The problem is that conservatives in the party were betrayed — long before the primaries Mitt Romney was anointed by the elite leadership, that endorsement and pushing is proof that their vision of the GOP is STATUS QUO/BUSINESS AS USUAL — the people rejected this because Mitt Romney *is* liberal.
Look at the Libertarian Candidate, Gary Johnson, he got more than 1% of the vote!
That’s astounding, especially given that the Democrat and Republicans spent _hundreds_ of times more than the Libertarian party.
http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/1139562-votes-for-gov-gary-johnson-record-setting-libertarian-party-presidential-vote
Now imagine if the Republican party had run a truly different candidate like Ron Paul (financial policy), Newt Gingrich (judicial policy), or even Johnson... but of course they wouldn’t do that, that means changing things, making things *gasp* different and ending the comfortable go-along-to-get-along nature of the GOP.
Yep, Paul and Gingrich actually ran campaigns based on bold ideas. One had some flawed policies, and the other some personal flaws, but there is no doubting their overall sincerity and passion. I’m sure some people migrated to Gary Johnson out of frustration. I think the real reason Johnson did better than the Libertarian normally does is that he’s actually a legitimate politician, with a record that is enviable. “Governor Veto” was awesome for his state. He vetoed more bills than all of his 49 contemporaries combined! He’s basically a younger Ron Paul (though pro choice), who has been a chief executive. He stands for something, as do Gingrich and Paul. Romney didn’t stand for anything other than the proposition that he’s a better manager than Obama. That is undoubtedly true, but not enough.