The Boston Globe retrospective on the Romney campaign is not bad. It hits most of the marks on why Romney failed, from having to deal with a nutty primary season, to getting defined by Obama in the spring and summer, to failing to present a human side, to running a lousy and inefficient organization. But the real key to the campaign was that Romney is a jerk who no one likes and that he lies more than any human being on the planet. If I had a time machine and I could go back and run Romney’s campaign, I would hook him to an electrode and shock him every time he lied. Once he was cured of that, I’d tell him to talk about his family about 90% of the time.
But the truth is that you can’t take a jerk and turn him into a nice guy. They tried it with Bush and it didn’t work. Yes, the Supreme Court and a Butterfly ballot made him president, but no one really liked him and he was never popular outside of a couple of years after 9/11 when people were wiling to give him the benefit of the doubt. Look how that turned out.
I think the quality of Obama as a person/family man/candidate may also have had something to do with it, not to mention he was on the popular side of most wedge/policy issues.
you’re doin it wrong. the narrative is always how LUCKY Obama is. no skill, policy, ability, or anything. it’s just luck. over and over and over.
And his choice for running mate wasn’t any more likable.
Yes, somebody compared Ryan to Eddie Haskell. It really fit.
But he looks like Eddie Munster.
and what was/ is with Ryan’s Eddie Munster haircut?? why try to look like an Addams family character?
I always thought Daren Stevens (aka “Derwood”) – the original one portrayed by Dick York – was a more apt comparison with regard to appearance. In terms of demeanor, though, Eddie Haskell is sufficiently apt.
Interestingly, there was no testimony (or even any evidence) of close friends. The humanizing anecdotes sounded contrived, and the authentic ones (forced haircuts, dogs) were scary.
He does have a lot of characteristics of a sociopath. Here’s a list from a Yahoo article comparing sociopaths to psychopaths:
I don’t recall hearing about any sexual promiscuity, but the rest are plausible.
I think the pivotal moment was when the story about his high school bullying came out…
and THERE WAS NOBODY FROM HIGH SCHOOL to stand up and say Willard was a good guy.
WHO THE HELL can’t get someone that knew you in HIGH SCHOOL to come on camera and say, ‘ I don’t know how he is not, but in high school, he was a terrific guy’.
NOBODY came forward to vouch for him.
That screamed a lot to me about who Willard IS…but, of course, the MSM glossed over it
But, but but….nobody remembers Obama from Harvard. And he hugged that terrorist professor. And the transcripts!!! What about the transcripts!!! WHAT ABOUT THE TRANSCRIPTS!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
!!!!BOOM!!!! Head explodes.
Honestly, I don’t think Romney is a sociopath. But he is an obnoxious, entitled, uber-jerk to an extent we’ve not seen since genetic monarchy died out.
There is apparently some correlation (not sure about causation) between psychopaths and successful CEOs…
Wouldn’t laugh because according to exit polls that is exactly why Romney lost and by a large margin. On all the other dimensions such as “leadership” strength and the economy, Obama lost. Perhaps one can’t be seen as both likeable and a tough leader. However, the fact that Obama has been losing on the economic front since 2009 to the party of economic boobs and Scrooges is a big clue that the Democratic Party is selling a bad product. It was bad when Reagan was selling it but he was better at selling snake oil.
Some of it is the glacial slowness of the popular imagination to adapt to new facts.
When did the last GOP president balance a budget? Which party is still the party of fiscal probity?
Science and politics both advance one funeral at a time.
.
iirc – not so long ago, Tagg claimed that his father had to draft him for the campaign. So, god and Ann drafted Mitt and Mitt drafted Tagg. A very weird family.
Ann Romney was Lady Macbeth? Hmm…
Somehow that old Aesop’s fable “The Fox and the Grapes” comes to mind.
the laugh for me today.
Willard didn’t want to be President?
G-T-F-O-H
Willard was a Mormon Gollum and the Presidency was his `precious’.
Sorry, Tagg, nobody spends 40 million of their own money on something they didn’t want.
Gotta love all the hand-wringing about the failure to tell the old boy’s terrific story, so obvious now in retrospect.
But all summer long, and throughout the Republican primary before that, all the common taters universally agreed, heads shaking up and down while grinning ear to ear, that a day not spent talking about the economy was a bad day for Romney.
This was so completely understood to be irrefutably true, and so endlessly repeated, that it became the campaign wallpaper, boring and omnipresent.
And fatal.
So sad, go write a book.
Rom..Rom…Rom…….Who?
There’s not even any value-added in kicking him around one more time.
I’m sure that the skilled political engineers on the GOP side can come up with a more extreme model. Don’t underestimate them.
Newt comes close.
misunderestimate.
Bush. I dislike the man’s politics and that he seems to have zero intellectual curiosity but I think he is genuinely likable. He just should have never been President.
I did like it that he won’t criticize Obama. Definitely a failure but also a member of the President’s Club..
In 2000, a woman (co-worker and attorney) described Bush as one of those guys that was attractive/likeable enough to go on a date with but only once.
America’s First Husband, my wife called him.
Your wife is more generous than either my friend or me.
Mitt Romney is, and will always be, the guy whose political skills were just not as good as John McCain’s in 2008.
And what the hell was up with the Republicans, nominating a poster boy for plutocracy a year after the OWS protests made “the 99%” a political cliche? Are they that blind, or was is one of those, “Oh yeah? I’ll show YOU!” reactions?
Dumb dumb dumb. Unemployment was never below the high 7s, and there still wasn’t a single moment when I thought Obama’s reelection was seriously in doubt.
yup, they really shoulda nominated
newthermanrickmicheleronjonsomebody else …I said it several times, Booman said it several times, PMCarpenter said it several times, Imani Grandi said it at least twice, hell Peggy Noonan said it: NO THINKING REPUBLICAN THOUGHT OBAMA COULD BE BEATEN .. in 2011.
Mitch “My family won’t let me” Daniels
Haley “Governor is all I ever wanted to be” Barbour
Jeb “Im not ready for the next step” Bush
Chris “I don’t have the time” Christie
The real politicians of the Republican party knew damn well that Obama could not be beaten after the R primaries that were coming. That’s why they didn’t run. Mitt Romney WAS the best chance the R’s had.
???”Exit polls showed a majority of voters preferred Romney’s visions, values and leadership”??? – is that true?
Also, article says that focus groups wanted to know what Romney would do as president – so they conclude Romney should have been more self disclosing? And the campaign never talked about what Romney would do as president, they only attacked Obama.
Exit Polls
Yes. Obama only won — substantially — on “Cares About People Like Me”. He lost every other measure.
I read that exit poll slightly differently, and I’m not sure you can draw the conclusion that a majority of voters preferred Romney on those points. The way I read the poll, first the pollster asked what a person’s most important criterion was for voting. That created four subgroups. Then the pollster asked who the voter voted for, and the percentages reflect the voting choices within each subgroup.
So let’s say you based your vote on “Who Cares Most About People Like Me,” and you thought Obama fit that so you voted for him. You also happen to think that Obama’s plans for the economy are the best and that he shares your values. (Not unreasonable that someone might hold all three of those beliefs.) Your preference for Obama would ONLY show up in the “Who Cares Most” subgroup.
What I get most out of looking at that particular data is a sense of how well the candidates did on the themes that they chose. Obama did a lot better pushing his empathy theme than Romney did pushing his leadership theme.
Thanks for explanation. makes sense “cares most about ppl like me” is a wider category.
Yet, Democrats would prefer to gloat over the fact that Rmoney was unlikeable than address the question of why Obama lost on those other dimensions. Lost to a mush-mouth and liar like Rmoney.
Sad. Because it could have been a blow-out if Obama were a principled traditional Democrat. Whoever the GOP puts up in 2016, it will not be someone that loses on likeability to Hillary.
Because it could have been a blow-out if Obama were a principled traditional Democrat.
Actually, he improved among Democrats by six points since 2008, while losing twelve points among independents and six points among Republicans.
This does not suggest that people with traditional Democratic principles were his problem, or that being more Democratic would have helped him among groups he lost. It suggests the opposite.
Don’t mess with The Narrative….
First, there were fewer voters in 2012 than in 2008. So without drilling down by state, the gains and losses by party ID isn’t all that informative. Second, while unintended, Obama was perceived to be more liberal in 2008 — and yet he garnered four million more votes that year than he did in 2012 while Romney only added a million to McCain’s total. It’s entirely possible that Romney’s gain was nothing more than increased mobilization of fundies targeted by Rove that didn’t turn out in 2008. Similarly, the GOP gain in share of independents may not have translated into more votes but reduced participation by that group.
First, there were fewer voters in 2012 than in 2008. So without drilling down by state, the gains and losses by party ID isn’t all that informative.
Not 6% less. For Obama to increase his Democratic share by 6% while the electorate overall shrank shows that he held his own there while the rest of the electorate moved away from him (either not voting or voting for Romney). This is still inconsistent with the idea that he was harmed by not being seen as a Democrat.
yet he garnered four million more votes that year than he did in 2012 while Romney only added a million to McCain’s total
2008 was a much more favorable year for Democrats than 2012, yes, but that’s across the board, and much better explained by the circumstances of the election.
It’s entirely possible that Romney’s gain was nothing more than increased mobilization of fundies targeted by Rove that didn’t turn out in 2008. Similarly, the GOP gain in share of independents may not have translated into more votes but reduced participation by that group.
That is entirely possible. It still doesn’t support your claim, though.
And why was that? The political version of the free-market fairy? Nothing to do with the candidates and their campaign messages?
And if 2008 was more favorable for Democrats, how do you explain that a smaller proportion of Democrats those that showed up to vote that year didn’t vote for Obama?
Again, the data you presented is far too limited to suggest much of anything.
First of all, you’re asking why 2008 (collapsing economy, Republican incumbent) was more favorable for Democrats than 2012 (weak economy, Democratic incubment), and your answer is “messaging?”
And you don’t just speculate that “messaging” is the core factor. No, you just gotta describe any other theories – for instance, that the economy influences politics – as “the political version of the free-market fairy.”
Hokay.
Anyway, my data aren’t supposed to “suggest” anything. I’m rebutting your claim, and my data are plenty robust to do that.
but under 50% dems for each of the 3 red categories (national) i.e. if I’m reading it correctly, a majority of republicans chose R$ on vision, leadership etc which is to be expected.
Bullshit.
He won the nomination because he was unelectable.
Romney lost the election because he was the chosen tomato-can in a fix system.
Gingrich would have been a better candidate.
By far.
At the very least he’s a political pro.
Ron Paul as well. A visionary who connects with real people if given half a chance.
But NOOOOoooooo…
Instead it’s this fucking stuck-up Mormon rich boy vs. the poster child for a New America.
Please.
Wake the fuck up.
FIX fix fix fix fix fix fix!!!
WTFU.
Look at the coverage of the RatPublican so-caled “debates” for all you need to know on that point.
Wake the fuck up.
AG
The guy that lost to Romney — who only won primaries where he could rile up the racists — would have been a better candidate?
Ron Paul? Get real. Really old and cranky men don’t win.
As a really old and cranky man, I second that!
Merry Christmas, Marie2!
The funny part about Ron Paul is two-part:
1.) He doesn’t get media attention, therefore, he’s not popular because he lacks media attention.
2.) When he’s given media attention, his whackjob views are pointed out and his popularity decreases.
Funny how that works.
The only Republican in the primary with a serious chance of beating Obama was Huntsman. He lost to Romney not because of some rigged electoral process, but because too many Republican primary voters are nutjobs, and rather than kowtow to the crazies, he actually mocked them a couple of times.
Ron Paul was unquestionably whitewashed out of the race by the media, or at least by Fox (the outlet of choice for GOP viewers), until he managed to get booed at the debates for expressing his anti-war views. He had no chance of winning the nomination, just on the basis of his foreign policy positions alone.
That’s the GOP in a nutshell. You can’t get the nomination without at least pretending to be a whackjob. And then that comes back to bite you in the general election, although admittedly the American electorate is forgetful or disengaged enough that you still have a fighting chance.
Katherine Harris made Bush president. See: Greg Palast. C’mon, do your homework. Don’t let that travesty disappear down the lost-history hole.