Quantcast
Opinion

Letters: Mitt Romney lost because of just one reason

Comments

Return To Article
  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 12:33 a.m.

    Like many said last week -- WHICH Mitt Romney?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Aug. 16, 2013 5:21 a.m.

    It is much more complicated than that.

    Romney is a good person and a smart businessman.

    But, he was NOT a right wing conservative. And in a field where everyone was trying to "out right" the next guy, he was out of place.

    How refreshing would it have been had Romney NOT raised his hand when asked if he would reject $10 in spending cuts to $1 in revenue increase?

    He could have stood up and explained how common sense should win out over partisan hyperbole.

    Instead, he played along. He got sucked into a game which he could not compete.

    He was the analytical, fact based, numbers guy who tried to downplay his intellectual approach in favor of pandering to the far right.

    And in doing so, he lost enough votes from the moderates and independents to keep him from winning.

    That said, had Romney been true to himself from the start, he would have never won the primary.

    This is much more of a GOP problem than a Romney problem.

    And we will see it again in 2016.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Aug. 16, 2013 6:54 a.m.

    Mitt Romney lost because the majority of Americans have learned they can vote themselves entitlements from the national treasury. Why not? It beats working for a living and think of the "greed and selfishness" of anyone who thinks otherwise! Obama voters are getting their rewards: food stamp recipients have more than doubled, free or subsidized healthcare for half of America (Obamacare), UAW and teacher's union bailouts. Everyone in America is doing much better except taxpayers.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 6:56 a.m.

    I had heard that Mitt Romney changed his stance on abortion and shortly after that announced he was running for the Republican nomination for president.

    Being a pro-life person I thought to myself we don't need another Ronald Reagan, meaning people who claim to be on your side in the pro-life fight but when it comes right down to it they won't do what they claim.

    I would rather have in office who is quote unquote pro choice then someone who claims to be on your side but when it comes right down to it will fold.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 7:37 a.m.

    @Mountainman. If republicans continue to believe that Obama voters voted for him because of entitlements then they will continue to lose elections.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Aug. 16, 2013 8:00 a.m.

    @Shaun. Are you saying food stamp recipients have not doubled since Obama won? Are you saying half of Americans will not get free or taxpayer subsidized health care insurance with Obamacare? Are you saying the UAW didn't get the vast majority of the "bailout"? I have no doubt Republicans will not win the White House again because they believe in self reliance and personal responsibility which has become very unpopular in America, unlike Democrats. The real question isn't whether Republicans will ever win the White House but how the effects of our deficit spending and national debt will be and how long we can last as a nation, economically and culturally, now that's the question.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 8:21 a.m.

    @cjb "...who is quote unquote pro choice..."

    I find this usage absolutely cool! My first reaction was, hey, there's a key next to the pinky finger on the second row that you might want to know about. But now I want to leave it alone. I really like it.

    And so that this is not completely off-topic...

    Mitt Romney lost because the Obama campaign was able to create negative impressions about him which caused a segment of Republicans to stay at home. Not a large segment, but large enough.

    Also, Obama got an assist from the moderator in the second debate, which knocked Romney off his game and stopped his momentum at a key juncture. Winning both the first AND the second debates would have made a real difference going into the final period. But the fact is, Romney wasn't all that prepared or willing to discuss Benghazi, or to point out how Obama's "smart power" isn't all that smart.

    Coulda, shoulda, woulda. As things stand now, we can't repeal Obamacare, and we really need to.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 8:22 a.m.

    @Mountanman;

    You're clueless about those who voted for Obama; we're not what you seem to think we are. Mitt Romney would have been a disaster for America; just as he was a disaster for those companies purchased by Bain Capital.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Aug. 16, 2013 8:37 a.m.

    @ RanchHand. Believe what you want but Mitt Romney saved many companies when he worked for Bain Capital, some were not competitive and could not be saved. Romney was America's last exit of the Obama highway to Greece, speaking of upcoming disasters.

  • Thinkin\' Man Rexburg, ID
    Aug. 16, 2013 8:45 a.m.

    Romney lost only because Republicans didn't turn out to vote.

  • Sorry Charlie! SLC, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 8:55 a.m.

    @mountainman

    yes, Mitt is just a victim of that 9% that rely on government assistance.

  • SEY Sandy, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 9:02 a.m.

    Mitt Romney lost my vote when he said he wanted to double the size of Guantanmo, and it went downhill from there. I couldn't vote for either major candidate because they both want to enlarge the size of government: Romney wanted more military spending, and Obama wanted more social welfare spending. You call that a choice?

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 9:02 a.m.

    Romney lost because the better man for the job won. It really is that simple.
    No bribes, no voter fraud, no low information voters, no missing birth certificates, (although I don't recall anyone asking for mitts, over and over and I want the original copy for me to personally authenticate here in Pleasant Grove)
    Obama may not be the end all, but we really dodged a bullet in not privatizing the country for profit instead of people.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Aug. 16, 2013 9:05 a.m.

    @ Charlie. 9%? You are way behind your times. Half (50%) of Americans will receive taxpayer subsidized healthcare insurance and about 25% (and growing) get food stamps and 47% of Americans pay no federal income taxes. Do you really think any of these would vote for Romney? Really?

  • PeanutGallery Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 9:09 a.m.

    I think one of the big reasons Romney lost is because of the corrupt things that Obama and his supporters did behind the scenes. The IRS scandal is just one example, and it should seriously scare all of us.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 9:19 a.m.

    @mountainman. If republicans believed in personal responsibility and self reliance they would not be complaining every second of the day about Obama.

    If republicans believed in personal responsibility they would have not bailed out the banks and would have been first in line to prosecute the criminals at wall street and the federal reserve.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Aug. 16, 2013 9:22 a.m.

    "Do you really think any of these would vote for Romney?"

    Absolutely.

    Have you seen how many solidly red states are in the top concerning Government assistance programs?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 9:25 a.m.

    From my experience in life, there's never "just ONE reason" for any outcome (especially in politics and especially a Presidential election). Most everything in life is more complex than that.

    When you think it's "Just one reason"... usually it's because you have "Just ONE thing" on your mind.

    If you really think about it... everything's more complex that "Just one thing".
    It's single-issue-minded people who think small who are able to convince themselves that complex things can be boiled down to "just one thing" (the one thing they are obsessed about).

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 9:29 a.m.

    It's a sad fact that Republicans will probably not win another election UNTIL they promise more entitlements and free stuff to the masses than the Democrats do.

    Too many Republicans may stick to the "self reliance" band wagon too long, and they will lose their election to the person who promises the most free stuff in the election.

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 10:04 a.m.

    Some just can't get over the loss. They speculate on various reasons, most of which do not point the finger at Romney himself. Did anyone get a sense of what Romney really believed? From a moderate in Massachusetts, to trying to be ultra-conservative for the Tea Party, he was all over the map politically. He changed his positions on bailouts, health care mandates, immigration, abortion, the coal industry, global warming etc. He would say what the constituency he was trying to appeal to at any given time wanted to hear. I could not vote for someone whose real positions are a mystery.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 10:15 a.m.

    2 bits: Too many Republicans may stick to the "self reliance" band wagon too long, and they will lose their election to the person who promises the most free stuff in the election.

    I guess you mean the slogan, cause they don't practice what you preach they do.
    Mitt was promising the world or I guess you hear what you want to hear, right?

    If you really believe the "free stuff" nonsense, the radio brain washing is complete.

    As the baby boomers continue to reach retirement, entitlements will continue to increase, no matter who is in the white house, it's simple math, not yet another, conservative conspiracy caper.

    Yep, the greatest generation wants theirs, but after the tea party is over, everyone else must "build it on their own."

  • William Gronberg Payson, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 10:30 a.m.

    Whopper of the day.

    "...and 47% of Americans pay no federal income taxes. Do you really think any of these would vote for Romney?"

    We pay no income tax. Social security and a military pension puts most of the food in our mouths (no food stamps). My wife and daughter proudly voted for Mr. Romney. Most of the "Tea Party" folks voted for Mr. Romney and a very significant portion of them are on Social Security and therefore probably do NOT pay any income tax.

    The air is thin on top of the mountains. Come on down to the bottom of the Great Basin. More oxygen down here.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 10:59 a.m.

    There are not many politicians who can talk convincingly and without hypocrisy about self reliance.

    Almost to a man/woman they receive salaries and benefits at the expense of those taxpayers they do nothing to serve. When I say serve I mean stand for what the taxpayer stands for, things with wide appeal such as No Amnesty for illegal immigrants, capital punishment for murderers, the constitutional rights of every individual, staying out of wars, rescinding the national health mandates etc etc etc etc etc............

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 11:06 a.m.

    A great many of those who pay no federal income tax are single-income traditional families with more children and a bigger mortgage than they can afford. Many of them are extremely proud of the fact that they have never paid any income taxes. I am quite certain the majority of them voted for Mr. Romney.

  • Sorry Charlie! SLC, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 11:24 a.m.

    @mountman

    and all of those same people pay a many other taxes and fees to our government and the other 53% (myself included) benefit from those taxes and fees everyday, big business and the financial sectors in terms of real dollars benefit more then anyone. we all benefit from our form of government.

  • William Gronberg Payson, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 11:28 a.m.

    The genuine gem statement of the day:

    "The real question isn't whether Republicans will ever win the White House but how the effects of our deficit spending and national debt will be and how long we can last as a nation, economically and culturally, now that's the question."

    Now the gentleman is making some genuine sense here. You have many good and sensible things to say. Please leave the "47 percent" junk on the mountain tops.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 11:34 a.m.

    I can't stop thinking about self reliance. You see I'm a great believer in it but... not only politicians, live off others,but the unnecessary portion of the bureaucracies.

    Many receive money they did not subscribe to personally - but who are the ones being attacked? Social Security recipients, who paid for their benefits - but knaves and politicians wish to deprive them, taking away the right of the poor of the people.

    Mitt seemed to be unsympathetic to their plight, including myriad Utah retirees who voted enthusiastically for him.

    The unsubscribed portion of Medicare and Medicaid is a different matter, as is the national burden of illegitimate mothers.

    Recipients of large inheritances are hardly self reliant, and successful employers rely on their employees for much of their wealth, just as employees rely on others to employ them. Some employers do not seem very grateful for good employees; some employees lack gratitude for good employers.

    The government owes you nothing? I think I see what that means but surely they owe us the defence of the Constitution, the return on enforced retirement contributions, the roads we all pay for etc.

  • FreedomFighter41 Provo, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 12:10 p.m.

    Huh?

    So those living off government entitlements voted for Obama?

    That's funny. The people living the most off Food Stamps, Medicare, and Welfare live in southern red states. I don't recall many southern red states going to Obama.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 12:12 p.m.

    We're still talking about Romney over 9 months after the election?

    The sting from the last election must have really hurt!

    The right is still steaming over losing to Obama for the second time.

    You know what I say?

    GET OVER IT.

    It's over. Time to move on!

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Aug. 16, 2013 12:39 p.m.

    Romney lost because he called half of Americans deadbeats who would not take responsibility for themselves. People like my mother who worked hard all her life only to get cheated out of her profit sharing (the geniuses invested it in an "S&L") and have to live on Social Security. People like my father-in-law nearing retirement whose company was destroyed by Wall Street pirates and also lives on SS. Romney is like the rich man in the story of Lazarus, so superior to the rest of us doggies in the dust.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 1:18 p.m.

    It was Pres. Obama's election to loose.

    He fell short on Universal Healthcare and a Single Payer system.
    He hasn't got out of Iraq, and Afghanistan fast enough.
    He hasn't done more for alternative energy.
    He hasn't enough on immigration reform.
    He hasn't penalized off-shoring, and brought manufacturing back to the U.S.
    The economy is too slow on it's recovery.

    That's why his approval ratings are so low.

    BUT - The Republicans countered with a Flip-Flopper with no new ideas, other than just "I'm not Obama."

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 1:37 p.m.

    Are we still processing the Mitt Romney thing??

    nonceleb says, "Some just can't get over the loss". Hint to nonceleb... The guy who wrote the letter is obviously not a Romney fan. I say, "Some just can't get over their WIN"!

    If there's anything worse than a sore loser it's a sore winner.

    Some Democrats just can't get over their win... IMO that's more pathetic than the Romney fans (who are mostly over it).

    Re Gronberg. The 47% comment is not the whopper of the day. It's a published government statistic. Look it up in Fact Check. BTW... He's not saying they pay no income taxes. It's the NET taxes that is zero. Meaning they get more in their refund than they payed in income taxes (which is a net zero payed if you get more back than you payed).

    The 47% comment was a fatal mistake. But that doesn't mean it's not true. You just don't SAY it (IF you want to get elected).

    But he lost mostly because of Democrat's heartfelt hatred towards Republicans with high incomes (Rich Democrats seem to be OK to them).

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 2:05 p.m.

    Instead of being a leader of everyone, he tried to please Hannity, the tea party radicals and Fox.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    Aug. 16, 2013 2:38 p.m.

    Dumb comment of the day is to claim that southern states live off welfare, and they all voted for Romney. You can take 6 or 7 of the "main" southern states who did vote for Romney, and they are still exceeded by New York, Michigan, and Ohio in population and electoral college...and guess what, they voted for obama. And they have the same percentage of food stamp recipients as southern states. Throw in your Florida, New Mexico, DC and California, then offset that with Texas and a couple of Utah type states, and obama's food stamp brigade still outnumbers the GOP.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 2:55 p.m.

    Shhhh! Guys, come on. I love it when conservatives say it's because of poor people voting themselves freebies, or building on the 47% stuff. Speaking as a liberal Democrat, that's exactly the rhetorical stance we WANT Republicans to cling to. We'll just keep on winning.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 3:49 p.m.

    Re: Mounta(i)nman: "Mitt Romney lost because the majority of Americans have learned they can vote themselves entitlements from the national treasury." I have contributed to social security and medicare most of my adult life. I now appropriately expect a return from them. These are pay as you go programs which reflect our desire to care for the elderly, e.g. me, in their declining years. These are not "entitlements" as you so derisively refer to them.

    Now, as to why Romney lost, his famous 47% remark was the killer. He basically said 47% of Americans are parasites. This is his actual belief. After that he was DOA.

  • mountainmoremanly mesa, AZ
    Aug. 16, 2013 5:04 p.m.

    He lost because he's a flip flopping opportunist that ran from his own record and tried to appease the crazy uncle t-party.

  • RAB Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 5:58 p.m.

    He lost for two reasons.

    1. Even slightly left-leaning people harbor the mantra that if a person is good, everything that they do must be good. If the person is bad, everything they do is bad. Obama made everyone believe he was a good guy. After that, it did not matter what he actually did. Romney failed to convince people he was good guy. After that, it did not matter how much good he would have done.

    2. People do not care about the fire when they are being chased by a bear. The fire may be what is causing the bears to attack, but it doesn't matter when their is a bear on your heals. Obama offered to kill bears by offering to hand out free stuff. Romney only concentrated on the fire by offering to fix the out-of-control economy. Everyone wants the economy fixed, but few believe anyone has the power to do it.

    If you can't go on TV shows and make everyone think you are a good guy, and if you can't offers things to people on a personal level, you might as well not run these days.

  • The Skeptical Chymist SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 8:39 p.m.

    When will the Deseret News get over the fact the Romney lost?

  • FT1/SS Virginia Beach, VA
    Aug. 17, 2013 6:49 a.m.

    Mitt Romney lost because of Mitt Romney. There was no fire in him! Remember the family vote prior to running.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    Aug. 17, 2013 7:32 a.m.

    I thought he lost to votes, till I heard that there was more votes than people.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Aug. 17, 2013 12:01 p.m.

    He lost because he was an Obamaclone and nothing more.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Aug. 20, 2013 5:48 p.m.

    Romney lost for some good reasons. People saw through his guise to what he really is and was. They realized that he was sadly lacking in character and qualifications. They saw he had no care or concern for anyone but the affluent. They saw he would not be good for the country. They saw he was not deserving of their votes. Having seen his obvious and plentiful deficiencies, they said "no thanks" and sent him packing. Thank God they did -- the country is much better off as a result, bad as Obama is.

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Aug. 21, 2013 3:43 a.m.

    Reality check:
    Mr Romney came across too often like a used Cadillac salesman, and his wife like Marie Antoinette.
    I am sure that lds people would prefer to see a former bishop in the best light, but he came across as less than generous when he was not in his bishop position, where being loving and supporting was part of his duty.
    He bought way too small a house in San Diego and expected the neighbors to live with the crowding of cars his large family brings.
    He and Ann kept referring to their lds tithing as "money given to charity", but, most people think that giving to one's own church to keep good standing is different than giving to the Red Cross, etc.
    And so on --- not bad people, but not people who pulled themselves up from meager backgrounds, like the Obamas, and not people who came across as loving the common man.