GOP mood toward Romney's fall prospects brighten

AP via Yahoo ^ | June 10, 2012 | Brian Bakst

[Rennes Templar]

ROSEMONT, Ill. (AP) — Republicans riding high from a string of breaks in their favor are increasingly optimistic about Mitt Romney's chances to claim the White House in November, even among conservatives who had qualms about making him the party's nominee.

The bullish take is reflected in interviews with party strategists and activists, including people who supported Romney rivals during the primary season. Mood matters because it can fuel fundraising and volunteer hustle. But some of those GOP players stress that Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, has little room for error if he expects to topple an incumbent president.

The chest-thumping follows a GOP victory in last week's Wisconsin recall election that saved Gov. Scott Walker's job. The race galvanized Republicans who saw it as an early 2012 referendum on conservative fiscal principles in an election that was likely to hinge on the shape of the economy.

Even Rick Santorum, who spent a primary season casting doubt on Romney's ability to succeed in a general election, says things are looking up for Romney. "I can tell you, I feel a little bit better about that election since what happened on Tuesday up in Wisconsin," Santorum said Friday at a Conservative Political Action Conference in Chicago.

-snip-

"Let's be honest about it, at the presidential level, the Democrats took the Republicans out behind the woodshed a little bit in 2008. By the sheer number of electoral votes Barack Obama won last time, clearly we have our work cut out for us," said Gregg Keller, executive director of the American Conservative Union. "It's a tough map for us and no one should think this is going to be a walk in the park. It's going to be a tough race. But Republicans and conservatives believe this is an eminently winnable race."

[Cringing Negativism Network]

Even if that were the case (it wasn’t) what would we do about it?

The nomination is over.

All that’s left, is the voting...

[norwaypinesavage]

"Such an event is exceedingly unlikely given history."

You mean like Reagan nocking off Carter, or Clinton knocking off Bush 41? It seems to me that it's more likely than not, based on recent history.

[norwaypinesavage]

"I am glad we have the write in vote in Texas. I can vote for who ever any looser I please."

There, fixed it for you

[norwaypinesavage]

"The best candidate running is essentially a white version of Obama."

Your statement is irrational (as well as racist). The next president will likely nominate three Supreme Court Justices. If Obama, they will all be Marxists. Romney will NOT nominate Marxist justices. In addition, the skin color of the president is irrelevant.

[muawiyah]

Like having your vote totals drop 15% from one election to the next ~ at the presidential election level.

Didn't happen to the losers you name ~ why should it happen to this loser.

[GlockThe Vote]

a b o

TIME FOR THIS THUG TO GO BACK TO CHICAGO

[Diogenesis]

Why do you support someone who has worked against the Constitution and conservatism?

Milt RomneyCARE already micturated on the Mass. Constitution
by imposing his statist agendae.

Milt RomneyCARE is as far from true conservatism as you are
from Alpha Centuri. Words are enough for you and
those on their knees blind, but Milt RomneyCARE’s
history speaks for itself.

I dare you to defend any aspect of it
before the nomination.

[norwaypinesavage]

"Didn't happen to the losers you name"

When you call Reagan and Clinton "losers", you loose all credibility. You are not worth any further dialog from me.

[ScottinVA]

Care to explain how Reagan rates as a “loser???”

[muawiyah]

You must have misread ~ the issue was folks losing 8% to 15% off their last presidential vote totals ~ in a subsequent presidential race. Ronaldus Magnus never had that happen, and he didn’t lose either.

[muawiyah]

BTW, the reference was TO THE LOSERS in the post ~ not to the winners. Reagan won twice. Clinton won twice. Carter and Bush won once and lost once.

Context is our friend.

[muawiyah]

You misunderstand your own post ~ you have four names ~ two of them include men who LOST a presidential election. I referred to the losers.

Take your meds this morning AND, moreover, take English 101 over.

[fireman15]

I would appreciate it if you could be more specific. I don't believe your statement that, “Romney is generally in support with every popular lefty program being pushed today” is actually true. If I said I was friends with a woman who had an abortion would you say I “generally supported” abortion? If I said that I had some friends in the military who were gay would you say that I “generally supported” gays in the military?

There is a wide spectrum of people on the left and obviously Gov. Romney is further to the left than the two of us... If someone can't differentiate between him and Obama then they are either “stupid” or appear to be a poor loser.

[ScottinVA]

Got it.. thanks.

[muawiyah]

Let's say you have two candidates who favor public funding for abortion. One of them actually signed a law to do exactly that. The other one is still engaged in trickery trying to get public funding for abortion in place, but he's not quite there. Still, he likes abortion ~ even post parten abortion ~ said so on more than one instance in fact.

Now, how to differentiate between the blood thirsty savage and the guy who wants me to pay for the abortions.

You sure have me there bud~

[WhiskeyX]

You are using a strawman argument. There is a difference between Pol Pot and Hugo Chavez or Lenin versus Stalin, but you still wouldn’t want to elect any of the four men, if you are a Conservative believing in the democratic republican form of government with effective constitutional rule of law. Romney versus Obama is a false choice insofar as neither candidate offers an opportunity to restore the constituional rule of law supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution’s mandate for the maintenance of a republican form of government.

[muawiyah]

Hmm ~ such difficult choices.

You do know I am a single issue voter on one issue ~ if you approve of abortion or have ever tried to get me to pay for it through my tax dollars, you cannot get my vote.

There are people who suppose it's OK to kill a baby or two, maybe, but think about it ~ what makes them different from Idi Amin?

At least Idi ate what he killed ~ they don't.

[LibLieSlayer]

You only harm yourself by attacking me personally for my opinion of romney. He is not a decent man... decency requires honesty and romney is a liar. He may not be in the class of obama and his lies... but degrees of evil matter not. romney is the worst candidate we have run in my lifetime. He is a gun grabbing socialist who embraces abortion, gay marriage, the big dig government waste and fraud, high taxes, big government spending and socialized medicine. He is a member of a religious science fiction cult. He may be better than obama... but the truth is that he is the worst gop candidate of my lifetime. mitt is who and what he is and to try to paint him as something that his entire career proves otherwise... will just guarantee his defeat.

Nothing that you can say or do will change reality. You are not going to convince anyone that despises romney... to change their mind about romney... especially with the gop/e progressive tactic learned from alinsky... and you are practicing alinskyism. I will not attack you for your opinion... I will not attack you for your attacks upon me... and I also will continue to speak the truth and voice my opinion here on FR.

LLS

[muawiyah]

The man acted to create public financed abortion in Massachusetts.

Now, tell us, what is the limit for baby killing that keeps your decency intact?

[MEG33]

Amen!
*BEAT OBAMA*