Romney

[Jeff Lebowski]

Huge plummet for Gingrich in Iowa. Romney leads Paul.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/im.../topstate3.pdf

And amidst all that turbulence, Huntsman holding steady.

[calicoug]

So you seem to be saying that a candidate's religious views ought to be considered when deciding whether or not to vote for the candidate. If so, which views? All? Some?

Not exactly, no.

I am saying the positions should be consistent internally. I agree with your premise about religious views and candidates, but strongly believe the only basis for passing legislation should be secular in nature. The alternative to that view, I think, would be to argue that a candidate's religious views are appropriate to consider and so too are religious views when passing legislation.

As for your questions about what to consider if adopting the second standard I discuss above, I would suggest those are the same questions one would have to answer with respect to considering religious views in the context of legislation.

I would admit that if a candidate's views got too extreme on a religious viewpoint (admittedly subjective), I would consider them in my vote but that's more of a hypothetical than a practical issue given that such viewpoints (until recently for Republicans) are quite uncommon in general elections and especially when voting for a Democrat as I tend to do.

[calicoug]

Looks like Romney was by far the largest beneficiary of Gingrich's fall.

I for one am quite skeptical Romney will take Iowa. If he can, it's a huge win for his campaign after spending almost no time or effort in Iowa and a significant commentary on the other campaigns (particularly Santorum's) who have spent countless hours in Iowa courting voters.

Santorum's recent surge in Iowa isn't surprising. He has invested by far the most time on the ground there. If he can win Iowa, his numbers will skyrocket nationwide. Most people don't realize just how insane the man is- yet. He'd become the favorite in South Carolina in a hurry and throughout the South.

[calicoug]

And amidst all that turbulence, Huntsman holding steady.

Huntsman won't take Iowa, but he is a darkhorse for New Hampshire.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Oh brother, now we're dealing with a Rick Santorum surge? He's at 16 points in Iowa. I think Santorum, overall, was a good Senator. I could certainly do without the extreme social conservatism, but he's been a good advocate for a number of positions I agree with.

But how much did he lose his reelection by in Pennsylvania? Do the Iowa hillbillies give a shit about actually winning this election?

[LA Ute]

But how much did he lose his reelection by in Pennsylvania? Do the Iowa hillbillies give a shit about actually winning this election?

Iowa means nothing. It can hurt a candidate but doesn't help him/her, IMO.

[Goatnapper'96]

Oh brother, now we're dealing with a Rick Santorum surge? He's at 16 points in Iowa. I think Santorum, overall, was a good Senator. I could certainly do without the extreme social conservatism, but he's been a good advocate for a number of positions I agree with.

But how much did he lose his reelection by in Pennsylvania? Do the Iowa hillbillies give a shit about actually winning this election?

To quote the great American philosopher Lynard Skynard: Oh, take your time don't live too fast....troubles will come and they will pass.

Newt is plummeting and the social conservatives are clawing for traction in the Republican party. Santorum is the next solution. Lets just hope BYU can do something crazy to convince them that we are their people lest they find a 3rd party candidate and straddle us with 4 more years of hope, change and the rich just not paying their fair share. But as far as the Republican Primary goes, it is Mitt's.

[oxcoug]

Economists to AP: Yeah so Obama's economic performance has pretty much sucked, that Mitt Romney character might be a good bet though.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...jMP_story.html

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I agree with this endorsement:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...itt-romney.php

I've been lukewarm on Romney, but I want Obama out. What kind of campaign could Obama run against Romney?

Is Romney dumb? No.

Is he corrupt? No.

Is he an economic idiot? No.

Does he have baggage? No.

I've heard of the John Kerry references, but you have to consider the following about Kerry:

1. This is a weasel that came back from Vietnam and compared American troops to the Mongols. Any engaged voter over the age of around 50 knew this.

2. He's a male gold digger.

3. He had no notable achievements either in the private sector or as a politician in Washington. He was nominated purely as a tactic to have the decorated soldier run three years after 9/11.

4. The issue of the day in 2004 was national security, not the economy. And Kerry failed to provide a viable alternative to George W. Bush in this area. The key issue in 2012 is the economy. The contrast between the community organizer who likes to throw money at far-left constituencies and the guy who excelled at the top levels in the private sector is stark. This is what will attract independents and conservative democrats -- it's much less important to GOP primary voters and I expect that Romney is keeping some his powder dry in this regard.

[Jacob]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/us...s.html?_r=1&hp

The author's bias couldn't have been more plain. They essentially took a bunch of very normal things Romney happened to say over the course of several days and tried to make it all sound negative. What's the point? Romney's not cool, I guess.

[Goatnapper'96]

I agree with this endorsement:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...itt-romney.php

I've been lukewarm on Romney, but I want Obama out. What kind of campaign could Obama run against Romney?

Is Romney dumb? No.

Is he corrupt? No.

Is he an economic idiot? No.

Does he have baggage? No.

I've heard of the John Kerry references, but you have to consider the following about Kerry:

1. This is a weasel that came back from Vietnam and compared American troops to the Mongols. Any engaged voter over the age of around 50 knew this.

2. He's a male gold digger.

3. He had no notable achievements either in the private sector or as a politician in Washington. He was nominated purely as a tactic to have the decorated soldier run three years after 9/11.

4. The issue of the day in 2004 was national security, not the economy. And Kerry failed to provide a viable alternative to George W. Bush in this area. The key issue in 2012 is the economy. The contrast between the community organizer who likes to throw money at far-left constituencies and the guy who excelled at the top levels in the private sector is stark. This is what will attract independents and conservative democrats -- it's much less important to GOP primary voters and I expect that Romney is keeping some his powder dry in this regard.

5.) He also looks like a frenshmon. I know we have many enlightened folks who don't find that offensive, but myself and many others who cast votes shudder at the thought of a frenshmon looking CIC of the US Armed forces. I think James Taranto is a bit of a wack but every time he describes Kerry as a "former Vietnam Vet, in case you haven't heard, who also looks like a French man" I laugh and perhaps not a little.

[Pelado]

5.) He also looks like a frenshmon. I know we have many enlightened folks who don't find that offensive, but myself and many others who cast votes shudder at the thought of a frenshmon looking CIC of the US Armed forces. I think James Taranto is a bit of a wack but every time he describes Kerry as a "former Vietnam Vet, in case you haven't heard, who also looks like a French man" I laugh and perhaps not a little.

Better to speak French than to look French.

[calicoug]

I agree with this endorsement:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...itt-romney.php

I've been lukewarm on Romney, but I want Obama out. What kind of campaign could Obama run against Romney?

Is Romney dumb? No.

Is he corrupt? No.

Is he an economic idiot? No.

Does he have baggage? No.

I've heard of the John Kerry references, but you have to consider the following about Kerry:

1. This is a weasel that came back from Vietnam and compared American troops to the Mongols. Any engaged voter over the age of around 50 knew this.

2. He's a male gold digger.

3. He had no notable achievements either in the private sector or as a politician in Washington. He was nominated purely as a tactic to have the decorated soldier run three years after 9/11.

4. The issue of the day in 2004 was national security, not the economy. And Kerry failed to provide a viable alternative to George W. Bush in this area. The key issue in 2012 is the economy. The contrast between the community organizer who likes to throw money at far-left constituencies and the guy who excelled at the top levels in the private sector is stark. This is what will attract independents and conservative democrats -- it's much less important to GOP primary voters and I expect that Romney is keeping some his powder dry in this regard.

Republicans overestimate the "Romney can beat Obama" meme- precisely for the reason unintentionally identified by that author and by Color Me Badd. Everyone is lukewarm on Romney. That's not a path to victory- but it is a path to avoiding a complete and total electoral catastrophe which appears to be the only other available alternative offered by Republicans right now.

[oxcoug]

Republicans overestimate the "Romney can beat Obama" meme-.

Cali, really don't think they do.

*Obama is in negative approval territory even after a recent uptick in approval in December. In the two most reliable surveys - Gallup and Rasmussen (far better in methodology than the CNN/NBC network dreck) have him at 44 and 45 approval respectively and 48 and 54 disapproval. A -4 and a -9 add up to a President who is entirely vulnerable and beatable.

*An ABC / WashPo poll of RV in mid December shows Romney and Obama deadlocked at 47%. A PPP Poll concluding one week before Christmas actually has Romney +2. The RCP average of polling in December show Romney down only 2.5% against Obama - at a moment when GOP support is fractured, and factoring less scientific polling from CNN and NBC. None of the more rigorous polls have Romney down by more than 3 pts.

*59% of Republicans have a favorable impression of Romney - only 16% negative. That runs counter to the widespread notion that most Republicans don't like Romney, but it's the reality. Romney is also +10 on favorable among Independents - which is far better than Obama, who per Gallup, had 30% approval rating among unaffiliated voters.

These are just a few data points among many - but both those pointing against Obama and those pointing for Romney suggest that he not only has a good shot but a very good shot - that it will be a fairly even battle.

[oxcoug]

Some interesting points from John Ziegler on the topic of Romney's electability.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...ctability.html

1. The Mormon vote will help him in Nevada, which is a key state in Obama's "272" Electoral College strategy.
2. He has by far the best chance of winning New Hampshire, which would turn the "272" scenario into a tie (assuming a loss in Nevada) and a probable victory.
3. His family roots in Michigan give him by far the best opportunity to take this state which would kill almost any path for Obama to get to 270 Electoral College votes.
4. He is actually a great general election debater because he is smart, quick and not likely to say anything stupid that the media can use to destroy him.
5. Women like him and not just because of his hair and voice.
6. The "flip flop" charge, while true, will not be very effective against him because it will require liberals to attack him for really being a...liberal.
7. Americans do not tend to hold a person's wealth against them when it comes to running for high office, especially when they think that person might help them get a job.