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

Skip to comments.

Why Mitt Romney Lost
Newsmax ^ | Nov 7, 2012 | Christopher Ruddy

Posted on 11/08/2012 4:53:31 AM PST by KeyLargo

Newsmax Why Mitt Romney Lost Wednesday, November 7, 2012 02:24 PM

By: Christopher Ruddy Newsmax

Christopher Ruddy’s Perspective: It was the worst of times and the worst of times.

With the 2012 election results in, there are no short- or even medium-term "silver linings" for Republicans.

President Barack Obama has won a decisive victory and the GOP, expecting to gain Senate seats, actually had a net loss of three.

The "morning after" will bring the expected explanations and after-game quarterbacking. Still, it is important that the GOP understand why we lost this one in hopes of future victory.

Perhaps the easy explanation is that two hurricanes and two betrayals by Chris Christie killed Mitt Romney's chances.

The first hurricane was Isaac, the one that skirted Tampa in late August during the Republican convention. That one seriously disrupted the official schedule.

GOP star Marco Rubio — who gave the best speech of the convention — was bumped off prime-time TV coverage, and so was the video biography "introducing" Mitt to the nation.

Aging actor Clint Eastwood was scrambled into the schedule to offer a funny but often incoherent monologue with an empty chair. He stole Mitt's show. And prime-time keynoter Chris Christie barely mentioned the nominee or Obama in a speech that sounded like the New Jersey governor was pumping his re-election.

The ground lost in Tampa wasn't regained until the first debate in Denver, when Romney shined. It was the first, best, and last time he would really sparkle.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: blame; loss; reasons; romney; romney2012; ruddy; ryan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 last
To: KeyLargo

Romney lost because he is Romney.

A product of a small insular group of poeple, who live in Utah.

We tried to rally the base, but fact is we were outnumbered because a lot of people simply do not trust his religion.

That is a fact, and very few are speaking of that. Romney’s religion joined with the fact that quite a lot of Republicans simply have sold out to foreign interests.

We need to bring back businesses to America.

And we need a leader.

We lost because we do not have one.


21 posted on 11/08/2012 5:47:46 AM PST by Cringing Negativism Network (America doesn't need any new laws. America needs freedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck

“I’d say seniors are more concerned about their Medicare benefits but the concept is the same.”

Yes, both SS and Mediscare.

No matter what the Republicans said about Obama robbing Medicare of Billons of dollars, the Democrats ran a campaign of scaring seniors and it worked.


22 posted on 11/08/2012 5:50:17 AM PST by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

Any articles that focus on Obama voters, Obama and minorities, Obama, Obama, Obama miss what happened in this election.

This election was about Republican and pro-Republican turnout—as in a lack of it.

That is the issue—all the rest of the analysis is total and complete garbage.


23 posted on 11/08/2012 5:51:24 AM PST by cgbg (HLM--"Democracy is the theory that people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo
I'm sick of this blame Romney crap. Romney lost because people want free stuff from the government. Obama offered more free stuff. If people stayed home, it was because they were afraid Romney was going to take away their free stuff, but couldn't vote for Obama. That's it. Period. It wasn't because we ran a moderate. In fact, it was because he was too conservative. Not that I want to win with a liberal, but people voted for free stuff. Game over. We lost. Conservatism lost. The majority of people don't want to do for themselves. They want to be handed everything. So, they voted for the party promising to give them other people's stuff. Tipping point reached and gone over. More people want free crap than want to do it for themselves. Until that changes (and it won't until we run out of other people's money, hat tip to Margaret Thatcher) we will not win a national election. Unless we promise more free stuff. In which case, it doesn't matter who wins.

This election has made me realize that I need to care less about politics and what goes on in DC and worry more about my personal relationships. Both with Christ and my family. The country is screwed, but I can't fix it. And the majority of people don't want it fixed, but want to continue to break it. So be it. Fine. Crash it. I'll be playing catch with my son.

24 posted on 11/08/2012 6:04:25 AM PST by tnlibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Java4Jay
Voters all over did not show up, democrat and republican. I haven't heard of "fear" being the cause. Democrats, though, have a much better GOTV machine than we do, and that is the difference.

Everyone else misinterprets the results. Sure there are some demographic trends, but if we get our people out to vote, we win. It used to be that way, that Republicans could be counted on to vote more reliably than Democrats, but that's changed because of the Democrat GOTV machine, bottom line.

25 posted on 11/08/2012 6:55:57 AM PST by Paradox (Unexpected things coming for the next few years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill

You are telling me that Republicans wussed out because they wanted Obama to win to prevent Riots? I have not hear a single republican tell me that.


26 posted on 11/08/2012 6:57:03 AM PST by Paradox (Unexpected things coming for the next few years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
0bummer'll just do what he did in his first 4yrs: declare Congress in 'recess', and make appointments. Use EOs to get things done around Congress. He considers the US Constitution an impediment, so he'll just go around it every chance he gets. Even if we'd gained in the Senate, he'd go around Congress.


27 posted on 11/08/2012 7:11:59 AM PST by Carriage Hill (America - a great idea while it lasted... it's over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Paradox

That NOT what I said. The articles I referred you to merely said there’d be possible riots if he won. I doubted that scenario from the first one I read, weeks ago. Pls do not put intent or words into my mouth. I am not the author of any of them, not do I agree. I just Googled that topic.


28 posted on 11/08/2012 7:15:55 AM PST by Carriage Hill (America - a great idea while it lasted... it's over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: tnlibertarian

President Ran Superior, If Ultranegative, Campaign

Posted 11/07/2012 07:01 PM ET

Election: The take-away from Mitt Romney’s defeat is that bare-knuckles campaigning and nonstop attack ads work — a tough lesson for Republicans who don’t like to street fight.

President Obama and his campaign strategists did an impressive tactical job of demonizing Romney in the key battleground states they needed to narrowly win reelection.

Their relentless propaganda campaign portraying Romney as a rapacious, venal plutocrat proved more powerful than we thought. Romney let them define him early in the campaign and the negative image stuck.

Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/110712-632608-obama-followed-alinsky-playbook-beats-romney.htm#ixzz2Be3Bz1dg


29 posted on 11/08/2012 7:27:34 AM PST by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo
Election: The take-away from Mitt Romney’s defeat is that bare-knuckles campaigning and nonstop attack ads work — a tough lesson for Republicans who don’t like to street fight.

Romney was willing to campaign that way against Republicans in the primaries. Of course, he needed a few defeats before he learned that.

30 posted on 11/08/2012 7:47:20 AM PST by Styria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

I think this article is pretty good. Of course, I had no idea mitt ran so few, so late, and so country club nicey ads against Obama. I did see his vicious anti newt ads so it is weird. Amazing that Rush Limbaugh even said that Romney would never run such ads against Obama. Wow.

.


31 posted on 11/08/2012 10:06:18 AM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill
That NOT what I said. The articles I referred you to merely said there’d be possible riots if he won. I doubted that scenario from the first one I read, weeks ago. Pls do not put intent or words into my mouth. I am not the author of any of them, not do I agree. I just Googled that topic.

My apologies, I was originally replying to JavaJay, who said he had heard this himself.

32 posted on 11/08/2012 12:34:55 PM PST by Paradox (Unexpected things coming for the next few years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Paradox

No problem. :^)


33 posted on 11/08/2012 12:56:39 PM PST by Carriage Hill (America - a great idea while it lasted... it's over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

No. Trying to pin this loss on misguided endorsements by Chris Christie or Clint Eastwood’s gig with the empty chair is misdirected.

The American people knew FULL WELL that Obummer was a loser. Even behind the dense smokescreen thrown up by the mainstream media, the least among us knew full that Obummer was bad, wrong, misguided, dangerous and following a completely wrong course for America. The list of his errors and sins could fill a book. The anger on Election Day was palpable!

Nobody sung his praises. Nobody bragged about the wonderful things he did for the country. People were PISSED at Obummer.

But he won anyway. Why? Where did that anger go? American voters have always “done the right thing” before when faced with a terrible President, but this time they went the other way. Why? Something doesn’t add up here. Why?


34 posted on 11/08/2012 8:02:50 PM PST by DNME (It's never over. Never.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DNME

Perhaps the voting age should be raised to 30 and things like this won’t happen.


35 posted on 11/09/2012 5:49:09 AM PST by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

Not going to happen, but I agree.

If they can’t have a beer until 21, they sure as HELL shouldn’t be trusted with a vote until at least then, unless they’ve served in the military.


36 posted on 11/09/2012 5:59:31 AM PST by Nickname
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 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