Romney was the pre-chosen candidate for this election cycle. The problem is that
Republican primaries force candidates to go far to the right to prevail, and no
amount of etch-a-sketching can get them back to where the majority of voters
are. The guy who ran Massachusetts as a non-ideological pragmatist could have
won this election. The fire-breathing right winger that emerged from the
primaries could not.
"Romney had to go through the meat grinder that is the Republican
primaries."By "meat grinder" do you mean that Romney had
to pander to the far right wing of the GOP?Do you mean that he needed to
try to show everyone that he was a "Severe Conservative"?That he
would reject a 10-1 spending cuts to revenue? That he would expect Latinos to
"self-deport". If by "meat grinder" you mean that
one needs to abandon moderation, common sense and reasonableness in order to get
the nomination, then, yes, you are correct. I believe that this
country needs a strong GOP to balance the Dems. But if the party
leaders believe that they lost because they were not "conservative"
enough, their party will slowly (maybe quickly) drift into oblivion.
Paul, That "meat grinder" was built and operated by the
SuperPACs that Citizens United made possible.Remember, it was Newt
Gingrich who ran the devastating 30 minute anti-Romney TV program about Bain
Capital during the primaries, and Gingrich's campaign would not have even
existed without Sheldon Adleson's infusion of more than $10 million into
Gingrich's campaign. "This ugly process left a scent of
blood in the political waters, leading the sharks on the left to a
feast."Your slanted hyperbole aside... yes, it's an ugly
process. The only way to make it less ugly is to get anonymous corporate
influence out of politics. If we can't reduce the amount that corporations
spend on elections, at least we should demand that politicians be required to
reveal their corporate sponsors.
The fact that we let political parties decide whose names appear on the ballot
dramatically increases the likelihood that we'll end up with leaders from
the far ends of the political spectrum rather than the middle.In the
end, though, I don't think the nominating process was what did Romney in.
In fact, he never would have been nominated under the 2008 rules. The new
process is what forced the GOP to move past the "anybody but Romney"
The Republican primaries were geared towards the far right of the radically
right wing Republican party. Unfortunately for the GOP, America no longer looks
like the cranky old white guys you hear on Fox News, and AM radio rants. It
wasn't the primaries that damaged Mitt's election chances, it was his
refusal to stand up to the far, far, right that sunk his presidential
aspirations.You can gift wrap the tired old conservative message any
way you want, but if it doesn't appeal to women, Hispanics, Blacks, gays,
and young people, the GOP will continue to lose elections.
I hope that we never hear from Newt Gingrich or Karl Rove ever again. I was
surprised that he still continued to circulate after leaving the House in the
1990's. How come we never hear from Jim Wright or Tom Delay now they have
left. Why does he keep reappearing?The Republicans should have won
the women vote "Hugh Hefner does not like us because we don't think
that women are objects for his skin magazine." The Republicans should get
the youth vote, "We want you to have an individual social security account
so the Democrats can't raid your pension to buy votes from well-to-do
The first reason Romney lost was because he was a Republican. Example..your
statemnt about our "horrible economic woes". That evaluation does not
reflect the way most Americans experience the economy. 8% unemployment means you
can argue academicly about the size and speed of the recovery but "most"
Americans have not lost their jobs, nor have they experienced much in the way
wage deductions that is different than the last two decades. A 16
trillion dollar deficit may be fodder for conservative rantings, but a 16
trillion dollar deficit with low interest rates, and low taxes doesn't
effect the daily lives of anyone. So first and formost Romney lost because
Republicans need a reality check. Now it doesn't mean that unemployment and
the deficit aren't serious issues but they aren't driving forces in
the average Americans daily life.
No, there were many, many reasons why Romney lost.Americans simply
don't like people we can't trust.
There is an article today about conservative Joe Scarborough saying that the
"republican media" lied to their audience. Because of these lies and
telling people how good the election was going to be for republicans, they were
in a bubble of non-belief. There was no game plan to counter Obama because they
all believed that they were going to win.What a shock. There are
plenty of Americans that do not think or feel the way that Fox watchers, Rush
listeners do. They had no idea that it was a majority.Interesting.
I saw a reporter asking folks celebrating the Obama victory in Chicago, why they
were happy for the victory? They all answered "free stuff". Much of it
was false assumsions. Romney offered Jobs and higher pay. We know what the
"With that said, Marco Rubio for president in 2016."I'm sure
Mr Rubio doesn't want to spend the next 4 years dodging questions like
"do you think pregnancy by rape is God's will?"The hope
for Republicans is that both parties will be running meat grinders in 2016.
The GOP could dredge reagan up and start grooming him for the 2016 election. But
he'll lose unless the party recognises that the nation has matured, evolved
and moved on past them and that it's not good politics to bet it all on a
"No need for primary fights to give the other side fodder to work
with."I love this. Let's just do away with democracy
(allowing the electorate to have a voice in who the nominee is), as long as we
can win and regain control. Let's leave it up to the party bosses to choose
our leaders for us. Sounds a lot like how the Kremlin handles things. And here I
thought the Republicans were all out of new ideas!
The same things were said after 2008. What happened?The
GOP moved even farther right. I'm not holding my breath that
they're going to change to become more appealing to the masses. If
anything, they'll continue to kick folks out of their tent who share
moderate views and continue to go off the deep end with their radical special
interests. Pretty soon, the only folks voting for the GOP will be mindless
Evangelicals, Rush, Rove, and the Koch Bros.
It's Romney's fault that he ended up in a position where he had to try
and convince (to use one example) women that he favored the standard abortion
exemptions when during a debate he said absolutely he'd be in favor of
eliminating all abortions no exceptions.
Has anyone else noticed that there is already speculation about candidates in
2016? When did "elections" become the main political topic instead of
elected reps solving the problems of the nation? The huge divisions in the
electorate, mean that the losing party must mobilize soon to raise the money
needed to compete. I would guess that early in the New Year, Rick Santorum or
Paul Ryan or Rob Portman will announce the formation of an exploratory committee
to consider a run for President. Yikes!How does Britain get away
with restricting the madness to 60 days?
Rubio? HA! The GOP has a lot of wholesale changes to make if they intend to
offer a candidtate that the US finds worthy.And until such changes are
made, you'll likely see San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro in the White House
after President Obama.C'mon...McCain? Palin? Romney?Give us
someone of substance please.
Romney might well have won....if he didn't tick off women, students,
immigrants, the elderly, most of Europe, his home state, his other home state,
his Veep's home state, a bunch of other states, auto workers, the
struggling lower class, the struggling middle class, Israel, single parents,
gays, straights, small business owners, medium-sized business owners, the
businesses he crumbled, unions, families, retirees, veterans...did I leave
KDave: "I saw a reporter asking folks celebrating the Obama victory in
Chicago, why they were happy for the victory? They all answered "free
stuff". "Baloney. Name the program. Name the channel. Name
the reporter.Seriously, the conservative belief that those who voted
for Obama did so because they were lazy and expected the government to take care
of them is simply wrong, offensive, and guarantees the dwindling relevancy of
conservatives in future elections.
Republican => Archie Bunker => Rush LimbaughSee where this
KDave: "I saw a reporter asking folks celebrating the Obama victory in
Chicago, why they were happy for the victory? They all answered "free
stuff". "Last I checked, Republicans wanted Romney's
20% across the board tax cut and spending cuts to unspecified things that would
conveniently not hurt them at all.
Repubs need to start acting like it's 2012 and not the 1950s.Climate
change is real, according to climatologists, just because Glenn Beck says they
are wrong (with no basis for his opinion), doesn't mean it isn't
real.Your nominee received a $79,000 tax break for a horse. One horse.
$79,000 break. Stop promoting a broken tax system. Raise taxes AND cut spending.
Any politician who says otherwise is fooling the country and themselves.
Speaking for "Free Stuff" -- How did Republicans ever plan
on paying for their wars in the Middle East that have rang up 25% of our
When you (romney) spot your opponents 47%, it can proved to be too much for even
romney (who gave his opponents 47%) to overcome.
Mike, you failed to mention that Mitt did very poorly with Asians!
The republican party has been on this conservative trajectory so long now that I
am not sure that they can change enough in just one election cycle to regain
enough of the center of the electorate to win the presidency. Some of the Red
states, including the one that I am from, are still following that conservative
trajectory in spite of the election results. There is considerable discussion
in the party that they are still not conservative enough!! Changing course is
going to be long, tortuous process given the conservative momentum of the party
over the last several years. It may take several election cycles for them get
competitive again on the national level. This is what happened to the Democrats
in the 70's and 80's. I am hoping for sooner, because the country is
better served by two competitive parties.
The Republican Party has moved inexorably to the Right over the last 30 years.
It has become smaller and more ideological, casting out moderate Republicans,
those suspected of being moderate Republicans, and anyone else who objected to
the extreme shift were called RINOs. Romeny recognized that he had to become
"severely conservative" if he wanted to gain the Republican nomination.
It is believed that Ronald Reagan would not be welcome in the Republican Party
today, but the myth of Ronald Reagan will continue to be a centerpiece of the
Party for the forseeable future.Democrats really run the gamut from
extremely liberal to conservative. Many so-called moderate Republicans could
easily exist as Blue Dog Democrats. Many political specialists say that America
is politically Center-Right, which is possibly true, but it is much closer to
the Center than to the Right.No one understands this better than
professional, political operatives which is why Romney had to etch-a-sketch
himself to the middle for the general election. Similarly, Barack Obama
recognizes that he must govern near the middle to succeed. Venturing too far,
either Left or Right, from the Center is self-defeating.
Republicans need to lance the Fox News and Tea Party boils and move more toward
the pragmatic center. Romney's biggest problem was more that, though
successful as a moderate in Massachusetts, he tried to sound as conservative as
possible for those rightwing Republicans in his presidential campaign. The best
choice would be have been another candidate with Utah connections - the moderate
Jon Huntsman Jr. Maybe they should seriously consider someone like him in 2016.
Even if it angers Fox News pundits and the Tea Party, are they going to vote for
the liberal over a moderate?
Conservatives delude themselves when they say that liberals are not "real
Americans" and who don't value freedom, personal responsibility, and
individual achievement. They refuse to see the commonality of all Americans by
uttering these untruths and fail to acknowledge the significance of process.
It's all about "How do we get there from here?"The
process is where we need to place the emphasis in the discussion, not that one
side is always "right" and the other side is always "wrong" by
definition. Inciting hostility will not get us where we want to go.
Differences can be a strength and can be a weakness at the same time. It all
depends how we want to proceed going forward.Those bemoaning the
"loss of America" are remembering an America that never was. When they
spoke of "taking back America", it begged the question, "from whom,
exactly?" It's all political noise and partisan malarkey. You have to
have vision and look long term to cut through the nonsense that prevails at this
time and move on.People need to put things in perspective.
Disappointment? OK. Ego bruising? OK. Wholesale destruction? No way! Life
goes on. This all will pass.
Republicans and their hate filled agendas are the reason Romney lost the
@Tekakaromatagi;You know what they say about bad pennies (in
relation to Newt).As for the Dems raiding your pension, if
you'd followed the Rep plan and invested all your savings in the stock
market prior to the Bush years, you'd have also lost it all during the Bush
years.@KDave;I don't understand how Romney intended
to keep his promise of "higher pay". Was he going to force corporations
to pay better wages? @Hutterite;Zombie Reagan for
President! (Does he have two-terms again if he comes back from the grave?)Ali'ikai 'A'amakualenalena;Very well put!
8% unemployment - 2002 unemployment percentages were between 5.7% to 6%.
It's a given that we will always have unemployed individuals. So is 8% so
out of whack? Free stuff from Obama - share the source on that KDave.
Just like the 'Obama phone' a program created by a former president.
Romney offered jobs - yeah, non-livable wage jobs at Staples. Higher pay - yep,
for the 1-2%. Oh wait, which day did he make that offer, because I am sure he
would have changed those statements within a week. Mike in Sandy -
To "LDS Liberal" yes, we do see where this is going. We can see that
liberals are even more clueless about conservatives than they have been in
previous years. You and your ilk only go to show that liberals lack the desire
and possibility to understand conservativism. Instead, you prefer to use the
myths propagated by the media as a basis for your beliefs.Also, how
do you know that it was the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that racked up the
debt? Why wasn't it government waste or social welfare programs that
increased the debt? Right now about 33% of our debt is due to Obama's
social engineering through deficit spending, yet you have no problem with that.
Why won't you look at the massive debt that Obama has created?
To "Ali'ikai 'A'amakualenalena" if liberals "value
freedom, personal responsibility, and individual achievement" then explain
the following things that democrats have done and said:NY Ban on 16
oz sodas. Isn't NY trying to take away our freedom to do what we want to
people getting fat?How about SS or Medicare. Those systems were set
up to take the responsibility for retirement away from the individual.How about the fact that all of the major social welfare programs in the past
100 years that were set up by Democrats. Don't those programs tell us that
you don't need to take responsibility for yourself?As for
individual achievement, let me quote Obama. "if you've got a business,
you didn' t build that." Sure sounds like he doesn't believe in