Could another GOP nominee have done better?
In one of my last pre-election posts, I remarked that the closeness of the election and Mitt Romney’s impressive final month of campaigning meant that he would probably enjoy more respect in defeat than is usual for losing presidential candidates. A week later, that prediction looks more than a little premature, mostly because I thought the final outcome would be closer than it was (closer to 50-49 than the ’04-esque 51-48 it looks like we’ll end up with), and I didn’t realize how completely, wildly off the mark the Romney’s campaign’s theory of the electorate (a theory that I myself found relatively persuasive, I should note) would turn out to be. …
If you think Rush Limbaugh’s “slut” sneer and Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” comments cost Republicans this year, imagine how the press would have covered the “war on women” debate if Santorum — who actually did speak out against birth control in the primary campaign — had been the top of the Republican ticket. If you think it was too easy for Obama to define Romney with a blizzard of negative ads over the summer, imagine how much material a Gingrich candidacy would have given the White House’s admakers to work with. If you think that Romney suffered from being perceived as too much like George W. Bush Part II, imagine if the Republican candidate in 2012 had been a yet more tongue-tied and more right-wing Texan governor whose debate performances made Obama’s Denver sleepwalk look Ciceronian.
“How much worse could it get?” Last asks. In the electoral college, maybe not that much worse. But in the popular vote? There I hardly think Romney was scraping bottom. His 48 percent of the vote wasn’t even close to the floor for Republican candidates this cycle: Out of eighteen high-profile Senate races, the Washington Post noted last week, Romney outperformed the party’s nominee in eleven of them, and was outperformed in only four — all in deep blue states he was never going to win anyway.
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 Next »
Monday morning quarterbacking…irrelevant at this time.
ProfShadow on November 13, 2012 at 9:42 AM
Mitt “Failwhale” Romney.
the_nile on November 13, 2012 at 9:43 AM
Short answer – NO
djl130 on November 13, 2012 at 9:44 AM
They probably would have ditched OCRA… so maybe
Bensonofben on November 13, 2012 at 9:44 AM
Yes. Next question.
Shump on November 13, 2012 at 9:46 AM
ORCA is just the tip of the iceberg. But it illustrates the arrogance of team romney.
the_nile on November 13, 2012 at 9:46 AM
Probably not.
But Newt vs. Barky in the debates- that would have been awesome.
Bat Chain Puller on November 13, 2012 at 9:48 AM
Um…but as Douthat points out, the answer is clearly “no”.
I mean what, are we just letting our reptile brains take over here? Who could have done better? Gingrich with his history with women, various unsupportable policy positions, and tendency to remind people of the bad old days? Rick Perry? SANTORUM?
Esoteric on November 13, 2012 at 9:49 AM
No, I don’t think so, really.
DaydreamBeliever on November 13, 2012 at 9:49 AM
If we’re talking the field we had to choose from, then no. Romney was the best we had. I’ve gone over this before, but I’ll recap again. Perry was the perfect candidate on paper, but once he opened his mouth at the debates it was all over. Newt would’ve been destroyed by the Dems with women voters(including married ones). Santorum would’ve been Achin’d to a 15-point loss. Bachmann was a joke. Cain was a disaster on foreign policy and had so many women waiting in the wings to file molestation charges that he would’ve lost the election by 20 points. Ron Paul is….well, he’s Ron Paul. And do I even need to dignify Huntsman’s candidacy with any commentary?
The problem is the GOP has a deep bench….for 2016 and beyond. Aside from maybe Bobby Jindal and Mitch Daniels(who both passed), I don’t know who we could’ve run in 2012 who may have fared better than Romney. But the candidates we’ll be fielding in 4 years just weren’t ready for prime-time yet.
Doughboy on November 13, 2012 at 9:51 AM
hunstman could have done better.
nathor on November 13, 2012 at 9:51 AM
I was in Mexico (happily) when election day came. I was feeling guilty about not helping withe the GOTV and actually considered canceling my holiday. After hearing about the OCRA debacle- I was so relieved I wasn;t sitting in a neighborhood with no marching orders thanks to OCRA’s failure. Phew.
On a side note- I recommend spending election days abroad. I was able to drink the pain of losing away all week without getting bogged down by pundits and hopeful polls. By Sunday when i was back in the states- the pain was dulled.
Bensonofben on November 13, 2012 at 9:51 AM
I’m afraid the bunker-mentality was too thick for the GOP this time around and any nominee would have suffered.
gatorboy on November 13, 2012 at 9:52 AM
No, we are racists for just disagreeing with Obama’s ideology, can you imagine not reelecting him? We must let him continue.
Cindy Munford on November 13, 2012 at 9:53 AM
Well there was a candidate who came from a blue collar background, was a self-made millionaire who had started his own one man business and grew it into one of the largest construction companies in his state with over 1,000 employees on his payroll. Who ran for governor of his state as a Republican and won at a time when no one believe a Republican could win. Who proved so popular that he later won reelection by an even wider margin. Who reduced the size of his state’s government, got the state budget under control and left office with a substantial budget surplus. But he dropped out when it became clear that he was going to have to fight not only the other candidates but also the Republican Establishment and the media as well. But hey, who would have wanted a candidate with experience running a successful business, who was for limited government, who was fiscally responsible, and who had more executive experience than either Obama or Romney?
Rip Ford on November 13, 2012 at 9:53 AM
Democrats wholeheartedly embrace their nominee, no matter how flawed. Republicans look for imperfections, no matter how good their nominee. The next GOP nominee will not be as smart, educated, decent or accomplished as Romney, but I will support him with the same enthusiasm.
Basilsbest on November 13, 2012 at 9:53 AM
Weak field, but Romney’s a guy who should be financing campaigns rather than running in them.
Thirty years ago, my Cincinnati suburban high-school baseball team played a Saturday doubleheader tournament in Ann Arbor. The next day, on our way home, we stopped to play Mitt’s alma mater, Cranbrook Academy. Unbelievable. I never played on a diamond so well-landscaped and so plush before that time or since. I’ll never forget that their starting pitcher was a black guy named Rupert.
I always had a sinking feeling that Romney would never connect with average voters. And, I think, that 47% crack didn’t help.
BuckeyeSam on November 13, 2012 at 9:55 AM
agreed .. IF there are elections in 16 and IF there is a country left standing.
conservative tarheel on November 13, 2012 at 9:58 AM
HondaV65 hardest hit.
The Count on November 13, 2012 at 9:59 AM
The answer is no. Look at the field of candidates we had…Romney was easily the best of that (sorry) bunch. Perry could’ve made it interesting had he not stumbled so badly early on, but he clearly wasn’t ready for the national stage.
I still wonder why we had such a weak filed of candidates.
changer1701 on November 13, 2012 at 10:01 AM
Seriously, who wanted to be the racist to dethrone the messiah?
BuckeyeSam on November 13, 2012 at 10:03 AM
It didn’t help matters that a whole bunch of Republicans got their asses handed to them in 2006 and 2008. That wiped out a lot of the people who’d been talked up as Presidential contenders(George Allen for example). We did have a bunch of governors who I suppose could’ve run, but some were too inexperienced(Chris Christie, Scott Walker) while others just weren’t interested(Jindal, Daniels). And Jeb Bush couldn’t run for obvious reasons.
Doughboy on November 13, 2012 at 10:05 AM
Yes, if he refused to concede and insisted the fraud was investigated.
The Rogue Tomato on November 13, 2012 at 10:05 AM
No, Ross, Gingrich would have done better.
The demonizing may have been more pointed, but Gingrich would have fought back.
Romney didn’t fight back. Romney said Obama is a nice guy, just over his head. Romney played “nice.”
For all his faults, Newt is a fighter. (Ironic, isn’t it? Romney money-bombed Newt with dirty ads to knock him out of the race when Newt wasn’t in a position to defend himself… That sure sounds familiar…)
makattak on November 13, 2012 at 10:06 AM
I agree with what Adam Carolla says about this. Personally, I don’t look to connect with any of these pols, and I don’t WANT them to be just regular guys. I want them to be the cream of the crop. The fact that Romney had been so successful shouldn’t have been held against him.
changer1701 on November 13, 2012 at 10:09 AM
I doubt it. In the end, the fatal flaw of the GOP campaign was not engaging the culture and doing better on that “cares about me” number. And I’m not just talking about the “culture war” issues, I’m talking the culture – TV, social media, entertainment, sports. There were a number of things the GOP could have done this year to engage more in the culture, but it didn’t.
Here is just one example – what the heck happened with Paul Ryan? He was the youngest and arguably the coolest guy on either ticket, a hardcore sportsman and fitness buff, but they had him speaking to AARP and running around Florida with his mom. Why was he not shown going bowhunting, talking to classic rock radio stations about his favorite bands and songs, doing P90X challenges at campaign stops? Where was his beautiful young family? Couldn’t they have made at least one TV ad with him?
Here’s another one – why did our side not absolutely clobber Obama and the Democrats over their convention booing God? Were they that terrified of a “Mormon boomerang?” If so, that was stupid. They had a golden opportunity to push the Democrats out to the radical fringe on religion and force all their candidates to defend booing God. And it was not mentioned once at the RNC convention or on the camapign trail.
rockmom on November 13, 2012 at 10:10 AM
Newt fighting back may have fired up the base, but he would’ve been slaughtered with independent voters. I hate to say it, but it’s important that the voters like the candidate. And Newt is too easy to demonize.
Doughboy on November 13, 2012 at 10:12 AM
Yup, the lack of fight back doomed Romney. It looked almost as a setup.
the_nile on November 13, 2012 at 10:13 AM
That’s an interesting question. If it’s true that the evangelicals stayed home – maybe Perry/Newt/Cain would have done better if they hadn’t stumbled in the primary. However would the indies have voted for them like they did for Mitt?
Who knows. Here’s hoping we learn, don’t over react and kick butt in 14.
gophergirl on November 13, 2012 at 10:14 AM
The candidate the dems most feared was Huntsman. So much so that they sent him out of the country, and delegitimized his claim as a conservative.
By the he returned from China, the right had become so purity based that he stood no chance in the primaries, even though Eric Erickson said he was the only candidate with a sensible economic plan.
RINOs are people too on November 13, 2012 at 10:14 AM
Every political position comes in terms of votes with a cost from those who disagree with you and with a reward from those who support you. Your opponent (in our case Democrat candidates and the media) always makes sure that you pay the price for your position, while its your task to get the reward.
One can argue that Willard didnt cash in on the advantages of the Republican social conservative image, because he was hesitant to put his mormonism in the spotlight and that Mr. Santorum might have actually scored better on this issue.
Point is the media and Democrats bashed Willard – who actually never talked about this stuff – with the war on women so hard that I dont see what possible difference nominating Santorum could have made on the negative side.
And I say that as somebody who isnt exactly fond of Mr. Santorum and sincerely hopes that we’ve seen the last of him.
Valkyriepundit on November 13, 2012 at 10:17 AM
Ross Douthat
and others like him are part of the problem. Of course if we had a different candidate who could fire up their base we would have won.
unseen on November 13, 2012 at 10:19 AM
The Democrat convention was after the RNC, so the booing couldn;t have been mentioned at the latter.
But I agree on the culture thing. The Left controls all that, and we’ve got to find a way to break their grasp. Unfortunately, SNL skits and Daily Show jokes targeting Republicans are probably more devastating than any campaign ad is, because that’s what people are increasingly relying on to form their opinions. Not actual news (if you can find that), not actual policy…instead, what Jon Stewart said last night on Comedy Central.
changer1701 on November 13, 2012 at 10:20 AM
good point but tend to disagree about not being a difference. the difference would be if someone like Santorum was nominated when the MSM did their war on women you would have had a candidate that fought back on the narrative and explained where they were wrong and why the MSM narraitve was flawed. this would set up a battle of ideas in the public arena with voters being able to side with one or the other. With Mitt he accepted the MSM narrative and thus ceded the idea war to the left. After that it was easy to paint Mitt as not up to their “ideal” figure to accomplish the narrative the MSM made up. thus the MSM narrative become the yardstick that voters had to measure from and Mitt fell short.
this is why the GOPe always lose. they accept the MSM narrative because most of them think as the MSM does that conservatism is stupid and they just have to lie to the base to get elected.
unseen on November 13, 2012 at 10:26 AM
Yesterday I saw Jesse Jackson on TV saying some foolish thing about long lines being a form of voter suppression.
Here is how it works. The bus arrives, you get on and you vote street by street until 99% of the voters has voted. They deserve to be represented so you make sure they all vote. If you have to “help” them out, you make sure “their vote” gets counted.
Long lines get in the way of this efficiency. ID’s get in the way of this efficiency.
None of the other candidates would have been able to fight against this practice in the states where it happens, big urban areas that won the election, with the help of unions and their buses.
Democrats like making republicans wring hands and eat their dead. Don’t fall for it. Romney was a fabulous candidate who represented America the True, America, the right of center. I look at Red Rock, and even the night before the election, the final rally in NH, and a few rallies I watched in VA and one in PA, Americans out doors in the cold waiting for the plane to touch down, and I love that America. I love the America of Mitt and Paul, it’s the only way forward. I want more Kid Rock singing… “born free” not less, I don’t repudiate it, I say we need more rallies- who cares who is president!
I would suggest to those who are sulking, and those who feel hurt and want to lash out and call names at other republicans, it is time to get to work saving your own state, especially if it is currently a red state, and make it a mirror of the American Constitution, preemptively pass laws against the things you see coming. Keep your states True. Do the minimum that the federal government forces you to do, and refuse the freebies they want you to be addicted to. Look at the laws that are out of date or allow abuses to happen in your state. Cap lawsuit abuse in your state and also shore up family laws, parental laws, and unmarried parental responsibilities. Procreation law. Laws used to weak god’s natural law. Laws used to force government solutions you don’t want (like forcing everyone to pay for transgendered surgery or forcing everyone to pay for the inequality of gay infertility.
Know that the media did not want our candidate to win, they were ready to make a fool of Romney over Benghazi, it was laid with trip wires ahead of time, a favor to the President or to the former President. A great left wing conspiracy. (Pretty in navy blue.) Romney spoke out the night of the Eqyptian embassy event and for two weeks the media joined the other campaign to say he was jumping the gun, and just as ineffective on foreign policy at home as when he was abroad….which they had manufactured themselves, they wouldn’t show the success or the speeches of Romney’s trip, just mocked him and wouldn’t let him enjoy his own success with the Olympics.
There IS no candidate that the media would let win against Obama, and for our sake, it is good that Marco Rubio was not crucified by the media in this election. Of course I have hopes for Paul, they malign him, but it doesn’t stop his brain from calculating and reworking. I want John Boehner to step aside, and let Paul be nominated Speaker of the House, with the new larger republican firewall in the House for 2013, Americans did not vote for anything new this election, they voted FOR EVEN MORE gridlock. It is not a mandate for Obama, the grassroots sent conservatives to watch their pocketbook.
P.S., A final thought, I really do think the unions are the problem we can’t win against, can we compete? can we find someone to push Pro American ideas in a conservative labor union? Like the new non liberal alternatives to AARP. Unions have freedoms others don’t have…In right to work states…new social organizations for conservatives that have the privileges that unions have? Two need to play at that game.
Fleuries on November 13, 2012 at 10:26 AM
IMO the GOP just didn’t have the brass ones needed to fight at the Democratic level. Sometimes we want to be nice more than we want to win.
katiejane on November 13, 2012 at 10:27 AM
Some people will say Stewart and Colbert balance Rush, who has a much larger audience. The real difference is in the age demographic. Dems are pulling in younger, urban voters who tend to be more secular. This plays into the “booing God” as they also tend to be multicultural and resist elevating one religion over another. This makes them anti Zionist, as they don’t see why they should go to war for Isreal.
RINOs are people too on November 13, 2012 at 10:30 AM
Paul Ryan was shuttled to the AARP places because Mitt’s team saw early on that if left in the spotlight Paul ryan would over take Mitt in popularity much like Palin overtook McCain. the fact that the RNC made no hay about the DNC booing GOd just tells you that the RNC and GOPe saw nothing wrong with it. Or in other words their actions in not defending God shows the GOPe are godless and agreed with the DNC.
unseen on November 13, 2012 at 10:30 AM
I think the other lesson is that we need to find a candidate who absolutely cannot be painted as “weird” or ridiculous in any cultural way. That means no more Mormons, no more super-rich guys with dressage horses and Stepford sons, etc. I think Bobby Jindal is probably disqualified because he once participated in an exorcism, and the Democrats will beat the hell out of him over that. Chris Christie is fat. Scott Walker does not have a college degree and his wife has a funny name.
We all thought this sort of stuff was absurd and beneath a Presidential campaign, but we are wrong. Cultural signals matter. It’s pretty much the only reason George Bush beat John Kerry, and probably the main reason his dad beat Mike Dukakis in 1988.
rockmom on November 13, 2012 at 10:32 AM
It would help if the signature achievement of the GOP nominee, Romneycare, wasn’t the forefather of the debacle facing our country, Obamacare. Further, Mitt spoke proudly of his signature achievement. It plagued through the primary, and he refused to apologize, and so it demoralized a portion of the the base.
There’s your lack of turnout.
beatcanvas on November 13, 2012 at 10:33 AM
No. Romney is the best loser.
Dongemaharu on November 13, 2012 at 10:35 AM
There IS no candidate that the media would let win against (fill in the blank) this has nothing to do with Obama he simply represents the liberal worldview at the present time . in 2016 the MSM will pick the next representation of the liberal worldview and support him and set out to destroy the liberal lite and/or conservartive candidate. thinking Rubio is safe from the MSM because he wont face Obama is foolish. the only way to beat the MSM is to have a canddiate that has star power like Reagan did so that the candidates message can go over the heads of the MSM gate keepers. The TEa party was able to do it in 2010. Reagan was able to do in in 1980 and 1984.
unseen on November 13, 2012 at 10:37 AM
Yes, without a douby in my mind Palin. She is the only fighter the GOP has and she offered direct contrast!
Danielvito on November 13, 2012 at 10:38 AM
yeap Mitt ran away from his record on everything else but Romneycare which told everyone smart enough to hear that he was going to keep large parts of Obamacare the law of the land. the quick surrender by the speaker on Obamacare a day after the election also should tell everyone the GOPe had no intention of overturning the law
unseen on November 13, 2012 at 10:40 AM
This. Many people fail to realize that, of the entire Republican field this past primary season, Huntsman was the only one who openly supported Paul Ryan’s economic plan. The other candidates wouldn’t support it because they all feared that Paul Ryan might try to run for President, and their support for a rival’s plan would be harmful to their own runs. Political positioning, opportunism, and self-centeredness at the most crucial time in American politics in a hundred years? Disgusting. They all claimed to support it once Paul Ryan said he wouldn’t enter the race, but by that time, Huntsman had been vetted as a progressive (which means his support of the Paul Ryan plan and of fiscal conservatism was more lip service to the right than anything) and more importantly, as a loser. He went on MSM shows complaining about how intolerant the right is of other views, feeding into their narrative. The man did a ton of damage to an already weak field, scorching the earth behind him once it became clear that his progressive views would not be tolerated as an actual alternative to Barack Obama.
But back to the vetting: We vetted Huntsman. We determined that, in spite of some appealing things on paper, he was not fit to hold office as a Republican. I mean, if the Democrats liked him so much, why didn’t they embrace him? Oh yeah, he wasn’t progressive enough. So much for the pontificating about how extreme the right is. But you see, we vet our candidates. We have standards. The left does not vet their own. If they are selected, they fall in line. It’s herd mentality and collectivism and explains Barack Obama’s election. We pick apart our candidates because we expect more from our leaders than merely being in the Oval Office and having an ‘R’ next to his name.
And after Mitt Romney was chosen (by default, I might add), people on this site screamed bloody murder whenever somebody said anything negative about them, like they were perfection personified. We could do as the left does: rabidly and zealously support a terrible candidate, attempt to cover up or ignore his flaws, and pretend that he’s perfect in every way. Why, the right could be as Orwellian as the left if it wanted! Yes, let’s run poor candidates and smile through gritted teeth to put on appearances. Optics are important, but rather than not standing for something besides winning, closing the party off to idiots and incompetents is probably much healthier for the GOP than simply disbanding it and starting a new one. The problem with the GOP’s “big tent” is that it has become big enough to suck in a large number of people who have no business being in politics, whatsoever, and then putting them into positions of power.
mintycrys on November 13, 2012 at 10:40 AM
I think that’s a little harsh, but if people like you see it that way then we have a problem. I think that Romney/RNC were just spooked about doing any God-talk in this campaign because of the Mormon thing and because of their obsession with winning independent voters that they thought would be turned off by God-talk. But there is probably a kernel of truth that the RNC leadership and the consultant class don’t ever want to talk about God in a campaign again. They are idiots.
They are not even thinking about the possibility that the “missing McCain voters” were religious pro-life people, who responded in 2008 not just to Sarah Palin but also to McCain’s forceful response on the personhood of the unborn in that Rick Warren forum. Paul Ryan gave a great speech to the Values Voters Summit but Romney never addressed these voters in any way.
It is a complicated and difficult task to appeal to religious voters and get them to vote while also not turning off the nonreligious. But we have to try, we need all those votes.
rockmom on November 13, 2012 at 10:41 AM
That is why we need a TRUE Conservative to lead the party.
Palin 2016
ChuckTX on November 13, 2012 at 10:43 AM
You don’t get it. the MSM and dems will find something funny or weird about any candidate we put up. You are taking the wrong lesson form the lost. what this should teach us is that we need a cnadidate who’s record matches up with their speeches. a non flipflopper. Someone that can be trusted to do what they say they will do. the DNC and MSM will make fun of any of the GOp’s candidate. Hell they made fun of IKE Reagan ford Bush etc. But if the candidate is believeable then the standard attack lines wash off that person. This is why even after 4 years of unbelievable attacks Palin is still well regarded in conservative and GOP circles. Because she is seen as being attacked for her beliefs.
unseen on November 13, 2012 at 10:45 AM
Romney could have done better. What he did, he did well. His machine, not.
1. Ryan was a plus
2. Pressing the Medicare issue was a plus, he got a lot of old people
3. His positive tone was a plus.
He is very smart, but isolated in the world of business, and was not done well by the consultants
The issues was jobs. Romney used these talking points.
1. lowering taxes and freeing business would create jobs.
2. He understands the pain of those without jobs
Leaving out blacks and Latinos, who were voting to destroy the capitalist system and capitalists like Romney whom they resent, it was the jobless and those fearful of the economy whom Romney had to win. He did not connect with those people that easing up on business creates jobs and recovery
Those who understood gave Romney almost half the popular vote – it was not a landslide. Romney also got most of the land mass of the USA if you look at the precinct map.
But Romney needed those who felt both Obama and the GOP were in it for themselves. I know some. They do not trust that loosening the screws on the rich (the business class) helps anyone else. I do this for you, by law, and you do what for me, voluntarily?
Romney met with the converted. The convention was yada yada GOP until Eastwood. What they needed at the convention, was less Chtistie blowharding, and someone up there showing with a pointer how fighting China on currency will reduce offshoring. You cant say it, you have to prove it. Ditto tax reduction. They needed a presentation showing a business that grew when taxes dropped, and shrunk when they increased, In detail. They needed a lineup of businessmen who could verify they would hire if… Then, they needed ads using that hard data, along with the defending Medicare argument ads. You have to get the people on the first hit or they drop out
Much as I love the lady, having his wife discuss the use of equestrian therapy on the morning show played into the stereotype. The knee jerk response would be – that’s nice, but meanwhile I need a stinking job, Whoever set up that one must have been working for the DEMs, I mean it
Probably would have been one of the finest First Ladies in our history
Ryan is still an asset. I wish I could run Romney again, because he is a fast learner. Age precludes I guess. Romney would need a new machine, and to enter into a bunch of non business projects, set up a think tank to study getting jobs to the little guys etc. He could be on tv explaining his project, building bridges. Have a lot of time to talk about how he was not able to present the evidence for his ideas
p.s. promising trade with Latin America, even though he is right, smells like NAFTA again. This is how business miscommunicated this election
entagor on November 13, 2012 at 10:47 AM
It would have been interesting to see if they tried to pin a “war on women” on her. I guess for her, it would have been a “war on intelligence” which, interestingly, is what they said about Reagan, among other things.
Odysseus on November 13, 2012 at 10:48 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »