Yes, Romney was the problem
The reality is that Romney was one of the worst GOP presidential candidates in modern times. He was not the first choice of most conservative voters but he managed to rise through the ranks in the primary due to conservatives being split 4-5 ways, but also due to a slew of endorsements from conservative leaders and groups that had no business endorsing him – such as Ann Coulter. Repeatedly, Coulter assured conservatives that Romney was one of us and that he would be the “best possible candidate” to face Obama. But as any conservative from Massachusetts knew, Romney was a liberal at heart who, as Governor, led the nation in passing three of the left’s most sacred issues: Same sex marriage, Cap and Trade, and government control of health care. …
The fact is liberal Republicans do not win presidential races. The obvious reason for this is that RINOs do not offer much of a contrast to a Democrat, or at least a contrast so weak it does not motivate voters to support them. You would think we would have learned this lesson from the McCain and Dole debacles. To make things worse, Romney even agreed with Obama on numerous occasions during the debates, missing great opportunities to instead attack the president. With the economy collapsing all around us, voters were simply not looking for Obama-light.
Moreover, Romney’s strategy of looking presidential but saying nothing controversial was an asinine strategy. All one has to do is watch the old Reagan/Carter debates to see how Reagan strived to showed contrast with Carter at every opportunity. While Reagan was always civil in the way he stated things, he tore Carter’s head off every chance he got.
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 3 Next »
Not to say Romney is the best, but what would the alternative have been? Santorum? Gingrich? Perry?
I just don’t believe Santorum has a chance in hell of ever winning another office, plus he really is more or less a liberal, just a Christian one (let’s all up the welfare state because Jesus tells us to, which is conveniently nowhere in Scripture).
Gingrich, maybe he could have won but you never know, he’s erratic beyond belief so there’s nothing to say he wouldn’t shoot himself in the foot at every possible turn.
Perry would have had a worse showing than Obama in the first debate (oops); not to mention any crony capitalism accusation you could think of probably sticks for him.
John_Locke on November 28, 2012 at 4:24 PM
Another talking head with his opinion is going to tell us all how it is. Yawn. Whatever caused our loss, we have another 4 years of O to suffer through regardless.
Tacitus on November 28, 2012 at 4:29 PM
Start digging your trenches now. This thread is about to get ugly quick. I need a firing line here. Move the ammunition to the back. You there, start moving the cannons over here. I want a containment line held at 75 yards.
portlandon on November 28, 2012 at 4:36 PM
Should have stuck with Herman Cain….
nazo311 on November 28, 2012 at 4:39 PM
Romney was crap. I agree. He is a liberal masquerading as a conservative. He was never ever a conservative. It is just a fact.
Warner Todd Huston on November 28, 2012 at 4:39 PM
@Tacitus
as much as I agree with you, at what point do we finally say to the RINO establishment enough is enough?
I am done with this party frankly, and I wish more republicans would come to their senses and stop voting for this nonsense. And just because Romney was the best of the lot of repub candidates doesn’t mean he “deserves” our vote.
My vote for Romney was the last time I vote GOP. I’ll wait till an actual conservative shows up.
johnnyboy on November 28, 2012 at 4:39 PM
Yep. The field of candidates was horrible, and the alternatives were worse.
But beyond that, the idea that Romney lost because there wasn’t enough of a contrast is silly. The Dems did all they could to create that contrast (further right than Goldwater!!!), and Romney did not back away from the positions he took during the primaries.
This strikes me as yet another ‘Romney lost, but conservatism didn’t because it wasn’t on the ballot’ pieces. Maybe…or maybe a lot of voters thought it was and chose otherwise?
changer1701 on November 28, 2012 at 4:41 PM
Is there any meat left on this dead animal for the buzzards?
Or: This horse has been beaten so much that it’s only a wet spot.
Should we really have some fun and give a shout out to Palin 2016?
kim roy on November 28, 2012 at 4:44 PM
The problem is that the Republicans continue to allow themselves to be defined by the left. These same old issues are being put before us again: Latino relations, campaign management, voter fraud, etc. These are all moot topics if this we do not begin to wage a campaign of aggressive, assertive messaging.
If we truly want to save this nation the following steps must be taken:
(1) Cohesive messaging. The left distributes talking points through their own political ranks as well as cultural and media distribution apparatuses. We need to adopt a similar strategy wherever possible.
(2) Language. The left chooses a few keywords and pushes them hard and repetitively until their definitions are regarded as common knowledge. We should take some of their favorite keywords and turn them against them, such as ‘fairness’, ‘racism’, ‘slavery’, and ‘progress’, as well as define some of our own like ‘plantation politics’, ‘equal opportunity’, ‘illiberal’, etc.
(3) Viciously attacking the liberal power centers in academia and mass media. They must be systematically discredited and dismantled. Tenure reform, political discrimination in education hiring should be addressed legislatively, etc. Constant repetition of simple memes discrediting legacy media outlets. Production of apolitical films and television by companies which are not full blown hard left propagandists. Most of the simpletons watching Oliver Stone movies, or Avatard for instance, do not recognize that they are being indoctrinated politically. There is no reason we cannot produce our own media where conservative or counter-establishment messaging is so deep in the background that most people are unaware of it. Examples include films like The Matrix and Christopher Nolan’s Batman movies.
It’s definitely not going to be as easy as continuing to watch our country slip away by passing an amnesty bill, blaming foolish social cons like Akin or Murdoch, blaming libertarians, or running another Bush.
WeekendAtBernankes on November 28, 2012 at 4:45 PM
portlandon on November 28, 2012 at 4:36 PM
But you’re not alone.
Here’s laughing as the gaggle.
Schadenfreude on November 28, 2012 at 4:47 PM
OMG! You just nuked the thread!
portlandon on November 28, 2012 at 4:47 PM
Nice post. You are 100% correct. It won’t be easy. It took a number of decades to get to this point and it will take time and effort to fix it.
kim roy on November 28, 2012 at 4:47 PM
This. And he doesnt address the fact that Romney did far better than most Senate candidates did in their own states.
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.
ChrisL on November 28, 2012 at 4:47 PM
No, meet Kidding.
Stoic Patriot on November 28, 2012 at 4:48 PM
Sounds about right to me.
Contrast.
Liberal policy = failure
Conservative policy = success.
But hey, at least Romney was able to get lots and lot and lots of money.
astonerii on November 28, 2012 at 4:51 PM
Agreed. If you want to argue that Romney was the problem, you have to assert that he was a drag on the ticket. And by all accounts, he was not.
Note well: the only two statewide candidates we fielded who did better than Romney were Scott Brown and Linda McMahon.
KingGold on November 28, 2012 at 4:51 PM
And why do you think that is?
Conservatives stayed home.
Sure, Romney performed adequately among independents, probably better than a conservative GOP senate candidate could hope for.
But that matters little when for every additional independent voter Romney wins, 2 conservative voters stayed home.
The sad truth is that Romney possibly cost us a number of GOP Senate Seats who would have won if conservative turnout was not so depressed.
Norwegian on November 28, 2012 at 4:53 PM
Yes, let’s not think about the reasons so we can repeat the same mistakes yet again.
And here we have the changing meme. In fact, it’s been said over and over again by pundits, bloggers and supporters that Romney was the best, that he ran a perfect campaign. So if the best and perfect couldn’t beat Obama, then nobody could. So, we could have run anybody without having to worry about them winning. If winning is impossible, then going with another candidate wouldn’t have mattered as far as the election result, but at least it could have reflected conservatism more strongly, convincingly and accurately.
Even if you really believe he wasn’t the best, why not go with one of the other candidates? They’d lose more? How do you know? Given how pathetically wrong the GOP/Romney camp was about this election, I think I’ll take any further analysis on this point with a huge grain of salt
Dongemaharu on November 28, 2012 at 4:53 PM
If Romney had not run, and had not been gathering all his ducks in a row from 2008 onwards for the 2012 run, we might have gotten some better options than what we got this year. The problem is going with the “next in line” candidate–be it Romney or anyone else. Four years, politically speaking, is an eon of geological time. Someone who was great in ’08 was irrelevant by ’12. Plus, it gives the enemy an exact idea of whom to plan ones campaign against.
Sekhmet on November 28, 2012 at 4:53 PM
Yeah, Romney had no experience at anything worthwhile. And his Harvard MBA/JD GPA sucked.
BHO Jonestown on November 28, 2012 at 4:54 PM
Now, I’m not down with the “Hold your breath really, really hard and Sarah Palin would have totally changed her mind and knocked Romney off the top of the ticket” crowd either. Them who ran, ran. And we had to choose.
Sekhmet on November 28, 2012 at 4:55 PM
I can’t even see the wet spot anymore, we have now moved to the beating of rented mules
JPeterman on November 28, 2012 at 4:55 PM
That’s just math you’re doing as a Republican to make yourself feel better. Face it, your party sucks.
Mmm...Burritos on November 28, 2012 at 4:57 PM
The real problem is that Republicans dont want to win. The Dems are want to defeate us we dont really want to defeate them that is the message of the last election and it will continue to happen until beating Dems is more important than out take on the individual candidate.
ChunkyLover on November 28, 2012 at 4:57 PM
Beat Hume, the entire Faux set of morons, the GOP establishment, Obama and the media – they all wanted what happened. They got it.
Too bad you have to suffer too.
Schadenfreude on November 28, 2012 at 4:57 PM
All right, I’m calling this bullsh*t out right now.
“Conservatives stayed home.” That’s awful high praise for a faction of the party that’s not only touted as its most powerful but also its most dependable. You see, a ham sandwich can beat Obama, you say, because conservatives – not moderates or liberals, but conservatives – are “energized” and “fired up” over Obama.
Romney may have run a bad GOTV operation, but conservatives were out in force. I won’t hear this garbage about how all we need is a True Conservative nominee and all our problems disappear.
KingGold on November 28, 2012 at 4:58 PM
Your party sure does…suck at the big teat, you babies. Have you no shame, you grown ups in eternal diapers/Depends?
Suffocate in that caca, all of you and yours.
Schadenfreude on November 28, 2012 at 4:59 PM
Nobody knows who any of them would have performed.
However, we do know this:
1. Romney performed dismally with lower-income whites
2. He lost among all voters with income under $50k
3. His GOTV efforts were abysmal; as was his ad strategy
4. His “Obama is a nice guy in over his head” strategy failed
5. His strategy of being overly cautious in the last debates failed
Norwegian on November 28, 2012 at 5:01 PM
Just for full disclosure I voted for Gingrich in the primaries, but it matters not since I live in a late voting primary state.
I don’t believe Gingrich, Perry or Santorum were necessarily better than Romney. I also don’t see anything unique in any of the alternatives that would have led the GOP/campaign of your choice to arrive at different conclusions about the electorate.
And I don’t think it was crazy to think that out of a field of flawed candidates, the proven businessman seems like he could make the best argument with a stagnant economy.
John_Locke on November 28, 2012 at 5:02 PM
And why was the final electorate D+6, far more Democratic than the huge voter ID samples Gallup and others had polled prior to the election?
Obviously, many conservatives stayed home. There is no denying that.
And the primary reason is Romney.
Norwegian on November 28, 2012 at 5:05 PM
Conservatives did not Stay Home. They turned out. They just didn’t bring anyone else along with them. They weren’t inspired. Who can blame them? I would rather of had a root canal than Vote for Romney, but I voted for him. Because it was better than O-bumbler.
portlandon on November 28, 2012 at 5:06 PM
1. Which candidate would have done well with lower income whites? We mostly threw up rich white folks.
2. See 1.
3. This is a good point, however, Gingrich and Santorum both had extraordinarily weak ground games, Perry never went anywhere so I’m not sure where he stood. Romney’s ground game was supposed to be great but clearly he crapped the bed and should take 100% of the blame for that.
4. I disagree, I think the strategy was correct but it was not communicated well enough due to the clusterf*k of advertising that went on, seems to also be a problem with Romney’s campaign.
5. I didn’t think he was overly cautious in the second debate, though the third debate I absolutely agree with you.
John_Locke on November 28, 2012 at 5:07 PM
</blockquote
Norwegian on November 28, 2012 at 5:05 PM
ChunkyLover on November 28, 2012 at 5:08 PM
Clearly I’m a dirty squishy RINO. I didn’t want Romney originally but he grew on me. Eventually I was pretty ‘inspired’ by him. My parents felt the same way, but that’s just my .02.
John_Locke on November 28, 2012 at 5:08 PM
No Romney fan, but none of the others would have done anywhere as good as Romney.
China man, NeinNeinNein, Tardasil and Oopsie would have been obliterated.
If Romney got some blame for Akin, can safely bet Sanctimonium would have lost women 30-70.
Grandpa’s too honest for his own good, sort of popular but a national election is no online poll.
Gingrich might have put up a show but a national election is no extramarital affair.
Romney was the best of the bunch and legitimately not a clown.
lester on November 28, 2012 at 5:09 PM
1.True
2.True
3.True
4.True
5.True
I find no fault in your points.
Romney was a Bad candidate for Today, but would have been a great US candidate for the 1970′s.
portlandon on November 28, 2012 at 5:10 PM
Find a good one
Schadenfreude on November 28, 2012 at 5:11 PM
Yes, Romney was the problem
Some of us knew this many moons ago (a little indian lingo)
But we hoped for the best. That did not happen.
ToddPA on November 28, 2012 at 5:12 PM
did i perchance hear whispers of Palin 2016 on this thread:)
renalin on November 28, 2012 at 5:12 PM
Didn’t the ABRs say that they wouldn’t vote for Romney, but down ticket? Why didn’t they do that?
Gelsomina on November 28, 2012 at 5:12 PM
portlandon on November 28, 2012 at 5:06 PM
Exactly right. We did what we had to do. Reagan inspired Americans to vote for him. Romney did not, but, we voted for him anyway, in an attempt to save our country.
kingsjester on November 28, 2012 at 5:13 PM
Obama would have made a great candidate for the 1930′s, so whats your point
ChunkyLover on November 28, 2012 at 5:13 PM
Romney let Obama define the contrast through the creation of an army of strawmen. Romney neither challenged these strawmen, nor offered his own contrasts (other than, perhaps, for a brief moment in the first debate). He tried the rope a dope, but clearly didn’t have the chin nor finish of Mohammad Ali. And Romney not backing away from his primary positions? What positions? The primary consisted of 24/7 attacks on his opponents, with nary a positive message to be seen (other than on his website – maybe – but the “check out my website” campaign is not a winner).
besser tot als rot on November 28, 2012 at 5:15 PM
ChunkyLover on November 28, 2012 at 5:13 PM
Actually, Obama would have fit right in with the Bolshevik Revolution.
Just sayin…
kingsjester on November 28, 2012 at 5:15 PM
The ABRs mostly voted for Romney and down ticket. Romney failed to convince the moderates and uninformed voters to vote for him. His lack of vision (including lack of real free market solutions – even the ones that he had, he didn’t promote at all – and lack of defense of free market principles) and bear hug of Obama on policy (particularly in the 2nd and 3rd debates) left these voters confused as to why on earth they should vote for Romney. Especially when all they’d heard about him was what Obama said about him – unrebutted – through the summer.
besser tot als rot on November 28, 2012 at 5:19 PM
This article is correct.
However, show me the alternative in the GOP primary field.
Joey24007 on November 28, 2012 at 5:20 PM
In the last 2 months of the campaign Brit Hume wasn’t nearly as enthusiastic a supporter of Romney as you were.
If Norwegian is right and conservatives stayed home the party will now move left in search of a more reliable constituency. This may cause the birth of a 3rd party – which will create a Democrat majority for the foreseeable future.
Basilsbest on November 28, 2012 at 5:21 PM
One more point…his supporters were the big losers.
They were so vocal, so adamant about Mitt being the candidate, and after he was chosen, they left, they went into hiding, they abandoned him…all they wanted was to have a candidate, and let the rest of us carry him to victory.
They should have kept supporting, cheering, working, I said “WORKING”, instead of crowing what a great candidate he will be…
No, this supporters were nothing but loud mouthed bully’s, whose only interest was having their candidate (and more precisely, their Mormon candidate) win the nomination…they should have save some of that energy and continued their support.
They were losers while they were pushing for him to be the candidate, and the ended up being the big losers after the election…
They got exactly what they deserved…the meanest supporters of a candidate to date.
right2bright on November 28, 2012 at 5:22 PM
Vast
right-wingMormon conspiracy?John_Locke on November 28, 2012 at 5:24 PM
There have been three conservative presidents since 1920: Harding, Coolidge, and Reagan.
There have been 4 conservative candidates for president since 1920: Harding, Coolidge, Goldwater, and Reagan.
Every other candidate or president has been a liberal-moderate type and so has the majority of the GOP leadership in Congress during this time.
Moderates lose a lot for the reasons pointed out in the article.
Joey24007 on November 28, 2012 at 5:24 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »