Replies

Sure, they’re responsible. But leadership is getting other people to do the right thing that you want them to do. People are people and elections are won by those who can get other people to vote for them and their cause.

Romney ran a purposely non-ideological campaign. His closing argument before Sandy was a debate in which he avoided talking about Benghazi and instead spent his share of the 90 minutes praising Obama on his foreign policies, attempting to convince voters that he’d do and have done exactly the same as Obama.

More people don’t like Obamacare than do, but Romney’s ego and record both had him tied up in defending its progenitor, Romneycar, which Romney simply advocated for implementation on a state by state level, rather than Obamacare’s national level. (Though even in Obamacare, the exchanges must be decided and implemented state by state already. In the end, both systems are a path to fully nationalized healthcare and Romney completely lost it as an issue.

As to taxes and economic policy, there was Romney promising that he’d only implement a system that guaranteed those nasty 1%ers pay at least as much as they’re paying now. On energy, he was for his ethanol—his own version of corrupt, crony and inefficient government investment and mandate.

Romney went out of his way to distance himself from the tea party (and the tea party’s natural leader, Sarah Palin). In that sense he virtually didn’t really ask for Middle America’s vote at all.

Oh, and his campaign cronies made themselves rich buying incredibly overpriced TV ads. They botched not only both their major technology initiatives, but along the way they took 40,000 full-day, election-day volunteers away from any productivity and much needed GOTV efforts.

This loss is indeed on the guy in charge. The guy who sent his minions into McCain’s campaign to torpedo Palin (and McCain’s campaign) in 2008, and further used his money to buy the nomination this cycle.

Yes, this loss is very much on Romney indeed.