Romney's Biggest Mistake

[OSR stands with Israel]

The 2012 election was definitely not winnable for Republicans.

Yes it was if the liberal media didn't keep smearing Romney

[OSR stands with Israel]

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

[OSR stands with Israel]

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.

Ohio PVI was +1 GOP in 2012 and changing those things gives GOP a national win of 1.5-2.5 points which gives Mitt a 2.5-3.5 win in Ohio


In fact I believe if he did those things this would be the map:

Romney/Rubio 279  50.8%
Obama/Biden 259    48.9%

[OSR stands with Israel]

1. Choose Marco Rubio has his VP

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

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.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What?

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.

[OSR stands with Israel]

LOL at everyone saying Obama was unbeatable. He was as vulnerable as Bush was in 2004.  What mainly made Obama's 2012 margin bigger than Bush's 2004 margin was the fact that Romney was a worse candidate/campaigner than Kerry and Romney also had a rougher time in the primary than Kerry did. Sure, while it was the Obama campaign that amplified the notion that Romney was a flip flopper and an out of touch elitist, it was Romney's primary opponents that defined him as such. It was also during the primaries that Romney said "corporations are people my friend" and "I like being able to fire people."

All of this and no strong base of support to defend him. He was already damaged going into the general and only damaged himself more with the 47% remark, the "Binders full of Women" thing, and the "Let Detroit Fail" gaffe. There was also his letting the momentum from his strong performance in Debate #1 slip away with poor performances in 2 and 3. Eddie Munster getting spanked by Crazy Uncle Joe in the VP debate didn't help either (I don't Ryan was a bad pick, but then again almost anyone besides Michelle Bachmann would've been an improvement from Palin). I dare say had Obama not had his issues (a weak recovery from the Great Recession, the flaws of Obamacare, etc...) Romney would've gotten beat as badly as Bob Dole did in 1996 if not worse.

All in all I still maintain that while Jon Huntsman agreeing to be  Obama's Ambassador to China was good in a "Country first" sense, it was a dumb move politically. Had he finished out his term in Utah instead and then run for President in 2012, he wouldn't have had his association with the President hurting him with the base, so with this and with the fact that his record in Utah was more successful (and for the base's sake more conservative) than Romney's, he very well might've emerged as the nominee and likely would've beaten Obama in the general.

Bush 2004 state by state numbers would actually beat Obama's 2012 state by state numbers


Here would be the Bush 2004 vs Obama 2012 map:

Bush 275
Obama 263

[OSR stands with Israel]

LOL at everyone saying Obama was unbeatable. He was as vulnerable as Bush was in 2004.  What mainly made Obama's 2012 margin bigger than Bush's 2004 margin was the fact that Romney was a worse candidate/campaigner than Kerry and Romney also had a rougher time in the primary than Kerry did. Sure, while it was the Obama campaign that amplified the notion that Romney was a flip flopper and an out of touch elitist, it was Romney's primary opponents that defined him as such. It was also during the primaries that Romney said "corporations are people my friend" and "I like being able to fire people."

All of this and no strong base of support to defend him. He was already damaged going into the general and only damaged himself more with the 47% remark, the "Binders full of Women" thing, and the "Let Detroit Fail" gaffe. There was also his letting the momentum from his strong performance in Debate #1 slip away with poor performances in 2 and 3. Eddie Munster getting spanked by Crazy Uncle Joe in the VP debate didn't help either (I don't Ryan was a bad pick, but then again almost anyone besides Michelle Bachmann would've been an improvement from Palin). I dare say had Obama not had his issues (a weak recovery from the Great Recession, the flaws of Obamacare, etc...) Romney would've gotten beat as badly as Bob Dole did in 1996 if not worse.

All in all I still maintain that while Jon Huntsman agreeing to be  Obama's Ambassador to China was good in a "Country first" sense, it was a dumb move politically. Had he finished out his term in Utah instead and then run for President in 2012, he wouldn't have had his association with the President hurting him with the base, so with this and with the fact that his record in Utah was more successful (and for the base's sake more conservative) than Romney's, he very well might've emerged as the nominee and likely would've beaten Obama in the general.

Bush 2004 state by state numbers would actually beat Obama's 2012 state by state numbers


Here would be the Bush 2004 vs Obama 2012 map:

Bush 275
Obama 263

I was going solely by electoral vote (286 for Bush vs. 332 for Obama). I think Obama even slightly outperformed Bush in the popular vote or at least did even with him percentage wise. Even with state by state numbers, Bush didn't do that much better than Obama. All and all, I still think Romney was a worse candidate/campaigner than Kerry, and I'm even (to the best of my ability) factoring out my ideological bias as I say this.

Problem for Mitt was his strategy to get to 270 was that map + NH, and NV and that only would only get him to 285 meaning all Obama still needed was OH(Mitt wasnt going to win IA or WI without OH).

[OSR stands with Israel]

LOL at everyone saying Obama was unbeatable. He was as vulnerable as Bush was in 2004.  What mainly made Obama's 2012 margin bigger than Bush's 2004 margin was the fact that Romney was a worse candidate/campaigner than Kerry and Romney also had a rougher time in the primary than Kerry did. Sure, while it was the Obama campaign that amplified the notion that Romney was a flip flopper and an out of touch elitist, it was Romney's primary opponents that defined him as such. It was also during the primaries that Romney said "corporations are people my friend" and "I like being able to fire people."

All of this and no strong base of support to defend him. He was already damaged going into the general and only damaged himself more with the 47% remark, the "Binders full of Women" thing, and the "Let Detroit Fail" gaffe. There was also his letting the momentum from his strong performance in Debate #1 slip away with poor performances in 2 and 3. Eddie Munster getting spanked by Crazy Uncle Joe in the VP debate didn't help either (I don't Ryan was a bad pick, but then again almost anyone besides Michelle Bachmann would've been an improvement from Palin). I dare say had Obama not had his issues (a weak recovery from the Great Recession, the flaws of Obamacare, etc...) Romney would've gotten beat as badly as Bob Dole did in 1996 if not worse.

All in all I still maintain that while Jon Huntsman agreeing to be  Obama's Ambassador to China was good in a "Country first" sense, it was a dumb move politically. Had he finished out his term in Utah instead and then run for President in 2012, he wouldn't have had his association with the President hurting him with the base, so with this and with the fact that his record in Utah was more successful (and for the base's sake more conservative) than Romney's, he very well might've emerged as the nominee and likely would've beaten Obama in the general.

Bush 2004 state by state numbers would actually beat Obama's 2012 state by state numbers


Here would be the Bush 2004 vs Obama 2012 map:

Bush 275
Obama 263

I was going solely by electoral vote (286 for Bush vs. 332 for Obama). I think Obama even slightly outperformed Bush in the popular vote or at least did even with him percentage wise. Even with state by state numbers, Bush didn't do that much better than Obama. All and all, I still think Romney was a worse candidate/campaigner than Kerry, and I'm even (to the best of my ability) factoring out my ideological bias as I say this.

Problem for Mitt was his strategy to get to 270 was that map + NH, and NV and that only would only get him to 285 meaning all Obama still needed was OH(Mitt wasnt going to win IA or WI without OH).

Neither Romney or Kerry was getting above 300 Electoral votes in those elections. Bush and Obama were both vulnerable, but not vulnerable enough to warrant anything worse than a narrow defeat.

I think Kerry getting 311:

Kerry/Bob Graham 311
Bush/Cheney 227

and Romney getting 311 as well

Romney/Portman 311
Obama/Biden 227