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: 1 2 Next »
And the GOP was a drag on McCain, Dole and H.W. Bush too?
Fool.
HondaV65 on November 14, 2012 at 9:22 PM
Now we know basilsbest’s noms de guerre.
arnold ziffel on November 14, 2012 at 9:26 PM
Pass the popcorn.
Alpha_Male on November 14, 2012 at 9:29 PM
I love how every conservative is rushing to blame this defeat on their favorite hobby horse.
Peope voted for Obama because they like free stuff and they allow themselves to be manipulated.
LilyBart on November 14, 2012 at 9:31 PM
Yep, but people will try to blame Romney if they didn’t like him beforehand. Fact is the GOP got beat because we don’t assertively fight back at the media on a consistent basis to show the majority of voters that they are constantly being fed lies about our positions…
We could pander to Hispanics, Asians or any other voting demographic but it wouldn’t help us at all, hell it’d probably cost us more voters on our side than we’d pick up. Reason being the GOP would still be portrayed as racist/sexist/heartless bastards no matter what we do.
The answer to what ails us is to destroy the media hacks and the Dems. It’s a 2 birds with 1 stone strategy. Social media is helping a bit but we need the actual politicians and pundits who appear on television to be aggressive to actually hit back and communicated our ACTUAL message and show the hackery/lies of the Dems & MSM.
jaygatz33 on November 14, 2012 at 9:33 PM
My hobby horse is the only one not to blame!
forest on November 14, 2012 at 9:34 PM
So what was the drag on those Senate candidates?
The story in some circles seems to be that if only we had run an “actual” conservative, they would’ve won. But he outpaced a few of those who get that label. Curious…
changer1701 on November 14, 2012 at 9:35 PM
Romney’s ads that he ran in all the swing states bragged about how good he is when working with Democrats. The ads sounded like they were designed to convince independents to vote for the Democrat congress person and Romney. That absolutely demoralized the conservatives and helped the Democrats in those senate races Mr. Ponnuru is wondering about.
Buddahpundit on November 14, 2012 at 9:35 PM
If Romney had driven more people to vote GOP than in 2008 I would agree with Ponnuru, he didn’t. In fact he only managed to do as well as McCain and that was with millions more registered republicans now than in 2008.
It’s hard to blame the GOP when it was Romney’s team, which included most in power in the GOP, that has been controlling the message for the past year and a half.
Rocks on November 14, 2012 at 9:35 PM
Talk about begging the question. Ponnuru devotes the predictable space to Akin and Mourdock…and of course the main thing he seems to take away from 2010 is O’Donnell and Angle…but my, didn’t the GOP take over the House in pretty stunning fashion that year?
Romney was a weak candidate. Period. He can talk about Flake and others who scraped by, but Romney should have won this by a large margin. He lost. It’s on Romney.
ddrintn on November 14, 2012 at 9:36 PM
The GOP is weak because for the past two years they’ve really not done a damn thing but capitulate. Seventy percent of the public was on the TP side on the debt ceiling question. SEVENTY PERCENT.
ddrintn on November 14, 2012 at 9:39 PM
LOL
Ponnuru & National Review are in fantasy land.
Compare and contrast to what they wrote about McCain/Palin after the 2008 election, a ticket that.attracted more votes than Romney did.
Norwegian on November 14, 2012 at 9:39 PM
As long as you are a member in good standing of the GOP Club, failure means never having to accept the blame.
sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 9:42 PM
Interesting point.
faraway on November 14, 2012 at 9:43 PM
Except for a few good sane people here and there, like Andrew McCarthy (take a look at what he had to say about a Romney nomination during the primaries), National Review has become pretty much a house organ of the GOPe. They and others say pretty much the same thing after every GOP defeat, whether explicitly or implicitly: it’s the fault of the socons. It’s the fault of the GOP for not being to the center enough. Funny though how in the wake of 2004 the Dems didn’t agonize on how they were going to have to move right to win. No, the Kos Kids essentially took over the party, and they’ve won every cycle since (excepting the TP uprising in 2010).
ddrintn on November 14, 2012 at 9:44 PM
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 atleast 2-3 months.
@Buddahpundit I’m not even really going to comment on your idiotic assertions on Romney’s ads. Saying you have a history of being able to work across the aisle as opposed to Obama who does nothing but divide isn’t telling other people to vote for Democrats. Good lord.
jaygatz33 on November 14, 2012 at 9:44 PM
And yet Romney pulled in fewer votes than McCain, despite McCain losing independents by 8 while Romney won them by 5.
Here’s an alternative hypothesis: the base stayed home due to how bad the top of the ticket was. Maybe a Bain executive who served as the architect for Obamacare wasn’t the best guy to get your base fired up. As someone who voted for McCain but refused to vote for Romney, who knows, maybe I’m a statistical anomaly, or maybe I’m part of a group of people that you’ve just royally pissed off.
Stoic Patriot on November 14, 2012 at 9:45 PM
Hobby Horse 2016
faraway on November 14, 2012 at 9:45 PM
I’m so happy when your team trots out this hobby horse. It gives me the opportunity to shoot him, since Obama had no such problem with his stable of Cherokee loons.
faraway on November 14, 2012 at 9:48 PM
2011 tea party congress brought down the gop vote.
Mormontheman on November 14, 2012 at 9:48 PM
Oh, bullshit. Romney had been running for president for 6 years or even longer. If he couldn’t get together a message and an organization that could withstand some dumbass comment from a MO senatorial candidate, he was hopeless anyway.
ddrintn on November 14, 2012 at 9:49 PM
This is an important point. In catering to Independents late Romney encouraged them to vote for him but they are also far more likely to vote a split ticket than a registered Republican. Romney did better with independents than McCain but received the same total vote which mean only one thing. Less Republicans voted for Romney than McCain.i Those Independents voted Romney but not down ticket. That combined with the drop in Republicans means candidates who did not specifically cater to independents were screwed.
Rocks on November 14, 2012 at 9:50 PM
Oh really? So what did that “tea party congress” do?
ddrintn on November 14, 2012 at 9:51 PM
One more thing: Ponnuru’s argument about Senate races actually underscores Romney’s biggest weakness: he caused the GOP base to stay home.
Norwegian on November 14, 2012 at 9:53 PM
In the end, Romney wasn’t ruthless enough. It’s probably just as simple as that.
faraway on November 14, 2012 at 9:53 PM
Ask his GOP primary opponents about that. In the end, Romney couldn’t inspire enough people to vote for him.
ddrintn on November 14, 2012 at 9:55 PM
5-6 months? Most of those in power in the GOP and GOP Congressmen have been behind Romney since 2011. The entire Occupy movement was a Democratic campaign based on that and the surety that it would make Romney the nominee.
Rocks on November 14, 2012 at 9:58 PM
Well, now you’ve got Obama for another term. Why that prospect didn’t royally piss you off more is awfully curious.
changer1701 on November 14, 2012 at 10:00 PM
The Republican Party did not do a good job selling itself this year. I think part of the problem was, we assumed that Obama’s incompetence had undone most of the damage done by the SubPrime Mortgage Crisis.
This isn’t a fundamental break from reality however, looking at Obama’s numbers, it’s clear that Obama and the Democratic party has been damaged, but that damaged hasn’t sent people flooding back to the Republican party.
Because we assumed Obama was fatally flawed goods, and that we weren’t, we spent most of our time attacking Obama and did a poor job selling ourselves. Romney too, probably spent too much time attacking Obama, but unlike the rest of the field he did successful make a case for his own Presidency. On most the issues, Romney was chosen as the more competent and capable of the two candidates, it was likability that ultimately killed Romney, and even that may not have mattered had things gone ever so slightly differently.
I think it’s clear that, next time, it’s insufficient to merely trash the democrats track record, no matter how bad it may be by then. First, we’ll have to define our nominee before the media and the democratic campaign does it for them. Second, we have to build enthusiasm for that candidate, as a party we don’t really trust anybody right now, so this will be difficult, but its really important. Finally, our nominee has to hit his opponent on the issues, while building his own credibility.
This third step is where Romney excelled tremendously. His debates and talking points left no real doubt that he was intelligent, and idiocy is one of the democrats most useful labels.
It’s said that democrats attack their opponents as one of three things. Old and white, stupid, and evil. While old, that label never really worked on Romney, and he was clearly not stupid either, so instead the Obama campaign tried to relentlessly pass him off as evil.
The Republican party in general however, they more generally attacked as all three. The media ignored minority speakers at the Republican convention, were eager to showcase embarrassments like Akin and Mourdock, and I think those two may have covered the evil card as well. It’s also to point out that several of our candidates were old white party rehashes, which doesn’t help at all against the old and white label.
So Romney performed better, but only because democrats could only attack him with one of they’re three usual smears.
WolvenOne on November 14, 2012 at 10:01 PM
Romney to NASCAR fans…“I like those fancy raincoats you bought. Really sprung for the big bucks,” and defending his comment…“Look, I’ve worn a garbage bag for rain gear myself,”
“I’ll tell you what, ten-thousand bucks? $10,000 bet?“
“I should tell my story. I’m also unemployed.”
“Not as closely as some of the most ardent fans. But I have some great friends that are NASCAR team owners.”
“One of most humorous I think relates to my father … he decided to close the factory in Michigan and move all the production to Wisconsin. Now later he decided to run for governor of Michigan and so you can imagine that having closed the factory and moved all the production to Wisconsin was a very sensitive issue to him, for his campaign.”
And they wouldn’t vote for him? Really?
sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 10:04 PM
Because an Obama vs Romney contest was a distinction without a difference.
Stoic Patriot on November 14, 2012 at 10:07 PM
Romney lost because he didn’t use hand puppets when describing to the dumber than dirt young people what Obama is planning to do to the economy and their futures.
moonsbreath on November 14, 2012 at 10:17 PM
Arnold dear, you can get help for your fetish. It might take your mind off your problem if you and Stoic Patriot, who is neither, get a room together. You can dream about Sarah.
Basilsbest on November 14, 2012 at 10:29 PM
Well of course a “conservative” like you thinks he should have kept it open until it bankrupted him. It would have served him right for being a Mormon. Right.
Basilsbest on November 14, 2012 at 10:32 PM
Huh, looks like my idea of coat tails was different than Ramesh’s.
Romney was simply the wrong tool for the job. The tone and message was not what we needed this time.
…And this is one of the reasons.
Dongemaharu on November 14, 2012 at 10:35 PM
No I wouldn’t, and I also wouldn’t trot it out as a funny story about thousands of men losing their jobs. Using these guys as a punchline in a story, and then expecting their votes is what I would call stupid.
sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 10:36 PM
Is sharrukin anti-Mormon?
Dongemaharu on November 14, 2012 at 10:38 PM
Actually, neither was as much of a drag on each other as Obama voters are, and will continue to be on the country. The parasites have been camped out in the host for a long time now, and the more they consume, the harder it is to stop their encroachment. Ponnuru and his Beltway Republican ilk seem to be under the impression that not only should we not try to stop their encroachment, but that we should flatter them in hopes that it might abate their greed. Lightweight.
fitzfong on November 14, 2012 at 10:40 PM
Basilsbest needs something to keep her warm at night in this dark winter of defeat. Don’t take that away from her!
psst… Being Mormon and a good family man was the only good thing about Romney.
sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 10:43 PM
sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 10:43 PM
Anti-reason too.
Basilsbest on November 14, 2012 at 10:46 PM
The Republican party has too many big egos who would rather see Mitt lose just to say “I told you so”.
They are conseeeeervatives you see.
Purer than the rest.
Apparently Rick Perry or Newt were their first and second choices.Their purity and sanctimony was obscene. That State of Red. I’m pointing at you.
NeoKong on November 14, 2012 at 10:47 PM
That’s what I figured. It’s the GOP version of the race card, I guess.
Dongemaharu on November 14, 2012 at 10:47 PM
Romney was the wrong person for the job. We needed a toxic screecher with a soft University degree who talks like she didn’t finish High School.
Basilsbest on November 14, 2012 at 10:49 PM
Pretty much.
Why else wouldn’t someone vote for Mitt?
That is what they ask themselves and because they could care less about conservatism themselves, they grasp for some answer. The idea that Romney’s lack of conservatism is the reason never occurs to them.
sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 10:51 PM
Arguments don’t really have to hang together for Ramesh.
rdbrewer on November 14, 2012 at 10:52 PM
Yeah, because the Ivy League has done such a fantastic job running the country over the years. Just what the world needs: more credentialed, maleducated pinheads.
fitzfong on November 14, 2012 at 10:54 PM
Romney, continuing in the fine tradition of GHWB, Dole, and McCain.
How about we try an actual conservative next time. We haven’t run one since Reagan.
We’ve only won one popular vote since 1988. What else happened during that time? A long line of establishment Rockefeller Republicans, people who like government just fine. They just want to be in control of things.
rdbrewer on November 14, 2012 at 10:56 PM
Romney wasn’t conservative enough for you so you now have your wish – the socialist Obama for a second term. Insane.
Basilsbest on November 14, 2012 at 10:57 PM
My comment was about him supposedly “Controlling” the message of the GOP for 1 1/2 years. Running for President for years doesn’t give you control of the message genius. He did have a message that got him sorta close considering all the built in advantages he was facing such as incumbency, a “historical” presidency and the corrupt media.
He certainly wasn’t perfect but blaming him is quite idiotic imo. It’s kinda shameful imo that dumbasses like yourself would rather hate on him than the corrupt media who make it hard for any of our candidates to win because we’re always portrated as rich racist sexists.. Seems to me that’s the problem we should actually focus on.
jaygatz33 on November 14, 2012 at 11:00 PM
When you can’t defend your guy without shaking the scary Obama doll at people then you have problems. Romney was simply terrible and the lesser of two evils argument has lost its power to convince.
sharrukin on November 14, 2012 at 11:00 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »