amount every year.

The fact that a blind trust fund put some of his money overseas (as does Obama's, by the way) somehow made him an evil man.

2) He was grouped in with wackos/zealots concerning abortion, like Akin. The biggest contributor to his downfall was the single woman vote. His position is actually quite moderate on that issue, leaving it open in cases of rape, incest, etc...

3) He went on prevent defense; and didn't even bring up Libya in the third debate. (This may have worked if Sandy had not happened.)

Concerning your second question: There is clearly a problem with Republican appeal to minorities. Republicans, whether fairly or not, have been painted as the anti-immigrant party. As supporting racist tea partiers. As gay haters. They need to come up with a popular, *kind*, and effective approach to immigration. They need to seriously reach across the aisle.

Regarding abortion, they do need to go more centrist. The Democratic platform of "abortion should be allowable anytime" is a disgrace, but so is the idea that women can prevent pregnancy during rape and that they should not have access to the morning after drugs. [Unfortunately, there was nothing the party could do to get rid of Akin. But its own platform is a problem too.][/QUOTE]
Bravo! Huntsman for president?

My in-laws really liked him as governor of Utah, and he did a decent job from what I can tell. But his debate performances were not very good. They just had a weird vibe to them. I'd probably vote for him, but I just don't see him winning the popularity contest (although he would probably beat out Chris Christie among conservatives right about now).

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;317492]My in-laws really liked him as governor of Utah, and he did a decent job from what I can tell. But his debate performances were not very good. They just had a weird vibe to them. I'd probably vote for him, but I just don't see him winning the popularity contest (although he would probably beat out Chris Christie among conservatives right about now).[/QUOTE]
I remember reading a New York times article back when the primaries were in full force; it compared all the Republican presidents and how likely they were to do against Obama; Hunstman was at the top with a 60% vs. O's 40%, and Romney was like second to bottom (maybe third).

I knew I was voting for Obama the day Huntsman dropped out of the race. And, in fairness, Romney was the least crazy of the bunch left after that--but still not in Huntsman's league Statesmanwise.

(In fairness I probably would have voted for Obama anyway, but I would have liked to have seen Huntsman's more reasoned approach, and he definitely would have chosen a more palatable running mate. Seriously this is twice in a row that Republicans have chosen poorly. Obama needed some foreign policy mojo so like Bush II he chose a less than ideal running mate in order to cut off one lane of attack. VP's rarely bring more than a percent or two to the table, but I'd be surprised if there were more than a handful of voters outside of Wisconsin (and obviously not enough in Wisconsin) who thought "gee, I really like Paul Ryan and therefore I'm going to vote for Romney." note that I'm not saying that there aren't people who like Ryan better than Romney, I'm saying that those people would have voted for Romney anyway.)

[QUOTE=chappy;317498]VP's rarely bring more than a percent or two to the table, but I'd be surprised if there were more than a handful of voters outside of Wisconsin (and obviously not enough in Wisconsin) who thought "gee, I really like Paul Ryan and therefore I'm going to vote for Romney."[/QUOTE]

I know that many people voted for McCain in 2008 because of Sarah Palin. I did not vote for him for the same reason.

[url]http://www.theonion.com/articles/live-updates-the-onion-covers-election-day-2012,30262/[/url]