How to Explain Romney’s Loss to Shocked Conservatives |
[Via The American Conservative ]
If Romney loses tonight, there are going to be a lot of shocked Republicans and conservatives. If you’re a reader of the Greek New Testament (and who isn’t?) the appropriate word is “skandalon.” Such a result will be a “scandal” or a “stumbling block” to your friends who were sure that good Ohioans would vote for Mitt Romney and that this Nate Silver guy at the New York Times was cooking the books on the polls, along with the rest of the media.
Conservatives will say, with some good reason, that unemployment is unacceptably high. Obama didn’t bring hope or change. And there is no way all those flaky college kids and minority voters could be excited enough to show up to the polls this year. So how did this happen?
I have to agree with pretty much all of these. The GOP put up a weak candidate whose weaknesses hurt his election chances. In my opinion, America needs strong candidates from both parties to solve our problems. We need an Adams and a Jefferson.
The points are:
- Lots of Republican voters died, and lots of Democratic voters came into being. Demographics in the US continue to change. as the slogan states, Adapt or Die.
- Romney could not take advantage of Obama’s weaknesses with the working class. He looked like upper management. Mike Huckabee said Mitt looked like the guy who fired you.
- You heard lots about Benghazi on talk-radio and Fox News, but Mitt Romney botched the issue then ditched it. So hardly anyone else heard about it. What could have been a plan of attack forcing the President on the defensive was bungled.
- America isn’t what you thought it was. President Obama is a sign of the changes in America, not a symptom.
- You didn’t like Romney that much either. So are you really surprised? You have to be for someone not against the other guy. I’ve been there and my guy always lost.
Romney did little to deal with the changing demographics, seeming to just try and get the white vote at all costs. He kept making gaffes (i.e. $10,000 bets, 47%) that separated himself from the working class votes he needed. He undermined some of his most important points, such as Benghazi, with poorly thought out rhetoric. Too much of the media’s time was spent discussing how true his statements were rather than actually discussing policies.
Romney was a very weak candidate. The GOP needs to examine why it put up such a weak candidate and if there are institutional barriers preventing better candidates. Because even with such a weak candidate, he almost won.
For example, we see many baseball teams that are designed to win a pennant but then unable to win the Series. Could the primary system in place produce someone well able to win primaries but unable to win a national race? It has happened two times in a row now for the GOP.
Personally, in order to solve what faces us we need strong candidates from both parties. It will do us little good getting at needed solutions for either party to run a weak candidate.
Does the GOP have any strong candidates? Well, in my opinion, John Huntsman would have been a formidable candidate. Same with Christie or Rubio. Even Jeb Bush, much as I hate political dynasties.
And four years is a long time. I expect others.