Did the Romney campaign believe they would win at the end

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, making money isn't really that hard when you start off with a good deal of it.

[Skill and Chance]

I think it's pretty obvious that they did.  Interestingly, I have also read that Karl Rove and Bush initially thought they had lost in 2004.Kerr

Yeah I remember that cover of Tim Magazine in 2004 that I think said
"Kerry was going to be the next President Of The United States".

At first I also suspected that Obama was surprised he had won in 2012, but apparently that wasn't the case and the inner circle knew that things were adding up as they needed to during election day.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Too bad Mark Warner passed up his chance on being in contention for prez in 2008. The Fall of Edwards gave Obama, not Warner, the chance to be the alternative to Clinton. Having declined to run with Kerry.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I think it's pretty obvious that they did.  Interestingly, I have also read that Karl Rove and Bush initially thought they had lost in 2004.Kerr

Yeah I remember that cover of Tim Magazine in 2004 that I think said
"Kerry was going to be the next President Of The United States".

At first I also suspected that Obama was surprised he had won in 2012, but apparently that wasn't the case and the inner circle knew that things were adding up as they needed to during election day.

Nah, Obama knew it all along, just as Nate Silver and most posters on this forum who weren't deluded tools.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I think it's pretty obvious that they did.  Interestingly, I have also read that Karl Rove and Bush initially thought they had lost in 2004.Kerr

Yeah I remember that cover of Tim Magazine in 2004 that I think said
"Kerry was going to be the next President Of The United States".

At first I also suspected that Obama was surprised he had won in 2012, but apparently that wasn't the case and the inner circle knew that things were adding up as they needed to during election day.

Nah, Obama knew it all along, just as Nate Silver and most posters on this forum who weren't deluded tools.

Romney probably had a minor lead/was in a dead heat for a brief period after the first debate, but otherwise both averages and Obama's internals correctly showed him ahead.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

Perry has had problems in Texas forever.  He had a GOP statewide elected official (Carole Keeton Strayhorn) run against him as an independent in 2006; he won with 40% of the vote.  The fact that Perry had so many enemies in his own party back home was a hint that the Presidential run was not something that would end well.  Perry showed well in some early polls, but he was an empty suit, and, "oops", he showed it.  "Oops!" should not have been a surprise.  A guy who, after 6 years in office, has intra-party opposition that runs a viable 3rd party candidacy is never a good sign for a potential Presidential candidate, and is something you never recover from.  

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.

Perry won reelection in 2006 with 40% of the vote.  He had competition from a Democrat, a Republican turned independent, and a celebrity independent.  That he would invite such competition at that point in his career was an indication of the depth of intra-party opposition he had within his own state, and a harbinger of things to come.  If he had been the Governor of Tennessee, no one would have given Perry a second thought.  The imploding of his candidacy should not have been a surprise to folks who followed his career in Texas.

[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.

[Chips]

A big reason for this were internal numbers that showed Romney well ahead in CO and NH, A dead-even race in IA and within striking distance in WI, PA, OH and even MN in addition to assuming they would win VA and FL.

[Schiff for Senate]

Yes. Romney didn't even write a concession speech, and Paul Ryan told his family to pack their bags and prepare to go to DC.

[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.

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.

[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.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Apparently he did for many reasons which was completely asinine when Obama's considerable Electoral College advantage was always noticeable, even at his campaign's lowest points.

[Chips]

If the 2012 election went how Romney's internal polling projected it to go:



Incredibly close 271-267 victory for Obama in the electoral vote. Comes down to a 1-2 point win for Obama in Ohio. Romney wins the national popular vote.