Sure. But the hope was that he'd concentrate on economics, hold steady on "social and cultural conditions," and provide a good example. As politics goes, that may or may not have been an unreasonable hope as far as Romney goes but it's about the best we can do. Certainly, I'd have been happier with Bush if held steady on social issues and put more into good management and fiscal issues.
Most Americans don't like their bosses and have trouble with landlords and creditors. Talking about one's business experience is not usually a good way to win them over.
I guess not.
Many, like me, voted for Romney despite our relative poverty (I am in the lower middle class) and despite the fact that Obama's social program could benefit us financially. On the other hand, many wealthy people who stood to gain from Romney's promises of lowered capital gains taxes pulled their levers for Obama. Homo economicus is not as powerful as is our humanity. We Americans care about higher things.
That is also true, and Romney alienated voters with the "47%" talk.
Where were the Republicans who were either hot or cold? During the nomination process, each of the compelling, colorful Republican options, ranging from Herman Cain to Michele Bachmann, was thrown into the GOP dumpster by establishmentarians who were convinced that instead, voters needed to be lectured about statistics and given free copies of the Constitution.
C'mon. What is Bob thinking? Those candidates shot themselves in the foot -- again and again.
As an Evangelical values voter, I felt like I was the dirty family secret asked to come into the "big tent" through the side flap. In the end, I voted for Romney, but many people like me voted for the Democrats because at least the Democrats had a relatable message about compassion and mercy. Or, in many cases, they decided to stay home and spend the day praying to God for strength. At least God, unlike the Republicans, will never forget us or be ashamed of us.
My first reaction was: I'm not an Anglo-Saxon, but I don't complain about it or make a lot about being an outsider. But there is some sense here. Romney couldn't shake the "elitist" "rich guy" thing.
Selwyn Duke noted, as I've been thinking as well, that ethnic minorities have only one reason to vote for Republicans: social conservatism, not worship of the U.S. Constitution or a flood of economic numbers that are, when all is tallied, still just numbers. As a member of that sought-after class of people known as Latinos/Hispanics/people-of-color/call-us-what-you-will, I could not agree more with what Duke wrote. I voted for Mitt Romney because he stood up for traditional marriage and against abortion -- had he talked only about states' rights, due process, and lowering unemployment, I would have voted for Obama.
Okay, but why's he run down the Constitution so much? Isn't it part of "traditional American values"?
Anyway, this isn't a bad article about the election.
That's because the Republican Establishmentarians are elitist rich, white guys. If it were up to them, there'd be property requirements of $1,000,000 in free assets, income of $200,000/year, and a Mayflower lineage attached to the franchise.
But the irony of the "47%" donnybrook is that Romney turned out to be exactly right, n/w/s that Axelplouffe and the rest of the Communist carnivores made it the new "rum, ruin, and Romanism". It turns out that even the fabled Hispanic vote turned out to be just about ripping off people who work, to give los povrecitos de la tierra free stuff por gracias -- y su voto.
By refusing to engage social issues, the Republicans let Obama define the election as being about "my Obamaphone", "my abortion", and "getting my Aunt Juana into the country so she can collect welfare and have her free operation".