Showing posts with label Why Romney Lost. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Why Romney Lost. Show all posts

Friday, November 16, 2012

My Theory On Romney's Troubling Defeat Has Evolved


Thank you for all of your interesting responses to my "Why Romney Lost" post. As I was compiling the quotes, I thought I had it all figured out. I still believe that Romney lost due to millions of Republicans failing to show up to the polls, but my theory as to why they stayed home has evolved over the past 24 hours.

From the time I had first read that Romney-Ryan had actually received fewer votes than McCain-Palin, my knee-jerk reaction was that millions of conservatives stayed home due to the belief that Romney is a flip-flopping RINO, because....well, he is. Although a few voters may cite this as the reason they didn't vote, I no longer believe this to be the reason Romney lost the election.

There is no love lost for Obama among highly informed conservatives. They know the potential ramifications of a second term. I have a difficult time believing that a significant number of this group of voters would pass at the chance to remove him from office. We have seen plenty of evidence of this with very vocal critics of Romney lining up to support the GOP ticket.  I know several people, personally, who have never warmed to Romney, yet they all showed up to the polls to vote for him last Tuesday.

I believe the focus should be on the low-information individuals in the party. These are historically unreliable voters. They get their news from the major networks and word of mouth. They are more likely to be influenced by the fallout from Romney's "47%" comments, news about the mansion he's building in California (complete with a car elevator), and his perceived aloof attitude towards "ordinary" folks like you and me. I believe this group makes up the majority of the 3-5 million McCain-Palin voters who stayed home last week.

An argument can be made that Romney was repeatedly mischaracterized by Team Obama and the biased mainstream media. To a certain extent, that's true, but isn't it the job of the candidate to break through, and get their message out?

In conclusion, Romney did not lose due to demographics. Romney did not lose because of Todd Akin. Romney did not lose because of Rush Limbaugh. Romney did not lose because he's a "RINO." And Romney did not lose because people want free birth control or "gifts," as Romney claims. The bottom line is that Romney did not provide a compelling enough argument for his candidacy to get the low-information Republicans to the polls.

Thursday, November 15, 2012

In Case You Missed It (Why Romney Lost Edition)......

There has been no shortage of theories as to why Mitt Romney failed to defeat the worst president in our nation's history. I decided to compile a few for all of us to ponder. I don't agree with all of them. I'm interested in knowing which theories are readers subscribe to. There's something here for everyone!

Have at it....
___________________________________

Mitt Romney - As reported by the New York Times

....“With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest was a big gift,” Mr. Romney said. “Free contraceptives were very big with young, college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008.” The president’s health care plan, he said, was also a useful tool in mobilizing black and Hispanic voters....
___________________________________

Bobby Jindal - As reported by Huffington Post

Lousiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) rebuffed Mitt Romney's claim that President Obama won reelection because of "gifts" to minorities and young voters, calling the statement "wrong."....

...."Mitt Romney is an honorable man. He's a good honest man. He deserves our respect, and our gratitude," Jindal said. "The reality of it, the campaign was too much about biography. It wasn't enough about a vision of where they wanted to take our country, and how they would do it ... The reality is people are not being inspired by a biography."....
____________________________________

Michael Hirsch - National Journal

....But in the end, Obama secured a second historic election victory—in the face of staggering unemployment—largely because the alternative portrait that Romney presented to the country was far too incomplete. By failing to fill in critical details that would have fleshed out both his personality and his policies, the Republican challenger gave the American people a mere pencil sketch of a candidate. It wasn’t enough, and it was much too abstract. Too many voters couldn’t figure out which Romney would show up in the Oval Office. Would it be the Massachusetts-moderate redux they saw in the last six weeks of the campaign, or the right-wing ideologue from the Republican primaries who embraced a small-government zealot, Rep. Paul Ryan, as his running mate?....
____________________________________

Ramesh Ponnuru - National Review

....Romney was not a drag on the Republican party. The Republican party was a drag on him.....
____________________________________

Bill Bennett - CNN

....We must counter the discourse and speak and educate in terms of family, faith, freedom, principle, values, work, country, community, improvement, growth, and equality of opportunity. No longer can the Republican Party be solely the party of business. Who controls the terms of discussion, dialogue, and education controls the country and, therefore, the election....
_____________________________________

Tucker Carlson - Daily Caller

....But it was a flawed candidacy from the start. Romney’s caution and ever-shifting policy positions made him seem fearful, which is to say weak. His biography hurt him. During a cycle when voters remained angry at Wall Street, Romney bore the weight of a finance background. And because of his own history in Massachusetts, he could never effectively go after President Obama on Obamacare, the president’s biggest political weakness.....
______________________________________

John Dickerson - Slate

....How did the Romney team get it so wrong? According to those involved, it was a mix of believing anecdotes about party enthusiasm and an underestimation of their opponents’ talents. The Romney campaign thought Obama’s base had lost its affection for its candidate. They believed Obama would win only if he won over independent voters. So Romney focused on independents and the economy, which was their key issue. The Republican ground game was focused on winning those voters. “We thought the only way to win was doing well with independents and we were kicking ass with independents,” says a top aide. One senior adviser bet me that if Obama won Ohio, he would donate $1,000 per point to my favorite charity. (That would be a $10,000 hit since Romney lost Ohio but won independents by 10 points). In the end, Romney won independents nationally by five points—and it didn’t matter one bit....
_________________________________________

Kathleen Parker - Kansas.com

...The truth is, Romney was better than the GOP deserved. Party nitwits undermined him and the self-righteous tried to bring him down. The nitwits are well-enough known at this point – those farthest-right social conservatives who couldn’t find it in their hearts to keep their traps shut. No abortion for rape or incest? Sit down. Legitimate rape? Put on your clown suit and go play in the street....
_________________________________________

Sean Trende - Real Clear Politics

....But most importantly, the 2012 elections actually weren’t about a demographic explosion with non-white voters. Instead, they were about a large group of white voters not showing up.... ....So who were these whites and why did they stay home? My first instinct was that they might be conservative evangelicals turned off by Romney’s Mormonism or moderate past. But the decline didn’t seem to be concentrated in Southern states with high evangelical populations....
__________________________________________

Mark America (This is a fantastic piece by Mark America. Make sure to read the whole thing.)

....The most fatal flaw was the candidate. Whether by ineptitude, or by sabotage, his campaign missed too many opportunities to attract voters and score big when Obama fumbled. They let the media put them off their game with ludicrous notions. They permitted the Obama campaign to define Mitt, and he did not effectively counter. Most of all, however, Mitt Romney failed to capitalize on the natural constituencies of the conservative movement, perhaps in part because he was at least as unpalatable to them as they were to him. I said early on in the primary fight that Romney seemed to have been planning to ignore the Tea Party and evangelicals on the basis that they’d show up anyway. In many important ways, they didn’t, and this is what spelled defeat for Romney. That, and I don’t think he was supposed to win. More on that later.

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