The story behind Mitt Romney’s loss in the presidential campaign to President Obama.

The Boston Globe ^ | December 22, 2012 | By Michael Kranish

[Altariel]

That was deliberate.

His conservative opponents were his true political enemies, worthy of destruction.

That was extremely clear.

Conservatives took note.

[paul51]

This novice believes the single biggest mistake made by mitt's campaign was not to engage zero early. By the time they got into the battle, zero had spent months demonizing mitt in the swing states. Mitt was not able to overcome all the damage done because of the unanswered attacks. The GOP should have started tearing up zero and his abominable record even before they knew who their candidate would be.

[okie01]

Primaries should be held on the same date.

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.

[gonzo]

"...Massive, massive election fraud in very key precincts..."

(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

[Morris70]

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.

[ansel12]

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.

[Revolting cat!]

His campaign strategists and aides sound like the corporate types I’ve seen drive a company to bankrupcy - self assured, arrogsnt, never wrong!

[Still Thinking]

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.

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?

[dfwgator]

It’s sad that Texas, the largest solidly Republican state has no say as to whom the nominee will be.