Skip to comments.The story behind Mitt Romney’s loss in the presidential campaign to President Obama.
Posted on 12/24/2012 10:43:51 AM PST by US Navy Vet
It was two weeks before Election Day when Mitt Romneys political director signed a memo that all but ridiculed the notion that the Republican presidential nominee, with his better ground game, could lose the key state of Ohio or the election. The race is unmistakably moving in Mitt Romneys direction, the memo said.
But the claims proved wildly off the mark, a fact embarrassingly underscored when the high-tech voter turnout system that Romney himself called state of the art crashed at the worst moment, on Election Day.
To this day, Romneys aides wonder how it all went so wrong.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Thankfully, I never see the Boston Glob. Too bad they didn’t let it die a peaceful death a few years ago when it seemed like it was on life support.
Unfortunately, it looks like Freepers were running Romney’s campaign, or that the campaign was listening to Freepers...
Yeah, sure, dipweed. This particular Freeper would not have concocted such an absurd plan for ORCA. So go stuff it, jackass. Maybe you should save your scorn for the idiots who came up with the plan for ORCA in the first place.
To this day, Romneys aides wonder how it all went so wrong.
In my opinion it was the scorched earth campaign he waged against his Republican and “Conservative” opponents in the primary. And when he failed to do the same to President Obama despite the ample ammunition he had available, he purely “ticked” off a huge portion of his so-called, (republican/conservative), base.
They in turn just walked away and refused to vote in the General election. That is how I think he managed to lose.
Kinda hard to win with a lousy candidate and few hard hitting campaign commercials.
And of course, no one will mention the massive voter fraud.
Just as the election eve disclosure of Bush’s long passed DWI arrest cost him the popular vote in 2000 (the difference was only 0.51% of the vote), it is clear that Hurricane Sandy provided the Obama re-election campaign a boost.
Massive, massive election fraud in very key precincts.
RAT voter fraud combined with voter stupidity (stay-home conservatives)
BS. Mitt lost because he made the same deal McCain did to lose.
The stupid voters were the ones who value free stuff over freedom.
Thanks a lot.
The entire primary was a disaster. It went on way too long and way so bitter and negative that everyone hated each other by the end and most people stopped caring about these petty idiots.
There were a few decent candidates, but the field was weak again as it was in 08. Paul Ryan literally was the best person in the entire thing and he wasn’t much of a factor.
Called "cutting off your nose to spite yourself". I am prone to that sin, but I have never done that in an election since I cast my first ballot in 1976. I find it hard to believe that many Republican, or conservative, voters sat this 1 out and pouted at home. The stakes were just too high.
Yes, WMR was the worst/most liberal GOP candidate in my life-time. I continue to detest the man, but I still voted for him to defeat BHO. I agree that the only "fire" WMR displayed in the entire process was during the GOP primary, especially towards Newt Gingrich. And if you recall, he completely kept the TEA Party at arm's length the entire time.
My post-election analysis ...
1. I cannot forget that Rupert Murdoch (chairman-NewsCorp), Donald Trump, and Jack Welch (past CEO-General Electric) all, seperately, spoke up during summer 2012 to warn that MWR's election team was fatally deficient, and that he needed to clean house. MWR did not.
2. I continue to think that the election was stolen in OH 50.1% BHO), VA (50.8% BHO), and FL (50.0% BHO) - all 3 had incumbent GOP governors. NC barely went for WMR (50.6%). Still if OH-VA-FL had gone to MWR, he would only have had 266 electoral votes. He needed another 4 to reach 270. I just don't see where he would have gotten them. The demographics of VA/NC/FL are changing as more immigrants retire from the northeast and relocate to these states. Blacks are returning to the south after decades in the rust belt north. This trend is changing GA and SC's demographics also. Sadly, in all cases, they have brought their lefist politics with them.
3. In the final analysis, I think the country is no longer center-right but left-of-center ... and the prospects for correcting the course are slim and none ... and Slim is packing his bags to leave town.
How many precincts had zero votes for Romney?
Which precinct had seven registered voters and 900 votes for Ubama?
The election was stolen, and the Republicans are too frightened to talk about it.
But I don't know that it really mattered. Romney was declared the nominee before the first primary was held. The other candidates were mere window dressing...to give voters the illusion that their vote really counted. It didn't.
If we don't come up with a truly conservative party next election, I'm not voting. The Republican Party can kiss my derriere. I'm not going to waste my time on a corrupted process where the outcome is pre-determined and the candidates are both liberals.
Yes. His vigorous primary campaigns against Gingrich and Santorum made it look like he could campaign effectively in the General Election but, alas, he 90 percent wimped out. Alas, now we are stuck with 4 more years of this downwards-spiral.
If there was massive fraud, there should be proof. I agree there probably was fraud, but is there proof? If there is proof, then we should be all over this.
The media will never allow the truth to come out. If the government and the media collude and you have a judiciary system infested with liberal idologues, there is virtually nothing that can be done peacefully.
A Christian candidate with moral values would have won this in a walk and the primaries had several to choose from, the ultra left Romney wins with a plurality of the votes because of the plethora of much more conservative candidates.
I believe that many, many voters passed on Romney and voted third party, walked from the voting booth and promptly lied to the exit pollsters. Remember when president Kerry won all the exit polls?
Romney was/is and forever will be a liberal loser.
Next cycle, the "R" elite will hand us another liberal and conservatives and our nation will lose again. We know or at least suspect that part of the solution is to change the primary process by first getting rid of the all out of proportion in importance, first primary and caucus states of Iowa and Maine and allow only republicans to vote in republican primaries in all states.
I don't look for any of those reforms to take place and I will continue to withhold my vote from liberals no matter what letter they have behind their names. McCain was the last and I said "never again" and damn sure meant it.
Tea party and christian groups stayed home and all the left wing groups ignored their differences and went out to vote.
There was almost no daylight’s difference between Romney and Barracks on several important issues which begs the question:
“Why was Romney’s candidacy even necessary?”
The question aught to answer itself.
They are a family of trained liars (trained by Mormonism), Romney set out to take over the GOP 20 years ago and has spent at least 55 million dollars of his own wealth towards that goal.
Mitt sought the permission of his holy prophet in 2005, before kicking off the actual presidential campaign, and now after 7 years of watching his nonstop campaign, which ended in the predicted disaster as white Obama ran against black Obama, he tells us that he never wanted to run, he was just 'too decent' to refuse.
Romney created a lot of casualties with his scorched earth war against the right, the biggest one was probably keeping Palin from taking the presidency.
Romney despised Reagan and the right, and wanted revenge for their opposition to his father's and his mother's politics and political races, Romney even left the republican party in 1979, Romney has left the party confused, broken, and ashamed because he convinced them to sell their soul to his liberal agenda in the name of "electibility". How could a man who won a single election in 20 years of running, and lost that office when he left it with 34% approval and rejected for reelection, who had no natural base, and who all voting groups disliked and distrusted, be the most "electable"?
There are three economic classes but only two parties. You know who gets screwed the most.
Evangelicals showed up and voted for Romney, so why would you post that?
I have been saying since the night of the election loss that we must withhold our judgment about why the campaign went the way it did until we have data. The primary question remains, why did so few white voters bother go to the polls?
I think this article tells us a lot about why black and Hispanic voters went to the polls. It suggests that white voters did not go to the polls because Romney's rope a dope strategy permitted Obama to demonize Romney and the election was then and there lost. That seems plausible to me but what do I know? No more and no less than any other FREEPER with an ideological ax to grind on these threads. In the absence of data which tells us why our voters stayed home, we are just setting ourselves up for another fiasco by engaging in political onanism.
To the degree that we choose to believe it, the article tells some things that are obvious and some things that were not obvious to us at the time. For example, it was obvious to us that unanswered attack ads are poison especially for a candidate who is not already established in the minds of the electorate. I remember posting that it was far more expensive to try to unconvince people who have been convinced against you and then convince them on your behalf than it is simply to convince them in the first place. By not engaging Obama early on, Romney put himself in the position of arguing against the voter' s judgment for making a wrong assessment. That is almost an impossible sale. Without data, I can only say this is my opinion, but it seems to me obvious that the spending on television ads in the future will go on in the beginning rather more than at the end. As the Democrat said, he never saw an effective ad after Labor Day.
It was not obvious at the time that Obama had taken his ground game to a new level, that his level of technological innovation was light years ahead of Romney, that Romney's cyber war capability would be a fiasco, that Romney, who could have had access to the best polling and bogus group data ever, would permit himself to be misled. Apart from what that says about Romney and his vaunted ability as a manager, it tells us that no political campaign should be conducted when it is dependent on only one source of intelligence. No competent general would do it and no candidate should do it. In the future, a prudent candidate will engage a competing polling service to play the devil's advocate to his campaign manager' s polling service and require both sides to litigate in an adversarial setting the meaning of their data.
My conclusion from all of this is that the campaign for the 2016 election began on November 7, 2012, at least it has on the Democrat side, but one wonders what, if anything, is happening on the Republican side. Republicans seem to have decided to form a committee to tell them what happened to them. If Rino consultants form the committee I suspect Romney's Rino consultants will have little to fear from the report. I would much prefer them to consult pollsters of the style of Michael Barone to find out what happened precinct by precinct. But even Barone, as competent as he is, got it terribly wrong. So, I want dueling analyses of the postmortem just as I would in an ongoing campaign.
Since the campaign is already begun, Republicans should pay the price of attacking Obama beginning now and everyday for the rest of his term. Obama successfully ran against George Bush who was not on the ticket in 2008 and he was able to do it again in 2012, let a Republican do the same in 2016. But that can only be done if the predicate is laid. The predicate is an unremitting, unrelenting attack on Obama until the façade is finally eroded.
All of this, so far, has nothing to do with ideology. It does not say a word about whether Romney ran his campaign too far to the left or too far to the right.
This article and the data which has surfaced so far do not tell us what position we should adopt on immigration, whether we have to pander to Hispanics, or whether we should cling to the base. We simply do not know. It is no more proper for we conservatives to pontificate our doctrine than it is for Rinos to counsel cowardice. On the other hand, we can draw some conclusions about the mechanics.
We get ever closer to some understanding but we are not there yet. If this article is correct and we manage to draw the right conclusions from it, we will know that we failed mechanically. But will we know whether the right mechanics would have won given the ideological position Romney advanced? Was it lost due to his reputation as a Rino or was it due to his failure to exploit Benghazi and Obama's ability to exploit hurricane Sandy? Would Romney have lost worse if he had campaigned farther to the right?
I do not want that to be the case, I want it to be that the more conservative the candidate, the better the candidate's chances, but I want to know what is real not what makes me feel good.
Juan was berfed in a Panamainian horsepital & Myth's daddy was a Mexican.
This goes beyond coincidence. It is out and out conspiracy.
What you folks never understood. They didn't "pout at home". They simply didn't believe him. They looked at Romney, looked at his record, and saw a pro-gay, pro-abortion, big government shyster. Scream about that all you want, but if you can't get past "pouted at home", then you'll never understand why they COULD NOT support Romney.
I'm from Ohio and there's no way that Obama stole Ohio. I'm in rural southern Ohio and the folks coming forward now to say they supported Obama blows my mind.
And thinking that something is sinister about Obama winning 99% of a 99% black neighborhood is math deficient.
Repubs controlled the governorship, the House, the Senate, the attorney general, the secty of state, and the Ohio supreme court. NO WAY they didn't have enough juice to resist shenanigans.
It was better said years ago: “The vote cast by an ignorant voter, counts just the same as the vote cast by the informed voter.”
Considering the demographics of the US and the rigidity of the system under the present day Electoral College, the path for the Obama campaign strategy was obvious. Other articles detail how “messaging” was tested to work better with the target constituencies compared anything resembling the truth, so we heard “war on women” repeated ad nauseum contrasting with the silence of any coherent explanation on Benghazi.
The unanswered question is: Will David Axelrod be prosecuted for the illegal use of Census 2010 data within databases for the 2012 election?
You bet. That explains why they were chosen for us. Both could be made to look like they had birth problems similar to Obama who has the real birth problem. It’s too bad they went along. Obama would have never stood up next to a conservative, that is a real one. They lie about that too. I bet most of the people never even knew they voted.
Some additional perspective on the demographic trends affecting the election.
This explains the intensity of the Democrat/Media campaign, throughout 2012, accusing the GOP and Romney of waging a war on women.
I was dumped on when I said he wasn't connecting to voters - that he appeared to be a rich man who didn't understand how “regular” people lived. As a result, the “little people” didn't vote for him. The politically aware Republicans voted for him but politically aware conservatives didn't. He had no track record being a conservative but did have a liberal record.
Then, add the advantage of a Hussein better ground game, and Hussein won.
There will be another liberal Republican candidate in 2016, likely Jeb Bush. Make up your mind now whether you are a conservative or a Republican voting for the GOPe candidate.
I don't vote for liberals.
When idiots trust electronic voting machines that let you touch pictures, it is all over, because the result will be whatever they want it to be.
There is no way to audit elections anymore, so you will just have to take what they give you.
It was her fault.
He failed to counter Obama painting him as rich and out of touch. Even in the primaries he allowed himself to be painted as an elitist, but that doesn't hurt you so much with GOP voters.
Only in the first debate did he show any spark, then assumed from what his advisers were telling him that he should spend the rest of the campaign playing prevent defense.
He never successfully painted Obama as the rich elitist. He never showed voters the endless golf outings, the taxpayer funded vacations, or absurd motorcade. Swing voters forgot about 4 years of misery to vote against the rich guy.
That was deliberate.
His conservative opponents were his true political enemies, worthy of destruction.
That was extremely clear.
Conservatives took note.
In which case, you can concede the primary to the candidate with the deepest pockets.
No way a shoestring candidate can mount a national campaign from Day One.
(sigh) Some people just don't get it, even yet! Here in FLA, we had 140% of registered voters voting 0bozo. 'Electronic' machines that transferred votes to 0bunga from Romney.
The democRATS now own the voting machinery. It will take secession from DC to rectify this travesty ............................................................ FRegards
an assumption that the Evangelicals stood by their word that they would not vote for Romney or the 400K Evangelicals that voted in ‘04 died before this election, 8 years so I guess that’s also possible.
Who knows what in the heck you are talking about, or what you have against Christians.
The fact is that the Evangelicals showed up in big numbers and voted 79% for Romney.
Now tell us who voted more Romney than that? The answer is that no one did.
His campaign strategists and aides sound like the corporate types I’ve seen drive a company to bankrupcy - self assured, arrogsnt, never wrong!
And a one-day primary puts liberal states on an equal footing with conservative ones, and liberal states (and crossover liberal voters) with too much influence is the problem NOW. States should get the privilege of going first who voted for the R in the previous election, with RI and HI and so on bringing up the rear. Why let commies pick your candidate, or have significant influence on the selection?
It’s sad that Texas, the largest solidly Republican state has no say as to whom the nominee will be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.