The top five reasons why Romney lost the Presidential election

The top five reasons why Romney lost the Presidential election

5.  Romney simply is not very likeable. Putting aside their views, this just isn’t a guy you would prefer to have a cup of coffee or beer with over Obama.

4.    Romney lost two of the three debates. As the challenger, he needed to win two of the three. The first one, which he won, was the fluke. Obama is the better debater—he just had a bad night on Debate No. 1.

3.    Romney was not a good candidate.  Voters didn’t trust him. He flipped on abortion, gays, guns, and at the end-- on tax cuts. Who knew what he would do.  Even with Paul Ryan, there was not enough there to energize the Republican base. Without your base, you have nothing.

2.  Romney had no consistent message. Some would say it was the economy, jobs but he never made a good, solid strong case on tax cuts, growth and how he would substantially outperform Obama on the economy. There was nothing there there when it came to assessing Romney.  And, Ryan never lived up to expectations that he would be used to define the race about fixing the entitlement mess (social security, Medicaid and Medicare) and the budget. The Republicans let this election be the election about nothing, and they didn’t even make it about the sad state of the economy and jobs.  There is no real leadership in the Republican Party and Romney surely was not the guy to fill the void.

1. Romney let Obama define him early on as a bad guy-- because he shipped jobs overseas and killed them at Bain Capital.  The arguments were stupid but Team Romney was even more stupid not to use their money early on to define Romney, to defend him from the attacks and to use more of his time to get out in the public instead of raising money.  All of those actions, not taken by Romney, are politics 101. Good grief, can't anyone play this here game of politics?

Comments

Leave a comment
  • Two more reasons:

    1. The electorate has adapted progressivism. Bill Clinton was wrong: the era of Big Government was not over, just hibernating. More people want to know what their country can do for them vs what they can do for the country.

    2. The Democrats had the armies of the day and night out working tirelessly in the most local of areas.

  • Personally, I'll take your 2 and 3 and maybe 50% of your 1.

    Romney is probably as likeable as any politician. He certainly was no Ron Paul, and I'm sure the big family helped him.

    Voters certainly didn't trust him. That became obvious when the said he supported Ryan, except that Ryan supported Social Security cuts, which he didn't, and Ryan was aboard, etc. The only thing he might have been consistent about is putting the auto industry into bankruptcy, but that was even used against him in the Republican primary in Ohio and Michigan. What was the big swing state that decided it? Ohio. At that point, Florida became irrelevant, although it appears that Obama pulled it out. The messing around about disclosing tax returns didn't help, either.

    Election about nothing: It became evident that Romney didn't have a plan. It became a referendum, which the Obama haters (which seemed to be their only issue) lost. I can think of one above.

    I agree with #1 to the extent that he couldn't deal with the Bain issue.

  • In reply to jack:

    And Obama's specific plans for his second term?

    Romeny was right in saying that attacking him was not an agenda, but Obama did not respond with anything concrete.

    But we are in a new era, like it or not, where crony capitalism will benefit as well as those who deem government the source of their well being and somehow expect that endless transfer payments can be made to them.

    It is a new day for Progressives. They have won the attitudes and hearts of the American people, and now they have to deliver in a way that will not evoke tyranny when things, such as when resources run dry, cause additional strain on the system.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    Aquinas answered that a couple of days ago, but you have such a closed mind that you didn't comprehend it.

    And you never refuted the point, which I made above, that Romney had ABSOLUTELY NO PLAN.

    But you think you are real though going over an automobile columnist for saying that she was able to research the elections in one day. You couldn't research them at all.

  • Romney didn't have enough white guys to vote for him.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    I don't know if you meant it sarcastically, but apparently Illinois Republican chairman Pat Brady agrees with you.

    Just on Fox's Good Day Chicago, he was saying that part of the problem was that the next generation, such as Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, etc. were not ready, and you can't win the election doing that badly with Hispanic voters, even more badly than John McCain.

Leave a comment