The Wall Street Journal now tells us that Romney lost because he did not have enough money.
It says he had to woo conservatives, so he could not woo moderates.
In other words, he could not come clean to voters in swing states that he was really not a conservative.
The WSJ also says that he could not get his real message across. Argument #1: he got a conservative message across, so he lost the race. Argument #2: he could not get his real message across, which was moderate, so he lost the race.
In short, he lied to he voters. He should have told the truth. But he couldn’t, because he needed to fool the naive, dumb, conservative fat cats who gave him money. This analysis is from the Wall Street Journal.
My view: the voters had a choice between two Harvard Law School graduates.
They also had a choice between the man who rammed through RomneyCare in Massachusetts and the man who got Nancy Pelosi to ram through ObamaCare in the House of Representatives. These are basically the same programs.
But, no, it was lack of money. He could not buy the election. So says the Wall Street Journal.
Then why did he lose in Ohio? Not lack of money.
Because he could not get his message across? He had three debates. Millions of people watched those debates. When a lawyer cannot persuade the jury in three tries, he has a weak case.
The numbers are not all in. Here is what we know. Romney’s campaign spent over $550 million by September 30. Obama’s spent less. Here are the figures.
Together, the campaign committees for President Barack Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney raised a combined $915 million and spent a combined $756 million by the end of last month, the latest FEC reports filed on Saturday’s monthly deadline show.
Through September, the Obama 2012 campaign had raised a total of $558 million and had spent a total of $462 million, while the Romney 2012 campaign had raised $357 million and had spent $294 million, the reports said.
Obama For America continues to outpace Romney For President in fundraising, spending, and cash on hand. However, pro-Romney and anti-Obama spending by super PACs and other independent groups erase that disadvantage.
Outside spending on the presidential race has favored Romney over Obama by more than two to one, according to the Sunlight Foundation, which found pro-Romney advocacy since he clinched the Republican nomination has totaled $202 million, while pro-Obama spending was $79 million during the same period, a $113 million difference.
In the fall, Wall Street firms started giving more money to Obama. David Weidner wrote this in mid-September.
Until now, Romney has been bankrolled by Wall Street. His top five contributors are people and organizations aligned with Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (US:GS), J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (US:JPM), Morgan Stanley (US:MS), Bank of America Corp. (US:BAC) and Credit Suisse Group AG. (US:CS) , according to Opensecrets.org. See a list of Romney’s and Obama’s top contributors by institution.
But Obama has the momentum. The president raised $114 million in August, more than 40% more than he raised in July. Romney raised $111 million, about the same as he’s raised each month this summer.
Wall Street gives money to the candidate it thinks will win. So, Wall Street helped Obama buy the election.
In short, Council on Foreign Relations Team A raised more money from Wall Street than Council on Foreign Relations Team B.
In either case, here are the big winners: Goldman Sachs Group Inc. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Morgan Stanley, Bank of America Corp., and Credit Suisse Group AG.
That was the meaning of “the most important Presidential election in a hundred years.”
The voters decided, in the words of Rudyard Kipling, to stick with the devil they knew.