Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 11, 2019, 08:42:06 am
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Predictions close today at noon

  Atlas Forum
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results
  2012 U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderators: Torie, Senator ON Progressive)
  Romney's Biggest Mistake
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print
Author Topic: Romney's Biggest Mistake  (Read 10282 times)
mieastwick
Full Member
***
Posts: 214


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: May 07, 2017, 06:27:18 pm »

Romney's comment that he likes to fire people was probably his biggest mistake, as more voters have reason to fear being fired than are in a position to fire others.

This will rank with Tom Dewey's "He should be shot at sunrise" remark.
If Donald Trump had said that, it would not have hurt him in the least bit. And it, on its own, did not hurt Romney in the least bit, either. It's Romney's broader message that sucked for the rust belt, and Trump's message that won him it. See The Gamble: Choice and Chance in the 2012 Presidential Election for more evidence on the long-term lack of effect of gaffes.
Logged
sg0508
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,653
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: July 22, 2017, 01:24:23 pm »

The 47% comment and the elitist smirk that made him come across like a typical top 1% sociopath certainly didn't help.
Logged
super6646
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 314


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: September 09, 2017, 11:15:29 am »

The problem is Romney like Hillary was badly damaged in the primaries especially by Newt Gingrich and the 20 debates.


To make up for that Romney should have done this


1. Choose Marco Rubio has his VP
2. Bring up the Reagan recovery more and compare it to the Obama recovery
3. Dont say the 47% comment
4. On immigration , remind people that Obama had a filibuster proof majority and didnt do anything, and his immigration policy is PRO LEGAL IMMIGRANT(which it was)
5. Put obama on the defensive

-How does that help him win Ohio, a state which is now (probably ludicrously) considered a solid Republican state by the denizens of Atlas?

To make up for his weaknesses, Romney shouldn't have bothered with his cutsey business conservative/Bushian message. He should have discarded it for the garbage it was. People saw him as an out-of-touch elitist. He should have brushed up on his populist cred.

Populist cred caused Trump to lose votes compared to Romney (compare Trump's 45.9% to Romney's 47.2%); he simply got lucky that Hillary declined from Obama as well. (Though Trump '16 compared to Obama '12 does do slightly better in the electoral vote; Trump gains Ohio and only drops NE-2). Romney's platform had more support from the voters than Trump's.

There was far more third party vote in 2016. Trump got over a million more votes than Mitt Romney.
Logged
Statilius the Epicurean
Thersites
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,929
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: September 12, 2017, 12:18:47 pm »

2016 proved that tough primaries don't matter. Donald Trump went through the most divisive GOP primary in decades, several of his opponents outright refused to endorse him or explictly said he was unfit to serve and much of the party still hadn't united behind Trump by November, but he won regardless. Obama also had a rough and divisive primary against Hillary Clinton in 2008, while McCain glided to victory in February, yet Obama crushed McCain in a landslide.

Trump barrelled through his primary not changing his message one iota for the general. Romney tried to pivot from being a "severely conservative" advocate of "self-deportation" to a standard business Republican.
Logged
AP
Admiral President
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,777
Israel


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: September 12, 2017, 12:24:17 pm »

47%, binders full of women, corporations are people, immediately come to mind. Of course, this is nothing compared to what we heard in 2016, but Romney didn't have an extremely loyal base to back him up and defend him.
Logged
L.D. Smith
MormDem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,774
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: October 13, 2017, 12:29:44 am »

He tried for The Midwest when he should've holed up Virginia, Florida, and Ohio.


Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,139
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: October 13, 2017, 02:18:13 am »

He tried for The Midwest when he should've holed up Virginia, Florida, and Ohio.

If Romney had won Florida, he would have had 235. If he had won Virginia, he would have had 248 and if he had won Ohio, he would have 266.

He was four short of victory, even with his inside straight. He needed either Colorado, Pennsylvania or New Hampshire to win on top of that.

Trump basically conceded Virginia. He campaigned there a few times, but conceding VA and instead put more time into PA, which not only replaces the missing 13, it gets you 7 more on top of that which accounts for the missing 6 electoral votes that Romney needed. As I recall there were maps for Romney's campaign that didn't even include PA as a swing state. Trump and Romney also performed exactly the same in Bucks county, Trump did worse in Chester, but Trump did massively better in Lehigh and Lackawanna valley's (the traditional swing region that matches the Statewide result), Harrisburg Metro (Dauphin is now a Swing County), NW, West Central (That blob of post industrial rural counties between Pittsburgh and Penn State) and SW PA compared to Romney. Trump also did better in North Philly then Romney.

Trump also traded college educated whites in the sunbelt for working class whites in the rust belt, which flipped the electoral college skew away from the Democrats (which they gained by from moving CO, IA and NH so Democratic under Obama. Remember an even shift to a tie PV still had Obama winning the EC in 2012).

Romney's biggest mistake was not continuing the trade and immigration message he had in 2007 into the 2012 general election. He had already made his bed on immigration in the primaries in both campaigns, the notion that he could pivot away from that was a big error and the product of poor campaign consultants and pollsters who fed into a horrendous strategy. They bought into the narrative that African-American turnout would drop along with youth vote because of the economy and thus their models would suddenly became reality. They couldn't envision that the models were wrong and that the voters would show up on election day but not the polls. It is no accident that Trump likewise won on the backs of voters who don't show up well in polling data.

If you recall, in 2013 there was an article by Sean Trende in 2013 that talked about the missing White Working Class voters to the tune of almost 6 million in 2012. Trump got 2 million more votes than Romney, despite losing massive numbers of college educated whites. It is no accident that most of the states that trended or flipped to Trump were in that belt from Maine to New Mexico that Sean Trende talked about.
Logged
President Griffin
Adam Griffin
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,641
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: April 03, 2018, 12:13:05 am »
« Edited: April 03, 2018, 12:16:57 am by Fmr. Pres. Griff »

In retrospect, Romney (or any GOP candidate) was likely screwed from the get-go. The Obama campaign ran a ruthless and highly-effective strategy that mastered just about everything a campaign could master.

Romney was defined very early on and the clowncar process of the primary extended the time Romney had to spend fighting his fellow party members, giving Obama the resources to clobber the presumptive nominee (not doing the same to Trump, above all else, was the Clinton's campaign biggest f[inks]k-up in 2016, in my opinion).

Of course, Romney created a thousand flubs on his own that made for perfect campaign fodder, but even if he had not, the ruthless technological efficiency of the Obama campaign would've cut him down. Take one look at the 12 swing states in 2012:

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even if Romney had flipped FL & OH, that only would've gotten him to 253. Notice the bolded segment of swing states: the Obama campaign was incredibly precise in generating winning results in a cluster across 9 of the 12 swing states, winning with 51-53% of the vote; five are within 1 point of each other. That's incredible efficiency, and basically maxed out vote shares in every state that Obama won.

Where exactly was Romney gonna make up the 5.5 percentage points by which he lost in CO/VA & PA? That's a huge difference - comparable to GA's 2016 result. Imagine both campaigns contesting GA in a full-throated capacity in 2016, claiming it was a pure toss-up, and then Hillary losing by the margin she did.

Romney was screwed from day one: not because he was a gaffe machine, but because he was running against the best campaign in the history of American politics.
Logged
America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗
TexArkana
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,436
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: April 03, 2018, 01:36:10 pm »

The 2012 election was definitely not winnable for Republicans.


Yes it was if the liberal media didn't keep smearing Romney
Nah, Obama was just a better candidate and campaigner than Mitt, and Romney didn't effectively counter the characterizations that were made of him.
Logged
Judy Baar Topinka
Green Line
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,510
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: April 03, 2018, 07:47:46 pm »

"Let Detroit go bankrupt"
Logged
dw93
DWL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,896
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: April 03, 2018, 09:24:52 pm »

LOL at everyone saying Obama was unbeatable. He was as vulnerable as Bush was in 2004.  What mainly made Obama's 2012 margin bigger than Bush's 2004 margin was the fact that Romney was a worse candidate/campaigner than Kerry and Romney also had a rougher time in the primary than Kerry did. Sure, while it was the Obama campaign that amplified the notion that Romney was a flip flopper and an out of touch elitist, it was Romney's primary opponents that defined him as such. It was also during the primaries that Romney said "corporations are people my friend" and "I like being able to fire people."

All of this and no strong base of support to defend him. He was already damaged going into the general and only damaged himself more with the 47% remark, the "Binders full of Women" thing, and the "Let Detroit Fail" gaffe. There was also his letting the momentum from his strong performance in Debate #1 slip away with poor performances in 2 and 3. Eddie Munster getting spanked by Crazy Uncle Joe in the VP debate didn't help either (I don't Ryan was a bad pick, but then again almost anyone besides Michelle Bachmann would've been an improvement from Palin). I dare say had Obama not had his issues (a weak recovery from the Great Recession, the flaws of Obamacare, etc...) Romney would've gotten beat as badly as Bob Dole did in 1996 if not worse.

All in all I still maintain that while Jon Huntsman agreeing to be  Obama's Ambassador to China was good in a "Country first" sense, it was a dumb move politically. Had he finished out his term in Utah instead and then run for President in 2012, he wouldn't have had his association with the President hurting him with the base, so with this and with the fact that his record in Utah was more successful (and for the base's sake more conservative) than Romney's, he very well might've emerged as the nominee and likely would've beaten Obama in the general.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,054


Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -0.10

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: April 03, 2018, 09:38:38 pm »

LOL at everyone saying Obama was unbeatable. He was as vulnerable as Bush was in 2004.  What mainly made Obama's 2012 margin bigger than Bush's 2004 margin was the fact that Romney was a worse candidate/campaigner than Kerry and Romney also had a rougher time in the primary than Kerry did. Sure, while it was the Obama campaign that amplified the notion that Romney was a flip flopper and an out of touch elitist, it was Romney's primary opponents that defined him as such. It was also during the primaries that Romney said "corporations are people my friend" and "I like being able to fire people."

All of this and no strong base of support to defend him. He was already damaged going into the general and only damaged himself more with the 47% remark, the "Binders full of Women" thing, and the "Let Detroit Fail" gaffe. There was also his letting the momentum from his strong performance in Debate #1 slip away with poor performances in 2 and 3. Eddie Munster getting spanked by Crazy Uncle Joe in the VP debate didn't help either (I don't Ryan was a bad pick, but then again almost anyone besides Michelle Bachmann would've been an improvement from Palin). I dare say had Obama not had his issues (a weak recovery from the Great Recession, the flaws of Obamacare, etc...) Romney would've gotten beat as badly as Bob Dole did in 1996 if not worse.

All in all I still maintain that while Jon Huntsman agreeing to be  Obama's Ambassador to China was good in a "Country first" sense, it was a dumb move politically. Had he finished out his term in Utah instead and then run for President in 2012, he wouldn't have had his association with the President hurting him with the base, so with this and with the fact that his record in Utah was more successful (and for the base's sake more conservative) than Romney's, he very well might've emerged as the nominee and likely would've beaten Obama in the general.


Bush 2004 state by state numbers would actually beat Obama's 2012 state by state numbers


Here would be the Bush 2004 vs Obama 2012 map:



Bush 275
Obama 263
Logged
dw93
DWL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,896
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: April 03, 2018, 09:52:37 pm »

LOL at everyone saying Obama was unbeatable. He was as vulnerable as Bush was in 2004.  What mainly made Obama's 2012 margin bigger than Bush's 2004 margin was the fact that Romney was a worse candidate/campaigner than Kerry and Romney also had a rougher time in the primary than Kerry did. Sure, while it was the Obama campaign that amplified the notion that Romney was a flip flopper and an out of touch elitist, it was Romney's primary opponents that defined him as such. It was also during the primaries that Romney said "corporations are people my friend" and "I like being able to fire people."

All of this and no strong base of support to defend him. He was already damaged going into the general and only damaged himself more with the 47% remark, the "Binders full of Women" thing, and the "Let Detroit Fail" gaffe. There was also his letting the momentum from his strong performance in Debate #1 slip away with poor performances in 2 and 3. Eddie Munster getting spanked by Crazy Uncle Joe in the VP debate didn't help either (I don't Ryan was a bad pick, but then again almost anyone besides Michelle Bachmann would've been an improvement from Palin). I dare say had Obama not had his issues (a weak recovery from the Great Recession, the flaws of Obamacare, etc...) Romney would've gotten beat as badly as Bob Dole did in 1996 if not worse.

All in all I still maintain that while Jon Huntsman agreeing to be  Obama's Ambassador to China was good in a "Country first" sense, it was a dumb move politically. Had he finished out his term in Utah instead and then run for President in 2012, he wouldn't have had his association with the President hurting him with the base, so with this and with the fact that his record in Utah was more successful (and for the base's sake more conservative) than Romney's, he very well might've emerged as the nominee and likely would've beaten Obama in the general.


Bush 2004 state by state numbers would actually beat Obama's 2012 state by state numbers


Here would be the Bush 2004 vs Obama 2012 map:



Bush 275
Obama 263


I was going solely by electoral vote (286 for Bush vs. 332 for Obama). I think Obama even slightly outperformed Bush in the popular vote or at least did even with him percentage wise. Even with state by state numbers, Bush didn't do that much better than Obama. All and all, I still think Romney was a worse candidate/campaigner than Kerry, and I'm even (to the best of my ability) factoring out my ideological bias as I say this.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,054


Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -0.10

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: April 03, 2018, 10:02:52 pm »

LOL at everyone saying Obama was unbeatable. He was as vulnerable as Bush was in 2004.  What mainly made Obama's 2012 margin bigger than Bush's 2004 margin was the fact that Romney was a worse candidate/campaigner than Kerry and Romney also had a rougher time in the primary than Kerry did. Sure, while it was the Obama campaign that amplified the notion that Romney was a flip flopper and an out of touch elitist, it was Romney's primary opponents that defined him as such. It was also during the primaries that Romney said "corporations are people my friend" and "I like being able to fire people."

All of this and no strong base of support to defend him. He was already damaged going into the general and only damaged himself more with the 47% remark, the "Binders full of Women" thing, and the "Let Detroit Fail" gaffe. There was also his letting the momentum from his strong performance in Debate #1 slip away with poor performances in 2 and 3. Eddie Munster getting spanked by Crazy Uncle Joe in the VP debate didn't help either (I don't Ryan was a bad pick, but then again almost anyone besides Michelle Bachmann would've been an improvement from Palin). I dare say had Obama not had his issues (a weak recovery from the Great Recession, the flaws of Obamacare, etc...) Romney would've gotten beat as badly as Bob Dole did in 1996 if not worse.

All in all I still maintain that while Jon Huntsman agreeing to be  Obama's Ambassador to China was good in a "Country first" sense, it was a dumb move politically. Had he finished out his term in Utah instead and then run for President in 2012, he wouldn't have had his association with the President hurting him with the base, so with this and with the fact that his record in Utah was more successful (and for the base's sake more conservative) than Romney's, he very well might've emerged as the nominee and likely would've beaten Obama in the general.


Bush 2004 state by state numbers would actually beat Obama's 2012 state by state numbers


Here would be the Bush 2004 vs Obama 2012 map:



Bush 275
Obama 263


I was going solely by electoral vote (286 for Bush vs. 332 for Obama). I think Obama even slightly outperformed Bush in the popular vote or at least did even with him percentage wise. Even with state by state numbers, Bush didn't do that much better than Obama. All and all, I still think Romney was a worse candidate/campaigner than Kerry, and I'm even (to the best of my ability) factoring out my ideological bias as I say this.

Problem for Mitt was his strategy to get to 270 was that map + NH, and NV and that only would only get him to 285 meaning all Obama still needed was OH(Mitt wasnt going to win IA or WI without OH).


Logged
dw93
DWL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,896
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: April 03, 2018, 10:18:54 pm »

LOL at everyone saying Obama was unbeatable. He was as vulnerable as Bush was in 2004.  What mainly made Obama's 2012 margin bigger than Bush's 2004 margin was the fact that Romney was a worse candidate/campaigner than Kerry and Romney also had a rougher time in the primary than Kerry did. Sure, while it was the Obama campaign that amplified the notion that Romney was a flip flopper and an out of touch elitist, it was Romney's primary opponents that defined him as such. It was also during the primaries that Romney said "corporations are people my friend" and "I like being able to fire people."

All of this and no strong base of support to defend him. He was already damaged going into the general and only damaged himself more with the 47% remark, the "Binders full of Women" thing, and the "Let Detroit Fail" gaffe. There was also his letting the momentum from his strong performance in Debate #1 slip away with poor performances in 2 and 3. Eddie Munster getting spanked by Crazy Uncle Joe in the VP debate didn't help either (I don't Ryan was a bad pick, but then again almost anyone besides Michelle Bachmann would've been an improvement from Palin). I dare say had Obama not had his issues (a weak recovery from the Great Recession, the flaws of Obamacare, etc...) Romney would've gotten beat as badly as Bob Dole did in 1996 if not worse.

All in all I still maintain that while Jon Huntsman agreeing to be  Obama's Ambassador to China was good in a "Country first" sense, it was a dumb move politically. Had he finished out his term in Utah instead and then run for President in 2012, he wouldn't have had his association with the President hurting him with the base, so with this and with the fact that his record in Utah was more successful (and for the base's sake more conservative) than Romney's, he very well might've emerged as the nominee and likely would've beaten Obama in the general.


Bush 2004 state by state numbers would actually beat Obama's 2012 state by state numbers


Here would be the Bush 2004 vs Obama 2012 map:



Bush 275
Obama 263


I was going solely by electoral vote (286 for Bush vs. 332 for Obama). I think Obama even slightly outperformed Bush in the popular vote or at least did even with him percentage wise. Even with state by state numbers, Bush didn't do that much better than Obama. All and all, I still think Romney was a worse candidate/campaigner than Kerry, and I'm even (to the best of my ability) factoring out my ideological bias as I say this.

Problem for Mitt was his strategy to get to 270 was that map + NH, and NV and that only would only get him to 285 meaning all Obama still needed was OH(Mitt wasnt going to win IA or WI without OH).




Neither Romney or Kerry was getting above 300 Electoral votes in those elections. Bush and Obama were both vulnerable, but not vulnerable enough to warrant anything worse than a narrow defeat.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,054


Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -0.10

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: April 04, 2018, 01:37:39 am »

LOL at everyone saying Obama was unbeatable. He was as vulnerable as Bush was in 2004.  What mainly made Obama's 2012 margin bigger than Bush's 2004 margin was the fact that Romney was a worse candidate/campaigner than Kerry and Romney also had a rougher time in the primary than Kerry did. Sure, while it was the Obama campaign that amplified the notion that Romney was a flip flopper and an out of touch elitist, it was Romney's primary opponents that defined him as such. It was also during the primaries that Romney said "corporations are people my friend" and "I like being able to fire people."

All of this and no strong base of support to defend him. He was already damaged going into the general and only damaged himself more with the 47% remark, the "Binders full of Women" thing, and the "Let Detroit Fail" gaffe. There was also his letting the momentum from his strong performance in Debate #1 slip away with poor performances in 2 and 3. Eddie Munster getting spanked by Crazy Uncle Joe in the VP debate didn't help either (I don't Ryan was a bad pick, but then again almost anyone besides Michelle Bachmann would've been an improvement from Palin). I dare say had Obama not had his issues (a weak recovery from the Great Recession, the flaws of Obamacare, etc...) Romney would've gotten beat as badly as Bob Dole did in 1996 if not worse.

All in all I still maintain that while Jon Huntsman agreeing to be  Obama's Ambassador to China was good in a "Country first" sense, it was a dumb move politically. Had he finished out his term in Utah instead and then run for President in 2012, he wouldn't have had his association with the President hurting him with the base, so with this and with the fact that his record in Utah was more successful (and for the base's sake more conservative) than Romney's, he very well might've emerged as the nominee and likely would've beaten Obama in the general.


Bush 2004 state by state numbers would actually beat Obama's 2012 state by state numbers


Here would be the Bush 2004 vs Obama 2012 map:



Bush 275
Obama 263


I was going solely by electoral vote (286 for Bush vs. 332 for Obama). I think Obama even slightly outperformed Bush in the popular vote or at least did even with him percentage wise. Even with state by state numbers, Bush didn't do that much better than Obama. All and all, I still think Romney was a worse candidate/campaigner than Kerry, and I'm even (to the best of my ability) factoring out my ideological bias as I say this.

Problem for Mitt was his strategy to get to 270 was that map + NH, and NV and that only would only get him to 285 meaning all Obama still needed was OH(Mitt wasnt going to win IA or WI without OH).




Neither Romney or Kerry was getting above 300 Electoral votes in those elections. Bush and Obama were both vulnerable, but not vulnerable enough to warrant anything worse than a narrow defeat.


I think Kerry getting 311:



Kerry/Bob Graham 311
Bush/Cheney 227

and Romney getting 311 as well



Romney/Portman 311
Obama/Biden 227



Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,139
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: April 04, 2018, 02:51:28 am »

It is rather fitting for Adam to be the one to talk about it all coming down to having more finely tuned gears in the machine, but at the end of the people cast votes not machines and issues/culture/tribalism motivate voters.


A lot of people voted for Obama, but would have voted for someone else (even if said candidate didn't run that year). The fact this operation determined he had X supporters at a given time and turned them out to get 51% in 11/12 states downplays the process of how those voters got to that point.
Logged
Skill and Chance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,730
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: April 29, 2018, 12:46:34 pm »

Hard to say what Romney's biggest mistake was; he was running a campaign against a popular, charismatic incumbent with a strong campaign in a time of economic growth. Coming within 4 percent was an amazing result; anyone else would've lost by double-digits.

Obama had approval ratings in the negatives, it wasn't 2016. 

RCP has Obama's approval at 50/47 on Election Day 2012, which isn't great but is definitely above-water and almost perfectly resembles the actual election result of 51/47. Obama's approval ratings were consistently positive from September 8, 2012, to May 29, 2013, inclusive.

With this in mind, what PV share gives Trump 270 EV in 2020?  Last time, it would have been about 45.4%- he wins with Wisconsin and ME-02 (which was a Trump blowout at the CD level). 
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC