Just how exactly did Romney almost win?

[[]D[]/\/\[]D @ Nite/So-tite]

48% of the vote... with the nebulous "tax plan," the politicizing of the Libya event (before he even got his facts in order), the "47%" remarks, lack of clarity on what his stances on various issues are due to taking both sides (or three) on them, the numerous other policy-related gaffes, etc.

Just trying to figure out how, exactly.

[Jeff Brady]

48% of the vote... with the nebulous "tax plan," the politicizing of the Libya event (before he even got his facts in order), the "47%" remarks, lack of clarity on what his stances on various issues are due to taking both sides (or three) on them, the numerous other policy-related gaffes, etc.

Just trying to figure out how, exactly.

Morons and bigots still have the right to vote. The End.

[Wjowski]

Because the South will head to the polls and vote for an old fishing boot for President if it meant keeping a black man out of the White House.

[Agent Helix]

Simple. He didn't.

While the election certainly wasn't a massive landslide victory for Obama, the media narrative leading up to it was making it seem so close because... well, it makes for a better media narrative. A close election generates rating and ad hits more than a foregone conclusion. But it wasn't really an "almost" for Romney. 51% to 48% of the popular vote may seem like a tiny margin, but it isn't, and Obama pretty much roundly trounced Romney in the Electoral College. Romney was the "best we had" candidate the entire time, since he was pulled from a bumper crop of psychopaths during the Primaries. Sure, they put everything they had into electing him, but he never really had that great a shot of winning.

[chrisgiff]

Morons and bigots still have the right to vote. The End.

This is pretty much the answer right here.

If you haven't seen this, watch now.



I love the part at 4:25 where the dude has to tell her you can't be a Muslim and an Atheist at the same time.

[jesse_custer]

Simple. He didn't.

While the election certainly wasn't a massive landslide victory for Obama, the media narrative leading up to it was making it seem so close because... well, it makes for a better media narrative. A close election generates rating and ad hits more than a foregone conclusion. But it wasn't really an "almost" for Romney. 51% to 48% of the popular vote may seem like a tiny margin, but it isn't, and Obama pretty much roundly trounced Romney in the Electoral College. Romney was the "best we had" candidate the entire time, since he was pulled from a bumper crop of psychopaths during the Primaries. Sure, they put everything they had into electing him, but he never really had that great a shot of winning.

This is the correct answer.

Also, Romney would've gotten even fewer votes if Obama had done better in the first debate.

[Agent Helix]

Had Obama not slouched his way through the first debate, people would have been calling the election then. Romney was never a truly viable candidate. Again, certainly not a landslide Reagan vs. Mondale victory for Obama, but not a squeaker by any means. Romney was too thoroughly unlikeable, too thoroughly vague on policy, too thoroughly gaffe prone to ever have really had a shot.

[jesse_custer]

I still think Jon Huntsman would've been the smart choice for the Republicans. Perhaps if the party changes (which it has to if it wants to stay competitive), he'll get more attention should he run again.

[Agent Helix]

Huntsman would have been a lot smarter a choice than Romney, but he wasn't visible enough during the Primaries. He was a better candidate, but he didn't fit the current GOP narrative for this election.

[StoneGold]

I still think Jon Huntsman would've been the smart choice for the Republicans. Perhaps if the party changes (which it has to if it wants to stay competitive), he'll get more attention should he run again.

He's also not the candidate the GOP wanted. He's the GOP candidate Democrats wanted. It's like saying Democrats should have gone with... having trouble thinking of a name off the top of my head, but the bluest of Blue Dog Democrats. Yeah, it might help with some voters in the general election, but do you really want to nominate the guy?

[jesse_custer]

He's also not the candidate the GOP wanted. He's the GOP candidate Democrats wanted. It's like saying Democrats should have gone with... having trouble thinking of a name off the top of my head, but the bluest of Blue Dog Democrats. Yeah, it might help with some voters in the general election, but do you really want to nominate the guy?

If you want any chance of defeating Obama, then yes, you do want to nominate him.

Here's the key to American politics: fear. A lot of people voted Republican solely because they feared what Obama might do. They would've voted for Huntsman as easily as they did for Romney. And we know for damn sure that Hunstman would've done better with moderates and, yes, liberals. He would've had a shot at taking the presidency.

Given that all of this is true, he's the exact opposite of what the Democrats want. They want someone they can soundly beat. They want someone who only appeals to the dying traditional white public.

[Wjowski]

He's also not the candidate the GOP wanted. He's the GOP candidate Democrats wanted. It's like saying Democrats should have gone with... having trouble thinking of a name off the top of my head, but the bluest of Blue Dog Democrats. Yeah, it might help with some voters in the general election, but do you really want to nominate the guy?

Not to mention either way the candidate would have the GOP's extremist, cultist behavior dragging them down. That probably hurt Romney's campaign at least as much as him being Romney.

[jesse_custer]

Not to mention either way the candidate would have the GOP's extremist, cultist behavior dragging them down. That probably hurt Romney's campaign at least as much as him being Romney.

At the same time, Romney did a poor job of distancing himself from certain extreme comments. Blaming the most extreme politicians of the party only goes so far.

[J. Robb]

It was conservatives voting against Obama more than voting for Romney. The Republicans could have ran a dog for president and it would get over 40% of the vote.

[Darrell D.]

Yeah, it wasn't close by any means.
Like Helix said, Romney was simply the best out of a pack of total batshit insane primary candidates. I knew Romney had the nomination sewn up from the beginning, as the GOP wasn't going to let any of the other contenders near the nomination.
I mean, Newt Gingrich? Ron Paul is always there, with the stink of his white supremacist following, but Santorum and Bachmann were total whack-jobs, and Herman Fucking Cain quoted Pokeman the Movie in his exit speech.
Huntsman was the smart choice, and that was the problem. He was smart.