Was the Romney campaign the worst ever?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

No, but he was the worst candidate. As someone who has many Hispanics in my family, I am very hurt he mentioned self deportation.

In 2007, twice as many illegals self-deported as were deported by the Gov't because of the declining economy. I think it is safe to say that a few hundred thousand did so in 2009 and 2010.

Self-deportation has nothing to do with hating hispanics. It is a decision made by the illegal when facing a certain environment in terms of jobs, enforcement and other sustaining factors both legal and illegal. It is already happening as it is (see above), hence why when Romney was asked what would happen to the illegal aliens if not legalized he said, "self-deportation". It is not a policy choice but a result of a set of actions (one that is happening now and more so under Obama then Bush), nor or is it a desirable circumstance, but it is the natural consequence of perpetuating a constant illegal presence. Romney would have ended that or at least tried.

Romney would have been better giving some drawn out response that didn't stick as opposed to a phrase like that, but at the end of the day if you don't legalize every last illegal upon entry it is unavoidable. Essentially, self-deportation is an unavoidable reality unless one were to come out and advocate for unlimited immigration with no restrictions or requirements ( We can sustain a good deal of immigration, but everyone has limits and we are no exception on that score). Otherwise there will always be an illegal population (in fact the more times you legalize those here, the more there will be the next time) and thus to the extent that enforcement of the workplace is done or the economy takes a hit, it will occur.

Self-deportation is just as much a cylical reality as the next wave is and it is precisely because we have pursued a policy of cyclical amnesty. It is the present status quo, just as much as bills like the Senate's (and others containing mass legalization) are by virtue of the facilitation of such. If one wants to change the status quo on immigration, the only way is through something like what Romney was supporting. Enforcement of the work place and no legalization, but pro-legal immigration (and at increased levels mind you).

[bluedogsam]

the Dukakis campaign imho was the worst i ever saw. the only bright thing he did was to select Senator Lloyd Benston for vp. terrible campaign commericals also.

[Lincoln Republican]

To begin with, this was an election that was definitely winnable for Romney.

However, Romney turned out to be too gaffe prone.

[tmthforu94]

To begin with, this was an election that was definitely winnable for Romney.

However, Romney turned out to be too gaffe prone.

I think it was a tough go from the start. A lot of outside forces contributed to Romney losing - he may have been able to stop some, such as the media's poor portrayal of him, but some were almost beyond his control. Fixing the little mistakes in 2016 will lead to a much better and successful campaign.

[sg0508]

The irony is, while Romney appeared like a Corporate/Top 1% snake, he was far, far more honest about the state of the middle class than the president and of course, Americans don't like the truth being thrown in their face.

The "43%" comment as far as I'm concerned was "it" for Romney but he was right.  The middle class is screwed, we're fighting a losing battle in the global economy and there is little any domestic politician can do to help them.  Romney all but said this a few times in the campaign and it turned off a lot of people.  That being said, he's absolutely right and in the back of our minds, we know it.

Then on Election Night, the only poll question you had to hear was the one concerning whether the candidate's positions will help the rich, middle class or poor.  Naturally (and partly because of his past the general GOP), Romney's would help the rich (so voters thought) and the president's would help the middle class/poor. 

That was it.

[hopper]

The irony is, while Romney appeared like a Corporate/Top 1% snake, he was far, far more honest about the state of the middle class than the president and of course, Americans don't like the truth being thrown in their face.

The "43%" comment as far as I'm concerned was "it" for Romney but he was right.  The middle class is screwed, we're fighting a losing battle in the global economy and there is little any domestic politician can do to help them.  Romney all but said this a few times in the campaign and it turned off a lot of people.  That being said, he's absolutely right and in the back of our minds, we know it.

Then on Election Night, the only poll question you had to hear was the one concerning whether the candidate's positions will help the rich, middle class or poor.  Naturally (and partly because of his past the general GOP), Romney's would help the rich (so voters thought) and the president's would help the middle class/poor. 

That was it.

Well 47%.

Yeah Romney won 4 out of 5 big time questions over Obama in terms if he was up to the job of being president. The 1 question that he lost: Does(he-Romney) care about people like me? Romney lost that question by a whopping 70 points(81-11.) There went NV's and FL's electoral votes with that question loss. That question loss prevented VA from being closer than it could have been. That question loss hurt with him key groups(White Moderates, Latino's, Asians, and even some Suburban Blacks.)

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Romney doesn't even come close to Dewey and Dukakis. The first had it in the bag, so he relaxed and sat back, allowing Truman to pull his historic upset. The second led by a double-digits till the last couple of months, just to lose by a landslide.

[Mordecai]

Not the worst campaign, but probably one of the worst Republican candidates in generations. He's a walking stereotype of a Republican. At least Dubya had folksiness and was likeable, at least McCain had his life story and colorful temper.

I don't see how Romney thought he could beat Obama, or how his supporters could have thought he'd beat Obama. They thought he'd be the next Reagan. Did they know nothing about his business career and Bain Capital? Or that his signature achievement in Massachusetts, healthcare reform, would become a lightning rod? It's not that he won the nomination so much as he was the only half-respectable person they could find. And the fact that Romney is being floated for the 2016 shows how shallow the pool is, not his strength as a candidate.

[You kip if you want to...]

Palin alone makes the McCain campaign much worse.

Romney had his high points (the first debate) and he probably could've won if his party weren't seen as crazy still and he wasn't the biggest gaffe machine to run for president in a long while.

It just so happens that Obama's so good of a campaigner, he made Romney's campaign look terrible.

[hopper]

Palin alone makes the McCain campaign much worse.

Romney had his high points (the first debate) and he probably could've won if his party weren't seen as crazy still and he wasn't the biggest gaffe machine to run for president in a long while.

It just so happens that Obama's so good of a campaigner, he made Romney's campaign look terrible.

He made 2 big gaffes: the 47% comment and the "self deport" comment. Obama made "you didn't build that" comment so it was 2-1 in gaffes Romney to Obama. Are there any other Romney gaffes that I forgot about?

I just thought the 2012 Presidential Republican Primaries put a premium on how far right you had to run on a political spectrum scale that it cost him in the general.

[moderatevoter]

I personally thought the Ryan pick simply didn't help Romney. It wasn't as destructive of a pick as Palin, but I remember reading somewhere that the Ryan pick may have singlehandedly cost Romney Florida. Not to mention, I just think it's not a sound strategy picking someone who's highest office has been the House of Representatives, and not a statewide win. Plus the Ryan pick made Romney more associated with the House GOP, who weren't particularly popular.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

I personally thought the Ryan pick simply didn't help Romney. It wasn't as destructive of a pick as Palin, but I remember reading somewhere that the Ryan pick may have singlehandedly cost Romney Florida. Not to mention, I just think it's not a sound strategy picking someone who's highest office has been the House of Representatives, and not a statewide win. Plus the Ryan pick made Romney more associated with the House GOP, who weren't particularly popular.

Who do you think he should've picked?

Rubio.

[Bojack Horseman]

I think Romney was a good semi-moderate facade for the hate and desperation shown by the GOP in 2012. Now the 47% remark really torpedoed his campaign, IMO, just like Todd Akin's "Legitimate rape" comment.

All in all, I think we really dodged a bullet by not electing him President.

[sg0508]

Again, Romney all but told the American people that the middle class is screwed. It just shows you what a bunch of pussies Americans are.  When was the last time you actually heard a politician say that things aren't good? Pres. Ford in the 1976 State of the Union perhaps?

Romney spelled it out.  There's nothing that can be done to help the middle class. Globalization killed us and we're paying for it, many of which are our own doings.

Of course, he spelled it out and lost because of it.

[sg0508]

Ryan was supposed to help with some traction in the midwest and with young voters too.  Neither materialized.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Again, Romney all but told the American people that the middle class is screwed. It just shows you what a bunch of pussies Americans are.  When was the last time you actually heard a politician say that things aren't good? Pres. Ford in the 1976 State of the Union perhaps?

Romney spelled it out.  There's nothing that can be done to help the middle class. Globalization killed us and we're paying for it, many of which are our own doings.

Of course, he spelled it out and lost because of it.

Probably Carter.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

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.

[m4567]

According to Allan Licthman's 13 keys to the Whitehouse, Romney was supposed to lose.

[hopper]

I think Romney was a good semi-moderate facade for the hate and desperation shown by the GOP in 2012. Now the 47% remark really torpedoed his campaign, IMO, just like Todd Akin's "Legitimate rape" comment.

All in all, I think we really dodged a bullet by not electing him President.

What hate and desperation? If there was a candidate in the presidential race who was running on desperation it was Obama he ran a negative campaign throughout by attacking Romney because very simply he didn't have a good record in his first term to run on like Bill Clinton did in 1996 or Ronald Reagan did in 1984.

See when you don't have a record to run on and you get results like Carter in 1976 and H.W. Bush in 1992 but the Obama Camp got away with running a negative campaign because Romney ran so far to the right. Plus Obama is a good campaigner.

[hopper]

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.

Romney did disclose his financials and he made his money through being a businessman. I'm sure the 47% comment cost him maybe 1% of the vote but it wouldn't have made a difference in the end in my opinion. With the Romney Care you are on to something that he really couldn't say to the GOP base really use RomneyCare as an asset through the campaign because RomneyCare=ObamaCare to the GOP Base. Romney didn't bash poor people he was just saying 47% of the people aren't gonna vote for him because the Democrats are for people who are poor. That's bot bashing that's just an analogy. The comment was sloppy but not demeaning.

Maybe that was a bad idea to run a campaign as a Job Creator he should have ran as a candidate who would make a good work environment for business's to create jobs.

I think the only time Romney compromised his campaign was the self-deport comment.

Ohio-No Romney was not carrying since Blacks 45 and older (especially black women) maximized their turnout in the state to support Obama. Blacks only make up 12% of Ohio's population(yes it is the state closest to the US Black Population overall) but Blacks made up 15% of the vote in Ohio on election day. Sure Ryan's proposals are always a little sloppy at times. The Original Ryan Plan was draconian as a Moderate Voter myself. The Ryan Plan II was a good starting point though from what my reaction was of it at the time. No Ryan really wasn't the leading candidate for VP I think it was between Pawlenty and Rubio. I thought Romney was gonna pick Pawlenty so it surprised me he picked Ryan at the time.

He didn't repudiate RomneyCare he simply said it wouldn't work nationwide. I think Romney would have had a harder time winning the nomination of he didn't run really right wing since the GOP Base was just coming off the Tea Party Wave Election of 2010.

[Vega]

I think the entire Obama is a European socialist and that’s bad campaign he ran, was awful.

And stupid. It damaged his campaign.