Post-Mortem Election Comment.  In my previous post, I made my election predictions and indicated my preferences.  My predictions were pretty terrible, as some (apparently the majority of those voting) might also categorize my preferences.  Whatever the case, here is a comment or two on the Tuesday outcome.

Regardless of your position on the policy debates that played out over this cycle, a very persuasive argument can be made that this presidential race was not won on the basis of policy, but rather on the basis of campaign aptitude.  That is not to say that many of the Obama voters did not embrace his policies; they did and they do.  I am simply suggesting that the “deciding” votes in the election were not based on policy questions that rise to the top of the national priority scale.  The plain and simple fact is that the Obama campaign was better at executing a winning strategy than was the Romney team.  Obama has the weight of his record to carry, but he also had the powers of incumbency to help bear the load.  Romney had the unenviable position of challenging an incumbent, but he was fighting an incumbent that was badly wounded by the state of the economy.  It could well be argued that the playing field was level.

Obama’s success in this race is tragic in the sense that it validates some of the worst aspects of the American electoral system.  As mentioned above, the “War on Women”, Romney’s record at Bain, and all the other misdirection that was thrown into the race likely resulted in the winning margin.  The fact that factual dishonesty, intentional deceit, unwillingness to directly address issues of top priority, and most of all, the shameful performance of the national media, resulted in this victory will do nothing to discourage its application in future political endeavors.   Rather, it will only encourage its future use.

This race, more than any other in my lifetime, placed two opposing views of our nation’s legitimate government role in clear and distinct contrast.  It is a monumental loss of opportunity that we did not have a straight and honest debate on these differing positions, both of which are valid in their own right.  I don’t think I am the only one wondering that had that more honest debate occurred, would the result have been the same.