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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Most any other would have been better…take your pick, none could have done worse.
Mitt even picked probably the strongest VP, and he still couldn’t close the deal, not even close…that shows you how weak he was, strong among his most faithful, but most of us saw him as a weak candidate, an Obama lite…
right2bright on November 28, 2012 at 5:25 PM
The Republican Party came into existence in the first place because the “other party”, the Whigs”, no longer stood for anything and were absorbed by the Democrats.
Joey24007 on November 28, 2012 at 5:26 PM
Pawlenty. Or any candidate willing to take a stand on free market principles and explain to the people how free market principles provide real and tangible benefits to them and all Americans. And how these solutions provide better results than the statist “solutions” provided by Obama.
I think Perry’s ground game would have been good. In any event, I think that it is difficult to imagine a ground game being worse than what Romney provided. Even with his years of preparation. Really makes me question this whole “competent manager” meme that his supporters were pushing.
People wanted real change in policy. Romney offered a better manager of the policy in place. I don’t know how that’s a winner – people already know Obama and we’re limping along – why change horses? Sure, Romney said that he’d repeal Obamacare. But, let me ask you – where were his ads on it? An issue tailor made for a challenger – a big majority hates the signature policy of the incumbent and the challenger doesn’t relentlessly pound it (and really, rarely even mentions it) in the final month of the campaign? Malpractice if you ask me.
Both of those debates were a disaster for him. Especially the third. On style he did okay, but he failed to provide a reason for the uninformed voters to show up for him.
besser tot als rot on November 28, 2012 at 5:27 PM
If there is some truth in what you say it’s because the education system and the culture have been in decline for 50 years.
Basilsbest on November 28, 2012 at 5:27 PM
Correction, Bush ran as a conservative, didn’t govern that way, but he won the candidacy and the office by being a conservative…both Bush’s…
right2bright on November 28, 2012 at 5:27 PM
The USA is a welfare state. More than 50% of those who voted chose the welfare guy. They will next time, too — only in greater numbers. Reagan would have lost, too, and by a far wider margin. Do these geniuses really not understand this?
Rational Thought on November 28, 2012 at 5:28 PM
I don’t get it…his supporters, the base being Mormon, quit after he won the nomination…look at the posts, all of a sudden 1/2 of his Mormon disciples left HotAir, left blogging, posting, and just went AWOL…no “conspiracy”, just complacency…
right2bright on November 28, 2012 at 5:29 PM
Moderates are by far the least reliable constituency. If the GOP moves left, they’ll soon be done. Not sure that’s such a bad thing.
besser tot als rot on November 28, 2012 at 5:29 PM
They would have all done worse. Take your pick.
Joey24007 on November 28, 2012 at 5:29 PM
If that is the case why did he beat more conservative Senate candidates?
ChrisL on November 28, 2012 at 5:30 PM
No, Obama won because he had a better ground game, and we allowed ourselves to be fooled into thinking that everyone was as fired up to rid themselves of Obama…the “50% on welfare” is an excuse by people who lost the race because they didn’t prepare.
right2bright on November 28, 2012 at 5:31 PM
Hmm. Bush ran as a “compassionate conservative” which is not a conservative.
Bush the first ran on Reagan’s coattails. Without the coattails he lost.
Joey24007 on November 28, 2012 at 5:31 PM
exactly, a subset of conservatives shot themselves in the foot on this one and the only thing that will happen is a democratic majority for a long time.
ok let it burn but that doesn’t mean that after it burns the voters will be anymore conservative, in fact I think they will be more socialistic.
ChunkyLover on November 28, 2012 at 5:33 PM
There is something to be said about the U.S. turning into a social democracy but that only means that a Republican candidate should be attacking the welfare state. Reagan would have attempted to explain why the welfare state has damaged so many lives. Romney and the current crop of Republican “leaders” have no interest in this.
Joey24007 on November 28, 2012 at 5:33 PM
On what issues was Bush a conservative? On borders, spending, Islam as ROP, Bush was a liberal. Romney was to the right of Bush on all important issues. The country has moved considerably to the left after and because of Bush.
Basilsbest on November 28, 2012 at 5:33 PM
What a load of crap…Who the hell is this guy to even judge? And who was supposed to run? Herman Cain? Really? Remember what Regan did to Mondale? Well that would have been a tight race compared to Obama vs Cain.
The truth is that too many people like Baldwin are totally unable to come up with viable candidates when it matters and then after the fact they are full of advice..and they are full of something else as well..
Maybe if some of those true conservatives with sterling credentials and fire in the belly and all that stuff had bothered to try and run it might have been different…but in the real world we had the choice of Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachman, Gary Johnson and Rick Santorum and let us not forget Newt Gingrich..who has already been all over the TV stabbing his fellow Republicans in the back. yeah…right.
Romney was a good candidate, but the American people just could not turn their backs on the free stuff. I am not going to blame Romney, I am going to blame the voters.
BTW, Romney ended up with a half million more votes than McCain got.
Terrye on November 28, 2012 at 5:34 PM
You don’t know that,you were told that by the MSM, and most people bought into it.
I several times outlined why Romney was a weak candidate…most of the major issues against Obama, Mitt was part of…ObamaCare/RomneyCare, he could never shake that one…bailouts, Romney he congratulated Obama…economy, Romney never attacked Obama, not even for not having his party create a budget, three years without a budget…but you bought into the belief that he was the strongest…look what it got you.
right2bright on November 28, 2012 at 5:35 PM
Romney talked about his early voter turnout machine bringing out the “sometimes” voters while Obama brought out the “always” voters. Looks like that was backward. The “sometimes” -low information- voters who often vote straight R (e.g., low income whites) didn’t show up. But, hey, at least Romney’s bear hug of Obama on policy got him a few extra votes from the middle. Yay!
besser tot als rot on November 28, 2012 at 5:35 PM
alot of damage has been done to the GOP “brand” because of Bush’s “conservatism.”
In fact, a lot of damage has been done to the GOP “brand” since the neo-cons took over.
Robert Taft used to be the leader of the GOP.
Joey24007 on November 28, 2012 at 5:35 PM
Steve Baldwin (whoever he is) and those who agree with him are the problem. Romney was a terrific candidate. As for those who don’t like Romney, you can’t fix stupid.
Basilsbest on November 28, 2012 at 5:36 PM
I wasn’t told anything by anybody. I just looked and read about the candidates. I didn’t vote for Romney and spent zero time championing him in the primaries.
Newt Gingrich?
Perry?
Santorum?
Cain?
I never said Romney was the ideal candidate, just that he benefited from a weak weak weak weak field. McCain did in 2008 and Romney was the second choice then so in 2012 McCain wasn’t around anymore and Romney was.
Joey24007 on November 28, 2012 at 5:38 PM
Bush was not liberal, in fact to hear liberals tell it he was to the right of Hitler. Bush was a conservative. That is how he ran.
The country moved left because years of propaganda from the media and the school systems have finally paid off. Just try telling an 18 year old that global warming is a hoax..he will look at you as if you said that the earth was flat.
The country has also become a lot more dependent on food stamps, unemployment benefits, help with everything from money to college to subsidies for their light bills…that makes them more likely to vote Democrat. The people made their choice…I am not going to blame Romney or Bush for that.
Terrye on November 28, 2012 at 5:38 PM
You sound EXACTLY like the Democrats who blamed “Jesusland” for John Kerry’s disaster of a campaign in 2004.
Doomberg on November 28, 2012 at 5:40 PM
I think so too. Backstabbing crybabies…who the hell made these people spokes people for anything?
Terrye on November 28, 2012 at 5:41 PM
Romney’s problem was that he underestimated the Chicago Machine and what they would do to him.
Stop bringing knives to gunfights.
Joey24007 on November 28, 2012 at 5:41 PM
Romney did not win. He was the problem. It is a candidate’s job to convince enough voters to vote for him so that he can win election. If he doesn’t, it is his failure. He didn’t and he failed. He was the problem. I agree that the rest of the field was pretty poor, but I would have taken any of Pawlenty, Huntsman, Johnson, or Perry over Romney in a heartbeat. They may have failed too, and if they did, that would have been on them. Romney liked to talk about Obama’s failure of leadership. Well, how does Romney explain the failed leader (Obama) leading a team to victory over Romney?
besser tot als rot on November 28, 2012 at 5:41 PM
Except every day but Sunday for 6 months.
Basilsbest on November 28, 2012 at 5:41 PM
I can’t really buy the Bush as a conservative thing.
Joey24007 on November 28, 2012 at 5:42 PM
You know what? It was Jesusland that defeated Kerry when you get down to it..in both cases the voters made their choice. People know who Obama is, he has been president for four years and they voted for more of this crap…why blame Romney for that? Who was supposed to beat him? Some conservative who never even tried to run or one of those other candidates who could not even beat Romney in the primaries? Let us just imagine the war on women with Santorum as the candidate…sheesh.
Terrye on November 28, 2012 at 5:43 PM
He marginally improved the GOP presidential vote total over what is generally considered to be one of the worse Republican years in over 50 years? Uh. So what? You know what else he did? Lost.
besser tot als rot on November 28, 2012 at 5:45 PM
Really? Bush ran as a compassionate conservative back in 2000. He was considered the most conservative candidate running that year…all the national conservatives supported him. He did not pretend to be anything he was not. He ran on issues like education. His attitudes about immigration were well known at the time. The fact that he was conservative was not really debated at the time.
It was only after the fact that some pundits and some conservatives on the right turned on him. I am sad to say there are folks out there that have a habit of doing that to people.
Terrye on November 28, 2012 at 5:48 PM
The more conservative candidates lost and Romney won because they split up the conservative votes. While Romney just had to get the majority of the less conservative voters in the primary.
ChunkyLover on November 28, 2012 at 5:49 PM
Simple math.
Let’s say there is a voter universe of 100 voters; consisting of 35 conservatives; 35 liberals and 30 independents.
In the Romney vs. Obama matchup; 25 conservatives show up, 30 liberals and 19 independents.
Let’s assume Romney wins all the conservative voters who show up + independents by a 10-9 margin. The conservative Senate GOP candidate loses them by a reverse 9-10 margin. So ergo, Romney outperforms the conservative GOP Senate candidate.
But, because more conservatives stayed home, Romney still loses against Obama. And those conservatives who stayed home would have made the difference for both Romney and the Senate Candidate.
Norwegian on November 28, 2012 at 5:50 PM
He had a lot of help. If people like Mourdock and Akin had kept their mouths shut Romney might have gotten millions of more votes from women..I mean come on if we are going to talk about who lost why not make mention of the fact that Romney outran almost every other Republican out there.
I live in Indiana, and I watched Mourdock throw away a Senate seat…and even though Pence won, he won by a smaller margin in this state than Romney did. So it is not all about Romney.
Terrye on November 28, 2012 at 5:50 PM
This is a reasonable point in itself. But the dozens of other factors(shifting political ideology, Romneycare, personality, electoral history…etc) obviously overpowered this feature.
Dongemaharu on November 28, 2012 at 5:51 PM
Bush held a conservative position on education?
Joey24007 on November 28, 2012 at 5:52 PM
That is true. In fact, the voters thought that both candidates did little else other than attack each other. The idea that Romney never attacked Obama is just silly, but then some people think that if Romney had just called Obama a commie he would have magically won the election.
Terrye on November 28, 2012 at 5:53 PM
women did not vote for Romney in some states because of what Senate candidates in other states said?
Joey24007 on November 28, 2012 at 5:55 PM
Well, back in 2000 the voters must have thought so because he ran as a conservative and he ran on education and they voted for him. The back stabbers had not yet decided that it was time to turn on him and call him a liberal…they saved that until his second term and then they could work hand in hand with the Democrats to ruin the man.
Terrye on November 28, 2012 at 5:56 PM
what is your definition of “attack”?
Obama accused Romney of hating women, killing a plant worker and not paying taxes.
Romney pointed out Obama’s failures on the economy.
Joey24007 on November 28, 2012 at 5:56 PM
Was hoping you’d see that.
kim roy on November 28, 2012 at 5:58 PM
oh ok, Bush was a conservative but we just can’t see it.
No child left behind, medicare expansion, trillions in government debt, and bank bailouts.
Joey24007 on November 28, 2012 at 5:58 PM
Anyone who thinks George H W Bush or George W Bush were Conservative has mush for brains. Neither were Conservative. In fact, GWB eschewed the Conservative wing of the Republican Party during both his campaigns and his Big Government presidency.
But Liberals are right about one thing: Both Bushes were to the right of the National SOCIALIST Adolf Hitler, since Hitler was a fringe LEFTIST.
Seriously, Terrye, step away from the pub ed revisionist history books and learn a thing or two about the true histo-facts.
John Hitchcock on November 28, 2012 at 5:58 PM
Yes, that is true…because they played right into the whole war on women shtick that the Democrats were pushing. I thought that whole thing was a joke, but when high profile Republicans running for state wide office actually start saying stupid things about rape and abortion it makes it easier for people all over the country to buy that stuff.
Look at the gender gap, that is real.
Terrye on November 28, 2012 at 5:59 PM
S
You guys can give me hell if you want, but that does not change the fact that back in 2000 when George W. Bush was running for office, he was supported by conservatives all over the country and he was running as a compassionate conservative…you can piss and moan about it now if you like but that is the reality.
BTW,rather than trash people like Bush or Romney, why not come up with an electable conservative alternative? Is that too hard for you to do?
Terrye on November 28, 2012 at 6:02 PM
…And the gender gap is in no way related to talking about the 47%, the need to help out businesses, and the desire to shrink the government, right?
The attention paid to Akin and Mourdock was relatively minor, and only intense in conservative media. It got a couple of mentions here and there in the MSM, but Romney got beaten on his own merits, or lack thereof.
Stoic Patriot on November 28, 2012 at 6:05 PM
How does a candidate change the mind of voters who believed the “war on women” was a real thing?
Joey24007 on November 28, 2012 at 6:09 PM
nobody is trashing Bush and I am not trashing Romney. Just pointing out that they are not conservatives.
Also, just because person x says somebody is this or that doesn’t make it true.
Joey24007 on November 28, 2012 at 6:10 PM
I agree. I usually turn out a fair number of people. My family in particular.
This year I turned out ME and that was it. That was a barely willing to vote against Obama for Romney. 2% difference in policy plus the difference between a Malthusian Marxist and a Malthusian Supporting Socialist just did not make that big a difference for me to work very hard.
As my incessant posts on Hot Air indicate, it is not because I am a disinterested party. I really did not see enough of a difference to care. Short of Obama’s DHS buying 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition that clearly appears to be intended to quell riots in the United States of America, I would not have turned out myself.
astonerii on November 28, 2012 at 6:10 PM
That’s true. But the doctrine didn’t even exist until 1979 and 10 years later no one had ever heard of it. Now we know what it means -spend a lot of money- but back then it sounded like he was just being a good natured conservative. And Bush was good natured. He is probably the best President in modern history to drink a beer with.
Bush ran as a SoCon for the first term and a Hawk for the second. So, yes, Bush ran as a conservative. We were rolling in fake housing cash so people didn’t care as much about the economy.
BoxHead1 on November 28, 2012 at 6:12 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »