Republican primaries the reason for Romney's election loss

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Nov. 13, 2012 1:48 p.m.

    To "Ali'ikai 'A'amakualenalena" if liberals "value freedom, personal responsibility, and individual achievement" then explain the following things that democrats have done and said:

    NY Ban on 16 oz sodas. Isn't NY trying to take away our freedom to do what we want to people getting fat?

    How about SS or Medicare. Those systems were set up to take the responsibility for retirement away from the individual.

    How about the fact that all of the major social welfare programs in the past 100 years that were set up by Democrats. Don't those programs tell us that you don't need to take responsibility for yourself?

    As for individual achievement, let me quote Obama. "if you've got a business, you didn' t build that." Sure sounds like he doesn't believe in individual achievement.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Nov. 13, 2012 1:10 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" yes, we do see where this is going. We can see that liberals are even more clueless about conservatives than they have been in previous years. You and your ilk only go to show that liberals lack the desire and possibility to understand conservativism. Instead, you prefer to use the myths propagated by the media as a basis for your beliefs.

    Also, how do you know that it was the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that racked up the debt? Why wasn't it government waste or social welfare programs that increased the debt? Right now about 33% of our debt is due to Obama's social engineering through deficit spending, yet you have no problem with that. Why won't you look at the massive debt that Obama has created?

  • E. Hindman Ogden, UT
    Nov. 13, 2012 11:08 a.m.

    8% unemployment - 2002 unemployment percentages were between 5.7% to 6%. It's a given that we will always have unemployed individuals. So is 8% so out of whack?
    Free stuff from Obama - share the source on that KDave. Just like the 'Obama phone' a program created by a former president. Romney offered jobs - yeah, non-livable wage jobs at Staples. Higher pay - yep, for the 1-2%. Oh wait, which day did he make that offer, because I am sure he would have changed those statements within a week.

    Mike in Sandy - spot on.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Nov. 13, 2012 7:51 a.m.


    You know what they say about bad pennies (in relation to Newt).

    As for the Dems raiding your pension, if you'd followed the Rep plan and invested all your savings in the stock market prior to the Bush years, you'd have also lost it all during the Bush years.


    I don't understand how Romney intended to keep his promise of "higher pay". Was he going to force corporations to pay better wages?


    Zombie Reagan for President! (Does he have two-terms again if he comes back from the grave?)

    Ali'ikai 'A'amakualenalena;

    Very well put!

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Nov. 13, 2012 7:36 a.m.

    Republicans and their hate filled agendas are the reason Romney lost the election.

  • Ali'ikai 'A'amakualenalena Provo, UT
    Nov. 12, 2012 3:52 p.m.

    Conservatives delude themselves when they say that liberals are not "real Americans" and who don't value freedom, personal responsibility, and individual achievement. They refuse to see the commonality of all Americans by uttering these untruths and fail to acknowledge the significance of process. It's all about "How do we get there from here?"

    The process is where we need to place the emphasis in the discussion, not that one side is always "right" and the other side is always "wrong" by definition. Inciting hostility will not get us where we want to go. Differences can be a strength and can be a weakness at the same time. It all depends how we want to proceed going forward.

    Those bemoaning the "loss of America" are remembering an America that never was. When they spoke of "taking back America", it begged the question, "from whom, exactly?" It's all political noise and partisan malarkey. You have to have vision and look long term to cut through the nonsense that prevails at this time and move on.

    People need to put things in perspective. Disappointment? OK. Ego bruising? OK. Wholesale destruction? No way! Life goes on. This all will pass.

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 12, 2012 3:22 p.m.

    Republicans need to lance the Fox News and Tea Party boils and move more toward the pragmatic center. Romney's biggest problem was more that, though successful as a moderate in Massachusetts, he tried to sound as conservative as possible for those rightwing Republicans in his presidential campaign. The best choice would be have been another candidate with Utah connections - the moderate Jon Huntsman Jr. Maybe they should seriously consider someone like him in 2016. Even if it angers Fox News pundits and the Tea Party, are they going to vote for the liberal over a moderate?

  • Mad Hatter Provo, UT
    Nov. 12, 2012 3:15 p.m.

    The Republican Party has moved inexorably to the Right over the last 30 years. It has become smaller and more ideological, casting out moderate Republicans, those suspected of being moderate Republicans, and anyone else who objected to the extreme shift were called RINOs. Romeny recognized that he had to become "severely conservative" if he wanted to gain the Republican nomination. It is believed that Ronald Reagan would not be welcome in the Republican Party today, but the myth of Ronald Reagan will continue to be a centerpiece of the Party for the forseeable future.

    Democrats really run the gamut from extremely liberal to conservative. Many so-called moderate Republicans could easily exist as Blue Dog Democrats. Many political specialists say that America is politically Center-Right, which is possibly true, but it is much closer to the Center than to the Right.

    No one understands this better than professional, political operatives which is why Romney had to etch-a-sketch himself to the middle for the general election. Similarly, Barack Obama recognizes that he must govern near the middle to succeed. Venturing too far, either Left or Right, from the Center is self-defeating.

  • Kim Cedar Park, Texas
    Nov. 12, 2012 2:45 p.m.

    The republican party has been on this conservative trajectory so long now that I am not sure that they can change enough in just one election cycle to regain enough of the center of the electorate to win the presidency. Some of the Red states, including the one that I am from, are still following that conservative trajectory in spite of the election results. There is considerable discussion in the party that they are still not conservative enough!! Changing course is going to be long, tortuous process given the conservative momentum of the party over the last several years. It may take several election cycles for them get competitive again on the national level. This is what happened to the Democrats in the 70's and 80's. I am hoping for sooner, because the country is better served by two competitive parties.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    Nov. 12, 2012 2:05 p.m.

    Mike, you failed to mention that Mitt did very poorly with Asians!

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    Nov. 12, 2012 1:27 p.m.

    When you (romney) spot your opponents 47%, it can proved to be too much for even romney (who gave his opponents 47%) to overcome.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 12, 2012 1:25 p.m.

    Speaking for "Free Stuff" --

    How did Republicans ever plan on paying for their wars in the Middle East that have rang up 25% of our national debt?

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 12, 2012 12:43 p.m.

    Repubs need to start acting like it's 2012 and not the 1950s.
    Climate change is real, according to climatologists, just because Glenn Beck says they are wrong (with no basis for his opinion), doesn't mean it isn't real.
    Your nominee received a $79,000 tax break for a horse. One horse. $79,000 break. Stop promoting a broken tax system. Raise taxes AND cut spending. Any politician who says otherwise is fooling the country and themselves.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 12, 2012 11:59 a.m.

    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". "

    Last I checked, Republicans wanted Romney's 20% across the board tax cut and spending cuts to unspecified things that would conveniently not hurt them at all.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 12, 2012 11:29 a.m.

    Republican => Archie Bunker => Rush Limbaugh

    See where this is going?

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 12, 2012 10:47 a.m.

    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.

  • Mike in Sandy Sandy, UT
    Nov. 12, 2012 10:25 a.m.

    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?????

  • Mike in Sandy Sandy, UT
    Nov. 12, 2012 10:21 a.m.

    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.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 12, 2012 10:21 a.m.

    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?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 12, 2012 9:52 a.m.

    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.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Nov. 12, 2012 9:46 a.m.

    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.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Nov. 12, 2012 9:36 a.m.

    "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!

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Nov. 12, 2012 9:31 a.m.

    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.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 12, 2012 9:00 a.m.

    "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.

  • KDave Moab, UT
    Nov. 12, 2012 8:58 a.m.

    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.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 12, 2012 8:43 a.m.

    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.


  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Nov. 12, 2012 8:18 a.m.

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

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

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Nov. 12, 2012 7:46 a.m.

    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.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Nov. 12, 2012 7:45 a.m.

    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."

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    Nov. 12, 2012 7:06 a.m.

    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.

  • On the other hand Riverdale, MD
    Nov. 12, 2012 6:42 a.m.

    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.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 12, 2012 5:48 a.m.


    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.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Nov. 12, 2012 5:19 a.m.

    "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.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 12, 2012 12:47 a.m.

    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.