Is Michigan Mitt’s last stand?
posted at 10:01 am on January 9, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
That’s the buzz this morning but for once Hewitt’s spin is closer to the truth. As Ambinder notes, Romney’s got a devil’s triangle shaping up against him in Michigan: Huck will pull the evangelical social cons, McCain will pull the hawks and the independents (who get to skip the Democratic race because Obama’s not on the ballot), which leaves Mitt with the Fredhead “true conservative” vote. Are there enough of those in Michigan to win? I’m skeptical, but the numbers are amazingly close: If you can believe it, except for one typically crappy ARG outlier poll from September, no GOP candidate has exceeded so much as 30 percent since February. No one’s got even as much as 20 percent in the RCP average, and of the last four polls taken, no one’s topped 21 percent — with each of the big three winning at least one of those polls.
So if Mitt craters, he’s out, right? No, for reasons best explained by this short but shrewd John Ellis column. So long as there are two or more anti-Hucks competing in any primary, they split the vote and give Huckabee a fighting chance to win and build momentum. With his money and organization, Romney may hang on until Super Ultra Mega Tuesday in the hope that he’ll be the only anti-Huck left standing and the base will have no choice but to line up behind him. The problem is that Giuliani’s likely to be left standing too; like Ellis says, Huck may actually want to lose to Rudy in Florida simply to guarantee his participation on Big Tuesday. If all three are still in it come Florida, the pressure on the third-place finisher to get out and make Tuesday a head-to-head to simplify things for anti-Huck voters will be tremendous.
Needless to say, if McCain and Rudy crumble in Florida and we really are left with serial loser Mitt as the Great Hope, it’s going to be an historic fiasco. Exit question: Assuming Mitt does get out, who does he endorse? Huck and McCain seem to hate him and he’s tangled with Rudy in somewhat nasty ways at the debates. He ain’t throwing his endorsement away on ol’ Fred either. Would he politely decline to endorse anyone? Or does he make a deal with the frontrunner for some kind of cabinet position?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
“Nah” is right…he’s too well-funded.
flipflop on January 9, 2008 at 10:02 AM
I’m with Mitt!
Time for the Dumbs to wrap it up and go home. They have no message or plan for America.
They can change this country by becoming patriotic and shutting up.
madmonkphotog on January 9, 2008 at 10:04 AM
Are you kidding?
He thinks it’s “his time”, it’s a common theme amongst his generation! ;)
Your Jewish Master on January 9, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Unless you are one of the minor candidates, and unfortunately, that may apply to Thompson, everyone should tough it out till after Super Tuesday. I don’t understand why so much importance is given to these very small states. It’s ridiculous.
Blake on January 9, 2008 at 10:07 AM
He’ll be in until he runs out of money, and to borrow from a Norm MacDonald line, that will happen about 10 years after the Earth crashes into the Sun.
thirteen28 on January 9, 2008 at 10:08 AM
Not by a long shot.
Mitt is leading in delegates now and he will be leading in delegates come Feb 5.
Hopefully by then the folks supporting Fred, Duncan and even Rudy will realize they are going to get Mitt, Huck or Mack as the nominee.
That seems like a no brainer choice.
Conservatives better get behind Mitt quick or we are going to have another 8 year of Clinton.
Or worse yet,
Eight years of McCain.
EJDolbow on January 9, 2008 at 10:09 AM
Mitt won’t throw in the towel before Super Tuesday, but it won’t matter. I suspect he’s already lost some supporters due to his flip flop + bad performances in the early states. If he loses in Michigan, watch out. You will see supporters exit in masses and his candidacy will collapse. Fred will be done soon, and McCain, despite the MSM “frontrunner tag”, is a pretty weak candidate. I think we are headed for a Huck VS Rudy final
froghat on January 9, 2008 at 10:09 AM
thirteen28, Norm Macdonald owns!
froghat on January 9, 2008 at 10:10 AM
I don’t see him getting out before Super Tuesday. If he does get out, I would be surprised to see him endorse someone. I don’t know how he could endorse Mr. Aren’t Jesus and the Devil brothers? and I don’t think Mac wants him around.
Spirit of 1776 on January 9, 2008 at 10:10 AM
Hey, by all logic, even with his money and growing support, we should count Mitt out if Michigan doesn’t come up for him, right? Hell, 3.5 primaries? Pack it up, go home, the American people have SPOKEN!
The same talk about Fred and Giuliani dropping out is equally as mind boggling. Obama won Iowa, Hillary won NH, and Edwards has a good chance of winning SC. Huck won Iowa, McCain won NH, Thompson has a good chance of winning SC, and Giuliani has a good chance of winning Florida. Why are we turning into poll junkies, making predictions now with barely anything to go on?
There is only one truth in politics: A lot can happen in a little amount of time.
MadisonConservative on January 9, 2008 at 10:14 AM
Don’t count Romney out. Romney with 17 currently leads the field in delegate count (Huckabee is in second place with 12, Thompson has 8, and McCain 5), and Romney was born in Michigan, and his father was Governor there.
At this point in time, Romney, who has not won any state, has more delegates (17) than Obama (16), Clinton (15), or Edwards (14).
donsingleton on January 9, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Mitt!!!
CABE on January 9, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Allah, you’ve been lobbying for Mitt to get out since Iowa. Iowa doesn’t mean squat. New Hampshire is a silly state, with 44% of the voters independent.
I hope and believe he’ll stay in until some meaningful delegate counts dictate the course.
Jaibones on January 9, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Mainly because the people in New Hampshire and Iowa get to know the candidates like no other voters in the country. They meet them several times, they hear them speak and they also are pay more attention to politics then other states do. This close interaction with the candidates is supposed to narrow the field as it did in the democratic race. But it has not done so in the republican race. But let me say that Mitt Romney paying 20 million dollars and spending months on end in Iowa and New Hampshire, yet still not winning either state, says a lot about whether he can appeal to voters outside the republican sphere.
Complete7 on January 9, 2008 at 10:17 AM
What poor performance? Mitt can in first in one race and 2nd in two races no one else has that record. Mitt has more of a chance than any other canidate.I wasnt for Mitt but he is shaping up as the Rebublicans onlt chance and truthfully we could do alot worse
CaCa on January 9, 2008 at 10:18 AM
And despite that, a good third of them wait until the last minute to cast their votes. I’ve about had it with the mythology of NH and Iowa, frankly.
Slublog on January 9, 2008 at 10:19 AM
I have slowly come around to Mitt. I don’t think he comes across as fake as some people say. I also used to like McCain in 2000 and could like him again despite immigration (the big reason) and campaign finance (the smaller one)
But I just feel like he is seconds away from losing his cool in a BIG WAY. That will play into the Messiahs or the “sensitive crying” dim nominee’s hands in the general election.
Mitt seems to keep his cool and I think that will be a BIG asset come general election time. He seems the only viable candidate left since Rudy pretty much forfeited and Fred just can’t seem to excite enough people. And I can’t vote for anybody who compares his victory to the loaves and the fishes ala Huckster.
So I say :
Hang in ther Mitt and maybe the party will wake up!
tottoritodd on January 9, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Like some of the folks here, maybe he’ll just stay home on election day too.
BacaDog on January 9, 2008 at 10:20 AM
serial loser? they have all lost two
CaCa on January 9, 2008 at 10:22 AM
You guys forget, Mitt HAS won a primary: Wyomings. In fact, it had more delegates than New Hampshires. So while McCain got New Hampshire’s votes… or some of them, at least, Mitt won his state very convincingly. I’m not sure why Wyoming so far has been left out of the chatter. It’s the only reason Mitt’s still swinging in the race, and has the “I’ve got the most delegates” thing going on.
Besides, I just don’t see Mitt endorsing anyone. Huck? No chance. McCain–no chance–McCain hates him. Rudy? Not likely…. and Fred maybe, but why would the supreme organizer endorse the guy with no organization?
I think Mitt pulls it off in Michigan. He’s the only guy who is running a national campaign. If he gets Mich, then he’ll have two states to everyone else’s one. No reason to get out of the race then.
My question is, why forget Wyoming? Even the Boss forgot to include Wyoming’s delegates in her calculations last night.
Vanceone on January 9, 2008 at 10:22 AM
SECOND LOOK FOR STATE XYZ BEING CANDIDATE XYZ’S LAST STAND!
matd on January 9, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Indeed.
Spirit of 1776 on January 9, 2008 at 10:25 AM
Let me see…he spent 8.7 million in New Hampshire for a few thousand votes (8,000 or so)…gee, just the man I want in the White House controlling our budget and spending (yeah, I know the congress controls the budget…and I hate to put these disclaimers in for all of the “smart” people).
*
Note to Mitt, the pay is only $400,000, but they have a great dental plan.
right2bright on January 9, 2008 at 10:26 AM
Yeah…ain’t democracy grand? That determines who runs the country in some people’s eyes.
MadisonConservative on January 9, 2008 at 10:26 AM
Since Mitt has 2 silvers and a gold, I think he’s in better shape than I did last night. I think he’ll go the distance because at least he’s consistant.
I know as a Patriots fan, it ain’t over till it’s over.
Geronimo on January 9, 2008 at 10:26 AM
But will they pay for his Rogaine?
MadisonConservative on January 9, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Last Stand? What kind of locoweed got distributed out at the pundit box in Manchester last night?
Mitt Romney placed second in Iowa and NH and he’s supposed to fold his tent while Huckabee and Rudy are both in far worse shape? Granted, Mass. is a neighboring state but the RINO population of NH have always had a fondness for John McCain’s brand of flaky liberalism. The picture will be clearer after Mardi Gras (which also happens to be Super Tuesday).
highhopes on January 9, 2008 at 10:27 AM
It seems to me what he’s “purchased” thus far is the largest number of delegates. This is looking like Clinton in 1992 to me – slowly building delegates until a convincing win knocks out a few other contenders.
Slublog on January 9, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Wyoming is more of a Republican state than Iowa and New Hampshire combined.
CABE on January 9, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Weren’t there some polls out right before the NH primaries predicting that Obama was up by 10 points or so?
Romney would have to be a complete moron to even contemplate pulling out right now, and he’s not a moron. Although I’m not a Mitt-man I think he still has a tremendous amount of momentum even though he finished in second place again.
First: he only lost by a few percentage points in a tight race.
Second: he’s the only candidate that has actually competed in both primaries. McCain was a non-factor in Iowa and the Huckster didn’t have a chance in NH. With all this media attention and basically free advertising, Mitt has a shot.
Luckedout on January 9, 2008 at 10:30 AM
When do the next Michigan polls come out? It should be interesting to see if there is any post NH Romney fall.
froghat on January 9, 2008 at 10:30 AM
From another thread- right on the money though.
The VIDEO of Mitt flip-floppin’ is what hurts him so bad. That and the fact that he is incapable of givin’ a pre-programmed answer without it bein’ OBVIOUS that he’s givin’ a pre-programmed answer.
He cannot APPEAR authentic. (especially against McShamnesty, Huck, Rudy, and Fred)
Ex-tex on January 9, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Fully agreed.
MadisonConservative on January 9, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Mitt won Wyoming.
csdeven on January 9, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Why forget Wyoming?…because sheep don’t vote (and what did he have to do–that no one else would do– to get the sheep vote?)…or because no one else ran, it don’t mean nothing if it doesn’t have national attention.
Wyoming is only important to Mitt-wits.
right2bright on January 9, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Like it or not, spending big in Iowa and NH is part of the game. Both states demand that the candidates come and personally pander for votes. They’ve managed to make themselves so important you won’t find a wannabe against upping corn subsidies or saying that NH is too damned cold in December to campaign.
What will be telling is if Rudy’s strategy of essentially thumbing his nose at Iowa and NH to concentrate on Super Tuesday pays off (as his people are spinning). It could be that America no longer has to suffer through an entire summer of idiots like Tom Harkin opining to elect our leadership.
highhopes on January 9, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Why would he get out after Michigan? Even if he came in 2nd, he’d still be in 1st place when it comes to the number of delegates. Why should the person in 1st place drop out? All of that type of talk is media hype, because they can’t wait to have a front runner.
I seriously see a McCain-Huckabee ticket forming for the GOP. Huck needs McCain’s foreign policy and military credentials, and McCain needs Huck to get out the evangelical vote. They are a perfect marriage of political need.
Romney seems the only one who can de-rail the disastrous duo. It is seriously time for Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson to drop out and endorse somebody (hopefully Romney). We don’t need another big government Republican in the White House.
GO ROMNEY!!
joncoltonis on January 9, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Does an uninspiring, robotic, Republican candidate running against the possibility of either the first woman or first black spell Republican doom? If Mitt can’t rally or inspire Republican voters, how do we expect him to garner the broad support needed in November?
flyfisher on January 9, 2008 at 10:34 AM
The guy has succeeded in almost everything he has touched. Successful people don’t think in such shallow terms as “It’s my time”. Mitt’s doing this because he thinks he’s what is best for America. He’s worth 1/4 billion dollars. He doesn’t need a government pension, and he doesn’t need political contacts to make money to fund his years after office.
csdeven on January 9, 2008 at 10:36 AM
As long as Romney keeps pulling second place he should stay in it. In Iowa and New Hampshire now he’s shown that he has the broadest appeal. Good showings in Michigan, South Carolina, and Florida will cement that into a powerful electability argument.
bj1126 on January 9, 2008 at 10:36 AM
A Ron Paul endorsement would kill a campaign.
CABE on January 9, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Ask any candidate if he’d like to have an extra 8 delegates right now.
csdeven on January 9, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Considering our other choices are a flaky loose cannon and a religious demagogue who is flamebait for every attack on evangelical seediness ever made, I’d say yes. There’s also Guiliani, who brushes aside skeletons to get to his clothes in the morning.
Keep dreaming about Thompson. If his shenanigans in Delaware are indications of his competence, he may not even be on the ballot.
BKennedy on January 9, 2008 at 10:39 AM
With the chance of a brokered convention? I don’t think anyone is getting out.
I also don’t see anyone speculating much on Rudy getting out, even though he is currently polling 4th in his bellweather state of Florida. One must ask:
Does AP have a man crush on Rudy?
michaelo on January 9, 2008 at 10:39 AM
I understand “spending big” but we are now approaching $1,000 per vote. That is desperation, you can’t do that at a national level. He (Mitt) has no grass roots, you can’t win a national campaign spending at that level.
First there just isn’t enough money
Second it gets down to buying votes and the competition kills you on that.
It is the law of diminishing returns… If he doubles the money, he won’t double the vote…so he is in a no-win position. He has to keep spending huge money for a few votes, short term it works, but long term it just breaks up the party. If he was such a great businessman, he would know that.
right2bright on January 9, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Technically, Mitt is the frontrunner because he has the most delegates. He is certainly NOT a loser. And in regards to how much of his own money he’s spent, heck, I wish all politicians would spend their own freaking money and keep their hand out of my pocket…don’t we all appoint our more wealthy relatives to be the executor of our will? S/he who has much more money than you is a lot less likely to be tempted to skim. Likewise for politicians…the wealthier they are, the less likely they can be bought by lobbyists. There is just SO MUCH to like about Mitt…my greatest concern is that when Rudy gets in, he’ll give Mitt a good contest. Huck and Mac will soon fade away…the real contest will be between Mitt and Rudy.
JustTruth101 on January 9, 2008 at 10:39 AM
That’s what strikes me. His cross-tabs are good, although if any candidate starts up with the ‘electability’ argument again, I’m going to send them an Important Action Alert and Pretty Vicious Rant.
Slublog on January 9, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Well, that was creative Allah!!
jeanie on January 9, 2008 at 10:40 AM
RobTN on January 9, 2008 at 10:40 AM
How, exactly? George W. Bush was spending vast sums of money in 2000 as well. If Romney wins a couple of states, the money will follow. If he wins the nomination and turns this into a national race, the money will be there.
Slublog on January 9, 2008 at 10:41 AM
It is way too early to be forcasting Mitt’s exit. He is leading in the delegate count for crying out loud. I love the way so many people jump to wild conclusions like Hitlary was done and look what happened last night. Rudy hasn’t even gotten into the game, Slick Willy hadn’t emerged until Georgia in 92, and on and on. Each state has its own rules and voting groups.
This is an extremely fluid situation that has even the best experts scratching their heads trying to project the future. Good luck with that. Conventional wisdom is out the window and we will all have to wait and see how this plays out. Except for the true non-contenders like Paul, and dare I say sadly the two most conservative guys Hunter & Thompson, it’s anybody’s ball game. We live in a microwave society where people demand instant satisfaction & results so anything can and probably will happen.
Don’t take your eyes off if the national picture. That’s the only one that matters! The country is totally screwed with Hitlary or Obama in the white house. Tax..tax..tax..spend..spend..spend, NO NATIONAL SECURITY, and the SUPREME COURT gone for a generation! Kiss the USA goodbye!
NEVER NEVER NEVER FORGET THAT!!!!!
libhater on January 9, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Well, for all those attacking Mitt’s electibility: Who, exactly, would be better? Fred? Fred can’t catch fire with his core constituancy, let alone independants. Huck? Let’s see him do anything with anyone who doesn’t listen only to their pastor first. McCain? McCain only gets independants…. and was a complete nonfactor in Iowa.
Mitt won the most conservative state we’ve had so far very convincingly. Wyoming also gave Fred and Hunter their only delegates, so you can’t say Wyoming isn’t conservative. Mitt trounced everyone there.
Right2bright, in his/her course of implying that only idiots would vote for Mitt, has once again slandered people (really–voting for Mitt is a sheep thing now? What the heck?). It don’t mean nothing if it don’t have national attention? It has Mitt in the lead, as much as it cankers your soul.
As for running against Hillary or Obama: Obama may get the “black man running” vote, but if America is truly non racist enough to consider Obama, they’d also be non racist enough to consider Obama’s record: and Mitt stomps him into the turf on experience. Heck, so did Hillary. Obama got seriously weakened last night.
As for Cackle, Mitt like any other Republican, would get the “Do I really want them, and to listen to HER for 4 years? Heck NO!” vote. Which seems substantial.
Vanceone on January 9, 2008 at 10:42 AM
No, Mitt Romney is still in through Super Tuesday. He is still doing well, and is better situated than most of the candidates, even if he came short of where he wanted to be.
Nice angles in your article.
Tim Pancoast on January 9, 2008 at 10:42 AM
It just seems to me that we need to decide on the least flawed viable candidate to decide on and Mitt fits the bill.
Mitts knocks: Flip Flopper and too polished.
But does anyone else think that Obama can keep up this change campaign without revealing that he is basically a socialist who still wants to quit Iraq at the time we are just beginning to win? No he will begin to sound fake or he will have to reveal himself.
Hillary – does anyone actually remember when her campaign began to have trouble? It was when she flip flopped on the illegal drivers license in one answer
Even Mitts religion will be hard to use against him when compared to Barracks church.
So both his weak points aren’t that weak when you compare him in the general to the demosocialists.
Can you say that about any of the other viable Rep candidates?
(ps sorry Fred heads – don’t think he is viable maybe SC will prove me wrong)
tottoritodd on January 9, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Not at $150 million, you can’t sustain that and win the general election. He has no grass roots, only deep pockets. If he spent $2,000 per vote, he would have only gotten maybe 500 more votes. He is now caught in a “spend it all” spiral. Not so smart for what you consider a “brilliant businessman”. He supposedly made a living making business more effective, more “bang for your buck”, he should consult with himself. If he was a Bains client, they would tell him to cut his losses. BTW, those votes (I’m pretty sure) can go for anyone that wins the general nomination, those are not his, until they are cast.
He has to massively overspend to overcome his negatives.
right2bright on January 9, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Oh I’m definitely with you there but he can use it as a subtext to a powerful positive spin going into super Tuesday. Kind of an implied argument behind is regular message.
bj1126 on January 9, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Again, you’re assuming that the pool of money is static. If he’s the nominee, there will be more money.
Slublog on January 9, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Because Wyoming, being a Red State and Dick Cheney’s state of origin, is NEVER going to fit a dinosaur MSM narrative, to put it bluntly.
BKennedy on January 9, 2008 at 10:47 AM
I for one, am sick and tired of the media mantra of asking when this candidate or that candidate will drop out. 75,000 morons in N.H. should not decide the candidate for any party. There are over 100-150 million potential voters who want a say in this matter. I hope this thing goes 50 states for both sides and let the delegates fall where they may. Should the Superbowl be called after the opening kickoff? The World Series after 2 innings? Hell no!
roninacreage on January 9, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Look guys, this is obviously just another one of AP’s trick thread topics designed to make fun of the Fredaholics who aren’t in detox yet.
AP, you magnificent bastard!!
;-)
csdeven on January 9, 2008 at 10:48 AM
They’re going cold turkey on the 19th.
Allahpundit on January 9, 2008 at 10:49 AM
AP is a Mitt-hater. “Serial loser?” Must take one to know one.
Sugar Land on January 9, 2008 at 10:49 AM
It’s been a depressing week or so for Mitt supporters like myself. I think Mitt found his voice after Iowa and his message will resonate with Michigan republicans.
An endorsement by Rush would be nice right about now!
OKCubsFan on January 9, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Mitt started his bid with nearly zero national name recognition, and has competed and competed well in every single solitary race. Thompson is a joke everywhere except SC, Huck was a distant third in NH, and McCain was a technical 4th in Iowa. Only Romney has pulled 1st or 2nd in each race and polls 1st or 2nd in each state. I’d say that’s a pretty good RoI, and you’ll excuse me if I don’t think your business acumen exceed’s Romneys.
Moreover, the dinosaur media narrative has been shifting for tag team Huckles and CMac and against Romney. Now I know you still think the dinosaur media has it in for incompetent-buffoon-in-chief Fred, but you can hardly say they’re pimping Romney.
Despite fighting the media, anti-mormon bigotry and class-warfaring shmucks, Romney is still out it front.
BKennedy on January 9, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Mitt has no grassroots support? *blinks* Where did THAT come from? All I’ve seen is more and more people looking at their options and saying, “Gosh, I can’t stand any of them–Mitt’s the best choice.”
Mitt’s not “buying votes”–he is introducing himself. Look at the other candidates: McCain is well known, Fred was the actor, Huck was pushed by the pastors, and Rudy is also well known. Mitt isn’t. His money has bought him name recognition. And he’s done worlds better than Forbes did. People started looking at Mitt because of the money, but he didn’t buy the vote.
Man, you REALLY have a poor opinion of Mitt voters, don’t you? They are sheep, who’s votes are for sale. Go vote for hillary, tool.
Vanceone on January 9, 2008 at 10:53 AM
R2B,
Girl, I think you need to back up and reflect for a few. Lately, most of your efforts aren’t making any sense.
1) In the general, all the candidates start over. Money, voters, media hype, etc.
2) Mitt isn’t buying votes. He’s buying name recognition. It’s his message that gets the votes. He isn’t promising any entitlements, only conservative principles. The dems buy votes with entitlements.
csdeven on January 9, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Though Rush hasn’t endorsed anyone he has given an ANTI-Endorsement to McCain and Huck…which I’ve never seen Rush do before.
CABE on January 9, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Call the funny farm and get out the straight jackets. I hope none of them are postal employees!
csdeven on January 9, 2008 at 10:56 AM
For me it’s Mitt – and I’m Catholic. Or Rudy, who took a post-David-Dinkins hellhole like NYC and made it safe. Or Fred, who just plain sounds Presidential. Go, any and all of them, go!
Spanglemaker on January 9, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Up yours Vanceone, you have called me names and now making ridiculous statements about “only idiots”. I have not gotten personal with you, now I am.
I have had it with your insults, you are in bed with Mitt, and if someone doesn’t like him you whine, cry, and call names. You are an idiot, you are the one who stated that you would be willing to give up your 14 yr old daughter to a man that talks to God, and when I called you on that, you have attempted to disparage me at every turn. Get over it, you stated that, not me.
Mitt has spent more than any candidate in history in the primaries to overcome his negatives…that is a fact. I don’t think he can sustain that kind of spending, nor do I want a candidate that buys his candidacy.
Get over it…he needs to buy votes, he has bought you, he can’t buy me.
right2bright on January 9, 2008 at 10:58 AM
I’ll be raising a glass to that statement on that date, my friend!
MadisonConservative on January 9, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Even though I am a Fredman, I don’t hate Romney. If he is our nominee I will donate and volunteer to help his campaign, but I suspect that would be for naught. When you consider the lack of enthusiasm for conservatism, even among Republicans with Romney’s inability to connect with the average guy, I don’t see him winning in November. My evidence for lack of enthusiasm for conservatism, even among Republicans: the Huckaboom, McCain’s win, and this from Vox: It’s also disappointing, though not the least bit surprising, to see that ten percent appears to be the ceiling on Republicans genuinely interested in smaller government.
I am not a doom and gloomer, but it is hard for me to imagine a President Romney. He could beat a John Kerry because he’s a lot like John Kerry. But Obama and Hillary have serious advantages he won’t have. That may be true of whomever we nominate, but I see it as particularly true of Romney.
flyfisher on January 9, 2008 at 11:00 AM
The analysis above is completely wrong here. The key to winning the nomination is to win the most delegates, not the most states. According to CNN.com, Romney is in first place with 24 delegates. Huckabee has 18, followed by McCain with 10.
If Romney continues to get silver and gold metals, he’s going to be sitting pretty well going into the February primaries.
Does Romney have to win Michigan in order to stay alive? No, he does not. But he definitely needs at least a silver to stay ahead in the pack.
Frank T.J Mackey on January 9, 2008 at 11:00 AM
You don’t think successful people think in such shallow terms? Everyone has an ego.
It’s common for those successful in every other way to seek political power. For some it’s ego. For others, their success has convinced them they know what’s best for others.
Your Jewish Master on January 9, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Just what has he promised Vanceone to buy his vote? If you have some proof please provide it or stop with the accusations.
You brought out the religion thing again. There is no need for that in a presidential campaign.
Buy you? How has Mitt tried to buy you?
csdeven on January 9, 2008 at 11:02 AM
I don’t know what Vanceone is getting, but I’m holding out for an iPhone.
Slublog on January 9, 2008 at 11:03 AM
There’s only one thing worse than being a rich guy, a phony rich guy. Mitt is unelectable. End of story
froghat on January 9, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Will you support whomever Rush does endorse, or are you looking for Rush to vindicate him? If he doesn’t endorse Mitt, does that alter your opinion of how much weight his opinion carries?
RobTN on January 9, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Yay! Class warfare in the GOP!
Slublog on January 9, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Comparing delegate counts at this stage is beyond absurd. One needs 1191 for a win out of a total of 2380. So far only 71 are in- that’s just under 3%. It’s not even the 1st out of the 1st inning yet.
Hollowpoint on January 9, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Short any proof or even any indication of those accusations, don’t you think we should give him the benefit of the lack of any evidence to the contrary.
can you point to anything that would substantiate your accusations?
Let me give you some data that might help you.
1) Mitt closed his business down to search NYC for an employee’s daughter.
2) Mitt donated his salary from his work in the Olympics.
3) He served an 30 month mission for his church. At his own expense.
4) By all accounts he is a fantastic husband and father.
5) He kept his promises as the governor of MA.
csdeven on January 9, 2008 at 11:12 AM
That’s not true at all. Romney won Wyoming by a commanding margin.
Frank T.J Mackey on January 9, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Get in line. I have it on good conspiracy theory that AP has destroyed Fred because Fred refused to give him an iphone. Mitt didn’t make the same mistake.
csdeven on January 9, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Unless of course Fred had the most delegates and then all is right with the world…..right?
csdeven on January 9, 2008 at 11:15 AM
An endorsement by Rush will change potentially millions of minds. It’s likely to shake up everything.
MadisonConservative on January 9, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Actually, Fred just looked at AP and said “What do you need that fer? I just talk into my hand!” And then Allah watch in wonder as Fred showed him the touchscreen and Safari browser built into his palm.
And Allah feared the light.
MadisonConservative on January 9, 2008 at 11:17 AM
O.K. All you Fredheads, Huckabee shills, Rudy fanatics, and McCain freaks.
Time to own up to the truth.
Would you be biased to not vote for the “Morman” candidate for precisely that reason? Yes/No
Don’t deviate with the 15% percent lie now, this is “truth serum time”.
Just answer the damn question.
Mcguyver on January 9, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Wow. Honestly, I think Fredhead is the least abrasive name of that bunch.
And the answer is: I don’t give a damn what religion he is as long as he ain’t a Muslim. Or Scientologist.
MadisonConservative on January 9, 2008 at 11:23 AM
It was fascinating to see FOX News characterize the NH results for Romney as “devastating” and those for Obama and Huck as “encouraging.” Everybody knows that McCain doesn’t have the temperament to be POTUS; I wonder how our allies will respond when he tells them to “f” off?
The only chances for Republicans in the Fall are Rudy or Mitt. Rushbo knows that Huck is unelectable and McCain is irreparable.
Alma on January 9, 2008 at 11:24 AM
YES! Down with jello-molds!
.
.
Actually, no. I’m with MadisonConservative. As long as the guy isn’t a Scientologist, or a member of the Church of Paul, I’ll vote for him.
Slublog on January 9, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Ugh.. I can feel the religious debate gearing up once again. Why does it always resort to this? Why can’t we keep it to simply policy and potential?
Luckedout on January 9, 2008 at 11:29 AM
No, with a caveat….
If he came out with an ad to introduce himself as a “Mormon Leader”, then I wouldn’t vote for him.
csdeven on January 9, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Well, considering you asked, get ready for the gibots to flood in here and rationalize their gibotry.
csdeven on January 9, 2008 at 11:33 AM
I’m a Thompson guy, but I’d vote for Mitt in the general. I think he’s solid on economic issues. Huckabee is the only one I won’t vote for.
I think the one thing Mitt has trouble with is credibility. Just as Thompson gets stuck with the lazy tag, Mitt has gotten stuck with the flip-flop tag.
Either one of those two as Pres with the other as VP would make a really strong ticket both on credibility with conservatives and economic possibilities.
RobTN on January 9, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Luckedout,
Because there is religious and racial bias at play in this election, that is why.
But don’t expect the religiously biased to own up to it just as the racially biased won’t own up to it.
This is “truth serum time” because it exists (maybe not so much within the HA commentators rank) but it really does exists.
I’ve been in and out and around many different religions and race circles. I know what I speak of.
I can take you through numerous comments I made on either issue leading up to our current events, but the list is too exhaustive for here.
Mcguyver on January 9, 2008 at 11:39 AM
I’ve been “Witt Mitt” for months now, and fully expect to see him win.
Here’s a head to head comparison to think about-how would Kerry have fared against an Obama in 2004? Meaning a charismatic orator with youthful energy. The two are complete opposites, and I think that, if the Dems had had the choice of Obama then, Kerry wouldn’t have made it. An empty suit almost beat President Bush in 2004-don’t underestimate the Dems ability to overlook weaknesses which are apparent to us on the right. I thought there was no way the Republicans could lose Congress in 2006-just a thought.
Doug on January 9, 2008 at 11:39 AM
No. But I’ve seen a half dozen comments extolling the fact that Mitt has the most delegates… even though only 2.5 states with 3% of the delegates have voted so far. It’s like listening to the Paultards talk about how Ron “won” the debates because of the stupid text message polls they spammed.
I don’t see Romney getting out before Feb 5, but considering the vast sums of money (both donated and from his own pocket) he spent on IA and NH as part of his early state strategy, there’s no question that losing his lead and coming in 2nd both places is a big hit to his campaign. It remains to be seen whether he can recover.
Hollowpoint on January 9, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Kucinich received more votes than Fred in NH.
Time for most people on this blog to start backing a serious candidate that can beat Hillary/Obama.
I suggest Mitt against Hillary and McCain against Obama.
faraway on January 9, 2008 at 11:42 AM
your opinion is your opinion, infact everyone has one. Yours just happens to be wrong.
lan astaslem on January 9, 2008 at 11:44 AM
OK. I don’t give a damn that he’s Mormon any more than I give a damn that Rudy is Catholic or Huckster is a Baptist.
But I’m still not voting for Multiple Choice Mitt. He’s given me exactly zero reason to trust that he’d maintain any of his current stances if elected.
He blew it for me the very first debate when he came out as a Big Government Republican who claims to be a conservative. I ain’t buying the act.
Hollowpoint on January 9, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »