U.S. & World

Karl Rove: Here are the 2 tactical fails that cost Romney the election


Return To Article
  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    June 27, 2013 5:46 p.m.

    Whatever you think of Karl Rove, he is a brilliant campaign strategist. They don't call him "The Architect" for nothing.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 27, 2013 5:54 p.m.

    Tea. Party.

  • mcclark Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2013 6:15 p.m.

    I think Romney lost because he was totally out of touch with the average citizen.

  • Bob K porland, OR
    June 27, 2013 6:24 p.m.

    Those errors were NOT why he lost.
    First of all, convincing the public that Bain was good was probably impossible, and dwelling on that would have hurt Romney more.
    Second, the main problem WAS that folks understood Romney. Even without the 47% remark, he and Ann (especially Ann) came across as autocratic and snobby. Being polite and generous when working for your church does not guarantee being able to understand all Americans and showing that you do.
    In addition, Romney got a big boost in the first debate, against a tired President, when he came out swinging with a bunch of newly manufactured positions, but Obama later successfully showed that Romney LOOKED as if he would say anything to get elected.
    Romney got hammered because people decided not to trust him -- PERIOD!

  • Kings Court Alpine, UT
    June 27, 2013 6:33 p.m.

    It is interesting to note that Rove's American Crossroads failed to get the vast majority of its candidates elected despite collecting hundreds of millions of dollars to do the job, yet Rove criticizes the Romney team. This is definitely an example of the pot calling the kettle black and Rove deflecting from his own problems. Also, don't forget that Rove was adamant on Fox News that Ohio was going to be taken Romney and had a meltdown when Fox called the state for Obama. Rove is undoubtedly a smart man, but his glory days are apparently over and he has shown the capacity to make serious errors and made critical tactical errors of letting emotions get in the way of facts.

  • Strider303 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2013 7:53 p.m.

    Perhaps people voted against Obama more than for Romney.

    Perhaps we have an ignorant electorate who are feed baloney by both sides and buy their favorite brand.

    We get what we elect, either through knowledge or ignorance. Experience is a brutal teacher but fools will have no other.

  • Justmythoughts Provo, UT
    June 27, 2013 9:02 p.m.

    The reason Romney lost was because he didn't offer people free stuff....he was honest.

  • JimInSLC Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2013 9:16 p.m.

    Obama won in 2008 because he promised many things that the people wanted changed in government, Closing Gitmo, ending the wars, transparency of govt., etc... If Romney had kept the focus on the things that Obama promised and failed to deliver, and promised to succeed in doing those things, maybe he would have had a better chance.

    The problem for me with Romney (in addition to Bain), and this was most clear in the 3rd debate, the policy that Romney would adopt was too much like Obama's foreign policy. Obama has turned out to be a war monger and the impression I got of Romney was that he would be too. I could not vote for either.

  • riverofsun St.George, Utah
    June 27, 2013 9:55 p.m.

    You just gotta wonder if they will ever get over it.

  • rlsintx Plano, TX
    June 27, 2013 9:57 p.m.

    #1 reason Romney lost : Rove was calling the shots.

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    June 27, 2013 10:09 p.m.

    Romney did not lose. Oboma won by getting more voters out.

    Obama and his band of strategists and operatives and organizers, and their legions of allies in the media convinced enough voters that Obama would give them free stuff, and got them to show up at the polls. (Some multiple times!)

    One might argue that most of Obama's voters were what have become known as "low information voters" but their votes count just as much as someone who actually understands the candidates and issues, and the consequences of bad choices.

    Romney's support was lukewarm, other than those who realized that another Obama term would be (and is turning out to be) an unmitigated disaster for our country.

    Republicans will continue to lose if they run "Democrat lite" candidates, and "moderates." Real conservatives have shown they can win, and that is where the future of the Republican party must turn, otherwise it will continue its spiral into irrelevance.

    However, the irresistible lure of "free stuff" for the low information voters saturated by a well organized campaign team may prove insurmountable.

    Thus our great nation will finally collapse, destroyed from within.

  • ThornBirds St.George, Utah
    June 27, 2013 10:30 p.m.

    It's like time is standing still.
    The same angry, "Obama ruined everything" comments.....
    Month, after month, after....
    Over, and over, and over, and......

  • sergio Phoenix, AZ
    June 27, 2013 10:44 p.m.

    The bottom line is that the Amercan voters made the right choice. Some people will always lack patriotism to support America and the people's president.

  • oldschool Farmington, UT
    June 27, 2013 11:18 p.m.

    Romney lost because he lost the urban areas. The chief reason he lost the urban areas is that he did not offer expanded governmental services to people who want more and more from the government. It's also hard to win when your opponent is successful at getting 100% of the vote in certain districts, particularly when more people vote than are even registered. In Ohio the Democrats got more Somalis to vote than have gained citizenship.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 28, 2013 12:03 a.m.

    Consider the old line landed aristocracy of Great Britain. In time the British came to regard such as parasites, obtaining a return just by virtue of ownership. To some degree this is how Romney is viewed. Most of us understand earning a return from hard sweat, even when salaries are large. Consider that Obama was an attorney (a real job), Reagan was for most of his career an actor (a real job), Jimmy Carter was and is a peanut farmer (a real job). But what is Romney? He makes money simply by virtue of his owning and shielding capital. For Romney to get his message across he would have had to explain a completely different way of life than the one we understand. He couldn't and he lost because of it. I think Romney is probably a "nice guy." But he is an economic beast I can't trust. Apparently a lot of other people felt the same way.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    June 28, 2013 12:34 a.m.

    As much as I like to give Romney and Romney supporters a hard time,

    I respect Romney for making the "architect" Karl Rove look like a complete fool election night.

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    June 28, 2013 12:50 a.m.

    Carl Rove has only won 20% of the campaigns he has managed.
    People listen to him, why?

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    June 28, 2013 1:39 a.m.

    Is Rove out of touch? I have never heard of anyone else say they didn't vote for Romney because of the reasons he listed.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    June 28, 2013 3:16 a.m.

    Rove had absolutely nothing to do with Romney's campaign.

    Romney's loss says more about us than it does about him. It is a significant statement about how much we have degenerated as a country. When we re-elect someone who is a complete failure as a leader and as a president and clearly has no respect from other world leaders, it shows that we are on the road to self-destruction.

  • windsor City, Ut
    June 28, 2013 4:56 a.m.

    Rove has no idea.

    There is just one of two reasons why Romney lost:

    #1. Too many who would have voted for him over Obama could not be bothered with actually showing up to vote.(know a ton of these people)

    #2. "choose you by the voice of this people...that ye may be judged according to the laws which have been given you by our fathers, which are correct...Now it is not common that the voice of the people desires anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall you observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people. And if the time comes that the voice of the people chooses iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction...."

    I hope it is only lazy people in #1, and not #2.

  • milhouse Atlanta, GA
    June 28, 2013 5:13 a.m.

    DN Subscriber 2:

    I am doing graduate work in Engineering and Economics from a top-3 university. I stay very plugged in to current events by reading the Economist, Politico, the New York Times, and the DNews, and listening to the BBC and NPR regularly. I am hardly a low-information voter. I voted for Obama, because he convinced me that he would most closely follow my ideals of good governance.

    I would say there are also plenty of low-information voters whose pastors told them, "Vote for Romney because Obama will destroy America!" Whether you agree that statement is true or not, you can't say there aren't uninformed people on both sides. And you can't say that Romney wasn't also promising to give anything away (tax breaks, anyone?).

  • UTAH Bill Salt Lake City, UT
    June 28, 2013 6:04 a.m.

    I thought Romney governed in Massachusetts well. He seemed to know who he was and where he was headed. But, the Romney I saw during the campaign was not that man. Campaigner Romney seemed to be a chameleon who said whatever the crowd in front of him at the time wanted to hear. He changed position on so many of his policies that I no longer understood exactly what he stood for. I could not vote for him when I felt I had no idea how he would govern as president.

  • maclouie Falconer, NY
    June 28, 2013 6:08 a.m.

    DN #2 first point is correct. But another way to look at it is Romney did not get the anti-Mormons out. Obama got less voters out this time than last so we can't say Obama ran a good campaign (of course he did because he won) at least not compared to his last. Analyze the numbers. Evangelicals and their ilk stayed home. Could not vote for a Mormon and they did not vote for Obama (but they did). They and others got what they deserved. An America in decline. The worse is yet to come. Republicans and Conservatives are being destroyed in front of our eyes as I write this.

  • LRB NY, NY
    June 28, 2013 6:12 a.m.

    JUSTMYTOUGHTS Romney offered lots of people stuff--venture capitalist, angry anti immigration foes and the angry anti abortion crowd were going to have Christmas in november. The problem for you and Romney is there are more people like me than qngry folks like you. And now we are going to overturn Amendment 3. Fasten your seatbelt. Your gonna have a bumpy ride.

  • H. Bob Salt Lake City, UT
    June 28, 2013 6:32 a.m.

    Is one of the two things that Romney trusted Rove and his polling numbers?

  • rph Arlington, VA
    June 28, 2013 6:57 a.m.

    At least the article got it right, even if the headline didn't: these were tactical failures, not "fails." Basic grammar.

  • FDRfan Sugar City, ID
    June 28, 2013 7:13 a.m.

    Karl Rove is another crowing rooster trying to take credit for the rising sun. He did not win the election for George Bush and was just a media creation. But kowtowing to Norquest hurt Mitt Romney more than anything else. Go ahead Republicans with your "lower the tax rates for the wealthy" and you hurt America as much as the Democrats. We need to do away with the Party system and let individuals with the best ideas be elected. Too many Americans can see through this puppet scenario.

  • Turtle Owasso, OK
    June 28, 2013 7:35 a.m.

    It was Mr. Romney who gave the reason rather than Karl Rover. He said that it was the gifts that Mr. Obama passed out that made the difference. This president has never been a leader, shows by his disdain of the people that he doesn't care and has no respect for or received from world leaders. Now he is going to "show us" by using his powers via the EPA that he can punish us even more with his war on the environment - something that is political science rather than physical. This country will continue to suffer until we get smart enough to elect someone who promotes programs that make us responsible citizens rather than takers only. The next 3 years are going to be tough...

  • IMAN Marlborough, MA
    June 28, 2013 7:40 a.m.

    Another of Mr. Romney's tactical errors was running in the 1st place.

  • LittleStream Carson City, NV
    June 28, 2013 7:43 a.m.

    I think the reason Romney lost was because he never related to the poor and middle class in this country. And we know that group is becoming larger and larger. I think the reason Romney lost was because he never related to minorities, any of them. Not women, not senior citizens, not Hispanics, not Blacks. I think Rove is looking at this exactly like Romney was, from the extremely wealthy viewpoint. I am not a Democrat, nor a Republican. I have voted for both in my lifetime. But I have never voted for someone who I did not think their main concern was what's best for the American people. Unfortunately, with very very rare exceptions, wealthy is not the best for the American people.

    June 28, 2013 7:51 a.m.

    So I walked outside yesterday and it was 95 degrees. You know why? Because it is the end of June.

    In five years the Deseret News will be complaining that the only reason Santorum lost the presidency is because he wasn't enough like Romney.

  • Clinton Draper, UT
    June 28, 2013 7:57 a.m.

    @mcclark: I think Romney lost because the average citizen is totally out of touch with reality and engages in political activity with a team-sport mentality. The facts are that Obama has continued and expanded upon nearly everything that people hated so much about Bush, yet those who spent 8 years mocking and deriding Bush voted for Obama . . . twice.

    @Bob K: From a factual standpoint, Romney did exceptionally well in all three debates. What Obama stepped-up on in the last two debates was the 8th grade put-downs and bald faced lies (e.g. Benghazi and the Rose Garden speech). Of course, that's what most voters connect with rather than facts...

  • Doug10 Roosevelt, UT
    June 28, 2013 7:58 a.m.

    Perhaps Romney lost the election because people actually did see what he really was. Someone who is a very nice guy but who would say whatever it took to sway his audiences. The Pinocchio board went ballistic whenever Romney made a speech.

    He was head and shoulders above Pres Obama when it comes to business experience and he he has shown he can run companies. Some he kept alive and some he did not based upon what their economical expectancies were. However when he got the chance to stand in front of audiences and say what he thought people wanted to hear he would come up with lines about how his wife drove Cadillacs, and this as the country was coming out of a huge economic downturn.

    Continually he showed how out of touch he was with the common American. Collin Powell expressed concern that Romney would have the country at war and Alan Greenspan a GOP fed reserve chairman said Romneys economic plan would create more debt than Pres Obama's plan. Those two men saying that should turn most voters away.

    However Romneys own inability to communicate caused his downfall on election day.

  • Aggielove Cache county, USA
    June 28, 2013 8:15 a.m.

    Does it really matter? This whole thing is biblical. Read the bible folks.

  • Red Salt Lake City, UT
    June 28, 2013 8:16 a.m.

    I loved Romney's attacks on Obama.

    Obama is clearly a lying Chicago politician with no real experience and he is wrecking America by allowing the enormous debt to continue to grow. We are all toast and at this point there is not a lot we can do about it.

    But, Romney would have been better off ignoring Obama altogether. Everyone knew he wasn't the right guy and couldn't get the job done, but by attacking the obvious only made Romney look like a silly politician.

    If he would have just started laying out a logical plan with real details and said, "This is the plan. It will work. Please steal my ideas Obama. I care about America, and if we are going to save it the sooner this plan is started the better"

    Then he would have won.

  • The Scientist Provo, UT
    June 28, 2013 8:26 a.m.

    Romney lost because he was not the best candidate.

    'Nuff said.

    Move on.

    Get over it.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    June 28, 2013 8:36 a.m.

    Cats said: Whatever you think of Karl Rove, he is a brilliant campaign strategist. They don't call him "The Architect" for nothing.

    Actually Bush called him "Turd Blossom" a more accurate nickname.

    Enough with the "free stuff" baloney, I don't know a single person who voted for Obama, that thought they were getting "free stuff." I only hear about it from right wing posters, whom I can only assume, are angry at not getting their imaginary gift bag. Where are the angry low information masses that didn't get their "free stuff," why aren't they posting about being lied to? They don't exist, because Nobody thought they were getting free stuff.

  • FT1/SS Virginia Beach, VA
    June 28, 2013 8:55 a.m.

    Coming from a man who predicted Romney would win all the way into election night. All Rove is doing is defending himself, and taking the heat off with his party.

  • JLFuller Boise, ID
    June 28, 2013 8:55 a.m.

    When I read the comments here I shake my head. It is as though these folks actually believed what they read in the media. Our nation is made up of low information voters - as Rush Limbaugh puts it. Logic suggests Romney lost because there are too many people supping at the public trough and he would have cut that back. Romney would have shifted focus from welfare to creating a more robust economy. Someone said the best welfare program is a job, something the Democrats have so far failed to create in any meaningful numbers. But with millions welded to the government, no one espousing serious changes can be elected. As an aside to my fellow commenters, never believe the media. Their job is not to inform but rather to collect readers and viewers and thus advertisers.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    June 28, 2013 9:06 a.m.

    Sometimes I think that DN should have just pretended that Romney won last November so they could spend the next eight years running stories about his triumphant "presidency." Nearly eight months later and they'll still look for any excuse to run a story about him...

  • andyjaggy American Fork, UT
    June 28, 2013 9:08 a.m.

    I voted against Romney, not for Obama. He was a complete disappointment as a candidate. I was going to vote for him at first, but he slowly lost any confidence I had in him, the 47% comment was the final straw for me. Anyone who believes that half the population of this country are free loaders just waiting for their next government check doesn't deserve to be in the white house.

    Please oh please I hope the Republican party can come up with a candidate I can actually vote for in 2016. Chris Cristie, are you reading this? Most likely he will get run out by all the extreme wackos before he even gets a chance.

  • JBQ Saint Louis, MO
    June 28, 2013 9:19 a.m.

    Mark Shields of The PBS NewsHour team of Shields and Brooks gave the one reason for Romney's defeat. He said that it was a matter of the perception of "lack of empathy". Karl Rove has lost his credibility and is linked with a failing perception of the Republican Party. Either the party redefines itself and moves to the left or right or the Whigs will have a parallel history as the Republicans continue to fade from view. The target for the Democrats is to have "one party rule" with enough give and take built into the model to make the country grow. My nephew just received a political science degree from the University of Missouri. That is the philosophy that they are being taught. It is "socialism with a human face". There is no room for capitalism. As a Catholic Navy vet who thinks highly of the writings of Malachi Martin, a Jesuit advisor to Vatican II, you can pretty well say that the Catholic Church believes the same. Capitalism is a failed model and conservatives should realize this and work toward the forming of a "Third Rail" in the center of the track.

  • milner Centerfield Sanpete, UT
    June 28, 2013 9:35 a.m.

    I think he lost because he was out of touch with the common person! Hard for him to relate because he has been rich all of his life, so he has had everything he has wanted without really having to work for it!

  • LiberalEastCoastMember Parkesburg, PA
    June 28, 2013 9:47 a.m.

    I hope Rove isn't suggesting Romney LOST the election when we all know Obama STOLE the election by out thinking, out hustling and out working Romney's campaign.

    Generally speaking the person who runs the most organized, focused, strategic campaign wins. In this case, and for many more reasons than the two Rove points out, that person was Obama.

    The funny thing was, Obama's campaign team was so skilled and artful in how they executed their strategy that Romney never saw it coming and believed up until 8:00 PM on election night he would win.

    Too bad. In this election anyway, he wasn't the better man.

  • Spitvalve Denton, TX
    June 28, 2013 9:47 a.m.

    Mitt lost because Obama cheated.

  • EdGrady Idaho Falls, ID
    June 28, 2013 9:53 a.m.

    The only "gift" that I've been offered by Obama is to receive real Medicare health coverage in return for paying 50 years worth of Medicare taxes. The nerve of people like me.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    June 28, 2013 10:03 a.m.

    Romney lost because the majority of voters are low-information voters. Obama's lies have become more widespread and the American people are just soaking it up. We have seen Obama use this to his advantage in the debates; he would tell a blatant lie, knowing that it will most likely be proven wrong the next day, but that doesn't matter because all people will hear is the lie. They don't end up hearing the correction. All they remember is what Obama said originally.

    This is helped by the media which favors Obama 100%. I believe there was a study that showed that in the last few weeks leading up to the election, 0% of the liberal media posted anything negative about Obama (I guess he really is the Savior, then?). Objective reporting in the liberal news media is long gone. Objectivity is apparently undesirable anyway.

    Romney lost not because he was not the right choice; he lost because enough people didn't bother to find out who the best choice was and just soaked up whatever the media said without ever questioning it.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    June 28, 2013 10:26 a.m.

    JLFuller said: "When I read the comments here I shake my head. It is as though these folks actually believed what they read in the media. Our nation is made up of low information voters - as Rush Limbaugh puts it. "

    When I read the comments like yours I shake my head. It is as though you actually believe what they say on the radio. Our nation is infected by low information listeners of rush limbaugh, sean and glen, I used to listen to rush in the 90's because my father told me how great he was. After a couple years of listening to clever editing, half truths and a lot of speculation based on opinion rather than actual facts, I couldn't listen to all the angry old dittoheads anymore. I grew up and started getting news from several sources and then seeing where they meet, the truth is near there.

    Romney lost because the he represents the 1% who have been fleecing this nation for the past 30 years while the trickle down tax theory destroyed the middle class.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    June 28, 2013 10:29 a.m.

    Romney lost because he was wrong on every major issue. He was wrong on the economy. His economic plan would have destroyed our economy--more tax cuts for rich people, no investment, no employment plan, just more income inequality. He lost because he stood for lunatic notions like 'self-deportation.' He lost because he didn't have a clue on foreign policy. I'm not a big Obama fan, but this was the easiest vote I've ever cast. I voted for a guy who at least understands the issues, and has some sense of economics.

  • Captain Green Heber City, UT
    June 28, 2013 11:01 a.m.

    Romney lost because the Democrats cheated. There was election fraud like never before. Had it not been for this, Mitt likely would be the president right now. Sad for America that the principles of honesty and integrity have disappeared from the societal and political stage.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    June 28, 2013 11:10 a.m.

    Man, these old conservative excuse mantras are becoming awfully stale.

  • Central Texan Buda, TX
    June 28, 2013 11:28 a.m.

    Rove is right that you can't pin an election loss on any single thing. In Romney's case I think it was the combination of a lot of little things.

    * Some have correctly mentioned that the Obama get-out-the-vote efforts. This was especially important in places like Ohio. Many voters who couldn't name the Vice President were nonetheless carted into the polls to vote for someone who had provided them with an ObamaPhone or the like. The failure of the Romney Teams get-out-the-vote software was a minor drag in this effort for Romney.

    * The Romney Team, like MANY conservative pundits (Dick Morris, anyone), were relying on flawed polling data. Remember Romney thought, by the latest numbers, that he would win Florida, etc. Morris and others kept trying to adjust the polling upward in favor of Romney by claiming that turnout would be different than the polls suggested. They didn't see that they actually were slightly down in areas they thought they were up in.


  • Central Texan Buda, TX
    June 28, 2013 11:28 a.m.

    * The undercurrent of anti-Mormon sentiment among some conservatives. Although MANY, such as the Rev. Jeffress sought actively to keep Romney from the nomination with religious references, he at least publicly expressed support in the general election. However, it is hard to believe that with such a strong avoidance by some toward a Mormon candidacy -- so strong they had to convene meetings to decide whom to support as each of the other non-Romneys left the race, finally even settling on Santorum who was their last pick otherwise -- that all such voters went into the booth for Romney.

    * The damaging effects of conservative talk-show commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, and others to dampen enthusiasm toward Romney. Rush tries to deny his roll in Romney's loss, but prior to Romney becoming the nominee Rush spent a great deal of time telling his listeners how Romney was the "establishment candidate" (not true), how Romney was a "dry-ball moderate", etc. These characterizations conveyed an unfair bias against Romney beyond a simple political assessment.


  • Central Texan Buda, TX
    June 28, 2013 11:29 a.m.

    One of the most damaging attacks by conservative pundits against Romney was in the illogical hype over ObamaCare compared to "RomneyCare". Rush spent much airtime trying to tell us how "Romney Advisers" had been instrumental in crafting and pushing through the hated ObamaCare, detailing how these "Romney Advisers" had met with the White House, etc. However, while the Obama Administration had met with some who had been involved with the Massachusetts' health care law, these individuals (Jon Kingsdale, John McDonough, and Jon Gruber) were not "Romney Advisers". They were simply individuals outside the Romney team who had worked on health care issues in the past and were involved in the Massachusetts process. Some in particular were staunch Democrats. Gruber, in particular, had appeared several times on MSNBC as a commentator against Romney. Limbaugh was flat wrong to label Gruber a Romney adviser who promoted and helped fashion ObamaCare. Laura Ingraham fell into the same false rhetoric about Romney's ties to ObamaCare, apparently forgetting that she (along with Santorum) had given full-throated support to Romney in 2008 -- a period also after the signing of the Massachusetts health care law.

  • The Scientist Provo, UT
    June 28, 2013 11:32 a.m.

    Captain Green wrote:

    "Romney lost because the Democrats cheated."

    Sour grapes do not become reasonable people.

    Try to keep it intelligent and classy... if you are capable of it.

  • Clinton Draper, UT
    June 28, 2013 11:33 a.m.

    @andyjaggy: You're not offering an accurate account of what Romney said. What he said was that 47% of voters were going to vote for Obama no matter what. He also said 47% of the population doesn't pay federal income taxes, so his message on lowering taxes wasn't going to connect with them. Therefore, he said his job was to convince the small percentage of independent voters. All three of those statements are demonstrably true. In fact, according to IRS tax data, the percentage of people who don't pay any federal income taxes is more like 50%, so if anything Romney understated the reality of the situation.

    Romney also commented on the problem of entitlement programs. It is intellectually dishonest to pretend that there isn't a large segment of society who believe they are entitled to healthcare, food, and housing, especially since that is the platform Democrats have run on for years. Could Romney have been more politically correct? Maybe. However, I personally enjoyed his frankness. I voted for him because he was honest and in all ways the better candidate.

  • grandmagreat Lake Havasu City, AZ
    June 28, 2013 11:43 a.m.

    I think Obama won this election, because the American People do not know a good guy when they see one. One That loves his Country, Is honest, Is a Christian in a Christian nation. but voted for one, possibly when they were not even american citizens, and those who do not love this country and didn't want what was best for the entire country to have a good leader. Demorcrats and Republicans are merely parties, so that the choice can be down to two, Come on America, read the news, wake up, and it won't hurt to learn how to pray before you vote in any more elections,

  • Pasmith St Petersburg, FL
    June 28, 2013 11:50 a.m.

    I think he lost because he failed to address anyone who was not already a supporter. He wrote off anyone who is on any kind of government assistance as a waste of his time, instead of telling them what a stronger America could mean to them. He should have appealed to their better natures and talked to them about how his plans could give them opportunities to be self sufficient because in fact not everyone who is getting help - really wants to be in that situation. Some of them do want to rise above that. Instead of including them in the conversation, he alienated them. When you realize that about half of the voters are receiving assistance, you are stupid to not realize that you need to win over at least some of them.

  • The Scientist Provo, UT
    June 28, 2013 11:53 a.m.

    It is pretty simple, really.

    There are an estimated 201.5 million U.S. citizens age 18 or over who were eligible to vote in this last election.

    Of these, about 55 million were registered Republicans.

    About 72 million were registered Democrats.

    About 42 million were registered as Independents or some other minor party.

    Obama's strategy was straightforward: get those 72 million "out to vote", then try to sway some of those 42 million Independents by:

    1) showing that on the issues where Romney is moderate (Healthcare reform), Romney is no different than Obama;

    2) showing that on the issues where Romney is "conservative", Romney is too extreme (ala the Tea Party);


    3) showing that Romney is all over the map, with no coherent central ideological paradigm (a "flip-flopper") who cannot be trusted even if he does take a (temporary) stand on any given issue. This is also related to Romney being "out of touch".

    And it worked!

    At least in part because Romney played into this strategy perfectly. And maybe that is because Romney IS actually all those things he was made out to be.

    In other words, Obama's campaign showed us the REAL Romney.

  • Denverite Centennial, CO
    June 28, 2013 11:57 a.m.

    Romney could have won--but as hard as he worked, he still gave a lot of people (including me) the idea that he didn't really have his whole soul into winning. Rove couldn't have fixed that, no matter how many commercials.

    To win a presidential election these days, you have to want it as badly as the Democrats want it--and Romney didn't. To him, it wasn't a blood sport or Game 7 like it is for Democrats; that's how they justify the vote fraud, the lies about opponents, and the other chicanery they always pull.

    To Romney, it seemed more of a casual golf or tennis match. You lose--meh...maybe you'll win next time. The exercise is the important thing. And this applies to all the other RINO's as well--squishy moderates don't win not only because they're moderate, but because it's not a super-serious thing to any of them. Maybe it's their vast wealth.

    What we conservatives need in every election is not only a good person, but someone who will treat it as a Game 7 and campaign like a Democrat --but without the illegal part.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 28, 2013 1:34 p.m.

    "The other key moment and issue Rove said hurt the Romney campaign was failing to show who the former Massachusetts governor is as a person."

    No, we clearly saw which type of person Romney was. He felt he was entitled to the presidency ("it's our turn"). He was an out-of-touch millionaire who felt the rest of Americans were bottom feeders beneath his notice. He was calculating, untruthful and showed his contempt for the Constitution of the United States by signing pledges to adhere to right wing dogmas and disenfranchise American citizens he didn't approve of.

    That's why he lost. Oh, and because he was "Mitt" Romney (a mitt is a glove).

  • Central Texan Buda, TX
    June 28, 2013 1:36 p.m.

    Again, Romney was in part a victim of bad polling data that portrayed him as doing better than actual. That plays into the strategy one takes.

    "The Scientist" thinks the Obama campaign showed us the "REAL" Romney. This is obviously incorrect, as for example the Joe Soptic ad that claimed Romney had some responsibility for Soptic's wife's death and DIDN'T CARE ABOUT IT. This was and is an obvious falsehood.

    Also, the 47% comment was misunderstood because it was taken out of context. Remember he was simply answering a question to a potential donor about his appeal to voters. He answered that there were some to whom he would not likely appeal. Romney did jumble and lump together different constituencies in a way that was not precisely correct, but he was not writing an editorial for the NYTimes. The potential donors understood his strategy even though he didn't clear up the difference between the 47% not paying taxes and the smaller percentage who were government-dependent, etc. He was not saying he didn't care about any of those voters as citizens -- another aspect of the comment portrayed falsely. He was referring to his own voting appeal.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 28, 2013 2:14 p.m.

    The 2 reasons Romney lost?:

    1. Flip.
    2. Flop.

    Sad, me [and the other vast majority 90% of the middle, centered, independent moderates] could have voted for the Blue Dog, NorthEastern Rockefeller Republican, Big Tent Reagan "Governor" Romney.

    You know -- the;
    Gay marriage,
    Restricted assault weapon -- Romney.

    Not that 2 bit fake puppet the Tea Party nominated.

  • kattawn ,
    June 28, 2013 3:07 p.m.

    Why are we still talking about this, but have ignored Benghazi? Get off of it Mr. Rove and move on.

  • New to Utah PAYSON, UT
    June 28, 2013 4:25 p.m.

    Karl Roves points are accurate. Failure to fight back effectively to the lies and distortions of a $500 million Obama's swing state strategy hurt. It suppressed the vote. It is interesting how liberals to this day consider W an illegitimate president but no one is considering that Obama's IRS targeting of conservatives which may have affected the election is not illegitimate.The other point is failure of the news media to honestly report on the election. It should have actually covered the Benghazi coverup and hit the inconsistencies. The other point is Romney campaign should have done more to positively portray Romney as a caring,compassionate leader. The media was so completely in the tank for Obama that the fourth estate really sealed the election for Obama. Jonathan Alter the liberal newsweek editor has a book out called I think "The Center Held" chronicling why Obama won and Romney lost. Brent Bozell a conservative has a book called "Collusion" basically how the mainstream media covered for Obama and was the deciding factor in the election. I plan to read both books.

  • NeilT Clearfield, UT
    June 28, 2013 6:43 p.m.

    I was disappointed in Romney's campaign, still voted for him. Can someone please cite a specific example of where Obama promised free stuff. It is time to for the Republicans to change course. A change in party leadership would be a great start. The other day the ACA was the topic of discussion at work. Despite the overall disdain for the ACA everyone person present cited examples of the ACA they supported and agreed with. Republicans don't understand that concept. Healthcare and immigration reform are important issues to voters. I believe they main reason Romney lost was he insulted so many voter blocks.

  • dLange Los Gatos, CA
    June 28, 2013 11:00 p.m.

    Romney lost because there was nothing that he didn't change his position on. In addition he failed to explain the reasons for these changes, but insisted that he was the most consistent man on earth. This, along with his lack of vision as to where he wanted to take the country, made him seem extremely disengenuous.

  • jimhale Eugene, OR
    June 29, 2013 2:16 a.m.

    Rove is out of touch. He blew this cycle big time.
    Romney lost because:
    He is just too rich for the taste of the overwhelming majority of Americans.
    His 47% comment echoed what many thought from the get go. It was proof positive that Mitt just didn't get the lives of many people. His tax returns were additional proof. If he wanted to be president, he should have planned on releasing them - or stayed out of the race. If he wanted to be president he should have kept his investments here in this country - at least in the last four years. Having a blind trust that has no political vision was just dumb. He wanted to have his cake and eat it, too. It made him look like he had so much money he didn't need to keep track of it.
    In the primaries, he veered too far to the right(?) on immigration to have ever won the general election. Rove and many others warned of this problem four year ago. Mitt wanted the nomination so bad he said things that made it worthless.
    Every other mistake his team made pales by comparison to his own errors.

  • mhilton Lancaster, CA
    June 29, 2013 5:01 a.m.

    Romney lost because the radical right were vehemately opposed to supporting a Mormon. Plain and simple. There are statistics on this that I heard quoted on Rush Limbaugh show a while back although I can't recall the specifics. The Radical right just didn't get out and vote. If they had, he would have won.

  • Dutch Bellingham, wa
    June 29, 2013 11:14 a.m.

    Romney lost so that the average American citizen would get this disgusting government we now have. In this country we get the government we deserve!

  • owlmaster2 Kaysville, UT
    June 29, 2013 3:00 p.m.

    Romney lost because he was caught in LIES and he was totally OUT OF TOUCH with the average voter...
    Romney had few, if any, people on the ground... he lots of signs and advertising but not workers.

  • New to Utah PAYSON, UT
    June 30, 2013 3:48 p.m.

    Mitt Romney had a great plan to increase jobs,energy independence and help people start businesses by getting government out of the way. He lost because the left including universities,labor unions, large non profits and the mainsteam news media had at least triple the money and influences. It is interesting to read the posts from the liberal states of Washingto,Oregon and California. Politics in those states are a blood sport. I have lived there and I know it. The powerful labor unions, universities and so called charitable trusts spew non stop liberal dogma. The Democrat party believes totally in the end justifies the means and Republicans are homophobic, racists and hate schools and children. It is pretty tough to win even if you get the most votes because the judges are all liberals and will keep counting until the D is the victor.Ask Dino Rossi in his first contest with Christine Gregoire how elections are decided or see how Meg Whitman was destroyed by being for Prop8.Money matters and liberals have by far the most. Mitt Romney was a compassionate decent man whom the left vilified.

  • USAlover Salt Lake City, UT
    July 1, 2013 9:33 a.m.

    Romney lost because he didn't promise lots of free stuff to people and didn't lie enough about how great the next four years were going to be.

    Debt has grown, gas prices up, health care premiums up, umemployment unchanged, unabated inflation to come....Hope and Change!!!

  • thatthatguy Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 8, 2013 9:14 a.m.

    It's really quite simple why Romney lost. We still remembered George W Bush. A much as Rove tried to hide him, let people forget, we remembered the disaster of war and debt that was his presidency. I don't want to see another Republican in the White House for a good long time. Preferably not until the 30 year old "starve the beast" idea has faded into history, and we get some Republicans that aren't committed to sabotaging the country.

  • Alfred Pheonix, AZ
    July 31, 2013 11:00 a.m.

    Carl Rove is totally wrong. Romney lost because:

    He didn't get the Hispanic vote. He should never have mentioned '47 percent' and 'let them deport themselves'... Someone will always have a camera on it. Obama got the Hispanic vote because he was perceived as an immigrant himself... from Kenya. Immigrants, legal and otherwise, favor other immigrants.

    He didn't handle the tax return issue very well. Harry Reid kept spouting that Romney didn't pay any income taxes and since the tax returns were not released the voters assumed the worst. Romney should have grilled Harry about how he knew about Romney's returns. As we now know, folks at the IRS very likely leaked the info on the say-so of either Obama himself or some of his hired czars.

    Romney didn't handle the Bain Capital issue well. He should have emphasized the companies that he saved from bankruptcy and the resultant jobs that were saved.

    The US is full of low information voters as dumb as a bag of hammers. A candidate must appeal to them since their vote counts as much as the informed voter. And so it goes.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    July 31, 2013 11:39 a.m.

    "And you can't say that Romney wasn't also promising to give anything away (tax breaks, anyone?)."

    Tax breaks?? Low information voters (and unfortunately there are millions out there) are generally non tax payers. In fact, they usually can qualify for the EIC (Earned Income Credit), which is a 'refund' of taxes never paid.

    @UTAH Bill:
    "Campaigner Romney seemed to be a chameleon who said whatever the crowd in front of him at the time wanted to hear. He changed position on so many of his policies that I no longer understood exactly what he stood for. I could not vote for him when I felt I had no idea how he would govern as president."

    You want a chameleon? How about Obama... Gitmo closure; troops out of the mid east conflicts; Gay marriage; abortion; and several others. If you voted for the true chameleon you made a mistake.

    If Romney made a mistake it was not promising massive handouts to low information voters. Instead, he wanted to cut the size of government, stop the massive outflow of goverment largesse, and get the lazy and indolent American back to work.