Conservatives Struggle To Explain How Mitt Romney Lost 2012 Presidential Election

Conservatives Struggle To Explain How Mitt Romney Lost 2012 Presidential Election

By Sabrina Siddiqui | HuffPost | 11/09/2012 2:28 pm EST
Excerpts:

WASHINGTON – “Republicans across the country were shellshocked as President Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney in Tuesday’s presidential election, finishing the race with 332 electoral votes and winning every battleground state except for North Carolina. The blame game began almost immediately, as Republicans looked to determine how a vulnerable incumbent like Obama had found a pathway to reelection.

The evidence behind the president’s victory points toward a stronger appeal to middle-class Americans, one of the most formidable ground games in the history of politics, and serious failures within the GOP to attract Latino and women voters.

But a faction of conservatives were having none of it - offering up instead a series of explanations for their nominee’s loss, rounded up below:

** Media’s biased gaffe patrol: “For only magnifying every alleged Romney gaffe...Bias of Fact-Checkers...Romney campaign was called out by Fact Checkers for engaging in dishonest attacks.

** Hurricane Isaac washed away the GOP convention: Christopher Ruddy at Newsmax bemoaned that Hurricane Isaac washed away the first day of the GOP convention, was still the same length as the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte. they chose instead to allow Clint Eastwood to walk onstage before a national TV audience and shout at an empty chair.

** Romney was too nice: “Obama's ads were nasty, negative ones, while Romney's were of the kinder, gentler, country-club Republican variety.” It’s true that the Obama campaign hammered away at Romney’s business record, but it’s also true that it was Romney who used his career in private enterprise as the centerpiece of his candidacy.

And based on data collected by OpenSecrets.org, conservative outside groups spent over $74 million attacking the president, as opposed to the $5.1 million liberals spent in attack ads targeting Romney.

The Romney campaign also falsely accused the president of ending the work requirement in welfare and, in the final days leading up to the election, implied in an ad that Chrysler was moving its Jeep production to China under Obama’s watch.

** Hurricane Sandy and Chris Christie get the blame: The American Spectator: “The list of fools who have brought this disaster upon us certainly also will include New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, the gelatinous clown who (a) hogged up a prime time spot at the Republican convention to sing his own praises; (b) embraced Obama as the hero of Hurricane Sandy; and (c) then refused to appear at campaign events in support of Romney's presidential campaign. Good luck with the remainder of your political future, governor. It is unlikely Republicans shall soon forget your perfidious betrayal.”

The “Hurricane Sandy and Chris Christie won Obama the election” theory is inherently flawed. Moreover, there is little evidence to support the notion that Romney’s momentum was lost in the wake of the hurricane. Most polling indicated he had lost it by the second presidential debate.

** Obama won by “suppressing the vote: GOP strategist Karl Rove, who was one of the first to pin Romney’s loss on Hurricane Sandy, concluded that Obama actually “succeeded by suppressing the vote”- in other words, the president somehow prevented voters from casting their ballots. Rove did not fully explain his claim, perhaps because there is literally no evidence to support it, but instead insisted that the Obama campaign engaged in the sort of character assassination from which Romney never fully recovered.

But the best was yet to come: Rove said the Romney campaign did not adequately defend itself against the attacks on the GOP nominee’s business record, prompting Rove’s super PAC to give it a shot. “We don't do defense all that well,” Rove concluded, somehow failing to mention that his two groups, American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, spent a combined $300 million on the 2012 race.

** Romney, the once moderate Republican who served as governor of Massachusetts, lost because he tried too hard to be a centrist, some said. The effort by Romney to appeal to moderate-minded Americans in an increasingly progressive society left some conservative leaders so furious that they “vowed to wage a war to put the Tea Party in charge of the Republican Party by the time it nominates its next presidential candidate,” according to The Hill.

But the trajectory of Romney’s campaign tells an entirely different story: The GOP nominee spent nearly 17 months walking away from the positions he once held while presiding over blue state Massachusetts in a tireless bid to win over the conservative base.

It wasn’t until the final month of the race, namely the first presidential debate, that Romney pivoted to the center in a last-stage effort to court independent and undecided voters. If anything, Romney’s attempt to appear centrist was too little too late for a populace that smacked down Tea Party candidates on Election Day.

continued:

 

Yeah.

Stab-in-the-back campaigns? No problem.
Designing unAmerican pogroms and aspersions on opponents? Sure thing!

But "defense"? Not so good.

 

conclusion:

** Americans are basically ignorant: Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) said on Thursday that the president’s win was decided by an uninformed electorate - even though voters had more access to information in 2012 than in any past election cycle. Johnson also neglected to mention the record spending on the part of Republicans to disseminate their message - a message that ultimately lost out to that of Obama and his Democratic allies.

** Liberals bought the election. The Free Beacon has a primer on super PAC spending from liberal-leaning groups that helped propel the president to reelection. There’s even a handy breakdown of individual donors, such as “misogynistic comedian” Bill Maher and George Soros, founder of the “shadowy network of wealthy leftwing donors” Democracy Alliance, who both donated over $1 million to pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA Action.

The total amount of liberal super PAC spending during the 2012 cycle, the Beacon concludes, is a staggering $200 million. But they left out one minor detail: that number was exceeded by Karl Rove alone, whose groups American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS spent $300 million on this election. The combined total for conservative outside group spending? An estimated $715.9 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

** Obama was backed by the 47 percent: Obama won by “suppressing the vote. “The majority dictates against the minority. So, right now the majority are receiving a check,”Ron Paul said. Of course, exit polls show the president collected his votes from a populace that found his policies more favorable toward the middle class, and his election was boosted by turnout among Latinos, women and youth. And Paul recently admitted to HuffPost’s Sam Stein that he himself receives social security checks in the mail.

** America’s white establishment is now a minority: Bill O'Reilly took to Fox News to discuss the changing face of “traditional America,” which was, according to O'Reilly, once home to a majority white population. Obama’s reelection, he said, was a result of the Hispanic and black vote comprised of individuals who “want stuff.” While it’s true that Romney led the president among white voters by 20 points, the majority of Obama’s total nationwide vote still came from white voters.

The Washington Post reports: “Obama’s 39 percent showing among white voters matched the percentage that Bill Clinton received in 1992 - albeit it in a competitive three-way race - and exceeded the percentage of the white vote earned by Walter Mondale in 1984, Jimmy Carter in 1980 and George McGovern in 1972.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...lection_n_2099504.html?utm_hp_ref=republicans
.....

No matter what the conservatives say about their embarrassing failure to get their guy elected, it all comes down to the ultimate reason....Mitt Romney was just too entirely unlikeable even to take thru a campaign...much less 4 years of watching him mince across a stage, wondering which Mitt Romeny would show up for this interview, plus the sheer nastiness, lies and refusal to apologize for his campaign and the calculated disrespect shown to a president made anyone of sensible values turn against Romney.

Romney was so devoid of class, statesmanship, and uncomfortable in a crowd, and his continuous running from reporters who asked too many questions all made him a very unsaleable candidate to foist upon a smart electorate.

The election was also America’s answer to Romney’s unguarded moment telling wealthy donors that 47% of Americans were freeloaders that live off the government so he wouldn’t feel responsible for them.

 

Governor christie (turncoat chris) gets the blame in my book. His political career is finished. I doubt if even democrats would take him now. NObody likes a traitor.

 

Great post. I would like to add that the Romney general election campaign was very poor. They never seemed to reach the voters they needed to and it appeared to be poorly managed. They seemed to think that the President simply couldn't win and all they had to do was coast into the White House. In the meantime the Obama campaign ran a masterful campaign targeting specific voters in specific states and reached out to these people with messages aimed directly at them. More than Obama won, Romney lost.

 

He screwed up by saying things like Jeep was closing down the Jeep factories and moving them to China. Who told him that without checking was an idiot. He screwed up saying GM and Chrysler should have filed bankruptcy without really explaining well enough what he would have done. He was right, but he didn't make himself clear enough. He lost at least Ohio and Michigan on those two screw up's if not more states.

He also screwed up by not challenging Obama's claim he shipped all kinds of jobs to China. Obama was wrong.

Romney had several chance of defending his self and his record at Baine and as governor. But he was so interested of proving Obama's policies were bad, he allowed the Left to lie and use half truths about him without answering those lies or half truths.

 

He was losing Ohio and Michigan before those screw-ups. He never had an advantage in the race.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

 

Because the Old School Republicans continually take advice from the folks that have a vested interest in seeing them lose. The libs tell us all the time we need to run moderates and they lose every time they do.

 

The reason romney lost is very simple. Instead of 47%, it was 49.

 

thats easy, the "free handout" crowd gave Obama the win.

 

Traitor huh? And here, I was under the impression we were all Americans.

 

That race was Mitten's to lose. I didn't get why after the first debate Mittens went soft. I think the hurricane did help Obama at a critical moment. I guess you could blame "god" too. Mitten's has been running for president for a while now. He's just not a very good canidate.

 

I hope they have learned that you have to go for the throat like the Obama campaign did. Just run on personal attacks on the other side, even make them up if you have to. Don't discuss the issues, don't discuss your plans, just convince the voters not to vote for the other guy. Hire some attack dogs like Axelrod and Wasserman-Schultz to go out and just relentlessly attack the otherside calling them names and accusing them of all sorts of evils.

It worked for Obama.

 

Exactly, especially after the first debate, he should have been all over Obama on everything including his wife using the taxpayer dollars for her expensive vacations, Obama's attacks on working people and small business, the Libya scandal should have been front and center, Iran, North Korea, the "just wait till after the election" deal with Russia, his incompetence, everything.

 

Most of the attacks on Romney were devised by Gingrich, Perry, Bachman and the rest of the confederacy of dunces that ran against Mittens in the primaries...He was a weak and horrible candidate who drove around with his dog on the roof of his car and proclaimed that 47% of all Americans are a bunch of mooches who consider themselves victims and refuse to take responsiblity for themselves....He led a cowardly ratpack attack on a weak kid in highschool and assaulted him instead of being the type of kid who would step in and protect the weak.......In a time where many are wary of bankswindlers and tax cheats Romney conducted his financial affairs like a drug kingpin or a mafia don...Like Santorum said: "Romney is the worst possible candidate the GOP could run at this time"......Also the Republicans don't need any help regarding going for the throat and running dirty mudslinging campaigns...Karl Rove and his buddies wrote the book on that sort of thing...It is however refreshing to see grown GOP supporters whining in unison like a bunch of babies with dirty diapers after their boy gets his ass handed to him and playing the pathetic victim role....LOL...That used to be the role of the democrats....Cheers

 

I predict he'll be your next presidential candidate.

 

A winger blaming God for the election result. That's a new one.

 

Forget it. Christie will be reelected next year, that's clear now. He really stepped up during the storm emergency and treated the President with respect and dignity. I speak as a Democrat in New Jersey. Your flaming language doesn't cover your ignorance.

 

I apologize for going off-topic, but this is what is wrong with politics right now, and it isn't simply a conservative problem. Party members are expected to lie about their true feelings destroy their chance at a future in politics. If we, as a nation can't learn to respect and find the good in both sides of the political spectrum, we will never accomplish anything positive, but when anyone tries to do that, they are immediately attacked by their own side as a traitor.

 

I don't think this is off topic at all. I've been involved in politics for forty years and am continually shocked at how our political discourse has descended into hateful vituperation. While I believe the right is more guilty, you are right that it is coming from both sides. It's POLITICS, not personal.

 

I think much of it comes down to the so-called "ground game". Obama supporters had dozens more field offices in Ohio than Romney, Dims bussed droves of people to the polls, while Republicans are more independent and went to the polls one by one.
The government unions, who are dependent on taxzes coming in, get organized and push people to vote for the Dims, we just don't have anything like that.

 

No "struggle to explain"; this is how:

50% of the population realized that they can vote themselves money from 48% of the population.

It will prove unsustainable,and catastrophic. Wait. See.



"When the People realize that they can vote themselves money from the Treasury, that will herald the end of the Republic." -Ben Franklin (most likely).

 

sigh - You don't understand. When i call christie a traitor, i mean a traitor to the GOP.

 

Romney is not a fighter. He's like Kerry in 2004. Both times the incumbent was a failed president but the challenger refused to go on the attack. Romeny and kerry are gutless and nobody likes that.

 

HAHAHA. It's always been like that. You old-timers always think things were better when you were kids.