Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Thursday, November 8, 2012

Mitt Romney Lost Because He Was Never Ahead

Posted by on Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Over at HA, Darryl goes to the polling data to make the obvious point:

In the coming weeks, I’m sure we’ll see many hypotheses and analyses, and proposed turning points where the momentum was lost and Romney’s fate was sealed.

But here’s the fact: Romney lost because he was never ahead in the election. Unlike McCain in 2008, Romney was always losing the 2012 election.

This election was no spectacular loss. It was the ordinary loss of a candidate who was always behind. Period.

The aggregate polling data pegged Tuesday night's outcome almost to the decimal point, and it never, ever, ever showed Mitt Romney with a lead. Not once. Republicans can blame Romney's defeat on Superstorm Sandy and Hurricane Christie all they want, but he was already well on his way to defeat.


Comments (14) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
The election was always Obama's to lose. It didn't matter who the Republicans put up against Obama.
Posted by Patr0ck on November 8, 2012 at 3:29 PM · Report this
Matt the Engineer 2
@1 Sure it did. They could have put someone in that was just as inspirational as Obama. Of course they don't have anyone like that, so they had to run Romney as "not Obama".
Posted by Matt the Engineer on November 8, 2012 at 3:34 PM · Report this
Pope Peabrain 3
They just knew Obama's first election was a fluke. A freak of history. Nobody would want to re-elect a president that saved the auto industry. Saved the financial sector. Saved the housing market. Stopped the Iraq war. Set a date to exit Afghanistan. Kill bin Laden. Killed Gadhafi. Appointed the first hispanic to the SCOTUS. Supported gay marriage. Protected a woman's right to choose. Passed healthcare reform. Never going to happen. Naw, their slimy candidate was a shoe-in. But then, who else could they have nominated?
Posted by Pope Peabrain on November 8, 2012 at 3:53 PM · Report this
Reading these posts, it's fascinating to learn that Romney had planned and (sort of) began to carry out his transition effort:…

Have to congratulate Darryl, N, et al. for knowing better than the media and, apparently, the campaigns.
Posted by YellowPup on November 8, 2012 at 4:21 PM · Report this
polkaparty 5
When was McCain ahead in 2008?
Posted by polkaparty on November 8, 2012 at 4:24 PM · Report this
And beyond Obama's 2.5 point win in the popular vote, he had an additional 2 points to give. Obama could have spotted Romney 4.6 points nationwide, lost FL, OH, and VA, and *still* won the election with CO, IA, WI, NH, NV, MI, PA, and whatever other delusional possibilities Dick Morris dreamed up. This Presidential election was not close in the sense of the modern era.

There is a flip side, folks. Dems are not going to control the House of Representatives any time soon. Despite winning generic congressional races 51-49, the Dems lost the House by a healthy margin. Even if Republicans had spotted Dems 6 points (!) in every race, they still would have control over the House. Dems have been quietly and absolutely annihilated in the combination of redist(R)icting and the effectiveness of SuperPAC money in targeted House races.

Frighteningly, Republicans won the lion's share of their seats with safe, but not competitive margins of 10 to 30 points, while Dems won half their seats by 30 points or more; a horrifically inefficient use of votes. Dems only have a quarter of their districts in the 10-30 point range.
Posted by Valpey on November 8, 2012 at 4:44 PM · Report this
@polkaparty McCain was ahead 2nd week of Sept, probably. Then Sarah started giving interviews.
Posted by Valpey on November 8, 2012 at 4:55 PM · Report this

In 2008, McCain led from about 10 March to 1 May 2008. And the race was tied (literally 50% to 50%) from 10th to 20th September, 2008. From: this analysis but specifically, this graph.
Posted by HADarryl on November 8, 2012 at 9:56 PM · Report this
Supreme Ruler Of The Universe 9

Seems odd that the candidate who supposedly has science on his side lost among college graduates.

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe on November 8, 2012 at 9:59 PM · Report this
Barney Frank pointed out that most states had republicans running the redistricting after 2010 and they carved the new districts to maximize their house seats (as parties are wont to do) until 2022.

Even given that tremendous edge, they lost a couple seats in the house.

On the plus side; it's obvious politicians are better at math than they let on. Those districts are some of the finest examples of applied fractal geometry you are ever going to see.

Posted by david on November 8, 2012 at 11:26 PM · Report this
@9: That would surprise me (if you mean Romney did better with college graduates than Obama).

Please cite source.
Posted by david on November 8, 2012 at 11:32 PM · Report this
Bailo, you make no sense. None. Ever.
Posted by sarah70 on November 8, 2012 at 11:50 PM · Report this
Wicked Virgin 13
Romney also lost because republicans hate his guts. They got their marching orders and fell in line, but they always hated him.
Posted by Wicked Virgin on November 9, 2012 at 1:36 AM · Report this
College graduates: Obama 50% Romney 48% pretty much matches final vote. No story here move along Supreme Ruler of Alternate Universe
Posted by LeftCoastLarry on November 9, 2012 at 8:22 AM · Report this

Add a comment


Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy