Why Mitt Romney Lost

[wan]

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/why-romney-lost-obama/2012/11/07/id/463241?s=al&promo_code=109FA-1

How the best-financed GOP candidate in history could lose to Barack Obama, a failed president with a dismal record.
Christopher Ruddy’s Perspective: It was the worst of times and the worst of times.

[Benj]

"[B]y late October polls showed that Romney was finally beginning to see a surge". No. At least get your facts right.

Romney saw a surge in the polls in early October, immediately following the first debate. He did not thereafter "have momentum" or "continue to surge" or otherwise gain strength as October continued. The media said as much many times, but they demonstrated their ignorance of the state of the race repeatedly and often. In fact, Romney slowly but surely lost ground in the polls every day from about October 11 until the election. The campaign could have done something to stop this steady erosion (possibly, though my theory was and still is that Romney's post-debate gains were entirely illusory to begin with), but it chose instead to believe an overhyped media narrative and ignore reality.

[wan]

"[B]y late October polls showed that Romney was finally beginning to see a surge". No. At least get your facts right.

Romney saw a surge in the polls in early October, immediately following the first debate. He did not thereafter "have momentum" or "continue to surge" or otherwise gain strength as October continued. The media said as much many times, but they demonstrated their ignorance of the state of the race repeatedly and often. In fact, Romney slowly but surely lost ground in the polls every day from about October 11 until the election. The campaign could have done something to stop this steady erosion (possibly, though my theory was and still is that Romney's post-debate gains were entirely illusory to begin with), but it chose instead to believe an overhyped media narrative and ignore reality.

I did not write this article so i don't know why you are attacking me. This article was written by  Christopher Ruddy at Newsmax. Lol.....

[Indy Texas]

I don't think it makes sense to blame Paul Ryan. VP candidates can never help and can only hurt (Sarah Palin, Thomas Eagleton, James Stockdale, etc). Ryan didn't hurt Romney. He is a competent man and came across as so and there's really not a whole lot else a VP candidate can do besides that.

I also don't think getting Romney voters to turn out was a problem. Republicans do not have problems with GOTV. Old people don't have a hard time voting. Wealthy people don't have a hard time voting. People who own cars and work in office jobs have no problem stepping out for an hour and driving themselves to the polling place. The Republican base is not composed of people who have ever been alienated or disadvantaged by the electoral process.

The problem is that there just weren't enough people in America who were receptive to their message. Their message got them to 48% of the vote. But that message was so extreme and divisive that getting to 50% isn't just a matter of the way the message is delivered - it's the message itself.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Romney's biggest problem was a total lack of political conviction. Not only did Romney switch his positions at the drop of a hat, but his campaign often pretended as if these switches weren't switches at all. He had no real credibility, and was only able to get the votes he did because his base despises Obama.

[old timey villain]

Honestly, the GOP could have nominated a jar of mayonnaise and it still would have gotten about 48% of the vote based purely on Obama hatred. Romney nor his campaign were dynamic enough to compete against Obama's demographic advantage and GOTV efforts.

Then of course there's the fact that the GOP has alienated wide swaths of the electorate. Also, the jar of mayonnaise might have been more exciting than Mitt Romney.

[badgate]

I want to see these terrible Gingrich ads.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I agree with ABC's Amy Walter. Unlike 2006, 2008 or 2010, there was no wave this year so all came to individual races.

[minionofmidas]

I agree with ABC's Amy Walter. Unlike 2006, 2008 or 2010, there was no wave this year so all came to individual races.

Um. You can't have paid much attention to House results. Must be the fewest House-Presidency ticket splitting voters since the 1940s.

[Mr.Phips]

I agree with ABC's Amy Walter. Unlike 2006, 2008 or 2010, there was no wave this year so all came to individual races.

Um. You can't have paid much attention to House results. Must be the fewest House-Presidency ticket splitting voters since the 1940s.

There werent many in 2004 or even 1996 for that matter. 

[opebo]

I agree with ABC's Amy Walter. Unlike 2006, 2008 or 2010, there was no wave this year so all came to individual races.

Looked like two waves to me - a continuing steady tide going left (demographics and generational change) completely swamping white-angst/racism wave going right.

[afleitch]

I agree with ABC's Amy Walter. Unlike 2006, 2008 or 2010, there was no wave this year so all came to individual races.

Looked like two waves to me - a continuing steady tide going left (demographics and generational change) completely swamping white-angst/racism wave going right.

You might be right on that one. Currently the white electorate will likely drop to 69-70% in 2016 and then to 66-67% in 2020. If the Democrats maintain their minority edge and get some 'swingback' with the white electorate with a white candidate you are looking at landslide territory. The GOP have only won the national vote in a Presidential election once in 24 years.

[nhmagic]

Yeah, but the real question for 2016 is whether Obama's coalition turns out for all future democratic candidates or whether his coalition recedes back into the shadows with a Biden or Clinton candidacy.  I also wonder if the black vote holds up for say the fake Obama down in Texas, Julian Castro.  By the way, are there any VP's who have lost their party's nomination once they chose to run?

My hunch is that Obama built a coalition for himself and that it won't be nearly as strong in the next election, especially when faced with a Rubio/Martinez (or vice versa).

[NHI]

Yeah, but the real question for 2016 is whether Obama's coalition turns out for all future democratic candidates or whether his coalition recedes back into the shadows with a Biden or Clinton candidacy.  I also wonder if the black vote holds up for say the fake Obama down in Texas, Julian Castro.  By the way, are there any VP's who have lost their party's nomination once they chose to run?

My hunch is that Obama built a coalition for himself and that it won't be nearly as strong in the next election, especially when faced with a Rubio/Martinez (or vice versa).

I agree. I think the coalition is Obama's coalition, not the Democrat's.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

By the way, are there any VP's who have lost their party's nomination once they chose to run?

Yes.  The most recent was Barkley in 1952, and if RFK had not been assassinated, there's a good chance HHH would not have gotten the nod in 1968.

[nhmagic]

By the way, are there any VP's who have lost their party's nomination once they chose to run?

Yes.  The most recent was Barkley in 1952, and if RFK had not been assassinated, there's a good chance HHH would not have gotten the nod in 1968.

How rare is it though for it to happen?

[opebo]

Yeah, but the real question for 2016 is whether Obama's coalition turns out for all future democratic candidates or whether his coalition recedes back into the shadows with a Biden or Clinton candidacy.  I also wonder if the black vote holds up for say the fake Obama down in Texas, Julian Castro.  By the way, are there any VP's who have lost their party's nomination once they chose to run?

My hunch is that Obama built a coalition for himself and that it won't be nearly as strong in the next election, especially when faced with a Rubio/Martinez (or vice versa).

I agree. I think the coalition is Obama's coalition, not the Democrat's.

Guys, you could be right that Black turnout will be down a bit with a white candidate, but this isn't a huge factor given the fact that white turnout will be way down simply because there will be fewer whites.

Ultimately the only thing our side has to fear, and the only hope for your side, is some kind of massive swing by Hispanics.

[Badger]

Yeah, but the real question for 2016 is whether Obama's coalition turns out for all future democratic candidates or whether his coalition recedes back into the shadows with a Biden or Clinton candidacy.  I also wonder if the black vote holds up for say the fake Obama down in Texas, Julian Castro.  By the way, are there any VP's who have lost their party's nomination once they chose to run?

My hunch is that Obama built a coalition for himself and that it won't be nearly as strong in the next election, especially when faced with a Rubio/Martinez (or vice versa).

I agree. I think the coalition is Obama's coalition, not the Democrat's.

What you geniuses fail to note is a black candidate isn't necessarily going to get non-white cred automatically among Hispanic voters. That will transfer largely to any white Democratic candidate pushing the same policies against another GOP candidate of any race pushing the same meme.

[traininthedistance]

I don't think it makes sense to blame Paul Ryan. VP candidates can never help and can only hurt (Sarah Palin, Thomas Eagleton, James Stockdale, etc). Ryan didn't hurt Romney. He is a competent man and came across as so and there's really not a whole lot else a VP candidate can do besides that.

I know of at least one person who voted Romney rather than Johnson specifically because of the Ryan pick.  (This person being a mostly fiscal conservative from Wisconsin.  On social issues he's very, very strongly anti-abortion but apathetic to liberal-ish on many other things.)

I'm sure on balance that Ryan did very little, though.

[nhmagic]

Yeah, but the real question for 2016 is whether Obama's coalition turns out for all future democratic candidates or whether his coalition recedes back into the shadows with a Biden or Clinton candidacy.  I also wonder if the black vote holds up for say the fake Obama down in Texas, Julian Castro.  By the way, are there any VP's who have lost their party's nomination once they chose to run?

My hunch is that Obama built a coalition for himself and that it won't be nearly as strong in the next election, especially when faced with a Rubio/Martinez (or vice versa).

I agree. I think the coalition is Obama's coalition, not the Democrat's.

What you geniuses fail to note is a black candidate isn't necessarily going to get non-white cred automatically among Hispanic voters. That will transfer largely to any white Democratic candidate pushing the same policies against another GOP candidate of any race pushing the same meme.

Snippy today are we?  I was talking about a black voter turning out for a Latino democrat.  There is a divide between the two communities and they may not turnout if they think that Latinos will get all of the attention from a Latino democrat.  

Time will tell. About the messaging - of course if someone runs the same way Romney did then they will be defeated.  The only thing that brings us back is a full-fledged principled defense of conservatism - the same way you guys got back after Kerry.

[ajb]

Yeah, but the real question for 2016 is whether Obama's coalition turns out for all future democratic candidates or whether his coalition recedes back into the shadows with a Biden or Clinton candidacy.  I also wonder if the black vote holds up for say the fake Obama down in Texas, Julian Castro.  By the way, are there any VP's who have lost their party's nomination once they chose to run?

My hunch is that Obama built a coalition for himself and that it won't be nearly as strong in the next election, especially when faced with a Rubio/Martinez (or vice versa).

The coalition is essentially the same as the McGovern/Mondale/Dukakis/Gore/Kerry coalition. The two big things that have changed are:
1) the demographics now make that coalition inherently more viable than it was even a decade ago;
2) the Obama campaign has been utterly brilliant at identifying the individual members of their coalition, and getting them out to vote.

1), obviously, will hold true in 2016 regardless of the racial identity of the Democratic candidate of the day. 2) might be slightly influenced by who the candidate is, but will be more influenced by whether or not the current campaign staff and methods remain, and are enhanced.

I think the best early sign of who's going to get the 2016 Democratic nomination for President will be who inherits the bulk of the Obama campaign infrastructure.

I agree. I think the coalition is Obama's coalition, not the Democrat's.

What you geniuses fail to note is a black candidate isn't necessarily going to get non-white cred automatically among Hispanic voters. That will transfer largely to any white Democratic candidate pushing the same policies against another GOP candidate of any race pushing the same meme.

Snippy today are we?  I was talking about a black voter turning out for a Latino democrat.  There is a divide between the two communities and they may not turnout if they think that Latinos will get all of the attention from a Latino democrat.  

Time will tell. About the messaging - of course if someone runs the same way Romney did then they will be defeated.  The only thing that brings us back is a full-fledged principled defense of conservatism - the same way you guys got back after Kerry.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Yeah, but the real question for 2016 is whether Obama's coalition turns out for all future democratic candidates or whether his coalition recedes back into the shadows with a Biden or Clinton candidacy.  I also wonder if the black vote holds up for say the fake Obama down in Texas, Julian Castro.  By the way, are there any VP's who have lost their party's nomination once they chose to run?

My hunch is that Obama built a coalition for himself and that it won't be nearly as strong in the next election, especially when faced with a Rubio/Martinez (or vice versa).

I agree. I think the coalition is Obama's coalition, not the Democrat's.

Somebody owes me $10, the "those people will never turn up in 2016" argument from the GOP is what I was expecting to emerge in late 2015... so congrats on being early.

[nhmagic]

Yeah, but the real question for 2016 is whether Obama's coalition turns out for all future democratic candidates or whether his coalition recedes back into the shadows with a Biden or Clinton candidacy.  I also wonder if the black vote holds up for say the fake Obama down in Texas, Julian Castro.  By the way, are there any VP's who have lost their party's nomination once they chose to run?

My hunch is that Obama built a coalition for himself and that it won't be nearly as strong in the next election, especially when faced with a Rubio/Martinez (or vice versa).

I agree. I think the coalition is Obama's coalition, not the Democrat's.

Somebody owes me $10, the "those people will never turn up in 2016" argument from the GOP is what I was expecting to emerge in late 2015... so congrats on being early.

Well, I'm not paying you anything   Your president is going to take plenty of my money over the next 4 years.  Ah, just can't wait for the cadillac tax coming onto my health insurance - that ones gonna be a real laugh riot.

[Benj]

"[B]y late October polls showed that Romney was finally beginning to see a surge". No. At least get your facts right.

Romney saw a surge in the polls in early October, immediately following the first debate. He did not thereafter "have momentum" or "continue to surge" or otherwise gain strength as October continued. The media said as much many times, but they demonstrated their ignorance of the state of the race repeatedly and often. In fact, Romney slowly but surely lost ground in the polls every day from about October 11 until the election. The campaign could have done something to stop this steady erosion (possibly, though my theory was and still is that Romney's post-debate gains were entirely illusory to begin with), but it chose instead to believe an overhyped media narrative and ignore reality.

I did not write this article so i don't know why you are attacking me. This article was written by  Christopher Ruddy at Newsmax. Lol.....

Was criticizing the author, not you.

[ingemann]

Honestly, the GOP could have nominated a jar of mayonnaise and it still would have gotten about 48% of the vote based purely on Obama hatred. Romney nor his campaign were dynamic enough to compete against Obama's demographic advantage and GOTV efforts.

Then of course there's the fact that the GOP has alienated wide swaths of the electorate. Also, the jar of mayonnaise might have been more exciting than Mitt Romney.

It do show the weakness of coming to any conclusion based on this election. Romney came across as maybe the least sympathic candidate that anybody could remember. He came across as sneering opportunistic aristrocrat, who lacked principles and was personal abhorent (most people was  disgusted by the whole dog on roof and cutting the crying kid's hair). While the Republican primary showed that GOP had worse candidates, he was more or less the worst kind of person to nominate even outside a economic crisis, but in a economic crisis I think that you couldn't choose a guy more likely to turn off people.

If GOP choose someone more sympathic next time, someone willing to stand on his record, whether liberal or conservative, someone who is at least able to feign empathy for the average American and talk about subjects people care about. I think they have a good chance.