Well, well, well. Maybe Mittmentum is real after all. Alert commenter JimCaralis points us to a new and troubling development in the blogosphere: a website called “Dems for Mitt” that seeks to become the online gathering place for Democrats who see Mitt Romney as the best choice for the next leader of the free world.
Here’s Harry Keeley, the proprietor, with his take on tonight’s result:
Governor Romney knows that when the economy takes a downturn, a true leader takes the reins! It was Romney’s leadership in promising an engaged government’s help in Michigan that made a difference….
“… Detroit can only thrive if Washington is an engaged partner.”
Romney’s vision of a Washington that “engages” certain sectors of the economy, a Washington that regulates industrial standards and health care was a message Michigan could get behind. We can only hope he reaches out to ailing sectors in the economy all over the country with this message, from agriculture in South Carolina to high-tech in California. President Mitt Romney is with the government, and he’s here to help!!
Keep your eye on this fledgling but potentially crucial movement. If it picks up enough steam, it could significantly alter the dynamics of the election thus far.
…that I predicted the emergence of this ‘phenomenon’ HERE
<
p>What I said was = WHEN Mitt wins, watch for this storyline (Democrats voting for Rommey) to resurface.
<
p>It isn’t Kos, it’s isn’t Dems – it’s Republicans, and they will nominate Mitt, who will win in November.
The astuteness of your analysis of the Willard phenomenon is as extraordinary as the candidate’s own record of achievement here in Massachusetts.
I wondered what happened to her after (s)he lost to Deval…
I kind of like the role he was playing in Michigan.
Pretty soon he will switch to an outright socialist and be competing for Ralph Naders endorsement.
That Mitt has one heck of a future in Hollywood.
Never underestimate the power of positive thinking/speaking. Mitt borrowed the optimism chapter from Reagan’s book. In general, Americans want to feel good about themselves and their / our collective future. Mitt capitalized on this important part of the human psyche in MI. Let’s see if he is able to keep it up. Watch for his opponents, esp. John McCain, to go positive in SC and FLA. Even if some democrats think his auto industry speaches were pandering, I’m not surprised to find that many found it more appealing than the racial twaddle going on in their party.
No blimp today?
Mitt’s positive message can be derived from the new catch phase her repeated over and over during his coronation last night.
<
p>”No they haven’t”
<
p>
<
p>You can always contrast to the Democrats’ message in the Michigan primary: f*** off Michigan.
when quoting me can you at least fix my bad grammar!
About 40% of the voters in Michigan yesterday took a Democratic ballot, despite a completely open primary and an almost uncontested Democratic with no delegates being awarded. Hillary got almost as many votes as Romney and more than McCain, and Uncommitted (D) got almost as many votes as McCain and well ahead of Huckabee.
<
p>
CandidateVotes%
Romney337,84723.1%
Clinton328,15122.5%
McCain257,52117.6%
Uncommitted (D)236,72316.2%
Huckabee139,6999.6%
Paul54,4343.7%
Thompson32,1352.2%
Giuliani24,7061.7%
Kucinich21,7081.5%
Uncommitted (R)17,9711.2%
Dodd3,8530.3%
Hunter2,8230.2%
Gravel2,3630.2%
<
p>I think this was big story: 40% of those who voted cast a protest vote against the Republican field instead of weighing in on those candidates.
<
p>PS: Did any one else notice the front page of the Globe switched Thompson and Paul on the vote percentages?
A fascinating analysis. But let’s look deeper.
MI hasn’t supported the Republican candidate since 1988 when GHWB beat Dukakis 54%/46% (even the Duke got 46%). If we stipulate that only moderately interested individuals and fanatics come out in a primary on a cold snowy day and that the attempts by some to influence ordinarly D voters to vote for Romney at least was balanced off by attempts by the Obama faction to influence voters to go uncommitted, then a 60/40 win for the R’s is pretty good. It’s probably more likely that the D uncommitteds (anybody but Hillary) will go for a republican than any of the R voters would switch to Hillary. Even if it’s not more likely the D side still needs to make up 20% in order to win a state that they have counted on for 20 years. I wouldn’t start cutting the confetti.
Thanks for the blimp.
“Dems for Mitt”<?i>
<
p>anything more than a web site? Anyone can set up a web site. The name of this web site reminds me of the Jews for Jesus web site set up by GWBush supporter Marvin Olasky a few years ago.
“Dems for Mitt”
<
p>anything more than a web site? Anyone can set up a web site. The name of this web site reminds me of the Jews for Jesus web site set up by GWBush supporter Marvin Olasky a few years ago.