Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Concerning Mitt Romney: The Wrong Man for the Job or the Wrong Time for the Man?


Concerning Mitt Romney:
The Wrong Man for the Job or the Wrong Time for the Man?

It is said that in the years leading up to the 2016 election, the GOP will need to search far and wide for a candidate with the qualities, experience, and resources to ensure a White House victory after two consecutive terms of defeat. As soon as it became painfully obvious that Obama had secured his second term as president, the conservative pundits began their post-election accounts of what went wrong. Bestowed with the gift of hindsight, many of these assessments pointed the finger at Romney, chalking up the defeat to the nominee selection. After all, the easiest person to criticize is the one who failed to deliver; the man in the arena. These criticisms range from his inability to connect with conservative voters or his failure to take the fight to Obama. Some even continue to suggest his religion played an integral role in his defeat by causing Evangelicals to stay home on Election Day.
What these criticisms have in common is they suggest Romney was somehow unable to connect with conservative voters. As such, there has been a resounding call to find a candidate who can. But do these assessments reflect reality? Could the GOP find itself searching for a candidate who was there all along? In essence one might ask, was Romney the wrong man for the job in 2012 or was 2012 the wrong time for Romney? Contrary to many reports which continue to use incomplete exit polling data, post 2012 polling results actually show the GOP came out in force for Romney, even more than they did for Bush in 2004 in many battleground states [1]. In fact, Romney won the Independent vote as well, a fact still ignored by many of today’s pundits [2]. Yet even with the GOP behind him and a lion’s share of the independent vote, it was not enough to compensate for Democrat turnout in key states [1]. While it's true Romney took a pummeling among Hispanic voters, the significance and reaction to this 2012 trend can easily be overblown and misconstrued. Contrary to popular perception, an in depth demographical analysis of the electoral map reveals Romney could have won an historic 70% of the Hispanic vote and still lost the election 268 to 270 [3]. This certainly doesn’t imply the GOP shouldn’t expand its efforts taking the conservative message to Latino voters, but a 2016 strategy that pinnacles on courting the Hispanic vote is doomed to fail.
These data contradict the notion that Romney was somehow a flawed choice for the GOP. One can argue that Romney was the candidate who stood the best chance of defeating a popular incumbent president such as Obama, especially when one considers historical precedence. Only once in the last hundred years has a GOP challenger defeated a Democratic incumbent. Romney also faced what is now proven to be deliberate grassroots suppression in critical swing states at the hands of the IRS [4]. This strategic geographically focused intrusion into the electoral process may in part help to explain the close popular vote tally and the lopsided Electoral College results.
Even with the aforementioned obstacles stacked against him, Romney was still poised to win in 2012. A survey of the polls leading up to Nov 6th as reported by the RCP average, the most accurate predictor of presidential elections, reveals a trend in momentum which suggested a clear but narrow Romney victory [5]. Then on Oct 29th, right in the middle of hurricane Sandy, the momentum switched. True to form, natural disasters almost always favor the incumbent. Of course the pandering and veneration of Obama by Gov. Christie didn't help much either. This coupled to an unexpectedly high Democratic turnout, which was closer to 2008 trends than many pollsters predicted, was the perfect storm for an election that by all accounts was Romney’s to lose leading up to Election Day.
All the facts indicate that despite Romney’s loss in 2012, he was still the most suitable candidate to pull off the monumental feat of removing Obama from office, a feat he narrowly fell short of. Barring some new spectacular force rising within the GOP, which most would agree has yet to occur, one must pose the question, could Romney be the unsuspected preeminent candidate to defeat the Democratic challenger in 2016? After all, he has more campaign experience than any other candidate and is by far the most vetted candidate in either party. Furthermore, he is arguably the only candidate with a built-in campaign network of donors and volunteers, not to mention “his” newly initiated and burgeoning political action committee "America Rising" [6], a data collection and response center designed to confront and counter Democratic candidates [7], something that many argue was missing in Romney's 2012 campaign. All of these particulars suggest that Romney may in fact be the most strategically sound nominee to lead the party to a much needed victory come 2016. As for the questions surrounding his age and disposition to run again, Romney at the age of 69 will still be younger than Reagan was when he defeated Carter in 1981 (after losing to Ford in 1976). And let us not forget that had Romney won in 2012, he’d be gearing up for a 2016 re-election anyway.
But don’t flock to the Romney 2016 campaign headquarters just yet. Before any of this occurs, the GOP, and most importantly, Romney himself, must come to terms with this possibility. Only time will tell what actually happens, but here's one conservative who is not so quick to “soul search” his way into an inferior candidate with little chance of getting this country back on the right track towards economic vitality and sustainability. Furthermore, the case for a Romney re-emergence in 2016 was laid out by none other than Romney himself in August of this year. While addressing a New Hampshire crowd at a political fundraiser he adamantly proclaimed the GOP should select a 2016 nominee “who actually could win the election”. I wholeheartedly agree.

Jared Townsend
Reno, NV

Bibliography



[1]
K. A. STRASSEL, "The GOP Turnout Myth," 22 November 2012. [Online]. Available: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324352004578133120431803606.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop. [Accessed 11 09 2013].
[2]
E. Flock, "INFOGRAPHIC: Obama Lost Independent Vote In Almost Every Swing State," 13 11 2012. [Online]. Available: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/11/13/infographic-obama-lost-the-independent-vote-in-almost-every-swing-state. [Accessed 11 09 2013].
[3]
B. York, "Winning Hispanic vote would not be enough for GOP," 02 05 2013. [Online]. Available: http://washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-winning-hispanic-vote-would-not-be-enough-for-gop/article/2528730. [Accessed 11 09 2013].
[4]
D. Chambers, "Analysis: IRS political suppression cost Romney the 2012 election," 22 05 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.examiner.com/article/analysis-irs-political-suppression-cost-romney-the-2012-election. [Accessed 11 09 2013].
[5]
Real Clear Politics, "General Election: Romney vs. Obama," [Online]. Available: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html. [Accessed 11 09 2013].
[6]
"America Rising," [Online]. Available: http://americarisingpac.org/. [Accessed 11 09 2013].
[7]
R. Weiner, "America Rising: Mitt Romney staffer starting opposition research group," 21 3 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/03/21/america-rising-mitt-romney-staffer-starting-opposition-research-group/. [Accessed 11 09 2013].






If you like what you see, please "Like" us on Facebook either here or here. Please follow us on Twitter here.


34 comments:

Anonymous said...

Of COURSE Romney is STILL the best candidate for the job. Nothing has changed, and in fact now that the field is coming into clearer focus, Romney looks even BETTER.

Slim chance though. Unfortunately. It would take something spectacular to turn the tide the right way. But I agree wholeheartedly, that Mitt Romney is indeed the right man for the right time. He was in 08, 12, and will be in 2016. No doubt in my mind whatsoever.

Mitt Romney didn't lose the election, America did.

-Martha

Right Wingnut said...

Romney didn't want to run in 2012. Don't get your hopes up for 2016. That said, I agree with many points in the article, but it's time to move on.

RomneyMan said...

"a feat he narrowly fell short of. "

What a *narrow* electoral college landslide *narrow* you mean?

RomneyMan said...

I note not a word written concerning the HISTORIACALLY NAFF campaign ran.
If he had had a 1/2 decent campaign, the result *may* have been a bot different.

A 1 year on Romney love fest that's blind to the tings which were controllable, but managed in a amateur way.

RomneyMan said...

One thing I do agree on (though this was not mentioned directly in your post)is that of all the potential '16 names currently mentioned, be they: Cruz, Paul, the savior, Walker, CC, Jindal, Penze, Ryan etc, I would still put Romney above these. He's obviously not going to run, but still

Whether that's a plug for Romney I don't know, or more a case of the *deep* field of '16 in more deep in mouth than substance.

Right Wingnut said...

Bestowed with the gift of hindsight, many of these assessments pointed the finger at Romney, chalking up the defeat to the nominee selection. After all, the easiest person to criticize is the one who failed to deliver; the man in the arena. These criticisms range from his inability to connect with conservative voters or his failure to take the fight to Obama.

Many of us warned of this for years.

Contrary to many reports which continue to use incomplete exit polling data, post 2012 polling results actually show the GOP came out in force for Romney, even more than they did for Bush in 2004 in many battleground states.

I'm not sure which states you're referring to. Just a quick look, shows Bush received higher vote totals in the essential states of IA, OH, and CO. This despite higher overall turnout due to increased population. Mitt received more in FL and VA than Bush, but not by a margin commensurate with population gains, and most importantly, overall turnout.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/

In fact, Romney won the Independent vote as well, a fact still ignored by many of today’s pundits. Yet even with the GOP behind him and a lion’s share of the independent vote, it was not enough to compensate for Democrat turnout in key states.

True. Romney won Indies. Bush lost indies by a narrow margin. This only serves as further evidence that base turnout was the deciding factor, as the last sentence in the above paragraph notes.

While, its true Romney took a pummeling among Hispanic voters, the significance and reaction to this 2012 trend can easily be overblown and misconstrued. Contrary to popular perception, an in depth demographical analysis of the electoral map reveals Romney could have won an historic 70% of the Hispanic vote and still lost the election 268 to 270. This certainly doesn’t imply the GOP shouldn’t expand its efforts taking the conservative message to Latino voters, but a 2016 strategy that pinnacles on courting the Hispanic vote is doomed to fail.

I agree whole-heartedly with that.

Of course the pandering and veneration of Obama by Gov. Christie didn't help much either

Yes. And for some unexplained reason, many ardent Romney backers are now pushing for Christie in 2016





Right Wingnut said...

Bush even received more overall votes in Wisconsin than did Romney. Hard to figure that one out given Ryan was on the ticket.

Right Wingnut said...

I guess I need to see hard data from the battleground states in which Romney did better than Bush with GOP voters. LOL. Good luck with that.

Unknown said...

The article will soon be updated with sources. In the meantime,

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324352004578133120431803606.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

"Moreover, in key states like Florida, North Carolina, Colorado and Virginia, Mr. Romney turned out even more voters than George W. Bush did in his successful re-election in 2004."

I won't debate population changes from 2004 to 2012 with you. If you think they negate the WSJ article's data then so be it.

Right Wingnut said...

The article states that Romney did better with GOP voters that Bush. If you look at the actual data, that claim is ludicrous.

Unknown said...

"...post 2012 polling results actually show the GOP came out in force for Romney, even more than they did for Bush in 2004 in many battleground states"

RomneyMan said...

Yeah, let's play a little game 'unknown'. Let's call it: You're not allowed to post as 'unknown'.

Right Wingnut said...

But they didn't, and you don't have the data to back up your claim.

Furthermore, the four states you mentioned had population increases anywhere from 8-10% from 2004-2012. Romney eeked out a few thousand more votes than Bush in those states (despite receiving far fewer in other battleground states), but not enough to back up the claim that he did better than Bush with the GOP. Many stayed home, obviously. Bush did far better with the GOP voters who stayed home than Romney did.

You're trying too hard, man!

Unknown said...

Look, I previously signed in with my Google account and it still reads "unknown". Not sure how selecting some random "open ID" will help facilitate the discussion. I think it is you who are trying too hard.

You are not required to agree with the article, especially not on every point. I appreciate your critiques and have done my best to explain why the article was written the way it was. I am sorry if that is not sufficient for you.

Unknown said...

Again, the article doesn't say Romney did better than Bush did with GOP on the whole. It just cites data from a WSJ article indicating Romney did better than Bush in key battleground states. I understand your point regarding population changes between 2004 and 2012. If somehow more GOP voters moved to those states (the opposite could also be argued) then your point certainly has merit. Thanks for sharing.

Right Wingnut said...

It's not a matter of whether it's sufficient. It's not true! And everyone other than the Romney fanatics knows it. Your arguments might carry more weight if you left out the fallacious claims.

Unknown said...

Last thing I'll mention, the fact that we are even debating the relevance of increased GOP turnout in key battleground states between a GOP challenger against a popular Dem president in 2012 and a popular GOP incumbent against a week Dem challenger in 2004 is enough to prove my point... at least in some small measure is it not? Can we at least agree on that?

Right Wingnut said...

I would argue that both Bush and Obama had serious issues heading into their various reelection campaigns. Obama's were arguably more serious than Bush's. Especially given the sorry state of the economy.

Anyway, that's probably enough for now. Romney isn't going to run again anyway. Thanks for the conversation.

Anonymous said...

I'm not one who ever said 2012 would be easy, in fact, I thought the people saying so were silly and naive.

America simply didn't want to fire the first black president. (We did not have ONE SINGLE Republican alive who could have beaten Obama.) Especially one who offered so many gov. giveaways. Plus, America is basically asleep at the wheel.

And we're getting set up for the first female pres in the form of Hillary. She can be beaten, but it's an uphill battle, historical presidence, nothwithstanding.

-Martha

Anonymous said...

There isn't one candidate on the horizon that I feel I can get behind wholeheartedly.

RW, I'm not backing Christie, but when you compare him to the rest of the field, he does look better than most. And I HATE saying that because I think he's a jerk, not all that smart or strategic, and his mouth is a huge liability.

It's just that the rest of the field is not up to the job, with the possible exception of Ryan, and I don't even know if he is either.

We are in trouble, IMO.

-Martha

-Martha

Ohio JOE said...

Well, if by chance, Mr. Romney runs and wins the primary, I'll probably hold my nose and vote for him again, but that is where I draw the line. I ain't voting for Mr. Ryan or Mr. Christie even if they do somehow win the GOP nomination.

Katrina L. Lantz said...

This was an article that needed to be written and I thank Jared Townsend for writing it so well. I hope it reaches the eyes and minds of the people who influence the Romney family. I hope they can see through the facebook group links that there is a solid and devoted grassroots movement out there represented by no single group. We are everywhere, the people who want to see a good, qualified, expert problem-solver in the White House as soon as possible! #DraftRomney

Anonymous said...

Romney only needed 342,000 additional votes to win the election. This was a very close election.

Going into 2016, with exception to Mitt Romney, I have yet to hear 1 good name.

Romney may well be our best chance for 2016.

Anonymous said...

I could vote Ryan. I draw the line at Christie, and Rand. Not sure I could vote for either.

Romney I would vote for again.

I hope Romney runs.

Anonymous said...

I agree... we are in trouble.

Romney may be our only hope.

Anonymous said...

I think the IRS factor was real, and probably will be again. I also think America, STUPID America, anyway, would not get rid of Obama because of the color of his skin. Unfortunately, Mitt isn't a real American because he never smokes weed, and doesn't drink. Smoking weed made Dhokar Tsarnaeva real American, don't you know. So sad we had to elect the first incompetent black President. I can think of many more qualified blacks. Honoring America and her constitution alone would be something that this President lacks...

AZ

Anonymous said...

I don't know about that. Obama may well be the undoing of the Democratic party. If so, it won't matter whom they run.

Anonymous said...

Maybe not.... but you never can tell. If he sees he has a chance.... he might. If he does, he will have my support and my vote!!!! Romney is one of the most qualified to run in many many years. I was very proud to cast my vote for Romney.

Anonymous said...

"Only once in the last hundred years has a GOP incumbent defeated a Democratic challenger." What then would you call Nixon, Reagan, an G. W. Bush? There were a lot of half proven statements in this article, but this one stood out. To get this one so glaringly, and provably, wrong makes me question the research behind this article.

Anonymous said...

"Only once in the last hundred years has a GOP incumbent defeated a Democratic challenger."

As is clear from context, the nouns got mixed up. It should read, 'Only once in the last hundred years has a GOP challenger defeated a Democratic incumbent.' By my count, 4 Democrat challengers have done so. Conversely, incumbents have now stayed in office 11 times in the past century; 8 of these 11 wins have gone to Democrats (7/10 before Obama); 4 of the 11 have occurred during the past 5 presidencies (3/4 before Obama). The trends are straightforward.

As for Romney, his defeat casts an unfortunate shadow over the impressiveness of his candidacy. He undoubtedly did better than his peers would have done, considering both GOP and Independent turn-out (as his supporters expected). While the other 2012 candidates had some peculiar liabilities, have we come any further with the likes of Rubio, Cruz, Paul 2, or Christie? It will take some real dazzlement from some of these new headline-seekers for us to start thinking we have any better than Romney for 2016. If Mitt ought not run again, it's not because he isn't the best one for it; it's because leading a nation of such self-deceived fools is simply a crappy job, beneath his dignity as an honest man. If he deigns to come back, the entirety of his significant primary base, and then some, will stand with open arms, putting him far in front of any reckless challengers (otherwise, most of their support would preferentially fall to Ryan).

Ohio JOE said...

"He undoubtedly did better than his peers would have done," Maybe, but he still lost all swing states and failed to help GOP Senators.

Rjk189 said...

Romney should run in 2016 and he would win because the country
sees all the screw up that obama has done and the bullshit that
is with hillary . Romney would have a lot of animo. Romney has to look back and learn what he should of or shouldn't of done , fined
any weak points. Romney 2016 !!!!!! Great Man will make Great President !!!!!

Unknown said...

Thanks "agkcrb" for pointing out the obvious mistake... well, apparently it wasn't obvious to everyone ;). Yes, the nouns were inadvertently switched. I realize for some, the temptation to use this simple mistake as means of discrediting the article as a whole is just too great to overcome. I mean, diligent citing and availability of credible sources within an article is of little consequence if the author is going to resort to simple grammatical errors, tsk-tsk. Be that as it may, I have it on good authority that the error has been fixed.

Anonymous said...

"Just a quick look, shows Bush received higher vote totals in the essential states of IA, OH, and CO. This despite higher overall turnout due to increased population. Mitt received more in FL and VA than Bush, but not by a margin commensurate with population gains..."

I realize that I am very late to the conversation, but I just had to point out that the fact that we are quibbling over who had better turnout, the unprecedented 2004 re-election campaign or the 2012 is actually quite startling when you consider the context.

Bush's advantages were huge: incumbency, both wars then very popular among Republicans, four or arguably five years to establish ground game versus the mere six months Romney had.

Romney's obstacles were even bigger: the gigantic technological breakthroughs of the Obama campaign used to pinpoint who to contact, to exploit all the social networking sites and learn how to depress turnout. Also, nobody argues that negative campaigning works, and note: we weren't talking overall turnout above, but swing states--the small segment of the population where a historic high of $1.5 billion in almost exclusively negative ads were aired by the hope and change president's dirtiest campaign in modern history.

The campaign did indeed end in failure, but I'm with Jared--who else would have done better? And remember, the only time we have ousted a sitting president in 100 years under Reagan we had a very different electorate (which proportionately Romney took by a bigger margin than Reagan when adjusting for demographics), had a press that actually criticized international bungling instead of covering it up, had a primary challenger Ted Kennedy against Carter--instead of a divided Republican party.

So...it's true that Bush and his biggest-ever turnout operation was a little bigger than Romney's when adjusting for population growth, etc. But given the relative situations of the two campaigns, the Romney team's achievement was impressive by any standard.

--Abeman