The Romney elect-ability myth

John Hawkins:

Mitt Romney was a moderate governor in Massachusetts with an unimpressive record of governance, who left office with an approval rating in the thirties, and whose signature achievement was a Hurricane Katrina style disaster for the state. Since that's the case, it's fair to ask what a Republican who's not conservative and can't even carry his own state brings to the table for GOP primary voters. The answer is always the same; Mitt Romney is supposed to be "the most electable" candidate. This is a baffling argument because many people just seem to assume it's true, despite the plethora of evidence to the contrary.

1) People just don't like Mitt Romney: The entire GOP primary process so far has consisted of Republican voters desperately trying to find an alternative to Mitt Romney. Doesn't it say something that GOP primary voters have, at one time or another, preferred Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and now even Ron Paul (In Iowa) to Mitt Romney?

To some people, this is a plus. They think that if conservatives don't like Mitt Romney, that means moderates will like him. This misunderstands how the process of attracting independent voters works in a presidential race. While it's true the swayable moderates don't want to support a candidate they view as an extremist, they also don't just automatically gravitate towards the most "moderate" candidate. To the contrary, independent voters tend to be moved by the excitement of the candidate's base (See John McCain vs. Barack Obama for an example of how this works). This is how a very conservative candidate like Ronald Reagan could win landslide victories. He avoided being labeled an extremist as Goldwater was, yet his supporters were incredibly enthusiastic and moderates responded to it.

Let's be perfectly honest; Mitt Romney excites no one except for Mormons, political consultants, andJennifer Rubin. To everybody else, Mitt Romney vs. Barack Obama is a "lesser of two evils" election where we'll grudgingly back Mitt because we won't lose as badly with him in the White House as we would with Obama. That's not the sort of thing that gets anyone fired up to make phone calls, canvass neighborhoods, or even put up "I heart Mitt" signs in their yards.

2) He's a proven political loser: There's a reason Mitt Romney has been able to say that he's "not career politician." It's because he's not very good at politics. He lost to Ted Kennedy in 1994. Although he did win the governorship of Massachussetts in 2002, he did it without cracking 50% of vote. Worse yet, he left office as the 48th most popular governor in America and would have lost if he had run again in 2006. Then, to top that off, he failed to capture the GOP nomination in 2008. This time around, despite having almost every advantage over what many people consider to be a weak field of candidates, Romney is still desperately struggling. Choosing Romney as the GOP nominee after running up that sort of track record would be like promoting a first baseman hitting .225 in AAA to the majors.

3) He'll run weak in the Southern States....

 4) All of Mitt's primary advantages disappear in a general election....

...

 7) He's a flip-flopper....

...

I think he will be a weak candidate trying to win with only the enthusiasm of 25 percent of Republicans most of whom make up the GOP establishment.  There is little bold or reassuring about Romney for conservatives looking to change the course in Washington.