One of the things I've noticed about Mitt Romney is that even though he is doing great in Iowa and New Hampshire, in large part because he's spending a lot of money in those states, he's not really getting much traction elsewhere in the nation.

Not only is Mitt hovering around 10% in general polling, his polling numbers in individual match-ups against the Democrats are horrible! Let me show you what I mean. SurveyUSA is doing head to head polling for the top Democratic and Republican contenders in some of the redder states.

For example, they polled Kentucky, a state that went 60/40 for the GOP in 2004 on...

Giuliani (54%) vs. Obama (36%)
Thompson (54%) vs. Obama (37%)

So, two big wins and then there's Romney...

Romney (45%) vs. Obama (43%)

So, yes, Republican nominee Mitt Romney would even turn Kentucky into a horse race.

But, it's not just Kentucky -- or just Obama who Mitt runs weak against.

In Alabama, a state Bush won by 25 points, here's the breakdown against Hillary,

Giuliani (52%) vs. Clinton (41%)
Thompson (54%) vs. Clinton (41%)
Romney (46%) vs. Clinton (45%)

One of Mitt's selling points is supposed to be that he can go into a handful of key blue states and put them in play. That may be true, but if he's putting states as red as Kentucky and Alabama into play for the Democrats, it's not worth it.

PS: The really scary thing about Mitt is that his strategy is to win New Hampshire and Iowa and then let the momentum of those wins propel him on to victory. This is what Kerry did in 2004 and it's possible that it could work for Mitt, too -- which is a scary prospect because he's so weak nationally. Mitt may be personable and he may be able to raise money, but if he's the nominee, my gut instinct is that he would lose in a landslide because he is just not catching on.