Why Romney Never Saw It Coming

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2012/11/10/why_romney_never_saw_it_coming_295705.html

Why Romney Never Saw It Coming

He was the numbers guy. But in the end his numbers were all wrong.

Mitt Romney (C) talks with campaign advisors Stuart Stevens (L) and Eric Fehrnstrom.
 Mitt Romney talks with campaign advisors Stuart Stevens (left) and Eric Fehrnstrom on a chartered airplane.

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.

Mitt Romney says he is a numbers guy, but in the end he got the numbers wrong. His campaign was adamant that public polls in the swing states were mistaken. They claimed the pollsters were over-estimating the number of Democrats who would turn out on Election Day. Romney’s campaign was certain that minorities would not show up for Obama in 2012 the way they did in 2008. “It just defied logic,” said a top aide of the idea that Obama could match, let alone exceed, his performance with minorities from the last election. When anyone raised the idea that public polls were showing a close race, the campaign’s pollster said the poll modeling was flawed and everyone moved on. Internally, the campaign’s own polling—tweaked to represent their view of the electorate, with fewer Democrats—showed a steady uptick for Romney since the first debate. Even on the morning of the election, Romney’s senior advisers weren’t close to hedging. They said he was going to win “decisively.” It seemed like spin, but the Boston Globe reports that a fireworks display was already ordered for the victory. Romney and Ryan thought they were going to win, say aides. “We were optimistic. More than justcautiously optimistic,” says one campaign staffer. When Romney lost, “it was like a death in the family.”

How did the Romney team get it so wrong? According to those involved, it was a mix of believing anecdotes about party enthusiasm and an underestimation of their opponents’ talents. The Romney campaign thought Obama’s base had lost its affection for its candidate. They believed Obama would win only if he won over independent voters. So Romney focused on independents and the economy, which was their key issue. The Republican ground game was focused on winning those voters. “We thought the only way to win was doing well with independents and we were kicking ass with independents,” says a top aide. One senior adviser bet me that if Obama won Ohio, he would donate $1,000 for every point that Romney won independents to my favorite charity. (That would be a $10,000 hit since Romney lost Ohio but won independents by 10 points). In the end, Romney won independents nationally by five points—and it didn’t matter one bit.

Meanwhile, the Romney campaign was openly dismissive of the Obama ground game. Why are they wasting so much money with neighborhood offices, they asked? (In Ohio, for example, Obama had almost 100 more offices than Romney.) In retrospect, the Romney team is in awe and full of praise of the Obama operation. “They spent four years working block by block, person by person to build their coalition,” says a top aide. They now recognize that those offices were created to build personal contacts, the most durable and useful way to gain voters.

Romney advisers say it was impossible to compete against Obama’s huge war chest. They also envy his ability to leverage the presidency for his campaign. Young voters were told about new provisions for student loans and Obama’s support for same-sex marriage, an issue that appeals to young voters. Hispanic voters were wooed by the president’s plan to waive the deportation of children of illegal immigrants. One Romney aide also included the much-debated changes to welfare requirements as a policy aimed to win over African-American voters. “It was like they had a calendar,” said one Romney aide. With each month, the Obama administration rolled out a new policy for a different segment of their coalition they hoped to attract. 

Though Romney said he was “severely conservative,” it was the Obama team that played its hand conservatively. They, too, planned for fewer Democrats to show up at the polls, but in their case it was so that their campaign organization would work twice as hard. On election night in Ohio, when turnout exceeded their intentionally conservative estimates in some districts, they knew that they’d win the state 45 minutes before the networks called it. 

It’s not that the Romney camp failed to meet its targets. They say they actually met their voter outreach goals in Ohio. During the summer, they targeted more than 2 million voters who had not voted in party primaries. Those were the independents they believed would be the key to the race. Since the strategy seemed to be paying off with internal and external polls showing Romney leading among independents, the Romney team felt like they were working their plan. “We did everything we set out to do,” says a top strategist about the Ohio effort. “We just didn’t expect the African-American vote to be so high.” African-American participation in Ohio jumped from 11 percent of the electorate to 15 percent between the 2008 and 2012 elections. "We could never see that coming. We thought they'd gotten a lot last time." But that wasn’t the only problem. Romney underperformed George Bush’s results from 2004 in the vast majority of Ohio’s counties, not just the ones with big African-American populations.

In the post-election analysis, the Romney ticket’s problems with Hispanic voters are well-known. During the primaries, Romney ran so far to the right on immigration he lost a platform to even woo Hispanic votes. But African-Americans are treated as if they are in a category altogether unaffected by the campaign. They were going to vote for Obama no matter what. There’s a little John Sununu-like thinking in this. The former New Hampshire governor suggested that Colin Powell was supporting Barack Obama because of his race. (When Condoleezza Rice said that the party sent “mixed messages,” that must have been what she was talking about.)  It’s worth noting though, that if you were an African-American voter, there were plenty of other reasons to vote against Mitt Romney and the Republican Party. Donald Trump has loudly championed that idea that Barack Obama is illegitimate. It was a goofy charge, but one that has cultural resonance with a segment of society whose members have often been discriminated against through  the types of disqualification-hunts that Donald Trump engaged in so vigorously. Mitt Romney embraced no other fundraiser with as much public gusto as he did Trump. The energetic attempts by Republicans in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida to limit voting in a way that disproportionately penalizes African-American neighborhoods might also have helped turn out the Democratic base. What role these acts played is not entirely clear, but it certainly didn’t hurt the Obama team’s effort to inspire African-American voters.

If you’re basing your entire campaign on white people, it leaves you little margin of error. That's where Romney’s troubles as a candidate hurt him. An operative in Ohio also admitted that the Obama abortion ads hurt Romney with women in the Columbus area. So too did the "Romney will raise your taxes on the middle class" ads and the ads attacking his tenure at Bain Capital. Romney couldn't afford to lose any of the white vote, and he did. Since the attacks came at a time when he was short of cash, he was not able to respond adequately.

In the final 10 days of the race, a split started to emerge in the two campaigns. The Obama team would shower you with a flurry of data—specific, measurable, and they’d show you the way they did the math. Any request for written proof was immediately filled. They knew their brief so well you could imagine Romney hiring them to work at Bain. The Romney team, by contrast, was much more gauzy, reluctant to share numbers, and relying on talking points rather than data. This could have been a difference in approach, but it suggested a lack of rigor in the Romney camp. On Election Day, the whole Romney ground-game flopped apart. ORCA, the much touted- computer system for tracking voters on Election Day, collapsed. It was supposed to be a high-tech approach to poll-watching, a system by which campaign workers would be able to track who voted. Those who had not yet voted could therefore be identified and then have volunteers tasked to finding them and getting them to the polls. ORCA was supposed to streamline the process, but it was never stress-tested. Field operatives never saw a beta version. They asked to see it, but were told it would be ready on Election Day. When they rolled it out Tuesday, it was a mess. People couldn’t log on and when they did, the fields that were supposed to be full of data were empty. “I saw a zero and I knew I wasn’t supposed to be seeing a zero,” said one campaign worker. A war room had been set up in the Boston Garden to monitor ORCA’s results, but in the end Romney and Ryan had to watch CNN to find out how their campaign was doing.  In the end, the numbers guy was deprived of his numbers in more ways than one.

所有跟帖: 

simple answer: wrong model. insight: completely misread electora -老忽叔叔- 給 老忽叔叔 發送悄悄話 (354 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 11:04:49

Pathological explanation: DELUSIONAL !! -老忽叔叔- 給 老忽叔叔 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 11:06:01

So delusional, they still think ONLY they represent the America -老忽叔叔- 給 老忽叔叔 發送悄悄話 (105 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 11:07:50

我覺得是他高估了美國人的智商 -Eveline- 給 Eveline 發送悄悄話 Eveline 的博客首頁 (70 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 11:30:39

No, they overestimated FoxNews' influence. -老忽叔叔- 給 老忽叔叔 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 11:31:49

你都有answer了,怎麽還貼這個文章幹嗎?是為了教育BMT上的人嗎? -Eveline- 給 Eveline 發送悄悄話 Eveline 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 11:35:34

顯然不是每個人都知道。 -老忽叔叔- 給 老忽叔叔 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 11:36:10

是了,是為了教育群眾。不過離下次大選還有4年呢, -Eveline- 給 Eveline 發送悄悄話 Eveline 的博客首頁 (75 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 11:39:26

What you don't understand is the seismic shift of US electorate -老忽叔叔- 給 老忽叔叔 發送悄悄話 (133 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 11:43:49

你錯了,我哪個NEWS都不看。 -Eveline- 給 Eveline 發送悄悄話 Eveline 的博客首頁 (386 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 11:50:12

是嗎?你哪個NEWS都不看怎麽知道這些,怎麽觀點與FoxNews正好吻合? -老忽叔叔- 給 老忽叔叔 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 11:52:33

啊,聽人說的。 -老忽叔叔- 給 老忽叔叔 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 11:52:50

這不是news, it is fact. 你不知道這些就投票了? -Eveline- 給 Eveline 發送悄悄話 Eveline 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 12:15:27

I said you are delusional. You are! -老忽叔叔- 給 老忽叔叔 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 12:16:44

你真是狂熱,看誰不選奧巴馬,就說人家是GOP -Eveline- 給 Eveline 發送悄悄話 Eveline 的博客首頁 (33 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 12:23:26

哈哈哈!看看你各壇的言論吧! :)^_^ -SJSharks- 給 SJSharks 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 12:29:17

是啊,我就是不喜歡OBAMA,有什麽錯嗎? -Eveline- 給 Eveline 發送悄悄話 Eveline 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 12:31:04

不喜歡OBAMA,沒錯! 裝令人厭惡! -SJSharks- 給 SJSharks 發送悄悄話 (22 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 12:34:53

要是希拉裏,我早投她的票了。 -Eveline- 給 Eveline 發送悄悄話 Eveline 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 12:32:01

你還挺關注我的貼的哈。。。 -Eveline- 給 Eveline 發送悄悄話 Eveline 的博客首頁 (27 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 12:34:32

隨便一掃便知。關注說不上! -SJSharks- 給 SJSharks 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 12:37:33

我說過你是GOP?我隻說過你delusional,沒說過你是GOP。(是不是俺也不care) -老忽叔叔- 給 老忽叔叔 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 12:47:35

BTW,你的“大赦非法移民”是無中生有。 -老忽叔叔- 給 老忽叔叔 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 11:54:22

這大概就是你說的propaganda吧。把沒有的事說的比真的還真。 -老忽叔叔- 給 老忽叔叔 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 11:56:32

看這裏: -Eveline- 給 Eveline 發送悄悄話 Eveline 的博客首頁 (1568 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 12:21:24

"stop deporting young undocumented immigrants"就是大赦? -老忽叔叔- 給 老忽叔叔 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 12:34:54

你去仔細讀一讀。好,是小赦,不是大赦因為不是所有的非法移民 都能留下 -Eveline- 給 Eveline 發送悄悄話 Eveline 的博客首頁 (95 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 12:42:15

你知道“赦”的意思?你很delusional。 -老忽叔叔- 給 老忽叔叔 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 12:46:01

事實已經給你,你這麽咬文嚼字我就無話可說了。 -Eveline- 給 Eveline 發送悄悄話 Eveline 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 12:50:53

這不是咬文嚼字,這是法規的根本區別!你都不知道你在說什麽。 -老忽叔叔- 給 老忽叔叔 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 12:52:58

還有啊,他們不是留下來這麽簡單 -Eveline- 給 Eveline 發送悄悄話 Eveline 的博客首頁 (55 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 12:47:17

再說一遍,你很delusional。 -老忽叔叔- 給 老忽叔叔 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 12:50:06

老叔,你能不能換個詞啊?怎麽你用的詞兒和你發的貼 -Eveline- 給 Eveline 發送悄悄話 Eveline 的博客首頁 (51 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 12:54:56

俺文化不高認識的字少,收入也不高,買不起幾個詞,你就多擔待吧。 -老忽叔叔- 給 老忽叔叔 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 12:56:36

可以理解。哈哈哈 -Eveline- 給 Eveline 發送悄悄話 Eveline 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 12:57:57

應該說他低估了美國人的智商! -ERommel- 給 ERommel 發送悄悄話 ERommel 的博客首頁 (40 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 13:18:43

擁有postgraduate學位的55%投Obama,42%投Romney。這部分占選民的18%,占總人口的8%。 -老忽叔叔- 給 老忽叔叔 發送悄悄話 (247 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 13:36:55

別說了。如果美國民眾理智一點投票,他應該是美國總統了。 -林起立- 給 林起立 發送悄悄話 林起立 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 11/11/2012 postreply 14:40:05

請您先登陸,再發跟帖!