Corrected for "the calendar," Mittens running 4-6% better than McCain in 2008

[Torie]

I have not fly specked this article for possible errant assumptions or data, but that is the thesis. Romney isn't as weak as it may appear.

[Likely Voter]

I'm not sure that all adds up. While it is true that with TX, NY and CA all doing late primaries, the race is back-loaded, Romney is still on track to lose more states than McCain. Also Romney's path to the majority mark is a lot tighter than McCain's.  McCain got a majority of delegates while there were still 12 contests to go. Even Romney's people will admit that he isn't likely to be able to do that. His path will likely cross the majority line with only one more contest to go (UT).

[Tender Branson]

Not that it matters because it's Gallup, but:

Romney, Santorum Stir Less Enthusiasm Than McCain Did - Romney generates same level of enthusiasm now as in early 2008

[ajb]

It's also true that getting to the same destination over a longer period of time creates risks of its own. The front-loaded campaign in 2008 gave little time for anyone to have second thoughts; this year's schedule leaves lots of time for that.

[Torie]

It's also true that getting to the same destination over a longer period of time creates risks of its own. The front-loaded campaign in 2008 gave little time for anyone to have second thoughts; this year's schedule leaves lots of time for that.

Indeed. That may have even been touched on in the article, which I speed read through in about 45 seconds.

[Gustaf]

At least one data point is wrong - Romney only got 28% in Tennessee, not 38%.

But, yeah, I think that makes sense. Both Romney and McCain were weak frontrunners.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

At least one data point is wrong - Romney only got 28% in Tennessee, not 38%.

But, yeah, I think that makes sense. Both Romney and McCain were weak frontrunners.

You can't really compare Romney and McCain here. Romney has never not been considered the frontrunner. McCain had made a major comeback to win most of the early states.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Compared to George Bush in 2000, none of these people have been "frontrunners". They have been "quasi-frontrunners" as I have called them, at best.

[Bacon King]

Gustaf is correct that the article gives Romney the wrong percentage in Tennessee; it also probably shouldn't be comparing Wyoming 2008 (just county GOP leaders picking delegates) with Wyoming 2012 (it included a straw poll this time).

Excluding those two, it's worth noting that out of the nine states listed where Romney 2012 beat McCain's 2008 vote share, Romney reduced his own portion of the vote share between 2008 and 2012 in four of those states. And among the five states where he performed better than both himself and McCain did in 2008, he hasn't won more delegates from any of them this cycle than the he or McCain did last time (i.e., whichever of the two got more delegates from each state in 2008, not their combined total).

[BigSkyBob]

The problem is that McCain had a very weak challenger: Mitt Romney.

[J. J.]

At least one data point is wrong - Romney only got 28% in Tennessee, not 38%.

But, yeah, I think that makes sense. Both Romney and McCain were weak frontrunners.

You can't really compare Romney and McCain here. Romney has never not been considered the frontrunner. McCain had made a major comeback to win most of the early states.

I think that going into NH, Romney was considered the frontrunner in reality.  After NH, he lost that status.

[Bacon King]

At least one data point is wrong - Romney only got 28% in Tennessee, not 38%.

But, yeah, I think that makes sense. Both Romney and McCain were weak frontrunners.

You can't really compare Romney and McCain here. Romney has never not been considered the frontrunner. McCain had made a major comeback to win most of the early states.

I think that going into NH, Romney was considered the frontrunner in reality.  After NH, he lost that status.

Giuliani was the frontrunner before McCain. Romney was actually polling fourth place nationally throughout the first two weeks of 2008 (source)

[The Professor]

Romney isn't as weak as it may appear.

You would very much like that to be true, wouldn't you? After all, you have hitched your wagon to this guy. Unfortunately, life isn't all smiles and sunshine. When you finally go out into the real world, you will find this out for firsthand. It's a dog-eat-dog world and the sooner you come to understand this, the better.

[Mr. Morden]

At least one data point is wrong - Romney only got 28% in Tennessee, not 38%.

But, yeah, I think that makes sense. Both Romney and McCain were weak frontrunners.

You can't really compare Romney and McCain here. Romney has never not been considered the frontrunner. McCain had made a major comeback to win most of the early states.

I think that going into NH, Romney was considered the frontrunner in reality.  After NH, he lost that status.

Giuliani was the frontrunner before McCain. Romney was actually polling fourth place nationally throughout the first two weeks of 2008 (source)

Depends on what you mean by "frontrunner".  For people who actually believed that national polls could predict the winner, Giuliani was the frontrunner.  But people who thought that the early states would be decisive regarded Romney as the frontrunner.  Romney was the consensus favorite here on Atlas throughout the second half of 2007:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=67110.0

[J. J.]

At least one data point is wrong - Romney only got 28% in Tennessee, not 38%.

But, yeah, I think that makes sense. Both Romney and McCain were weak frontrunners.

You can't really compare Romney and McCain here. Romney has never not been considered the frontrunner. McCain had made a major comeback to win most of the early states.

I think that going into NH, Romney was considered the frontrunner in reality.  After NH, he lost that status.

Giuliani was the frontrunner before McCain. Romney was actually polling fourth place nationally throughout the first two weeks of 2008 (source)

Romney was fairly study in IA, with Giuliani and McCain sliding:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_Republican_caucuses,_2008

The winner there was Huckabee, but it was reasonably close, and Romney ran a strong second (though not as strong as 2012).

In the last polls before NH, McCain was ahead in most, but usually by 1-2%.  The margin 6.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Republican_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries,_2008#New_Hampshire  Rudy hadn't led there since 2/2007.

[Wisconsin+17]

I think this is a pretty clear sign that Mitt Romney is a very weak presidential nominee.

[J. J.]

I think this is a pretty clear sign that Mitt Romney is a very weak presidential nominee.

Which you could say about Obama 2008, Clinton 1992, and Reagan 1980.

[minionofmidas]

Clinton, duh. The others, not really.

[J. J.]

Clinton, duh. The others, not really.

This thing was still ongoing in 2008, on the D side.

Bush was still winning in places in late April of 1980.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Clinton, duh. The others, not really.

This thing was still ongoing in 2008, on the D side.

Bush was still winning in places in late April of 1980.

Obama was an upstart facing the juggernaut of a dynasty.

Romney instead can't put away a bunch of clowns and has-beens.

[J. J.]

Clinton, duh. The others, not really.

This thing was still ongoing in 2008, on the D side.

Bush was still winning in places in late April of 1980.

Obama was an upstart facing the juggernaut of a dynasty.

Romney instead can't put away a bunch of clowns and has-beens.

The spouse of a president that never had a majority is not a "dynasty."

The arguments you make make for Romney being weak are the same ones you can make for the "weak" Reagan (1980), Clinton (1992), and Obama (2008). 

Further, Dole (1996), Gore (2000), and McCain (2008) all had stronger primary performances than any of these three.  Arguably, Dukakis's 1988 primary performance was better than any Reagan (1980), Clinton (1992), and Obama (2008).

[Torie]

Romney isn't as weak as it may appear.

You would very much like that to be true, wouldn't you? After all, you have hitched your wagon to this guy. Unfortunately, life isn't all smiles and sunshine. When you finally go out into the real world, you will find this out for firsthand. It's a dog-eat-dog world and the sooner you come to understand this, the better.

Yes, when I grow up, I fear that I will find out that things are not always the way I want them to be. I hope I can cope with it all. Wish me luck.

[Nichlemn]

The same people who say "Romney is so weak he can't beat Santorum" are often the same people who say "The Republican Party is full of nutters". If Republicans are really all nutters, then the fact a relatively "sane" Republican is actually leading a "nutter" should be testament to the former's strength.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The spouse of a president that never had a majority is not a "dynasty."

LOL, you're such a tool that it's no wonder why you have such a massive hard-on for Mittens.

[J. J.]

The spouse of a president that never had a majority is not a "dynasty."

LOL, you're such a tool that it's no wonder why you have such a massive hard-on for Mittens.

2. A family or group that maintains power for several generations: a political dynasty controlling the state.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dynasty

Where are all those generations of Clintons or Rodhams holding public office?