Put down that can of Drano and listen to me. Mitt Romney was a fine candidate, the "browning" of America has not doomed the Republican party, and the Democratic party's strategy of only cow towing to their base will come back to haunt them.
First off, is anyone else bothered that ghostly pale AB Stoddard can talk about the "browning" of America and not receive the "Rush Limbaugh is a racist" treatment? Outside of the Southwest and the adjacent states, do any of the major newspapers have a significant amount of "brown" on their staffs? And just for whatever, the Southwest hasn't suddenly gone "brown" in the past few years. We've pretty much been this way from the start, and yet there doesn't seem to be some built in desire for "browns" to vote Democrat. Even New Mexico didn't turn blue until California Liberals decided they wanted to move somewhere quaint with lower taxes. Does that mean we should be talking about the lily-whitening of formerly red states? Please New York Times and Washington Post editorial staffs, enlighten me of the "browning".
Secondly, look at the numbers, 2012 was a smaller election than 2008. In a year of lower turnout overall, Romney lost about 2 million voters to McCain. Obama on the other hand lost almost 9 million to his showing in 2008. Obama lost states. His percentages in red and blue states decreased. Obama lost independents. That didn't happen to the evil W during his second election. Democrats aren't increasing their voter base, they're pushing people out. And as much as Democrats talk about how the "browning" of America will be some sort of perpetual advantage, what would happen if Republicans decided to embrace expanded immigration policies? The Democrat party of today doesn't share any other values with Hispanics, unless of course things like hostility to Christians, murdering children and legacy appointments to Ivy League colleges become the "in" thing.
Incumbency has its perks. The very quality that rocketed Obama to the top of the political stratosphere, just being "present", has once again paid dividends. Incumbents are hard to unseat for a reason; they can campaign by just doing their job, or in Obama's case, by just showing up. In other words, there wasn't a whole lot we could have done to stop Obama from winning unless he really screwed up royale. And that's exactly the part many of us ignored or forgot. If you don't believe me, go back and look up all those articles, including mine, which said Obama was going to lose (as opposed to Romney is going to win) and see how many of them mention the "power of incumbency". We acknowledged it in Senate and House races but were blinded by optimism that the vast majority of Americans see Obama the way we see him, as an arrogant political lightweight who's not really down with this whole "America" thing. But it's also important to remember that that optimism was a good thing. Obama could have screwed up, in which case we needed to be within striking distance, which we were. And despite what people are saying today, Romney was the perfect candidate for 2012. Romney is a good man. A good family man. A successful business man. A non-ideologue despite the media's best attempts, and a calm, measured speaker who certainly presented himself as a viable alternative if Obama screwed up. But Obama didn't screw up, at least to the extent that the American people were informed. And that's why he won.