Another Reason Romney Lost: He Had A Full Blown Idiot (Stuart Stevens) Running His Campaign.

Red State ^ | 2/25/2013 | Martin Knight

[IbJensen]

Meaning Romney Was Also An Idiot For Not Noticing ...

Sometime before Election Day, before the debates, people already knew Stuart Stevens and his team were in over their heads. From the utter fiasco of Romney’s convention speech, which he stripped down to a thin gruel of bland forgettable pablum (and of course, stripped of any mention of America’s servicemen and women abroad), throwing aside Bush’s micro-targetting programmed wholesale, allowing his Hollywood aspirations to make him give the prime speaking slot at the RNC to Clint Eastwood (without any vetting) instead of people who would humanize his candidate, I just thought at the time, that Stu Stevens was simply disorganized.

Then, we found out about ORCA, and the fact that Stevens and his team (Moffat, et al.) still thought the system performed well because … “metrics”. Then came the revelation that Stevens had no concept of the idea that what voters tell pollsters is often quite different from what would actually influence them in favor of candidate A or B.

Then we discovered the wide disparity in both quality, quantity and reach of advertising (in Obama’s favor), despite the fact that this was supposed to be where Stevens was going to dominate and make up for months of unanswered attacks – down the home stretch the Obama Campaign and its allies outperformed Romney and every single Conservative SuperPAC on every possible measure; “[Obama] spent less on advertising than Romney and his allies but got far more — in the number of ads broadcast, in visibility in key markets and in targeting critical demographic groups, such as the working class and younger voters in swing states … Romney not only paid more for his ads but also missed crucial opportunities to advertise, for instance during the political conventions and on Spanish-language television …”

When it came to online advertising, the graph to your right tells you the entire story.

Considering the horrendous amount of what was very rightly called campaign malpractice in that WaPo piece, there actually is a viable argument that Mitt Romney could take Stuart Stevens and Co. to court for fraud.

But as they say; never attribute to malice what can just as easily be attributed to abject stupidity.

Top Romney Strategist Stuart Stevens Says Media Not ‘In The Tank’ For President Obama.

Ever since then-Senator Barack Obama first took a lead in the 2008 Democratic primary, the political news media has faced the accusation that they are “in the tank” for the now-second term President Obama. On Sunday morning’s Reliable Sources, the press got a qualified defense from a surprising source: Mitt Romney chief strategist Stuart Stevens. Host Howard Kurtz asked Stevens if ” much of the media is in the tank for Barack Obama,” to which Stevens replied, “In the tank? I would say no.”

“Do you believe, today, that much of the media is in the tank for Barack Obama?” Kurtz asked.

Stevens replied, “It’s not a yes or a no question. In the tank, I would say no. So, yes or no question, I would say no.”

Kurtz pressed the line of questioning several times. “Too sympathetic to the President? How would you put it?” he asked.

“I think after the election, you’ll have a lot tougher questions that will be asked because you’re out of an election environment,” Stevens replied. “I think you’re seeing that this past weekend with this whole golf outing. I think they will be more critical now.”

A surprised Kurtz asked, “You’re saying the press should be finally more critical about the fact that President Obama went golfing with Tiger Woods?”

“The degree to which there is not a choice between him and a Republican candidate makes it easier for them to be tougher on the President,” Stevens replied. “That’s natural.”

In hindsight; there was no way Mitt Romney could have won with the team he assembled, and I am truly flabbergasted that I was so wrong to assume that Romney would bring the same A-game he brought to selecting teams to turn around failing companies to his campaign.

The fact that Stu Stevens and his team do not see and actually never saw the media’s heavy bias in favor of the President during the campaign means there was not, at any point, any path to victory for Mitt Romney. People this blind and lacking in perception would have eventually snatched defeat from the jaws of victory no matter what had gone right; these are the people who quickly advised Mitt Romney to “tone it down” after his excellent performance in the first debate and go into prevent-defense to “appeal to Independents and women.”

Even worse is the fact that these people continue to give themselves high marks for the utter fiasco of a campaign they ran.

Considering what we went through with Steve Schmidt and prior to that, the tragedy that was the Bush White House’s political and communications operation, I’ve had to come to the sad conclusion that right now, when it comes to political operatives, electoral experts, campaign strategists, etc, Democrats get the cream of the crop, while Republicans are stuck with the slimy fetid fungus that feeds on the decaying scum encrusting the bottom of the barrel.

[vetvetdoug]

Say what you will but Palin would have run a better campaign unloosed with the MSM attack dogs in full bay. She would have hit Obama on the specific issues that may have sunk him. She was far more electable and desirable for the masses than was Romney.

[x]

So we are supposed to believe that Romney, a man who achieved such success in business, went out and hired a team of idiots to win?

Sure. Business isn't politics. There are people -- especially in the WASP community who have a good head for business but are lost when it comes to things like politics.

Either Romney’s financial and business success was a total accident or he tanked himself. No other explanation is logical. Next issue is while so many cling to “Oh he would have been better than Obama!”

I'm not sure what you mean by "tanked," but the general feeling was that almost any Republican would be better than Obama. Romney was always a throw of the dice. I knew from the beginning that he didn't appear to have good political skills. Last year's field of candidates was an especially weak one, though. It's hard to say that there was anybody running who could have done better.

[garbanzo]

I wouldn’t discount this immediately, I wonder how many of the consultancy staff actually voted for Romney...

[hinckley buzzard]

No, Romney is done. All this post mortem stuff is idle. Yes this Stu is a moron, and yes Romney ran a crappy campaign. The dog barks, the caravan moves on. Water under the bridge. Whatever.

[IbJensen]

I will say what I will: I agree 100%!!!!!!!!!!

[IbJensen]

Junky, Obozo is a phony. There is no proof that he’s an American. He went to Harvard on the premise that he was a needy student from Jakarta. He uses a dead man’s social security number. He has spent millions to keep all records sealed.

And he is a halfrican.

[jonrick46]

I liked Gingrich if he could have set the record straight about his “baggage.” Who did you want?

[DH]

Gingrich.

He was the only one of the bunch that was knowledgeable enough and a real fighter. He was not a “go along to get along” politician.

[Elsie]

The answer: pray that God reveals it to us, or perhaps he already has.

Are you still killing your unborn?

-- GOD

 

[Liz]

Obozo is a phony. There is no proof that he’s an American. He got into Harvard posing as a needy foreign student from Jakarta. He uses a dead man’s social security number. He has spent millions to keep all records his sealed. And he is a halfrican.

You got that right.

2012 Ohaha used the same conniving 2008 strategy patented by PR honcho Anita (Mao) Dunn---to manipulate voters, to downplay Ohaha's bgrnd, his destructive policies ....and his scary plans for his next term.

Remember, Dunn said back then, that THEY and only THEY decided what the media and the voters should know about 2008 candidate Ohaha. The strategy was to have Ohaha and his shady handlers play the innocents---the "don't worry--we're harmless" act.

I got my biggest laugh of the day when wily David Axelrod went before the cameras with his phony wide-eyed "deer in the headlights" look.

===============================================

The WH is teeming with kingpins of crooked Chicago politics. Voter fraud is the Chi/mobs specialty.

Let us not forget----the minute they hit the WH, the Chi/mob went into action: (1) the WH Chi/mob took over the census---and have all the CV they need to file phony FEC reports using stolen federal dollars as campaign contributions. (2) Plus COS Rham (The Godfather) Emanuel was put in charge of the US Treasury.

2012 Ohaha even bragged his was the first "billion dollar" campaign---a creepy way to show how "popular" he is (gag).

As Judge Judy would say: "Show me where you got the money to pay for this."

[Mr. Jeeves]

Either Romney’s financial and business success was a total accident or he tanked himself.

Probably after the Powers That Be had their customary "talk" with Romney he decided it wasn't worth it. The last man of honor to hold the office was very nearly the victim of early term limits.

[IbJensen]

I may have got it right, but you NAILED it!

There isn’t a legitimate human being in all 900 staffers that swarm about in the White Hut and it’s not honey they’re making! They’re cooking up a nightmare for the USA.

[lodi90]

Romney lost because he ran a bad campaign. Yes the deck was stacked against us but he had a winnable hand which he chose not to play. That he chose not to run an aggressive campaign is all on him and not the Dem/MSM. When he fought fire with fire it was quite effective.

If the entire campaign had been like the first debate and the Jacksonville press conference Romney would be POTUS now.

But he chose to tip toe to finish line and got steamrolled by the dems/MSM narrative. That is all on Mitt and nobody else.

[Jim Noble]

Romney should have listened to me

If your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle.

We all had Romney dialed in here by the end of January 2102. Everything I said about why he was Zero's dream candidate came true. Many others made similar or identical points.

It's not OUR fault he was nominated. The outcome was perfectly predictable, lots of us predicted it, right here.

It wasn't that Romney didn't "listen". He had strategic and tactical problems galore, all right, but who he was, what he made of Obama, and the direction he wanted to take the country were the core reasons for failure, which the poor half-dead GOP could not have overcome with Romney as the nominee.

[Elsie]

The outcome was perfectly predictable, lots of us predicted it, right here.

And, a LOT of us Christians (Who have a bit higher different standard than some) said we'd NEVER vote for a decieved member of a heretical sect to be Leader of the Free World; whose discernment is so poor.

And; predictably; we got blamed for O winning.

[Elsie]

The purpose of the United States is to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

Some, earlier, saw it a bit differently...

 

 

 

Mayflower Compact

 

In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, 1620.

 

 

 

[Elsie]

The purpose of the United States is to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

Some, earlier, saw it a bit differently...

 

 

 

Mayflower Compact

 

In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, 1620.

 

 

 

[justiceseeker93]

Never heard of this Romney campaign guru Stuart Stevens before, but I can almost guarantee that he came from the RINO wing of the party, so as to be ideologically synergistic with his candidate as much as possible. That being said, Martin Knight, the author of the posted piece, is venting a bit too much about the performance of the Romney team in the last election. Although the campaign made its share of mistakes, notably the failure to make Benghazi an issue against Obama in the final weeks and the reluctance to attack Obama's sleazy background, there were also the successes of the candidate's debate performances and the drawing of large enthusiastic crowds to events down the stretch. Compared to the McCain campaign performance four years earlier, this was an upgrade.

It would appear that Democrat election fraud and cheating, targeted to the populous Dem controlled cities and counties in the swing states, may have been the decisive factor. The national GOP as a party was negligent in failing to plan for, devise and implement a counter-strategy to the systemic violations of the integrity of the election system perpetrated by the opposition - especially considering that they should have been forewarned by what had occurred in 2008.

[NYer]

I suspected a problem when the RNC called early in summer asking for contributions. Their plea was based on "changing the House of Representatives". Huh? What about the presidency? No response. The real shocker came when I learned, after the election, that Romney never wanted to be president! What!!!

The full picture began to emerge. The GOP never anticipated a presidential win but had pinned all their hopes on other candidates that might alter the Senate and House of Representatives. What sort of party runs a presidential candidate who does not want the job!!! I'm done with them.

[muawiyah]

How do you prepare or 2008 when McCain got 4 million fewer votes than Bush just 4 years earlier?

Obama got a record number of votes that year but not at all an unusual amount compared to Bush four years earlier.

What it looks like is McCain and Romney both failed to get normal growth ~ and instead not only lost normal growth, they lost some of the core Republican voters.

That would be, of course, the Rockefeller wing ~ Romney's own peeps! They just didn't show up and they didn't bother telling people they weren't going to do that, and nobody in those states went out and sought to find more Republicans in a registration drive!