Cross-Posted from Dan Cirucci’s Blogspot
So, you wanna know the “why” of it all, huh?
Why or why did this happen?
For what it’s worth, here are my top six reasons:
1) Needless GOP bloodshed. The long Republican primary battle was unecessarily contentious and no one epitomized the irrationality of this more than Rick Santorum who continued to take shots at Mitt Romney well past closing time. And Newt Gingrich wasn’t much better. All of this simply set the stage for . . .
2) Obama’s early negative blitz. The Obama team wisely decided to define Romney before he had a chance to define himself. So, they gambled and took a huge chunk of dough early on and invested it in a relentlessly negative ad campaign painting a picture of Romney as a selfish, disconnected corporate titan who cared only about the rich: self-centered, mean, uncaring and greedy. People say they hate negative ads, but people remember negative ads. Since Romney held back and didn’t immediately answer the ads and forcefully counterpunch, this pre-emptive Obama effort worked.
3) The Democrats’ trumped-up, phony “war on women” and the clueless (mostly single, mostly younger) women who bought this. All I can say is “shame on ’em”.
4) The changing face of America. Demographics played a key role and resulted in bloc voting by blacks, hispanics and other minorities. Despite some noble efforts (particularly at the GOP Convention) Republicans never figured out a way to appeal to these groups. But some of the blame must still rest with the “one-way” mindset of the groups themselves. There is no true freedom so long as you allow one party to effectively own your vote.
5) Romney’s “soft-touch” approach to the 2nd and 3rd debates. Romney came roaring back in the first debate but then he sorta went soft in the following two debates — particularly the third debate, where he never really challenged the president on Benghazi. Maybe he was chilled by Candy Crowley’s team-up with Obama on the “act of terror” statement in the second debate. Turns out both Crowley and Obama were wrong (as proven by the election-eve CBS tape release) but Romney never effectively fought back. He let it go.
6) Sandy and the Christie bear hug. It’s hard to underestimate the effect of Obama’s from-the-heavens October surprise in the form of Superstorm Sandy. The devastation allowed Obama to look presidential. OK, give Obama credit for seizing the moment one week before the election. But the president got a megasized boost from New Jersey Governor Chris Christie who, in the midst of an all-consuming crisis (that seemed at times to shift him into what appeared to be an altered state of reality) journeyed from gratefulness to the world of gushing bromance. And then this became a kind of manage e trois when the president brought his campaign partner (and Christie’s lifelong idol) Bruce Springsteen into the lovefest. Christie was so overjoyed, he cried. You could almost hear strains of Kumbaya. Who could have ever predicted this? Bottom line: Obama bounced back.
CHRISTIA AKA GOV YOU-TUBE IS A BUFFOON
Romney lost because too many citizens were sleeping at the wheel for the last 40 plus years and gradually allowed individuals who did not have OUR INTEREST in mind, get elected to office. Our learning institutions have failed us by promoting LIBERALISM and SOCIALISM! America is BLEEDING OUT! OUR CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN COMPROMISED!
332-206. I think the American people got it just right. That's not a squeaker…that's an electoral landslide. All this moaning and groaning…does my heart good. You guys are trying too hard to put a whoa is me spin on this, but the bottom line is that the people decided they didn't really like what they were hearing from Romney. Plain and simple. And, with his flip flopping for 6 years, his callous 47% remark and his running mate who would gut every single social program, its not hard to see why he lost.
All real Republicans need to unite around Marco Rubio!
Miss out another point Mitt is a flip flopper and it has been well documented he has changed his view points every day..
Point 4) The changing face of America. Thats not a reason, Its been said Bush got a good number of Non white votes in 2004 and won so the Rep can reach out…
Rick Ambrosia, is bang on, People just did not like Mitt, or the views of the party. House still belong to Rep, so What is the core values of the House Rep? that might give you a clue….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByzxFQSlyDA&fe…
This was before…. Get someone better….
This is a concise and measured analysis of the key turning points in the campaign. I suppose I might have specifically mentioned Asian Americans among the groups of "minorities," (in your #4, above) given the very strong level of support for Obama. But maybe that is quibbling.
Also, the stupid remarks (e.g., about "rape") that were made by a few of the GOP U.S. Senate candidates unfortunately and needlessly contributed to underscoring the patently false "war on women" meme. At best, they were unnecessary distractions from the national Republican effort.
I also think that media malpractice played a key role in the inappropriate defense of the President.
Specifically, "instant fact-checker" Candy Crowley comes to mind for her inappropriate interjection(s) at the second debate.
But to me, CBS in particular committed an egregious violation of journalistic ethics by intentionally sitting on the key portion of the Steve Kroft "60 Minutes" tape portion, addressing the President's characterization of the attack, which interview was conducted within 24 hours of the incident. Releasing it a few days before the election conveniently removed the issue from the national debate, and ALL of the Presidential exchanges.
The network has lamely tried to defend their decision to cover up that key portion of the interview, but there is no question that during the "mixed" issue debate (with Candy Crowley), and in particular during the exclusively foreign policy debate (with Bob Schieffer), that CBS played an inexcusable hand by intentionally allowing the public to continue to be fed a false meme by the Administration — that the President had publicly stated early on that this was a terror attack.
The truth was that key players within the Obama Administration were, at that very time, cooking up a cover story for glossing over their own ineptitude and inadequate provision of security for the Benghazi compound.
And, Hillary Clinton had the nerve to tell that vile story to the father of one of the slain former active duty SEALS who had tried to defend the compound and the Ambassador.
One unanswered question to be is: Did Bob Schieffer of CBS know about that portion of the Steve Kroft interview when he "moderated" the foreign policy debate?
If so, he should immediately resign in disgrace.
And, if not, who at CBS was responsible for the cover up? Who at the network did know? Just Steve Kroft and/or his producer?
Why is the network not conducting an internal investigation, as they did over the Rather/Mapes fiasco back in 2004?
In any event, Steve Kroft should be finished as a journalist for his dishonest role in this matter, as should his producer(s) who knew.
Finally, set in the marked context of how people of different ages voted, I think yours is a very good analysis of what went wrong, and of how Obama, an essentially failed President, nevertheless managed to win reelection.
All points taken above with the exception of 6. You have it a bit skewed. The Republicans who turned on Christie trying to blame him for putting people first are to blame; it turned off the undecided Independents and the Democrats swaying towards Romney! Tell it like it is. The self-righteous Republicans who proved they could care less about the people are to blame not Governor Christie. If they kept their mouths shut, Romney would have won. If they kept their mouths shut instead of knocking fellow Republican Christie, Romney would have won. Most sincere Republicans, Democrats and Independents love Christie's truth, caring and putting the people and victims first. The negativity by Republicans against Christie hurt Romney, that is the plain hard truth. When will the cold hearted Republicans learn?
Dan, I think your analysis is pretty much "spot on". Nice job!