Agreed. Romney *assumed* that everybody would see through 0bama’s lies about the recession and its cause, so he failed to counteract them with such simple statements as that the recession ended more than 3 years previously, and that it was caused by Democrat housing policies. Romney should have been much harsher on 0bama’s overall competence, ethics and honesty, too.
Well, there’s the truth of it. I’ve been hearing from people who bought the Obama propaganda. They are harshly lecturing me that bailouts and stimulus began under Bush; Obama had a reasonable plan to cut certain programs, but the GOP refused to “ increase revenue,” so Obama could not do it; Romney had no plan except to take away “abortion rights”. These are people who think of themselves - and are regarded by others - as highly educated and intelligent.
Romney was, in retrospect, preaching to the choir and winking at us. We get it, but he thought the vast majority got it as well, so he could coast along after the first debate rather than continuing to aggressively challenge Obama. The first debate was a game changer because so many had spent 4 years or more blaming the economy on Bush, not Obama. Romney opened the door, but he needed to continually try to pierce the fog surrounding those people. If the majority loved Obama so much that he couldn’t be criticized, then Romney would not have won the first debate.
Instead, Romney backed off, and those with a superficial understanding were left focused on the War on Women. I found it insulting, but the majority of women bought it, and were comfortable doing so because they couldnt say what Romney’s plan was. They have no knowledge of issues like Benghazi because Romney refused to raise it. Perhaps for fear Obama would say that he had foreign policy experience and Romney didn’t.
All that being said, Obama lost millions of votes and the 100% turnout, 100% Obama vote totals coming out of Miami, Cleveland and Philly illustrate obvious vote fraud.