Conservative Media!

I don't think he's stupid. Just super overconfident and entitled. And a man of faith.

I'm sure he thought that, lo and behold, regardless of what the polls said or basic electoral math, God would deliver a victory unto him if he just BELIEVED hard enough.

Your second paragraph seems to be a direct contradiction of you first sentence.

There are more ways to be incredibly stupid than failing at sudoku.

Again, looking at the rep it's pretty clear who's not a groupthink member.

So at the very least, would you consider the possibility that if several users think you're not making any sense, it's not necessarily because they have succumbed to groupthink?

Absolutely, I've long championed the fallibility of perception. If you can't accept the possibility of being wrong then you're done learning anything new.

That said, I understand how blind faith in one's opinion can be comforting, and the same goes for thinking other folks share in one's opinion.

Let's try it this way: I think Romney's IQ is probably relatively high. I think he earned his degrees from Harvard and probably did pretty well there. I think he couldn't have accomplished his various successes without intelligence. Of course, he got a leg up by his father's success before him. But unlike George Bush, he didn't just get born on third base and think he hit a triple. To strain the analogy, he got up for another at-bat and hit a double and stole third.

But even smart people can make dumb mistakes, and/or let faith consume them.

I personally believe (mind you, based on nothing in particular) that Romney knew the poll numbers were what the numbers were and chose to have faith (mainly religious) that when it came to election day itself, the numbers would shift dramatically in his favor in all the battleground states to give him a path to victory. I can't really fault him for that. (Although as people pointed out in this or some other thread, it makes me much more glad than I already was that he didn't win and we don't have to endure the sort of faith-based policy that ignores or downplays facts and substitutes for it "I just want it to be this way.")

It's entirely possible, however, that Romney simply did not know what the poll numbers were or discounted them for non-faith based reasons. In such a case, it would be a stupid decision by a smart man.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/republicans-failed-to-understand-their-opponent/

Steve Chapman is a libertarian columnist for the Chicago Tribune. Here's his take on some of these matters:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-1111-chapman-20121111,0,616176.column

I'm not buying the whole "Conservatives had no clue what was coming."

Tuesday morning, I told all my friends we were going to lose the election.

The truth is that liberal urban areas want different things than the rest of the country.

Long term, the only way this country will stay intact is if we have a strong return to a system that emphasizes state and local governments. :| I don't want what a New York Yankee wants, and they don't want what I want.

Obviously, there were a number of conservatives who anticipated what would happen.

But for the most part, none of them seem to be involved in the conservative media.

Many in the conservative media projected a Romney victory, and possibly a Romney landslide. If the reports are correct, Romney himself did not even bother to have a prepared concession speech, apparently because he did not see it as possible he would lose.

They don't seem to have come to grips with how they got it so wrong.

This is exactly it. And yet the very next post suggests the idea that values in blue and red America are fundamentally different and irreconcilable. I disagree with Apostle -- there is far more that unites than divides

The things that are important to me and mine are laughed off by your side, and vice versa. :/

I laugh at the notion that there is no significant overlap. And I have no side when tickles to telling others what values should matter to them.

Wait, what?

I laugh at your overlap.

What things are important to you?

Serious question.

Eh, I figured Obama would win. By hook or by crook. Looks like the Obamafia employed both.

Really? Don't most people like taking their kids to baseball games, grilling in the back yard with friends, and the satisfaction of a paycheck for good work? I'm sorry, but I think most of our so-called differences are greatly exaggerated, as is the death of the Republic.

And that is one of the many reasons why you are a laughing stock.

Well, given the choice between "conservatives are idiots" and "conservatives are conspiring amongst each other to make themselves look like idiots," apostle is up shit's creek.

Allow me to rephrase.

What the heck does "And I have no side when tickles to telling others what values should matter to them." mean?

gul agrees: Product of a bad spellchecker and somebody not reading context, should say "when it comes to"[/QUOTE]"And I have no side when it comes to tickles to telling others what values should matter to them."

You're not helping!

Here is a column from a Wall Street Journal guy who predicted Obama would win in January:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...html?mod=rss_opinion_main#articleTabs=article

Seriously, all over the place, that. How is it so few religious fundies get that? Holy shit in a vacuum-sealed-for-freshness fuckin' can.

Yeah, good piece. But...

If only Romney could be accused of those things. Unfortunately I don't think he can.

So very true.

So very false. The same people keep predicting higher bond yields and higher inflation, and they keep getting it wrong.

Because your powers of assessment and evaluation stood you in such good stead in predicting the outcome of the election.

So what was my prediction for this past election? Refresh my memory.