Replies

Look at the polls taken earlier in the campaign. So far as I can tell, Romney consistently polled better against Obama than any of the other candidates.

Polls of likely voters, what about the 93 million voters that did not vote?

What about the constant lies that Romney, and his surrogates, spread about the other candidates?

What about the open primaries?

What about the fact that all of the polling groups were wrong on the final numbers?

What about the fact that most of the polling organizations are little better than shapers of opinion vs. taking the pulse of voters at any given moment?

As far as the faults and flaws that you pointed out about the ACTUAL conservatives running in the race, how come the press, including our conservative press, did not go after the hypocrisy of Romney with his Progressive Liberal views, positions, and actions right up until the time he started running for President?

Why did not the press go after Romney for his support of Socialized Medicine, AKA, RomneyCare with it's Individual Mandate, stilling money from producers to give it to those who did not earn it in the form of Health Insurance, it's inclusion of Abortion, etc.?

Why did not the press go after Romney for lying about being a "Severe Conservative" and always being Pro-Life at CPAC, and then coming out AFTER the Primaries in support of Gays in the Military, Gay Adoption, Gays in the Boy Scouts, and support of Abortion in the cases of Incest, Rape, Life, and HEALTH of the mother?

All of your talking points are GOP-E based, none of them are from the basis of someone who really believes in conservatism from a principled perspective.

None of the candidates, Romney included, was that stellar. There was no stand-out among them who could have won.

Do you really think it was "Romney lies" that did in Perry or Bachmann or Caine or Santorum or Gingrich? Didn't they have obvious negatives? If any of them had gotten the nomination the DNC would have hammered away at those negatives. I don't see any of them doing any better than Romney did, at least according to the polling data, and the polls did come closer to the actual result than people who scoffed at them.

Romney was a lousy candidate -- though it's hard to see that any of his rivals was any better. Those 47% comments did him in, as did the perception of him as a rich guy. Disaffected voters, people who disagreed with the Democrats on social issues but didn't like Republicans because they thought them the party of the rich, stayed away from Romney. Some of them had voted for other Republicans in the past, like Reagan or Bush, many of them just didn't vote Republican or didn't vote at all.

Maybe another candidate could have picked up a few more of those voters (and lost more in other groups), but I don't see that a substantial number of voters who really cared about abortion stayed home because of Romney's earlier opinions. My sense is that those who really cared about the issue held their nose and crossed their fingers and voted for Romney, unless they were already alienated for other reasons that were as important to them.

If you are from California, is it still the state that elected Ronald Reagan? Do you still find people with the same views and same quality or character as those of a generation ago? If you don't, is it so strange that the country as a whole may also have changed over the last 20 or 30 years? I guess you're a true believer, which is fine so far as principles go, but maybe not so good when it comes to empirical judgments.