from a political perspective, I dont have a problem voting for a Mormon like Mitt.

[alanmolstad]

[QUOTE=BigJulie;102449]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

This will be interesting to see if you are right. I thought he was considered "in the lead" at the beginning of the primaries in 2008.

Nope....McCain had it from day one....

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Nope....McCain had it from day one....

As I watched the news, they made it sound like McCain was the one who "came from behind" and took the primaries in the eleventh hour. It will be interesting to watch and see if you are right. I have no problem with Romney because I am more moderate myself and not so far-right leaning--but that said, I do really like Santorum (who is more conservative) and think if he matures, he may make a great candidate someday. For getting his feet wet in this one, I think he is doing great.

[alanmolstad]

I believe Mitt has the primary wrapped up and will lead the ticket.
But because he is not in any way shape or form a conservative, I dont expect Mitt to be able to bring the Republican base to himself when it's time to vote for president.

He just lacks any track record of being a true life-long conservative.....and that's going to take all the wind out of the sail for the Republican Party voter.

Obama on the other hand has the ability to rally his supporters to his side.
Right now his poll numbers are bad, but thats only because of all the Republican activity going on that really has no one voice.

Once the Republicans have their man to lead the ticket, then the Liberals will have the 'face' of the team to beat...and they will come on strong to beat Mitt.

I cant predict the future,
I don't know who will actually win the election between Mitt and Obama....
but...
But from what i have seen so far, Obama still has hi liberal strong core voter support,,,,,
and that type of core supportis something Mitt will never have.


So while i would love to believe that Mitt will win.....I actually dont give him more than a 50/50 chance at this stage..

I would have to see who he picks as the VP?

I will give some thought to the national election night and think about what are the first signs of a Mitt victory to look for, or the first sign the Obama will get another 4 years?

[BigJulie]

I thought you might be interested in a bit of news:

Washington (CNN) – A new national survey of Republicans indicates that it's basically all tied up between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich in the race for the GOP presidential nomination, with Gingrich on the rise and businessman Herman Cain falling due to the sexual har***ment allegations he's been facing the past two weeks...

"Not surprisingly, there is a big gender gap on this matter - women say this is a serious matter and believe the women, but men say the story has been over****n and are split on which side they believe," Holland added.

Who knows, maybe someday Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hannidy might get a small understanding of the mind of a woman before they spot off about the "toots" out there being unbelievable.



[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

I believe Mitt has the primary wrapped up and will lead the ticket.
But because he is not in any way shape or form a conservative, I dont expect Mitt to be able to bring the Republican base to himself when it's time to vote for president.

He just lacks any track record of being a true life-long conservative.....and that's going to take all the wind out of the sail for the Republican Party voter.

If the economy is doing fine--yes, you may be right. If the economy is still doing as is--there may be more support for someone who understands economics and how to get a ship sailing again then just "moderates" out there. I know if a strong right won the primaries, I would vote for them as Obama is a mess.

Once the Republicans have their man to lead the ticket, then the Liberals will have the 'face' of the team to beat...and they will come on strong to beat Mitt.

They will, but he is a strong contender where Obama is weak--on the economy.

I cant predict the future,
I don't know who will actually win the election between Mitt and Obama....
but...
But from what i have seen so far, Obama still has hi liberal strong core voter support,,,,,
and that type of core supportis something Mitt will never have.

I agree, but I wonder if it has more to do with his religion than his views on abortion. Which, btw, I thought I was in agreement with my born-again friend until she told me if the life of the mother is at stake--tough, still no abortion. I am not that far right. Nor do I not believe in helping the mentally ill which are usually our indigent population.

Newt is surging right now, btw.

[alanmolstad]

Newt is a loose cannon, so while he keeps his mouth shut he might do well for a while in the polls, the truth is that he is always just one comment away from being out of politics entirely.

[alanmolstad]

Im so happy not to have to deal with all tha Mormon-ism junk on this topic.

I come to this website everyday with the hope that someone started a new topic.

Now it is true that this topic started up there in the Mormon forums...but Jill in her "wisdom" bounced it right down to family values land....

and to tell the truth.....that is for the best.

I have no desire to join in the constant bickering between the saved Christians,and the totally Lost Mormons....I mean lets face it...the same people are saying the same things over and over (it matters not what the topic is)until someone says something so nasty that the topic gets taken down.


I prefer to talk about things that have an ending to them....
The election of the next president actually has a date to it....

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Im so happy not to have to deal with all tha Mormon-ism junk on this topic.

Same here. Refreshing and I really like politics and keeping up on what is going on---so this is somewhat relaxing.

I come to this website everyday with the hope that someone started a new topic.

Now it is true that this topic started up there in the Mormon forums...but Jill in her "wisdom" bounced it right down to family values land....

and to tell the truth.....that is for the best.

I agree or we might have NE or others ranting on here that I am going to go to hell any minute if I don't finally realize the TRUTH!!!

I have no desire to join in the constant bickering between the saved Christians,and the totally Lost Mormons....I mean lets face it...the same people are saying the same things over and over (it matters not what the topic is)until someone says something so nasty that the topic gets taken down.

I agree---I wonder if in 10 years the same people will still be arguing about whether or not we need to be baptized. Sometimes I get frustrated when I can clearly see the accusations are false and jump in---I am trying to resist--really hard!!!

I prefer to talk about things that have an ending to them....
The election of the next president actually has a date to it....

And in the end, we can see if you are prophetic or not!

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Newt is a loose cannon, so while he keeps his mouth shut he might do well for a while in the polls, the truth is that he is always just one comment away from being out of politics entirely.

So, what is your take on people not liking Michelle Buchanan? She seems intelligent and knows her tax stuff well and I think she has some good ideas. Why did she go down in the polls?

And I like some things about Newt---the fact that he is on wife number 3 is not one of them (and they accuse Mormons of being polygamists--sheesh!)

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

So, what is your take on people not liking Michelle Buchanan? ..... Why did she go down in the polls?

The truth is....she was only seen by Republicans as someone worth a look when Sarah Palin was still being talked about.

The moment it became clear to the Republican leadership and base that Sarah was not going to get in, Michelle hit the skids.

Michelle was always....the "alternative".

both Michelle and Sarah have what the other lacks to be taken seriously....

Michelle has no "star quality" about her....she is just a person from a small town who people overlook easy.

Sarah just cant speak with wisdom on any issue.


Michelle works hard on a speech, practices it over and over...does all her home work....and then goes to an event in a large city , where she has allearted the media in advance for the most coverage....

and as she steps out of the buss is greeted by 25 people, and the story in the local news is buried underneath the story of a lost cat..

Sarah on the other hand?
simply canceled a bus stop in the same city and it was the top story for days, and leads to many letters to the editor.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

The truth is....she was only seen by Republicans as someone worth a look when Sarah Palin was still being talked about.

The moment it became clear to the Republican leadership and base that Sarah was not going to get in, Michelle hit the skids.

Michelle was always....the "alternative".

both Michelle and Sarah have what the other lacks to be taken seriously....

Michelle has no "star quality" about her....she is just a person from a small town who people overlook easy.

Sarah just cant speak with wisdom on any issue.


Michelle works hard on a speech, practices it over and over...does all her home work....and then goes to an event in a large city , where she has allearted the media in advance for the most coverage....

and as she steps out of the buss is greeted by 25 people, and the story in the local news is buried underneath the story of a lost cat..

Sarah on the other hand?
simply canceled a bus stop in the same city and it was the top story for days, and leads to many letters to the editor.

I guess Michelle is more steady and the news doesn't like that---nothing to sensationalize.

[alanmolstad]

it was odd the way Sarah was never actually promoting Michelle at all.

I mean think about it....the Republicans have two gals that are in the hunt, and they dont try to use the "sisterhood" approach?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

it was odd the way Sarah was never actually promoting Michelle at all.

I mean think about it....the Republicans have two gals that are in the hunt, and they dont try to use the "sisterhood" approach?

I guess it comes down to if their values match. I am surprised at the diversity listening to the debates---everything to very hawkish, differences in how to handle the budget problems, foreign affairs. You believe that Romney will get the go-ahead. I am not so sure. I was looking at a poll and the number one word Republicans ***ociate with Romney is "Mormon"---they said not "flip-flopper" and not --oh, I can't even think of the other word that they have used repeatedly to slam him. So, as I said, we shall see.

[alanmolstad]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1010133.html

as you can see.....it seems very clear that the conservative republican base does not consider Mitt one of their number.

This means that the idea that just because Mitt goes against Obama it would cause the Conservatives to gather around Mitt is not really based on the facts, rather it is based on the "hope" that the conservatives with act like that.

I just have my doubts.

I doubt that a liberal Mitt will be seen as really all that much better to vote for than Obama...and the moment the Christians and the conservatives start to to look at both Obama and Mitt as being both liberal?....forget it

..that Conservative voter will stay home on election day.

They simply will decide that "it does not matter"...


But that's not going to be the mindset for the liberal voter!
thrust me, the liberal press will paint Mitt into looking like the antichrist, and that will drive the liberal base of the democratic party to the voting booth.

[alanmolstad]

Romney supported abortion

Romney supported civil unions,

Romney supported his ObamaCare-like health plan in M***achusetts, which featured "the mandate" and taxpayer-funded abortions...


So whole a lot of Mormons might be bitter that many Christians have said they would not vote for a Mormon, there is also the cold , hard, fact that Mitt has a lot of liberal ideas that run counter to the ideas of Conservative Christians that have nothing to do with him being a Mormon.

So the fact also is, that Im not sure we will be able to blame his being a Mormon on his loss to Obama.
he just seems to have a lot of ideas that Obama also supports that most Bible-believeing people would find troublesome.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Romney supported abortion

Romney supported civil unions,

Romney supported his ObamaCare-like health plan in M***achusetts, which featured "the mandate" and taxpayer-funded abortions...


So whole a lot of Mormons might be bitter that many Christians have said they would not vote for a Mormon, there is also the cold , hard, fact that Mitt has a lot of liberal ideas that run counter to the ideas of Conservative Christians that have nothing to do with him being a Mormon.

So the fact also is, that Im not sure we will be able to blame his being a Mormon on his loss to Obama.
he just seems to have a lot of ideas that Obama also supports that most Bible-believeing people would find troublesome.

You are still ***uming he will be the front runner. Based on what you said, why?

[alanmolstad]

Yes, he was the front runner at the only moment it counts for Republicans...at the start.

It was at the start where Mitt picked up the needed cash and supporters in the Republican leadership that will take him all the way to win the primary.

For Republicans, you only have to be in front at the start of the race to win it....

Now Mitt can still lose the race to lead the ticket....He can still screw this thing up.

But the fact that every-other week we see a new name rise up to challenge him, only to fall just as fast?...it means that underneath it all Mitt has it wrapped up already.

[alanmolstad]

Now my own views on said issues are these:

Abortion:
While I understand the natural resentment of females to have the government tell them that they cant do something to their own body, I have to yet come down on the issue of abortion on the side of 'life"

This means that I don't really give a rip if the child is the result of rape or incest ....such things are not the fault of the unborn baby,. and so we should not kill a baby for things not the child's fault.

This puts me at the far-right Conservative end on this issue.


Civil unions:
I fully support "civil Unions" of the Gays.
I would call such a binding legal union a "Civil Union" or a "Civil partnership".
These terms would be used to always describe the lawful union of members of the same sex, regardless of gender.

The term "marriage" would always be used to describe a similar lawful union between members of the opposite sex.


Health care:
I would never in a million years require people to carry health care insurance.
However I would work with insurance providers to make whatever changes are needed to lower the price of insurance so that anyone who is smart enough to get it, will be able to.

I would also allow for parents to have the right to sign up their children for a type of insurance (free at first as an important incentive)that would always take a fee from the paycheck of that child until the child is over 18 and cancels it on their own if they want.

This means that for most kids, they would grow up understanding the need for insurance from the start, and would also grow up seeing a little of each paycheck going to pay for their health care insurance....and if they don't cancel it (and most would not because it's too much trouble to go though to cancel it) then they would enter into adulthood used to the idea of always being fully covered under their insurance.

I think in one generation we would see nearly universal insurance coverage of everyone, having been signed up and raised to understand the importance of always haveing good insurance...

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Now my own views on said issues are these:

Abortion:
While I understand the natural resentment of females to have the government tell them that they cant do something to their own body, I have to yet come down on the issue of abortion on the side of 'life"

This means that I don't really give a rip if the child is the result of rape or incest ....such things are not the fault of the unborn baby,. and so we should not kill a baby for things not the child's fault.

This puts me at the far-right Conservative end on this issue.

Interesting. Where I stand puts me somewhere in the middle. While I see and abortion as killing a baby--in our society, we do kill people for certain reasons--self defense being one of them. So, life of the mother is at stake, to me, it is self defense to kill the child. Now, what about rape or incest? For me, the act of rape or incest is an illegal act not only against a person, but also against pro-creation, therefore, I would allow the mother to choose and I would ALWAYS charge the rapest or the person who committed incest with not only those crimes but with murder as well as they committed a crime against life as well. That would take rape and incest to a whole new criminal level which I whole heartedly agree with. Having had children---having a baby is a whole lot more complicated then just holding a baby and popping a baby out--major changes occur to the body that are never overcome. I also look at the mental health of the mother as well as the health of the baby. For standard problems such as Down Syndrome, I would not support abortion, but there are some problems that are so severe that that child is sure not to survive. I know a woman who did not have one of these babies, but two. The first birth was so traumatic and horrible for her that when she found out the second had the same condition, she aborted. Can I sit on my soapbox and tell her it was wrong to abort the baby? No.

So, for me, I come down somewhere in the middle on this issue. I believe murder is wrong---but in some cases, God will ultimately have to decide.

Civil unions:
I fully support "civil Unions" of the Gays.
I would call such a binding legal union a "Civil Union" or a "Civil partnership".
These terms would be used to always describe the lawful union of members of the same sex, regardless of gender.

The term "marriage" would always be used to describe a similar lawful union between members of the opposite sex.

I agree on this. It may sound weird after what I said above, but I believe that "marriage" should always be a safe haven for children as it is the only way God deemed it right to bring a child into the world. I believe that most of our problems in our society center around infidelity both before and after marriage. I believe a child has the best shot of a happy life if they are raised in a happy, loving home with both their mother and their father joined by parents who reverence God who ins***uted marriage. So, on this, I agree.

Health care:
I would never in a million years require people to carry health care insurance.
However I would work with insurance providers to make whatever changes are needed to lower the price of insurance so that anyone who is smart enough to get it, will be able to.

I would also allow for parents to have the right to sign up their children for a type of insurance (free at first as an important incentive)that would always take a fee from the paycheck of that child until the child is over 18 and cancels it on their own if they want.

This means that for most kids, they would grow up understanding the need for insurance from the start, and would also grow up seeing a little of each paycheck going to pay for their health care insurance....and if they don't cancel it (and most would not because it's too much trouble to go though to cancel it) then they would enter into adulthood used to the idea of always being fully covered under their insurance.

I think in one generation we would see nearly universal insurance coverage of everyone, having been signed up and raised to understand the importance of always haveing good insurance...

I like the Swiss system which does require insurance---but everyone only has major medical plus prevention care. You buy it yourself, not your company, and most doctor visits and meds are paid for out of pocket. They do require insurance. I would also require insurance, but allow people to opt out either because they don't want it for religious reasons or they are independently weathly and don't need it.

Here is the problem I see with someone not having insurance. Let's say your child is 30 and iis in a terrible car accident. He is sent to the emergency room for live-saving procedures. Let's say he has no insurance. Right now, the emergency room has to fix him and all the tax payers or other insurers get to foot the bill. This is not right. The option would be to let the hospitals turn down those who do not have insurance and let the person die. Are we okay with this as a society? What if the man is a father? Does society pick up the tag to help his children? So, the only insurance I would require is major medical---with a big deductible like $5,000 or $10,000. Just about anyone can come up with this money even if they have to beg relatives for it. Now, the fact that people can only carry major medical would drive down the costs of both insurance and health care. (If you want to know why, I will explain.)

So here again, I am more moderate.

[alanmolstad]

you just garnish the wadges of people who owe money...case close.
It teaches them an important lesson...People see that happen to the guy down the street and they learn to get good insurance....problem ended.

But this is why I have a bot of trouble supporting Mitt...its the mandate issue...its totally unAmerican.

and to push the required mandate it as Mitt did means that at a very real level, the America Mitt seeks to bring is not the same America I seek to bring to the future.

If during the election i learn that Mitt has made statements that I believe are in support of this type of mandate idea...even on a state level, I will never vote for him...and I would hope he will lose ...

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

you just garnish the wadges of people who owe money...case close.
It teaches them an important lesson...People see that happen to the guy down the street and they learn to get good insurance....problem ended.

But this is why I have a bot of trouble supporting Mitt...its the mandate issue...its totally unAmerican.

and to push the required mandate it as Mitt did means that at a very real level, the America Mitt seeks to bring is not the same America I seek to bring to the future.

If during the election i learn that Mitt has made statements that I believe are in support of this type of mandate idea...even on a state level, I will never vote for him...and I would hope he will lose ...

I also can see the problem with the mandate. The other option is to let people opt out of insurance (sign with understanding) and then allow hospitals and doctors to refuse them services, even in life threatening situations. Here lies the problem though--some life threatening illnesses, if not treated, can do a lot of harm to society--such as with the flu. This was the problem with "typhoid Mary"---Mary didn't get medical care and thereby a lot of people were hurt by it. (TB is another one of those dangerous ones as well as AIDS.)

This is why I give an "opt out" clause for religious reasons or for those who can prove they have enough means to take care of themselves. I am not sure what to do for those who just opt out because they don't want to cover the risk which is often the young as they are too immature to know better.

[alanmolstad]

Its called "freedom"

Back in the day, it used to be worth fighting for...


Now we seem to criticize people who want to be left alone...

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Its called "freedom"

Back in the day, it used to be worth fighting for...


Now we seem to criticize people who want to be left alone...

Yes, but are you willing to let hospitals turn away those who show no ability to pay? If you say yes--then that is total freedom.

[alanmolstad]

as Ron Paul pointed out (And he is the only real doctor in the race so he alone would know about this first-hand)...a hospital will not turn away people that are in trouble..like a accident or something like that.

But this is a free country, and we cant force people to take care of themselves to our standard.

It's up to people to earn money to get stuff they want.

When a person without any money shows up at McDonald's and asks for 3 Big macs a large coke and some fries,,,,does the restaurant have the right to kick them out?

I think so.



When a guy goes into a bar with no money and asks for a beer , does the bar have the right to ask them to go?....

I think so.


This country was not founded on the idea that government knows best, and that everyone must conform to the official "ideal" and they who do not get arrested.


Here's the deal with the Mitt/Obama healthcare mandate....
They will enforce it with the sword of the law.

That means that if you can't prove you have what some bureaucrat thinks is the "correct" type of insurance, they will sic the IRS on your behind....

Soon you will have people put in jail for refusing to get Mitt/Obama healthcare insurance....



Julie , you said that you would want there to always be an allowance for religion so that some may be excused from getting Government approved insurance.

But who says that is a justified reason?

In the end...that's just a decision someone pulled out of thin air.

What if i decide I just don't want to get insurance for my own reasons that i don't feel in the mood to share?
The answer to that is that some bureaucrat will have to decide my fate.

They may decide that I don't have to get insurance,
Or they may turn my name over to the IRS and try to get my money ,
Take my money right from where I work,
or out of my bank account...
They may even show up at my door with their hand out.

and if I still refuse to play along?
If Im not even interested it telling anyone why i dont want to get insurance?
If Im not even interested in addressing the question?

its to jail I go...

I will be booked, photographed...my name might be splashed in the newspaper...My reputation will be harmed.
The more I say "No, I don't want to" the more the government will try to make an example of me.

If I simply refuse to ever get insurance what is the greatest punishment the government has in their bag of tricks?

Long-term jail.

all this could happen in a future with the Mitt/Obama mandate.
and all this could happen and I was never sick a day in my whole life?

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

as Ron Paul pointed out (And he is the only real doctor in the race so he alone would know about this first-hand)...a hospital will not turn away people that are in trouble..like a accident or something like that.

The question I asked is would we be okay as a society to turn people away if they don't have some type of coverage? I think if people are free to refuse insurance, that hospitals should be free or doctors should be free to say no to those who show no way of being able to pay.

But this is a free country, and we cant force people to take care of themselves to our standard.

It's up to people to earn money to get stuff they want.

When a person without any money shows up at McDonald's and asks for 3 Big macs a large coke and some fries,,,,does the restaurant have the right to kick them out?

I think so.



When a guy goes into a bar with no money and asks for a beer , does the bar have the right to ask them to go?....

I think so.


This country was not founded on the idea that government knows best, and that everyone must conform to the official "ideal" and they who do not get arrested.


Here's the deal with the Mitt/Obama healthcare mandate....
They will enforce it with the sword of the law.

That means that if you can't prove you have what some bureaucrat thinks is the "correct" type of insurance, they will sic the IRS on your behind....

Soon you will have people put in jail for refusing to get Mitt/Obama healthcare insurance....



Julie , you said that you would want there to always be an allowance for religion so that some may be excused from getting Government approved insurance.

But who says that is a justified reason?

In the end...that's just a decision someone pulled out of thin air.

What if i decide I just don't want to get insurance for my own reasons that i don't feel in the mood to share?
The answer to that is that some bureaucrat will have to decide my fate.

They may decide that I don't have to get insurance,
Or they may turn my name over to the IRS and try to get my money ,
Take my money right from where I work,
or out of my bank account...
They may even show up at my door with their hand out.

and if I still refuse to play along?
If Im not even interested it telling anyone why i dont want to get insurance?
If Im not even interested in addressing the question?

its to jail I go...

I will be booked, photographed...my name might be splashed in the newspaper...My reputation will be harmed.
The more I say "No, I don't want to" the more the government will try to make an example of me.

If I simply refuse to ever get insurance what is the greatest punishment the government has in their bag of tricks?

Long-term jail.

all this could happen in a future with the Mitt/Obama mandate.
and all this could happen and I was never sick a day in my whole life?

Yes, I see the problem with throwing someone in jail for not having insurance. My question then still is--what do we do with those who are irresponsible and need medical care? Do we just continue to foot the bill? This is the problem we are having right now. How do you pose solving that problem? Are you okay letting doctors or hospitals turn away others even for emergency care? (And one thing I hate about Obamacare is he gives a free p*** to non-citizens while making citizens criminals.)

[alanmolstad]

[QUOTE=BigJulie;103309]

Are you okay letting doctors or hospitals turn away others even for emergency care?

As I said, Ron Paul has pointed out that no hospital will turn away any person who is in trouble.
So any person that has been in an accident will receive care no matter they can pay or not.

But we are not people's mother.

Its not our decision if people want to live healthy or not.

its not our decision if a person wants a nice car, or wants to walk to work.

That decision is up to each one of us, alone.

If I decide that I don't want health insurance, then that is my decision, not yours!

Its none of anyone's business what I spend my money on , or not on.
Its called living in a free country....

Do we really want to start to put people in jail for doing nothing other than refusing to get insurance?..because that is the meaning behind the term "MANDATE"


the idea behind the term "mandate" is that you have to do this...or else.

"Mandate" means enforcement
It means the IRS goes after you..

and if that don't work?
It means the cops are called.

And when the cops knock at your door and you don't get up to answer that knock?
They break it down...


Do we really want the IRS to become seen like the German SS troops, who move in and simply take over a situation where people are guilty of only being different?


A man just wants to be left alone, who has done nothing wrong, will one day hear his front door getting kicked in?
That's Mitt's and Obama's America, not mine!

What government can do is provide for a means for people who wish to get insurance to get the cheapest insurance .

That means that Mitt should have worked hard to lower insurance price, not try to set up some type of Communistic system that robs people of their freedoms.
This is where Mitt went wrong, and this also is the reason Mitt will never be able to count on the Conservative voter.

Obama has his liberal base supporters always ready to go to the polls to vote for him, but Mitt will never have his conservative base supporters ready to vote for him in the same manner.

That is the problem here.

Mitt will always have this problem with his record and conservatives.

Next-
Mitt will never have the Christian base support, not only because he is not Christian (and yes that is a area i struggle to bring to an end), but also because he has a very disturbingly poor record of the core issues close to the hearts of all Christians.

Once again, Obama has a very good record on the same issues with the non-Christian/liberal voter. So once again Obama enjoys a built-in advantage over Mitt that mitt can NEVER equal in depth.

So where does this leave mitt's chances?
Only with the mood of the country against Obama due to the economy.
Thus Mitt has only that one issue to use to gain the support of the middle-of-the-road voter.

The problem with that is that there is a very good chance that a full year from now the economy might have picked up a bit.
Even a slight lowering of unemployment will be held up by the media as proof that Obama's recovery plans are working fine.

So I expect the economy to sorta pick up a bit , at least in the minds of the average voter, and that will take that issue more or less off the table.


This is why i give Mitt about a 50/50 chance if winning the election next year.
Mitt just is not anywhere close to being the best person to go up against Obama from the Republicans side.