Comments on: Why Romney Lost?

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:47:26 +0000

Regarding WV, it was Romney’s to lose, and he blew it. McCain was struggling until S Carolina, and did not pick up steam until after Romney imploded. And instead of acting presidential, Romney reacted to the losses by firing personal attacks at everyone else. Made him look weak, as if all he offered was what he wasn’t. If he’d let it slide, he could have been viewed as a great leader, instead of a whiner. It wasn’t Huckabee or Paul’s fault. Mitt did it to himself.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:43:31 +0000

Tyler, of course you are right. (I guess we’ll see plainly if McCain chooses “independent” Lieberman.) The only way to stop McCain right now is to support Huckabee or Paul, or be ready to give away the country to the Democrats. Besides, an embarrasing Huckabee loss in 2008 could make a GMR candidacy in 2012 that much stronger.

By: Tyler M

Tyler M — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:25:34 +0000

McCain never considered Huckabee or Ron Paul to be a threat. His real threat was Romney because Ronmney was doing the right thing and going after McCain records and exposing him for what he really was … Trash and traitor to the Republican Party! Ronmney should of won WV and I think we all know how he lost won it then lost the state. McCain wanted Huckabee to have the win because he viewed Huckabee as no threat to him clinching the nomination. He would rather make sure Huckabee won the state over Romney .. why!?? Because Ronmney was threat to him. Paul’s race in the primaries kind of reminds of Ralph Nader being in the general. Ron will never win a state.. I think everyone knows this. Like I siad, McCain only viewed Romney as his only threat. When this is all said and done, I promise you that McCain will send a thank you note to Huckabee and Paul for splitting the conservative vote giving him(The Republican who embraces Liberalism) the nomination…..

By: Tyler M

Tyler M — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 06:44:11 +0000

Hey mike are you insane?!?! Guilianni the only liberial in our primary? I think you need to do a little more research yourself and then determine on what kind of person McCain really is and that includes his voting record.

1. The McCain-Snowe-Dorgan S. 2328, Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act of 2004. :

2. Mccain-Feingold - The infamous assault on the First Amendment primarily and doggedly pursued by John McCain: Here is commentary from various angles.

3. Mccain-Kennedy - The Amnesty and Open Borders Act

4. The Mccain-Edwards-Kennedy tort lawyers wet dream, otherwise known as “The Patient’s Bill of Rights. ”

5. The Keating Five Corruption Scandal: Again, Mark Levin sums this one up:

6. McCain’s attack on swift boat vets:

But the 60-second television commercial, being aired in three battleground states in the presidential race, sparked a furious response Thursday from Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a former Vietnam prisoner of war, who called the ad “dishonest and dishonorable” and urged the White House to condemn it.

7. John McCain’s class warfare against “the rich” and the Bush tax cuts:

8. McCain’s “Gang of 14″ betrayal of his party in favor of Democrat filibusters against GOP judicial nominations: Mark Levin and Andy McCarthy have the goods.

9. McCain, Gitmo, and full constitutional rights for terrorists: It must be conceded that, thanks to his captivity in Vietnam, John McCain has ample personal reasons to abhor anything the he thinks smacks of mistreatment of prisoners of war. And that is perfectly okay, as long as his feelings are kept on a personal level. Unfortunately, when he elevates his personal feelings to the level of national policy in time of war, he goes badly off the rails.

Another reason why McCain will not recieve my vote…

A Quote from McCain.. “I believe my party has gone astray. I think the Democratic Party is a fine party, and I have no problems with it, in their views and in their philosophy. ”

NEW YORK (CNN) — The New York Times endorsed Arizona Sen. John McCain for the Republican presidential nomination over Rudy Giuliani and the rest of the GOP field, strongly criticizing the former mayor of its home city.
You should be smart enough to know that the New York Times is the most Liberal newspaper in the country. I thought Giulliani was the only liberial in our primary?!?!

He was endorsed by Arnold Schwarzengger and Rudy Giulliani. Hmmmmm it was a no brainer that he would recieve endorsements from them. Both Liberal Republicans. Do you see a trend here mike or do you still believe that there was only one liberal running in the Republican Primary?!?!

If you can sit there with a straight face and say that Gulianni was the only liberial in our primary, I would be shocked and that just tells me how clueless you really are. I shouldnt even have to explain what I put down to a smart guy like you mike.

I never said that Senator Paul is a poor candiate so why are you putting words in my mouth?!?! I said that he helped split the conservative and Independant vote which gave McCain the nomination. More conservatives wanted Romney over Huckabee and Paul. California Results:( McCain: 1,093,560, Romney: 890,855, Huckabee 298,914, Paul, 110,077, Giuliani 120,641). It was like that in majority of all the primaries. Which like I said gave McCain the win. He got nearly 100,000 votesI liked Ron Paul at first but after three primaries it was clear that he would never even come close to recieving the nomination. The next best choice was Mitt Romney and he acutally could of beaten McCain for the nomination if Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee were not in the race. McCain is now the Republican nominiee and when I go to vote in November, I am supposed to see a clear difference between the Republican and the Democrat….. what difference..? I’ll see a Democrat and a two faced Republican who embraces liberialism.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 05:11:10 +0000

Tyler, if Senator Paul is such a poor candidate, how did his being in the race cause the downfall of GMR? Rustman, time to hit the books again, do some more thinking. The only liberal in our primay was Gulianni, and he was never much of a threat. I’m surprised that you value the Constitution so much, yet you don’t offer even seconary support to a vociferous advocate of the 2nd and 10th Amendment.

By: Tyler M

Tyler M — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:27:37 +0000

Romney main reason for losing the nomination was because of Huckabee and Paul. The conservative and independant vote was split three times giving McCain the win nearly everytime. Romney almost always finishing a strong second. Thank Huckabee and Paul…..

By: Rustman

Rustman — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 21:11:53 +0000

One other reason that Romney didn’t become the nominee is that our country is in such a sad state of affairs that it can’t even find the right candidate to help it out of the doldrums. Perhaps we are getting precipitously close to that time when the Constitution will indeed hang by a thread. When the Republican voters have trouble distinguishing between a conservative candidate and a Democrat in sheep’s clothing, that’s one indication that we’re heading down a crooked path. And for those who say the Republican ideology doesn’t revolve around conservatism, then why were both McCain and Huckabee trying to paint themselves as conservatives? Why were they trying to distance themselves from their liberal records, hmmm? Just something to think about.

By: Michael Olsen

Michael Olsen — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:34:18 +0000

CH.

Thanks for giving us your insight and your oppinion. I’m glad you were openminded enough to see each candidates view and that you came to the conclusion Mitt was the best presidential candidate of the Bunch. We love Japan too!

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 05:21:07 +0000

I agree this is a great political strategy debate - if you can wade through the side issues. You must understand that, until the convention, there is no candidate. There is a presumed candidate. But he was presumed out of the race last summer. Others were presumed to be the front-runners before. And there’s a lot that can happen to sink a McCain candidacy (as almost happened this week, had the NYT article had had “legs.”)

Also understand that if there is no war, McCain has no platform. His “paygo” approach says for the military to recover from Iraq we will have to boost taxes or print money. Health care? Mortgage mess? Energy? There is no platform there that at the moment that will catch anyone’s attention.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 05:15:38 +0000

Thanks, Peter (#59) for the link to BeliefNet. Confirms in my mind that some on this blog do not understand the Evangelical mindset. We are not as effective at creating evangelists for our cause as the Mormons, but are every bit as passionate about our faith. Which is, in the words of the apologist on the site (Mr Card), “Mormonism is not just another form of Christianity — it is incompatible with ‘traditional Christian orthodoxy.’” That’s why we who are intellectually honest will defend to the death the right of Gov Romney to run for President even as we vehemently oppose his protestations that his religion is not an issue because it’s the same as everyone else’s.

By: craig

craig — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 01:18:43 +0000

One thought for all of us. The convention in Minneapolis is 180 + days from now, 6+ months, with a post convention campaign of less than 60 days. That means the campaign will begin , full bore, in mid March, after Texas and Ohio. If the Republican nominee is down a lot in the polls in August, it will be Sayonara for a lot of delegates and the latest polls in IOWA today have McCain down double digits to Obama. I’ m not so sure McCain can get the nomination, no matter the primaries, if he is getting creamed in the polls by mid Summer. That means , if he’s smart, he will pick a VP early who will help get the campaign on track IN MARCH, not SEPTEMBER. That means instant organization, instant fund raising, instant name recognition and instant support from the party’s conservative base. It also means economic smarts as the campaign will be fought on domestic economics, not foreign policy. If you think the housing sector has financial problems , wait until the credit card debacle starts with the same below prime lending drill. In short, Romney is not just the best pick for McCain, he is the ONLY pick that doesn’t waste the run up to the convention with introductions to America and someone who brings all the instant needs that McCain is desparate for. He’s also great on TV and if you think that’s frivolous, think of Nixon in 1960 and then think of McCain in 2008 with HDTV.

By: PJ

PJ — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 21:43:11 +0000

Regarding the Evangelical vote, these two sites are a MUST read….

http://www.article6blog.com/
http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/

VERY good insight!

By: Stan

Stan — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:58:52 +0000

I want to add to my comment (54). Many worked hard in Florida, especially with the get out the vote calls; but because of the early voting, many had voted for McCain before Mitt began to surge. Mitt’s rallys were very good, and many were moving towards him.

By: CH

CH — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 09:55:00 +0000

Pardon my English in advance.
Mr. Romney didn’t lost but America lost him.
Because of MSM’s power, anti-Mormon, voting system, McCaine’s dirty tricks and Huckabee. (He is very disagreeable )
Voters need to educate themselves and do own research.
Hollywood celebrities’ endorsements make me laugh. They know that most voters are stupid.
I am a legal immigrant from Japan and I don’t have a U.S. citizenship so I don’t have a right to vote.
This election is good and sad experience for me to learn one side of America.
I don’t mind to have a president of the Unites States of America who are black, woman or Mormon at all. I will chose who does the best job for this country. I don’t understan why some Christians are so worry about Mormons. If they believe what they believe and you know what is truth, why they do afraid of other religions. U.S. president is for all Americas but not for one group. I am afraid that Mr. Huckabee wants to be a president for a special group.
As McCain, I don’t know where to start……….. American serve and care about others very well and specially LDS people. They do serve others very quiet manners. They don’t need to ask others to pat their sholders after their service. I think if they need to write about what they have done for others, our societies,this country and the other part of the world, we can’t read them all for a day. ( That is my opinion)
They don’t brag about it. That is true spirit of service.
I have never interested in politics before because I can’t vote but my English is getting better and I understood more this time. My $250 was not wasted and I’d like to keep myself open-minded.
Checking candidate’s supporters’ comments speak volume of their candidate.
I care about this country as much as Japan.
I am a very conservative and family is a core of our societies. I agree Mr. Romney 100% about toxic of dependency and irresponsible individual in this country.
It is so sad that he is not running anymore but I don’t have to see or here anti Mr. Romney too much now from MSM and Huckabee, so that part is good. He doesn’t deserve this kind of treatment. I am very disapointed in America for the first time in my adult life… May I say that?

By: Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 09:15:41 +0000

Leslie, humm I think I have to agree with you on that, which says >WAKE UP AMERICA! This is the greatest and most blessed nation on the planet. Not only did the most incredible man( Mitt Romney) get knocked out of the race, the democrats want to put someone back in the White House whose husband was Impeached for lying to the Grand Jury. What message is that sending to future generations? The one criteria that kept ringing through the political chats from conservatives is the timeless values this country was founded upon. And as conservatives, we must take a stand, however big or small, and stand up for those core values you know to be true. And we can do it, even if it is one person at a time. Thank you Mitt! Thank you for waking some people up that were getting lulled away into a false sense of security and happiness.

By: Leslie

Leslie — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 08:42:52 +0000

If Mitt had the same resume, but had been a drinker, swore like a sailor, on his 2nd trophy wife, had a couple of estranged kids, with lobbyists hanging all over him — and an Episcopalian, he would be our nominee, no question about that.

By: Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 07:50:11 +0000

He lost because of religion. You can spin it a thousand ways, but, sadly that is the truth. I have spent a lot of time in political chats and people hear Mormon and they instantly turn off. I am Mormon. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We are highly respected through out the world. I think people would be surprised at the number of prominent people that are Mormon. We are christians! : )

By: David

David — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 07:43:15 +0000

In my view, Romney lost because the MSM resurrected McCain, and enough people listened to that drumbeat that he won NH when he should not have. Had the MSM not bought into and publicized McCains phantom “comeback” just prior to the NH primary, JM’s psuedo-comeback wouldn’t have existed. A McCain loss in NH and then FL (if he’s still alive), with those states going to Romney changes EVERYTHING–Iowa/Huckabee aside. I believe that it is a lesson in how powerful the MSM still is, even in an age of “new media.” The new media has a longer way to go than it thinks (California). Maybe in three years. We can hope.

By: Case

Case — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 06:25:24 +0000

First - Mitt is ahead of his time. Some of his speeches were phenomenal, but in today’s society where connecting is based on emotion he fell on a lot of ears looking for those warm fuzzies.

Second, Iowa. Without Iowa Mike is never really in this primary. The pro Mike evangelicals would not have rallied every relative, church goer, dog, and soul if it were not for Iowa. Once that happened and his base got confidence he became their identity candidate.

Third, Rudy dropped out. Once Rudy dropped out it left two candidates fighting for the conservative and evangelical crowd with only one vying for all the moderates. The split vote between Mike and Mitt watered down the numbers and John got by with all the moderate vote (which was not a majority by any means). Had it been John, Rudy, and Mitt you would have seen John and Rudy splitting votes and Mitt taking a majority of the conservatives.

Fourth, Mitt had the perfect storm against him. Yet still had 4 million votes when he dropped out. This shows that his message had strength going through the storm he faced. The MSM successfully labeled Mitt and with Mike to turn to he could pull the majority.

Good luck in what you choose to do in the future Mitt.

By: David

David — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 06:18:03 +0000

I love this site. Even in defeat I get great comfort that I’m not the only one that thinks we just blew a golden opportunity to have a great president. I feel a lot like others on this board that name recognition, hucks religious victory in iowa, and the conservative masses getting behind him with 30 seconds left in the football game sealed Mitts fate. Here in Colorado Mitt won huge, my precinct was McCain 4, Huck 2, Thompson 1, Paul 1, and Mitt 34 votes. Mitt won big amongst evangelicals in Colorado.
I think Mitts faith talk, CPAC talks, and conservative backing will launch him from a much higher position in ‘12. There will be new obstacles including Huckabee’s religious following, MSM, a possible continuing love affair with President Obama, etc,.. but i think Mitt is positioned well to really be a much stronger candidate next time. Im excited. the day Mitt withdrew i bought tons of Romney apparel from their store to get me through the next two years or so. Again, thanks to all you Mitt backers across the USA and across all religions, genders, and races. This has been disappointing but a great experience nonetheless. Go Mitt!

By: Peter Combes

Peter Combes — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 05:56:30 +0000

This has got to be the best interchange I’ve ever read. Thank you Ann Marie for starting it and thank you all for participating. In a time which is generally depressing, it really helps to know there are a bunch of people out there who understand and are planning for the future.

Just in case you missed a good article I wish all evangelicals would read, try:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/blogalogue/mormondebate/

A test for us …… keep the interest and enthusiasm for the next four years. Go Mitt! - P

By: Kberg

Kberg — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 05:19:01 +0000

Interesting read tonight! I blame Romney’s loss on the media’s propping up Huckabee because they no way no how wanted Romney in there. Darkness cannot stand the light if you know what I mean. It started out being just a game to them but then got way out of hand. Let’s face it. Romney did not want to play dirty the way the big boys play. That includes the media elites and the media low lifes. I really think they just could not believe that Romney doesn’t drink, doesn’t swear, doesn’t cheat on his wife. I mean what would they have to talk about. By the time, the ‘folks’ realized he was truly the best candidate, the damage had been done. He needed to confront the flip-flop thing way sooner by putting out memos of everyone else’s flip-flops. He let that go on way to long. I think we finally saw that Mitt can fight back but it was too little too late. Can’t wait to him take on Russet again. It will be a different story. It was a tremendous learning experience for the Romney camp. They will be much better prepared if there is a next time. Personally, I can’t wait to see them (the MSM) take McCain apart now that he is the nominee. This week’s NYT article is just the beginning. Obama is the darling and he is brilliant. McCain will look like a scriveled up old man next to him and will appear to have Alzheimers. He will repeat over and over again- I am a war hero my friends, I am a war hero my friends, I am a war hero my friends.

By: Alyssa

Alyssa — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 05:10:03 +0000

Jon: You’re welcome…glad to share these experiences. It’s extremely helpful to discuss these issues with intelligent and informed people. This site is a blessing! The entire process (except for Mitt) has been a negative experience, but not enough to get me down for long, I’ll never let that happen! I am grateful that God has blessed me with the ability to see through the evil that surrounds us and to fight for what is good…and Mitt truly is good!! It doesn’t make life easy, there are times I wish I could just watch the news and be a drone like so many others, just go on with day to day life, but as a mother of 3 small children, I will fight for their futures for the rest of my life! My family will be moving in the next year (for business)…the good news…to an urban county in IA where Mitt won!!

By: Frozone

Frozone — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 04:53:30 +0000

Excellent posts, everyone. I’ve missed the caliber of thought exhibited here. Keep them coming.

By: Bryson

Bryson — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 04:26:49 +0000

Technically speaking, Mitt lost, however I believe his year long candidacy was a huge success and that more good will result from it than bad. Losing is always difficult, and like Mitt said in his fairwell CPAC address, we all hate to lose! But there is something much bigger going on with the Romney/Conservative movement. I believe this will reveal itself more and more over the coming years. Let’s not forget what a brilliant mind he has, and remember that he has always been a visionary man.

By: Stan

Stan — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 04:25:13 +0000

Thank you for your blog, and to those who have commented. My wife and I have been following Romney for some time, and have been sick that he is no longer in the race. In our opinion, he is the best candidate, by far.

We observed the bias in the TV and newspaper media. I have emailed FOX several times. We feel that the conservatives media waited to long to start supporting Romney also. The late endorsement of Charlie Christ and Mel Martinez for John McCain contrbuted much to the loss here in Florida. In addition, many of us in Florida, heard the lies spread by McCain and Huckabee on the stump (from the media) and received many phone calls filled with lies about Mitt. These also did not help. We helped as much as we could with Mitt’s campaign in Florida, but I think we had too little help, to late.

Religion played a big role in some of the areas also. This seemed to be fanned by Huckabee and the MSM.

I feel that those of us who support Romney, need to be more active with comments to the MSM if he runs again. This needs to start earlier in the campaign. We need to respond to negative articles in the newspapers.

By: Rustman

Rustman — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 03:43:56 +0000

There was nothing Mitt did wrong. He convinced almost every single one of the prominent conservative voices in the media, no less than George Will, Thomas Sowell, Michelle Malkin, Joe Scarborough, Robert Novak, Glenn Beck, Lars Larson, Michael Reagan, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Hugh Hewitt, Newt Gingrich, Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, and of course Rush Limbaugh. (That doesn’t leave many others besides the maverick-thinking duo of Bill Bennett and Michael Medved) All of them recognized what a disaster McCain would mean to the Republican party if elected. It’s also not their job to educate us on what we’re collectively too blind to see, or for them to analyze whether or not we’re going to be supportive enough of a conservative candidate at certain junctures.

The fact is that the Republican party has started drifting to the left and is currently in a slump. McCain being the best it can produce is a sad commentary on the current state of the GOP. It might be apathy from of the Bush era aftermath. Perhaps in four years, Romney will be more palatable to the party. But remember it’s the party’s fault for drifting, not his fault for having some imagined defect.

Also, the country isn’t quite ready for an LDS president yet, due to misconceptions and propaganda proselyting. Mitt probably had about a 5% handicap to contend with in that area. The absence of that factor alone could have tilted the scales his way.

By: mike

mike — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 03:39:15 +0000

I addressed this on my own blog (http://mike4mike.wordpress.com/2008/02/20/post-modernist-politics/) as a shift of intellectual understanding from the modernist view of “one best way” to a post-modernist understanding of community values and subjective truth. That’s why Hillary is in trouble, and that’s why Bush (Sr) endorsing McCain didn’t gain him any traction. Obama - and Huckabee to some extent - understand that postmodernist view and speak in stories that connect to the listener. Romney never really connected to the wider electorate outside his home states of Michigan and Massachusetts. Being smart or rich or good-looking doesn’t matter if people don’t know or believe your “story.” If he is to have any chance in 2012 (or a brokered convention in 2008), he will have to learn the art of effective story-telling.

By: Jon

Jon — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 03:26:26 +0000

Thank you Alyssa for that very enlightening perspective from Iowa. I’m very sorry to hear that this experience has been “life changing” for you in such a negative way. But I tip my hat to you for being one of the few to stand up for what you believe no matter what the other gutless wonders may think.

Your piece on how Iowans would vote again for the phony just blows me away. I have been wondering if there was a lot of buyers remorse in Iowa by now. Apparently not, and that convinces me that Romney should waste very little time with the lemmings in your state in any future endeavors.

You know, this experience has been life changing for us too. I already read the newspaper and watched the news on tv with a dash of suspicion…but after what I have seen and read over the past 6 months, I am convinced there are very evil people in control of the media. They figured it out a long time ago, that if you control the media, you control (most of) the people. They have done a masterfully wicked job with McCain and Obama and they must be so very pleased with themselves. We hardly watch the news on tv anymore because it just disgusts my wife and I. And I read the news online with a good deal of cynicism with their liberal bias always in mind.

By: Peter Combes

Peter Combes — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 03:07:05 +0000

I love this place. There are a lot of smart people checking in to share with each other and teach us lurkers. Thank you all. Please keep coming back. This mess can be fixed. We just need to teach the masses who can do it. Go Mitt! - P

By: waboomer

waboomer — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 03:06:25 +0000

One other thought that your ideas have triggered. Mitt’s “Washington is broken,” and “I can’t wait to get my hands on Washington,” were probably received as personal insults to the insiders in DC. He may need to temper his criticism of those in power to get their support. I did feel uneasy when I heard those comments…true though they are. But the prideful don’t take criticism easily.

I have enjoyed all of your insights.

By: John S. Maine

John S. Maine — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 02:42:03 +0000

The causation factors I would list that lead to Romneys withdrawal,

Perecption of invincibility was so strong the media hit him harder than expected!

Average working folk bought into the MSM assault on Mitt being out of touch because of his wealth.

I think the most calculating mistake by the campaign was_- challenging Huckabee back after Iowa loss that Huckabee needed to raise 20 million or he could not compete. I think that motivated or rallied Huckabee and his campaign even more. It kind of painted Mitt’s image as elitist in the eyes of many. Huckabee became an underdog and the people loved it.

The campaigns inability to adequately
deal with the “mormon issue”. The speech was great but to late and to little. The bias is real and not believed.

I dont believe Mitt is done and will be back on the scene sooner than we realize. He will disect the data and lessons from the campaign and come back stronger, smarter, and better than ever.

By: craig

craig — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 01:48:33 +0000

There are several reasons I think. There was some anti- Mormon bias, particularly in Iowa and Missouri. But Romney generally ran better than Mccain and Huckabee among conservatives in all states. When moderates crossed over to vote , they voted for McCain. But, the big reasons are the following:
1. Too much concentration early- on on McCain’s negatives and too little on positive solutions to America’s problems.
2. A concentration on urban markets where big media buys would be helpful, giving up the suburban and rural votes to McCain and Huckabee. I live in Georgia. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, Mitt ran very well in an Evangelical state. Not a lot of anti-Mormonism, surprisingly. Romney carried the entire Atlanta metro area ( 5 counties and 3.5 million people), by 5- 10 % over both McCain and Huckabee with little local effort. An appearance or two in Macon and Savannah and he would have easily taken the 30 + delegates. Remember, he also carried Manchester in New Hampshire and the urban markets in Iowa. Its where he spent his money.
3. The early voting in Florida and California killed him. After he got momentum going in both states there were several million votes in the can already for McCain.
Of course, splitting the conservative vote 3 or 4 to one didn’t help. And when you are running against only one liberal quasi-democrat like McCain, you and all the other conservatives have little chance.
One final comment. Television and the debates will be especially critical this year, much as the Nixon-Kennedy debates were in 1960. Nixon won the radio debates on issues but Kennedy won the visual debate on the TV. Fast forward to 2008. Think of HDTV. Wait till McCain shows up under those cameras and that lens and you’ll think Bob Dole was a GQ model in comparison. It will be a disaster and we will all see it in high definition.

By: CT

CT — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 01:42:32 +0000

A second thought….maybe the states that have a bigot problem should vote LAST…not first… If your state is a bigot based state (religion, race or sex) you should vote LAST. Let the states with more tolerance and reason vote first. If the south wants to vote religion they should vote last. What would have happend to Huck, McCain and Mitt if everyone voted on the same day….

By: Noelle

Noelle — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 01:15:46 +0000

Romney started with very little name recognition.
He competed against all the republican candidates, plus unfair treatment by the MSM.
There was no doubt some anti-mormon sentiment.
The ganging up of Huckabee and McCain.
The primary system made it very difficult for a conservative to win. (Why on earth do we allow liberals and independents to have a say in who the republican nominee will be?)
He could possibly have prevailed with just one or two of the obstacles in front of him, but all together they were insurmountable.
I still maintain that the Republican Party made the biggest mistake possible this year by nominating McCain. I personally believe he will go down in flames in November, but even if he prevails, his presidency will damage the Republican party.

By: Alyssa

Alyssa — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 01:05:28 +0000

Forgot to mention that Huck was the ONLY one at my caucus here in IA that had a family member or someone from their campaign speaking on their behalf. The other speeches for candidates were done by local supporters. Just wanted to clarify regarding my post above.
Leslie: Iowans definitely don’t deserve a second chance with Mitt!!!

By: Rich

Rich — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:55:54 +0000

MSM cheering for John McCain and against Mitt Romney, bigotry, open primaries, winner take all primaries, too many “conservatives” competing against John McCain. There were just too many obstacles.

By: Leslie

Leslie — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:39:45 +0000

Alyssa:
That first-hand experience you had in Iowa was enlightening to me and also sobering to the fact that Mitt may never win Iowa. In fact, I see 2012 as a total repeat of 2008, with Huck taking out Romney in Iowa. I’m wondering that if Mitt runs in 2012 he should TOTALLY write off Iowa to punish them for what they did to him in 2008. Then go after the New Hampshire vote. That may be the best strategy.

By: Michael Olsen

Michael Olsen — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:34:00 +0000

He lost because the Conservatives in the party couldnt decide on Mitt Romney and Huckabee who refused to step down. I lay the blame squarely on Huckabee, and his unorthadox approach to politics.

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:24:38 +0000

Leslie (post 13) gave one of the best explanations I’ve read anywhere of what happened to Romney. And Nick’s observation that “he failed to connect with the voters on a more emotional and personal level” was spot on.

(BTW Ron, it is the Primitive Baptist Denomination that handles snakes as an act of worship. Southern Baptists are defined by starting hospitals, colleges, orphanages; by cooking 90% of the meals Red Cross serves in disasters; and in the efficient way they fund missionary endeavors. And contrary to the post from EvanB, Evangelicals are not bigots. As Ron said, we are some of the most caring, forgiving and giving individuals you will find.)

By: Karen

Karen — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:13:48 +0000

A lot of the dialogue from the beginning of the campaign centered around how people would accept the “Mormon” candidate.

It seemed that right before the Value Voters conference last October a breakthrough was happening. Evangelical leaders were warming to Romney. Iowa evangelical voters were looking at the major candidates and seeing that Romney’s values matched theirs were going to overcome their religious prejudice and vote for him - Romney was polling very well in Iowa. Then….2nd tier Huckabee gave a very well received speech at the Values conference and came across very well in the following debate, Romney seemed to trip on the strange Bible question in the YouTube debate, and Huckabee followed up with the “Christian Leader” ad, the sermons, Satan/Jesus comment, the church phone tree… it was just too comfortable for Iowa voters to line up behind Huckabee. The Romney momentum was lost.

Of course, there are many things that could be pointed to, but all else being equal, the Iowa upset stands out as the deal breaker.

Another question we could debate is will Romney run again?

By: CT

CT — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 23:55:17 +0000

Don’t get me started as to why Mitt lost……Old insider GOP Washington did not want an outsider coming in trying to change business as usual, it just might have affected them…no back room deals…. and they refused to get behind a good candidate.. MSM wants a Dem at all costs. We have a press that is not free….they report their slant and opinions. We should get use to it from here on out we will have the candidate that the media chooses, because people won’t do their own investigating of the candidates, they are to lazy, they just listen to what the media tells them and follow. (Look at Obama mania) In states with open primaries dem and indies picked the nom for the republicans by crossing over and voting for McCain. If indies want to vote in the primary get YOUR own candidate on YOUR ticket. Any state that has an open primary needs to loose delegates until at the national convention, if your state is closed than you keep your delegates and no more winner take all, make everyone work for it. If you change and register on the GOP ticket just to vote in the primary you have to vote in the general on the same ticket. It would discourage last minute side changes in the primary..such as CA and FL. (300,000 indies voted in FL…Mitt losses by 92,000 hmmmmmmm). Mitt realized how corrupt the voting is and just said enough. The whole voting process sucks. I don’t think we will ever see an uncorrupted race in the future. We need to change voting policies at the state level and the National GOP needs to get tough on the primary polices. And then there is the religious NUTS that made this a bigoted race. Really opened my eyes as to where “free, tolerant America really is. We have ALOT of work to do. Mitt didn’t loose…..America did….We really don’t want change…….we just like the warm and fuzzy sound of it….change takes hard work, Mitt was willing to do the work…….. not enough of America was ….they were just too lazy. My primary is coming and I’m voting for Mitt……..Hopefully America will not be so damaged that we might see a decent 2012 race.

By: Scott R.

Scott R. — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 23:52:41 +0000

There was a whisper campaign going on prior to Iowa regarding Mitt’s religious beliefs. Huckabee was able to capitalize on that. In fact, if it weren’t for that anti Mormon sentiment, I don’t believe Huckabee would have ever gained traction. He needs to write a nice long thank you letter to Mitt and Ann thanking them for the media exposure he has received.

In addition to that I believe there was a general suspicion among many conservative voters due to Mitt’s beliefs that the media fed upon. It seemed that they really tried hard to keep that controversy alive. They saw that Mitt was creating the Reagan image and many didn’t want to see that, others thought he was hypocritical because he governed from a more liberal perspective and then took the conservative perspective as he ran for president. This aspect amazes me because many of the liberals in Massachussetes and the press somehow feel that conservatives shouldn’t even try to govern in Mass. Some conservatives bought into that but anyone who knows Mitt or studied how he ran as Governor knew that his personal views have always been very conservative but he had to take a more progressive stance to win the state. Dems would have done the exact same if the situation had been reversed. So would Huckabee and McCain if they ran for Governor there.

I think those two points sum it, but I will say this. The second time around he will do better. The electorate has learned something of Mitt Romney. The now know that he will work his butt off to get the job done. I think many will relax a bit about his religious views after seeing 11 states choose him as number one. And finally with his speech at CPAC as he annouced the suspension of his campaign, with nothing to gain, he nailed his conservative views and they are now burned into the hearts and minds of many who doubted. He will do well in 2012 or 2016. I think with either one of these election years he will just have to be careful not to cross Jeb Bush or the Bush family if Jeb decides to run. That might present a problem.

By: MK in Arizona

MK in Arizona — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 23:46:04 +0000

You know what I have noticed from reading articles, blogs, etc. is that anyone who meets or works with Mitt is very impressed by him. I think when he runs again in 2012 (hopefully) we need to see some advertising where people explain what they like about their experiences with Romney. Businessmen praising his honesty and integrity and smarts, Olympic organizers explaining the way he turned around the olympics, polititions stating his character as they worked with him in Massachusetts and someone telling how he did not take a salary for his service as Govenor and for his olympic work. I just so desperately want to hear people who really know and respect him to explain that to the American people in a real, clear and concise way. I think that could have made a difference in his campaign. I too am appaled at the fact that we let such a good man slip through our fingers. I have never been so inspired or excited about following politics as I was when he was running.
Hey, Ron, I also would suggest going to LDS.org if you are wanting to learn more about Mormons. I wish you luck in your search and hope that you will find the happiness that the Gospel can bring into your life.
Instead of the world making fun of how happy and perfect Mitt seemed you would think they would want to find out what made him different so they could have that same feeling in their life too.
Thank you everyone for your insightful comments and interest in Mitt. I feel as if I am among friends who are all grieving the loss of our best chance for America. Let us keep up the faith that he will return before too long.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 23:32:12 +0000

By not electing Mitt as our nominee, it is truly America’s loss. It is not only a loss to the people on this site, it is this whole country that will suffer for letting the “greedy” politicians, and media, making their “backroom deals”, thinking that the likes of Huckabee, and McCain are legitimate, when they are as slimy as the Clinton’s in their underhandedness.

To try to compare Huckabee to Mitt, would be like trying to compare Huckabee’s Son’s to Mitt’s Sons.

By: Jeanne

Jeanne — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 23:30:29 +0000

It’s very hard for me to try to diagnosis why this extraordinary man lost. I guess becuz I don’t think he really did lose, this is merely a stepping stone (God Willing) to 2012. I am heart sick over the three stooges we have to vote for this fall , well two , Obama & McLame. I’m with you Leslie, I too believe that McLame is hiding something. Then there is Huckaboob,. my goodness what a hypocrite, a total obnoxious physcopath and so full of himself its disgusting. The reason why my man, Mitt lost is because we learned about him to late and he’s got it all, McLame lied about him Huckaboob (the man of God) Hurl! compared his religion to Satan they both are jellous of his money not to mention his intelligence and the american people on a whole are “out to lunch” naive and yes down right stupid!

By: David D

David D — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 23:26:09 +0000

1. He got double teamed by Huck and McLiar.
2. Most people in this country do not take the time that the people who post here take to evaluate the candidates. If they did, Mitt would have won in landslide victories. Most people who vote do it with very little knowledge of the candidates. They decide who they vote on after seeing one or two candidates in a 30 second commercial. Most do not spend more than 5 minutes thinking about who to vote for. Unfortunately, our country has changed; our people do not have the value system that we used to; most people are very shallow in their thinking.

Mitt Romney is the best candidate for President in my adult lifetime. I pray for Mitt2012.

By: Alyssa

Alyssa — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 23:05:32 +0000

Sadly, many of the people who voted for Huckabee still would today! Many are extremely uninformed, they believe whatever their TV tells them, many are bigots and voted anti-Mormon, they are so blind (perhaps brainwashed) that they’d support Huck if he was a criminal (and from what I’ve learned, he probably is). The holier than though phony Baptist Huck can do no wrong in their eyes. There was a recent poll in IA, and most would vote for Huckabee again, the results were the same as the caucus. They also feel like they voted and are done with it…over and done. They had their fill of politics with the endless ads on TV and don’t want to hear anymore, esp. informationt that clearly shows how foolishly they voted, they tune out. We still PROUDLY have our Mitt signs up, the only ones in town who did. And I enjoy wearing my Mitt hat to the local grocery store, what stares I received! I have to admit, I’ve lost a lot of respect for many friends over this, it has been life changing to say the least. I can’t be friends with bigots, no matter how nice they are at the surface.

By: RC

RC — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 23:01:09 +0000

Mitt did not LOSE. The “people” are the ones who have LOST. Mitt still has his good looks, his great sense of humor, his intelligence, his money, his family, his character and his committment. So therefore, “WE” are the losers, NOT Mitt.

By: PJ

PJ — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 22:49:58 +0000

Mitt was way, way above the avg person. He did not explain himself in simple terms. He repeated grand generalisms without including specifics. When he did get specific, people ate it up - religion speech and CPAC.

He turned the mirror on the american people and many did not like what they saw. They could not measure up and did not want someone in power “making” them measure up to his standards. Remember the “I’m going to clean up washington”? The establishment could not take the aim of that mirror. Remember the “It’s time to clean up the ocean of garbage”? Even the relatively immoral could not take the aim of that mirror. There are other mirror angles that shined on us as a nation that we could not stand up to. He shines the light in just being who he is. Sometimes that’s just too much to take.

Humility is an unrecognizable asset in this selfish, me driven society and if you can’t boast and tear down the next guy until he is turned into nothing then you don’t have the (mispercieved) mettle that it takes to lead THIS nation at THIS time in history.

What a sad, sad day…