Posted on 08/25/2011 9:36:56 AM PDT by Signalman
I understand Mitt Romney is unpopular on FR. But I was just reading a series of posts on a conservative website and in a discussion of the GOP candidate, a poster made the comment, "Romney is the only possible candidate who can deliver enough cross-over votes and actually win a national election."
The gist of the discussion was that if, specifically, Rick Perry or any other candidates perceived as "too conservative" were the nominee, the Democratic base would be "energized" and insure a Dem victory. (Note: I'm a Perry supporter.)
Can anyone comment on the validity of the above speculation? Would having a candidate who is "too conservative" energize the Dem base and, even more importantly, turn off large numbers of independent voters and, thus, give Obama a 2nd term? (What a sickening thought)?
I promised myself at that time never, ever, ever again. I meant it then and I mean it now.
For those who might say, "at least Romney is not as bad as Obama," my response is this:
Romney and Obama are both progressives. Yes, Obama is taking the train down the tracks at 100 mph and, admittedly, Romney would likely only take the train down the tracks at 60 mph, but they will both drive the train down the same track in the same direction. The only difference is when the train arrives at station, not if it will get there.Suppose, for a second, that Mittens was elected in '12 and the Congress went more Republican (maybe control of the Senate). Would they stand up to a RINO president any better than they've stood up to Obama...or would they rubber-stamp his policies? I bet they'd do the latter.
Nope. I will not ever, ever, ever vote for a RINO to occupy 1600 PA Avenue. Anybody forwarding a "he's better than the alternative" argument had better think again, and think hard.
I’ll let obama have a second term if Romney is the candidate.
Romney couldn’t beat two lightweight candidates like Huckabee and McCain, even with all his money, so I don’t think so.
Romney would beat Obama, but he is definitely NOT the only candidate that can do so.
Winning independents is not merely as important as having a motivated base.
Is that Barney Fag there with the Mittster?
There’s only one *real* election, and that is called the “PRIMARIES”. The general election is where I go pull the lever for anybody with an ‘(R)’ next to their name.
Romney is not the only one who can win, but he'd prevail easily against Obama.
One of the things you have to remember about FR, is that you talk to enough people who think Duncan Hunter or Herman Cain are viable candidates, and it makes you start to wonder why they're not polling better, or why you have to settle for the likes of Mitt Romney.
In the real world, there's 300 million Americans, and the have vastly differing views. Rick Perry, outside of FR, is considered by independents to be a successful conservative governor, and by the Dems to be a nightmare colossus of left wing phobias. On FR, he's considered some kind of squishy, soft-hearted RINO.
It's the independents that are the key. What they think of Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney is quite frankly a lot more important than what the left or right things, because the middle is the contested ground. Win that, and your guy gets in office. Lose that, and it doesn't matter how ideologically sound your loser candidate was.
All that said, Romney, Perry, and previously Pawlenty were all governors. They have a huge advantage with independents, who are just looking for someone competent, and don't really sweat the political divide as much. For FReepers overly concerned with purity, it's Bachmann, Palin, Cain or Santorum. People who do not poll well with independents, and don't really have a chance at all. (Palin notwithstanding, but she's the exception.).
But the basic question you're asking is right. Does Candidate X have the ability to pull over independents or cross over votes? If they don't, they're simply not viable.
After reading the stupid comments on this thread, I take it back.
Apparently Romeny can’t win because so-called conservatives won’t vote for him over Obama.
That’s what the MSM is counting on. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. If they can somehow help Romney win the nomination, the stupidity of conservative purists will ensure Obama another four years.
I won’t vote for Romney in the primary, but I will definitely vote for him over Obama in the general. Call me crazy.
Last poll I saw found Perry only six points behind the O. Considering half the country knows little to nothing about Perry, those are darn good numbers.
I actually doubt that Mitt could win. Unless we go to 12% unemployment.
The writer is properly concerned.
Each side has a core constituency that is NOT going to vote for the other side under any circumstances. Because the Democrats are the party of “free stuff” their core constituency is a bit larger. Hence the GOP’s need for more “independent” and “cross-over” votes.
The problem is, there is absolutely no point in winning if we have to do it with Romney. He’s just a Republic version of Obama. He has more experience and is probably more competent, but he imposed Universal Health Care on Massachusetts and supported various liberal boondoggles like the be “Big Dig.” His only real conservative credential is his business experience.
So Romney is also the candidate who will alienate the largest group of the GOP core constituents. Heck, the fact that he was even ELECTED governor in Massachusetts is a “tell” that he’s not a conservative.
“Reagan was able to win because of the lousy economy, the gas lines, stratospheric interest rates, the Carter malaise, and the Iran hostages, and the MSM didn’t appear to be that much in the tank with Carter, as they are now with Obama.”
Carter would have still won, if not for the killer rabbit.
First, Barack Obama can be beaten by a ham sandwich.
Second, there is not such thing as “too conservative”. We can beat the liberals even if they are energized. We did it in 2000.
Third, Romney would do more damage to the conservative movement than good. He is the worst type of candidate for us to have at this time. We need a decent conservative to show, once again, that conservative principles make this nation strong!
That was really heroic.
Palin is the only one that can both win, and take the necessary corrective action to turn the country around.
Not one of the other candidates has the slightest desire to correct what is wrong with our Fed gov. It has made them wealthy and powerful, and they will protect it to the bitter end.
Please! RINOmney???
No, he would be a faux candidate Obama would like. Even Carville likes Romney.
Mitt is Obama lite... this week. next, who knows?
No. But he can certainly assure an Obama victory...
Push polls are of no value to honest people.
Perry is very distrusted by a huge majority, and comparing him with Romney is nothing but theater. Neither of them can win in the general election.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.