Conservatives have spent the last week dissecting their failure in the presidential election. But one element of that defeat has been largely absent from the discussion: the candidate. That’s because in the last month of the presidential campaign something remarkable happened. Though he had previously been distrusted by much of the Republican base and widely regarded as a poor campaigner, Mitt Romney seemed to erase all of the doubts of his supporters. His strong performance in the first presidential debate gave the Republicans faith in their leader as well as momentum.
In retrospect, that last surge of optimism on the right about the 2012 election seems foolish. As we have already discussed in detail, the polls that showed Romney leading or at least even with Obama during this period were almost certainly wrong. Democratic turnout would, to my surprise, resemble that of the “hope and change” moment of 2008, while fewer people voted for Romney than John McCain. A number of factors were responsible for this: a failure to respond to the changing demography of the nation including the Hispanic vote, the GOP’s comically inept get-out-the-vote effort, media bias, Hurricane Sandy, and Romney’s inability to exploit the Benghazi fiasco. But yesterday we were reminded that although those explanations were valid, there was one other reason why Obama won: Mitt Romney.
As Seth noted earlier today, in a conference call with donors and the press Romney inserted his foot firmly in his mouth once again when he claimed the president’s offer of “gifts” to voters was the reason he lost. Though there is a rationale critique to be made of the big government mentality that Obama advocated, this was wrongheaded on a lot of levels. As Jason Riley said today on Opinion Journal Live, this is just a Republican version of liberal attempts to blame voters for their defeats, of which Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matter With Kansas was the most prominent.
Even worse than that, the comments were nothing more than a repeat of Romney’s “47 percent” gaffe, the revelation of which was widely, and rightly, regarded as the low point of his campaign. It also brought us all back to the doubts that were expressed about Romney’s ability to defeat the president back during the GOP primaries.
Let’s specify that over the course of the last year, we learned a lot about who Mitt Romney is as a man and most of that was very much to his credit. The campaign brought into focus his intelligence, his seriousness of purpose and above all his innate decency. He is a good man and his skills would have enabled him to deal with the nation’s problems and be a good president.
But he was never going to be a good presidential candidate. The hole at the center of the campaign was always his inability to connect with ordinary voters. That was exacerbated by the disingenuous and largely false assault on his character that was the centerpiece of the Democratic campaign. But part of the reason that Obama was able to paint a high-minded and charitable man like Romney as a heartless plutocrat was the Republican’s awkwardness and inability to talk about himself or his ideas in a manner that would have made these slanders irrelevant. Romney’s propensity for gaffes, his tin ear for speaking to the people, and a background that made it easy for the Democrats to smear him were on display throughout 2012. Those who argued that he was the most electable of the Republicans who ran for president were not wrong, but that was always more of a criticism of his rivals than a compliment to him.
Conservatives despise the president so much that they were largely blind to his appeal to so much of the electorate. But in the last month of the 2012 campaign, they also tended to forget about the reasons why Romney was a fairly easy target for the president and his minions.
Ideology is important, but personalities always drive presidential politics. As much as Republicans are right to do some soul-searching about constituencies they have foolishly written off, as well as tactical political errors that were made this past year, any attempt to dissect the 2012 election must also include a realization that they didn’t have a very good candidate. If they pick a more impressive politician from their deep bench to lead them in 2016 (a year when the Democrats will no longer be able to rely on the historic appeal of Barack Obama) they are likely to do a lot better on Election Day.
Jonathan- you have doubled down on Seth Mandel's comments and you are both wrong,wrong,wrong. When one loses an election, you must understand the "why" and it starts with those who voted against you! It is ,of course, elementary that the voters voted to keep on receiving the 'goodies" that the democrats are promising ! O'Reilly called it 'stuff'- and today,half the population receives "stuff"- whether it is food stamps, medicaid, welfare and yes-even social security- voters want to keep all of this. it is called "the entitlements'-for heaven's sake! and don't tell me about "connecting with the voters" !! Did FDR connect? Did JFK -the ultimate patrician-connect? Jimmy Carter "connected"- he even wore a sweater-what happened to him??When the democrats chose Kerry (who came very close to winning!),did he-of the billion dollar wife- connect? it is risible to argue that Romney lost the election because of his personality. He lost because some republican voters chose to cut their noses to spite their faces and the Obama campaign ran the most ruthless and negative campaign. THOSE are the lessons from this eletion!
Romney is a prince of a man, and would have made possibly the best Republican President in living memory. n nHis goodness grew on you the more you got to know about him. Much depth and humanity there. n nIs a candidate that lost not allowed to make a remark or two that may be off key? n nEverything Obama said was a lie, and he won. He continues to lie and show the defects of his character. n nRomney makes an off key statement, and all of a sudden it is 'Aha! THAT's why he lost!' n nRidiculous.
Given that Romney received fewer votes than MCCain, who stayed home? Was it due to Romneys' Mormanism? Is that the reason some "Republicans" sat out the election? Is he the "Al Smith" of the Republican Party?
I really am tired and frustrated with the wolves who are now coming out of their lairs, telling us what an atrocious candidate Romney was. What happened to all the writings that raved about how Romney found himself during and after the first debate(a point which caused me to turn positively toward him and to think of him exactly they way MainesMichael does)? Or those who thought Romney won the third debate, in spite of deliberately muting his criticism of Obama in order to look presidential? I don't remember Commentary's Pooh-Bahs disagreeing with those positions and writing what now we read on these posts.
So I'm crawling out of my hole a bit and venturing back into the arena. Thought I'd see what you were thinking. I appreciate this comment, and agree wholeheartedly- wolves is a good description. I also liked your comments re Rubio's comments. nI did manage to publish an op-ed in my local rag – a medium size city newspaper with reach across much of the state – which was a response to some liberal prof at one of the local U's. It felt good to strike back a little, no matter how Sisyphean the endeavor.
Romney did better than nearly every GOP Senate candidate. True, he was not a great candidate, but as Ramesh Ponuru said, it is the GOP that is really weak, not Romney.
Hmm, have to side with the Michael boys on this one. And yes, "it starts with those who voted against you." Yes, Romney would have been one of the better presidents in US history, indeed. And I'll add that the electorate didn't care due to reasons soft conservatives are afraid to talk about, such as racial solidarity, a mass of insipid and damaged young adults, a primarily self-centred Hispanic sector indifferent to the host nation's laws, a population nearly half of which is addicted to hand-outs and hopes for more, and a vicious and mendacious media which has emerged as the most powerful power broker. Had a Messiah run for president, he too would have "failed to connect" and lost.
The attack on Romney by the Democratic political opposition wasn't because they were Democrats–it was because they are the political opposition. n nIn other words, he got Swift-Boated. n nWhile Kerry had his own problems as a candidate in the 2004 election, it was distasteful to to see his military service made into a political issue. We saw the same thing with Bush I and Clinton in the 92 election. n nWe can PRETEND this is something new and distasteful, but it is not so. n nJim Collins
As a registered Democrat who voted for Romney, I blame the Republican party for his loss not him. The second Romney didn't stay the course, the critics came out attacking him. There were days that I questioned why I supported Romney more than his own party did. Look how quickly he is being thrown under the bus less than a week after the elections. Republicans couldn't wait to go after him. My advice for 2016 – be like the Democrats and support your candidate 100%, at least publicly.
There must be an internal competition at Commentary lately, to see who can post the most completely inane drivel, to put the clowns at the NYT and WaPo to shame. At this point Seth is still in the lead , but the competition has been fierce lately and now Jonathan is giving Seth a run for his money . What's up Commentary? Why would we subscribe to The New Republic, if wanted this kind of meshugenah "analysis"?!
I don't know if the Commentary staff all live within the vicinity of "The Beltway", but if so, I suspect what we may be seeing are some of the effects.
This is a good article and sharp analysis. Romney embodies the negative stereotype of the republican. Yes, he would have been a good president; but he was nominated only because the party couldn't come up with anyone better. People want someone they can identify with and connect to. The Republican party was a shambles during the nomination process. Republicans have stupidly let themselves be characterized as the party of the rich. Tax rates on the rich are not currently high by historical standards, and Republicans would be much smarter to use higher taxes on the rich as the pawn that will allow them to make more serious and necessary tax code and budget reforms.
memo to GOP and Fox: stop the "makers and takers" meme. n nand, I told you (or Wehner) the dems would use abortion to drive turnout after their successful test run in New York 2010 when there was low enthusiasm for Cuomo and Paladino. n nJust want to point out that Joe Manchin, d, won his Senate seat with a lot more votes than Romney carried WVA. n nThere are MILLIONS of us who were downsized out of our careers by the private equity LBOs AND the Big Ideas that Bain Consulting, and McKinsey sold to CEOs. n nIn the end, I did vote, but bet most of the others just stayed home. n nNo more excuses. Especially here, the Romney cheerleading club. n n
It's easy to criticize Romney in retrospect, but I think it was his campaign, which certainly includes him, which failed to make Obama's flaws, which not only match Romney but exceed any Romney list by a hundred times. Why was the first debate different than the next two?–because the Romney campaign (and Ryan is saying how surprised he is that they lost) thought they had it in the bag and stopped doing anything so they didn't do anything wrong, which was wrong! The Romney economic focus was what was needed now (so, fine, call him the best candidate for that); but don't write off what anyone of the others might have done for no other reason than you don't like them (it strikes me) … because Romney stopped trying to beat Obama and who can say how the other candidates might have grown in the campaign, especially if they didn't have the eastern establishment telling them how great they were??
From the beginning of the primaries, Huntsman was by far the best candidate, but the party catered to the far, far, far right lunatic fringe in the party. Had the party gone with Huntsman or had Romney stayed in the center and spoke principled stands and defended them (which is evidently clearly beyond his capabilities), and made that centrist party movement a reality, the outcome would have been much different.r nUnless the party hews back to a centrist philosophy espousing fiscally conservative policies (that they can discuss in detail) and steer clear of the Gods, guns and gays rantings that have forced this outcome, the party will continue to move toward obscurity except in the sparsely populated counties unable to affect national policies.
From the beginning of the primaries, Huntsman was by far the best candidate, but the party catered to the far, far, far right lunatic fringe in the party. Had the party gone with Huntsman or had Romney stayed in the center and spoke principled stands and defended them (which is evidently clearly beyond his capabilities), and made that centrist party movement a reality, the outcome would have been much different.
Every day, millions of Americans come home, tired, and some dirty and wore out from a day of work. They were not insulted by Romney's 47% comment nor his recap of his loss the other day, remarking on how Obama's gifts to constituents cost him. I think he was right to call them out. It shouldn't be done every day, but we all know Obama bought that election, starting with Ohio and Michigan using the auto bailouts. Call a spade a spade. Remember also, this was in a call to campaign donors, who did have a right to an explanation.
Over and over again, Romney and his minions kept saying, "It's the economy, stupid!", and closed off any attempts to direct the emphasis of the campaign to larger issues, such as where we are going as a nation, or even to a simple explanation as to how his platform would stimulate the economy. nWhile it is true that many people were childish in the way they did or did not vote (as was more likely the case), no one ever became president by patronizing the American people or assuming that they are only motivated by pecuniary interests. Sadly, in a subtle way this is exactly what Romney did, and exactly what he seems to believe.
-K2K____I'm sorry to be the one to inform you of this, but your facts are wrong.____In West Virginia, Joe Manchin got about 304,000 votes and around 60% of the vote. Romney-Ryan got 410,000 votes and around 62% of the vote. Not hard to see why, when Obama's so-called "War on Coal" would hurt W.V. far worse than larger and more diversified economies in Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania. But of course Manchin has stated emphatically that he is against many of Obama's energy policies.
While it is certainly true that Romney’s flaws as a candidate, or his positions on certain issues hurt him with the electorate, one cannot help but wonder whether even now the conservative punditry is going with this line of thinking (and even *gasp* saying conciliatory things about Obama) in an effort to mollify conservatives and perhaps themselves regarding Romney’s because the other truth, i.e. that victory for Romney was within gasp and that now Obama is going to get four more years to severely damage the country, is almost too horrifying to contemplate.
The line of thinking that says, “Well, Romney was deeply flawed and his positions on immigration made him too unpopular to win,” and “Obama can be reasoned and negotiated into centrist positions” probably is helping many conservatives sleep at not. But I am not persuaded. Consider that, a swing of only 450,000 votes (less than 0.5%) in four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia and New Hampshire) would’ve made Romney president. And forget, the popular vote. I’d worry about winning period. This is much like the Senate seats the GOP had just thrown away, just thrown away! in 2010 and in 2012 that they could ill-afford to lose, that conservatives just piddled away, and then the conservative punditocracy says, “Eh, you win some; you lose some.” No, you always strive to win every winnable race nationwide.
Worry about the consequences of governing later. Because now we’re going to face the consequences of the European welfare state deathtrap where the entire country slowing grinds to a complete stop and then ceases to be. And do not even get me started on what I considered to be the hidden issue of the campaign, the Supreme Court. Obama is one step away from getting a Court that would rubber stamp his unconstitutional power grabs. Indeed, this will be an ugly four years, and the GOP failed in a gross manner to win the few extra votes needed to clinch victory. Forget expanding the map, just win the states you have to win to control Congress and the White House and let the liberal media mock and jeer. That’s all they’re good for anyway.
Moving off that disconcerting subject, though, one failure of the GOP (not especially of Romney) is not really discussed by the conservative punditry, and that is the GOP’s struggle to come with and come to terms with the legacy of the Bush administration. Romney spent most of the campaign avoiding Bush, while Obama ran against Bush for the second time. But Romney never explained where Bush succeeded and where he failed, and what Romney would do differently. I think this was understandable. The real problem is that Bush severely divides conservatives, while the rest of country essentially despises the man.
I know that in this last election, the majority of the undecided voters that I knew I had major hang-ups with Bush, and feared Romney would be a return to Bush. I suspect a few ended up voting for Obama. Even though conservatives criticize the ridiculous level to which Obama blames Bush for all of his failures, the fact remains that it works because not only Democrats, but a large chunk of the electorate at large, dislikes Bush. In the future, I’d like to see some of the conservative brain trust deconstruct the Bush years instead of just avoiding it or providing apologias.