WHERE DID ROMNEY SCREW UP?

More of that "math that makes you feel good" it seems.

Ohio Census shows that the decrease in white persons from 2008 to 2012 was .4% and they still made up 83.6% of the population of Ohio.
The black % of population went from 11.35% in 2000 to 12.4% in 2011.
The demographic shift from 2008 to 2012 was about .4%.


http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/39000.html

You could choose to look at it like that. Or you could choose to look at it like the only reason he had any chance at all was that there are so many intransigent “angry old white males”. Looking at the numbers, everyone else seems to appreciate President Obama’s efforts.



You could choose to look at it like that, or you could choose to look at it like Obama’s margin of victory, just like any of his accomplishments, are minimized by those that don’t like him.

To wit,



By your chart, 3 of the margins since 1964 were smaller, 6 were larger (7 if you count 2008, but that was another Obama victory). The smallest margin was 5. The largest 503. That would seem to me to make Obama’s margin of 126 more medium-sized than small, but then again it’s how you choose to see it.

For the record, my impression on election night was that the near sweep of the battleground states and the overall margins in electoral and popular counts was a pretty clear message from the majority of American voters.

I only began engaging in these "How big was it?" discussions about Obama's victory in response to various folks trying to characterize it as small or thin, thus minimizing it.


To further illustrate that Obama's victory was much more substantial than "small", or "a squeaker", this wikipedia chart showing margins of electoral college victories since 1800 shows Obama's 2012 win as 21st out of 57. That is closer to the top of the list than the bottom.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_Electoral_College_margin

I'm not at all sure what the message was, but it was clearly the majority of American voters. It's generally true that a people gets the government it deserves, and the people have spoken.

That 'they get what they deserve" piece sounds like sour grapes, but I will accept it in the ambivalent way you offered it.

It wasn't demographic population shifts in that area that worked to Romney's disadvantage, it was the reduced voter turn-out among working-class white males--they just voted in fewer numbers for this election. And, when you're counting on the white male vote, that's going to cost you.

When a political party is fixated on maintaining tax breaks for those earning above $250,000, at a time when there is a pressing need for the government to raise revenue, what appeal would they offer to any working class voter?

Apart from the Bible Belt, and the affluent, and the older more conservative voters, I'm not sure where there are firm Republican constituencies on a national level any more. And the fact that voters under 30 went for Obama, does not bode well for the Republican future.

Finn keeps insisting that Romney lost because he had a less effective strategy, and, while that's probably true, one has to look at what made that strategy less successful, and that has to begin by looking at the Republican party platform, and the policies and positions this party was trying to promote. Is providing legal rights and personhood for fetuses really a burning issue on the minds of most voters? Where were their proposals on how to raise revenue if tax breaks for the most wealthy were allowed to continue? Mostly they threatened entitlement programs, and important income tax deductions, on which a great many working class and middle class voters rely, and tended to focus on long-term federal debt reduction at a time when most people are more anxious to see a more immediate upturn in the economy, an increase in the value of their homes, an easing of the job/employment situation, and confidence that their income and property taxes won't continue to rise, and that there will be funds and opportunity for their children to attend college, or money for their own retirement, before they can start worrying about the federal deficit--and those voters also haven't forgotten that it was the Bush administration that turned a surplus into a deficit, and that "trickle-down" economics didn't work in the past. And the vow to repeal "Obamacare" failed to take into account all those voters who want health care reform, who either lack health insurance or can't afford to keep paying high premiums, or who simply recognize the high drain on the economy that inadequate health care coverage promotes.

Where was there a real attempt to appeal to women, or younger voters, or minorities, or the working class, or the average middle class voter? What was the Republican party offering to them? Can you afford to write off that much of the electorate on a national level? Was that the Republican strategy?

And the candidate chosen to carry their message, Romney, an enormously wealthy man, whose personal concerns include installing garage elevators to maneuver his many cars, showed no indication he had any inkling of what real life was like for the average citizen in this country, and his unguarded comments about the "47%" reflected some disdain for them. And his choice of a running mate, Ryan, while designed to appeal to the more conservative base, put forth another individual who did not exactly radiate warmth, or compassion, or any true appreciation of why people need, and rely on, numerous entitlement programs, particularly in a still struggling economy. Is this really the time to talk about cutting food stamps, or Medicare, or programs, like Head Start, that help people to survive, or help lift them out of poverty, or give their child a better shot at academic success?

Strategy starts with the selection of candidates and the messages they send to voters. How you will market these candidates is secondary--the candidates and their proposals must resonate with enough voters to begin with, all strategy after that is essentially designed to get out the vote. The Republicans didn't put forth either a candidate or proposals that were appealing enough to a wide swath of the electorate on a national level--or even to some elements of their own base--and that's what they've got to contend with for their long-term viability.

Snood, I couldn't care less how you accept anything. It simply makes no difference to me.

Naryan Lakshman. He's the US corespondent of India's largest newspaper.

I agree with him. It was no great victory. And Mr Obama knows it.

An incumbent must have at least a 5% start. And the black vote was 94% in his favour. And convincing immature females that they need the state and various agencies to control their bodies after 2 million years of human history is extremely patronising and belittles women into the state of tweeting budgies in cages.

Mr Boehner is the winner.

And, I might add, Mr Christie must have notched up not a few votes for Mr Obama.

Possibly he felt he had no choice under the circumstances.

That's the Republican position--to place government curbs and regulations on a woman's ability to control her body in reproductive matters. And Romney and Ryan made that quite clear.

The Democratic position has always favored upholding Roe vs Wade--which preserves womens' choice, and control, in the matter of abortion.

Yeah, and I'm sure you couldn't care less about the outcome of this election either.

It's not sour grapes at all. It's an outlook I share on a global scale. People do usually get the government they deserve. I think you're putting animus into that statement that doesn't exist. If they have a government they don't deserve they ultimately rebel against it.

I have to say, I agree that people get the government they deserve, as a whole. But that is scant comfort to the lesser numbers of voters who suffer the consequences, undeserving.

Taken in context from an avowed conservative, it most certainly can reasonably be construed as sour grapes. Just like it would be accurate to read animus into it if I said "Well, they get the government they deserve" if Romney had won the election. No one here is so purely motivated by intellectual curiosity that their statements about the outcome of a hotly contested race like this one can't be justifiably scrutinized in the context of their political predilictions.

Romney, himself, participated in trying to relegate women to second-class status. His answer to unequal pay... is to send women home early to cook dinner? Really?

Republican office holders routinely seek to deny women access to health care and contraception. Republicans rail about Planned Parenthood... which provides women with all kinds of health care.

How many candidates made offensive comments about rape (and pregnancies from rape)? To what political party did every single one belong? And how many prominent Republicans spoke out against these offenses? (Not many.)


Republicans have a serious image problem when it comes to women's issues, mainly because their "conservative" viewpoint is about 50 years outdated.

As a father with two daughters... you're not going to win me over by telling me they would have to carry a rapist's child. You're not going to win me over by trying to tell me that a rape has to be "legitimate" or "forcible" in order to taken seriously.


Here's my prediction: You will keep denying that, as a party, Republicans have serious issues with women taking an equal place in the world with men. And Republicans will keep pushing forward with these repugnant policies. And Democrats will keep winning elections.

s I said, and you seem to miss the importance, MAPS DONT VOTE. BAlkanization of the electorate is unimportant to the talley for electoral votes

I didn't complain about that.

I complained about the relentless, unbalanced, negative attacks on Obama that came directly out of the mouths of Romney and Ryan--many of which involved significant distortions or outright lies. More of their campaign focused on attacking Obama, and his allegedly ineffective economic policies, than it did on offering voters clearly thought-out alternative proposals that reasonably might be better.

And the reason those attacks were unbalanced is because they failed to take into account the steady improvement in the economy, the fact that the American automobile industry was salvaged, the fact that stimulus efforts were effective, and the fact that some health care reform was accomplished--beside the fact that one war was ended and another is winding down--among other things. Mainly these attacks did not take into account the dire state of economic collapse that Obama inherited--a recession so profound there was no way it could have been substantially improved in 3 or 4 years, and virtually every economist said that when Obama took office.

To blame the President for a lack of faster progress was an attempt to play on voters naiveté or ignorance, as well as their anxieties and frustrations, and, when not accompanied by clear, comprehensive, alternative proposals for economic improvement, and sufficient reason to believe those would work, Romney and Ryan weren't left with much positivity to sell to those voters more concerned with the economy than with social values. Focusing mainly on reducing spending, in a still fragile economic recovery, which is what the Republicans did, can also be a recipe for economic disaster, and many voters recognized that. Sometimes it's just better not to change horses mid-stream--unless there are really compelling reasons to do so.

While some of Obama's luster has diminished since he was first elected, there wasn't enough wide-spread anger at his over-all performance in office to fuel a Republican victory--and that seemed to be the main fuel the Republicans were counting on.

Personally, I think the amount of money funneled into TV ads borders on the obscene, and I'd like to see that sort of big-money spending removed from the electoral process. Let people actually listen to the candidates, or read what they have to say, and let's stop trying to market them like cars, or fast food, with all sorts of manipulative and deceptive advertising funded by PACs and Super PACS.

Finn, I fully understand your disappointment that you didn't get the candidate you wanted elected--I'd feel the same way if my candidate had lost. But I'm happy that the party that brought George W. Bush to the White House isn't getting another crack at our economy, or our foreign policy, right now.

We see each others side from a totally different reality. You see the unbalanced negative ads AGINST Obama and Finn sees the unbalanced negative ads FROM Obama. Theres never going to be any kind of agreement or compromise until tis negativity on both sides goes away and is converted into tasks for the country.

Like thats gonna happen before the big asteroid strike in 2037

I'm happy to report that San Jose, California, voters approved a $10/hour minimum wage. The feds should have done so several years ago when the poor were already struggling to survive.

Forunately, where I live, we weren't bombarded by ads from either of them.

I'm hoping that, since so much of the negativity and obstructionism, for the past 3 years, was directed at denying Obama a second term, that the situation will improve somewhat now that that is off the table. But, I'm generally an overly optimistic person.

The people are obviously disgusted with Congress, about as disgusted as they can get, so something is going to have to give pretty soon. It's the Republicans who have really dug in their heels and refused to budge, and, if they continue that stance, nothing will change. I don't see the Democrats as being that inflexible, or as totally unwilling to compromise, across the board, but I could be wrong. Obama is a compromiser--which is why many Democrats wish he would show more backbone--so, if he offers or supports some concessions to the Republicans, I'm hoping some progress can be made.