From:  An Anonymous Reader (Anonymous Because He Has A Job) [Email him]

After reading the range of post-election analyses on VDARE.com, I tend to concur with many of points made, but I feel there is a good deal of over-analysis going on here, even to the point of nitpicking.   To clear the air, one would do well to simply step back in time to October 2002, and reappraise Mitt Romney's political acumen (and recent cowardice) by the events of that month—which led him to win the Massachusetts' governorship. 

It is easy to forget that without that victory he never would have become the GOP nominee for President.  The simplest explanation is that Mitt won a tight race by nominally supporting an “English only” ballot initiative and by being against Spanish language instruction in primary schools.  Ron Unz describes that election very well in an article at TAC magazine: How I Made Mitt |Romney owes his only win to English for the Children, June 26, 2012

In the weeks after that election, it was astonishing how the Boston media fell silent about that ballot initiative - clearly knowing that the public was massively opposed to that part of The Treason Lobby's agenda.

To conclude, Mitt already had a starting point winning formula for northern Yankee states (including Sailer’s “Slippery Six”).   He was simply pressured into forgetting that lesson by a craven circle of advisors.

The reader works for a large publicly traded corporation and needs anonymity.