Stephan Savoia, ASSOCIATED PRESS
Our Take: The post-election finger-pointing continues to poke and prod the Republican Party after last Tuesdays loss: Was this the best strategy? Did the primaries harm each candidates chances? Were Republicans not aware of Americas changing demographics? Many are even questioning whether Mitt Romney was the best choice to run against a charismatic and well-liked President Barack Obama. Would Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum or Jon Huntsman have won more national votes for the Republican Party than Romney? In the following editorial for the New York Times, Ross Douthat weighs the other potential Republican candidates against Mitt Romneys 3 percent margin of loss.
In one of my last pre-election posts, I remarked that the closeness of the election and Mitt Romneys impressive final month of campaigning meant that he would probably enjoy more respect in defeat than is usual for losing presidential candidates. A week later, that prediction looks more than a little premature, mostly because I thought the final outcome would be closer than it was (closer to 50-49 than the 04-esque 51-48 it looks like well end up with), and I didnt realize how completely, wildly off the mark the Romneys campaigns theory of the electorate (a theory that I myself found relatively persuasive, I should note) would turn out to be. Right now, between his pollsters overconfidence and his consultants failure to deliver an effective turnout operation, the epitaph for Romneys campaign looks more cruel than I anticipated: To borrow from Slates John Dickerson, hell be remembered as the numbers guy whose numbers were all wrong.
This is all grist for the longtime Romney skeptic Jonathan Lasts obituary, which includes the following question for anyone who argued that Romney was the most electable candidate available: