Romney's Biggest Mistake

[dw93]

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.

[dw93]

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.

[dw93]

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.