How many of us believed that Romney was going to win in 2012?
You can find all the posts on my blog which looked passed the fact that Romney had so many negatives.
I believed that Obama's negatives would have hurt him more. And Romney did come out swinging in the first debate.
Romney had more trouble debating himself: his record as governor of Massachusetts compared with his promises and proposals during the GOP primaries, and then finally his terrible comments during the general election, along with his awful interviews and off-hand offensive remarks (47%, anyone?)
Obama won with fewer votes, electoral and popular, but he still won.
That's the way it is, Republicans. That's how it ended up, conservatives.
The majority gave President Obama four more years. The United States government moves slowly, one way or another, though, and even if the aircraft carrier is moving in the wrong direction, it's moving slowly and deliberately, and can be turned around again.
Or can it?
President George W. Bush defied political expectation in 2002, when his party won another US Senate Seate, and seats in the House. He further overcame negative expectations in 2004, despite his plummeting approval ratings, and the growing debacle of war in Iraq.
Yet Bush won. In 2006, he got shellacked.
2010 was a banner year for Republicans. 2012, not so much. Every opposition must be just as deliberate.
Can TEA Party backed Republicans recognixe that patience is strength, stay on message, embracing tactical victories like the sequester, or will they continue to rush against the math and push against a system which resists massive legislative change, especially from only one section of one branch of government?