AT THIS LINK but to save time, because he, like all the other articles in the same vein, doesn't come to a conclusion here are the basic facts from his report:
"In 2008, John McCain got 2,677,820 votes in Ohio. In 2012, according to a still-unofficial tally from the Ohio Secretary of State, Mitt Romney got 2,583,582. If before the election you had said to any politically involved Ohio Republican that Romney would receive fewer votes than McCain, you would have gotten a blank stare in return. "I would not have believed that," says Alex Triantafilou, head of the Republican Party in Hamilton County, a critical swing area that includes Cincinnati. "I would have argued strongly that that was not going to be the case."
Here is the money quote from a GOP operative.
" Romney couldn't fully connect with voters who might lean Republican. "My general impression is that the base, the activists -- the people you need -- never emotionally invested in Romney the way they emotionally invested in George W. Bush," says a senior GOP operative involved in the campaign. Maybe not even as much as they invested in McCain"
Yes, indeed, but to expand the concept to its proper conclusion; not as much as they invested in McCain/Palin.
On current figures McCain/Palin would have lost by about 19k votes (0.7% compared to Romney's actual loss by 113K 1.7%) with the same Obama turnout, and most probably would have won as the White turnout would have been higher. So much for 'The GOP needs a candidate with electability/Palin cost McCain the election" memes, and yet proof again that a true conservative will motivate the base-
Palin 2016 please.