What Mitt Romney's victories have in common: a low Republican turnout...

UK Telegraph ^ | February 1, 2012 | Mike Smithson

[C19fan]

The Florida primary overnight has produced the thumping victory for Mitt Romney that the polls were predicting. But what might be worrying GOP strategists is that turnout was down sharply compared to four years ago. Florida will be one of the critical battlegrounds in November and the last thing the party wants is for Republican-inclined voters to be less enthusiastic. The New York Times's election and polling analyst, Nate Silver, has done some number-crunching using the exit poll data from the four states that voted in January and finds that there is a pattern. In Iowa the number of self-identifying Republicans was down by 11%, in New Hampshire 15% the reduction was 15% while in Florida overnight it was 16%.

[Mangia E Statti Zitto]

I could swear I wrote your post!!

Mitt’s religion is the 800 pound gorilla in the room and all the pundits are ignoring it at the country’s peril. For the life of me I don’t know how Mitt is going to be able to counter all the slime that’s going to be thrown against his faith. I don’t know how many people know this, but there is a musical on Broadway right now making fun of Mormons. And just imagine when Jon Stewart, et al get going.

[Vigilanteman]

Actually, declaring this a low turn-out race versus 2008 is dead wrong for two reasons:

1. While it is true that 2008 had about 300,000 more primary voters, it was a four person race-- McCain, Romney, Huckabee and Guilani. 2012 was a two person race, Newt versus Romney. And the winner still garnered 70,000 more votes than the winner in 2008. If you add the top four voters in 2008 and compare to the top two in 2012, you are within 4,000 votes of an identical turnout.

2. A Romney blow-out was advertised well in advance in 2012. A close race was advertised in 2008 just as much in advance. Don't think that didn't have an effect on turn-out.

[newheart]

For the life of me I don’t know how Mitt is going to be able to counter all the slime that’s going to be thrown against his faith.

Nor do I. He does get rattled on that subject. And when he doesn't get rattled he has a chuckle in his voice that conveys condescension instead of a sense of comfort with his beliefs.

The big message will be:

1. Obama is an intellectual. Mitt Romney believes in Mormonism and i,s therefore, stupid.

2. Obama cares for poor people. Mitt Romney by his own words is not concerned about the poor and likes to fire people.

I'd still prefer Romney over Obama, but for crying out loud, the RNC is going to have to get over the Myth Romney of Electability. He ain't.

[Buddy Sorrell]

How long must we continue to hold our noses? I did so in 1996 and 2008 and voted for the “electable” Dole and McCain.

I don’t think that I can do it again.

[Hodar]

I don’t think that I can do it again.

Would you prefer Obama for 4 more?

[FastCoyote]

[Because the left wants to pretend to inclusivism and tolerance, they have not really made an issue of his Mormonism yet. But if he gets the nomination, the American electorate will get a non-stop education in Mormonism from Joseph Smith’s con-man history, faked “scriptures”, the abuse involved with marrying underage girls, the Mountain Meadows massacre, blood atonement, the history of racism in the church, to Kolob, to Jesus as Satan’s brother, to questions about the polygamy practiced by Mitt’s ancestors.]

The Flying Inmans have been warning Free Republic for more than five years what a Romney nomination would look like after tracing the roots of Mormonism. We were called the most vile bigots.

I do politics and business in Nevada and have a lot of experience with how Mormons react in those situations. I’ve told people repeatedly that a Mormon presidential candidacy would bring out all sorts of vicious undercurrents - now confirmed by Mitt’s tactics. I was repeatedly warned that it was unAmerican to bring up Mitt’s Mormon beliefs, but how do you separate the man from his religion? A lot of people owe the Flying Inman’s an apology.

[newheart]

I’m not familiar with the Flying Inmans but I agree that the Mormon factor raises a lot of red flags.

For about 5 years I worked for a company about 2/3 comprised of LDS, including the boss. I spent roughly a week each month at the home office just north of SLC. For the most part, they were quite friendly—at least to my face. Behind the scenes was, for many of them, another matter. Fortunately the boss was not a cradle Mormon so he did not have the same prejudices. What surprised me the most is that after the company was sold, it was discovered that there had been major embezzlement (not the boss) but Mormon on Mormon theft.

But it has always been my opinion that if you believe you are going to be a god, then why not start now. And the biggest prerogative of being a god is the right to determine right and wrong for yourself. Church hierarchy notwithstanding, many of the Mormons I knew seemed to be quite comfortable in taking matters into their own hands, especially given their protected status.

If Mitt is the nominee, this will be the weirdest cycle in American history.

[Buddy Sorrell]

No, I wouldn’t. I will vote for Mark Levin’s proverbial orange juice can rather than have Zero again.

it’s frustrating. Fifteen months ago, we won a great victory. Now, the establishment is in control again. I support Santorum and would be happy with Newt. Romney cannot be trusted.

[Wuli]

ping

[M-cubed]

The only way for Willard to win is go left of Obama....and he may just try that in the general election if he gets that far....He's flexible!!...Thats for sure!...lol

[M-cubed]

they’re voting for the republican over Obama regardless of who it is. <<

Scary ain't it!!!.....They'd vote for Hitler if he had a (R) behind his name.....

Conservatives are gonna have to be teachers as well as leaders...We got a long row to hoe....