The Romney Paradox

To hear Mitt Romney backers (chief among them Hugh Hewitt) tell it, Romney is the GOP candidate with the best chance to defeat either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the general election. From the time I first heard that Romney was considering throwing his hat in the ring up to and including today, I've never bought this notion of Romney's electability. None of the arguments that Romney supporters (including Hugh and National Review) have made on this matter have given me any reason to doubt my position.

If you point out pesky polls like these from Rasmussen in Pennsylvania:

In the most recent Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely Pennsylvania voters, John McCain leads Hillary Clinton 48% to 42% and Barack Obama 46% to 38%. No other Republican fares so well against the Democratic frontrunners.

Clinton leads Romney 49% to 39% in the Keystone State while Obama leads the former Massachusetts Governor 43% to 38%.

They say that such projected head to head matchups don't matter at this point, that Romney's not well known enough yet.

When you point to other polls that show that 1 Out of 6 Americans Won't Vote for A Mormon President:

Seventeen percent of Americans, including similar proportions of Republicans and Democrats, responded they were unwilling to vote for a Mormon presidential candidate even if the person was "generally well-qualified" for the position, according to The Gallup Poll released Tuesday.

The Dec. 6-9 survey showed that Americans’ opinion on voting for a Mormon candidate for president has changed little since this question was asked by Gallup in 1967.

They decry religious bigotry and say there shouldn't be any religious tests in politics. Well, whether there should be or not, there clearly is for at least 17% of the American electorate.

When you ask them why Romney is the most electable, they usually don't make positive arguments for their man, but point out that John McCain is too old or that Mike Huckabee has too many ethical skeletons in his closet that would damage him in the general election. Points well taken.

However, if that is true, then how do they explain that Romney--the one that we're to believe is the most electable--lost to Huckabee in Iowa and McCain in New Hampshire despite spending millions of dollars and thousands of hours in those states? At some point, doesn't your allegedly electability mean that, you know, you actually have to WIN AN ELECTION!

Hugh has been trying to dismiss this by saying that the only reason McCain won in New Hampshire was because of independents, but that just further weakens the argument that Romney is the most electable in the general election. A Republican who can not get votes from independents (and even a few Democrats) has no chance of winning the Presidency.

Hence the critical question for Romney supporters: if Romney isn't electable in the caucuses and primaries against opponents whose weaknesses you love to point out, why should we believe that he will be any more electable come November against a Democrat who will be riding a wave of change, voter discontent, and overwhelming media support? I'm still waiting for that answer.