In response to:

The Message Romney Missed

Honestly I think Romney's campaign was picture perfect. It's just that, as Bush 43 showed us 8 years ago, incumbents are becoming increasingly harder to beat in Presidential elections. This is why I don't think we should over-analyze what happened earlier in the month. We would do well to stick to the same message and the same messenger too. Wilard Mitt Romney in 2016.
gjmlb Wrote: Nov 21, 2012 8:19 PM
I pretty much agree,and it appears that Romney did not wish to stoop down to his opponents methods,
which is admirable..and noble...to a point, unfortunately maybe a little defense against the smears perperatrated by the Dems would not have hurt.
jolszewski Wrote: Nov 21, 2012 6:50 PM
We had a lot of hope with the economy and cloud of Obamacare hovering over us.

Mitt looked presidential; he walked presidential; he spoke like the president. He was a good man.

With all things in his favor, there were a couple times when the Dems zinged him: 1st when he spoke out against Benghazi; 2nd when Crowley caught him on Benghazi; 3rd when he didn't go after Obama on Benghazi (3rd debate

The post mortems on the presidential campaign continue to pour in, the ones on the botched Romney effort the more interesting (and more depressing for those of us who supported him). President Obama was clearly vulnerable, and Mitt Romney clearly positioned to defeat him.

So what went wrong? Let me add my analysis. Three words: Message. Messenger. Messaging.

The messenger was flawed, unwilling to take risks, unprepared for the Obama political wrecking machine, left dazed and confused Election Night.

If inept messaging could be deemed a felony, this campaign was a crime against humanity. I've never seen...