Get a clue, dear. It wasn't the Mormon angle and it wasn't class envy behind so many American patriots' rejection of Romney. It was HIS RECORD, which was that of a competent functional Democrat. If pro-state-run health care, pro-tax-funded abortion, pro homosexual agenda from elementary schools to the military to adoption agencies, pro global warming and pro activist liberal judges Romney is what the Repblican party offers forth, what the hell is the point of being a Republican?
Some of us don't vote for liberals, period. You do.
I see people now saying, "never again" will they vote for a liberal candidate and I say, yes you will, you'll fold like an accordian and vote for the lesser of the two evils next time by voting for whichever candidate the elite put before us. Watch and see, the word will be that Mitt was "too far right", We need an even more centerist candidate.
McCain was my last liberal, I said, "never again" and stuck to it.
Mitt should have lost 100% of the vote from people who claim to be conservative. If he had lost the general by 25 Mil votes, the party elite might have gotten the message as it stands they did not. After all, what difference would it have made if Mitt lost by 3 Mil or 25 Mil? Losing is losing and Mitt's a loser.
I would have cheerfully voted for any candidate from the primaries, with three exceptions, in descending order - Paul/Huntsman/Romney. Romney, so far under the heap that he was never even a consideration for me. On reconsideration, I might (only might) have voted for Paul.