The Candidates
Featured Archives
Last night was a good night for McCain and a bad night for Mitt. I guess you rate Huckabee’s night based on how bad you want to spin things for or against Mitt. Huckabee’s wins did come out of left field, but not by much. He won resoundingly in the South, but lost resoundingly everywhere else- actually much more than Mitt lost in the South. So you can do what you want with that.
I am guessing the chances of Mitt winning the nomination are pretty low. Although the next two elections are in Caucuses where he could do well, KS and WA, the chances of him winning the next 800 delegates are very low. But he does have a couple choices. Number one, he could drop out and save the money. McCain would love it, and he could possibly secure himself some sort of McCain deal should he beat Huckabee to the punch. The other option is for Mitt to stay in. He has a couple things to be gained here. By holding McCain’s feet to the fire in a decent way, and promising to be a conservative voice till the convention, he might set himself up for a strong position in 2012. The other is that if Huckabee stays in (which I think he possibly will), Mitt and Huck could split the vote enough to keep McCain from the nomination. That sounds good to me. 900 delegates left and McCain needs another 400-700 depending on who’s math you follow, it’s a possibility. There again he could possibly play king maker in June by saying he will drop out and give the delegates (as much as he is able to) to McCain and beat Huckabee to the punch, once again.
I have no idea what will Mitt will do, and I can see any of the above scenarios working out well for him.
One other point, I know a lot of people on this board hate Mitt. But the idea that this some how proves everyone hates Mitt is really ridiculous. So far the total vote count is tallied as such:
McCain, John S. 3,543,852 37.89%
Romney, Mitt 2,832,521 30.29%
Huckabee, Mike 1,935,896 20.70%
Link
The idea that 7.6% of the population choosing McCain over you constitutes everyone hating you is pure dumbness. Whatever are your motivations, try to refrain from sounding like a moron.
A year ago we were told Mitt would never get above single digits nationally. Mitt’s come a long way, not as far as I would have liked, but every doesn’t hate Mitt, people just preferred McCain by 7.6% more and preferred Huckabee by 9.61% less. Not too mention there are plenty of people who knew very little about Romney even at the voting booth. It’s hard to claim that the same familiarity existed with Mitt, who was an unknown as late as June, that existed with McCain who ran in 2000 and has managed to keep himself in the news for the last 8 years. To be sure, should Mitt run again in 2012 he will have a lot to build on and he will be the presumptive front runner early on, much like McCain was a few years back.
February 6th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Jason, much of this is true, but you’re assuming Mitt’s 2008 support represents some kind of deep affection/loyalty to the man himself. As you’re well aware, the conservative “marriage” to Mitt Romney has been very much one of convenience – he pledged fealty to their issues, and had the pocketbook and connections to run a gold-plated national campaign. And there’s a growing perception among the commentariat that somehow Mitt
BTW, don’t oversell the “out of nowhere” angle too much. As you know, from last syummer on the “smart money” was on Mitt to grab the nomination. So in many ways, he underperformed expectations.
Unfortunately, by 20012 (should McCain lose) a new crop of conservative leaders will be on the scene – leaders who’ve toiled in the conservative vineyards far longer than Mitt Romney. Conservatives will be looking for a winner, and will divorce Mitt in favor of the newer, younger trophy wife. There’s really no natural constituency for Mitt to fall back on.
Politics is tough.
February 6th, 2008 at 9:58 am
David,
Who’s support constituted a deep affection? You could argue that for any of them.
February 6th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Sorry – part of my answer got cut off: “And there’s a growing perception among the commentariat that somehow Mitt failed to rise to the level he was capable of.”
February 6th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Jason – true, but that doesn’t address the main point: Mitt’s hold on conservative support was very opportunistic – not the result of longstanding work and support. I just fail to see how he maintains any sort of natural constituency the day after he drops out.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Now he didn’t meet expectations.
There is a lot of great things about commentators here. But the need to change the target every time it’s met is pretty silly. First everyone says he can’t make. When he gets farther than everyone expected, then he failed to meet expectations.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:02 am
The idea that 7.6% of the population choosing McCain over you constitutes everyone hating you is pure dumbness. Whatever are your motivations, try to refrain from sounding like a moron.
Once again, you, like most people on this site, flunk Statistics 101.
We don’t look at the margins of victory, especially in a multi-candidate field, for how well-liked a candidate is.
We actually can’t ascertain anything from the vote tally alone pertaining to whether people hate Mitt. For all wek now, the 70% that did not vote for Mitt hate him. They could also all love him but just not want to vote for him.
In reality, you’d probably just have to evaluate his favorables. And by that measure, Mitt is the most disliked candidate in the field.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:04 am
I agree with what you have written Jason. Another factor in those vote totals is that if the caucus’ would have been primaries in the states Mitt won, i.e., Colorado, etc., his vote total would have been greater, so the percentages would have been less between he him and McCain. The percentage difference is easily explained by the media love fest with McCain.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:04 am
LMAO
Romney supporters need to start focusing their energies on another project.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Jason – so did you see Mitt Romney’s campaign as the scrappy underdog? It was the best-funded campaign by a considerable amount, had the support of many conservative “thought leaders,” etc. Intrade (FWIW) had Romney one of the favorites throughout most of the yea.
Now, of course, the Rudy campaign is the very definition of “failed to meet expectations.” But my point stands.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:07 am
TLG – Thanks for putting that in perspective. Your logic rings true when looking at McCain’s likability and head to head polls right now that are being trumpeted high and low about how popular McCain is among REPs and how well he will do against the DEMs.
Grumpy guy with public financing vs. the well tooled clinton machine or the big ‘O’ is a recipe for GOP disaster this fall.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:09 am
I think you have to remember first that John McCain has had tons and tons of free press coverage for years–that’s what happens when you are prominent on the national scene as a senator. Mitt never had that luxury and the press was never as kind to him as they were to McCain. What if Mitt focused the next four years on championing some conservative cause? That could show he is serious about his campaign promises even if he’s not executing them as president. It could set him in a good position for 2012.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:09 am
TLG,
True, more stistical analysis would be needed. But then you would need even more beyond what you mentioned. A break down by idealogy and issues. A break down my candidate choice. It can be an endless scenario. But the fact that Romney is behind by 7% from the national front runner says more than you are willing to give it.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:10 am
TLG – Thanks for putting that in perspective. Your logic rings true when looking at McCain’s likability and head to head polls right now that are being trumpeted high and low about how popular McCain is among REPs and how well he will do against the DEMs. Grumpy guy with public financing vs. the well tooled clinton machine or the big ‘O’ is a recipe for GOP disaster this fall.
Nope. McCain is actually very well-liked among Republicans right now. But I don’t think the numbers will hold. Most Republicans, even those that didn’t support him, like McCain, according to his favs/unfavs. Doesn’t mean hge’s gonna be a good candidate long-term, but at least for now, J-Mac is beloved.
Also, McCain doesn’t have public financing.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:12 am
True, more stistical analysis would be needed. But then you would need even more beyond what you mentioned. A break down by idealogy and issues. A break down my candidate choice. It can be an endless scenario. But the fact that Romney is behind by 7% from the national front runner says more than you are willing to give it.
It says absolutely nothing from any meaningful statistical standpoint.
The variables that matter are: delegates, favorability ratings, ability to capture states in Nov.
Anything else — national popular vote in the primaries or in the general, margin of victory, head-to-head national polls — is irrelevant.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:12 am
David,
Actually yes. And so did most of the pundits, and so did most people on this site. I am not an Intrade fan and really don’t feel like it’s worth getting into.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Actually yes. And so did most of the pundits, and so did most people on this site. I am not an Intrade fan and really don’t feel like it’s worth getting into.
InTrade got it right last night.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:13 am
With Mitt’s credentials, he should have been the hero of the conservatives on this blog site, but for whatever reason, he wasn’t. I still believe the overriding reason for that, especially amongst Huckabee supporters, was religion. What a shame, that over 200 years after our forefathers established this great nation, that someone belonging to the 4th largest Christian religion in America, can be proclaimed unfit to seek the Presidency is pretty darned sad. Religious bigotry is alive and well in the USA.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:13 am
take it to conventioN! Screw mccain, hold his feet to the fire.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:14 am
How did we come to this as a party where our front-runner is a friend of regulation, increased spending, and “the status quo”? How is it that our front-runner abandoned Bush on the tax cuts, one of the greatest things Bush actually did while in office? I fear for the GOP.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Hillary got more votes in California alone yesterday than Huck as gotten in all the contests thusfar nationwide (she’s got 2.1 million with 95% reporting) Even adding in Huck’s vote in CA he still doesn’t reach a nationwide total vote that Hillary got in CA.
I agree that Huck should hang in there . . .
February 6th, 2008 at 10:15 am
TLG,
Intrade falls into the category of “Master of the Obvious” They got it right last night, but they got it wrong all year long with Rudy.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Emtee,
Not important, get behind him.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:16 am
If not Romney, I would rather it be Giuliani or Thompson, but now I have none of my top choices. What a depressing day.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:16 am
The republican party is permanently fractured. Mathematically the best solution now is for McCain and Huck to cut a deal to win at the convention.
McCain needs 50% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination. In a three way race he won’t get it. And if Huck or Romney drops out conservatives will unify against McCain and again that spells gridlock this late in the game.
So now either Romney and Huck drop out together or McCain drops out. There is no other path to victory to any of these guys before the convention.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Intrade falls into the category of “Master of the Obvious†They got it right last night, but they got it wrong all year long with Rudy.
Intrade was never wrong regarding Rudy. It gives instant-by-instant snapshots of the race.
It was wrong regarding Obama/Clinton in New Hampshire.
That’s it, so far.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Quite a few commentators mentioned that, at the CNN debate where both Republican and Democratic candidatos mngweld together onstage for a minute, Romney was totally alone, off to the side, isolated. Nobody wanted tot talk to him. He is despised with a passion.
And burdened business by $750 mil in taxes with the euphemism of “fees.”
February 6th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Also, I still cannot fathom the exit poll data–McCain won over people that said the economy was their most important issue. This just goes to show that Romney was still unable to get his message out very well. Obviously Romney is ten times better than McCain on that issue. When you look at it objectively, I don’t know how anyone could dispute that.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:19 am
[...] Romney’s odds of winning the nomination now highly improbable and the press directly asking Huckabee if he wants to be Vice President, the McCain-Huckabee [...]
February 6th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Cliff, seriously, what’s your solution to the Massachusetts $3 billion dollar deficit?
February 6th, 2008 at 10:21 am
It was the ABC debate in NH and I do recall Obama and Mitt talking to each other a little. Most of the people on the stage know each other from being in congress so they hve a closer relationship with each other than with the 2 Republican governors.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:22 am
TLG,
I am not wasting time arguing Intrade, but suffice it say you #25 doesn’t quite ad up.
Cliff, there was a moment he wasn’t talking to anyone, but he talked to Obama for quite a bit. It’s called the media wtrying to write a narrative, which they do quite well.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:24 am
For a 60 yr old Mitt has alot of energy and I think he would have done quite well against Obama in debates. Mitt could cut through Obama’s rhetoric and hope and unity.
Obama=Rhetorician
Mitt=Policy Wonk
February 6th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Of hope and unity*
February 6th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Oh, yeah. I would for a policy geek, er, wonk, who wanted to argue against hope and unity. You must be one of Romney’s top advisers. Or at least you think like one.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:33 am
civic virtue, nice try twisting around some words! What he is saying is Obama talks of hope and unity with no substance, no actual policy; whereas Mitt could talk about hope and unity with some actual substance behind it. I’m glad though that you let your hate for Mitt color your reasoning!
February 6th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Jason,
Thank you for your tireless work and devotion to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign and this blog. As a fellow supporter of Romney’s, I am proud of the effort the governor put into his campaign for the presidency.
It’s fairly clear now, however, that Romney will not win the Republican presidential nomination. As such, I believe he should drop out of the race and get on with his life, as should those of us who supported his campaign so passionately.
Sincerely,
Marksal
February 6th, 2008 at 10:33 am
I hope everyone is happy today that John McCain is the Republican front-runner!
February 6th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Civic there’s nothing wrong with talking about hope and unity but Obama really has nothing to back up his “feel good” rhetoric. The man was rated the most liberal senator of 2007. Mitt is the only one who could talked “change” with Obama because he’s actually done it.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Mitt’s message of today will resonate in 2012. Think about it. President Clinton or Obama will have screwed some things up and will have left big problems unattended. Romney can sweep back in with his optimism and his “Washington is broken” message. It will play well and many will look back at 2008 and realize that the GOP nominated the wrong guy. It’s similar to the Reagan/Ford race of 1976. Deep down, many Republicans know Romney would be an excellent president. But our party alwasy seems to go with the guy whose turn it is.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:39 am
You must be another of Romney’s top advisers slumming on the blogs this fine, fine morning. If so please pass on to the candidate my warm regards.
The link below explains what you and what Willard failed, and apparently still fails, to understand: the term “economy” is an abstract category, a term, a construct, i.e. it doesn’t really exist; what *does* exist are people’s experiences of having enough or having too little, of security or insecurity, of being able to provide what your family wants or only what your family needs etc. Among upper income people who believe the economy is doing well, Romney wins; among lower income people experiencing insecurity, Romney’s message is terrifying because it flatly contradicts their lived experience–it says to them that Romney does NOT understand THEIR conditions. As one commentator put it, Romney may understand the economy, but McCain understand Republicans.
http://american.com/archive/2008/january-01-08/it2019s-the-partisan-economy-stupid
February 6th, 2008 at 10:40 am
“But our party alwasy seems to go with the guy whose turn it is.”
I think the GOP needs to do away with that thinking as well as the winner take all system.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:40 am
There is no doubt in my mind that Mitt could have creamed Obama in debates! It would have been like a rocket scientist debating a junior high school science student. McCain will lose this thing worse than Bob DOle. I may have to vote for him, because I can not fathom voting for Hillary or Obama. At least we have a hope that he will appoint the right judges, and that he will help control some spending. His dirty politics and his record makes it very, very hard to vote for him though. I’m not sure yet.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:42 am
“but McCain understand Republicans.”
That’s why he’s lost among Republicans in many places?
February 6th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Yes. That’s it. That’s the explanation. We all voted against our consciences to reward seniority.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Every candidate lost among Republicans in many places. It’s a bad year for Republicans. Only Romney lost a few more than McCain. That’s how the game is played. It’s called politics.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:47 am
But Romney won by large margins among the exit poll quetions “Who is best equiped to manage the economy?”
However, when people cite “the economy” as their top concern that grabs a huge demographic of people, and tends to exclude people in the higher income brackets and the more educated brackets which tend to favor Romney.
People who list “Taxes” as their major issue choose Romney by a long shot too . . . these are people who are concerned about the economy, sure, but they make the logical and educated “connect” that lowering taxes (keeping them low) is how you help the economy best.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:50 am
NO WAY ROMNEY SHOULD DROP OUT BEFORE HUCKABEE!!!!
Romney’s got more:
1) Total votes
2) Delegates
3) Total wins
4) Money
The cry now should be for Huckabee to drop out . . . even though he beat expectations yesterday, he’s still a one-trick pony (southern/evangelical-dominated electorates). The ongoing map is not favorable to him.
I think Mitt should continue. I doubt he’ll win the nomination now, but he definitely SHOULD NOT DROP OUT BEFORE HUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!
February 6th, 2008 at 10:50 am
He never seemed to do well against the other Republicans candidates. Do you remember how Pres. Bush stumbled through the debates while the policy wonks Gore and Kerry often mopped the floor with him? Ask Presidents Gore and Kerry how well that worked for them. A presidential debate is NOT a highschool debate. You are NOT trying to score points for reciting facts … oh, what’s the use. You’re right, Mitt would have creamed Obama. It would have been a bloodbath, because what every American wants to see on their super hi-def flat-screen is a super-rich white guy beating up a man of color.
Yikes.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:53 am
civic virtue said:
Romney’s message is “terrifying”? Why because he supports zero tax on capital gains, dividends, and savings for everyone who makes less than 200K a year? Economists keep talking about how one of the biggest problems today in America is that savings by most Americans is terrible. We need to create incentive for saving and having zero taxes for lower and middle class Americans is a great way to do it. I don’t see how Romney looses on that issue.
Second, Romney has created more jobs in his career than any other candidate (yes, by far, even counting the few companies that didn’t succeed that he oversaw). He actually knows what will make an enterprise succeed or fail through first-hand experience. What other candidate can say that? People like Mitt are the ones creating jobs for your average American. People like McCain are creating more regulation and roadblocks to success in the economy. Studies show that freer markets do a better job at creating prosperity for everyone. Mitt clearly wins here as well.
Mitt Romney has actually done something great for medically uninsured people in Massachusetts, something I guarantee helps the lower/middle class more than the wealthy. I would love this plan in my state. I don’t see how he looses on this issue either.
And finally, Mitt understands financial markets and investing. He knows how to bring business and investment from around the world. This will make our entire nation strong and prosperous and provide plenty of jobs, good jobs for years to come. Add that to Mitt’s constant message of taking advantage of technology and you have the perfect recipe for a strong and vibrant economy with opportunities for Americans in every class.
Then compare to John “I have Greenspan’s book” McCain, and it’s not even a question! Mitt would clearly blow McCain out of the water on the economy and yet Mitt’s message apparently hasn’t been heard. Not that it’s surprising when the media fawns over McCain all day and Mitt has to fight hard to get his message out–and when he does it always seems to be overshadowed by whatever nonsense the biased reporter decided to “balance” out his article about Mitt with.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Why is this even an issue?–is this about pride or something? The reason why Romney experience severe and renewed pressure to withdraw and Huck probably won’t is that Huck is not perceived as a threat to GOP unity. And he’s not perceived as a threat for precisely the reasons you cite–the regional character of his electoral successes. Romney, on the other hand, is now a spoiler. He can’t win, but he can make damned sure no one else does.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Is it a possibility that the exit pollers have a political agenda of their own when they jot down the responses about the economy, etc.? I’m not a conspiracy theorists at all, but think about it. Just as people on here (other than Romney supporters) purposely distort the opponent candidates’ positions, and make excuses for their own candidates weaknesses, isn’t it quite possible that some, or many, of the data gatherers might purposely distort also? Is that a stretch?
How else do we explain people thinking McCain is better than Romney on economics, people’s stupidity?
February 6th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Thank you for all those wasted keystrokes. Here is the problem, dude: Sen. McCain is the presumptive nominee, not Romney, and Romney outspent McCain in every state where the two competed so if Romney failed to get his message out whose fault is that?!
February 6th, 2008 at 11:01 am
civic virtue,
Unfortunately, for Romney to get his message out he has to spend money, because otherwise all he gets (as we saw all year) were thousands of articles about Mormonism despite the fact that unlike Huck, Mitt in no way wanted his religion to be a part of the race. John McCain gets tons of free press, and he got plenty of it before the election for year, and years on the national stage.
February 6th, 2008 at 11:01 am
It’s either a conspiracy or voters are stupid. You must be another one of Romney’s top advisers.
(You people are unbelievable.)
February 6th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Jason –
Leaving aside all the back and forth over Intrade, etc., I think 2012 might work for Mitt; it might not. On the plus side, he is now one of the guys who is “next in line” in a party that rewards such, much to Mitt’s own chagrin. And his name recognition is much, much higher than before this race.
However, there are negatives, too. As much as you would like to wave it away as “media bias,” there was a very real, palpable dislike for Romney amongst the other campaigns. Some of it was no doubt financial jealousy, but a lot of it was his holier-than-though attitude about issues he had only recently embraced: immigration, marriage, even abortion. You yourself are conflicted about this, as your spend considerable space in your post lashing out at all the folks who “hate Romney” but then deny that this is widespread. Furthermore, many of his wounds were self-inflicted; the MLK thing, the sons-in-service thing, the Dole diss. The idea that these were all somehow the result of his opponents or the MSM is perhaps comforting to you, but also patently false.
Bottom line: Mitt was a weak candidate, in a field of weak GOP candidates. I don’t think it is fair to say he underperformed, but he certainly didn’t perform comeasurate w/ his resources and organizational effort. To put it another way: do you doubt that, if they had the resources Mitt had, Huckabee and/or McCain would not have done even better? It is hard for you to understand, perhaps, but the average voter finds him phony. Unless the field is similarly weak in 2012, I think Mitt’s baggage will be just as problematic next time.
February 6th, 2008 at 11:04 am
To me the most unifying thing at this time is for McCain to put Romney on the ticket. I know his hatred is too great, but Mitt has earned the spot. He has shown himself to be the three legged stool conservative that would help to unify the party. Unfortunately, they probably still lose in the general with McCain at the top of the ticket.
February 6th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Coming out of Florida, it was assumed by most that McCain would sweep to victory last night. He didn’t. That’s not to say he didn’t do well, just that he didn’t do well enough. Texas will determine if the race goes on past that. It’s 140 delegates, winner take all, and Mitt was ahead slightly in the last poll there. If Mitt loses there, look for him to drop out. Between now and then, Mitt has to win both Kansas and Washington. He’s in good shape to win those states, since they’re both caucus states, and he’s polled well in Kansas before, and has a strong organization in Washington. Momentum needs to turn around, and caucus states are the best place to start that process.
February 6th, 2008 at 11:11 am
K Dub,
Probably psycho-analizing me is not the best route. I agree with everything else you say. I have always thought Mitt has his negatives. Obviously the negatives out weighted the positives for every candidate except McCain. I wrote ofter NH what he would need to do to win 2012.
If we he wants to win 2012, he’ll need some re-branding and some better political skills. When the time is right, I willw rite more indepth about that.
The question of people hating Mitt: Of course people hate him, I don’t deny it, I just deny that a vote for someone else was because people hate Mitt- as many people here advance. Hardly the case.
February 6th, 2008 at 11:12 am
should say “was solely because people hate Mitt”
February 6th, 2008 at 11:15 am
CNN’s Election center.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/money/gop.html
Below are what each candidate spent per vote.
Mitt Romney
Money Spent $87,644,955.00
Total Votes 4,077,460
Cost Per Vote $21.49
John McCain
Money Spent $39,145,649.00
Total Votes 4,797,839
Cost Per Vote $8.16
Ron Paul
Money Spent $20,380,121.00
Total Votes 564,194
Cost Per Vote $36.12
Mike Huckabee
Money Spent $7,107,364.00
Total Votes 2,383,877
Cost Per Vote $2.98
February 6th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Jason,
Nice post. I think Mitt could go a long way to mending fences with McCain and positioning himself. For me the biggest reason why Mitt appears as the big loser is that Huckabee positioned himself and proved last night that he is the conservative alternative to McCain. People like Huckabee and will vote for him through the very end whatever that is.
Mitt dropping out, mending fences with McCain, will go a long way to positioning himself. For me, Mitt’s changing stands on issues along the way makes him untrustworthy and appears to be out of convenience (I’m not looking to be flamed and you know a lot of people feel that way). The battle should end, Mitt should work with McCain and help shape conservative issues for the battle in the fall with the Dems.
Leon
February 6th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Once again, the media has picked our candidate, seemingly, and then he will be demolished.
I can’t say I would mind. I would love to see McCain finally get a taste of his own medicine – and have the media disclaim him as their media child, and turn on him with a vengeance, which is sure to happen. Be prepared for Lots of articles about, “Is he too OLD to be president” as well as “What really happened during the POW day” (I have read some horrible things) – They will be blown out of the water. They will make him seem the crusty old man that he is, and the voters that are swayed by the currents, will get the bad taste in their mouth, that many of the Republicans have had for awhile now.
If Romney can make some great comebacks in the next few states, that would be cool – if that’s what he wants to do.
February 6th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Jason
I want Mitt to stay in. McCain could show his true colors in public and be seen, and still lose this thing.
February 6th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Inwith,
Mending fences with McCain is not something that’s possible. Mitt dislikes McCain, and McCain hates Mitt….actually McCain hates a lot of people, it’s his nature. Huckabee, for the 3, 883rd time, is NO conservative. He raised taxes 47%, spending 50%, and the number of bureaucrats in the state by 20%. Socialism is NOT conservatism. McCain has voted against tax cuts 52 times. Mitt is the only conservative in the race….indeed, the only acceptable candidate….and that’s why he will soldier on until there really IS no hope. In which case, there won’t be much hope for the rest of us either.
February 6th, 2008 at 11:38 am
the problem is… romney can’t do well in the south.. and like it or not.. that is the base of the party.. republicans cannot win without it
February 6th, 2008 at 11:47 am
“He raised taxes 47%, spending 50%”
Huckabee signed the tax pledge, so that really is not an issue.
February 6th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Dave S,
I disagree with you on Mitt being conservative. I see no proof in his past. Sorry. Don’t flame me and I don’t want to get into a pissing match over what he said and when. I just don’t believe him based on his past words.
However, I do agree you regarding Huckabee based on his record. However, the Christian CONSERVATIVE base supports him and he cleaned up in the South which is where the conservative base is. You may not like it, but he is viewed as being the conservative alternative to McCain. Super Tuesday proved it and that base of the party was a critical component of Reagan and the both Bush presidencies. The voters have spoken and they say Huckabee is a conservative and that’s why Mitt has a problem.
Leon
February 6th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
56,
If McCain did put Romney on the ticket it would solve all his problems. It would show that he’s not a slave to his ego and his tirades.
Romney would be VP to McCain because of the 12 year age difference.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
The fight is no longer about winning or losing. We now fight for conservatives principles. The Romney and Huckabee campaigns are effectively over, but the real campaign just begins:
STAND FOR PRINCIPLES, NOT PARTY: VOTE 3RD PARTY IN NOV: http://redyankee.blogspot.com/
February 6th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
#58 Jason
Sorry, didn’t mean to go the psychoanalyst route – rereading my post, it was pretty haughty. I never said people “hated” Mitt (an overused term anyway); I do think though that there was a lack of enthusiasm about him. FWIW, McCain also suffers from this problem, although to a lesser degree.
I don’t see McCain putting Mitt on the ticket. Beyond the personal animosity, which is real, the fact remains that Mitt wouldn’t go all that far to assuaging the conservatives. He was the candidate of necessity for Rush et. al., not the candidate of choice. If McCain wants to mend that bridge, he needs to go all in; the ideal VP candidate would be popular, Southern, youngish, and strongly pro-life. Gov. Sanford, anyone?
February 6th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Actually, we will not know how Mitt would do in the South with Mike in the race. As long as he is an option for evangelicals to vote there for him, we will never know. No one can truly say how the christian conservatives would vote in a John vs. Mitt matchup. Mike was Mitt’s nightmare in this election losing Iowa and lapping up the Southern conservative vote.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Re #70: “The fact remains that Mitt wouldn’t go all that far to assuaging the conservatives. He was the candidate of necessity for Rush et. al., not the candidate of choice.”
Personally, I agree with your observation of Mitt’s appeal, such as it was, with certain elements of the party. The fact remains, however, that Romney has somehow managed to achieve an almost mythic status similar to what we saw with Perot in early 1992 or Colin Powel for a few months in 1995. If he were the VP nominee, it would be very hard for Rush, et al. to not get on board without destroying his credibility completely.
That said, I’m not sold on the idea of Romney as VP just yet. I don’t care for him personally, and he and McCain would be barely on speaking terms throughout the campaign. And I don’t think he offers anything to the ticket but the chance of mollifying the 30% of the party that is currently in Romney’s corner. Still, if he manages to keep the base happy — or at least guarantees they are motivated enough to vote in November — I say nominate him.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
#72 – ” Still, if he manages to keep the base happy — or at least guarantees they are motivated enough to vote in November — I say nominate him.”
That is the only way I will cast a vote for McCain.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
All I have to say is AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
So much for Mitt being a smart businessman. Jeeze what a fool.
February 7th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
#72 Sean P
“Romney has somehow managed to achieve an almost mythic status similar to what we saw with Perot in early 1992 or Colin Powel for a few months in 1995.”
I don’t see this, but even if it were true… How’d that work out for Perot/Powell? The problem with “myths” is that people pour all sorts of hopes, dreams, and expectations into them, but ultimately, they prove human and thus disappoint… I know, b/c I fell for the Perot schtick (I was young and impressionable) in 1992.