Posted on 11/21/2011 6:18:15 PM PST by presidio9
Republicans might not particularly like Mitt Romney, but they may have to learn to live with him if they want to take the White House next year. So suggests a poll released today by Purple Strategies, which surveys voters in 12 swing states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.
President Obama's approval rating in the swing states is in peril -- just 41% overall and 37% among independents -- but his saving grace seems to be that voters there are even more sour on the Republican candidates. This critical block of voters gave all of the top GOP contenders lower marks than the president, which may be due in part to the barrage of negative media that Republicans have been facing as the race heats up. The scrutiny, however, will only intensify after the party settles on a nominee, so Republicans may want to choose a candidate who can withstand criticism.
Mr. Romney has the lowest negatives of the field, with 45% of voters giving him the thumbs down. Those numbers aren't great, but compare them to Herman Cain's. Fifty-two percent rate Herman Cain negatively and 22% say they definitely wouldn't vote for him. Just 10% say the same of Mitt Romney. Mr. Romney also fares the best of all the candidates in a head-to-head match-up against the president, running even with him at 45.
"Based on traditional metrics,
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
It is obvious that emotion, hostility, and reflex are the norm on this subject.
Question: Did anyone watch Sean Hannity’s interview of him (it its entirety) this evening?
Thoughts?
Tough, WSJ Rinos.
I won’t vote for Romney, so it will do you no good to think he might win Ohio.
The Constitution party will run a candidate. I will vote for that candidate or for a 3rd party conservative should they run.
Read my lips: Romney will NOT get my vote. Ever.
What is wrong with the true conservative, Herman Cain, who is winning most of the straw polls every where and getting some very nice endorsements? Can’t risk MItt; Don’t trust liberal and flip flopper Newt; Perry may be a great governor, but is not presidential material.
Herman Cain has the focus and all of the skills needed so desperately today. He has no baggage. Either Santorum or Bachmann may be a good vp, though John Bolton would be really good vp, IMO.
FOX is really playing Romney up tonight!
I thought it was forbidden to show support for Mitt in any way on FR?
While I have no doubt that Paul will continue to get the consistent 8-10% of the Republican vote that is libertarian, I sinserely doubt that he can ever build on that number. The man has been running for president for 12 years now and he has never been higher. The majority of the Repubican party is rightly suspicious of his insane foreign policy ideas. However, if Ron Paul decides to run 3rd party again (and he would not deny this on Hannity's radio program yesterday), the only thing he will accompish is 4 more years of Obama.
Is posting the article “support”, or is that merely informing us about the present lay of the land, according to some “experts”?
Why would we NOT want to be informed, of all the “good” and the “bad”?
So true. I no longer think FR as a conservative website but rather an Evangelical website. I still love the interesting selection of links posted by members but the discussions that follow are often offensive, immature and hateful. These comments from anonymous members has really killed the mood here. I prefer the format of Facebook with people posting under their true identities in a way that fosters personal responsibility. As all true conservatives know, personal liberty cannot exist without personal responsibility.
Just to be clear: I am definitely NOT an Romney supporter. I favor Santorum, but I will get behind Gingrich if he is the only candidate left who can upset Romney.
“any failure to vote for the least undesirable candidate is mathmatically equivalent to a vote for the MOST undesirable candidate.”
So very true. But don’t waste your time fighting the suicidal groupthink on this thread!
At the very least, there should be a rule on FR forcing critics to identify an alternative: “I can’t get behind GOP candidate X. because... That’s why I’m going with candidate Y.”
“If they wanna scare me with Hussein, so be it. STILL not gonna vote for Romney.”
Amen!
You are not totally alone in your thinking.
Hey, it’s not my idea. I read just a week or so ago, that someone got kicked off for supporting Romney. Lots of the stuff I read is like this, but many that hate Romney call it support.
Good for you.
I hear you. A shame that fear colors some comments here. There are many good people who can think and discuss without speaking venomously.
So what you are saying is you will vote for Romney.
How would it be if we used that fear to get behind a candidate who is not Romney? Right now, the Perry supporters are attacking Cain, the Bachmann supporters are attacking Perry, and everyone who isn't for Gingrich is loaded for bear. Perhaps if we refused to accept the inevitability of Romney, we could come to terms with a candidate who maybe wasn't our first choice, but had the fact that he was definitely not Romney going for him/her. In my primary, I'm voting for the frontrunner to upset Romney. I prefer any of them to Mitt.
Thereby illustrating the biggest coup of statism: It will get many self-described conservatives to vote for the things they stand against.
Romney is for: forced acceptance of open homosexuality in the military as well as in civil life; take peaceful actions to reject open homosexuality in either place, and you will be prosecuted.
Romney is for government intrusion into your health care choices and how you arrange them through employers, and how you an employer provide (or not) them to your employees.
Romney buys into the hoax that we can and must gage and manipulate global climate in order to "be responsible," and thereby ENSURES thorough government intrusion, via environmentalism, into both the production and consumption of energy.
Romney has a track record that indicates he'd be no more reliable for a SCJ appointment than any Clinton. It would be a total crap-shoot as to whether he'd appoint a decent judge to uphold the CONSTITUTION.
Some people are so narrowly and fearfully focused on what they want to vote against, that they fail utterly to perceive what they are voting FOR.
A vote for Romney would be a vote for all the things so many of us stand against.
I'll pass.
What I’m saying is that I will vote AGAINST Obama. If all that President Romney accomplishes is that we don’t get another Ruth Ginsberg in SCOTUS, it will have been worth not making some infantile point (that only political geeks will notice) throwing my vote away.
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.