Our fiscal situation played NO role in this election. It amazes me that people just don't see our financial situation, I have been concerned for a very long time about the direction this country is taking. this election was more about birth control, abortions, illegal immigration and welfare. I stopped worrying about our financial mess, I joined the majority who could care less.

Romney lost because he is an unlikable person who couldn't think past election day.  It epitomizes another of his failed political runs that he had no plan for failure.  And why should he?  He had bought and paid for the office of president many times over, it was his turn, and Obama was in the tank.  

OK, let me see if I've got this right.  The Obama campaign was just better at manipulating voters ... So they won.  And, if you really knew Mitt, you'd really like him, you shouldn't look at his policies, actions or public statements to GET to know him!

Why exactly did he make the 47% comment?  He didn't really mean it?  He never said that - in fact he initially did not back off from it and try to explain.  What about his primary performance?  And exactly which of Romney's deep values could we support - his health care stance - which one?  His views on women's issues or gay marriage - which stance?  Tax policy?  Just kidding.  

Maybe if Romney knows you, he's a great guy, but if you are just a 47 per center - I think we understood what his beliefs were.

One difference between Romney and Obama is that Romney is an accomplished, but modest, man who hesitates to brag about himself.  Obama, on the other hand, is an egotist who wrote two autobiographies and who accepted the Nobel Peace Prize before he had accomplished much of anything.  Before you start screaming at me, folks, permit me to say that I know who won the election and I accept that decision.

An interesting article that however raises are really serious question.  Mitt's campaign failed because he failed to expose himself?  This implies that public has no clue as to policies or directions they desire to go, but only care about liking the guy?  My opinion of the public is not very high but this could take it to a low point.  The only thing that saves it is the article states the public like his ideas and values yet actual polling data does not support that position.  Nevertheless an interesting article.

Mitt Romney lost because his vison of America was colder than an ice slab in Iceland. He was very clear that this country belongs to rich folks and if your lucky we will feed you some crumbs. 

Romney was correct in not showing off "the real Romney." The more people got into his act, the worse things got. Thew financial genius stated only "other people " knew where his money was, he paid less taxes than the average person, he had no empathy, he wanted to do away with PBS, he infuriated world leaders on his foreign policy trip, he put a strong option for war with Iran on the table, he is a chickenhawk with no military service in his family, he broke the record for using federal money for his olympic claim to fame, he was proven wrong in his "I did it myself" tour when it was revealed his examples had all used federal money, a lot of the time when he opened his mouth something wrong came out. His boy Tagg followed the example of his dad, stating he wanted to punch the president. So mysterious why thing went the way they did. I believe he is delusional and out of touch with reality.

Clearly, and fortunately, we elected the better leader and manager.  Beth meyers being hesitant about expressing her concerns tothe rest of the team?  That's not indicative of good leadership.  Romney's debate performances?  He seemed like someone you might be afraid to express your opinion too. Romney's character?  dog on the roof, 47 percent, half of govornoship spent going around the country insulting Massachusetts, organizing a gang to assalt a gay boy with a deadly weapon, dress a a policeman with light on the roof and pulling people over, disavowing his only memorable achievement as Govenor .... I thing we got a pretty clear vision of Romney's character.

This sort of analysis, while well researched and written, exemplifies what's broken in our political system. Paid consultants try to break down the electorate into tiny atomized fragments and then develop a manipulative appeal to win the votes of these fragments. In fact, what happened is that voters rejected a wealthy, tax dodging manipulator whose social policies and attitude toward the electorate were straight out of 1912. His one plus, the passage of health care in Massachusetts, was the first thing in his past he would run from. The 47% remark, the dog on the roof and haircut incident, and his many other celebrated gaffes were simply icing on the cake. While the demographics of our nation have changed enormously, and by all forecasts will continue to do so, Romney ran as the proud representative of an ever-dwindling core of angry white men who want to undo the New Deal. Was he truly "severely conservative" or, once elected, would he govern in the center right? No one knew because the candidate was a world-class shape shifter and seemed to have no core beliefs about the country other than his professed faith in uber-capitalism. If Romney took a day off the campaign trail, his opponents could joke he was visiting his money in the Caymans. He earned the ridicule of young voters by reciting America the Beautiful at campaign events and ducking questions. Fatally flawed candidate, fatally flawed extremist platform, and hundreds of intellectual pissants in suits on the payroll, most giving him bad advice. His loss is all on him.

I omitted the fact that polls show a majority of the country is concerned about "fairness," in particular the growing inequality of wealth in this country. That issue, and public understanding of it, had been slowly and inexorably building since the 2008 meltdown. So we had a riptide of understanding and anger building over three years, and then the Mittster and his team decide the way to win him the White House is to swim directly against that tide with his "I Built It" theme. Idiotically myopic strategy.

This snapshot of the insider's spin on Romney's loss is a sad reflection of the nonsense surrounding the election process.  The notion that he didn't define himself early or well doesn't add up.  The pattern was that the more the voters found out about Romney, the more they moved away from him.  And I don't know about the premise that the majority of voters preferred Romney's visions, values and leadership.  That statement does not jive with the results.  As for Mitt being nice to some folks on a personal level, that kind of behavior is fine.  But it is not a sufficient resume to qualify as President.  Especially when put into the context of everything else the man brings.  And as for him "not wanting to run", I simply don't believe it.  I believe he may have said he didn't want to run. I even believe that he acted sincere about not wanting to run.  But his dad's shadow was as much a part of this whole episode as was the sun coming up everyday.  Mitt wanted to run.  He had to run. 

This article clearly has the intent of being a sympathetic rendition of a home town guy who is licking his wounds and contending with the fact that his one life-long-goal has been left wanting.  Mitt's personal history is such that he usually gets what he wants.  He didn't get it this time.  It's undoubtedly a tough pill to swallow.  

Romney did not lose this election because of technological failures.  He did not lose this election because he let the other guy define him.  He did not lose this election because he didn't have as much money to spend.  He lost this election because he represented a world view which is selfish and short-sighted.  He lost this election because he, as a person, has noticeable shortages of empathy in crucial situations.  Combine those two areas of deficit, and it is good for the country and the world that he is not moving into the White House next month.

Mr. Kranish, thanks for your interesting analysis.  Romney was not able to stretch himself enough to address most of the Republicans and Not-Obamaphiles.  He had to appeal to Gun rights fanatics, (who have just come out of hiding after Newtown); he had to appeal to moderates; he had to appeal to real fiscal conservatives (those who are cheering for us to go over the Cliff now); Pro-life advocates; and he had to tamp down all the uneasiness from animal rights supporters; and he had to give us signals that he really was a better choice than Obama vis-á-vis Syria, Iran, Palestine, N. Korea; and he had to appeal to Hispanics and Blacks in a way that his party has not learned in modern times.  The Republican party today seems to be "against" too much, and not "for" enough to win a national election.

Oh, Romney revealed himself perfectly well. In fact, he did it so effectively that the secret was out before the actual campaign: he was a bad candidate, a grasping plutocrat completely out of touch with real people. Add in the dog on the roof, the bullying, his remarks on the 47%, his general smarminess, and the game was up.

I'm surprised to see no discussion of the situation Romney was in.  To win the Republican primary he had to appeal to the more motivated, extreme end of the Republican Party.  That candidate is not going to win the general election, so he had to "shake the etch-a-sketch" (and remember that this phrase came from the Romney team!  What were they thinking?).  This adds to voter distrust, and creates plenty of opportunities for (to extend the metaphor) Obama's team to take control of the etch-a-sketch.  I think this would be true for any Republican candidate, and this was obvious long ago.  I don't know why someone who was allegedly reluctant to run for president would choose to run in such an adverse situation.

Romney also has a history of saying offensive things that did not need to be said (and that were not just taken out of context, this is not the same as the cut-and-paste treatment sometimes applied to Obama's speeches).  The 47% remark is one example; he simply did not need to say that, and to imagine that there was no risk of it being taped and repeated is completely out-of-touch with the modern world.  Another is his concession in the 2008 primary, where he claimed that a Democratic president (Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama) would lead to a "surrender to terror".  That was very, very offensive; I happily thought of that whenever I gave money to the Obama campaign, or helped (in whatever small ways I could) volunteering for the Obama campaign.  

And finally, if he is running on his strength as a manager, who exactly was managing his campaign?  It sounds a whole lot like the better manager won, if this is all down to planning, organization, preparation, and execution.

Gov. Mitt Romney had extremely poor campaign advisors.

Why did he not use the fact that George Washington was the richest man in the country when elected to be President? 

To this day I can not understand what is the matter with being rich and running for political office. Better to elect a rich person to Washington, than a sap who will be 'bought-off' with the lure of getting rich, which is the course for many politicians.

Further more: The American press corp was a Fire_Wall of protection for Obama in 2008 & 2012.

Now we are seeing 'snip-its' in press articles about Obama's campaign promises of 2008. The facts are that Obama promised bank reform, immigration laws, and the list goes on, and on.

Obama promised everything but a pot of gold for every vote. Obama's 2008 & 2012 promises were ignored and never reported by the American press corp. Candy Crowley, ABC News got her facts completely wrong when chastizing Gov. Romney & supporting Obama in the 2nd. Presidential Debate!

Go figure.

I am an everyday subscriber for many many years.  I couldn't find the continuation of this front page story in my paper.  p. A18??   I had to read it online which I prefer not to do.  Editors, have you stopped caring about the hard copy version?  

I paid attention to all of the Republican debates and processes.  I followed what President Obama said and did.  I read and watched a great deal about the campaigns.  I don't accept the stated premise that Governor Romney didn't reveal himself.  He revealed himself continuously in public settings and in one famous or infamous private setting during the primaries and after the primaries.  By rejecting his very well developed Health Care Program for Massachusetts, Mitt revealed himself.  By rejecting his previous full support for gay and lesbian American citizens, Mitt revealed himself.  By manipulating the immigration issue to appeal to one narrow segment of his party, Mitt revealed himself.  By writing a New York Times op-ed piece calling for GM and Chrysler to go bankrupt, then trying to distance himself from it by saying that he didn't write the title of the article, Mitt revealed himself.  By falsely claiming in Ohio that Chrysler was moving thousands of  American auto workers jobs to China, Mitt revealed himself.  By lumping real wage earners, civilian retirees and military retirees with those who "job" the system, Mitt revealed himself.  By not releasing 5-7 years of tax returns, Mitt revealed himself. I got and many millions of  other fine, thinking Americans got to know Mitt very well.  As to his son Tagg's assertion that Mitt really didn't want to run again, I reject that.  I watched him become a part time Governor of Massachusetts for nearly 2 years for the 2008 run.  There's no doubt, in my opinion, that when Senator Obama became President Obama, ex-Governor Romney started his run for the 2012 presidential election.  What he didn't reveal of himself was deliberate because he and his campaign advisors saw those revelations as detrimental to attracting votes.  And in doing that he revealed himself.  In short, I hold the view that those who voted for either candidate knew exactly why, what and who of their vote. I certainly did.

Tagg's remarks that his father wanted the presidency "the least of anyone I know" really just do sound like a whole vineyard of sour grapes but there is SOME agreement-most Americans wanted no part of Mitt as President.

How do you write this article without mentioning that, after the financial crisis of 2008, nominating an investment banker was folly? And that, if the invest,net banker himself didn't realize it, he was self deluding.

So Tagg is trying to convince us that daddy really didn't want to be President.  What the hell was he doing frantically running around the country for 6 years denouncing a range of decent policy positions he had previously championed;  alll so that he could bring every crackpot Republican faction over to his side.  My first serious presidential campaign as a volunteer was for Adlai Stevenson's second run in 1956.  Stevenson lost by a far far bigger margin than Romney, but his 1956 New America Campaign set in motion a full range of fair and compassionate  proposals that became the foundation for the New Frontier, Great Society and subsequent progressive legislation by both Republican and Democratic administrations.   Stevenson left with a great legacy and his credibility and integrity.   Romney left with nothing because he stood for nothing.   

Great double entendre of a headline !