everyone seems to agree: the election is over. so there's no need to wait until wednesday for the postmortems.
everyone also seems to agree that we have a clear loser. to be expected, some beg to differ about why the loser lost:
when mccain cruises to an easy, early victory tuesday night, the pundits will be in disarray. they will be left scratching their heads, saying that the reason mccain won is that all the undecideds at the last minute broke for him, preferring the old, known crotchety guy over the charismatic unknown.
it's all untrue but when did the truth ever deter the bsm (biased socialist media) from telling you want it wants you to believe?
in order to win, zero [obama] had to do better among democrats than did john kerry. he didn't. here's why:
- zero never secured the democrat base. his first decision was fatal to his candidacy — he chose a bumbling, mediocre biden over party unity. had he selected hillary as his running mate, the ticket would have been a juggernaut. this fateful selection created the puma movement comprising — who knows? — thousands, millions of disaffected hillary supporters. this is the greatest unreported political fallout in media history.
- zero was a weak, unknown candidate propped up by the compliant bsm. all the evidence you need is this: no bounce from his thirty-minute infomercial that was intended to "close the deal." further, after spending more than $600 million dollars, he was still campaigning on the monday before the election in iowa, a neighbor to his home state of il, which he should have won by 20 points. a strong democrat candidate with a $600m warchest and this economy should win walking away. there'd be no chance for a mccain surge in the final days. give me a break.
- the reincarnation of the reagan democrats. they left the party when jimmah carter ran the second time and they left when zero burst on the scene. nevertheless, the bsm will spin these folks to have left for the all encompassing next reason:
- race. some democrats will reject their guy based on his race, or at least the black half of it. face it. it's a small percentage of the democrat party but, in order to win, zero had to hold onto every dem voter and he failed to do so.
- the bsm failed zero. as they always do, they went into protect mode, trying valiantly — if not honestly — to shield their chosen one from harm. had the media first done its job of vetting zero and, had he survived the vetting in the primaries, he would have been tested by fire and ready to win. instead, by treating him with kid gloves, the republican opposition was free to explore zero's past associations, his voting record, his years of drifting and lack of accomplishment; all raised doubts in the general election that should have been vetted long before it took place. unknowns like zero don't benefit by not being challenged.
- few people bought the outright lies zero told about his being pro second amendment. like so many other losing democrat candidates, zero had to run from his record but there was no place to hide.
- zero's opposition to illinois' born alive infant protection act. couple that with zero's statement to rick warren that determining when a baby is human is above his paygrade — well you've just created a tsunami of truth washing over your campaign.
we are witnessing the greatest collapse by a major party candidate in history. now you know why it's happening.
i agree. we are witnessing a collapse of historic proportions, not just of a candidate, but of an entire party and its ideology. barack obama is fini—