Why did Mitt Romney lose the election?
Why do you think he lost? Was it his policies, VP, Sandy or???
Let's please keep this political and not get into name calling or other non-productive things.
Romney was in a lot of ways the absolute worst candidate you could have after a financial collapse, a very wealthy corporate raider. When you consider that, it is amazing that he did as well as he did.
I think his campaign tried to be too vague, which made voters go with the incumbent.
His immigration policies during the primaries cost him the Latino vote, which may have tilted Virginia, Colorado, Nevada and Florida for Obama.
His opposition to the auto bailout made it difficult for him to win Michigan or Ohio.
His line about "borrowing money from your parents" cost him with young voters.
And the GOP trying to suppress the vote of African Americans actually got them fired up again, even though they have been disappointed in Obama.
Bush did pretty well until he had to deal with a democratic congress. That 's what ruined the economy, not Bush. It would be hard to find a , "worst candidate" cosidering the opposition . U mean it can can get worse than it is now?
Bush left this country in the worst state ever, and did you really believe Obama or anyone else could clean it up in 4 years? It can always get worse. Of couse, we all want it to get better.
The economic crash was primarily the result of the GSE's subsizing the MBS market. Bush's Adm was the first to even hold hearnings to reform the GSE's, how quickly we forget....Lets go to the video tape http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzCG80Wz4mg
The worst state ever? I'd be surprised by that claim, but since they stopped teaching history in the schools I guess I'm not.
Anybody who thinks the Democratic congress crashed the economy in two years is a moron. What I meant by "worst candidate" is that in terms of how to sell him to the public. I feel like I am talking to children!
Two blunders and a backstab:
The nomination of Paul Ryan brought in no votes Romney would not otherwise have had, and muzzling him to the campaign's moderate themes undercut his ability to reassure the libertarian conservatives and TEA partiers of Romney's good intentions. His selection and handling was a waste of what should have been an asset to the ticket.
Romney himself pulled his punches following Debate I. He thought he would win by default, and so his first objective was to avoid offending voters. The result was a campaign with no stimulating issues and no inspiration, depressing retardican turnout.
Chris Christie was handed a rare political opportunity by Hurricane Sandy. He had a chance to open the door for Obama to get up off the mat and back into the fight, thereby sinking Romney and clearing the way for his own presidential campaign in 2016. He jumped at it.
Romney had a good chance of winning because much of America has come to detest Obama over the last four years. As the representative of the northeast urban corridor business world and the Washington retardican establishment, both of which would rather throw an election than lose control, he was never trusted by the people in flyover country, but he still could have won the game had he played the last few innings well. He did not. Three strikes, Romney, two of them your own errors and one a shove from behind by your own teammate, and you're out.
I agree that the Ryan choice was a horrible one. It was bad partially for the same reason as Palin (courting people who already vote Republican) and because Ryan did not make up for Romney's weaknesses but emphasized them.
obama was leading going before the hurricane4. christie's acknowledgement of the federal response didn't cost romney the election - it was the negative and dishonest way the campaign was run.
the rest is just sour grapes.
Not even Chris Matthews agrees with you on that point, cascoly.
Negative ??? wasn't the Obama campaign the one that accussed Romney of causing a women to die of cancer.
Because he was a flip flopper, A broken record that repeated himself over and over about what he had done for Massachusetts. He was also a chameleon changing his colors to suit the mood of the crowd in which he was speaking to.
"I know what to do and I know how to do it." That was Romney's theme but he never told us what he was going to do it nor how he was going to do it. The people wanted more than rhetoric from him, but that was all he provided.
It wasn't rhetoric , Romney was a proven commodity. Americans see a familiar name and vote. What does it matter if Romney is a flip flipper if his opponent is? Have to fight fire with fire. Actually , he was a breath of fresh air .
He lost because most people who are "Swing Voters" vote based on popularity and not substance. From a policy perspective those on the right or the left who follow political issues year round will not be influenced by the ideas of the other side. They already know what they believe and support. Yet you had two completely opposing views and yet some people where still undecided just before the election. That can only suggest they are not particulary informed. So essentially elections come down to popularity. Democrats have far more advocates in the media and Hollywood and will always have an advantage in national elections. In the mid terms however the republicans tend to do better in recent years because their voting block is bigger when we look at people who pay attention to issues all year long and vote consistently
From a policy perspective Democrats did a good job of playing the class warfare card. They have convinced middle class voters that if their employer is taxed more, they'll somehow want to expand their economic activity. In recent years the class warfare card has worked very well. We have slowly moved over the last 3 decades or so to a society that expects the gov't to give you things and not take into account who or what it takes to provide these things. So the Obama rhetoric sells. I have said for years that personal responsibility in our nation is dying a slow death. America is slowly moving towards a European style social democracy where 10% unemployment is the norm. While that's not something I want to live under. I personally am not worried about it. The guy on the bread line is the one who needs to worry. Extremely successful people will always find a way to make money. The 9-5 guy is the one who tends to suffer from expanding gov't influence.
Additionally democrats also did a great job of scaring women into believing nonsense like they can't buy birth control if republicans win. But this stuff sells in the world of American Idol politics
Republicans did a terrible job of articulating the benefits of real tax reform to the nation as a whole. Romney unlike Bush was a better speaker. But still not very good at communicating with the average American who isn't well versed in economic theories. And that is the only way to combat to the class warfare card. You have to be able to articulate an economic position in simple terms for the average guy to understand.
Most undecided voters at the end of an election stay home rather than vote at all, though I agree with you that swing voters are less informed, even while I disagree with nearly everything else you say.
The turnout was high so very few stayed home this time around.
Do we know what the turnout was? I was hoping to hear that fact and haven't yet.
Yes, turnout was high among independents and democrats. Yet 3 million republicans stayed home. They simply felt Romney was not a real conservative. Maybe they're right. McCain got more republican votes than Romney.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/opini … mp;emc=rss
As a lifelong Republican whose first vote was cast for Barry Goldwater, in 1964, I have seen my party hijacked by the religious ri
Thats a tough case to make when Romeny who is a massachusetts moderate got the nomination.
Lets see 2008 Obama 69, 498, 215 McCain 59, 948,240
2012 Obama 63, 470,175 Romney 59, 646, 883
If you look at these numbers you can see the claim that the Republican turnout was down and the Democrat and Independents was up, is total BS.
I think it is something to do with diversity of a lack of it in the Republican party. The United States today is a multi ethnic, multi class nation. The republicans need to choose a candidate who talks the languages of many races and classes not just the middle class. They say America is the melting pot of the world. Republicans must draw on the new demographics of America if they are to stay in the race.
Having said all of that Mitt Romney still pulled in over 47% of the votes. This is a good robust showing for Mitt Romney and for republicans. Mitt Romney didn't go to the white house. But he sure pulled in a large section of supporter nevertheless. Romney talks well, he shone in the debates and his campaign had exciting class. But he's just seen as too white and too traditional. The youth of today, the trendsetters of today and fashion today are all multi ethnic. Not just white, but white and gay or black and christian. Romney just needed to weave in a little Ghetto Class. As he was Romney was perhaps a little too white and conservative and a world that is gay, multi racial and trendy. But okay he may not have the slick following or image that Barrack Obama sports. Never the less it has to be said Mitt Romney lost be he led a stunning campaign. Maybe Mitt Romney and America's Republicans just are not black enough and gay enough to get that crucial 52% to 54% they needed to make it to the white house.
A lesson for the future for the Republicans is diversify. Become black, white, Hispanic, Indian, gay and friendly. Just being friendly and middle class white is no longer enough to get you to the white house whatever your name.
So for victory in 2016 the republicans need to allow the new Americans to be a party of the campaign and leadership.
And a tribute to Mitt Romney. He was, nevertheless amazing.
Good points. It was Romney's to lose. Obama did not have more than 52% in any battleground state. 80% of blacks, Latinos and women drank the social-issue Koolaid instead of paying attention to the only important one--the economy. 4 more years--ugh!
Romney changes his mind on issues with the latest polls. Once you have stood on every side of an issue, it is hard to get people to belive you mean what you say. Mass. didn't even want him back. Many of his ideas have been proven wrong like tax cuts for the wealthy creat jobs. Ryan was a disaster.
Reagonomics worked, which would have been promoted by Romney. Everyone is a conservative because we all want to balance even our own budget. Romney just changed his mind cuz different times call for different solutions. If he stuck to his principles
I think there were a lot of reasons, lack of appeal to young people and Latinos played a role. The gender gap also was a factor. I think a lot of women had trouble voting for him because of his attitude toward contraception, Planned Parenthood and abortion. Those things are not theoretical, they affect the lives of women.
If people were certain that he had the magic answer to fix the economy, they probably would have held their nose and voted for him anyway. But the economy did crash during the Bush years, so would a return to those policies some how turn things around?
Romney would shave been a president for all , just as he was in the diverse stae of Massachusetts. He has already proved that he can relate to all by doing things for people many of us never will and possibly wouldn't if we had the time an Money.
Obama's claim that Romney opposes womens reproductive rights is a lie. He, along with the LDS Church, leave contraception up to the individual. While he personally opposes abortion, he did nothing in MA to stop it. Govt. funding of PP is wrong.
Because he believed on number of votes and his opponent believed on success.
Romney was caught between the Tea Party wing of the GOP and the views of the majority of American voters. His kowtowing to the Tea Party during the primaries turned off many voters, especially women, Hispanics and young people. His attempts to move toward the middle didn't ring true. His position on the auto bailout was incorrect and hurt him in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Indiana, all dependent on the auto industry. Finally, he had a hard time connecting with ordinary Americans, coming across with an overblown sense of entitlement and a lack of sympathy for nearly half (47%) of ordinary Americans.
His position on the auto bailout was exactly correct. All the president was put off the problem. Those companies are in worse shape now because they never dealt with the real problem and are still strangled with legacy costs.
Romney ddnt flip flop, he just changed his ideas in a changing world. If he didn't flip flop, he would be called rigid and inflexible by a biased media, that feeds propaganda. Romney would have been a president for everyone, as he was a governer for
Romney ran an unorganized campaign. Obama was much better organized. How do you want the country run? I voted for organized. You are 100% right on the auto bailout as was Obama.
His campaign was not disorganized at all. And the Automakers that were bailed out are in worse shape now because they didn't fix any of there problems. Both companies are being run like a mob run bust out with taxpayer dollars.
Romney lacked social appeal and true integrity. I think people just thought he could not be trusted enough...not sure exactly where he stood.
Romney has more integrity in his little finger than any candidate in recent memory. Politics is a dirty business, and the Obama campaign lied its way to victory with its War on Women and class warfare. 4 more years of stagnation and foodstamps.
Romney may have integrity, but those opposing portrayed him as not having much and did a good job at it...I agree, politics is a dirty business and those winning know just what to do to get there. Just a friendly comment.
Romney has no integrity PERIOD! He helped people as Governor of Massachusetts and then ran against himself for president. What kind of a man would do such a thing?
1. Out of touch with the average American
3. He seemed to be in the eyes of many a liar/flip flopper
It takes a very strong candidate to defeat an incumbent president. Romney just wasn't appealing enough. The only people who have defeated elected incumbent presidents in a general election in the last seventy years (ie not counting Gerald Ford, who wasn't elected president or Lyndon Johnson who dropped out in '68) were Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Both of them have become two of the most popular and iconic presidents of recent American history. Romney was no Reagan or Clinton, no matter how much praise he lavished upon them. Paul Ryan was also a weak choice, if I was him I would have gone with Marco Rubio. It would have helped him with Latinos...maybe. Still not sure if it would have been enough, but it wouldn't have hurt.
Because politics are extremely deliberate, and mistakes are very rarely made. His whole platform was designed from the ground up to further divide people, and give people a sense of accomplishment whenever they "caught" him. It was a simple act of giving the people the feeling that their opinion mattered, when in fact, the election was done and over with LONG before anyone put in their votes.
God bless America
I won’t say that Mr. Romney was a worst candidate as he had gained a good number of American votes and is evident that he is also a good candidate, but some ideas and agenda points are those things, which can’t get fully accepted by all.
In my opinion the real fact behind the failure of Grand Old Party (GOP) are the misstated stances on social issues and many other areas that deserve to be addressed, which are not at all put into consideration in agenda.
Also, his failure in the election is not due to his social conservatism, but it is mainly due to the failure to appeal to Latino voters.
The failure to capitalize biggest opportunities while doing his campaigns is also the main reason for his failure
Let's be real: Romney did not lose something he was never allowed to win. You people need to wake up and smell the Maxwell House. Our officials are not elected - they are appointed. This whole election cycle fiasco is just an elaborate song and dance meant to brainwash and convince the masses that America is a democratic republic with free elections.
We never get to see those who actually run the show...only the public faces they place before us. And, that is the bottom line. As the Prime Minister of England (Benjamin D'Israeli) said in the mid-nineteenth century, " the public would be surprised to know that those running the governments are far different than those they expect." (loose translation).
by Drive-by Quipper 5 years ago
This is why Romney lost. He displayed poor cognitive reasoning. He actually said that the widely known fact that smaller classroom size in schools is advantageous to students was misinformation perpetuated by teacher's unions to hire more teachers.Are teachers insidious, or is Romney...
by Audrey Selig 3 years ago
Do you think Mitt Romney could beat Hilary Clinton for president in next election? Explain.Romney may try another run at presidency.
by Thomas Byers 6 years ago
What do you think about Mitt Romney being the first president in U.S. History to have millions stashed in offshore Tax Havens. You know I saw this tonight and it really bothers me that we keep letting people like this run for the US President. I'll tell you right up front that I don't support the...
by Skarlet 6 years ago
Why does the mainstream media continue to attack Mitt Romney?Now that we know Mitt Romney has paid MORE than his fair share of taxes and donated millions to charities, why do people keep demonizing him? Obama came out after four Americans were murdered and said, "well, we've had a bad...
by Ralph Deeds 5 years ago
Robert Shrum in the Daily Beast:"The campaign has come down to a race between Mitt’s media and Mitt’s mistakes—and the mistakes are winning..."In a last-ditch attempt to crack Ohio and Michigan, Romney has now resorted to advertising an outright lie—that Chrysler’s Jeep division...
by Sheila 4 years ago
Should Romney run for President again in 2016? Why or why not? Who should be his running mate?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|