Why Romney lost is the hot topic in the aftermath of the 2012 Presidential Elections. The opinions are flooding in from all corners, ranging from partisan issues to demographics to economics. Some blame Romney himself for his eternal flip-flopping , derisively called “ Romnesia ” by Obama, or the choice of Paul Ryan as the VP.
Like Bill Clinton said, why Romney lost is claimed to be just the raw math . While Clinton claims that on partisan issues that more of the US population agrees with Democrats rather than Republicans, the math is even more fundamental to the US election system. Based upon the electoral system predictions like those made by Nate Silver , even if Romney had won the popular vote, which he did not, then it was still very likely that Obama would still win the necessary 270 electoral votes.
The math also does not lie when it says that why Romney lost is because Republicans were simply not voting. According to Fox News , more Democrats than Republicans voted, with a startling six percent lead of 38 to 32 percent. Things have not changed too much since 2008 when Democrats also outnumbered Republicans 39 to 32 percent. These facts are especially stark when you consider that, according to Rasmussen Reports , Republican party affiliation was at a record high for this election year. During August, 37.6 percent of the US population considered themselves Republican with Democrats trailing at 33.3 percent. Less than half of the Independents voted for Obama.
About 75 percent of Mormons are also Republicans. That Romney was a Mormon apparently did not play a large part in why Romney lost. In fact, Religion Dispatches Magazine claims that Romney was not Mormon enough:
“Romney’s mistake has been to avoid explaining the most open secret of his leadership, namely just how Mormon he is. He ought to have unveiled the relationship between his particular religious sensibility and his ideas for American success. He should have announced at every pit stop that he had met the world through his missionary work; that he came from a good Christian home that emphasized the principles of hard work and self-sacrifice; that he keeps a weekly calendar guided by the principles of Stephen R. Covey; and keeps a marriage because he believes those commercials are right—diamonds are forever, and so is this bond. He should have proclaimed his financial success was the result of all this earnestness, and explained private equity as just another way to organize free enterprise. Not because it’s a crafty re-framing of his biography, but because it is also true: it’s true to the very thing his supporters find so solid, and his detractors find so discomfiting, about Romney.”
Young voters under age 30 were once again a key demographic, representing 19 percent of the vote or one point higher than 2008. Even so, young voters did not back Obama as strongly this time: 60 percent compared to 66 percent in 2008.
Looking further at the demographics, we turn to Dick Morris on Fox News who had previously claimed Romney would win “by a landslide” this year:
“The key reason for my bum prediction is that I mistakenly believed that the 2008 surge in black, Latino, and young voter turnout would recede in 2012 to “normal” levels. Didn’t happen. These high levels of minority and young voter participation are here to stay. And, with them, a permanent reshaping of our nation’s politics.
“In 2012, 13% of the vote was cast by blacks. In 04, it was 11%. This year, 10% was Latino. In ’04 it was 8%. This time, 19% was cast by voters under 30 years of age. In ’04 it was 17%. Taken together, these results swelled the ranks of Obama’s three-tiered base by five to six points, accounting fully for his victory.
“I derided the media polls for their assumption of what did, in fact happen: That blacks, Latinos, and young people would show up in the same numbers as they had in 2008. I was wrong. They did.”
Ann Coulter thinks it is simply because Obama was the incumbent:
“[I]t remains true that it’s very hard to take out an incumbent. In the last hundred years, Republicans have taken out a sitting president one time and that was Ronald Reagan in 1980.”
The Republicans seem to be backing Romney’s 47 percent comment based upon this letter from a Philly writer:
“With Tuesday night’s election results, some things just seem to have changed forever. The re-election of President Obama was really quite predictable; a large percentage of the population that has no cares or worries about what is the right course for our nation votes for this changing culture. Their only worry is all of the “stuff” they feel entitled to: food stamps, medical coverage, birth control, abortion on demand and more! The Protestant work ethic that built this country is no longer the standard; the words of JFK twisted into a cruel, new reality: Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. May God bless America!”
When it comes to the economy, 62 percent of people believe Obama inherited these economic problems from President Bush and that he was doing a slow but steady job improving it. The improving jobs numbers right before the election probably helped seal this opinion. What is especially amazing is that no one has ever won a re-election before with this high level of unemployment.
Economist Ben Stein told Bloomberg News his opinion:
“He didn’t have a sharp enough message on how he was going to fix the economy, and he was an energetic but unfocused campaigner.”
Opinion writer John Tomny, writing for business magazine Forbes , explains why Romney lost on economics:
“It was Romney’s economic advisers who cost him the election. Columbia business school dean Glenn Hubbard is too much of a skeptic on China trade, and he was misguided when he advocated policies that would increase demand for housing at a time when markets were calling for less investment in the sector. Harvard economist Greg Mankiw supported a cheaper dollar, a policy that is damaging to Americans’ efforts to save and invest. American Enterprise Institute economist Kevin Hassett supported a misguided work-sharing idea where companies would reduce hours for some employees and create more jobs for others, missing the point that job creation comes from expanded investment, rather than slicing a finite pie. On taxes, Romney failed to explain his plan in the debates, and retreated from the idea that the 1% boost the economy, rather than drag it down. In an election that should have been a landslide, writes Tamny, Romney ‘had the wrong people whispering in his ear about economic policy.”
Even Hurricane Sandy is getting flack for the Presidential race and why Romney lost. While I thought the power outages and destruction caused by the storm might turn out to be Obama’s October Surprise , Americans changed their opinions in favor of Obama because of FEMA’s fast response. “After being criticized in the media for focusing on ‘small things’ like Big Bird and ‘Romnesia,’ Sandy offered Obama a chance to once again look presidential,” CNN writes.
Why Romney lost is a topic filled with speculation. One thing is for certain: both parties are already gearing up for the 2016 election in a time when Congress and the President should be focusing on the upcoming financial cliff .
Do you have your own reasons for why Romney lost?