I guess I was a sucker. I already got healthcare. And I voted Obama.

I voted that way cuz I thought I could get a case of Jayer-Gilles 2004 Echezeaux Grand Cru imported French vintage wine. Where is it?

I have a close conservative friend from my Republican days who was also shocked and disturbed by various horrible comments dropped by Pat Robertson, etc. He actually is involved with a church organization that does exactly what Romney thinks made Obama win - give free things out to minorities. 

This stuff is just ridiculous. It's racially tinged as hell and shows a general antipathy towards the electorate. No man has become president by insulting the people who would vote for him.

Learn some self control, Republicans.

Well, here's the problem:
Romney was giving away free stuff too, but he was looking to give free stuff to the wrong group of people!

I mean, what is there, about 5 million millionaires in this country? He wanted to give all of them tax breaks.

But, there is over 200 million eligible voters (minus the millionaires, of course) that he wanted to take stuff away from. Stuff like Social Security and Medicare.

How did he expect to win by giving stuff to such a small group of voters and taking stuff away from the bigger group? Huh?

Seriously, what a dumb move.
Obviously he hasn't got a clue how stuff works.

I don't quite see the outrage, and it might help us to see how economically focused our approach actually is.

The election seemed to be only about a few crafted baubles for constituency groups plus a few gaffes. An exception was the cynical October attack re: Benghazi, sadly the only time foreign policy appeared in the campaign aside from brazen sucking up to Netanyahu.

In the case of the GOP, they have their line that  it's the rich's money, so cutting taxes isn't asking for favors - it's keeping what's rightfully theirs. This has been GOP catechysm for decades.

To the GOP's "credit", they threw in some standard "moral values" issues to get their panties in a wad - "Obama destroying freedom", abortion, war on Christianity. That 2 of these were entirely contrived should say something, & is worth a much larger discussion.

And to the GOP's credit, they got hoisted on their own petard - anti-Medicare, anti-auto bailout (anti-union), anti-immigration - right to take their lumps where advertised. Romney's loss of female voters was more collateral damage from other GOP candidates than his shifting, vague policy proclamations. 

But then there's the Democratic side, as addressed by Romney. First, we have to acknowledge that despite all the laughing at Mark Penn for poll-driven campaigns, it's now gospel between Axelrod as Emperor and Nate Silver as Pope, with the "election" being about ~5 early states in the primaries, and 8-10 swing states in the general elections. Take micro- and nano-polling in each of these states, combined with blitzkrieg media campaigns and focused ground movements, and we've got a more tactical operation than Patton could imagine. (voting was down 9% vs. 2008 in the non-swing states, tied or greatly above in the swing states)

Aside from black voters, who overwhelmingly supported Obama despite some misgivings expressed in polls, 14.3% black unemployment and discomfort with gay issues, most groups got some handout or key benefit to carry their hearts. (Yes, blacks got some promises too, but it's unrealistic to expect the black community would have voted much different under most real-world scenarios - not intended as criticism)

Hispanics got the DREAM Act and a promise to cut those 400,000 expulsions a year (a record under Obama's term), combined with health care benefits for poor immigrants - consider both a great economic benefit. Even for a state like North Carolina, where Hispanic population is relatively low, the 100,000 vote difference between candidates made Hispanic vote extremely valuable. (Black vote has grown and white vote has decreased in NC - expect more shift in the future)

Gays, while getting significant social issue advancement and general acknowledgment from Obama, also have a huge economic stake in benefits such as social security and healthcare for spouses. (Curiously our "conservative" Mexican neighbor legalized gay marriage 2 years ago and approved Social Security for gay spouses earlier this year, while we're still trudging along)

Women will get a huge economic benefit from ACA in terms of preventive care and checkups - the contraceptive issue just brought this home. Rush's attacks on Sandra Fluke just emphasized the costs - even less-effective condoms 2x a week work out to $150 a year (with women often paying), the cost of a pregnancy is unsupportable for many, and perhaps 50% use of the pill is for hormone treatments, especially for seniors - oops, guys - way to lose your conservative old folks vote, especially tied to your policy attacks on Medicare. [Americans really are children when it comes to discussing anything with sex and internal plumbing, and so women get to look on with disgust as male politicians especially say stupid, misinformed things about health treatment they should keep quiet about, as they know practically nothing except half of the costs]

The Mideastern swing state results largely revolved around blue collar workers and the auto bailout issue in the end, tied in with standard college & urban demographics. Romney's image as a businessman to right wrongs failed when it came out how he'd helped ship all the Delphi jobs overseas with a gun to the goverment's head (with earlier attacks on the way he gutted companies as a vulture/venture capitalist, but I don't think these earlier attacks were sharp enough to draw proper blood).

While Romney got a surge by appearing normal in Debate #1 (with the media's overhyped support for this strange low expectation), I think Obama got a decent surge from Hurricane Sandy especially across the east coast, both as a guy-in-charge image as well as expectations that he'd spend more quicker to help solve the problems. (As Artappraiser notes, FEMA may not be doing the bang-up job expected, but that was the feeling going into Nov 6, and it's still likely Romney despite anti-FEMA statements would have done about the same - though not as bad as Ron Paul with DIY levees).

The only area I doubt the economic influence is with students - despite student loans &  education worries, I don't think those were the main factors in how they voted.

So while it sounds cynical for Romney to focus on economic issues - and Jindal quickly slapped him down - for all our starry-eyed idealism, we should think about the economic issues that do drive voters' votes. It's just not polite to say it in public, but "a chicken in every pot, a car in every garage" got Hoover the 1928 election despite the calamity that awaited.

The American populace are whores, we always vote for who we believe will give us the most, as Matt Taibbi and Anne Applebaum explain.

Our whole 18-24 month election process is a thinly disguised effort to figure out who will benefit us the most, and not those suckers over there. Since it's hard to split the difference (Romney said it as 53%-47%, the actual vote was 51% to 48% the other way, but spending will have to go up for 60% of the populace to cover the base and make the next campaign possible. Thus spending goes up even for those "small government" guys, just goes up for a different batch of constituents)

So Romney states an inconvenient truth, while also missing out on his own incompetence (yes, he led up drama-less campaign up until the Olympics - after that, he knocked enough china off the shelves to fill a small dumpster) and exactly what benefits his donors were expecting in return.

Wall Street purportedly supported Romney, but my guess is they played both sides against the middle and have assured themselves yet another huge payday (plus bonus!!!). Too big to fail indeed.