Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
McCain won in the south in 2008 because of the choices. It was geting down to Romney, Huck or McCain. End of story.
Nita
There was also Fred Thompson, the wonder candidate, touted as the GOP savior when he entered the race in the spring of 2007 -- and arguably, more appealing on conservative issues than Romney, Huckabee or McCain. He made it as far as South Carolina, perhaps the most staunchly conservative of Southern states. And there he finished a third, way behind McCain, with fewer than half the votes of Huckabee, and barely ahead of Romney.
Because... once again... the idea that Southern evangelicals will only vote for a certain kind of candidate is a claim often made, but one that just doesn't jibe with history.
And, again, the South is only part of the path to the nomination. Most of that path lies elsewhere.
Romney is weak. We need somebody who is pissed off and will make it their mission to cut cut cut cut cut. I don't trust Romney beyond day 1 to do the right thing. He's a wimp.
You dislike "all Mormons" even though not "all Mormons" supported the Church's position? I know that I didn't, and I know a great many other Mormons who didn't. But I guess you somehow consider yourself to be an objective and non-prejudiced individual?
Could you explain how we would do that? I'd really like to know how you think that's even a possibility.
Funny they mention this but when someone lumps Muslims all together the lefties here go crazy.
The majority of Americans were with the Mormons on the prop 8 issue so it is a non issue.
So a talented bright person like Mitt Romney gets tossed out because someone hates Mormons who were with the majority of Americans.
Left wing hypocrisy again.
I am more afraid of the left wing American hating liberals then any one religion out there.
There was also Fred Thompson, the wonder candidate, touted as the GOP savior when he entered the race in the spring of 2007 -- and arguably, more appealing on conservative issues than Romney, Huckabee or McCain. He made it as far as South Carolina, perhaps the most staunchly conservative of Southern states. And there he finished a third, way behind McCain, with fewer than half the votes of Huckabee, and barely ahead of Romney.
Because... once again... the idea that Southern evangelicals will only vote for a certain kind of candidate is a claim often made, but one that just doesn't jibe with history.
And, again, the South is only part of the path to the nomination. Most of that path lies elsewhere.
Check a little closer, he didn't enter in the spring, closer to the fall. In fact many think that is one thing that hurt him. His base started talking Thompson in spring, but he did not formally annouce. At least if my memory is right and I think it is. Many felt he didn't really have his heart in it. Had he cared he may have made a better showing.
To me, he isn't "likeable" because of how he handled himself when running against Romney last time around. He tried very hard to make Romney's religion a huge issue, instead of sticking to politics, and even then didn't bother to raise truly legitmate questions about Romney's beliefs, beliefs that could potentially be worthy of discussion. Instead, he made a parody of Romney's faith. It was decidedly "un-Christian" in my opinion, particularly for a former minister. As a Mormon, I actually like Romney's politics better than I like his personality.
of course as a Mormon you would, I respect you for that. If there was a Lutheran running, I would be supporting him or her as well, but that doesn't make his liberal or moderately liberal views popular. As for Huck, I guess I should reword my comment: Instead of likable I think I should say a likeabe personality.
And America will never elect an African-American...
ok, I agree with you on that one, but I am willing to bet the poster meant in the near future. A Mormon would have a heck of a hard time winning, so would an Atheist or a gay person. (not that they are all in the same catagory) I do think a Mormon would be easier to elect than the last 2. People in the south would still have trouble supporting a Mormon in the primaries. There is where the problem lies.
Check a little closer, he didn't enter in the spring, closer to the fall. In fact many think that is one thing that hurt him. His base started talking Thompson in spring, but he did not formally annouce. At least if my memory is right and I think it is. Many felt he didn't really have his heart in it. Had he cared he may have made a better showing.
Nita
Fred Thompson left Law & Order in May 2007 to pursue the GOP nomination. By early June he had his exploratory committee formed (translation -- I'm running, just not officially) and his campaign website up (translation -- I'm running, just not officially) and was clearly a candidate. Thompson wants to be 2008's outsider - USATODAY.com
In the first half of 2007, he raised $3.5 million dollars. That's a candidate.
And the best he could do was to barely edge out Mitt Romney, way behind John McCain and in third place, in South Carolina.
ok, I agree with you on that one, but I am willing to bet the poster meant in the near future. A Mormon would have a heck of a hard time winning, so would an Atheist or a gay person. (not that they are all in the same catagory) I do think a Mormon would be easier to elect than the last 2. People in the south would still have trouble supporting a Mormon in the primaries. There is where the problem lies.
Nita
Well, I went by what the poster wrote, not what you think the poster might have meant.
And as I've pointed out:
*most of the route to the primaries does not lie through the South, and
*the GOP awards its delegates proportionally, so a second-place finish in many Southern states will do just fine for Romney
It's simply not the problem you desperately want it to be.
There was nothing "magical" about the hat. It was used to block out the light, that's all.
There is nothing "magical" about LDS undergarments, either. Their purpose is to serve as a constant reminder of the covenants we made in the temple. The temple garment for a Mormon is sacred, just like certain kinds of clothing are sacred to Muslims, Jews and American Indians.
Yes, Romney's great-grandparents fled to Mexico to avoid prosecution for their practice of polygamy, a tenet of the LDS faith which has not been practiced for well over one hundred years. Seriously, what's the point of even bringing it up?
I bring it all up because this is what his own party brings up. I think he's a threat to the democratic party and would probably beat Obama if he got the nomination.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
