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: « Previous 1 2
The same fraud would have happened. There is no way that this election should have ended as it did without fraud. I just don’t believe the results were the real results.
Voter from WA State on November 13, 2012 at 10:48 AM
BTW, Jon Huntsman would have been hammered as an out-of-touch rich dude and whispered about as a weird Mormon just as badly as Romney was.
We were not served well by the primary process and 17 debates this year. That needs to be fixed ASAP. Only 4-5 debates, get rid of the Iowa Straw Poll, and have the first primaries in bigger states with more diverse populations, like Ohio and Florida.
rockmom on November 13, 2012 at 10:48 AM
She chose not to run. And she would not have won with all of the fraud.
Voter from WA State on November 13, 2012 at 10:51 AM
one) the staffers, GOPe leadership and consultants have bought the MSM narrative hook line and sinker. Because at the end of the day they have no faith and thus can not understand the power of faith.
two) As far as turning off the non-relgious I don’t care. The results of 2012 show the non-0relgious do not win elections. Motivate the faithful and you win elections or at the very least walk the tight rope ackowledge God yet placate the non-relgious that your term will be a moral one but that moralism will not be forced on you by big government.
unseen on November 13, 2012 at 10:54 AM
this is what scared the hell out of the establishment in 2010. the landslide was so big they were unable to use fraud to win the elections. Even Soros admitted there was nothing he could do becaus eof the wave that swept the coountry. Any clos eelection is almost always won by the dems. Bush 2000 is the only one in recent memeory I have seen go to the GOp and IMO is what made the dems so mad about it. They lost on the fraud thing in 2000 and it worried them. No if we want to win national elections it has to be by landslide numbers and that requires getting the slient majority out to vote like the Tea party did in 2010. but that also means the GOPe will have to give up their kickbacks and return the power to the people and “unwashed masses”. something the elites in both parties do not want to happen.
unseen on November 13, 2012 at 10:58 AM
This is perhaps the most terrifying result of this year’s election drubbing. We handed Democrats three races on a silver platter–Akin and Mourdock lost eminently winnable races because they shot themselves in the foot, and we lost the Ohio Senate seat because we ran a weak candidate (Mandel) who got his butt handed to him by an experienced Dem pol. But we lost many more races than that.
Seems to me that the RNSC needs to answer some tough questions.
Outlander on November 13, 2012 at 11:01 AM
2016 is going to be a challenge.
There is little doubt that Hillary will run. And with the coalition that Obama has built.
The GOP has less than 4 years to transcend the narratives that she is going to bring.
Expect all of the narratives used in 2012 plus expanded women’s issues.
Obama may tackle immigration in this term, making the dem party the Latin savior and taking Rubio out of the picture.
Unless the EU collapses, the economy will be on an upswing, with added revenue lowering the deficit.
What issues can the party run on? The ground game for these issues needs to be put in place now, if it’s going to be effective.
RINOs are people too on November 13, 2012 at 11:04 AM
Palin didn’t run because the Bush Machine was still too powerful in the Party and could block her ascent.
Now, they’ve been humiliated. Remember, two weeks ago, Rove was “the Architect”. Now he’s a whining buffoon.
All the people who beat up on Palin from the GOP in the past three years were the same people who scammed Meg Whitman and Mitt Romney for millions upon millions of dollars.
The Consultant Class didn’t want Palin in the race, not because they thought she would lose, but because she didn’t trust them enough to spend one thin dime on them. And she was right.
She knew, in her bones, that they were fast buck artists after a rich man’s loot. That’s the story of the Romney Campaign in a nutshell.
These guys pi$$ed away 175 million dollars of Meg Whitman’s fortune and lost the most expensive gubernatorial race in American history to a zombie candidate who was last governor of California when Linda Rondstat was still #1 on Billboard. These same graverobbers then took Mittens to the cleaners, selling him on shiny objects like Project ORCA. They gave the candidate shiny turnout models showing him that he was sure to win. Then the ground fell out from under his feet.
All of these people swore up and down that Sarah Palin was the problem. All of these people were greedy, swinish, and wrong. Now, they are all losers.
Again.
Except Palin, who had the good sense to stay away while the GOP had its Viking Funeral. She’ll be fine.
victor82 on November 13, 2012 at 11:16 AM
Mmm.. Unless 2016 Rubio or Ryan decided to take a time machine back to 2012, Romney was the best nominee.
Illinidiva on November 13, 2012 at 11:17 AM
Of those that actually ran? Probably not. But how many did not run given the fact of Romney’s money and that the big Republican money bundlers were all in the tank for him?
Rocks on November 13, 2012 at 11:18 AM
1) Obamacare. We need a constant campaign between now and 2016 to highlight its failures, its massive cost overruns and the lies the Dems told about its costs, its costs to employers and killing of jobs, its Orwellian bureaucracy and overweening regulation of the medical field, doctors quitting, deaths in hospitals, etc. etc. Make this a metaphor for liberal overreach and big-government inefficiency. Show young people how absurd it is going to be for them to have to buy very expensive insurance that covers old-people problems like knee and hip replacements, lung cancer, coronary bypass surgery for 85-year-olds, and how hard it’s going to be for them to find a qualified MD when they need one.
2) First Amendment. Highlight and oppose the US accommodating or approving of blasphemy laws and UN resolutions. Appeal to young people that despise any restrictions on speech. Go hammer and tong on the Obamacare mandates and violations of free expression of religion.
3) Afghanistan. Obama promised to bring all the troops home in 2014. How is that going to work and what happens after? Nail him for “losing” Afghanistan and wasting thousands of soldiers’ lives. Make him as unpopular as Bush was on Iraq in his second term.
4) Public sector workers vs. the middle class. Attack the entitled public sector workers and their unions relentlessly. Show the middle class how their incomes have fallen and their expenses have gone up and their savings have shriveled, while public sector workers get huge salaries, raises, cheap or free health care, and gold-plated pensions. This is a bedrock of the Democratic base now and we can get the rest of the country to turn on them.
Just a few ideas.
rockmom on November 13, 2012 at 11:19 AM
The LA Times has an extraordinary article today about the Obama campaigns anylictic team. Since 2011 they’ve spent a few million (much less than Orca) and have had 54 people working to identify every potential Obama voter in America. In particular, voters who could be persuaded to to vote for him.
Not preaching to the choir, but new voters. This was money well spent.
RINOs are people too on November 13, 2012 at 11:26 AM
Obamacare is going to be a confusing mess, count on the EU collapsing, and count on no long-term debt deal. The war on womenz can be diluted by having a charismatic nominee who lays off social issues. It also wouldn’t shock me if Condi Rice was the VP nominee, especially if either Rubio or Ryan or even Jindal is the nominee. All are still going to be in their mid 40s when they run and none have foreign policy experience.
Illinidiva on November 13, 2012 at 11:26 AM
Great.. the RNC should hire some genius to perfect Barry’s campaign efforts. BTW.. new concern troll..how much does Axelrod pay again?
Illinidiva on November 13, 2012 at 11:30 AM
Agree about Iowa. They report election results in percentages but when you looked at the actual numbers in Iowa straw polls… ugh
Some other suggested changes: No more debates hosted by 1) CNN, 2) MSNBC or NBC (same network), and probably not ABC or CBS either – these are dying networks. We shouldn’t crawl before these losers.
And how about a little pressure on states to close primaries to non-party members? People can “join up” or not on their own. Open primaries mean you will get what the Democrats want.
rhombus on November 13, 2012 at 11:37 AM
As ususal, Douchehat is completely off.
I voted, donated and campaigned for Romney. But I will say this; a TON of conservatives stayed home.
I spent a lot of time calling registered Republicans. Every 6th or 8th call would be something in the vein of “I am not voting, Romney is a liberal”.
The point is not whether Romney outperformed other candidates, the question is whether he hurt GOP downticket. And I am 100% certain that he did.
Norwegian on November 13, 2012 at 11:38 AM
The RNC created an environment in which any candidate would’ve struggled. They don’t help their candidates understand dealing with the media, message discipline, or even how to couch their messages for maximum desired effect.
Romney hurt himself by allowing his families and close associates to take so many prominent roles in the campaign. But to me, that’s an RNC problem as well. If you provide top-flight data, polling, organization and marketing, then candidates would make use of them.
The lack of data tools is a huge issue. Orca clearly didn’t work, but it doesn’t seem like the RNC has a better voter data software to offer. Obama’s been working on his voter information since before 2008; Romney has around half of 2012 to put his system in place. The RNC should devote some time to having the best voter information and analysis available. That works better than blowing he money on attack ads.
hawksruleva on November 13, 2012 at 11:39 AM
All things considered…probably not.
Look at the people they went through before finally settling on Romney. Do you really think, for example, that Akin the fundie lunatic would have done any better?
The 2nd scariest thing about this election is that the GOP couldn’t come up with someone better than him AFTER going through the Who’s Who of clowns and fools.
MelonCollie on November 13, 2012 at 11:40 AM
The ranks were clearly decimated in 2006 and 2008. This was probably even worse than 1996 when there were stronger candidates than Dole.. Kemp perhaps? Romney was a weak candidate, but there was no one else viable. Who was going to run? Rubio?
Illinidiva on November 13, 2012 at 11:48 AM
Let’s see, you want a charismatic candidate who is not a Socon. How will they make it through the primary? Keep in mind that if the party establishment continues its next in line procedure (which brought us Bush 43, McCain, and Romney) either Santorum or Paul Ryan will be their choice. Either of these two would be OK with the primary voters, but they are not going to be quiet on conservative social issues.
It’s possible that Mitch Daniels might run but primary voters think he’s soft on social issues.
If more Republicans participated in the primaries then I think we would have a better chance of nominating a candidate with broader appeal.
RINOs are people too on November 13, 2012 at 11:49 AM
This X 1000%.
It was Project NARWAHL. Obama knew his totals were going to collapse nationwide due to what he was doing. And they did. However, he figured that if he kept CO, OH, FL, VA and IA, he’d win with minimal losses (IN and NC). He was right. That’s what NARWAHL was about. Getting every potential Obama voter to the polls.
It cost less than ORCA because it was beta-tested and depended on the 2008 lists.
victor82 on November 13, 2012 at 11:57 AM
Absolutely! The GOP could have nominated retired general Petraeus. Wouldn’t that have been fun?
Browncoatone on November 13, 2012 at 11:59 AM
Ryan isn’t a Social Conservative. To me, a Social Con is someone who is a scold who actually campaigns on those issues. Santorum is a scold who wants to discuss birth control and yell at women who aren’t popping out babies and making sandwiches. Ryan can use the code words and pander as he likes his job, but his campaigns are always about the budget and bread and butter issues. Rubio’s speech is about how much he loves America. Each have issues that they have to overcome.. Rubio needs substance and Ryan has the losing VP stigma. But I don’t think either can get akinized.
Illinidiva on November 13, 2012 at 12:01 PM
Yes, another candidate could have done better. Is it not clear yet that Romney failed to turn out his own base? Which was a lot more people than the independents Romney courted so heavily during the entire campaign.
Sorry, I hate to see Obama back in office, but it’s really irritating to see people blind to the obvious. Romney was just as bad a candidate as we said he was back when. If we don’t learn from this experience, then we deserve Obama’s third term.
I mean, you didn’t think Obama was quietly retiring after two terms, did you?
tom on November 13, 2012 at 12:04 PM
Think on this:
http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/11/open-thread-479.html
ChuckTX on November 13, 2012 at 12:11 PM
A Palin/West ticket would have brought a whole different calculus to the race. Sadly,if their was a year for Palin to run, 2012 was it. If she wants to run in another year, she needs to broaden her portfolio. Run for Senate, or return to the Governor’s mansion. I think, sadly, her future in politics is over.
Jurisprudence on November 13, 2012 at 12:12 PM
Palin is toxic among indies.. That would have been a landslide.
Illinidiva on November 13, 2012 at 12:21 PM
Palin has already gotten more votes on a national ticket than Romney.
And that despite the fact that her running mate basically conceded the race weeks before the election, suspended his campaign and had virtually no presence in GOTV efforts or TV advertising.
Norwegian on November 13, 2012 at 12:26 PM
I agree. If she were to run in 2016, she’d be facing a Democrat machine 1000x stronger than the one that drove her to quit in AK. Not a winning combination, methinks.
MelonCollie on November 13, 2012 at 12:26 PM
While I don’t agree that this thread needs to be all about Palin, people still think about her based on a two-month campaign in 2008. Had she run, she would mainly have been judged on her 2012 campaign and not 2008. The two would not have been anything alike.
alwaysfiredup on November 13, 2012 at 12:28 PM
What makes you think so? The machine is going to be weaker with a non-Obama on the ticket, not stronger.
alwaysfiredup on November 13, 2012 at 12:29 PM
The whole Palin thing is why Conservatives need to get out of their cocoons. If you talk to any indy, Palin is a joke. Sorry. Her political career is over.
Illinidiva on November 13, 2012 at 12:41 PM
People seem to forget that in 4 key swing states; Ohio, Florida, Virgina& New Hampshire Obama won by 400,000 votes. Three million less republicans voted for romneycare than mccain/PALIN. So you can make the case, Palin had enough voters who already voted for her that could have swung the election.
Again my view is she is the best fighter the GOP has, she takes no bullsh*t, she’s got brass balls. Her biggest problem is not the general election but the crony GOP establishment who know if she is elected they would all lose their cushy jobs.
To me, it’s incredible that Palin’s biggest obstacle is breaking thru that GOP establishment wall!
Danielvito on November 13, 2012 at 12:43 PM
The proof will be in the pudding, as they say. Pardon me if I do not believe armchair quarterbacking, particularly from HA.
alwaysfiredup on November 13, 2012 at 12:45 PM
Honestly, it’s likely not her biggest obstacle. Reaching the uninformed voter and changing their gut reaction will be her biggest obstacle. It’s doable, but it will take a lot of work.
alwaysfiredup on November 13, 2012 at 12:46 PM
I’d prefer not to suffer the electoral landslide to find out.
Illinidiva on November 13, 2012 at 12:50 PM
I’d prefer we not have lost last Tuesday. We don’t always get what we want.
alwaysfiredup on November 13, 2012 at 12:54 PM
Illinidiva on November 13, 2012 at 12:50 PM
You would be the same person who would say Reagan would lose to Carter in 1980. After all, reagan was a B grade actor!
Palin can/would motivate the grassroots. Husband 30 year union dues paying member, she is a strong successful woman, etc.
Danielvito on November 13, 2012 at 12:55 PM
Ummm.. Reagan was a serious thinker and public servant by 1980. He had thought deeply about issues for twenty years. Palin was screwed by the 2008 campaign. She wasn’t prepared correctly and wasn’t ready for the spotlight. She’s toxic.. Just bring her up with a non political friend and you’ll see. In fact, Ryan and Rubio aren’t exactly rushing to embrace her; I get the feeling Ryan sees her as a lightweight.
There’s no way in hell that Palin wins the 2016 nod. Not when he establishment can spend the next four years grooming Rubio and getting Palin’s upside with better political skills and without the baggage.
Illinidiva on November 13, 2012 at 1:09 PM
Why do you want to double down on stupid? Romney went as far as anyone ever has to appeal to independents, and lost. That way lies the landslide.
The supposedly toxic Palin did better in 2008 in what was obviously a great year for Democrats than the supposedly non-toxic Romney did in what should have been a great year for Republicans.
tom on November 13, 2012 at 1:51 PM
I’m not convinced Palin is the best candidate, but it’s funny seeing you dismiss her as a lightweight while talking up Rubio, who has little or nothing to his name so far.
Ryan and Rubio are the lightweights at this point. Both have much promise in the future, but right now and probably for the next 6-8 years, they’re not ready to play with the big boys.
tom on November 13, 2012 at 1:54 PM
Ryan isn’t a lightweight… Yes, he is young, but he basically is the only person with serious ideas in the R party. I do think that he thinks Palin is a lightweight. You can almost envision his eyes rolling when Palin’s name comes up. Rubio is fluffy. But why gamble with Palin when Rubio has the same issues and more exposure to the public spotlight. Plus, Rubio would know to say Wall Street Journal or something when asked the newspaper question.
Illinidiva on November 13, 2012 at 2:40 PM
‘Cause, you know, it’s much better to lose by a few thousand votes than to lose in a landslide.
Odysseus on November 13, 2012 at 2:52 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2