Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letter: Republican primaries the reason for Romney's election loss’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Nov. 12 2012 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Romney was the pre-chosen candidate for this election cycle. The problem is that Republican primaries force candidates to go far to the right to prevail, and no amount of etch-a-sketching can get them back to where the majority of voters are. The guy who ran Massachusetts as a non-ideological pragmatist could have won this election. The fire-breathing right winger that emerged from the primaries could not.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"Romney had to go through the meat grinder that is the Republican primaries."

By "meat grinder" do you mean that Romney had to pander to the far right wing of the GOP?
Do you mean that he needed to try to show everyone that he was a "Severe Conservative"?
That he would reject a 10-1 spending cuts to revenue? That he would expect Latinos to "self-deport".

If by "meat grinder" you mean that one needs to abandon moderation, common sense and reasonableness in order to get the nomination, then, yes, you are correct.

I believe that this country needs a strong GOP to balance the Dems.

But if the party leaders believe that they lost because they were not "conservative" enough, their party will slowly (maybe quickly) drift into oblivion.

Blue
Salt Lake City, UT

Paul,

That "meat grinder" was built and operated by the SuperPACs that Citizens United made possible.

Remember, it was Newt Gingrich who ran the devastating 30 minute anti-Romney TV program about Bain Capital during the primaries, and Gingrich's campaign would not have even existed without Sheldon Adleson's infusion of more than $10 million into Gingrich's campaign.

"This ugly process left a scent of blood in the political waters, leading the sharks on the left to a feast."

Your slanted hyperbole aside... yes, it's an ugly process. The only way to make it less ugly is to get anonymous corporate influence out of politics. If we can't reduce the amount that corporations spend on elections, at least we should demand that politicians be required to reveal their corporate sponsors.

On the other hand
Riverdale, MD

The fact that we let political parties decide whose names appear on the ballot dramatically increases the likelihood that we'll end up with leaders from the far ends of the political spectrum rather than the middle.

In the end, though, I don't think the nominating process was what did Romney in. In fact, he never would have been nominated under the 2008 rules. The new process is what forced the GOP to move past the "anybody but Romney" mindset.

liberal larry
salt lake City, utah

The Republican primaries were geared towards the far right of the radically right wing Republican party. Unfortunately for the GOP, America no longer looks like the cranky old white guys you hear on Fox News, and AM radio rants. It wasn't the primaries that damaged Mitt's election chances, it was his refusal to stand up to the far, far, right that sunk his presidential aspirations.

You can gift wrap the tired old conservative message any way you want, but if it doesn't appeal to women, Hispanics, Blacks, gays, and young people, the GOP will continue to lose elections.

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

I hope that we never hear from Newt Gingrich or Karl Rove ever again. I was surprised that he still continued to circulate after leaving the House in the 1990's. How come we never hear from Jim Wright or Tom Delay now they have left. Why does he keep reappearing?

The Republicans should have won the women vote "Hugh Hefner does not like us because we don't think that women are objects for his skin magazine." The Republicans should get the youth vote, "We want you to have an individual social security account so the Democrats can't raid your pension to buy votes from well-to-do retirees."

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

The first reason Romney lost was because he was a Republican. Example..your statemnt about our "horrible economic woes". That evaluation does not reflect the way most Americans experience the economy. 8% unemployment means you can argue academicly about the size and speed of the recovery but "most" Americans have not lost their jobs, nor have they experienced much in the way wage deductions that is different than the last two decades.

A 16 trillion dollar deficit may be fodder for conservative rantings, but a 16 trillion dollar deficit with low interest rates, and low taxes doesn't effect the daily lives of anyone. So first and formost Romney lost because Republicans need a reality check. Now it doesn't mean that unemployment and the deficit aren't serious issues but they aren't driving forces in the average Americans daily life.

one old man
Ogden, UT

No, there were many, many reasons why Romney lost.

Americans simply don't like people we can't trust.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

There is an article today about conservative Joe Scarborough saying that the "republican media" lied to their audience. Because of these lies and telling people how good the election was going to be for republicans, they were in a bubble of non-belief. There was no game plan to counter Obama because they all believed that they were going to win.

What a shock. There are plenty of Americans that do not think or feel the way that Fox watchers, Rush listeners do. They had no idea that it was a majority.

Interesting.

KDave
Moab, UT

I saw a reporter asking folks celebrating the Obama victory in Chicago, why they were happy for the victory? They all answered "free stuff". Much of it was false assumsions. Romney offered Jobs and higher pay. We know what the U.S. chose.

Moderate
Salt Lake City, UT

"With that said, Marco Rubio for president in 2016."
I'm sure Mr Rubio doesn't want to spend the next 4 years dodging questions like "do you think pregnancy by rape is God's will?"

The hope for Republicans is that both parties will be running meat grinders in 2016.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

The GOP could dredge reagan up and start grooming him for the 2016 election. But he'll lose unless the party recognises that the nation has matured, evolved and moved on past them and that it's not good politics to bet it all on a dying demographic.

Kent C. DeForrest
Provo, UT

"No need for primary fights to give the other side fodder to work with."

I love this. Let's just do away with democracy (allowing the electorate to have a voice in who the nominee is), as long as we can win and regain control. Let's leave it up to the party bosses to choose our leaders for us. Sounds a lot like how the Kremlin handles things. And here I thought the Republicans were all out of new ideas!

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

The same things were said after 2008.

What happened?

The GOP moved even farther right.

I'm not holding my breath that they're going to change to become more appealing to the masses. If anything, they'll continue to kick folks out of their tent who share moderate views and continue to go off the deep end with their radical special interests. Pretty soon, the only folks voting for the GOP will be mindless Evangelicals, Rush, Rove, and the Koch Bros.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

It's Romney's fault that he ended up in a position where he had to try and convince (to use one example) women that he favored the standard abortion exemptions when during a debate he said absolutely he'd be in favor of eliminating all abortions no exceptions.

Grover
Salt Lake City, UT

Has anyone else noticed that there is already speculation about candidates in 2016? When did "elections" become the main political topic instead of elected reps solving the problems of the nation? The huge divisions in the electorate, mean that the losing party must mobilize soon to raise the money needed to compete. I would guess that early in the New Year, Rick Santorum or Paul Ryan or Rob Portman will announce the formation of an exploratory committee to consider a run for President. Yikes!

How does Britain get away with restricting the madness to 60 days?

Mike in Sandy
Sandy, UT

Rubio? HA! The GOP has a lot of wholesale changes to make if they intend to offer a candidtate that the US finds worthy.
And until such changes are made, you'll likely see San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro in the White House after President Obama.
C'mon...McCain? Palin? Romney?
Give us someone of substance please.

Mike in Sandy
Sandy, UT

Romney might well have won....if he didn't tick off women, students, immigrants, the elderly, most of Europe, his home state, his other home state, his Veep's home state, a bunch of other states, auto workers, the struggling lower class, the struggling middle class, Israel, single parents, gays, straights, small business owners, medium-sized business owners, the businesses he crumbled, unions, families, retirees, veterans...did I leave anyone out?????

Blue
Salt Lake City, UT

KDave: "I saw a reporter asking folks celebrating the Obama victory in Chicago, why they were happy for the victory? They all answered "free stuff". "

Baloney. Name the program. Name the channel. Name the reporter.

Seriously, the conservative belief that those who voted for Obama did so because they were lazy and expected the government to take care of them is simply wrong, offensive, and guarantees the dwindling relevancy of conservatives in future elections.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Republican => Archie Bunker => Rush Limbaugh

See where this is going?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments