Analysis of Romney's defeat

[Leoreth]

Now that the dust has settled, I think it's worth looking at why the Republicans failed to get their candidate elected as President, despite the pile of problems Obama is currently facing. I'm especially interested in how the Republicans will explain their defeat, and which conclusions they will draw to reposition themselves in the future.

Unfortunately, I haven't come across a lot of media coverage on this subject so I can open this thread only with a few guesses. Many people have attempted an analysis in other threads already but I think it's a good idea to bundle them here.

In my view, there are three principle ways of looking at things:
1) They did everything right, and it was only a combination of bad luck and coincidence that favored Obama in the end, like the Sandy relief and so on.
2) They have moved too close to the center, Romney was too liberal, abandoned too many of their positions to appeal to independents. In consequence, they should continue to oppose Obama on all issues, and try with a more socially conservative or economically right-wing candidate next time.
3) Their platform is too far right from the center, Romney's more moderate positions couldn't make up for the noise from the religious right, war or budget hawks that have scared off independents. In consequence, they should try to move left on a few issues, either socially or economically, and cooperate with the administration more.

And as a corollary to 2 and 3, was it Romney's fault, or was it the underlying ideology that was the problem?

I'm curious about your thoughts.

 

[LightSpectra]

The main problem is that everybody knew Romney was a rat, a flip-flopper that'd say anything to get elected. It's not entirely his fault, the current Republican Party's mainstream beliefs are utterly schizophrenic. While simultaneously presenting themselves as the ones that would uphold Christian ethos, many important Republicans have social Darwinist economic beliefs and/or insane cultural views (see: Todd Akin, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage), so it's nearly impossible to appeal to a general center and still win baseline Republican support.

Really, the best chance they had was to take a fairly moderate Republican like Jon Huntsman and nominate him despite the cries and thrashing of the Tea Party.

 

[Dreadnought]

In reverse order:

5) Romney played it too safe after the first debate, especially going into the last two debates. He should have come out swinging harder and fought to keep the initiative.

4) Hurricane Sandy gave Obama a slight boost, but it also silenced the Romney campaign for several days. He needed to rush faster into the final week, not hit the wall like he did.

3) He should have spent more on advertising early in the summer to counter Obama's "kill Romney" strategy.

2) His choice of VP, in hindsight, was probably weak. Marco Rubio or Rob Portman would have been better choices; Rubio might have won him the election.

1) He didn't hit Obama hard enough (or at all) about Benghazi. Much of it is the media's fault, but where the circumstances fell at the time, it could have been prime political ammunition that he just didn't use, especially in the final debate.

 

[Leoreth]

3) He should have spent more on advertising early in the summer to counter Obama's "kill Romney" strategy.

That's an interesting point, because I've heard some analysts argue that Obama's early attack ads were what almost killed him. The theory goes that they and the negative image they attempted to paint of Romney were what allowed him to win the first debate so decisively, by subverting the hyperbole about him and show people that he wasn't that extreme after all.

Not saying that I totally buy it, but it's a thing to consider. At least I don't think attack ads are as useful as strategists think they are.

 

[Murky]

I think it's simpler from all the above. The political demographics have shifted away from the Republican party and their response was to ignore reality.

 

[Dreadnought]

That's an interesting point, because I've heard some analysts argue that Obama's early attack ads were what almost killed him. The theory goes that they and the negative image they attempted to paint of Romney were what allowed him to win the first debate so decisively, by subverting the hyperbole about him and show people that he wasn't that extreme after all.

Not saying that I totally buy it, but it's a thing to consider. At least I don't think attack ads are as useful as strategists think they are.

That's very much true, but look at it this way: Obama's attack ads were detrimental to his campaign with no response from Romney; if Romney had responded with positive counter ads, it may have been decisive and given him an advantage rolling into September.

 

[JtheJackal]

As long as Republicans keep telling themselves the reason they lost was they weren't being conservative enough I think Democrats have a bright future ahead.

 

[Cutlass]

Can't leave out the demographics. Romney received about the same percentage of the white vote as previous Republicans in recent elections. But the white vote is a declining share of the whole vote. And minorities are increasingly alienated from the Republicans. This is the Republicans own strategy to drive the minorities away. Maybe not their intent, but certainly their actions, and even more their rhetoric. It's not just that they've lost virtually all the black vote, but now have lost 3/4 of both the hispanic and Asian vote. And they simply cannot afford to lose all 3 groups just to maintain their lock on the most extreme part of the white vote.

Now that aside, I do not like how Obama won this. It was winning ugly. There was not nearly enough of saying why we should vote for Obama, but rather why we should vote against Romney. As a strategic and tactical exercise, you have to say Team Obama chose their targets well, and that was the deciding factor. But nowhere was there a "this is why you should by in to my programs", and that I think in the long run leaves him without a mandate.

The flip side is that Romney really was the wrong candidate. No one really thought he was sincere or even informed of the issues. He was just "not Obama" in the way that Obama was "not Bush". And that wasn't enough because Obama was at least somewhat more than "not Bush" while Romney was not more than "not Obama". And Bush was more of a liability in 2008 than Obama was in 2012.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

As long as Republicans keep telling themselves the reason they lost was they weren't being conservative enough I think Democrats have a bright future ahead.

Yet they secured the legislative, I suppose there the white demographic still rules.

 

[Leonel]

It seems that the GOP started believing their own spin, that there was going to be a landslide victory for Romney that they would win everything and save the Republic from the jaws of evil. I'm betting they rested on their laurels thinking it was going to be a surefire thing and when cold hard reality kicked in, they were stunned. You could see this on Karl Rove's face when Fox News made the call for Obama, Gretchen even went to the decision room to ask if they were for real.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Yet they secured the legislative, I suppose there the white demographic still rules.

Well, they only secured half of the legislative.

 

[bombshoo]

Some of my views:

1) Romney was just a hard candidate to get excited about. Remember back to the primaries? A good deal of the Republicans didn't want Romney and were scrambling to find someone better. He was the default candidate. He won because he was the least offensive to every other faction within the party. Nonetheless, he was still all things considered, boring and it's also very easy to make the argument he is out of touch with most of the American public. Yes, the Republicans spent millions this election on advertisements, but their ground game was rather poor. I think that's at least partially because it was just hard to get people motivated about Romney. Purely anecdotal, but I know a lot of people who's general attitude was "I'm going to vote for him, but I'm sure as hell not going to volunteer my time to him". John Kerry had similar problems in 2004.

2) The Republicans refused to distance themselves from the worst elements in the party to the extent they should have. I don't think Romney came off as especially racist or sexist minus a few instances, at least to the point of motivating the other side to vote against him specifically because of those issues. On the other hand, plenty of other Republican candidates did come off as generally unlikeable in every way possible. People that might have otherwise stayed home probably went out to vote against the Todd Akins, and since they were out at the polls anyways, they made sure to also cast their vote for Obama.

3) Similar to above, I think the voter suppression tactics in Florida and Ohio might have backfired for the Republicans as it angered people and motivated them to vote despite it being made more difficult.

Not saying these are the only things that contributed to a Romney defeat, but I think they certainly mattered.

 

[Oruc]

Minorities don't vote for white people in any meaningful numbers and when minorities are growing in number that will have the obvious effect.

 

[Leoreth]

Now that aside, I do not like how Obama won this. It was winning ugly. There was not nearly enough of saying why we should vote for Obama, but rather why we should vote against Romney. As a strategic and tactical exercise, you have to say Team Obama chose their targets well, and that was the deciding factor. But nowhere was there a "this is why you should by in to my programs", and that I think in the long run leaves him without a mandate.

I agree with that. Especially compared to his enthusiastic campaign in 2008 his performance this year seems almost cynical and resigned.

By the way, this thread doesn't need to be limited to dissecting Romney's campaign. Just go ahead and criticize Obama's. That he's won doesn't mean that he made no mistakes.

 

[Ajidica]

Minorities don't vote for white people in any meaningful numbers

I could have sworn Clinton was white.
Same with, you know, every president before Obama. It wasn't like "minorities" popped out of holes in the ground just because a half-Irish guy was running for president.

 

[Cutlass]

Minorities don't vote for white people in any meaningful numbers and when minorities are growing in number that will have the obvious effect.

Say rather minorities don't vote for conservatives in any meaningful numbers. White people don't need to be that conservative.

 

[timtofly]

It was already pre-determined that he would loose. The suprise was by how much. With each election cycle bringing out more voters, we can now see how divided the country really is. I predict that the democratic party will win next time around also, because that is the mind set of the growing populace of registered voters. If there are those who do not agree with the Republicans, then they should stop voting that way and just realize their dream of a stronger third party and stop trying to block the democratic party by joining a sinking ship.

 

[bombshoo]

Say rather minorities don't vote for conservatives in any meaningful numbers. White people don't need to be that conservative.

This is a good point. They probably couldn't have won the African-American vote in any scenario, but losing the Latino vote by as much as they did was just stupidity on their part. So many of their candidates (not just national, but local ones with heavy coverage like Sheriff Arpaio in Arizona) had such strong anti-Latino rhetoric, that it really hurt the party as a whole in the end.

 

[Leoreth]

The question is, is the anti-Latino rhetoric pure rhetoric or genuine conviction? And if it's the former, would it be worth it to drop the rhetoric and lose the voters to whom it appeals?

 

[AlpsStranger]

The main problem is that everybody knew Romney was a rat, a flip-flopper that'd say anything to get elected. It's not entirely his fault, the current Republican Party's mainstream beliefs are utterly schizophrenic. While simultaneously presenting themselves as the ones that would uphold Christian ethos, many important Republicans have social Darwinist economic beliefs and/or insane cultural views (see: Todd Akin, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage), so it's nearly impossible to appeal to a general center and still win baseline Republican support.

I really think you're the closest to the answer here. I call it "talk radio syndrome" and it's the Democrat's best asset