OK has anyone noticed Romney's tendency to be so bad at winning elections?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

MO: Doesn't mean anything, but remember how Politico was talking about how his "big" win here would give more momentum? Collapsed terribly for basically no reason.

And the next second after Santorum win there, Politico started to claim Missouri doesn't matter.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Also:

1994: That was the only chance in lifetime for the GOP to beat Ted Kennedy, who was really vulnerable (due to personal issues as well as nationwide climate). Mittens managed to transform a tossup into his own double-digit loss and Kennedy was the first to show how vulnerable Mittens is to negative campaign.

2002: OK, he won, but when compared to victories of Weld or Cellucci, that was small.

2006: After spending last two years on running for President and alienating almost everyone in Massachusetts, the great candidate Mittens just bows out.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Romney has lost just as many races in his lifetime as Reagan did: Two.

And Reagan won his two California races, each time with good margin.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'm not a fan of him, but comparing him to Mittens is really insulting toward Reagan's memory.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Santorum lost by 40 points to a guy who is balding but less bald than Homer Simpson. I will give you that.

Yeah...

Let's see...

58.6% to 41.3%

You call that "40 points?"

But hey, that can't be bad. After all, it's roughly the same margin Mitt lost to Kennedy in 1994