Please, don't laugh (yet), but, according to the below article, the key reason for Mittch-A-Sketch Romney losing the presidential race was...the lack of money. Or, to be more specific, a lack of money at one critical juncture of the race: soon after having sewn up the nomination.
http://finance.yahoo.com/...
According to this article, the Romney campaign became unexpectedly depleted of financial resources because the primary campaign was longer, more bruising than expected, forcing him to spend a lot of money against his opponents to get that nomination.
And then, because of that, Romney had to focus critical time, energy and resources filling up the coffers rather than focusing on the campaign.
It's an interesting theory. However, something strikes me as very odd about this, one of the more novel theories in the ongoing national handwringing among Republicans still shocked that Romney lost.
That odd thing: there's nothing new about people running for presidential nominations having to spend money. It's the very reason they raise money to begin with. And, for someone who claims to have such a brilliant track record of...raising and making money...it seems like an odd excuse for them to be using.
Another odd thing: it's almost always the case that, after winning a primary campaign, a nominee-in-waiting has to turn their attention to other things, like, oh, I don't know...the financing for the general election campaign, for instance. There's nothing new nor unusual about that.
It sounds to me that, like with virtually everything else about the con artist that is Mitt Romney, his skills as a money man, money manager, businessman and strategic thinker were...highly overrated.