Skip to comments.Romney Adviser Blames Bad Messaging
Posted on 11/08/2012 11:25:45 AM PST by US Navy Vet
Romney Adviser: It Was the Messaging By Robert Costa | November 7, 2012 Boston A Romney adviser partly blames last nights defeat on a weak message. Turnout was the big problem, since we didnt get all of McCains voters to the polls, but we really should have been talking more about Benghazi and Obamacare, an adviser says, speaking on the condition of anonymity. Those are major issues and Romney rarely mentioned them in the final days. The adviser expects Stuart Stevens, Romneys chief strategist, to bear the brunt of the blame, but not all of it. There is a Boston clique that will stick together, the adviser says. But blaming Stuart and the other newcomers means blaming Romney, so they will be careful. They know Romney always gave Stuart his complete confidence.
(Excerpt) Read more at nation.foxnews.com ...
Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.
Lets begin with the argument against purism. To this line, two replies are in the coming.
As for the second objection against the Tea Partiers rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.
Every election seasonand at no time more so than this past seasonRepublicans pledge to reform Washington, trim down the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for compromise and patience.
Well, when the Tea Partiers impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.
Who is this Ben Ghazi guy the Republicans are NOW talking about? Geez, what a bunch of morons.
I don’t understand why they keep saying Romney didn’t get the voters McCain got. . . I have seen several articles/references to the fact that tens of thousands of votes have not been counted yet (absentee, military, provisional) and that it is expected that Romney will actually exceed McCain’s vote totals by some.
Missed big openings and playing nice guy doesn’t win.
Democrats committed voter fraud
This freeper txrefugee had a post that I think we all should read and spread around:
On CNN today, they revealed that Axelrod & Co. had the 2010 Census sheets from the heavy-minority counties in the swing states. They supposedly knew every house where their voters lived and followed up with absentee ballots etc.(No one has moved in the last two years? Hard to believe.)
Now, if this isnt a recipe for stealing an election, I dont know what is. They could request the ballots, have someone collect them at drop boxes, fill them out and submit them. No wonder the turnout of Blacks, Mexicans, and students actually went up over 08, though the enthusiasm was obviously missing. That doesnt make sense unless someone was doing something shady.
3 posted on Wednesday, November 07, 2012 7:53:38 PM by txrefugee
I’m having a hard time with this turnout thing. I don’t even live in a swing state, but the turnout was crazy here. People were in line forever. The lines were full of short-haired men and with women dressed in red; the parking lots were full of pickup trucks. Conservatives turned out in droves, in herds, in masses. You may have heard that in heavily conservative areas of Virginia like Norfolk, there were people (service members and their families) standing in line for THREE HOURS in the dark and cold after the polls closed, stubbornly insisting on their right to vote. We didn’t see this for McCain and Palin, sorry. So I’m mystified: where did all their votes go? Where?
Romney should have promised a free rifle to every GOP voter and that probably would have worked better.
People now want free stuff - give it to them.
Democrats offer free condoms - we offer free rifles.
Lets see who turns out more peopler.
Bet source was Stephen Schmitt.
Sounds dumb enough to be him
I don’t understand why Romney chose not to clobber Obama over Benghazi. Perhaps it had to do with some notion of being a “gentleman”, or “running a clean campaign.” Maybe he thought that if he aggressively criticized Obama on this issue, new facts might suddenly come to light that would make such a tactic appear foolish. Who knows.
But it’s no mystery why he was hamstrung with the issue of Obamacare: as governor of Massachusetts, he imposed the same program. It’s difficult to get around that fact.
Obama has levraged the Demographics - Why do you think the Dem’s go further & further to the left. It’s their new base. That 47% Romney spoke of is 51% of the voting base.
You wrote”I dont understand why they keep saying Romney didnt get the voters McCain got. . . I have seen several articles/references to the fact that tens of thousands of votes have not been counted yet (absentee, military, provisional) and that it is expected that Romney will actually exceed McCains vote totals by some.”
Ok you have posted this on about every thread discussing turnout so either prove with sources that the vote totals listed in the article is not true or explain why you keep posting it.
Most of us were saddened that Mitt tap danced around the Benghazi coverup. Most of the morons voting never heard about it - thanks to the lame-stream media. This would have brought the subject to the forefront, but as usual - the nice guy decided to let it ride. Mitt said he would repeal Obamacare, but then added - repeal and replace. Replace it with what? He stood by Romneycare, therefore, Obamacare was a losing issue. Most of us knew this when he got the nomination, but hoped that the failure of these past 4 years would overcome this. It didn’t. I also know they fudged the unemployment numbers to help zero.
We can second guess this election forever, but the fact is - the Dems stole this election. We all know it, but proving it is another story.
The Republicans are shattered now. Ran the wrong guys and didn’t support the. Gov. Christie betrayed the party by hugging Obama-—The ball is in Obama’s court now—if he’s smart he has two years to break the GOP to pieces and secure 50 years of Progressive rule.
Republicans need Cool people to run for office.
Drop the religion thing—it turns the people off.
We need comedians who can make people laugh.
We need a good War Hero! Some one like Audy Murphy or ???
We must be true to our colors.
Put Newt in charge! or even—dare I say it—Sarah Palin! Hey they might do a better job!
We must do more Talk shows and comedy shows—Even Dick Nixon did Laugh In—”Sock it to me?”
Neither does saying “I basically believe in what they believe....just less.”
Well, it certainly true that Romney just wimped out and let Obama get away with murder without more than a brief complaint.
But the problem isn’t just that he didn’t speak out. The problem is, even if he had spoken out, who would believe him? His record is pro gay, pro abortion, and pro socialized medicine. He is a serial liar and flipper flopper, and the media would have torn anything he said to shreds.
So, his only recourse was to stand there with perfect hair and smile and pose with his wife. Sure, but that isn’t enough to cut it.
There’s an old saying about political campaign postmortems:
If you won, everything you did was right.
If you lost, everything you did was wrong.
I dont understand why Romney chose not to clobber Obama over Benghazi.
* * *
I think that after Candy “Beeyotch” Crowley hamstrung him during the second debate on that (by backing Obama’s lie), Romney was afraid to bring it up again for fear of looking like he was a member of the tinfoil hat brigade. I hope Ms. Crowley loses her job as a part of “necessary downsizing” one of these days....
Well if you are poo pooing the whole process of analysis after a loss, I’m not sure what to tell you. I bet this guy was on the inside begging Mitt to go with a harder message and was out voted by the others inside. This guy was right, it was the messaging.
Benghazi was money left on the table, as were a lot of other issue,s out of wimpiness and fear.
Romney couldn't talk about Obamacare without having to justify Romneycare, and he weak "MA is one thing, USA is another" doesn't work, because a government mandate is at the heart of each, and that's the fundamental problem.
Fully agree that they (or surrogates, more to the point) should have brutalized Obama with the Benghazi fiasco. At the ver least, we might some justice if it it didn't move the election needle.
Counting down the number of days remaining when we have to hear anything from “Romney advisors”
Just go away
I think it was a tactical decision in the debate. Obama was sure to think that Romney would go there again, armed with more facts, and Obama likely had a well-tested counter prepared.
Outside of the debate, however, is another story. Me, I would have bought ad time both immediately before and immediately after the debate and hammered the point home while people will still formulating their opinions.
They'll be on talk shows for the next four years explaining how it was Sarah Palin's fault.
post of the week
Well said. I liked Romney but he left a lot on the table.
1. Eric Holder’s many disgraces.
2. Losing the middle east to terrorists.
3. Black Panthers (see #1)
4. The billions plowed into donor companies only to have them go backrupt.
There are probably more but he should have had negative ads running non-stop in the closing weeks. Ohio may have loved the auto bailout but many of the blue collar types don’t like the idea that the Obama justice department let Black Panthers drive white voters from polling places.
Or it was not articulating the economic issue well enough.
Or not hammering the values voter.
Or it was GOTV.
Or it was letting Obama have a free ride this summer (Rove’s main theory).
Or it was riding the clock in the last two debates instead of being more confrontational.
Or it was not allocating more to OH instead of WI and Penn.
Or it was not integrating the Tea Party.
Or it was ignoring the hispanic vote.
Or it was some or all of these.
My point was what ifs after the election are interesting, but it’s not as nearly as certain as we would like. When you win, everything looks good to you; when you lose everything looks bad.
thanks for your reply...
you posted a worn out cliche as some kind of brilliance - but the fact remains, about 2/3 of your list is actually part and parcel of what he is saying.
“Ok you have posted this on about every thread discussing turnout so either prove with sources that the vote totals listed in the article is not true or explain why you keep posting it.”
I am sorry, I haven’t saved the references. Perhaps another Freeper can help me out.
What I have seen - more than once - is a graphic comparing the ‘day after the vote’ totals for McCain and Obama, and the totals maybe a month later, at certification.
Under that is a graphic showing ‘day after the vote’ totals for Romney and Obama, which make it pretty clear than within a month or so we should not see a lower turnout for Romney than we had for McCain.
If I see it again, I’ll post it.
Also, I have posted this information on perhaps three threads; I doubt that is anywhere near “all the turnout threads.” It makes perfect sense if you think about it. The fact is, all the votes are not yet counted. That is easily discerned.
I am trying to stop misinformation from getting out there with us. We make bad decisions if we have bad info. For example if we believe that hundreds of thousands of less votes came in for Romney than McCain, we logically conclude we are losing ground, have to change or give up to be a minority party. But if we realize that Romney actually got the same or more votes than McCain, it would indicate otherwise.
Sounds like the ground-game guys are trying to blame the ones responsible for the air attack.
I expect the messaging guys to whisper about that the GOTV efforts were the problem.
OK here’s a reference (I wasn’t even looking, just surfing)
John Podhoretz: “As I write, Mitt Romney has 57.4 million votes. John McCain ended up with 59.9 million. Its a little noticed fact that in two weeks following every presidential election, votes continue to be reported by the millions. As I recall, Barack Obama got something like four million more votes in the weeks after election day, while John McCain got two or three million. Its likely that by Thanksgiving, the final vote tally will show Romney very close to or even slightly exceeding McCains total.”
Thanks, I will wait to see if these counts change.
Two-thirds is close enough to “everything.”
I’ll take it.
TOLD YOU SO.. Romney was going to take a dive..
I suspect he knew about the massive voter fraud that was going to take place..
He didnt look very upset that he lost... kind of like he knew it all along..
I believe he did.. and was complicit in it...
AND STILL IS.. Bengazi will die a quick death..
And most of AMerica could give a “floater” about it..
What amazes me is the obvious GLEE that Megyn Kelly and Bair showed when Obama WON on FOX...
FOX News is starting to STINK... O’Realy seems to “care less” who won..
Its becoming harder and harder to watch FOX News for me..
Your post looks like a note from a serial killer. Maybe you’re just deranged.
Useless blame game.
Remember when Mitt criticized Obama’s response to Benghazi, the press let him have it, claiming he was just playing politics and that he “jumped the gun”......he put his tail between his legs after that.
Easier than taking responsibility for rooting out voter disenfranchisement of the members of their Republican Party.
Of course Romney’s worth a cool coupla hundred million or so...
but how about all the Republican Party grass roots..who need jobs and their vote.. who humped it...where’d their vote go?
Who is your candidate who would have beaten Obama this time?
Umm, Herman quit.
Palin never got in.
The rest couldn’t beat Romney, who couldn’t beat Obama.
Even on FR we couldn’t unite behind any one of them.
Of course re-electing Obama keeps the nation on a terrible course. And yes, it reflects badly on a large segment of voters.
My point was we’re not the victims of some GOP conspiracy, or the establishment or elite or whatever. We’re not victims or battered wives as someone else suggested.
We had a weak field; we need better candidates.
We had sideliners and third-pary vote wasters; we need more unity.
And we need to work on our long term problems in education and culture.
Playing the victim doesn’t help.
Well put (both your posts).
Unfortunately those were split among three, four or five other candidates.
My other point was we were not unified.
Weak candidates, lack of unity. Not victims of "the Establishment."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.