Share This Article with a Friend!

10 Reasons Why Obama Won And Romney Lost -- A Two Part Series

In many aspects of the 2012 presidential campaign, Mitt Romney and the establishment Republicans who were running his campaign just plain got outgunned and outsmarted.
Obama's oathYet, in the aftermath of Romney’s defeat, he said he lost because he couldn’t overcome the effect of Obama’s “gifts” to key demographics: student loan modifications for young voters and amnesty for young and predominantly Hispanic illegal aliens.
We think Romney missed the mark with that analysis because conservative ideas have successfully countered the Democrats’ attempts to bribe voters in the past. To avoid the kind of defeat Republicans suffered in 2012, conservatives must learn from the successes of the Obama campaign.
Let’s start that learning process by examining five of the top reasons Obama won.
Obama won because he defined Romney, destroyed his image, nationalized the election and drew a stark contrast with him. It is the law of the political jungle – define or be defined. Obama defined Romney in negative terms, but Romney never defined Obama or himself.
What’s more, the one candidate who took our advice and said over and over that the election was about two world views was Barack Obama. Obama framed his world view as one where only the power of government could create “fairness” in a world that otherwise would be unfair through the machinations of big business and other forces hostile to average citizens – even social issues, such as same-sex marriage, were cast as issues of “fairness.”
Obama then worked relentlessly to put Romney in the context of this argument for fairness. The Bain Capital attacks orchestrated by the unions and Democrat Super PACs all hammered home the point that Mitt Romney was not just unfair to working people, but heartless. The fictional, but unfair “war on women.” The unfairness of people not having health care. The unfairness of the tax rates paid by the “wealthy” – the contrast was clear.  Obama stood for fairness, Romney stood for all of those forces in society that make life hard for the little guy.
The obvious lesson here is define or be defined – but there’s a deeper lesson for Republicans here as well.  Republicans will never win if they accept or fail to rebut the idea that it is government’s job to impose “fairness” on society.  If the Republican candidate for President won’t make a passionate argument for freedom, liberty and opportunity, and oppose the whole notion that it is government’s job to impose “fairness” on society, he’s bound to lose.
Obama won because he focused like a laser on the states he needed to win to block Romney’s path to 270 electoral votes.  By rights, Obama should have lost the states of Virginia, Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin, all of which had Republican Governors and Republican legislatures going into the election – but he won them all. Some were closer than others, but Obama won credible victories in each state by putting in place strong voter ID and get-out-the-vote programs over the course of his first term, and working each state relentlessly.
Romney never seemed to commit himself to a similarly well-focused plan. The futile last minute spending in Pennsylvania by pro-Romney PACs, and visits from both Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan to a state where he had no ground game, had alienated the Tea Partiers who elected a Governor and new Republican members of Congress in 2010, and that he ultimately lost by some six points, is but one illustrative example.
The lesson here is one Republicans should have learned a long time ago: to win the Presidency, they have to be a national party and build world class political organizations all across the country. They will not win if all they do is come around every four years and run millions of dollars worth of TV in a relatively few “swing states.” 
Just as the Democrats and unions do in their urban and coastal strongholds, Republicans need to build, and maintain between elections, world class political organizations in center-right states, particularly in Florida, Virginia, Ohio, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Michigan, Colorado and the rest of the Great Plains and Trans-Mountain West.
Obama won because he ran as himself. Despite Republican carping about how “phony” Obama is, he actually ran for President as himself. He campaigned on hitting the “wealthy” for more taxes, on implementing Obamacare and for advancing the radical secular liberal agenda on almost every issue, and, despite the overwhelming evidence that it is a complete failure, he defended his economic record.
Obama didn’t turn himself into a pretzel trying to mollify conservative independents or soft Republicans the way Romney tried to appeal to center-left voters who were not natural allies of his candidacy. Obama ran as an authentic liberal, and came away with more credibility, more likability and more votes than did the inauthentic Mitt Romney.
The lesson here is, again, one that establishment Republicans should have learned a long time ago: campaigning as a conservative in the primaries and then “shaking the Etch-A-Sketch” or “pivoting toward the center” -- which is what most Americans outside the Beltway call lying -- is a recipe for defeat.
Obama won because he understood this was a base election and he solidified, energized and turned out his leftwing base. For the better part of two years commentators were predicting 2012 would be a “base election.” Obama energized his leftwing base by throwing down the gauntlet to Romney and the Republicans on the entire range of values issues.
Same-sex marriage, government-paid abortion on demand at any point in a pregnancy, repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, continuing the war on religious freedom and the Catholic Church over Obamacare’s contraception and abortion mandates... Obama and his allies never backed down and made this radical secular liberal agenda a centerpiece of the campaign.
In response to Obama’s challenge on the social issues, Romney went AWOL and failed to even respond, let alone campaign on the conservative agenda and the social issues – even those the polls showed to cut substantially in his favor, such as the right-to-life and reining-in the size and scope of government. 

Indeed, instead of solidifying his base, Romney and his establishment Republican allies did everything they could to distance themselves from the small government constitutional conservatives of the Tea Party and from social conservatives.
The lesson here is that without fully engaging all four legs of the 2010 wave election coalition – national defense conservatives, economic conservatives, social conservatives and the small government constitutional conservatives of the Tea Party -- Republicans will have a difficult time defeating a Democratic coalition of ethnic voters, big labor, young singles, traditional progressives and radical secular liberals.
Obama won because his team understood and effectively used the new and alternative media to get-out-the-vote and dominate communications with voters who only get their information through online media. No campaign is perfect, and no doubt someone will identify a laundry list of things Obama’s online team could have done better. But to win, you don’t have to be perfect, you only have to be better than the other guy -- and Obama’s online effort was light years ahead of Romney’s.
The Obama Team understood that among adults younger than age 30, according to a Pew study, as many saw news on a social networking site (33%) as saw any television news (34%), and just 13% read a newspaper in print or digital form.

In contrast, Romney and the Republicans were stuck in a 20th century air war campaign strategy that relied on TV and denigrated digital communications. Obama spent at least $52 million just for online ads during his 2012 campaign, compared to the $26 million spent by Governor Romney's campaign – and that does not include their social media, email and other online and digital platforms.
Obama’s online effort was a key piece of his landslide in the young voter demographic, and thus his victory.  Digital and social media were also key to Obama's get-out-the-vote effort, which used social media and a weird, but effective form of online peer pressure to squeeze every last vote out for the President.

Technology is neutral and the digital world thrives on freedom. Ron Paul and the Tea Party have built huge networks and online communities of conservative voters. The Romney campaign and the establishment GOP forfeited access to those networks by alienating those voters and distancing themselves from Ron Paul and the Tea Party.
The communications lesson here is simple: Republicans need to get in the 21st century.
What’s more, the larger lesson is equally simple: the small government constitutional conservatives of the Tea Party Movement, economic conservatives and libertarians, social conservatives and national defense conservatives must redouble their efforts to reassemble the 2010 coalition and take over the GOP.

Click here to see Part 1 of 10 Reasons Why Romney Lost And Obama Won -- A Two Part Series
or go to

Share this

Why Obummer won

Hey guys, Obummer won because he cheated!! There was MASSIVE voter fraud. He only won the swing states COLLECTIVELY by .28%!!!!!!!!! Wake up!

Why Romney lost

Richard is complete wrong.

Reason Romney lost was the minority vote.  93% Blacks, 86% Muslims, 75% Hispanics, and 73% Asians voted Obama combined with 38% of Whites.  They wanted big liberal government.  Obamacare, free abortions, free contraceptives, equal income, amnesty, wealth redistribution/tax increases, defense gutted, pro women feminist policies, anti male policies, homosexual marriage/moral relativity, drug legalization, and more government jobs for them.

Romney won the largest share of the White vote in history--something like 60-38%.  Whites were only 72% of the vote in 2012, 89% in 1980. 

What I'm saying is the country is over.  There are now more people wanting government dependence than self-reliance.  And their numbers are growing based on voter percentages.  Conservatism in national elections is over.  Liberal feminist women will rule the country into the ground, liberal minorities then inherit the land.

Look at voter demographics, not political ideology. 

This was a racial preference, government dependence election.


Why Romney Lost

You don't win a street fight behaving like some imperious, waffling twaddlejockey who rides through town in a limo thinking he's in nothing more than a big debate (rather than a street-level slugfest). 


Was this article reprinted from the Daily Kos?  Nothing about the mnassive electoral fraud, blocking of election law enforcement, consent decrees forbidding contesting some elections, campaign contribution fraud, media bias?

Obama's strategy

If the tea party is successful in taking over the GOP, we need look no farther than Missouri and Indiana to see what the results will look like.

Why Obama Won

Both parts of this show a very shewd analysis of the recent election. It is ironic that the 5th Obama Win point dealt with Obama's use of the new, social media. Richard wrote the draft for this with fountain pen or pencil on legal sheet. I watched him use this technic on two Hillsdale College cruises. So, what is essential for Barrack is not needed for Richard.

Ralph Harder

good point!

both articles are about as well thought out as can be

Voter fraud is a reason for Romney losing, too!

Voter fraud is a reason for Romney losing, too! Unfortunately, the Democrats and the left, in general, are experts in finding ways of cheating in order to achieve political victory, especially in political races that are very close. And, in most cases, the left succeeds in "getting away with it". The left LOVES to play "dirty politics"!

Voter fraud

Perhaps the GOP should try to do voter reform now rather than waiting until just before an election. Doing it now would allow for a thoughtful and fair way to require and provide voter photo id cards. When you wait until right before the election to bring it up it looks like voter suppression - or maybe that is the intent?

Opinion concerning the lose of the election

It is my opinion that the republicans lost the election because they were too confident that they were going to win it. I say this because the republicans wwere sure that they out numbered the democrate that they DID NOT go out to enroll new voters. When I look at the enthusiasm that the democrate showed at the early voting center in Columbus, Ohio, the democrates were totally convenced that they had to get as many democratic voters as they could. I did not see ANY republican workers out trying to convence the voters that Governor Romney was the best choice. I did not actually count the number of democratic workers as the early voting center. I am sure that the number was much greater that the number favoring the republican party. And they were more enthusiastic about the democratic party. This observation is just in the Columbus, Ohio area. I am not sure what happened at early voting centers in other cities across the nation. I am sure that if the republlican workers had exhibited the same amount of enthusiasm as their counter-parts, the number of republican voters who came the voting places would have been greater.

The bottom line is, the democratic party went door-to-door convencing the new voters and existing voters that the LIE that Gov. Romney was infavor of the "wealthy" people and that President Obama was in favor of the "low income" people. If the republican workers had taken the time to explain to the people that Gov. Romney was actually in favor of them, the out come could have been different.

When you think back to the election, the democratic campaign was based on not raising taxes on people who earned $250,000.00 or less. The republicans were going to give tax breaks to millionares. In the "circle" of acquaintances that I run in, if you earned $250,000.00 you would be concidered wealthy. The economic plans of both candidates favored people who earned $250,000.00 or less. If you looked at the finances of most business owners, their their net profit would be less than $250,000.00. The problem as I see it is, the affects of Obamacare will have a great affect on these business owners. This fact was not adequately explained by the republicans in their campaign. If this fact had been "hammered" during the campaign, the results could have been different.

In the debates that were held, Gov. Romney really did not explain that his agenda was actually in their best interest. Talking about world peace and international policies was good and necessary. The problem is, the common, everyday American is more concerned about their individual lives than they are about international affairs. International affairs are important, yes, but not to the extent as their daily needs and concerns are. In my opinion, Gov. Romney did not adequately explain to the common everyday American voter that his policies were in their best interest

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to give my oponion.

James Hemphill