Did the Romney campaign believe they would win at the end

[Calthrina950]

Neither Romney, nor his campaign were the worst, but each was bad enough to where each couldn’t cover the other.

The flaws of the candidate were clear.  Romney was a rich guy who didn’t want to disclose how rich he was, or how he became rich and what he did with his money.  His refusal to make the kind of full financial disclosure the American public has come to expect caused Romney to appear to have something to hide.  It allowed a “whispering campaign” of sorts to allow the proposition that Romney received some sort of amnesty for a tax felony.  This kind of innuendo did Romney more harm than merely being a billionaire or having a Swiss Bank account.  (Most people would love to be rich enough to need a Swiss Bank account.)  The 47% remark didn’t kill Romney, but it hurt him just enough with working class families who have SOMEONE in their family who is dependent on the safety net.  The worst thing about the 47% remark is that it was one of the most UNGUARDED moments of the campaign for Romney; he wasn’t parsing his words or hemming and hawing.  Indeed, Romney ENTHUSIASTICALLY tore into the 47% and people noticed, and the fact that such a rich man was enthusiastic in bashing poorer folks didn’t sit well with key voters on the fence who Romney needed.

But the flaws of the campaign were worse.  A campaign for Mitt Romney should have featured three (3) themes.  One was his competence as a MANAGER, and not as a job creator.  The Job Creator niche was one of the most poorly thought out ideas a campaign ever came about because ROMNEY WAS NOT A JOB CREATOR.  He was a leveraged buyout guy.  That sounds seedy, but Romney could have sold that narrative by focusing on what he did.  One thing he did was assess risk and reward, and he did this very well.  Another thing he did was take companies that were struggling and require them to live within their means.  These sort of things would have projected business and financial competence for Romney that were tied to a narrative that wouldn’t have fallen apart upon learning that companies Bain acquired were shut down by Romney. 

Another theme Romney’s campaign should have featured was his competence as Governor of Massachusetts.  Romney’s running away from this qualification until the end of the campaign was puzzling; it was one of his strong suits, and it was a qualification the average voter would want to know about.  Prior public office is the most important qualification a Presidential candidate can have because it gives a window into what could be expected if that candidate is elected.  And Romney had a record in Massachusetts that made sense.  But he avoided this because of his wanting to avoid the Romneycare equals Obamacare issue.  (Romney would have gotten a boost on this issue if the Supreme Court had knocked out Obamacare, but that didn’t happen.)  As a result, Romney couldn’t talk about one of his leading qualifications for President without appearing awkward and evasive; he couldn’t brag on his signature achievement.

Lastly was the pick of Paul Ryan as VP.  Ryan was a favorite of a number of the Movement Conservatives in the GOP, but he could not help Romney expand the map.  Had he picked Portman, or (better yet) John Kasich, he could have carried Ohio.  Had he picked Condoleeza Rice, he could have made headlines, set a precedent, and possibly expanded the electoral map in any number of places.  Ryan not only didn’t expand the map for him, he brought into the debate economic proposals that many independent voters didn’t buy into and viewed as possibly Draconian.  Ryan’s selection hardened the electoral map.  The pick was poorly thought out; it was like an NFL team drafting players based on the ratings of a magazine you bought at your local pharmacy.

It didn’t help that the GOP’s nutty base made things awkward for Romney, but that could have worked to his advantage.  Romney’s record of moderation COULD have been a huge plus in the general election.  But Romney’s campaign could not see their way through to capitalize on this.  Romney did not have to be as hard on immigration as he was to win the nomination.  I don’t believe he had to repudiate Romneycare to get the nomination.  At no time were any of the mediocre crackpots opposing Mitt Romney (Huntsman being a non-crackpot) in danger of being nominated.  So it blows me away to think that Romney had to (and did) hopelessly compromise his campaign during the nomination process.

It's hard for me to believe that this is the same Fuzzy Bear who is an ardent Trump supporter now, and who has cast doubts on the legitimacy of the last election. Fuzzy Bear serves as an example of how our country's partisan conditions have changed over the past decade, and illuminates the realignments we've seen on the electoral map.

[Calthrina950]

Neither Romney, nor his campaign were the worst, but each was bad enough to where each couldn’t cover the other.

The flaws of the candidate were clear.  Romney was a rich guy who didn’t want to disclose how rich he was, or how he became rich and what he did with his money.  His refusal to make the kind of full financial disclosure the American public has come to expect caused Romney to appear to have something to hide.  It allowed a “whispering campaign” of sorts to allow the proposition that Romney received some sort of amnesty for a tax felony.  This kind of innuendo did Romney more harm than merely being a billionaire or having a Swiss Bank account.  (Most people would love to be rich enough to need a Swiss Bank account.)  The 47% remark didn’t kill Romney, but it hurt him just enough with working class families who have SOMEONE in their family who is dependent on the safety net.  The worst thing about the 47% remark is that it was one of the most UNGUARDED moments of the campaign for Romney; he wasn’t parsing his words or hemming and hawing.  Indeed, Romney ENTHUSIASTICALLY tore into the 47% and people noticed, and the fact that such a rich man was enthusiastic in bashing poorer folks didn’t sit well with key voters on the fence who Romney needed.

But the flaws of the campaign were worse.  A campaign for Mitt Romney should have featured three (3) themes.  One was his competence as a MANAGER, and not as a job creator.  The Job Creator niche was one of the most poorly thought out ideas a campaign ever came about because ROMNEY WAS NOT A JOB CREATOR.  He was a leveraged buyout guy.  That sounds seedy, but Romney could have sold that narrative by focusing on what he did.  One thing he did was assess risk and reward, and he did this very well.  Another thing he did was take companies that were struggling and require them to live within their means.  These sort of things would have projected business and financial competence for Romney that were tied to a narrative that wouldn’t have fallen apart upon learning that companies Bain acquired were shut down by Romney. 

Another theme Romney’s campaign should have featured was his competence as Governor of Massachusetts.  Romney’s running away from this qualification until the end of the campaign was puzzling; it was one of his strong suits, and it was a qualification the average voter would want to know about.  Prior public office is the most important qualification a Presidential candidate can have because it gives a window into what could be expected if that candidate is elected.  And Romney had a record in Massachusetts that made sense.  But he avoided this because of his wanting to avoid the Romneycare equals Obamacare issue.  (Romney would have gotten a boost on this issue if the Supreme Court had knocked out Obamacare, but that didn’t happen.)  As a result, Romney couldn’t talk about one of his leading qualifications for President without appearing awkward and evasive; he couldn’t brag on his signature achievement.

Lastly was the pick of Paul Ryan as VP.  Ryan was a favorite of a number of the Movement Conservatives in the GOP, but he could not help Romney expand the map.  Had he picked Portman, or (better yet) John Kasich, he could have carried Ohio.  Had he picked Condoleeza Rice, he could have made headlines, set a precedent, and possibly expanded the electoral map in any number of places.  Ryan not only didn’t expand the map for him, he brought into the debate economic proposals that many independent voters didn’t buy into and viewed as possibly Draconian.  Ryan’s selection hardened the electoral map.  The pick was poorly thought out; it was like an NFL team drafting players based on the ratings of a magazine you bought at your local pharmacy.

It didn’t help that the GOP’s nutty base made things awkward for Romney, but that could have worked to his advantage.  Romney’s record of moderation COULD have been a huge plus in the general election.  But Romney’s campaign could not see their way through to capitalize on this.  Romney did not have to be as hard on immigration as he was to win the nomination.  I don’t believe he had to repudiate Romneycare to get the nomination.  At no time were any of the mediocre crackpots opposing Mitt Romney (Huntsman being a non-crackpot) in danger of being nominated.  So it blows me away to think that Romney had to (and did) hopelessly compromise his campaign during the nomination process.

It's hard for me to believe that this is the same Fuzzy Bear who is an ardent Trump supporter now, and who has cast doubts on the legitimacy of the last election. Fuzzy Bear serves as an example of how our country's partisan conditions have changed over the past decade, and illuminates the realignments we've seen on the electoral map.

Much has happened since then.  Too much to put into a quick post. 

There is one thing I can say for certain.  From 1995-2020 I self-identified as a "Registered Republican who voted Independently but was a Democrat at heart.  That has changed.  I now comfortably self-identify as a Republican.  Although I will possibly do so again, I cannot at this time imagine myself voting for a Democrat for anything.  I do not wish to aid a destructive leftist in advancing their careers; the most powerful pols in America often started out getting elected to a city council or school board, or a state legislative state from a state with a small population.

https://amgreatness.com/2021/07/16/welcome-to-the-brave-new-america/

They are going full totalitarian and have moved into what Wesley Yang calls Successor Ideology, which views modern liberalism as far too soft. Modern liberalism was not willing to break things, like the republic or pro forma respect for our Constitution and our civil society, to achieve the change the Left’s secular religion demands. The new woke Left, however, is willing to burn it all to the ground and attempt to build a communist paradise from the ashes.

For decades I insisted that this was not the case.  I thought it ridiculous that liberals were "Socialists in Disguise".  I have considered myself to be a "liberal", but there is no "liberal" spirit in today's Left.  The Woke Cabal provided the force and inertia for today's Democratic Party because theirs is the "Successor Ideology".  "Left" and "Liberal" are about to take on very different meanings.  I can see what is going on, and what is going on now is not what was going on when I made that last post.

Needless to say, I do very much believe that this Successor Ideology needs to be stopped at all costs.  I have never advocated abandoning the idea and practice of a Constitutional Republic, Federalism, individual liberties, the Rule of Law, and the Equality of persons in Law.  I will oppose this Successor Ideology with every fiber of my being.  I certainly hope that the Democratic Party comes to its senses and imposes the kind of party discipline on its own members when it comes to this, but that day has not come, and it does not appear that it will come willingly.

Why do you believe that the Republican Party is the best vehicle through which to preserve and extend these principles? I certainly don't see many of their recent actions and comments as fitting within this framework. You've expressed your disagreement with how your own Governor, DeSantis, has addressed the issue of voting rights for felons. You're someone who's had more liberal economic views, with regards to unions, the minimum wage, etc. How are Republicans the best means to achieve the goals you seek? And do not the moral flaws of many of the Republican leaders-Trump in particular-weigh heavily on your mind? After all, you're someone who professes to have a deep faith in God, and who identifies as an evangelical Christian.