« previous   politics   next »

Why Romney Lost


By elliemae   Follow   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 9:59am PST   3,479 views   51 comments   Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)  

http://news.msn.com/politics/why-mitt-romney-lost

Lots of reasons in the article:

"That Mitt Romney lost nonetheless is in part a tribute to his own weaknesses as a candidate. The Obama campaign put Romney on the defensive early about his work at Bain Capital, and left him there. The Republican nominee made any number of horrendous gaffes. He ran a disastrous GOP convention. He never found a way to talk about himself or his agenda in a way that middle class voters could relate to.

"But even a clumsy candidate might have beaten Obama if not for a simple factor that could not be overcome: the GOP’s growing extremism."

I disagree. Mitt Romney isn't a personable man. He is a very wealthy guy who is extremely out of touch with most Americans. He couldn't possibly speak for me, nor can he understand me as a person. If he met me on the street, he would be as condescending as when he was describing the lesser people when he didn't think anyone was watching.

His father was Governor, and he was raised to expect wealth and to expect that he would be deferred to. He didn't appear to understand that respect is something that is earned, and that his offer to bet Rick Perry $10,000 during a debate was condescending and reflective of his attitude toward most Americans who can't afford a $100 bet, much less $10,000.

Mr. Romney and his wife never struggled, never worried where their next meal would come from, never had to look out the door and see if the neighbor's lights were out when their power was cut off (because it was usually lack of payment of the bills and not a power outage). Mitt Romney wasn't a self-made man, he was an opportunist whose lack of compassion and understanding showed through the entire time he was running for office.

Mitt Romney was a man whose wife suffers a debilitating illness but they never had to worry about paying for it - nor did they ever have to choose which medication she would take because they couldn't afford them all. The people who
became unemployed as a result of his "successes" at Bain Capital know what that's like... but not him.

Mitt Romney was out of touch with the common man and woman. He is an elitist, and he doesn't speak for me or anyone I know. And, IMHO, that's why he lost.

What ought to pain Republicans most about Barack Obamas victory is that 2012 was entirely winnable for them. In European elections over the past few years, voters have thrown out leaders who were in charge during the worst of the financial crisis, whether those leaders deserved the blame or not. Economic indicators in the United States, where an unemployment rate of 8 percent is highly correlated with defeat for the incumbent party, pointed in the same direction. Obama himself had proven a disappointment to many of his former supporters, going from a beloved symbol of generational and social change in...

« First     « Previous     Comments 12-51 of 51     Last »

iwog   befriend   ignore   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 4:50pm PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 12

thomaswong.1986 says

To his credit both Bush and Greenspan pointed out he high risk of US mortgages to the banking system. Ignored by the Dems.

Yup, those naughty dems wouldn't let Republicans do anything from 2001 to 2006. It was almost a dictatorship.

thomaswong.1986 says

Even today the Libs dont call it the Housing Bubble.. your still calling it the Mortgage Crisis. Lets just brush aside the notion of a RE bubble..

I call it both but it doesn't really matter. The difference in terms is trivial and the rest of your argument is absurd so I'll ignore it.

iwog   befriend   ignore   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 4:53pm PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 13

thomaswong.1986 says

laughable... its Bush fault.

Lord no, how can it be Bush's fault? I hear it was Barney Franks' fault. He was dictator in 2005 don't ya know.

Bellingham Bill   befriend   ignore   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 5:48pm PST   Share   Quote   Like (3)   Dislike     Comment 14

Bush was the idiot who put us into Afghanistan and Iraq last decade.

That was a $3T unnecessary expenditure, with much more still to be paid for.

Three trillion! The number boggles the mind! It might actually be the one thing that eventually sinks this nation as a functional state.

The Bush Boom itself was just a horribly little pump & dump purchased on debt leverage by abandoning oversight on the mortgage financing market and allowing them to push $6T of new debt on Americans.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CMDEBT

Bush and the Republicans pushed up our defense budget from $350B to the $800B+ it is today. $500B/yr of misallocated wealth.

http://defense.aol.com/2012/03/16/the-military-imbalance-how-the-u-s-outspends-the-world/

we're spending as if we were going to take on the whole world.

He did nothing as the trade deficit doubled:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/NETEXP

I can't blame Bush completely for everything, since some of this had antecedents during the Clinton years.

But I can blame conservatism completely, since all of these issues are rooted in the bullshit of either Koch-funded deregulation or neocon warmongering.

We really fucked ourselves 1999-2008 and it was 100% the conservatives' malfeasance.

I'm not really sure how we're going to fix things now. How do you put Humpty Dumpty back together, or fix a broken airplane in flight?

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MANEMP

curious2   befriend   ignore   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 5:58pm PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 15

Bellingham Bill says

Bush was...

...not an idiot, though I agree with your description of what happened. W affected idiocy, but it was only an affect, clowning and pretending to be not smart enough to fool anyone. In fact he graduated from Harvard and Yale, and he fooled almost everyone. He got everything he wanted (including Saddam and a second term), and empowered and enriched his patronage network enormously; Bandar Bush did particularly well.

Also, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" seem to have lost whatever meaning they used to have. I thought "liberal" meant letting people live their own lives their own way, which is what the founders of the republic meant when they called themselves liberal, not mandating everyone to buy and comply with insurance contracts written by for-profit corporations whose lobbyists buy the legislature. I thought "conservative" meant being a careful steward of resources and traditions, not deficit spending like a drunken sailor on crack. So, I tend to put those words in quotes now, because I'm not sure what people really mean anymore when they describe themselves as one or the other.

Bellingham Bill   befriend   ignore   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 6:13pm PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 16

Obama IMV has been thus far an average President.

Carter-esque, let's say.

He only won reelection because Romney got less votes than Bush in 2004.

This was really a Kodos vs Kang election.

We're still being led up the garden path. If the System actually squared with the People everyone would lose their minds.

This guy knew the score:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimkiernan/6224561169/

The central issue AFAICT we've got to face is our $600B/yr trade deficit. We need to declare war on that, and then win that war.

But related to that is our leaky "paycheck economy" -- money that wage-earners get is quickly beat out of them by the System. The 99% movement kinda understood this but I never saw anyone reach full satori here -- people need to understand exactly how money is flowing in this economy from wage earner to rent-seeker parasite.

Maybe a trillion per year in housing rents. Over a trillion in health care rents. Over six trillion in government spending (though at least a lot of that hits paychecks once or twice).

We've tried to patch over this fundamental imbalance with another imbalance, the trillion+ deficit:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=cAY

that's a real road to hell -- we're borrowing what we should be taxing.

The 1996-2006 period was our "roaring twenties". 2008 was 1929. The System did try to stabilize things a bit more 2009-2012 compared to 1930-1932, but fundamentals are still fucked and things will remain screwed until monetary velocity within the paycheck economy is fixed.

Romney had zero answers to any of that, what the Republicans wanted to do would have made things worse (they're very good at that at least).

Bellingham Bill   befriend   ignore   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 6:33pm PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 17

curious2 says

I'm not sure what people really mean anymore when they describe themselves as one or the other.

The European use of liberal got coopted by the left a long time ago. Whenever Limbaugh refers to "liberals" he means current day Democrats that are opposing the movement conservative program.

Movement conservatism is the long con to bust out the current extra-constitutional order from within. To blow it up and then have the boots on the ground to restructure things more to their liking.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Grover_Norquist

Whether by plan or accident, what the conservatives have been doing is strengthening their position while weakening their enemy's positions.

Yes, this nation is still at war with itself. I see no other way to describe it.

I was looking at the exit polling at just shocked at the partisan divide in describing things.

http://elections.msnbc.msn.com/ns/politics/2012/all/house

Movement conservatism has injected tremendous amounts of bullshit into the discourse, going back to the 1950s and even earlier (Taft's crap) I guess.

Clinton and the DLC behind him -- accused by conservatives as being a "liberal" -- triangulated a lot of that BS right into the Democratic party. Gore (another "liberal"), via Lieberman, same thing.

The future's going to be a lot shittier place than the System is willing to let on now. I suspect this nation is just too damn big to govern effectively. Denmark, Sweden, and Norway are around 20M in total population, that's about the limit I guess, 5 or 10M people per nation-state. Even Canada and Australia are running into problems with their ~25M+ sizes.

marcus   befriend   ignore   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 10:09pm PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 18

Bellingham Bill says

Obama IMV has been thus far an average President.

I may have over stated it, calling him great. But average ? I don't even know what that means. One thing he does have in common with Carter, is that there are serious systemic long term problems that are reflected in the current economy, and it's an economy that "he owns." Not that a President has as much impact on the economy as politicians pretend.

I say he gets at least a B, for his stewardship through such tough times.

But, it's not over, and I agree with most of your analysis of the magnitude of the problems that are not being addressed, and your fixing a plane mid flight metaphor.

Rin   befriend   ignore   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 10:10pm PST   Share   Quote   Like (3)   Dislike     Comment 19

First of all, even without the whole Bain Capital/Robber Baron moniker, what Romney couldn't showcase was his experience as governor of Massachusetts, my permanent home state, and his adopted state, after coming of age. For a candidate, that makes practically no sense. Being governor is usually the best experiential prerequisite for later, running for President. His entire stint as governor was in cutting state programs, increasing fees (in place of taxes), creating Romneycare (major subsidy for big insurance), and leaving the gubernatorial role with a greater deficit plus net job & population losses circa 2007. Now, these were exactly the types of issues he was accusing B.O. of instigating. Talk about the kettle calling the pot, black. If Mass residents had their own PACs, we could have easily shown all the swing states, how completely mediocre Romney was, without even needing to say anything good about Obama in the process.

zzyzzx   befriend   ignore   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 10:28pm PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 20

You people forget how hard it is to get rid of incumbents. Any incumbents, even terrible ones usually get re-elected.

marcus   befriend   ignore   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 10:33pm PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 21

Bellingham Bill says

I can't blame Bush completely for everything, since some of this had antecedents during the Clinton years.

But I can blame conservatism completely, since all of these issues are rooted in the bullshit of either Koch-funded deregulation or neocon warmongering.

Good summary, ... well put.

Conservatives don't want to think about this, or they say "yeah, but that was Bush, how can you liberals still harp on that, OBama owns it now."

The reason is that the aftermath was a crippling blow to the economy (2008). And even now GDP and tax revenues are much more below projections than spending is.

One other comment about Obama's grade. I'm pretty sure that my cringing when listening to Bush, wasn't just about disagreeing with his policies. For intelligence and oratory skills, if GW Bush was a 'D' grade, then OBama is WAY off the scale.

marcus   befriend   ignore   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 10:46pm PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 22

zzyzzx says

Any incumbents, even terrible ones usually get re-elected.

Even African American ones, when unemployemnt is at 8% ?

Yeah, yeah, I know, I'm the one bringing up race. Maybe not a factor, since possibly there are enough people in blue states that perceive his non-whiteness to be a positive (for whatever reason - maybe just pride in our diversity), that it offsets the racists in red states (not that they're all located there). And possibly in both cases the states would be blue or red without this regardless.

StoutFiles   befriend   ignore   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 10:50pm PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 23

zzyzzx says

You people forget how hard it is to get rid of incumbents. Any incumbents, even terrible ones usually get re-elected.

It's mostly due to Stockholm Syndrome.

YesYNot   befriend   ignore   Wed, 7 Nov 2012, 11:16pm PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 24

Back in 2008, when Obama won, I thought it was a mixed blessing for him. I didn't think it was possible for whomever won to have a second term. We seemed to be completely fucked at the time, and not all, but many people understand that. Results are not judged in a vacuum. He has had a lot of really good wins over the last four years, and I am surprised that we are not worse off now.

Part of why Mitt lost is that Obama won. Obama's victory is a great achievement in light of (1) where we were when he took office and (2) what has happened to other leaders in elections around the world since the 2008 crash.

uomo_senza_nome   befriend   ignore   Thu, 8 Nov 2012, 12:03am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 25

marcus says

I may have over stated it, calling him great. But average ? I don't even know what that means.

I would call a President who:

1. did not prosecute a single Wall Street crime in his four year term (even though there was massive fraud)
2. bailed out the big banks but failed to break them up (to reduce systemic risk) and failed to impose harsher terms (Dodd-Frank was massively watered down by the bank lobby)
3. passed the completely unconstitutional NDAA and defended it in the New York district court (which deemed it unconstitutional upon appeal by Chomsky, Hedges and others)

as an "average" president, or even below average. Obama, IMO is a moderate Republican.

Using the term "Great" for Obama was pure hyperbole.

zzyzzx   befriend   ignore   Thu, 8 Nov 2012, 12:08am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 26

marcus says

I'll say it. Obama is a great President.

Paying people to buy cars that are made in Japan, Korea, and Mexico when unemployment is this high is not my idea of a great president. I think Romney should have talked about this a lot during his campaign.

edvard2   befriend   ignore   Thu, 8 Nov 2012, 12:41am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 27

Romney lost because the country's demographics have changed and Republicans as of now only appeal to the same chunk of the populace they always have while the growing minority demographic votes heavily Democratic. Unless the GOP changes it won't matter if even 100% of their base votes for them. They will lose. Doesn't matter if it was Romney or someone else.

Peter P   befriend   ignore   Thu, 8 Nov 2012, 12:46am PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 28

Romney lost because Obama was excellent in winning elections. I have a lot of respect for him in this.

We can retroactively attribute reasons all we want. But reasons are overrated.

dublin hillz   befriend   ignore   Thu, 8 Nov 2012, 12:52am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 29

lostand confused says

But Mittens likes grits-well, only when he visits southern states.

Isn't grits bad for you just like lard? That's a rather unenlightened way of eating, rather unrefined wouldn't you say? It is much healthier to eat sushi with edamame and then to finish it off with green tea. What's with this bastardly malnutrition that we see being eaten all around us.? Do people have a death wish to die in their early 60 or even before. I tell you, what travesty. I am gonna have another cup of green tea at the thought of this horror, horror!

uomo_senza_nome   befriend   ignore   Thu, 8 Nov 2012, 12:57am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 30

edvard2 says

Unless the GOP changes it won't matter if even 100% of their base votes for them. They will lose. Doesn't matter if it was Romney or someone else.

http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/we-really-need-peter-thiel-conservatism.html

edvard2 says

Republicans as of now only appeal to the same chunk of the populace they always have while the growing minority demographic votes heavily Democratic.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/07/the-real-real-america/

edvard2   befriend   ignore   Thu, 8 Nov 2012, 1:04am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 31

dublin hillz says

Isn't grits bad for you just like lard? That's a rather unenlightened way of eating, rather unrefined wouldn't you say? It is much healthier to eat sushi with edamame and then to finish it off with green tea.

Hey now.... I might vote for Democrats, but I am also a Southern guy and one way to upset Southerners regardless of political affiliation is to diss their food! All kidding aside, grits alone is simply made out of corn. But- you add in cheese, bacon, and some green peppers, bake that in the oven until the top is a bit crisp.... man oh man its good stuff.

dublin hillz   befriend   ignore   Thu, 8 Nov 2012, 1:08am PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 32

Republican leadershit has made horrendous blunders. Politics, just like sports is a game of matchups. You have to neutralize your opponents' strengths and magnify their weaknesses. In reality, they did the exact opposite. Why would you appeal to only one group (white males, particularly wealthy ones) and alienate everyone else. How stupid can you be? The results showed up on electoral map. That's the equivalent of not even covering the other team's best wide receiver and daring the other offense to throw the ball deep!

Bellingham Bill   befriend   ignore   Thu, 8 Nov 2012, 1:10am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 33

Peter P says

Romney lost because Obama was excellent in winning elections.

Thing is, McCain's vote total would have taken Ohio and Florida this Tuesday.

You had a faulty candidate, worse than McCain. Plus letting up on the anti-women, anti-gays, anti-poor people, and anti-Latino stuff in general would help too.

Pandering a bit to the non-Christians in this country would be gravy!

dublin hillz   befriend   ignore   Thu, 8 Nov 2012, 1:10am PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 34

robertoaribas says

Obama got 76% of the Asian vote. Considering that as a demographic, Asians are actually more wealthy than whites, why do you think they went counter to the prevailing trend of those making over $200K voting for Romney???


think hard about it... Think really hard...

All their thinly veiled racism (kenya, muslim, real american) came back to bite them in the ass. Even the wealthy asians realized that they would rather vote for pride and not be marginalized than focus primarily on their own personal tax rates.

Quigley   befriend   ignore   Thu, 8 Nov 2012, 1:16am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 35

Republicans had a better option for their candidate, but they chose to ignore and actively sideline him in favor of their favored elitist and radical religion-spouting crack heads who wouldn't have had a prayer against Obama. Seriously, Santorum? And ignoring a responsible conscientious man like Ron Paul. The GOP lost its damn mind! They won't win another presidency until they overhaul their thinking and positions. Actually screw them, I want a valid independent party! The GOP needs to die when the boomer generation does.

Bellingham Bill   befriend   ignore   Thu, 8 Nov 2012, 1:16am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 36

uomo_senza_nome says

the completely unconstitutional NDAA

NDAA was buried in a bigger defense bill and didn't change the status quo.

A "great president" would have vetoed it, yes. Said president would be heading out of office now, since that act would provide a magnitude more ammunition for the right to attack him with (as soft on national security) and a lot more time to hit him with it.

This doesn't mean I think Obama has been a great president, just that this particular thing doesn't disqualify him.

Great presidents are hard to find. I can only think of three, Lincoln + the two Roosevelts, and these guys also had massive failings.

Politics is a tough business. The bullshit here is astounding.

Maybe the simplest is best, if your policies left the country better off, you were good. The better, the better you were. Maybe Jefferson would also sneak in here with the Louisiana Purchase, something else that was unconstitutional.

Not making things worse would make you an OK president. Carter and many others fall into here.

Active stupidity makes you a bad president. We all have our examples here.

Peter P   befriend   ignore   Thu, 8 Nov 2012, 1:22am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 37

robertoaribas says

Obama got 76% of the Asian vote. Considering that as a demographic, Asians are actually more wealthy than whites, why do you think they went counter to the prevailing trend of those making over $200K voting for Romney???

think hard about it... Think really hard...

Asian voters tend to be young and living with parents?

Obama was very successful in energizing is base.

Landru3000   befriend   ignore   Thu, 8 Nov 2012, 1:22am PST