Election 2012: 12 reasons Obama won and Romney lost

President Obama went into his reelection fight facing significant head winds – most important, high unemployment and slow economic growth. But for a multitude of reasons, including Obama’s positives and Republican challenger Mitt Romney’s negatives, Obama succeeded. Here’s our list.

5. Romney's extended primary season, Part 1

Charles Dharapak/AP
Standing with their families, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney stands with his wife Ann, and Republican vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan, second right, stands with his wife Janna after Romney's concession speech at his election night rally in Boston, Wednesday, Nov. 7.

After the 2008 cycle, the Republican National Committee changed its rules for primaries, with an eye toward extending the process and allowing the strongest potential nominee to rise to the top. This came after seeing the great Obama-Clinton rivalry, which forced the eventual nominee, Obama, to organize early in all 50 states and seasoned him as a candidate. True, the GOP’s 20 primary debates improved Romney as a debater – thank you, Newt Gingrich – but he did not clinch the nomination until the end of May. That delayed his ability to fundraise for and focus on the general election.

5 of 12

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.