Because Romney is a disaster as a nominee. Next. Republicans have to nominate a serious candidate next time.

Neither Article IV Section 2 nor Amendment XIV Section 1 are applicable to the unborn.

No, but the point of this is that the Federal Government sets the criterion for citizenship, not the states. Thus, anything that excludes one class of people from citizenship cannot be decided by the states.

That leaves it up to either the common law or to State law.

It sets the jurisdiction to the Feds, not the states and is an enumerated power. Legal recognition of the unborn can only come from the feds, and rejection of legal recognition can only come from the feds, not the states.

The general election now two days old and Romney has won both days big... momentum building?

Sure, he might lose in Ohio by 7! Amazing.

Because Romney is competent.  If you want government to do more, than Romney is your guy because he is a technocratic machine of efficiency.  If you want government to cost less than Romney is your guy because he isn't a radical ideologue hell bent on spending the country into oblivion.  Understanding that COST has to be weighed against BENEFIT isn't a revolutionary concept, but only one party has shown an ability to acknowledge it... or pass a budget for that matter.

I'm talking liberal indies not conservative indies.

Barring dead boy, live girl, it's over.

So unless a third party runs on the democrat side of the aisle, Romney's done?

Obama will say or do something between now and November that will make you vote for Romney. I guarantee it.

I can guarantee you that I won't be voting for Romney in the general.

All of them.

Romney isn't about to lose MS,TN,AL,OK,KY

Look at how much he had to spend vs Santorum just to achieve his margins. Is Romney going to win when he no longer has 3:1 advantages in spending? No.

I think he'll lose all of these states come October. The only positive news for him has been a university poll showing him up 4 in VA.

Do you really think that Santorum would do better than Romney in general?

Absolutely. Give him actual resources, and not the shoe string and we see what he's actually able to do!

He managed to alienate another group of voters for Republicans(women).

Romney's numbers with women are no different. It's not Santorum who's alienated women.

He doesn't have the funds

Not relevent in the general.

Republicans simply didn't have a candidate who could win this cycle.

Then it behooves the republicans to nominate the candidate who represents the base of the party. Nominating Romney who will lose is simply futile. 

The conservatives will vote for Romney regardless. They are the least rebellious group.

This conservative isn't. He simply doesn't represent me.

Obama's not exactly basking in high popularity himself, though.

At least he correctly identifies his base.

Well said Adam. This election is done.

I didn't realize that Romney's "sky high negatives" guaranteed re-election for Obama in April.

Most challengers have low negatives. Devil you know. Heck, even Bush II would have a better chance in this election than Romney.

Obama is only human

Which is more than Mitt can say.

[This is absurd

Romney has sky high negatives. 51+ percent for the challenger?

Has there ever been a challenger who's won with such sky high negatives?

What state that McCain lost will Romney lose?

North Carolina, where he's down by 6? Colorado, where he's down by 12? Florida? Nevada? You name it, if it's a purple state, he'll lose it.

He'll be lucky to hold onto Utah, Idaho and Wyoming. I'm surprised he's not campaigning out in Montana.  

Mitt 'Goldwater' Romney.

At least we'll finally stop hearing about Goldwater-esque margins when we can have Romney-esque margins.

my reply got ate. *sigh*.

GO READ THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITY CLAUSE. Thank you. Then we can continue discussion.

I don't fit my profile at all in a lot of ways. I listen to news/talk and urban contemporary on the radio; I drive a Toyota; I drink Dr. Pepper, Blue Moon, and Natty Light (at parties, not by choice); I eat (occasionally, at least) at Chick-Fil-A, Domino's, and Cracker Barrel; the only channel I ever watch with any frequency is Comedy Central. Absolutely nothing that applies to me in the "high turnout, Democratic skew" quadrant.

I drive a Toyota. I eat at Little Caesar's the most (the chain I eat at didn't make the list), love watching House and Football, use the internet for all my news, and don't listen to radio at all.

I should be in the high upper right quadrant, but I'm not. I drink mostly root beer, and Shiner, when it's not red wine.

Great, remind me why the base needs to come out and support Romney Lite? The man is a walking gaffe machine.

I wouldn't say a landslide of those proportions is possible, but the candidate is as bad a pick. Santorum was the better candidate.

If he's down by 12 in Colorado, then he's going to keep Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming.

Nebraska, Kansas, South Dakota and Montana are all tossup.

That stuff is probably a bonus in the general.

Not vs Obama, it isn't. Why would a liberal independent prefer Romney's record on Obamacare to Obama?   

This election is gonna be like Goldwater.

This election is O-VAH.

Worst GOP nominee since Goldwater. Think about it

This is something the Santorum campaign has been saying since day one.

Goldwater style landslide coming right up.

an argument that current policies save money doesn't really hold up at all.

I'm not really saying that. All I'm saying is that constitutionally, it's a legal power of the federal government, and I believe that legalization is contrary to the best interests of the US.

It's like the military. Sure, it's going to be a net loss to the budget, but unlike many other things, it's actually constitutional. Cut the unconstutional agencies (like education), and then we'll talk about Customs.