The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Politics & Current Events / Political Asylum
|Subject: Top Six Reasons Why Romney Lost||Date: 11/16/2012 12:43 PM|
|Author: Gordon66||Number: 1837393 of 2090184|
I like Millgram's top ten list for why Romney lost http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=30383751
But in all seriousness, somebody needs to explain to Republicans, as nicely and thoroughly as possible, how it came to pass that a skinny black guy with a funny name, who had just presided over four extremely tough years for the economy, was able be decisively reelected.
Because based on why I'm hearing on the right, most Republican's still don't quite get it.
So, I will kindly do the honors. There are the six reasons:
1.Demography: The country keeps getting more brown, more secular, more “young,” (i.e., people born after 1970) and more tolerant. If the country had simply been as brown, secular, young and tolerant as in 2008 this would have been much closer. Nothing you can do about this trend; all you can do is try to be less unappetizing to these groups.
2. The Issues: Your positions on most of the main issues of the day—on immigration, healthcare, gay rights, reproductive rights, the environment, tax policy, foreign policy, entitlements, how to close the budget deficit—are less popular than the Democratic positions. Polls have consistently shown this. In those few areas where you still hold an advantage (e.g., gun rights, “law and order”), Democrats have often already surrendered. If the country were voting to see which political platform, rather than which candidate, would be in charge of the country, you would have lost in a historic landslide. I know you wish that some members of your party (Murdock, Akins) could have just shut the F up, but honestly, what they were saying was not out of whack with your actual platform. If your modus operandi is “shhh, please remember not to talk about our platform in public like we really mean that stuff” that could be an ongoing problem. You can't be sure everyone will get the memo. Maybe, instead, reconsider your official positions on the issues.
3. Your Nominating Process--Part I: For some reason, your process drew a disproportionate share of people who much of the country viewed, and with pretty good reason, as joke candidates. Joke as in “this person IS a joke” (Cane. Trump). Or as in “you’ve got to be joking if you think this person as ANY chance of winning the general election” (Santorum. Gingrich. Paul. Bachmann). Sure, the Democrats have had joke candidates too. But never have any of them been front runners. And in this case, you had several joke candidates taking turns as front runner! Then some of these people, invigorated by their (ephemeral) front runner status, proceeded to shred your eventual nominee in public instead of playing nice and focusing on their own pet issues as is the usual custom of joke candidates. As a result, there was not much Obama ever said about Romney that one of your primary candidates didn’t say first, and often more viciously. Newt especially comes to mind. I know it's not possible to prevent joke candidates from running. But maybe there is some way to prevent them from being front runners? Maybe they be somehow encouraged to play nice?
4. Your Nominating Process--Part II. Of the non-joke candidates, your process picked the weakest to oppose Obama. You know as well as I do that Romney had no reliable principles (other than that Mitt Romney should be President), or if he did, he chose not to communicate what those were. The fact of no obs