Why he isn’t President Romney.
Mitt was a good businessman (and a good man, among the best ever to run for president), and the country would be in much better shape, both domestically and overseas, if he had won. But he had (and has) no discernible political principles or ideology, and cannot fathom anyone who does. The electorate could tell, and they wanted something more.
[Update quite a bit later]
I’m having serious link issues today. Fixed now, sorry.
But he had (and has) no discernible political principles or ideology, and cannot fathom anyone who does. The electorate could tell, and they wanted something more.
I imagine that matches most of the electorate too. I think the real problem was that he was richer than Obama, had a funny religion, and maybe a bit too white too. If you look at the criticism, it was more that he was a rich dude who fired people than anything else.
Yes, the meme was he is rich, white, old, male, who likes to fire people cause old white men are so angry, and who looks like he is from the 50’s, we all know what that means to our friends to the left.
Don’t you dare call Democrats racist though.
I have heard a lot of things about the Southern Strategy but people are usually short on details other than it was some sort of appeal to racist sentiments of southern voters. Democrats literally run on racist messages and inculcate racist ideology in their base and in the population at large through control of schools.
Do Democrats ever see the connections between their portrayal of a Southern Strategy and their own overt campaign tactics?
I expect he’ll be held up by the “liberal” Hive and their faithful “Uncle Daves” (polite, docile Republicans who pose no threat to the Plantation and know their place) as just the kind of Republican we need.
I totally, utterly, and vehemently disagree with the premise that the linked article is the reason for Romney’s loss. I just don’t see how a star wars movie that hadn’t even been written in 2012 could be responsible.
🙂
(the link currently goes to the Star Wars article on Instapundit).
Okay, seriously regarding Romney; I disagree with anything being the one reason he lost. Like most anything else, it was due to multiple things.
Agree completely. Why does the author of the article assume that if he hadn’t done those things, he’d have won? Why isn’t it even more reasonable to assume that given that Romney was somewhat moderate (not nearly so much as some other Republican candidates), and he still lost, that a more extreme candidate would have lost still more independents and lost worse?
I think the Reagan quote makes the point, even if the author didn’t realize it: you take what you can get. When he was governor of Massachusetts, the best he could do was Romneycare; that’s a pretty liberal state. He didn’t support it for the United States, because the US is not Massachusetts. That seems to be a hard point for people to grasp.
I continue to be frustrated that so many Republicans are so angry that they aren’t thinking straight. (So many Democrats too.) This is a good chance to get something done – go back to the old filibuster rules, pass simple bills with popular support that Democrats will have to oppose and Obama will have to veto. Clinton is in the Senate, you know. She can’t lie if she had to vote.
Or we can do stupid stuff like the debt limit crisis which the author thinks is just great and makes everyone but the base think we have no sense.