Stuart Stevens speaks out about Romney and 2012 campaign

Romney’s chief campaign strategist Stuart Stevens, who has kept his head low since his campaign’s loss on November 6, penned an op-ed in the Washington Post today: “Mitt Romney: A good man. The right fight.”

Nobody liked Romney except voters. What began in a small field in New Hampshire grew into a national movement. It wasn’t our campaign, it was Mitt Romney. He bested the competition in debates, and though he was behind almost every candidate in the primary at one time or the other, he won the nomination and came very close to winning the presidency.

In doing so, he raised more money for the Republican Party than the Republican Party did. He trounced Barack Obama in debate. He defended the free-enterprise system and, more than any figure in recent history, drew attention to the moral case for free enterprise and conservative economics.

[…]

On Nov. 6, Mitt Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income. That means he carried the majority of middle-class voters. While John McCain lost white voters under 30 by 10 points, Romney won those voters by seven points, a 17-point shift. Obama received 41/million fewer voters in 2012 than 2008, and Romney got more votes than McCain.

The Obama organization ran a great campaign. In my world, the definition of the better campaign is the one that wins.

But having been involved in three presidential races, two that we won closely and one that we lost fairly closely, I know enough to know that we weren’t brilliant because Florida went our way in 2000 or enough Ohioans stuck with us in 2004. Nor are we idiots because we came a little more than 320,000 votes short of winning the Electoral College in 2012. Losing is just losing. It’s not a mandate to throw out every idea that the candidate championed, and I would hope it’s not seen as an excuse to show disrespect for a good man who fought hard for values we admire.

[…]

Yes, the Republican Party has problems, but as we go forward, let’s remember that any party that captures the majority of the middle class must be doing something right. When Mitt Romney stood on stage with Barack Obama, it wasn’t about television ads or whiz- bang turnout technologies, it was about fundamental Republican ideas versus fundamental Democratic ideas. It was about lower taxes or higher taxes, less government or more government, more freedom or less freedom. And Republican ideals — Mitt Romney — carried the day.

On Nov. 6, that wasn’t enough to win. But it was enough to make us proud and to build on for the future.

Stevens was the subject of criticism from politicians, pundits, and occasionally fellow staff members for much of the election, and he was often the center of any rumors of campaign infighting.

Advertisements

Gallup editor-in-chief lashes out at Nate Silver

In a post-election statement whose purpose seemed to be to explain why Gallup was wrong about the election outcome, Gallup editor-in-chief Frank Newport included what can only be interpreted as a dig at the New York Times‘ Nate Silver and predicted analyses like Silver’s could result in less polling in future cycles:

It’s not easy nor cheap to conduct traditional random sample polls. It’s much easier, cheaper, and mostly less risky to focus on aggregating and analyzing others’ polls. Organizations that traditionally go to the expense and effort to conduct individual polls could, in theory, decide to put their efforts into aggregation and statistical analyses of other people’s polls in the next election cycle and cut out their own polling. If many organizations make this seemingly rational decision, we could quickly be in a situation in which there are fewer and fewer polls left to aggregate and put into statistical models. Many individual rational decisions could result in a loss for the collective interest of those interested in public opinion.  This will develop into a significant issue for the industry going forward.

For his part, Nate Silver identified Gallup as one of the worst polling firms of the election, calculating their polls to have been biased towards Mitt Romney by 7.2% on average.

Rand Paul: “I’m interested” in 2016 presidential run; GOP should lay off marijuana

In an interview with ABC News’ Jonathan Karl, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) admits he’s open to running for president in 2016.

Asked directly whether he was going to run for president in 2016, Paul responded, “You know, I want to be part of the national debate. I think it’s a little too soon to talk about it, who’s gonna run and who’s not gonna run, and to tell you the truth I don’t know what will come. Am I interested in thinking about that? Yes.”

“You’re thinking about running for president?” Karl followed up.

“Yeah,” Paul said. “But am I someone that’s gonna make the decision, am I ready to make the decision now, no.”

“But there’s a real chance we’ll see a Rand Paul for President,” Karl asked, “carrying that mantle of libertarian conservatism?”

“We’ll see what happens,” Paul said, smiling. “Too early to tell.”

“Usually when people say that it’s almost a declaration of candidacy,” Karl said, and Paul nodded and laughed.

“Well, you know,” Paul responded, “I am different than some in that I’m not gonna deny that I’m interested.”

Paul went on to name some things he believed needed to change about the Republican party.

“I’m not gonna that I think we have to go a different direction because we are – we’re not winning, we’re just not winning,” Paul said. “We’re getting an ever dwindling percentage of the Hispanic vote. We need to let people know — Hispanics in particular — we’re not putting you on a bus and shipping you home.”

But Paul emphasized that he was still on the side the “hardcore immigration people” when it came to border security. “I will insist that border security’s first,” Paul said, “but I’m also not gonna rule out that we can’t figure out an eventual way if you’ve been living here for ten or twenty years that you can’t become like the rest of us.”

Aside from Hispanics, Paul said the Republican party also needs to do more to reach out to young voters. One way, Paul says, is to soften the rhetoric on marijuana. “We should tell young people, I’m not in favor of you smoking pot, but if you get caught smoking pot, I don’t want to put you in jail for twenty years.” Paul went on to say that states such as Washington and Colorado, which recently passed controversial laws legalizing recreational marijuana, should absolutely have that right.

Regarding working with Democrats in the Senate, Paul pledged again that he would not compromise on taxes and would not vote for any bill that included an increase in taxes.