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 ( 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?

Tags: 47% Romney