In response to:

Obama's Numbers Went Down, but Romney Never Inspired Voters to Vote

Earl29 Wrote: Dec 27, 2012 1:22 PM
Right, tncdel, don't let reality change your preconceptions. The candidates job is not to be qualified to do this or that; his job is to win.
Earl29 Wrote: Dec 27, 2012 1:54 PM
Voting against Obama was good enough for me, but obviously not for others.
It wasn't hatred for Mormons or even for moderate Republicans. Romney won the nomination claiming to be a conservative. Remember? He had no trouble attacking his conservative opponents, but he could not bring himself to attack Obama. He did not show enough contrast to Obama to get conservatives to come out. I was not being ironic. You can't beat the big government candidate by being the not quite as big government candidate.
Illbay Wrote: Dec 27, 2012 1:39 PM
You nailed it - assuming you're not being ironic.

The fact is, we award good campaigners with jobs that often they aren't qualified to hold. And we punish those - like Mitt Romney - who are imminently qualified for office because they don't "sizzle" in their campaigns.

I thought the hatred of Obama would be enough. I didn't reckon that so many "conservatives" would hate Mormons or moderate Republicans so much as to help retain Obama.
In combing through the results of the 2012 election -- apparently finally complete, nearly two months after the fact -- I continue to find many similarities between 2012 and 2004, and one enormous difference.

Both of the elections involved incumbent presidents with approval ratings hovering around or just under 50 percent facing challengers who were rich men from Massachusetts (though one made his money and the other married it).

In both cases, the challenger and his campaign seemed confident he was going to win -- and had reasonable grounds to believe so.

In both elections, the incumbent started running a barrage...