Romney Supporters Still In Denial Over Why He Lost

I was over at Race 4 2012 and saw this post Matt Lewis: “Romney’s Enemies, Gearing Up for 2012″. The article is not what so much interests me but the comments. It appears the Romney supporters are still in denial over why Mitt lost. If Mitt wants to correct the problems he had in 2008 he will not be helped by some of his supporters still at this late date barking up the wrong tree.

It appears at the forefront of this is the Article VI blog written by an Evangelical Romney supporter that appears to be so invested in his theory (Mitt Lost because he was a Mormon) that he still at this very late date can't let it go.

He has just finished up a series of posts I intend to respond too in some detail some time this week. See his posts Telling The Story – Part III – ‘Clowns To The Left Of Me’ for the links. Article VI in telling his story of why Mitt lost and the Huckabee angle leaves out a good bit. Why was Huck so mad? Why did he dislike Mitt Romney? It had nothing to do with the Mormon issue. Again more later on that.

There is a amazing habit of Romney supporters and even the MSM that make Evangelicals the boogyman of ignoring the exit polls that give us indications of why Mitt lost. Why the media ignores this after spending countless millions to do them is good question. Why Romney supporters ignore them that so much want a future Romney White House is even more baffling.

I sort of hit on this here at Chairman of Republican Party Explains Why Romney Lost (The Mormon Issue Again and other Myths) and Blame Catholics Not Evangelicals For Romney Losing in 08

Mitt lost for many reasons the Mormon issue the least of his worries. I shall get into that in response to the above posts by Article VI.

One of the main reasons that Mitt came across as well mean. As the very good political analysis Jay Cost said way back when it appeared the wheels were coming the Romney campaign:

Why is it that most primary candidates refuse to run sustained, intense negative campaigns? The answer is that everybody is basically on the same side. An attacking candidate has to be careful about his opponent's core supporters. He runs the risk of alienating them - and they might ultimately refuse to support him after their guy drops out of the race. Romney might find himself in that situation.

His attacks on McCain and Huckabee have been as sustained and intense as any this cycle. And there is evidence that this has damaged him with the Mac and Huck factions. The Pew poll found that Romney's net favorable rating among these voters is not very strong: just +7% among McCain voters, and a whopping -9% among Huckabee voters. Of course, the sample sizes informing these statistics are small - but they are large enough to validate this modest conclusion:

Romney is relatively weak among Huckabee and McCain supporters. For comparative purposes: McCain is +30% among Huckabee supporters; Huckabee is +15% among McCain supporters; Giuliani is an eye-popping +69% among McCain supporters, and +33% among Huckabee supporters. [A problem Romney will confront if he wins the GOP nomination: he has a net -12% favorable rating among the general electorate. I'd wager this is also a consequence of the negative tenor of his campaign in recent months.]

This is of course ignored. Mitt supporters love Mitt and don't understand why not everyone does not share their obvious devotion. If they don't it must because of those "Evangelicals". Also Cost's statement will not go too far with them because they will have to admit their part in this political napalm like tactic that was engaged in for way too long. It very much disrupts Mitt and his supporters are the victim meme that is still being pushed. A meme I suspect Romney wishes was not being pushed at all.