smokinrav
Well-Known Member
Over the past week, Republicans of all stripes have been grappling with the
reasons for Mitt Romney‘s
defeat and the attendant ramifications. The post-election postmortems have been
equal parts spin and soul-searching, reasoned analysis and recriminations. About
the only conservative leader who hadn’t weighed in yet was Romney himself.
Now we know what Romney made of a defeat that so stunned the Republican
nominee that he didn’t bother scratching out a concession speech beforehand.
In a conference call with top donors Wednesday afternoon, report Maeve
Reston of the Los Angeles Times and Ashley
Parker of the New York Times, Romney ascribed the loss to President Obama’s
ability to sway blacks, Hispanics and young voters with “gifts.”
With each cohort, Romney argued, Obama was able to point to a “gift” that
helped motivated them to support a second Obama term. Parker reports:
Obama’s decision to give the children of some illegal immigrants a path to
citizenship “was a huge plus for that voting group,” Romney suggested. The
President’s health care overhaul, Romney said, also helped mobilize black and
Hispanic voters for the President. His own campaign’s turnout models had assumed
the voting rate of those groups — especially African American voters — would
plummet after the heady thrill of 2008 wore off.
In the wake of the party’s fifth loss in six presidential elections, GOP
elders have urged the party to closely examine its mistakes, including where its
messaging veered off track. But Romney’s analysis — that Obama won by doling out
largesse to Democratic special interest groups — masks the party’s structural
problems, not to mention his own. He may have been a killer consultant, able to
pinpoint the shortcomings of other people’s organizations, but he has gaping
blind spots when it comes to his own.
For one thing, the transactional aspect of politics works both ways. Some of
the donors Romney was addressing on the call, as well as at the Boca Raton
fundraiser where he made his damaging remarks about the 47% of Americans who
considered themselves “victims,” presumably have their own interests in mind
when they wrote those hefty checks. Perhaps they are motivated by Romney’s promise to
lower their taxes, to reduce regulations on their industries, to preserve
elements in the corporate code that benefit them. These are “huge” pluses as
well.
Romney’s explanation for his defeat is also woefully simplistic. He didn’t
lose Iowa or New Hampshire, two swings state filled with white voters, because
of Obama gave “gifts” to minorities.” He lost, there and elsewhere, because
women, 55% of women, voted for his opponent. He didn’t lose African Americans
because of Obamacare. Nor did he lose Hispanics because of the law; he lost them
because his position on immigration during the primaries essentially boiled down
to the words “self-deportation.” He lost because he tacked to the center too
late. He lost because voters found him out of touch with their problems, a
judgment reinforced by the caricature he paints of Obama supporters as grasping
and self-interested. He lost because less people found him likable than his
opponent. These comments may help explain why.
Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/14/romney-obama-won-by-bestowing-gifts-on-voters/#ixzz2CFVhzb38
reasons for Mitt Romney‘s
defeat and the attendant ramifications. The post-election postmortems have been
equal parts spin and soul-searching, reasoned analysis and recriminations. About
the only conservative leader who hadn’t weighed in yet was Romney himself.
Now we know what Romney made of a defeat that so stunned the Republican
nominee that he didn’t bother scratching out a concession speech beforehand.
In a conference call with top donors Wednesday afternoon, report Maeve
Reston of the Los Angeles Times and Ashley
Parker of the New York Times, Romney ascribed the loss to President Obama’s
ability to sway blacks, Hispanics and young voters with “gifts.”
With each cohort, Romney argued, Obama was able to point to a “gift” that
helped motivated them to support a second Obama term. Parker reports:
citizenship “was a huge plus for that voting group,” Romney suggested. The
President’s health care overhaul, Romney said, also helped mobilize black and
Hispanic voters for the President. His own campaign’s turnout models had assumed
the voting rate of those groups — especially African American voters — would
plummet after the heady thrill of 2008 wore off.
In the wake of the party’s fifth loss in six presidential elections, GOP
elders have urged the party to closely examine its mistakes, including where its
messaging veered off track. But Romney’s analysis — that Obama won by doling out
largesse to Democratic special interest groups — masks the party’s structural
problems, not to mention his own. He may have been a killer consultant, able to
pinpoint the shortcomings of other people’s organizations, but he has gaping
blind spots when it comes to his own.
For one thing, the transactional aspect of politics works both ways. Some of
the donors Romney was addressing on the call, as well as at the Boca Raton
fundraiser where he made his damaging remarks about the 47% of Americans who
considered themselves “victims,” presumably have their own interests in mind
when they wrote those hefty checks. Perhaps they are motivated by Romney’s promise to
lower their taxes, to reduce regulations on their industries, to preserve
elements in the corporate code that benefit them. These are “huge” pluses as
well.
Romney’s explanation for his defeat is also woefully simplistic. He didn’t
lose Iowa or New Hampshire, two swings state filled with white voters, because
of Obama gave “gifts” to minorities.” He lost, there and elsewhere, because
women, 55% of women, voted for his opponent. He didn’t lose African Americans
because of Obamacare. Nor did he lose Hispanics because of the law; he lost them
because his position on immigration during the primaries essentially boiled down
to the words “self-deportation.” He lost because he tacked to the center too
late. He lost because voters found him out of touch with their problems, a
judgment reinforced by the caricature he paints of Obama supporters as grasping
and self-interested. He lost because less people found him likable than his
opponent. These comments may help explain why.
Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/14/romney-obama-won-by-bestowing-gifts-on-voters/#ixzz2CFVhzb38
