The best candidate doesn’t always win.
The best campaign does, (ruthless as it just may be, and his was).
The best candidate doesn’t always win. Exhibit A of that undeniable truth is 1964. I knew that America was taking the wrong path when Barry Goldwater was so soundly defeated. Thank goodness for Mississippi and a few (far too few) other states for bravely standing for Constitutional Conservatism as shown by this map from the 1964 Presidential Election:
I can only imagine how much better Our Country would be today had there been a President Goldwater. Among other things, there would have been a quick and decisive victory over Communism in Southeast Asia. And Ted Kennedy's wide open immigration act of 1965 would have stemmed the tide of illegals before it ever happened.
The best candidate doesn’t always win.The best campaign does, (ruthless as it just may be, and his was).
That sums up the whole thing.
Romney had the resources to run a national campaign. Gingrich and Santorum were outmatched by Romney in organization and cash. I knew Gingrich was in big trouble when he lost most of his staff in 2011. Not getting on the Virginia ballot when there was a simple procedure to guarantee you'd be on it (submit 15000 signatures), which Paul and Romney did, was an even bigger misstep. Especially when your whole plan to win is based on a southern strategy.
That's the kind of problem underfunded, disorganized campaigns have. Wacky Paul, with no chance of being nominated and his cult followers paying the bills, was able to get on the ballot in every primary held to date.
I credit this to experience. Romney and Paul went through this before. This was Gingrich and Santorum's first run. If they try again in 2016 they'll do better.