Romney wins convincing Michigan victory

[Gunny]

By LIZ SIDOTI and GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writers
41 minutes ago

DETROIT - Mitt Romney scored his first major primary victory Tuesday, a desperately needed win in his native Michigan that gave his weakened presidential candidacy new life. It set the stage for a wide-open Republican showdown in South Carolina in just four days.

Three GOP candidates now have won in the first four states to vote in the 2008 primary season, roiling a nomination fight that lacks a clear favorite as the race moves south for the first time.

The former Massachusetts governor defeated John McCain, the Arizona senator who was hoping that independents and Democrats would join Republicans to help him repeat his 2000 triumph here. Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, trailed in third, and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson is making a last stand in South Carolina.

more ... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/republican_rdp

It's looking more and more like Romney is the most viable candidate the GOP has.

 

[eots]

It's looking more and more like Romney is the most viable candidate the GOP has.

its really not of much relevance who has been selected to lose to Hilary
the fix is in .The Bush dynasty will hand off to their good Friends the Clinton's
as ordered ,so you will feel the illusion of choice and change

 

[Gunny]

its really not of much relevance who has been selected to lose to Hilary
the fix is in .The Bush dynasty will hand off to their good Friends the Clinton's
as ordered ,so you will feel the illusion of choice and change

Dude, loosen the chinstrap ... really ....

 

[onedomino]

It's looking more and more like Romney is the most viable candidate the GOP has.

You might be right, but the jury is still out and will not return until after the Florida primary, and maybe not then. I do not have a problem with a President being a Mormon. I do not get the sense from Romney that he injects religion into his politics the way that Huckabee does. I do not think that Huckabee will be able to break out of the fact that he is basically the Evangelical candidate of the Religious Right. Here, I use those terms descriptively, and with no pejorative connotation, as on the Left. That he will likely win in South Carolina is good for Huckabee, but hardly decisive. Florida looms large, and there Guiliani makes his move, or he might be out. Should I care about the wreckage present in Guiliani's personal life? Three marriages, kids from whom he is apparently estranged... I think that we probably need a better example of professional success balanced with family success than that offered by Guiliani. Regarding Romney, unless he scores an upset over Guiliani in Florida, it is hard to imagine him winning in New York, California, and Illinois on 5 February. I do not know about Texas. Perhaps Romney will have a reasonable chance there. In terms of the general election, should Romney win the nomination, I think he may turn out to be a much tougher opponent to beat than the Democrats currently realize.

 

[eots]

Dude, loosen the chinstrap ... really ....

fine go back to your soap opera if it pleases sorry for spoiling the ending

 

[Bern80]

You might be right, but the jury is still out and will not return until after the Florida primary, and maybe not then. I do not have a problem with a President being a Mormon. I do not get the sense from Romney that he injects religion into his politics the way that Huckabee does. I do not think that Huckabee will be able to break out of the fact that he is basically the Evangelical candidate of the Religious Right. Here, I use those terms descriptively, and with no pejorative connotation, as on the Left. That he will likely win in South Carolina is good for Huckabee, but hardly decisive. Florida looms large, and there Guiliani makes his move, or he might be out. Should I care about the wreckage present in Guiliani's personal life? Three marriages, kids from whom he is apparently estranged... I think that we probably need a better example of professional success balanced with family success than that offered by Guiliani. Regarding Romney, unless he scores an upset over Guiliani in Florida, it is hard to imagine him winning in New York, California, and Illinois on 5 February. I do not know about Texas. Perhaps Romney will have a reasonable chance there. In terms of the general election, should Romney win the nomination, I think he may turn out to be a much tougher opponent to beat than the Democrats currently realize.

He certainly is a handsome devil, isn't he.

 

[Bern80]

This isn't gonna be the dem party shoo in that Jillian and others think it will. You got two problems that you have to face facts about. Your two leading contenders are a woman and a black man. The fact is when it comes time for voters to walk the walk many people will not vote for them for those very reasons alone.

On the other hand, both sides have the same problem. Unfortunately it seems this part of the process is more of a popularity contest than an issue contest. The dems best chance was Edwards. On the right I really like Thompson. I don't have any faith that many of the other candidates have the cajones to make some desperately needed changes and break from the norm.

 

[onedomino]

This isn't gonna be the dem party shoo in that Jillian and others think it will. You got two problems that you have to face facts about. Your two leading contenders are a woman and a black man. The fact is when it comes time for voters to walk the walk many people will not vote for them for those very reasons alone.

On the other hand, both sides have the same problem. Unfortunately it seems this part of the process is more of a popularity contest than an issue contest. The dems best chance was Edwards. On the right I really like Thompson. I don't have any faith that many of the other candidates have the cajones to make some desperately needed changes and break from the norm.

I agree that when it comes down to that closed curtain vote in November that the best Dem shot is with Edwards.

 

[jillian]

He certainly is a handsome devil, isn't he.

in that ken doll plastic sort of way, I suppose...

 

[jillian]

I agree that when it comes down to that closed curtain vote in November that the best Dem shot is with Edwards.

The difference is the Dems will come out in droves to vote for their candidate. The religious right is gonna be lukewarm at best about anyone other than Huckabee and will be downright uncomfortable about Romney (which seems bizarre to me, but there ya go). The Paulies are going to follow him to his independent candidacy. The best shot the repubs have is McCain because he gets some independent voters and some cross-over conservative Dems.

Why do you think Edwards has the best chance. I don't know that I disagree with you necessarily. But I kind of think a Clinton/Obama candidacy gets in pretty readily.

 

[Paulie]

The Paulies are going to follow him to his independent candidacy.

Which if it happens, is most likely lights out for the GOP.

The best shot the repubs have is McCain because he gets some independent voters and some cross-over conservative Dems

There's so many things wrong with that statement.

 

[onedomino]

The difference is the Dems will come out in droves to vote for their candidate. The religious right is gonna be lukewarm at best about anyone other than Huckabee and will be downright uncomfortable about Romney (which seems bizarre to me, but there ya go). The Paulies are going to follow him to his independent candidacy. The best shot the repubs have is McCain because he gets some independent voters and some cross-over conservative Dems.

Why do you think Edwards has the best chance. I don't know that I disagree with you necessarily. But I kind of think a Clinton/Obama candidacy gets in pretty readily.

I do not think that Edwards has the best chance to win the Dem nomination, but I do think he has the best shot at the general election. I think Obama is going to be subject to some degree of the Bradley effect. As you know, the Bradley effect means that some who tell pollsters they will vote for an African-American will in fact vote for someone else behind the curtain. This is a voting effect that no one is proud of, but it exists, and the Bradley LA Mayoral race is only one of several examples. In fact, there may have been some Bradley effect with Obama in New Hampshire. I am not sure if there will be an analogous effect as it pertains to Hillary, especially among men who might say they will vote for Hillary, but then do something different behind the curtain. Will people really vote for someone with so little experience as Obama? Maybe in the Primaries, but when it really counts? Against McCain? In a time of War? I know that some on the Left think it is a phoney War, but most Americans do not. Hillary has the greatest negative polling of any candidate, But she has one thing no one else has. Bill Clinton. Love him or hate him, he is certainly one of the top two or three brightest political tacticians since WW2.

I think Edwards is nearly as good a speaker as Obama and, frankly (not that I like it), does not have as much sociological baggage as Obama and Hillary. If the economy is weaker at election time, as now appears likely, I think Edwards, who has pounded away at helping regular working class Americans, might be seen as more credible in that regard than either Obama or Hillary. Plus, Edwards is ostensibly from the South (but plays well in the North), whereas Obama and Hillary are from Illinois and NY, places that are already fairly secure for the Dems.

I think that Dems have a tendency to think that because of Bush, November will be a blow out. Well, regular working class Americans have not seen too much out of this Dem Congress, and the Republicans will certainly hammer at that during the Fall campaign. I'm not sure that someone like Romney will get too identified with Bush, et al. I think the Dems have the edge, but their candidates do not have universal appeal across the demographic spectrum. McCain or Romney (who is a much better speaker than McCain), may make the race tighter than some Dems expect. And depending on how things go with Iraq and the economy could conceivably win. Regardless, it will boil down to Florida, Ohio, and New Mexico. All the Dems have to do is win either Florida or Ohio, and then New Mexico, and they are in. The Republicans must win both Florida and Ohio.

 

[Toro]

It's looking more and more like Romney is the most viable candidate the GOP has.

I wouldn't say that quite yet. He lost in both Iowa and NH after leading and spending more money by far. He had to win Michigan, and it would have been a shock had he not, given that he's a native son and spent millions of his own money in the state. And that was after trailing to McCain in the polls a week ago.

He's currently third in SC and California and fourth in Florida. Romney has a lot of work to do.

 

[Avatar4321]

You might be right, but the jury is still out and will not return until after the Florida primary, and maybe not then. I do not have a problem with a President being a Mormon. I do not get the sense from Romney that he injects religion into his politics the way that Huckabee does. I do not think that Huckabee will be able to break out of the fact that he is basically the Evangelical candidate of the Religious Right. Here, I use those terms descriptively, and with no pejorative connotation, as on the Left. That he will likely win in South Carolina is good for Huckabee, but hardly decisive. Florida looms large, and there Guiliani makes his move, or he might be out. Should I care about the wreckage present in Guiliani's personal life? Three marriages, kids from whom he is apparently estranged... I think that we probably need a better example of professional success balanced with family success than that offered by Guiliani. Regarding Romney, unless he scores an upset over Guiliani in Florida, it is hard to imagine him winning in New York, California, and Illinois on 5 February. I do not know about Texas. Perhaps Romney will have a reasonable chance there. In terms of the general election, should Romney win the nomination, I think he may turn out to be a much tougher opponent to beat than the Democrats currently realize.

Actually, the polls say Mccain might win South Carolina. If he does, as far as im concerned Huckabee and Thompson are going to be out. (After all if neither one can win in a very southern state, they are going to have major problems). And McCain staying in hurts Giuliani. That benefits Romney.

Also, i dont know about the other states, but I know California doesnt have a winner take all primary. As long as Romney does relatively well he can pick up alot of delegates. And I think he has quite a natural base in the Mormon community in California, which is larger than you might think. I am not saying all mormons will blindly support Romney. But they wont have as much hang ups as some others would about the "mormon issue".

I do think Romney has a good chance to do well in South Carolina after his Michigan bounce. he might not win, but he doesnt have to. And he was winning in Nevada before the Michigan win. So campaigning the next two days in Nevada and the bump in the from the Michigan win will likely pull Nevada behind Romney. And remember, Nevada has more delegates than South Carolina. This is a delegate game we are playing and I think Romney's move to Nevada, relatively unopposed, while his opponents fight over South Carolina for less delegates, is a smart move.

If Nevada goes to Romney and he can make a good show in South Carolina, he will have some pretty good momentum heading into Florida. If by some act of God, Romney wins South Carolina, Giuliani will have to put up quite a fight to beat him in Florida.

Granted, we wont know how this will go until Saturday evening. But it really does look good for Romney at this point unless somehow Fred Thompson wins South Carolina while Ron Paul wins Nevada.

 

[Avatar4321]

I wouldn't say that quite yet. He lost in both Iowa and NH after leading and spending more money by far. He had to win Michigan, and it would have been a shock had he not, given that he's a native son and spent millions of his own money in the state. And that was after trailing to McCain in the polls a week ago.

He's currently third in SC and California and fourth in Florida. Romney has a lot of work to do.

No doubt about it, but he is in a much better position now than he was previously. If he manages to win in Nevada, it wont matter who wins South Carolina. He will get more delegates and be the first candidate who can claim three clear victories in this race.

 

[Avatar4321]

The difference is the Dems will come out in droves to vote for their candidate. The religious right is gonna be lukewarm at best about anyone other than Huckabee and will be downright uncomfortable about Romney (which seems bizarre to me, but there ya go). The Paulies are going to follow him to his independent candidacy. The best shot the repubs have is McCain because he gets some independent voters and some cross-over conservative Dems.

Why do you think Edwards has the best chance. I don't know that I disagree with you necessarily. But I kind of think a Clinton/Obama candidacy gets in pretty readily.

I think you are underestimating the religious right. Not all of them are completely turned off by Romney as it is. If you look at Michigan, Romney beat Huckabee with Evangelicals. I think the evangelical support for Huckabee is greatly overstated.

And if Hillary wins the nomination, I think Ron Paul can hurt her more than Romney because it will peel away alot of the anti war vote. That's assuming Ron Paul even went independent. He still hasnt made any concessions to that.

Mccain is the worst chance for Republicans. He may get some cross over Democrats and independents. But what the heck does that matter if he cant get his own base to support him?

 

[jillian]

I think you are underestimating the religious right. Not all of them are completely turned off by Romney as it is. If you look at Michigan, Romney beat Huckabee with Evangelicals. I think the evangelical support for Huckabee is greatly overstated.

And if Hillary wins the nomination, I think Ron Paul can hurt her more than Romney because it will peel away alot of the anti war vote. That's assuming Ron Paul even went independent. He still hasnt made any concessions to that.

Mccain is the worst chance for Republicans. He may get some cross over Democrats and independents. But what the heck does that matter if he cant get his own base to support him?

In Iowa, 60 percent of voters identified themselves as evangelical. Of those, 80% voted for Huckabee. To be fair, I haven't seen the numbers from Michigan yet, but Michigan isn't the kind of state we're talking about. The Southern states are what matter for a repub candidate. And there, they're more suseptible to the type of issue we're discussing. In Michigan, it's about the economy and jobs and foreign cars dominating our markets. Did you know that last week an auto company made a one million dollar donation to, I think it was the Detroit Symphony to keep it's children't music program going. The company making the donation? Honda.

I disagree with you about Ron Paul. The people from the left who would vote for Paul aren't voting for Hillary in any event. Again, just my opinion. The third party candidate that hurts a Democrat would be, say, a Mike Bloomberg/Chuck Hegle candidacy because even though Bloomberg was a Repub, he was a NY Repub and the same divisive social issues wouldn't exist. That would peel off the conservative part of the democratic party and the socially liberal parts of the libertarian party who would otherwise vote for Hillary.

The "base" would hold its nose and vote for McCain. And if they don't, all the better, because they'll stay home and make themselves irrelevant. Their willingness to go to the polls would make or break the republican candidate at that point. I'd say that's real political power.

 

[Ninja]

I have to agree with Avatar, RP and Bloomberg for that matter will suck more votes away from Hillary/B. Hussein than they will from the GOP candidate should they run third party.

I've seen a lot of talk about "it's over for the GOP if RP runs as in Idependent" which I think is conventional wisdom...

There are a few groups that could Nader the right - Evangelicals and gun owners come to mind - Paul supporters ain't one of 'em. And I'm very strongly considering voting for Ronnie after Paul "Asshole" Clement filed his brief last week at Shrub's behest.

 

[jillian]

Now look at what you just wrote. You're a natural repub voter... not a dem voter. And if Paul runs a third-party campaign, you're going to follow him. Me? I wouldn't on a bet.

So I think you might have just proved my point.

 

[Ninja]

I'm not a natural Repub voter. All in all I've cast more votes for D's than R's. I have no political allegiances. I'm not a party loyalist.

I mentioned that I'm considering casting my vote for him because I wanted to make it clear that I'm not another neocon Giuliani supporter shitting on RP.

I'm one guy on the internet. I didn't say RP would fail to draw any GOP voters, I said he'd draw over more Hillary/B. Hussein voters. So I'm trying to figure out how I "proved" (emphasis added because proof is a very strong word) your point?