"Romney's 2003 comments to religious leaders. According to the Los Angeles Times on March 25, 2007, Romney said he was "terrified" about "warming" and found it "quite alarming."
Posted on 02/09/2012 7:31:23 AM PST by Colofornian
Mitt Romney never has bad hair days, but yesterday was truly a bad political one. How bad? Consider this:
• Romney did not win a single county in either Missouri or Minnesota.
• He won the Minnesota caucus by 19 points in 2008, but finished third last night—28 points behind Santorum.
• He won nearly 30 percent of the Missouri vote in 2008 in a tight three-man race, but won only 25 percent last night in a race with only one opponent whom the national media had given up for dead.
• He won the Colorado caucus by over 40 points in 2008, but lost it last night by six.
Indeed, it was so bad that the only Colorado counties Romney carried by ten points or more were those with or bordering Denver’s Mormon temple (Arapahoe and Douglas), had strong Mormon populations (Conejos—41 percent LDS; Alamosa—12 percent LDS; Moffat—21 percent LDS); or contained ski resort towns (Pitkin—Aspen; Eagle—Vail; Summit—Breckenridge; Routt—Steamboat Springs).
Skiers and Mormons—not the shape of a winning coalition.
Yup. Romney's a non-viable candidate -- a loser who will only nab wasted votes even if he won the nomination.
He's 1-17 in races outside his "home turf." Caucuses? 5-16 outside his home turf.
He's lost at least three open primary races in the Midwest, the East, the South, and the West.
In 2012, the Midwest has especially become Romney's "Bermuda Triangle" -- losing in Minnesota to the North; Iowa and Missouri to an eastern edge...and Colorado to the West.
From the article: • He won the Minnesota caucus by 19 points in 2008, but finished third last night—28 points behind Santorum. • He won nearly 30 percent of the Missouri vote in 2008 in a tight three-man race, but won only 25 percent last night in a race with only one opponent whom the national media had given up for dead. • He won the Colorado caucus by over 40 points in 2008, but lost it last night by six.
Romney is sinking fast!
Yep..............let’s surely hope this trend continues on a downward spiral for the Mittster.............
LOL, we’re just not that into you, Willard!
Douglas County is strong lds, there must be a ward on every corner, weird and they are all identical. The lawns do look nice though.
"Romney's 2003 comments to religious leaders. According to the Los Angeles Times on March 25, 2007, Romney said he was "terrified" about "warming" and found it "quite alarming."
So aside from three heavy Mormon counties...wealthy Romney could only fair well among the wealthiest RINO repubs...ski towns with the wealthiest's part-time the "establishment" GOP's ski condos.
Douglas County is strong lds, there must be a ward on every corner, weird and they are all identical. The lawns do look nice though [svcw]
Douglas Co. is one of the wealthiest in the nation...perhaps in the top 3 or 4.
So...Romney has a coalition of...
...the wealthiest voters...
...Mormons, who are only 1.7% of the population and can only help Mitt in Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, and Arizona [the Lds Nevada vote will get diluded in a general election]
...and Muslims {see Mormonism: What the Latter Day Saints think of Islam [Indicator of how Mitt perceives Islam?]}
Other than that, he would lose 90-95% of blacks, Jews, Native Americans, and the poor; plus the overwhelming majority of liberals, Evangelicals, pro-life Catholics, and Hispanics, plus hefty chunks of broader Protestants and Independents.
And this is who the GOP wants to dump on us and America at-large?
I do NOT want to see any more FR posts claiming that "mormons are the most conservative voters." Romney is anything but conservative, but religion comes before country to 80-98% of mormon voters, obviously.
Agreed 100%.
If harry reid switched parties & ran for POTUS...we'd see the same thing...88% to 95% of Mormons voting for reid...
After (& even just before) the Nevada caucus, we finally saw more MSM articles dealing with Romney's lockstep Mormon vote.
What we didn't have is columns condemning Mormons for voting with such extreme "identity politics."
I say, hey Mormons can vote with whatever criteria they wish to use...it is, after all, a free republic.
What I don't like is the outright MSM hypocrisy.
How is the MSM hypocritical in this way?
2 ways...
(1) Some of the MSM are pretty free (as are plenty of FREEPERS) in tossing out the "B" word (bigotry).
They believe it's "bigoted" to vote primarily (or only) on the basis of religious considerations. Well, IF that's the case, why the AWOL nature of their similar castigations of Mormons for voting primarily (or only) on the basis of religious considerations?
Can you say these "bigot-focused" commentators are hypocritical, two-faced, double-standard in their labels?
(2) If 88% to 95% of Catholics in a given state voted for Santorum, you'd never hear the end of that from the MSM! They would literally howl before the moon and every other nightlight re: such extreme identity politics. Yet, most MSM outlets give Mormons a free pass...and those that do mention it don't assign any negative component to it in columns.
For now...
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.