The Much Lambasted Polls Were Right – For the last week, even as polls seemed to shift decisively back to President Barack Obama’s favor, the poll deniers – unskewers if you will – came out in force to argue that the baseline Party ID numbers were wrong, that there would be a tsunami of support by Republicans angry about Obama’s presidency, that the enthusiasm gap would win out.
Nate Silver -a Bayesian math geek – would somehow be one of the more reviled figures at the end of the campaign, for sticking to his mathematical formula that once again proved out, as he nailed the calls on all states despite their closeness.
Despite the venom that the Marist University pollsters received, the exit polls in Ohio showed a party breakdown that was remarkably similar to the nine percent spread their poll had showed.
By all stretches of the imagination this was a remarkable win for President Obama, in the face of what can at best be described as a disappointing economy. But the exit polls showed some remarkable factors – most people felt that the economy was the most important issue, but by a 39-31 margin thought that the economy was improving rather than getting worse.
Moreover, about half the voters still pinned the blame on former President Bush rather than Barack Obama.
President Obama would win just 39% percent of white people – figure that mirrored the total that Michael Dukakis would receive in 1988. But demonstrating the changing demographics, George H. W. Bush would win over 400 electoral votes with that figure; Mitt Romney would win half of that.
In part what killed Mitt Romney was his decision to move to the right of Rick Perry, his position of self-deportation, which he could never or at the very least would never back off of. Hispanics set a record with a turnout that marked 10% of the electorate, and 70% of them backed Barack Obama, a departure from the 44% mark that backed George W. Bush just eight years ago.
For all of the bellyaching it turns out both the youth and black vote would turn out in numbers comparable to 2008. Barack Obama’s decline in vote share is largely attributable to his drop from 44% of the white vote in 2008 to 39% in 2012.
As of now, Florida has not been called, but Obama leads and we expect him to prevail there. Right now, Obama has a 2.5 million vote edge, 50% of the vote to 48%, mirroring the average in the last polls.
If Florida holds, Obama would have by narrower margins still held his entire coalition from 2008 except Indiana and North Carolina (narrowly), the two most conservative of his state victories from 2008.
In California, he had a stunning victory with most of the precincts reporting. Obama led by 20 points, 58 to 38 with a 1.7 million vote margin.
Pundits will point probably to three things. We mentioned the Hispanic vote, critical in Florida, Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and California.
There is the Sandy factor. A large 15% said that was the most important consideration and another 25% said it was an important consideration. Of those, 70% would go for Barack Obama.
Hurricane Sandy would illuminate leadership and bipartisanship, and the President and New Jersey Governor Christie would work together to save the ravaged state.
And then there is Ohio, which it turned out that he did not actually need to win, but was critical anyway. What was critical to Ohio was the bailout of the auto industry and the lack of Mitt Romney compassion and attentiveness to that issue.
Mitt Romney would unleash a dishonest last-minute attack in Ohio that forced even his Republican surrogates to have to come forward to set the record straight.
But the most interesting thing is that the much-maligned polls were right on the mark, both nationally as well as at the state level.
To put this bluntly – the Bayesians were right, the pollsters were right, the conservative bloggers and pundits were completely wrong.
The biggest mistake made by these naysayers – if they were doing anything other than spin and posturing – was that they believed they could estimate what turnout should be.
The biggest point of contention was that the partisan breakdown was not going to be the same in 2012 as it was in 2008, at the height of what they called Obamamania of hope and change.
It turns out they were completely wrong on that point. And one reason they were wrong is that they treat party ID as a static number. Pollsters have argued that it actually floats, and that for a group of voters they may vacillate.
In fact, the final exit polls show about the same margin of Democrats to Republicans as 2008. However, they also showed that Mitt Romney won Independents by about 4 percent.
But be careful how you read into those numbers. What many now believe has happened is that a lot of the left-leaning independents are now identifying as Democrats. Whereas a lot of the right-leaning independents, especially some Tea Party enthusiasts who voted for Republicans, are not identifying as Republicans.
If this analysis is correct, it may skew both party ID and what it means to be independent. The caution is not to assume independent equals moderate, or even an undecided voter.
The biggest errors the unskewers made was to assume that polling was not sophisticated enough to capture the dynamics they claimed existed in the electorate.
It is a weird claim because the polls pretty much captured the move left in 2006 and 2008, and the move right by the electorate in 2010.
Why would a random sample not be able to capture higher Republican turnout? Why would it not be able to capture if the Democrats were going to stay home because there was an enthusiasm gap?
The answer is that the polling both should and did capture those kinds of trends. Polling is complex and sophisticated, but pollsters have gotten better at their craft over the years.
The answer to whether party ID should be fixed or float is that it should float. Fixing the party ID assumes you can make an accurate prediction as to what the turnout will look like. Allowing it to float allows the voters themselves and your sample to dictate what turnout will look like.
It turns out that those who allowed party ID to float were right.
Finally, I hope the vindication for Nate Silver – for whom many of the media and critics simply did not understand either his math or what his math was saying – is message to pundits and prognosticators to look at mathematical models rather than hunches and guesswork to make electoral predictions.
All Nate Silver did was run his numbers into a formula to determine what they meant. It turns out that even slim margins, if they are persistent, are very predictive.
My only real criticism was that he was a bit too sanguine about the accuracy of the polling. His model was right because the polling was accurate, but I would have upwardly revised the possibility that the polls were wrong. As it turns out they were not, so perhaps I was wrong on that score.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Finally, I hope the vindication for Nate Silver – for whom many of the media and critics simply did not understand either his math or what his math was saying – is message to pundits and prognosticators to look at mathematical models rather than hunches and guesswork to make electoral predictions.”
Science is treif in the dark neo-con doctrine embraced by the greedy and fed to doltish .
I think the bottom line is that the Democratic party is growing and the Republican party is shrinking (in the states with the most electoral votes) and Mitt Romney (unlike Ronald Regan) didn’t have what it took to get many Democrats to vote for him (and is such a tool that large numbers of Republicans and right leaning independents decided not to vote for him).
Republicans need to re-evaluate their official position on same-sex marriage and on immigration.
Republicans need a reality check.
Donald J. Trump “He lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country!”(At this point the president leads by 2,666,829 in the “popular vote”)”This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!”
Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator of Tea Party Patriots on Romney:“a weak moderate candidate, hand-picked by the Beltway elites and country-club establishment wing of the Republican Party. The presidential loss is unequivocally on them.”
Grover Norquist:“To deserve to govern in 2014 Republicans should maintain their opposition to tax and spend and continue to present a vision for the future that includes tax reform and entitlement reform,”
These folks don’t seem to be sufficiently analytical or adaptable enough to evolve .
Dear Lefties, moochers, looters, liberals, Democrats, collectivists…
Congratulations.
You won it all with significant help from the media-entertainment industry. Now see what you can do.
We conservatives won’t be helping you, because you have done nothing to earn our support, and it has been made clear that anything we do to help is used against us politically.
We got that lesson loud and clear.
What other lessons did we conservatives learn?
We learned we are more divided than we previously imagined. We learned that beneath the Democrat image of a caring saver of people lurks something much more sinister than we ever imagined.
We learned that we can’t compete at this point. Redistribution and hand-outs… the promise of an easier and richer life void of struggle and risk taking… reinforced by soft-money-wealthy elites that crave a release for their guilt over the constant nagging feeling that they didn’t do enough to earn their wealth (they generally did not)… these are insurmountable offers. Teaching the longer-term benefits of self-determination and self-discipline in a system of enterprise and free-markets… this is a much more difficult sell to a society growing in demands for instant gratification in the arms of a growing nanny state.
We learned that we should take a more passive role and let you prove you can lead and solve our national, state and local problems.
But we are going to shrug.
We are going to cancel our business expansion plans. We are going to hire fewer employees (because, frankly, too many of them are a pain of joyless entitlement and victimhood). We are going to take more vacations. We are going to work less hard. We are going watch more Fox News and conservative talk radio, and boycott any media or entertainment with even a hint of liberal bias. We are going to encourage our children to seek those cushy government jobs instead of starting a business. We are going to church more, and moving away to Red states.
We truly believe that you will continue to destroy the state and the country. Please prove us wrong, but don’t expect us to help you in doing so. If you succeed, you get all the glory. But, if you fail… we will not be involved to be your excuse and scapegoat. If you want to be the emperor, then you have to wear the clothing and fill the chair.
Note that history and evidence is not on your side. It is clear that others societies have failed fantastically trying to do what you want to do. But, it is common for liberal elites to discount those other failures only as proof that they are more intelligent and righteous. We doubt it, but we see that we have no choice but to allow you to prove it right or wrong.
So, have at it. Good luck.
In the mean time we will just move out of your way, since that is what you have demanded.
“Republicans need to re-evaluate their official position on same-sex marriage and on immigration.”
And women’s issues.
Jeff:
I am disappointed in your comments in that I think you are better than them. I think you have the capability to analyze why the republicans were unsuccessful beyond your very narrow lenses that you use here. The republicans also seem to blame the media for their losses. Why? The media is probably more fractured than I have ever seen it.
I flipped around last night watching various coverage and I also watched my twitter feed. I think watching Fox last night – something I rarely do, in fact I rarely watch TV news – was illuminating. At one point they were talking about how it was even possible that Virginia, North Carolina, Florida and Ohio could be even competitive for the President.
The polling tells a different story. The voters did not believe that things were nearly as bad as Romney was trying to portray things. The Republicans are overwhelming white in a country that is increasingly multi-ethnic.
One of the real interesting questions I have is how Democrats reconcile their support for entitlements with their base that is increasingly young.
Ah Jeff, how did I know you’d have the lack of personal fortitude to abandon your blustering arrogance for a moment of grace . Your inability to see the irony in a banker calling anyone else in American society moochers and looters is indicative of your complete absence of humility and perspective. Your side lost, in no small part, because most people are tired of the cliche ridden rhetoric and counterproductive stalling tactics that have defined the GOP position in President Obama’s first term .
“We conservatives won’t be helping you”
You never have !
[i]”I am disappointed in your comments in that I think you are better than them. I think you have the capability to analyze why the republicans were unsuccessful beyond your very narrow lenses that you use here.”[/i]
David – all the things that you and others on the left are considering when you write things like this are false issues. You focus on the social issues which are de minimus. You focus on the social issues, and the media focuses on the social issues. It is a disingenuous negative branding effort: anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-minority, anti-poor. It has worked even as it is a big fat lie.
The conservative platform has been about two things primarily: economics and safety/peace/freedom. One those things, the Democrats should not have succeeded. However, it was the social issues that were used as wedges and branding with the help of the media. Effing Romney with a dog on the car over and over again from the media liberal mouthpieces. This kind of crap got significantly more media attention than did the giant ef-up and cover-up of the killings in Benghazi. SNL skits making fun of Romney right up until days before the election… but not a thing on Obama. These things had a significant effect on the electorate. Branding is a big deal. Image is a big deal. That is why product companies spend billions on advertising campaigns. Obama got mega-positive branding help, while Romney got mega-negative branding “help”.
The media just used the Democrat Party talking points and replayed them over and over and over again. In the end, the seething masses of minimally politically attuned just picked up this tarnished image of Romney compared to this propped up beautified image of Obama.
Again, I don’t think you understand leadership very well. You don’t win by demonizing your opponent and using divide and conquer strategies and then expect cooperation from those you defeat with them. There is a price to pay for getting your way through these tactics… especially since it was Obama that was elected the first time promising to do just the opposite.
Also, when you are the leader it is then your responsibility to reach out. You don’t get to sit on the throne and complain that others don’t come up to kiss your feet and do your bidding.
But from a pragmatic viewpoint, if you think more deeply you will begin to understand the problem with your expectations. You won and you think that the other side should learn that your way is the better way and start coming over to your way of thinking. That is frankly an ignorant viewpoint. There are plenty of studies that you can access that prove people do not change their ideological viewpoints very easily if ever. There is recent science that is indicating actual physiological brain differences between liberals and conservatives.
[i]”We conservatives won’t be helping you”
You never have ! [/i]
Sure we do biddlin… where do you think your public-sector paycheck and benefits come from?
(In Romney’s words) Jeff’s people are “victims” of the “liberal media mouthpieces…SNL skits…Branding…cover-up of the killings in Bengazi, focus on the social issues… etc. They are out to get you Jeff.
“…where do you think your public-sector paycheck and benefits come from?”
Wrong, as usual . I am currently self employed, as I have been most of my working life . As a public employee, I earned every cent I was paid, including the tens of thousands of dollars stolen from my only available deferred compensation plan, by bankers and financial “experts”!
If the numbers hold in California the Republicans will not be able to stop the Democrats from solving the structural deficit in this state through their adherence to anti-tax Grover Norquist pledges. So there will be a test to see if the Democrats can fix our problems if as Joe Biden said “You just get out of the way.”
For too long the Republicans have blocked the Dems from fixing our problems while blaming the Dems for not fixing our problems. Now we may actually have a chance to see if majority rule in California will work. So jeff, the Republicans may have no power left at all in California; no statewide elected officers, no ability to muster even a third of the legislators in even one chamber to block addressing our problems. There is even a question to be asked if the California Republican party has any relevance at all or have you gone the way of the slide rule and the Whigs.
Jeff wrote:
> Dear Lefties, moochers, looters, liberals, Democrats, collectivists…
With a start to a rant like this I had a feeling that it would end with: “I’m leaving for Galt’s Gulch this weekend”…
> reinforced by soft-money-wealthy elites that crave a release for
> their guilt over the constant nagging feeling that they didn’t do
> enough to earn their wealth
I hope that Jeff (and the working class Democrats) will learn that “wealthy elites in California that mostly support Democrats may want you to think that they are out to “help people” (and maybe even do it out of guilt for having so much money) but in reality they (with rare exceptions)are just supporting the party in power so they make even more money (e.g. here is $100K to support the half cent sales tax increase campaign, when do we get the $10 million bullet train EIR contract)…
Jeff – I know you are disappointed and perhaps a bit angry but I hope in time you will come to disown some of what you have written here. It is time for us (locally) to have a conversation about what a “conservative” is. Today writers over at The American Conservative wrote that whatever the outcome of this election it is time for conservatives to continue to work locally to build the kind of communities we need. This is a FAR cry from you saying when you write “We conservatives will not be helping you.”
In saying you are going to “shrug”, in calling everyone who disagrees with you a “moocher” or a “looter” you are NOT espousing conservative values which focus on the humanity of friends and foes alike. In using those terms you are merely channeling the socially autistic views of Ayn Rand. I wish you would stop doing that.
The conservatives I know (and in many and growing ways I am one) look at the morning after an election like this and ask: “What needs to be done here, in this place, to create safety, opportunities, accountability and sustainability? What do we need to do to make our community stronger?”
That is what conservatives–people who want to conserve and build the fabric of a local community–are about. Withdrawing from engagement along with the cardboard cutout characters of a Rand novel is NOT conservatism–it is objectivism.
Jeff – This community does not need or want you to withdraw but rather to be engaged in helping solve the many challenges that remain and would have remained had Romney won. Join us, do not leave us. I am not being magnanimous, I am being honest.
“You focus on the social issues which are de minimus”
social issues are anything but diminimus if you are a woman who wants to retain control over her own uterus, as my daughter jubilantly texted me this morning. Or a mother terrified that the end of her 23 year olds ability to be covered on her health insurance could lead their family into bankruptcy and eventually end in her daughters death anyway. Or a gay who can now openly pursue their military career have the same rights as their heterosexual married friends. I realize that as a business man you tend to see all things as analogous to business. However, there are many,many who do not share this narrow view of the world. There are many who do not believe, as you and Mitt Romney seem to believe that wealth is not in and of itself a measure of success or higher worth as a person. Some of us truly believe that other measures of worth maybe the amount of effort one puts in, their contribution to society, or simply the joy they bring others that are equally relevant markers of their “worth”.
I believe that neither Mitt Romney nor Barack Obama are evil, just as I do not believe that either you or I are evil (sorry Rich, I am sure this is incorrect, but on my first day back from Haiti, have no incentive to check correct usage). I am of course deeply relieved by the results of the election, just as I know that you are deeply disappointed. I know because I remember very clearly my tears in 2000 when I realized that Gore would not be president. But for as much as you are willing to claim an intense love for this country, it is shocking to hear how you are willing to revile and express hatred for a man who the majority of voters chose to be our president.
While reading posts in response to an opinion piece on the election this morning, I found one that made me think of you. Like you, he was expressing profound disappointment. Unlike your posts so far, he said he was concerned, but accepting, and hoped those who chose the Presidents path were correct. He was writing from Texas, so offering to communicate about finding a common path did not seem feasible.
However, that is what I would like to focus on in our own community without vitriol and hatred but with respect for each others point of view.
If this is impossible for you or anyone to even consider what the majority of voters felt was the best course for the country, then the right approach would be to simply step aside, not obstruct, and see what the outcome is. If we fail, we can always be voted out, just as the Republicans were in 2008. Is that not what the essence of our democracy, which we both love, is supposed to be ?
Dow down 300 points. Time to sell?
Medwoman, I will repeat. This “story” about the GOP wanting to retain control of a woman’s uterus is false. It is crap. There is a de minimis difference between the opinions of Republicans, Democrats and independents on the issue of abortion. That difference is hyped by the Democrat Party, repeated by the main liberal media, and folks like you apparently just believe it without digging any deeper.
[url]http://womensenews.org/story/abortion/120827/voters-let-women-decide-in-recent-abortion-poll[/url]
You look for the extreme wack jobs on the right, and I will look for the same on the left…. and then let’s compare.
“re-tweeting”:source ([url]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266283107014025216[/url])[quote]Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Congrats to @KarlRove on blowing $400 million this cycle. Every race @CrossroadsGPS ran ads in, the Republicans lost. What a waste of money.[/quote]
[i]”There is a de minimis difference between the opinions of Republicans, Democrats and independents on the issue of abortion.”
[/i]
That statement is completely false.
[i]That statement is completely false.[/i]
[quote]“Regardless of how you personally feel about the issue of abortion,” the polls, which surveyed 1,000 adults, asks, “who do you believe should have the right to make that decision regarding whether to have an abortion…should the woman, her family and her doctor make the decision or should the government make the decision?”
Predictably, 89 percent of Democrats believed “strongly” that the woman should decide.
More remarkably, 71 percent of Republicans and 80 percent of independents also believed strongly that the woman should decide. An additional 10 percent of Republicans believed “not strongly” that the woman should decide, and a total of 81 percent who identified as “pro-life” responded that the woman should decide. [/quote]
“There is a de minimis difference between the opinions of Republicans, Democrats and independents on the issue of abortion.”
This is now true on conception as a consequence of rape. Last night it became a settled question in American politics.
“Dow down 300 points. Time to sell? “
Maybe or buy puts or sell before capital gains go up. Then again maybe its time to buy. If we knew for sure we would be rich.
JB: [i]You focus on the social issues which are de minimus. You focus on the social issues, and the media focuses on the social issues. It is a disingenuous negative branding effort: anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-minority, anti-poor. It has worked even as it is a big fat lie.[/i]
A lie?
Republicans need to make some important choices in how to talk about certain issues. It helped cost them the chance to take the Senate:
*Todd Akin & his reference to legitimate rape handed the race to Clair McCaskill in Missouri.
*Richard Mourdock and “I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape that it is something God intended to happen” gave that race to Joe Donnelly in Indiana.
These two comments plus at least a couple more poorly chosen comments of a similar nature by Republicans damaged their brand at a time when it could ill afford it. I can provide video links to verify the above comments, if you think this is a lie. Why do you think social issues (in this case, women and abortion policy w/ respect to rape) are not an issue? Both of those comments were made very publicly, one in a TV interview, the other in a candidate’s debate.
Jeff
Again I understand your profound disappointment. but I do not have to look for wack jobs. And, no matter how many times you repeat it, it is not a lie that Republicans are attempting to control women’s reproductive rights. My evidence:
The Republican party platform on abortion.
“THE SANCTITY AND DIGNITY OF HUMAN LIFEFaithful to the “self-evident” truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose active and passive euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Mitt Romneys position: He stated officially that he supported abortion only in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.
Paul Ryan’s position: Only to save the life of the mother. He was a strong supporter of “The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life” document.
Murdoch: Four arrests for attempting to illegally disrupt activities at legal Family Planning clinics
Akin: with his belief that women’s bodies can block conception in the case of “legitimate rape” whatever that might be.
Unless you are including all of these individuals along with all of those who accepted the platform with the definition of “baby” being “at conception”, in your definition of “wack jobs” then you are failing to appreciate that the party you favored has decided that the government should be in control, literally, of the uteri of women.
You may not feel that this is a major issue, probably because you do not have any exposure to the issue. I give decisions about ones medical care a great deal of significance. I am genuinely curious about whether or not you would favor a party that declared that men could not have vasectomies because passages, Leviticus 18:22-23, Genesis 38 8-10 as well as several others condemn contraception.
medwoman wrote:
> social issues are anything but diminimus if you are a woman
> who wants to retain control over her own uterus, as my daughter
> jubilantly texted me this morning.
Did your daughter really think that Mitt Romney (a guy who has been openly “pro-choice” his entire life that threw a bone to the bible thumping “pro-lifers” in the GOP to get the nomination) would do anything to take away her control of her uterus (even after Regan, GHWB and even GWB made no real effort to do anything)?
I didn’t vote for Romney, but I honestly think that he would have been more interested in (and a better chance with) a nationwide alcohol ban (FYI Mormons don’t drink) than a nationwide abortion ban…
> Or a mother terrified that the end of her 23 year olds ability to be
> covered on her health insurance could lead their family into
> bankruptcy and eventually end in her daughters death anyway.
Any mother that is worried that paying ~$100 a month for basic health insurance will put her in bankruptcy should step back and realize that she has made a lot of real bad work/education and/or financial decisions and work to get to a better place . Telling the 23 year old adult daughter that she needs to get a part time job that pays ~$100 a month to basic health insurance may allow her to learn about business (she might be able to get a part time job at the Davis ACE) so she is not worried about bankruptcy years from now.
SOD
With regard to Romney’s position on women’s reproductive rights, one has to look no further than the Supreme Court to know that those rights were indeed threatened by a Romney presidency. On this issue, as a gynecologist, I could not agree more with my daughter’s concerns.
With regard to the 23 year old, sure SOD, I guess one could tell a 23 year old who has been diagnosed with a life threatening, chronic recurring condition, hospitalization for which costs in the vicinity of $150,000 per month typically requiring multiple hospitalizations to ” just get a job”.
So if you would not mind forwarding the names to me of insurance companies that would ensure a woman with this preexisting condition at an affordable rate, I would be happy to pass on the information. Or maybe you think she should “just get a loan from her parents”.
[i]You may not feel that this is a major issue, probably because you do not have any exposure to the issue.[/i]
I have exposure to the issue.
I support a woman’s right to choose.
I was not worried about it being damaged or reduce by a Romney Presidency.
It is a red herring emotive gender-war false social issue perpetrated by the left and left media.
Move on.
By the way medwoman, do you support late-term abortions when the woman’s life is not in danger?
Or, is it your medical and/or moral opinion that life should only be recognized and protected outside of the womb?
The reason I ask… it would seem that some debate about the morality of abortion is justified.
I support that debate, do you?
The majority of the Supreme Court at the time of Roe vs. Wade was nominated by GOP Presidents (and Justice Roberts who just wrote the opinion that Obamacare can go forward was nominated by a GOP president). I’m probably more pro-choice than medwoman and her daughter and I did not worry for even a second that Romney would have done anything (except maybe talk about it when running for re-election to get the bible thumper vote like Regan did) to end reproductive rights.
I’m hoping that medwoman and her daughter will take a breath and realize that the far left that keeps trying to scare them about reproductive rights is the same as the far right that tries to scare Christians by telling them that Obama is a secrete Muslim and plans to close the Christian churches when he imposes Sharia law.
There are presently four likely votes on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade.
The Muslim/Sharia beliefs are complete nonsense. There was a very real threat to both the ACA and Roe v. Wade from a Romney presidency. There is simply no comparison.
Seriously: unless Republicans recognize how their beliefs and policies have alienated women and minorities, their party will shrink. This election was a solid rejection of the hard right of the Republican Party. As the headline said on Politico today: “Too Old, Too White, Too Male?”
At the rate they’re going, Texas could be a battleground state in a few years, and Arizona. Obama’s share of the Latino vote increased. Minorities turned out at higher, not lower, rates. The gender gap is very real, and it is based on revulsion about policies and attitudes expressed in the Republican primary and various Senate campaigns.
Until Republicans and conservatives understand why they lost, they’re going to keep losing.