Why Obama Won and Why Romney Lost

Introduction

Although pundits and politicians tend to attribute wins/losses to one or two key reasons, there are many issues, actions, candidate attributes, and events that affect the presidential race. The closer an election, the more the small factors will matters. Here I detail the key factors that decided the 2012 presidential election, in two parts.

Part 1

The economy, stupid


Most of us have heard an ominous-sounding statistic of this variety from the media:

“No president has been reelected with unemployment above 7.2% since the Great Depression.”

This was usually the depth of media analysis. From early on, Republicans wanted to portray President Obama as another one-term Jimmy Carter, but the economic situation in 1977-1980 was vastly different than 2009-2012. The economy under President Carter in 1977 was mediocre, and a notably worse by 1980. The economy under President Obama has been recovering, with lowering unemployment. FDR won reelection in 1936 with the unemployment about double that of today. Voters took into consideration what he had inherited. In that sense, 1936 may be the best analogy, since the 2007-2009 recession was the worst since the Great Depression, deep and difficult to recover from, but a recovery was in progress.


http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...tionship-between-unemployment-and-re-election



Perceptions of economic conditions were not a strong predictor of election results. A CBS exit poll indicated that 39% felt the economy was getting better, 31% worse, 23% the same.


http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2012/11/06/its-the-economy-stupid-cbs-exit-poll/


Similar numbers resulted on the staple question of whether voters were personally better or worse off than they were 4 years ago. “Better” or “worse” did not gain a majority in polling. Many said “the same”. However, polls consistently showed that voters indicated economic conditions were mostly inherited. Present economic conditions are not a great indicator of an incumbent’s prospects. The trend matters.


http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...n-10-say-obama-inherited-current-economy?lite


Romney’s Generic Republican Strategy


Polls throughout 2011-2012 showed a “generic Republican” matching up better versus President Obama than any individual Republican candidate, all who had key weaknesses. The Romney campaign made a deliberate decision to keep their platform mostly free of policy details, thinking the economy would be enough for their "generic Republican" to cruise to re-election. By mid-September, it became clear this wasn’t going to be enough. The Romney camp perhaps misinterpreted economic perceptions (see above). The election was a choice election, not a referendum on President Obama. Voters wanted specifics. Romney had few, and the ones he had often contradicted previous positions.


http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/sept-6-a-referendum-or-a-choice/


The Auto Industry


Romney’s famous op-ed entitled “Let Detroit go Bankrupt”, making woefully wrong claims over President Obama’s bailout plan may have sunk his aggressive effort in Ohio, and left him losing badly in Michigan, where he had his roots. Compounding his problems, Romney’s Bain Capital became the symbol of destroyed industries and outsourced jobs, with their assets squeezed and diverted to wealthy CEOs.


The Middle Class, Romney’s “47 percent”, and Jimmy Carter


The CBS exit poll showed that a slight majority of voters saw Romney’s policies as favoring the rich. Romney’s background at Bain, the attacks from fellow Republicans during the primary season, and his own policy prescriptions helped to develop this impression early on. The Obama campaign hammered that message down throughout the summer. But it was a day in September that had a potentially greater effect, confirming suspicions about him, when elitist comments from Romney at a Republican fundraiser were unearthed with the help of Jimmy Carter’s grandson.


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ele...-dependent-government-video-article-1.1163340


After decades of Republicans trying to keep their narrative of Jimmy Carter’s “failures” alive, this was poetic justice for Democrats. Romney’s words were revealing:


"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57515033-503544/fact-checking-romneys-47-percent-comment/


This displayed a profound ignorance of the heart of America. Romney conflated Obama supporters with those who don’t pay federal income taxes, which include many seniors (who have paid income taxes most of their adult lives), students (future strong income tax payers), veterans, disabled, and other groups of all political persuasions. Moreover, almost all of those who don’t pay income taxes pay federal payroll taxes, excise taxes, state property and sales taxes, and other government fees, and at a much higher percentage of their income than those in Romney’s income range. After these comments were exposed, Romney did not immediately disavow them, and his poll numbers took a hit.


The Far Right


There were many ways the far right doomed Romney’s presidency. The “47 percent” argument really originated from right-wing realms, perhaps in an effort to distract from the discussion around the low effective tax rate of the very wealthy. Paul Ryan had previously made that argument publicly, and it had been bouncing around right-wing media for a while. If such an argument didn’t exist, it is doubtful Romney would have made the same comment (at least in the same form) out of the blue.


“Maverick” McCain’s 2008 campaign was doomed by his charge to the far right, which is required strategy these days to become a Republican nominee. He compromised his moderate past and his ability to vault back to the center. Romney had a similar problem. In the years since his governorship of MA, he had gradually moved to the far right. He could not effectively run on arguably his greatest achievement in Massachusetts – near universal health care because the Republican party had spent so much effort and money generating dissent and anger towards President Obama’s health care law (much of it which was patterned after Romney’s). He ultimately gained reputation as a flip flopper which he never really recovered from, Obama winning the “takes consistent positions on issues” poll question.


Huntsman had the most telling quote, saying (and I think correctly) that Ronald Reagan would not win the Republican nomination today.


http://thinkprogress.org/election/2...ld-likely-not-be-able-to-win-today/?mobile=nc


Social Issues


Social issues took a back seat to economic issues in 2012. On the abortion issue, there was plenty of flip flopping from Romney/Ryan on the issue that left some voters distrusting their present views while winning over some moderate voters.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...4743c6-1419-11e2-bf18-a8a596df4bee_story.html


In addition, ignorant comments from Republican Senatorial candidates Mourdock and Akin doomed the two, and created a potential national drag on Romney/Ryan ticket.


Gay marriage also won big in 2012, with the public moving to the left on the issue. Romney’s opposition probably did not hurt his candidacy much, as Log Cabin Republicans supported him.


Campaign Spending


The Citizens United ruling, which was voted on strictly partisan lines (all 5 Republican appointees voting for it) allowed a huge jump in political spending, creating the now infamous “super PACs”. What is normally a financial advantage for the incumbent was neutralized, with Romney’s camp raising and spending more money down the stretch. Obama’s individual contributions were largely from many small donors, 55% through the end of September coming from donations of less than $200, 13% donated the maximum $2,500. In contrast, 22% of Romney donations were less than $200, 45% from the maximum $2,500. Romney’s big super PAC advantage worsened that discrepancy, as these PACs are financed largely by corporate dollars and huge individual donations. In total, each campaign spent around $1 billion since 2011, with Romney gaining the unusual edge down the stretch. Concluding that the super PACs had no effect would be folly. It could be the case that Romney would have lost by a greater margin without it.


http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/campaign_finance/index.html

 

Part 2

The Conventions


The Republican convention was quite ordinary, and Romney’s polling bounce (if any) was subpar. It ended with a confusing rant from Clint Eastwood and a canned speech from Romney.


The Democratic convention was highlighted by a strong speech from Bill Clinton and a solid but more subdued speech from President Obama. Obama came out ahead after the conventions.


http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...ions-may-put-obama-in-front-runners-position/


The Debates


The first debate, the reinvention of “moderate Mitt”, was somewhat of a game-changer, in that it generated a clear shift in the race. Reeling from the conventions and Romney’s “47 percent” debacle, he needed an aggressive performance. In 2004, Kerry erased much of Bush’s polling advantage, cutting into what was about a 6-point lead by 4 points. Romney had a similar bounce. The advantage the challenger has is he can strike first and go in full attack mode with rehearsed lines, making it difficult for the incumbent to respond on the fly. Romney had the additional advantage of not having a national record to defend, which is a reason why Senators traditionally struggle as a challenger. Governors have done comparably better in recent decades.


Romney was able to re-invent himself as the moderate candidate he shunned in the years of campaigning. It was a brilliant “top car salesman” type of performance. He managed to tell frequent lies without blinking or the slightest hint of it. This played well among low information voters, who don’t pay much attention to a presidential race until October. Voters tuning in to hear Romney for the first time probably saw what sounded like a reasonable fellow, not a shameless flip flopper that most others (including his own supporters) knew he was. Most of the undecided are low information voters, so this performance was destined to move the polls. President Obama’s campaign convinced him to “play it safe”. This was a mistake. It would work if Obama had been up 8-10 in the polls, not 4-5 points. Obama looked listless, leaving his base dejected. The campaign made the rare misstep of misreading the electorate, not understanding that voters are looking for a passionate candidate who would fight for them. Romney showed that passion. Obama didn’t.


Post-debate snap polls showed a massive win for Romney, with CNN recording its largest margin of victory in its history of such polls (although they noted the sample was Republican-leaning).


Romney consequently surged in the polls. One could arguably peg roughly a week after the first debate as the height of Romney’s advance, which (shortly after the October 9th post below) increased his chances of winning to the high 30’s in Nate Silver’s model. That was the closest he would come.


http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...-erases-obamas-convention-bounce-in-forecast/


The remaining debates favored the president. In the VP debate, Biden came out strong. Paul Ryan, unlike Romney, had the burden of a national record to attack, and Biden let loose. Post-debate polls showed a modest Biden win, greatly exceeding expectations that the “smart” Ryan would win, over “gaffe-prone” Biden.


President Obama came back strong in the second presidential debate, showing the fire his base wanted, and rattling Romney at various points. Romney was caught by the moderator in a blatant lie about Obama’s comments on the embassy attack in Libya. Post-debate polls showed Obama winning, although by a somewhat smaller margin than Romney won the first debate.


In the third debate (foreign policy) the candidates often veered back to domestic policy, a wise decision by each candidate. There was no knockout blow, but Obama was once again seen as winning by the post-debate polls. The death of Osama bin Laden gave President Obama a notable advantage against a candidate that had indicated hesitancy for making bin Laden a priority.


One could argue that team Obama/Biden defeated Romney/Ryan in the debates 3-1, but it was the first debate that really set the tone with the largest margin of victory. Consequently, the sum of the debates was a statistical tie, neither gaining a majority.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/158393/viewers-deem-obama-winner-third-debate.aspx


The remaining debates, however, may have helped halt Romney’s surge and shift the race back towards President Obama. Nate Silver’s heralded model forecast by the last week of October had Obama back up close to 80% odds.


The Media


A study indicated that media coverage was more negative than positive, but the coverage was equally negative on each candidate.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...d5c9dc-eca8-11e1-b09d-07d971dee30a_story.html


Reality is different from the delusional right-wing perception that Obama is treated more favorably, which is more a product of intolerance to opposing views than anything, and their tendency to create alternate realities.


http://www.alternet.org/election-20...ront-runner-are-becoming-nate-silver-truthers


September coverage was probably more negative for Romney, but with the exposed “47 percent” comments, much was his own doing. Libya coverage was negative on Obama, with the press focusing on security at the embassy rather than the reports of Libyans standing up against extremists in support of the U.S., although Romney’s disgraceful “Obama apology” comments did not help his cause.


October media coverage was squarely in Romney’s corner, with media declaring Romney the victor of the first debate, rather than letting viewers decide. Media followed that up with the “Romney momentum” meme. Whether it was the desire to see a Romney presidency (a fresh face to target), or the desire for a close horserace (more advertising dollars), the mainstream press began its campaign for Romney.


Endorsements and Race Cards


Romney got a larger percentage of newspaper endorsement than McCain. Colin Powell’s endorsement is one of the most coveted. It may have faded quickly had prominent Republican Sununu not dismissed the endorsement as being purely racially motivated, which he quickly backtracked from. Right-wing pundits routinely and arrogantly claimed blacks, Hispanics, and youths would not turn out for Obama. One is left to wonder what effect that may have had.


Hurricane Sandy


Some Republicans want to place sole blame on Hurricane Sandy, the devastating storm, potentially enhanced by global warming, that caused massive destruction in the northeast. Nate Silver examined the potential effects.


http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...4-did-hurricane-sandy-blow-romney-off-course/


While this may have caused more late undecided voters to break for Obama, as he displayed strong leadership, Obama already had the strong advantage going into the last week, near 80% in the Silver model. Republican Governor Christie had strong supportive words for the President, resulting in nervous Republicans worrying about the impact. Nate Silver and others have also debunked the common meme that “undecided voters break for the challenger”. They tend to break based on past voting preferences. Romney had gained many undecided voters after the first debate, but these may have been Republican-leaning, inclined to vote his way eventually. He just banked them sooner. The remaining undecided voters may have been Democratic-leaning.


Summary


President Obama won reelection because he is the better leader. Among other things, he has brought the country back from the brink of a depression, saved the auto industry, killed bin Laden, passed landmark health care reform, and has helped make the country more energy efficient. Ultimately, Romney’s sheltered elitism, the extremism and ignorance of his party, and his inconsistency on issues doomed his campaign. Obama’s ground game was vastly superior, turning out voters Romney could never reach, or never knew existed.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-obama-won-2012-11

That shouldn’t be a surprise. Perhaps they are part of the “47 percent” Romney doesn’t care about (an argument he’s doubled down on post-election). In the end, despite Romney’s campaign finance advantage down the stretch, all the super PACs spending on his behalf, and a seemingly weak to average economy, voters rejected his message. Republican attempts to portray Obama as un-American, an outsider, Muslim, socialist, a passing fad, a Jimmy Carter, and/or a failure, have failed miserably, and have been relegated to the dustbin of history.

 

To this is all up:

Reason Obama won and Romney lost

Obama > Romney

Done.

 

A very large proportion of Americans are brainwashed, but only a few are raving mad: Romney couldn't have won the nutter primaries and a general election, not without enormously more powerful thought-control.

 

Why Romney lost?

Women vote. Women want the right to an abortion. Period. As long as Republicans stick to the religious right, they will lose women.

Hispanic vote. Hispanic like big government. They like government programs. They don't respond to the Ayn Rand/Ron Paul message that government that governs the least governs the best. And Republicans are anti immigrant. Which does not help.

Media savy. The Democrats know how to work the media. Comments like "legitimate rape." Or "A child born out of rape is a gift from God." Does not help. Here is another example. Republicans want to reach Hispanics right? How come the Romney web page was not available in Spanish? Again, Democrats can outmaneuver Republicans in media.

 

the brainwashed american sheople just dont get it that Obama was re elected because the establishment wanted him reelected.that we dont put these people in office they are selected for us.it should be obvious by now thats the way it is in the fact that everywhere paul went his crowds were packed to the maxes and obama and romneys were lucky of they were half full.wake up.

 

mm hmm, and I bet you're one of those people who believe 9/11 was an inside job too, am I right?

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/11/wham_bam_thank_you_mitt_1.php?ref=fpbl

The Republican Party has a problem, but it is not one candidate; it is not packaging or branding; it is not messaging that is sinking the GOP. It is the core beliefs of the vast majority of Republicans.

Their problem is their war on women; war on gays; war on minorities. It is their war on science and math and logic and education and reality. It is listening to nuckle heads like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter and Donald Trump. It is allowing entertainers to determine the direction and policy positions of a major political party. It is following the teaching of extremist religions leaders like the US Catholic Bishops.

But most of all, it is the GOP’s utter lack of respect for anyone who is not like them; supporting an idiot obscure congressman who shouts “You lie” at the President of the United States during the State of the Union Address. Not repudiating truly crazy people who cling to the thumbless notion that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. It is supporting an insane governor who waves her finger publicly in the face of the President because he rejects her lunatic positions. When the GOP allows or supports these actions, they are condoning disrespect for the majority of Americans who are not aging white men.

 

mm hmm, and I bet you're one of those people who believe 9/11 was an inside job too, am I right?

 

Wow, listening to this you would think one did not realize a sitting President almost lost the popular vote....Since when is removing an incumbent been easy?

Had the Republicans had a candidate with a bit of charisma we would be looking at a different President right now, it's just that simple.

 

Probably true, but it's hard to be genuinely charismatic when your trying to sell policies that only benefit a limited number of people. In the internet age, people tend to catch on to that, so any Republican candidate(at least out of the current crop) is starting at a loss already since they have to try and sell the Republican platform.

Charisma didn't so much play into it as the fact that people knew Romney was full of crap from the get-go.

 

But Romney was brimming with overwhelming charisma. He was the second coming of Reagan, after all.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/10/04/romney-reagan-bond

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012...ng_like_reagan_romney_has_them_terrified.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/329731/romney-reagan-obama-carter-bing-west

...or maybe much of the media is full of it.

 

You must be talking about Bush in '04, because his popular-vote margin was slimmer than Obama's. Bush didn't think it was a close call at all; in fact he claimed a "mandate" for his margin.

OP: Thanks for the great summary of a very entertaining election year.

 

funny you should say that!

You do realize that Bush's win in 2004 was NARROWER than Obama's win in 2012, Right?

And obviously, we all know that Bush's "WIN" in 2000 was luchnarrower than president Obama's in 2008.

So, does that mean that Bush was NOT elected president?

 

another one : republicans owned the "you didn't built that", the fact that people saw what Obama meant, infrastructure... and the lengths to which republicans took that, it was a insult to the peoples intelligence

 

Not really.
It is easy to pin the blame on the plastic romney, and he does deserve a great deal of that blame. He just isn't likeable and never will be.
The majority of the blame needs to go to the GOP it's self and the base.
Extremism never wins and the right has moved further and further to the extreme right every day.
Until that stops and the republicans return to the real world, shedding the teatards and the religious freaks they will keep losing elections.

The 'bubble' made by the rightwing media needs to be popped as well, the alternate reality most rightists live in is harming the right in untold ways.

 

If Romney was full of crap from the get-go,,what was Hope and change? What did Obama have over Romney when he first ran? what experience? what record? all he had was crap...., and still does. Jobs benefit everybody, and that is what Romney would have done in my opinion.

 

He sure was. I don't think he ever told the truth at all.

A campaign slogan and nothing more. Your media attempted to use it as a weapon. It only worked with the low thinkers.

John McCain.

Wrong on all counts. Your media trumped all those things up and again, they only worked on the low thinkers.

What makes anyone think that? romney never gave any sort of plan so just what makes anyone think he was able to deliver?
Tax cuts for the rich? We know that doesn't work.

 

yep and there is plently of proof in it.its just people like you are to affraid to llok at it and only see what you WANT to seeas we both know.

 

The way i saw it from a long distance Obama's populist right was by far more appeasing than Romney's neoliberalism .

 

Nope the reason Obama won and Romney lost is simple, you reap what you sow. We let the *******s take over our universities & the media; between the 2 they have created an extremely gullible generation of dead beats that believe their government owes them something and they have been programmed to hate the Rich especially the white businessman. The OP is a perfect example of this, I mean good god the list of moronic beliefs listed in the original post are simply mind boggling.
A couple examples:

The 47% well gee I guess some people have a problem with the truth these days, it’s a fact and such a small fraction of that 47% had the common sense to even consider Romney it didn’t make a difference, common sense and logic states they will vote themselves a raise even if it means re-electing such an unqualified horrible candidate that couldn’t defend his disastrous record.

The Auto Bail Out, Boy just look at the misconceptions on this one:
Fact, this was the Bush Admin and it was a huge mistake, Obama merely didn’t veto it.
Fact the Auto industry did file bankruptcy but they filed chapter 7 or the likes, were you screw every vendor that supplies GM yet the $85.00 of wages and Benes going to 100’s of thousands of unskilled workers stayed intact.
What Obama did is ensure that GM will continue to never be profitable again, its four years later and we still have not been paid back. They will need another bail out within 5 to 10 years and they will not have paid back the original bail out. How do we know this? GM hasn’t been profitable selling US built cars in the USA for over 20 years and cannot possibly compete with Toyota, Hyundai , and Kia until they are paying the vast majority of their workforce about 35 to 40 dollars an hour in wages and benefits like every single one of their competitors (save other American auto manufacturers being held hostage by the UAW) that are absolutely kicking GM’s ass in sales and profits.
Romney was 100% correct he wanted them to go bankrupt and see them through Chapter 11or 12 Bankruptcy which yes they would have screwed all the vendors like they already did but they could rip up that game breaking $80 to 85/hr UAW wages and benefits package and re-emerge as a viable car manufacturer once again building and selling cars at a profit in the USA and paying wages and benefits much closer to the global standard of $30 to $40/hr in wages and benefits. Fact is that and only that will make GM viable again.

Finally the economy, What can I say, if people really want to believe that Obama saved us from going into depression well I say back to Macro Economics 100 you idiot! It’s depressing that so many can be so ignorant of our economy. What happened to some simple facts and common sense? Financially successful people or even potentially financially successful people know these facts. The Government is not your economy we the people are the economy and only we the people can change it. The Government can help create some incentives like tax breaks, and some deficit spending on say highways and bridges, but one must go back to reality the USA has a $13 Trillion economy and we are a net import nation, so what does this tell us? Our Economy is based on Americans selling and buying from each other! In order to believe that a $900 Billion government stimulus package can ignite a $13 trillion dollar economy or save it from anything even a recession let alone a depression you have to have fallen out of the stupid tree and not miss a single branch on the way down and even than you should be left with enough common sense to figure that one out. That 900 bill was as effective as shooting a spit wad at M1A1 Abrams and claiming a direct hit for maximum effect. If you really believe that 900 billion helped please do the entire country a favor and rid us of your stupidity, you don’t have a chance of being successful anyways so please do the right thing.
Other golden rules of the economy: The extremely rich and the very poor don’t count there just aren’t enough of them, The middle class rules the US economy if you’re saying tax the rich or lower taxes on the poor understand it speaks volumes of your ignorance .
This economy has not improved while Obama has been in office, it will not improve while Obama is in office, and in fact we will see 9 to 10% unemployment if Obama care goes into effect in 2014.
The economy cannot and will not get better until the middle class feels comfortable spending their money again and that is impossible with the Obama Admin.

JUST THE FACTS FOLK!

 

Sorry gmb92 but NONE of that is a reason you can confidently say why the election happened the way it did.

Obama won because that's who Diebold says won it.

The general elections are now decided by computers and those who program them and/or "count" the votes.

 

Apart from madmen, the opposition has always won in a depression. Where've you been? Madmen chose a cynic, that's all. God bless America!

 

As noted, the "47%" included a lot of Romney's base.

Further, the idea that merely being poor (poor enough not to pay incomes taxes) means you're a threat to America and a moocher is ridiculous. A single example of why: Many poor people don't pay income tax because they receive the Earned Income Credit -- a credit that goes to the *working* poor. In other words, these are people who hold full-time jobs, but earn so little they get a tax rebate. It's a reward for working rather than quitting and going on welfare.

Most of the misconceptions are on your side.

Um, no. Bush gave the companies a giant bridge loan so they could figure out a plan to return to profitability without bankruptcy. Obama looked at the plan, decided it didn't make deep enough fixes, and said "we're giving you no more loans, but we'll help finance you through a bankruptcy filing."

No, they filed Chapter 11.

Unsecured creditors and stockholders *always* get screwed in a bankruptcy. That's the whole *point* of a bankruptcy: to shed excess debt and obligations so the company can return to profitability.

And the workers made billions of dollars in concessions, including forgiving huge pension liabilities, accepting cuts in benefits, accepting a two-tier wage system that cut overall wages, etc.

Um... GM is profitable now.

 

Who?

Who was it that ran for the Republican nomination in 2012 that would have been a better candidate?

You tossed Huntsman because he believes in science and refused to get into the birther pig sty. So, who?

Who could have won the nomination and done better than Romney?

Santorum?
Gingrich?
Paul?

There's good reasons most of the best and brightest stayed out of this mess and it had nothing to do with Obama.