WHERE DID ROMNEY SCREW UP?

Defining your opponent is a big part of campaigning and that is what Romney's opponents did. You know the guys, Gingrich, Perry, Santorum. All the most effective harsh personal attacks against Romney did not start from the Obama campaign, they were love taps from his fellow Republicans. The President didn't create the term "Obamneycare". From a recent Huff post article:

I think your efforts to paint Romney as victim also ignore Romney's (and his super PAC buddies) relentless efforts to define Obama. That Obama overcame them doesn't mean that Romney's efforts at saying Obama was doing away with the work requirement in welfare and shipping auto jobs overseas should be forgotten. The election was a giant mud fest but now Romney supporters want to claim the victim role? That's very selective memory.

All one had to do was look at the sea of almost exclusively white faces that comprised the delegates to the Republican convention to realize that this party does not represent the reality of today's America, or it's future demographic composition. Quite soon, the majority of the U.S. population will be non-white, and, if the Republicans don't wake up and smell that coffee, they will simply remain as an irrelevant hold-over of anachronistic ideology.

In addition, there seems to be nothing left of the moderate wing of the Republican party, they are firmly in the grip, or strangle-hold, of both the Tea Party anti-government brigade and the religious right--neither of which reflect the clearly centrist views of most American voters. And, where there once were Republicans who held views on social issues which were either moderate, or liberal/progressive, these voices are also rapidly vanishing because the Tea Party has systematically mounted opposition to these candidates and office-holders, which has helped to erode the Republican party from within.

I am just plain sick of the battle cry to "take back our country" that comes from the dominant right wing of the Republican party. It frankly reeks of racism, and it is disgusting. There was nothing, at all, subtle about the vilification of our first racially mixed President, right down to the attempts to portray him as a foreigner who was really born in Kenya, not really a Christian, not "one of us", not legitimately entitled to hold his office, and as someone not truly committed to defend the interests and welfare of our country. And, never once, did Mitt Romney, as the ostensible leader of his party, loudly and clearly try to put an end to that sort of crap. He didn't even have the guts to publicly tell Donald Trump to shut the hell up about his "birther" idiocy, or his most recent, and offensive, demand to see the President's school and college records. I suppose one can't expect that sort of clear leadership, and display of decency, from a presidential candidate who is too frightened to even release his own past income tax records, and too fearful of alienating even the wing-nuts that have come to dominate his party. Romney proved himself to be a spineless and ethically compromised whore in his personal desperate quest to gain the highest office in the land--and no amount of "campaign strategy" could conceal that.

The Republicans have lost their bearings as the party of alleged fiscal responsibility (George W. helped to take care of that), and as the party more committed to government control and funding on the state level rather than the federal--which were the traditional foundations of their party. Even their supposed greater strength in national defense and foreign affairs has largely eroded. And, for quite some time now, they have been a party without any true leadership at the top. McCain did not remain the leader after his loss for the Presidency, and Romney never seemed to be the leader despite being at the top of the ticket, so he's not likely to have any influence now.

At the very least, I think the more traditional Republicans have to wrest control from the virulent anti-government element that is destroying it from within. You cannot govern, or seek to govern, when you are guided by intense animosity toward the basic concept of government--that notion borders on the irrational. The "government" is not an intrusive foreign entity, we are the government, we the people--and while the different political parties might represent differing governing styles, and differing political ideologies, and even differing priorities, all of them must remain committed to governing in the most effective, and fairest, way in order to insure the greatest good for everyone if they want to retain their influence. Obstructionism hasn't worked for the Republicans these past four years, and it won't work for them in the next four years either. They can't just be the party of "No"--they have to come up with new ideas, and new proposals, and new alternatives, and, most importantly, with a new and clear vision for their party, and find the leaders within their midst who can clearly articulate it for the public.

Right now, I think the Republicans have a lot of soul-searching and work to do.

And they should start by telling their talking heads on cable (like Mary Matalin), and Fox news, and talk radio, to shut up with the sour grapes nonsense about this not being a fair or democratic election that has given Obama another term. They lost, it's over, and it's time to act like grown-ups and support the winner because he's our President for the next four years--and he won it fair and square. Let them finally stop with the Obama-bashing and focus instead on developing workable strategies and proposals to deal with the very real problems that affect our country. Let them start putting country above partisan politics.

That's one of the finest and clearest statements on the situation I have read. Thanks.

There is a growing group of "Cosmo conservatives" and the tea baggers seemed to have been attrited via this election cycle (mostly because of stupid statements that didnt wash out)

Then I think you will be happy to know that, should this be true, the GOP, as we know it, will continue to be marginalized (except even to a greater degree)

That's the absolute truth.The Republicans shot themselves in the foot with the negative attacks they heaped on each other during the primaries.

And, while he may have been the last man standing when those primaries were over, Romney was clearly not an enthusiastic choice for the Republicans, particularly those of a decidedly conservative, and socially conservative, bent. The Republicans may have wanted to get rid of Obama, but, for many of them, Romney wasn't really the man they wanted to see take his seat in the oval office.

Romney was not the victim of anything in the general election--except his own shameless attempts to pander, and outright lie--things that didn't help to endear him to even his fellow Republicans.

Isn't it a wonder that Romney charged Obama with negative campaigning all while we heard "He's Kenyan, he's not American, show us your birth certificate, show us your college records, Obama's record of failure, take back our country, Benghazi, etc, etc, etc, ad adnauseum.

Bunch of cry babies and hypocrites!

You seem to overlook the fact that the Congressional Republicans pledged to defeat anything he proposed--they were committed to blocking any efforts he made--meaning that they were not open to any consensus or compromise.

Obama, on the other hand, has been all too willing to compromise, in fact, much too willing in the minds of many Democrats, who would rather have seen him take a tougher and less yielding approach, and also take his case directly to the American people more of the time. Obama, by his very nature, seems to be a consensus seeker, and compromiser, and he has been disinclined to play political hardball, and even to forcefully promote and sell his initiatives to the public--something I hope will change somewhat in the next 4 years.

No, I can't ever recall the opposition party declaring all-out war on a new President--from day one of his term--and vowing to obstruct anything he proposed. I really think this is unprecedented--as was the questioning of his place of birth, his religion, and even his legitimacy to hold office.

The minority party always uses their influence to wheel and deal, and to get concessions they want, but not to completely stymie all efforts of a President, even those with popular support, because that's not in the best interests of the country, or even of their own constituents.

I'm not so sure that "War on Women" was bogus.

When you try to use the power of government to restrict women's control over their own bodies, their reproductive capacities, and their medical decisions, you are definitely doing something that interferes with the privacy rights, and other civil rights, of women.

And when male politicians engage in offensive discussions of what constitutes "legitimate rape" or start placing restrictions on a woman's lawful right to terminate a pregnancy, for whatever reason she wishes, it is difficult not to see this as a retrogressive attempt to return women back to a subordinate position in society, including an economically subordinate position.

Women are not a "specific constituency" within Obama's "coalition". Women comprise the constituencies of both parties, and, more significantly, they comprise the greatest percentage of voters. If candidates don't advocate policies that are favorable to the interests and welfare of women, and/or if they advocate positions contra to the interests of women, they are going to have a hard time getting elected or returned to office. And these interests are not confined to social issues, like abortion or "legitimate rape".

As members of the work force, women are very concerned about jobs, and health care benefits, and equal pay for equal work, and the need for affordable and adequate child care options so that they can work. As mothers, they are quite concerned with educational issues, both the quality of our public schools, as well as the high costs of paying for college for their children, and they are also concerned with the sort of economic and environmental future we are preparing for our children. As wives and homemakers, and as consumers, they are concerned with the cost of goods and services, particularly the rising costs of food, and fuel, and things which are basic to daily life. And, as the caretakers of elderly parents, women are concerned about preserving Medicare coverage, as well as reducing the costs of prescription drug coverage, and the costs of long-term care.

The reason that more women supported Obama was that he more directly, and more favorably, addressed their interests and needs.

And the first piece of legislation that Obama signed into law, on January 30, 2009, was The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act –and that resonated with female voters during this last campaign as well.

I agree with that.

That's absurd. The only really satisfactory strategy, in any campaign, is to have a candidate with fairly broad appeal, and then get out the vote for him.

They can spend billions on TV ads, but those ads have never bought my vote. Have they bought yours?

The Republicans also made a significant error by trying to obstruct voting, with their alleged "voter fraud" laws and voter ID requirements in "swing states"--it backfired because they helped to bring out support for Obama from the groups outraged by such tactics to suppress their votes.

Strategy, and marketing techniques, can help to promote a candidate, but, when all is said and done, it's up to each voter to get themselves to the polls and cast their ballot, and it's the motivation to want a particular candidate elected that's going to determine that. You can't eliminate the quality of the candidate from the equation.

On that we agree. I haven't argued that the quality of the candidate was meaningless. Clearly, both were of sufficent quality to garner 51% and 49% of the votes respectively. That 2% point difference was the result of a superior strategy on the part of the Obama Campaign.

My efforts are not, at all, to characterize Romney as a victim.

You have constructed a strawman to tut-tut if you are directing your comments to me.

He lost by a small margin which makes him a loser but not a victim.

Unlike firefly, I'm not complaining about the extent of negative ads used in this election. I do regret that the Romney campaign apparently didn't take the early announced strategy of the Obama campaign to use them so heavily in swing states, and to come up with an effective counter-strategy. Counting on Romney's performance in Debate #1 was a ridiculous strategy (if that's what it was). They might have had confidence in him to perform well, but they never could have predicted that Obama would have performed so poorly.

It was a mudfest and one side had a much better strategy than the other for slinging it and wiping it away.

The Republican side was too sqeamish, holding back from firing all guns. It appears clear that they were worried about a backlash, that never affected their opponents and most likely wouldn't have affected them. Pundits and individually interviewed citizens keep telling us that the American people don't like negative advertising, and maybe they don't, but it works.

I wish neither side would use it, but that's ridiculous not only because people would never agree on what ads can be considered negative vs informative, and politicians are not ever going to throw away something that wins elections.

We (meaning more than just you and I) can disagree on what role strategy played in the result, but I sense that you (meaning you and others) want to construct a narrative about the election that confirms your personal belief that Obama is a fine upstanding guy without a shred of mendacity and arrogance in his make-up and Romney is a feckless, lying dirt-bag.

I'm don't understand why you are resisting the notion that the Democrats' strategy was superior to that of the Republicans, other than perhaps you see it as somehow tarnishing the bright silvery armor of The Leader, or that it belies your notion that the American people have demonstrated that they all agree with your ideology.

I wish the Republicans had come up with the more effective strategy, and would have been delighted to hear you all acknowledge as much. A 51% win by Romney wouldn't have proved the country agrees with me, but it sure would have made it a lot more likely that the policies I favor would have been implemented.

Electoral College Votes:
Obama - 332 Romney - 206

What would be a large margin?

Finn lives in another un-reality.

This was on Al-Jazeera's The Listening Post yesterday. Romney's doing fine.

I thought it very naive ed. It was basically a call for a one party state.

The Republicans won in 24 states and reduced the gap from where Mr McCain left it from over 6% to over 2% and retained control of the House. For sure the election was lost but not by a sufficient margin to justify that sort of language. If the west coast is left out, and it is said to be a basket case, and the anomalies of Co and NM, the election result was a victory for the original tidewater states in the north east and their outliers. There was a 6% demographic shift in Ohio from white to black voters and the winning margin was less than that.



The Constitution was written with fear of big government as the guiding principle. There is nothing irrational about such a fear.



Which may be true but it does not address the main point which is whether the centrist views of American voters (an assertion) have validity for the future prosperity of the country. It's just the populist argument. It has taken for granted that the Tea Party and the religious "right" have nothing to say worth saying.

As you agree with that it is only to be expected that you find the statement meets your approval.

What a terrible indictment of women that is. As if women need activists and various agencies to manage their bodies for them. It is necessary to first render women helpless in that regard before coming to their aid and making money off the created helplessness which is serious interference with their privacy and civil rights.

A party winning every state by 0.5% would produce an EC result in its favour of 538--0. What a margin that would be eh?

The result was a measure of the declining influence of mature white males. There is only one proper response to that and it is for white males over 25 to voluntarily disenfranchise themselves, as I did long ago, and let the rest shift for themselves.

The largest bloc, once again, and it's the same here, declined to vote despite constant encouragement to do so by both parties.

There are, roughly, 230 million Americans over 18. About 120 million voted and were divided almost equally.

This is not really accurate. The Constitution, as explained in the Federalist Papers , saw the need for a strong centralized government. The framers were concerned about bigger STATES wielding power and wresting control. The framers saw the need for a strong army, a post office,common currency , and trade regulation between nd among states and foreign states.

PSSST, maps dont vote, people do. The states that carried Obama were essentially the high population states of the west and East (The only state not in the Obama II coalition was North Carolina). Doing a planimetry of the AREAs that voted for Romney is idiotic. The GOP counts severl NATIONAL and STATE PARKS as Republican territory. As far as I know, we havent conferred citizenship to the Bears and Moose of Mt Katahdin.

If Romney DID NOT piss off specific areas of the cumulative constituency, he could have won. As they said, "It was his to lose". People distrusted the evil they didnt know , more than the evil they did.

Its more of a growing FACT that the Teabaggers are slowly slipping into the dusty archives of politics. Most tebagger backed candidates didnt fare as well as 2010.

What? Virginia and MAryland went for Obama. I think what you meant was that Romney was elected by "most" of the ORIGINAL CONFEDERATE STATES (except for Virginia and Florida of course)

Romney was never liked by the general Republican party. He was a weirdo outsider. I never thought he had a chance. When he topped the ticket, I counted it as lost. I was amazed that he was considered a contender in the waning months of the cycle - his threat to win spoke more about Obama's lackluster performance than it did Romney's popularity.

Considering Romney's sheer idiocy, Obama should have won in a landslide.

No. It's a small one.

http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_21938885/victory-margins-electoral-college

My point entirely. Thanks.

I do go on maps. The red states have one long and continuous border with access to the sea. The fundamental requirements of statehood. Blue states are divided into 3 units. One of the units is said to be a basket case. Another is blue solely because of the immigration issue. The other, the boss, is in the north east and is where most media centers are. And didn't they rake it in eh? Didn't they just?

It was the hegemony of the north west of the the Soviet Union that broke it apart.

A "common currency"!! That's an interesting concept.