Romney honestly thought he would win.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

I've said it before, that the minorities who vote Democrat don't do it because of any liberal ideals or any peacenik hippy socialism. They don't feel like that on social issues (e.g. Mexicans: overwhelmingly Catholics). They do it because the party with which they agree ideologically (Republicans) fuckin' hates them. If the Republicans modified their "white conservatives, fuck minorities" stance to "conservatives in general", they'd have pretty easy elections. I guess they think that, if elected, can simply boot the immigrants and keep America white, maintaining majority status for their power base. Which even in theory is lacking, because they won't get elected while their power base is not a majority in and of itself.

[UnderAGreySky]

I've said it before, that the minorities who vote Democrat don't do it because of any liberal ideals or any peacenik hippy socialism. They don't feel like that on social issues (e.g. Mexicans: overwhelmingly Catholics). They do it because the party with which they agree ideologically (Republicans) fuckin' hates them. If the Republicans modified their "white conservatives, fuck minorities" stance to "conservatives in general", they'd have pretty easy elections. I guess they think that, if elected, can simply boot the immigrants and keep America white, maintaining majority status for their power base. Which even in theory is lacking, because they won't get elected while their power base is not a majority in and of itself.

Yglesias does a good job of explaining this:

Pundits are quickly turning to immigration to explain the Republicans’ Latino problem and to offer a possible cure, but the reality is that the rot cuts much deeper. The GOP doesn’t have a problem with Latino voters per se. Rather, it has a problem with a broad spectrum of voters who simply don’t feel that it’s speaking to their economic concerns. The GOP has an economic agenda tilted strongly to the benefit of elites, and it has preserved support for that agenda—even though it disserves the majority of GOP voters—with implicit racial politics.

Consider the GOP’s deeply racialized campaign against Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. What was so surprising about this—and I know I’m not the only fair-skinned English-dominant person with a Spanish surname who was genuinely shocked—was that conservatives could have easily opposed her purely on policy grounds. Sotamayor is a fairly conventional Democrat on constitutional issues, and that would have been ample reason for conservatives to criticize her. Indeed, Justice Elena Kagan was attacked on precisely those grounds. But rather than tempering opposition with at least some recognition that Sotomayor’s life story might be a great example for immigrant parents trying to raise children in difficult circumstances, the country was treated to a mass racial panic in which Anglo America was about to be stomped by the boot of Sotomayor’s ethnic prejudice. The graduate of Princeton and Yale Law, former prosecutor, and longtime federal judge was somehow not just too liberal for conservatives’ taste but a “lightweight” who’d been coasting her whole life on the enormous privilege of growing up poor in the South Bronx.

...a policy agenda composed primarily of tax cuts for the top 2 percent or 3 percent of the income distribution doesn’t have much to offer the broad mass of people.

Latinos aren’t into that agenda for roughly the same reason that Asians and African-Americans aren’t—absent the frisson of worry about the “white establishment” being forced into minority status—it’s just not very compelling. To do better, Republicans don’t need a different immigration policy or better Hispanic outreach strategy, they need an overall policy that’s more compelling to the middle class and will help them do better with voters of all kinds. In fact, endorsing immigration reform now might make things worse for them, by enlarging an electorate that’s fundamentally hostile to their worldview.

[TheHammer]

Is there actually any evidence that Romney didn't ever prepare a concession speech, instead of that "I only wrote a victory speech" being just another meaningless statement of confidence? Even if he'd spent the past week planning his concession speech and knew defeat was almost inevitable he'd still make confident statements right up until the end, just like any politician, and his statement becomes just another empty "of course we're going to win".

As for the rest of it, is it really a surprise? Who cares if you only have a 10% chance of winning, the cost of preparing a victory celebration is pretty trivial compared to the obscene amounts of money you've already spent on the campaign and you're going to look pretty stupid if the unlikely happens and you win but don't have anything prepared for it.

There is certainly the circumstantial evidence in the fact that he took so long to concede. At once point I recall Obama hitting 290 projected electoral votes and the concession didn't occur until well after that. At that point Ohio didn't even matter. Unless Romney thought he was going to carry another state that the Media had projected for Obama, he still loses even if he had won Ohio, Florida, and Virginia since Obama would still have had 272 votes. Of course that didn't stop the talking heads from droning on about Ohio even after that point. But surely someone else must have done the math.

I suspect much of that time was spent trying to come up with a decent concession speech. The fact that it was relatively short is also evidence that it was prepared rather quickly.

[Haruko]

When Scarborough on Morning Joe said that pollster Nate Silver is so far removed from reality in his confident prediction of an Obama win, that pretty much says it all about how far removed people are. I mean, since when did numbers ever really matter? It is all about momentum and stuff like that. How can I, Mitt Romney, lose? After all, I'm Me!

[Vympel]

No one in a position of power or responsibility was any more well informed than your average idiot pundit - like Peggy Noonan, who contrary to all evidence, declared that Romney would win because of ... wait for it ... "vibrations". I mean seriously. The idea of the Republican Bubble, where reality cannot penetrate, really is the best way to describe it.

[White Haven]

If we can only find a way to weaponize that bubble, the United States military can be invulnerable simply by disbelieving in ...wait... The Republicans are like 40k Orks, only without Gork and Mork to do the heavy lifting of making their self-confidence field work.

[Ritterin Sophia]

If we can only find a way to weaponize that bubble, the United States military can be invulnerable simply by disbelieving in ...wait... The Republicans are like 40k Orks, only without Gork and Mork to do the heavy lifting of making their self-confidence field work.

Woah dude, that's pretty rude to compare Orks to the Republican Party, if you apologize now you might be able to save your reputation among the greenskin demographic.

[Mr Bean]

If we can only find a way to weaponize that bubble, the United States military can be invulnerable simply by disbelieving in ...wait... The Republicans are like 40k Orks, only without Gork and Mork to do the heavy lifting of making their self-confidence field work.

Woah dude, that's pretty rude to compare Orks to the Republican Party, if you apologize now you might be able to save your reputation among the greenskin demographic.

We already had that of which you speak. We called it esprit de corps, fighting spirit or simply moral. We tried it during WW1 when all sides were operating under the assumption that you could charge and take machine gun positions in a frontal assault if your fighting spirit was sufficient.

On another note, we simply need to strength that bubble, if we can turn the Republicans isolationist again I'm guessing the world would become a safer place.

[Channel72]

I've said it before, that the minorities who vote Democrat don't do it because of any liberal ideals or any peacenik hippy socialism. They don't feel like that on social issues (e.g. Mexicans: overwhelmingly Catholics). They do it because the party with which they agree ideologically (Republicans) fuckin' hates them. If the Republicans modified their "white conservatives, fuck minorities" stance to "conservatives in general", they'd have pretty easy elections. I guess they think that, if elected, can simply boot the immigrants and keep America white, maintaining majority status for their power base. Which even in theory is lacking, because they won't get elected while their power base is not a majority in and of itself.

There's definitely some truth to this: consider the large support (around 70%) among African Americans for Prop 8 in California. A large percentage of minority voters probably aren't socially liberal. But I think the Democratic support among minority voters is based on more than just the fact that Republicans tend to be tougher on immigration. The immigration issue might explain Latino voters, but it doesn't explain the tendency for African Americans to vote Democrat (despite the ironic historical role of the Radical Republicans.) I think it has more to do with the fact that minorities tend to be more afflicted by poverty than whites, and the Democrats have a reputation for actually caring for the poor. Almost every government program that actually benefits poor people, from FDR's Social Security, to LBJ's Great Society, to Obamacare, is a Democratic program. Republicans have fought against these things at every opportunity, and haven't done shit to really help anyone other than the very rich. I think that explains the minority vote more than anything else. Yeah, Obama's race probably helped in this election - but minorities were voting Democrat long before 2008.

[Broomstick]

FDR's reign is actually the point in time that African Americans flipped from being mostly Republican to mostly Democrat.

[FSTargetDrone]

This will totally not be another foot-in-mouth situation:

November 14, 2012, 5:15 pm

Romney Blames Loss on Obama’s ‘Gifts’ to Minorities and Young Voters
By ASHLEY PARKER

Saying that he and his team still felt “troubled” by his loss to President Obama, Mitt Romney on Wednesday attributed his defeat in part to what he called big policy “gifts” that the president had bestowed on loyal Democratic constituencies, including young voters, African-Americans and Hispanics.

In a conference call with fund-raisers and donors to his campaign, Mr. Romney said Wednesday afternoon that the president had followed the “old playbook” of using targeted initiatives to woo specific interest groups — “especially the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people.”

“In each case, they were very generous in what they gave to those groups,” Mr. Romney said, contrasting Mr. Obama’s strategy to his own of “talking about big issues for the whole country: military strategy, foreign policy, a strong economy, creating jobs and so forth.”

Mr. Romney’s comments in the 20-minute conference call came after his running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, told WISC-TV in Madison on Monday that their loss was a result of Mr. Obama’s strength in “urban areas,” an analysis that did not account for Mr. Obama’s victories in more rural states like Iowa and New Hampshire or the decrease in the number of votes for the president relative to 2008 in critical urban counties in Ohio.

“With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest was a big gift,” Mr. Romney said. “Free contraceptives were very big with young, college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008.”

The president’s health care plan, he said, was also a useful tool in mobilizing black and Hispanic voters. Though Mr. Romney won the white vote with 59 percent, according to exit polls, minorities coalesced around the president in overwhelming numbers: 93 percent of blacks and 71 percent of Hispanics.

“You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free health care, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity — I mean, this is huge,” Mr. Romney said. “Likewise with Hispanic voters, free health care was a big plus. But in addition with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group.”

Nationwide, Mr. Obama won a slightly smaller share of 18- to 29-year-old voters than he did in 2008, according to exit polls, though he increased his share in battleground states like Florida, Ohio and Virginia. Exit polls showed little appreciable difference between Mr. Obama’s performance among black voters nationwide and in many swing states in this election and in 2008. Among Hispanic voters nationwide, Mr. Obama won a greater share in 2012 than in 2008, but perhaps more important, he succeeded in increasing the share of Hispanic voters among the total voting population in key states, including Colorado and Nevada, exit polls showed.

During the call, Mr. Romney was by turns disappointed and pragmatic, expressing his frustration at the outcome on Election Day. A person who was on the call, which included hundreds of participants, let The New York Times listen in.

“I’m very sorry that we didn’t win,” Mr. Romney said on the call. “I know that you expected to win, we expected to win, we were disappointed with the result, we hadn’t anticipated it, and it was very close, but close doesn’t count in this business.”

He continued: “And so now we’re looking and saying, ‘O.K., what can we do going forward?’ But frankly, we’re still so troubled by the past, it’s hard to put together our plans for the future.”

He added that he was hoping to find a way for the close-knit group, which excelled in fund-raising but was ultimately unable to propel him into the Oval Office, “to stay connected so that we can stay informed and have influence on the direction of the party, and perhaps the selection of a future nominee, which, by the way, will not be me.” (He suggested an annual meeting, as well as a monthly newsletter.)

In a news conference of his own Wednesday, Mr. Obama, asked if he still planned to meet with Mr. Romney for a postelection discussion, spoke positively of his former opponent, saying that he “did a terrific job of running the Olympics,” and that he appreciated Mr. Romney’s ideas on government efficiency.

“I’m not either prejudging what he’s interested in doing, nor am I suggesting I’ve got some specific assignment,” the president said, when asked about Mr. Romney. “But what I want to do is to get ideas from him and see if there are some ways that we can potentially work together.”

Yeah, it's probably for the best that this clown never seek public office again.

[Flagg]

So he's basically under the delusion that Obama helped people to win an election and that none of his stated policies were for the good of the country as he saw it?

[Keevan_Colton]

Turns out that offering gifts to just 1% of voters doesn't get you many votes.

[xthetenth]

But those aren't gifts! Something something something improve the economy! I can think of times when money would've come in real handy so the money should go to people like me! Or something of the sort.

[Crossroads Inc.]

So he's basically under the delusion that Obama helped people to win an election and that none of his stated policies were for the good of the country as he saw it?

Go back to my comments about the modern Republican party being a religious cult.
The message CANNOT Be wrong. It would be like question faith in god to ever question "The Message" of the Republican party. There for the ONLY way they could loose is by dirty tricks, bribes, and foul play by Obama. It is the only "logical" reason for them.

[Dalton]

Listen to some of the rhetoric, and it becomes apparent that they've already decided on the reason and will now twist facts to suit their theory. This is going to backfire bigtime, because the key for them to keep a House majority and vie for a Senate majority in 2014 is to, y'know, actually try to reach out to Obama voters. With ideas, not insults.

[Edi]

It's not just the election. ANYTHING that does not exactly agree with their views is enemy lies and propaganda, regardless of how much it is rooted in actual facts.

[Zaune]

So he's basically under the delusion that Obama helped people to win an election and that none of his stated policies were for the good of the country as he saw it?

When you put it that way, he might actually have a point.

[The Yosemite Bear]

of course we don't matter, besides congress is Gerrymandered into being a sabot into anything the adults try and get done....

[Tolya]

I've heard somewhere that with one failed election another one begins. So I guess it would be good for a politician to show some goddamned CLASS. Oh wait, Romney...

Here in Poland, if anyone cares, the former prime minister calls the current prime minister "that man" instead of "prime minister". Talk about sore losers...

[Irbis]

At least Romney doesn't openly accuse Obama of 9/11 or Kenyan birth.

As for the other one, wasn't it "Faker who murdered 96 people" last time I bothered to check?

[Dalton]

At least Romney doesn't openly accuse Obama of 9/11 or Kenyan birth.

Who accused Obama of being behind 9/11? 2001 or 2012?

[Irbis]

At least Romney doesn't openly accuse Obama of 9/11 or Kenyan birth.

Who accused Obama of being behind 9/11? 2001 or 2012?

It was comparison to Polish presidential race, where loser accused victors of our equivalent of 9/11/Kennedy assassination/whatever multiple times. Last time this week, on public TV.

And as much as Obama wasn't president in 2001, Komorowski wasn't president in 2010, so comparing is justified, IMHO. Romney did not accuse Obama, but our Romney-lite (more like Santorum-like, but meh) did people who won last election.

[Dalton]

Ah, I see. The analogy was unclear.

[Justice]

Listen to some of the rhetoric, and it becomes apparent that they've already decided on the reason and will now twist facts to suit their theory. This is going to backfire bigtime, because the key for them to keep a House majority and vie for a Senate majority in 2014 is to, y'know, actually try to reach out to Obama voters. With ideas, not insults.

But that's the plan; this is Romney falling on his sword to make the rest of the Republican Party not seem like the "Rich Guy" party. The prototypical rich businessman candidate comes out and says something which we expect Republicans to say and then the next wave of Republican candidates comes out against it. It serves a double purpose of continuing the "It was MITT who was out of touch lost the election, not us" narrative as well as distancing future Republicans from his failed run. If that remark and its Republican response wasn't planned, I would be amazed.