A Romney autopsy

The autopsies to be performed on the Romney campaign will be abundant yet varying in their assorted summations. But in the end, it was the nominee's lying that did him in. Cause of political death: lethal mendacity.

This assumes that Romney ever had a reasonable chance of survival. From the beginning I have argued that he did not, principally because of President Obama's enduring popularity as well as the equal conspicuity that the GOP's real heavyweights--Daniels, Christie, J. Bush--chose, early on, to postpone their glory days till 2016. Each of these potential contenders knew how to read an electoral map. Nonetheless, exceedingly capable presidential nominees can bend the arc of destiny (e.g. Truman '48); and given the right approach, it was never impossible for Romney to do just that.

So what was the wrong approach? The erstwhile Rovian theory that the Republican base alone could carry a presidential election. To virtually every political observer's surprise, Romney persisted in pumping the base well after he had effectively secured the nomination. My guess is that Romney continued pumping the base not so much because he feared partisan defections, but because he felt compelled to turn out almost exclusively the true believers on Election Day, who would, or so his advisers told him, constitute a slim majority.

And what single cement unified this partisan body of believers? You got it. A seething detestation of Barack Obama. And what better way to whip up hysteria and mobilize the rabble than to propagate outrageous lies, from "apology tours" to welfare giveaways to ObamaCare "ending Medicare as we know it" ... nearly ad infinitum.

Romney & Co. spotted its grossly mistaken calculation too late. Only in October did the nominee dramatically correct his doomed course by careening to the middle and blathering about compromise and bipartisan cooperation. Incompetent stumblebum that he is, though, when Moderate Mitt failed to move Ohio's numbers, he doubled down--again--on the lies, this time on the auto bailout.

And so Romney goes out as he came in: immensely lying his little ass off. And in the end--indeed, from the beginning--that's what got him.

Comments

[Robert Lipscomb]

This also accounts for the disparity between the closeness of the general election numbers and the electoral numbers. Obama's numbers in the red states are truly horrible because the right wing media are spreading these lies in those states and the Obama campaign is not responding with counter-argument commercials.

In the swing states where Obama is giving as good as he gets. In the blue states, Rush & Company are not moving the needle much.

Christie & Company err in strategy in believing the 2016 Democratic candidate will easier to defeat. The economy will be fully recovered and the candidate will be a white woman with a great resume' and two great campain surrogates in Bill Clinton and Barak Obama. The 2016 swing states will be much defferent than the 2012 swing states.

[Peter G]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this PM. I think Romney's record setting with regard to mendacity is what kept the race as close as it is. I would admit that Romney's disdain for the truth and his equally evident belief that the media by and large would not challenge his untruths led him to overstep of late. He was, after all, mostly right about that. I'll bet he was shocked as hell that CEOs of Chrysler and GM did not back him up in his most recent infamous lie. Yet his entire campaign proves that you can play minor deity, Janus, and go far. I would attribute an Obama victory to more mundane facts, an improving economy and the hope it brought to key rust belt swing states.

[AnneJ]

Well one thing I sure don't want to hear afterward if Romney loses ( I still refuse to take an Obama victory for granted) is that he was too moderate. Because for one thing, if you pay attention to the times he did mean what he said (read:47% comments when he thought only his rich donor friends were listening completely oblivious to the 47&-ers who were serving their food) and his pick for VP candidate shows that nothing could be further from the truth. And for another thing, during the primary, republican voters had a whole buffet of crazy right wing true believers to choose from. And they chose the guy they thought was too moderate. So that's not his fault it's theirs. I would much rather have seen Rick Santorum, as detestable as he is be the nominee because then it would have been the clearest illustration of where the republican party lies today. NO more pretending even a hint of moderation thin as the Mitt disguise was. With Santorum you would have known exactly where they stood and maybe just maybe the electoral trouncing would finally make the party do some self reflection, like so many of us have been hoping they would have done in 2008. Oh well for now I will just have to continue to miss the republican party, and hope that they return someday.

[Robert Lipscomb]

Update: Almost consensus 4 to 1.

http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/politics-and-election/us-presidential-election/winner

[ugg]

3342 Automatic optimization of media for iPad http://www.dislikelike.com/automatic-optimization-media-ipad 2012-11-13 10:58:40