A few months before the election, a senior Republican warned the GOP could lose the presidential race by a wide margin unless it moderated its stand on issues like climate change and immigration to appeal to independent voters. In the aftermath of Mitt Romney’s defeat, it looks like a prescient call. Except the official wasn’t talking about Romney in 2012. He was talking about McCain in 2008.
The stunning thing about the 2012 presidential race is the Republicans’ failure to counter the forces that carried President Obama to victory, even though they were in 
plain sight. The president’s popularity among Hispanics, women, young voters and city and suburban dwellers, so vital to his win in 2008, would prove decisive this year. But judging by most of the post-election commentary, Republicans are only now waking up to America’s changing demographics.
The Republican who saw this coming in 2008 was Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, a former head of the National Republican Campaign Committee. He noted the party’s challenges in a May 2008 interview with the Wall Street Journal:
“But the public is way ahead of a lot of these republicans on climate change. They recognize that the world is way ahead of us,” Davis said. Asked if he believes McCain is right on the issue, he responded, “Of course he’s right.” Davis also said McCain’s moderate views on reforming U.S. immigration laws are where the party should shift because McCain “speaks to the overall demographics and the overall issues and is probably the best person to carry the banner.” Unlike many of his Republican colleagues, McCain has supported policies that would provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
Yet by many measures, Romney performed worse than McCain. He won fewer total votes than McCain, did worse among Hispanic voters and failed to narrow President Obama’s edge among female voters from four years ago. Romney did a little better than McCain among young voters, but not where it mattered. Young people in Ohio, Florida and Virginia went for Obama in greater numbers than in 2008, thanks to a ferocious targeting effort by the President’s campaign.
It’s one thing to know what you’re up against and lose a hard-fought contest. But the Romney campaign ignored recent history, disputed the polls and belittled the effectiveness of the Obama election-day vote drive. It’s no wonder they seemed genuinely shocked at the result on election night.
The surprising thing isn’t so much that Romney lost. It’s that he failed to counter his opponent’s obvious advantages.