It was Romney's for the taking but he blew it. Obama's weak spot was the economy. He could not achieve an upturn because the Big Boys wouldn't let him. I'm talking about the movers and shakers who control the money flow and cause stock market fluctuations within a 24 hour period. They sat on their cash (except for political shadowed donations) and froze the economy, the job seekers be damned. If Romney had won, the market would have spiked and euphoria would have permeated public opinion. And that would have been a good thing. So, why did Romney lose?
Harken back to 2011, when Obama and Speaker John Boehner attempted to effectuate a grand bargain which would alleviate the debt ceiling crisis and avoid plummeting over the fiscal cliff. Many Democrats were furious with the President, alleging that he had given away too much. Notwithstanding the failure to close the deal, Obama demonstrated that he is not, by any means, an ultra liberal. He is, first and foremost, a pragmatist. He "gets" the big picture and is prepared to embrace the predicate of politics, to wit, the necessity to compromise. This was an anathema to the radical right wing of the Republican party, a lunatic fringe calling itself the Tea Party.
The notion of reason was scorned and abandoned. These true believers were willing to let the country sink rather than compromise on anything. They were and are the most unreasonable of men. They fashion themselves as patriots but are, instead, lunatics. But, they controlled the House of Representatives and, clinging to their self-annointed mandate, wouldn't yield an inch.
They closely monitored the Republican nomination process and were ready to crucify any candidate who swerved off their course. Romney is not one of them, but was afraid to take any position which might cause alienation. So, he embraced their principles, secured their backing and won the nomination. The general campaign was, however, a different scenario.
Romney, correctly realizing that Tea Party tenets did not represent the electorate majority, held himself out to be a moderate Republican. But he was trapped by his Tea Party utterances during the nomination fight. Inconsistencies sprang up everywhere, providing the Democrats with a plethora of destructive ammunition. Romney responded by "modifying" his stances, effectuating the indelible brand of "flip-flopper."
Further, his positions on womens' rights turned them into ferocious adversaries. His immigration policies cost him the Hispanic and Latino vote. His failure to release more than 2 years of tax returns fed the notion that he was an arrogant rich/fat cat completely out of touch with the middle class. This list of missteps is endless. Blame poor advice or personal misjudgment, he turned off the majority of American voters. This type of political blundering does not bode well for an aspiring President.
Romney is not a demon. He is a good man who failed to eradicate the notion that he is a danger to the middle class. Had he been elected, he would have allocated to the states the supervision and control of those affairs of life in which the federal government should be the primary mover. Save for the economy, he would have led us down some very precarious paths.
When Obama uses the tools of compromise and reason to reach legislative agreements with Republicans--and he will--the economy will favorably respond, accordingly.
The super-rich lost but, worry not, they shall survive. Despite all the money at their disposal, they have presumably learned that elections can't be bought.
The seeds of the Romney failure were sown in Tea Party fields.
History will show Obama to have been a most able president.
The very near future will show that the better man won.
'Tis a good thing that has happened.
Romney is President of White Male America. He wooed them. He won them. And lost the election.