Would any other Non-Romney GOP nominee fare better vs Obama than Mitt has?

If it is true that the extreme values turn off everyone else as you say, and the extreme values are held by only what, 20-30% of the national electorate? Then Obama should win this thing with some 70% of the popular vote right?

 

Being black turns off a percentage too

 

I'm not sure - I understand you wouldn't vote for him, but I'm not sure you're really his target audience. I think the Christianity thing could be a problem, but he's very good about speaking of his faith without coming off as crazy, and Democrats attacking his faith is a hard line of attack to make anyway. It would backfire pretty badly with independents, most of whom are Christian. The rest is stuff from fairly long ago - I don't think any of that would stick very well. At the end of the day, Huckabee is extremely likeable and has a lot of the Clintonian "I feel your pain" ability as far as economics go.

He wouldn't have remotely won in 2008, but this economy and national mood completely favors the GOP. Regardless of whether he'd make a good President, Huckabee fits the country's mood extremely well right now, just as Obama did in 2008. There's no real focus on international issues, people don't think either candidate cares much about them, they tend to feel Democrats are failing, etc. But Romney provides a horrible alternative - from an economic standpoint, Huckabee provides a much better conduit for GOP policies. And more importantly, he's extremely likable - and that's one of the most powerful predictors in elections once you clear the "competence" hurdle.

 

How is it that after 10 years and 10,000 posts you haven't contributed a single logical lucid thought to this website.

And what does the amount that Major contributes have anything to do with you?

 

I would have considered voting for Huntsman, I know a lot of people like me would have to.

Huntsman wasn't crazy like all the other Republicans, and unlike Mitt Romney, he had a core set of principles he'd stand up for - he would not cave to his base on everything.

 

While the public buzz was that Obama felt most concerned about facing Huntsman (for all the good reasons already posted here), there are reports that he was actually most concerned by the prospect of facing Huckabee. I would be too. Huckabee is likable, has been a governor, has a folksy quality that you can't put a price on. He has some Clinton to him.

Huntsman turned out to be a very awkward candidate but then he was running in a primary for a party that had made such a sharp turn to the crazy that they barely gave him a podium in those debates. In at least a few, IIRC, he wasn't even allowed on stage.

Ten years ago, five years ago, Huntsman would have been an incredibly strong frontrunner in a GOP primary race. Instead, he's a RINO.

In today's climate, the exact same treatment would have been given to Ronald Reagan, a president that in some areas governed even farther to the left than Obama has.

Those that believe Christie would have been a strong candidate, especially after his very poor performance at the convention, are behind in their reading/news-watching. Americans don't vote for mean people. This will be a problem for Romney as well. He knows what he's against but not what he's for. Americans vote for the most optimistic candidate.... ALWAYS. That is clearly Obama this time and it's not even close.

 

In the history of our country, especially post-founding fathers, the Christianity thing has literally never been a problem and has always been an asset. We haven't had a single president, apart from those early secular humanists, that wasn't a white, male Christian. That is until the last election where we got a black, male Christian.

44 presidents in and the last 40 or so have been Christians. The four before them may have been Christian to some extent as well, though some were certainly not hard-core. It never hurts; it always helps. That's just math and demographics.

 

Certainly true - I don't mean him being Christian. I mean more that his brand of Christianity is more overt than other candidates / Presidents have been. Non-Christians tend to be less comfortable with evangelical Christianity (Huckabee) than less overt Christianity (Obama). I'm not speaking to the merits of either or the rightness of it, but simply stating Huckabee has a long history of statements from his faith that a lot of people could find controversial or use in attack ads.

 

That is certainly true, but only if anyone were willing to run those ads. Would anyone try to do so in a primary, geared heavily toward Evangelicals? And would Obama (or even the PAC's) touch faith issues except in how they relate to policy and, even then, without mentioning faith at all? No. If he was willing to do that, he'd be torching Romney with "I believe Mary was a virgin and you don't. Now who's the 'real' Christian?" Election over. Obama's too much of a gentleman for that.

Romney's campaigning as the pro-God president right now, indicating in no uncertain terms that Obama is anti-God -- going so far as to say he would take the word "God" off our money with absolutely zero support for such a statement.

And yet, as dangerous as it is for Romney to open the door to magic underwear and the rest, Obama won't walk through it.

There's no reason to believe he'd have done so with Huck if he won't do it with Romney. With Mormonism, and its out-of-the-mainstream beliefs, if an anonymous PAC decided to hit Romney on it, Obama might have the greatest landslide since 1972. In fact, he might do even better since McGovern at least won his home state. Romney looks on track to lose both of his.

But even the left-leaning PAC's don't seem willing to capitalize on what should be a baked in advantage for Obama with Christians.

Democrats don't play those low games, which is why we are typically beaten out. It's the same reason the Utah Jazz had so much success -- they were more than willing to cheat. Democrats typically are not. Luckily this time we won't need to in order to win. All we have to do is forcefully point out the GOP's lies -- which comprise pretty much their whole argument -- and we win. Today's Democratic Party seems more than willing to take the fight to them on facts because that is not cheating. That is, as Harry Truman said in response to "Give 'Em Hell, Harry," "I don't have to give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell."

 

great!

And another reason Democrats won't go after Ann Romney the way the right went after Michelle. I've read that some PACs are keeping their powder dry but I hope it's not something they resort too.