No Good Excuses
The Republican party’s problems became clear last night.


Michael Tanner

There are no excuses for losing this election.

One can blame Hurricane Sandy for disrupting Romney’s momentum; one can blame the impact of negative advertising or media bias. One can credit the president’s vaunted ground game, which turned out to be every bit as good as advertised. But this was a race that should never have been close.

The economy may have been showing feeble signs of life in the last couple of months, but it is hardly robust. No president had won reelection with unemployment above 7 percent since Franklin Roosevelt; it is now 7.9 percent. Three-quarters of voters thought the economy’s performance is poor or just fair. Throw in a health-care law that voters opposed 49 percent to 43, turmoil overseas, and assorted scandals, and an observer from Mars would have said that there was no way Romney could lose.

Yet Romney not only lost, he lost decisively.

There will be temptations to blame a poor candidate or a campaign that squandered several opportunities. And it is true that Romney was a flawed candidate, and his campaign’s strategy proved imperfect, too. He failed to press his advantage after the first debate, and seemed to switch positions at a whim.

But the Republican party’s problems go much deeper.

This represents the fifth time in the last six elections that Republicans have lost the popular vote, and the fourth time in those six that they’ve lost the electoral vote and the presidency. And although Republicans held the House last night, they actually lost seats in the Senate, of which they were widely favored to win control at the beginning of the year. Clearly, something is wrong.

Much of the media will jump to the conclusion that the Tea Party is to blame for Republican losses. Yet tea-party candidates actually did well overall. In the House, fewer than five members of the Tea Party Caucus lost reelection.

On the Senate side, tea-party favorite Richard Mourdock went down to defeat in Indiana, a state Romney was carrying by a big margin. In Missouri, Todd Akin threw away one of the most winnable Senate seats in the country. But Akin, contrary to media wisdom, was never a tea-party candidate. During the primaries, most tea-party groups backed one of his opponents. Akin won because he had strong support from social conservatives while the other candidates split the more economically conservative vote. Meanwhile, Mourdock’s self-inflicted wounds were not a result of his tea-party background.

Besides, even if you try to blame the Tea Party for Indiana or Missouri, what do you say about Wisconsin? Tommy Thompson was the quintessential moderate establishment candidate; he’d defeated two tea-party–backed primary alternatives. He still couldn’t beat one of the most left-wing Democrats in the country.

Tea-party voters would do well to realize that simply being anti-establishment is not enough for a candidate. Supporting a candidate with the charisma and talents of a Ted Cruz or a Jeff Flake makes sense. Supporting a Richard Mourdock simply because he shares similar political views doesn’t work as well.

It’s also important that Democratic efforts to turn the Ryan budget and Medicare into a bludgeon failed. Democratic gains in the House were negligible; nearly all Republicans who voted for the Ryan budget were reelected. Heck, Paul Ryan himself was reelected to his House seat. Even in states such as Florida, exit polls showed Romney fighting President Obama to a draw on the issue of Medicare reform.

Asked in exit polls if government does too much or should do more, voters said “too much” by a margin of 51 percent to 44. Voters certainly seem receptive to a small-government message, at least in some respects, even when what appears to be a somewhat more liberal and Democratic electorate is being polled.