« A Europhile repents | Main | how to stop killing sprees: armed citizens »

December 14, 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I think Mitt Romney's loss comes down to a few issues.
1. Obama had a better ground game and in the key swing states, Obama was good a finding issues to tip the scales in his favour whereas Romney wasn't able to.

2. Romney was too much of a flip flopper. A moderate governor, but a hardline candidate in the primaries so it probably scared some moderates over to Obama while caused some conservatives to stay home.

3. Demographics, demographics. Romney won the white vote by almost 20% which is the same as what Bush sr. got in 1988 and not far behind what Reagan got in 1984. The problem is America is much less white than it was then and you need to be competitive amongst minorities to win. Bush in 2004 got 44% of the Latino vote while Romney only got 27% and likewise both Reagan and Bush Sr. won the Asian vote while Romney only got 27%. Even amongst African-Americans, most Republicans prior to 2008 almost always got in the teens not single digits. Had Romney gotten 40% of the Latino vote, 40% of the Asian vote and 10% of the African-American vote he would be president. At least the Conservatives in Canada realized you cannot win by just appealing to the white voters.

4. Rather than making sure they were ahead, many in the Romney camp went on the dubious assumption that the young and minority voters would have a lower turnout due to less excitement than 2008 whereas theirs would show up in record numbers. You never assume your opponents base won't show up, rather than you get your base out and focus on winning the undecided voters.


An ideologue believes what he believes though the heavens fall, which is why BO is an ideologue, better described as an educated airhead.

The comments to this entry are closed.

e-mail address

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 02/2008

Blogging Tories

  • Blogging Tories