Was the Romney campaign the worst ever?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:07:15 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Was the Romney campaign the worst ever?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: Was the Romney campaign the worst ever?  (Read 9476 times)
CJK
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 671
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 24, 2013, 10:21:13 PM »

Sorry for being really late, but I have to say that the Romney campaign was so terrible last year at times I actually thought they were trying to lose on purpose. Paul Ryan as running mate? Not mentioning massive economic depression until day 3 of the convention? Completely forgetting Afghanistan in your acceptance speech? Being taken by surprise that you would be portrayed as a rich plutocrat?

A lot of people thought McCain and Dole ran terrible campaigns but considering the situation they were in (solid economy in 1996, economic crisis/unpopular president in 2008) I'd say they did surprisingly well. What is Romney's excuse for failing to exploit the worst "recovery" in history?
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 24, 2013, 11:31:08 PM »

This thread is red meat for Democrats. Romney's campaign was better than McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Goldwater, Dole, McCain, Kerry, Wilkie, Landon. I'll go as far as to say he was more electable than Al Gore but had the misfortune of running against an incumbent president. If you look at Romney, he had the ability to lead towards the end, was a good speaker, and criticisms such as his stance on abortion being multiple choice didn't really hurt him. Basically, he was very evenly matched with Obama who held the incumbency advantage. In today's world even astronomical unemployment, unpopular wars, and a raging hatred towards those who earn enough money to pay taxes which fund the president's salary is yet not enough to get rid of a president.

I really hope no one thinks Romney ran a worse campaign than George McGovern.
Logged
HansOslo
Rookie
**
Posts: 142
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 25, 2013, 03:42:18 AM »

I think it is impossible to say whether or not Romney ran a better campaign than McGovern or Goldwater. But that isn’t important either. The point is that Romney ran a really bad campaign. The one issue were he was to the right of the rest of the field in the primary was immigration. His stance on immigration, his personality and his comments about “the 47%” meant that he wasn’t going to do any better among Hispanic voters than McCain did. He might have been able to overcome this problem by doing better with white voters, but a lot of white working class voters didn’t turn out for a man who increasingly seemed like an inept plutocrat. These voters might have disliked Obama, but they didn’t care for Mr “I bet you 10 000 dollars” either.

McCain on the other hand played his hand of bad cards very well. Facing an opponent who walked on water, and an unpopular incumbent from his own party in the White House he had closed in Obama's lead by the early fall. If it weren’t for the financial collapse and the whole Palin debacle, McCain could have won.
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 25, 2013, 08:51:49 AM »

I think it is impossible to say whether or not Romney ran a better campaign than McGovern or Goldwater. But that isn’t important either. The point is that Romney ran a really bad campaign. The one issue were he was to the right of the rest of the field in the primary was immigration. His stance on immigration, his personality and his comments about “the 47%” meant that he wasn’t going to do any better among Hispanic voters than McCain did. He might have been able to overcome this problem by doing better with white voters, but a lot of white working class voters didn’t turn out for a man who increasingly seemed like an inept plutocrat. These voters might have disliked Obama, but they didn’t care for Mr “I bet you 10 000 dollars” either.

McCain on the other hand played his hand of bad cards very well. Facing an opponent who walked on water, and an unpopular incumbent from his own party in the White House he had closed in Obama's lead by the early fall. If it weren’t for the financial collapse and the whole Palin debacle, McCain could have won.


McCain may have been able to pull it off without the financial collapse, but I think Palin actually helped him by a few points. If we were to take running mates out and have Obama against McCain, then I think it could've been as bad as 55-44 for Obama in 2008. As for Romney, I don't think his gaffes quite equal Obama's acceptance of defeat with Benghazi, his big bird ad, or saying "at some point you've made enough money." More than anything his incumbency helped him get by.
Logged
Thomas D
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,042
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.84, S: -6.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 25, 2013, 09:08:56 AM »

I don't think Romney ran the worst campaign. But Goldwater & McGovern never had a shot at winning. 

So I think a better question is: Did Romney run the worst campaign of a candidate who could have won?

To which I say no, Dukakis was worse then Romney.
Logged
m4567
Rookie
**
Posts: 220
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 25, 2013, 09:10:32 AM »

I think it is impossible to say whether or not Romney ran a better campaign than McGovern or Goldwater. But that isn’t important either. The point is that Romney ran a really bad campaign. The one issue were he was to the right of the rest of the field in the primary was immigration. His stance on immigration, his personality and his comments about “the 47%” meant that he wasn’t going to do any better among Hispanic voters than McCain did. He might have been able to overcome this problem by doing better with white voters, but a lot of white working class voters didn’t turn out for a man who increasingly seemed like an inept plutocrat. These voters might have disliked Obama, but they didn’t care for Mr “I bet you 10 000 dollars” either.

McCain on the other hand played his hand of bad cards very well. Facing an opponent who walked on water, and an unpopular incumbent from his own party in the White House he had closed in Obama's lead by the early fall. If it weren’t for the financial collapse and the whole Palin debacle, McCain could have won.


I don't think McCain was going to win, but it probably would've been closer without the financial collapse.
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 25, 2013, 09:10:55 AM »

I don't think Romney ran the worst campaign. But Goldwater & McGovern never had a shot at winning. 

So I think a better question is: Did Romney run the worst campaign of a candidate who could have won?

To which I say no, Dukakis was worse then Romney.

I don't think there's any way Dukakis could've won. How far back should we look at?
Logged
Thomas D
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,042
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.84, S: -6.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 25, 2013, 09:16:51 AM »

He was up 10 points in the Summer of 1988.

I try to keep these discussions in the post WW II era. So 1948-2012.
Logged
Clarko95 📚💰📈
Clarko95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,590
Sweden


Political Matrix
E: -5.61, S: -1.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 25, 2013, 10:01:42 AM »

Not the worst, but definitely up there.


Romney's loss could be more attributed to the tainting of the Republican brand over the past decade than to Mitt himself.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 25, 2013, 10:21:55 AM »

It wasn't very good, but it wasn't the worst, not by a long shot.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 25, 2013, 10:31:27 AM »

I don't think Romney ran the worst campaign. But Goldwater & McGovern never had a shot at winning. 

So I think a better question is: Did Romney run the worst campaign of a candidate who could have won?

To which I say no, Dukakis was worse then Romney.

I don't think there's any way Dukakis could've won. How far back should we look at?

Dukakis is the answer to the worst modern Presidential campaign.  He had a double digit lead in the polls at various points, but his campaign was a trainwreck.  The Dukakis campaign manager had actually never run a political campaign before and it showed.  They refused to respond to attacks by Bush and they made a ton of rookie mistakes. 
Logged
Stranger in a strange land
strangeland
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,139
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 25, 2013, 10:59:20 AM »

Not as bad as Kerry or Dukakis, so no.

I really hope no one thinks Romney ran a worse campaign than George McGovern.

McGovern may not have run the worst campaign of all time, but he ran the worst one of the TV era. He wasn't going to win anyway, but he certainly didn't do himself any favors.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,720
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 25, 2013, 11:23:49 AM »

Romney's loss could be more attributed to the tainting of the Republican brand over the past decade than to Mitt himself.

This would be correct. In many ways, Romney was actually close to the ideal candidate.
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 25, 2013, 01:31:24 PM »

I don't think Romney ran the worst campaign. But Goldwater & McGovern never had a shot at winning. 

So I think a better question is: Did Romney run the worst campaign of a candidate who could have won?

To which I say no, Dukakis was worse then Romney.

Willie Horton didn't help him and neither did his stance on allowing prisoners to see their families. His background of Massachusetts has never helped any candidates either. He was a complete putts. Remember when he drove around in an army tank?

I don't think there's any way Dukakis could've won. How far back should we look at?

Dukakis is the answer to the worst modern Presidential campaign.  He had a double digit lead in the polls at various points, but his campaign was a trainwreck.  The Dukakis campaign manager had actually never run a political campaign before and it showed.  They refused to respond to attacks by Bush and they made a ton of rookie mistakes. 
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 25, 2013, 01:33:26 PM »

Again I say Romney was very evenly matched with Clinton. Aside from comparisons, he's very centrist, doesn't show any interest in being involved with foreign wars yet he's strong on defense, has experience governing a large state and mind you working with the other party, and is a great speaker. We saw a lot of amazing qualities in him and part of me hopes he isn't finished, but probably is.
Logged
MalaspinaGold
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 987


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 25, 2013, 02:07:42 PM »

On what issues is Romney "centrist"?
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 25, 2013, 03:40:55 PM »


To a lot of moderates he was centrist on social security, Medicare, immigration, taxes, and healthcare. In Massachusetts he was center-left.
Logged
MalaspinaGold
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 987


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 25, 2013, 11:41:46 PM »


To a lot of moderates he was centrist on social security, Medicare, immigration, taxes, and healthcare. In Massachusetts he was center-left.
He was so centrist on social security he took Paul Ryan as his VP. He was so centrist on immigration he supported self-deportation. Taxes he was a standard republican. Immigration no one knew where he was, because no one really cared.
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 26, 2013, 12:14:03 AM »


To a lot of moderates he was centrist on social security, Medicare, immigration, taxes, and healthcare. In Massachusetts he was center-left.
He was so centrist on social security he took Paul Ryan as his VP. He was so centrist on immigration he supported self-deportation. Taxes he was a standard republican. Immigration no one knew where he was, because no one really cared.

I've never heard of a centrist choosing another centrist as their running mate so thank you for proving my point.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 27, 2013, 04:13:23 AM »
« Edited: August 27, 2013, 06:49:43 PM by True Federalist »

No.  Romney failed to win an election that would have been tough for even a better Republican candidate to win.   Dewey managed to lose in 1948 even tho he should have won, so the 1948 Dewey campaign was definitely worse than the 2012 Romney campaign.
(Edited a mistake to disappear down a memory hole.)
Logged
Kevin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,424
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 27, 2013, 07:15:50 AM »

I'd say Romney's campaign was about equal to Kerry's in performance maybe a little worse. Since given the dynamics the GOP was facing in 2012 they should have by all means defeated Obama.
Logged
bballrox4717
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 949


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -3.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: August 27, 2013, 01:42:51 PM »

I'd say Romney's campaign was about equal to Kerry's in performance maybe a little worse. Since given the dynamics the GOP was facing in 2012 they should have by all means defeated Obama.

I like the Romney-Kerry comparison, in that each were the best, yet flawed candidates in mediocre fields who ran mediocre campaigns against two campaign machines in Bush and Obama.

I really don't think either Bush or Obama would have lost, even if Romney or Kerry ran campaigns as well as Bill Clinton in '92. Both Romney and Kerry found themselves as frontrunners when stronger candidates backed out, presumably because they thought they couldn't win.

It's really easy to look at the stats of the election in hindsight and say, "Man, Daniels or Christie would have taken Obama to the cleaners," or "Hillary would have destroyed Bush," but there are damn good reasons why they didn't run.
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,435
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: August 27, 2013, 10:26:39 PM »

They can't be the worst ever, because they outperformed so many Republican candidates for statewide office. Plus, there have obviously been worst results in elections: See Barry Goldwater in 1964, and George McGovern in 1972.

The Romney campaign made some unambiguous mistakes, buying ad time in Pennslyvania late at inflated prices, and expecting to win the election even when the polls suggested Obama would win.

But, a loss was probably expected. Obama was a charismatic incumbent. In the last 100+ years, there's only been one time when a party got kicked out of the White House after just one term. Obama had a major foreign policy accomplishment, with the death of Osama Bin Laden, as well as a recent major domestic accomplishment, with his handling of Hurricane Sandy. And the economy was improving. With all that, Romney kept the election within four points.

Incidentally, I've come to the conclusion that Kerry was an underrated candidate due to how close he kept an election against an incumbent in the middle of a war, that was considered at the time to be going successfully.
Logged
illegaloperation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 777


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: August 28, 2013, 12:55:05 AM »

Absolutely! Absolutely!

Had anyone else run on the exact same positions as Romney did, but with a better campaign, he would have won by a landslide.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,806
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: August 28, 2013, 01:08:56 AM »

Basically, since losing in 2006, the GOP has written the 47 percent crowd off. Dems have had new members of congress especially members like McCaskill, heidikempt and Warren to help assist in holding the Obama multiracial coalition. With Hillary against Christie it will be the same.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.055 seconds with 11 queries.