Did Romney’s conservative shift help him or hurt him?
What’s the net effect on Romney support? Even though strong conservatives have become much more supportive of Romney, they constitute a tiny fraction of the electorate. Most voters are moderate. In the YouGov survey, for instance, only 11% placed themselves at 5 on the ideology scale. In contrast, 36% placed themselves at 3. So, across all learners, Romney’s shift turns out to have hurt him by about one percentage point—not much, but everything counts in an election as close as this one.
According to these findings, the 2012 campaign has fulfilled one of its main roles in democracy: it has informed voters about Romney’s new policy stance. Moreover, in contrast with my findings in other elections, voters have shifted their vote intentions accordingly, probably because voters who care about ideology had something new to learn.
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
According to the Gatekeeper of all things Conservative Ann Coulter, Mitt Romney was more conservative than Ronald Reagan, and a better candidate than Ronald Reagan, and the best candidate the GOP has EVER run.
Where were the
ReaganRomney Democrats?portlandon on November 9, 2012 at 11:24 AM
What conservative shift? You mean more debt? That’s not conservative. You mean his Romneycare and support for the individual mandate? That’s not conservative, or how about is support for issues such as the NDAA, Patriot Acts and other laws that stomp on the US Constitution. Romney lost because he didn’t stand for anything, and he certainly didn’t stand for liberty.
MoreLiberty on November 9, 2012 at 11:26 AM
It both helped AND hurt him.
On one hand, you have the Santorum/Akin faction who were upset that Romney didn’t make the election all about babies. And then you have the Gary “Feed me a Fetus” who were repulsed that Romney made the election too much about babies.
While the one thing that Romney, Santorum and the Jackson crowd did agree on, that the expanding welfare state would bankrupt the country, has now come to pass. Romney couldn’t have won in this environment.
Obama is laughing his ass off at every damn one of you.
Alberta_Patriot on November 9, 2012 at 11:28 AM
Neither.
forest on November 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM
Romney ran on smaller government and fixing the national debt.
While he may have been socially conservative, the above legs of conservatism is on which he stood.
eforhan on November 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM
When did this “conservative shift” happen? Romney was nominated for being an “electable moderate.”
This is a stealth effort by the left wing of the GOP to now paint Romney as some sort of right-wing extremist to avoid being blamed and losing power in the wake of their crushing defeat.
Doomberg on November 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM
Please stop over-analyzing the election.
reddevil on November 9, 2012 at 11:31 AM
As far as the campaign ads are concerned, Romney’s “conservative shift” happened when he laid off workers and globalized his distribution networks with Bain. There was no discussion on the media of any specifics on his rightward move.
Also, the fact that 3 million GOP voters stayed home doesn’t suggest that triangulation would have been a great idea.
HitNRun on November 9, 2012 at 11:34 AM
That’s the kind of attitude that cost us the election! /
forest on November 9, 2012 at 11:34 AM
What conservative shift?
sharrukin on November 9, 2012 at 11:34 AM
I think we need to start playing the games the left plays.
Look at how they frame every debate.
Racist, greedy, etc.
It’s time we get out there and start calling out the left for the racists that they are.
Call them greedy for wanting to take from everyone.
We need to make this personal, frankly.
The personal IS the political, and it is time we begin personally destroying every Democrat we can.
Slash and burn
blatantblue on November 9, 2012 at 11:35 AM
No he didn’t. he might have mention that in his rhetoric but he had no plans. He wouldn’t tell us what – if any – he would cut. he certainly wasn’t going to decrease military spending, and he wasn’t going to stop foreign aid – and his running mate ran on the fact that Obamacare reduce medicare.
MoreLiberty on November 9, 2012 at 11:38 AM
Bullshit. Stop with the Monday Morning QBing. That’s what the left is doing to create a divide within the party. Believe it if you want.
reddevil on November 9, 2012 at 11:39 AM
YES!
It’s time the MSM gets their payback too. When you see them outside their protective bubbles, get in their faces. Adopt the tactics of the left.
reddevil on November 9, 2012 at 11:40 AM
We don’t need to ditch socons, and we dont need to hang the moderates.
we need to come together and DESTROY the left.
and the best part?
the best part is, we don’t need to make up a damn thing.
blatantblue on November 9, 2012 at 11:44 AM
SARCASM! Too subtle?
forest on November 9, 2012 at 11:51 AM
I’m as mad as anyone else here, but at least I got the joke. :p
Alberta_Patriot on November 9, 2012 at 11:52 AM
Romny did not have enough differentiation – Too many people thought he was a typical politician, and electing him wasn’t going to matter – Issues like Obamacare were effectively taken off the table…
The media calling the last two debates “draws” gave the impression that there is not a much of a difference between the candidates to the 60 million+ voters that never actually watched a debate… (Mitt let Obama off the ropes after the first debate, and the challenger can’t let the fight go to the judges’ cards, a KO is a must)
Couple that with $100+ million of negative advertising in swing states that went unchallenged (effectively $250 million given it was bought well in advance, at already low summer rates)
Couple that with a failed, untested GOTV program… (am I correct to understand that ORCA was completely new and not nationalized version of the Preibus/Walker WI GOTV program?) – and what was worse is the poor planning left thousands of precincts without poll watchers
Couple that with the fact that large swaths of people who might be upset about the real nasty stuff that Obama has done over the past 4 years never heard about it because of the MSM blackout…
Liberty cannot survive without vibrant, challenging media… and our little blogosphere was simply pissing-in-the-wind versus television… The truth may have been coming out here, but not effectively or broadly disseminated manner…
phreshone on November 9, 2012 at 12:03 PM
I think there are 3 million religious bigots that stayed home b/c of Romney’s religion. There are more religious bigots in this country than racists. Most of them are liberals, of course, many Repubs don’t get Mormonism and wouldn’t vote based on that.You can’t fix stupid.
JAM on November 9, 2012 at 12:04 PM
What shift?
unseen on November 9, 2012 at 12:05 PM
I see Mittbots never learned how to make friends and win people to their side.
unseen on November 9, 2012 at 12:06 PM
This is why we should have and still need to have a true conservative lead the party.
Palin 2016
ChuckTX on November 9, 2012 at 12:08 PM
It. Does. Not. Matter.
We lost, the election and the country. it does no good now to keep whining about how and why.
If you have any sense you’ll use that energy trying to find ways to protect yourself and your family to the degree possible for the socialist storm that is now unavoidable.
MikeA on November 9, 2012 at 12:09 PM
I’ll second that. She had almost a 70% sucess rate with her endorses in this cycle. If the gOPe did half as well Mitt would be POTUS
unseen on November 9, 2012 at 12:12 PM
Romney indeed ran on having a smaller govt:
Part 4 of Romney’s plan:
Not a slash-n-burn cut though.
eforhan on November 9, 2012 at 12:16 PM
unseen on November 9, 2012 at 12:16 PM
Please don’t give up. We’re still in this fight. Just gotta fight dirtier.
reddevil on November 9, 2012 at 12:18 PM
And fortunately for us, Boehner is one dirty fighter /s
phreshone on November 9, 2012 at 12:20 PM
There was a shift???
trs on November 9, 2012 at 12:20 PM
“If I had a wartime consigliere, a Sicilian, I wouldn’t be in this shape. Pop had Genco, look what I got.”
phreshone on November 9, 2012 at 12:21 PM
what the hell does that mean? political gobblygook. Cut the deficit? how reduce the size of gov? how by cutting big bird?
does tha tinclude taqx hike to “get the national debt under control?
sounds more like ” hey i need to say something to placate this crowd but i have no attention of doing it”
unseen on November 9, 2012 at 12:21 PM
Before a Mittbot responds to your criticism, could you please specify whether you are a Santorumite or a Jacksonite?
Alberta_Patriot on November 9, 2012 at 12:23 PM
Uh oh. What’s this inconvenient fact doing in here?
Socons are forever exaggerating their numbers. And some have already started Palin 2016 nonsense. Can you be more clueless and tone deaf? Nope.
Moesart on November 9, 2012 at 12:23 PM
Why did you vote for Romney? Or did you stay home?
eforhan on November 9, 2012 at 12:24 PM
Oh, go join the Party of Perpetual Victimhood if you’re going to be that way. Then at least you’ll be able to say you backed a winner.
We have no idea why they stayed home. It could well be as simple as what others in this thread are saying: That a Northeastern moderate ran. When given the choice between the lesser of two evils, perhaps they decided they’d not choose.
eforhan on November 9, 2012 at 12:29 PM
I’m a Reaganite
unseen on November 9, 2012 at 12:33 PM
I have voted in every election primary general national state local since I was 18 and old enough to vote a long time ok. And I have to say 2012 was the toughest decision I had to make with my vote. It took me until 10:30am on TUes to even decide to go to the polling place then once there it took be a good 5-10 minutes staring at the ballot to finally give in a vote for Mitt. So I understand perfectly why Mitt got 2.5 million votes less than Palin got in 2008.
unseen on November 9, 2012 at 12:37 PM
This ^^^^^^^
We lost the election because of the MSM. They are the enemy. Never has there been as corrupt a media as we have now.
redridinghood on November 9, 2012 at 12:38 PM
Romney was a conservative. He was a moderate. He was a RINO. He was the second coming of Reagan. He put forth clear plans for economic recovery, while Obama didn’t even attempt to try until 2 weeks before the election. He didn’t differentiate enough and didn’t put out enough details. He won independents, be hurt himself with leaners.
Enough. God, please, enough of this insanity.
He had a 50-something point plan, he was mocked for it. He distilled it to a 5 point plan, he used it to great effect in the first debate and throughout the ending months of the campaign. His plan was different than Obama’s status quo ante and it was well delivered and explained. He made inroads with many groups, including the base, rallying many to a pro-Romney vote instead of just an anti-Obama vote.
We lost because the deck is now stacked against us. We may eek out wins in the future, but demographics and generations of liberal education and cultural indocrination have finally reached critical mass and shifted the balance of what the majority of people in this country think it should be about. Granting citizenship to illegals will extend that new balance markedly. Obamacare will become a new entitlement scheme to attach the young and lower middle and poor classes to government like never before.
Realigning our country will be near impossible. It would require infiltration of education and cultural media in ways we simply can not pull off given the liberal strangle hold these areas operate under.
Maybe after a dramatic fall people will come around once again, but we are in the minority now and for the forseeable future.
pvolcko on November 9, 2012 at 12:40 PM
says the lady who’s “perfect candidate” lost to the worse POTUS in modern history. IT’s time for you Mittbots to sit down and listen to the grownups who know how to win elections because the results from Tues show beyond a doubt you all have no clue.
unseen on November 9, 2012 at 12:41 PM
Fair enough, and thanks for the response. I truly do appreciate it.
Romney was my last choice but toward the end I got excited. I tend to be more of a social con, but this was a “let’s get our financial house in order” vote, and he seemed to me the best option.
eforhan on November 9, 2012 at 12:47 PM
Taking pages from the MSNBC script now? I don’t think calling everyone and their brother racist was an effective strategy.
We can makes excuses (like a liberal), or we can look at the person who lost and try and understand why he did not appeal to enough voters. Every politician who loses an election has no one to blame but themselves.
NotCoach on November 9, 2012 at 12:58 PM
Whatever happened to that “brilliant” Romney hack joana?
NotCoach on November 9, 2012 at 12:59 PM
The only conservative shift that Romney had was on immigration. And that hurt him.
besser tot als rot on November 9, 2012 at 1:01 PM
Exactly! The big government Republican squish won the election and has shown…oh wait.
NotCoach on November 9, 2012 at 1:02 PM
To be fair, you just BELIEVE that you know how to win an election. It hasn’t been proven, since as has been clearly stated, Mitt was not the conservative warrior you feel is required. Reagan is lionized now by serious conservatives, but his pre-presidential record has more in common with Mitt Romney’s than anyone’s. It’s the talk. The delivery. The tone. That seems to draw in modern conservatives. His record on the other hand is not close to being tea party aligned in reality.
To get the underground candidate you believe in it has to be somebody that can overcome the machine in the primary. Obama for instance, the timing was perfect, The country had reached a general consensus in that they were ready to give the other guy a chance. A republican had virtually no shot at winning no matter who ran. Because of the clear momentum the democrats were able to make a groundswell in the primary because it felt like we could put anyone in there, why not actually give things a REAL shot this time instead of letting the next in line nature of dem primaries too, and letting the succession go Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. It was time to change course and do something different and the Clinton democratic machine, of all democratic establishment powerhouses was defeated.
Sarah Palin may be the only person on the republican side that can pull something like that off in the primary. But if Clinton runs in 16 she’s gonna be an unstoppable force and I think she’d end up destroying Sarah. The contrast between their abilities, experience, breadth of knowledge, and speaking would be stark, and given that Clinton has an overall very positive approval rating and respect, and Sarah the opposite, it’d be a hard run.
If its cuomo, she might have a chance, but I don’t think the “Palim prism” through which you view politics through will stand up to electoral reality with her. It’s clear you believe otherwise. I just think you and many others overestimate the receptiveness of the larger American public to AM radio style conservativeness.
Boomer_Sooner on November 9, 2012 at 1:15 PM
Boomer_Sooner on November 9, 2012 at 1:15 PM
I don’t know I think the 2010 results were very good proof. Of course Mitt the moderate ran so far away from the tEa party you never even heard the name mentioned by him or his team.
As far as a Palin vs CLinton slug fest. I don’t think Clinton will be unstoppable. the entire middle east in flames? That” clinton’s doing as much as Obama’s. Palin or any conservative fight will hang that around Clinton’s neck unlike Mitt who could tie Obama to the worse economy ever. And if the economy conitnues to get worse which it will be will be in the same from of mind as they were after 8 years of bushism. They will vote against anything tied to Obama. Hell Obam lost 9 million votes in 4 years what if he losses 9 million more in the next 4 years? The trick is as you say the ability to go over the heads of the media and get those facts out to the population. Mitt still thinks the economy is in a recovery. I guess if you never have to pump your own gas or buy your own food everything looks like a recovery. All Mitt had to do was spend one day in a middle class person’s shoes and he could have understood what people wanted him to run on.
but I doubt Palin will run in 2016. And rubio will be destroyed by the media way befor 2016 if he catches on or will pave the way for Jeb Bush. If I had to guess the 2016 election will be Clinton-Bush. Fun fun
unseen on November 9, 2012 at 1:42 PM
I thought it helped him..But I guess I guess I was wrong..
Dire Straits on November 9, 2012 at 2:14 PM