The election was always Obama's to lose. It didn't matter who the Republicans put up against Obama.

@1 Sure it did. They could have put someone in that was just as inspirational as Obama. Of course they don't have anyone like that, so they had to run Romney as "not Obama".

They just knew Obama's first election was a fluke. A freak of history. Nobody would want to re-elect a president that saved the auto industry. Saved the financial sector. Saved the housing market. Stopped the Iraq war. Set a date to exit Afghanistan. Kill bin Laden. Killed Gadhafi. Appointed the first hispanic to the SCOTUS. Supported gay marriage. Protected a woman's right to choose. Passed healthcare reform. Never going to happen. Naw, their slimy candidate was a shoe-in. But then, who else could they have nominated?

Reading these posts, it's fascinating to learn that Romney had planned and (sort of) began to carry out his transition effort: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/08/mitt…

Have to congratulate Darryl, N, et al. for knowing better than the media and, apparently, the campaigns.

When was McCain ahead in 2008?

And beyond Obama's 2.5 point win in the popular vote, he had an additional 2 points to give. Obama could have spotted Romney 4.6 points nationwide, lost FL, OH, and VA, and *still* won the election with CO, IA, WI, NH, NV, MI, PA, and whatever other delusional possibilities Dick Morris dreamed up. This Presidential election was not close in the sense of the modern era.

There is a flip side, folks. Dems are not going to control the House of Representatives any time soon. Despite winning generic congressional races 51-49, the Dems lost the House by a healthy margin. Even if Republicans had spotted Dems 6 points (!) in every race, they still would have control over the House. Dems have been quietly and absolutely annihilated in the combination of redist(R)icting and the effectiveness of SuperPAC money in targeted House races.

Frighteningly, Republicans won the lion's share of their seats with safe, but not competitive margins of 10 to 30 points, while Dems won half their seats by 30 points or more; a horrifically inefficient use of votes. Dems only have a quarter of their districts in the 10-30 point range.

@polkaparty McCain was ahead 2nd week of Sept, probably. Then Sarah started giving interviews.

Polkaparty,

In 2008, McCain led from about 10 March to 1 May 2008. And the race was tied (literally 50% to 50%) from 10th to 20th September, 2008. From: this analysis but specifically, this graph.

Seems odd that the candidate who supposedly has science on his side lost among college graduates.

Why?

Barney Frank pointed out that most states had republicans running the redistricting after 2010 and they carved the new districts to maximize their house seats (as parties are wont to do) until 2022.

Even given that tremendous edge, they lost a couple seats in the house.

On the plus side; it's obvious politicians are better at math than they let on. Those districts are some of the finest examples of applied fractal geometry you are ever going to see.

@9: That would surprise me (if you mean Romney did better with college graduates than Obama).

Please cite source.

Bailo, you make no sense. None. Ever.

Romney also lost because republicans hate his guts. They got their marching orders and fell in line, but they always hated him.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results…
College graduates: Obama 50% Romney 48% pretty much matches final vote. No story here move along Supreme Ruler of Alternate Universe