McCain/Romney 08

Well wouldn't they panic at the thought of Obama's victory and just grimly vote for McCain/Romney anyway? BTW, what about McCain/Pawlenty?

For a lot of southern white evangelical Protestants, voting for a Mormon is the same as voting for the Devil. At least "Barack the Magic Negro" is a real Christian :rolleyes:...
 
Originally Posted by Jon0815
No, electoral math.
Utah only has five EVs.
Whereas, the only such state where his Mormonism might have been a significant net minus was
Any state where the majority is non-Mormon Christian.
But how much of the Evengelicals would actually vote against Republicans.
They wouldn't GOTV or vote. Obama wouldn't gain many votes, but McCain would have lost many.
 
It's worth pointing out that a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll found that 37% of voters said they would never vote for a Mormon. Would that have actually been the case? I doubt it. But I think you'd have to be exceedingly creative to think that Romney's religious affiliation would be a net plus. Personally I think it would have had little effect either way.

I'm not sure why people are talking about Nevada as a swing state - Obama stomped McCain in Nevada by over 12%. The collapse in property hit Vegas etc very hard - Obama's margin in Clark County was about 20% IIRC. So unless Romney turns out to be a miraculously good candidate, either at the top or bottom of the ticket, whatever he picks up in the West is not going to have any signifigance. (Aren't Mormons overwhelmingly Republican voters anyway?)
 
Last edited:
Okay, let's just take a step back, and observe what Romney brings to the ticket, both in positives and negatives. Broadly speaking, it looks something like this:

Strengths:
1. Moderate Republican can strengthen McCain's maverick message and appeal to moderates.
2. Economic background might give him some credibility on that subject.
3. Appeals to Mormons, possibly compensating for the republican's failures in that arena.

Weaknesses:
1. Has supported positions at odds with much of the republican party.
2. Mormonism is a problem with evangelicals who form a major republican constituency.
3. Disliked by large segments of the Republican party establishment to some degree.
4. Has little resonance with the Republican party base, or really much of a core of support in the party at all.

So, what does this mean for the election:

1. Mormons will vote even more strongly republican, but given that they do so already there would not be much change from this.
2. McCain would be hurt among the right wing, religious conservatives in particular. Expect far more to stay home or vote third party than IOTL.
3. McCain can act more convincingly like a maverick, but arguing that he represents change will be nearly impossible.

In short, McCain may do a little bit better out west, but probably not enough to swing any states. Meanwhile, his own party will grow disillusioned and, with a weak turnout, lose more convincingly in battleground states. Expect the Republican party to swing far to the right come 2012 (Palin, Jindal, Huckabee, somebody like that).

Honestly, I think that McCain did about as well as you could realisitclly have a republican manage. There just isn't any way to swing things decisivly in his favour without losing somewhere else, unless the entire dynamics of the race change. About the only VP choice that could make a difference would probably be a Pawlenty figure, and I wonder if even that would be enough.
 
Honestly, I think that McCain did about as well as you could realisitclly have a republican manage.

This I strongly disagree with. As VP, I don't think Romney would have made much difference, he'd have been either a slight negative or slight positive relative to OTL. But Romney would almost certainly have been a much stronger candidate than McCain at the top of the ticket (even if he would have been a drag at the bottom of the ticket) for the following reasons:

1) Romney would not have been outspent 3-1 like McCain was

2) Romney would have been much harder to link to Bush

3) The GOP base hated McCain for his liberal stands on immigration, global warming, etc, whereas the base was lukewarm about Romney, so there would have been stronger base turnout.

4) Romney would have almost certainly done much better against Obama in the debates.

5) Romney would not have been hurt as badly by the financial meltdown- in fact he might even have been helped by it, since he was clearly much more qualified to deal with the economy than Obama.

6) Romney would generally have waged a tougher campaign- he would not have shied away from bringing up Rev. Wright, and would have brought up Ayers much earlier when it didn't seem like a desperation move.

Etc...

About the only VP choice that could make a difference would probably be a Pawlenty figure, and I wonder if even that would be enough.
Pawlenty would have been a dud- didn't offend anyone but didn't excite anyone either.
 
Top