OK has anyone noticed Romney's tendency to be so bad at winning elections?

[So the Heroes Fall]

I know the thread title seems kind of obvious but think about it. The guy constantly loses elections he's supposed to win easily. Let's look back to 2008:

IA: Dominated polls all campaign season, looked to be winning in a walk, was done-in by a last minute surge by an unfunded nobody in the last month.
NH: Appeared to be even more in the bag until McCain's moribund campaign came back after Christmas to beat him by a not insignificant margin. That's a several month lead undone in about a week and a half.
FL: He didn't dominate here, but he was way outspending anyone else and the polling was a complete tie, lost by six points to McCain who did basically come out of nowhere.
CA: Wrestled with McCain quite a bit but had a last minute surge making the race also a total tossup, lost by almost double digits.

Now this year:

IA: Never really was expected to win it, but the fact that he was only able to essentially tie a once again out of nowhere also-ran with no money is quite embarrassing.
SC: Had a solid lead, collapsed at the last minute for pretty much no reason.
MN: No one really expected him to win but third place and not winning a single county...and he did win here last time.
CO: His second best state last time with the whole establishment backing him...he still loses.
MO: Doesn't mean anything, but remember how Politico was talking about how his "big" win here would give more momentum? Collapsed terribly for basically no reason.

I mean just one or two cases and you can make excuses but there's a huge pattern here. And as someone who expects the guy to still pull it off limping to the nomination you got to wonder what that bears in the general.

[King]

He is without a doubt a terrible candidate.  Really, it shouldn't be surprising.  2008 was technically better than 2012, but it was still a weak field that any half-competent candidate should have steamrolled through and McCain was that half-competent man they settled on in the end.  Romney is a quarter-competent at best.

[Jacobtm]

Winners always win.

[Joe Republic]

His problem is similar to Gingrich's; the more voters get to know him on a closer level, e.g. right before an election in that state, the less they like him.

The difference there, however, is that people tend to find out that Gingrich is a pompous asshole, whereas in Romney's case they instead learn that he has no soul.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Honestly I'd be willing to consider a bet on him losing Virginia to Paul at this point. It wouldn't be any less embarrassing than many of his previous defeats.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

MO: Doesn't mean anything, but remember how Politico was talking about how his "big" win here would give more momentum? Collapsed terribly for basically no reason.

And the next second after Santorum win there, Politico started to claim Missouri doesn't matter.

[Landslide Lyndon]

MO: Doesn't mean anything, but remember how Politico was talking about how his "big" win here would give more momentum? Collapsed terribly for basically no reason.

And the next second after Santorum win there, Politico started to claim Missouri doesn't matter.

Yeah, just like Hillary and her minions said in 2008 that caucus states and states with lots of African-Americans don't matter.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Well really unlike those cases Missouri didn't matter, there were no delegates. Not really comparable, more like Florida and Michigan that didn't matter then. However the flip flop of Politico was quite amusing.

[© Tweed the Younger]

Honestly I'd be willing to consider a bet on him losing Virginia to Paul at this point. It wouldn't be any less embarrassing than many of his previous defeats.

you really shouldn't bet then bro.


Romney is like an NFL team that goes 9-7 but was good the previous year and has a solid run game and a good defense and a borderline Hall-of-Fame head coach, so you expect them to perform when the chips or down, or something.  he transcends his 1-2 career record.

[Jacobtm]

Well really unlike those cases Missouri didn't matter, there were no delegates.

Though all of these early contests really are just shows of enthusiasm.

If someone won Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, they'd say he had it wrapped up. Not because he had won an insurmountable amount of delegates, just because he had the enthusiasm of voters in all these different states.

These states reward an insignificant amount of delegates, it's just about seeing who voters currently favor.

So in that sense Missouri did matter, just as an enthusiasm thermometer, which is no different than what most contests have been so far.

[Lief]

Missouri might not have mattered if Santorum only won by 10 points or so. But he destroyed Romney there, by thirty points! He won every single county in the state, including suburban and urban counties that should have been prime Romney territory.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Also:

1994: That was the only chance in lifetime for the GOP to beat Ted Kennedy, who was really vulnerable (due to personal issues as well as nationwide climate). Mittens managed to transform a tossup into his own double-digit loss and Kennedy was the first to show how vulnerable Mittens is to negative campaign.

2002: OK, he won, but when compared to victories of Weld or Cellucci, that was small.

2006: After spending last two years on running for President and alienating almost everyone in Massachusetts, the great candidate Mittens just bows out.

[Keystone Phil]

It really is hilariously ironic to think that Mitt Romney is apparently the "electable" candidate. Rick really needs to school him on electability in the next debate.

[Dabeav]

It really is hilariously ironic to think that Mitt Romney is apparently the "electable" candidate. Rick really needs to school him on electability in the next debate.

Right, you forget that this is really a small sample of who's going to vote in the general election.  Santorum's record, history, and off the right-end anti-gay stance would get him killed vs Obama.

[You kip if you want to...]

Romney is exactly the kinda guy who you just couldn't be bothered voting for even if you did like him. He's boring, he has that rich guy air of arrogance about him, he says stupid this, his unique selling point is "not being too Tea Partyish".

[Landslide Lyndon]

From PPP twitter:

Romney's swing state blues: 31/56 fav in NC, 28/56 in OH, 30/54 in MO, 29/56 in MN. Just not popular.

[Politico]

Romney has lost just as many races in his lifetime as Reagan did: Two.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Romney has lost just as many races in his lifetime as Reagan did: Two.

And Reagan won his two California races, each time with good margin.

[Keystone Phil]

Romney has lost just as many races in his lifetime as Reagan did: Two.

And Santorum has lost only one after winning four (two of which were statewide contests).

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

I'm not a fan of him, but comparing him to Mittens is really insulting toward Reagan's memory.

[Politico]

Winners always win.

No president of the past forty years was undefeated electorally.

[Politico]

Romney has lost just as many races in his lifetime as Reagan did: Two.

And Reagan won his two California races, each time with good margin.

And lost twice as many presidential campaigns as Mitt.

[Politico]

Romney has lost just as many races in his lifetime as Reagan did: Two.

And Santorum has lost only one after winning four (two of which were statewide contests).

Yeah, and he lost to a balding guy by 40 points.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Romney has lost just as many races in his lifetime as Reagan did: Two.

And Santorum has lost only one after winning four (two of which were statewide contests).

Yeah, and he lost to a bald guy by 40 points.

lolwut?

[Keystone Phil]

Hilariously ironic that Politico called Casey bald when he has has more hair (unibrow, baby) than normal though he is balding.