Corrected for "the calendar," Mittens running 4-6% better than McCain in 2008

[J. J.]

At least one data point is wrong - Romney only got 28% in Tennessee, not 38%.

But, yeah, I think that makes sense. Both Romney and McCain were weak frontrunners.

You can't really compare Romney and McCain here. Romney has never not been considered the frontrunner. McCain had made a major comeback to win most of the early states.

I think that going into NH, Romney was considered the frontrunner in reality.  After NH, he lost that status.

[J. J.]

At least one data point is wrong - Romney only got 28% in Tennessee, not 38%.

But, yeah, I think that makes sense. Both Romney and McCain were weak frontrunners.

You can't really compare Romney and McCain here. Romney has never not been considered the frontrunner. McCain had made a major comeback to win most of the early states.

I think that going into NH, Romney was considered the frontrunner in reality.  After NH, he lost that status.

Giuliani was the frontrunner before McCain. Romney was actually polling fourth place nationally throughout the first two weeks of 2008 (source)

Romney was fairly study in IA, with Giuliani and McCain sliding:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_Republican_caucuses,_2008

The winner there was Huckabee, but it was reasonably close, and Romney ran a strong second (though not as strong as 2012).

In the last polls before NH, McCain was ahead in most, but usually by 1-2%.  The margin 6.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Republican_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries,_2008#New_Hampshire  Rudy hadn't led there since 2/2007.

[J. J.]

I think this is a pretty clear sign that Mitt Romney is a very weak presidential nominee.

Which you could say about Obama 2008, Clinton 1992, and Reagan 1980.

[J. J.]

Clinton, duh. The others, not really.

This thing was still ongoing in 2008, on the D side.

Bush was still winning in places in late April of 1980.

[J. J.]

Clinton, duh. The others, not really.

This thing was still ongoing in 2008, on the D side.

Bush was still winning in places in late April of 1980.

Obama was an upstart facing the juggernaut of a dynasty.

Romney instead can't put away a bunch of clowns and has-beens.

The spouse of a president that never had a majority is not a "dynasty."

The arguments you make make for Romney being weak are the same ones you can make for the "weak" Reagan (1980), Clinton (1992), and Obama (2008). 

Further, Dole (1996), Gore (2000), and McCain (2008) all had stronger primary performances than any of these three.  Arguably, Dukakis's 1988 primary performance was better than any Reagan (1980), Clinton (1992), and Obama (2008).

[J. J.]

The spouse of a president that never had a majority is not a "dynasty."

LOL, you're such a tool that it's no wonder why you have such a massive hard-on for Mittens.

2. A family or group that maintains power for several generations: a political dynasty controlling the state.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dynasty

Where are all those generations of Clintons or Rodhams holding public office? 

[J. J.]

Arguably, Dukakis's 1988 primary performance was better than any Reagan (1980)

I don't know what to say other than:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You really don't have a good grasp on what constitutes a strong primary performance, do you?

No, Dukakis actually shut down the nomination process sooner than Reagan did.  It is amazing how bad memory is.

[J. J.]

Does this conversation have any relevance to the election at hand?

If that argument is "Romney is the weakest frontrunner since... .," yes.