Romney's Biggest Mistake

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Does anyone here think Trump could have won in 2012?

-It's possible. He would have done better in Ohio.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

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.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

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.

-For once, Scarlet says something true.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

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.

-Yeah, but 47% wouldn't have won Mitt 270. 46% won Trump over 300.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

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.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

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.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

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.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

-That is a case for Obama and Paul, then, not Romney.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

-Can anyone deny they were talking about Paul here? Lol.

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!

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

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....

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.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

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.

-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.