Conservatives will claim it’s because Romney stood for nothing — and that’s true in terms of domestic policy. He reversed himself on every major domestic issue, from health care to abortion and tax policy. But on foreign policy he did stand for something: a huge increase in the military budget in spite of our looming bankruptcy, unconditional support for Israel on each and every issue, and war with Iran. This was the main dividing line between the Ron Paulians and the Romneyites, and the main reason why no endorsement from Paul (the elder) was forthcoming. Given the closeness of the election in several key states, particularly Ohio — the state that put the President over the top — support from Paul’s voters would have made the difference.
Much digital ink and wind is being expended today on the interwebs and cable TV lamenting the ineffectiveness of outside spending from conservative-aligned groups in electing Republican candidates. Indeed, some of the largest groups spent incredible amounts of money to what looks to be little effect. Many Republican candidates who had large SuperPACs behind them lost, and in what looked to be winnable races. This wasn't just Mitt Romney - it was down the ballot with candidates like Josh Mandel, Scott Brown, Tommy Thompson and George Allen.
The Washington Post's headline is "Spending by independent groups had little...
And that made all the difference.