Did Romney ever really believe he could win the election?

posted at 1:01 pm on January 20, 2014 by Allahpundit

Byron York, having just watched the new documentary “Mitt,” looks back over his notes and wonders.

Then came the debate. Romney gave a dominating, near-perfect performance, while Obama struggled. The president didn’t even hit Romney on “47 percent.” It was a smashing victory, a big, big win for Romney.

Such a clear-cut triumph would seem a huge confidence-builder, but afterward, Romney seemed mostly concerned that Obama would come back and beat him badly the next time. “Sitting presidents have a very hard time in these debates,” Romney told the family. “They feel like, who is this whippersnapper coming up here who knows nothing? And so they don’t prepare, and they just think they can waltz through it. Then they get crushed in the first debate, and then they come back.”

George Romney, a self-made man, would have gotten the best of Obama, Mitt seemed to think, but a guy like him who’d started life on third base might not have what it takes to make it to home plate. Then, on election night, when the writing’s on the wall, we get this:

“To get up and soothe [in my concession speech] is not my inclination,” an obviously anguished Romney continued. “I cannot believe that [Obama] is an aberration in the country. I believe we’re following the same path of every other great nation, which is we’re following greater government, tax rich people, promise more stuff to everybody, borrow until you go over a cliff. And I think we have a very high risk of reaching the tipping point sometime in the next five years. And the idea of saying ‘it’s just fine, don’t worry about it’ — no, it’s really not.”

Given what has come before it in the film — Romney’s defeatism in the debates — the scene leaves the impression that perhaps in his heart of hearts Romney never really believed he could win. That also seems the message of one of the last scenes of “Mitt,” the day after the election, when Romney addressed staff at his Boston campaign headquarters. The old lack of confidence came out again as Romney suggested he never felt comfortable in the race. He passed on something someone at headquarters had told him: “In some ways, we kind of had to steal the Republican nomination. Our party is Southern, evangelical and populist. And you’re Northern, and you’re Mormon, and you’re rich. And these do not match well with our party.”

Would a better attitude have mattered? There’s a whiff here of the idea that more optimism and a little well-timed righteous anger towards O onstage might have changed the race down the stretch. I doubt it. I remember seeing a graph from a statistical model somewhere after the election, probably on Nate Silver’s blog, showing that Romney never once reached 50 percent odds to win after becoming nominee. Not once. That’s a remarkable quasi-fact about a president whose first term was defined by a grinding jobless economic “recovery” and a huge new health-care boondoggle that’s never been popular with the public: In spite of all of it, if the model I saw was right, Obama was always the favorite, start to finish. Romney thought he had a chance (otherwise, why obsess about the debates?) but he was a longshot — and evidently he knew it. In fact, his finest hour, the first debate, was memorable not because he projected some sort of Reagan-esque sunniness or because he got in Obama’s face over his failures but because he was composed and engaged while O was lethargic and missed easy opportunities. It was, per the model, Obama’s race to lose. And after the first debate, he made sure not to lose it.

I think Romney lost for three reasons. One: He’s right that Obama isn’t an aberration. There’s a huge constituency for the European/blue-state model in the U.S., whether it’s fiscally sustainable or not, and demographic change is more likely to expand it than shrink it. I don’t think it’ll be many years before we see another Republican president but I do think it’ll be many years before we see another Republican landslide. Two: He got out-organized. The irony of the passages from the movie flagged by York is that Mitt was, understandably, worried about his obvious weaknesses (his ability to communicate with voters, his unjust image as a rich guy who’d inherited all his successes) but not worried about his supposed strengths, i.e. his managerial acumen and organizational efforts. He should have been. Obama’s data-crunchers and behavioral analysts evidently ran rings around Team “Project ORCA.” Oh well. Three: Romney suffered from the same problem McCain did, albeit to a lesser extent — there was no real point to his campaign. Bush had “compassionate conservatism” and then the war on terror. Obama had Hopenchange and then protecting the liberal gains he’d made in his first term like ObamaCare. Romney’s message was … “you did build that,” I guess? Makers versus takers? That’s a hard message to sell to middle-class wage earners after a giant recession. The boldface part above, about averting a coming crisis, looked like it was going to be a major theme when he chose Paul Ryan, but then Ryan all but disappeared on the trail — for good reason, as Team Mitt apparently concluded that fighting the battle over entitlements wasn’t likely to be a net winner for them. Maybe all of that would have been blunted by a change in attitude from the candidate himself. But overcome?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

So what should we do with the clown shoe wannabes who never had a chance? The last election had between 0 and 1 people who should have been in the race. The rest were pretenders.

The mere thought that would be outright laughable if it weren’t for the fact that people still hold a delusional belief that they had a chance.

chapman on January 21, 2014 at 12:43 AM

So, it is better to have someone with no intention of winning and who does nothing to sell conservatism (quite the opposite in fact)?

And we are delusional?

by the way – Obama is a “failed senator or a congresswoman on the outs could somehow fail up to the presidency” – so your poo pooing the idea is pretty idiotic.

I love how people still think Romney was a good idea or “our best chance”. You just can’t give up on “electability” even when it is utterly disproven.

Monkeytoe on January 21, 2014 at 8:14 AM

Monkeytoe on January 21, 2014 at 8:14 AM

.
Look up the definition of ” electability”. Please.
Romney proved that he was the most electable by virtue of coming out on top of the 18 month clown show primary contests. You can say you don’t like the man or his candidacy- but only a dishonest liberal could delude their thinking enough to deny Romney the status of most electable Republican candidate. He proved it.
It does not matter whether you like him or not, or that “your guy” was a pathetic alternative – Romney was proven the most electable by the political process that determines the most electable candidate.
Otherwise, someone else would have been on the ticket- and they would have been the most electable.
.
Comprende ?

FlaMurph on January 21, 2014 at 8:50 AM

Reading through this thread seems to support Mencken’s observation:

“Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey-cage.”
― H.L. Mencken

claudius on January 21, 2014 at 9:20 AM

Romney proved that he was the most electable by virtue of coming out on top of the 18 month clown show primary contests.

FlaMurph on January 21, 2014 at 8:50 AM

Yeah, because of the fact that for about 5 years everyone was told that he was the most “electable”. And when it came to the proof, we find that Romney wasn’t “electable” at all.

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 9:23 AM

Romney proved that he was the most electable by virtue of coming out on top of the 18 month clown show primary contests.
FlaMurph on January 21, 2014 at 8:50 AM

Yet what was the entire rationale that the Mittwits presented as the case of voting for Romney? Because he was “electable,” so your argument is a circular one.

Romney severely underperformed in the primaries. He far outspent any of his opponents, but not until squeaking out a 1-point win in Ohio over Santorum did he end up getting on a path to securing the nomination. He had been given by far the most debate time, most favorable press coverage of the GOP contenders, and had the most cash, and yet still struggled against people who had no such advantages. That should have also indicated something about his “electability” right there.

Ultimately it comes down to this: what does it mean to be “electable” if you don’t get elected?

Stoic Patriot on January 21, 2014 at 9:26 AM

ddrintn on January 20, 2014 at 9:06 PM

And you are sure Perry candidacy was “ad hoc”..How so??..:)

Dire Straits on January 20, 2014 at 9:30 PM

Because the guy didn’t get in until August…and we never heard much from Perry about running before that, did we? …. :)

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 9:29 AM

Yet what was the entire rationale that the Mittwits presented as the case of voting for Romney? Because he was “electable,” so your argument is a circular one.

Stoic Patriot on January 21, 2014 at 9:26 AM

With its companion “argument” being: “Since Mitt lost, it proves that NO Republican could have beaten Obama.” That’s been one of my favorites to hear since 2012.

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 9:38 AM

Yet what was the entire rationale that the Mittwits presented as the case of voting for Romney? Because he was “electable,” so your argument is a circular one.

Stoic Patriot on January 21, 2014 at 9:26 AM

With its companion “argument” being: “Since Mitt lost, it proves that NO Republican could have beaten Obama.” That’s been one of my favorites to hear since 2012.

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 9:38 AM

You guys make me laugh. You actually think that a country that twice elected to the presidency the most strident left-wing demagogue in history did so because the alternative wasn’t conservative enough?

I will concede that Romney is not the best salesman, but Obama campaigned on Big Bird and the War on Women. Exactly what intellectual arguments would your dream candidate have made that was going to persuade them over?

The electorate has gotten really dumb. My governor in VA is a left-wing Democrat who was elected on delusional paranoia about birth control bans. This isn’t an enlightened, Reagan electorate – this is a reality-tv obsessed, infantilized instant-gratification electorate. They understand hard work and they understand government giveaways. They know what they voted for.

crrr6 on January 21, 2014 at 9:57 AM

You guys make me laugh. You actually think that a country that twice elected to the presidency the most strident left-wing demagogue in history did so because the alternative wasn’t conservative enough?

crrr6 on January 21, 2014 at 9:57 AM

Yes.

I will concede that Romney is not the best salesman, but Obama campaigned on Big Bird and the War on Women. Exactly what intellectual arguments would your dream candidate have made that was going to persuade them over?

crrr6 on January 21, 2014 at 9:57 AM

“ObamaCare sucks”, for starters. And that’s an argument that the brilliant, REALLY funny GOP geniuses took off the table by nominating the guy who signed into law the blueprint for O-care. You want to talk about “make me laugh”?

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 10:03 AM

You guys make me laugh. You actually think that a country that twice elected to the presidency the most strident left-wing demagogue in history did so because the alternative wasn’t conservative enough?

crrr6 on January 21, 2014 at 9:57 AM

Yes.

Then you need your head examined. As evidence:

Exactly what intellectual arguments would your dream candidate have made that was going to persuade them over?

crrr6 on January 21, 2014 at 9:57 AM

“ObamaCare sucks”, for starters.

For finishers, he made that argument. Obamacare was never popular, and Obama got reelected anyway.

crrr6 on January 21, 2014 at 10:10 AM

For finishers, he made that argument.

crrr6 on January 21, 2014 at 10:10 AM

Yeah, which is sorta like Bill Clinton preaching chastity.

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 10:13 AM

You actually think that a country that twice elected to the presidency the most strident left-wing demagogue in history did so because the alternative wasn’t conservative enough?

crrr6 on January 21, 2014 at 9:57 AM

“So if we nominate someone who’s just a weeeee little eensy-teensy bit less left-wing, he/’she can fool those commie voters and juuuuust squeak in under the wire!” LOL

Obamacare was never popular

And that fact only emphasizes the idiocy of the “Romney’s the most electable” mantra we heard for at least 3 years.

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 10:18 AM

Yeah, which is sorta like Bill Clinton preaching chastity.

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 10:13 AM

You could nominate the pope to preach about chastity, but like Obamacare, it doesn’t swing voters. If you knew enough to know what Obamacare does, with the exception of HondaV65, you were voting against Obama whether the GOP nominated Mitt or take your pick.

crrr6 on January 21, 2014 at 10:24 AM

You could nominate the pope to preach about chastity, but like Obamacare, it doesn’t swing voters.

crrr6 on January 21, 2014 at 10:24 AM

Bullshit. The 2010 cycle was all about O-care. You could nominate the pope to preach chastity, but until you do don’t bitch about the left-leaning lascivious electorate. They can spot a phony and/or a non-choice.

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 10:27 AM

You could nominate the pope to preach about chastity, but like Obamacare, it doesn’t swing voters.

crrr6 on January 21, 2014 at 10:24 AM

Bullsh1t. The 2010 cycle was all about O-care. You could nominate the pope to preach chastity, but until you do don’t b1tch about the left-leaning lascivious electorate. They can spot a phony and/or a non-choice.

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 10:28 AM

With its companion “argument” being: “Since Mitt lost, it proves that NO Republican could have beaten Obama.” That’s been one of my favorites to hear since 2012.

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 9:38 AM

This is an opinion not an argument, but I think that. Why am I wrong?

Briefly my thinking is:
* Obama had an overwhelming advantage in demographics, mass media and organization including institutional favoritism. (This pays off in things like the urban vote factories not having to be concerned about legal scrutiny.
* Mitt Romney suffered from running on nothing and from disorganization. (This means ORCA.) The two are related, because a party that supported its base, believed and was motivated might not have relied on expensively incompetent mercenaries for its get-out-the-vote organization.

Could the GOP candidate have run on something and mobilized the white working class base that stayed home, rightly thinking it had no dog in the fight? No, you would have to tear down the GOP and build a new party for that. Mitt was selected by Sheldon Adelson and others providing money for whichever candidate (was trustworthy on Israel and) served a social liberal agenda. (Sheldon Adelson is proudly explicit about being a social liberal.) The candidate that was going to win was going to be neocon, implicitly all about the interests of the wealthiest (as this represented his real, financial base) and implicitly hostile to white, working class and Christian interests (as this demographic is disliked by social liberals like Sheldon Adelson).

Defeat was a lock, though at the time I didn’t see it and thought the economy would decide.

The GOP needs to be or be replaced by a new party. While that is happening, liberals will get a free run, but they already have a free run. (And Democrats would not be attacking the Tea Party more viciously than John Boehner does.)

In this picture, the only choices in retrospect, were to lose and start rebuilding, or lose and not start rebuilding, and the GOP chose Option B.

David Blue on January 21, 2014 at 10:30 AM

“So if we nominate someone who’s just a weeeee little eensy-teensy bit less left-wing, he/’she can fool those commie voters and juuuuust squeak in under the wire!” LOL

Your argument implies that Romney lost because conservatives stayed home. That is false. There is just more of them than us now. You don’t give birthright citizenship to millions of illegal third worlders and expect it not to have an impact on voting trends over time.

Obamacare was never popular

And that fact only emphasizes the idiocy of the “Romney’s the most electable” mantra we heard for at least 3 years.

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 10:18 AM

In just about every competitive state, Romney outperformed his GOP senatorial counterparts. He even out-performed Cruz in Texas.

crrr6 on January 21, 2014 at 10:32 AM

This is an opinion not an argument, but I think that. Why am I wrong?

David Blue on January 21, 2014 at 10:30 AM

Because it’s nothing more than backtracking self-validation on the cheap. The thinking is:
“An article of faith with me is that Mitt Romney is ‘the most electable’ option. Since it has thus been established that Mitt Romney is definitely the ‘the most electable’ option, then the fsct that he lost merely shows that no one could have beaten Obama.”

If you can’t see the fallacy in that, I can’t help you.

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 10:33 AM

Allah fails to note Romney’s fourth problem — he was preaching an economic gospel that, since Reagan, has utterly failed the middle class. No sentient middle class voter believes that slashing entitlements, cutting wages and benefits, attacking unions and cutting taxes for the upper classes is going to help them. Because it hasn’t.

Oh, also factor in that anti-immigrant hysteria makes Hispanics and Asians deeply distrustful of the Republican party and the week spent slut-shaming women who think it reasonable that doctor-prescribed pharmaceuticals be covered in their health care plan, and you’ve alienated a huge chunk of voters even before you talk about further redistributing income away from them.

urban elitist on January 21, 2014 at 10:34 AM

In just about every competitive state, Romney outperformed his GOP senatorial counterparts. He even out-performed Cruz in Texas.

crrr6 on January 21, 2014 at 10:32 AM

I am so f*ing tired of seeing that bogus “argument” as well. SO WHAT???

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 10:35 AM

^ Here’s some news for you: Cruz is in the Senate. Romney is appearing in Hot Air threads.

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 10:35 AM

There is just more of them than us now.

crrr6 on January 21, 2014 at 10:32 AM

How many more? I want an exact number.

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 10:37 AM

You could nominate the pope to preach about chastity, but like Obamacare, it doesn’t swing voters.

crrr6 on January 21, 2014 at 10:24 AM

Bullsh1t. The 2010 cycle was all about O-care. You could nominate the pope to preach chastity, but until you do don’t b1tch about the left-leaning lascivious electorate. They can spot a phony and/or a non-choice.

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 10:28 AM

Yeah, and we cleaned up because the Democrat base was dispirited, lethargic and stayed home, and we were frightened and angry – great motivators for turnout. Most Democrats aren’t even aware that there are elections in non-presidential years anyway. The 2008 Obama electorate turned out to protect their black president in 2012 and we lost down the line.

crrr6 on January 21, 2014 at 10:37 AM

Obamacare was never popular, and Obama got reelected anyway.

crrr6 on January 21, 2014 at 10:10 AM

So tell also: if the electorate is so “left wing”, why is O-care unpopular?

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 10:39 AM

If you can’t see the fallacy in that, I can’t help you.

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 10:33 AM

OK. I’ll have a think about it.

I was genuinely shocked after the election at how wrong I had been in thinking that the economy would decide. I don’t want to “go back to sleep”; I’d rather continue with some serious re-thinking.

One thing I will say is, the liberal demographic advantage is huge now, and getting bigger by a couple of points every electoral cycle.

That is not a pendulum-like factor. The third world is not going to run out of potential American liberal voters.

David Blue on January 21, 2014 at 10:41 AM

Yeah, and we cleaned up because the Democrat base was dispirited, lethargic and stayed home…

crrr6 on January 21, 2014 at 10:37 AM

Ditto much of the GOP base in 2012. Obama’s share of the vote actually went down in 2012.

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 10:41 AM

I am so f*ing tired of seeing that bogus “argument” as well. SO WHAT???

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 10:35 AM

So, many more people who voted for Romney voted for Cruz’s opponent than the other way around. It’s really not that hard to figure out.

How many more? I want an exact number.

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 10:37 AM

In terms of voting numbers, about 5-6 million.

crrr6 on January 21, 2014 at 10:41 AM

So, many more people who voted for Romney voted for Cruz’s opponent than the other way around.

crrr6 on January 21, 2014 at 10:41 AM

Uh, how do you know that? How do you know whether or not they left the Senate race option blank?

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 10:43 AM

How many more? I want an exact number.

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 10:37 AM

In terms of voting numbers, about 5-6 million.

crrr6 on January 21, 2014 at 10:41 AM

That’s not an exact number, and it’s just more of the same self-validation. Take the differential that Romney lost by, and chalk those up to hopelessly lefty voters.

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 10:45 AM

Ditto much of the GOP base in 2012. Obama’s share of the vote actually went down in 2012.

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 10:41 AM

You can delude yourself all day long. I don’t like giving you bad news, but if you want to pretend that this country is a few principled conservative arguments from righting the ship, go right ahead and have that fantasy but some of us prefer dealing in reality.

Democrats always outnumber us in voter identification. If they turn out and we turn out, they win. Most people are stupid, and the electorate is getting dumber. Do you deny this? This president does more late night TV comedy shows than real interviews. He’s giving morons what they want – a celebrity president who promises and gives them free stuff.

crrr6 on January 21, 2014 at 10:46 AM

There’s a whiff here of the idea that more optimism and a little well-timed righteous anger towards O onstage might have changed the race down the stretch. I doubt it.

Well, it certainly wouldn’t have hurt. Because we all know how well pessimism and defeatism and appeasement is the surest road to any victory.

Please tell us how to fix the GOP??..:)

Dire Straits on January 20, 2014 at 10:08 PM

I don’t pretend to have all the real answers… but that doesn’t mean I’m not right on this one point. We can’t win with RINO’s leading us. So RINOs need to be opposed where ever they are. You can’t always blame the people for picking losers when all they are offered is losers. If we had good conservative leaders at the top.. that is more than half the battle. I have seriously long ago stopped getting angry or frustrated with anyone in the Democrat party. Why should I get angry at a communist for acting like a communist? Obama and the Democrats would be foolish to not take advantage of the Republican leaders we have right now in the Senate and the House.

Lets say you thought something suspicious was going on in your neighbors house. You thought they were being robbed repeatedly by a shady, snake of a weasel. And lets say you had the ability to see through walls.. so you decided to turn on your x-ray vision and look through their walls into your neighbor’s house and here is what you saw… you see your neighbor.. physically a young strong man sitting on his couch watching TV.. and then you see his family cowering in fear in the corner. Little kids crying out for help but dad just sits there…all while this scrawny little weasel of a guy walks through their front door.. hurls threats and profanity at the family. But dad isn’t just sitting on the couch anymore.. he’s opening up the door for the guy. He opens up the cabinet doors and hands him their best of everything. Opens his wallet and keeps giving him 20. dollar bills. And then when his family cries out the father yells at his own family to be quiet!

If you could actually view something like this for real.. who would you really be mad at? Who is the real cause of the theft and harm to the family?

The first step on this road to fixing the GOP is identifying the problems. The second is opposing these RINO’s everywhere they are.. which is only now beginning to happen. 2014 is going to be an interesting year and I say let the primaries begin!

JellyToast on January 21, 2014 at 10:49 AM

So tell also: if the electorate is so “left wing”, why is O-care unpopular?

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 10:39 AM

Because people like getting stuff for free. That’s why Obama withheld the bill until after the election. Their real mistake was not putting it on the credit card, as Democrats usually do. If they had done that, Obamacare would be at about 60% approval.

Nevertheless, anger eventually wanes, people cope and forget, and many non-political Obamamcare opponents will probably be more distracted by free birth control within the next 2 cycles anyway.

crrr6 on January 21, 2014 at 10:49 AM

That’s not an exact number, and it’s just more of the same self-validation. Take the differential that Romney lost by, and chalk those up to hopelessly lefty voters.

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 10:45 AM

5,324,641

crrr6 on January 21, 2014 at 10:52 AM

Oh, also factor in that anti-immigrant hysteria makes Hispanics and Asians deeply distrustful of the Republican party…

urban elitist on January 21, 2014 at 10:34 AM

That, again? Non-whites vote three-quarters and more liberal because they are liberal; you could nominate John (Amnesty!) McCain and it would not help, and we know because the experiment was tried.

David Blue on January 21, 2014 at 10:52 AM

Uh, how do you know that? How do you know whether or not they left the Senate race option blank?

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 10:43 AM

Among Texans who voted in either or both the Presidential and Senatorial races, Romney got a greater share of the vote than Cruz.

crrr6 on January 21, 2014 at 10:54 AM

“Once the candidate is no longer black and that idiotic ‘coolness’ factor is gone, I suspect the young white vote will go back to what it was.”

They’ll find others like: A woman. A hispanic. An LBGT (That’s four). An Indian. A muslim. An atheist. An eco-terrorist etc.

ncjetsfan on January 21, 2014 at 11:06 AM

That, again? Non-whites vote three-quarters and more liberal because they are liberal; you could nominate John (Amnesty!) McCain and it would not help, and we know because the experiment was tried.

David Blue on January 21, 2014 at 10:52 AM

Bush got 44% of the Asian and Hispanic vote in 2004. That figure fell to 27% of a slightly more powerful voting block in 2012. Republicans don’t need to win a majority of these voters, but actively alienating them is a bad strategy.

urban elitist on January 21, 2014 at 11:13 AM

“Once the candidate is no longer black and that idiotic ‘coolness’ factor is gone, I suspect the young white vote will go back to what it was.”

They’ll find others like: A woman. A hispanic. An LBGT (That’s four). An Indian. A muslim. An atheist. An eco-terrorist etc.

ncjetsfan on January 21, 2014 at 11:06 AM

You’re deluding yourselves. It’s not the “cool factor.” It’s that young voters find Republican social policies laughable, Republican attacks on Obama and immigrants racist and Republican economic policies focused on helping people much older and much richer than themselves.

urban elitist on January 21, 2014 at 11:17 AM

Bush got 44% of the Asian and Hispanic vote in 2004. That figure fell to 27% of a slightly more powerful voting block in 2012. Republicans don’t need to win a majority of these voters, but actively alienating them is a bad strategy.

urban elitist on January 21, 2014 at 11:13 AM

First, Bush didn’t do that well.

Second and more important: actively alienating atheist black single mothers with two or abortions and a “studies” degree is a bad strategy too. But that doesn’t mean that increasing their numbers and favoring their interests over white, Christian working class men and the women married to them is the way to electoral bliss for the GOP.

David Blue on January 21, 2014 at 11:24 AM

Mitt Romney did more harm to conservatism and the constitution-based rule of law during his ten years in public life than any other individual in America who claims to be on our side – and he did it all despite never having held national office.

Romney’s betrayals as a governor and presidential candidate came in five poisonous flavors: healthcare; abortion; same-sex “marriage”; war on religion; and participation in, and encouragement of, authoritarian rule.”

http://pjmedia.com/blog/dont-feed-us-this-mitt-again/

rrpjr on January 21, 2014 at 11:48 AM

No one claiming to be center-right has done anywhere near as much accumulated damage as Mitt Romney. No one claiming to be interested in America’s future as a representative republic can possibly support his return to presidential politics.”

rrpjr on January 21, 2014 at 11:51 AM

actively alienating atheist black single mothers with two or abortions and a “studies” degree is a bad strategy too. But that doesn’t mean that increasing their numbers and favoring their interests over white, Christian working class men and the women married to them is the way to electoral bliss for the GOP.

David Blue on January 21, 2014 at 11:24 AM

What are the odds that atheist single black mother with two or more abortions and a studies degree would vote GOP even if she knew for a fact it would be better for the country as a whole?

People rationalize doing what they perceive is in their interest. People will not vote to reduce their own benefits.

We must close down most immigration and sharply raise the minimum wage. It is the only chance we have to stop the growth of Leviathan.

fadetogray on January 21, 2014 at 12:04 PM

You’re deluding yourselves. It’s not the “cool factor.” It’s that young voters find Republican social policies laughable, Republican attacks on Obama and immigrants racist and Republican economic policies focused on helping people much older and much richer than themselves.

urban elitist on January 21, 2014 at 11:17 AM

Ah, there you are, urbane effitist.

That’s why they’re called young voters. They know little of life, yet they think they know it all.

I don’t give two f*cks what young people think. I was indicating that once there was no blaaaack maaaaan to vote for, they will revert to their usual voting tendencies. In other words, unreliable.

Kinda like 2010.

Lanceman on January 21, 2014 at 12:07 PM

Bush got 44% of the Asian and Hispanic vote in 2004. That figure fell to 27% of a slightly more powerful voting block in 2012. Republicans don’t need to win a majority of these voters, but actively alienating them is a bad strategy.

urban elitist

Ahh yes, the old 44% canard. You keep clinging to that 44% outlier. It shows just how desperate you are.

And btw, Romney would have needed 70% + of the Hispanic vote to win…a number no republican ever has or ever will get..well, at least not before they run as democrats. And it has nothing to do with being “anti-immigrant”, lol.

Still, I want to thank you for showing why it’s so difficult for republicans to win. They are just too many damn stupid people in this country.

xblade on January 21, 2014 at 12:13 PM

You’re deluding yourselves. It’s not the “cool factor.” It’s that young voters find Republican social policies laughable, Republican attacks on Obama and immigrants racist and Republican economic policies focused on helping people much older and much richer than themselves.

urban elitist

Romney won the young white vote, lol.

xblade on January 21, 2014 at 12:16 PM

Ah, there you are, urbane effitist.

That’s why they’re called young voters. They know little of life, yet they think they know it all.

I don’t give two f*cks what young people think. I was indicating that once there was no blaaaack maaaaan to vote for, they will revert to their usual voting tendencies. In other words, unreliable.

Kinda like 2010.

Lanceman on January 21, 2014 at 12:07 P

I’m glad you don’t give 2 f’s. Your willful misunderstanding of race, youth and politics gives my team a significant advantage in 2016.

Ahh yes, the old 44% canard. You keep clinging to that 44% outlier. It shows just how desperate you are.

And btw, Romney would have needed 70% + of the Hispanic vote to win…a number no republican ever has or ever will get..well, at least not before they run as democrats. And it has nothing to do with being “anti-immigrant”, lol.

Still, I want to thank you for showing why it’s so difficult for republicans to win. They are just too many damn stupid people in this country.

xblade on January 21, 2014 at 12:13 PM

You clearly don’t understand politics. First, perception of Republicans as anti-immigrant is indeed a clear factor in Asian/Hispanic voting. Second, it’s pretty obvious that no one demographic decides elections by itself. It’s equally obvious that the better you do with one demographic, the fewer votes you need to earn in the others. You build a winning coalition by maximizing your potential in every possible group, not by actively alienating (see “self-deportation”). If the GOP can win 35 or 40% of the Hispanic/Asian vote (and 10% of the black vote), they are millions of votes closer to winning.

Romney won the young white vote, lol.

xblade on January 21, 2014 at 12:16 PM

So it wasn’t the “cool factor?” And there will be no dropoff in 2016 after all?

See my point above, though — he lost young white voters by 7 points while losing white voters overall by 20 points — he maximized his vote, even though he lost.

urban elitist on January 21, 2014 at 1:00 PM

Yeah, because of the fact that for about 5 years everyone was told that he was the most “electable”. And when it came to the proof, we find that Romney wasn’t “electable” at all.

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 9:23 AM

That still doesn’t explain why it was “ad hoc”..And that doesn’t make it “ad hoc”..:)

Dire Straits on January 21, 2014 at 1:01 PM

urban elitist on January 21, 2014 at 1:00 PM

Lemme guess: You’re a ‘young’ person.

Yeah, I can understand a true believer like you.

But by ’16, for young people across the country, their suffering will be far greater than it is now. Time will tell if they remain stupid.

But, if I know young people, and I do because I was one not that long ago, their attitude that it’s not worth the trouble will once again rear its ugly (or not ugly) head.

No, urbane, your little ‘enclave that is New York doesn’t count. Reagan could not win New York today. Spitzer. Paterson. Bloomy. DiBlasio. Coomo. Hell, Giuliani prolly couldn’t win today. Moynihan couldn’t win there today!

Bush didn’t need New York. Another R candidate doesn’t need it.

Lanceman on January 21, 2014 at 1:12 PM

Now, urbane, could we lose? Yep. You bet. We could nominate Christie or another Romney/Dole/McCain.

In that case, I can assure you even I will stay home.. No more voting against the other guy, as the country is finished as it is. At that point, it will make no difference and I’d rather not have ‘Republican’ fingerprints any where near when it turns to complete shit.

Lanceman on January 21, 2014 at 1:22 PM

Amjean on January 21, 2014 at 7:06 AM

I’m sorry but that is politics..I am sure if Palin would have won the nomination she would have let Mitt speak..No???..:)

Dire Straits on January 21, 2014 at 1:24 PM

Amjean on January 21, 2014 at 7:06 AM

I’m sorry but that is politics..I am sure if Palin would have won the nomination she would have let Mitt speak..No???..:)

Dire Straits on January 21, 2014 at 1:24 PM

This is not about Palin herself as an individual;
it is about dissing the person who ran as a VP candidate in the election prior. That person happened to be a conservative who
was beloved by many. In addition to that Romney ignored the conservative base so they in turn ignored him when it came to vote.

And, yes, if Romney had been the VP candidate in the prior election protocol would dictate that he be given a prominent
speaking role at Palin’s convention if she was running for president. It is common courtesy.

Amjean on January 21, 2014 at 2:13 PM

Amjean on January 21, 2014 at 2:13 PM

There is no such protocol..Who knows..The main speakers are chosen by nominee with input by GOP..Maybe Palin was offered a speaker’s spot and turned it down..:)

Dire Straits on January 21, 2014 at 2:52 PM

Maybe Palin was offered a speaker’s spot and turned it down..:)

Dire Straits on January 21, 2014 at 2:52 PM

That is zero probability, DS. 0.00000000000000000000%

As I said earlier, it was a huge unforced error, and it showed how screwed up RINO thinking is with regard to what conservatism in America is really about.

Swing voters do not regard Palin the way the Washington elite think they do. They get it so wrong because they are reading the wrong things from the polls. “Palin has ‘Big Negatives.’ Oh, no! Must avoid!”

Swing voters wouldn’t have given a fig if Palin had spoken, even in prime time. They might have even learned something.

fadetogray on January 21, 2014 at 3:54 PM

Because people like getting stuff for free. That’s why Obama withheld the bill until after the election.

crrr6 on January 21, 2014 at 10:49 AM

1. People always have liked getting stuff for free, and GOP presidential nominees have in the recent past still have managed to win elections. 2. ObamaCare was unpopular from before the moment it became law.

Most people are stupid, and the electorate is getting dumber. Do you deny this?

crrr6 on January 21, 2014 at 10:46 AM

So how do you demonstrate that the electorate was more knowledgeable in 1980 and 1984 and 1988 and 2000 and 2004 than they are today?

That still doesn’t explain why it was “ad hoc”..And that doesn’t make it “ad hoc”..:)

Dire Straits on January 21, 2014 at 1:01 PM

It doesn’t make Romney electable either… :) “Ad hoc” refers to Perry’s campaign, not to Romney.

I’m sorry but that is politics..I am sure if Palin would have won the nomination she would have let Mitt speak..No???..:)

Dire Straits on January 21, 2014 at 1:24 PM

Who has more support among the GOP base, Palin or Christie? I couldn’t care less about Palin being snubbed. It’s pretty obvious to me that she wasn’t asked to speak because she would’ve overshadowed the GOP nominee (and, let’s face it, it really doesn’t take all that much to overshadow Mitt Romney). The point is that Romney and his team were and are political ignoramuses, as are most of the ones who were saying that Romney ever had a chance of being elected.

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 3:56 PM

The point is that Romney and his team were and are political ignoramuses, as are most of the ones who were saying that Romney ever had a chance of being elected.

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 3:56 PM

I’ve said he had a chance …. but I was saying he had a chance if the political ignoramuses had acted differently (wisely).

So we’re back to the scorpion thing. It is what it is, and it will do what it will do, and given what the campaign was, yes, Romney never had a chance.

fadetogray on January 21, 2014 at 4:04 PM

So we’re back to the scorpion thing. It is what it is, and it will do what it will do, and given what the campaign was, yes, Romney never had a chance.

fadetogray on January 21, 2014 at 4:04 PM

Romney was dead meat the moment O-care passed. I was wrong in that I thought it would kill his shot at the nomination, even.

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 4:07 PM

It doesn’t make Romney electable either… :) “Ad hoc” refers to Perry’s campaign, not to Romney.
ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 3:56 PM

And you still haven’t said why Perry’s campaign was “Ad Hoc”..I said nothing about Romney’s campaign..:)

Dire Straits on January 21, 2014 at 4:18 PM

fadetogray on January 21, 2014 at 3:54 PM

I see your point..But I guess we will never know..:)

Dire Straits on January 21, 2014 at 4:21 PM

And you still haven’t said why Perry’s campaign was “Ad Hoc”..I said nothing about Romney’s campaign..:)

Dire Straits on January 21, 2014 at 4:18 PM

If I didn’t know better I’d swear you were a bit perturbed. It’s OK to come out and call bullshit if you deem it necessary. Whether it be me, ddrintn or a troll.

Lanceman on January 21, 2014 at 4:23 PM

If I didn’t know better I’d swear you were a bit perturbed. It’s OK to come out and call bullshit if you deem it necessary. Whether it be me, ddrintn or a troll.

Lanceman on January 21, 2014 at 4:23 PM

LoLz..Not perturbed at all..:)

Dire Straits on January 21, 2014 at 4:26 PM

Bullshit. The 2010 cycle was all about O-care. You could nominate the pope to preach chastity, but until you do don’t bitch about the left-leaning lascivious electorate. They can spot a phony and/or a non-choice.

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 10:27 AM

.
uh hey maroon…..
either your memory is as long as your…nose … or you enjoy being dishonest like the average run of the mill lefty…..
.
John Roberts (that SCOTUS) took Obamacare OFF the electoral table BEFORE the conventions in 2012. For Romney to still beat the Obamacare drum after SCOTUS would have been FUTILE and arrogant.
You just can’t handle the truth. And that truth is that Romney was all there was for 2012. There was no invisible candidate or your desired dream candidate running, that was more electable than Mitt 3.97.
So stop living in 2010 and get with it. And by that I mean dealing in facts and less revisionism. Please.

FlaMurph on January 21, 2014 at 5:37 PM

We must close down most immigration and sharply raise the minimum wage. It is the only chance we have to stop the growth of Leviathan.

fadetogray on January 21, 2014 at 12:04 PM

Just close down immigration and let the tight labor market do its wage-increasing work.

David Blue on January 21, 2014 at 5:39 PM

uh hey maroon…..
either your memory is as long as your…nose … or you enjoy being dishonest like the average run of the mill lefty…..

LOL…the same old “lefty” accusation, from someone who spent months pimping Romney. Cute. Let’s see, I’ve been called a far-right “purist”, an OFA/OWS “socialist”, a “commie bastard…you Mittwits just could never get your insults in line.
.

John Roberts (that SCOTUS) took Obamacare OFF the electoral table BEFORE the conventions in 2012.

He did no such thing. He left it up to the politicians who put the thing into place from the beginning.

There was no invisible candidate or your desired dream candidate running, that was more electable than Mitt 3.97.

Mitt 3.97 was just about as “electable” as all the other incarnations of Mitt, namely not at all. That whole “electable” garbage that was spewed here and elsewhere for months, if not years, needs to be dumped.

So stop living in 2010 and get with it. And by that I mean dealing in facts and less revisionism. Please.

FlaMurph on January 21, 2014 at 5:37 PM

Yeah, 2010 never happened. That was some moderate wave.

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 6:18 PM

And you still haven’t said why Perry’s campaign was “Ad Hoc”..I said nothing about Romney’s campaign..:)

Dire Straits on January 21, 2014 at 4:18 PM

You quoted my remarks about Romney and then apllied them to Perry. Must’ve been your copy-paste mistake.

Perry’s campaign was “ad hoc” in the sense that it was a rushed attempt to keep Palin out, whether she ever intended to run or not (which I don’t presume to know). It was all just a little too transparent. That’s why also we had all this newfound admiration from some of the strangest sources for Michele Bachmann after she jumped into the primaries.

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 6:22 PM

* applied

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 6:23 PM

For Romney to still beat the Obamacare drum after SCOTUS would have been FUTILE and arrogant.

FlaMurph on January 21, 2014 at 5:37 PM

By the way, genius, he did, with his (I think) disingenuous talk of handing out waivers universally on Day One ™ . Dontcha remember? Or is your memory as long as your…nose…?

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 6:38 PM

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 6:22 PM

I don’t know about that. If Perry had been more prepared and if his candidacy wasn’t some ad hoc thing, I think he could’ve won.

ddrintn on January 20, 2014 at 9:06 PM

No I didn’t..I asked you straight up about Perry’s “Ad hoc” campaign..:)

Do you have any proof that Perry’s “Ad Hoc” campaign was just to keep Palin out??..:)

Dire Straits on January 21, 2014 at 6:39 PM

Do you have any proof that Perry’s “Ad Hoc” campaign was just to keep Palin out??..:)

Dire Straits on January 21, 2014 at 6:39 PM

Do you have any proof that Perry’s campaign wasn’t “ad hoc”?

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 6:54 PM

Do you have any proof that Perry’s campaign wasn’t “ad hoc”?

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 6:54 PM

No..But I wasn’t the one who posted that it was without proof..:)

Dire Straits on January 21, 2014 at 6:57 PM

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 6:54 PM

Do you really believe that Rick Perry ran just to keep Palin out???..:)

Dire Straits on January 21, 2014 at 7:01 PM

I dont believe this article

It was a smashing victory, a big, big win for Romney.

No it wasnt, it was a weak gain because Romney never used both barrels on anything, I assume on advice to not be controversial

Given what has come before it in the film — Romney’s defeatism in the debates — the scene leaves the impression that perhaps in his heart of hearts Romney never really believed he could win.

I do not believe that. Romney dumped a bunch of money on his effort, and put his family into the battle. However, Romney carefully followed the RINO game plan, avoiding hardball against Obama. Then when he came up with a few zings, they fizzled because they were not consistent with the rest of his campaign.

Similar to Bush Sr saying the economy was not so bad. He might have that impression reading his internal reports, but to be able to carry it off in public, he needed to build his case repeatedly, a lot earlier than a debate. Bush walked into it with no time to prove what he said. He left himself hanging. Further, the evidence at the micro level said people were short of bucks. Like today, a good market future doesnt make up for short paychecks and large bills now.

I believe with different advisers, Romney would have presented better. However, he would have had to divorce the RINO brigade. Romney has great skills in fixing institutions. Instead we got a President with great skills at pillaging institutions. Too bad

entagor on January 21, 2014 at 7:43 PM

Do you have any proof that Perry’s campaign wasn’t “ad hoc”?

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 6:54 PM

No..But I wasn’t the one who posted that it was without proof..:)

Dire Straits on January 21, 2014 at 6:57 PM

Meh. It’s an opinion. I don’t think documentary evidence is required. Perry didn’t really want to run. Lots of GOPe types who eventually were full-throttle for Romney were dying for him to get in. It doesn’t take much imagination to wonder why.

Do you really believe that Rick Perry ran just to keep Palin out???..:)

Dire Straits on January 21, 2014 at 7:01 PM

No, I don’t think Perry personally wanted to keep Palin out. He didn’t like Romney. But the likes of Haley Barbour really really wanted to see Perry throw his hat into the ring. Tell me why.

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 9:10 PM

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 9:10 PM

It is an opinion you can’t backup..:)

Likes of Haley Barbour??!!??..You have totally lost me..:)

Dire Straits on January 21, 2014 at 9:42 PM

By the way, genius, he did, with his (I think) disingenuous talk of handing out waivers universally on Day One ™ . Dontcha remember? Or is your memory as long as your…nose…?

ddrintn on January 21, 2014 at 6:38 PM

.
You cannot be this dense, so I am assuming your Mitt butt hurt still annoys, clouding your judgement…
Romney’s Day One promise deal was started during the primary season in which he bested all your clown posers the media allowed to play along. SCOTUS green lighted Hopeycare during the SUMMER of 2012. Would he still request a repeal on day one if he was elected? You betcha.
The point that was being made is that Mitt fighting Hopeycare as enemy no. 1 ( like it was able to be done in 2010) at that point was to be picking a fight with SCOTUS- not ObaMao.
That would be just plain stoopid.
Or would you have preferred Mitt to have ignored the constitutionality of SCOTUS, like say Chicago Jesus does?

FlaMurph on January 21, 2014 at 10:18 PM

You cannot be this dense, so I am assuming your Mitt butt hurt still annoys, clouding your judgement…
Romney’s Day One promise deal was started during the primary season …

FlaMurph on January 21, 2014 at 10:18 PM

Nah, it’s you Mittwits who are eternally butthurt. We “dense” types told you how Mittmentum would end up. And, uh, no. Romney started in with that stuff not long after O-care passed, in March 2010. And so you do admit that Romney WAS arrogant and did engage in that futility of taking on O-care AFTER he clinched the nomination.

You’re a waste of time. Just stick around and you can start pimping Christie or Jeb or somebody before long.

ddrintn on January 22, 2014 at 9:12 AM

This wierd Mitt didn’t want to win theme pops up again. Ask yourself why?

Someone is playing with your mind for SOME reason or other.

Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, their wives, families and supporters were surprised to lose, they thought momentum was going their way.

So, why this theme? some kind of blame from people who supported other candidates in the primary or is it from the liberal media, knowing some on our side will take the bait. There are sick people on our side that like to eat their own…makes them feel better about themselves?

If you live in a red state, you need to start pulling your weight in presidential years. The GOP presidential campaign cannot afford to prop you up and make you feel good while they are waging the war in battleground states.

There was every evidence of a campaign for a conservative, traditional American president, but you had to log into the Romney or GOP campaign website for the free entertainment.

I watched Red Rock (Colorado campaign stop) two times. I want that America. You could have set up a big screen in your red state, and inspired your friends. As it is 68% of the vote went for Romney in Red States. If you did not come out to vote for your own candidates down the ballot, what is the matter with you? I am not sure I believe the story that people stayed home.

Did they stay home and not come out to vote for Alan West? (Statistical tie at 50-50.) The republican senate candidate Connie Mack lost to Bill Nelson. It was 45%-55% (4,521,534 to 3,457,254), a better democrat win than Obama vs. Romney 50%-49% (4,237,756 to 4,163,447) It is inexplicable to me, that Floridians did not vote for the Connie Mack Penny Plan, so clever, I thought, when they checked the box for Romney.

Romney lost in Florida by 75,000 votes. (Connie Mack, my hero, lost by a million votes.) Not because he (Romney) didn’t want to win, I would conclude there is something not quite right in Florida. That state has a republican governor, who better start fixing it. Now.

Fleuries on January 22, 2014 at 10:10 AM

You’re a waste of time. Just stick around and you can start pimping Christie or Jeb or somebody before long.

ddrintn on January 22, 2014 at 9:12 AM

.
Heh, Career politicians seem to be your love, not mine.
I prefer more proven – private sector – leadership qualities.

FlaMurph on January 22, 2014 at 6:37 PM

We were all shocked when the little zero “won”. We now know he didn’t. As Peggy Noonan notes:

“The bottom line is that the Tea Party movement, when properly activated, can generate a huge number of votes—more votes in 2010, in fact, than the vote advantage Obama held over Romney in 2012. The data show that had the Tea Party groups continued to grow at the pace seen in 2009 and 2010, and had their effect on the 2012 vote been similar to that seen in 2010, they would have brought the Republican Party as many as 5-8.5 million votes compared to Obama’s victory margin of 5 million.”

Think about the sheer political facts of the president’s 2012 victory. The first thing we learned, in the weeks after the voting, was that the Obama campaign was operating with a huge edge in its technological operation—its vast digital capability and sophistication. The second thing we learned, in the past month, is that while the campaign was on, the president’s fiercest foes, in the Tea Party, were being thwarted, diverted and stopped.

Technological savvy plus IRS corruption. The president’s victory now looks colder, more sordid, than it did. Which is why our editor, James Taranto, calls him “President Asterisk” ( http://blogs.wsj.com/peggynoonan/2013/06/21/where-was-the-tea-party/ )

Is it any wonder that my sig is:
Atlas Shrugged was supposed to be a warning, Not A Newspaper!

mcsandberg on January 22, 2014 at 6:51 PM

Heh, Career politicians seem to be your love, not mine.

Name one.

I prefer more proven – private sector – leadership qualities.

FlaMurph on January 22, 2014 at 6:37 PM

Yeah, well, Warren Buffett doesn’t seem to be interested.

ddrintn on January 22, 2014 at 6:58 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3