Posted on 01/03/2008 11:39:37 PM PST by Maelstorm
A Hard Loss for Romney By John Ellis
It's one thing to lose as you are. What you lose is an election, but there's always another election and in the case of presidential primary politics, a new electorate that awaits you in the next state. It's another thing to lose as you aren't. Mitt Romney was never the 700 Club right-winger his campaign managers conceived. He was and is a man of business and a very capable one at that.
He's all but doomed now. Senator John McCain will beat him in New Hampshire, probably by a lot, and Romney's media coverage will evaporate and his candidacy will consequently die. On January 9, his managers will walk in and say that the campaign needs $10 million or $15 million to continue and that he, Romney, will have to write the check. Everyone who would contribute has maxed out. Everyone who might won't. Two-time losers don't get new money. It's a basic rule of politics.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
‘All but doomed’ is ridiculous and clearly an example of trying to create a fact by first creating the perception of that fact.
One second place finish does not doom a candidate with that much money and organization.
Ooops error, McCain skipped Iowa 2000.
Obama yes, Fred doubtful: I was a Thompson supporter buy after his abyssmal Iowa performance, he is a dead duck.
However, I think McCain will take New Hampshire. Which may lead to a new candidate/brokered convention.
I would never do that. What I object to is some slimy politician like Huckabee using Christianity - - or any serious religion - - as a cheap political gimmick.
FRegards,
LH
He is toast with Mormon too.
I also am disappointed to see a perfectly good political forum turned into such an antagonistic religion forum.
Our message should be: “How can we understand and appreciate each other so we can work together for a common political purpose,” not “I am right and you are wrong and we are not going anywhere until you admit you are wrong.”
Exactly. Thank you.
Now there's a prime bit of logical fallacy. Circular argument, which assumes your premise in the answer. You basically say Christianity is defined by A, because all Christians are defined by A. You cannot prove your definition true by simply assuming it is in your answer.
"You are not a bird unless you fly, which all birds do."
Under your definition, a Roman Catholic could say that Evangelicals deny any number of "basic, historic and foundational doctrines" from the Catholic catechism, and are therefore a cult.
A brokered convention for the GOP? Sounds good if Fred doesn't go anywhere. Who might be the consensus candidate for president to emerge?
Many of them invested themselves in the rage back when Fred entered and Huck was nowhere, thinking that they should advance Thompson by pulling down any others in his way. Now that the Huck campaign has benefited from their divisiveness instead of Fred, they find themselves in a quandry, since it seems most of them like Huck even less.
Here's his closing line:
"Now, I have to go back to work on my New Hampshire debate opening speech. And I worked on it until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again. I did not raise taxes in that state, Arkansas. I never told anybody to harbor illegals, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people."
(with apologies/thanks to FR poster nhoward14 who originally crafted the above brilliant parody of Huckabee's scary ability to channel Bill Clinton)
I amazes me that Romney and others can be so nasty to their competitors instead of being more positive about their own records and plans for our nation. Doesn’t make much sense to me.
Yep. Look to see Huck try to co-opt Fred's "Southern Strategy".
Romney has the resources to stay in this until after
the first primaries in the South. At that time, he will
have to make a decision based on wins and losses. Don’t
write him out yet. He’s got game left.
[disclaimer: I hope he fails]
From your website link: Given current American voting trends and demographics, he would have no chance. If the Huckster is nominated, the swing states of Nevada (about 10% Mormon), Oregon (4%) and New Mexico (4%) will swing to the Democrats.
Oregon going democrat? What a surprise! NM is sewed up for the dems by Richardson's dem leglislatiure getting rid of voting machines and voter ID. Nevada? 10%? Nevada is nearly the fastest growing state, and 10% is not going to mean much.
Besides losing swing states in 2008, Republicans could also lose solidly red states if they embrace the bigot for president. What would losing Idaho (15%), Utah (1,800,000 Mormons), and Arizona (6%) (McCain's mom talking at the 5 minute mark of this video demonstrates her bigoted bias...the apple doesn't fall far from the tree)
Arizona is growing rapidly and 6% is not going to be the determining factor, Utah and Idaho don't have that many electoral votes
Defections of Mormons in Colorado (131,000), California (750,000) or Washington (250,000) might cost a few Republican congressional seats (Dave Reichert R-WA, not a Mormon, but was strongly supported financially and with boots on the ground by Mormons, won re-election to a nobody by only a few votes) or a senate seat (Sen Smith R- OR, a Mormon) along the way. Losing the most-solidly Republican block in the country, the Mormons, or even putting it in play, would turn red states blue and put the Republican Party back into permanent minority status.
IMO, your website gives mormons a lot more electoral power than they have in actuality, and the question is still, WHERE DO THEY GO... TO THE DEMS? Mormons staying home will not affect the Republicans as much as evangelicals staying home, and the turnout in Iowa is indicative of that fact.
Fred or Duncan, same as always.
“I think Huck has to be favored to win South Carolina, but Fred still has a good shot, especially as Huckabee’s gaffes hit critical mass.”
I tend to think that Huckabee is going to implode before South Carolina. His rise was media inspired but that boost has started to fade. In fact, Huck had already been trending down in national polls before Iowa. Hopefully Fred picks up - otherwise we’ll have to draft Petraeus for 2012.
I don't think you can make assumptions.
For example, had someone asked me prior to the Iowa vote, would Romney's "charm" have more effect upon male or female voters in Iowa? (I'd probably said "female")
As it turned out, female voters showed greater discernment in Iowa than male voters. I believe as CNN reported, Romney got 24% of the female vote & 26% of the male vote. Huckabee got 40% of the female vote & only 28% of the male vote.
So for females, it was 40-24% Huckabee. Among males, it was a squeeker: 28-26% Huckabee.
If Clinton does a comeback, these numbers are important...it shows you that Huck can draw the female vote.
They expect to do well in NH, but SC...that is a horse of a different color.
***********************************************************
I doubt they’ll do all that well in NH at all. NH is right next door to Mass, and you can bet there’s alot of conservatives in NH who are pointing at Mass and saying “Do you want that kind of mess here? No way!!”
WHERE DO THEY GO... TO THE DEMS? Mormons staying home will not affect the Republicans as much as evangelicals staying home, and the turnout in Iowa is indicative of that fact.
Romney ran negative ads against Huckabee. Huckabee ran an ad wishing everybody Merry Christmas. Huckabee made a responding negative ad but then decided not to show it. I’ve been in campaigns and would give odds that it was Rollins that wanted to hit back and hard and that Huckabee to his credit decided at the last minute not to. I’m not a Huckabee supporter but I don’t think the anger against Huckabee is justified. It’s just sour grapes. The problem is this: Romney has supported homosexual scoutmasters, abortion, homosexual partnership rights and the like. He flip-flopped to try to become President (no core values). So in addition to the guys like me that won’t vote for a Mormon for President because I think Mormonism is a cult and a terrible twisting of the truth there are way more people that just don’t like Romney’s flip-flops. Throw in the fact that Romney comes across as a Ken doll, plastic and phony, and without a good sense of humor, especially compared to Huckabee, and you get a guy that is crushed in the Republican primaries. Romney, with the resume and all the money in the world, isn’t that great a candidate.
Thompson is the path away from chaos in my opinion.
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.