Some Thoughts on just why Romney lost

[Somerville]

Most of this comes from a CBS.com post which basically provides yet one more example of the inability of far too many on the American right to accept reality, they prefer creating their own 'facts' and 'data' and 'reality'. Too bad for them - once again it seems reality has a 'librul bias'

Romney "shellshocked by loss

they believed the public/media polls were skewed - they thought those polls oversampled Democrats and didn't reflect Republican enthusiasm.

One fine example, outside of the campaign was the clown who ran the "Unskewedpolls" website, just like the Romneyites, he refused to accept that numbers geeks like Nate Silver and Sam Wang just might have a better handle on the American electorate. The right 'knew' that most Americans supported those "good ol' American values" the Massachusetts flip-flopper supported - some of the time.

They made three key miscalculations, in part because this race bucked historical trends:

1. They misread turnout. . . . fewer Republicans (voted this time): Romney got just over 2 million fewer votes than John McCain.

2. Independents. State polls showed Romney winning big among independents. . . . state polls weren't oversampling Democrats and undersampling Republicans - there just weren't as many Republicans this time because they were calling themselves independents.

Something we see on this forum, hard righties calling themselves "Independent". Unfortunately for the GOP, more people calling themselves "Independents" does reduce that percentage still calling itself "Republican", just one more reason that complaints about "librul bias" in polling proved to be wrong.

3. Undecided voters. The perception is they always break for the challenger, since people know the incumbent and would have decided already if they were backing him. Romney was counting on that trend to continue. Instead, exit polls show Mr. Obama won among people who made up their minds on Election Day and in the few days before the election. So maybe Romney, after running for six years, was in the same position as the incumbent.

This I find rather interesting. Does the fact that a politician is well known to the public mean as much as actually holding office, in the public's perception of the pol? Apparently so, just one example of the way in which modern media has changed our world.


The inimitable Charles F Pierce has a few thoughts about the failure of the GOP in the 2012 Presidential election.

The Republicans, of course, are all in a hilarious tizzy about how it all went sour. Was Romney the wrong candidate? (Of course he was. Nominating G.I. Luvmoney four years after his best pals nearly burned down the world was almost as stupid as nominating one of the other clowns in the clown car would have been. Oops. Paradox! Alert! Alert! Arrrrrooooooooogaaaahhh!!) Was the "message" bad? (Of course it was. It's been bad for 30 years. The country's just been catching up to how godawful it is. Hint: You've lost the official popular vote in four of the last five presidential elections, and the one you "won" has an asterisk the size of Alpha Centauri hung on it.) Was the moon in the seventh house? In my capacity as Gracious Winner, let me suggest an alternative general theory.

You lost because your party has become demented.

 

[MaggieD]

Most of this comes from a CBS.com post which basically provides yet one more example of the inability of far too many on the American right to accept reality, they prefer creating their own 'facts' and 'data' and 'reality'. Too bad for them - once again it seems reality has a 'librul bias'

One fine example, outside of the campaign was the clown who ran the "Unskewedpolls" website, just like the Romneyites, he refused to accept that numbers geeks like Nate Silver and Sam Wang just might have a better handle on the American electorate. The right 'knew' that most Americans supported those "good ol' American values" the Massachusetts flip-flopper supported - some of the time.

Something we see on this forum, hard righties calling themselves "Independent". Unfortunately for the GOP, more people calling themselves "Independents" does reduce that percentage still calling itself "Republican", just one more reason that complaints about "librul bias" in polling proved to be wrong.

This I find rather interesting. Does the fact that a politician is well known to the public mean as much as actually holding office, in the public's perception of the pol? Apparently so, just one example of the way in which modern media has changed our world.

I find it very difficult to believe that Mitt Romney was "shell shocked" over his loss. And, it's not as if he didn't give it 100%, so whether or not he supposedly misread the polls certainly made no difference in the outcome.

Now. What he may have been "shell shocked" about is that he and other Republicans now realize that they're going to have to change their message. Change their approach. If they don't? 2016 will be no different, I'm thinking.

My support for the Republican Party centers around fiscal conservatism. All the other stuff? Stuff it. Gay marriage/gay rights/abortion/other social issues are immaterial. In my opinion, if the Republican Party intends to stay relevant, they're going to need to soften (or simply drop) their hard-assed stances on these issues. That's #1. And #2 is they're going to have to realize that social programs are not going away. The majority of American people don't want them to go away. So. Republicans are going to have to learn to apply their fiscal conservatism in other ways...targeting fraud, waste, etc., etc., instead of entire programs.

JMVHO.

 

[Dwight]

It would seem that there is another factor. It seems that Mitt “Private Sector Success” Romney might do well to stick to organizing [small] church picnics, if that, since his best management days appear to be behind him. I really did buy into the likelihood of him being a solid administrator, that he could execute the core domestic Constitutional role of the office, based on his past record. But perhaps he isn’t really all that after all. Out of practice or something? *shrug*

 

[UtahBill]

I worried all along about whether or not he could actually connect with ordinary people, especially those below middle class.
He has the smarts, no doubt, and even a lot of experience, but somehow he missed something. I blame his loss mostly on all the BS being spewed by the opposite side, and the willingness of so many Americans to root for the underdog, no matter how stupid the underdog is....
The biggest thing I don't understand is the "flip flop" crap....somehow that is worse than being the biggest liar. Even Letterman got upset with Obama's lies at one point....

 

[Grim17]

I have a gaming friend online who is an Obama supporter. He is not like me and doesn't put much time or effort into politics. He is what I would call your average American, and there were 2 things that about his support that really stood out to me.

First, he believed an enormous amount of false information about Romney and Ryan that kind of blew me away. I fault this to todays media, which during the campaign did very little to dispel any of the false propaganda about Romney.

My friend is unemployed and over the last 10 months has only been employed for 3 weeks of that time. It was a temp job, which leads me to the second thing which I found kind of sad. His support wasn't based on "we need more jobs" but rather he seemed to be supporting more unemployment benefits and government help. When I listened to him and figured this out, I wanted to say something to him, but couldn't. He is a very hard headed person and there was no way I could point this out to him without it causing a big incident between us, so I let it go.

I just found it sad that he was voting based on "There's not going to be any jobs, so I need government subsidies" and wondered how many people out there were just like him... Is that what America has become?

 

[AdamT]

Basically what it came down to is this: Republicans who accused Obama of being an amateur and who touted Romney as the pro's pro had it exactly reversed. Romney proved to be the amateur. His campaign was in disarray. They misallocated resources. They didn't have enough money when they needed it. They ran a bad convention. They had amateurish pollsters. They were constantly having to walk back and spin Romney's gaffes.

I was listening to John Dickerson, NBC's chief political correspondent, and he said that he was always blown away by the Obama campaigns professionalism. Nothing went out of there without being focus grouped. They had polls up, down and sideways, breaking down the country by ever conceivable demographic group and region. They targetted their advertising based on the numbers they crunched. In contrast, when he talked to the Romney people they were always spouting fluff about mojo and momentum. They didn't believe the numbers they were seeing.

Bottom line, Romney sold himself as the ultimate manager who you could plug in anywhere and he'd run the show like a champ, but he failed at running his own campaign. It was amateur hour.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The GOP is trying to beat the liberals at the "all inclusive" game while simultaneously trying to pander to the socially conservative. This made Romney, a big gov't centrist, try to be "conservative" during the GOP primary and then "evolve" into a small gov't centrist in the general election. We saw what a big gov't guy (Bush or Obama) does and thus the choice was Obama vs. Obama-lite (Romney). I am actually glad that Obama won, even though I voted for Romney, since the resulting mess will hopefully show that Obama and his huge nanny state ideas are junk and harm the nation. The republicant house should proclaim that while they disagree with the borrow and spend policies favored by Obama and the demorats but will not stop them from passing, in fact they should offer ammendments to lower taxes to 10% for all up to $200K, stop all employee SS withholding and let Obama borrow all that he cares to. After observing the resulting economic reality that such a moronic policy creates, the entire nation will wake up and take note. By keeping all of these "Obama" things from passing they simply allow the myth of the success of the huge federal nanny state to live on.

 

[wolfman24]

I find it very difficult to believe that Mitt Romney was "shell shocked" over his loss. And, it's not as if he didn't give it 100%, so whether or not he supposedly misread the polls certainly made no difference in the outcome.

Now. What he may have been "shell shocked" about is that he and other Republicans now realize that they're going to have to change their message. Change their approach. If they don't? 2016 will be no different, I'm thinking.

My support for the Republican Party centers around fiscal conservatism. All the other stuff? Stuff it. Gay marriage/gay rights/abortion/other social issues are immaterial. In my opinion, if the Republican Party intends to stay relevant, they're going to need to soften (or simply drop) their hard-assed stances on these issues. That's #1. And #2 is they're going to have to realize that social programs are not going away. The majority of American people don't want them to go away. So. Republicans are going to have to learn to apply their fiscal conservatism in other ways...targeting fraud, waste, etc., etc., instead of entire programs.

JMVHO.

CNN and others are reporting this very thing. He did not write a concession speech, his staff agreed with him and told him it was unnecessary. They had planned a gala festival down by the river to celebrate. From some staffers at the scene it was reported like the Romney/Ryan family and closest advisors had witnessed the axe murder of Romney's mom. Thats pretty arrogant and shell shocked if you ask me.

It is also reported that Romney was actually the first to come out of the coma and when his staff tried to convince him they could still win he reportedly said Its too late give it a rest, its over.

 

[wolfman24]

On CNN tonite they had another main stream Rep on who stated that Romney originally pandered to the extreme right which according to the source had no grasp of the outside world and how it works. (He stated in a poll done by Monmouth U, people who listen to Fox have less knowledge of the outside world and how it works than people who listen to no news).

Anyhow, According to this Rep, as time went on Romney tried to play both ends to the middle and just could not do it so he went moderate.

As a moderate i found his comments made sense and seemed honest.

 

[Somerville]

The republicant house should proclaim that while they disagree with the borrow and spend policies favored by Obama and the demorats but will not stop them from passing, in fact they should offer ammendments to lower taxes to 10% for all up to $200K, stop all employee SS withholding and let Obama borrow all that he cares to. After observing the resulting economic reality that such a moronic policy creates, the entire nation will wake up and take note. By keeping all of these "Obama" things from passing they simply allow the myth of the success of the huge federal nanny state to live on.

an interesting viewpoint but certainly not one that is advocated by the Dems. One might see such things as simply distorting what those on the right believe the Dems want, because the righties can't accept reality and must exaggerate and misconstrue every statement put out by their opponents as that is the only way they see the 'others'

 

[head of joaquin]

The GOP is trying to beat the liberals at the "all inclusive" game while simultaneously trying to pander to the socially conservative. This made Romney, a big gov't centrist, try to be "conservative" during the GOP primary and then "evolve" into a small gov't centrist in the general election. We saw what a big gov't guy (Bush or Obama) does and thus the choice was Obama vs. Obama-lite (Romney). I am actually glad that Obama won, even though I voted for Romney, since the resulting mess will hopefully show that Obama and his huge nanny state ideas are junk and harm the nation. The republicant house should proclaim that while they disagree with the borrow and spend policies favored by Obama and the demorats but will not stop them from passing, in fact they should offer ammendments to lower taxes to 10% for all up to $200K, stop all employee SS withholding and let Obama borrow all that he cares to. After observing the resulting economic reality that such a moronic policy creates, the entire nation will wake up and take note. By keeping all of these "Obama" things from passing they simply allow the myth of the success of the huge federal nanny state to live on.

Only rich people hire nannies. Why do you hate rich people?

As to borrowing, since the rates are almost zero, now is the time to do it and invest that money in infrastructure as Paul Krugman advises. We could use the Bush Meltdown to completely modernize and upgrade our economy for the 21st century. Generally borrowing money when interest is low is a good thing.

 

[Mycroft]

Most of this comes from a CBS.com post which basically provides yet one more example of the inability of far too many on the American right to accept reality, they prefer creating their own 'facts' and 'data' and 'reality'. Too bad for them - once again it seems reality has a 'librul bias'



One fine example, outside of the campaign was the clown who ran the "Unskewedpolls" website, just like the Romneyites, he refused to accept that numbers geeks like Nate Silver and Sam Wang just might have a better handle on the American electorate. The right 'knew' that most Americans supported those "good ol' American values" the Massachusetts flip-flopper supported - some of the time.

Something we see on this forum, hard righties calling themselves "Independent". Unfortunately for the GOP, more people calling themselves "Independents" does reduce that percentage still calling itself "Republican", just one more reason that complaints about "librul bias" in polling proved to be wrong.

This I find rather interesting. Does the fact that a politician is well known to the public mean as much as actually holding office, in the public's perception of the pol? Apparently so, just one example of the way in which modern media has changed our world.


The inimitable Charles F Pierce has a few thoughts about the failure of the GOP in the 2012 Presidential election.

I find it amusing that, even though the left won the election, all they can do is talk about how the GOP is failing. Does it really bother them that much?

Somerville, I think you would be better served with trying to explain to the People what y'all plan to do and why it'll help. Despite getting the win, Obama's campaign had very little in the way of concrete ideas and since the win we've heard nothing except more campaign-lke rhetoric.

It's time for the left to shut up...and start to put up.

 

[head of joaquin]

I find it amusing that, even though the left won the election, all they can do is talk about how the GOP is failing. Does it really bother them that much?

Somerville, I think you would be better served with trying to explain to the People what y'all plan to do and why it'll help. Despite getting the win, Obama's campaign had very little in the way of concrete ideas and since the win we've heard nothing except more campaign-lke rhetoric.

It's time for the left to shut up...and start to put up.

You sound bitter at your defeat. Get used to it.

Meanwhile, Democrats do intend on putting up, and I expect the economy will take off in the next few years as sound tax policy avoids Bush-type bubbles by making sure the rich stop misallocating capital to high risk, nonproductive activities.

 

[justabubba]

CNN and others are reporting this very thing. He did not write a concession speech, his staff agreed with him and told him it was unnecessary. They had planned a gala festival down by the river to celebrate. From some staffers at the scene it was reported like the Romney/Ryan family and closest advisors had witnessed the axe murder of Romney's mom. Thats pretty arrogant and shell shocked if you ask me.

It is also reported that Romney was actually the first to come out of the coma and when his staff tried to convince him they could still win he reportedly said Its too late give it a rest, its over.

would have loved to have been there to witness that spectacle
if accurate, that tells us mitt and his campaign staff were even more out of touch with reality than some of us believed

Adam makes excellent points about Obama's team being very strategic, resulting in a well run campaign and ultimate victory
would be great if both sides had an equal amount of money and then we were able to see who used their's best to prevail. that person would be the one i would want atop the world's most dynamic economy
but what is disappointing is that Obama surrounds himself with great campaign talent, but then when it comes time to be professional with the wheels of government, he has chosen a batch of morons


the OP makes a solid point that romney realized two million fewer votes than did mccain, 57.8 million to mccain's 59.9. what was not disclosed is that Obama of 2012 garnered NINE million fewer votes than he did in 2008, 69.5 million then and 60.6 million this week. so while the republicans lost 4% of their previous support the loss of turnout for Obama was a massive 13%

tht must reveal what a huge lost opportunity this was for the GOP
if it had only selected someone as its standard bearer who was electable


will i be the only one surprised if within the next twelve months we see karl 'the brain' rove has died a premature death due to accident
those folks who gave him 300 million dollars to play with to elect them their very own president did not stick around for romney's concession speech. they have to be pissed. how pissed off are they?

 

[Mycroft]

You sound bitter at your defeat. Get used to it.

Meanwhile, Democrats do intend on putting up, and I expect the economy will take off in the next few years as sound tax policy avoids Bush-type bubbles by making sure the rich stop misallocating capital to high risk, nonproductive activities.

Bitter? Dude, I said I was amused.

And your expectation are even more amusing. The usual, liberal "I know better than YOU do" attitude.

 

[head of joaquin]

Bitter? Dude, I said I was amused.

Yeah, but everybody can see you're only fooling yourself.

 

[MAcc2007]

I find it very difficult to believe that Mitt Romney was "shell shocked" over his loss. And, it's not as if he didn't give it 100%, so whether or not he supposedly misread the polls certainly made no difference in the outcome.

Now. What he may have been "shell shocked" about is that he and other Republicans now realize that they're going to have to change their message. Change their approach. If they don't? 2016 will be no different, I'm thinking.

My support for the Republican Party centers around fiscal conservatism. All the other stuff? Stuff it. Gay marriage/gay rights/abortion/other social issues are immaterial. In my opinion, if the Republican Party intends to stay relevant, they're going to need to soften (or simply drop) their hard-assed stances on these issues. That's #1. And #2 is they're going to have to realize that social programs are not going away. The majority of American people don't want them to go away. So. Republicans are going to have to learn to apply their fiscal conservatism in other ways...targeting fraud, waste, etc., etc., instead of entire programs.

JMVHO.

I disagree that fiscal conservatism is the winning issue. Fiscal conservatism is the issue that a majority of this country. Fiscal conservatism and personal responsibility is hardly taught in homes anymore. Instead, dependency and laziness is the motto of the day. What we observed in this election is the realization that those who contribute nothing can take everything.

 

[Panopticon]

I have a gaming friend online who is an Obama supporter. He is not like me and doesn't put much time or effort into politics. He is what I would call your average American, and there were 2 things that about his support that really stood out to me.

First, he believed an enormous amount of false information about Romney and Ryan that kind of blew me away. I fault this to todays media, which during the campaign did very little to dispel any of the false propaganda about Romney.

My friend is unemployed and over the last 10 months has only been employed for 3 weeks of that time. It was a temp job, which leads me to the second thing which I found kind of sad. His support wasn't based on "we need more jobs" but rather he seemed to be supporting more unemployment benefits and government help. When I listened to him and figured this out, I wanted to say something to him, but couldn't. He is a very hard headed person and there was no way I could point this out to him without it causing a big incident between us, so I let it go.

I just found it sad that he was voting based on "There's not going to be any jobs, so I need government subsidies" and wondered how many people out there were just like him... Is that what America has become?

More of the "its the 47% fault!"

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[iguanaman]

The GOP is trying to beat the liberals at the "all inclusive" game while simultaneously trying to pander to the socially conservative. This made Romney, a big gov't centrist, try to be "conservative" during the GOP primary and then "evolve" into a small gov't centrist in the general election. We saw what a big gov't guy (Bush or Obama) does and thus the choice was Obama vs. Obama-lite (Romney). I am actually glad that Obama won, even though I voted for Romney, since the resulting mess will hopefully show that Obama and his huge nanny state ideas are junk and harm the nation. The republicant house should proclaim that while they disagree with the borrow and spend policies favored by Obama and the demorats but will not stop them from passing, in fact they should offer ammendments to lower taxes to 10% for all up to $200K, stop all employee SS withholding and let Obama borrow all that he cares to. After observing the resulting economic reality that such a moronic policy creates, the entire nation will wake up and take note. By keeping all of these "Obama" things from passing they simply allow the myth of the success of the huge federal nanny state to live on.

The House T's can't give in to the tax hikes for their benefactors, that's suicide. That's what they were bought into office to protect. There will be alot of "swordfalling" this fall for sure.

 

[iguanaman]

I disagree that fiscal conservatism is the winning issue. Fiscal conservatism is the issue that a majority of this country. Fiscal conservatism and personal responsibility is hardly taught in homes anymore. Instead, dependency and laziness is the motto of the day. What we observed in this election is the realization that those who contribute nothing can take everything.

Maybe dependency and laziness is your motto of the day but most of us hear nothing of the sort. You better get off your ass or we will pass you by.

 

[iguanaman]

I find it amusing that, even though the left won the election, all they can do is talk about how the GOP is failing. Does it really bother them that much?

Somerville, I think you would be better served with trying to explain to the People what y'all plan to do and why it'll help. Despite getting the win, Obama's campaign had very little in the way of concrete ideas and since the win we've heard nothing except more campaign-lke rhetoric.

It's time for the left to shut up...and start to put up.

Obama has already "put up" the economy faster than any western nation. There will be no Romney recession, at least that should cheer you up.

 

[justabubba]

Obama has already "put up" the economy faster than any western nation. There will be no Romney recession, at least that should cheer you up.

may i use this portion of your quote in my signature (for a week or less) ... with attribution?

 

[AGENT J]

why he lost?

47% comment
flip-flops
lies
social issues
Republican party as a whole unfairly being grouped with tea part and its rightwing nut jobs

thats why he lost

How to fix it?
as a independent im going to give my 2 cents

Im going to group conservatives/republicans together but only because thats what goes on in america and in main stream politics and this is about addressing the current PLATFORM not individual conservatives/republicans MANY which are very sane, logical and objective.

IMO the formula is EASY for the right to make a returning surge.

1.) Drop the social issues, PERSONALLY if YOU want to keep them thats fine, but do not make them part of the party platform, you instantly alienate to many americans. (anti-gay rights, pro-life etc.) Many republicans/conservatives are pro-choice and many Liberals/Democrats are pro-life but they dont make it their platform unless they are defending it.

2.) drop the 47% rhetoric, anybody actually educated would know that commenting on the 47% is stupid because of who the 47% ACTUALLY includes. It includes a **** load of republicans Alienating anyone who has ever got help is shooting yourself in the foot because many hard working americans, dads, mothers have gotten, help, are getting help or will need help. Grouping them with the freeloaders (who do need addressed) is counterproductive.

3.) This is for BOTH parties, STOP grouping lefties and righties in judgmental ways. There are lots of people that identify themselves as left/right who do not fit the stereotypical mold. As soon as you say, "you liberals" or "you righties" you are already losing points if you are trying to be productive and reach objective, honest people

4.) another thing for BOTH parties, shut up your extremists and shun your extreme partisans! fight hard to make sure they dont steer your party! fight hard to make sure they are not the squeakiest wheel! fight hard to separate from them and make it clear they are not the main voice!

EVEN IF THIS MEANS PUBLICLY DISAGREEING OR CRITICIZING THEM


I think those alone do it IMO.

Focus on being fiscally conservative IMO this is the biggest strength the right side has, its the bread and butter, strong military, support safety net programs BUT assure they are limited and very controlled not flood gates like many of them currently and grossly are. Focus on strong clear legislation. Focus on crime ALL CRIME blue collar and WHITE collar.

also when you focus on the fiscal stuff drop that rhetoric too! talking about bums and freeloaders etc. Not that they dont excise but because those terms get broader and broader and more inclusive as time goes on and you start turning people away that you actually shouldnt

Maybe im biased because I am an independent and I like many right/conservative views but i dont think the right is that bad at all, but then again i judge the right using the NORMAL people not the palins, and bachmanns and Cains etc. and I understand that all "righties" are not the same. Both sides have their extremists and loons.

 

[Awesome!]

Romney lost because he was too honest about his conservative intentions. What he needed to do was to make big promises about union wages for all, abortions for all, contraceptives for all, 10 hour work weeks for all, free education and free everything for all and then he would have won becoming President.

 

[iguanaman]

may i use this portion of your quote in my signature (for a week or less) ... with attribution?

Of course. I'm in a good mood.