To think that Clinton, a socialist, or the political neophyte Obama are superior in matters of economy to a veteran capitalist Romney is a definite sign of misguidance. Similarly, it was Romney who devised and implemented universal health coverage in his state – compare that to Hillarycare. So to say that the democrats have stronger healthcare credentials is also a sign of misguidance.

Now, if you compare national exposure enjoyed by Hillary and Obama to that of Romney, the democrats dwarf the Governor. So, without national advertising and campaigning Romney’s numbers are actually NOT that bad. Of course he has some catching up to do, but let’s get through the primaries first.

In a sense, Romney represents the real tragedy of this campaign. There is a constituency in the Republican Party for a candidate who is successful in business, and who takes a more liberal stand on social issues, as Romney did when campaigning in Massachusetts. In changing his stands to pander to a vocal minority of Republicans, Romney has thrown away his real opportunity in this election.

Agreed.

In a sense, Romney represents the real tragedy of this campaign. There is a constituency in the Republican Party for a candidate who is successful in business, and who takes a more liberal stand on social issues, as Romney did when campaigning in Massachusetts. In changing his stands to pander to a vocal minority of Republicans, Romney has thrown away his real opportunity in this election.

Religion is still a central issue for Republicans but I don’t think the Republican party is going to be able to generate as much voter excitement as they did in the last few elections. People feel lied to and
it’s my guess that they will be voting for a “stand-up guy” rather than a “man of God.”

Although Mitt Romney is technically a “Christian,” the vast majority of Republican Christians identify themselves as either “protestant” or “Catholic” not Mormon. I think if Mitt Romney were the right guy, people would be quick to look past his denominational affiliation and accept him like any other candidate, but he doesn’t seem to be presidential and I think that might have people thinking more about his religion and less about Romney.

It’s hard to tell exactly what people think of this guy. I just don’t see him garnering enough mass appeal to be nominated. Not even as a vice president. Keep in mind that the Church of Latter Day Saints has grown enormously in the latter part of the 20th century. They make up about 13 million adherents total and my personal experience with the Mormon Church on the west coast U.S. says they have big aspirations. They are reaching out to a mass geographical expanse and they are one of the fastest growing denominations in the country.

Perhaps with the Republicans in the dog house, they think courting the 13 millions strong Church of Jesus Christ might create
a significant voter base for the Republicans.

It will be interesting to see if the Republican party adopts the Mormon cause as their own in order to makeup for migration of Midwestern conservatives and Southern conservatives disaffected
by all of the scandal of this Republican administration.

And check the update before you go YELL AT US WITH ALL CAPS!!!

I lived in Mass, and he was actually a good governor–until he decided to use the Supreme Judaical Court’s decision on gay marriage to give him a national name as the heir apparent of the Rove strategy.

~Becky

You say that “they’ve seen his commercials.” ONLY IN IOWA, NH, and SC! DON”T YOU GET IT?

If you want to see how voters respond to Romney, you need to look at the states where he has been campaigning. That should be a no-brainer for you guys.

If you keep making more of these silly polls than you ought, you’re going to lose credibility.

I’d like to see the exact same poll conducted in the states of Iowa, NH, and SC. I bet the results would be a lot different.

No surprise the Republicans dont trust Democrats on much of anything, certainly not security issues. But if you go to Gallup and read the break-outs, and look at some of the numbers for Republican confidence in the various Dem candidates you see something very interesting.

Unlike Dems, or Independents, who rank Clinton as somewhat better than Obama on these issues, Republicans express almost TWICE as much confidence in Obama to handle security issues than Clinton.

Now, I am an Obama supporter so it is not that I am upset with that. And I do think Obama can be trusted on these issues. But, if anything, Clinton would, obviously, be closer to the Republican approach on these matters than would Obama. Why is it that Republicans would prefer Obama to Clinton on security matters? It is totally irrational.
I think HDS is the only explanation.