Romney was a poor, uninspiring candidate who was always likely to be up against it in this election. It isn't really a surprise that he lost. The surprise comes with the Republicans poor performance in the Senate elections, and this is where the post mortem investigation should be focused.

rickyp wrote:fate

Watch what happens over the next four years. The Democrats will have a hard time maintaining the Obama infrastructure because it is heavily Chicago-centric and Obama-driven. It is the cult of personality

.

Clinton had a pretty good ground game. Gore did too.
It strikes me as more institutional.

Clinton had Perot.

Gore lost.

Still, I'm saying . . . wait. If you think the Dems in 2016 will replicate it, you don't know yet.

Didn't the former CEO of the Wrestling Federation blo $100 million in two elections trying to become Senator?

Apples and whales.

She ran in a socialist State in a very Democratic year.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:I never said Romney had all the GOP money. I was talking about the exposure that he (and any other Republican candidate for the nomination) had the opportunity for during the Primary process. So well done in disproving an argument I never made.

Mercy. Maybe you should put some fine print on your posts, something like, "Nothing should be inferred, nor perceive to be implied by any of the preceding comments. Any such inference drawn or perceived implication will be denied most strenuously."

Or maybe you could address what I actually write, and not what you think I think. The first few hundred times, it was cute, now it's getting a little boring.

Watch what happens over the next four years. The Democrats will have a hard time maintaining the Obama infrastructure because it is heavily Chicago-centric and Obama-driven. It is the cult of personality.

How does this address the question of why the Republicans cannot mount a ground game?

Sass has a good point. The Republicans didn't just lose the Presidential election, they lost Congressional seats in areas where they won the Presidential vote, and certainly could have taken control of the Senate if they'd reversed that trend.

Cannot mount a ground game is not the same as did not.

Look, the overall turnout was much less than in 2008. Obama had millions fewer votes. Romney lost many conservative voters for whom he was not conservative enough.

Turnout, in part, is enthusiasm. Romney, at the end of the day, did not have the resources or the ability to motivate his base as Obama did.

As for responding to what you write, you may be right. I should focus on your dull prose and not presume you are trying to communicate. I do apologize.