jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (36 posts)

Post Mortem-So why did Romney lose?

  1. Credence2 profile image86
    Credence2posted 3 years ago

    I am taken back to the site 'unskewed polls' where the conservatives were saying that the mainstream polling system was unfairly skewed in favor of Mr. Obama. So, I bet I could not find them now anywhere among all the bits and bites of the internet.
    Maybe you guys can add to this most interesting, here are a few of mine.

    1. Romney got off to a late start in the campaign after having being selected as the best choice among the clowns during the primary season, as a result he got started late in his challenge against Obama, who had a ground game team that never really dissapated after 2008. Romney at a distinct disadvantage
    2. Besides warmed up Bush II policies, Romney really did not have a viable alternative as to how he would improve on the incumbent in regards to job creation.
    3. Dismissing women's reproductive matters as side issues.Allowing his elitist side to show (47%) Antagonizing the interests of Hispanics and POing I and other blacks with dirty voter supression schemes that backfired on the GOP
    There are more, but I am out of space, what are your thoughts?

  2. KT Banks profile image61
    KT Banksposted 3 years ago

    Someone compared the Republican party to the TV show called, Madmen, and the Democratic party to the TV show called, Modern Family. They said that apparently this country, now days is more like the mix of Modern Family - and that is why a Democrat won. I thought that was an interesting analogy.

    1. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Hi ya KT, nice to see you.

      I am not familiar with the TV shows you have as an example.
      I am not predicting the GOP demise, but after this latest defeat a little soul searching might be in order to carefully assess why they lost and how to stem a demographic trend that is clearly going against them. Be more inclusive, reevaluate policies and positions, that sort of thing...

      1. Rhonda D Johnson profile image79
        Rhonda D Johnsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Oh. but if they were more inclusive and re-evaluated their positions, they wouldn't be Republicans.  They would be moderates, which is what Romney tried to project in the eleventh hour.    This tactic probably turned off a lot of his more conservative supporters, while it failed to turn on the moderates and liberals. 

        He lost because he is who he is.  The same reason McCain lost..

        1. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          "Oh, but if they were more inclusive and re-evaluated their positions, they wouldn't be Republicans"
          Yeah, Rhonda, that is the rub isn't it.?
          But I do remember a more moderate GOP a generation or two ago and where the differences between the two parties were no where near as stark as today. I can accept much of their ideas of fiscal conservatism but I not giving away the store to the Richie Rich types at the expense of the middle class.

          There was a time early in the last century when the REpublicans could have been considered the progressive party, but again that was when God was a boy....

  3. Drive By Quipper profile image60
    Drive By Quipperposted 3 years ago

    The best man for the job is president. Romney didn't lose. He just didn't get the job.

    1. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      DBQ, Romney spent so much time telling us that he would explain the details after he won the election, well, that is not good enough. He started with 59 points for repairing the economy and later reduced that to 5. I think that he did not have a clue outside of having the ability to enrich himself. I expect a broader base of interest from my Commander and Chief.

      1. Rhonda D Johnson profile image79
        Rhonda D Johnsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I hear you loud and clear Credance2.  Romney told the voters, "Open your mouth and close your eyes and you will get a big surprise." It didn't work.

        A couple years ago oranges were going for a dollar per  and my grocer blamed Obama.  I thought well, at least I have a dollar..  Mr. Romney would have taken even that, and if I don't have a dollar, the grocer doesn't either.

  4. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    Either Romney was too conservative.. or he was too moderate.
    The world will never, ever know which.
    Thank God.

    1. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      MM, he was both, depending on your point of view, but as a result he was not convincing to either. Another underlying reason why he was ultimately defeated.

      1. Rhonda D Johnson profile image79
        Rhonda D Johnsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Too much, too little, too late. But would he have won if he had stayed true to his party line?  The whole reason he switched from ultra conservative to moderate was because it wasn't working.

        1. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          No, Rhonda, I think the party line, at least according to their platform was turning off far too many moderates and independents. That is why they wanted to change the conversation away from the social issues. But none of it worked and it looks like the chickens had come home to roost..
          I think that Mitt is a moderate at heart, but he could never win the nomination of the 'red meat' crowd in that place. But as a moderate he was uncovnincing since he tried to throw bones to the right wing of the party when he thought that none of us were looking. Thus, the etch-a sketch. Mitt is an unauthentic hybrid playing on Obama's record. But he had nothing to sell himself as a viable alternative, so he was doomed to failure for those that were clairvoyant enough to read the tea leaves many weeks ago.

          1. Rhonda D Johnson profile image79
            Rhonda D Johnsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "Inauthentic hybrid."  You have such a way with words. 

            It was so comical because before and during the debates, Romney would say stuff and then Obama would say the opposite.  Then Romney would come back a week later and say what Obama said, acting like it was his idea all along.  It was as if Romney were using Obama as a kind of consultant.   I thought gee even, if Romney wins, he's going to need Obama to tell him what to say.

            1. Credence2 profile image86
              Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Thank you for your gracious compliment.

              Rhonda, I was thinking in the beginning that in his mind the very fact that "he was Mitt Romney", successful capitalist,, would transfer to the public as a 'job creator', not quite. People like Trump and Romney have an unrealistic assessment of the world around them, can you be that out of touch just because you are wealthy? I have seen other examples that indicate that this need not be the case.. This obtuseness in regard to the average Joe is detected by the masses, it  contributed to a certain amount of distrust and Romney's eventual defeat. When it comes to foreign policy Romney played 'gotcha- tag you're it' politics, hardly presidential. When one looked carefully at the President Obama's policy we see an example of prudence and restraint, how could Romney advocate for anything else? All he was always  good for  'me too'. If he could tick off the Brits, our closest allies, I would not dare give him China or Syria.

              He might have been born yesterday, but I certainly wasn't. His born again love and support for the auto industry in the upper midwest, when he figured that votes were in the balance, is Mitt at his best.

              "Mitt is always best at pretending to help people"
              Bill Maher

              1. Rhonda D Johnson profile image79
                Rhonda D Johnsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                No, the wealthy needn't be obtuse.  They are useful when they sponsor starving artists or support the development of  new technologies to bring the price down.  But these new billionaires who care about nothing but their own profits and have no allegiance to America, they are worse than unimportant. 

                What's your opinion of the oped article Mighty Mom posted?

                1. Credence2 profile image86
                  Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Thanks Rhonda and Mighty Mom for a stimulating discussion.   Yes, if history is a guide, no president presiding over a level of employment in the vicinity of 8% in modern times was reelected with the noted exception of FDR, 1936/1940. But again this was an uncommon downturn with underlying deep seated structural problems having dire implications for the capitalist system and not just another economic 'panic'. The fuse had been lit toward the September 2008 explosion since the early eighties. These are uncommon times any precedent that we try to use is thrown out the window. But, Mr. Obama was in a precarious position as the 'man on the street' without a job wasn't paying attention to the 'eggheads'.

                  I will say that regardless of what I said above, had the GOP waged a better campaign they could have well won this contest. They made the mistake of thinking that by merely offering an alternative, rather than specific plans as to how they would improve upon the Obama approach and record, they could win.

                  Yes, the failure of the GOP to be more inclusive had cost them votes. They lament that they had failed to stay on message 'the economy' as the source of their failure. They may well have overridden all of the disadvantages they had in the demographic arena and won on the economy if they, indeed, had a viable alternative. As Bill Clinton said, it is about arithmetic. Incumbency is a very powerful advantage, before people are willing to change horses in mid stream, you better have a plan that consists of more than platitudes and generalities.

                  We need Republicans or a fascimile thereof to keep the tendency to collectivise under control, the concepts of individual perogative and the collective good has to be in constant balance for the system to work as intended. I support center left vs center right, avoiding extremes at either pole.

                  Romney could not be defined, I think that he would have been able to wear a center right mantle pretty well but the rabid right would have none of it. Both Santorum and Gingrich were unelectable and it is the delusion of the right to even present them as serious candidates. Herman Cain belongs in a minstrel show, a throw back to the very worse anti-black characatures.

                  Huntsman was a successful possibility, a competent alternative to Obama without all the baggage the other candidates were burdened with. Amorphism was to be the great Romney advantage, but being everything to everyone fell flat. Huntsman's moderation would have made for a better candidate but again, the rabid right would not abide.

                  I read the Emerging Democratic Majority and watched the GOP scoff at it when Bush won reelection in 2004, but it turns out that the book is quite prophetic. There is nothing wrong with the GOP ideas of self reliance and individual responsibility, it is just that these and many other of the tenets of their beliefs are always selectively applied.

                  How did the GOP advocates and pundits miss the mark by so far, the party is living in a state of delusion for so many to not see what was in plain site? It needs to shake off the cranks at the extreme right, moving them far away from front and center for the party. They need to stow all the Horatio Alger stuff and tell all of us without family crests associated with our names what they are going to do promote real opportunity in our society besides telling us all to ask papa for money to go to school, or perhaps, self-deport.

                  But they better start to get relevant quickly or that elephant moniker of theirs could easily become a wooly mammoth.....

                  1. Rhonda D Johnson profile image79
                    Rhonda D Johnsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I've learned something new today.  I never thought about how the two parties balance each other out.    So what am I?  When it's cold, I reach for my sweat shirt before I reach for the AC.   

                    You are right, the Reps are very selective about self-reliance and individual responsibility.  We have a kind of hybrid capitalism in this country. When it comes to large corporations, w e are capitalist about the profits but socialist about the debts. The taxpayers are responsible for the debts of the corporations but the corporations aren't responsible for the well being of the taxpayers.

                    Helen Keller was fortunate in that she had a family that could afford a private tutor for her.  But there were probably tens of thousands of deaf/blind children who never got a chance to develop their intelligence because help was not available.   As I've said elsewhere, why do they make it seem like we can't afford to help our own poor, but they never raise an eyebrow about all the aide we send to other countries?

                    How can either party strike the balance we need if they are both defined by party ideologies?

  5. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    Perhaps the most insane excuse I've seen yet.
    WSJ claims Romney lost because of ....
    wait for it.....
    you will not believe this one....

    lol lol lol

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/how-race- … omney.html

  6. tussin profile image61
    tussinposted 3 years ago

    Because he has all the personality of cardboard. Who wants to elect a mannequin -- albeit one with nicely coiffed presidential hair?

  7. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    Given the competition in the GOP primary, Romney was the most marketable. Mostly because of his presidential hair.
    Bachmann -- barely held onto her House seat.
    Rick Perry -- too close in too many ways to W
    Gingrich -- pick your reason
    Santorum -- even crazier than Bachmann if that's possible
    Cain -- token black (see how diverse we are!) with no relevant experiene
    Huntsman -- the "other" Mormon (who I and a few others on here believe should have been the GOP candidate)

    But the muscle of the party forced Romney to run as something he's not. He was clearly uncomfortable with it and it showed. I mean, really. Having to denounce your  state's signature health plan?
    But having declared himself as "severely conservative" his shift back to "moderate Mitt" didn't work for him.
    But some of the blame has to fall on Romney himself. You are only given so many passes for "inelegantly stated" insults that show you're completely tone deaf to your surroundings.

  8. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    I think this OPED from NYT says it quite well. It's not very long so I copied the entire article.
    Do you agree the Republicans should have won?

    Op-Ed Columnist
    Can Republicans Adapt?
    Published: November 7, 2012

    This was one that the Republicans really should have won.

    Given the weak economy, American voters were open to firing President Obama. In Europe, in similar circumstances, one government after another lost re-election. And, at the beginning of this year, it looked as if the Republicans might win control of the United States Senate as well.

    Yet it wasn’t the Democrats who won so much as the Republicans who lost — at a most basic level, because of demography. A coalition of aging white men is a recipe for failure in a nation that increasingly looks like a rainbow.

    Schadenfreude may excuse Democrats’ smiles for a few days, but these trends portend a potential disaster not just for the Republican Party but for the health of our political system. America needs a plausible center-right opposition party to hold Obama’s feet to the fire, not just a collection of Tea Party cranks.

    So liberals as well as conservatives should be rooting for the Republican Party to feel sufficiently shaken that it shifts to the center. One hopeful sign is that political parties usually care more about winning than about purism. Thus the Democratic Party embraced the pragmatic center-left Bill Clinton in 1992 after three consecutive losses in presidential elections.

    That was painful for many liberals, who cringed when Clinton interrupted campaigning in the 1992 primary to burnish his law-and-order credentials by overseeing the execution of a mentally impaired murderer. But it was, on balance, less painful than losing again.

    You would expect the Republican Party to make a similar lurch to the center. But many Republican leaders still inhabit a bubble. It was stunning how many, from Karl Rove to Newt Gingrich, seemed to expect a Mitt Romney victory. And some of the right-wing postmortems are suggesting that Romney lost because he was too liberal — which constitutes a definition of delusional.

    Imagine what would have happened if the Republican nominee had been Gingrich or Rick Santorum. We surely would have seen a Democratic landslide.

    On the other hand, if the Republicans had nominated Jon Huntsman Jr., they might have been the ones celebrating right now. But he had no chance in Republican primaries because primary voters are their party’s worst enemy.

    Part of the problem, I think, is the profusion of right-wing radio and television programs. Democrats complain furiously that Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity smear the left, but I wonder if the bigger loser isn’t the Republican Party itself. Those shows whip up a frenzy in their audience, torpedoing Republican moderates and instilling paranoia on issues like immigration.

    All this sound and fury enmeshes the Republican Party in an ideological cocoon and impedes it from reaching out to swing-state centrists, or even understanding them. The vortex spins ever faster and risks becoming an ideological black hole.

    In 2002, a book was published called “The Emerging Democratic Majority.” It argued that Democrats would gain because of their strength in expanding demographics such as Hispanics, Asian-Americans and working women. It seemed persuasive until Republicans clobbered Democrats in the next couple of elections.

    But perhaps that book was ahead of its time. This was the first election in which Hispanic voters made up a double-digit share of the electorate, according to CNN exit polls — 10 percent, doubled from 1996 — and more than 7 out of 10 Hispanic voters supported Obama.

    That wasn’t inevitable. In 2004, exit polls suggested that President George W. Bush received 44 percent of the Hispanic vote. But Republicans became obstructionist on immigration and then veered into offensive demagogy in opposing the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. The Hispanic vote tumbled by increasing numbers into the Democrats’ laps.

    Then there are women. The paternalistic comments about rape by a few male Republican candidates resonated so broadly because they reflected the perception of the G.O.P. as a conclave of out-of-touch men. As Representative Todd Akin of Missouri might put it, when a candidate emerges with offensive views about rape, “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” Namely, they vote Democratic.

    America is changing. After this election, a record 20 senators will be women, almost all of them Democrats. Opposition to same-sex marriage used to be a way for Republicans to trumpet their morality; now it’s seen as highlighting their bigotry.

    An astonishing 45 percent of Obama voters were members of minority groups, according to The Times’s Nate Silver. Many others were women or young people. That’s the future of America, and if the Republican Party remains a purist cohort built around grumpy old white men, it is committing suicide. That’s bad not just for conservatives, but for our entire country.

    1. Rhonda D Johnson profile image79
      Rhonda D Johnsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks, Mighty Mom.  This was very interesting reading.

      No, I don't think the Reps should have  won.  People know that the so-called failure of Obama's economic recovery efforts is due  to Reps doing everything in their power to impede him.  They held the country hostage, just so the Dems couldn't take credit for doing something good.  Did they expect us to forget that?

      So is the answer  for conservatives to stop trying to conserve?  What, precisely, have they been trying to conserve?  There will always be conservatives.  When the old order goes out and the new order comes in, the independents become the establishment and they are going to want to conserve that new establishment. And there will always be liberals, fighting against conservative stagnation.

  9. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    At the most very, very basic level, it comes down to values.
    What do you value? Who do you value?
    Be honest about it.
    Embrace it.
    But don't try to be something you're not.
    If enough people share your values your party will win.

    Right now the GOP is beginning to wrestle (or beginning to think about wrestling with) their
    women PROBLEM
    Latino PROBLEM
    Black PROBLEM

    Meanwhile, they continue to define the whole lot of us as "Takers not Makers."
    Romney's 47% speech was not an aberration. That is how they really feel about us!

    Who wants to be part of a party where you're considered a "problem" and a "mooch"?
    Not I.

    1. Rhonda D Johnson profile image79
      Rhonda D Johnsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I am wondering why Reps and Dems are the only parameters.  Sure, there are other parties, but their candidates aren't even on the ballot in every state so they can't win.   The PTB won't gladly open the door to fair competition and without fair competition, there's really no need for a party to change, at least they won't feel a need.

      1. tammybarnette profile image60
        tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        i agree, and wouldn't it be great, if they didn't have a label at all. Just a group of people who want the job aplly, have free time allowed to them on the air, and then they give their plan...the plan could be available on line for anyone who was unable to view their television appearance, no commercials, no campaigns, no labels, majority vote wins...that would be great smile

        1. Rhonda D Johnson profile image79
          Rhonda D Johnsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          What an idea.  In fact, George Washington warned against political parties.  Then again, those forefather guys were also deathly afraid of democracy.

          No commercials.  Revolutionary!  There is absolutely no reason a campaign has to cost millions of dollars.  If you have something to say, put up a website for ten bucks and say it.  GoDaddy if you don't want to get up off ten bucks.

          1. tammybarnette profile image60
            tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Wouldn't also be nice, if they could raise that much money to say, lower the deficit! Wouldn't that be something for the Kochs, and Adelson to invest their billions in, our contries financial well-being...wow, what a concept smile

  10. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    Romney failed to capitalize on Obama's vulnerability for the slow recovery. Voters were analogous to slot machine gamblers in a casino who, after putting quarters in a machine that doesn't pay off, move on to another machine with hope but no particular reason to expect better results. Romney failed to convince enough voters that his results would be better.

    1. tammybarnette profile image60
      tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Ralph, I thought he did pretty good at the smear campaign, so I am hoping more people did actual research, I know I sure did, everything they said was a lie except that Obama was naive of the fact he would be stone walled and promised more than he could deliver.

      What Romney's team could have done to win, listen to actual Obama supporters...if the Romney campaign had attacked Obama for the left based promises...they tried to use Libya, but if they would have just tried painting HIM the war monger, or for not keeping his promise to get rid of the Patriot Act, etc. They could have won if they would have went after the left base, so I am glad they weren't that smart :p At least that is what I have heard from those who supported him in 2008 but didn't this time...

      1. 60
        Southernmapartposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The NYT op-ed got it right!  The Republicans are a party of old, white men who just don't understand that they are in the minority.

        1. kathleenkat profile image91
          kathleenkatposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I know a non-white, young, female Republican. Shall I introduce her to you?

          1. Josak profile image59
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            OMG guy's I think we might have fianlly found her! tongue

  11. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    There is a younger, hipper generation of GOP.
    If they're smart they'll start listening more to Meghan McCain and take Rove and Limbaugh off the air.

    1. 60
      Southernmapartposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      They must also take off Neal Boortz (sp?) and Hannity.  These are the guys who keep the old, white women riled up on propagandist fiction and fables. 

      I'm in the Southeast where states are all colored a hard-right red across the so-called "Bible Belt" in what has been a strong conservative part of the country.  The schedule for controlling the election process in these parts goes like this:  Early in the process, the Christian associations, usually Baptist, hold a meeting with local ministers attending and the preachers are told what to preach, or preach against in their church services during the coming months.  A few weeks prior to election, these associations hold an "annual" meeting where the final preaching standards are decided upon and delivered to the churches for sermons about how to vote in the upcoming election. 

      This tightly controlled effort to set the minds of hundreds of thousands of church-going voters throughout the "red" states is very effective in achieving a grass-roots majority for a minority party of old white men, a lot of whom are bankers and politicians.  The old voters are clueless.  These associations do not have a grip on the younger voters, or those who have diverse backgrounds.

      The association in my area is "Beaverdam."  What is the name of the propaganda association of old, white men in your area?

      1. Rhonda D Johnson profile image79
        Rhonda D Johnsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        This is also illegal.  Organizations that are politically active stand to lose their non profit status with the IRS.  Maybe it's time Beaverdam and its ilk and the IRS were introduced to one another.  What interesting bedfellows they would make.