It’s not all Romney’s fault — the economy helped reelect Obama
If you believe Romney lost when he should have won, then he must have made a fatal mistake which needs to be fixed so that Republicans can win again. For Gerson and Wehner, this logic led them down the path of demographics: they conclude that Romney’s biggest problem was a lack of minority outreach in a changing country. I don’t think you can say that Romney had a racial rainbow of support, exactly, but I do want to answer their basic question: did Romney flush away a victory that the economy should have delivered to him?
Actually, Romney always had an uphill battle: the economy narrowly favored President Obama’s re-election. Jamelle Bouie has stated this fact over and over again. John Sides, too, has stated this fact over and over again. Nate Silver has stated this fact over and over again. Have you noticed a pattern here? Smart experts reached the same conclusion. It’s part of the reason we all correctly called a close, but comfortable Obama victory in 2012. It’s why I said way back in September that it wouldn’t be Mitt Romney’s fault if he lost.
What are some people not seeing about the relationship between the economy and elections? For starters, most people don’t vote over absolute numbers, like an unemployment rate of near 8%. Voters choose whether to re-elect based on changes in numbers, like the unemployment rate dropping from 10% in 2009 to 8% in 2012. That’s why voters still overwhelmingly blamed Bush for bad economic conditions and not Obama, even if the unemployment rate remained high in a historical context.
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
101?
Bmore on February 19, 2013 at 2:02 PM
I don’t think Romney ran to win. His son said Romney wasn’t that interested, and Mitt proved him right on the campaign trail. Instead of articulating how dangerous the communist is…Romney said Obama was a nice guy who’s just in over his head. If Obama would just tinker with a few things at the edges (socialized medicine with more state level control rather than federal) Romney’d agreed with him.
sauldalinsky on February 19, 2013 at 2:05 PM
I know that my question was directed at you, but how would you answer?
Mimzey on February 19, 2013 at 2:30 PM
Thats the difference in our views. I can understand yours when the premise is that this was just another election cycle and the nation will be the same in 4 years, so lets try again.
The reason that makes little sense to me is because I honestly believe that this was the last chance to stop the hard lefts bloodless coup of this country. To see it as less plays into the neo-coms favor imo.
This, I think, was Brietbarts point.
Mimzey on February 19, 2013 at 2:36 PM
No.
To elect anyone but Obama would have been hunkydory imo.
Mimzey on February 19, 2013 at 2:44 PM
No it isn’t. You seem to think that Romney would fight the left when he showed no such inclination to do so during the campaign, nor throughout his career. You might think he would hold the line but again when confronted by the left he did no such thing. In Massachusetts we are constantly told that he had no choice and that the Democrats made him do it, despite Romney stating clearly that he was proud of Romneycare.
Most of us looked at Romney and saw a weak man who didn’t much disagree with the progressive agenda. How you see in that man the will to fight the leftist agenda is a mystery, because that isn’t to be found in his past or his actions during the campaign.
sharrukin on February 19, 2013 at 2:45 PM
I will answer.
Romney would benefit the country for a short period of time, while he pounded conservatism into the ground further than George W Bush did. So while at this exact moment, I think the country would be better off with Romney, I think that if you could look at both scenarios, Romney President and Obama President, 20 years from now the Romney Presidency would lead to a worse national condition.
So, is it imperative to have false fleeting prosperity for the moment, or is it more imperative that we leave a better nation as a whole to the next generation.
astonerii on February 19, 2013 at 2:47 PM
Romney ran a vanity campaign to stroke his ego, not to win. I’d expect his SC choices to be around 2% to the right of Obama’s since he agreed with Obama 98% of the time.
sauldalinsky on February 19, 2013 at 2:47 PM
Non sequitur.
If the Japanese chef likes blowfish..even though it’s dangerous..and you like blowfish, then you must be a Japanese chef.
Mimzey on February 19, 2013 at 2:48 PM
Really? to stroke his ego?? What are you basing that claim on? From most of the information at the time Romney didn’t like the attention.
Agreed with Obama 98% of the time?? Really? what are you basing that on? I ask because I can’t remember him siding with much of anything with Obama view of America.
Mimzey on February 19, 2013 at 2:52 PM
That seems to be very Nostradamus-ish.
Unless you can tell the future from yesterdays tea leaves, I have to call bull.
Mimzey on February 19, 2013 at 2:54 PM
Mimsy:
“If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.” — Tom Paine, 1776
It seems to me that there are no conservatives who are willing to actually make the sacrifices required for a better future today. They would rather put them off and onto their children’s shoulders. Likely, other people’s children shoulders.
Romney could have won if he was not Romney. But he was Romney.
Romney never saw a problem with socialism and government paternalism outside the fact that there should be people in power more capable of running them better. He has no problem taking the rights of the people, he does not even understand rights. He thinks healthcare is a right and not a commodity to be traded for. It is why he stole the choice of the people and rammed a mandate down their throats which he is proud of.
Rights come to us from our creator. You cannot say that you have rights at the federal level but that you do not have at the state level. You either have rights or you do not have rights.
Romney was every bit a communist as Obama is, the only difference is in tone.
astonerii on February 19, 2013 at 2:57 PM
That’s weak BS.
Communism is a political belief system.
If Romney agrees with those beliefs then he is an adherent of that system of beliefs.
sharrukin on February 19, 2013 at 2:59 PM
It is called wisdom and learning from the past. Much like I can tell if a company is going to succeed or fail with reasonable correctness.
Romney did not like energy as governor, he would not like it as president.
Romney allied with Malthusians as governor, he would do so as President.
Romney created the blueprint for Obamacare, he would not get rid of it as president.
Romney liked mandates, thought they were conservative, he would implement them as president.
All the while dragging conservatism into the dirt.
But what does not require forward thought and the ability to determine likely future results is the election. It is a given that Romney did not win. You continued support for him is irrational, something that comes from something other than facts.
astonerii on February 19, 2013 at 3:01 PM
The past is not an indication of the future.
Neither you nor I can predict how a mans life evolves, but certain consistences can be pointed to.
A person can go along with compromises to a point, and that point is when new information presents itself that causes a shift in perspective.
10 years ago I didn’t think that the Clintons were anything other than annoying democrats….until I found out about their embracing of Alinsky and their admiration for Cloward and Piven. This is the same for many wolves in sheeps clothing on the left.
It’s not unbelievable that a person could change perspective regarding directions and policies governing a country when it becomes apparent the the intent of the one you have compromised with in the past are in fact trying to destroy what you believe in.
Have you ever changed your positions in light of new information?
Mimzey on February 19, 2013 at 3:06 PM
So you believe that “wise” people can predict the future?? Thats what the folks of yore believed.
They were wrong a lot.
Mimzey on February 19, 2013 at 3:08 PM
You’re missing the point then.
My position in this thread is pointing out that people who claim there is no difference in what we now face with Obama unchained and the direction that Romney would most likely have us on, is simplistic at best.
Thats a fact.
Do you think that Romney would be doing the same as Obama? If so your position is that of John McCain when, during the campaigning for president, he said that Obama would make a good president too.
Mimzey on February 19, 2013 at 3:13 PM
Then why are you so upset with Obama?
I never believed any Democrat in the modern age was harmless. Some are deluded fools, but none of them have good intentions.
Yes I have. It usually doesn’t come at a time that is ever so helpful to me and what I want to gain. Strangely for Romney that is when his ‘epiphanies’ always seem to show up.
sharrukin on February 19, 2013 at 3:14 PM
Because he is a communist hell bent on “fundamentally transforming America”.
“Harmless” wasn’t in the question.
So you don’t find any change in the policies of the old JFK type of democrat and the Van Jones type?
Really? Then thats where the misunderstanding is.
This is proof of what, exactly?
That said, correlation is not causation.
Mimzey on February 19, 2013 at 4:05 PM
I don’t think that word means what you think it does.
Mimzey on February 19, 2013 at 4:12 PM
Because Romney tanked a winnable campaign at a critical junction in our history. As Governor of Mass, Romney agreed with Obama on socialized medicine, gun control, tax and spend, and more. Obama doesn’t self-identify himself a “communist” either. By your logic Obama must also not be a communist because he said he wasn’t in some campaign speeches.
sauldalinsky on February 19, 2013 at 5:03 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3