Posted on 01/20/2008 9:34:59 AM PST by barryg
Mitt Romney had it all — money, looks, organization, endorsements and a seasoned staff.
But he still couldn’t crack South Carolina. There was something about the former Massachusetts governor that turned off Palmetto State voters.
He couldn’t connect with them no matter how hard he tried.
“He came across as a luxury car salesman,” said Francis Marion University political scientist Neal Thigpen, a Republican.
Romney spent about $280,000 a week to make his name known across South Carolina.
That was $3 million last year, in South Carolina alone.
He still flopped.
Realizing he couldn’t win here, Romney fled South Carolina last week with no plans to return. He hopped a plane to Nevada to claim his caucus win there Saturday.
The way South Carolinians saw it, Romney was ceding the state to three rivals — U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee.
Romney made a mistake earlier in the month when he pulled all of his money out of South Carolina to go campaigning in Michigan, said Clemson University professor Dave Woodard.
“His timing was just terrible,” said Woodard, a Republican. “It couldn’t have been worse. What Romney was saying was, ‘I really don’t care about South Carolina.’
“He left us at the altar.”
Romney’s campaign never did catch fire here. After a brief period leading in S.C. polls last fall, he lost steam, slumping to third, fourth or fifth in the polls.
Why? Three reasons.
Romney is from Massachusetts, automatically making him suspect in South Carolina. Voters here don’t trust politicians from the home of Teddy Kennedy, Mike Dukakis and John Kerry.
Voters also questioned Romney’s conservative credentials. His flip-flopping on key social issues — abortion and gay rights —caused S.C. voters to wonder about his claims of being a conservative.
Among S.C. voters who told exit pollsters Saturday the main reason they voted for a candidate was because he “says what he believes,” Romney finished last among the five candidates who actively campaigned here.
Romney’s Mormon faith also hurt him among evangelical voters in the Republican primary. Many Southern Baptists, who comprise the largest denomination in the state, see Mormonism as a cult. Romney ran fourth among S.C. voters who identified themselves in exit polls as born-again or evangelical Christians.
However, Thigpen rejects the notion that Romney lost South Carolina because of his faith.
“It wasn’t his faith,” he said. “It was his phonyism.”
Romney’s decision to pack up to Nevada and its caucus were an attempt to build on his lone primary victory, in Michigan. Romney also won Wyoming’s little-watched caucus.
His departure from South Carolina served to lower expectations for him here, even though he started to advertise again in the primary’s days and made a get-out-the-vote effort.
The other high-profile Republican candidates decided to ignore Nevada in favor of South Carolina with its history of creating and demolishing Republican hopefuls.
For Romney, Nevada presented a particular opportunity. His faith was an asset in that state with its large Mormon population.
One in four Nevada caucus-goers was Mormon; 95 percent supported Romney, according to entrance polls there.
Romney aides have attributed their candidate’s Iowa caucus loss to suspicion about his faith among evangelicals, who rallied behind Huckabee, a Baptist preacher.
Thigpen said Romney made a wise decision to travel to Nevada.
“Why kick a dead horse?” he asked, referring to South Carolina. “Why waste your money on something that doesn’t look promising?”
But in essentially declaring that South Carolina didn’t count, Romney missed a chance to prove he can be a winning candidate nationwide.
South Carolina is “a test-tube state,” said Chip Felker, a Greenville-based Republican consultant. “If you win here, you have shown you can win elsewhere.”
I think it's more just the residual power of the old media and legacy institutions focusing on and donating to their preferred candidates. Republicans are almost as susceptible to that as the rest. There's nothing more "unelectable" about him than anyone else.
I'm an atheist, a member of the group he "disrespected" in his I'm proud Mormon speech. If people like me don't care about his Mormonism, how difficult is it for Christian America to not care about his Mormonism.
He's talented and capable, connects well with people and has slightly right of center principled policies and can fight. He's very electable, he just needs exposure to demonstrate it.
Gee barryg, it must be South Carolina is into ugly candidates. Not me, I am voting for the smartest good looking person in the race.
Hillary out, Obama out, Hucklebee out, Fred out, McCain out, John Edwards out, Ron Paul out, Rudy, Judy, out, Fred out.
Go Mitt Romney! Mitt 2008, we may be down, but we ain’t going to take ugly and wrinkled!
He is the prettiest...apologies to John Edwards...
Lieberman would probably rather stay in the Senate, and I doubt he would help McCain much in terms of winning the election. Apart from the war on terror and related questions, he’s pretty much a down-the-line liberal, but has very little support in the Democratic Party (his run for the nomination in 2004 was pathetic). McCain has credibility on national security and foreign policy—where he needs help is on issues where he has antagonized conservatives, and Lieberman would be worse than useless there.
I am referring to as a whole... on a national scale we will be hard pressed to find a 'bellweather' state...and I think that rings true for this election too.
SC just thinks they are in charge.
History will tell us very little about elections going forward and including this election.
The MSM keeps getting proven wrong? Why? Because they have relied on political models based around 'historics'... which those things are becoming more and more irrelevant.
As people my age and a bit younger start getting into positions they will shoot the bird at traditions---
It will make predicting elections nigh impossible.
Damn right, we ain’t settling for UGLY! If we are going to get screwed over, it’s not going to be ugly doing it!
Aha! You left out Dennis.
” I believe they (SC) are going to be increasingly marginalized going forward as a ‘bellweather’ state. “
_____________
Starting this year. Or was that with Dole in ‘96?
My mommy likes me
My dog likes me
My kids like me
However, that does not mean I should be elected President.
-
If you stop bashing Mitt, I’ll vote for you. :)
I guess facts don’t matter to you. (sigh). Here is the actual bill and what it did that you are saying is ‘passing the AWB” ... Once last attempt to insert some facts in the discussion - links to sources are given in the link in my earlier post:
Opponents of gun control and critics of Governor Romney point to the fact that he signed firearms legislation in July, 2004 that included a ban of assault weapons in Massachusetts (S.2367). However, the bill only reaffirmed an existing Massachusetts state ban on assault weapons that was enacted as part of sweeping gun control laws passed in Massachusetts in 1998, five years before Romney took office, and didn’t ban any additional guns. … The state ban of assault weapons enacted in 1998 was not due to disappear, nor would it have become invalid with the sunset of the federal ban in September, 2004. … The bill was passed in the Senate by a vote of 36 - 1 in favor and the House passed it with no amendments or debate on a “voice” vote. This represented by far the broadest support a reform bill has ever seen in the Massachusetts State House. Only one legislator in the entire building voiced opposition to the bill.
(National Rifle Association - Institute for Legislative Action, “Massachusetts - Firearms Reform Bill Sent to the Governor`s Desk,” Press Release, 6/29/2004)
The firearms reform bill signed by Governor Romney in 2004 had the endorsement of the NRA (a MUST READ). It was also supported by the Gun Owners’ Action League, law enforcement and Massachusetts gun owners. The Executive Director of GOAL attended the signing ceremony for the bill. The legislation added several measures these groups favored, including a lengthening of the terms of firearm identification cards and licenses to carry, namely;
1) Extending the term of a firearm identification card and a license to carry firearms from four years to six years,
2) Granting a 90-day grace period for holders of firearm identification cards and licenses to carry who have applied for renewal, and
3) Creating a seven-member Firearm License Review Board to review firearm license applications that have been denied.
“This is truly a great day for Massachusetts’ sportsmen and women. These reforms correct some serious mistakes that were made during the gun debate in 1998, when many of our state’s gun owners were stripped of their long-standing rights to own firearms.”
(MA State Senator Stephen M. Brewer (D), Press Release, 7/01/2004)
“I want to congratulate everyone that has worked so hard on this issue. Because of their dedication, we are here today to sign into law this consensus piece of legislation. This change will go a long way toward fixing the flaws created by the 1998 law. Another key piece to this legislation addresses those citizens who have applied for renewals. If the government does not process their renewal in a timely fashion, those citizens won’t be put at risk because of the 90 day grace period that is being adopted today.”
(MA State Representative George N. Peterson, Jr. (R), Press Release, 7/01/2004)
“There are a lot of good things in the bill,” said Jim Wallace, legislative director of the Gun Owners’ Action League, the state’s leading pro-gun group. “In all, the bill represents a healing process, or the beginning of the healing process, between lawful gun owners and the Massachusetts Legislature.”
(Scott S. Greenberger, “State moves on assault weapons ban,” The Boston Globe, 6/24/2004)
Do like your tag line...btw
He equates with Ron Paul. Grizzled, wizened and kooky!
He’s out. Sorry Dennis, we might be able to vote for your wife, though!
She is just a slight bit uglier than Mitt.
It wasn't just an AWB. He signed the PERMANENT AWB.
It's not surprising that a dishonest candidate would have such dishonest shills.
That trend is the continuing decay of the rust belt. States like PA, OH, and MI are going to continue to trend left as their economies implode and people looking for a better life move to states with a future.
Michigan is a perfect example. The state has been in recession throughout the last economic growth cycle, has the highest unemployment in the country, and isn't getting better anytime soon. The left trending electorates vote for democrats that ensure the failed policies of the past continue. Michigan formed a public corporation to attract business to Michigan, the problem is that they paid for it using a new corporate tax.
Close advisers of Sen. John McCain say there is no possibility that Independent Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman would be McCain’s vice presidential running mate on the Republican ticket.
McCain credits Lieberman’s endorsement for president last month as triggering his turnaround in New Hampshire, leading to victory in that state’s primary last Tuesday. In addition, McCain and Lieberman are friends who admire each other personally. Nevertheless, Lieberman still votes the straight Democratic line in the Senate on nearly all issues except Iraq, and McCain’s advisers feel Lieberman never would be accepted by the Republican Party.
Bob Novak’s column.
names keep coming around Pawlenty and Haley Barbour for VP
“He made the ban permanaent”
NO he didn’t; that is a misstatement of fact, check my previous post on that. That is simply WRONG. He passed a bill that reformed and fixed things in the already existing AWB, a bill the NRA and GOAL supported.
“and now apparently wants a gun ban on the Federal level”
He supports AWB, akin to G W B’s position. point taken. He’s not a 100% progun candidate. He got a B from NRA in 2002, otoh he does support an individual RKBA and wants USSC to overturn the DC gun ban.
Not perfect, but it would HELP if people wouldnt distort Romney’s record and make it worse than it really is.
Of the remaining candidates that are still are in the race, Mitt, McCain and Hickabee, I guess Mitt fits the bill the best.
But he is flawed and needs to be pulled to the right.
And yet he did nearly as good as southerner Fred Thompson. Don’t know if thast bodes well for Fred.
Thompson only succeeded in hurting Huckabee and giving victory to McCain. Was that his plan from the get go?
Yes, Palmetto State voters voted for a guy who seriously considered being John Kerry’s running mate in 2004, who authored McCain-Feingold that has enabled the Democrats to out spend the GOP this election cycle, who was head honcho for the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill, and who was a leader in the Gang of 14 that kept conservatives from getting more judicial appointments approved by the Senate.
Palmetto State voters are pathetically misled creatures that don’t seem to be able to grasp what the consequences of their votes will mean to this country. To bad we can’t vote them off the island.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.