Romney also assured the succession of the party’s leadership with his choice of Paul Ryan.

Try again if Governor Ryan. To date, he has zilch, nada management/executive experience. Next!!!

It’s mind-boggling to me that anyone, even now, a week later, would try to deny the blatantly obvious: Mitt Romney was an awful, miserable candidate.

1) Hard to beat Obama in the “Santa gives away free stuff” roll.

2) Also hard to beat him when Democrats control counting of the ballots.

I was a Perry guy till he crashed and burned, I thought Mitt did just fine and got behind him.

You want to indulge in a circular firing squad instead of dealing with the enemy, be my guest.

Two whole paragraphs of what Romney did right? Isn’t that about a paragraph too long?

There Goes The Neighborhood on November 13, 2012 at 3:37 AM

Ok, less flippant answer. The problem wasn’t what Romney did wrong, and what he did right is nearly irrelevant. He lost because of what he didn’t do right. He didn’t give people a good reason to vote for him. He was willing to destroy Obama on the current state of the economy, and it’s what he did best. But he never said WHAT Obama did wrong. He never made the case for WHY Obama’s policies failed. And that was his strongest point. He essentially ceded every other issue in existence so he could talk about the horrible economy, and didn’t even do that effectively. He had to make the case, not that the economy was bad (we all know that), but that the economy would never improve substantially as long as Obama was in charge.

And Obamacare! He promised to repeal Obamacare, but couldn’t even describe why Obamacare was bad! And Obama was able to point out that he did virtually the same thing with Romneycare.

You need a president who can make the case for conservative policies. Because if the Republican candidate for president can’t make the case for it, the media never will.

Ultimately, the only principle Romney stood for was, “I should be president.”

As for this article, I agree with it whole heartedly. Romney did a LOT right, and while he was a flawed candidate in that he didn’t excite people, there is a LOT to learn her for future campaigns.

1: Stick to the issues. Romney did his best in the polls whenever he was given a few weeks to just talk about the issues,

What this means is that, if you know your policies are correct, and you can talk about them backwards and forwards, talking about them is better than rhetoric.

2: Each of Romney’s debates should be watched and analyzed very closely. The first debate with Obama especially is now the gold standard all politicians should aim for.

3: Yes, picking a young VP was a very smart move. This does not mean that Paul Ryan will be the next nominee, in fact I rather doubt that. What this does mean is that the next nominee is likely to be a young relatively fresh face. This is especially important when you consider that we as a party, need to shake the image of being a bunch of old white guys.

4: Setting a high standard for charitable giving, while likely not an intentional campaign decision, is a wonderful tradition to leave to the party.

One of the biggest problems we face as a party, is the fact that we’re portrayed as greedy evil white guys by the media. While Romney’s charitable giving was not unable to do that, it was one ingredient among many that eventually pushed Romney’s favorable to a tie with Obama in the final month of the campaign.

Basically, large charitable donations give you some degree of defense against the greedy charge. I mean, you can’t be all that greedy if you give millions to charity. Even the most hardened class warrior is likely to begrudgingly admit this.

5: Showcasing his family.

I believe this was another ingredient in his rising favorability near the end of the campaign. It’s also something that every candidate should strive to do in future elections. Bush Jr never really showed off his family beyond his wife, parents, and Jeb. McCain, similarly, hid most of his family away.

Palin didn’t, nor did Romney. In this case I think they were both very smart. Seeing an entire family around a nominee gives voters something else to relate to, and in Romney’s case he needed this badly.

Frankly, Romney did so much right that, even with his occasional gaffes, I’m still astounded that he didn’t win. This is the first time since 1992 that I didn’t predict the correct outcome of an election.

I knew he had problems as a candidate, but it really did feel like he had the momentum near the end. Plus, seven times out of ten, when candidates are statistically tied in the polls, the challenger wins.

So odd that it didn’t happen this time.

If we can’t even unite ourselves, how the do you any of you expect to unite the country?

jawkneemusic

Because! Maintaining one’s pure and pristine ego is more important than anything else.