|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2020, 01:52:19 am
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results
  2012 U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderators: Torie, ON Progressive)
  Romney's Biggest Mistake
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print
Author Topic: Romney's Biggest Mistake  (Read 10620 times)
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,949


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: February 14, 2017, 11:22:48 pm »

Biggest mistake?

Running as a sacrificial lamb against Obama in '12, rather than biding his time to run in '16....

On a secondary note, I think the "binders full of women" remark really hurt him with Middle-Age Female Middle-Class and Upper-Income voters in key suburban areas.... the 47% mark reinforced this among a different demographic of rural/Small Town/ and Urban White Ethnic Blue collar working and Middle Class men.....

Voila.... what in theory could have been a late election night didn't turn out that way with late breakers of both suburban women and blue-collar rural and medium sized cities in key parts of the country.



-I was befuddled why he ran as a sacrificial lamb in 2008. 2012 was a winnable year for the GOP; it was just that the GOP ran a slate of bad candidates, Romney included, hurting the GOP up and down the ballot.

That's a good point.... in theory he might well have been a stronger GE candidate against Obama in '08 than '12.....

McCain ran on doubling-down on the Iraq War, as well as other relatively hawkish foreign policy items, at a time where America was going through war wariness with the daily body counts increasing as part of a non-unified, but still significant Iraqi insurgency, incorporating virtually all ethnic groups within the country (Excepting the Kurds that were biding their time for an independent state)....

Romney would likely have been better positioned as the Republican nominee to present a moderate Republican perspective on how to recover from the great recession and economic policy, while still winding down the war in Iraq in a responsible manner, similar to what Obama did....

IDK if any Republican could have beaten Obama in '08 after the failure of the George W. administration, on both economic and foreign policy items, but I think the Pubs by selecting a candidate that was tone deaf on the War in Iraq, made the job that much harder to win over Indies, Conservative Dems, and Liberal/Moderate Republicans to create a popular vote and electoral college majority, particularly in the key battleground states of the Upper Midwest, Western US, as well as key parts of the South Atlantic region....

2008 was not an automatic Dem win until Lehman Brothers in September.  Postpone the financial crises to December and McCain was on track to win the PV by 1-2.  Granted, Obama still wins the EC in Colorado unless McCain can get his national lead up to 2.5 or so.  It would basically be the reverse of last year's result.

-2008 was an automatic Dem win all along. Take a look at W's approval ratings. 2012 was an obvious automatic Dem win with Romney (I predicted he'd lose the moment he became the frontrunner), but not an obvious automatic Dem win with, say, even someone like Gingrich.
Logged
NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: February 15, 2017, 12:15:10 am »

Biggest mistake?

Running as a sacrificial lamb against Obama in '12, rather than biding his time to run in '16....

On a secondary note, I think the "binders full of women" remark really hurt him with Middle-Age Female Middle-Class and Upper-Income voters in key suburban areas.... the 47% mark reinforced this among a different demographic of rural/Small Town/ and Urban White Ethnic Blue collar working and Middle Class men.....

Voila.... what in theory could have been a late election night didn't turn out that way with late breakers of both suburban women and blue-collar rural and medium sized cities in key parts of the country.



-I was befuddled why he ran as a sacrificial lamb in 2008. 2012 was a winnable year for the GOP; it was just that the GOP ran a slate of bad candidates, Romney included, hurting the GOP up and down the ballot.

That's a good point.... in theory he might well have been a stronger GE candidate against Obama in '08 than '12.....

McCain ran on doubling-down on the Iraq War, as well as other relatively hawkish foreign policy items, at a time where America was going through war wariness with the daily body counts increasing as part of a non-unified, but still significant Iraqi insurgency, incorporating virtually all ethnic groups within the country (Excepting the Kurds that were biding their time for an independent state)....

Romney would likely have been better positioned as the Republican nominee to present a moderate Republican perspective on how to recover from the great recession and economic policy, while still winding down the war in Iraq in a responsible manner, similar to what Obama did....

IDK if any Republican could have beaten Obama in '08 after the failure of the George W. administration, on both economic and foreign policy items, but I think the Pubs by selecting a candidate that was tone deaf on the War in Iraq, made the job that much harder to win over Indies, Conservative Dems, and Liberal/Moderate Republicans to create a popular vote and electoral college majority, particularly in the key battleground states of the Upper Midwest, Western US, as well as key parts of the South Atlantic region....

2008 was not an automatic Dem win until Lehman Brothers in September.  Postpone the financial crises to December and McCain was on track to win the PV by 1-2.  Granted, Obama still wins the EC in Colorado unless McCain can get his national lead up to 2.5 or so.  It would basically be the reverse of last year's result.

-2008 was an automatic Dem win all along. Take a look at W's approval ratings. 2012 was an obvious automatic Dem win with Romney (I predicted he'd lose the moment he became the frontrunner), but not an obvious automatic Dem win with, say, even someone like Gingrich.

So what would have made a candidate like Gingrich different than Romney in '12? Who should the Pubs have selected?

If a "Moderate Republican" like Romney was fated to lose, pray tell how someone like Gingrich could have chance the PV and EV outcome?

There is no question that Obama had some key vulnerabilities in '12 among significant elements of his electoral coalition, and trust me looking at the numbers in traditional timber mill towns in safe Democratic Oregon, this is patently clear (Most of the Democratic collapse between '08 and '16 actually occurred between '08 and '12, with the numbers from '12 to '16 more Obama '12 voters writing in Bernie, voting Libertarian, etc, rather than any real net gain for the Pub Pres nominee....

Thinking the Pubs should have tried running an economically protectionist, moderate on social policy but still hitting the right notes with the Evangelicals, and a relatively non-interventionist but strong on defense platform.... Who should that candidate have been?

Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,949


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: February 15, 2017, 12:43:47 am »

Biggest mistake?

Running as a sacrificial lamb against Obama in '12, rather than biding his time to run in '16....

On a secondary note, I think the "binders full of women" remark really hurt him with Middle-Age Female Middle-Class and Upper-Income voters in key suburban areas.... the 47% mark reinforced this among a different demographic of rural/Small Town/ and Urban White Ethnic Blue collar working and Middle Class men.....

Voila.... what in theory could have been a late election night didn't turn out that way with late breakers of both suburban women and blue-collar rural and medium sized cities in key parts of the country.



-I was befuddled why he ran as a sacrificial lamb in 2008. 2012 was a winnable year for the GOP; it was just that the GOP ran a slate of bad candidates, Romney included, hurting the GOP up and down the ballot.

That's a good point.... in theory he might well have been a stronger GE candidate against Obama in '08 than '12.....

McCain ran on doubling-down on the Iraq War, as well as other relatively hawkish foreign policy items, at a time where America was going through war wariness with the daily body counts increasing as part of a non-unified, but still significant Iraqi insurgency, incorporating virtually all ethnic groups within the country (Excepting the Kurds that were biding their time for an independent state)....

Romney would likely have been better positioned as the Republican nominee to present a moderate Republican perspective on how to recover from the great recession and economic policy, while still winding down the war in Iraq in a responsible manner, similar to what Obama did....

IDK if any Republican could have beaten Obama in '08 after the failure of the George W. administration, on both economic and foreign policy items, but I think the Pubs by selecting a candidate that was tone deaf on the War in Iraq, made the job that much harder to win over Indies, Conservative Dems, and Liberal/Moderate Republicans to create a popular vote and electoral college majority, particularly in the key battleground states of the Upper Midwest, Western US, as well as key parts of the South Atlantic region....

2008 was not an automatic Dem win until Lehman Brothers in September.  Postpone the financial crises to December and McCain was on track to win the PV by 1-2.  Granted, Obama still wins the EC in Colorado unless McCain can get his national lead up to 2.5 or so.  It would basically be the reverse of last year's result.

-2008 was an automatic Dem win all along. Take a look at W's approval ratings. 2012 was an obvious automatic Dem win with Romney (I predicted he'd lose the moment he became the frontrunner), but not an obvious automatic Dem win with, say, even someone like Gingrich.

So what would have made a candidate like Gingrich different than Romney in '12? Who should the Pubs have selected?

If a "Moderate Republican" like Romney was fated to lose, pray tell how someone like Gingrich could have chance the PV and EV outcome?

There is no question that Obama had some key vulnerabilities in '12 among significant elements of his electoral coalition, and trust me looking at the numbers in traditional timber mill towns in safe Democratic Oregon, this is patently clear (Most of the Democratic collapse between '08 and '16 actually occurred between '08 and '12, with the numbers from '12 to '16 more Obama '12 voters writing in Bernie, voting Libertarian, etc, rather than any real net gain for the Pub Pres nominee....

Thinking the Pubs should have tried running an economically protectionist, moderate on social policy but still hitting the right notes with the Evangelicals, and a relatively non-interventionist but strong on defense platform.... Who should that candidate have been?



-Look at the Georgia and South Carolina primary results. Gingrich's appeal was near identical to Trump's, Romney's to Rubio's.
Logged
NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: February 15, 2017, 12:51:53 am »

Biggest mistake?

Running as a sacrificial lamb against Obama in '12, rather than biding his time to run in '16....

On a secondary note, I think the "binders full of women" remark really hurt him with Middle-Age Female Middle-Class and Upper-Income voters in key suburban areas.... the 47% mark reinforced this among a different demographic of rural/Small Town/ and Urban White Ethnic Blue collar working and Middle Class men.....

Voila.... what in theory could have been a late election night didn't turn out that way with late breakers of both suburban women and blue-collar rural and medium sized cities in key parts of the country.



-I was befuddled why he ran as a sacrificial lamb in 2008. 2012 was a winnable year for the GOP; it was just that the GOP ran a slate of bad candidates, Romney included, hurting the GOP up and down the ballot.

That's a good point.... in theory he might well have been a stronger GE candidate against Obama in '08 than '12.....

McCain ran on doubling-down on the Iraq War, as well as other relatively hawkish foreign policy items, at a time where America was going through war wariness with the daily body counts increasing as part of a non-unified, but still significant Iraqi insurgency, incorporating virtually all ethnic groups within the country (Excepting the Kurds that were biding their time for an independent state)....

Romney would likely have been better positioned as the Republican nominee to present a moderate Republican perspective on how to recover from the great recession and economic policy, while still winding down the war in Iraq in a responsible manner, similar to what Obama did....

IDK if any Republican could have beaten Obama in '08 after the failure of the George W. administration, on both economic and foreign policy items, but I think the Pubs by selecting a candidate that was tone deaf on the War in Iraq, made the job that much harder to win over Indies, Conservative Dems, and Liberal/Moderate Republicans to create a popular vote and electoral college majority, particularly in the key battleground states of the Upper Midwest, Western US, as well as key parts of the South Atlantic region....

2008 was not an automatic Dem win until Lehman Brothers in September.  Postpone the financial crises to December and McCain was on track to win the PV by 1-2.  Granted, Obama still wins the EC in Colorado unless McCain can get his national lead up to 2.5 or so.  It would basically be the reverse of last year's result.

-2008 was an automatic Dem win all along. Take a look at W's approval ratings. 2012 was an obvious automatic Dem win with Romney (I predicted he'd lose the moment he became the frontrunner), but not an obvious automatic Dem win with, say, even someone like Gingrich.

So what would have made a candidate like Gingrich different than Romney in '12? Who should the Pubs have selected?

If a "Moderate Republican" like Romney was fated to lose, pray tell how someone like Gingrich could have chance the PV and EV outcome?

There is no question that Obama had some key vulnerabilities in '12 among significant elements of his electoral coalition, and trust me looking at the numbers in traditional timber mill towns in safe Democratic Oregon, this is patently clear (Most of the Democratic collapse between '08 and '16 actually occurred between '08 and '12, with the numbers from '12 to '16 more Obama '12 voters writing in Bernie, voting Libertarian, etc, rather than any real net gain for the Pub Pres nominee....

Thinking the Pubs should have tried running an economically protectionist, moderate on social policy but still hitting the right notes with the Evangelicals, and a relatively non-interventionist but strong on defense platform.... Who should that candidate have been?



-Look at the Georgia and South Carolina primary results. Gingrich's appeal was near identical to Trump's, Romney's to Rubio's.

Eharding--- Man do you ever sleep, you're supposed to be out in Michigan.... Wink

So you are talking about the '08/'12/'16 Pub primaries.... how would/should have that translated into the General Elections?

How would Gingrich have fared in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio in the GE of 2012?

Would he have performed better in Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Colorado?

So, Gingrich margins might have been better than Romneys in GA, but what state would have flipped in the GE, and if so why?
Logged
Fuzzybigfoot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,211
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: February 15, 2017, 06:20:11 am »

Hard to say what Romney's biggest mistake was; he was running a campaign against a popular, charismatic incumbent with a strong campaign in a time of economic growth. Coming within 4 percent was an amazing result; anyone else would've lost by double-digits.

Obama had approval ratings in the negatives, it wasn't 2016. 

RCP has Obama's approval at 50/47 on Election Day 2012, which isn't great but is definitely above-water and almost perfectly resembles the actual election result of 51/47. Obama's approval ratings were consistently positive from September 8, 2012, to May 29, 2013, inclusive.

Huh, I seemed to remember Pollster having it like 45/51. 
Logged
Fuzzy Bear Knows A Purge When He Sees One
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,775
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: February 15, 2017, 08:21:55 am »

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-chicago-tribune-endorses-romney-story.html

This editorial makes the case for Romney that he should have made for the entire campaign.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,949


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: February 15, 2017, 08:36:16 am »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

-That is a case for Obama and Paul, then, not Romney.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
-Can anyone deny they were talking about Paul here? Lol.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
-I.e., Romney is a boring sack of respectability politics (read: compromise with the liberal agenda). Why would I want that?

No wonder I favored Barry O over Willard in 2012. Romney offered me nothing. Not even repeal of Obamacare. Can one expect a leopard to change his spots?

Entitlement cuts for everyone, tax cuts for the rich. Not that I totally disagree, but what a terrible general election message to send!
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,949


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: February 15, 2017, 01:11:21 pm »

Biggest mistake?

Running as a sacrificial lamb against Obama in '12, rather than biding his time to run in '16....

On a secondary note, I think the "binders full of women" remark really hurt him with Middle-Age Female Middle-Class and Upper-Income voters in key suburban areas.... the 47% mark reinforced this among a different demographic of rural/Small Town/ and Urban White Ethnic Blue collar working and Middle Class men.....

Voila.... what in theory could have been a late election night didn't turn out that way with late breakers of both suburban women and blue-collar rural and medium sized cities in key parts of the country.



-I was befuddled why he ran as a sacrificial lamb in 2008. 2012 was a winnable year for the GOP; it was just that the GOP ran a slate of bad candidates, Romney included, hurting the GOP up and down the ballot.

That's a good point.... in theory he might well have been a stronger GE candidate against Obama in '08 than '12.....

McCain ran on doubling-down on the Iraq War, as well as other relatively hawkish foreign policy items, at a time where America was going through war wariness with the daily body counts increasing as part of a non-unified, but still significant Iraqi insurgency, incorporating virtually all ethnic groups within the country (Excepting the Kurds that were biding their time for an independent state)....

Romney would likely have been better positioned as the Republican nominee to present a moderate Republican perspective on how to recover from the great recession and economic policy, while still winding down the war in Iraq in a responsible manner, similar to what Obama did....

IDK if any Republican could have beaten Obama in '08 after the failure of the George W. administration, on both economic and foreign policy items, but I think the Pubs by selecting a candidate that was tone deaf on the War in Iraq, made the job that much harder to win over Indies, Conservative Dems, and Liberal/Moderate Republicans to create a popular vote and electoral college majority, particularly in the key battleground states of the Upper Midwest, Western US, as well as key parts of the South Atlantic region....

2008 was not an automatic Dem win until Lehman Brothers in September.  Postpone the financial crises to December and McCain was on track to win the PV by 1-2.  Granted, Obama still wins the EC in Colorado unless McCain can get his national lead up to 2.5 or so.  It would basically be the reverse of last year's result.

-2008 was an automatic Dem win all along. Take a look at W's approval ratings. 2012 was an obvious automatic Dem win with Romney (I predicted he'd lose the moment he became the frontrunner), but not an obvious automatic Dem win with, say, even someone like Gingrich.

So what would have made a candidate like Gingrich different than Romney in '12? Who should the Pubs have selected?

If a "Moderate Republican" like Romney was fated to lose, pray tell how someone like Gingrich could have chance the PV and EV outcome?

There is no question that Obama had some key vulnerabilities in '12 among significant elements of his electoral coalition, and trust me looking at the numbers in traditional timber mill towns in safe Democratic Oregon, this is patently clear (Most of the Democratic collapse between '08 and '16 actually occurred between '08 and '12, with the numbers from '12 to '16 more Obama '12 voters writing in Bernie, voting Libertarian, etc, rather than any real net gain for the Pub Pres nominee....

Thinking the Pubs should have tried running an economically protectionist, moderate on social policy but still hitting the right notes with the Evangelicals, and a relatively non-interventionist but strong on defense platform.... Who should that candidate have been?



-Look at the Georgia and South Carolina primary results. Gingrich's appeal was near identical to Trump's, Romney's to Rubio's.

Eharding--- Man do you ever sleep, you're supposed to be out in Michigan.... Wink

So you are talking about the '08/'12/'16 Pub primaries.... how would/should have that translated into the General Elections?

How would Gingrich have fared in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio in the GE of 2012?

Would he have performed better in Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Colorado?

So, Gingrich margins might have been better than Romneys in GA, but what state would have flipped in the GE, and if so why?

-On the contrary, Gingrich's margins would have been worse than Romney's in GA's, due to Atlanta Republicans defecting to Obama. He would have performed better in numerous parts of the country, Iowa included.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,398
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: February 15, 2017, 01:52:30 pm »

Being too hardline on immigration.  If he wins a higher suburban vote from social moderates and/or a larger share of the Hispanic vote (emphasize Obama's hypocrisy in regard to deportations), he wins the election, swinging Florida, Virginia, Colorado and Ohio (yes, a Republican can VERY, VERY easily win Ohio without picking up White Democrats who hate free trade, LOL).  He probably even tacks on Pennsylvania with enough of a swing in the Philly and Pittsburgh suburbs.  Iowa likely falls in line, too, as it is not nearly as rural or socially conservative as this site thinks (lives in Iowa).
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,384


Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -0.10

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: February 15, 2017, 02:05:45 pm »


Why? What would he gain. He still had the tea party reputation at the time.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, that would be pretty weak. The Reagan recovery wasn't that great, and appealing to some guy from thirty years ago isn't a good look.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

That gaffe wasn't public. It was leaked from a fundraiser among people who liked that kind of talk. I'm not sure that kind of advice would be the greatest.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

What?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

What does that mean?


Your suggestions are the kind of things that would make people with your views and style like Romney more, but it wouldn't help among the general electorate.

Rubio flip Florida, and emphasizing how he would benefit legal immigrants would wipe out the anti immigrant attack from obama(which was untrue to begin with), and flip Colorado and Nevada to Romney . That would drop obama from 332 electoral vote to 288.

Now you put Obama on the defensive by bringing up his record over and over again, and remind folks that Obama had the house, and a filibuster proof senate majority and still barely got any onf the legislation he wanted passed which proves he is incompetent. That would give Romney the popular vote victory which then flips Ohio, and that charge would also flip Virginia giving Romney 281 electoral votes.
Logged
President Pericles
Pericles
Atlas Politician
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,097

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: February 15, 2017, 02:09:23 pm »

Romney made the same mistake as Kerry in not defending himself from his opponent's attacks so letting Obama define him as an out of touch job killing elitist. Romney should have defined himself as a private sector whiz who has created thousands of jobs and can use that experience to restore America. Probably though,  given he really lost by 5.37% as that was the margin in the tipping point state, he would have needed bigger changes and changes in the fundamentals to win. He could have come much closer though and perhaps even won the popular vote.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,949


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: February 15, 2017, 02:18:57 pm »


Why? What would he gain. He still had the tea party reputation at the time.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, that would be pretty weak. The Reagan recovery wasn't that great, and appealing to some guy from thirty years ago isn't a good look.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

That gaffe wasn't public. It was leaked from a fundraiser among people who liked that kind of talk. I'm not sure that kind of advice would be the greatest.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

What?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

What does that mean?


Your suggestions are the kind of things that would make people with your views and style like Romney more, but it wouldn't help among the general electorate.

Rubio flip Florida, and emphasizing how he would benefit legal immigrants would wipe out the anti immigrant attack from obama(which was untrue to begin with), and flip Colorado and Nevada to Romney . That would drop obama from 332 electoral vote to 288.

Now you put Obama on the defensive by bringing up his record over and over again, and remind folks that Obama had the house, and a filibuster proof senate majority and still barely got any onf the legislation he wanted passed which proves he is incompetent. That would give Romney the popular vote victory which then flips Ohio, and that charge would also flip Virginia giving Romney 281 electoral votes.

-Romney/Rubio is about as unbalanced a ticket as Trump/Gingrich. Doubling down on Romneyism is a losing strategy, and a horrible one. Rubio would flip Florida, but no other state. CO and NV would actually move further away from the GOP.
Logged
Fuzzy Bear Knows A Purge When He Sees One
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,775
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: February 16, 2017, 12:18:37 pm »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

-That is a case for Obama and Paul, then, not Romney.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
-Can anyone deny they were talking about Paul here? Lol.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
-I.e., Romney is a boring sack of respectability politics (read: compromise with the liberal agenda). Why would I want that?

No wonder I favored Barry O over Willard in 2012. Romney offered me nothing. Not even repeal of Obamacare. Can one expect a leopard to change his spots?

Entitlement cuts for everyone, tax cuts for the rich. Not that I totally disagree, but what a terrible general election message to send!

I agree with the analysis I've highlighted.  That was Romney's campaign and it didn't sit well with an America reeling from 2008.  

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The above quote SHOULD have been the theme Romney ran on.  Such a theme would have been authentic for Romney; instead of the phony "job creator", he could be a guy who made tough decisions, did the responsible thing.  He could have been a guy who made the case for states doing healthcare and not the Federal Government, and used his state as an example, instead of running away from taking credit for a success because Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin would bash him on talk radio of he did.  

The above quote describes the man Mitt Romney actually was/is, and the campaign he should have ran.  It wouldn't have been perfect, and Romney was not a candidate without flaw.  But had he run on those themes, he's have been less phony.  Romney came off as one of the phoniest candidates for President in recent memory, trying to be something he really wasn't, and it burned him in the end, IMO.
Logged
ApatheticAustrian
ApathicAustrian
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,613
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: February 16, 2017, 01:42:13 pm »

no mistake.

just the need for mitt to twist his soul to not alienate the republican fringe while being not the biggest charmer in the room.

Logged
Trends are real, and I f**king hate it
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 51,453
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: February 17, 2017, 02:47:10 pm »

Two words: 47%
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,398
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: February 18, 2017, 10:45:27 am »


The types of people Romney SHOULD have been winning more of would not have been offended by such a true quote.
Logged
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,310
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: February 18, 2017, 11:51:15 am »


The types of people Romney SHOULD have been winning more of would not have been offended by such a true quote.

He suggested that anyone on any kind of government support supported Obama, which is perhaps the falsest statement to come from any modern presidential nominee.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,398
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: February 18, 2017, 11:54:48 am »


The types of people Romney SHOULD have been winning more of would not have been offended by such a true quote.

He suggested that anyone on any kind of government support supported Obama, which is perhaps the falsest statement to come from any modern presidential nominee.

That part was definitely false.  I was more thinking of the fact that 47% of the country does, in fact, benefit from a more socialized economy, increased government control, etc., and - whether those people were solidly for Obama as one might naturally expect or solidly for Romney for social/cultural/whatever reasons - they were not the voters he needed to spend his time speaking to, quite frankly, because they weren't going to be convinced either way.  And that's true.
Logged
Trends are real, and I f**king hate it
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 51,453
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: March 04, 2017, 11:27:14 pm »


The types of people Romney SHOULD have been winning more of would not have been offended by such a true quote.

He suggested that anyone on any kind of government support supported Obama, which is perhaps the falsest statement to come from any modern presidential nominee.

That part was definitely false.  I was more thinking of the fact that 47% of the country does, in fact, benefit from a more socialized economy, increased government control, etc., and - whether those people were solidly for Obama as one might naturally expect or solidly for Romney for social/cultural/whatever reasons - they were not the voters he needed to spend his time speaking to, quite frankly, because they weren't going to be convinced either way.  And that's true.

An overwhelming majority of Americans "benefit from a more socialized economy". If Romney had only won the votes of those who didn't, he'd have got 3% at most.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,097
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: March 27, 2017, 05:44:57 am »
« Edited: March 27, 2017, 05:49:49 am by People's Speaker North Carolina Yankee »

The problem is Romney like Hillary was badly damaged in the primaries especially by Newt Gingrich and the 20 debates.


To make up for that Romney should have done this


1. Choose Marco Rubio has his VP
2. Bring up the Reagan recovery more and compare it to the Obama recovery
3. Dont say the 47% comment
4. On immigration , remind people that Obama had a filibuster proof majority and didnt do anything, and his immigration policy is PRO LEGAL IMMIGRANT(which it was)
5. Put obama on the defensive

-How does that help him win Ohio, a state which is now (probably ludicrously) considered a solid Republican state by the denizens of Atlas?

To make up for his weaknesses, Romney shouldn't have bothered with his cutsey business conservative/Bushian message. He should have discarded it for the garbage it was. People saw him as an out-of-touch elitist. He should have brushed up on his populist cred.

Populist cred caused Trump to lose votes compared to Romney (compare Trump's 45.9% to Romney's 47.2%); he simply got lucky that Hillary declined from Obama as well. (Though Trump '16 compared to Obama '12 does do slightly better in the electoral vote; Trump gains Ohio and only drops NE-2). Romney's platform had more support from the voters than Trump's.

The problem with this analysis is that it fails to account for the third parties pulling votes away from both parties. Also, the EC switches don't make sense, since in Florida, Trump and Clinton both out performed Obama and Romney. Also there were a substantial number of Obama to Trump voters in PA and IA, so assuming that they flipped likewise, it is fairly likely that the 20,000 in PA and 22,000 in IA, that make up the rest of the difference between Obama 2012 and Trump 2016, would already be a part of Trump's 2,970,000 votes in PA and 800,000 in IA, thus flipping both states. Of course that is a hypothetical, but you are already comparing Trump 2016 to Obama 2012, so it is just extending that to states and in states such as those where the voting population is stable or declining, the game is vote flips.

2012
Barack H. Obama   Joseph R. Biden, Jr.   Democratic   65,918,507   51.01%   332   61.7%
Willard Mitt Romney    Paul Ryan          Republican   60,934,407   47.15%   206   38.3%

2016
Donald J. Trump   Michael R. Pence   Republican   62,985,106   45.94%   304   56.5%
Hillary Clinton            Tim Kaine          Democratic   65,853,625   48.03%   227   42.2%

Two Party %
2012: 52%-48%
2016: 51%-49%

Trump cut Romney's PV deficit in half almost.

Florida  Trump +500,000 over Romney
Romney 4,163,447
Trump 4,617,886

NC  Trump +100,000 over Romney
Romney 2,270,395
Trump 2,362,631

Ohio  Trump +200,000 over Romney
Romney 2,661,437
Trump 2,841,005

PA  Trump +300,000 over Romney
Romney 2,680,434
Trump 2,970,733

MI  Trump +150,000 over Romney
Romney 2,115,256
Trump 2,279,543

WI Romney +2,000 over Trump
Romney 1,407,966
Trump 1,405,284

IA  Trump +70,000 votes over Romney
Romney 730,617   
Trump 800,983

Trump lost votes compared to Romney in CA, TX, and GA. But not in New York:

NY  Trump +330,000 over Romney
Romney 2,490,496
Trump 2,819,534
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,097
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: March 27, 2017, 06:06:30 am »

There is no way for a Republican to win running Bush 2000/2004 style.

To win back upscale suburbs, they would have to abandon social conservatism wholesale. To win Trump style, you just have to tone it down or slightly alter the messaging.

Which do you think the GOP is going to nominate?

Immigration had next to nothing to do with Romney's loss, outside of maybe Florida. Ratchet up the Hispanic vote to 70% for Romney and he still loses the election.

The working class swing vote is what decides these elections.

In 2007, Romney criticized trade deals. In the 2011, he said illegal immigration hurts jobs and lowers wages. In 2013, he endorsed a $9 minimum wage.

Why didn't he make this case in Ohio August-October 2012? He had no problem saying it in a GOP primary or after the election.

Take a look at the Ohio map. Winning Republicans do better than pluralities in South central OH and 50s in NW Ohio. These are not "Working class Democrats". These are ancestrally Republican areas, at least NW Ohio is. Unlike South Central Kentucky, they are not going to just hand you 70% just for being there. Trump got 65% in those rural NW OH counties, 60% in South Central OH counties (that Romney couldn't get to 50%) and going back to NW OH, he flipped Ottawa, Wood and Sandusky counties.

You don't win those votes by peddling more tax cuts. Even the small business owners, while appreciative of low taxes/regulations, realize the main problem is that Ford shut down the auto plant and now there is no customer base.

That is why Trump won many of the same voters that Romney did in the Michigan Primary, while Cruz got some of Santorum's vote. Trump also got some of the Santorum vote and Kasich got the rest of Romney's.


Logged
NHI
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,819



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: March 27, 2017, 11:40:03 am »

He should have flooded the airwaves in the summer with a combination of positive spots about his record and negative caricatures of the president. Romney allowed Obama to define him early, which became very difficult to overcome.

I also think he should have pushed hard for Susana Martinez to be his running mate. Ryan didn't really offer very much in the end. If Romney had basically kept Martinez in Nevada, Colorado, and Florida speaking Spanish for three months (plus a few trips into Ohio and Iowa touting her gun ownership), she could have moved the needle.

That being said, the race was winnable for Romney until roughly the second debate. If Romney and Obama had given the same performances in Round Two that they gave in Round One, Mitt Romney would now be the president, easily on track for a second term.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,097
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: March 27, 2017, 10:50:43 pm »

He should have flooded the airwaves in the summer with a combination of positive spots about his record and negative caricatures of the president. Romney allowed Obama to define him early, which became very difficult to overcome.

I also think he should have pushed hard for Susana Martinez to be his running mate. Ryan didn't really offer very much in the end. If Romney had basically kept Martinez in Nevada, Colorado, and Florida speaking Spanish for three months (plus a few trips into Ohio and Iowa touting her gun ownership), she could have moved the needle.

That being said, the race was winnable for Romney until roughly the second debate. If Romney and Obama had given the same performances in Round Two that they gave in Round One, Mitt Romney would now be the president, easily on track for a second term.

I agree with this. I think Martinez would have helped him far more than Rubio and certainly far more than Ryan. She was not a part of Washington, had no votes or policies that would hurt in Florida and comes from a working class Democratic background and thus would have played well in the Midwest, despite not being from there. Now of course there might be stuff in the background that precluded her, be it something in New Mexico or some other kind of scandal.

Logged
President Pericles
Pericles
Atlas Politician
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,097

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: March 28, 2017, 12:43:40 am »

2016 proved that tough primaries don't matter. Donald Trump went through the most divisive GOP primary in decades, several of his opponents outright refused to endorse him or explictly said he was unfit to serve and much of the party still hadn't united behind Trump by November, but he won regardless. Obama also had a rough and divisive primary against Hillary Clinton in 2008, while McCain glided to victory in February, yet Obama crushed McCain in a landslide.
Logged
mathstatman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,938
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: May 07, 2017, 06:08:19 pm »

Romney's comment that he likes to fire people was probably his biggest mistake, as more voters have reason to fear being fired than are in a position to fire others.

This will rank with Tom Dewey's "He should be shot at sunrise" remark.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines