Did the Romney campaign believe they would win at the end

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Or was it just fake confidence?

[ElectionsGuy]

Yeah, they actually thought they would win. They were shocked. Too much over confidence and selective poll skewing.

[Supersonic]

Yes they did. If I recall they had prepared a huge firework display to have gone off over Boston once it was called for Mitt. In all honesty, I thought he would win, I was caught hook, line and sinker for the 'skewed polls' meme.

[sg0508]

I believe deep down they knew they were toast.  There was very little in the last week (unless they were banking on media bias) to predict a Romney win in the key states.  As it turned out, except for NC, he lost all of them.

[Liberalrocks]

Clearly Mitt and family did and its shown on the Netflix documentary. The fact that he had no concession speech prepared. What a joke.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

He indeed thought he would win but Hurricane Sandy shook his confidence and he thought that at the end, voters would elect him. But, overall, he indeed believed he was gonna pull through, though.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

I believe the Romney campaign's confidence and the source of the "skewed polls"  was because they predicted Democratic turnout would fall significantly as compared to 2008.

IIRC, Democrats were 39% of the electorate in 2008, and were predicted to fall to 34-36% in the polls favoring Romney, but in reality Democrats held up at 38% of the electorate.



It's not entirely an unreasonable belief, but as the polls kept showing high Democrat turnout as the election approached, it was a little naiive of them to not take Obama's ground game (which, whether you love him or hate him, is effing amazing) seriously.

It was just brutally arrogant of Romney not to prepare a concession speech, though.

[dmmidmi]

I believe the Romney campaign's confidence and the source of the "skewed polls"  was because they predicted Democratic turnout would fall significantly as compared to 2008.

IIRC, Democrats were 39% of the electorate in 2008, and were predicted to fall to 34-36% in the polls favoring Romney, but in reality Democrats held up at 38% of the electorate.


It's not entirely an unreasonable belief, but as the polls kept showing high Democrat turnout as the election approached, it was a little naiive of them to not take Obama's ground game (which, whether you love him or hate him, is effing amazing) seriously.

If the consensus of all pollsters was that Democratic turnout was going to look a lot like 2008, why would believing otherwise be anything but unreasonable?

[Badger]

Sadly, they totally did,  despite all evidence to the contrary.

[Del Tachi]

I believe deep down they knew they were toast.  There was very little in the last week (unless they were banking on media bias) to predict a Romney win in the key states.  As it turned out, except for NC, he lost all of them.

My thoughts exactly.

The Romney camp might have been ran but inept campaigners, but not complete idiots - they could see the writing on the wall.  Overconfidence is nothing new and should be expected from politicians.

[TTS1996]

The curious thing is, outside of America (where, I know, it didn't matter at all as no one here had a vote) nobody - not me who backed Romney, nor anyone else - ever got the impression it was anything other than an Obama walkover. Not just "Here in non-America we all back Obama" but "Even over there in America it's almost impossible Obama can lose".

Most of this - bizarre as I think it might seem to Americans on the board, at least GOP-ers - boiled down to "Romney is a hard-right nutjob, and so unelectable". It seemed almost tautological; Romney was the GOP nominee - the GOP are hard-right nutjobs - therefore Romney's a hard-right unelectable nutjob. Despite Romney being about as much a Bircher nutjob as, well, John McCain.

But the rhetoric of practically all the media in the non-American Anglosphere took up that message. I think not because of Romney-hatred but GOP-hatred and servile Obama-love; even in 2012 the treatment of Obama as some sort of film star hadn't worn off.

And yet this is a question for the GOP - the "West" (eg Australia, Britain etc) media didn't give a damn for American politics through much of 2009, 2010, 2011. Yet when Obama came up for election in 2012 the whole Yes We Can hero-worship stars-in-the-eyes bullsh@@t machine cranked up over here all over again as if nothing had changed since 2008. Why?

[DS0816]

Or was it just fake confidence?

Essentially you're asking if there was anyone in the Romney/Ryan campaign with any mathematical skills and the brains to make sense of numbers.

I'll guess there was at least one person.

Paul Ryan seemed to disappear weeks before Election Day. That would indicate something.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

I believe the Romney campaign's confidence and the source of the "skewed polls"  was because they predicted Democratic turnout would fall significantly as compared to 2008.

IIRC, Democrats were 39% of the electorate in 2008, and were predicted to fall to 34-36% in the polls favoring Romney, but in reality Democrats held up at 38% of the electorate.


It's not entirely an unreasonable belief, but as the polls kept showing high Democrat turnout as the election approached, it was a little naiive of them to not take Obama's ground game (which, whether you love him or hate him, is effing amazing) seriously.

If the consensus of all pollsters was that Democratic turnout was going to look a lot like 2008, why would believing otherwise be anything but unreasonable?

I was unclear, sorry.

I meant initially the near-universal consensus among everyone was "Obama will have to fight to get every disillusioned Democratic voter possible to the polls", but as Democratic turnout held up into the fall as the conventions and debates were held, then it became unreasonable.

Get me now?

[ag]

A presidential candidate who loses this belief is not doing his job. His advisors may figure out all is toast - that is their job. But the candidate himself MUST be convinced he is winning.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

[Reaganfan]

One thing that I will say that I encounter with people I know who vote is this Cleveland area blue collar attitude. They do not like rich people. See I'm the opposite. I am middle class, was raised middle class, but I really do like rich people. I envy them. I think many people who are older than myself who find themselves in, for lack of a better word, crappy jobs with little income and they're already middle aged, atleast subconsciously hold some ill-will towards those who are better off. I think it's how you look at things. I look at rich people and say, "If they can do it, we all can". Some look at rich people and say, "They're rich and I'm not so screw them."

It's a baby temper tantrum attitude but unfortunately many people in rust belt type areas have that mentality.

[DS0816]

A presidential candidate who loses this belief is not doing his job. His advisors may figure out all is toast - that is their job. But the candidate himself MUST be convinced he is winning.

Not true. Campaigning for the presidency of the United States is not a religious experience of "belief." Now if you really mean the word attitude, you can go with that. But, at the same time, it's not a requirement. In fact, if you're a presidential candidate who is attempting to unseat an incumbent president your top priority is to make the case to persuade the county to elect you instead. Following the Republicans' first participating presidential election of 1856, this turned out to be with each of Benjamin Harrison, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton. Mitt Romney, like many before him, obviously failed.

[Randy Bobandy]

One thing that I will say that I encounter with people I know who vote is this Cleveland area blue collar attitude. They do not like rich people. See I'm the opposite. I am middle class, was raised middle class, but I really do like rich people. I envy them. I think many people who are older than myself who find themselves in, for lack of a better word, crappy jobs with little income and they're already middle aged, atleast subconsciously hold some ill-will towards those who are better off. I think it's how you look at things. I look at rich people and say, "If they can do it, we all can". Some look at rich people and say, "They're rich and I'm not so screw them."

It's a baby temper tantrum attitude but unfortunately many people in rust belt type areas have that mentality.

Romney didn't lift a finger to get as rich as he is. He just happened to have a rich father. Those who hold ill will towards Mitt Romney due to his riches have a point. Some people work all their lives and make nothing. Others, like Mittens, don't work at all and make millions.

[Bojack Horseman]

I forget who said it, but once you start attacking the polls, that's code for "I've lost and I know it." Walter Mondale said at a bunch of his rallies, "Polls don't vote, people vote, and that's why we're going to win!" We all know how that turned out.

I thought that was arrogance on Romney's part that he didn't even write a concession speech. ElectionProjection.com, which was run by a conservative Republican, had one state wrong, and that was that Florida was in Romney's column. The correct outcome had been projected at the start of September.

[IceSpear]

One thing that I will say that I encounter with people I know who vote is this Cleveland area blue collar attitude. They do not like rich people. See I'm the opposite. I am middle class, was raised middle class, but I really do like rich people. I envy them. I think many people who are older than myself who find themselves in, for lack of a better word, crappy jobs with little income and they're already middle aged, atleast subconsciously hold some ill-will towards those who are better off. I think it's how you look at things. I look at rich people and say, "If they can do it, we all can". Some look at rich people and say, "They're rich and I'm not so screw them."

It's a baby temper tantrum attitude but unfortunately many people in rust belt type areas have that mentality.

Romney didn't lift a finger to get as rich as he is. He just happened to have a rich father. Those who hold ill will towards Mitt Romney due to his riches have a point. Some people work all their lives and make nothing. Others, like Mittens, don't work at all and make millions.

Yup. I respect wealthy people who earned it on their own. Not those who became wealthy because they were a member of the lucky sperm club.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sadly, they totally did,  despite all evidence to the contrary.

Sadly? Mittbot's dismay might have been the single best thing about the 2012 outcome.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Karl Rove seemed to believe that Romney would win, especially when he attacked Fox News. "rolls eyes".

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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 is easy to say that after the fact, but it must be remembered that Rick Perry was a serious threat in that he had that personal appeal to social conservatives and tea party types, there was a lot of hype about the "Texas miracle" and he had a crapload of oil and agra money willing to back him up (and about a quarter a million more in Wall Street Rudy/Christie money ready to come in if he proved serious). Now I knew that Romney would defeat him, and that was the big three (1) Secession/Instability/Social Security comments, (2) Ethenol subsidies and (3) Illegal Immigration.

The stable hand at the wheel part of 1 and number three were successfully leveraged against Newt. Of course Perry toppled himself obviously.

Illegal Immigration was Romney's trump card. It got him his niche of the Conservative pie in 2008 and allowed him to end run around Rick Perry, Newt and many other Conservative alternatives that came up against him who were weak on the issue. Could he have stood to avoid being pigeon holed on the issue, of course. But it is a component that was essential to his getting the nomination both times.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Karl Rove seemed to believe that Romney would win, especially when he attacked Fox News. "rolls eyes".

"Is that math you do as a Republican to make you feel better?"

[TJ in Oregon]

Incredibly I think yes. This was by far my biggest astonishment of the campaign. Of course Romney and his supporters said he was winning, but I thought it was just to project confidence to try convince people to vote for him. I never really considered the possibility he actually believed it.