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

It was the disaster of the senate races in Missouri, Indiana, and North Dakota that really hurt us. Think of the odds of recapturing the senate if the net gain this fall were +3 instead of +6.

matthew8787 on January 20, 2014 at 1:32 PM

Curious you don’t mention “the disaster of the senate races” in Virgina, Florida, and Wisconsin “that really hurt us.”

Curious you don’t mention the RNC’s handpicked candidates who lost.

Curious.

Karl Rove, is that you?

hrh40 on January 20, 2014 at 2:58 PM

Seems like Romney just wanted to clear the deck for Obama. He simply ran to make sure that there was no conservative alternative to Obama.

besser tot als rot on January 20, 2014 at 3:01 PM

Seems like Romney just wanted to clear the deck for Obama. He simply ran to make sure that there was no conservative alternative to Obama.

besser tot als rot on January 20, 2014 at 3:01 PM

…but …but …the Olympics, or something.

ElectricPhase on January 20, 2014 at 3:06 PM

rrpjr on January 20, 2014 at 1:33 PM

Lets see.

Self described conservative, praising Newt Gingrich, and mocking Romney for being rich.

Pfft. For a second I considered arguing with this guy, but he’s clearly not worth the effort. XD

WolvenOne on January 20, 2014 at 3:08 PM

Seems like Romney just wanted to clear the deck for Obama. He simply ran to make sure that there was no conservative alternative to Obama.

besser tot als rot on January 20, 2014 at 3:01 PM

Did we really even have one? Yeah, Herman Cain, but he’s never been in politics before and Santorum? Yeah, I voted for him in the primary, but ain’t he just another big govt type?

Rand Paul and Ted Cruz were only invented relatively recently. But if Ted Cruz wants it, it’s there for the taking.

Lanceman on January 20, 2014 at 3:08 PM

6 million idiots deserve what they get.

rubberneck on January 20, 2014 at 3:08 PM

hrh40 on January 20, 2014 at 2:45 PM

Indeed. After the first debate obama was flat on the floor. Mitt could have kept him there, alas.

Schadenfreude on January 20, 2014 at 3:09 PM

Seems like Romney just wanted to clear the deck for Obama. He simply ran to make sure that there was no conservative alternative to Obama.

Who Santorum? #lol #idiot #you

rubberneck on January 20, 2014 at 3:09 PM

Romney had NO trouble round-housing his fellow GOP candidates in the primaries, but obviously had trouble hitting the real enemy when it counted.

SouthernGent on January 20, 2014 at 2:06 PM

That’s what I was thinking, too. He really wanted to be the Republican candidate but not the President. How odd is that? It appears, he gets the validation and vindication that his father did not get, because of their religion and he’s good. Walks away.

*shaking my head*

History, sort of, repeating itself (strike that/reverse it?). Did Romney run to keep the party in control of the eastern Liberals?…

Ultimately, Goldwater ran because he believed that if he didn’t, the Republican Party would remain under the control of eastern Liberals. For Republicans of all stripes, the 1964 elections were about who would gain control of the party more than about winning the presidency.

Fallon on January 20, 2014 at 3:11 PM

Indeed. After the first debate obama was flat on the floor. Mitt could have kept him there, alas.

Schadenfreude on January 20, 2014 at 3:09 PM

Perhaps the lies from his two Mormon bretheren, Huntsville and Hairy Reed took the wind out of his sails.

Wonderful religion there. Reed and Huntsville should burn in Mormon hell.

Lanceman on January 20, 2014 at 3:12 PM

Who Santorum? #lol #idiot #you

rubberneck on January 20, 2014 at 3:09 PM

Now, that comment was directed at me or Better Read. You should really quote the whole thing. Can I go back to calling you rubberdick?

Lanceman on January 20, 2014 at 3:13 PM

besser tot als rot on January 20, 2014 at 3:01 PM

.
Yeah sure…..That deep pool of conservative alternative prospects was so strong and viable…..
.
damn…opportunity missed……

FlaMurph on January 20, 2014 at 3:14 PM

Who Santorum? #lol #idiot #you

rubberneck on January 20, 2014 at 3:09 PM

Did I say Santorum, you a$$ hat?

besser tot als rot on January 20, 2014 at 3:15 PM

Yeah sure…..That deep pool of conservative alternative prospects was so strong and viable…..
.
damn…opportunity missed……

FlaMurph on January 20, 2014 at 3:14 PM

Romney got the title of “inevitable” early from the GOP and the conservative media, which was his strategy to clear the deck of conservatives early on. The only one that really jumped in was Perry and Romney went after him like a rabid dog.

besser tot als rot on January 20, 2014 at 3:16 PM

Did I say Santorum, you a$$ hat?

besser tot als rot on January 20, 2014 at 3:15 PM

He may be trying to quote me.

Lanceman on January 20, 2014 at 3:17 PM

If Romney had attacked Obama as fiercely ashe did his fellow Republicans, he might have won.

And, if idiots like rubberneck had explained to Reagan Conservatives why he was a good candidate, instead of insulting us, that might have helped also.

kingsjester on January 20, 2014 at 3:20 PM

Romney’s first mistake was assuming that the voters blamed Obama for the bad economy and not Bush. The second was assuming that he was a known quantity to most voters and did not need to spend time or money defining himself or fighting Obama’s effort to define him.

rockmom on January 20, 2014 at 1:39 PM

Poll last week proved VOTERS still BLAME Bush for bad economy

Media influence is the most powerful tool out there and GOP doesn’t stand a chance

Redford on January 20, 2014 at 3:20 PM

He may be trying to quote me.

Lanceman on January 20, 2014 at 3:17 PM

Well, what you said was right. Santorum was the only one worse than Romney, but the only prayer to stop Romney at the end was to vote for Santorum – and hope for a brokered convention. Personally, I couldn’t do it and voted for Perry despite the fact that Perry had long since dropped out.

besser tot als rot on January 20, 2014 at 3:21 PM

He made it over and over throughout the campaign. People like you were to busy calling him names to listen.

Basilsbest on January 20, 2014 at 1:46 PM

Sorry, he was too busy coddling up to his wealthy cronies that he supported in the bailout.

Obama supporters got out and worked to get him elected, Mitt’s supporters didn’t leave their office to work for him. That was the difference.

Mitt was uninspired and he did the same to the Republican party…nice guy, honest (reasonably) and all that, but when you garner fewer votes than McCain, and your opponent had three years of failure, it wasn’t “people like you to busy calling him names” that was his failure.

Mitt was a failure, and without his dad paving the way, without his Mormon cronies not having enough money or numbers, he was what he was…a smart business man that can leverage and make money as long as he has the connections. But once those connections run out, he had nothing.

Of course that fact that he couldn’t run on ObamaCare, since he supported it, and he couldn’t run on Obama’s economics, since he supported it, and he couldn’t run lower taxes, since he raised them, or smaller government, since he didn’t do that either, or on taking federal money and mis-spending it…he didn’t have much to run on but his charm.

right2bright on January 20, 2014 at 3:22 PM

besser tot als rot on January 20, 2014 at 3:16 PM

.
Romney was “inevitable” as you put it, only because there was no one else that could challenge. and another Governor from Texas was not going to get the job done if he couldn’t best Romney…. so you see the it was more of a default win for Romney that it was his treachery and his mean spirited fiber.

FlaMurph on January 20, 2014 at 3:23 PM

Romney’s first mistake was assuming that the voters blamed Obama for the bad economy and not Bush. The second was assuming that he was a known quantity to most voters and did not need to spend time or money defining himself or fighting Obama’s effort to define him.

rockmom on January 20, 2014 at 1:39 PM

Poll last week proved VOTERS still BLAME Bush for bad economy

Media influence is the most powerful tool out there and GOP doesn’t stand a chance

Redford on January 20, 2014 at 3:20 PM

The media influence isn’t a surprise (or shouldn’t be – always seems to be to the statist Republicans though). Any Republican that doesn’t have a plan to aggressively counteract known media biases and fabrications has no business getting involved in a campaign for a federal office.

besser tot als rot on January 20, 2014 at 3:25 PM

“If my opponent was around when Edison invented the light bulb, he would have called it a risky anti-candle scheme!”

See how easy that is, Republicans?

Lanceman on January 20, 2014 at 3:26 PM

The most important part of this isn’t that Mitt lost, that was a given…it was he was whom the dems wanted in the race.

The media picked him, by reducing the other “conservative” candidates to ashes…

Perry, by far the better choice, but he (gasp) stumbled in the debates, and that washes out all of his past attributes…Santorum was even better, but he was described as a religious zealot, and of course, like Perry or Cain, the Republican’s have a litmus test and it must be followed strictly…no one has ever passed that test, but it must be followed.

Once the media attacks, the weak minded follow.

right2bright on January 20, 2014 at 3:27 PM

Romney was “inevitable” as you put it, only because there was no one else that could challenge. and another Governor from Texas was not going to get the job done if he couldn’t best Romney…. so you see the it was more of a default win for Romney that it was his treachery and his mean spirited fiber.

FlaMurph on January 20, 2014 at 3:23 PM

This is like arguing which came first, the chicken or the egg. I think he got a lot of early support to get the “next in line” “inevitability” credential, which kept better candidates from challenging him. But, maybe not. It’s obviously impossible to know for certain.

besser tot als rot on January 20, 2014 at 3:28 PM

What kind of weevil eats the brains of high-level GOPers that they can’t figure out that Obama’s a scummy Chicago hood no better than the dozens of white Chicago hoods that’ve been rejected for national office through the 20th century?

Just because the guy’s got a double-shot of melatonin doesn’t make him one whit better than anyone else in the Daley crowd.

JEM on January 20, 2014 at 3:29 PM

Did Romney ever really believe he could win the election?

I think the right question would be “Did Romney ever really want to win the election?”

After seeing what happened/is happening to conservative and TEA party Republicans by their own party leaders has me thinking that Romney’s run was more about keeping the GOPe in control than winning the election.

It’s the only thing that explains the reason for the pugilistic primary and white glove general campaign.

Fallon on January 20, 2014 at 3:29 PM

Jesus Christ, all one needs to do is out-William Shatner the other guy. Phony up the passion if you need to, but hit them hard and hit them often.

Had Romney told Crowley to just shut the hell up, he’da won that debate as well.

Lanceman on January 20, 2014 at 3:30 PM

The media influence isn’t a surprise (or shouldn’t be – always seems to be to the statist Republicans though). Any Republican that doesn’t have a plan to aggressively counteract known media biases and fabrications has no business getting involved in a campaign for a federal office.

besser tot als rot on January 20, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Good point…but to the degree it is now? Media has always leaned left but now they are the biggest Dem campaign tool …
Look at Christie

Before that witch hunt is over, Christie will resign and become a lobbyist. Christie had a chance to defeat Hillary…

Redford on January 20, 2014 at 3:31 PM

Christie had a chance to defeat Hillary…

Redford on January 20, 2014 at 3:31 PM

With his Political Idiology, he has a better chance of being her VP.

The Heatland would never vote for him.

kingsjester on January 20, 2014 at 3:33 PM

But we on the Right haven’t yet coalesced around any standard of our own that works, otherwise. “Works” as in, what works for the Left to win elections.

Lourdes on January 20, 2014 at 1:27 PM

What works for the left is that they care about their base. They will never degrade them or demonize the base unlike the GOP. Independents may “help” win elections, but parties can’t win without their base, and the GOP has pi$$ed on its base so much in the last few years– good luck with THAT winning strategy.

melle1228 on January 20, 2014 at 3:40 PM

WolvenOne on January 20, 2014 at 3:08 PM

Didn’t praise Gingrich.
Didn’t describe myself as a conservative.
Didn’t mock Romney for his wealth.

Reading comprehension?

rrpjr on January 20, 2014 at 3:42 PM

Reading the full article by York, the impression is worse. Romney really has no political instincts, and was surrounded by over-analytical theoretician-consultants. No seat-of-the-pants campaign terriers, no Nofzigers or Atwaters or Sears — just a bunch of elitist beltway nitwits.

rrpjr on January 20, 2014 at 3:46 PM

The Heatland would never vote for him.

kingsjester on January 20, 2014 at 3:33 PM

.
Rs still have the heartland- even Romney won there…(sans liberal Colo and Iowa/Wisc) – that and the South is all we have left……
forget the coasts… the rust belt…meh..maybe some possibility..
But the Rs still have heartland for a national election.

FlaMurph on January 20, 2014 at 4:04 PM

rrpjr on January 20, 2014 at 3:42 PM

1: You clearly spoke positively of Gingrich, IE, “Romney didn’t understand this, Gingrich did.”

2: I’ll concede this one, you did not specifically describe yourself as conservative, you merely heavily implied it. Practically speaking however, that’s a distinction without a difference.

3: “May he retire to his mansions and brood!” So you clearly cite his wealth in the midst of a negative comment, which implies heavily that you think negatively of his wealth.

Seriously, you’re accusing me of having poor reading comprehension? If you seriously believe that, then I would dare say that you likely suffer from poor reality comprehension.

WolvenOne on January 20, 2014 at 4:11 PM

Another large load of click-bait crap. Must be a slow news day.

Adjoran on January 20, 2014 at 4:30 PM

Would a better attitude have mattered?

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.

No, an attitude change wouldn’t have helped. Romney was doomed from the start. He had a record as a socially liberal governor of Massachusetts. He was the first governor to ever implement gay marriage. He’d enacted fifty dollar abortions. He had an association with Bain capital and vulture capitalism. He’d engaged in serial flip-flopping. And let’s not forget, he served as the forefather of Obamacare by creating Romneycare.

All of that mortally wounded him before he even got the nomination. Even after getting the nomination, he couldn’t stop the bleeding, from being severely conservative, to his aide’s etch-a-sketch comment, to liking being able to fire people, to not setting his hair on fire for the base, to thinking all the trees were the right height. The 47% remark simply served as the coup de grace.

It wasn’t a matter of being out-organized, or the economy, or the failure of ORCA. It was the failings of the candidate.

Stoic Patriot on January 20, 2014 at 4:48 PM

Did Romney ever really believe he could win the election?

Haven’t read Allah’s full post yet, but my first reaction to the headline is “Who cares?” I could care less whether Romney ever thought he could win in 2012 because I already knew he couldn’t. He was the wrong candidate for that cycle. I think he would have been better for 2008 because he could have really been an asset after the financial collapse.

Oh well, it is what it is.

KickandSwimMom on January 20, 2014 at 5:34 PM

How can someone spend six years of his life and $50+ million of his own money, finally win the nomination and then surround himself with proven losers like “Mr. Etch-a-sketch,” Stuart Stevens, Andrea Saul, Kevin Madden, Mike Murphy, Alex Castellanos and other albatrosses that have been part of 75% of the unsuccessful Republican campaigns in recent history?

bw222 on January 20, 2014 at 5:35 PM

Curious you don’t mention “the disaster of the senate races” in Virgina, Florida, and Wisconsin “that really hurt us.”

Curious you don’t mention the RNC’s handpicked candidates who lost.

Curious.

Karl Rove, is that you?

hrh40 on January 20, 2014 at 2:58 PM

You forgot Massachussetts.

bw222 on January 20, 2014 at 5:38 PM

1: You clearly spoke positively of Gingrich, IE, “Romney didn’t understand this, Gingrich did.”

WolvenOne on January 20, 2014 at 4:11 PM

Gingrich, for all his faults, NEVER went after any other GOP candidate in those first debates. Go back and check. He went after Obama and the media. Then Team Romney unloaded on Gingrich in a way they never did against Obama, complete with the lie that Gingrich “resigned in disgrace from the House”.

ddrintn on January 20, 2014 at 5:39 PM

Perry, by far the better choice, but he (gasp) stumbled in the debates ….

right2bright on January 20, 2014 at 3:27 PM

Perry “stumbled” in the debates? More like fell down 10 flights of stairs.

bw222 on January 20, 2014 at 5:44 PM

Media influence is the most powerful tool out there and GOP doesn’t stand a chance

Redford on January 20, 2014 at 3:20 PM

Precious. A bland-as-porridge moderate predictably loses and then it’s all the media’s fault.

ddrintn on January 20, 2014 at 5:44 PM

Perry, by far the better choice, but he (gasp) stumbled in the debates ….

right2bright on January 20, 2014 at 3:27 PM

Perry “stumbled” in the debates? More like fell down 10 flights of stairs.

bw222 on January 20, 2014 at 5:44 PM

Perry never really wanted to run. He was pushed into it by an assortment of GOPe flacks who wanted to keep Palin out.

ddrintn on January 20, 2014 at 5:44 PM

Mitt’s gravestone will read ” I beat DaDa” That’s what it was all about with this ego maniac.

rik on January 20, 2014 at 5:55 PM

It wasn’t a matter of being out-organized, or the economy, or the failure of ORCA. It was the failings of the candidate.

Stoic Patriot on January 20, 2014 at 4:48 PM

And do you remember such pieces of crap like Buy Day-Old Danish and that insipid bluegill spewing their crap? I’d be banned in a heartbeat if I said what I really wanted to say.

Lanceman on January 20, 2014 at 6:18 PM

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.

Very good point Allahpundit..:)

Dire Straits on January 20, 2014 at 6:24 PM

first, I’ll bet Newt thought he could win. Also, if Romney would have been willing to treat Obama, like he did Newt in Florida, he could have won. Obama used the race card well and Romney was afraid he’d be tagged with it.

bflat879 on January 20, 2014 at 6:26 PM

Obama’s huge negative campaign was important – in the months before the GOP convention when Romney couldn’t formally respond. Obama successfully suppressed the vote – especially among white working class voters and Reagan Democrats. These voters were turned off by Obama, but they didn’t come out for Romney either, when Obama successfully painted him as a rich, out-of-touch, plutocrat who hated dogs, women and minorities.

TarheelBen on January 20, 2014 at 6:43 PM

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,

The problem with all of these theories and models or whatever you want to call them, is this. It’s not like the people have had two distinct choice the past few elections. Even during the Bush elections.. Bush was running away from the truth. He feared the lies of liberalism and was apologetic of conservatism.

In 2008 the GOP had McCain. McCain who spent more time defending Obama than he did running against him. In 2012 we had Romney.. the man who Obama credited with giving him the idea for ObamaCare.

One week before the election I heard Romney on the radio giving some speech somewhere and he said this: “I want to reach across the aisle and work with Democrats!” I wanted to scream!

See.. this is where all the hypothesizing breaks down… the people did not choose socialism over freedom. They were never given a clear choice between the two! Quite frankly.. a lot of people might have been a lot smarter than we care to think. They were looking out their windows and could not see any clear difference between the two parties and said to themselves.. “What’s the point! We’re screwed!”

Look at the attitudes between the Democrats and the GOP! The Democrats look at Texas and see a future blue state. We look at California and suck our thumbs. But people are people all over the world! Nobody wants to be in chains! Every parent wants to raise their children in freedom! Most people want to own their own homes, create wealth and live freely.. but our glorious GOP leaders shrink at the thought of defending these values in any meaningful way!

Some communist said it somewhere.. the best way to beat the competition is to be the competition. And I firmly believe we have
Republican leaders working for the interests of the Democrat party. And that is why we have lost elections… not because people suddenly want to be enslaved.. but because the choices between freedom and socialism have been minimized by those on our side!

JellyToast on January 20, 2014 at 7:12 PM

The current problem with the GOP is a lack of inspiring candidates.

The candidates that inspire the base are despised by the GOP establishment. The candidates that inspire the GOP establishment are despised by the base. Any candidate with an (R) after their name is despised by Democrats.

Worst of all, there is not one single Republican right now who inspires independents and swing voters.

myiq2xu on January 20, 2014 at 7:21 PM

He was pushed into it by an assortment of GOPe flacks who wanted to keep Palin out.

The one candidate who generated genuine enthusiasm. The Democrats and GOP establishment have joined forces to discredit her.

myiq2xu on January 20, 2014 at 7:28 PM

I really believed he could win. I thought he would have made a decent president also. But then again, anything would have been better than this stuttering, lying, hypocrite moron in The Oval Office now.

hawkdriver on January 20, 2014 at 7:39 PM

TarheelBen on January 20, 2014 at 6:43 PM

The media was in his pocket. Nothing on Benghazi. Nothing on Fast and Furious. You name it. It would have been non-stop coverage of those events if a Republican had presided over them.

hawkdriver on January 20, 2014 at 7:42 PM

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.”

A candidate who did not believe he could beat the president in debate, who always felt second-best to his father, who believed the country was moving away from him, and who didn’t even feel at home in his own party. The Romney campaign faced many uphill battles in the 2012 campaign. “Mitt” shows us that some of the most intense were in the candidate’s mind.

Mitt Romney might be the most patriotic man in America.

However, running for president in 2012, if he didn’t have it in his heart to fight to win, was one of the most unpatriotic acts, ever.

Schadenfreude on January 20, 2014 at 7:44 PM

These voters were turned off by Obama, but they didn’t come out for Romney either, when Obama successfully painted him as a rich, out-of-touch, plutocrat who hated dogs, women and minorities.

TarheelBen on January 20, 2014 at 6:43 PM

Mitt didn’t fight back. He fought the Rs much tougher than he ever touched obama. He fought with silky glove…a thug in full gear. Mitt deserved to lose. The land and her kids didn’t. I’ll never forgive him for running.

Schadenfreude on January 20, 2014 at 7:45 PM

JellyToast on January 20, 2014 at 7:12 PM

You’re kidding yourself. The people completely had a stark, distinct choice.

Government vs. business. White vs. black. 47 percent comments vs the 99 percent mentality. Let’s stop with this whole notion of “THERE WAS NO CHOICE!” It is silly, ignorant of the facts of the campaign, and counterproductive.

Perry, by far the better choice, but he (gasp) stumbled in the debates ….

right2bright on January 20, 2014 at 3:27 PM

Romney smacked Obama around for all three debates. How do you think Perry would have done? Do you think Perry would have ran a hyper-competent campaign, and performed magnificently in the debates?

Let’s admit the obvious truth, the “truecon” candidates were AWFUL. Amateurish candidates who stumbled over their own words, shot themselves in the foot, etc.

9-9-9, retardation comments, etc. Let’s stop fooling ourselves on this election.

1) It’s almost always a complete uphill battle to unseat an incumbent president. And how could you unseat the first black president?

2) We have more people wanting the blue-state model.

3) The media was completely on Obama’s team.

blatantblue on January 20, 2014 at 7:46 PM

Mitt didn’t fight back. He fought the Rs much tougher than he ever touched obama. He fought with silky glove…a thug in full gear. Mitt deserved to lose. The land and her kids didn’t. I’ll never forgive him for running.

Schadenfreude on January 20, 2014 at 7:45 PM

Oh, like when he had a campaign stop outside of Solyndra?

blatantblue on January 20, 2014 at 7:46 PM

blatantblue on January 20, 2014 at 7:46 PM

Don’t know what your point is. Mitt lost. obama never won in 2012.

Schadenfreude on January 20, 2014 at 7:52 PM

Read the friggin article.

Mitt didn’t have the confidence.

Mitt didn’t even want to win.

He never fought to win.

Period.

Schadenfreude on January 20, 2014 at 7:54 PM

Don’t know what your point is. Mitt lost. obama never won in 2012.

Schadenfreude on January 20, 2014 at 7:52 PM

You’re making a point about a “silky glove” that has no basis in the reality of the campaign. That is my point!

blatantblue on January 20, 2014 at 7:55 PM

Mitt said so the day after.

Some of you eat Mitt’s crap as the media eat obama’s.

Get real. The land deserves better, even though she’s full of morons, in the majority.

However, someone like Reagan inspires the sheep, even if they are stupid.

Mitt didn’t offer what he was for, what they should vote for.

“I’m not obama, in dire times” is not a theme, even if obama is a narcissistic liar and thug.

Schadenfreude on January 20, 2014 at 7:57 PM

You’re making a point about a “silky glove” that has no basis in the reality of the campaign. That is my point!

blatantblue on January 20, 2014 at 7:55 PM

Sorry, meant “gloves”, in the plural.

The rest is b/s on your part. Go find reality.

Schadenfreude on January 20, 2014 at 7:58 PM

You go campaign nationally; traveling constantly, not sleeping, hitting stop after stop, after stop, after stop, ad freaking nauseum, then talk about fight. Were mistakes made? Sure. But I saw Mitt campaigning outside solyndra, hitting Obama on his crony capitalism, aggressively destroying him in the debates, continually ripped him to shreds on his foreign policy, his healthcare policy, his economic policy, everything.

I can’t stand the hindsighters.

blatantblue on January 20, 2014 at 8:00 PM

And what were the TrueCons doing in their primary campaigns?

Babbling about 9-9-9, going on about medications causing retardation, having a complete inability to weather a primary debate, and all of the other plethora of things that they did to sink their own campaigns.

blatantblue on January 20, 2014 at 8:03 PM

Palin would have been a fantastic candidate, but out of all of those people we had in 2012, Mitt Romney was the only one worth running.

blatantblue on January 20, 2014 at 8:04 PM

Mitt was freakin awesome. Picked Christie to open the convention. Smart move. How was Mitt supposed to know that Christie was overweight. No one knew at the time.

SparkPlug on January 20, 2014 at 8:19 PM

latantblue on January 20, 2014 at 8:03 PM

I thought better of you than to see you use that nasty pejorative Truecon.

INC on January 20, 2014 at 8:42 PM

Palin would have been a fantastic candidate, but out of all of those people we had in 2012, Mitt Romney was the only one worth running.

blatantblue on January 20, 2014 at 8:04 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

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

Perry never really wanted to run. He was pushed into it by an assortment of GOPe flacks who wanted to keep Palin out.

ddrintn on January 20, 2014 at 5:44 PM

The same could be said of Michele Bachmann. The first thing her then-Campaign Manager, Ed Rollins, did was bash Sarah Palin and Bachmann said nothing,

bw222 on January 20, 2014 at 9:49 PM

Mitt was freakin awesome. Picked Christie to open the convention. Smart move. How was Mitt supposed to know that Christie was overweight. No one knew at the time.

SparkPlug on January 20, 2014 at 8:19 PM

Right. And poor Mitt.. if only he had known that Obama was going to be the Democrat nominee in 2012 he never would have wasted all that money and time and energy defeating those other opponents in the Republican primaries.

Yeah.. he goes through all of that horse manure called the primaries (twice, by the way) only to finally win so he can come to terms with realizing he’s going to lose against Obama. He runs in 2008 and 2012 because he knows he’s going to lose the general election. He does all of that because he knows he doesn’t stand a chance?

No.. we’re being sold a bill of goods. We’re getting it from both freaking ends. America’s problem is not the Democrat party as much as it is the Republican establishment. Our own party is our greatest weakness.

I’m telling you if the Republican party ever rose up in a unified conservative voice the Democrat party would panic from the Pacific to the Atlantic. Fix the GOP and you will go a long way to fixing America!

JellyToast on January 20, 2014 at 10:02 PM

JellyToast on January 20, 2014 at 10:02 PM

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

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

How about adding:

1) Mitt’s campaign ticked off the republican conservative base
2) Mitt was the father of Obamacare
3) Mitt dissed Sarah Palin by not having the previous VP candidate
(Palin) have a prominent speaker position at the convention
4) Massive voter fraud
5) Mitt Romney was basically a dull guy

Amjean on January 20, 2014 at 10:16 PM

3) Mitt dissed Sarah Palin by not having the previous VP candidate
(Palin) have a prominent speaker position at the convention
Amjean on January 20, 2014 at 10:16 PM

Why would Romney have Palin speak at a convention when she was not a supporter??!!??..:)

Dire Straits on January 20, 2014 at 10:22 PM

After the many, constant attacks on Romney since before he ran for President continuing now a year and a half after the election, you all seem to to upset that he wasn’t more confident in winning. Just days ago he affirmed that he won’t consider running again, and you just can’t quit smearing him. The only reason for that is that you don’t have anyone else besides Chris Christie to denounce.

No wonder conservatives are such losers. They can’t come together and understand that to get what they want, they have to win elections first, and that takes unity not the continual squabbling and backbiting I’ve seen for the past 16 years.

I think that now, however, people can see for themselves how they were swindled by the Democrats, the next few election cycles bode well for the GOP, but that will be just a blip in the overall decline.

flataffect on January 20, 2014 at 10:59 PM

Why would Romney have Palin speak at a convention when she was not a supporter??!!??..:)

Dire Straits on January 20, 2014 at 10:22 PM

Because it would have been the smart thing to do politically. The reason he did not do it was not because she had not supported him in the primaries. He did not do it because he thought it was not the smart thing to do politically because Palin’s negatives were so high.

That was not only incredibly wrongheaded. It showed he was listening to idiots with similar thinking to Steve Schmidt. It was that kind of thinking that really cost Romney the election.

Drumming up enthusiastic support from Palin supporters because they thought she might have a role in a Romney Administration would have been extremely helpful.

Very few, if any, people who disliked Palin but liked Romney otherwise would have held it against him when it came time to vote.

fadetogray on January 20, 2014 at 11:16 PM

Mitt Romney was the most decent and accomplished man that we’ve had the opportunity to vote for in a long time. He was running against the most corrupt and incompetent President of my lifetime. I believed he could win because I did not want to believe that a majority of my fellow citizens were so deluded that they could be swayed by the transparent lies of the Obama campaign.

I believe that election was a great test for our country and a great failure. Quite literally our way of life and the fate of our Republic is in the balance.

claudius on January 20, 2014 at 11:17 PM

are —No edit feature :^(

claudius on January 20, 2014 at 11:23 PM

I can’t stand the hindsighters.

blatantblue on January 20, 2014 at 8:00 PM

I can’t stand obfuscators. I said the same at the time, live.

He didn’t fight the oaf in chief on Benghazi. He didn’t fight back on his 47% comment, which was true. I repeat the truth – the fought the Rs with greater vigor than the Ds. I voted for him but had NO clue why I should, except that he was NOT obama. He is infinitely the better man but he didn’t fight to win. He said so himself. Who do you think you are to contradict him?

Cindy, I don’t care what anyone calls me. My nom cares even less.

Schadenfreude on January 20, 2014 at 11:31 PM

Sorry, not Cindy, rather INC.

Schadenfreude on January 20, 2014 at 11:32 PM

And what were the TrueCons doing in their primary campaigns?

Babbling about 9-9-9, going on about medications causing retardation, having a complete inability to weather a primary debate, and all of the other plethora of things that they did to sink their own campaigns.

blatantblue on January 20, 2014 at 8:03 PM

You and obama want coronations…how devastating to the land!

Schadenfreude on January 20, 2014 at 11:33 PM

Romney should have never entered the race if he was not ready to fight to win.

His team was a conniving disaster. They were more rude to the Cs than the Ds, the hyenas, during and after the election.

Schadenfreude on January 20, 2014 at 11:34 PM

How was Mitt supposed to know that Christie was overweight. No one knew at the time.

SparkPlug on January 20, 2014 at 8:19 PM

Not a Christie fan, but Mitt himself, and all his goons openly joked about Christie’s girth. It was more fascinating to them than focusing on knocking off a buffoon who’s chief.

Schadenfreude on January 20, 2014 at 11:38 PM

Drumming up support from the Paliniastas because Sarah might have a role in Romney administration??!!??..There was no role..Why lie to folks..:)

Dire Straits on January 20, 2014 at 11:39 PM

fadetogray on January 20, 2014 at 11:16 PM

Drumming up support from the Paliniastas because Sarah might have a role in Romney administration??!!??..There was no role..Why lie to folks..:)

Dire Straits on January 20, 2014 at 11:39 PM

Sorry..Fixed..:)

Dire Straits on January 20, 2014 at 11:40 PM

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

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

They can’t be fixed. Let the ‘die’, politically. They’ll be small group, right after they pass amnesty. You can bet on it, my friend.

Schadenfreude on January 20, 2014 at 11:42 PM

Drumming up support from the Paliniastas because Sarah might have a role in Romney administration??!!??..There was no role..Why lie to folks..:)

Dire Straits on January 20, 2014 at 11:39 PM

No need to lie. He could have just let Sarah help and let people think what they would, but even smarter would have been to actually do it. Secretary of Interior or something else his anti-Palin supporters could shrug off and say, “Well if he thought he had to do it. Maybe she won’t do too much harm there …..”

It is what successful Presidents do. They bring their party together. They certainly cannot do well if they don’t. Alienating the Palinistas was certainly idiotic, but it’s what the reality disconnected so-called ‘moderates’ thought was smart.

fadetogray on January 20, 2014 at 11:50 PM

…boy!…did I miss a good thread today!

KOOLAID2 on January 21, 2014 at 12:10 AM

Oh these poor “outsiders” constantly being held down by the GOP that nominates them to run for the highest office in the land. Clearly the GOP has it out for McCain and Romney and only elevated them to increase their embarrassment.

chapman on January 21, 2014 at 12:27 AM

I believe that election was a great test for our country and a great failure. Quite literally our way of life and the fate of our Republic is in the balance.

claudius on January 20, 2014 at 11:17 PM

Well, look who it is; it’s His Royal Majesty King Willard the Inevitable’s chief Romneybot, Unit 427.

Don’t lecture us about our way of life and the fate of the Republic being in the balance. You and your ilk have done less than nothing to save it.

Dunedainn on January 21, 2014 at 12:34 AM

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.

Lol, talk about making the exact wrongheaded conclusion. Even if granting that there is a huge constituency for European blue state model, there is an even bigger constituency which certainly does not want that model. Romney lost because the Obama had already planted a stronghold over the European welfare state constituency whereas Romney did not do anything to galvanize the anti-European welfare constituency.

Romney was trying to eat into Obama’s pie. Incredibly stupid move just as is the entire strategy of RINO center.

promachus on January 21, 2014 at 12:42 AM

Romney should have never entered the race if he was not ready to fight to win.

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 a failed senator or a congresswoman on the outs could somehow fail up to the presidency 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

fadetogray on January 20, 2014 at 11:50 PM

That was never in the cards..:)

Dire Straits on January 21, 2014 at 1:18 AM

Schadenfreude on January 20, 2014 at 11:42 PM

Well they are not dead yet..:)

Dire Straits on January 21, 2014 at 1:19 AM

Hey Mittbots? Csdeven, are you listening?

This is why this clown should not have been our nominee.

Bill C on January 21, 2014 at 5:39 AM

D. C. Inbreeding: “Barbara Bush confesses: ‘I love Bill Clinton’”
http://news.investors.com/Politics-Andrew-Malcolm/012014-686774-barbara-bush-bill-clinton-cspan.htm?ven=rss

davidk on January 21, 2014 at 6:31 AM

3) Mitt dissed Sarah Palin by not having the previous VP candidate
(Palin) have a prominent speaker position at the convention
Amjean on January 20, 2014 at 10:16 PM

Why would Romney have Palin speak at a convention when she was not a supporter??!!??..:)

Dire Straits on January 20, 2014 at 10:22 PM

It is not that he dissed Palin on a personal level; he dissed
the previous candidate for VP. It is not that he dissed Palinistas
as some people call her avid supporters, he dissed the conservative base of which she is a prominent, like her or not,
spokesperson.

Romney had Chris Christie up there for 45 minutes talking only about himself! And if you think that conservatives didn’t come out in droves to vote for Romney who totally ignored them during his campaign run, just wait and see how many stay home if either
Chris Christie or Jeb Bush run in 2016; and to a lesser degree,
Marco Rubio. The conservative base is getting more pissed off,
not less.

Amjean on January 21, 2014 at 7:06 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.

I do too. Obama won the election for essentially structural reasons, above all race and the mass media.

David Blue on January 21, 2014 at 7:50 AM

One might ask (admittedly after observing much of their pretend to be inept behavior)if the GOP real thought he could win.

This is the non-opposition party that is openly attacking their strong base via-hit man Rove at a time when the taken of both houses and the White house are possible. They aren’t stupid, but intent on committing political suicide (“amnesty is us?”)

Perhaps, they too are the closet socialists, but can’t come out all the way just yet?

Don L on January 21, 2014 at 7:52 AM

Self fulfilling prophecy. Whether he believed he could win it or not, he never tried to win it. Why you purposefully don’t try to win, you will lose.

Frankly, if he never thought he could win, he is even more of a loser and traitor to the U.S. than I would have ever thought. If he thought he was going to lose no matter what, he should have been free to preach the truth to the American people instead of refraining from attacking Obama and refraining from saying or doing anything of import in his campaign.

Romney needs to disappear into obscurity. He had his chance and blew it. He has nothing of value to add. Being good at making money is not the same thing as being a leader and he is NOT a leader. He is not a conservative and he is not worth our time.

Monkeytoe on January 21, 2014 at 8:10 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3