Is Mitt Romney Electable?

CNN and a few other polls are showing Mitt Romney making some sizeable inroads in early voting primary states (NH and Iowa specifically), and are branding him as having some pretty strong momentum.

My question, and the one up for debate, is whether Mitt Romney is electable on a national ticket, or will his Mormonism and unsteady stand on several issues result in his losing the race if nominated? I’m not sure how his religious affiliation will play with the rock-ribbed evangelicals here in the South. Will the evangelical right hold their collective noses and vote for him just because he’s the Republican nominee? Will they sit this one out? Could his unsteady stand on certain issues hurt him more than his faith?

Republican-leaning Dopers, what say you to a Mitt Romney candidacy?

I think his Mormanism so far is largely more of a concern of people who like to talk about whether or not it will be an issue than it is an issue to primary voters: he has much bigger problems to deal with, like the perception that many of his positions are or very recent vintage.

His clumsiness in dealing with the religious issue is, however, something of a problem in an of itself. Polygamy is the worst thing he can imagine? REALLY?

I think Mitt Romney’s flip flopping will hurt him. People will paint him as the Republican John Kerry. I don’t think the Christian base will get excited about him.

Forget religion. I just don’t think of him as someone particularly interesting. He does seem competent, jut not particularly exciting. He has no great weaknesses, but also no strengths as a politician or statesman. It’s hard to vote for or against him. He would probably do better 9and has done better) in smaller state races.

He’s the Republican nominee. Bank on it.

Eh? By my lights both Fred Thompson and Guiliani have better current support, and better prospects. While I don’t think much of polling, Romney hasn’t done all that hot in it, either. Romney isn’t particularly beloved by any group of Republicans, and if they want a compromise canidate, Romney isn’t even first on the list.

Yeah, I think it’s probably going to be Giuliani or Thompson.

He’s not electable, but then neither are any of the other candidates, Democratic or Republican. C’mon, look at the slate. There’s a compelling reason for each one of them for why they can’t possibly win the election.

No one’s going to be President in '08.

If we don’t elect a president, doesn’t the existing prez just keep going, and going, and going…?

No if no President (or Vice-President) has been elected by noon on January 20th, 2009 then the Speaker of the House shall act as President until one be elected. This would make Nancy Pelosi the most powerful human being on the planet.

Assuming she wins her own congressional race, of course.

She holds one of the safest Democratic seats in Congress; she’s been re-elected ten times, receiving an average of greater than 80% of votes cast. With her Speakership providing greater power to do things for San Francisco, she’s a lock for House re-election in 2008, unless illness prevents her or some major scandal develops.

Naturally, she has many vocal critics in SF, but she’s a skilled deal-broker, a strong campaigner, and a superb fund-raiser.

[Disclaimer: I used to do volunteer work for Nancy Pelosi’s re-election campaigns, so I’m not exactly neutral.]

The GOP race is getting hard to handicap since all the front runners have fatal flaws. Will the Republican base vote for a man they despise, McCain? Or will they go for an unrepentent pro-choice doubly divorced Giuliani? Or Romney, the formerly pro-choice Mormon? Enter Fred Thompson, the Wesley Clark of 2008. The ideal candidate, until he actually runs. IF Romney got the nomination and the stars align themselves right in 2008, he could get elected. I’d say he’s more electable that nominateable.

God, I hope so. I can’t think of an easier Republican to beat in the general election. I don’t see him capturing the independents and Reagan Democrats that he will need to win. He is so tied to the stay-the-course war policy of George Bush that he will be seen as another pro-war Republican who will continue to pour blood and treasure into not only Iraq but probably Iran as well.

And his staff should buy a clue about those starched white shirts he wears everywhere. He looks like he just walked out of 1962.

Naw- go all the way and give him a pocket protector to go with them.

But then you’re yielding the nerd vote! :smiley:

Exactly. Someone has to win despite all the reasons none of them can.

Which means that the prevailing wisdom has to be wrong about some aspect of the race.

Congratulations President Clinton.

Well, let’s see. He once counseled a woman to come to term with her sixth pregnancy despite the fact that her life was in danger (and despite the advice of both a doctor and someone higher up in the LDS than Roney that she should abort).

So yes. I do think he’s an electable U.S. president.

Except that your story is not widely known. What is widely known is that he flip-flopped from pro-choice when he was running for Governor of Massachussetts to Pro-Life when he wants to be president. I have not run into anyone who really perceives him as being sincerely Pro-Life, until you.