Posted on 11/14/2007 6:54:33 AM PST by teddyballgame
Don’t let them bother you, they’re jealous because their candidates can’t campaign to save their lives.
In the end, it will be Mitt, and he’ll win the presidency.
All he has to do to alleviate the Bible thumpers down south is to pick a southern Christian conservative as his running mate and that will take care of everything.
Mitt has the leadership experience, and the ability to work with a hostile congress.
Nope, no badge in that hand. Question answered.
I guess you don’t rate.
Switching from pro-choice to pro-life to pro-choice (if you believe his words) is not necessarily a good thing. It is symptomatic of saying what is needed to fool the masses and no real conviction.
A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll last year found that 37 percent of Americans said they would not vote for a Mormon for president. That equated to between 3 and 7 percent of voters that vote Republican. I would vote for a Latter Day Saint, but only if they had a consistant record.
Playing the Hillary switched her positions clips does not hurt her as the ones showing his positions will. Republican voters care about things like that.
You are 100% right.
The reason the media are jumping all over the Judith Regan story (suing News Corp. and claiming an executive asked her to lie for Rudy's sake) is because they realize that Giuliani is the biggest threat to Hillary'e election.
I'm looking at the chart you posted. Rudy gets 28% of the female votes. Romney gets 24%. Why is Romney doing better?
On another note, I suspect Romney does well with women for one very simple reason: he seems to be the best looking of all the candidates. That draws female attention - and votes. Honest.
- John
The danger with the 'toons is losing Arkansas (Bill's home state), and possibly Tennessee, Kentucky and Louisiana as well. Candidates who think the South is a lock for any republican are kidding themselves. This is compounded by the fact that neither Giuliani nor Romney is likely to win his home state against the 'toons. Yikes.
I have confidence that Americans will do the right thing.
People like that will get what they deserve then - Hillary. And, the rest of us will suffer.
But see #128. I am confident that will not happen. :-)
I'm confused about why Massachusetts would be too liberal to vote for Romney as president, but those same liberal voters gave him a term as governor just five years ago. If they would vote for him as governor, why are they too liberal to vote for him as president? (I'm not disputing your analysis -- it's early and the polls may change, but currently the 'toons are handily beating Romney in Massachusetts)
See, I think Hunter could beat Hillary. Hunter's my third choice behind Thompson and Tanc, so this isn't mere hope talking. Objectively, though, I think Hunter could take a lot of labor union support from the 'toons, plus he would get a ton of blue dog democrats. I know his message would resonate like crazy among the union folks here in Western Pa.
I'm not saying that kind of party realignment is even what I consider a positive (since I disagree with many of the union folks here). ButI could definitely see it happening.
Romney's relative support is better among women than any other candidate, even if the absolute number of women favor Rudy. As Romney rises to catch Rudy, it will be on a tide of women voters.
On another note, I suspect Romney does well with women for one very simple reason: he seems to be the best looking of all the candidates. That draws female attention - and votes. Honest.
No doubt. I think that he has but one marriage is also helpful. Thompson does terrible among women, I don't think the whole May-December business is particularly appealing to women.
Liberal states will elect conservative governors, Conservative stateas may elect fairly liberal governors but they same can't be said for federal offices.
Rhode Island has a pretty straight up conservative governor but he'll probably never see federal office, for another example.
Plus Romney's social positions are defidently to the right of where they were 5 and a half years ago.
Massachusetts: none of the three have a chance in the general election.
New York: Rudy has a reasonable chance, Mitt and Fred have no chance in the general election.
Tennessee: Rudy, Mitt, and Fred all carry Tennessee in the general election.
I was having a discussion with a couple of LDS friends the other day. One mentioned what a great event it would be for their church if one her members was running for President.
I cautioned them that once the Democrats and their media friends got through demonizing the LDS Church, Mormons could be seen as real oddballs. There are certainly aspects of Mormonism that the PR Department of the LDS Church wouldn't like to see discussed.
I did say it has been done before, Bill Clinton lost New Hampshire in 1992 and George W. Bush lost it in 2000, but each ended up doing pretty well
I will do the right thing. I will vote for someone I trust for the White House or leave it blank. So far, Governor Romney is far from convincing me that he is truthful.
I agree. Considering we elected four Unitarian Presidents, I don't think the Mormon issue will play much of a factor. Do all the freepers who claim Romney will lose the south because the Mormon issue honestly believe Alabama, South Carolina will think "geez whiz, there's a Mormon the ballot, so let's all switch all voters to Hillary"? Come on.
There are a lot of conservatives who do not accept Mormonism as a true Christian religion, and a lot of those same conservatives will still have no problem voting for Romney over the Hilderbeast (I count myself in those caterogies) because we are electing a President to govern this nation, not to decide spirtual matters.
Unitarians outright deny the divinity of Christ, yet claim to be a "Christian" church. Many of them don't even pratice baptism or communion, or accept the bible. And yet we elected four of them President, during times where Americans were much more devoutly Christian than today. Back in 1908, you didn't see Republican voters sit out the election because a Unitarian, William Howard Taft, was the nominee. Taft was a conservative Republican and Bryan was a liberal Democrats. Conservatives supported the conservative. Period.
America has elected at least half a dozen Presidents who wouldn't traditionally be considered "Christian", and will do so again.
Simple. Romney didn't campaign as a conservative when he ran for Governor of Mass. He campaigned as a clear conservative when he sought the Presidency.
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.