Even Ann Coulter acknowledges the Cambrian Explosion over 500 million years ago.

This always provides the "Gotcha" question for Republican primary candidates: "Do you believe in evolution?"

They can answer, "Yes," and isolate themselves from the influential evangelical base of the party, or answer, "No," and look uneducated to most of America.

Who the hell is Rubio kidding? He knows that the earth wasn't created in 7 days. He just doesn't want to piss the evangelical base off FOUR YEARS before he makes his bid. He weaved around it by getting to the more important issues: the economy and the debt.

But when the time does come he can't bullshit. I can only hope he'll disregard creationism altogether. The only problem with that is that evangelicals may be a dying breed but they aren't dead, not by a long shot and unless the GOP does some serious changing we could be seeing a repeat of 2012 in the Republican primaries. And that is something they cannot afford.

This is exactly the problem that the pundits were discussing the day after the election. Run to the right to get the nomination but then lose the country.

On another note when Newt Gingrich calls your comments 'insulting' you know you're doing something wrong. Take the loss like a man Mitt don't be sore.

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/political/m...ts-comment-nuts

This guy thinks if Romney had stuck to the right of Santorum, gay marriage would not have won.




http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/...urce=feedburner

Sure and if Willard was more "truely" conservative, he would've won. Yeah right.

He had a decent plan to avoid the social issues, or the landmines getting in the way of his economic campaign. Thankfully his own party landed on those landmines for him and he reaped the (ill)reward.

Romney spotted pumping his own gas

http://www.ibtimes.com/redditor-spots-mitt-romney-pumping-his-own-gas-la-jolla-photo-892382

A lot of his fellow Republicans are blaming Romney for the loss, but I thought he ran a vigorous and solid campaign. He performed well in the debates, had a reputable running mate, and was stronger than McCain in '08.

He didn't address specifics on his tax and budget agendas, but it didn't seem to be held against him.

Remember the Unskewed polls that the GOP pitched for instead of Nate "the Great" Silver (where art thou Skinny Vinny?) and those biased liberal polls? Well the guy behind those (wrong) polls is now running this website: The President got re-elected by fraud!

http://www.barackofraudo.com/

From pumping gas to now the happiest place on Earth.

Romney at Disneyland

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/mitt-romney-went-to-disneyland

Mitt needs to take a long, long rest. He really believed he had it won. Some president he would have made....surrounded by "yes men" who tells him what he want to hear instead of the truth.

The fact that Romney, Karl Rove and Dick Morris thought that they had won the election is the very reason that one should not put any credence in their excuses for losing.

Just read Jesse Jackson Jr finally resigned today. They got him for the misuse of campaign money.

http://news.msn.com/politics/rep-jesse-jackson-jrto-resign-brother-says

I read that he is most likely looking at some prison time in the near future.

For those Board members who are interested, following is a link to the Tea Party Nation website. I don't think it is the official Tea Party website, but it is entertainig:

http://www.teapartynation.com/

For a good analysis on why Obama won and what the uture may hold, take allok at the last edition of Rolling Stone's interview with James Carville. Romney was realy clueless for such a great business manager.

Yes 3 weeks later and they're still counting votes. The current national popular vote %:

Obama 50.8%
Romney 47.4%

Now if you round those %s up, it would be 51% for Obama and for Willard....47%.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?k...any=true#gid=19

47% you say.

As Alanis would say: "Isn't that ironic."

Maybe he should've said 50% of the country were moochers?

EDIT - on a trivial note, Dianne Feinstein scored 7.3 million votes in her recent re-election: A record vote for a Senator. (Previous record was 6.9 million, held by fellow California Senator Barbara Boxer.)

I got the results for 2016 already.

It's really a sad statement about America when you consider the Bush family as a sort of a dynasty.

I hear ya. Jeb could very well be a good candidate in 2016, but I don't see anyone except his diehard base voting to put another Bush in the Whitehouse.

Jeb and Rubio, Master and Student, going against each other would be good popcorn.

There is no way any candidate can win 68% of the vote. Reagan's epic '84 landslide, he won "only" 59%. And he won 49 states.

4 more fun facts about Election '12:

Romney/Ryan is the first ticket to lose both home states since 1972.

Romney's 23-point deficit in Massachusetts is the 2nd worst performance by a candidate in his home state since John Fremont (the first GOP presidential candidate) in 1856 lost California by a whopping 29.6 points to Buchanan, to finished 3rd.

Incidentally, Massachusetts scored a record voter turnout with 3,184,196 ballots cast, or 73.3%. You made history JoeSchmo!

Romney/Ryan lost the vote in both hometowns (Belmont, MA) and(Janesville, WI).

Though I know the Democratic hardliners will never consider another Bush, I wouldn't count out the rest of the country. There's a lot of misconceptions about GW Bush, many of which weren't addressed or rebutted during this past election.

For one, it's a total misconception that Bush's economic policies are solely responible the recession, as it was Bill Clinton who expanded Freddie/Fannie and restricted Glass-Steagall financial regulations the same as Bush did.

It was also Bill Clinton who originally said Saddam Hussein had WMD's and needed to be disarmed.

Though I know the hardline Union workers, economic statists, etc. will never be convinced of this, nor give Bush Sr. the respect he deserves as a war hero, it's worth noting that Jeb Bush isn't GW. For one, Jeb can do a whole day's worth of talk shows and then appear before Congress and not bat an eye. Another is he has an Hispanic wife and son (George P.) and wouldn't necessarily need a minority on the ticket.

2016 will also be very different if the Democrats do not have a minority candidate, and one as popular as Obama. You throw Clinton in there and the Republican smear machine will be raking the Clintons over the coals like it's 1999--good old fashioned mud slinging (and no one calling the other a racist).

Let them try. Even with his sex scandal, Bill Clinton left office with a 68% approval rating. One of the highest in U.S. history. Hillary Clinton's current job approval rating is 70%. If the Republicans want to be relevant in 2016, they better find a viable candidate, and focus on what he/she brings to the table. If the try to run another campaign with a candidate that has no real plan other than a few talking points and is far to the right on social issues, they'll get crushed again.

The Republicans couldn't win the Upper Midwest despite favorable demographics. I don't think 2016 will be any easier for them. But the future's a devious thing..

In the continuing vote counting, Obama has a good chance of finishing with 51%. He would be the first President since Eisenhower to score 51% popular vote twice.

I thought they gave him the 51% because his total was 50.7%, and it was final...??

Let's see, and what words was the media using to describe this election? "razor-thin", "Dead Heat", "Neck & neck"



TIS

Unless my information is wrong, 20 states so far have certified and counted all their votes. Elsewhere they're still counting votes, beieve it or not. (The President is currently 50.91% as of yesterday.)

In short, be thankfuly Election Night ended on Election Night or else it would be a repeat of '00. Which nobody on either side wanted.