<h4>Election day 2012 has come and gone. And I, like every other citizen of the United States, can breathe a sigh of relief, not necessarily because a particular candidate won or lost, but because the presidential election season is over. Well, at least for a few years. I think it all starts up again in 2014.

I've decided to jot down some reflections about this presidential campaign, mainly so I have something to look back on when we go through this madness again. I was going to try to keep my thoughts impartial so as not to bias my future self, but when discussing politics, even with myself, I've come to accept such impartiality as near impossible. So as I say to friends who ask me if I'm a Democrat or a Republican, "I'll express my viewpoints; you can label me as you wish."

Predicting the Winner
When it came time to try and figure out who would pull off the race, I decided to ignore the mainstream media and my gut instincts, the former of which I mostly ignore anyway, the latter of which usually serves me well (my tummy predicted the Bush victories back in 2000 and 2004, and the Obama victory in 2008). Instead, I decided to place my chips on in-depth statistical analysis and the wisdom of the crowds. While the mainstream media continued to insist that the race was tight (and constantly tightening), Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight blog and Intrade confidently predicted a decisive Obama victory in the electoral college, if not necessarily the popular vote. Both were amazingly accurate: Obama swept the electoral vote, but his advantage in the popular contest was not nearly as well-defined.

<strong>Future self:</strong> Pay attention to FiveThirtyEight and Intrade.

The Media
As mentioned above, the mainstream media (and I'm referring mostly to the 24-hour news fiascos that are MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News) and its pundits insisted that this was going to be one of the tightest races of all times, going so far as to lay out several "doomsday" scenarios, including a repeat of the 2000 debacle or the possibility of a tie in the electoral college, thus leaving the choice of the presidency in the hands of the House of Representatives and the vice-presidency in the hands of the Senate.

All hype and bluster. Nothing to substantiate it.

Future self: Remember that the mainstream media has one thought on its mind: Ratings. And they seem to believe that the only way to get those ratings is to stir up controversy where it doesn't exist.

Election Morning
The polls opened at 7am. I went to vote a little after 9am, thinking that my flexible  schedule would allow me to bypass all the voters who had to be in work. Wrong. I ended up standing in line for over an hour with, well, all the other flexible workers or, perhaps, those unfortunate to be suffering the injustices of our current economy.

Future self: Maybe try to get in a little earlier, or skip out of work in the middle of the afternoon to avoid the lines. Not that waiting in line was awful; it quickly moved, and the volunteers were a fine bunch, keeping up cheer, as well as handing out coffee. Kudos to them.

Election Evening
The rest of the day, I kept refreshing multiple news sites to see if there was any indication of the ultimate outcome. Nothing. Not even exit polls. I had forgotten that data doesn't really start trickling in until after the polls close, which is around 7pm. That's when the media madness truly begins.

The projection of the winner arrived at approximately 11:10pm Eastern, when the networks called Ohio. This was about the same time they called the election back in 2008.

Future self: Chances are, you'll know who the new president of 2016 will be by 11:30pm Eastern time, on Tuesday, November 8. Don't expect any significant results until about 7pm.

Dow Jones and the Day After
The day after the election, the stock market dropped approximately 300 points (about 2%), which, of course, the media made a big stink about. What the news failed to mention was that on Wednesday, November 5, 2008, the stock market dropped nearly 500 points (about 5%). And that in six elections prior to that, only two of them showed an upswing in the Dow Jones, one after the re-election of George W. Bush in 2004, the other after the re-election of Bill Clinton in 1996.

Future self: Since at least 1984, the Dow Jones has dropped six out of eight times on the day after a presidential election; chances are it will drop again unless the economy is in a serious upswing (good luck with that).


The Times They Are A-Changin'
Many things became clear after the election, the most prominent of which is that the demographics of the voting population are shifting away from older, white men. Obama won the election through the votes of single women, African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians and the younger generation. Romney's voters were older, whiter, more Protestant, and, more significantly, are declining in number.

In addition, Colorado and Washington legalized the use of marijuana (my own state of Massachusetts legalized weed for medical purposes). Maryland and, of all places, Maine approved same-sex marriages while Minnesota rejected a ban on same-sex marriages. The country witnessed the election of its first openly gay Senator, and the Senate now has a record-breaking number of women in it. Record numbers of Latinos and Asian-Americans were elected into Congress.

Future self: This "new normal," as some pundits laud the trend and others lament, is not a fluke. This is a continuation of what we saw in 2008 and what the 2010 Census confirmed: the United States is becoming less about majorities and minorities, and more about the needs of diverse groups and pluralities. Expect the trend to continue in 2016.

Wake Up Calls For Both Parties
Hopefully, the election taught the Republicans a major lesson, namely that they can no longer hold to the far right's anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-environment, anti-evolution, anti-socialist, anti-immigration, anti-education trickle-down platform and expect to continue winning presidential elections. These ideologies worked back in 2004, but almost a half-generation has passed, and it's clear that such tactics aren't going to work in the future.

Yet Democrats and the President shouldn't view their victory as a mandate. The President won the popular vote back by only a few percentage points and the House remains in control of the Republicans. Also, and more to the point, it's been stated that the Democrats and Obama didn't really win; it's just that the Republicans and Romney lost because they couldn't offer a better alternative. That means that the Democrat's record over the past few years isn't a very good one. As an example, the failure of Wall Street and the collapse of our economy was the central concern of the electorate in 2008-2010, yet rather than focus exclusively on this catastrophe, the President and the Democrats sacrificed an inordinate amount of time, capital, and resources on reforming healthcare, an issue the electorate was far less concerned about and, quite frankly, didn't necessarily want at the time.

Future self: The successful party will be working their damnedest to fix the economy and getting us all back to work again. They will also be the party that embraces and works within the diverse set of views that our electorate represents. Currently the Democrats seem to be doing a better job of this, but the Republicans can do just as well, should they decide leave the past behind, embrace the future, and shift back to the center of our political spectrum. That doesn't seem likely at the moment; John Boehner doesn't seem inclined to tax the wealthy, something most Americans favor, and some Republicans insist that the reason they lost was because they were too moderate. If that's their attitude, well, then, fine. They'll continue to fall behind while the rest of us move forward.</h4>