Jim, Thank you for such a reasoned assessment of the two men running for President and the political climate here in Massachusetts. This November 6 "We the people" will decide if we are satisfied with the political status quo.

Barack Obama offers us more of the same type of leadership he has been providing the past 4 years.

Mitt Romney has proven track record right here in Massachusetts. He has shown he can work with both Democrats and Republicans to bring government spending under control and create a vibrant economy.

As you watched these two men during the debates which one did you think is a more effective communicator. Who is better able to find common ground in the harsh political climate that currently exists.

Mike, thanks for your comment. Here's the problem with Massachusetts voters. Today's Rasmussan Poll shows Romney with a 49-47 lead over Obama. And yet, the last Rasmussan Poll in Massachusetts had Obama with a 57-42 lead. What does the rest of America see that Bay State voters miss?

There is hope. (1) Ohio just turned in Romney's favor today - 50-48 - which is potentially very huge (and shows a significant reversal from prior Rasmussan polls).
(2) Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire have also tightened in the past 10 days. And (3) since unenrolled voters - the majority "party" - INSIST that they are purposely unenrolled so they can vote for the "best candidates," you have to believe that many, and hopefully most, will be voting for Romney and Brown on Election Day.

Their votes will tell us what kind of Country they want America to be, and whether they want to be represented by a polarizing ideologue or a pragmatic and bi-partisan Senator.

The polls do show that people around the country are finding Romney a much more attractive option than Obama. I was reading today that it is not only women and youth who are abandoning Obama but also inner city black Americans.

I am with you that we can only hope that enough independent voters are starting to see the Progressive Democrats for what they are, intolerant ideologues.

When the voters are in the voting booth no one has to know who they are casting their vote for. I hope they vote for tolerance and freedom instead of the left's progressive agenda.

The office of the President is essentially the Chief Executive of this country. If the US Government was a corporation, the current CEO would have been removed by the board many months ago.

The choice is clear.
Do you want a cool president, who likes hanging out with the Hollywood crowd and called himself 'eye candy' when he recently appeared on "The View," or do you want a president who deeply respects the office and can't wait to roll up his sleeves and start working on policies to get the economy humming again?
Do you want a president who has divided America: women vs. men, young vs. old, rich vs. poor, and public sector vs. private sector, or do you want a president who seeks to unite us as Americans?
Do you want a president who pushed through ObamaCare, even though America didn't want it, or do you want a president who will reform our healthcare system, while preserving its excellence?
Do you want a president who is covering up what happened to Ambassador
Chris Stevens in Benghazi, Libya, because he doesn't want America to know the truth, or do you want a president who will be honest with you?
Do you want Barack Obama or Mitt Romney? The choice is yours.

Jim, you make a good point about the parallels between the presidential race and the MA senate race. Elizabeth Warren is also a "divider" of Americans. She has adapted the "war on women" mantra of the Obama administration in an effort to paint Scott Brown as anti-women. She has distorted his voting record by misrepresenting the facts and scaring women that Roe vs. Wade will be overturned if Scott brown is reelected. It is a total fabrication and insults the intelligence of women in MA.
I agree that Elizabeth Warren will be a polarizing force if elected. While working on the Consumer Protection Agency in Washington, she had several verbal battles with Democrats, such as Timothy Geithner and Senator Charles Schumer, as well as a heated argument with Republican Senator Patrick McHenry. I don't see her reaching across the aisle and building friendships the way Scott Brown has.

Warren is not just a polarizing figure, she is an insult to Massachusetts. It's not so much as who she is, but why? Is it that Massachusetts does not already have enough entrenched Democrats, many of whom would be more qualified to be a Senator than her?

Warren is Obama's choice for massachusetts, and party regulars know it, and they do not support it. She is all that you said, a polarizer, a divider, a self-proclaimed woman's warrior fighting a fight that does not exist. Electing her would bring even more disgrace and ridicule to Massachusetts than already exists.

We say that we want bi-partisan, yet the Dems run Warren and the Globe supports her. What does that mean? To me it means that for Democrats bi-partisanship means that as long as Republicans agree with them, or cave in, they are partners. Huh?

The Brown race should not even be close. He has done the job and should be re-elected for a full term. The Obama race should not be close. Obama has failed at every turn, and now he is embroiled in an expanding, and potentially impeachable cover up in Libya. He should be defeated. If the Unenrolled voters really do mean that they vote for the best candidates, Romney and Brown will win - even in Massachusetts.

Hi Jim, another great blog. We're in Florida on vacation and it is refreshing to see and hear other opinions on this race outside of Massachusetts. Of interest, we met a couple at lunch yesterday from Kentucky and they have been subjected to Elizabeth Warren commercials on their TV stations! Can you believe it? The DNC is pouring money into commercials for her in Kentucky. BTW, those people from Kentucky are counting on us to reelect Scott Brown. We'll be home in time to cast our votes. Keep up the good fight!

Glenn, thanks for the note. There are a lot of Republicans in KY, so I imagine that ads for Elizabeth Warren make them sick there, and make them realize how pathetic Massachusetts is. Tell them (please) that everyone in MA is not dumb or a Democrat, and get back here to vote for Romney and Brown,

So your tagline claims that Mr. Romney is "in the lead."

That is the stretchiest of all facts. Real Clear Politics average of national polls has Obama leading. All electoral maps have Obama comfortably leading. Romney has no greater than a 20% chance of winning the election.

You write: " Massachusetts’ reputation as a political wasteland and radical fringe outlier is perhaps the major reason for Romney’s end of campaign surge."

Massachusetts has no such reputation outside of far-right circles, first of all. In fact, Massachusetts has been recognized as a beacon of good things to come from most states - including civil rights and same sex marriage and universal healthcare. Both of these things, despite the false narrative the GOP is trying to fabricate, have national popular support.

We are the trailblazers. The arc of history bends toward tolerance and equality for all, it bends toward liberalism, and we are the shining example for others to follow. This election will continue that, when President Obama wins re-election and our Commonwealth by an overwhelming margin, and when future Senator Warren unseats interim Senator Brown - who has created another false narrative of bipartisanship and support for women, when his voting record shows anything but.

We started as a shining city on a hill, and that is what we have remained. Frankly, it's a little telling that the Chair of a GOP town committee feels so negatively about our commonwealth.

Thanks for your comments, Ben, and your insults - great job on those.

That you actually believe what you have written makes my point. If you travelled across the Country at any length you would know the very poor regard for which non Bay State Americans hold us. You don't even have to go far to hear the nickname for Massachusetts in abutting States.

At one point in our history our forebears rebelled against the tyranny of one-party rule. And yet, all these generations later, Massachusetts has replaced monarchic tyranny with Democratic Party tyranny. Many of us have gone a lifetime of taxation without representation - typified by today's line-up on Beacon Hill - 100% Statewide offices, 90% Senate, 80% House, 100% Congressional delegation and Scott Brown - a semi-Republican.

Get over yourself. Look at the broader picture.

Government has to have limits.

Insult me if that makes you feel better; say that Republicans are desperate if that makes you feel better; but get ready for the rejection on Tuesday, God willing.

All the best to you - despite your sniping.

Ben, I have been extermely polite and patient with my liberal "friends" over the course of this political year, so I do not want to end on a negative with you, despite your proviocations. We have political differences. I beieve that people have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but not necessariy health care, just as we are not entitled to college. There are limits to government, and there is a cost of government. They key is to find the balance between fiscal and social responsibiity. Right now there is a gross overswing on the social side and the Country is bankrupt. Time to snap back, but the answer cannot always be to tax people more and expect our economy to expand.

So - be as snide as snippy as you typically are in the other posts I see you make. Whatever makes you feel better about yourself. But I stand by what I wrote, this week and for the preceeding 33 weeks.

Again, all the best. We'll all see what America has thought about Obama on Tuesday. I for one am very enthused that Mitt Romney will be elected President, in large part due to the negativity of Massachusetts Democrats with whom he had to deal. By the way, do you notice how Romney never blames the Democrats.

Jim - diespite your assertations of snippiness, I have also been exceedingly polite. However, here are your words: "Tell them (please) that everyone in MA is not dumb or a Democrat,"

Claiming that voting against your wishes makes one dumb? I fail to see the politeness included therein.

Wait. Did you really say Romney never blames Democrats?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014287737

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/11/02/1130701/romney-blames-obama-for-debt-ceiling-fight-promises-to-cave-to-house-republicans/?mobile=nc

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/28/gop-hopefuls-cheer-spending-showdown/

Romney does nearly nothing BUT blame Democrats, then takes credit for being bipartisan here in MA - when he had no choice. The Democratic supermajority could override any Romney veto - and Romney, knowing this is a liberal state, changed his political stances to be more liberal.

Jim, I've never insulted you. Make an argument on facts and not accusations, and show your work. We'll go have a beer after - but don't call half of the voters of Massachusetts dumb and then cry foul when you, the Chair of the Westborough GOP Town Committee, get called out on it.

Ben, I find it interesting that the 3 accomplishments that you use to prove Jim wrong were all realized under Republican leadership.

The first real civil rights legislation occurred under the leadership of Republican Abraham Lincoln with the freeing of the slaves. The second major legislation, The Civil Rights Act of 1957, happened on Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower's watch.

Same Sex marriage and Universal Healthcare in Massachusetts both happened on Republican Mitt Romney's watch. Not only did Mitt Romney preside over the passage of this legislation, Massachusetts went from deficit spending to having a surplus during the same period of time. What I don't understand is why this is not recognized by more people in this state. It has to be that they are viewing politics through partisan eyes.

Jim's statement about the Party composition of Beacon Hill is not partisan rhetoric, it is just a statement of fact. Are the people of Massachusetts going to vote based on political commercials and Party affiliation or are they going to vote for candidates based on their track record.

Mitt Romney has a terrific track record both in business and as governor here Massachusetts. Scott Brown has a track record of voting his conscience and what is best for the people of Massachusetts.

Tuesday the people will speak and we will learn what kind of state the people of Massachusetts want.

JIm, how do you sleep at night, attacking shining, tolerant, trailblazers?

Arthur, good point. Life has been tough for people like me since 1/20/2009. I am hoping that I am on the verge of the end of our second National nightmare on Tuesday.

@Jim I have to laugh at your comment; "life has been tough...", I guess so for republicans in the 1%, bankers, ins people, etc. Try living in the middle class... limited income, SS, medical bills.. all the while seeing the rich get richer. You want to help people and be an advocate for everyone? .. I'll give you a challenge; explain to me why a 5 mile trip in an ambulance (it was a transfer, not life threatening) cost $1200 (I'll show you the bill). IMO, it was because the richer get richer, and NOT the real cost. Fair is fair, and I appreciate a company making a profit, but $1200 for 5 miles? You want to get me to vote Republican, then show me Republicans care about people, and not the 1%. A P.S. about corporate gouging; AT&T makes 1000% on text messages. Would you vote for a limit on profits? ..oil companies, insurance company profits, or is your idea that a company should be able to make as much money as possible, and screw the little guy?
I'm sure your answer to that would be "buyers have their choice", but there is no choice because all the major corporations are fixing prices. Show me different.

Warren is the the best of the two, my grandchild would be the best of both, ie, neither are great... and that speaks to what this country is about, any one with brains doesn't want to be in congress... what's the saying, those that can't teach, teach gym? And that's the sad part, we are electing people who have enough money to not have to work.

Jim, It used to make me angry when people would post such mind numbing, irrational and insulting drivel. Once I was able to understand that these remarks are made by people who truly believe the propaganda put out by the political elitist and their media lap dogs I have been able to laugh at it as well. I actually feel sorry for folks like Stephen because he believes he is helpless and needs someone to protect him from the "evil overlords" of the world. What he doesn't understand is that the "evil overlords" are the political elite who seek to control our lives through taxes and regulation.

I have a dream that one day my children will live in a world where they will not be judged by their political party but rather by the content of their ideas.

Jim - I know you never like to let facts get in the way of your arguments, but did you see that Obama is actually the smallest spender of government money of all presidents since Dwight Eisenhower? If you are truly interested in safeguarding our fiscal futures, than do the right thing on Tuesday and vote for Obama. If you are interested in continuing to safeguard the interests of the entitled upper crust, who feel they shouldn't pay the same percentage of taxes as those who work for them, then vote for Mittens. (P.S. In case you don't believe it that Obama is the smallest government spender since the Eisenhower administration, read the analysis as published by Forbes here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
)

Thanks for your comment and typical condescension. Well played. And we Republicans are always impressed by liberals who refer to our candidate in such a disrespectful manner. If the roles were reversed I am sure that you would have the appropriate invective at the ready.

But all of that notwithstanding, nobody is going to beleve that this President and his enablers have been irresponsible spenders. It's insulting. And, it is ignorant to postulate that capital gains taxes are somehow a privelege for the rich. These taxes apply to all of us - and they are applied after regular income has already been taxed at the proscribed IRS rate.

Was it you who confessed that he was an Apple sharehoder who paid the same 15% capital gains tax on his profit, with only the regret that you had sold it at $300 and not waited unti it went to $700?

Bottom line - vote for Obama, but how about keeping it classy?

Sorry - Didn't mean to offend by the name. Is the appropriately respectful title Sir Mitt? Lord Mitt? Master Mitt?

But for once we agree. You wrote "Nobody is going to believe that this President and his enablers have been irresponsible spenders." I agree, I don't believe Obama has been an irresponsible spender. I think his spending is VERY responsible. Unlike Sir/Lord/Master Mitt who vetoed 5.7 million in flood protection for Peabody in 2004. Two years later there was a flood that cost Peabody 12 million dollars. That is what I call irresponsible and insulting.

No, not me about the Apple stock.

At least we agree on the bottom line - Vote for Obama and keep it classy. Glad I finally turned you around. Good night!

Jim....I'm voting Romney and Brown...please give up trying to convince the moonbats in this state to change their mind. We both know that if Obama wins then by early next year the U.S. will be facing finacial catastrophe...and all the Dems will STILL be blaming Bush. Just last week 700 people working at Shaws Supermarkets were told they no longer have jobs. In the coming months up tp 7000 more will also be given pink slips. But Democrats see this as progress. And for those that question those numbers, just ask the distinguished editor of Patch if my numbers are correct ,as I informed her of the first round of layoffs and was correct. And NO I dont work for Shaws...but I do know somebody in their hierarchy. If you have a Shaws gift certificate....you may want to use it soon!

Dave, I have to agree that trying to reason with Democrats is like asking the Networks for fairness in their reporting. I have a feeling that if Obama is re-elected that Shaw's will only be a minor footnote regarding lay-offs. The Dems are so focused on adding entitlements that they conveniently forget that there are fewer taxpayers paying the bill. They have clearly become the Party of free stuff, not the Party of freedom.

Jim,
I've been on the losing side too. I'm sure you know the sky isn't falling and the sun will come out again (maybe not until Saturday). If I'm not mistaken you have previously disclosed that you are recently retired. I hope your retirement is long, heallthy and happy. See you around these parts again.

Jim, thanks for your note. This is not a day for sour grapes. More than 116M Americans voted and they rejected a change in the White House. Similarly over 70% of the MA voters rejected Scott Brown for Elizabeth Warren. No amount of rationalization can change these results, or what they mean. America is changing - headed into a different direction. While I truly believe this is wrong headed, I hope that I am wrong. We need leadership and renewed trust in government. Let's see what happens ... no other options are now available.

Jim -

Now that there has been some time, and presumably some time to reflect, are you in any better position to discuss what happened, and why?

Republicans, and their big money surrogates, spend hundreds of millions and ended up with a 1% success rate - I wouldn't get into a car with Karl Rove.

Republican pundits (including those writing for Patch) seemed to believe polls and prognostication that were just outright lying to them. Telling them what they wanted to hear. For polling organizations, Rasmussen was 24th out of 28 in predictive accuracy.

That's the "general" observation regarding Republican pundits.

You SPECIFICALLY have adopted a smarmy, condescending attitude that needs to be acknowledged and addressed. You have been consistently wrong about just about everything. Your attitude, comments and observations have been proven to be toweringly wrong.

332 to 206 wrong.

So, do you have the slightest amount of self-reflection, humility, or ability to just step up and admit that you were wrong?

Even if you can't admit your being demonstrably wrong, are you able to discuss how the Republicans got so terribly savaged? Can we discuss demographics and dismissive attitudes?

Local Wombat, I do not know who you are behind your alias, but I have not seen your comments on any of my blogs ... until now. And now you choose to describe me as a smarmy and condescending so and so who needs to be addressed.

How pathetic and ungracious of you.

My role for the Patch was to write about the political scene from the Republican perspective to balance the information stream. In doing this I confess to being a little provocative to elicit comments and responses, and to increase attention to issues I thought were important to support our candidates. By all measures my blog was the most successful for three reasons:

(1) They were interesting, well written and thought provoking (2) I responded to virtually every comment, however nasty or insulting and (3) I was polite and respectful to my readers, many of whom commented on my polite attitude.

Now, as to the elections, all the Republicans lost. This was a big disappointment to me and many. And yet, it is not a time for sour grapes - at least for me - because 118M voters made the call for Obama over Romney and over 70% of the voters selected Warren instead of Brown. Do I still believe these choices were wrong headed? Absolutely. Am I complaining about the process or offering up excuses? No - the people spoke. It is what it is.

In the end, I had a job to do and i did it. I actually enjoyed it. However, my candidates lost. Time to move on. I suggest you do the same.

All the best.

Jim - Obama did win the election, both the electoral college and the popular vote. Let's be clear about something - Obama won the popular vote by a 1.5% margin, or 2.5M votes. 56 Million people did not vote for Obama. 56 Million people did not choose to continue on the current path. Those millions of people are not humiliated or admitting they were wrong. It's embarrassing that anyone, regardless of party, would chastise anyone from the other party as being wrong or humiliated. Let's not forget the Democrats also spent hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions on this campaign, and maybe, at end of day, they were fortunate enough to have a better marketing team. I am amazed at how much finger pointing and anger I've seen aimed at republicans by the party that seems to care some much about everybody. I don't believe anyone should be gloating over a 1.5% margin of victory, there are still a lot of Americans out there that don't agree.

The Republic party was trounced convincingly. The country soundly rejected not only their social policies but also economic policies. It is time for them to come to their senses and mend their ways if they want to be competitive in future elections.

Jim,
While you are handing out advice to the Dems ("simply taxing the wealthy is not an answer"), how about a bit of introspection? Why do YOU think that so many Republic politicians (aside: this is not a typo. I have decided to refer to GOP politicians as Republic politicians till such day as Rush Limbaugh decides to quit saying Democrat party or Democrat politicians), not just Romney, lost in this election cycle?

I agree with you that we must fix the deficit and must not pass on our debt to our children, but I reject any plan that does not include some increase in taxes. And without giving away too much personal information, I belong to the group of people who are about to be affected by Obama's proposals for tax increases. So I am putting my money where my mouth is.

Max

Mike feel free to cynically misconstrue what Warren said. Your side still has the problem of figuring out how to start winning elections again.

Max, here's the deal as best I can say it, both to you and so many others.

The election is over. The Democrats won. Be gracious in victory, not so angry. If you recall, a lot of the polarizing enmity that has developed over the past four years came from Obama and Pelosi simply saying, "the election is over and we won." We have got to move on from that attitude.

Believe it or not, the Democrats do not have all the answers. You can also believe that not all Republicans are wrong. At some point we have to believe that the best ideas make it onto the table.

But here's what we Republicans will be watching. Both Obama and Scott Brown have made a big deal of saying that they do not care if an idea is a Democratic or Republican idea. However, Democrats trashed Brown and Obama has shown zero interest in compromising to date.

The time is ticking away. Let's see if there is reality behind the rhetoric or just more hypocrisy. It's only our country that is at stake, and the future of our children. Obama is the leader of the Country for better or for worse. Let's hope that he (finally) has it in him to be for the better. We need for him to be as good as the people he represents.

So - no more post election sniping please. A little grace would be more becoming.

Jim: I am not angry and I am happy to be gracious. It may come as a surprise to you that I don't believe the democrats have all the good ideas. I may have thought about my vote a lot longer if your party had nominated Jon Huntsman. I also strongly believe it is in the interest of the country for the GOP to remain a strong and vibrant opposition. It is dangerous for one party to hold unbridled power. But you guys do have to choose between Jon Huntsman and Rush Limbaugh. Who is going to be standard bearer for the party?

Max, there you go again. You seem incapable of being gracious. References to Rush Limbaugh as the head of the Republican Party are just as insulting - and dumb - as a person on our side saying that Chris Mathews is the spokesperson for the Democrats. Just the usual snipage - more of the same - and that needs to change.

As to Huntsman, he might have been more interesting if he had had more fortitude. He was a better candidate than Santorum, and better funded, but he dropped out far too early to have been considered anything other than a footnote for the political junkies like us who followed the campaigns.

I will leave you with this about Huntsman. The one thing he claimed ownership of was TRUST. I wish he had hung around to fortify his position on this. People do not trust their government. They no longer trust the media. There is ample reason for this lack of trust. How many people, for instance, do you believe trust Obama?

So, here's what we need to get this going, using your Huntsman logic (to which I agree). We can anticipate that the Republicans will be nipping away at Obama to the same extent that the Dems went after Bush. No mystery there. But this is what I am personally looking for - I want to see more Democrats holding Obama accountable for his broken promises, lack of transparency etc, and fewer Democrats simply supporting whatever he does because he is a Democrat.

We need greater accountability. Gut check time. Don't you agree?

Mr Chairman, you seem incapable of being consistent (let alone able to predict the outcome of an election at virtually any level). You accuse Max of being ungracious and engaging in snipage. Are you the person who said earlier in this thread?:

"I expect Romney to win. If he does, get ready for the rioting of the entitled classes who feel that government owes them - with the protection of the Media. If by some reason Obama wins, he has already been debunked as a fraud. Just another Chicago politician - a political user. The Nation needs him to be gone."

Well 'The Nation' as you put it has spoken and no amount of conspiracy theories can mask the fact an arrogant and sometimes hateful campaign backfired and that, hells bells, Karl Rove and the big capitalists who were going to save America got a 1% return on the cash Rove collected for his disastrous media blitz. I would suggest you check your own gut and be a little bit less careless to assume what people feel and do not feel, or trust and do not trust. What the hell kind of question is "how many people....trust Obama". That is about the most stupid comment I have yet heard. Obviously many more trust him than your loser(s).

Ron, thanks for going easy on me. As I recall from a blog back in the Summer you could not wait to give me a little grief about the Republican ticket.

I do not see myself as dumb, however, when I ask how many people trust Obama. He went from hope and change to a cheap Chicago pol exhorting his people to vote for revenge. Revenge for what? I wish he had said, or been asked by the Media. And how many trust him after the Libya event, for which he may still be held to account, or now the attack of a US drone in international air space by to the election, but not revealed until after?

Yes, I expected that Romney would win. Truthfully, I thought the voters were better than they revealed on Election Day. I thought that the growing entitlement culture was of greater concern to more people. I was hoping for more than we got. I was very disappointed, even depressed as so many others were.

I might say that I stand by the quotes you cite. But the attacks on Romney were far beyond those levied against Obama - Romney portrayed as a tax cheat, felon, murderer, racist et als were hard to swallow from the hope and change messiah of four years past. For that reason Obama is most assuredly a diminished President of a devalued Country.

But here's the deal. Obama won, and so did Brown. As the Chair of the WRTC I obviously wanted a different result. Can you blame me for that? But, we move on. Let's hope Obama is ready to be as good as the Country he leads.

Jim. Thanks. It was my prediction I would be giving you some grief as the wheels came off the campaign -- which they did, and which I did not until after the election. I was only referring here to the words YOU used in your response to Max and earlier and not whatever somebody else or a bunch of people said about Romney. My own reading of the many newspapers and other on line sources I read daily does not confirm what you said about name calling. I'm sure that we could do a content analysis of area Patches and I'll bet you a nice civil lunch somewhere that the comments calling Warren and Obama virtually anything under the sun would outnumber attacks on Romney by a ratio of 20-1.

Anyhow, I did read a lot of your posts and give you credit for standing up for your views. I would have made many of them shorter and focused on little briefs about specific issues where you guys would make the country better -- immigration, environment, infrastructure, healthcare, education, military spending, etc -- and not just attack Obama relentlessly. As Ronald Reagan, who had very admirable qualities, knew, one has to be positive, hopeful and always pointing the way to a happier future. Future historians will see your campaign, whatever one wants to say about Obama's, as too steeped in gloomy depression and resentment, trapped as Peggy Noonan sez today, by a crummy primary system and some near crackpot competition. Anyhow, good luck and, as they say, lessons learned.

Ron, no need for lunch, but I would bet that you are very wrong about the smears. So many went Romney's way that it was embarrassing for Obama. Now, when it comes to the Indian shots leveled at Warren, i would agree there but the whole affirmative action is such a sin (my personal view) that I believed that by itself should have disqualified Warren. Again, that is just me.

Two other points. The first is that this election was all about Obama. You liked him or did not like him and that was the deal. Papers about entitlements? Forget it. Studies show that Democratic voters want free stuff which is why they do not vote Republican. The second point is that women are said to dislike negative Ads - and punished Brown for making a point of the Warren situation. If that were true, why didn't women detest Obama for referencing Romney, an entirely decent and accomplished man, as being a felon, murderer, tax cheat, woman hater etc. when none of this was true?

Bottom line - the Country has changed. We are softer and entitlement oriented. Sadly, when more than 50% of the population is either paying zero income tax or on the dole (not counting SSN and medicare or military), the Republic is doomed, even if Democrats feel the leg thrill of somehow feeling superior to Republicans even as the Country goes broke. No matter what you say or think, this is not a good thing,

I call shenanigans. "Studies show that Democtatic voters want free stuff which is why they do not vote Republican."

I defy you to back this up with an actual, academic or peer reviewed study. A comprehensive google search of all .edu and .gov sites, as ell as an InfoTrac database search show nothing even remotely close.

Ben, we all know Jim lies and makes up "statistics". Nothing new.

What Jim fails to understand is that his constant partisan dishonesty has and will do more damage to the Republican party than any Democratic opponent. It's a microcosm, really- Brown lost not because Warren beat him, but because the dishonesty and misconduct of his campaign staff. Mr Brown can thank Jim and those like him for his defeat. Sad, really, as I think Mr Brown's losing is a significant blow to the state. Now, go ahead Jim. Just post the link ben asked for, or simply admit you have once again made up statistics and studies.

OK Jim, here is my ‘over and out’:

Mitt Romney showed himself to be an unremorseful fibber of the first degree over the Chrysler moving jobs to China issue and so many others where the man took all sides of an issue and his campaign staff said they would not be hemmed in by fact checkers.

Mitt proved himself to be a mendacious pandering phony repeatedly, starting with his first run for Senator and claims he has made about his governorship. How can you can state so boldly that Obama is not trustworthy? LOL

Politics ain't beanbag goes the old saw. Boo hoo about the attacks on Romney.

The Dems finally learned from the 88 and 04 elections - define your opponent before he defines you.

I have no sympathy for your complaints here. It makes you sound like Karl Rove - who made the absurd and laughable claim that Obama's campaign actively tried to suppress the vote.

Oh - and racism? Go back and listen to John Sununu's commentary about Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama, or Sununu’s suggestion that Obama become an American, and then complain about racism. There were endless stupid comments from Michelle Bachman and many others which challenged our president’s ‘Americanisms’, which you guys do not own. You constantly deride liberals but some of us have run successful businesses, raised and educated great families, and served our state and country in many ways. We don't need condescending crapola about wrecking our country from Republican spinners.

Bye

This is so typical - a liberal gang rape by a bunch of angry, sore winners.

Pathetic as always.

Heather McDOnald provided a scholarly piece in the National Review noting that the Hispanic popullation - in particular - did not vote for the Democrats based on their immigration policy, but for their safety net of social services - i.e., free stuff.

Nobody is making anything up. It is what it is - very pavlovian. That's the Democratic Party in a nutshell. Forget individual liberty. Bring on government.

But, before i completely digress, let me repeat that the Democrats won. The Republicans did not do a good enough job in conveying their message. However, when the leaners outnumber the lifters there is a problem in River City.

So - rejoice in your victory, Democrats. But a little class would be a positive sign of evolution. Hopefully you have this in you. And smile - your candidate won - freee stuff for all (except the people who must pay for it).

And Ron - if you want to talk racism then you must talk about Chris Matthews and MSNBC who find racism under every rock. Very pathetic. But, there you go again, dragging me back in while I was trying to demonstrate no sour grapes. Ugh.

I'll leave aside every racist insulting implication in your post and simply say this. It might serve your interests better to figure out why you lost instead of figuring out why we won.

Actually scratch that. I have no interest in giving your party any advice. I just feel sad that this is what the party of Abe Lincoln has come to. Until there is a complete top to bottom review and deep introspection there is just no point even trying to engage your party in a conversation. Maybe a few more cycles of electoral loss will provide the necessary impetus. I thought this drubbing might be enough, but I am realizing that more punishment might be called for. Good luck with all that.

Hi Jim--I am proud and grateful to live in a country in which the majority of voters confirmed their support for a President who believes in basic health care for all Americans. I am proud to have supported a President who has helped to remove us from a costly and bloody war in Iraq, a war which Americans were tricked into undertaking (the best term) by the former Republican regime. I am grateful to the President for continuing to work to recognize the equality of ALL Americans--as he said, men and women, of every race, able-bodied and disabled, old and young, gay and straight, poor and rich--and their equal right to justice and opportunity. I do not believe the terrible predictions you have long been making on this site about the future of our country under the President's leadership. I wonder if you are willing to work--to examine your motives, to empathize, to compromise--in order to ensure that your predictions of ruin do not come true.

By the way, I am a Democrat and I am not asking for "free stuff" and I believe it is my American duty to help to maintain my fellow Americans. I challenge you, with all respect, to join your fellow citizens in working for a fairer future--a fairer distribution of our god-given resources, fairer access to opportunity and education and especially to the basic necessities of life. My model in making this challenge is the American soldier--willing to give everything for the greater good of all. It's very hard. And worth it, if anything is.

Here is something else to mull over. It's easy to demonize Hispanics and Blacks. But there is one other ethnic group, granted much smaller that voted overwhelmingly for President Obama. These were the wealthy Asian American families. In fact I read some statistical analysis that they ensured his win in Prince William county and thus the state of Virginia. These were the highly educated and well paid Asian Americans who work in DC and have bought expensive town homes and single family homes in Prince William county. They made the difference and put Obama over the top in Virginia. Now if this welfare theory is true, why would well educated and wealthy Asian Americans prefer Obama?

And in case anyone is interested, here is a statistical estimate of the support for Obama amongst welfare recipients. Talk is cheap with no numbers to back it up.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-altman/obama-welfare_b_1835061.html

You're losing it Jim. I've been a 50 year reader of the Nat Review and Wm Buckley would choke on what you call 'scholarly' there.' I had the pleasure of meeting him and knowing he would throw up if he saw what the GOP is now -- a big pile of know knowing anti-intellectuals depending on their Southern and redneck evangelical base. I watch MSNBC and as a scholar of the subject of racism must agree with much of what they say. Dunno you qualifications except as chair of a suburban party that lost everything. Most serious studies show that Hispanics and Asian-Americans are among the most entrepreneurial people in our culture, and probably 95% of them are working harder than you are right now. Here's the skinny Jim. Many years ago there was a California gov named Pete Wilson. He made comments exactly like yours about Hispanics, and indirectly, Asian Americans. Guess what? Your Grand old Grumpy Party is just about cooked in that state. Gone. Guess what Jim, the kind of racist comments you have just repeated or made up will do the same thing nationally. Just look at the numbers. 90% of Asians voted for Obama. Are they lazy and just looking for handouts? Hells Bells Jim, you are probably taking more in Social Security and healthcare, or will be soon, than the vast majority of those 'moochers'. So pack it in Jim. Turn your office over to some smart person who can actually read numbers and get away from crap about how many of us don't want liberty or paths to success.

BACK UP THE "FACTS" YOU MADE UP.

73% of Asian Americans (that also includes Indian Americans who by some measure are responsible for 15% of the startups in the San Francisco bay area) voted for Obama in this election.

Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-election-20121111,0,2275455.story

Folks, by the way, please don't mistake Jim for an actual Republican (like Mr Brown for example). He shames the title and the party by behaving like this, and clearly harms the interests of the party in doing so.

Attempting to sway people by simply making up "facts" to support your viewpoint only backfires these days, as verification can be asked for from blowhards.

Well, this has been a very extraordinary experience to say the least. This latest string began with a "gloat note" ... We won, you lost, to which I agreed and offered no sour grapes. The election was over, it is what it is.

And yet that is not enough for several of you who seem to be angry when you are trailing and unhappy when you are winning. And why so personal and lacking in grace?

There is a very deep division in the Country right now on the role of government. While Obama won, his margin was just over 2M out of over 118M votes cast. This does not make the "losers" racists, or disgraces, or blowhards or make-up artists; it only shows that there is no consensus on the appropriate direction of the Country, nor any mandate for what do do.

All of this is troubling. But this is what I derive from this "conversation". How are the sides ever going to come together to productively lead with such post partisan attacking?

We must move on from what was said during the process because that chapter has been written. It's going to take some class and grace, and believe it or not, acceptance that the other side is on the right side of the issue - both ways. If the appropriate balance is not found between the responsibility of government to provide social benefits and the financial responsibility of government to pay for them, we and all our heirs are doomed.

And no self-serving name calling of me will change that.

Stay classy Patch commenters.

The country is divided and does need healing and a rapprochement across the political divide. How about this -- you stop calling Obama voters welfare dependents (not supported by actual evidence) and moochers and I'll stop calling your side racist?

I've read ,in horror, some of the blogs on other articles. It's frightening that some of these people can even vote given their illiterate, semi- nutty ramblings and insults- one of these crazies even took on the editor. Anyway I think some of you are missing a central fact Presidential candidates from Massachusetts do not do well in recent elections - Dukakis,Kerry,Romney( JFK was 52 years ago and a close one at that). We've been the birthplace to four Presidents- two Adams, JFK and George HW Bush, but don't look for it to happen again. We are a political backwater with fewer and fewer electoral votes.

And one last time, let me post this data and get off this topic unless there is reason to come back due to some other kind of provocation. Those of you who seem to firmly believe that it is Obama voters who receive the most government benefits, please take the time to explore this wonderful data-laden map:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/02/12/us/entitlement-map.html

It is a color-coded map of various govt benefits -- welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment etc. for the year 2009. Now look at this map and think of the states that Obama lost and won, What do you see and what do you conclude? It is not cool in this day and age when you can verify information to hang on to pre-conceived notions of group behavior. Actual data can be very enlightening. I am not insulting anyone, I am simply asking you to look at data.

You know Max, these maps are always interesting and sometimes they say as much about the person who promotes than as they purport to reveal. So ... This topological map is dated 2009, essentially pre-Obama which means that it is pre-50% increase in food stamps, and increasing/expanding unemployment claims etc.

But I take your point.

Still, I will not bore you with the topological red/blue vote in 2012 by County/precinct across the Country. The map is minimally 80% red, but the population centers are blue. In 13 Philadelphia precincts Obama is said to have received more than 99% of the votes.

The same questions can be reversed back to you in terms of interpretation etc.

The point is that there is much more to this than looking at the topology. That's the equivalent of "studying" history by memorizing the dates of events. That the Country is changing, and changing rapidly seems undeniable. For better or worse? Time will tell, of course, but there is a very real difference of opinion and both sides have validity to their arguments.

By the way, if the purpose of your sending the charts is to show that government dependency is a multi-ethnic issue, I certainly agree - that is what I have been saying all along. We have grown soft as a culture and need government to step back a bit.

What isn't getting a lot of press is the huge amount of money that was spent on "data-crunchers" by the Obama campaign, aided by Hollywood celebrities, to gain the young vote, the women's vote, and the Latina vote. The Obama campaign even used Facebook on a mass scale to get out the vote. I believe this highly sophisticated "data-driven" campaign was the secret weapon that won the election for the President. The TIME magazine article appended tells how it was done.
http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/07/inside-the-secret-world-of-quants-and-data-crunchers-who-helped-obama-win/2/

Jim:
Why do I suspect that if your guy had won by just a couple million votes, you would have considered it a powerful mandate for change? The fact is that we had a president overseeing an economy with nearly 8 percent unemployment, a tempest-in-a-teapot scandal in Libya that Republicans let distract them from a very focused economic message and a lot of unkept promises from the incumbent yet "we the people"--all the people--said no thanks to the Republican's offer of social regression and economic self-destruction. A win by a single vote is a mandate, so stop poking at the margin and start explaining how you're going to do your part to work as one--which is no doubt what you'd say to Democrats if your side had won, regardless of the margin of victory.

Albert, thanks for your comment and for raising a good point. Let's look at the situation holistically. What changed? Several seats in the Senate but a divided government still. Had there been a mandate the people would have reversed the 2010 elections and put the Democrats in sole control again. Could it be that the people like the stagnation in that "no action" is perceived as being better than too much partisan action? That's a question out there - especially since Obama's main message this time seemed to be four more years of the same.

I would probably raise a different point. Do politicians erroneously connect mandates to their victories? Absolutely. Let me point out the 2008 election. America voted for hope and change, but did they really vote for transformation? I would argue, and the 2010 snap back election would seem to support, and the 2012 election suggests, that the Nation was tired of Bush and the Republicans, but they did not especially like one-party government.

Bush made the same mistake after his re-election, thinking he had a mandate to partially privatize social security. When he introduced this the measure was attacked by the Democrats and flamed out quickly (though the issue is still raised today against the Republicans).

Bottom line for me - interpreting mandates is very complicated.