Nomination May Now Be Rommey's To Lose

As one of, if not the first to predict Huckabee's rise after a previous debate, I predict Romney won Florida tonight and several other contributing factors may now make this his race to win, or lose. And potentially well before the convention. Post debate Intrade for Florida: Romney up 20, McCain down 14, Rudy down 7.

The MSNBC moderators put the focus on Romney late in the debate with hard questions. And to go along with his obvious early command on economic issues, Romney shined. That's what voters newly tuning in will take away.

National polls and even large-state polls leading up to Super Tuesday reflect coverage and recent wins, more than they do the evaluation of the candidates. And Romney is a candidate many February 5 states have yet to genuinely meet, as it were. New York, California, and even Southern and Mid-Western states with large urban, ex-urban and suburban populations will not be put off by Romney's wealth, hair and looks, crisp white shirts, or suits, the way some voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina may have been.

If he wins Florida, as I suspect he now will, he will have won four states and hold significantly more delegates than anyone else in the race. That will lead to his being seen and reported on as the first genuine front-runner in what has been a tumultuous race.

There may yet be delegate fights. Huckabee could capture a good number in the South. Or if Rudy folds after Florida and, God forbid, throws in with McCain in an attempt to secure control of the process for the GOP's moderate wing, this could still be in doubt.

But, barring that, or a major mis-step, with enough money to advertise broadly, as well as strategically, going into February 5 - by next Tuesday night, this thing could easily be Romney's to win, or lose. And in shorter order than one might think. The house of cards primary we've been observing too long, could easily collapse under the weight of serious momentum and fall right into Mitt Romney's lap.

Comments

[jkatl]

Anybody who saw even a small portion of the debate tonight and still thinks Mccain has the best shot to knock of Hillary is completely off their rocker. Romney, in my opinion hit several balls out of the park tonight. He has complete command of the issues and is already chomping at the bit to go mano y woman aganst Hillary. I'd be shocked if he didn't beat mccain in florida by 5,6,7 points plus.

[Aye Chihuahua]

Yes, Romney did it last night.

Without a doubt he is the only one on that stage last night who can win in November.

If it weren't for his mandated health care history in MA, I would have no doubts at all. Unfortunately, almost all of them are in that rut.

[templar knight]

Let me see, mandated health care, pro gay marriage, pro abortion rights and several other liberal positions taken by Romney in Massachusettes give me very little comfort that he has a clue what conservatism is. He's a wolf in sheep's clothing, a stealth liberal, whatever you want to call him. He'll not get my vote, ever.

[Kaitian]

Uhh shut the fuck up templar knight.

You've been here constantly trying to bash the real conservatives on Dan's site and pretending to be a conservative. I'm calling you out as a Democrat supporter trying to derail us from supporting Romney. We here all know Romney's record unlike you. You've been recycling that garbage everytime I see you here. We are not convinced by your asinine stupidity.

Mandated Healthcare is false: He actually made it law for every citizen in the state of Massachusetts to buy healthcare or face penalty. It doesn't provide state heathcare to the citizens at all.

Pro-Gay Marriage is false: He testified at the Marriage Amendment meeting when it was being discussed for the constitution.
http://hatch.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.View&PressRelease_id=1104
It wasn't the Commonwealth or the Governor that allowed gay marriage temporarily. It was the court system that authorized it in the same fashion as the SCOTUS did with Roe v Wade. Making laws as they go along.

Pro-Abortion Rights is false: The Commonwealth Healthboard was the one that decided in the terms of Romneycare on how much services would cost across the state. Not Romney. The 50 dollar abortion that was supposed to be credit to him was actually this commission.

Other liberal positions like gun control? He actually does not support anymore new laws regarding gun control. If Congress puts through a bill to the Presidency of the United States, he will sign it but at this point, there's not even a chance a similar AWB cosmetic ban will ever come to life.

Get the fuck out.

[Chris]

Hahaha. They're turning on each other!! Great stuff!

[serfer62]

Romney should be the best choice if only for his economic history. Duncan as VP would reenforce conservatives...

[templar knight]

I'll tell you what, Katyboy, when you own this blog you may tell me to, "Get the fuck out." You Mormon flakes are all over the internet shilling for Mittens, which is fine, I could care less, but you're an idiot, very much in the same vein as chris/HairyBob. I have the right to my opinion, if you don't like it, don't read my comments. Idiot!

[Kaitian]

Uhh, mormon? Say what now? Now that you've shown your colors that you're holding it against Mitt Romney because he's mormon. Thanks for proving to me that you're a Huckabee supporter.

[Fred Beloit]

OK Kait, mandated health insurance not health care. You like that better. I don't like it any better. Ever hear of the "takings clause" of the Constitution?

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use[,] without just compensation."

Taking people's money for public use seems to fit in here. Now will come the lawyers telling us how the clause actually means the government can take money for public use without just compensation.