How Race Slipped Away From Romney

Sara Murray and Patrick O'Connor, The Wall Street Journal, 11/08/12

BOSTON—Mitt Romney is one of the wealthiest men ever to run for president. And yet the lack of money earlier this year stalled his campaign, and he never really recovered.

The GOP nominee emerged late last spring from a long and bruising Republican primary season more damaged than commonly realized. His image with voters had eroded as he endured heavy attacks from Republicans over his business record. He also felt compelled to take a hard line on immigration—one that was the subject of debate among his advisers—that hurt his standing with Hispanic voters.

More than that, Mr. Romney had spent so much money winning the nomination that he was low on cash; aides, seeing the problem taking shape, had once considered accepting federal financing for the campaign rather than rely on private donations.

[More from WSJ.com: Not Everyone Is Happy to See Political Ads End]

The campaign's fate led on Wednesday to second-guessing and recriminations among Republicans chagrined that a seemingly winnable race slipped away. Some Republicans wondered whether the Romney campaign had misjudged the power of President Barack Obama's coalition, while others were questioning Mr. Romney's and the party's approach to immigration.

Back in spring, the Romney campaign's biggest worry was money. So the campaign's finance chair, Spencer Zwick, huddled with political director Rich Beeson to craft a complex schedule that took Mr. Romney to the cities that were prime real estate for fundraising.

It meant visits to places like California, Texas and New York—none of which were important political battlegrounds—while only allowing for quick side trips to swing states that Mr. Romney would need to win to become president.

On one level the strategy worked: Mr. Romney ultimately garnered some $800 million or more, putting him in close competition with Mr. Obama's robust fundraising effort.

But Mr. Romney paid a deep political price. The fundraising marathon reduced his ability to deliver his own message to voters just as the Obama campaign was stepping in to define the Republican candidate on its terms. Mr. Romney's heavy wooing of conservative donors limited his ability to move his campaign positions to the center, to appeal to moderate and independent donors.

The search for cash led him to a Florida mansion for a private fundraiser where Mr. Romney would make the deeply damaging, secretly recorded remarks where he disparaged and dismissed the 47% of Americans who don't pay taxes.

In the end, Mr. Romney lost nearly every swing state. Other factors contributed to his defeat, of course, including difficulty making voters warm to him and a dearth of support among Hispanics.

But in the eyes of top aides in both campaigns, that early summer period when Mr. Romney was busy fundraising was perhaps the biggest single reason he lost the election.

The Obama campaign spent heavily while Mr. Romney couldn't, launched a range of effective attacks on the Republican nominee and drove up voters' negative perceptions of Mr. Romney.

The problem: Mr. Romney had burned through much of his money raised for the primaries, and by law, he couldn't begin spending his general-election funds until he accepted the GOP nomination late in the summer.

The money crunch didn't totally take the Romney camp by surprise. Long before Mr. Romney secured the nomination, his closest advisers began plotting what it would cost to wage an effective campaign against Mr. Obama in the general election. Mr. Zwick, his finance chief, assumed the best way to handle cash needs would be to raise money from private donors, rather than accept the public financing the government offers presidential candidates, advisers said.

[More from WSJ.com: The Long-Term Economic To-Do List]

Mr. Zwick looked at fundraising markets in every state and sketched out a schedule for Mr. Romney, his wife Ann, and his yet-to-be-named running mate. He decided the payoff from fundraising was worth the investment of the candidate's time. Analytical decisions like that one were the campaign's mantra. In interviews, staffers called it the "Bain way."

In August, when Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan was announced as Mr. Romney's vice presidential pick, Mr. Ryan's fundraising schedule was released the same day: 10 events by the end of the month.

Mr. Romney's finance team was vigilant in its efforts to ensure fundraising jaunts would be worth his time. Every other month the campaign's state finance chairmen met for a roughly four-hour meeting with Romney staffers. During the meeting, fundraisers had to stand in front of their peers and report whether they had hit their fundraising target.

If the local finance chairman fell short of their targets, the campaign sometimes canceled its fundraising stops there, a finance staffer said.

The real cost, though, was in the lost opportunity to use Mr. Romney to do other campaigning to introduce himself to general-election voters on his own terms. Aside from a five-day bus tour of six, mostly Midwestern states, Mr. Romney's highest profile summer campaign event was a problem-plagued overseas trip one aide called "total chaos." Even in that trip's schedule were nestled two fundraisers, one in London, another in Israel.

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign and a super PAC helping it, Priorities USA Action, had unveiled ads attacking the centerpiece of Mr. Romney's resume, his record as the head of private-equity firm Bain Capital. The ads portrayed Mr. Romney as the heartless leader of a company that gobbled up companies and then slashed jobs.

The cash shortfall hindered the Romney campaign's response; to get through the sparse time, the campaign took out a $20 million loan.

Bob White, a former Bain executive who has long followed Mr. Romney, formed a team to research Bain investments so the campaign was prepared with a rapid response whenever one was questioned. Mr. White sought out more than a dozen chief executives of companies that benefited from Bain Capital investments to offer narratives of prosperous investments to balance out the ones that had soured. The campaign posted more than a dozen of them on a website lauding Mr. Romney's "sterling business career." But they couldn't afford to air the testimonials in television ads, an adviser said.

Meanwhile, Mr. Romney's two top strategists, Russ Schriefer and his partner Stuart Stevens, started to craft an ad strategy around their slim bank account. In focus groups, swing voters kept asking: What would Mr. Romney would do if elected?

They prepared spots explaining what Mr. Romney would do in the opening days of his presidency: approve construction of an oil pipeline to Canada, cut taxes and replace Mr. Obama's health-care law with "common-sense reforms." Yet the team didn't even have enough money to air their ad in the Washington, D.C., media market, therefore ignoring the sprawling suburbs of Northern Virginia—a key to a swing state that Mr. Romney badly needed to win.

As Mr. Romney struggled, a group of flush Republican super PACs stepped in to lend the presumed GOP nominee air cover. The biggest, American Crossroads and its affiliate Crossroads GPS, realized early that the Obama team would front-load its advertising to attack Mr. Romney when he couldn't return fire.

Former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a Crossroads adviser, referred to this phase as "the interregnum," and he reminded the group and its donors that former President Bill Clinton used this phase to undercut then Sen. Bob Dole in 1996 before he became the Republican presidential nominee.

[More from WSJ.com: After Election, Labor Leaders Plan Next Steps]

Between mid-April, when Mr. Romney effectively locked up the nomination, and the Republican convention at the end of August, the Obama campaign outspent the Romney camp $173 million to $75 million, according to data compiled by the Campaign Media Analysis Group.

But thanks in large measure to super PACs, Republicans outspent the Obama campaign and its Democratic allies over the same period by roughly $50 million, shelling out nearly $250 million compared with $198 million for Democrats, according to the same figures.

Still, the super PACs were better at attacking Mr. Obama than building up Mr. Romney, and the Republican's "likability" ratings with voters stayed low. With few public appearances and little to spend on ads, the campaign couldn't gain any momentum. An adviser described it as a campaign of "fits and starts."

Mr. Romney, meanwhile, kept making his conservative talking points to donors and never moved to the political center. It was during those months that Mr. Romney was filmed at a fundraiser in Florida dismissing 47% of Americans as Obama supporters because they receive government benefits or don't pay taxes and wouldn't be amenable to Mr. Romney's message of small government and lower tax rates. "My job is not to worry about those people," Mr. Romney said in the video. "I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

The campaign also never figured out how to get beyond a damaging policy position from the primary season, a tough line on overhauling immigration laws. Mr. Romney refused to embrace legislation that might give some illegal immigrants long in the U.S. a path to citizenship, and instead advocated what he called "self-deportation."

Struggling to win the primary, the campaign's political team decided Mr. Romney needed to draw a contrast on the immigration issue to differentiate himself from the other Republicans on stage. The candidate's hard-line stance alienated Hispanic voters, which would prove a critical failing in the fall general election.

By early September, the Romney campaign was slumping and trailing badly in the polls. The first presidential debate offered what might be its last shot at a turnaround.

On a dreary Tuesday in early September, Mr. Romney and his top brass descended on the remote Vermont estate of Kerry Healey, Mr. Romney's former Massachusetts lieutenant governor, for debate preparations.

Beth Myers, a senior campaign adviser who was managing preparations, decided Mr. Romney had better dive into debate preparations—which the candidate disliked—head first. After just one mock session, senior Romney staffers were blown away—with Rob Portman, the Ohio senator picked to portray Mr. Obama.

Mr. Portman mastered Mr. Obama's policies and mannerisms so completely that Romney aide Peter Flaherty referred to him as "Mr. President" even when they bumped into each other on the trail.

"It was game on," said Mr. Flaherty, who played each of the three debate moderators.

Mr. Romney, meanwhile, worked on compressing his responses into two-minute tidbits. Just days before the first debate, Messrs. Romney and Portman, dressed in suits, took the stage at the Back Bay Events Center in Boston for a final rehearsal. Aides there said Mr. Romney's answers were crisp, and he parried Mr. Portman's attacks with ease. Afterward, Lanhee Chen, the campaign policy director, called his wife and told her, "Mitt's ready."

Minutes into the first debate Romney advisers saw their candidate was poised and relaxed with an easy grasp of the facts behind his answers. Obama advisers could tell the president was off his game.

Throughout the debate, the Republican nominee highlighted his work with Democrats during his four-year stint as Massachusetts governor, reassuring voters he planned to reach across the aisle as president, too.

Romney advisers say he always intended to make that point, because it cut to the heart of voters' main complaint against Mr. Obama.

Ending partisan gridlock "was his biggest promise, and so therefore, it may be his biggest failure," Mr. Schriefer said.

The first debate reshuffled the race. Obama aides traded concerned emails about how to get their campaign back on track even before it concluded.

In the end, postdebate bumps in polls and money weren't enough to change his fate. On Tuesday, Mr. Romney managed to flip just two states Mr. Obama won in 2008, Indiana and North Carolina. (Florida remains too close to call.) Mr. Obama won the Electoral College contest easily.

By early evening Mr. Romney said he had only written one speech: A victory speech that stood at 1,118 words, unedited. Late that night, he delivered a concession speech that came in at just 646 words.

"I so wish that I had been able to fulfill your hopes," Mr. Romney told a somber crowd in a not-quite-full ballroom at the Boston convention center. "But the nation chose another leader."

The day after his loss, Mr. Romney stopped by headquarters to visit staffers and thank them for their efforts.

He didn't hint at what he would do next, only saying "I'm not going away," one staffer said.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/how-race-slipped-away-from-romney.html

Why Romney Lost: Conservative Commentary Roundup

From the conservative point of view, why did Mitt Romney lose a presidential election that Steve Forbes and many others were predicting would be, in Steve’s words, a “decisive victory” for the Republican challenger?

Susan Adams, Forbes Staff, 11/07/12

Here at Forbes, opinion editor John Tamny writes that it was Romney’s economic advisers who cost him the election. Columbia business school dean Glenn Hubbard is too much of a skeptic on China trade, and he was misguided when he advocated policies that would increase demand for housing at a time when markets were calling for less investment in the sector. Harvard economist Greg Mankiw supported a cheaper dollar, a policy that is damaging to Americans’ efforts to save and invest. American Enterprise Institute economist Kevin Hassett supported a misguided work-sharing idea where companies would reduce hours for some employees and create more jobs for others, missing the point that job creation comes from expanded investment, rather than slicing a finite pie. On taxes, Romney failed to explain his plan in the debates, and retreated from the idea that the 1% boost the economy, rather than drag it down. In an election that should have been a landslide, writes Tamny, Romney “had the wrong people whispering in his ear about economic policy.”

At The Wall Street Journal, today’s lead editorial calls Obama’s victory “the definition of winning ugly” because instead of laying out an inspiring agenda for his second term, he portrayed Romney “as a plutocrat and intolerant threat” to various voting blocs that ultimately supported Obama, including single women, young people, cultural liberals, union workers and minority voters. The Journal also notes that Obama got a boost from Hurricane Sandy, as it gave Obama the chance to rise above partisanship and appear to be a strong leader. Obama also owes thanks to Chief Justice John Roberts, who “provided a salve of legitimacy” to Obamacare, and to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, whose monetary policies lifted asset prices, boosting the stock market and consumer confidence. The Journal says Romney failed effectively to defend his Bain Capital record, and faltered in his efforts to distinguish his economic plan from George W. Bush’s. When it came to the minority vote, Romney also failed, sticking to immigration policies that were unpopular with Hispanics.

At The National Review, Kevin Williamson says Romney’s downfall was his failure to sway Ohio voters, but Williamson does not so much blame Romney as attribute Obama’s victory to the president being a “skillful demagogue,” who capitalized on Ohioans’ support of the auto bailout, their opposition to low capital gains taxes for the wealthy and their reluctance to see a repeal of Obamacare.

Also at the Review, Michael Tanner writes that it was not the Romney campaign that lost the election, but the Republican Party, which has failed to expand its demographic reach beyond white men. Republicans also failed to persuade young voters and Republicans’ hard-line stance on immigration failed miserably with Hispanics, who helped Obama carry Nevada and Colorado. On social issues, Tanner says the Republicans have struck the wrong tone, sounding “intolerant and self-righteous” as they have opposed abortion rights and gay marriage. “The Republican brand was too easily associated with the words of Todd Akin,” he writes. The Republicans also made a mistake when they indulged the “birther” proponents, and ultimately failed to offer an agenda for the future that was positive and hopeful enough to persuade swing voters.

Carrie Lukas, managing director of the Independent Women’s Forum, writes on the Review’s blog that Republicans needed to counter the Democrats’ “war on women” argument. Romney and his camp should have clarified that they were not trying to restrict women’s access to contraception, and they never made a winning argument about why Republican economic policies would be more likely to create jobs for women and reduce the deficit.

At The Washington Examiner, Byron York has a revealing piece where he describes a meeting late last night between top Romney aides, including Beth Myers and Eric Fehrnstrom, who gathered at the Westin Hotel in Boston to discuss the reasons for Romney’s defeat. Hurricane Sandy had arrested Romney’s momentum at a critical point in the campaign. Another factor: the Romney camp didn’t effectively counter the barrage of Obama ads over the spring and summer that attacked Romney’s personal wealth and his record at Bain Capital. Romney’s aides also acknowledged the candidate’s failure to appeal to Latino voters, and his lag in moving to the center after the polarizing primary season.

Erick Erickson, editor of RedState, writes that Romney lost because Obama simply ran a superior campaign. Says Erickson, “there was just a really good ground game from Barack Obama and a lot of smoke and mirrors from Team Romney and outside charlatans,” including those who worked for Republican Super PACs, who never communicated an effective message. Erickson says, “Neither side put forth a serious agenda that stood for much of anything.” While Obama’s message was an attack on Romney, Romney “stood for nothing and everything at the same time.” Romney’s position-shifting blurred his message and made it tough for voters to know what he stood for. Also he didn’t even try to win the support of Hispanic voters. Erickson adds that the weak slate of GOP senate nominees, including Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, hurt Romney’s prospects.

John Podhoretz at The New York Post agrees with Erickson that Obama’s campaign was far superior to Romney’s. Not only was the president’s message more effective, but he ran a strong state-by-state get-out-the vote effort that delivered his victory. Obama also effectively persuaded voters that he inherited an America that was in dire straits when he took office, and worked hard to make things better, rallying the Democratic base and spurring those who had stayed home during the 2010 midterm elections to come out and vote. That included young people, African-Americans, Hispanics and, as Podhoretz says, “the killer app of 2012,” single women. Concludes Podhoretz, “I fear very much what [Obama] is going to do to the country, but you have to admire this political master and his amazing handicraft.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2012/11/07/why-romney-lost-conservative-commentary-roundup/

Exit Polls: Obama's Winning Coalition of Women and Non-Whites

MATT NEGRIN (@MattNegrin), 11/06/12

A coalition of women and nonwhites helped re-elect President Obama to a second term tonight.

Obama has always performed better with women than with men, and with nonwhites than with whites. But tonight those numbers were so much in his favor that they built Obama a powerful firewall against a dropoff in support from white men and independent voters.

Nonwhite voters turned out to vote in higher numbers than ever. They made up 21 percent of all voters. In 1996, they were just 10 percent.

That new bloc was evident in Florida, the perennial swing state that was thought to be in Mitt Romney's corner. Hispanics came out in force for Obama, in greater numbers than in 2008 when Obama beat John McCain among Hispanics in Florida 57 to 42 percent. Today he beat Romney among Hispanics 60 to 39 percent.

And as the country tinted blue for the second presidential election in a row, it also got a little less white.

White voters made up only 72 percent of the electorate in this election, according to exit polls. That's still a majority, but it's the lowest in exit polls dating from 1976.

Mitt Romney won the white vote handily, 58 to 40 percent, the biggest lead for a Republican since 1988.

Romney's most reliant bloc the whole campaign was white men. He led by 25 points with them today. But in 1976, white men were 46 percent of voters. Today they're at a new low, 34 percent.

If white women had stayed in Romney's camp, those swing states -- Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire -- might have moved into his column. Instead, Obama led among women by 12 points, nearly identical to his lead among women four years ago.

In Florida, Obama led Romney by just two points among independents, according to the exit polls. In 2008, that number was seven.

In Ohio, Romney leads Obama by 10 points among independents -- a significant number considering that in 2008 Obama had an 8 point lead over John McCain in Ohio among the same nonaligned voters. But women came to Obama's rescue, keeping him competitive. Exit polls showed Obama with a 12 point lead among women, more than his 8 point lead in 2008.

In Wisconsin, a state that Romney needed badly, Obama's onetime strength among independents appeared to be neutralized. He won independents there by an incredible 19 points in 2008, but preliminary polls now show that Romney fought to a draw with them. However, Obama prevailed among young voters, and other voters there said they favored the auto bailout by 51 to 40 percent, an issue that the president held over Romney in the Midwest.

Obama lost just a few independents in Iowa, but more than made up for it by winning over women, who picked the president over Romney by a double-digit margin.

In Virginia, Romney won independents by 53 to 41 percent. Four years ago, Obama and McCain tied among independents in the commonwealth.

Just like white men, independents make up less of the electorate than they did four years ago.

In a national exit poll, Obama scored better on the economy than Romney probably would have liked.

And Obama's job approval was measured at 52 percent, just a point shy of what President Bush hit during his reelection in 2004. Pollsters had said during the campaign that Obama desperately needed an approval rating above 50 percent to have a chance at reelection.

The results show that more voters say the economy is getting better rather than getting worse.

And four years after Obama was elected, more voters -- 52 percent -- still blame George W. Bush for the weak economy rather than Obama. The exit polls found that 39 percent of voters blamed Obama for the state of the economy.

In Ohio voters widely approved of the auto bailout, 59 to 36 percent, according to exit polls. The bailout was one of Obama's loudest battle cries in the Midwest, most likely because an op-ed Romney wrote called "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" handicapped him among blue-collar voters.

The national exit poll also indicated that Obama ended the campaign on a higher note on several counts. For instance, Obama beat Romney 53 to 43 percent on the question of who is more in touch with the public.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/exit-polls-obamas-winning-coalition-women-whites/story?id=17656990