I wonder what points he would bring up...
“self-destructed over personal issues.”
*sigh*. This is a tired meme. Where did all these women go when he announced he was no longer running?
This election was not about Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. This election was about the nation and liberty. The nation lost.
I wonder how this ideal “pro growth” candidate would get his “pro growth” message to the electorate? Through the media? Riiiight. And what percentage of the electorate would even understand the concept of growth based economics? For this article to be accurate, the media would be neutral and informative and the electorate intelligent. Good luck with that.
We're not going to vote for a Mormon, or anybody else that belongs to a cult. We're also not going to vote for any more liberals. We had enough of that with Bush. This isn't rocket science.
Romney did not deserve to lose the election.
I’m as sick as anyone over the election and I firmly believe that fraud may have carried the day for the commie kenyan, but one fact is hard to dispute: Mitt Romney failed to carry his native state of Michigan, or his adopted state of Massachusetts and Paul Ryan failed to carry Wisconsin. The “native son” angle, as well as, perceived favoritism to be gained, should have counted for a significant number of votes in these states.
He didn’t lose the election.
ubama’s machine stacked the deck
fu forbes mag
Bump
I personally thought Mitt’s campaign was a vast, vast improvement over those run by previous corpses like Dole and McCain.
That being said, he missed the ball in several key areas.
-Presumed that the electorate would understand why Obama’s economic philosophy can not work. If you are not old enough to remember Reagan or the fall of the Berlin Wall, odds are you don’t have a clue about this.
-Never ever uttered the phrase “I’m going to get government off your backs”. This would have helped to bring the Ron Paul Libertarians on board, and been a welcome signal to a nation growing weary of bans on light bulbs and 32 ounce fountain drinks.
-Never specifically called Obama out for buying votes with goodies paid for by the rest of us.
-Never “went there” on Benghazi
Mitt offered a decent enough economic platform towards the end. It was half a loaf. In the social policy department he was less inspiring (but so was Barack, and there was expectation that Mitt would be more amenable to popular pressure, which would be different in Washington than it was in Massachusetts).
In hindsight, Mitt needed to have gotten an earlier start in vigorous campaigning, and needed to be careful not to equate traditional indicators of support, like rallies and signs, with voters going where and when it counted. Mitt was the nice guy who finished last. I still believe he would have won a hypothetical compulsory plebiscite. But the give-a-damn factor matters and the GOP did not rouse it as well as the Democrats did.
Romney wasn’t even on my radar during the primaries; but when he turned out to be the only viable alternative to the America-hating Marxist, I didn’t think twice about who I would vote for.
It wasn’t an election...it was a theft...we wuz rolled...and so were the CountryClub Republicans..by the Chicago thugs.
Really? How many Obama voters could even read let alone relate to this analysis? Obama voters related to Obamaphones, food stamps, birth control, amnesty, abortion,racism,lbgt rights,gay marriage, yada, yada, yada.....
Tactics, tactics, tactics....and tactics aimed at only Republicans. Where is the strategy to weaken the Democrats?
“If you understand yourself and you understand your opponents, in one hundred battles, you will not be defeated.”
Total BS article. The average voter wouldn’t have a clue about the issues Forbes claims is so important. The average voter does, however, totally understand “free stuff”. And it would appear that’s about all they DO understand. I suppose such understanding is a consequence of generations of entitlement rolls and government school propaganda.
I recall a selection but not an election...