As so often, Instapundit has a good take on the turnout problem. But ...
Is turnout the problem, or a symptom of it?
Some say turnout was the real problem. (HT to Instapundit) (And welcome Instapundit readers!)
Yes, Romney was close, and turnout was important. But, as per my post of yesterday, that only avoids the underlying questions.
1. Why was GOP turnout so anemic?
Remember, the candidate was personable, well-qualified, unblemished by scandal. The incumbent had a record of horrendous achievement. He didn't even try to offer hope or change; he offered only fear and the status quo, and it wasn't such a hot status quo.
Moreover which real GOP candidate, not Christie or Daniels or Rubio or Teddy Roosevelt or Abe Lincoln, would have done better?
The government-dependent may constitute a majority. Plus, as some have suggested, great swathes of the middle class are blase about the growth of government, or even welcome it.
2. Why did the base turn out for Dems?
I am on tape on a local TV webcast on Election Day saying that enthusiasm wasn't important. All you have to do is trudge down to a polling place and hit the right button or make a few marks on the paper ballot.
Conservatives say Romney could have explained better. Maybe. But Dems always have an advantage, as their message is very easy to explain: Vote Democrat and get more government money.
So voter turnout may just be one side of the takers/makers debate. The takers have more immediate incentive to turn out.
3. All of this goes into the dumper when the U.S. runs out of money. Then everything will hit the fan.
I just don't know if that will be tomorrow or next year or just will slowly happen over a decade or two.