Comments about ‘Karl Rove: Here are the 2 tactical fails that cost Romney the election’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, June 27 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
American Fork, UT

I voted against Romney, not for Obama. He was a complete disappointment as a candidate. I was going to vote for him at first, but he slowly lost any confidence I had in him, the 47% comment was the final straw for me. Anyone who believes that half the population of this country are free loaders just waiting for their next government check doesn't deserve to be in the white house.

Please oh please I hope the Republican party can come up with a candidate I can actually vote for in 2016. Chris Cristie, are you reading this? Most likely he will get run out by all the extreme wackos before he even gets a chance.

Saint Louis, MO

Mark Shields of The PBS NewsHour team of Shields and Brooks gave the one reason for Romney's defeat. He said that it was a matter of the perception of "lack of empathy". Karl Rove has lost his credibility and is linked with a failing perception of the Republican Party. Either the party redefines itself and moves to the left or right or the Whigs will have a parallel history as the Republicans continue to fade from view. The target for the Democrats is to have "one party rule" with enough give and take built into the model to make the country grow. My nephew just received a political science degree from the University of Missouri. That is the philosophy that they are being taught. It is "socialism with a human face". There is no room for capitalism. As a Catholic Navy vet who thinks highly of the writings of Malachi Martin, a Jesuit advisor to Vatican II, you can pretty well say that the Catholic Church believes the same. Capitalism is a failed model and conservatives should realize this and work toward the forming of a "Third Rail" in the center of the track.

Centerfield Sanpete, UT

I think he lost because he was out of touch with the common person! Hard for him to relate because he has been rich all of his life, so he has had everything he has wanted without really having to work for it!

Parkesburg, PA

I hope Rove isn't suggesting Romney LOST the election when we all know Obama STOLE the election by out thinking, out hustling and out working Romney's campaign.

Generally speaking the person who runs the most organized, focused, strategic campaign wins. In this case, and for many more reasons than the two Rove points out, that person was Obama.

The funny thing was, Obama's campaign team was so skilled and artful in how they executed their strategy that Romney never saw it coming and believed up until 8:00 PM on election night he would win.

Too bad. In this election anyway, he wasn't the better man.

Denton, TX

Mitt lost because Obama cheated.

Idaho Falls, ID

The only "gift" that I've been offered by Obama is to receive real Medicare health coverage in return for paying 50 years worth of Medicare taxes. The nerve of people like me.

Riverton Cougar
Riverton, UT

Romney lost because the majority of voters are low-information voters. Obama's lies have become more widespread and the American people are just soaking it up. We have seen Obama use this to his advantage in the debates; he would tell a blatant lie, knowing that it will most likely be proven wrong the next day, but that doesn't matter because all people will hear is the lie. They don't end up hearing the correction. All they remember is what Obama said originally.

This is helped by the media which favors Obama 100%. I believe there was a study that showed that in the last few weeks leading up to the election, 0% of the liberal media posted anything negative about Obama (I guess he really is the Savior, then?). Objective reporting in the liberal news media is long gone. Objectivity is apparently undesirable anyway.

Romney lost not because he was not the right choice; he lost because enough people didn't bother to find out who the best choice was and just soaked up whatever the media said without ever questioning it.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

JLFuller said: "When I read the comments here I shake my head. It is as though these folks actually believed what they read in the media. Our nation is made up of low information voters - as Rush Limbaugh puts it. "

When I read the comments like yours I shake my head. It is as though you actually believe what they say on the radio. Our nation is infected by low information listeners of rush limbaugh, sean and glen, I used to listen to rush in the 90's because my father told me how great he was. After a couple years of listening to clever editing, half truths and a lot of speculation based on opinion rather than actual facts, I couldn't listen to all the angry old dittoheads anymore. I grew up and started getting news from several sources and then seeing where they meet, the truth is near there.

Romney lost because the he represents the 1% who have been fleecing this nation for the past 30 years while the trickle down tax theory destroyed the middle class.

Eric Samuelsen
Provo, UT

Romney lost because he was wrong on every major issue. He was wrong on the economy. His economic plan would have destroyed our economy--more tax cuts for rich people, no investment, no employment plan, just more income inequality. He lost because he stood for lunatic notions like 'self-deportation.' He lost because he didn't have a clue on foreign policy. I'm not a big Obama fan, but this was the easiest vote I've ever cast. I voted for a guy who at least understands the issues, and has some sense of economics.

Captain Green
Heber City, UT

Romney lost because the Democrats cheated. There was election fraud like never before. Had it not been for this, Mitt likely would be the president right now. Sad for America that the principles of honesty and integrity have disappeared from the societal and political stage.

one old man
Ogden, UT

Man, these old conservative excuse mantras are becoming awfully stale.

Central Texan
Buda, TX

Rove is right that you can't pin an election loss on any single thing. In Romney's case I think it was the combination of a lot of little things.

* Some have correctly mentioned that the Obama get-out-the-vote efforts. This was especially important in places like Ohio. Many voters who couldn't name the Vice President were nonetheless carted into the polls to vote for someone who had provided them with an ObamaPhone or the like. The failure of the Romney Teams get-out-the-vote software was a minor drag in this effort for Romney.

* The Romney Team, like MANY conservative pundits (Dick Morris, anyone), were relying on flawed polling data. Remember Romney thought, by the latest numbers, that he would win Florida, etc. Morris and others kept trying to adjust the polling upward in favor of Romney by claiming that turnout would be different than the polls suggested. They didn't see that they actually were slightly down in areas they thought they were up in.


Central Texan
Buda, TX

* The undercurrent of anti-Mormon sentiment among some conservatives. Although MANY, such as the Rev. Jeffress sought actively to keep Romney from the nomination with religious references, he at least publicly expressed support in the general election. However, it is hard to believe that with such a strong avoidance by some toward a Mormon candidacy -- so strong they had to convene meetings to decide whom to support as each of the other non-Romneys left the race, finally even settling on Santorum who was their last pick otherwise -- that all such voters went into the booth for Romney.

* The damaging effects of conservative talk-show commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, and others to dampen enthusiasm toward Romney. Rush tries to deny his roll in Romney's loss, but prior to Romney becoming the nominee Rush spent a great deal of time telling his listeners how Romney was the "establishment candidate" (not true), how Romney was a "dry-ball moderate", etc. These characterizations conveyed an unfair bias against Romney beyond a simple political assessment.


Central Texan
Buda, TX

One of the most damaging attacks by conservative pundits against Romney was in the illogical hype over ObamaCare compared to "RomneyCare". Rush spent much airtime trying to tell us how "Romney Advisers" had been instrumental in crafting and pushing through the hated ObamaCare, detailing how these "Romney Advisers" had met with the White House, etc. However, while the Obama Administration had met with some who had been involved with the Massachusetts' health care law, these individuals (Jon Kingsdale, John McDonough, and Jon Gruber) were not "Romney Advisers". They were simply individuals outside the Romney team who had worked on health care issues in the past and were involved in the Massachusetts process. Some in particular were staunch Democrats. Gruber, in particular, had appeared several times on MSNBC as a commentator against Romney. Limbaugh was flat wrong to label Gruber a Romney adviser who promoted and helped fashion ObamaCare. Laura Ingraham fell into the same false rhetoric about Romney's ties to ObamaCare, apparently forgetting that she (along with Santorum) had given full-throated support to Romney in 2008 -- a period also after the signing of the Massachusetts health care law.

The Scientist
Provo, UT

Captain Green wrote:

"Romney lost because the Democrats cheated."

Sour grapes do not become reasonable people.

Try to keep it intelligent and classy... if you are capable of it.

Draper, UT

@andyjaggy: You're not offering an accurate account of what Romney said. What he said was that 47% of voters were going to vote for Obama no matter what. He also said 47% of the population doesn't pay federal income taxes, so his message on lowering taxes wasn't going to connect with them. Therefore, he said his job was to convince the small percentage of independent voters. All three of those statements are demonstrably true. In fact, according to IRS tax data, the percentage of people who don't pay any federal income taxes is more like 50%, so if anything Romney understated the reality of the situation.

Romney also commented on the problem of entitlement programs. It is intellectually dishonest to pretend that there isn't a large segment of society who believe they are entitled to healthcare, food, and housing, especially since that is the platform Democrats have run on for years. Could Romney have been more politically correct? Maybe. However, I personally enjoyed his frankness. I voted for him because he was honest and in all ways the better candidate.

Lake Havasu City, AZ

I think Obama won this election, because the American People do not know a good guy when they see one. One That loves his Country, Is honest, Is a Christian in a Christian nation. but voted for one, possibly when they were not even american citizens, and those who do not love this country and didn't want what was best for the entire country to have a good leader. Demorcrats and Republicans are merely parties, so that the choice can be down to two, Come on America, read the news, wake up, and it won't hurt to learn how to pray before you vote in any more elections,

St Petersburg, FL

I think he lost because he failed to address anyone who was not already a supporter. He wrote off anyone who is on any kind of government assistance as a waste of his time, instead of telling them what a stronger America could mean to them. He should have appealed to their better natures and talked to them about how his plans could give them opportunities to be self sufficient because in fact not everyone who is getting help - really wants to be in that situation. Some of them do want to rise above that. Instead of including them in the conversation, he alienated them. When you realize that about half of the voters are receiving assistance, you are stupid to not realize that you need to win over at least some of them.

The Scientist
Provo, UT

It is pretty simple, really.

There are an estimated 201.5 million U.S. citizens age 18 or over who were eligible to vote in this last election.

Of these, about 55 million were registered Republicans.

About 72 million were registered Democrats.

About 42 million were registered as Independents or some other minor party.

Obama's strategy was straightforward: get those 72 million "out to vote", then try to sway some of those 42 million Independents by:

1) showing that on the issues where Romney is moderate (Healthcare reform), Romney is no different than Obama;

2) showing that on the issues where Romney is "conservative", Romney is too extreme (ala the Tea Party);


3) showing that Romney is all over the map, with no coherent central ideological paradigm (a "flip-flopper") who cannot be trusted even if he does take a (temporary) stand on any given issue. This is also related to Romney being "out of touch".

And it worked!

At least in part because Romney played into this strategy perfectly. And maybe that is because Romney IS actually all those things he was made out to be.

In other words, Obama's campaign showed us the REAL Romney.

Centennial, CO

Romney could have won--but as hard as he worked, he still gave a lot of people (including me) the idea that he didn't really have his whole soul into winning. Rove couldn't have fixed that, no matter how many commercials.

To win a presidential election these days, you have to want it as badly as the Democrats want it--and Romney didn't. To him, it wasn't a blood sport or Game 7 like it is for Democrats; that's how they justify the vote fraud, the lies about opponents, and the other chicanery they always pull.

To Romney, it seemed more of a casual golf or tennis match. You lose--meh...maybe you'll win next time. The exercise is the important thing. And this applies to all the other RINO's as well--squishy moderates don't win not only because they're moderate, but because it's not a super-serious thing to any of them. Maybe it's their vast wealth.

What we conservatives need in every election is not only a good person, but someone who will treat it as a Game 7 and campaign like a Democrat --but without the illegal part.

to comment

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