Romney advisor: He’s “the most popular Republican on the national scene at the moment”
Romney adviser Stuart Stevens strongly disagreed, calling Romney “the most popular Republican on the national scene at the moment,” given the votes he received on Election Day. Views of defeated candidates can change dramatically over time, Stevens added.
“Even those who have been critical of the campaign on our side realize in the end that Governor Romney was resonating with millions of Americans and was running the kind of campaign we could all be proud of,” Stevens said. “I think the governor can have the political road of his choosing. I have no idea what that would be.”…
Romney, by contrast, appears well on the way to disappearing, with a not-so-gentle shove from his own party. The private-equity firm founder, who listed his profession as “author” on campaign disclosures, has no political stage from which to operate and few voices of support to spur him on.
It’s possible that the 2012 nominee could be headed for the kind of political ignominy occupied by another former governor and presidential candidate from Massachusetts, Democrat Michael Dukakis, who enjoyed little national stature after his drubbing by George H.W. Bush in 1988.
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
The stupidity is staggering.
steebo77 on November 17, 2012 at 12:15 PM
Uh…NO.
Go back to the private sector, Mitt. Before you get the idiotic idea to run again in 2016.
portlandon on November 17, 2012 at 12:16 PM
WaPo gloating is the ugliest kind of gloating.
Hey WaPo, GFY.
Difficultas_Est_Imperium on November 17, 2012 at 12:18 PM
For me, it’s Ronald Reagan and Calvin Coolidge. Sadly, they can not directly help us, only inspire. And that presupposes we have people in our party willing to loudly espouse their beliefs.
Rixon on November 17, 2012 at 12:19 PM
Sorry Mitt… see Adlai Stevenson…
JohnGalt23 on November 17, 2012 at 12:21 PM
Constantly stirring the anti-Romney pot, aren’t you. I swear that sites like this are the Democrats’ best friend. Whatever can be done to tear the Republican candidate to shreds or promote some off the wall loser candidate. At least the site didn’t go full on Aiken but it was cheering the elimination of Lugar in IN which turned out to be yet another stupid move.
If you want to stop the crossing over of marginal Republicans voting with the Democrats you have to get a majority. They only do that when they are in the minority. So far we have lost 4 Senate seats to this sort of crap. We could have had Nevada had Sue Lowden run. She was polling ahead of Harry Reid. In Delaware, Mike Castle would have won easily but no, we had to run McDonnell. Lugar could have kept his seat. In Missouri, ANY of the candidates except Aiken were polling ahead of McCaskill.
We could have four more seats in the Senate than we have now. Crossing over becomes less the more seats your party has in the Senate. Once you gain the majority, your crossovers stop and the OTHER party begins to cross over. This is because if they want THEIR legislation to pass when in the minority, they have to vote with the other side once in a while. If they dig in their heels and never support the other side, the other side simply shuts them out and they get nothing.
I am getting sick of running these “pure” candidates that do nothing but hand more seats to the Democrats. It’s a loser move.
We can cull the weak ones out … AFTER we get a majority of a couple of seats. Doing so before simply hands more seats to Democrats.
crosspatch on November 17, 2012 at 12:24 PM
The Republican Party is in the current condition of a dozen soaking wet angry cats one is trying to put in a burlap sack. And I have a feeling it’s gonna be this way for at least a decade more.
I remember Reagan Democrats. Now you have Obama Republicans thanks to our so-cons.
Marcus on November 17, 2012 at 12:26 PM
Stevenson had a distinguished career after losing. He was UN ambassador during the Cuban missile crisis.
This is just ugly people at WaPoo gloating.
Ted Torgerson on November 17, 2012 at 12:28 PM
Actually at least 5, you’re forgetting Ken Buck.
And arguably 6, since Berg only lost by 1 point to a female candidate in ND, and might well have won if Akin and Mourdock hadn’t damaged the entire GOP brand with women.
Jon0815 on November 17, 2012 at 12:31 PM
Mitt Romney was the best presidential candidate the Republican Party has fielded in my lifetime. I fear we are never going to recruit a candidate as good as him. He ran a nearly flawless campaign.
Problem is not with Romney. Problem is that we on the right do not recognize that Democrats are our enemies. We’re being far too soft in our defeat.
All these pundits Kristol, Podhoretz, et.al need to stop blaming Romney and start blaming the American public.
We now live in a socialist nanny-state from hell. The takers outnumber the makers. We need to de-friend, di-vorce and de-employ all the Democrats in our lives. We need to treat them as the moochers on society that they are, and as complete enemies of conservatives and libertarians.
ericdondero on November 17, 2012 at 12:37 PM
I like Romney. I really do. But it’s time for him to step aside, I think.
Mr. Prodigy on November 17, 2012 at 12:37 PM
With four more years of Obama and his policies, Republicans should be in power………….holding both houses of Congress and the White House. It will be that or we go the way of Greece.
SC.Charlie on November 17, 2012 at 12:39 PM
I, and many others have little use for the Republican Party that would consider a man like Newt Gingrich more conservative than Mitt Romney. Or Rick Santorum. Maybe, Rick Perry, but then you have the dumb as a box of rocks problem.
The whole campaign last year, to turn the word “conservative” into a synonym for “mean and stupid” hurt us a lot. Take Laura Ingram as proof, I’m sure she is a lovely person in real life, but her vitriol appeals to very few. Rush Limbaugh began to seem nice next to her.
We have lost the moral high ground because of the ones in the party who think they have the complete corner on the word “conservative”. That is called being “holier than thou” and nobody likes it. Nobody.
The term RINO should be abolished forever. Tell Gutfeld… that should be his top banned word.
When you get fools like the Akin character as the face of the party you lose most of the Party. I am not that dumb, few are. And I am not that mean. I can understand the point of view from the other side. I don’t have to demonize them. I can simply disagree.
Mitt Romney is real, and good, and exactly what a conservative should be. Yet, he was called “fake” for years and years by his own party!!!! Who are these people? I don’t belong with people like that!!! And Mitt Romney was considered to liberal!!!!! Too liberal for a country that re-elected a totalitarian-Communist!!! Are conservatives really dumb? You have to wonder.
I don’t need a party like that. Nobody needs a party like that.
So, either the Party leaves the “southern-stupid” (Akin) image it got last year behind, or we have a Communist future forever.
Uneducated and intolerant is not an image I want.
petunia on November 17, 2012 at 12:52 PM
Agree. Remember Obama saying to vote for revenge?
Romney should step away and become even more wealthy. Hell, he could buy Hostess and make it profitable.
That right there would be the best revenge.
bluealice on November 17, 2012 at 12:58 PM
Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son.
Pervygrin on November 17, 2012 at 1:01 PM
ROFL. going on that basis McCain is more popular than Romney…. What idiots the Mitt team continue to be…
We tried it our way in 2010 won a landslide. Tried it your way in 2012 lost to the worse POTUS in our history. I’ll stick with the TEa party and running conservatives you can keep your moderates.
unseen on November 17, 2012 at 1:02 PM
I still like Mitt. Would vote for him again in 2016 minus Orca.
DeathtotheSwiss on November 17, 2012 at 1:03 PM
Just to make your day..:)
Hey GOP, take the Palin cure
She’s hot, she’s blue collar, she’s electable.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-allen-palin-for-president-20121118,0,1525685.story
And don’t forget to vote on their online poll.
idesign on November 17, 2012 at 1:06 PM
If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”
winston Chuirchill.
It takes education to be a conservative the uneducated are the liberals. It is easy to be a liberal just do what “feels good” conservative use their brains and see more of the unintended consequences of the “feel good ” moderate/liberal side programs.
unseen on November 17, 2012 at 1:06 PM
So you like being in the minority?
unseen on November 17, 2012 at 1:08 PM
Id like to see the 2016 ticket come from this group, all of whom I am pretty sure are more popular today than Gov Romney, who ran as well as he could have but will forever reside in the dukakis/gore/kerry/mccain chapter.
Jindal
Ryan
Rubio
Kasich
McDonnell
Martinez
Scott
Daniels
Walker
Johanns
Haley
These folks have 4 years to distinguish themselves and articulate a recovery plan in the aftermath of Superstorm Obama.
Sacramento on November 17, 2012 at 1:11 PM
great article. Thanks…
unseen on November 17, 2012 at 1:24 PM
Most of those I could give a chance to see if they rise to the occasion some of them not worth the time.
But all of them much much much better than Mitt
unseen on November 17, 2012 at 1:25 PM
ryan???????? rubio????????? daniels????? haven’t you learned anything from this past election?
renalin on November 17, 2012 at 1:27 PM
Okay, a few quick thoughts.
To those grumbling at this statement, stop it, it’s probably true. The Republican party doesn’t have that many national figures at the moment, and Romney is reasonably well liked and easily the best known. This means he’s likely the most popular by default, it’s simply kinda hard not to be after running a relatively close election for the Presidency.
As for Romney, from what I’ve heard, he’s done with elected office. It sounds like he’s burnt out, tired of having to watch his every little word in an environment where everything is taken in the worst possible way. It does sound like he’d be interested in some rather, high profile private roles, such as getting another Olympics organized, and honestly seeing as Romney isn’t a natural campaigner this is probably a good place for him.
Finally, I think it’s time people just cut Romney some slack and left him alone. I know some people are still sore he won the primary, but holding grudges doesn’t help matters any.
Besides the simple fact that I’m tired of seeing Republicans attacking republicans, it’d be nice if we could be gracious about this. While there are lessons to be learned from Romney’s campaign, he did run a fairly good race and deserves a little respect for all the work and effort he put into all this.
Trying to rob him of that one little thing, just strikes me as mean and petty, and thats hardly how we should be acting right now.
WolvenOne on November 17, 2012 at 1:31 PM
Different people voted in 2010. Minorities weren’t out in nearly as full of force, and had they been we likely wouldn’t have won so many seats.
Additionally, the circumstances were different in 2010. Obamacare was a lot fresher in peoples minds, the economy was horrible and the media wasn’t pretending otherwise, and the populace wasn’t bombarded with class warfare rhetoric for a full year 24/7 before the vote.
Basically, it’s an apples and oranges comparison, and its pretty obvious that any of the other primary candidates would have lost as well, probably worse. Do keep in mind that Romney outperformed the Republican field in general, including the tea party backed candidates.
In short, 2012 is not 2010.
WolvenOne on November 17, 2012 at 1:38 PM
WolvenOne on November 17, 2012 at 1:31 PM
with such a fierce sounding moniker, you come across pretty meek. you think we will win the war with the left, acting meek and docile?
really?
renalin on November 17, 2012 at 1:38 PM
So you’re telling me there is a comeback chance in 2016?
lester on November 17, 2012 at 1:45 PM
lol. No, the GOP will nominate Jeb/Rubio who will go down in flames to Hillary/Castro.
Kataklysmic on November 17, 2012 at 1:48 PM
Okay, first off, the name Wolven One has a lot to do with the fact that I’m a furry. Yes, that’s right, be afraid, be very very afraid.
(Disclaimer: Nah, don’t be afraid. We’ve got a bad rap, and frankly I attend church weekly and all those good things too.)
Second, on this thread I’ve primarily been trying to address conduct within the party. Basically, I’m hoping we end the whole circular firing squad thing, cause it does us absolutely no good right now.
I mean, if you guys haven’t noticed, Obama and the media haven’t really stopped campaigning. In fact I don’t expect them to really stop campaigning in the next four years. Their goal is to crush the Republican party, and create a dominate period of rule that lasts for decades. If thats their goal then they have absolutely no incentive to let up on their crusade against us.
Just seems to me, that rather than kicking former Presidential candidates when they’re down, it’d be more productive to actually aim attacks at those trying to destroy us.
WolvenOne on November 17, 2012 at 1:49 PM
More people voted in 2008 than 2012. Romney didn’t get as many votes as McCain. The reason he did better than some fo the GOP field is because the base stayed home. Which part of this is hard to understand. If Mitt would have turned out his base instead of goign for the moderate vote he would be the President elect today instead of the loser. 2010 the Tea party and their leaders turned out their base. The liberals failed to turn out their base thus the “different make up” from 2010 to 2012. In 2012 Obama unlike Mitt turned out his base. 2010 he couldn’t he tried by the GOP Base was more than Obama’s. You want victories? You want landslide embrace Reaganism. You want narrow wins/loses and a divided country stay with the country club republicians that group people into the 47%
unseen on November 17, 2012 at 2:27 PM
Seriously ??…You must be new here.
There’s no bigger Romney-love site around……well except for RightScoop.
tencole on November 17, 2012 at 2:30 PM
Thank-you. People sure have short memories, don’t they. *sigh*
tencole on November 17, 2012 at 2:33 PM
Wait, wait, waitwaitwaitwait.
Upon further reflection, do I think – yes, I do think – all this strange noise from the corpse of the Romney camp is a trial balloon for Romney 2016?!?
In fairness, Romney couldn’t really run a conservative campaign because he couldn’t actually talk about Obamacare. The last person with “2012″ after their name to breathe a word about Obamacare was Santorum or Gingrich around Eastertime.
It was still fairly disappointing that he didn’t mention the debt very much. The unemployment rate was simply not bad enough to kill a rock star by itself. We deluded ourselves with the Carter nonsense. The economic situation is not as bad as the 1970s. We know that it will get that bad with these policies, but that doesn’t go without saying for the average voter. There was no case made.
As other, less hackish navel gazers have pointed out: there weren’t enough specifics.
HitNRun on November 17, 2012 at 2:34 PM
Romney couldn’t run a “conservative campaign” because he wasn’t conservative…..and he couldn’t even fake it.
He looked like the phoney he was.
tencole on November 17, 2012 at 2:39 PM
Ok let me lay this out clear as I can. Mitt lost to the worse POTUS in our history. Mitt lost with unemployment almost 8% Mitt lost with OBama spending almost 6 trillion in 4 years. Money we don’t have. Mitt lost to a person that allowed the entire Middle East to go up in flames. Mitt lost to a person that allowed our Ambassodor to die tothe hands of terrorists while he went to bed. Mitt lost because he didn’t run a “fairly good race” He lost because he ran a terrible race refused to engage and blame the POTUS for the problems we are facing. Refused to heal the party after a bruising primary, refused to give conservatives/reaganites a place within his campaign and he lost because he had no ground game. And since he lost to the worse POTUS in a very winnable year it makes the lose doubly hard to take. No one is trying to “rob” him because he never earned that respect in the first place.
unseen on November 17, 2012 at 2:46 PM
…and our neo-cons.
Punchenko on November 17, 2012 at 2:46 PM
disagree on a couple fo your points but its mostly nitpicking but this statement I strongly disagree with. There were plenty of specifics just no ideology to tie them all together and offer the voter a different path foword. No vision. No overriding theme. Mitt’s theme was “comeback team” Comback from what goback to what the Bush era? Mitt never once envoked Mittism. Bush laid out compassionate conservatism. Which the people bought then rejected, Obama has laid out obamaism which is simply rehashed liberalism with a new headfigure. Reagan laid out Reaganism. McCain, Mitt Dole Ford none of them laid out anytype of vision or ideology to combine the speicifics and make them make sense to voters.
unseen on November 17, 2012 at 2:52 PM
unseen on November 17, 2012 at 2:27 PM
Okay, a few things.
As of Tuesday Romney and McCain were about tied in the vote count, and at the time it was estimated itd be another week before they were done counting votes. So, when all is said and done Romney will have outperformed McCain despite an overall lower turnout than in 2008.
As for the, didn’t turn out the base meme, that’s false. The decline in turnout was entirely among independents, Republican turnout was overall up slightly from 2008.
This idea is mainly something people have been telling themselves to make them feel better. Both sides got their base out, Obam’s was bigger.
WolvenOne on November 17, 2012 at 2:55 PM
there fixed if for you. When you have the leader of your party gropup many of those GOPers in with the freeloaders and moochers is it any wonder they decide to vote for Obama. But People lose sight of the fact Obama got almost 9 million LESS votes than he did in 2008. Republicians switching sides isn’t the reason Mit tlost. Mitt and his mittbots heaping distain on the bas eof his own party is the reason Mitt lost. From this thread the Mittbots haven’t learned their lesson yet.
unseen on November 17, 2012 at 2:56 PM
Romney is not popular with me, of course, once I get back home I will be changing my voter registration to unaffiliated.
astonerii on November 17, 2012 at 3:04 PM
Too late sweetie, you are already there:
BTW,when you say being more “tolerant” what you mean is being more tolerant to Democrats and their pet projects who will tar you as a racist, sexist,homophobe no matter how much you are for immigration, abortion or gay marriage. Good luck with them as allies- you intolerant twit.
melle1228 on November 17, 2012 at 3:28 PM
Already did that when I saw some of the comments on these boards. We have run TWO moderates in the last two elections, but it all those dreaded socon’s fault that those wonderful candidates lost. It had nothing to do with the candidate’s inability to sell himself or his policy and make voters realize that they weren’t voting for the lesser of two evils. People realize that when the new guys looks alot like the old guy- they are going to vote with the devil they know. People who think if you purge the socons suddenly capitualate on gay marriage, abortion, and immigration are suddenly going to be embraced by the media and not be labeled racist, homophobe, and sexist are frickin delusional. Republicans still can’t get the message out that it THEY who passed the Civil Right’s Act.
melle1228 on November 17, 2012 at 3:34 PM
You’re assertion is unsupported by any data from the election.
We all turned out for Mitt, just as we would have for Santorum or Gingrich or Perry or anyone else. Anyone who didn’t vote for Mitt because “Mitt and his mittbots heaping distain [sic]” are, by definition, not part of “the base.”
BocaJuniors on November 17, 2012 at 3:48 PM
Outside the South there is a “Southern-stupid” image of the GOP.
Rick Perry, for example, appears to possess the intellectual curiosity of a high school jock. Newt Gingrich, however, does not. Neither does Bobby Jindal. There is a difference. We need to recognize this difference. And as a party it’s not intolerant to insist that our prominent GOP’ers not come off as stereotypical dumb hicks.
This isn’t rocket science.
BocaJuniors on November 17, 2012 at 3:57 PM
I grew up in Chicago and now live in the South; I know what ignorant people like Petunia think of the south. Repeating stereotypes doesn’t maket the person you are stereotyping wrong; it makes the bigot wrong. And for someone like Petunia who touts how “tolerant” she is; apparently it is “rocket science.” And I have met more ignorant hicks in urban Illinois then I have in Tennessee, Alabama, and Louisiana(all places I have lived).
melle1228 on November 17, 2012 at 4:03 PM
BTW, those “ignorant hicks” are a loyal GOP voting base. Your wonderful intelligent northerners voted for Obama. So keep insulting people who are on YOUR side.
melle1228 on November 17, 2012 at 4:07 PM
They do not understand why progressives are called progressives. They take their victories and move on to even more ridiculous goals that degrade and destroy life even more. Just in case they are reading this post and want to know the final goal of progressives… The end goal of progressives is a world with fewer than 10 million total human beings, and many actually have a goal of 0 humans beings, with people long forward to be the last suffering the most while they live luxurious lives as they destroy other humans beings.
Energy? It is what keeps humans increasing in numbers. It must not be allowed to be cheap, but must be made prohibitively expensive.
Food? They want us to go back to eating wild berries and nuts and to add insult to injury, we have to give up all meat that even in our worst ancient times we ate.
Children? Must be made into an exorbitant luxury item that is also almost completely without gratification or future benefit. Make children as rare as possible.
astonerii on November 17, 2012 at 6:57 PM
It doesn’t change my opinion any. I’d rather be right than popular.
Anyways, I’m a pro-choice, pro-gay everything Atheist Veteran who supported the Iraq war. So…yeah…
President Obama won Americans without high school degrees overwhelmingly along with other low-information voters. I don’t think Romney had a chance at gaining those votes.
The problem is we, the guys on the ground, have not made the fiscal case for tax cuts, a simpler tax code and limited government to the people around us. Mitt Romney’s plan for the country was a good one and I loved that he chose Paul Ryan as his running mate instead of pandering for race votes.
We’re going to be a minority if we don’t take our shared values and arguments to the Latino and Black communities as well as fight to neutralize the Liberal bias indoctrinated into our children from Elementary school on.
So yeah, I’d vote for Romney in 2016 even if I knew he would lose. I don’t think he would, however. Unless another Cult of Personality can form up over another major Democrat figure in the next four years I doubt they’ll have the kind of advantage that President Obama did.
DeathtotheSwiss on November 17, 2012 at 7:33 PM