How does Candidate Romney get around these issues?

[milhouse24]

Religion doesn't influence enough American voters to make a difference.

lol

The sitting President walked into the White House despite being a member of a wacky church.  And the Mormon in question almost won the Republican nomination.  Why was my comment so laughable?

XMFD

??

Wow, and you call yourself a Republican voter?  If there's one thing above all else that Republicans care about its religion, more importantly, the Christian religion.  And to say he almost won the nomination is a stretch, if you believe that losing to Huckabee, McCain, and Fred Thompson a success.  He can win the West, but never the South, and ironically he would win primaries in liberal states.  Perhaps Willard should run as a 3rd party?

[milhouse24]

Wow, and you call yourself a Republican voter?  If there's one thing above all else that Republicans care about its religion, more importantly, the Christian religion.  And to say he almost won the nomination is a stretch, if you believe that losing to Huckabee, McCain, and Fred Thompson a success.  He can win the West, but never the South, and ironically he would win primaries in liberal states.  Perhaps Willard should run as a 3rd party?

Uh, "liberal states" send delegates to the GOP convention too.  California is the largest cache of delegates in the GOP primaries.  If Romney won all the states he won last time plus all the non-southern states won by McCain, that would be more than enough to win the nomination.

Wow, how fantastic, Romney wins all the non-southern states, but loses all the southern states and Iowa primaries.  I'm sure the conservative base of Republicans will be so proud and he'll win the national election, of course that is counting that the South would still vote Red and for Romney.

[milhouse24]

Wow, and you call yourself a Republican voter? 

I'm sorry, what?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I disagree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Romney was in 2nd place when he dropped out of the race.  Pay attention.

Well, I might be wrong but there are sure a lot of Religious Conservative groups and leaders of the Republican-Conservative party.  Do you really believe that the GOP voters in the South and Iowa would support Romney in either the primaries or the national election?  In fact, I would guarantee that if Romney is the GOP nominee, there will be a 3rd Party Evangelical Christian ticket - maybe Ron Paul, or some either charismatic religious leader and he will sap Romney's votes in the general election.

He may use the Obama primary strategy of winning the small, and liberal states.  I'm sure the conservatives would be thrilled that a liberal carpetbagger has stolen their primaries even if Romney loses Iowa and South Carolina.  The Southern GOP will break if Romney is the nominee.  It would be interesting if they defect to the Democrats or start a new party.

[milhouse24]

Yes.  Romney won the Ames straw poll in '07, and took 2nd-place in the Iowa caucuses.  He was also competitive in the Deep South primaries.  And if they supported McCain in the general, I don't know why you'd assume they wouldn't support Romney.  Are you forgetting that Romney was "the establishment candidate" two winters ago?

If there was a third-party "Evangelical" ticket, it would be some no-name and wouldn't factor into the race.

Well, you may be high on Romney, but if he won the straw poll then why did he only finish 2nd in Iowa?  Wouldn't he have finished first by your logic?  Could voters actually prefer and like the Christian Huckabee better? 

You also may not think the South Carolina primaries matter, but I do, and finishing behind McCain, Huckabee and lazy Fred Thompson means he has a lot of ground to make up.  Fred Thompson slept through all the primaries but when he finally got around to campaigning he actually beat Romney in SC, and Mitt spent infinitely more money, time, and effort campaigning than Fred.  South Carolina has always been the last stand for any GOP candidate, but maybe Romney will be an exception.

How does Romney = McCain?  By "Establishment Candidate" do you mean the rich party leaders from Wall Street?  Yeah, they are in touch with grassroots conservatists?  Romney is just able to fundraise a lot of money because he used to be a CEO, but Huckabee had less money than Romney and still beat him!  How do you explain that? 

McCain beat Romney because he was a better candidate, had over 20 years of experience, was a famous 'war hero' and won the southern military crowd.  Romney is far below that.  He was a one term governor who is only the frontrunner because he has spent more money than anyone else.  That is called a paper champion and usually they are headed to a fall for their hubris. 

I have nothing against Romney's religion, but majority wins and the GOP has a majority of passionate Christian voters who care more about "Bush Compassionate Conservatism (populist socialism)" than "Romney Fiscal Conservatism" 

The only way I see Romney winning is if the Economy sours further and people stop caring about religion or military matters.  In my opinion, there are no strong GOP candidates and there are a lot of promising people who haven't announced yet and they may prove better than Romney.

[milhouse24]

Well, you may be high on Romney, but if he won the straw poll then why did he only finish 2nd in Iowa?  Wouldn't he have finished first by your logic?  Could voters actually prefer and like the Christian Huckabee better? 

My point is that Romney was competitive in Iowa.  You insinuated that there was no way Iowans would support Romney, when a significant portion of them actually did.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Huckabee and Thompson are southerners, so it wasn't a surprise that they did well in South Carolina.  And Thompson beat Romney by only 0.3%.  George H.W. Bush, who I wouldn't label a "Christian Conservative", won the '88 SC primary by 49 points.  So, again, I don't understand why you think it's a given that Romney will fail here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Romney = McCain in that they aren't Southerners or darlings of the Christian-Right, which you believe is so vital to the Republican nomination.  And by "Establishment Candidate" I mean that most Conservative commentators were backing him for the nomination.  He also had a slew of endorsements, including guys like DeMint and Santorum.  

And Huckabee won only a handful of primaries, and none of which were outside of his cultural comfort zone.  And you do know that Romney was ahead of Huckabee when he dropped out, right?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

You know that's not why Romney was a front-runner.  Come on now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By your logic, the GOP always has and always will nominate a "Christian Conservative" for President.  That is simply not true.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like I said in my initial post in this thread, I don't think Americans care enough about religion to have it influence a nationwide election.  As for the economy vs. military matters...tell me, which topic has dominated the news over the past 2 years?  How much further does the economy need to sour before it becomes a priority?  You say this as if the unemployment rate isn't rising.

As for Iowa, I'm going say that Romney lost there, that is pretty clear with the facts.  Even if he "almost won" or "barely lost," the question is can he actually win in 2012 or will another nobody come and beat him?  What to stop another Epic Failure?

Again, in South Carolina, Romney came in 4th place but almost 3rd?  Great, so he lost again, and the outcome would be the same again, if there were 2 Southerners in the primary - Barbour and Demint.  What's to stop another Epic Failure?

In 1988, GHWB won because of Reagan's legacy, he's a terrible candidate and that was shown clearly in 1992.  He got very lucky.  Romney will need the same luck, because he has very little to appeal to SC voters.

McCain is a very Famous War Hero and South Carolina has military bases and lots of Veterans.  Romney is not a Veteran.  Romney is completely different than McCain.  Even if Romney was the establishment candidate in 2008, he STILL Lost.  The endorsements did nothing and it might have made things worse because he didn't earn any votes yet.  Rudy was also a media frontrunner.  Rudy could even be better than Romney on some qualifications.  How does Mitt prevent another Epic Fail of frontrunner and establishment status?

Does it matter that Romney won late primaries in liberal states?  Would he have had a chance at beating McCain?  He lost to McCain in New Hampshire, why was this?  I can guarantee you if Huckabee had won South Carolina (if Fred Thompson never entered), Huck would have beaten McCain for the nomination, and Romney would have been far behind.

Romney IS the Frontrunner because he has spent and raised the most money.  I don't know why you would think there is any other reason for this.  Besides, Palin is also a front-runner over Romney in some areas.  I think most recent Republican nominees have had a southern strategy with a Christian pro-life platform.  GHWB actually changed to pro-life to win the nomination, so Romney will have to make some changes to not be seen as a Northeast Liberal.

Again, for the GOP primaries I believe that Religion will be just as important as the economy.  You can choose to stick your head in the sand and convince yourself it won't matter.  We can wait and see where Huckabee voters go to in Iowa and SC.  Rudy is a Catholic and he did terrible in the GOP primary, and he was far ahead of Romney in the polls.

In a general election, Romney would be competitive in liberal swing states, but he could also lose the Southern states.  But he won't survive the primaries, yet again.

[milhouse24]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

You know that's not why Romney was a front-runner.  Come on now.

Actually, I think Romney's $ was a large part of why he was a top contender.  He spent his way to early leads in Iowa, New Hampshire, and other early primary states.  But milhouse seems to think that votes you get from spending lots of $ on advertising somehow don't count?  Romney's $ was an advantage in 2008, and it'll be an advantage in 2012.  If Romney is able to spend his way to the 2012 GOP nomination, his victory will still "count".  It's not like they're going to take the nomination away from him because of the way he won it.

Well, I took Milhouse as saying Romney's support was completely devoid of merit, when one look at the man's resume would tell you otherwise.  I was basically trying to keep this debate from turning into an "Opinion of Mitt Romney" thread. 

So should someone win the primaries because he was CEO and Rich?  Steve Forbes tried the same thing in 1996 and he still lost!  Gimme a break, just because you are a rich CEO should not allow you to buy the primary.  Unless you are Bloomberg, no other newbie one-termer politician is going to walk away with the Primary.

[milhouse24]

Add a few more to the list:

4. Reagan bashing

5. John McCain Endorsement

6. Abortion Views

7. Turning on the Gay Community

8. Romneycare

4. Was Reagan not a Pro-Choice Tax raiser as Governor? Did he not raise taxes as President? Reagan wasn't perfect because no one is. Saying your an independent during someone's administration /= Reagan bashing. Quit being hackist

5. Sarah Palin endorsed McCain before Romney did? Unlike Huckabee who goes around endorsing losing primary candidates like Vander Plaats and possibly Cox, Romney has avoided most primaries like Florida for example while only getting into Arizona and Utah because if he didn't endorse McCain that might reflect badly on Romney in 2012, especially if McCain wins. While at the same time backing winners like Scott Brown, Chris Christie, and Bob McDonnell. In Utah he endorsed Bennet because the two are close friends and Bennet supported Romney in 2008. I want Bennet and McCain primaried but I realize that these primaries often bring in national factors that sometimes are unavoidable.

6. Was Reagan not Pro-Choice for half his term as Governor?

7.That one is a problem but he won't have to worry about it in the primary.

8. Well pointing to the fact that MA has a 90% Dem Legislature that overode some of Romney's veto is a start and explains some of the unnecessary regulation and state mandates but the overall programs is still Romney's and he will have to explain the ways in which it isn't Obamacare and why he isn't at fault for the cost issues.

I have some news to you Romney is NOT Reagan, and he's really not anywhere close to then-Governor Reagan at this time. 

It won't be impossible for Romney to win the nomination, but its not going to be easy.  He will have to have a lot of luck.

[milhouse24]

Failure?  The guy made it to the final round of consideration for McCain's runningmate and has positioned himself as the heir-apparent to the GOP nod. 

He's not expected to win South Carolina.  Just like John McCain wasn't expected to win Iowa in '08.  Candidates aren't supposed to win every primary.

McCain's war record is analogous to Romney's business acumen.  All roads seem to be leading to "the economy" as Issue #1 next cycle.

I just disagree with this.  I don't know what to tell you.  Huckabee never competed in any of the mainstream states.   McCain and Romney were neck-and-neck headed into Florida, but McCain beat him by 5 points.  Had Romney won, he would've taken all 57 delegates and went into Super Tuesday with a full head of steam.  And I'm not cheerleading for Romney...I was a McCain supporter last go-round.  Huckabee never really had a shot.

A significant amount of Americans think he is the most qualified to be President right now.

Romney is pro-life.

People who base their vote on "religion" are but a mere portion of the GOP, and the electorate's distaste for the Dubya years have only marginalized their influence. 

I do applaud your optimistic view as a Northeast social liberal, I am a Northeastern too and I share your views that religion should not matter.  But because of recent history, I know that religion matters a heck of a lot in the GOP primary but not so much in the general election (among democrats and independents).  While northerners think with their pocketbook first, the south and midwest care as strongly about conservative social values.

I don't doubt that Romney is a "GOP leader" but so is Steele, Barbour.  But he was a governor, so he's not exactly some bum off the street.  But it is laughable that you consider his VP candidacy a success considering that McCain actually wanted Joe Leiberman or Tom Ridge ahead of Sarah Palin.  It also doesn't speak well for Romney that McCain picked Dumb Sarah over Mitt!!!  Joe Lieberman was also not a Republican and he was ahead of Mitt. 

But I do think that Mitt's best chances lie as a VP candidate, instead of a Presidential candidate.  That way, Mitt doesn't have to convince any Evangelicals in the primary and can stay with his core assets of fundraising and management, and let the president handle the Evangelicals.

About South Carolina, I really feel sad that you don't think South Carolina is important.  When was the last time the GOP presidential candidate lost South Carolina?  Not in a long time.  Of course, Romney can get lucky and convince the media that SC is unimportant especially if someone has home-field advantage like DeMint.  But also logistically, if Romney loses in the South and Deep South primaries, how will such a tepid response effect the general election? 

If Romney loses Iowa, he can make it up in NH and SC, just like McCain, but he can't lose both Iowa and SC.  It would kill his momentum.  To say he can lose both Iowa and SC is really either dumb, naive, or completely risky.

I don't doubt that the Economic Issues would benefit Romney, but it is ludicrous to say that Romney is anywhere equal to McCain in presidential politics.  McCain is a public figure and War Hero for the last 30 years.  He beat Bush in NH in 2000.  He raised more money intially than everyone else, and only squandered it through poor spending, and old age affecting campaigning.  He has a built in base of Military Veterans. 

If Romney is tied into the Wall STreet crowd of out-sourcing CEO's with big bonuses and stock options, that could be even worse!  I would also argue there are plenty of decent Business CEO's that could be equal or better than Romney such as Bloomberg, Steve Forbes, Meg Whitman, Jon Corzine, and other Rich CEO's.

I'm not sure how much more mainstream you can get besides the 4 primary states.  Huck won Iowa and finished second in SC.  Romney won his home-state of Michigan.  Giuliani was supposed to be competive in Florida as well.  Maybe you are anti-Evangelical, but Huck was a stronger candidate than Romney in 2008.  If Romney wants to make his last stand in Florida, good luck to him, he should ask Rudy for advice.

I don't doubt that Romney is a good competent manager, but I DO doubt his ability to campaign for votes.  GWB was a great campaigner but he was a terrible, hands-off manager, but GWB won the primaries.

Romney may now be pro-life, but ask a majority of Massachusetts voters if they would ever vote for a pro-life governor.  Hint: Romney was governor of MA.

I don't know why you are so anti-Christian, but explain the popularity of Sarah Palin if religion does not matter?

For your own sake, you may end up being correct.  But you are selling something that I'm not buying and I suspect many other people here don't buy into Romney success either.  Its going to take a lot of LUCK instead of resume for him to win the any primary.

[milhouse24]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

You know that's not why Romney was a front-runner.  Come on now.

Actually, I think Romney's $ was a large part of why he was a top contender.  He spent his way to early leads in Iowa, New Hampshire, and other early primary states.  But milhouse seems to think that votes you get from spending lots of $ on advertising somehow don't count?  Romney's $ was an advantage in 2008, and it'll be an advantage in 2012.  If Romney is able to spend his way to the 2012 GOP nomination, his victory will still "count".  It's not like they're going to take the nomination away from him because of the way he won it.

Well, I took Milhouse as saying Romney's support was completely devoid of merit, when one look at the man's resume would tell you otherwise.  I was basically trying to keep this debate from turning into an "Opinion of Mitt Romney" thread. 

So should someone win the primaries because he was CEO and Rich?

Is this about "should" or "will"?  My point was simply that Romney's $ will make him more likely to win the nomination.  Obviously, the nomination is up in the air, but Romney's $ is one particular advantage that he has over other candidates.  (Of course, Romney has certain disadvantages as well.)  Whether this *should* happen and whether him winning in part because of money violates some cosmic sense of justice is another matter.  But it would be naive to think that campaign fundraising and spending is irrelevant to who wins presidential nominations.  McCain managed to win despite being behind in campaign spending, but that's actually a rarity.

I believe that McCain won because he was better than the other misfits in the primary.  He was a military hero like Ike.  He lost his money because of poor spending, not because he couldn't fund-raise it.  Romney was more disciplined, yet he never won any important primaries.  Huck was under-funded yet managed to win Iowa.  So money doesn't really matter if the candidate is good enough.

I find it odd that I'm the only one who thinks its Ludicrous that Romney would walk away with the nomination in 2012.  Maybe it naivety or just chosen ignorance over recent history.

[milhouse24]

What makes you say that?  Dubya is the only GOP nominee I can think of that wore his Christianity on his sleeve.  

I honestly don't think the South matters that much.  If Romney whiffed on those states, how many delegates would he miss out on?  Judging by the '08 results, Tennessee, West Virginia, Florida, Missouri, and Georgie are all very winnable for Romney.  But we might have to just agree to disagree here.  

Well, I don't think that should be held against him.  Lieberman is one of his closest friends, and an independent runningmate would've been an asset in the anti-GOP environment he was campaigning in.  Tom Ridge would've made an excellent VP, in my opinion, but McCain said himself that he wouldn't choose a pro-choice runningmate.  Palin was chosen as a hail mary pass.  The campaign didn't know she was going to flop, but they had to risk it.  It bears no reflection on Romney.  What's impressive is that Romney was under serious consideration, despite the fact that McCain absolutely hated him.

Sure, all of the early states are important.  But no one expects a candidate to win all of them.

Romney lost Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina last go-round.  Yet he headed into Florida in 2nd place.  Had he won Florida (and he almost did), it probably would've propelled him to the nomination.  

Bloomberg, maybe, but more for his political record rather than his business record.  I like Forbes, but he hasn't achieved what Romney has.  Whitman...why?  Corzine...seriously?

Romney finished ahead of Huckabee in the '08 primaries, yet Huckabee was the stronger candidate??  Can you explain that to me?

Romney has tried to explain his conversion to being pro-life.  You either buy it, you don't buy it, or you don't care.  My point is that there aren't enough "non-buying" voters to make him non-viable as a candidate.

I'm not anti-Christian.  I'm Catholic.  I just don't believe Romney's Mormonism will be the death knell to his candidacy.  

Palin is popular because: (1) she was the Republican VP nominee two years ago, (2) she's been in the news more than any other possible candidate, (3) she's been Obama's most vocal critic, and (4) a lot of Republicans like her solely for the fact that Democrats so despise her.  

Besides, most polls have Romney in 1st-place for the 2012 nomination, including the most recent Gallup poll.  He is also the highest-valued contract on Intrade.  

The problem that I see with the basis of your support for Romney is that "he almost won 2nd place" in the primaries.  However, I'm taking the view that he LOST first place of the primaries because of his many flaws.  IMO, 2nd place is the first loser for a reason.  Heck, John Edwards and Howard Dean finished 2nd in 2004 and neither of them were viable in 2008.  Romney lost fair and square because McCain was a better candidate than him.  It is my belief that there will be another candidate that could beat Romney in 2012 for the same reasons.  Besides, unlike other past primary losers like Reagan, Dole, and McCain they continued to serve in politics until they ran a 2nd time in the primary.  Mitt hasn't done much since 2008 and he is praying for the economy to tank because there would be nothing else to make him look better as a candidate.

I'll try to fill you in on recent history or at least my perception of recent history.  You can choose to believe me or develop your own thesis.  McCain won primarily on his past Military prestige instead of religion but he was also a solid Republican in most areas for 20 years.  Dole also served for 30 years and had strong mid-west Christian values.  Reagan also displayed strong family values (Carter also supported Roe v Wade and had Falwell protesting him).  So how does Mitt from liberal, secular, atheist, Catholic Massachusetts convince Robertson and Dobson that he is one of them?  Otherwise they will be against them because they don't want their power neutered. 

I think your perception of the primaries is a little screwy.  Which states do you actually think Romney will win?  He can easily lose Iowa and South Carolina.  For every state he loses, his oppenents also WIN those states and continue their momentum.  You seem to think that if Romney wins Michigan and Nevada he will automatically be the nominee (Hint: he won those states in 2008 and still lost the primary).  The Winner of Iowa and South Carolina will look FAR BETTER than Romney for Super Tuesday contests. 

I don't know why you think so highly of Florida.  Rudy made his last stand at Florida and still lost!  But I would agree that if Romney loses Florida in 2012, it would also be his last stand and he would be finished.  You seem to think that no Christian conservative will run and beat Romney fair and square in Iowa, SC, Florida, etc.  That's a VERY REAL Threat.  I think that if Jeb Bush were to announce, he would easily beat Romney in the primaries, same with Thune and possibly Barbour.

I just don't understand why McCain's shortlist provides any help for Romney.  Its widely seen that McCain was a crazy man who had a shortlist of Republican misfits and cast-offs.  None of them would ever win the GOP Presidential Nomination - Lieberman, Ridge, Palin, because they are all terrible candidates!  Thus, it shows that Romney was a terrible candidate for even being mentioned in that group.  Besides he wasn't really on the short-list so if he was really that special, he would have been picked, at least ahead of Lieberman (northeast moderate).

Romney lost Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina last time and HE STILL lost the Primaries!!!  Here's my advice to ROMNEY, try winning Iowa, NH, and SC, and then you'll win the nomination.  I'll let you in on a secret, every time someone wins an early primary, they raise more money.  If Huckabee won Iowa AND South Carolina, he would have raised enough money to beat both Romney and McCain. 

If Romney had miraculously won Florida in 2008, he would have still needed to face McCain and Huckabee.  I doubt that Romney would have easily won the nomination, perhaps if he outspent the other 2 guys, but it would not have easily propelled him to the nomination.

The political landscape is littered with Rich CEO's who've run for office.  What makes Romney so much more special than the others?  He would have lost re-election for a 2nd term as Governor.  He just doesn't have the political skills of Clinton or Dubya. 

Romney may have come in 2nd in the 2008 primaries, but he won states that didn't matter, unless he was seeking a delegate fight like "Clinton vs. Obama."  Huckabee and McCain won the early states that mattered against a full field of opponents.  You may think the early primaries don't matter, but I do.  I guess we will wait and see in 2012 which person is right.

Romney may be "pro-life" but it doesn't matter if I believe him.  What will happen is that there will be another person who is a Evangelical Christian who is see as more Pro-Life than Romney, and that person will get more over-all votes than Romney, including the "non-religious primary voters."

I would think that the GOP would have more Catholics, but Rudy was a Catholic and he easily lost the primaries.  The national GOP is not very welcoming to Catholics or Mormons.

Palin's popularity stems because she is a populist Christian and that got her the VP nomination, the TV exposure, and ridicule from the secularist left.  She is here in the public because she is Conservative Christian.

Romney is highly ranked in the polls now because he is the only person that has announced.  In 2008, McCain and Hillary were the front-runners and both had failures.  Romney won't be the front-runner for long once other more qualified candidates announce.  Why do you think Romney is better than the other un-announced Candidates?

[milhouse24]

He lost New Hampshire because of McCain's last minute rise in the polls their. Romney won among NH Republicans 35 to 34 over McCain. Independents went to McCain by 10 and gave McCain that state. In 2012 the only candidate who could win those indies over Romney is Pawlenty and I don't think he has the energy to do it, or the stamina. Reagan lost Iowa, and made a comeback in New Hampshire. Now yes, he went on to win the SC. But McCain won the military vote and the Eastern South Carolina vote.

Even a second or third place showing would be a strong performance for Romney their. The idea isn't to win NV and MI and then go to Florida. The idea is to win NH then MI and NV, remain competative in SC.

Then win Florida. Finally Sweep Super Tuesday and become the presumptive nominee. This time however he shouldn't waist money on the Iowa Caucuses unless he can win in a very split up race. The focus on New Hampshire alone, would secure that state. Santorum looks to be running.

Romney could also get DeMint in the race as well if necessary to make SC irrelevant. Both could be stocking horses for Romney.

Huck basically did that for McCain. I wonder what Keystone Phil would do if Santorum did that. I can see him joing the campaign and then when Rick drops out after SC and endorses Mitt again. That would be cool to see.

Yeah, I do agree that Mitt needs a lot of help and luck to win the nomination.  It is certainly a risky strategy to lose BOTH Iowa AND South Carolina.  No One has ever done that.  Whoever wins both Iowa and SC will be very strong against Romney.  It would take a lot of money from Romney to rebound from that.

Yeah, McCain won Indies and Vets, something that Romney might have difficulty doing.  If Romney swings too much on social issues, he could lose the Indie vote.  But its a given that Romney will win and he needs to win big in New Hampshire to get the publicity boost.  If he just barely wins, since he is the NH favorite, it would be terrible and the 2nd place guy could claim victory (like Bill Clinton against Tsongas in 92). 

But if he skips Iowa, it might look really bad.  But Thune would have home-state advantage, so Romney would have an easy excuse.  Now, it would be equally sneaky and risky, to get DeMint to run in SC and pull a "Fred Thompson-to-McCain assist."  It would be very rare for Romney to purposely lose both Iowa AND SC, but he could hope to thin out the field amongst Thune, DeMint, etc. so that he just BARELY RISES above them. 

The risk is that Thune and DeMint can easily Rise quickly above Romney in delegates and Publicity, which would help super tuesday.  It would be a really crazy, insane strategy but it might work with a lot of luck.  However, I think that whoever wins Iowa and SC would be equally as strong.

In my honest opinion, Romney's best chance lie in getting the VP ticket.  If he has to thin out the field so much to get the nomination, is that really the type of candidate the GOP wants, someone who has such a tepid response in the mid-west and South?  There could be a huge convention fight and risk a 3rd party "Palin-Tea Party" rising.

I think Huck was the real threat to McCain.  McCain beat Romney easily in NH.  The real challenge was SC, when McCain needed Freddy to vanquish Huck.  McCain would have easily beaten Romney in Super Tuesday matchups.

[milhouse24]

Romney may do well running as an outsider, but is he too Outside.  Ross Perot tried the same thing, and he LOST too.  Most MA voters would have voted Romney out in his second term.  I think Romney's a little better than Jimmy Carter, who also served just 1 term as governor, but I'm just saying that Romney needs a miracle.  

Hey there are a lot of so-called family values guys out there.  Joe Lieberman is a smug sanctimonious guy.  While I think times have changed, GOP voters outside the Northeast are primarily Christian and they are uneasy with someone who is Mormon, Jewish, or Catholic.  Its just not a common religion in the mid-west and South.  If you claim religion is no concern, how the heck do you explain how Huckabee beat Romney in both Iowa and SC?  Huck was someone who smoke to the christian values of GOP voters.  They want the real thing, not an imposter, non-Evangelical.  

I'm not sure why you doubt the importance of Iowa and SC.  Its a little like saying that a Democrat who gets whooped in the California primary, should still be the nominee.  Dems want a sufficiently liberal candidate, and Republicans want a sufficiently conservative candidate.  The last few non-socially conservative nominees lost badly - McCain and GHWB were seen as spineless on social conservatism.  Romney might very well receive the same tepid response from Christian Conservatives like Dobson and Robertson.  But those "agents of intolerance" are getting old, so someone like Rick Warren could endorse Romney and get voters to like him.

Of course, there is a risk of appealing to "moderate" GOP voters in Florida, because they may just as easily switch to voting Democrat, particularly if there are no fear of "social values" keeping them in the GOP.

Huckabee wasn't a great Southern Candidate.  But if it was just Haley Barbour vs. Mitt Romney, I think Barbour could easily win Iowa, SC, Florida, and Super Tuesday.

As for McCain's shortlist, he needed a strong Christian social conservative woman.  Palin was a good choice, until it was revealed that she was unable to learn national issues quickly.  She just didn't have time to cram all the non-Alaska related info.  But I'm not sure she has any political future outside of Alaska either.  I think McCain could have gone with Kay B Hutchison with equal or better results.  If McCain had to choose a man, it should have been either Lamar Alexander or Fred Thompson (if he stayed awake).  They would have been useful in Ohio and Virginia.  I don't think Romney would have helped at all, perhaps some post-Wall Street crash.  Definitely no pro-choicers as VP.

I don't think Huckabee was a strong candidate, but it was proven that he was better against McCain.  McCain easily beat Romney.  However, the only way Romney wins is if he can outlast the others with more money and winning obscure primaries, which is obviously his current strategy.  I guess all the 2008 GOP candidates were mediocre in their own way.  I didn't have any favorites but Romney would have been the one that I would be personally most comfortable with as president, I just doubt that he can win the votes.  I just don't think the rest of the country cares what New Yorkers think.  I think they do the exact opposite because socially-liberal New Yorkers scare them.

Romney is a special guy, but he wears special magic underwear too, and that scares the heck out of GOP voters.  When the GOP is ready for a Catholic nominee, they would be ready for a Mormon nominee.  It seems to me that the country wants "feel-good" Presidents like Clinton, Dubya, and Reagan.  They don't want bland corporate robots who care about spreadsheets and look at people as numbers/wages.  Romney needs to honestly connect with the Farmer-NRA/Nascar Dad if he has a chance.  That's why I think he is only a VP candidate at best.

Whoever wins Iowa and south carolina will be VERY strong against romney.  Mitt may outlast them with money in super tuesday.  But someone like Thune or Barbour winning both Iowa and SC will coast to the nomination.

Not sure anyone cared about Palin's oil connections.  Dubya had better oil connections.

Romney is the most serious person right now as a candidate.  The others like Palin and Huck are side-tracked by TV shows.  Thune, Barbour, and Jeb would whoop Romney if they announced and got a campaign going.

[milhouse24]

My point has always been its an incredibly risky strategy to lose both Iowa and SC.  He hopes to spread the field so thin that he rises.  I don't think Thune or Barbour are mediocre candidates, they won't back down easily.  They aren't old, lazy men.  

Also, Bush won Iowa and SC.  McCain won NH and SC in 2008.  You HAVE to win 2 out of 3 to get the nomination.  Romney cannot win just NH, and lost both Iowa and SC.  He will pray that its a different winner for Iowa and SC. 

But whoever wins might either be seen as survival of the fittest or dumbest.  I think people want that "feel-good" candidate like Dubya and Clinton.  I'm not sure if Romney has that in him.  Reagan had it in him.  

Romney was def a quiet stalking horse in 2008 but it would have been very weird of him to lose Iowa, NH, and SC.  Maybe he's just a weird guy amongst the other mediocre guys.  I'm sure he can raise the money to outlast everyone in 2012, but will the enthusiasm be there from the grassroots for such a strategy?  As I said before, I think Thune and Barbour would do well in fundraising.  It will be a hard-won fight.

You are wrong so many fronts. For one the so called Iowa to SC to the nomination was promoted because that is what George Bush did in 2000. However in the past SC and IA have not necessarily voted alike. And Romney has a lot of Midwest and Western Strength. The problem in Iowa is that its a caucus. Were it a primary, he would likely win, however its not so its dominated by Evengelical groups. Romney can compete but he cannot beat a Huck, Palin, Thune, Barbour etc.

Why are you so sure that SC and IA will vote for the same person. What if Pawlenty and Thune battle it out in Iowa with Pawlenty winning IA and then Barbour winning S.C. Romney beats Pawlenty in N.H. who collapses afterwords and then Thune can't gain any traction after the IA loss. Romney abandons S.C. to Barbour and then focuses on Florida while simultaneosly racking up MI, NV, and WY.

Next Romney wasn't crushed in NH. He won Republicans 35-34 in NH. Who of the expected field would beat Romney among the Indies who handed McCain New Hampshire? Pawlenty. I think he is the next Fred Thompson. Romney is not going to shift on issues again because it would be his doom. Veterans aren't going to coalasce behind one guy in 2010 and Romney will get a significant slice.

Huckabee was not the Strongest challenger to McCain. No one took the fight to McCain in as many places as Romney did. NH, MI, FL, CA and on and on. Huck only came close in SC among states that mattered. The States Huck one on Super Tuesday had become irrelevant. If Huck had won S.C. Romney would have won Florida and then dominated on Super Tuesday. Huck had very limited appeal outside his home region. Suburban Conservatives, Western Conservatives, and Northern Conservatives all prefered Romney. Had Romney won Florida before Super Tuesday he would have had the momentum and would have been able to get the delegates to win the WV Convention. Then he would have been able to win CA, MO, GA, and maybe even AZ. That would have secured him as the frontrunner and he would have secured it in WI, WA, VA, MD, DC, VT, RI, OH, and TX. TX and VA would be the only ones that would be close in that scenario.

[milhouse24]

Religion doesn't influence enough American voters to make a difference.

lol

The sitting President walked into the White House despite being a member of a wacky church.  And the Mormon in question almost won the Republican nomination.  Why was my comment so laughable?

I think the GOP base has a lower tolerance for non-Christians.  Brownback is a Catholic and did very poorly in the primaries and he had a decent resume.  I think a Catholic would get the GOP nomination before a Mormon. 

I think the Democratic Party is more accepting of different religions, and they would nominate a Jewish person or another Catholic as the nominee.  Remember, John Kerry is Catholic and he lost to Bush.  Its still a big hurdle for the majority of American Christians to accept.

Obama is a Christian and attends a Christian Church.  He has a wacky Christian pastor, but he is still a Christian, and religion transcends racial stigmas. 

If Obama were a practicing Muslim, he would have far more difficulty getting the nomination or presidency.

[milhouse24]

I think Alexander offered help in Ohio and other mid-Atlantic states.  While Palin may have helped get out the Women vote, her inexperience also hurt.  Its much safer to find someone near the swing states.  He also would have been more older and experienced than Obama.

KBH would have been an asset as a smart, experienced, southern female.  She would have done better with Ohio voters than Palin.

Not sure why I have to keep explaining this, but McCain beat Romney easily in NH.  He beat Romney in Florida and SC.  Huckabee won Iowa and finished better than Romney in SC.  From those stats, I feel that Huckabee was better against McCain and proved that he could win a larger christian crowd against McCain in the South.  Sure, Huck had weaknesses outside the South, but he was better against McCain there and I feel that South is more important to the GOP base than elsewhere. 

McCain would have easily beaten Romney anywhere else, otherwise Romney would have come out ahead on super tuesday.  You can spin the "half glass full/half empty" but as far as media exposure against McCain, Huckabee was the stronger opponent.  Their matchup highlighted their strong contrasts. 

I'm not saying that Romney is a weak or terrible candidate, he may very well win with his "ignore the south" strategy.  But he would have never beaten McCain in 2008, maybe in your fantasyland, but McCain was a better candidate than Romney.

Obama is a Protestant Christian and a practicing Christian who regularly attends a Christian Church, but Mormonism is seen as a radical form of Christianity and a cult.  Obama is not a Muslim, and if he was a practicing Muslim he would not have been elected President.

Romney is a practicing Mormon, but Christians may wonder why he doesn't convert to mainstream American Protestantism instead of a radical form of Christianity.  Just like no American citizen would want the US govt to have Catholicism as the official religion and join the Roman Catholic Empire and take orders from the pope. 

Americans, like Anglicans, value their religious independence from extremist and foreign priests.

[milhouse24]

I'm judging that Huckabee was better than Romney in 2008 primarily based on perception.  Because politics is such a fluid game, perception matters more than numbers.  Huckabee was less-funded than Romney yet he still beat Romney in Iowa, SC, and other southern states.  I feel that the Southern states matter more in the Republican primary.  Huckabee may be a regional southern candidate, but Romney is only a northern and western candidate.  I feel strongly that the winner of SC will have a high probability of getting the nomination.  If Romney fails to win SC in 2012, he will be in a dire situation.  Romney may have strength in the West, but what if another Western candidate shows up?  In that states that McCain and Huckabee heavily campaigned in, they both beat Romney.

Yeah, I do think that Christians would rather accept a radical Protestant than a "radical cult" of Mormonism.  Because there are a lot of "wacky" things in Mormonism, like the multiple wives, etc.  Honestly, Romney should convert to Evangelicalism, they are very accepting of everyone and he will "see the light" just like when he changed to "pro-life."  Obama's father may have been a Muslim at some point, but Barack Jr made the wise choice to convert and get baptized as a Christian.  He Chose Christianity over Muslim or other religions.  Just like GWB became a Born-Again Christian.

[milhouse24]

If things continue the way they are, Romney will, I said WILL, get the Nod. Repubs far and wide know very well that he is the most competent for the job. If the polls continually reflect this, he's a shoe in.

You will have big leader within the evangelical circles pushing for him and that will make the difference. You will have the Pat Robertson's and Dobson's coming out in droves for him.

I have a strong inclination about this.

When he made his graceful exit in 08, I saw a man who had patience, fortitude and foresight.

Certainly Romney is a competent man, and he will be strong in the North and West.  Are you sure that Robertson and Dobson will support him?  That seems unlikely until the general election.  They would probably support Thune in the primary.  How does Robertson feel about health care, isn't that Christian compassion?