Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"There's a Sense That We Let Mitt Romney Down"
Townhall.com ^ | November 9, 2012 | Guy Benson

Posted on 11/09/2012 4:02:56 PM PST by Kaslin

Mitt Romney's top campaign aides conducted a conference call with conservative journalists this afternoon, during which they assessed the damage from Tuesday's electoral loss.  The participants included campaign manager Matt Rhoades, political director Rich Beeson, polling director Neil Newhouse and digital director Zac Moffatt.  A few notes from the call:

Matt Rhoades, on the overall race: "No campaign is perfect, and we certainly made our share of mistakes." On Paul Ryan: "He has come away from this race with a very bright future before him."

Rich Beeson, on the campaign's strategy: "We won independents and held the base.  We thought that would be a winning combination." Given the heavily Democratic electorate, it was not.  On Boston's computerized 'ORCA' ground game tracking system:  "This was the first time we'd ever done anything like [ORCA] on that grand a scale.  We got data from 91% of precincts across the country," he said, noting that the program will help Republicans track and predict voting behavior in the future.  As for reports that the system crashed on election day, Beeson conceded that there were significant technical issues: "There were glitches in the system, I don't want to gloss over that. We were able to beta test it, but not at the volume of data we needed."  He said the program thought it had been hacked, which triggered a laborious process of rebooting the whole system with new passwords. 

Neil Newhouse, on the outcome:  "It didn't end up like we'd hoped for and expected (more on the "expected" part later).  [The Obama campaign] ran a very small campaign in a very big way." Newhouse said the opposition effectively targeted specific demos in their coalition, using contraceptives, DREAM Act waivers, and student loan policies to entice key elements of their base to show up and vote.  They "pretty damn well succeeded" at turning out their voters, he concluded.  As an example, Newhouse pointed out that in Ohio, 160,000 more African Americans voted in 2012 than in 2008. Obama's margin of victory in the state was roughly 100,000. On the other hand, "we had fewer white voters turn out [nationwide] in this election than in 2008.  The question we have to ask ourselves is 'how did that happen?'" 

Newhouse, on Romney's strengths: In exit polling, voters were asked about four metrics of leadership.  Romney beat Obama on the questions of (a) which candidate has a positive vision for the country, (b) which candidate shares "my values," and (c) which candidate is a "strong leader."  Despite batting .750, Romney got crushed by approximately 60 points on the question of which candidate "cares about people like me."  This suggests that the Obama campaign's early "kill Romney" approach -- painting the former governor and CEO as an out-of-touch, uber-wealthy, outsourcing robber barron -- worked.   It also suggests that personal connection and relatability are now more important factors in national elections than experience or accomplishment.  Newhouse added that the right track/wrong track statistics tightened by 48 net points from November of 2011 through election day, which helped boost the president's approval rating to non-fatal levels.  

Newhouse, on the effects of Hurricane Sandy:  "It was not determinative. It was a factor, it was not the factor.  But it hit the pause button on our campaign and our messaging for about four or five days, and it gave Obama the opportunity to look presidential."  Newhouse said exit polling indicated that about three percent of the electorate said Sandy was the most important factor (!) in their presidential choice, and that many of them made up minds in the last few days of the campaign.

Question and answer period:

The Washington Examiner's Michael Barone asked whether the birth control attacks were effective.  The campaign brain trust said that HHS' contraception move was narrowly targeted at a segment of the population -- young unmarried women, whom Obama carried by 38 points on Tuesday.  Romney's advisers said Team Obama knew exactly what they were doing by running the unseemly "first time" ad; they recognized they'd face blowback from some elements of the population, but thought it was worth it on balance, in order to appeal to young women. 

PJTV's Roger Simon asked about Romney's bruising loss among Hispanic voters.  The entire Romney team acknowledged that this was a big problem, and that Republicans need to think hard about how to reverse this trend.  Part of the issue, Beeson said, was that Obama's campaign spent heavily on brutally negative ads against Romney for many months over the late spring and summer, before Romney had the resources to fight back.  "By that time, [Hispanic voters] were already predisposed against us," he said.  Romney's advisers also mentioned that the attack ads Obama ran on Spanish language radio and television were far "meaner, tougher and over-the-top" than "any attacks they leveled against us in English."  This battle played out intensely, but off the mainstream media's radar.

I asked about the October "expand the map" strategy, which demonstrably failed.  Was the campaign engaging in a deliberate head-fake by pretending that Pennsylvania, Minnesota and other states were in play -- or did they actually believe they had their core path locked up (through Virginia, Florida, Colorado, etc), and thus had the luxury of expansion?  I also wondered aloud which scenario would be worse (misdirection vs. bad intel). The Romney brain trust seemed to side-step the heart of my inquiry, instead focusing on the Pennsylvania aspect.  Newhouse: "The decision was not made lightly to expand the map. In order for us to go into PA, we had to have every other friggen' thing in the campaign fully funded. We went to everyone to make sure they were fully funded before we went into Pennsylvania.  Every other need was met before we did that. The guys on the ground in PA, including our polling guys, were very encouraging. Our numbers were positive there. As it turns out, it was relatively close, but it wasn't as close as other target states." Beeson: "The Obama campaign saw the same numbers we did. They clearly saw it closing. We wanted to wait as long as we could to prevent them from getting that Philadelphia machine fired up in time."

These analyses make sense, but only within the context of the campaign truly believing that they were safe in other crucial must-have states -- a cataclysmically wrong assumption.  When I stopped by Romney headquarters in Boston back in September, Newhouse said his team was anticipating a D+3 electorate in November.  This seemed entirely reasonable to me, based on evidence from 2004, 2008 and 2010, but it turned out to be incorrect.  The actual electorate this year was D+6.  Post-election news reports reveal that Mitt Romney was "shell-shocked" by his loss, an outcome that can only be explained by shockingly flawed internal polling.  Was that polling predicated on a D+3 model?  If so, that would explain the huge disconnect between Boston's expectations and the final results.  I'll reiterate that although the D+3 model seemed sensible on its face, it was the campaign pollsters' job to figure out if their assumptions comported with reality.  In retrospect, their failure to do so looms very, very large.

Finally, Joel Pollak from Breitbart asked if the campaign's gurus felt like they'd let down the American people, particularly Romney's supporters.  The takeaway line from a relatively broad answer to this (admittedly tough) question came from Neil Newhouse: "There's a sense that we let Mitt Romney down."  If the candidate truly expected to be delivering a victory speech on Tuesday night, even as he was in the process of losing the popular vote by two percentage points and the electoral college by a wider margin, Newhouse's assertion isn't too far off.


UPDATE - Here is Jen Rubin's WaPo write-up of the same call.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-88 next last

1 posted on 11/09/2012 4:02:59 PM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; Arthurio

“He said the program thought it had been hacked, which triggered a laborious process of rebooting the whole system with new passwords.”

My connections in the intelligence community seriously believe that this was a possibility.


2 posted on 11/09/2012 4:05:57 PM PST by Perdogg (Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA4) for President 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: Kaslin

You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

We still don’t know what Mitt’s politics are, or why he invested so many years of his life and 55 million personal dollars to become president.

We do know that Mitt is a political disaster, in 20 years of running for office, and breaking spending records in every race, Mitt has a single victory to his name.

Mitt served a single term as Governor, destroyed the state party, was forced to give up his hope of reelection, and left office with 34% approval, and turning the office over to the democrats ever since.

Without even looking into his long political history, didn’t his losing to the unfunded Huckabee and the old man McCain reveal how weak he is?


4 posted on 11/09/2012 4:10:27 PM PST by ansel12 (Todd Akin was NOT the tea party candidate, Sarah Steelman was, Brunner had tea party support also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Therein lies the truth.

His campaign was ‘I’m not Obama!’ Puhlease!


5 posted on 11/09/2012 4:13:00 PM PST by griswold3 (Big Government does not tolerate rivals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Was Romney allowed to invest some of his own money early on in the campaign? If so, why didn’t he? Another thing - the primaries go on way too long. That gave the other side a head start on their negative ads while Romney was still running to win the nomination and then had to wait for funding and financing to come in. His ads were too milquetoast and needed to hit harder on obama. Like McCain, they played the nice guy bit - never once attacking his policies. Sure, they would have called him a racist, but they were calling him that anyway. So, he should have rolled the dice and played the game. Even if it didn’t work - at least he could have put up more of a fight.

I’m sick of these GOPE types running our campaigns. They suck at it and we do nothing but lose with their misinformation. Romney was playing for the independent votes only - his “reaching across the aisle” meme was a losing strategy just as it was with McCain. Heck, it was probably McCain who told him to use that.

The campaign shut out the conservatives at the convention, as well as Ron Paul voters. Do you think this went unnoticed? No, it didn’t. Where was Newt? Either Newt or Sarah would have been far better key note speakers than Christie - who only patted himself on the back.

I’m going to be honest - I almost didn’t go vote on election day. I felt something so wrong, but went out of hoping to defeat obama. I could have stayed home and had the same outcome.


6 posted on 11/09/2012 4:13:45 PM PST by Catsrus (WANT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
"There's a sense that we let Mitt Romney down."

You let the entire country down. Jokers.

7 posted on 11/09/2012 4:15:28 PM PST by GVnana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
So these guys see the 'first time' ad and what goes through their mind is 'unseemly' ~ how about this scenario ~ a Republican 'first time' ad with a black woman and an hispanic woman talking about their 'first time' and the guy walked away from them leaving them with nothing but a baby to care for and welfare, and their parents were no help.

That would be 'his first time' because he's got a couple of other women out there pregnant, and no one knows where he is.

A low blow, sure, but making it real!

8 posted on 11/09/2012 4:16:38 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

That sort of thing will happen to people who imagine they are really running for president ~ you attract just all sorts of nasty characters.


9 posted on 11/09/2012 4:19:39 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

[He said the program thought it had been hacked, which triggered a laborious process of rebooting the whole system with new passwords. ]

Hmmmmm.


10 posted on 11/09/2012 4:19:44 PM PST by KansasGirl ("If you have a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."--B. Hussein Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
As for reports that the system crashed on election day, Beeson conceded that there were significant technical issues: "There were glitches in the system, I don't want to gloss over that. We were able to beta test it, but not at the volume of data we needed." He said the program thought it had been hacked, which triggered a laborious process of rebooting the whole system with new passwords.

Wreckless stupidity. The republican party has -- for decades -- the best voter precinct database ever seen. You fools relied on untested technology instead of feet on the ground. Stupid, lazy, incompetent suits.

11 posted on 11/09/2012 4:21:21 PM PST by GVnana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

But the GOPe told us to get on board because he was the most electable! He would appeal to the moderates and independents not like those stale conservatives.


12 posted on 11/09/2012 4:24:04 PM PST by bonehead4freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Rich Beeson, on the campaign’s strategy: “We won independents and held the base.

_________________________________
NOT! The base said FURINO!


13 posted on 11/09/2012 4:24:04 PM PST by SgtBob (Freedom is not for the faint of heart. Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Yes Ansell-———but it was his turn.

Whose turn will it be next time Christie?


14 posted on 11/09/2012 4:28:11 PM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GBT1945

I’d tell you to do that to yourself, but as Clint pointed out, that’s just not possible.


15 posted on 11/09/2012 4:29:32 PM PST by Gator113 (I would have voted for NEWT, now it's Romney & Ryan.~Just livin' life, my way~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“There’s a Sense That We Let Mitt Romney Down”
I recommend these guys commit suicide at once to make up for their disgrace. That would have the added benefit of making sure they never manage any campaign again and remove some GOP-e candy a**es permanently.


16 posted on 11/09/2012 4:30:14 PM PST by GenXteacher (You have chosen dishonor to avoid war; you shall have war also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Catsrus

The biggest trouble with the Primary is that New Hampshire and Iowa start it, Both voted Democrat and New Hampshire allows Crossovers, In other words we have Democrats picking our candidates.

Now I know that others can win after the New hampshire primary, but it gives the Dems poick a head start that is hard to beat.

Republicans have to refuse to participate in the New Hampshire primary.


17 posted on 11/09/2012 4:30:49 PM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Mitt Romney did exactly what McCain did. Both of them made the deliberate decision not to use the ammunition they had. McCain refused to point out the glaring holes in the Obama resume. Romney did not even attempt to explore the nefarious role Obama played in the slaughter of those Americans in Benghazi. They gave Obama the presidency.

I fear that both Parties are leading us to the same place. America is not intended to any longer to be a super power. In my view all of these people are traitors.


18 posted on 11/09/2012 4:31:25 PM PST by GeneWil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bonehead4freedom

A good op-ed on your point. Link to entire article at the bottom.

Deja Vu All Over Again- Another “can’t lose” moderate...loses

“...Lord insists we need more “New Reagans” — people of all backgrounds, all races, all religions — who are well-versed in conservatism.

And where did Marco Rubio, now hailed by the Republican establishment as a 2016 favorite, come from? Not from the RINO establishment. It backed Charlie “Tan-in-a-Can” Crist and fought Rubio tooth and nail. It was the Tea Party and Constitutional Conservative movement that gave birth to Rubio, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, etc.

There are flawed candidates, to be sure, among those backed by the conservative wing of the Republican Party. RINOs point to Sharon Angle and Richard Mourdock, for example, forgetting that no one wins 100 percent of their slate. Until the afternoon of election day, when the unions started busing in voters from places unknown, Angle was in fact leading Harry Reid handily.

And one inappropriate and/or misconstrued remark by Mourdock (and a crackpot third-party candidate) helped cook his campaign.

It’s not the conservatives who need to go away. It’s the RINO establishment that should make themselves scarce. Once again, a mushy centrist — who supposedly would appeal to wide swaths of the electorate — lost in a race that should have been a slamdunk.

And in this existential showdown between liberty and tyranny, Mitt Romney could not even attract the same number of voters as... John McCain. Constitutional conservatives, Tea Party conservatives, and fiscal conservatives don’t need to retreat. The RINO country club set needs to cede control to the true heart of the party. And if they refuse to cede power, we will defeat them as we have time and time again.”

Link:http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2012/11/deja-vu-all-over-again-another-cant.html


19 posted on 11/09/2012 4:31:45 PM PST by CharlesMartelsGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Your connections in the "intelligence community" likely don't know their asses from holes in the ground from a systems availability design perspective. Thus the key statement in the article that you may have missed:

"There were glitches in the system, I don't want to gloss over that. We were able to beta test it, but not at the volume of data we needed."

As I said on another thread early this morning, these types of failures happen for one of two reasons. One of the reasons I noted was the failure to test a system at peak load to ensure availability.

Looks like I was right.

I also said that an improperly designed system which did not take into account peak usage periods, nor an engineered capability to bring online additional capacity quickly, as needed could appear as though it had been hacked.

The appearance that the system was hacked is entirely due to a design failure in which an over-burdened system fails to respond.

As noted in the article, they did not test with the volume of data (peak performance) that they expected.

Systems Analysis and Design 101 would've taught them that's exactly what they should've done before going live. Anyone who's spent 25 years in Information Technology designing highly available, reliable and scalable infrastructures across banking, finance, insurance, legal advertising and automotive industries would say the same thing.

20 posted on 11/09/2012 4:33:15 PM PST by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Catsrus
Romney got crushed by approximately 60 points on the question of which candidate "cares about people like me." This suggests that the Obama campaign's early "kill Romney" approach -- painting the former governor and CEO as an out-of-touch, uber-wealthy, outsourcing robber barron -- worked.

This is the key. This is why all those working-class white voters just plain didn't show up. We had the election in the bag. It was ours to lose. They were never going to vote for Obama no matter what. We only had to come up with an acceptable candidate. And we didn't.

Many of us saw this coming in the primaries. FR helped lead the charge in fighting against a Romney nomination. Why nominate a candidate with 1%'er baggage in a season when class warfare, income inequality, Wall Street distrust and corporate bailouts had already ticked so many people off? What was so great about Romney that made it worth trying to overcome that baggage before even beginning to get our political message out?

Problem is the beltway blue bloods that run the GOP are completely tone deaf to the perspective of the common folk in flyover country. They may have believed Romney was a great candidate. But they are totally blind to the distrust most people have towards people who got super rich by pushing big money around in things like corporate buyouts or stock trades, as opposed to someone they could respect who built a successful company from the ground up, became a rich and famous star through pure talent or came up with a brilliant new invention.

The long primary wouldn't have made a difference. There was no way Romney was going to be able to "define" himself in any way that could overcome the Democrats' negative highlighting of his business career. If you were involved in numerous companies that shut down and created bitter employees to rail against you in ad after ad, that's a little too steep of a hill to climb. Besides, whatever Romney did to define himself in this campaign didn't work out too well. It wasn't the "lateness" of his effort, it was the poorness of his effort and the incredible weight he would have had to lift to make himself seem like he could relate to the common man.

21 posted on 11/09/2012 4:33:27 PM PST by JediJones (Newt Gingrich warned us that the "King of Bain" was unelectable. Did you listen?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

I’m looking into my crystal ball for the spelling of the next GOP candidate’s name, it is too fuzzy to make out for sure, but I think it is spelled, “anybody, anything, except for a conservative”.


22 posted on 11/09/2012 4:34:00 PM PST by ansel12 (Todd Akin was NOT the tea party candidate, Sarah Steelman was, Brunner had tea party support also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
No, the Republican establishment let us all down.......again.

We're sick of the "reach across the aisle" types and are yearning for someone willing and able to kick a$$ and take names.

23 posted on 11/09/2012 4:36:33 PM PST by elkfersupper ( Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

I love this idea. The Republican Party has allowed the DemoRats to cater to the masses through “shallow emotion” politics. It’s time to start playing through not fear or shallowness but “real life situational” politics in ads, radio and social media.


24 posted on 11/09/2012 4:37:40 PM PST by FURINOS1978
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

but but but he has such nice hair and it was his turn too.


25 posted on 11/09/2012 4:45:30 PM PST by Graybeard58 (What G.O.P.e. candidate is in store for us in 2016?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FURINOS1978
REAL TV ~ REAL SMARMY TV too.

We lost 2006 over sexual matters ~ to wit, too many gay Republicans doing their stuff in public.

When it comes to sex and smarminess and homosexuals and bastardy and every sort of calumny and corruption the Democrats are unexcelled in this country. We need simply do realistic portrayals of real Democrats lying, cheating, stealing, catting around, raping, robbing ~ sitting in jail.

The numbers are on our side.

26 posted on 11/09/2012 4:46:15 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GeneWil

Romney should have called Obama a failure to his face at the second debate and told him flat out that he was elected to fix things, not to complain about his predecessor. He should have invoked Ronald Reagan. Reagan inherited a worse financial crisis with both high unemployment and rampant inflation. Yet, Reagan was immediately blamed for the country’s economic ills. He did not have an adoring press to cover for him. Reagan never blamed Jimmy Carter. Instead he rolled up his sleeves, got to work and fixed things. He didn’t take exotic vacations and play golf all the time. He held cabinet meetings, worked with Congress and held regular press conferences — remember those? I actually miss Helen Thomas because she reminds me of the time when Presidents of either party had the decency and accountability to go a few rounds with the press.


27 posted on 11/09/2012 4:47:33 PM PST by Atticus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: JediJones
This is why all those working-class white voters just plain didn't show up. We had the election in the bag. It was ours to lose. They were never going to vote for Obama no matter what. We only had to come up with an acceptable candidate. And we didn't.

I will never give those traitorous Obama-voters-by-default any excuse for what they did. Those idiots are being turned out of their jobs by the thousands right now. But at least they got to make their statement against the rich guy by staying home and not voting for him.

28 posted on 11/09/2012 4:48:38 PM PST by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Crack political correctness down the middle everyday and turn the left into outraged Berserkers. Day after day after day...

We would get the youth vote.


29 posted on 11/09/2012 4:51:51 PM PST by donna (Pray for revival.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
"It also suggests that personal connection and relatability are now more important factors in national elections than experience or accomplishment."

So they completely ignored history. This isn't anything new, they've been important for along time for the electorate. Clinton didn't say "I feel your pain" for nothing.

30 posted on 11/09/2012 4:53:11 PM PST by Tigermoth ("...in order to form a more perfect union.....and secure the blessings of liberty..")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Just today, one potential Democrat Presidential candidate, Petraeus, was sent home to make pot holders. John Kerry went after Hillary Clinton. They’re trying to determine their candidate right now.


31 posted on 11/09/2012 4:54:59 PM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FURINOS1978

Romney lost because the fix was in. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

We need to stop the “post game analysis” and consider the reality we face - indeed - the reality that pundits and news folk are all leading us away from because it is unthinkable.

No one is really discussing fraud, they are in fact avoiding that discussion, poo pooing it even.

WHY? What entity controls this country?


32 posted on 11/09/2012 4:55:04 PM PST by KittenClaws (You may have to fight a battle more than once in order to win it." - Margaret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: KittenClaws

Romney had the votes. I know it, you know it, he knew it, the RNC knew it, the democrats knew it.

He had the votes!


33 posted on 11/09/2012 4:58:36 PM PST by KittenClaws (You may have to fight a battle more than once in order to win it." - Margaret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: KittenClaws

Romney had the votes. I know it, you know it, he knew it, the RNC knew it, the democrats knew it.

He had the votes!


34 posted on 11/09/2012 4:58:36 PM PST by KittenClaws (You may have to fight a battle more than once in order to win it." - Margaret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: KittenClaws

Romney had the votes. I know it, you know it, he knew it, the RNC knew it, the democrats knew it.

He had the votes!


35 posted on 11/09/2012 4:58:45 PM PST by KittenClaws (You may have to fight a battle more than once in order to win it." - Margaret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: KittenClaws

Romney had the votes. I know it, you know it, he knew it, the RNC knew it, the democrats knew it.

He had the votes!


36 posted on 11/09/2012 4:58:49 PM PST by KittenClaws (You may have to fight a battle more than once in order to win it." - Margaret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: KittenClaws

Romney had the votes. I know it, you know it, he knew it, the RNC knew it, the democrats knew it.

He had the votes!


37 posted on 11/09/2012 4:58:49 PM PST by KittenClaws (You may have to fight a battle more than once in order to win it." - Margaret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Tigermoth

Mitt did learn to warm up a little as the campaign season wore on. He told heartwarming stories even if he did not emote very well.

I think he poured on the power too late.


38 posted on 11/09/2012 4:59:59 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (How long before all this "fairness" kills everybody, even the poor it was supposed to help???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

We lost 2006 because we spent years spending money like Democrats... we only got the house back in 2010 because Democrats proceeded to spend like Bolsheviks.


39 posted on 11/09/2012 5:01:57 PM PST by rwilson99 (Please tell me how the words "shall not perish and have everlasting life" would NOT apply to Mary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: rwilson99

Mark Foley had a lot to do with the loss and you know it. Don’t try covering up for him or his little friends ~ the Republicans who vote do not tolerate that behavior. Democrats don’t care but they know how to stir up the Republican voters to just stay home.


40 posted on 11/09/2012 5:08:09 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
We still don’t know what Mitt’s politics are, or why he invested so many years of his life and 55 million personal dollars to become president.

It's simple. He's the "Anointed one" that was going to save America. It was his destiny.

Oops, someone else must have been anointed. I'm sure there will be some revelation to that extent over the next 2 or 3 years.

Harry Reid perhaps?

41 posted on 11/09/2012 5:19:53 PM PST by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal
I will never give those traitorous Obama-voters-by-default any excuse for what they did. Those idiots are being turned out of their jobs by the thousands right now. But at least they got to make their statement against the rich guy by staying home and not voting for him.

It's not an excuse. It's just reality. Presidential elections, at least since suffrage, have always been won more on a candidate's personality and likability than on issues. We do have to be strategic in selecting our nominees so that they pass that test. Romney never did and it was understood and stated by many observers during the primary.

Absolutely, the ignorant electorate is a problem and they deserve blame for that. But that's a problem we should all be well aware of and strategize around if we want to win. So we deserve blame for not doing that.

Also, this is not so much about Romney being rich, but about his out-of-touch personality and him not having a compelling life story for how he made his riches that people could relate to. Trump might have had other problems as a candidate, but he is a rich guy that people could relate to on the drinking buddy level. Romney is just the Republican version of John Kerry.

42 posted on 11/09/2012 5:20:33 PM PST by JediJones (Newt Gingrich warned us that the "King of Bain" was unelectable. Did you listen?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
Mitt did learn to warm up a little as the campaign season wore on. He told heartwarming stories even if he did not emote very well.

Obviously his greatest improvement was in the first debate. His likability improved because of respect and admiration for his ability, if not necessarily for relatability. But this election was too important to pick a candidate who still had his campaign training wheels on. I still think Newt Gingrich would have pulled this off. He would have had no problem relating to the common, blue collar white guys that stayed home. They would've believed that he was on their side. And he wouldn't have held anything back when criticizing Obama.

43 posted on 11/09/2012 5:23:51 PM PST by JediJones (Newt Gingrich warned us that the "King of Bain" was unelectable. Did you listen?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

We not only let Romney down, we let America down!


44 posted on 11/09/2012 5:37:34 PM PST by mtnwmn (Liberalism leads to Socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #45 Removed by Moderator

Comment #46 Removed by Moderator

To: Kaslin
Why wasn’t the vote fraud question raised?
47 posted on 11/09/2012 5:46:32 PM PST by Nuc 1.1 (Nuc 1 Liberals aren't Patriots. Remember 1789!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

Here’s how you do it:

A committee decides on the three candidates that will run (Bring back the smoke-filled rooms!) More than three is counter-productive.

The first Primary is in Texas.....the one who finishes last, drops out.


48 posted on 11/09/2012 5:49:38 PM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Yeah it was them awful bigotted Mormons...

From the Mormon owned newspaper the Deseret News out of Salt Lake City, Utah...

Friday, Nov. 9 2012 11:20 a.m. MST

Pew analysis: Mitt Romney pulls in fewer Mormon votes than Bush

Summary According to a new Pew analysis, Republican Mitt Romney received a slightly smaller percentage of the Mormon vote than George W. Bush did in 2004, although Romney did see more of the Jewish vote than any recent GOP candidate.

Our take: According to a new Pew analysis, Republican Mitt Romney received a slightly smaller percentage of the Mormon vote than George W. Bush did in 2004, although Romney did see more of the Jewish vote than any recent GOP candidate.

“Some 80 percent of Mormons voted for Bush, while 78 percent voted for Romney, who is Mormon,” U.S. News reported. “That’s not to say Mormons weren’t in Romney’s corner this election. Pew points out that 78 percent means nearly 8 in 10 Mormons voted for Romney, while only 2 in 10 voted for Obama.”

According to Pew, exit polling data for Mormons was not available in 2000 and 2008.

“It appears that Bush simply received more of the religious vote overall, garnering more of the Catholic and Protestant vote than Romney as well,” the U.S. News report said. “Romney, however, received more of the Jewish vote than Bush or any recent GOP candidate, with 30 percent of Jewish voters casting ballots for Romney. Sixty-nine percent voted for Obama, a nine percentage point drop from 2008.”

Religiously unaffiliated voters were firmly in Obama’s corner in 2012, Pew said, coming in at 70 percent. More than six in ten voters who say they never attend religious services voted for Obama, while those who said they attended religious services a few times a month or year went for Obama over Romney by a 55 percent to 43 percent margin.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765615187/Pew-analysis-Mitt-Romney-pulls-in-fewer-Mormon-votes-than-Bush.html


49 posted on 11/09/2012 6:33:16 PM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
On the other hand, "we had fewer white voters turn out [nationwide] in this election than in 2008. The question we have to ask ourselves is 'how did that happen?'"

FCOL these people are stupidass numbnutz! Rino, rino, rino, rino, LOSERS, LOSERS, LOSERS!!!! The FACTUAL picture was right in front of your faces! The empirical data was overwhelming evident!

I guarantee the republican party will do the exact same thing next election. There is no way around it, the GOPe are just plain idiots.

50 posted on 11/09/2012 6:45:02 PM PST by sirchtruth (Freedom is not free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-88 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson