Rich Beeson isn't making sense here. "The numbers we needed to hit" were the ones that would have let them *win.* http://t.co/TNe1bzmS
— Ramesh Ponnuru (@RameshPonnuru) November 12, 2012
National Review’s Katrino Trinko reports that Rich Beeson, the Romney campaign’s political director, has no regrets about the campaign’s get-out-the-vote strategy:
“We turned out the groups we needed to on our side,” Beeson says, adding that Democrats “did a better job of turnout than we thought they could do. They did alter the electorate.”
“We hit the numbers we needed to hit. Our ground game turned out the people it needed to turn out. They just turned out more. They turned out 18 to 29 [year olds] at a higher level. They turned out African-Americans at a higher level. They turned out Hispanics at a higher level.”
Beeson thinks that he did the best he could. And if you set reality aside, he did. His definition of “fine” must be the same as President Obama’s. Meanwhile, Twitterers don’t think that Beeson has much to brag about:
Rich Beeson and I have a different definition of "fine." http://t.co/LbEnxyIP
— Mitch Stewart (@Mitch_Stewart) November 12, 2012
That sound you hear is Rich Beeson continuing to shovel a pile of BS: http://t.co/sbjFp1Av
— Addisu Demissie (@ASDem) November 12, 2012
@JedediahBila Holy Moly! With advisors like Beeson, no wonder Romney lost!
— Mark J. Claxton (@iamtangomango) November 12, 2012
Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. http://t.co/h3kIB5N0
— Gerry D (@GerryDales) November 12, 2012
Pretty sure that if your ground game turned out less voters than the other side's, it didn't "work fine": http://t.co/mQjOAXDM
— Charles Homans (@chashomans) November 12, 2012
Romney political director: "“We hit the numbers we needed to hit." No, you didn't. http://t.co/TZr1w4Sa
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) November 12, 2012
This is what clueless looks like. Romney Political Director: ‘The Ground Game Worked Fine.’ http://t.co/Ecv31ZvO
— Kelly Johnston (@johnston_kelly) November 12, 2012
@JohnEkdahl Beeson "We turned out the groups we needed to on our side" I guess so if the goal was to fall short of 08 numbers
— Irwin Rosenrosen (@RealRosenRosen) November 12, 2012
@seanmdav He was trying to hit a lower number of voters than 2008? What a maroon. You blew it, Beeson, admit it.
— Antacid EX (@AntacidEX) November 12, 2012
"The Titanic's watertight compartments worked fine" http://t.co/Zf8imJeu
— CTIronman (@CTIronman) November 12, 2012
— Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) November 12, 2012
Beeson contends that while Orca had its flaws on Election Day, it was a smart idea. “Did the overall system work the way that we wanted it to? No. But it is a good precursor for what I think we’ll want to be able to design and implement and improve on in coming elections? Absolutely,” he says.
“Improve on” is the key. Orca really shouldn’t be held up as an example of what the Romney campaign did right.
So Orca was good in the primary because it showed Romney winning when he won something. Good G-d. http://t.co/My5gZgf1
— John Podhoretz (@jpodhoretz) November 12, 2012
As Twitchy reported last week, Project Orca was nothing short of disastrous. If Beeson can’t own up to the mistakes made by him and the campaign, there’s little chance he’ll learn from them.
Bold prediction: Rich Beeson will never work on another political campaign ever again.
— John Ekdahl (@JohnEkdahl) November 12, 2012
Sounds like a pretty safe bet.