Previous post:

Next post:

Seven Reasons Why Romney Lost

by Keith Koffler on November 13, 2012, 11:20 am

1. A failure to BE a conservative.

Every time Republicans nominate a candidate who doesn’t strongly back conservative ideals – George H.W. Bush in 1992, Bob Dole in 1996, and John McCain in 2008 – they lose. And every time a moderate candidate loses, everyone calls for Republicans to throw the “crazy conservatives” out of the Party and turn everyone into moderates.

Go Figyah.

Bush the Elder is the perfect case for this. In 1988, he ran as the inheritor of the Reagan mantle and won. But by 1992, having raised taxes, it was clear he was just another Country Club Republican, and voters turned on him.

Romney is a moderate. His Massachusetts Romneycare plan was the template for Obamacare. He tried to change himself into a conservative, but everyone knew he wasn’t. And so many of people who should have been his voters didn’t turn out to the polls, thinking it didn’t make much difference.

2. Romney failed to SELL conservative ideas

He picked conservative Paul Ryan, but then locked him in the attic. Who really heard Ryan spreading his gospel?

Romney’s biggest idea seemed to be tax reform, which ain’t the same as tax cutting. He was frightened it would hurt him to make the tough conservative case for Medicare and Social Security reform. He shied away from all social issues. Sure, he mentioned these things, but they weren’t the center of his campaign.

The last person to run on competency was Michael Dukakis. And as we all know, he won and served for four terms.

Instead of trying to appease Latinos, African Americans, Blackfoot Indians, and any other group that might feel insulted by conservative ideas, Romney should have gone right into their neighborhoods and told them all about it. How about a conversation with black Americans about how the last 50 years of increasing government spending has worked out for them?

3. He failed to define the causes of the recession.

This has been mostly ignored by commentators. By allowing Obama to blame everything wrong with the economy on George W. Bush, Romney was unable to embrace the conservative aspects of Bush’s presidency. In fact, the Great Recession was caused by liberal housing policies – designed to get people into homes they couldn’t afford – that were begun in earnest by Bill Clinton and defended ruthlessly by Democrats in Congress. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are essentially Democratic institutions.

Not that Bush was a hardcore conservative. But he passed a major tax cut, tried to reform Social Security, and was generally conservative on social issues, with the exception of immigration.

4. He let Obama define him early on

The minute Romney clinched the nomination, dozens of unauthorized biographers in the Obama Chicago campaign headquarter got to work creating a narrative that said he was a heartless rich guy who was mean to animals and probably cheated on his taxes. Romney largely held his fire, and was never able to completely counter the narrative when he eventually tried at the GOP convention.

5. The 47 percent remark

This was an egregious error that made him sound like he didn’t care about many Americans who get federal help. Not all of them are “dependent.” The error stemmed from his effort to make his moderate self sound like a “severe Conservative” to the donors he was addressing.

5. A poorly run campaign

Romney’s campaign was inefficient and marked by infighting. The place leaked like a laundry room faucet, handing out insider stories to anyone who wanted them. As any journalist will tell you – though they love getting the inside dope – the first sign of a bad campaign is one that airs its dirty laundry DURING the campaign.

6. Two white guys

I don’t think we need affirmative action tickets on either side of the aisle. But I think, running against the nation’s first black president – something which is deeply moving even to many of Obama’s political opponents – that this just wasn’t the year to run two pasty white guys with pretty blond wives.

7. A failure to use the media

Where was Romney? Obama was appearing on all kinds of ridiculous shows, including David Letterman and The View. Romney didn’t have to go the undignified route, but he could have spent a lot more time having his image beamed for free over the airwaves.

*******

What do you think of this? And are there other reasons you can put your finger on?

{ 1 trackback }

{ 229 comments }

Chris November 13, 2012 at 4:10 pm

Along with the 47% remark, consider these GSWs to the foot:

* “I don’t care about the very poor — there’s already a safety net”
* “I like being able to fire people”

More seriously, people are still worried about their economic futures, and Obama successfully spoke to that worry, saying the gov’t would “be there” for you, while Romney & Ryan were saying that the gov’t could no longer afford to “be there” for you.

While R&R’s message is technically accurate, the memories of the 2008 panic are still very fresh, and Obama’s people did not need to even try to instill fear — it’s still there. 2012 was not the time to pitch a return to a theme of rough and ready capitalism. Their economic platform needed to be sold with a lot of assurances that unemployment, food stamps, etc would not be taken away (look at the House fights over unemployment benefit extensions). Obama was the “safe” choice for the economically hurting, who don’t really care whether something is fiscally sustainable or not.

*GSW = gun-shot wound

mascmen7 November 13, 2012 at 4:10 pm

Romney ads did not appear in Miami TV market until 3 weeks prior to election. Many radio ads about 5 weeks prior. Excellent article which nailed major points especially who caused recession. It was Clinton demanding everyone must be given a house with Fannie and Freddie cooperating with Goldman Sachs to sell the bad mortgages to world’s banks and Bush was blamed by Obama for Clinton’s fiasco. Lying gets Obama everything from Mombasa, Moscow, Jakarta to the White House.

jayzee November 13, 2012 at 4:11 pm

As a liberal trolling on this site for amusement, I have to say I am appalled by the thinly – and sometimes not so thinly – veiled racism in many of the comments here. Appalled, but not surprised; look at the electoral map – it’s the old south all over again.

Quintis Arrius November 13, 2012 at 5:37 pm

Hey jayzee. Some points to consider: The old south was the old south post-Civil War when returning democrat Confererate officers took over the reigns of government in AK, AL, SC, NC, TN, GA, and LA. These democrats gave us “poll taxes”, whites-only schools and limited economic opportunities for blacks. Democrats gave us the KKK. The republican north was so appalled at the return of the democratic old guard, they placed a moritorium on voting in Congress for these democrats for two years during early reconstruction. Blacks left the “Old South” for jobs in the north and west. With the Indian Wars heating up in the 1880s the final stages of reconstruction were cut short. (Reconstruction used standing Union soldiers to guard polling places.)
The present day political picture in the south looks far different than the picture “you learned” to hate in school. For example, North Carolina is now totally republican, the first time in 124 years! (1880).
Instead of loving the Democrats you think care for you, thank a conservative republican.

Cynical Observer November 14, 2012 at 12:01 am

Thank you! I have been making the same point to so many friends. It was the Republicans who were the bigger movers for the Civil Rights Act. It was a Republican president who sent troops into the south to desegregate the schools (Eisenhower). It was Democrats who were behind Jim Crow. George Wallace … Bull Connor … Democrats. The guys who filibustered the Civil Rights Act … generally, Democrats. It’s online, look it up. Look at Robert Byrd … a Klan ORGANIZER, for Chrissake. What prominent Republican had a background like that?

The president who segregated the federal workforce: Woodrow Wilson, Democrat. The president who put the first black in the cabinet: Eisenhower, Republican. Folks like Condi Rice and Colin Powell were chosen by a Republican (sorry, just got the memo, it seems that they’re not really black, because they’re Republican — never mind).

As for the “Republicans hate Hispanics” meme … remind me, who was it behind the 1986 amnesty? Why, I do believe that was Ronald Reagan. Uh, yeah, Republican. And Hispanic voters have shown their gratitude ever since by voting heavily for Democrats (as have black voters). Yeah, that amnesty really helped the GOP with Hispanics. It was so successful, we should do it again. No? Then we’re haters.

rulierose November 13, 2012 at 6:01 pm

“thinly veiled racism” = “disagreeing with Obama and disliking the nasty way he won reelection.”

John Davis November 13, 2012 at 4:22 pm

1) Hurricane Sandy changed the polls by several points right before the election. Romney was probably winning up until then.

2) It is hard to compete with free stuff. Welfare recipients increased by 2 million in the last 2 months alone.

Bill November 13, 2012 at 5:14 pm

John: You are misinformed. The Democrats carried 9 of the 10 wealthiest States in the country. Only Alaska, of the top 10, went Romney. also, The Dems carried a large majority of the wealthiest counties.
The Right like to portray the Dems as takers. In actual fact, Democrats have higher incomes and net worth than Republicans. They are also better educated and younger. Why would you not join up? Your portrayal is just plain wrong.

Anna Alexander November 13, 2012 at 4:31 pm

We lost because we live in a nation of “takers.” Obama added free health care, free birth control and abortion services, more food stamp access, etc. People were afraid of losing those things, so that is why they voted for Obama. Romney/Ryan was a qualified, competent ticket, and America lost a great opportunity by not electing them.

Bill November 13, 2012 at 5:19 pm

Anna: You are so totally incorrect. Obamacare will help more Americans than any other program in 50 years. Millions of retiring boomers will thank God for the day it was passed.

As for a nation of takers, you should read more than Ayn Rand. She is a high school lit curiosity that fires up intellectual adolescents like Ryan. Take a University level philosophy course and you will find that today’s GOP conservatism is laughably out of step.

rulierose November 13, 2012 at 6:05 pm

oh, great idea Bill! a “university-level philosophy course”! that’ll solve everything.

it is true that spending time on any American college campus will remind you that many people think the GOP is “laughably out of step.” half of them are young, and still on their parents’ health insurance. the other half is the professoriate, who strap on their Birkenstocks to protest the Gaza blockade on weekends and worry about global warming.

I don’t think we need look to THEM for any wisdom.

Anna Alexander November 13, 2012 at 6:14 pm

Bill: Surveys show the majority of university professors describe themselves as “liberal.” A university-level course will only be more of the same liberal diatribe. Been there, done that.

carolinagirl November 13, 2012 at 8:39 pm

Bill, As one who actually took a philosophy course, it is obvious that you are absolutely “tripping” on yourself and condescending. It sounds like you’re saying that it’s not cool to be “conservative.” Now that’s laughable.

Andrew P November 13, 2012 at 10:44 pm

You are being sarcastic, aren’t you? Obamacare is destined to be an epic, historic, failure. Its perverse incentives and unworkable schemes will be such a disaster, that the election campaign 4 years from now is guaranteed to be about how the USA pays for health care. I don’t know who the nominees are in 2016 but I know this: The Dem nominee will propose implementing a simple single payer system to fix the unworkable structure of ObamaCare. The GOP nominee will propose a free market system.

CarlottaX November 13, 2012 at 4:37 pm

#8…Religious bigotry on the part of 3 million+ white voters who didn’t show up to vote. Maybe not all but it was evident back in the primaries that there were people out there completely unwilling to vote for a Mormon no matter what. Absolutely shameful if true.

John Gjertsen November 13, 2012 at 4:56 pm

that’s a pretty sweeping generalization to chalk it all up to religious bigotry. I’m a white evangelical Christian and I voted for Gary Johnson because Romney was just as far off the map from a Liberty perspective as the incumbent. Nothing whatsoever to do with him being a Mormon.

rulierose November 13, 2012 at 6:12 pm

congrats, John. you and all the other people who refused to vote for Mitt Romney are directly responsible for reelecting Obama. you might as well have voted for him.

I heard someone on the radio this morning proudly saying that he didn’t vote for “RINO Romney” and that he wasn’t going to vote for “RINO Christie” and several others. he repeated it 5 or 6 times. you could tell he thought that was pretty cool.

last week we had a choice between turning the country around or becoming government slugs with our food stamps and our Obamacare. thanks to people like you, our course is now set.

Andrew P November 13, 2012 at 10:47 pm

Sarah Palin or Scott Walker can get those voters.

ObamaCare is destined to be an epic disaster, thus the 2016 election is guaranteed to be about how the USA pays for healthcare. There is still one more chance to fix things.

tony head November 13, 2012 at 4:40 pm

Romney did not have a consistient message. Nor was he specific about key issues. For example, his answer to many questions was that he was a success in business, he knew how to run companies etc.. That’s not good enough to beat an incumbant. His campaign didn’t take chances. He should have gone to places where one wouldn’t expect him to go. Poor neighborhoods of all ethnic groups. Romey’s father marched with civil rights leaders in Michigan for fair housing. Why didn’t we hear about that and why didn’t Romney talk about the family tradition of fighting for the underdog? All in all too many mistakes and a complete miscalculation of the election demographics and what was necessay to win.

TheMentalist November 13, 2012 at 4:45 pm

Romney was the Pied Piper that never blew his horn.

karen lightfoot November 13, 2012 at 4:46 pm

ROMNEY/RYAN LOST BECAUSE….

The Republican party views on ABORTION & GAY RIGHTS were the main reason Romney/Ryan lost, as well as the RELIGIOUS FAR RIGHT, and all the others who threw God into the ring too!

It is time to get on the right side of history and realize this nation no longer stands for politicians having warped views of women, and minority groups.

We are one nation for all!

Susan November 13, 2012 at 5:50 pm

“We are one nation for all!”

Of course that is only if I agree to abandon my faith in God and embrace your faith in Barackoclaus, right? Enjoy your dhimmitude, slave.

Cynical Observer November 14, 2012 at 12:13 am

Yes … as long as we’re not white, straight or Christian.

John Gjertsen November 13, 2012 at 4:53 pm

The disaster that was the RNC with all the rule changes passed by a sham vote and Maine delegates unseated left a lot of civil libertarians and Tea Partiers who had doubts as to whether Romney was on their team a lot less doubtful. He wasn’t.

Sealeg November 13, 2012 at 5:07 pm

RIGHT ON! RIGHT ON!

How the heck do major candidates fail to get on the VIRGINIA ballot?

How the heck to major conservative candidates fail to get on MO ballot?

How do other candidates win ME and MO only to have the votes go to the Mittster?

You are absolutely right. right. right. right.
A SHAM OF A PRIMARY.
A SHAM OF AN SO CALLED ALTERNATIVE MEDIA

MATT DRUDGE = SHAM
MATT DRUDGE = SHAME
COULTER = SAVAGE = RICH LOWRY = CARL ROVE = SHAM
SHAM SHAM SHAM SHAM SHAM SHAM.

Andrew P November 13, 2012 at 10:51 pm

Drudge and Fox had a vested interest in Romney getting the nomination. Romney had money, his opponents didn’t, and media are in the business of selling advertising.Drudge, Fox, (and Rove) are laughing all the way to the bank.

And Drudge is probably pro-gay. That is why he destroyed Santorum’s chances with his overtly biased coverage.

Sealeg November 13, 2012 at 5:01 pm

How bout this?
The whole reason for a party sponsored primary is so the public is *VESTED* in the party’s candidate!!!!!

It’s in the interest of the party bosses to have PRIMARIES to help ensure the candidate’s support by VOTERS.

When the party/media establishment just picks a candidate and pummels the rests (ie. Matt Drudge, NRO, Carl Rove, Coulter, Savage, etc.)

DON’T EXPECT GOOD RESULTS!! DUHHHHHHHHH!?!?!?!?!??!!!

Sealeg November 13, 2012 at 5:13 pm

And you know who got pummeled?
1. Herman Cain
2. Michelle Bachman
3. Rick Santorum
4. Newt Gingrich
5. Rick Perry

1) Remember when Weiner-nation was going to give Newt 1 million to get out of the race to clear the way for the Mittster, or how Savage sold his soul to Cumulus and Mitt over dinner?

2) How about when Matt Drudge piled on and ruined decent Rick Santorum. Matt you are a fraud.

3) Remember what they (NRO’s little homo Rich Lowry) did to Herman Cain because he wasn’t ‘one of them’?

rulierose November 13, 2012 at 6:14 pm

are you implying that ANY of those other people could have done better than Romney against Obama? you’re dreaming, my friend.

Andrew P November 13, 2012 at 10:58 pm

Santorum or Gingrich would have done at least as well, and perhaps better. Santorum would have got much closer to 270 than Mittens ever did. At least he was authentic. I had Romney pegged as a loser from the start, and I was so furious with Drudge when he threw the primary with his antics. For a General Election, any major party nominee could raise sufficient funds. The big hurdle was not raising the money to compete against Obama, it was raising the money to compete in the Primary.

Alain Broder November 13, 2012 at 5:02 pm

Romney is supposed to be a businessman extroadinaire, right?
Well if he is such a good businessman, why was his campaign executed so poorly. As a former marketing teacher, I give him a D in marketing.
What was he selling? What was the message? What was the product?
The product was very poorly defined, essentially it was bland, fearful, and uninteresting. We may not like Obama, but at least he was forthright about what he is. We need people who can sell the conservative message. You are right, Ryan was muzzled, and Romney didn’t have his heart in it.
Please let’s get someone who believes in conservatism, and who knows how to sell it.

steve davidson November 13, 2012 at 5:05 pm

#8 — Romney lost because he was what he was: out of step with 2012 America

#9 – he lost because of right wing echo chambers like this place. If you hear nothing but the voices of those who support you,and pay no attention to the dissenting voices,you lose because you are out of touch (see #8 above).

#10 — His pollsters sucked. Gave his campaign unrealistic optimism that nothing was wrong. (see #8 and #9 above)

#11 — he was a pathological liar. He may have conned a few with his etch-a-sketching after the conventions, but towards the end his history caught up with him. He finally went a lie too far (which one was the tipping point is hard to isolate, but after so many doozies he just lost too much credibility with a few too many voters in too many of the critical states).

#12 and on,ad infinitum…

Sorry to disturb your echo chamber.

Please ignore me — it will be much better for the country if you keep believing this article’s tripe — and your own self-reinforcing delusions –thereby ensuring the Dems continue to win the Presidency for years to come (oh,BTW, Romney only became marginally competitive once he threw the crazy right-wing overboard and posed as “Mitt the Moderate”).

Cheers!

rulierose November 13, 2012 at 6:15 pm

you have to hand it to the Dems, they are gracious in victory.

oh wait–no, they’re not.

Bill November 13, 2012 at 6:34 pm

Conservative are never gracious. They are stingy, nasty, skin flints with no qualities that define any sense of community or shared destiny.

Bill November 13, 2012 at 5:09 pm

A complete misread. Romney lost because America recoiled from the Tea Party/Religious Right agenda. The current “conservative” agenda is anti-immigrant nativist; anti-female moralist, anti government survivalist; pro-defense spending macho; and peddling an anti-tax neurosis that would favor the wealthy at a time of historic income disparity. Basically, the “conservative movement” of today is a repulsive blend of policies that favor a minority and will diminish the quality of life of most Americans.

Alex November 13, 2012 at 5:15 pm

A nice list, but these are more like symptoms than the true causes of this electoral disaster. I am afraid the conservatives keep deluding themselves as to the severity and magnitude of the problem. I could not possibly put it better than Conrad Black did yesterday in National Post (also posted by RCP):

For the first time, a combination of non-white minorities and whites who are invested personally, either emotionally or more often for tangible reasons, in the redistributive side of the political civil war between advocates of growth and of direct transfers of resources from those who have earned them (or inherited from those who did) to those who haven’t (regardless of mitigating circumstances), has eked out a clear victory. If American politics continues along these lines, the social strains, piled onto the funeral pyre of the national accounts, will put the fate of what has long been the world’s greatest nation in acute doubt.

thom gillespie November 13, 2012 at 5:25 pm

“4. He let Obama define him early on”

Oh ye of little memory. Obama didn’t define Romney as early as Gingrich did with the help of how many millions by Sheldon Adelson?

This was just the flip side of the old Willie Horton ad first brought up by Gore.

Gotta love the primary process. 8-)

Andrew P November 13, 2012 at 11:02 pm

The description of Romney as a “vulture capitalist” has the virtue of being true. That is one reason the image stuck, and all the Rovian ad buys in the world couldn’t save Romney.

dave gerdes November 13, 2012 at 5:33 pm

I think that some of the severely evangelical people would not vote for a Mormon and voted for President Obama.

There was not a tech appeal to college age people.

The two social conservitive senatorial candidates which lost made Ryan seem too socially conservitive to young women.

kitman3 November 13, 2012 at 5:34 pm

You left out a complaint same stream media that did everything possible to smear Romney/Ryan and ever other conservative candidate while openly lying and towing the secular progressive talking points.
Progressivism is the disease infecting our Republic.

Interested November 13, 2012 at 5:44 pm

I like your list and I would stress #7 – the lack of free media.
To your list I make some additions. BTW – I think you have 2 #5′s.
Add the Mormon issue,
Add fact that Romney’s vicious attacks on other Republicans in the primary alienated some of those supporters. It is curious that Romney could be vicious with other Republicans but not with his Democrat opponent.

JP November 13, 2012 at 5:44 pm

I certainly hope that Mitt thinks twice about meeting with Obama. He doesn’t need to and heavens knows, he can’t….he just can’t take a position in the Obama White House if offered. Please, Mitt – think straight.

frank November 13, 2012 at 5:48 pm

he was Romney, a pretty transformer type of guy, and listened to his own pollsters, the vultures who are now setting themselves up for the next cycle in two years, Rove, Morris et al.

Mike November 13, 2012 at 5:53 pm

I’ve talked to educated Obama voters… #4 is key. Also key was social issues. The war on women narrative was bought hook line and sinker. Even a practicing catholic sided with Obama on women’s “rights”. Every negative bogeyman that was out there on Romney was superficially believed by these voters who live in an echo chamber. There was nothing that penetrated the defenses. Their reliance on MSM outlets ensured they knew no details of Bengahzi or Fast and Furious. The horrid state of our economy didn’t matter. Romney was bad and Obama needed more time to undue Bush. It is sad.

FJA November 13, 2012 at 7:38 pm

I’m a working woman and let me tell you, women who were “offended” that Romney collected women’s resumes in binders…these women need some real problems to whine about.

Harold November 13, 2012 at 5:56 pm

How about, Willard is a lying progressive crapweasel, and conservatives can’t stand the thought of him?

Neal November 13, 2012 at 6:02 pm

Thank you for nailing the two biggest factors of the Romney Loss.

“Many of people who should have been his voters didn’t turn out to the polls, thinking it didn’t make much difference”. When what you say changes so frequently – people tend to look at your actions. Even though I voted for him it seemed like when ever he faced a tough question he siad “well then we just won’t do that”. When he just nodded along on foriegn policy during the last debate – he reminded many that he will do anything for the sake of doing something.

“By allowing Obama to blame everything wrong with the economy on George W. Bush, Romney was unable to embrace the conservative aspects of Bush’s presidency. In fact, the Great Recession was caused by liberal housing policies.” Exactly! How tough was that case to make?? “The Bush tax cuts increased total tax revenue! Sure, the housing bubble was a tough thing to take on – but it was nothing worse than the dot-com bobble capped with 9/11. When asked “How would you be different from Bush?” it would have been good to reject his unfunded spending on perscription drugs – but I think we’d all agree that spending more to get the Taliban made sense. Even getting Saddam might have been worth worthwhile given that he thumbed his nose at the 1991 accords. Howeever; the expense of nation-building in these two countries would be something to avoid – but Lybia illustrates what happens when you create a power vaccum so somthing in the middle would be more appropriate.
That’s what I wanted to hear – I didn’t but still voted to get him out two reasons only – to prevent the entrenchment of Obamacare – and the supreme court (something Romeney forgot to talk about). If not for these two issues – I think it might have been better to let Obama fail completely so that we can get someone who believes in more than that he would be a good president.

Jack Rudd November 13, 2012 at 6:06 pm

You have identified tertiary reasons he lost.

The primary reason he lost was his grandiose project ORCA, which was supposed to streamline the GOP’s get out the vote effort, but which instead negated it and wasted 37,000 volunteers.

The secondary reason he lost was his unnecessarily harsh line (“self-deport”) on illegal immigration.

Steve from Wisconsin November 13, 2012 at 6:12 pm

Nice try, Keith! The reason that Obama won, and why his party will hold the Presidency is that Democrats offer “free stuff”, like welfare, food stamp, long period of unemployment payments, etc. Romney said it poorly, but even I can see in my own world that we now have more people receiving federal payments of some kind than paying taxes. Our day of reckoning is coming soon, but until then, Republicans may as well just forfeit the Presidency and save their energy for other things.

Bill Tedly November 13, 2012 at 6:31 pm

Romney did fine. If anything he wasnt aggressive enough.

Here are the reasons Obama won.

1) Military vote suppression. Illegal ejection of Rep monitors & Vote Fraud.
2) 2 Stupid Republicans talking nonsense about rape.
3) Misrepresentation of Romney and media bias
4) Increased foreigners vote. Muslim, African, Mexican.

Romney is the best president the USA didnt get. His only fault was, he was too nice to deal with the Chicago gangster.

Charlie hack November 13, 2012 at 6:39 pm

I think it is wron to look at previous elections and relate them to why republicans lost this time around. To say they were not conservative enough would be to look at the electorate from 20 years ago. With the changing demographics of the US electorate it must surely be time for the GOP to realise it must became a little more liberal and moderate candidates are they’re only hope in upcoming elections.

Victoria Glasbrenner November 13, 2012 at 6:55 pm

Voter fraud.

Robert H November 13, 2012 at 6:58 pm

Number 8: The conservative fantasy world created by delusional right-wing media and commentators.

…Continued in this article. As noted before, Keith still doesn’t get it.

Welcome to 21st century America, conservatives!

WMP November 13, 2012 at 6:59 pm

Wow – too much analyzing – everyone has a theory and most of us are probably wrong or close to being wrong. Maybe the wealthiest areas voted for Obama but they are also (many of them) cities where there are huge disparities between the affluent and the poor (who get free stuff). There are also too many states where votes simply don’t matter – my home state California being one of them. My personal opinion – people weren’t willing to give up the stuff. I’ll say it again – my well educated/attorney boss was more concerned about interest rates going up under Romney as he is trying to refinance a second home!

Rockerbabe November 13, 2012 at 7:28 pm

No one wants a President who is a flip-flopper on most issues. Women in particular do not like being lied to and told they are too stupid, to immoral or too whatever to make their own decisions.

Black do not like voter suppression projects. Latino and Asians do not like being talke about as if they were not in the room.

No one wants a President who is afraid to release his tax returns.
No one wants a President who is really not liked by his own political party.
No one wants a President who will sell them out for whatever cause he is being pandered to.
No one wants the unequal treatment to continue. The top 1% took 93% of all of the weath produced over the last 2-3 years; I doubt they earned it.

Romney personifies the monied elite – the very people who caused the financial, banking and real estate meltdown. We do not need that type of “talent” in the White House or even on Wall Stree.

tom November 13, 2012 at 7:40 pm

Romney lost because we were dumb enough to believe that the Obama coalition wouldn’t turn out. Instead of planning for the worst we planned for the best. When the Obama coalition turned out, we had no way to match it. Secondly we lost because we scared the hell out of women and Hispanics while leaving African-Americans to the Dems. We failed to correct the record on the auto bailout. We just stood there and took it. How many union members would have turned out when they learned their tax dollars went to benefit union leaders and not to saving jobs. Kick out the conservatives? No. Expand the base? Yes. If we want to win again, we must take our message of fiscal conservatism to young people, Hispanics, and Blacks.

Joan November 13, 2012 at 7:40 pm

I’m so sick of hearing that Ryan is a conservative. He’s a WI moderate. Ryan voted for everything Bush wanted for 8 years. Remember Bush? The man that put us 4 trillion dollars more in debt. The Tarp man. The bail out man.

Have you ever heard Ryan give a speech. The man is boring as hell and can put you to sleep.

If you can’t win your own state you have no business running for POTUS or VP.

john November 13, 2012 at 7:50 pm

Sounds like whine made from sour grapes. Recount? Pimp jive? Really? Wake up and smell the progress. Most conservatives today have a narrow, wishful view of the world around us. I suggest you take your heads out of the sand and have an objective look around. Racism never was cool.

A.Men November 13, 2012 at 8:03 pm

Romney kept everyone except Ron Paul off the Virginian Republican Primary. Less than 5% voted for Romney and Ron Paul. This lost support for Romney early on.

D Leak November 13, 2012 at 8:04 pm

Republicans lost because “Julia” is a real person with real needs. Did the Republicans show “Julia” how they were going to meet her needs?

Julia does not read 57 point policy plans or even 5 point plans. Obama explained how he was going to meet her needs in one sentence. “Julia, government will buy you everything you want.” How can Republicans counter that offer?

The answer is found at the web site http://www.cashinthehand.org/2012/01/07/cash-in-the-hand-destroys-poverty/

Some of the web site is copied below:

“Cash in the Hand” Destroys Poverty
Poverty will never be eliminated until the poor have money.
If the government owns my retirement account, government is rich and I am poor.
If the government owns my educational savings account, government is rich and I am poor.
The same is true for housing, transportation, and health savings accounts.
Which do you want: A rich government and poor citizens or a poor government and rich citizens?

Socialism: An economic system where the government gets rich while promising to care for the poor, but the people stay poor and lose their liberties.
Capitalism: An economic system where some people become rich and some become poor and most are somewhere in between.
Capitalism with “Cash in the Hand”: An economic system where some people get rich and where the money funding the government’s social programs is diverted to everyone by some retaining their taxes and others earning the money through work. The poor can become middle class, do not need government social programs, and do not lose their liberties.

Democrats, Liberals and Socialists promise that government will provide all your healthcare needs.
America, do you want cash in the hand or a promise from the government?
Socialists, be the party of overpriced and rationed, health care, medicare and medicaid.
America, be the country of private health care made possible by “Cash in the Hand”, which allows individual liberty and financial freedom.

Democrats, Liberals and Socialists promise that government will feed you.
America, do you want cash in the hand or a promise from the government?
Socialists, be the party of food stamps.
America, be the country of “Cash in the Hand”, which allows individual liberty and financial freedom.

james November 13, 2012 at 8:05 pm

NUMBER THREE-Bush cut taxes in time of war and wanted to privitize social security right before wall st took a fall. He also was a failure.
Face it, romney never had a chance and accept the fact Obama is the better politician.

Bob Connelly November 13, 2012 at 8:09 pm

Hi Keith,

There are two “original” reasons that severely reduced the vote for Romney.

1. Being a Mormon cost him 3% to 4% of voters nationwide, who DECIDED to stay home rather than vote for a Mormon.

2. Romney was ASHAMED of his Tax Returns and millions of voters could not support a millionaire who pays just a 14% rate.

D. Enemi November 13, 2012 at 8:14 pm

Mitt was right to talk about the economy. You guys are still stuck on personalities and social issues in a depressed economy. Here is the reason why you loss. It was never about the messenager because all the potential nominees had the same message of reducing taxes, cutting govt spending, eliminating regulations, and boosting the military. The problem is your message or your trickle down economic strategy. Supply Side Economics is fundamentally flawed and doomed to failure because it relies the consuming power of a small (1%) to drive the demand or growth for the entire economy. The reason why they are rich is they do not spend – they hoard. They do not buy enough cars, boats, and homes and there is not enough of them. That arithmetic does not work. Apparently what you guys fail to realize is that in a world or system of finite wealth – like ours – the only way that capitalism can exist and survive is if the wealth is contineously redistributed. THAT’S RIGHT THEY LIED TO YOU. CAPITALISM IS WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION. It is rather simple to see that if wealth accummulated in one place that economic demand decreases, unemployment rises and the system grinds to a halt. All the old dumb congressional members realized that after the Depression and WWII and corrected this problrm by giving us tools that put the wealth back into play. They gave us tax rates as high as 90%, estate taxes, and Social Security to put money back on the table and into play. Not so fast my friend I did not say capitalism was bad. I just don’t think it should be allowed to operate at the expense of social and economic justice for any member. And especially in a system that claims to provide equal justice and opportunity for all of its members. Spit the hook out.

carolinagirl November 13, 2012 at 8:16 pm

#1. Don’t know how the Governor could prove to be any more conservative than 844 vetoes on a democratic legislature in Massachusetts (only 2 legislators voted against the healthcare bill). Evidently, you didn’t pay attention to the first debate: Massachusetts healthcare which complies with the Tenth Amendment is not FEDERALLY controlled & taxed Obamacare (with non-elected death panels). #2. Romney/Ryan were on the campaign trail every day & night working as hard & as long as they possibly could to get their message out – the lying media would not cover them – even Fox (who was anti-Mitt since the primaries). #3. Romney was running against Obama’s lousy record – not George Bush’s. #4. Romney’s team & Super Pac’s aggressively fought off the Bain & tax attacks. Obama’s campaign was scraping the bottom of a squeaky clean barrel for dirt. #5. Romney’s 47% comment was the truth, and he did not know he was being illegally videoed by Jimmy Carter’s grandson. At least 47% wants the government to take care of them (more like 51%). #5. Romney’s hard-working campaign was in no way to blame for the loss. #6. “pasty white guys with pretty blond wives” that is a totally nauseating and ignorant comment – NOT GOING TO READ anything else you write. #7. Romney met with the media. Even Bret Baier took cheap shots at Mitt – Have you even forgotten what they did to Palin? Speaking of Palin, the reasons Romney lost are #1. New demographics & Romney was more “right” on Immigration than Newt or Perry. #2 GOP – lack of support – witnessed in my own state. Although Obama had nine million less votes than 2008, three million less Republicans voted than in 2008 (putrid). #3. MSM love affair with the Obama’s. #4. Ron Paul & Sarah Palin refused to endorse Mitt. They could have rallied their passionate supporters, but like the rest of the GOP – could not get behind Mitt because of bitterness from the extended and social media viscous primaries. #5. Obama’s lying and misleading ads – especially in the swing states. #6. The War on Women was a total Obama campaign lie among other lies, and sold to the young by Hollywood. Also, America lost the opportunity to elect the best qualified man in my lifetime POTUS. The two huge problems for our country which will drive us down the road to socialism are Obamacare & illegal immigration. How will we ever elect a Republican president? It’s already too late… Ann Coulter was RIGHT.

bcl November 13, 2012 at 9:13 pm

Romney/Ryan represented a threat to Social Security & Medicare, not to mention other giveaway programs. Trillion-dollar deficits & $16 trillion national debt are too abstract for many voters to care about–they are someone else’s problem; e.g., “tax the wealthy.” The national debt may sink the ship, but too many are concerned about their entitlements. We have a nation on the dole.

Michael O'Neill November 13, 2012 at 9:21 pm

The Republicans made a mistake by essentially assuming the White House was their’s because the economy ( particularly the unemployment rate) was/is awful. How many times did we hear that no President with an unemployment rate of 8% has ever… Fair enough, but that doesn’t mean you are entitled ( an odd word to toss at Republicans) to the Oval Office. You still have to earn it, to demonstrate that your economic arguments truly are a better path. No one in the party effectively made that case.

Con Ed November 13, 2012 at 9:23 pm

Thomas Sowell nails it:

Nice Losers

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/13/nice_losers_116142.html

“Nice” RINO losers: John McCain, Bob Dole, Gerald Ford and, when he ran for reelection, George H.W. Bush.

HawaiiRules November 13, 2012 at 9:30 pm

I thought it was because he didn’t get enough votes.

Nathan November 13, 2012 at 9:33 pm

For mine there was only one reason: Obama was more likeable. Bush v Kerry, Clinto v Bush & Gore, Bush vs Gore, Regan v Carter & Mondale…. It’s always the guy who you want to have a beer with. This is not to say Romney isn’t likeable, just not as much as Obama. Paul Ryan will slam it in 2016. He seem really likeable.

Alister November 13, 2012 at 9:46 pm

Yikes! As a liberal, it pains even me when conservatives keep missing the point of everything!

There is nothing wrong with “two pasty white guys with pretty blond wives,” in the abstract. But political campaigns are not about the abstract, they are about contrasts. In fact, the only way to win a political campaign is by drawing contrasts.

Fair or not, politically correct or not, the Republican ticket was disadvantaged but its composition. Whites were only 72% of the electorate this year…down from 74% in 2008, and 78% in 2004. Common sense dictates that with such shifting demographics, you should combat the first black president with a candidate that doesn’t scream lily-white. Is it fair? Hell no. But ignoring race, and how it plays politically, is exactly how a candidate loses 332-206 in the electoral college.

Sashland November 14, 2012 at 1:58 am

yet, if it was all about the two candidates being white, shouldn’t they have gotten 72% of the vote???
So, being a different skin color would make them better candidates, or would voters with darker skin colors be voting on the basis of the candidates skin color? nothing wrong with that? So, play up to the shallow voters and manipulate them? Yep, that IS the winning strategy.

DG November 13, 2012 at 9:59 pm

Number 7..’He llet Obama define him early on’…if you Republicans really want to believe that then knock yourselves out. Alternatively spend 30 seconds on google and come up with quotes like this one from Newt a year ago “I would just say that if Gov. Romney would like to give back all the money he’s earned from bankrupting companies and laying off employees over his years at Bain that I would be glad to then listen to him. I’ll bet you $10, not $10,000” – he said, referring to Romney’s $10,000 bet in Saturday night’s debate – “that he won’t take the offer.”

If you were interested in anything resembling the truth you could search and find many, many, such comments from Republicans in the course of the primaries. Fortunately for the rest of us you’re all too interested in believing your own propaganda and are unlikely to actually address any of the real issues. Thank you for that. Should make the next election easy for us too.

Skygod November 13, 2012 at 10:17 pm

In the US Constitution, the requirement to be president is born of two citizen parents. (Natural Born Citizen. NBC)The requirement for Senator is Citizen only. Note the diference.
. Progressive Republicans are pushing Marko Rubio knowing that he does not meet the true intent. Article2,Section1,Clause5.
Rubio must end this run for the WhiteHouse. In doing so, he will expose Ovomit’s fraud. Ovomit is an Indonesian citizen. No one mentions that. This too makes him inelligible. Wake up America, we have been invaded.

E.F. Taylor November 13, 2012 at 10:21 pm

Pithy rejoinders to Obama: Mister President SPEND YOUR FAIR SHARE. You are right about Paul Ryan being muzzled. Ryan and Romney should have had the bestest, sharpest ad guys coming up with short snappers to rebut all that Obama claptrap. In the end it’s all coulda, woulda, shoulda. The stupid party blew it again. I’m so demoralized by this election I’m thinking of blowing off Thanksgiving because I can’t stand to give thanks for my ruined country in the company of liberals.