Romney's electability, why I'm supporting McCain.
By Kansan Posted in 2008 — Comments (102) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
First and foremost, I was a Thompson supporter and I'm not all that big of a fan of the remaining candidates. Giuliani was my second choice and I am a believer that he would make a solid President. But I recognize the race is down to two or rather will be down to two by the time I get to cast my vote.
There's several reasons why I'm supporting McCain and not Romney. I trust McCain on Iraq and national security issues where as I don't trust Romney on many issues. One of the more important issues for me now is electability. I criticized liberals four years ago for supporting Kerry because they viewed him as being more electable. But the candidate I was supporting is out... and I'll most likely be voting for the party's nomination in the general election regardless of who's the candidate. With my support most likely there and not being thrilled about the remaining two candidates... for me it comes down to who's more than likely to win the general election. Romney's ability to do so comes into questioning.
Looking at Real Clear's political averages in Romney's head-to-head matchups he trails Clinton by 11% and Obama by 18%. If it were to happen according to the way the polls have it right now... it would be nearly a landslide...
Much has been made into ignoring the head-to-head matchups. Although they're only slightly relevant, they are relevant none the less. In my mind, this election is too important. There's many issues that hang in the balance. Iraq being one of the more notable ones. In my mind, I view Romney as too much of a risk. There's the possibility he goes on to win the general election, but it doesn't look probable at the moment. Nor is there much leading me to believe that much will change before now and then.
I don't agree with McCain on many issues. I find his stance on global warming disturbing. I disagree with him on immigration and with campaign finance reform... but there are positives regardless of how much the anti-McCain camp wants to state otherwise. I'll take the positives and negatives over what the other side is throwing out any day. If I have to suck it up and support a candidate I don't agree on with a few issues, I'll do so.
With the more than likely possibility of the Democrats controlling the Senate and the House, hopefully that's not the case, I'd at least like to see the party control the White House. I don't expect others to share my sentiments in regards to the two candidates electability. I'm sure there's some that view Romney as being more electable... but I'm not one of them.
Happy day, I've just had the rules clarified for me.
Stop using "McAmnesty".
Thanks in advance.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
chance to win. And yes, I am in this to win. And no, I do not think McCain is the perfect candidate. None of them are. There never has been a perfect candidate. Most govern differently than they campaign anyway. However, mine is not based on polls, it is a gut feeling. Knowing the evangelical community well, it is likely they will stay home if Romney or Rudy get the nod. Many would come out for Romney but not in the numbers he would need to win. That leaves McCain and Huckabee. Though in many ways I like Huck better, McCain has a better shot. Romney could well win the nomination and at that point he is my man. But I think he would die a thousands deaths in the general. This is how I see it as far as electability is concerned. And those who believe ther pet "conservative" cause would be better off if we lose, I believe are plainly wrong.
Electability:
1. McCain
2. Huckabee
3. Rudy
4. Mitt
but I disagree with the original poster that electability should dictate your vote. But I guess we all get to base it on whatever we would like. And if your top choice is out and you don't really care much among the rest of the group, I guess as a tie-breaker it makes sense.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
He should take more of sylvester's HGH to keep him awake. Keep hitting the snooze button because McAmnesty is too old n tired looking...
The thinking that McCain is electable is based solely upon the various polls out there which is wrong based on history. Go back and see what the polls have indicated in previous election cycles and you will see that almost without exception the leading democrats held very sizable leads over the republican leaders at this stage in the process. Even Reagan's landslides didn't look anything like that early on. The problem is that the early polls measure a disengaged public's response which invariably changes once the public starts paying attention and actually considers what the liberal democrat nominee stabds for.
I'm sure they will change before the election. But am I to believe that Romney has the best chance? Or even a good chance to win the general election? With the polls as the way they are and the media's love fest for Clinton and Obama, he'll have a lot of ground to make up, in my opinion.
And Bush was ahead of Kerry and Gore in the head-to-head polls early on.
There's an 1800 mile reason I don't trust Sen. McCain on national security. Incidentally, many OTM's (other than Mexicans) from countries all over the world have been stopped by our border patrol. This includes folks from countries that are state sponsors of terror. He's weak on national security.
America stands for bold colors!
Tim Schieferecke
1.) McCain
2.) Rudy
.
.
.
.
.
10.) Huckabee
.
.
.
.
20.) Romney
And that's just sad, because I genuinely like Romney. On policy I think he's pretty much right. His executive experience is breathtakingly impressive. His Mormonism? Who cares?
But he's positively acharismatic in the ways which matter the most on the Presidential stage. He's got the flip-flopper tag securely attached to him (I don't think it's all that fair - or rather I think it's accurate but doesn't genuine capture what his true values are - but it's there nonetheless). He sometimes seems like he's cynically pandering to his audiences. He has absolutely zero cross-over appeal. He would lead us to a (perhaps noble) defeat. And I can't sign off on that just yet, not when the stakes are so high and the possibility of victory is within reach.
...but I think your analysis has some very good points (unfortunately). I like Romney, but I'm still torn on whether I will vote for him or not.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
and that's why I support Romney. I watched McCain last night on MTP and it was a pitiful display, twisting words to fit his own agenda. I think McCain is the LEAST electable of McCain or Romney. I believe whoever is the democratic candidate the Republicans only chance is to offer up a candidate that offers Americans a choice. McCain vs. any dem. just doesn't do it.
Apparently, you're in the minority on that one. Just about every poll gives McCain the lead or at least a close shot, while Romney is miles behind. Sure, he'd make some of that up in the general, but he's got so much more ground to make up that I think it would be impossible for him to do so, even with all his money.
that Romney is more electable. Forget about the polls, when it comes down to voting for a Republican nominee, McCain just will not suffice for most conservative Republicans (too many negatives). Romney may not be the ideal, but he is much better than McCain.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Conservatives choose integrity. American voters chose Clinton - twice - and are threatening to do so again. If McCain ends up being the candidate.... I am not playing. I am just going up into the hills and disappear. At this point I am hoping for a brokered convention with a Newt Gingrich/John Bolton ticket in the offing.
...with the nomination. Even people who want to support Romney are likely voting McCain because they don't think he can win. I count myself among this group. Missouri's primary is actually going to mean something this year, and I'm still torn as to who I will vote for (although the Florida results will probably clear things up a bit). I line up with Romney on the issues, but I feel like McCain could be better for our party electorally speaking.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
disappears the minute he's actually contrasted against the Democrat nominee. The fact of the matter is, the war in Iraq is not popular with the public. You can argue why the public is wrong about that, but I think this point is beyond dispute. Many Republicans are even tired of the war and wish it would just go away. It simply is not, and will not be a winning issue for Republicans in the general election.
McCain is, to his credit, the most articulate and staunch defender of the war effort in Iraq. That wins him plaudits from many national defense oriented conservatives, but I guarantee you that many if not most of the moderates and independents who support him now will leave him once the alternative is a credible anti-war candidate.
I think Republicans, if they are to have a chance at all this November, will have to win on domestic issues such as tax policy and changing Washington. Romney is clearly better positioned to make those arguments. Right or wrong, being the most gangbuster on the war is not going to win us the general election.
Iraq will not be a major issue in 2008. The Democrats have taken it off the table because they know that their position (precipitous withdrawl) is un-American, and they know they won't get elected on that position.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
How can Iraq not be a major issue in 2008? It's the first contrast the Democrats draw whenever the issue of how they differ with Republicans is raised. The only reason it doesn't get even more play now is because the D's basically all agree.
I don't agree with it but I think their "let's wind this thing down, folks" approach is the more popular one among the general public. No matter how hard he tried, McCain will not win on the issue of the war in Iraq. Since the war is his signature issue, I'd genuinely be surprised if he were able to break 45 percent in the general.
If we want to win this year our candidate cannot be painted as simply more of the same on the war. He has to have something else that he can credibly run on and persuade/excite people about. If anything, our stronger position on domestic issues will be what saves us. Romney is in a much better position to fight and win on these issues.
I agree that Iraq will be an issue but I disagree that the Democrat's approach is more popular. There's a reason they choose not to spend much time focusing on the issue when campaining. This after four years of listening them trying to shove the issue down our throats. I'm certain the general public cares more about winning the war and finishing it the right way...
One could debate other issues and McCain's position on those issues but the Democrats won't be winning on the issue of Iraq.
McCain over Romney bogus. If you actually cared about who was elected President, instead of who would win, would your vote change? This seems to be a major failing of the Republican party voters. Seems that they want to win at any cost, even if it means electing a Democrat (Liberal Republican). Your desires may be met, but your ambitions will be thwarted.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Anyone who is assessing Mitt's electibility based on today's head-to-head polls probably also thought that Rudy had the nomination locked up six months ago...which isn't looking too good these days.
Here's what Rich Lowry had to say at NRO's The Corner:
"At least according to Rasmussen, McCain is not looking that much better against the Dems than Romney. Hillary leads McCain 47-45; she leads Romney 47-42. Obama leads McCain 46-41; he leads Romney 47-38. At this stage, these aren't huge differences, and you would expect Romney to continue to tick up if he can win high-profile states like Florida."
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmRjMDI5YjE0NWRhYTZmZGI1OWEzZDU...
The Principal Chair
http://principalchair.blogspot.com
Over at NRO, Rich Lowry notes:
"[A]ccording to Rasmussen, McCain is not looking that much better against the Dems than Romney. Hillary leads McCain 47-45; she leads Romney 47-42. Obama leads McCain 46-41; he leads Romney 47-38. At this stage, these aren't huge differences, and you would expect Romney to continue to tick up if he can win high-profile states like Florida."
As I noted in a diary yesterday, we are nine months away from the election. Nine months ago, polls showed Rudy as the most electable Republican. At this point, there is little reason to vote on the grounds of "electability,"and othe than the today's polls, Kansan gives no reason to think that nine months from now McCain will be more electable. As Kansan himself notes in the main post, Dems in '04 thought Kerry was electable. By election day, most agreed that they had had better choices.
Brad Smith
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
Capital University website
Center for Competitive Politics website
First, I'm not a big believer in 'electability' as a criterion for candidate selection unless one is truly torn between the stands of two candidates.
Having said that, ask Carter, Mondale, Kerry, Dukakis, et al about the validity of polls 6 months before the election. Is it a coincidence that the Republican always has a huge deficit before the campaign shits into high gear? No, it's the filter the MSM uses to shape the electorate's opinion of them until we are able to define ourselves through the campaign.
Which brings me to the reason for McCain's 'electability' meme. It's MSM induced due to the fawning of the MSM over him. Raise your hand if you think that's going to continue after Hillary/Obama win the nomination.
McCain in a debate? Other than the Iraq war which will fade even more as an issue than it already has, how does he distinguish himself from Hillary/Obama when they voted the same on the '01 Bush tax cuts, McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman, McCain-Edwards (geez there seems to be a lot of liberal democrat names on those bills), the AGW agenda (which will cost our economy FAR more than whatever is saved in earmarks), waterboarding, detainee rights, etc. And if he tries to tack to the right, the Dems are going to tag him as less of a flip-flopper than Romney how?
And finally, McCain's temper, pettiness and churlishness when on the ropes and pressed on his positions, as demonstrated again with his blatant misrepresentation of Romney's Iraq position, will come out sooner or later. If you think the MSM is giving him a hard time now, we ain't seen nothin' compared to the snit they'll pitch if/when he pulls the same thing with Hillary or Obama.
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
I have two objections. The first is the easiest. The points which you count as counter to McCain's electability "quotient" in the general are at least as applicable to Romney. Do you think Giualiani is actually the best General hope?
Second, not trusting the polls and the MSM is one thing. But there is genuine analysis regarding McCain's electoral strengths. That he can pull a larger portion of the hispanic vote than other Republican candidates seems rather likely. He also has a demonstrated draw for independents and even Blue Dog dems. These are directly related to electability. Where does that fit in?
Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee
First, I want to thank you for your reasoned, thoughtful posts. Your 'why I'm going to McCain' post is probably the closest anyone's come to getting me to rethink my deep and major reservations about Sen. McCain. You are obviously are an even-handed, even-tempered individual who thinks before speaking and I appreciate that greatly.
Answer to question one--yes, that is a worry for me about Romney. I'm really struggling right now 'cause my guy was your guy and everyone else was pretty far back. I have great concerns that should Romney get the nomination he will be Kerryized. Hey, I have major reservations about his 'shifting' positions. I just also happen to think that the 'Straight Talk' meme has so taken hold of so many people's consciousness that we overlook the fact that McCain will be subject to the same thing.
Giuliani? I don't know. I think a large portion of the SoCons will sit it out if he's the nominee. Abortion is a big issue for me but I see it as a judge thing so the fact that his judicial advisors are rife with Federalists would lead me to cross my fingers and pray (literally) but I would vote for him. But I know many of my friends who will never get past his pro-abortion, pro-federal funding, pro-gay rights, seamy personal life. So...it would depend if he could offset that with those who are socially moderate, but fiscons and defcons.
As to your second point, I do believe that you are correct in your assumption about the groups McCain will attract. I also believe that Romney will have trouble bringing out at least some of the evangelical vote. As a Bible-believing Christian I find that unfortunate because in my view I'm electing a president not a pastor. But, unfortunately it is what it is.
Having said that, I also have concerns that McCain's candidacy will, at best, cause many of the footsoldiers in the base to not to do the groundwork for him, and at worst it will cause much of the base to stay home (every time I think I've almost got myself past all the times he's betrayed large chunks of what I hold dear he pulls a stunt like he did yesterday with Romney and reminds me that what really bothers me about him is his unpresidential temperament).
Where/how does that all wash out? I don't know (if I had the answer to that I'd be making real money prognosticating rather than just doing it as a hobby :-) Thus my conundrum as to who I will ultimately vote for but it's not looking good for McCain or Huckabee :-)
Isn't life fun?
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
My post about switching to McCain had a lot more persuasive power before the Romney slam, as honesty was a key component. :|
It may be time to see what we see. It's possible the variables are too numerous, the environment too in flux.
Sigh.
Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee
In the past few years, McCain has been no more liberal than Snowe, Collins, Specter, et al. Yet they don't irk me as much as McCain because a)they're from purple states and are about the best we can do there while McCain is from a very Red state; and, 2) they don't regularly go out of their way to author legislation with the most liberal of Dems, and don't curse and swear at those who disagree with them.
As big as my problem on issues is with McCain, his penchant for petulant fits, and to be vindictive leaves him, IMHO, wholly unqualified to be president. His blatant misrepresentation of Romney's Iraq record is just a bitter reminder.
Oh what might have been. Sigh!
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
As big as my problem on issues is with McCain, his penchant for petulant fits, and to be vindictive leaves him, IMHO, wholly unqualified to be president.
"Electability" very well might receive the "un-" prefix between a McCain nomination and the general election. It wouldn't be due to issues but wall to wall coverage of a trademark tirade or meltdown under pressure. In fact, there already may be a press pool on which reporter can arouse this very spouse.
I don't buy the electability argument at all. Frankly, all of the candidates we have left don't produce a groundswell of support, so people are better off going with issue agreements.
Not sure I buy into the hispanic vote assertion, although the Blue Dog democrat point rings true.
The question is, how will a partially disheartened base impact GOTV. and how will that impact the final numbers?
if as expected the economy becomes the dominant issue. Currently, we are all conflicted as Florida will confirm on Tuesday.
How would Mitt look strong on economy? When he was Gov of MA the state had a higher unemployment rate then the rest of the country
If McCain's the nominee he will instantly lose his current position as the "media darling." His favorability ratings will pumment and we will be inundated with piece after piece about his poor speaking, poor debating, age, temperment, inconsistent positions (see You Tube below for confirmation of his inconsistent positions), Keating 5 re-hashing, and the spiked NYTimes expose that was supposed to run in mid December will "somehow" find it's way into print. His "electability" is largely a MSM charade at this point. Mark my words.
Additionally, Head to head general election polling is beyond meaningless during a primary.
Even after Bill Clinton finally locked up the Dem nomination in 1992, general election polls showed him in THIRD place behind GHW Bush AND Ross Perot. The final results were a little different, eh?
In 1988 Michael Dukakis was leading GHWBush by 17.5% in the head to head match-up.
There are so many variables that can influence the race. Iraq could take a major turn for the worse and McCain would be a dead man walking. If the Economy continues to slump, the Clintons will remind everyone how great the economy was when they were in the White house.
Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).
So TEN MONTHS before the election (and about nine months before anyone but people who obsess on blogs starts paying attention), you think a national poll has any merit at all? Not likely...
If Romney gets the nomination he'll a few debates with Hillary or Obama in which he'll be able to show why he would easily be the better choice. A certain number of people will vote D or R no matter what, but anyone without an agenda will be looking to see who looks like the better candidate for the job. Romney did very well in debating his opponent in the Massachusetts gubernatorial race, and I'm sure it would be no different in the Presidential race.
In every state where ROmney seriously campaigns, he's become viewed as the most electable among the GOP field (he relinquished this to McCain in NH in the closing 2 weeks).
Even in large and non-retailed/un-buyable FLorida we see this from today:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2...
Romney is now seen as the most electable Republican candidate—76% believe he would be at least somewhat likely to win the White House if nominated. Sixty-eight percent (68%) say the same about McCain.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).
Trust me his early campaigning about being a social conservative has not fooled many that value social conservatism the most. And there are plenty of us. I will vote for Romney if he is nominated but I am the only one of my friends that will no matter how hard I try. They will stay home in droves. He has not captured the social conservatives and he can't. They do not trust him and trust his faith even less. This may not be right, but it is true. He needs them to win. They will vote for McCain however, and I am not sure why except that he has a "real" record of voting on social conservative issues, Romney does not. The rank and file republicans don't like McCain, but they are not the type to stay home, they want to beat Hillary, and they may be even more afraid of Obama. They will be in the fight, count on it, even if it is McCain. I will support Romney, but I have seen many many general election, I am pretty sure he can't win.
Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now.
-White Goodman
I also find it hard to believe that to many social conservatives will sit home when the specter of Hillary Clinton appointing 2 or 3 Supreme Court Justices in raised.
The naive forgive and forget.
The foolish forget but do not forgive.
The wise forgive but do not forget.
...I'm not on board with the whole "my candidate or I stay home!" attitude either, but I think it's pretty out-of-line to call social conservatives BIGOTS for declining to back Romney. Rhino's argument is that serious socons might think that Romney came to his picture-perfect social positions a little too conveniently, just in time for the primary.
But after supporting Fred Thompson and working as a volunteer for 6 months, I find little choice but to support John McCain now. McCain drives me nuts on so many key issues, but at the end of the week, I trust that he believes what he says he believes. Romney may tell me he agrees with me on everything, but I just don't buy it, and I'm a former Mass. resident.
McCain needs to circle the earth 10 times just to catch up with Fred Thompson IMO, but he's the only person I can support right now. I maintain that I will support the Republican nominee, and remind those who say they may not, that at another time, sending a message to the GOP would make sense, but as we are faced with annihilation by an enemy (and yes I know, McCain, borders etc...) I don't think now is the time to send that message by not voting, but voting 3rd party or Democrat.
I don't know that any of these guys can keep us safe, but my gut tells me McCain is the best possible remaining.
If I can figure out how to change my screename I will, but I may just leave it, as a Fred supporter I will always be, even if he endorses Romney.
IMHO, voting for someone in a primary based on whether they are "electable" or not is the worst reason I've ever heard to do so. This far out, I'd say that ANYONE currently in the race on either side is "electable" in the general, even including HWMNBN. I've made this point before, but just a quick look at how much things have shifted over the last two months should make it utterly clear how much public opinion of a candidate can change on a week to week basis. Over the course of 10 months, anything could happen.
Heck, in 2000, I thought GWB was unelectable. I'm never going to make that mistake again...
So even though I prefer McCain over Romney, I'd suggest to the OP that he votes whomever he actually thinks will be best for the job, not whom he believes is the most electable.
Not even in the general election. Someone mentions that they trust him, and I do as well, but only in removing the border patrol from our southern border. It's one thing to have Mexicans crossing the border illegally, but when you have Iranians, Saudis, Libyans, and the list goes on and on, it becomes a national security issue!
Especially meaningless general election polls like these. Most of the country won't even be paying attention for another 8 months.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
"I don't like it, but somebody else will" gave us John Kerry as the nominee of a major party for President and the wonderful success of "New Coke". If we think that independents will be excited by a candidate that can't even excite true believers, we are kidding ourselves.
If we think Romney is best for the country, we should nominate him. If we think McCain is, then we should nominate him. We must believe in our candidate before we can convince the rest of the country to believe in him.
That's a nice theory, but it isn't born out by the facts. McCain's pull with Independents is demonstrable. The same for some Blue Dog democrats. Also with hispanic voters.
You posted conjecture. That's worthwhile, but not in the face of contrary facts.
Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee
Like I said below somewhere, the first rule of electoral politics is "seal up your base first." It doesn't matter who you are, if you don't have your party's core base of voters with you, there simply aren't enough votes from other places to make up the difference.
Would McCain fare better with independents and Hispanics than Romney? Almost certainly (I'm not so sure about "Blue Dog Democrats"...I wouldn't count on them for anything in a competitive election).
But he has a problem with Republican voters. And I think that spells doom.
...rationale for supporting a particular candidate.
It most certainly does not need to mean that "I don't like" the candidate. Rather, it's a perfectly rational way to assess a candidacy. After all, what good does losing do for you?
I put it to you that I'd rather win by sacrificing some principles than lose by keeping them all. Not everybody agrees with me on that and it's not fashionable to say something like that. But there's no consolation prize in politics. Losers are just losers.
Granted, I'd much rather win with being 100% pure to conservative principles. But, if that's not possible, then the next best answer is to win some other way.
There are decent arguments against using "electability" as a reason to support somebody. John Kerry's 2004 defeat isn't one of them.
The truth of the matter is: he probably was the most electable of the Dems who sought the nomination in 2004. You think Dean would've fared better? Wesley Clark? Edwards?
They had a weak field of contenders.
Is there's no objective way to measure electability that matters. General election polls this far out do not matter. The people who do use them simply use them to bolster their own personal opinions, so long as they fit with those opinions. You might as well be using a magic 8 ball as the basis of your predictions.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
..I'm not saying that polls are a panacea. They change, for one thing (and Mr. Giuliani can tell you that, as can Sen. Clinton). And they're often shown to be unreliable, anyway.
Obviously, if we had a crystal ball, it would make it much easier to assess somebody's future viability. But that's just a complication for trying to read tea leaves.
I don't think it was that hard to see, for instance, that Howard Dean wasn't going to be winning anything in 2004. Nor do I think it's hard to see now that, say, Mike Huckabee isn't going to be winning any national elections.
That's not so much coming from polls as it is a general sense of the nation's political pulse and the state-by-state complexities of the electoral college.
My point is not that "electability" is easy to assess or predict, or that such predictions are flawless. My point is that there's nothing wrong with considering it in a primary process.
It's got a bad name in a lot of places. But it shouldn't. Electoral politics is entirely about winning, after all.
But I know that's all they are and I'm not going to be able to convince anybody with them. People are just so far apart on this. Every candidate will either win in a walk or get totally crushed in the general, depending on who you talk to.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Giuliani would never have been my first preference if all I was basing it on were issues. I probably would've been supporting Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter had all I considered was which candidate I agreed with the most.
But, really, was Duncan Hunter going to be winning anything? Probably not. But he usually got pretty high marks from most conservatives on substantive matters -- and he deserved them, IMO.
So, I think electability sunk Hunter's campaign. Maybe that's unfair to both him and us. But it is important whether or not somebody can be seen as bringing home the prize in November. And to pretend it's not is silly.
I supported Giuliani largely on those grounds. Now that his ship has sailed, I'm probably in the Romney camp as much as any.
I'm just not sure I buy that McCain is "electable". I tend to think that a lot of his "support" comes from people who may not be there on election day. And, moreover, he violates the "1st Rule" of electoral politics: seal up your base first.
I hate to say it, but I'm starting to think that it really doesn't matter who we nominate, so far as the outcome of the 2008 election goes. I tend to agree with you that Romney would face an uphill battle to win a general election. But, unlike you, I don't see McCain as much of an improvement on that.
The reason I'm leaning towards Romney is because I think Romney can protect and preserve the coalition -- I think McCain would devastate it (so would Huckabee...and I'm thinking Giuliani would, too). Thompson was probably the best "unity" candidate -- which is why it's depressing he didn't fare better than he did.
If we're probably not going to win anyway this cycle, I'd just as soon the conservative coalition remain intact.
He'd have easily been my second choice if not for abortion. There's no getting around that one though. Even if I settle for judges, the history of debates about him show I'd be a minority.
Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee
...I still think that opposition to Giuliani simply over abortion was short-sighted.
When you consider that the Dems are probably going to enjoy a decent sized majority in the Senate for the foreseeable future, I'm not sure there's a situation where we could get another Roberts or Alito on the court in the next term, anyway. Knowing that, I just don't see a great deal of difference between any of the GOP contenders.
The best we could hope for in the near future is a Kennedy-like chameleon.
But, then, I'm something of a pragmatist when it comes to electoral politics. Obviously, I'd rather that Giuliani were pro-life than pro-choice -- but I didn't think he posed any potential for harming the progress we've made on the matter. It's going to be in the hands of the states before too long.
At the POTUS level I consider my vote strategic, not symbolic and not virtuous.
But like I say, we're a minority. What I meant was, it does me no good to say I'll accept his position on judges as sufficiently beneficial to the pro-life cause, as I will not be joined in large measure by other social cons.
Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee
after congress rejects qualified candidates would work in our favor. Rudy is just the kind of guy that would do it. The SCOTUS swings right simply through attrition. Congress can't force the President to nominate someone.
McCain's got his base sealed. That's what internet people/talk radio people don't seem to understand. We are not typical voters, or even typical Republicans or conservatives.
McCain's approval ratings among Republicans is routinely around 90%. That's as good, and usually better, then any other politician out there.
The only difference is that his approval ratings among independents is also sky high, and Mitt's are very low.
That, and I hesitate to bring it up, and the fact that a bunch of people won't vote for Mitt just because he's a Mormon. It makes no difference to me, but we'd be fools to ignore it. It's reality.
Could Mitt win? Certainly. But it's foolish to pretend that McCain doesn't have a better shot at winning then he does. It takes ignoring so many factors that clearly show he's got a better shot.
And BTW, all the people bringing up "Well, the D's thought Kerry was electable," remember, that was in comparison to HOWARD DEAN. In comparison to Dean, Kerry was very electable. He got within 3% of winning. Dean wouldn't have come within 10% and would have drug down others with him. They weren't entirely wrong.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
If a bunch of people won't vote for Mitt because he is Mormon, the same can be said about Barrak and Hillary. There will be people who won't vote for him because he is black and people won't vote for her because she is a female.
New Orleans......Proud to Swim Home!
How's that for electability? ;)
what should concern every Republican voter is the prospect of the Clinton Attack Machine transforming Mitt Romney into the nationwide political equivalent of Rick Lazio.
with your opponent in the general and I don't see how John does that. He either sticks to his voting record for the last 7 year which has his name plastered all over major legislation with liberal Dems, or he tries to tack to the right as he has done during the primary.
The problem is that whereas the his primary opponents have largely pulled their punches after NH, the Dem attack machine will be all over him like ducks on a June Bug for doing so. I'm not saying that Romney won't have the same problem but to think that McCain will not endure the same attacks is just not credible. And whereas the MSM has largely covered for him to date, they won't be so kind during the general so...if the main reason you're voting for McCain is 'electablity', that will evaporate and leave us with....nothing.
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Yes !! He can win and thats what counts. He is not perfect but who is? I just sent Mr McCain $50.00. Please do the same. Thankyou
The Dems won't be able to make McCain look like a right wing nut as they always try to do
I wouldn't be shocked if they did and then McCain had an ad up showing all the positive, glowing things Dems had said over the years about him
I give Lieberman credit for not only endorsing John but really campaigning for him
Yes in part because of some moderate, or liberal stands, but that's not all. Remember the liberal Democrat media went easier on Reagan and W or other Rs. The fact that they like an R is not the kiss of death, necessarily.
I like McCain especially against Hillary since even the liberal Democrat media will have trouble not laughing out loud if she tries to make an issue of ethics (Keating 5). Also McCain will look OK next to her on stage, but of course would look old and crumundgenly next to Obama (yes that does matter).
So if it's Obama, I still think McCain has the best chance, but maybe would lean more to Mitt for that fight.
The MSM savaging whoever wins the republican nomination, & plan to counter that. If they are not as rabid after the supposed upcoming destruction of Obama, the better. It would behoove the republican nominee to have a sound strategy to overcome MSM bias.
I am voting for Mitt Romney in the primary because I think his ideas are the best for the country. I understand he has changed in recent years; so has McCain. McCain hasn't changed for the better - Mitt has. The involvement of pro-illegal alien amensty & open borders advocates in McCain's campaign really gives me pause. He says he "got it," but his actions show otherwise. If McCain's the nominee v. Hillary or Obama, he'll have my vote. I think Romney would be the better candidate because of his conservative positions. I also think an economic-focused campaign would play to his strength.
One simple question, then off to bed.
What brand of crystal ball are you using to tell you that McCain, whom you like less than Romney, is more electable than Romney? And why do you trust the crystal ball more than your own instincts?
Who would make the better President? Beyond that, you're just handicapping public opinion based on--what?
ps. Six months ago, Dick Morris was 100% sure that Rudy Giuliani was the only opponent who could beat Hillary. Now it looks like neither one will be nominated. And Morris is an expert.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
The polls have consistently shown that. Now, I know, many people here don't like polls it seems, and true, they aren't ALWAYS reliable. But this has been consistent even in RED states and frankly I understand why. Romney is too slippery. I can't trust him. I don't doubt he's a decent guy, but he comes off to me as a Republican version of Kerry and I imagine I'm not alone.
So, you support McCain because other people say they will support him?
Voting for the best man to be President is passe, I guess.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
that a lot of McCains electability quotient derives from the unspoken Republican tradition of giving the nomination to people because there is something of a feeling that it is their turn. What I tend to think of as Bob Dole syndrome. We dont have anyone we clearly and universally like, so we rally around the guy we think is next in line.
I can certainly see no other reason for any conservative to give McCain even a courteous nod. I am at the point of hoping for a brokered convention and a Newt Gingrich/ John Bolton ticket.
Zogby is calling California for Romney!!!
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/Zogby_Romney_Obama/2008/02/03/69702.htm...
http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1444
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/3/105242/4290
TEN REASONS WHY ROMNEY IS THE MOST ELECTABLE
1) Romney ran for Governor of Massachusetts as a Republican, and won!
2) Unlike GW, no one can call him stupid. Graduated top of his class at Harvard Business and Law Schools. McCain graduated bottom of the class at Naval Academy with some 1,000 graduates.
3) Last year Mitt Romney rasied more money than any other candidate, Republican or Democrat. Fund-raising is a major sign of grass-roots support.
4) Moderates like McCain never win elections (Gerald Ford 1976, Bush Sr 1992, Senator Bob Dole 1996). Can anyone say Bob Dole?
5) In October 1980 Polls showed Carter defeating Reagan, so who cares about polls?
6) Democrat pundit Donna Brazille let it slip that Mitt is the one Democrats fear most.
7) Mitt has received the most votes of any Republican candidate.
8) Romney (Nevada) and Obama (South Carolina) are the only two candidates to win the majority of Primary voters in a State (Democrat party refuses to count Florida delegates). All other candidates are unable to energize voters.
9) Governors not Senators win elections. Governor GW Bush, Governor Bill Clinton, Governor Ronald Reagan, Governor Jimmy Carter, etc..
10) All candidates talk big about changing Washington and improving healthcare. Romney did it. He did something no one thought possible. Romney miraculously passed legislation for universal healthcare, with private insurance (NOT government run), without raising taxes. Romney turned around businesses like Staples, Sports Authority, and Domino's. He turned around a budget deficit into a surplus as Governor of Massachusetts. He turned around the scandal-ridden Olympics from a deficit to a surplus. No other candidate's record comes close!!
http://www.politicaljunkyfood.blogspot.com
I just thought I'd join you in some breathless exuberance.
How'd I do?
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Kitties all over are dancing in the streets....I have video to prove it.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
I think you missunderestimate me, it was AWESOME.
Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney
POLLS SHOWED CARTER DEFEATING REAGAN IN OCTOBER 1980
Who were the last Republican moderates to run for office? Gerald Ford (1976), Bush Sr (1992), and Senator Dole (1996). They all lost miserably. Polls about McCain beating Obama or Hilary are bogus. January 1996 Polls showed Senator Bob Dole (war hero and Senator for two decades) beating Bill Clinton, but Clinton ended up defeating Dole in a landslide in November. McCain cannot energize the base of the Republican party (conservatives), period.
"Many McCain supporters insist he is the only Republican who can beat Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama. And they point to certain polls. The polls are meaningless this far from November. Six months ago, the polls had Rudy winning the Republican nomination. In October 1980, the polls had Jimmy Carter defeating Ronald Reagan. This is no more than spin." (Mark Levin Endorses Romney, 'Rally for Romney, Conservatives need to act now, before it is too late.' http://blog.electromneyin2008.com/)
"about whether the race is over, "No, absolutely not. I think this race is wide open. I think Mitt Romney still has a very good chance of winning. You know, I think right now, we’re looking at the media trying to make Barack Obama the president, and make John McCain the shill for him. And I don’t see, I think they know that John McCain can’t win this election, and they know…it’s probably the best chance for them to do it." (Senator Rick Santorum, http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/talkradio/transcripts/Transcript.aspx?Con...)
"John McCain is Bob Dole minus the charm, conservatism and youth. Like McCain, pollsters assured us that Dole was the most "electable" Republican. Unlike McCain, Dole didn't lie all the time while claiming to engage in Straight Talk." (Ann Coulter, Straight Talk Express Takes Scenic Route to Truth, January 23, 2008, http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=231)
http://www.politicaljunkyfood.blogspot.com
We get the point...Mitt has prefect hair, has tried to buy the race, will change to what ever position on any issue we want, just tell him.
Did I forget anything?
Oh yea, you've been here 21 minutes already, do you get paid by the minute or the hour?
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Get a grip SteveLA! Do you think a pro-life candidate could have been elected in Massachusetts? Ronald Reagan ran as a pro-choice candidate when he ran for Governor of California. Was the gipper not conservative enough for you Goldwater boy? look up your facts, and don't touch the hair.
http://www.politicaljunkyfood.blogspot.com
pro choicer. NOW
please
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
Bada...Bing...
Bada...Blam
or not. But this is a very vigorous creature for sure.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
I smell the spawn of a RonULon.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
None nada, zip, not a bit.
LA will never have a Pro Football team if it means paying a bunch for a new stadium with tax payer dollars or some other tax payer trick. Too many sports teams out here for people to care.
UCLA, USC football is pretty good, the Lakers, the Clippers, the Dodgers, the Angeles, LA Galaxy ...sports nuts are not exactly sort of options.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
a med-mal trial in the late 80s. Magic and Jabbar were playing and I saw Nicholson.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
Think about it SteveO. Ronald Reagan ran for Governor of California as pro-choice. Was he not conservative enough for you Goldwater boy? Quit the sophistry, and wake up! Ann Coulter defends Mitt Romney's change in position. Btw, McCain has flip-flopped on the Bush tax cuts (he was one of only two Republicans who voted against them in 2001/2003 before he decided to run for office in 2008 and now he's FOR the Bush tax cuts becoming permanent), flip-flopped on Roe vs Wade, flip-flopped on stem cell research (said he was AGAINST federal funding for stem cell research before he voted FOR federal funding), flip-flopped on ethanol subsidies because of Iowa primary. Do you believe everything the media tells you?
McCain voted AGAINST Federal Marriage Amendment, but Romney has always been for it. Romney is also against federal funding for stem cell research (even voted against it, but never voted for it). McCain wants consitutional rights for unlawful enemy combatans (terrorists from foreign countries), wants Guantanamo shut down, and wants to fight terrorists with lawyers instead of soldiers and CIA interogators.
ANN COULTER REALITY CHECK
Liberals claim to be enraged at Romney for being a "flip-flopper." I've looked and looked, and the only issue I can find that Romney has "flipped" on is abortion. When running for office in Massachusetts -- or, for short, "the Soviet Union" -- Romney said that Massachusetts was a pro-choice state and that he would not seek to change laws on abortion.
Romney's first race was against Sen. Teddy Kennedy -- whom he came closer to beating than any Republican ever had. If Romney needed to quote "The Communist Manifesto" to take out that corpulent drunk, all men of good will would owe him a debt of gratitude.
Even when Romney was claiming to support Roe v. Wade, he won the endorsement of Massachusetts Citizens for Life -- a group I trust more than the editorial board of The New York Times. Romney's Democratic opponents always won the endorsements of the very same pro-choice groups now attacking him as a "flip-flopper."
After his term as governor, NARAL Pro-Choice America assailed Romney, saying: "(A)s governor he initially expressed pro-choice beliefs but had a generally anti-choice record. His position on choice has changed. His position is now anti-choice."
Pro-abortion groups like the Republican Majority for Choice -- the evil doppelganger to my own group, Democratic Majority for Life -- are now running videos attacking Romney for "flip-flopping" on abortion.
Of all the Republican candidates for president, Romney and Rudy Giuliani are the only ones who had to be elected in pro-choice districts. Romney governed as a pro-lifer and has been viciously attacked by pro-abortion groups.
By contrast, Giuliani cleverly avoids the heinous "flip-flopper" label by continuing to embrace baby-killing. (Rudy flip-flops only on trivial matters like illegal immigration and his own marital vows.)
And, of course, Romney is a Mormon. Even a loser Mormon like Sen. Harry Reid claims to be pro-life. So having a candidate with a wacky religion isn't all bad.
At worst, Romney will turn out to be a moderate Republican -- a high-IQ, articulate, moral, wildly successful, moderate Republican. Of the top five Republican candidates for president, Romney is the only one who hasn't dumped his first wife (as well as the second, in the case of Giuliani) -- except Huckabee. And unlike Huckabee, Romney doesn't have a son who hanged a dog at summer camp. So there won't be any intern issues and there won't be any Billy Carter issues.
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=230
http://www.politicaljunkyfood.blogspot.com
And when you come back, lose the attitude, lose the confrontational style, learn to use Reply To This, and STOP WRITING TITLES IN ALL CAPS.
You do want to survive here long enough to glean some site traffic, right?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
ok Moe, just didn't like SteveO's condescending attitude
http://www.politicaljunkyfood.blogspot.com
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
Do you want me to give you a link that Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat and a Holywood actor too? Give me a break. It's all true. Do you want me to give you a link that Reagan signed an amnesty bill too? Come on dude, wake up. You want me to send you a link showing that McCain voted FOR federal funding of stem cell research? that McCain voted AGAINST the federal marriage amendment? was once against the repeal of Roe vs Wade before he was for it? McCain is not even a moderate Republican, he's a moderate Democrat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_John_McCain
In sum, then Governor Reagan signed a bill legalizing abortion. But he wasn't pro-choice. Come on now.
http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/adamantly_pro_choice_rona...
http://www.politicaljunkyfood.blogspot.com
Btw, Schwartzenegger endorses McCain, and Schwartzenegger's wife (Maria Shriver) endorses Obama. Get it? Got it, good. Reality check. McCain can NOT beat Obama or Hillary either. That's why husband and wife endorsed both Obama AND McCain.
http://www.politicaljunkyfood.blogspot.com
I still have McCain as my third, but this is a good assessment.
Fred Thompson's Principles
==== 13 ====