Why Romney Lost

Discussion in 'Politics' started by joepistole, Nov 9, 2012.

  1. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    It is good to hear some conservatives finally wake up to reality. This morning David Frum (Republican) made the following comments on the Morning Joe Show:

    “Republican party is a party of followership, the problem with Republican leaders is that they are cowards … the real locus of the problem is the Republican activist base and the Republican donor base; they went apocalyptic over the last four years and were exploited by a lot of people in the conservative world.”

    “I won’t soon forget the lupine smile that played over the head of one conservative institution when he told me that his donors believe the apocalypse has arrived. “

    “The conservative followership has been fleeced, exploited and lied to by the conservative entertainment complex.” Gee, I wonder what he meant by that.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    This is something non-conservatives have been saying for a very long time.

    “But because the followers, activist and donors are so mistaken about the nature of the problems the country faces … I went to Tea Party rallies around the nation and asked this question, have taxes gone up or down over the past 4 years? And they could not correctly answer that question.”

    “The people who put the cement shoes on him (Mitt Romney) are now blaming him for sinking.”

    David Frum – Morning Joe 11/9/12

    “Conservatives have been lied to by people who have been engaged in niche marketing and made tens of millions of dollars.” – Joe Scarborough, Morning Joe 11/9/12

    It’s great to hear some Republicans finally waking up. These are things others and I have been saying for more than a decade. The United States desperately needs a functional opposition party. Unfortunately what was the GOP is now totally disfunctional as an effective and responsible opposition party.

    Interested people might want to read Frum's ebook, "Why Romney Lost".


    I disagree with much of Frum's ideology. But it's great to see a Republican come to this level of realization, wake up Republicans. Republican media invented the RINO to explain their failures under the George II administration. What do they now? Who do they blame for their failures now?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Gustav Banned Banned

    the racism of colored folks
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. arauca Banned Banned


    Who wants an other G.W.Bush in power, that was my reason for not voting for him.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tero Registered Member

    Some day they will find a rich white guy people will like. But Schwarzenegger is not a born citizen.
  8. R1D2 many leagues under the sea. Valued Senior Member

    JOEPISTOLE shouting... ra ra ra ya Obama! That's what I'm hearing. AGAIN! It was a GUY's OPINION. Its David Frum's opinion. Not the Reason Why, underline why, Romney LOST. Just like its MY opinion the electoral collage is government run and there for the government holds a card in who gets in office, or my opinion Romney lost because he didn't have enough votes, or my other opinion many people affected by sandy didn't get there votes heard and that effected the election. Or maybe Ohio has too many dang electoral votes.
  9. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    There are many reasons for Romney's loss.

    1. Act of God: Hurricanes at the begining and the end of Romney's campaign
    2. Chris Christie's Obama Love Fest after the Hurricane
    3. Computer Crashing @ Romney HQ on Election Day
    4. Romney deciding to play "prevent defense" after the first debate
    5. A Brutal Primary Battle that forced Romney to go far to the Right
    6. A Very Late Convention that Limited Romney's Funding
    7. Low Turn Out by Republicans Voters (Romney got fewer votes than McCain)
    8. Better turn out by Democrats where it counted despite the fact that Obama got 10 million fewer votes in 2012 than 2010
    9. Letting Obama Define Romney for Pretty Much the Whole Summer Without Striking Back
    10. Mormonism? Although Romney did great among evangelicals who turned out, many simply did not turn out which resulted in Romney getting fewer votes than McCain despite being (in my opinion) a much better candidate. Did religion play a role in that? Or were the evangelicals simply turned off by Romney's "etch a sketch" towards the center late in the campaign?
  10. Rhaedas Valued Senior Member

    You forgot Romney vs. Romney. Or Romney vs. the 47%. The weird thing is, did Republicans who voted for Romney do it for the party line? Or did they really believe he was what he said he was? And if that's so, which Romney did they think he was?

    And on the Republicans and votes...how many Republicans voted for Obama? Is there any way to figure that, because that could explain the less votes R and more votes D. There was a large turnout too, but certainly there were people who jumped to the Obama ticket.

    Limited Romney's funding? He outspent Obama 6 to 1 if I recall the numbers right.
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Bit of a problem there - not even Mormons voted for Romney in overwhelming numbers. Even GWB got more of the Mormon vote than Romney did.
  12. superstring01 Moderator

    Which makes me want to ask the religious right what kind of message Dios was sending by helping Obama?

  13. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    That must be why he won Iowa.
  14. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    I've been doing some undercover work on this. Apparently, Romney wasn't a good enough Mormon.
  15. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    There is no indication that Hurricane Sandy had anything to do with the election results, including the “Christie Lovefest”. President Obama was consistently leading Romney before, during and after Hurricane Sandy.

    I fail to see how a computer crash in Romney’s election office accounts for his failure at the polls. Again President Obama was leading in the polls and had been for some time.

    I didn’t see that “defense” game you are claiming existed.

    The Republican primaries did damage Romney and force him further to the nutty right. But that speaks to the larger problem Fraum speaks to in his new book. The reason Republicans are so far right is because they have relegated party policy to the likes of Rush Limbaugh.

    Funding, Romney and Obama both spent about a billion dollars each. And President Obama didn’t have the benefit of billionaires cutting pro Romney pacs checks for hundreds of millions of dollars.

    I don’t think that low voter turnout holds water either. From what I have seen, it appears voter turnout was high for both sides.

    I don’t see how you can say better voter turnout for President Obama and then say voter turnout for Obama was 10 million less than in the previous election.

    Obama did get an early start on attacking Romney. But Romney was a target rich environment as a result of the Republican Primary.

    I don’t know if Romney’s religion helped or hurt him. He did win the support and endorsement of right wing Christian leaders.

    It sounds like your rationale for Romney's failure boils down to God didn't like Romney.
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2012
  16. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Nope, none of the above. Your candidate was poor because he lives in a bubble of unreality and no one with any sense wants to work for him.
  17. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member


    So many paradoxes for the fundie reactionary right wingers to work out. Jeez, String, kick 'em when they're down?! (Here lemme help...oof!...thud!...craaack oooo...that'll leave a mark!)

    Yeah, while they're out on their apology tour, they must be working through this twisted logic in between the paroxysms sometimes referred to as a gnashing of teeth and rending of garments. Not that they personally give a damn about God, but what to flaunt now in front of the malleable congregations? Plausible deniability is likely about to take on the face of fake piety.

    Odds are, they'll be busily convincing the flock that God will eventually answer their prayers. Once He figures out what the feasible answer is. In fact, if there was a God, and if we could see his divine eyes, they'd have a divine inscription scrolling across them: Processing...

    Dang, String, slam-dunk.
  18. arauca Banned Banned

    Bring forth universal health care as in Germany or Canada
  19. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Many indeed. Romney, Romney, Romney and bunch more Romneys: Lying, bigoted, hateful, moronic, pandering, bumbling, xenophobic, knuckle-headed, cheesy, whining, sanctimonious, shallow, hyperbolic, judgmental, snotty, manipulative, duplicitous, pretentious, dimwitted, arrogant, prejudiced, misinformed, dishonest, jingoist, oily, Machiavellian, hypocritical and just plain stupid. And an asshole to boot.
  20. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Blame It On Women, and George Clooney

    Blame It On Women, and George Clooney

    Brian Tashman of Right Wing Watch notes the American Family Association theory that women getting all hot and bothered by George Clooney is the reason President Obama won re-election:

    American Family Association president Tim Wildmon and research director Ed Vitagliano today spoke to WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah about how they are all still astonished that Obama won re-election. Vitagliano apparently did his research into the Obama campaigns strategies, and figured out that "they hooked women to Obama through these Hollywood stars" like George Clooney and Sarah Jessica Parker. Vitagliano said that our "devolved" culture has made women voters simply think, "'I love George Clooney, George Clooney loves President Obama, therefore I love President Obama.'" Farah concurred and said Hollywood is "bombarding" Americans with "unconstitutional" and "ungodly" ideas, and asserted that even law schools no longer teach the Constitution.

    Vitagliano: They said 'what Hollywood star do women love' and they found that they love overwhelmingly George Clooney, so what they did is they went and got George Clooney to have a dinner with President Obama and then they had a big fundraiser and they said to women, 'if you want to have dinner with George Clooney and President Obama here is how much you pay per plate for this big fundraiser.' They did the same thing in the east with Sarah Jessica Parker, who was a beloved icon of many women. So what they did, and it's brilliant even while cynical, is they hooked women to Obama through these Hollywood stars. These women were saying well 'George Clooney loves President Obama,' and a fair number of them I'm guessing said, 'so I love President Obama,' and the same thing with Sarah Jessica Parker. That to me, and this is obviously an overstatement, that to me is not what the Founding Fathers envisioned that when they were hoping for a well-informed electorate being advised of the issues and studying the issues, no, what we've devolved to is 'I love George Clooney, George Clooney loves President Obama, therefore I love President Obama.'

    Farah: That's right. We think these decisions that America made on Election Day every four years or every two years but they're really not; how does George Clooney become this icon to women? How does Sarah Jessica Parker become an icon? That's the culture that is operating 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, it's bombarding us with these immoral, unprincipled, unconstitutional, ungodly ideals. That has an effect. You can't deny that it has an effect. Who is speaking for God in our culture? Who is standing up for God in our culture? Who is standing up for the Constitution in our culture? Is it being taught in our law schools? Come on, it hasn't been for years.​

    So now we know why Mitt Romney lost. It's women's fault, because they like George Clooney more than they like God.

    Perhaps it is simply best to say that our sulking conservative neighbors need some to decide whether they wish to return to sanity or continue along their merrily delusional, hateful way.

    No, really. We need to give them time to work this out of their systems. Farah argued, "It's so unbelievable, unthinkable, inconceivable, by what standard of measurement do the American people use to evaluate this guy? I mean if he was running against just some guy you picked out of the phone book you would have thought they would've rejected Obama because he is a complete and total failure." And there is a certain amount of conventional wisdom in that bitter assessment. But how, then, would he explain the editors of the Salt Lake Tribune endorsing Obama?

    But it was Romney's singular role in rescuing Utah's organization of the 2002 Olympics from a cesspool of scandal, and his oversight of the most successful Winter Games on record, that make him the Beehive State's favorite adopted son. After all, Romney managed to save the state from ignominy, turning the extravaganza into a showcase for the matchless landscapes, volunteerism and efficiency that told the world what is best and most beautiful about Utah and its people.

    In short, this is the Mitt Romney we knew, or thought we knew, as one of us.

    Sadly, it is not the only Romney, as his campaign for the White House has made abundantly clear, first in his servile courtship of the tea party in order to win the nomination, and now as the party's shape-shifting nominee. From his embrace of the party's radical right wing, to subsequent portrayals of himself as a moderate champion of the middle class, Romney has raised the most frequently asked question of the campaign: "Who is this guy, really, and what in the world does he truly believe?"

    The evidence suggests no clear answer, or at least one that would survive Romney's next speech or sound bite. Politicians routinely tailor their words to suit an audience. Romney, though, is shameless, lavishing vastly diverse audiences with words, any words, they would trade their votes to hear.

    Obviously, the one thing we can conclude from that endorsement editorial is that it's women's fault, and George Clooney's, that President Obama won re-election.


    Tashman, Brian. "The Men of the American Family Association Explain how George Clooney Swung the Election to Obama". Right Wing Watch. November 9, 2012. RightWingWatch.org. November 12, 2012. http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/american-family-association-george-clooney-election-obama

    Editorial Board. "Tribune endorsement: Too Many Mitts". Salt Lake Tribune. October 19, 2012. SLTrib.com. November 12, 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/55019844-82/endorsement-obama-president-romney.html.csp
  21. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    This. Plus the only really good point from Mad's list is the Mormonism. Some Evangelicals stayed home, but I don't think it would have made a difference. 3 million people and 120 EC candidates difference....
  22. Bells Staff Member

    You left out a main component.

    And that is reality.

    The Romney campaign ignored polls and instead, relied on bizarre conservative media polls so that they could see what they wanted to see and hear.

    Romney and his campaign had gone into the evening confident they had a good path to victory, for emotional and intellectual reasons. The huge and enthusiastic crowds in swing state after swing state in recent weeks - not only for Romney but also for Paul Ryan - bolstered what they believed intellectually: that Obama would not get the kind of turnout he had in 2008.

    They thought intensity and enthusiasm were on their side this time - poll after poll showed Republicans were more motivated to vote than Democrats - and that would translate into votes for Romney.

    As a result, they believed the public/media polls were skewed - they thought those polls oversampled Democrats and didn't reflect Republican enthusiasm. They based their own internal polls on turnout levels more favorable to Romney. That was a grave miscalculation, as they would see on election night.

    Those assumptions drove their campaign strategy: their internal polling showed them leading in key states, so they decided to make a play for a broad victory: go to places like Pennsylvania while also playing it safe in the last two weeks.

    Those assessments were wrong.


    As we can see, Romney and his campaign were wrong. Very wrong.

    Even back in September, they were accusing polls which showed Obama as leading in Ohio and Florida as being skewed.

    The reason he lost is because he was so sure of winning, he decided to only listen to what he wanted to hear and in short, ignored reality, because he was so sure he could not lose.
  23. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Let's face it, Romney was never a viable candidate. Let's repeat it for our Republican friends, Romney never had a chance. He was still the best candidate from the group of morons, but that doesn't mean he could have won. Also, just because there are 2 candidates, that doesn't mean their chances of winning is 50-50%. Romney already wasted about 40 millions of his own money 4 years ago, he had no choice but keep running. But the real heavyweight Rep candidates (the ones who will run in 2016) just decided that this is not their year and waited this one out.

    So stop blaming this or that, it wasn't like he actually could have won. The US's demography is changing and Latinos and blacks are the deciding factor. He should have picked at least a woman or a minority for VP.

    Now the next election, that will be interesting. In this one I was just praying that nothing happens in the world that would mess with the obvious outcome...

Share This Page