Then why are Dems concerned about the lack of thrill for Obama now? Same reason.
It is all about turnout and donations. Some who don’t consider him to be a Christian might vote for the Libertarian candidate, or might decide that it is raining and not worth getting wet to vote. They won’t turn out to do electioneering. In 1992, when I was dumb and Republican, I voted for some third party candidate rather than Bush, because I was fed up with him (not because of taxes) and because I never would vote for a Democrat. (Bush the younger cured me of that bias.)
McCain would have lost a lot of the people on the right if it weren’t for Palin, though she lost more moderates than she gained right wingers. Romney would have the same problem. It is not enough to get a plurality of Republicans, you need to bind them together to allow you to go for the center without losing too many.
1.) Why do you think that them not donating is a problem? The GOP has built up a pretty nice warchest in absence of a candidate to coalesce around and I don’t see them slowing down.
2.) What makes you think that they would be likely to stay home? The Republican demographic has a lot more people likely to vote. I’m sure it’s more likely that some of them will stay home but I really don’t see them bleeding a lot of voters.
The Republican demographic is old, and very opposed to changes in Social Security. If they perceive that Tea Party candidates would jam a Perry Scheme for privatizing Social Security down their throats, they will stay home.
I’m confused as to what point you’re trying to make here. This thread is about Romney, and Romney has carefully distanced himself from the extreme claims about social security that Perry has been making.
This thread is about Romney’s chances of being nominated. If the Tea Party alternative to Romney causes a significant portion of the Republican demographic to stay home, that is an argument for Romney.
A Tea Party darling who hasn’t screwed up in the primaries. I think that rules out Perry. There would be a lot of pressure on him to go this route. It could be Daniels.
A competent and fairly moderate Republican. Possibly from the Midwest. I’d feel a lot better if he did this, but I think 1 is far more likely.
This election is going to cost a billion bucks. Every penny will count. The real big money is in the PACs and is a lot further to the right than Romney.
Remember when the Tea Party was mad because Congress didn’t push through the level of cuts they wanted? I think Romney wouldn’t drive the country over a cliff due to ideology, which they would interpret as not being true to their principles. He is also going to have to move to the center for the election, which he can do more believably than the other credible candidates. Sure they vote, but would they vote for a non-Christian? It is a matter of fire in the belly. I doubt they’d have it for Romney. I’m not sure the old party getting behind him will help.
I’m not sure that it would. Such a nomination would make a large percentage of independents vote for Obama again, though. Republicans (except for a handful) are afraid of challenging anyone on crazy talk - it would be quite easy to paint a Tea Party candidate as an extremist nut.
He’s made the Grover Norquist no-tax-increase pledge. So did the Bushes. But Romney surely recalls that when Bush the Elder violated the pledge, he became a one-termer. So even though Romney may not actually be all that much to the right of Obama in inclinations, he’s going to be boxed in by some bad campaign promises.
As for VP, the Cain boomlet should give an idea of how Republicans more loyal to the party than I am may think. I predict it will be a person of color. As for the possibilities, Marco Rubio’s recent statement that he did not want to be VP was less than Shermanesque. Susana Martinez makes more sense to me than Herman Cain, but it could be either.
With the Tea Baggers in charge, Romney will have trouble. He is seen as a Liberal, non Christian. He is an east coast ,northerner too. How far off can he be to what the baggers want? He is also a waffler.
No surprise to me. I’ve pointed out on more than one occasion that this is how a large part of the Christian conservatives view Romney. I think there was even a thread where I mentioned visiting the mega-church my parents attend where I overheard several conversations saying basically the same thing about Mormons. Each time it has been hand waved away by other posters as if it doesn’t matter.
Frankly I don’t know that the Republicans have anyone in the race other than Romney who will be perceived by the always important independent voters as stable, reasonable and Presidential.
The trick is going to be how does he get past all those hardcore Mormon haters who will be voting in the primaries? If you know the answer to that one you may want to contact Romney’s campaign about a position as a political consultant. Because without wins in the Southern primaries I don’t see how he gets the nomination. And for the purpose of this scenario Texas is part of the South.