Romney wasn’t a drag on the GOP, the GOP was a drag on him
Aaron Blake pointed out in the Washington Post that Romney ran ahead of most of the Republican Senate candidates: He did better than Connie Mack in Florida, George Allen in Virginia, Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin, Denny Rehberg in Montana, Jeff Flake in Arizona, Pete Hoekstra in Michigan, Deb Fischer in Nebraska, Rick Berg in North Dakota, Josh Mandel in Ohio, and of course Todd Akin in Missouri and Richard Mourdock in Indiana. In some cases Romney did a lot better. (He also did slightly better than Ted Cruz in Texas, a race Blake for some reason ignored.)
None of those candidates were as rich as Romney, and almost all of them had more consistently conservative records than he did. It didn’t help them win more votes. The only Republican Senate candidates who ran significantly ahead of Romney were people running well to his left in blue states, and they lost too…
The Republican story about how societies prosper — not just the Romney story — dwelt on the heroic entrepreneur stifled by taxes and regulations: an important story with which most people do not identify. The ordinary person does not see himself as a great innovator. He, or she, is trying to make a living and support or maybe start a family. A conservative reform of our health-care system and tax code, among other institutions, might help with these goals. About this person, however, Republicans have had little to say…
The perception that the Republican party serves the interests only of the rich underlies all the demographic weaknesses that get discussed in narrower terms. Hispanics do not vote for the Democrats solely because of immigration. Many of them are poor and lack health insurance, and they hear nothing from the Republicans but a lot from the Democrats about bettering their situation. Young people, too, are economically insecure, especially these days. If Republicans found a way to apply conservative principles in ways that offered tangible benefits to most voters and then talked about this agenda in those terms, they would improve their standing among all of these groups while also increasing their appeal to white working-class voters. For that matter, higher-income voters would prefer candidates who seem practical and solution-oriented. Better “communications skills,” that perennial item on the wish list of losing parties, will achieve little if the party does not have an appealing agenda to communicate.
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
What? Romney only “controlled” the message for a minimum 5-6 months after he won the primary and even then he was kneecapped with the dumbass rape comments that became a diversion for at least 2-3 months.
jaygatz33 on November 14, 2012 at 9:44 PM
5-6 months? Most of those in power in the GOP and GOP Congressmen have been behind Romney since 2011.
Rocks on November 14, 2012 at 9:58 PM
Sorry that’s just false. Give me some names of these people? The establishment was trying to get people like Mitch Daniels and Chris Christie to run.
jaygatz33 on November 14, 2012 at 11:03 PM
She accepted his offer to be the VP nominee for the Pro Life/Teenage Abstinence Party without telling him that her teenage daughter was pregnant. And the cultists wonder why she was immediately dismissed by the majority as not exactly reliable.
Basilsbest on November 14, 2012 at 11:09 PM
Is that all it is to you? Pure hate?
Do you have any principles that you believe in?
sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 11:12 PM
According to the polling put up by AP yesterday Romney had closed to .3% of Obama on the day before Mourdock’s comments. 8 days later the gap was 1.5%
Basilsbest on November 14, 2012 at 11:13 PM
I don’t hate Palin. I supported her until it became clear she is doing more harm than good. I don’t worship her like you cultists. You are a fine one to talk about principles and hate. You’re the worst cherry picker on this site and your claims that Romney is not conservative and ran to the left of Kennedy are hateful lies.
Basilsbest on November 14, 2012 at 11:21 PM
And yet, more people pulled the lever for McCain/Palin than Romney/Ryan.
And that’s despite the fact that McCain did not have a horrible Obama record to run against; had already conceded (suspended his campaign) and virtually no money was spent on GOTV or ads.
That should tell you about everything you need to know about the quality of the Romney candidacy.
Listen; I donated to, campaigned for, and voted for Romney. But it is painfully obvious that he was a less than ideal candidate.
Norwegian on November 14, 2012 at 11:35 PM
I totally agree, Romney should have primaried Obama.
astonerii on November 14, 2012 at 11:49 PM
Romney was easy to defend and, as you know and contrary to your most recent lie, I’ve defended him and his lengthy list of attributes and accomplishments ad nauseum. He would have been a terrific president.
Elections are about choices, dumb ass.
Basilsbest on November 14, 2012 at 11:55 PM
This.
Meanwhile when someone like Akin says something that gets the left’s panties in a bunch the RNC does what the DNC tells them to and drops him like a hot rock.
29Victor on November 14, 2012 at 11:59 PM
Yes. Just like eight months ago when he was “The only candidate that could beat Obama.”
29Victor on November 15, 2012 at 12:00 AM
More people voted for Obama than McCain/Palin. Does that make Obama the better candidate. You were quite excited by Romney’s campaign even though you didn’t support him going in, Norwegian. He’s one man. He was up against too many morons, too many purists, too many cultists. And these are just the losers in his own party. I’ve ever seen a candidate work as hard as Romney did.
The best man doesn’t always win. The mob asked for Barabas. (Sharrukin or some other dullard will now claim I’m comparing Mitt to Christ)
Basilsbest on November 15, 2012 at 12:07 AM
He clearly was. I salute him for his effort.
Basilsbest on November 15, 2012 at 12:09 AM
You are clueless. Akin’s and Mourdock’s statements caused many women who Mitt had worked so hard to persuade to go back to Obama. Those two and people like Victor, Sharrukin, Stoic Patriot and the bigots, cultists and purists who stayed home cost us the election. All that work for nothing.
Basilsbest on November 15, 2012 at 12:17 AM
If he’s running for president for 6 years and can’t control the message that means he’s a looooooooooser, genius.
And nearly 60% of moderates vote for Obama, dumbasses. Can’t pin yet another one of your squishy failures on “purists”.
ddrintn on November 15, 2012 at 1:32 AM
here is an idea for those small goverment types. For every dollar of spending cut from the federal government every resigtered voter that voted in the last election gets a $1. say 100 million people vote. For every billion cut the voter gets a $10 check. For every $10 billion cut $100 check. And on and on. watch how quick the voters DEMAND the congress cut spending. Hell if we just got out budget balanced that would mean a $10,000 check to every voter. win win. Here the money is returned to the people, government is cut, congressman and senators will be pressured to cut govenrment instead of grow it and the avg joe will get a nice check to spend how he sees fit instead of how the government does. Added bonus i would imagine people would be less inclined to sit home. Of course the GOPe are too stupid to actually run on this campaign promise. And the marxists would never give up the power the government spending gives them….
unseen on November 15, 2012 at 1:45 AM
yeah the Mittbots sure worked at surpressing the vote as they ran off everyone in the GOp base so their guy could win the nomination. The 21 million less viewers Ryan got for his convention speech, the low turnout in the primaries, the low ratings for the convention as a whole. these weren’t clear and present warning flags for Mitt and his team? they should have seen thos enumbers and understood they needed to heal the party not divide it more.
unseen on November 15, 2012 at 1:51 AM
ROFL…which part of he lost is hard to understand. If Mitt was the best candidate to beat Obama he would have I don’t know won. He didn’t thus he wasn’t the best candidate to beat the worse president in modern history. He couldn’t even tie Obama to the economy. A economy
Obama managed for 4 years and ran into the ground. Mitt still thinks we ar ein a recovery becaus e he believes that ogvernemtn spending and the fed will save us. He couldn’t attack obama on economic policy because Mitt would do the same thing. Hell Mitt was even upset with Ben the printing press before the election when the fed announced QE3 not because it would ruin the dollar but because Mitt thought it would help the economy.
unseen on November 15, 2012 at 1:56 AM
Romneycare was easy to defend? His liberalism was easy to defend? I could accept his character was easy to defend he seemed like a nice decent guy but his record and policies only are easy to defend if your a liberal.
unseen on November 15, 2012 at 1:59 AM
yeap. I think Mitt could have won that election
unseen on November 15, 2012 at 2:01 AM
that’s bullcrap. It was known to the McCain camp before she accepted the nomination. the fact that the McCain camp didn’t control the message and how the news was released was the McCain”s camp fault. Oh and that prolife person had the child.
unseen on November 15, 2012 at 2:06 AM
Ford, Bush the 1st, Dole, McCain, Mitt,
Reagan and bush the 2nd who ran as a conservative.
yeap you ar eright. Its about choices and the voters have told you and the GOPe what choice they want as the GOp nominee. A conservative not a squishy moderate. Conservatives even pretend conservatives like Bush win elections moderates don’t. It simply a fact of life. It’s time the GOpe accept that fact.
unseen on November 15, 2012 at 2:10 AM
Let’s stop blaming fellow Republicans you all. It’s not Romney’s fault. It’s not the social conservatives fault. It’s not the libertarian’s fault.
It’s the Democrat’s fault. They’ve turned our society into a country full of moochers. People who want stuff for free.
Looking for someone to blame? That neighbor down the street with an Obama sign in their yard. That sister-in-law of yours who has no husband, but takes all sorts of government hand-outs and voted for Obama. That convenience store owner who’s an immigrant from Pakistan, and voted for Obama cause he’s for amnesty for illegals from Asia. That gym workout buddy of yours who voted Obama cause he’s “cool,” plays basketball and listens to hip hop.
Tell all of them to get out of your life. Just dump all the Democrats you know. Start today.
ericdondero on November 15, 2012 at 3:46 AM
I just think that people thought the Democrats were more likely to come to their rescue if they got in a mess…and let’s face it, that is probably true. After all, when Bush ran on compassionate conservatism, he won. People responded to that. But a lot of conservatives have rejected that as being Democrat lite. So, they reverted to their old rhetoric and in this day and age it did not work for them.
When the attitude of voters changes, and it always does, then they will swing back right. At least I hope they will.
Terrye on November 15, 2012 at 6:36 AM
If you stayed home to not vote for Romney then you voted for Obama and you’re as much to blame for this as freeloading liberals. I hope you’re happy. You really proved your point huh?
Another group of people with zero brains. Your little temper tantrum had far reaching effects.
tyketto on November 15, 2012 at 6:44 AM
mittens milquetoast was a lousy choice for the gop…end of story….anyone who thinks otherwise is utterly mad!
Pragmatic on November 15, 2012 at 7:38 AM
Not everybody was thinking along the lines of “We have to save the country by voting Obama out.” Some of us were thinking that the country is already crumbling, and if the GOP doesn’t nominate somebody who we can believe will do something about it, then why vote for either of the two parties? Why would I think that Romney is the solution and not just another lying grifter after his performance as governor of Massachusetts (regardless of what he said on the campaign trail or what was written on his website)? Why should I keep helping to send GOP candidates to DC if they never seem to accomplish anything but getting rich at our expense?
The message we doubters got was that Obama was so monstrously bad that we had to swap him out for somebody, anybody, else — even if that person was just another grifter. Sorry, I’m sick to death of supporting grifters who talk about liberty and fiscal sanity but become eunuchs or worse once they’re in DC. You want me to start voting GOP again? Don’t nominate another good talker whose previous term in government involved imposing universal health care on his state. Nominate somebody who’s career proves that (s)he’s serious about cutting spending and waste in government.
You’re not going to save the country by swapping one grifter administration for another.
Aitch748 on November 15, 2012 at 7:48 AM
Sad to see the usual Sarah Palin cultists here trying to dump on Mitt and other Republican voters. Why do these Sarah Palin cultists always have to be so divisive? They spend more time attacking other Republicans not named Palin than they do attacking Democrats. They give the decent Sarah Palin fans a bad name.
bluegill on November 15, 2012 at 7:51 AM
Oh, that’s rich. The only posters I see here on Hot Air dumping on voters are the Romney supporters and the Republican establishment cheerleaders, for rejecting their candidate.
And it’s always the usual Palin detractors who keep dragging Palin into conversations about Romney and the GOP. I thought you people wanted Palin to go away, but no — you’re beginning to sound like Obama blaming Bush for the mess he inherited.
Aitch748 on November 15, 2012 at 8:01 AM
And yet we didn’t give anyone any motivation to vote for Mitt.
Notorious GOP on November 15, 2012 at 8:04 AM
Yep. Exactly right. They took their ball and went home because they didn’t get their way in the primary, and now look what we’re stuck with. All to stick it to the GOP? Guess what, purists…you stuck it to everybody, including yourselves. They wanted Obama to win throughout, and they got their wish. Romney wasn’t perfect, but he was a hell of a lot better than the alternative.
The true cons give us candidates like Akin, Angle, and O’Donnell that they expect US to support, yet they sit on their hands when asked to support someone who doesn’t check all their little boxes. Then, when said candidate loses, they have the gall to blame the candidate they hoped would lose for not pandering to them any more than he already had! WTF? Elections are choices, folks, and more often then not they involve less than perfect ones. If you fail to make the correct one, or don’t bother to choose at all, that’s on you.
Both the liberals and the truecons who stayed home gave us Obama, and I hope each and every one of them reap what they’ve sown.
changer1701 on November 15, 2012 at 10:09 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2