Romney wins Michigan

>>>
It's now difficult to view him as a candidate of anything more than the Evangelicals in the GOP...
>>>

Just now you're thinking this? Oy vey!

Huck should talk to Tom Cruise. Tom could clearly identify the problem, and he is the only one who can truly help.

Seriously though, Romney has seemed less robotic in the primaries. I suspect that some of the Republicans who opposed him on a knee-jerk ideological basis may reconsider soon.

Secondly, the problem with the Republican field is that each candidate has negatives--a certain portion of the traditional Republican vote who will not vote for that candidate for any reason. It is unfortunate, because I don't like what I'm hearing from tonight's Democratic debate.

">>>
It's now difficult to view him as a candidate of anything more than the Evangelicals in the GOP...
>>>

Just now you're thinking this? Oy vey!"

I think it is a tad too early to say that. Huckabee split the Evangelical vote pretty well. JOhn McCain won the evangelical vote by a point in New Hampshire.

THe religion issue is important in some respects. However Mike depends on that a tad more in states like Michigan because he can show up there after ignoring the state and they can moblize themselves.

ON that note a interesting poll and I owuld love to see more about this poll

McCain and Huckabee lead among all Religious voters according to this just released Gallup POll
http://www.gallup.com/poll/103750/Huckabee-McCain-Lead-Among-Highly-Religious-Republicans.aspx

Now notice they did not subdivide or at least do not report that they did according to faith groups. It is by Church attendance. That means Evangelicals, Catholic, Baptist, Anglicans,Methodist, Orthodox etc that attend service once a week

I find that significant.Are we not seeing that in SOuth Carolina now. I doubt McCain is just getting the SOuth Carolina Espicopal vote and the tiny Catholic vote. He is getting a share of Evangelicals too.

I think the poll perhaps shows us that Huckabee is a tad more than Evangelicals. I am trying to find if they asked and subdive3d by faith community now

A win for Romney is a gift to any Democratic nominee.

Look for a brokered convention, a badly divided Republican party and a victory for Barack Obama in November.

Then may God have mercy on this country.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

Amen to the last two comments. If Romney is nominated, it'll be something of a miracle if gets a single vote from any American who is not a) white, b) pro-torture, c) pro-war, d) pro-global warming. If that's the GOP today, the Democrats deserve to retake power for years to come.

Maybe the Democratic convention will also be brokered, divided over Hillary and Barack. And then to the rescue, riding a dark horse, will come ... Al Gore, winning on the third ballot, and picking Obama as his running mate.

Then we'll see Hillary do what Susan Sarandon did at the end of ENCHANTED.

I don't think people should put to much weight on Michigan. You've got to consider the Governor's son factor. The more closely I follow these campaigns the more I realize the votes say a lot more about the demographics of each state than they do about overall electability.

McCain is counting on the heavy current and retired military demographic in SC to help him - along with the pro-life vote.
Huckabee should do well with the strong Baptist/Evangelical demographic and could pull in some of the middle class economy voters.

But both of them are in need of cash. Huck more so. So Romney could ad blitz his way further up into the standings.

What I thought was most interesting about the MI vote was Guliani at 4% last I checked. And that's with a larger Catholic population in MI. I'm not sure you can rebound from 4% and capture the nomination. Debate-able?

to add to the BROKERED CONVENTION comments:
Republican Party Rule 40 allows for the winners of at least FIVE primaries to contend for the nomination...
so...
the updated scorecard...
Romney 2
McCain 1
Huckabee 1
Giuliani 0
Thompson 0
...
it will be most revealing to see who has 5+ wins after Super Tuesday...

vote faith hope love joy peace to all...

I think this just comes to prove Rod's fundamental insight: politics are a fickle and undeserving recipient of cultural conservative's hopes (this is true everywhere, by the way, not just the U.S. ... I speak from experience). Western Civilization's culture wars will be fought out mainly through, well, culture, and it's on that front that no effort must be spared.

quote: "Pro-lifers are being foolish if they expect their candidate to be not only pro-life, but to always have been pro-life. That’s an unreasonable level of purity to expect.
Also, when a lot of “hearts and minds” need to be changed on this issue, why shouldn’t they be pleased when someone “flip-flops” in the right direction? Are we to suspect “inauthenticity” in everyone who changes position on this issue?"

You are right that pro-lifers should be pleased when people change their mind from pro-abortion to pro-life. But in Romney's case said change comes pretty late and after many years as a pro-abortion politician. Consequently, it looks a lot more like political expediency instead of conviction. So the question is, what would a president Romney do when it became politically inexpedient to support the pro-life cause? My fear is that he would bail in a tough fight over Supreme Court appointments and nominate someone like O'Connor, Kennedy or Souter (which would be fine with many pro-business Republicans) instead of Scalia or Thomas.
Republicans have burned pro-lifers in the past, and we have reason to be wary of opportunists.

rr

Look for a brokered convention, a badly divided Republican party and a victory for Barack Obama in November.

Then may God have mercy on this country.

Oh, please. It's true that after 8 years of Bush that we could use some strong leadership in the Oval Office. It's true that after 8 years of crazy, crazy, spending along with irresponsible tax cuts that we could use a person who understands the importance of deficit prevention. But to imply that the country is going to implode if Obama becomes President seems dramatic. He's a lot smarter than Bush. He doesn't seem to be about greed and helping his rich friends to get richer. So, really, whether any of the Democratic and most of the Republican candidates win in 2008, the country will be moving in a better direction.

Also, when a lot of “hearts and minds” need to be changed on this issue, why shouldn’t they be pleased when someone “flip-flops” in the right direction? Are we to suspect “inauthenticity” in everyone who changes position on this issue?

Conservatives want someone who isn't likely to flip-flop back once they've been elected. They want someone who cares about the issue and not someone who will laugh and scoff at them behind their back. I can't think of a single issue where people have been screwed to the extent that the GOP has screwed around with prolifers. Many of these people are single issue voters.

If abortion was my make or break issue, Romney wouldn't get my vote. McCain has a strong voting record that favors the prolife cause. Huckabee is squarely on their side.

quote: "If abortion was my make or break issue, Romney wouldn't get my vote. McCain has a strong voting record that favors the prolife cause. Huckabee is squarely on their side."

Bingo. So why is it that the Republican media establishment is so dead-set against the two most viable pro-life candidates in the race, especially the one (McCain) with the hands-down best chance to win the general election? Simple. They want the votes of social conservatives, but the pro-life cause isn't a big priority for them.

rr

Rod on 1-16-2008 "I had hoped Huck would do a lot better than a distant third. It's now difficult to view him as a candidate of anything more than the Evangelicals in the GOP, given that he hasn't done well in any state where Evangelicals are a relatively small sliver of the electorate."

Rod on 1-3-2008 "If you think Huckabee's only a phenomenon of the religious right, explain those numbers, willya?"

Rod, I take great delight in saying that I (and several others) told you so. You pooh-poohed this idea when you crowed about Huckabee's win in Iowa. But let me remind you of what I and some others said that evening.

----------
60% of the voters identified themselves as Evangelicals/Born Agains. Non-Evangelicals placed Huckabee fourth. He won all those categories because Evangelicals dominate the caucuses.

But Evangelicals aren't going to dominate in New Hampshire or Florida or Michigan or Nevada. When the deck isn't stacked, it will be intersting to see how far his so-called populist appeal will take him.

Posted by: Daniel | January 3, 2008 10:40 PM
----------
Oh please, don't be ridiculous. Romney led among people who said religion isn't that important to them.

Actually that's not what that CNN data says at all. It said Romney led among those people who said that the "Religious Beliefs of Candidate...." wasn't that important to them. In other words: "I'm voting for a President, not a Preacher."

Posted by: jaybird | January 3, 2008 11:27 PM
----------
I can understand how you misinterpret these numbers, Rod. When was the last time you visited Iowa? Ever?

Maybe you should have been at Oak Street Baptist Church a few weeks ago when the pastor started talking about the moral direction of our country. Or at Harmony Bible Church, where the number of Huckabee bumper stickers in the parking lot on Sunday morning is astounding.

Or perhaps you should listen to KAYP, the local AFA affiliate radio station, who has been running story after story about a local anti-Mormon evangelist who released a new book, "When Salt Lake City Calls."

You come to Iowa, spend a few weeks getting to know us, and then tell us what these numbers mean. And compare the numbers with those from the 1988 caucus, the one that put Pat Robertson in second place behind Bob Dole.

The most telling numbers in the CNN poll are the ones about how the caucus attenders felt about President Bush. 68% said they were satisfied or enthusiastic about Bush. Huckabee claimed 72% of these voters. Maybe instead of writing about how Huckabee isn't buoyed by the Christianists, you should be writing about how these numbers do not bode well for him in the general election.

After all, what's 72% of Bush's 32% approval rating? Last place in the general election.

Posted by: ds0490 | January 3, 2008 11:44 PM
----------

That's just a small sampling of folks you disagreed with on the 3rd, but now apparently agree with regarding Huck's base.

Maybe you should refrain from pontificating on what folks in the rest of the country are saying with their votes and simply report on local events from your lofty perch in the ivory towers of the Dallas Morning News.

The Romney camp has only this to say: "ah, ah, ah, ah Stayin' alive, stayin' alive!"