In response to:

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

true liberal Wrote: Dec 27, 2012 9:56 AM
This was the issue for Romney. He could never put forth a reason to vote for him. He was simply the anti-Obama vote. Many that viewed the election from afar saw the hypocrisy of the author of RomneyCare speaking out against ObamaCare. In addition, the categorization of Libertarians as nutjobs by the GOP also doomed them. Talk radio hosts like Medved and Hewitt called them idiots and then expected their support. If they did not expect or want the Libertarian support then the GOP deserves to be the minority party with people like Boehner leading it
sashamanda Wrote: Dec 27, 2012 10:24 AM
Had Romney been only "the anti-Obama vote," he might have won. Too many would be anti-Obama voters were disgusted by Romney's crony capitalist background, his flip-flopping (outright lies), and his filthy primary campaign. Moreover, the numbers are worse than Barone would have us believe, because at least 10 million more people became eligible to vote since 2008.
Earl29 Wrote: Dec 27, 2012 3:15 PM
You both have good points.
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...

Wednesday, May 22 | 02:20 PM ET
Wednesday, May 22 | 02:20 PM ET
Wednesday, May 22 | 02:20 PM ET
Wednesday, May 22 | 02:20 PM ET