Who do I have that bet about Guliani on with?
Remember this column which discussed how the Presidential first name sequence runs “common first name–uncommon first name.” If that is true, then yes, a Mitt could beat a George. Or a Hillary. And definitely an Obama.
And assuming the Democrats hold onto the House in 2008, and that she doesn’t step down or is kicked out as speaker until then.
And assuming she is not hit by a meteorite.
Religious conservatives won’t vote for Romney. They’ll say it’s because of A, B, C, or D, but the reason is he’s Mormon. They think Mormonism is a cult, and not real Christian religion.
Thanks for the responses so far. Have there been any other Mormons elected to congressional or state-wide office outside of the usual places in the mountain west (Utah, Idaho, Nevada, and possibly Colorado)?
What if it’s a choice between a Mormon and a Lib’rul?
That depends on which name you consider uncommon, Bill or George.
Out of our last ten presidents what was the most uncommon first name? Going from recent to least recent we have:
George
Bill
George
Ronald
Jimmy
Gerald
Richard
Lyndon
John
Dwight
Dwight and Lyndon are the only names I can think of on that list that are uncommon.
Yeah, I was interested to see recently that the Southern Baptists consider Mormonism a cult. I can see the Religious Right prefering him over Hillary Clinton, but at the same time, I don’t seem them getting all excited over him. Even if Mormons are doctrinally conservative in some of the ways conservative Christians are (abortion, homosexuality, etc.), there’s bound to be some lingering suspicion on the conservative Christian side – like, “What, Jesus wasn’t enough for those guys?”
As a liberal (and a resident of Massachusetts), I have no particular use for Mitt Romney. But that said, when I look at all the Republican candidates, he’s far from the worst. In fact, I’d take him in a New York minute over most of those clowns.
But of course, the electability question hinges not just on Romney, but on who the Democrats put up. Romney versus Clinton? Tough call.
At this juncture I really think Clinton is going to win. I wanted it to be someone else, but I really think that Clinton will. I’m hoping Thompson takes the Republican ticket, I might even consider voting for him over Clinton. My favorite is Richardson, but I think he’s gonna end up being Sec State if Clinton wins. Clinton/Obama would be unbeatable.
Exactly. The anti-Mormon vote might be enough to kill Romney’s chances at getting nominated, but what are the fundamentalists going to do in November if he gets the nomination? Vote for Hillary? Edwards? Obama? I don’t think so.
They’ll stay home. The GOP’s worst nightmare.
Right now: Senator Gordon Smith from Oregon
Senator Harry Ried of Nevada (I know Nevada is on your list, but he is the majority leader, so I noted him)
Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon of California
Rep John T. Doolittle of California
Rep Wally Herger of California
Rep.Eni F. H. Faleomavaega of American Samoa (non-voting)
Rep. Ernest J. Istook of Oklahoma
Rep. Tom Udall of New Mexico
Rep. Mark Udall of Colorado
Of course there have been others in the past, as well as a sgnificant number of judges, pundits and cabinet members.
A surprising number of those currently serving are Democrats.
I don’t think it is surprising if this means Democrats are more open to religious diversity than Republicans.
Awww, that’s just what I was gonna say. I don’t think ol’ Mitt is going to make it to the Republican convention, let alone lead the ticket.
They’ll vote for the Repub. candidate, but they won’t give him the absolutely overwhelming financial support and volunteer time they gave Bush in 2004. They also won’t be willing to stand in the cold Ohio rain for hours at a time to make sure that God’s choice is elected president. Think of how lukewarm the religious right’s support was for George H W Bush in 1992.
Unless you make voting mandatory, there’s always a third option.
According to prevailing wisdom, who voted for Mitt in Masssachusetts? Did he capture the independents? The pro war vote? The anti-tax vote? The “we’re sick of being known as left of Stalin” vote?
Is it likely that he’d get the same voters (whoever they are) in a national election? Is there a higher percentage of those voters (again, who are they?) in MA than there are nationally?
He ran as a pragmatist – the guy who saved the Olympics, and who had the CEOs of America on speed dial. And he repackaged himself as a moderate on abortion and gay rights. He also, more pertinently, ran against a Democrat (Shannon O’Brien) who ran a fairly feeble campaign.
These days, he has a record as a politician, for good or for ill, and that’s what he didn’t have as a candidate for governor. He also, in order to win the primaries, needs to appeal to a much more conservative population than he did in Massachusetts. In the general election, he may get the votes of a certain number of moderates. But he has to get there first.
This poll seems to suggest maybe not:
All other matchups between Edwards/Obama/Clinton & Giuliani/McCain have point differentials no greater than 6.
I agree with most of what you said but in 2004 the only people that had to wait for hours to vote in the Ohio election were in predominately Democratic precincts.
True, the right will be holding their noses to vote for Romney. And turnout may drop off somewhat. But Romney can rest easy knowing they won’t vote for Edwards or Obama or Hillary.