Finally, some good news from SUSA, and it flips a big blue state red: Michigan.
SurveyUSA Michigan General Election Matchup
- McCain – 41%
- Obama – 37%
The poll was of registered voters, not likely voters, and had a party split of Dem +10 (39/29).
These numbers coming on the heels of Obama campaigning in Michigan a week and a half ago is great news for the GOP prospects in the state, even though the number of undecided (21%) is extremely high.
And for this state, SUSA didn’t mess around with any Veep possibilities except Mitt Romney — and Romney adds surprising strength to the ticket and nearly ensures this state will be red come November:
So much for the thought that Veeps aren’t picked to put states in play (advocated by myself up until now).
May 28th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Dude – where are the Rombots? I thought they would be eating this up by now…
May 28th, 2008 at 11:06 am
This is good news; that said, take a closer look at the numbers. McCain vs. Obama is +4 for McCain. When you add Romney to the ticket against either Gore, Clinton, or Edwards you end up with +5 +5 and +3 respectively. In other words, Romney only seems to help very marginally, if at all, when known Democratic Veeps are added to the equation. But, this is still a better result then any of the other Veep possibilities have managed in the prior states that have been polled.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:12 am
I agree – this is really good news – but that is a high number of undecideds. I keep thinking about the 2006 governor’s race where the Republican led for a while in the summer months only to lose big time in November.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Michigan first, New Hampshire second and maybe even Nevada third are the reasons Romney should be considered strongly by McCain even if they don’t get on that well with each other. With the possible exception of Tom Ridge, nobody else I can think of puts a blue state in play like Romney does with Michigan. Does anyone really think Pawlenty would likely bring MN into McCain’s orbit? I sure don’t. And with Obama the Dem opponent, Arkansas, Kentucky and West Virginia will be with McCain even without Huckabee. When you add in that Romney would certainly seem like a credible choice to the population at large, he’s perhaps the strongest pick for McCain. Of course, the old coot will do whatever the heck he feels like, so who knows who he’ll choose.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Finally, some verification that Mitt’s gives Michigan to McCain. Don’t even try aguing against this; it would make one seem rather silly.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Well… I think it might be because McCain leads Obama by 4% by himself.
I have to disagree with SurveyUSA on the caveat they placed on this poll, which is:
McCain/Romney is beating Edwards, Clinton, and Gore. So Mitt’s name ID cannot be the decided factor here.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:19 am
It is interesting that Mr. Romney was the only GOP candidate mentioned in this poll. You are correct, Matthew E. Miller that Mr. Romney does not add a whole lot to the ticket, but on the other hand, he adds a few point. I realize that Michigan marches to its own drummer to a degree, but it is interesting that McCain does better in that state then every other state. Even Mr. Edwards does not really help the Dems in Michigan like Survey USA says he does in other states.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:23 am
The one thing about these polls I worry about is that the Wayne Country vote and Black vote seems out of whack. You telling me McCain will get 30% of the Black vote from Obama in Michigan?
May 28th, 2008 at 11:24 am
If I didn’t worry that Mitt’s influence would be counterproductive in Ohio I’d say McCain ought to go with him if it was a sure thing he’d pull over MI (as it stands – it’s far from a sure thing) even though I don’t like Mitt on a personal level.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:24 am
When asked for Obama versus McCain with no running mates, its a pretty tough thing for people to respond to. Do they assume that he will have their favorite candidate as VP, or someone else? I would have to say that at least a good number are assuming Mitt, otherwise he may not have gotten what he got on the one one one.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:24 am
With respect Illinoisguy, while Mr. Romney helps Mr. McCain in Michigan, he does not deliver it, MCCain even win in a straight up and down race with no VPs, he was the only Republican tested in that state.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Can anyone sell me if John Engler is popular in Michigan?
May 28th, 2008 at 11:27 am
At the Same time The Rest of the State means Western Michigan, and they have Obama up there in the no VP head to head.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Engler I think stay one term to long. His 3rd term was deem not to well.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:29 am
I’m still trying to figure out how SUSA figures Dems will have a 10 point participation edge in MI on the same day they presume Dems will outnumber Republicans at the polls by a 24-point margin in OH.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:30 am
You make a good point, Paul8148 with regard to Detroit versus Western MI, but if you look at a 2004 map of Michigan compared to 2000, you can see the east and west parts of the state slowly moving in opposite directions. I thus believe the state is a little volitile.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Kavon,
But, McCain/Romney isn’t beating Obama/Edwards or Obama/Clinton or Obama/Gore by larger margins then Mac beats Obama by himself. That’s the point. Romney seems no more helpful to McCain in Michigan then Edwards, or Clinton, or Gore are to Obama. And they’re speculating that this because known VP’s always outperform unknown VP’s. Which is what I’ve been saying for more then a week. Romney is very well known in Michigan. Ergo, Romney holds his own against Democratic big-wigs like Edwards, Clinton, or Gore there. He doesn’t do so in states where he’s less well-known. I do think, though, that Romney’s strength in Michigan goes beyond name recognition; he’s genuinely popular there, and you can see hints of that in this poll. In the past, when unknown Democratic VP’s were added to an Obama ticket, a certain percentage of Democratic leaning voters simply went undecided. It seems here that when unknown Democratic VP’s are added, a significant percentage of Democratic leaning voters decides to actively vote for the McCain/Romney ticket, as if to say “I don’t who this Sebellius person is, and I’m kinda nervous about Obama. But, I like that Romney guy; he gets Michiganders. So I guess I’ll vote Republican”. Additionally, if you look at the original McCain vs. Obama poll, you’ll notice that considerably more Democrats are undecided then Republicans. This has happened in every poll so far, which is why McCain/Romney or McCain/Huckabee matchups always did significantly worse then Obama/Edwards matchups, relative to the McCain/Obama baseline. Because most of the undecideds were Democrats, and adding Huckabee or Romney to the ticket sent them scurrying back to Obama. Here most of the undecideds are Democrats, but adding Romney to the ticket, even when popular Democrats are put on Obama’s ticket, actually maintains the status quo. Undecided Democrats and independents don’t flee from Romney in Michigan and indeed some actually move towards him. So I think it’s fair to say Mitt has an impact here; but it’s undeniable that the Obama/Webb +19 matchup isn’t a good indicator of how strong that impact would be.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:34 am
That would be insane to see McCain/Romney win by 19 in Michigan none the less.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:34 am
I wonder why they neglected to put Huckabee, Pawlenty and others as they had been? It seems to me they knew it was obvious that Mitt would yield considerably better results, and they didn’t want to verify that. Any other ideas?
May 28th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Perhaps, Illinoisguy, but who knows, I don’t think the others were left out due to malice, but it is interesting. At least the cross tabs in Ohio were somewhat realistic save for the high undicided rate, but some of the Michigan cross tabs, especially the ones with regards to race are just a little to nutty for me to believe.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Matthew #17,
Yeah. I understand that. I just feel that Romney will have SOME impact in MI. Writing the numbers off totally because of name ID to me is a little bit of a stretch. But your point is well taken.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Make no mistake about it, Obama’s failure to campaign in both Michigan and Florida may cost him both states. Not only has he ticked off the voters in those states, but he will also lag behind in the ground game. McCain fought to win both states during the primaries and he has a team in place (combined with Romney’s impressive organization in MI and Rudy’s in FL). I could easily see McCain winning MI soley because he has out-organized Obama in the state. (same in FL)
May 28th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Romney really hit his stride around Michigan. He was at the peak of his political powers in the December 28th-Feb 3rd time period. I’ve said before that I don’t think I’ve seen such a consistent streak of masterful debate performances (and I didn’t think Romney was a great debater at the beginning of the campaign, despite the fact that he received alot of praise for his first debate). I think he would have had real trouble winning a general election in this climate; but no one would have been so impressive while losing.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:57 am
I want to see the other vp candidates like they did in all of the other states. It kinda ticks me off that they didn’t.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Perhap they did not poll other candidates because Michigan is a unique case. If Survey USA does this for other states, then it would really raise questions.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Matthew Miller may have already pointed this out (I’m on my lunch break and don’t have time to read all the comments), but the only reason Romney “helps” McCain in the matchups against unknown Democratic veeps is that the number of undecideds jumps way up. McCain has 41% by himself and between 43 and 47 percent if he runs with Romney in Michigan. So Romney helps a little in the state, but not nearly as much as the topline results suggest. We’re talking a marginal difference here of 2-5 pts. That’s about what I would expect in PA if you put Ridge on the ticket, in MN if you put Pawlenty on the ticket, etc. In other words, ho hum.
That said, it’s good news that Mac is winning MI in a race against Obama. Lots of conservatives assume that MI is a state that Obama will win by default because of Detroit, but outside of Detroit’s large black population, Michigan is a horrid state for Obama. Michigan whites are about as likely to vote for Obama as PA or OH whites.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Hold on guys! Let’s be fair, ok?
As Matthew correctly points out, it appears on the surface that Mitt may only add a little against the well known Democratic VPs. I don’t think that is quite accurate; here’s why.
Remember how very strongly Obama has been in other states when adding Edwards? In mho the same thing would have happened here also, except for one thing, and that is that Mitt offset the rise that Obama would have gotten when they polled with Edwards as VP. I believe that is something no other VP would have been able to do, but I can’t prove it because for some odd reason, they didn’t give that data to us.
The same thing goes for Clinton and Gore. In the other states, they have not been using those two candidates, but I think we can all agree that, in all likelihood, they would have raised Obama versus using Obama by himself. So, again, we see adding Mitt offset, and added a little, over adding those two strong vote getters (that they weren’t using in the other states).
I think once on the campaign trail Mitt will make mince meat out of anybody he debates, and this margin will only widen. If you recall, Mitt won nearly every debate, and by some accounts, he won all of them.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
This is the first time I’ve seen Obama/Gore being polled. Honestly, that’s a scary ticket in the general. Gore provides Obama with everything he’s lacking — experience, national security credentials, executive experience, and an easy in-road for Clinton-leaning voters.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Yes, it is true Illiniosguy that Mr. Romney helps in Michigan, (we can debate the degree.) However, I would be careful, to use the Clinton comparison. Although, I question the results myself, another polling company showed that a Obama / Clinton ticket would easily beat a McCain / Romney ticket. Unless things have changed, Michigan is out of step with the rest of the country. Survey USA did not poll Mrs. Clinton is other states. So while you canuse the Edwards arguement, I would not use the Clinton arguement until you get more polling data to back up case. I am not saying you have no case, but I am saying you need more data to make it.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
McCain/Romney Dominates Michigan — So much for the thought that Veeps aren’t picked to put states in play (advocated by myself up until now).
It’s a meaningful distinction: picks aren’t chosen just to put one state in play. Of COURSE veeps are chosen to put states in play. That’s the ONLY reason a veep would be chosen. Why else would they be chosen? But veeps AREN’T chosen just to pick up one state. That is to say: We don’t choose the PA governor to get PA, or an OH Congressman to get OH.
We choose a candidate that augments the appeal all across the board.
If Mitt does that without hurting McCain elsewhere, he could be in play for the VP slot. I don’t think he is (he hurts McCain in too many places elsewhere, I think), but we shall see, won’t we?
May 28th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Alex,
So with your analysis that you just wrote for McCain’s VP, who in your opinion do you think would be the best VP for McCain, you can even name more than 1 if you want to, thanks!
May 28th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
If Pawlenty helps McCain by three points in MN, McCain loses the state by 10 percentage points instead of 13. In Michigan, because McCain is competitive there already, adding Romney as VP could make the state go from tied now in the polls to McCain’s camp. The VP choice is much more likely to make a difference in a state that’s already close, not one that’s out of reach. That’s why the Edwards pick in 2004 was so stupid. With Kerry behind 10 to 20 points in every Southern state, including North Carolina, Edwards wouldn’t add enough to win any of them.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Good logic Marksal, but Mr. Edwards was never chosen to win NC for the Dems, he was chosen to appeal to OH and MO. He still was a losing choice, but he was not chosen to win his home state.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
This might be the only state where Romney helps the ticket, but it’s a key one, and probably more important than Colorado.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Alex has repeatedly said that picks aren’t chosen just to put one state in play. Now I know why that’s important to him. Picks CAN be chosen to put one state in play. There is no law against it.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Boy, Metro is quiet today. He always talks about how “PEOPLE DON’T LIKE MITT ROMNEY”, but Metro thought people liked Newt Gingrich. Newt was far less popular than Romney when he was in the public eye.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
270 Illinoisguy,
Mitt won every debate?
Where do you get that from? Your own brain?
Ron Paul won polling on every debate- degree of credibility up for debate.
Huckabee, as much as everybody hates him, wiped the floor with everyone in debates. He was personable, likeable, decently intelligent, funny, and passionate- all specific areas where Romney, Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson lacked. Credible polling and focus groups showed ridiculous Huckabee wins in every debate excluding the first- the CNN debate in New Hampshire last summer when Huckabee first talked about evolution was something in the realm of 70% with everyone else in or near single digits. Again, everyone here hates Huckabee, hates his policy, thinks he’s an idiot, i.e… But I think we can agree- the man can debate and wow an audience. Terrible politician, awful president, fantastic public speaker.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Without other polls, its a little hard to tell, but on the Edwards front, Romney seems to help there. I understand that the ticket does no better with Romney on it, but in other blue-collar states, an Obama/Edwards ticket has done FAR better than the matchups without Veeps.
Romney is probably what keeps us in the game against Edwards.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
You are out of your gourd Robbie, if you think Huckabee won even one single debate!!!!! Creidble polling firms? I’ve been glued to this site, and looked all over for myself and I didn’t see anything indicating that Huckabee won any of them. What a bunch of BULL CRAP!!!
Mitt wiped the floor on most of them, and those that were in question are the ones that the focus group overwhelmingly confirmed he won those too.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
You may be right about Michigan ACT, I’ll give you that, but there are still more states to be polled. We need more data.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
At the risk off hacking off everybody, it is getting to a fool’s game to debate who won the debates. We all think our candidates won and we can all point to various polls and focus groups. Frankly, this is getting silly.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
OHIO – Are you saying you don’t think Mitt won most of them?
May 28th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
The only one I can think of that he may not have won is the one Fox News debate that everyone conceded was very unfair questioning on their part, and one, more than any other, that they tag teamed against Mitt. I think most of the commentary on here and by other Republican pundits was that Mitt either won, or tied…..but I’ll shut up as you suggest Ohio.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
I’m not talking about votes via text message conducted on air after the debate. Those are the most flawed kind of polls. Up there with internet polls.
Anywho, this an absolutely ridiculous argument. If it makes you feel better, I’ll concede to you that Romney won every debate.
Regardless, his debate performance did little on Election day for him, as he won the California debate that was essentially excluded to him and McCain, took the lead in the polls the next day, and still lost the state. You have to be effective on the ground. And clearly, stuffing himself inside a group of African American teenagers and shouting “Who let the dogs out? Who? Who?” was not effective enough.
Romney’s a net drag. He compromises McCain’s image as a moderate, as not a tool of the Republican party. For every conservative he brings in, he loses 5 moderates (estimation). If the SUSA poll is correct, I could be wrong, but I don’t think SUSA’s right seeing as how McCain-Romney has an 18 point edge on Obama-Webb. I doubt that.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
*19
May 28th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
To be honest Illinois guy, I did not watch every single debate, but with respect, I recall that polls and focus groups were all over the map as to who won what, but I could be wrong. As I recall, I remember specifically, a focus group stating that Mr. Romney won the New Hampshire debate so I’ll give you that. However, with respect, I really do think it is silly to debate who won the debates. All of the candidates did make both smart and not so smart statements during the various debates. In the end, I think while most of us paid attention to the debates, we looked at the various platforms of the candidates and made our decisions. You can argue that perhaps some of us were not informed about all the fact and made poor voting decisions, but we all voted the way we did.
Frankly, I pay more attention to you or anyone else for that matter when you give me reason and logic for your case. I for one am not impressed when people debate who wins the debate. You can say that so and so is a good speaker, but I really doubt that people vote only on debates. Yes debates can influence a close race, but debates are only a part of the whole story. So please pardon my pun, but it is almost pointless to debate who won the debates. People vote the way they vote. I think many other Ohioans would agree with me on this point.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Robbie:
While Mr. Romney might be a net drag, don’t get too carried away against him. There are many candidates that would do much worse than him in states like Ohio. Again, he most likely won’t help us in Ohio, but I doubt he will kill us either.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
“Romney’s a net drag. He compromises McCain’s image as a moderate, as not a tool of the Republican party. For every conservative he brings in, he loses 5 moderates (estimation).”
McCain cannot win without Conservatives, and if McCain picks someone who will maintain his image as a moderate, he is going to tick off a LOT of Conservatives.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
To Metro, Aron, Big S and Alex, I think you all would love Huckabee’s elixir for the party.
____
What can the party do to reverse course?
Republicans need to be Republicans. The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it’s this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it’s a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says “look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don’t get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it.” Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it’s not an American message. It doesn’t fly. People aren’t going to buy that, because that’s not the way we are as a people. That’s not historic Republicanism. Historic Republicanism does not hate government; it’s just there to be as little of it as there can be. But they also recognize that government has to be paid for.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Ohio Joe,
Here’s my thinking behind this:
Moderates don’t like Romney. Moderate Republicans, maybe. Overall moderates- not at all. The whole abortion thing set the tone for a host of other complaints about Romney that all date back to this: He’s afraid to stand up to the party. When the Massachusetts Party was more liberal than the national party, Mitt was more liberal on everything. But when he was told he needed to shore up the base, he pandered, and he pandered hard. I can’t see one issue in the primaries where Mitt stood up and said “This is what the Republican party wants, and I disagree.” Rudy had social issues. Huckabee had taxes and immigration. McCain had immigration and campaign finance. They all stood up to the Republican party elite- and Romney never did.
Independents don’t want a Republican Party hack. They want to vote for someone with cajones. Barack Obama clearly doesn’t differ from the Democratic Party on anything of consequence. That’s why McCain really has to stand on his contrast of being able to tell the party to shut up and let him govern. And Romney nixes that immediately. Pawlenty, Palin, Jindal, Carcieri, Giuliani, Ridge, Rice, Powell, Sanford- they all stand alone on something. Romney doesn’t offer that.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Bottom Line: Do you want to carry Michigan? If the answer is yes, put Mitt on the ticket. If you don’t want to do that, what’s the raison d’tre of this website?
May 28th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Romney’s net value is decreasing this week as Romneycare falls further on its face. Anyone read the WSJ last Thursday? MA voters are shelling out about 3 billion extra dollars in taxes to fund the program that was the defining legacy of the Romney administration.
Illinoisguy,
Romney was consistent in the debates, and won a couple of them. Thompson won a couple, as did Rudy, and some people thought McCain and Huckabee did as well.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
#50 – If everyone in the party stands alone on something, then that leaves Romney alone – as the only one to actually agree with the party!
And bullcrap about the “more liberal on everything” to “pandering hard.” Everyone’s positions float with time to some degree. Romney’s positions on a few things floated and on one major thing (government role in abortion) took an abrupt about-face.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Dave:
The raison d’tre is to win Michigan? I thought it was to win 270 point. If that includes Michigan fine, but there are a few other states in the equation.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Tommy, if Mitt had stayed there baby sitting them, he could have tweaked it, but with the liberals running the state, it couldn’t stay good very long.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
We finally get a posting that is helpful to Romney, and all we get is opinions about how he hits in other places that it has not been shown to be the case. And lots of cheap shots!
“Romney was consistent in the debates, and won a couple of them. Thompson won a couple, as did Rudy, and some people thought McCain and Huckabee did as well.”
I was here blogging with all of you on every debate and I never heard anyone say Rudy or Huckabee won a debate. Many of us applauded Fred a few times but to say he won the debate, I’m not sure about that.
May 28th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Illinoisguy, from a policy point of view, I for one really am concerned about the state of Health Care in MA. I was almost ready to forgive Mr. Romney on that issue and then this situation came to light. If push comes to shove, I would vote for Mr. Romney were he by chance on the ticket because he is Conservative on other things, but I am frankly upset about the non-sense in MA and I do not want such a system to spread to other states. Even Glen Beck was not happy about it last week. If Mr. Thompson did not win the debate, fine, but at least Mr. Thompson is not messing up the Health Care Situation. Yes MA is full of Liberals, that is exactly why this whole business frightens me.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Ohio Joe,
If you’re familiar with the red states/blue states outcome in the last 2 elections, how can Obama win the election and lose Michigan? We could even subtract Ohio from the ’04 totals, pick up Michigan, and, ceterus paribus, win the election….not that I’m advocating losing Ohio. Win Michigan, win the election. It’s that simple.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
You have a point that Michigan is almost as large electorally as Ohio, but some polls show that Mr. Obama could win other Red states, so let’s see if we can win both Ohio and Michigan to be safe.
Again, I realize that Michigan can compensate for an Ohio loss in some respects, but a Michigan only strategy is no better than a PA only strategy. Michigan did make its mark today with the release of the survey USA poll, I will give you that, but let’s wait for a few more state polls before we draw the map for 2008.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Michigan isn’t the only state Mitt helps in. He won 13 states, not one. He was also very strong in some other states that didn’t have contests prior to his dropping out. I frankly don’t think Mitt will be a drag anywhere outside the South, and he won’t be enough of a drag there for us to lose any of those states. In the South, Obama will be by far and away the biggest drag.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Hmmm … the Mitt-Worshipers are getting a bit testy, yelling “Bullcrap!” at everybody who disagrees with them. Yesterday, we had one telling us that the only reason The Divine One lost Iowa was because Huckabee cheated, and Florida the same (only this time it was McCain who cheated). And the disaster of His Mittness’s healthcare plan? Well, that was because other people screwed it up — it was perfect when devised. And, since the poll doesn’t show Mitt off as well as Illinoisguy wants, SUSA must be part of the Vast Moderate Conspiracy against Mitt.
Logic is a wonderful thing — one can logically arrive at almost any conclusion, dependent upon the premise that one begins with. And the Mitt-Worshipers, we must remember, begin all thought with the following premise: “Mitt is perfect.”
Starting with that premise, we get the following:
Mitt is perfect, and he will therefore win every state; therefore, if he loses a state, somebody must have cheated.
Mitt is perfect, and all his plans are perfect; therefore, if one of his plans doesn’t work, somebody else must have screwed it up.
Mitt is perfect, and all polls will show him winning; therefore, any poll that shows otherwise is fraudulent.
Mitt is perfect, and all must worship him; therefore, anyone who disagrees with the Mitt-Worshipers is full of bullcrap.*
See how simple it is when you start with the correct premise?
*Alternative explanation, as provided by Illinoisguy a few days ago — anyone who doesn’t worship Mitt is jealous of how smart, handsome, and rich he is.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Ogrepete,
You’re right. That leaves Romney alone. As a puppet republican. He doesn’t stand up to the party EVER. If that’s what you want, I’m afraid you’re going to lose handily every time.
Abortion. Gay Rights. Health Care. School Prayer. Gun Rights. Campaign Finance. Tax Cuts.
All of those issues are issues Romney stood more liberal on in Massachusetts and ran to the right when he ran for President. And those are just the definites. There’s ten more where Romney’s statements are so remarkably ambiguous that you can’t discern real meaning. I’m not attacking Romney because he used to be pro-choice. I’m pretty pro-choice. I’m pretty progressive on most of these issues. I just wish he had some principle and didn’t throw everything overboard just to win.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:45 am
BobH – I think you’re getting it now!