The article gives several very strong reasons for why Governor Mitt Romney and the GOP party should have won the election, such as: "Romney won white voters by 20 points, the largest margin ever for a Republican candidate." However, reasons such as the fact that there are more registered Democrats than Republicans in this nation may give a boost to why they did not win the election. I personally feel that this election has showed how controversial the election was and how racially separated it turned out to be (93% of black voters voted for President Obama). Is this not going to be the case in the 2016 election?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It can be argued that Romney's numerous gaffes cost him the election. The 47% comment and the jeep ad in Ohio were just a few of the slip ups of the Romney campaign. Many people weren't happy with Obama and the economy, and they were looking for a different option. However, because of the Republican party's socially conservative platform, Romney's gaffes, and Romney's lack of specificity, Romney lost an election that, as the article suggested from the 50/50 statistic, was a feasible victory.
ReplyDeleteRomney absolutely should have won (at least from my perspective, but it's fair to say that I'm just a little biased). I'm not sure what about the past 4 years people were voting for (Was it the great job growth? How about that great ObamaCare as healthcare rates still rise and virtually every doctor will tell you that ObamaCare isn't solving anything? Oh I know, how about the great handling of the Benghazi bombings(a real sense of urgency, taking almost 2 months to talk to the lead witness of the TERRORIST attack)?) But I digress [I may still be a somewhat bitter]; it's not so much that most voters chose the record Obama ran on, but that they did not feel that Romney was a better alternative. There was a reason he lost the nomination in 2008, and I think for 2016, Republicans need to go in a different direction for their nomination.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with Grace's viewpoint. I still think that the Romney/Ryan ticket would've been a great team in the white house, but I'm also biased and still a little bitter. I also don't know what about the past four years made America want to reelect Obama, but that's just me. Mitt Romney wasn't my favorite candidate and I more than likely would not have voted for him in the primary (if I could have voted) but I still, to this day, think that the Romney/Ryan ticket was better and more realistic than another dose of Obama/Biden
ReplyDeleteI agree with Grace and Sam. Obama was running a campaign with a rather poor track record (my opinion) and I am still astounded that his way of addressing the Bengazhi attacks or lack-there-of was hardly a topic of debate in the media or a great deciding factor in the vote of voters. I do recognize that I was not in agreement with all Romney had done or his views, but to me he was a more qualified fit for the role of president in our nation's current state. Obviously many people felt Romney was not significantly a more hopeful candidate for president and felt voted for Obama, despite his great inefficiencies.
DeleteI think it's partially due to opinions like Sam's, and kind of what Talia said, that led to people choosing Obama or simply not voting. Sure a lot of people weren't happy with Obama, but Romney wasn't exactly inspiring either, and had plenty of "gaffs." I think with a candidate with different social views, the Republicans may have won.
ReplyDeleteI think it's partially due to opinions like Sam's, and kind of what Talia said, that led to people choosing Obama or simply not voting. Sure a lot of people weren't happy with Obama, but Romney wasn't exactly inspiring either, and had plenty of "gaffs." I think with a candidate with different social views, the Republicans may have won.
ReplyDeleteTo win an election you must appeal to a vary of different groups and Obama did a better job at that and that is why he won the election. Romney did better with white voters, but America is very diverse therefore it doesn't really matter that Romney appealed to white voters.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Grace's viewpoint that more people were voting not for Obama but against Romney. Also the huge difference in minority voting margins can also in part be brought back to the perception that the Republican party is perceived as being primarily old white men.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Republican party definitely should have chosen an alternative candidate to Romney this past election. It's hard to see how Obama's last four years were successful enough for an encore, however, I agree that the electorate voted for Obama to avoid Romney. For victory in 2016, the Republicans really need to reconsider their image and find a way to appeal to others besides the old, white man.
ReplyDeleteWhile a lot of people weren't too pleased with Obama's first term, he turned out to be the better candidate to run the country for the next 4 years. Look who won the election, not Romney. end of story.
ReplyDeleteThe title of the article states "Why Republicans Should Have Won", but I was not convinced by the end of the article why exactly they should have won. Yes, the numbers indicate that had the white population made up 77% of the electorate instead of the current 72%, then the outcome of the election may have differed. Still, I am left wondering how that indicates that Obama should have lost. Because the nation's demographics are constantly changing (based on the statistics), it would be in the best interest of both candidates to keep this change in mind when campaigning instead of comparing the stats from this election to other ones afterward to explain why a candidate should have secured a win.
ReplyDeleteLooking back to our pre-election day class discussion, it seems strange to think that we talked about how close this election was going to be between the Republicans and the Democrats. This just shows that, although people may have a hypothesis on the outcome of a presidential election, one can never be certain. Statistics are not perfect because there will always be error. In this case, the statistical data generated by some of the news stations were incorrect in stating that "governor Mitt Romney had a 50-50 chance of winning the presidency," just as Republicans believed.
ReplyDeleteThis article relates back to what we were talking about right after the election, with the Republican party needing serious reform. In a nutshell I think that is what it comes down to. The Republican party needs to reassess its platform, and become united again.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't just around racial lines even though there is a significant group there. Many blacks voted for Obama because he was black, but a lot of people voted against Obama because he was black as well. Black people also are statistically poorer than whites so voting for a Democrat also makes more sense to them. Also more registered Democrats is not a fair observation because Democrats have less party loyalties than Republicans so many of those Democrats could have voted cross lines. If you ask me, Romney's multiple gaffes coupled with the fact that he was indecisive and had ever-so-changing opinions on everything that wasn't business and the military really just sunk his ship. One could argue that he did not do an adequate job in differentiating himself from Bush and that overall, Obama just seemed more truthful and likeable then Romney. While Obama may not have had the greatest term, he also had a good reason why (look what he came in with, gridlock, etc.). Seriously guys we're coming out of a recession, I will take slow growth over an attempt to make fast growth that may possibly fail and cause us to fall even further.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't have said it any better than Brian just did. Obama appeal to a much broader range of people and that's what a president should do. A presidential candidate should represent the ideas of one demographic but of the majority of the people. Secondly it's pretty difficult to really get much done at all as president if youre brought into a falling economy, two wars, and a divided and stagnent congress, which means creating a very solid record or outstanding record in 4 years is an incredibly tall task and any sort of growth or recovery (no matter how small) is always better.
ReplyDeleteI agree with those who say that Romney's slip-ups could have been his ultimate downfall, specifically the 47% comment. Also, to those or whoever said that the race was racially divided was also probably true. Romney had a major advantage in the white vote but the 93%of black votes really made the difference. Also, I agree with Burtt and Brian that he is just a more appealing candidate. He's always been viewed as a great guy compared to Romney.
ReplyDeleteKatie Lauser said it best by far. Obama did not deserve a second term but most people voted for him to avoid Romney and the unchanging, rigid Republican party. For a victory in 2016, the Republican party must appeal to voters far beyond their normal platform even if that means mildly upsetting their most strict, reliable voters.
ReplyDeleteI believe that if an article states, why the Republicans should have won, it should provide the back up information to prove the thesis. I also believe that an election cannot be seen as a shoe in and nobody "should or shouldn't win". I thought the election was going to be a lot closer than it was but it wasn't as I expected.
ReplyDelete