Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Romney's analysis of defeat is a perfect example of why he lost -- he doesn't even understand democracy

This is almost too easy.

But here goes...

Do you want to know one reason Mitt Romney failed to connect with enough voters to win the presidency? All you have to do is read his analysis of the election today -- a week later -- in the New York Times. Speaking to his campaign staff he said:

“You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free health care, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity, I mean, this is huge,” he said. “Likewise with Hispanic voters, free health care was a big plus. But in addition with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group.”

It is obvious, first, that Romney can't fully imagine such a person. It is also obvious he can't imagine these aren't very good reasons for such a person to not vote for him.

Does he actually expect voters to cast ballots against their self interest? I guarantee you damn few millionaires did.

More telling, does he actually think these aren't good things for government to provide for people? If he wanted any clue to his loss -- and clearly he didn't -- he'd have added something like, 'Why didn't I think of that?' The answer, of course, is two-fold -- 1) He didn't realize these two groups of people would actually want these things because he can't possibly imagine the lives they lead, and 2) the hard core ideologues in his party wouldn't even entertain such ideas.

They'd be about as likely to entertain a Hispanic family for dinner in their homes.

This one about students is just as bad:

“With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest, was a big gift,” he said. “Free contraceptives were very big with young college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008.”

Hey, no shit. Somebody needed to look him in the eye and say, "And...uh... what's wrong with that?"

In defeat, the Republican candidate illustrated nicely that he, like his supporters who assumed from Rasmussen polls he had a lock on the presidency, lives inside the Fox News bubble. He also lives inside the Millionaire club bubble. And, it is more than obvious he is bubbly naive about the people he sought to govern.  Naive on a grand scale.

This is reminiscent of another Republican presidential candidate who was shocked to learn supermarkets had scanners at the checkout counter.

Can you 'buy' the 47 percent with programs that will enhance their lives and level the playing field? How could any thinking politician think otherwise. That is, believe it or not, the definition of the rational voter.

Which means Mitt Romney is also clueless about the essence of democracy and the design of the American system. Jeeeze. And he wanted to be president.

-- Lofflin

No comments:

Post a Comment