[SoConPubbie]

Cain? Perry? Gingrich? Bachmann? Santorum?

Any of those candidates, including Cain, would have done much better than Mr. "Severely Conservative", Mr. finger-in-the-wind, Mr. "I've always been Pro-Life, but I support Abortion in the cases of Incest, Rape, Life, and HEALTH of the mother", Mr. "gays should be in the Boy-Scouts".

Sorry, but Romney didn't represent the base.

When was the last time a candidate that did not represent the base as badly as Romney didn't represent the base of his political party win a national election?

[x]

The "base" is something like 40% of the electorate. You can't win an election by just appealing to the base. Whatever Santorum or Bachmann picked up in the base would have been lost among swing voters.

The same goes for Newt -- even people who liked him usually didn't like him. And both he and Herman Cain had lady problems that most likely made them unelectable.

I'm not saying Romney was a great candidate. Maybe he was unelectable from the start. Maybe he botched it along the way. But none of the others was likely to do any better.

[JSDude1]

I guess that since the looney left are complaining about my realistic comparison it has gotten under their skin, huh?