Romney has been eviscerated by lots over his going back to the 47% well. He cited not once but twice that the reason he lost is because Obama promised stuff and those voters returned the favor. Then we heard many prominent conservatives (Jindal, Gingrich*) take him to task for this. We heard about divisiveness and inclusion, etc.
But Stewart Stevens, in his WaPo apologia (http://wapo.st/Wveof5) for the Romney campaign says the following:
"On Nov. 6, Mitt Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income."
Is that right? if so, doesn't that reinforce the 47% argument? After all, that income level strongly suggests that the 47% (low-earners) voted Obama. That, plus the percentage of morons above $50k was plenty enough to win the day.
Are conservatives dismissing Romney's argument too much? Is Romney's observation accurate, or being dismissed because it's, at it's core, fatalistic and hopeless?