Why Romney lost
There is one thing that may be overlooked amid all of the post-election punditry. In my month-old “Why Romney Lost” list was this: “People concluded it doesn’t matter.” In other words, it doesn’t matter who is elected. I was not referring to the citizen dropouts or the cynics who think all politicians are the same. I meant the concerned citizens who keep up with what is going on and who understand human nature, arithmetic, history, and common sense.
What if a large portion of those people looked closely at our country’s fiscal condition and concluded that things are going to have to get worse before they get better and that, with a divided country and a divided Congress, there was no chance of moving in the right direction in the next four years? They look at our trajectory and see no possible political resolutions or any real alternatives that don’t involve a major crisis or a currency devaluation, or both. “Why should our side preside over such a fiasco?” they asked. Even animosity toward Obama wouldn’t motivate them to go to the polls to vote against him. Rather, it would be, “Let him take the credit for the disaster. Then we’ll start over.”
That was my concern a month ago. But since then I became convinced that one thing was certain. The enthusiasm of Republicans and others who wanted to replace Obama was very strong — perhaps strong enough to create a political tidal wave. Now I read that Romney got fewer votes than John McCain. It seems pretty clear that many supposed Romney voters stayed home on Election Day. How could that be? Did the Obama TV ads persuade them that Mitt was a bad guy? Was he not conservative enough for them? Was it silent anti-Mormonism?
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
Not even gonna read it.
davidk on November 12, 2012 at 1:52 PM
Because he wasn’t teh Fred.
thebrokenrattle on November 12, 2012 at 1:53 PM
Damn good thing we didnt have Fred Thompson as the Republican candidate in 2008, amirite? :/ :\ :/ :\
Jeddite on November 12, 2012 at 1:55 PM
Fred!
infidel on November 12, 2012 at 1:55 PM
In some precincts in Philadelphia Mitt Romney didn’t get one vote.
Without outside intervention, is it probable?
vityas on November 12, 2012 at 1:56 PM
Love you, Fred. And you would’ve been a good president. But you were not a fundamentally serious about your ’08 campaign. And that’s one reason Mitt lost.
Rixon on November 12, 2012 at 1:56 PM
FRED HAS PERFECTLY ARTICULATED MY POSITION ON THIS.
HondaV65 on November 12, 2012 at 1:58 PM
^^ Been sayin’ that for months!!
HondaV65 on November 12, 2012 at 1:59 PM
In Philly, probably. But who knows…it wouldn’t surprise me if someone cooked the numbers, either.
changer1701 on November 12, 2012 at 2:02 PM
OT: allen west partial recount not done correctly, election officials refuse to answer angry citizens
Sachiko on November 12, 2012 at 2:08 PM
This. If no clear choice is on the table people are not going to turnout in leaps and bounds. It won’t happen. Republicans are supposed to be the party of smaller government and everybody and their brother in leadership has a spouse or relative with a government job. The biggest scandal to me about Petreaus is how did his wife get a 6 figure a year job at Obama new Consumer Protection Bureau?
The next Republican president needs to promise more than “No new taxes.” First off they need to promise government WILL get smaller.
They should promise that no matter what the federal government will employ less people than when they took office. Millions across the US have lost their jobs but talk of firing a few people over at the department of justice warrants a Congressional investigation.
How many thousands work for the Department of Education? These people are needed to hand out money? Isn’t that all the Dept. of Ed. really does?
How many 100s of thousands have been added to the government rolls in the past 4 years? Why were any of these people needed enough to borrow money to hire them?
Rocks on November 12, 2012 at 2:11 PM
Romney spent the entire debates arguing for smaller government. He made Obama’s overspending a centerpiece of his campaign.
Seriously? No difference?
Count to 10 on November 12, 2012 at 2:19 PM
Loser. He was responsible for McCain.
To Hell with him, McCain, Boehner and now Newt, who just spewed about being another leftist.
There are hardly any men with character and real stones left.
Schadenfreude on November 12, 2012 at 2:20 PM
It looks to me like Romney got about 3 million more votes from Independents than McCain, but still got 1 million less votes.
That means that McCain got about 4 million more Republican votes than Romney.
That is pretty shocking.
Chameleon on November 12, 2012 at 2:30 PM
Romney lost because Obama bought and paid form most of his votes with our money via the welfare state, just like all Democrats.
It should be if you are on welfare, you don’t vote until you get off welfare. These people just keep voting themselves deeper and deeper into our pockets.
Axion on November 12, 2012 at 2:37 PM
Clear choice? Do you know who voted for Obama? Democratic drones. People who want government goodies. Stupid/uninformed voters. People who didn’t want to reject the first AA POTUS. How would this so-called “clear choice” have changed what there is of their minds?
All this whining about their being no clear choice is just the excuse the impossible-to-please TruCons (like Honda) use to jusify either sitting at home or voting for Obama.
What happens the next four years is on them, not on those of us who who actually cared enough about the country and our children’s future to support Romney/Ryan.
No RATIONAL person could believe that they wouldn’t have tried to govern in a more responsible manner.
As for Fred, he makes Mitt look like Mr. Excitement. If he’s expressing what Honda has so adamantly regurgitated all over HA these past months, the article is not worth reading.
Meredith on November 12, 2012 at 2:38 PM
No,he spent entire debates arguing how he can work with democrats to make government work. Romney,like virtually every Republican that holds office, is talking about reducing the increase. Not reducing the size of government. People get that. Romney’s example of cutting government was Big Bird when it should have been Big Education and Big Government Employee rolls.
Rocks on November 12, 2012 at 2:39 PM
What is it with these tools in Florida?
BallisticBob on November 12, 2012 at 2:40 PM
Fred, Fred, Fred…….the reason Mitt lost was because he was a lousy candidate…..period. The election is over, and you can take off your blinders now, and can stop all the excuses and rationalizations.
Many people in this country are hurting…..and who do the republicans nominate?……a white billionaire who kept trying to tell us “I feel your pain”….seriously? He came off looking like the phoney he was and was completely unaware how offensive that is.
Mitt’s a flip-flopper…..and that was starting to poke it’s ugly head out during the campaign.
Keeping the campaign all about that 3 letter word….J.O.B.S. and not about all the other illegal, unconstitutional and impeachable activities of our current President.
Trying to tell us that Mitt was a conservative when he’s far from it. Thinking he had the conservative base all wrapped up when all he did was ignore us, patronize us and insult us.
Republican convention…..’nuff said.
The friends/advisers/financial backers that he hung around with.
The republican primary……and how he treated his fellow candidates, yet couldn’t muster the same against the guy who actually deserved such treatment.
Making our conservative pundits support/defend this faux-conservative candidate…..now they’re looking like the hypocrites they are.
Did I miss anything Fred ??
tencole on November 12, 2012 at 2:41 PM
To summarize, Fred said, people decided, “Ah, f*** it”.
Paul-Cincy on November 12, 2012 at 2:42 PM
Florida voting board throws the people and the press out!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3KX4cubIzSI
JellyToast on November 12, 2012 at 2:51 PM
Why Romney lost
I had a 6th grade teacher who warned of this in 1976.
Yes, I’m dating myself. One of his sayings to the class
was “Apathy will get you nowhere”
ToddPA on November 12, 2012 at 2:57 PM
Me neither. So far, I’ve seen only one column suggesting that Obama won by cheating. It’s the only relevant column on the topic. The rest are mind-numbing mental masturbation.
The Rogue Tomato on November 12, 2012 at 2:59 PM
This fits my view of the federal government at this time. The only reason I chose to vote for Romney was that I am convinced Obama plans to start a shooting war against conservatives in his second term. If I did not think this was a higher than 25% chance to occur, I would have joined the let it burn crowd.
I am highly informed. I know a large amount of history. I understand why certain social activities were not allowed through out history, because those few times they were allowed, they caused societal decay and eventual collapse. We are at the point where it is no longer a matter of if the United States will fail in our lifetimes, it is how soon.
Of course, now that we have Obama for a second term, I think I will rejoin the let it burn crowd. A pox on all your houses. You just had to have a progressive liberal (R) as our standard bearer. By this time next year, I will no longer be concerned if Obama starts a live war against you, I will be in a much better shape to withstand it.
astonerii on November 12, 2012 at 3:19 PM
Fred, why did people decide it didn’t matter? Two reasons:
1) He frequently tried to portray himself as a liberal. If he doesn’t have a strong conservative core, what’s the difference?
2) Obama succeeded in convincing Romney voters to stay home. They did this through a variety of messages, each aimed at a specific demographic group. The war on women, racism, destroying social security, free cash for college kids – all of these messages, while false, discouraged conservatives in those segments of the voting public.
hawksruleva on November 12, 2012 at 3:23 PM
I give up. Owebama cheated and got more votes???
DanaSmiles on November 12, 2012 at 3:23 PM
I posted this earlier on HotAir after the election, but so long as we’re reviewing, I might as well post it again.
First, I’d like to note that I was one of the people who was saying that a Romney candidacy was doomed from the start because he was a fatally flawed candidate. I said that the polls showed Romney was screwed. Kudos to Count, crosspatch, changer, CW, wargamer6, bluegill, and Joana, among others, for getting things so horribly, horribly wrong.
A few lessons can be learned from this debacle:
1.) A fiscally conservative, socially moderate/liberal candidate has been tried, under ideal conditions, and has lost. Romney said he would cut taxes and roll back regulation to give businesses more confidence. Likewise, he also said that Chick-fil-A voters were not part of his campaign, told the Des Moines Register that he wouldn’t be enacting legislative restrictions on abortion, and his own sister was going out telling women that he would do nothing to overturn Roe. Obama had everything going against him with the economy, and Romney stood to be the beneficiary. Romney lost, and lost badly. So much for fiscal conservatism and social liberalism being the thing which the GOP needed to attract a deluge of support. Any more “electable” candidates like Romney, and the GOP will be undergoing rigor mortis faster than you can say etch-a-sketch.
2.) Economic conservatism has failed. From the no new taxes under any circumstances, to smearing the 47%, the arrogant elitism that permeated the GOP talking heads and Romney himself was disgusting. Bain was a hindrance, not a help, to Romney’s campaign and further played into turning away swing state voters.
3.) Even When “It’s the Economy, Stupid”, It’s Not the Economy, Stupid. There were plenty of issues to talk about, but Romney apparently decided to “stay on message,” even when messages about other issues like Benghazi were clearly available to him. Obama, meanwhile, reminded his liberal base about their social liberalism and that he shared it, reminded voters that he was the one who got bin Laden, and spoke about his desire to increase taxes on the wealthy. He went for the full range of issues. One-trick pony Republicanism will get the GOP nowhere.
4.) Peace through Strength. Victory through Strength. On the few occassions that Romney did make an argument that wasn’t strictly about the economy, he spoke about it in the weakest terms. With abortion for instance, he spoke about not wanting Federal funding, about handing the decision back to the states (which only shifts responsibility rather than sets a policy), and that he favored exceptions in the case of rape, incest, and life of the mother. All of these are very mild, very moderate, if you will, positions. And absolutely none of them got to the heart of the matter, articulating the moral evil that abortion is because it exterminates an innocent person for the sake of another person’s convenience. 98% of abortions are elective abortions. Obama was against BAIPA. But rather than go for the jugular, Romney played it safe. Cowardice will go unrewarded.
5.) Tell Me What You Stand For. Even if you hated Obama (as I did), you need to know what the other guy is for. Both Kerry and now Romney have run hard on “the other guy sucks.” Obama did this as well, but relied on it to a lesser-extent than Romney. Obama was also aided by something Romney did not have, listed below.
6.) Consistency, Consistency, Consistency. One of the things that hurt Romney immensely was his constant flip-flops. From abortion, to gay marriage, to healthcare, to climate change, the guy couldn’t locate a consistent set of values if they were in his front yard, blindfolded, and tied to a tree. Romney’s record was that of a liberal governor. He tried to pretend to be a conservative. It didn’t work. And why? See point 7.
7.) Secure Your Base. It’s a really bad idea to piss off your base. Why? Because if they won’t vote for you, who will? Obama lost 10 million voters due to how bad he was, but Romney couldn’t even reach McCain’s tallies. Secure your base used to be the first rule of politics. Put up a candidate who your base trusts on the issues that are important to them, and they will give your candidate the leeway they need if they’re ever in a pickle. Put up a guy like Romney, and they simply don’t show up on game day. A couple of pundits tried to cure this by reminding people about the court, but that only reminded the base that Romney’s court picks in MA sucked. Given my principles, I should be a very easy voter for the GOP to get, but I was proudly one of the GOP’s missing voters, instead casting my lot in with Virgil Goode while the rest of my family simply stayed home.
8.) Obamacare. Playing into item #7, never, ever, make your candidate the guy who served as the forefather and architect of what you spent a year and a half (rightly) fighting against. It reminds them that your guy is just like the other guy — a distinction without a difference, if you will.
For these, and other reasons, Romney lost. With that said, I leave you with the last few minutes of the Romney campaign’s hopes as they watched the returns come in.
Stoic Patriot on November 12, 2012 at 3:30 PM
Right. Conservatives stayed home to make Zero “own it.” The tipping point hasn’t arrived. We don’t have more moochers than producers. It’ll all get fixed in four years with a “real choice,” a “clear choice.” And…unicorns!
Rational Thought on November 12, 2012 at 3:32 PM
Mormons are some of the most awesome people I have ever known, and the hardworking-est I have EVER known. Mitt seems to be typical of the lot.
Who is John Galt on November 12, 2012 at 3:38 PM
I chose not to read it because I care little about what he has to say in light of his poor campaigning.
But your point stands: http://obamavoterfraud.blogspot.com/
davidk on November 12, 2012 at 3:39 PM
True. One of the fairest shakes I ever got in the job-place was from a black Mormon
I strongly disagree with their theology, but they are good, hardworking Americans.
davidk on November 12, 2012 at 3:42 PM
But he made the opposite the centerpiece of his actual governing record. Some people may not have thought he was sincere about smaller government and cutting spending.
alwaysfiredup on November 12, 2012 at 3:42 PM
I was pretty hyped for about 12 hours after the first debate.
Then I actually read his words.
It is not moral to be overspending as much as we are. Well, how much is moral? 999billion a year?
It is not moral to leave a debt as large to our children. Here again, nothing indicating what level of debt is moral? Since we are effectively pushing the 100% debt to GDP level, what is moral? 99%?
There in lies the problem. As alwaysfiredup above states, his governing record does not fit the rhetoric.
astonerii on November 12, 2012 at 3:48 PM
The more I think about it the more I’m thinking Mormon. Theology be damned, they had have awesome food banks and work ethics.
Who is John Galt on November 12, 2012 at 3:49 PM
I agree. I believe their theology is wrong. But everyone of them I’ve ever met is as nice a pie. And I have met many because my mother went to a Mormon church for years.
JellyToast on November 12, 2012 at 3:50 PM
No,Conservatives didn’t stay home. But millions of people who voted for Obama 4 years ago did. The vast majority of which are either Republican or lean Republican. Why did they not vote? Given the state of the country and the economy it should have been easy for Romney to get these people out but yet they didn’t come. Why?
I would suggest it was either because they did not like his solutions or did not see enough of a difference between his policies and Obama’s.
Rocks on November 12, 2012 at 4:00 PM
If that gets you through the night, have at it. But you’re wrong. The election ended as it did because more than 50% of voters have figured out that the government will help them steal their neighbor’s shit if they vote for the right folks. That isn’t going to change in four years. Or eight. Or twelve. There is no message that will win those folks back until they’ve stolen ALL their neighbor’s shit, and they’re hungry. Then they’ll kill their neighbors and eat them. Then…maybe…they’ll vote differently. But probably not.
Rational Thought on November 12, 2012 at 4:15 PM
Oddly enough, I didn’t see old man Fred’s face ONE time during the campaign. Not once. Now he thinks he can Monday morning quarterback? Go back to your Geritol and trophy wife and STFU, Fred.
BettyRuth on November 12, 2012 at 4:37 PM
Because he didn’t take out a reverse mortgage to finance his campaign?
James on November 12, 2012 at 4:45 PM
No,it didn’t.In the end we will find at most a couple percentage points over 50% of eligible voters even bothered to vote.If 50%of Americans thought this Obama would have gotten many more votes than George Bush did 8 years ago. He didn’t. Despite there being millions of more voters now. When exactly did Romney say he was going to change this? It sounded to me that what he wanted to do was manage it in a responsible manner, not change it.
If it was Obama’s spending was such a problem for Romney why didn’t he state flat out that budget would be cut to 2008 levels plus inflation? Romney was talking about picking at the edges of a government Obama has almost doubled in 4 years. That isn’t a choice, it’s an echo.And it’s not much reason to get out and vote.
Rocks on November 12, 2012 at 4:53 PM
Romney wasn’t inspiring enough. Classic demagoguery on “women’s issues” worked, as did the politics of envy.
The Liberal Media won.
MT on November 12, 2012 at 5:01 PM
Actually, they did. Granted, Obama’s voters stayed home in greater numbers, but Romney didn’t get even the turnout of McCain, despite winning independents by 5 (McCain lost them by 8). The way that happens is if your base stays home.
Stoic Patriot on November 12, 2012 at 5:09 PM
Romney did better with independents and totally severe conservatives. The people immediately between those two are the ones that stayed home. /ROMBOT
astonerii on November 12, 2012 at 5:19 PM