I still think McCain will have to overcome his huge grudge and name Romney because Pawlenty is an unknown with no national experience. Romney is at least known, has the possibility of picking off both MI and MA from the blue column, can raise money, and was generally the conservatives pick after the dust settled.

highhopes on August 18, 2008 at 8:58 PM

First- Putting MA in play??? Drugs are bad, mmmkay?

Romney is known, but as the candidate who consistantly had the highest negatives in polling, what people knew about him, they didn’t particularly like.

Too many social-cons and evangelicals (for whatever the reason) are already less than enthused about McCain- adding Romney would be enough to keep them on the couch instead of in the voting booth.

Also, let’s not forget that Mitt was a one-term governor and made his fortune in the hedge fund business. That undermines some of the Maverick’s populist appeal (such as it is) with independants and diminishes his ability to go after Obama’s lack of experience.

Pawlenty ain’t a perfect pick, but his politics are pretty close to McCains, has been governor since 2002, is the son of a truck driver, and would have greater appeal to the evangelical crowd.

Lastly, Minnesota has been pretty reliably blue in previous presidential elections, but according to the most recent polls, Pawlenty is just as likely to flip MN as Mitt would be to flip MI.

Hollowpoint on August 18, 2008 at 10:33 PM

You are just wrong. Romney’s favorable ratings have continued to climb as he has become more known.

People who have taken the time to research his record like him and the more people get to know him the more they like him.

EJDolbow on August 18, 2008 at 10:43 PM

Go back and look for yourself. Of the first tier Republican candidates, Mitt had consistantly high negatives compared to the others.

Hollowpoint on August 18, 2008 at 10:55 PM

Hollowpoint on August 18, 2008 at 10:33 PM, if Romney’s negatives are so high, why did he win most of the real Republican states, and come in second overall?
ParisParamus on August 18, 2008 at 10:53 PM

The states he won were those in which he had some personal/family connection (MI) or those with a large Mormon population (UT, NV, WY). Do the consistanly Republican Southern states in which he had no chance not count as “real” Republican states?

Hollowpoint on August 18, 2008 at 10:58 PM

A good defense of Pawlenty but I still think his biggest liablity is that nobody outside of MN knows who he is when the rest of America asks the question about what happens if McCain is unable to lead for health reasons.

Pawlenty isn’t the conservative I’d like, but neither is McCain. That no one knows who he is isn’t necessarily a bad thing- McCain picks a well known candidate, there’s not much to report that hasn’t been already. Pick someone less well known, and it requires media coverage to talk about who the heck he is. Pawlenty is plenty qualified- and probably more so- than Mitt. Governor for 6 years, MN house majority leader for a time.

Romney’s negatives are somewhat blown out of proportion by the Huckabee brand of “evangelicals.” I am an evangelical voter, consider Mormanism a cult, but understand that there is a difference between personal faith and public responsibility. I disagree that the social conservatives are cool to Romney. Instead, it is probably McCain who doesn’t want Romney on the ticket. We all know that McCain carries grudges to the nth degree. Just look at the way he has attacked the Bush adminstration over his failure to win the nomination in 2000. He even was open to the idea of bolting the party in 2004.

Preaching to the choir to some degree- I’ve no place for the Huckster types. However, every poll and election result has shown that, unfair though it is, Mitt’s Mormonism is a significant negative- he came in fourth in SC and second in Iowa despite spending approximately one bazillion dollars there.

Romney ended his term as governor in the positive. McCain doesn’t have a populist appeal. His campaign is running on tthe theme (rightly so) of “you might hate me but I’m more cqualified- deal with it.”

McCain has included some rather populist themes in his campaign, like it or not (I don’t). Again, in terms of qualifications, Mitt isn’t all that strong- little government experience and no military or foreign policy experience. Being a hedge fund CEO isn’t likely to garner a lot of empathy in the current economic climate of bitterness over massively overpaid CEOs (and no, I don’t want to argue about that issue).

And that is trouble for us social conservatives and evangelicals. We don’t need a second “mini me” to Lindsey Graham. With a political Judas at the top of the ticket we don’t want another McCain on the ticket. A President McCain is going to sell us all down the river. We want the ppossiblility of a real Republican in the mix to make a difference.

I agree, but let’s face it- Mitt’s record is no more that of a “real Republican” than is McCain’s. Pro-subsidy, anti-gun, the well-timed “epiphany” on certain social issues- his record and campaign policies (not always the same thing) wasn’t one of a solid conservative. Pawlenty is a convert to evangelicalism, but like most Minnesotans, he’s not obnoxious about it.

Without a doubt. MI and MN are both states where this could happen.
highhopes on August 19, 2008 at 1:15 AM

So what’s the point of picking Mitt? What does he bring to the table that outweighs his negatives?

Don’t get me wrong- Mitt is qualified for the position, an excellent communicator, and his success in the business world is nothing to scoff at. However, consider the pro/anti Mormon crap-fest every Romney thread here on HA turns into. Consider that despite spending massive amounts of money ($45 million of his own included) and a very well staffed and organized campaign, he significantly underperformed.

I sincerely hope Mitt can put himself in a position to prove himself to be the conservative he (unsuccessfully in my opinion) tried to portray himself as. I also hope that Republicans can move beyond being irrationally biased against political candidates who’s religion they disagree with- even if I disagree with the LDS faith too. That time has not yet come, and the evidence available supports that.

Sorry for the long post- I once again blame Summit Extra Pale Ale.

Hollowpoint on August 19, 2008 at 3:36 AM