SurveyUSA has released a 16 state poll which pitted Fred Thompson versus the Democratic “Big Three”.
To assert that this poll has any predictive value at this point as to what would actually occur in these potential 2008 match-ups would be absurd. However, I do think it has value in terms of FDT representing a “Generic (R)”, so perhaps we can use this study to gauge the current mood of in certain parts of the U.S. on the Republican Party generally.
It is interesting to note, however, the who and where of FDT’s victories in this poll.
SurveyUSA 16 State Fred Thompson vs. Democratic “Big Three” General Election Poll, conducted April 13th-15th, 2007
Kentucky
- Clinton 53% – Thompson 40%
- Edwards 56% -Thompson 34%
- Thompson 48% – Obama 42%
Texas
- Clinton 49% – Thompson 43%
- Edwards 49% – Thompson 38%
- Thompson 46% – Obama 42%
Ohio
- Clinton 53% – Thompson 38%
- Edwards 57% – Thompson 33%
- Thompson 43% – Obama 43%
Missouri
- Clinton 49% – Thompson 41%
- Edwards 53% – Thompson 32%
- Obama 47% – Thompson 41%
Iowa
- Clinton 46% – Thompson 44%
- Edwards 58% – Thompson 35%
- Obama 51% – Thompson 41%
New Mexico
- Clinton 51% – Thompson 41%
- Edwards 52% – Thompson 34%
- Obama 47% – Thompson 40%
Kansas
- Thompson 49% – Clinton 42%
- Edwards 50% – Thompson 37%
- Obama 46% – Thompson 42%
Virginia
- Thompson 47% – Clinton 43%
- Edwards 48% – Thompson 38%
- Thompson 46% – Obama 40%
Alabama
- Thompson 49% – Clinton 44%
- Thompson 44% – Edwards 42%
- Thompson 53% – Obama 37%
New York
- Clinton 64% – Thompson 30%
- Edwards 59% – Thompson 29%
- Obama 50% – Thompson 38%
Wisconsin
- Clinton 46% – Thompson 43%
- Edwards 50% – Thompson 37%
- Obama 45% – Thompson 42%
Minnesota
- Clinton 53% – Thompson 37%
- Edwards 56% – Thompson 32%
- Obama 48% – Thompson 40%
Massachusetts
- Clinton 60% – Thompson 31%
- Edwards 61% – Thompson 25%
- Obama 48% – Thompson 37%
California
- Clinton 57% – Thompson 36%
- Edwards 54% – Thompson 31%
- Obama 53% – Thompson 36%
Washington
- Clinton 54% – Thompson 37%
- Edwards 57% – Thompson 32%
- Obama 53% – Thompson 37%
Oregon
- Clinton 48% – Thompson 41%
- Edwards 49% – Thompson 34%
- Obama 50% – Thompson 36%
So let’s start by throwing out states in this poll where the GOP and Democratic Parties could nominate a German Shepherd to the top of their ticket and still emerge victorious: New York, Alabama, and Massachusetts.
When you review the performance of FDT (who I am assuming represents just a “Generic (R)” at this point), it is easy to see why Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer are so optimistic on the Democratic Party’s future prospects.
FDT only wins in Kentucky, Virginia, and Texas versus Obama. He loses to HRC and Edwards in TX, MO, VA, and KY. He loses to everyone in MO and KS.
Now people may argue that name ID plays a factor here. But that can cut both ways… After all, part of FDT’s appeal is supposed to be his high-profile as a network TV star.
And of course the whole world can change between now and November 2008. But this is very likely an accurate snapshot as to where the Republican Party stands today in the estimation of American voters.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Not on topic… but here is a new Rudy video… I’m very happy he is finally clearing this up. I agree with him 100%.
http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/politics/2007/05/10/sot.giuliani.abortion.waay
May 10th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
If I recall, Giuliani had numbers similar to Thompson’s before he finally got into the race. He then bolted to the lead.
So who knows what will happen if and when Thompson finally decides to get in.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
I’m not aware of any polls like that marK. In tracking these numbers for the past year, I recall that both Rudy and McCain consistently lead all Dem challengers until around the midterms (Foleygate). Since then, Rudy’s has been the candidate with the most consistent strength.
Do you have any links we could look at?
May 10th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
On Thompson,
I like the idea that – atthis point in the race – F. Thompson could represent a “generic (R)” in the mind of voters. I also think it may show that a Thompson candidacy (or any other “generic R”) could carry the South, but a lot non-southern states. And sorry to get on my soapbox here, but…If pick a candidate aimed at wining the conservative South, then thats exactly what we’ll win: the South, probably not the whole south, and NOTHING BUT the South. Now, I think we need a good, solid Republican nominee who will fight for conservative causes when the chips are down, but I also think that we need to notice the fact that the general electorate is tired of “generic Rs” who have been using generally the same rhetoric since 1994.
On the Rudy video,
I may not agree with his stance, but I’m glad that e is working to clarify it.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=0b25cb59-16e6-474b-a13f-202258315d2a
Rudy leads all comers in Conn….This is where rolling back the top rate tax cuts hurts dems the most with a lot of upper middleclass voters. According to Focus groups in 2004 a lot of voters did not come home to Kerry to the end over the issue.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Those numbers really spell one thing: Beware of John Edwards.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
First off, I like seeing polls even if they offer little towards being able to predict results. I know this is off topic, but can we please talk about substantive politics. I am tired of all the negative nonsense about the past. It does matter, but I think it shouldn’t be the focus of how we elect someone.
Who has the best immigration plan? Who has the best plan to fix Social Security and Medicare? What will each of the candiates do about China and the rest of Asia? What about energy policy? How about the trade deficit? How long until the budget will be balanced? What will they do if the surge doesn’t work? How will they handle Iran? What can you do to fix the education system? What will you do to fix/simplify the tax code?
These are the issues that people care about. In addition to making sure we have seen all of our candidates skeletons how about we let them (or make them) put for ideas about all of these issues.
Even if we do talk about past issues let them be substantive. For example did Rudy “balance” NYC’s budget by issuing debt? If he did, as has been reported here, is that how he would govern as President or would balancing the budget be a much higher priority for him?
There are so many issues like this that we could never finish them between now and election day, but for some reason we are focusing on the negative and the past.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200705u/giuliani-new-jersey
Also NJ may be heading too a winner take all format, meaning Rudy will be able to spend money us where.
May 10th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
This makes it very clear that Fred loses and loses big.
More importantly, there is nothing to indicate that Fred has what it takes to turn these numbers around.
It is going to be very difficult for any generic GOP candidate to compete in this tough political environment.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
I agree about Edwards, I’ve very surprised by the Dems. Hillary usually wins in the Dem polls but Edwards almost always comes out on top when the voters are mixed. Seems like the Dems should be taking him a lot more seriously instead of focusing on on Clinton/Obama razzledazzle.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
These polls are pretty worthless at this point:
Brown University Poll from September, 1999
Bush 32% vs. Gore 34%
Bush 26% vs. Bradley 37%
http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Taubman_Center/polls/heard92999.html
Can Gore Beat Bush?
Another possible reason that Democrats are moving away from Gore is that he continues
to trail the leading Republican candidate, George W. Bush, in a hypothetical race for
President in 2000. Democrats are becoming increasingly concerned that he cannot beat
Bush. Among likely primary voters, 56% say they will vote for Bush, only 35% favor
Gore, 6% favor some other candidate, and 2% are undecided. Gore has not been able to
cut into Bush’s lead since May
November 1999
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:fc9a0fJiChoJ:www.unh.edu/survey-center/news/pdf/previous_demprim-sept99.pdf+1999+%2B+Bush+%2B+Gore+%2B+Poll&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=31&gl=us&ie=UTF-8
Bush lost Pennsylvania to Gore
Table 5. Favorability Ratings for Presidential Candidates in
Pennsylvania
Favorable Unfavorable Undecided
Don’t Know
Gore
34%
35%
24%
7%
Bush
32%
38%
24%
6%
McCain
44% 15% 28%
13%
Bradley
26%
26%
25%
22%
Among Democrats, Al Gore leads Bill Bradley, 58% to 24%. Among
Republicans, Bush leads McCain, 49% to 36%.
In a head-to-head race, frontrunners Gore and Bush are now deadlocked in the
state, with each receiving 43% of the vote. In July, Bush lead Gore in Pennsylvania, 50%
to 30%.
64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Hdv9mbrxnNYJ:edisk.fandm.edu/FLI/keystone/pdf/keyfeb00_1.pdf+1999+%2B+Bush+%2B+Gore+%2B+Poll&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=38&gl=us&ie=UTF-8
Here is the AP story:
“Poll: Gore Closes in on Bush By WILL LESTER Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) – Vice President Al Gore has closed the gap against George W. Bush in a potential presidential matchup, says a national poll released Thursday – 10 months ahead of the November election.
The NBC-Wall Street Journal poll also found a majority of Americans happy with the direction of the country and two-thirds gave President Clinton high job approval marks, said the poll made public on the day of Clinton’s final State of the Union address.
The national poll showed Republican front-runner Bush at 47 percent and Democratic front-runner Gore at 44 percent. Gore had trailed the Republican in head-to-head matchups throughout 1999. The poll of 1,010 American adults taken Jan. 25-26 had a 3 percentage point error margin, larger for subgroups.
When Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan was included in the general election matchup, both Gore and Bush were at 43 percent and Buchanan was at 5 percent.
In December, Bush led by 50 percent to 39 percent and has maintained an average double-digit lead over Gore in the poll throughout 1999.
Bush had an 8-point lead over former Sen. Bill Bradley, Gore’s rival, in a head-to-head matchup in the latest poll. In polls late last year, Bradley usually performed better against Bush than Gore did, largely because of Bradley’s appeal to independents.
Gore leads Bradley in polling for the New Hampshire primary next Tuesday. Sen. John McCain and Bush are locked in a tough battle there, with McCain leading in some polls and tied with Bush in others.
When Americans were asked whether they wanted a presidential candidate whose views were more liberal, more conservative or the same as Clinton’s, 50 percent said about the same, 37 percent said more conservative and 8 percent said more liberal.
http://www.political.com/analysis-arc/0303.html
May 10th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
These polls are worthless at this point. Example 1:
Bush lost Pennsylvania to Gore in 2000
Bush lost Pennsylvania to Gore
Table 5. Favorability Ratings for Presidential Candidates in
Pennsylvania
Favorable Unfavorable Undecided
Don’t Know
Gore
34%
35%
24%
7%
Bush
32%
38%
24%
6%
McCain
44% 15% 28%
13%
Bradley
26%
26%
25%
22%
Among Democrats, Al Gore leads Bill Bradley, 58% to 24%. Among
Republicans, Bush leads McCain, 49% to 36%.
In a head-to-head race, frontrunners Gore and Bush are now deadlocked in the
state, with each receiving 43% of the vote. In July, Bush lead Gore in Pennsylvania, 50%
to 30%.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Example 2:
Can Gore Beat Bush?
Another possible reason that Democrats are moving away from Gore is that he continues
to trail the leading Republican candidate, George W. Bush, in a hypothetical race for
President in 2000. Democrats are becoming increasingly concerned that he cannot beat
Bush. Among likely primary voters, 56% say they will vote for Bush, only 35% favor
Gore, 6% favor some other candidate, and 2% are undecided. Gore has not been able to
cut into Bush’s lead since May
November 1999
May 10th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Example 3:
Brown University Poll from September, 1999
Bush 32% vs. Gore 34%
Bush 26% vs. Bradley 37%
http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Taubman_Center/polls/heard92999.html
May 10th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Example 4:
The national poll showed Republican front-runner Bush at 47 percent and Democratic front-runner Gore at 44 percent. Gore had trailed the Republican in head-to-head matchups throughout 1999. The poll of 1,010 American adults taken Jan. 25-26 had a 3 percentage point error margin, larger for subgroups.
When Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan was included in the general election matchup, both Gore and Bush were at 43 percent and Buchanan was at 5 percent.
In December, Bush led by 50 percent to 39 percent and has maintained an average double-digit lead over Gore in the poll throughout 1999.
Bush had an 8-point lead over former Sen. Bill Bradley, Gore’s rival, in a head-to-head matchup in the latest poll. In polls late last year, Bradley usually performed better against Bush than Gore did, largely because of Bradley’s appeal to independents.
Gore leads Bradley in polling for the New Hampshire primary next Tuesday. Sen. John McCain and Bush are locked in a tough battle there, with McCain leading in some polls and tied with Bush in others.
http://www.political.com/analysis-arc/0303.html
May 10th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
This article http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1619300,00.html shows that Giulaini beleives plenty of Republicans are sick and tired of a s small minority of SoCons hijacking the party and is planning accordingly.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
I agree Tommy that this poll means little in terms of where the race is going to when it’s all said and done.
But as for this point in time, a “Generic (R)” getting beat in TX, KS, MO, KY, VA, OH is worth discussing.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Take example 1: In July of 1999, Bush led Gore 50-30% in Pennsylvania. That would be next month in equal terms. Gore won Pennsylvania in 2000 election.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Tommy,
I don’t think that you are acknowledging the political climate that we are in today.
CNN Poll
Generic Republican 38% Generic Dem 58%
GOP is -20%
The GOP is now more like the Dems were when Jimmy Carter was in office in 79.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Tommy,
PA is a purple swing-state.
It’s a little but different to discuss a Republican losing to Hillary by six in Texas.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Yes, but in 1999, you had the ‘ultimate Generic Democrat’ getting beat in battleground state of Pennsylvania by 20 points by the ‘ultimate generic Republican.’
Right now, polls are not going to go in favor of any Republican with as high as unfamiliarity ratings as Thompson at this point.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Great points Tommy. I assume you are proving your theory since you are a Thompson guy, but I think the same thing applies all around. Romney can win states where he is getting beat by large margins and Rudy can lose states where he is ahead by large margins.
Let’s not forget that one of Giuliani’s Blue-to-Red states is Pennsylvania. A key GOP constituency is pro-lifers who are otherwise liberal but vote based on abortion. That a large reason why Casey was able to crush Santorum.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Kavon,
You are way overreacting. Saying that “Fred Thompson” getting beaten by Hillary and Edwards is interesting is like saying that me getting drubbed by Hillary and Edwards is interesting. Heck, remember the SurveyUSA polls that showed McCain beating Russ Feingold 60%-23% in MA last summer? Or Giuliani beating Richardson 54%-38% in CT? Does that mean that the Dem name brand was horrific? In the same polls that showed a 512-26 HRC EV victory over Brownback, or a 529-9 John Edwards victory over Willard Mitt Romney?
The fact that Fred Thompson has name ID slightly above mine and is actually winning some states, and is tied with Barack Obama (who has substantially higher name ID) in states like OH (which I had all but given up on in ’08. Is certainly not horrible news, and is in some ways good news.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
“Unfamiliarity ratings as Thompson”
Yes, Thompson is not as well known as some people may suspect. Rasmussen has Fred at only 35% familiarity.
With this very tough political climate, I find it very hard to believe Fred has what it takes to turn things around. It certainly will not be due to his charisma.
Unfortunately, things are probably going to get worse with the Iraq War and it will be very difficult for any Republican to win next year, especially a traditional southern Republican.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
TM: Yes, but remember 1999, at this same point, most were happy with the direction of the country (around 58%, I think, and the generic incumbent was polling 20 points below the generic challenger in a swing state, whcih the generic incumbent candidate ultimately won.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
“It certainly will not be due to his charisma.”
Have you ever seen him on the trail? Or are you basing this on one speech?
May 10th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Sean,
I understand your point (and do mostly agree with you).
That still doesn’t make me feel better about the TX and KS results, which are supposed to GOP strongholds.
All I’m trying to point out here really is how bad “brand GOP” is as of 5-10-2007.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
We all know how bad of shape we are in right now. A lot of that has to do with how much trust we have lost. Should we nominate Giuliani (for example) who has some issues in his own party with trust right now? I don’t personally think any of our candidates are untrustworthy at this point, but a lot of people see them that way because of the current administration. Do we want to nominate a candidate who already has this image, or one that, at this point, most trust.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
These numbers seem to confirm what I suspected about Obama: he’ll fare horribly in the South (probably because of latent racial bias). Given that, I’m actually starting to wonder if Hillary isn’t more electable then him. Sure I’d expect him to have a higher % of the popular vote, but running up 20 point leads in California hardly matters if he’s tied with generic Republicans at this point in states like Ohio.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
And the “whole world changing” could be that Iraq is no longer the issue it is now.
I have had discussions with two people whose opinions I have the utmost respect for (you know who you are). Both believe that the Congressional GOP may indeed “pull the plug” on Iraq this Fall.
If they do, and most of our troops have, or in the process of, coming home by the time of the election; the focus may swing back towards domestic issues, which doesn’t exactly bode will for the Dems.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Tommy,
As far as charisma I completely agree with you. I have never seen FDT campaign, but I have seen him on Law and Order and he’s got it. Call it sourhern charm, charisma or whatever you want but he has something that connects with people. That’s not enough for me, but to deny that he has “that” is silly.
The only position that I know I disagree with FDT is tort reform, but that wouldn’t be a deal breaker. The deal breaker is that I don’t think his charisma is enough to overcome his lack of experience. As Kavon has demonstrated it will be a tough cycle for the GOP no matter what.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Thanks Dskinner.
It will be tough. Giuliani in the 16 states polled last week vs the field wasn’t winning convincingly. And that was before the Planned Parenthood debacle. The point is that its pretty worthless at this point to be so pessimistic over a general election that hasn’t even begun yet. Like in 2000, let’s worry about getting a nominee before we worry about the other side, so we know exactly what we are getting.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Kavon,
I almost hope that the GOP pulls the plug on Iraq so that we have a better chance to win in ’08. If they hold firm and don’t then odds are we will lose the White House. The Dems will pullout first thing and then enact their socialist agenda. It would also leave Hillary, Obama or Edwards to deal with the aftermath of pulling out which needless to say isn’t a strong position.
If the Congresional GOP pulls out later this year we can have Bush and his GOP successor deal with the aftermath, not to mention we will be able to enact the conservative platform. We would have a good chance to take back the House and if things went great we could take back the Senate.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
And going by that same service from last week, Giuliani loses his own home state to Clinton by 9 points. Loses California to Clinton by 12 points. loses Iowa to Edwards by 14. etc…. There are matchups that work to our advantages and disadvantages.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Dskinner,
I quote McCain on this: “I’d rather lose an election, then lose a war”. Are you honestly willing to sacrifice the security of the nation, and allow the the Middle East to be engulfed in turmoil, so that we can pick up a few extra seats in Congress? I could have sworn we were berating Harry Reid harshly for the same attitude a few weeks ago.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Matt,
I said almost because I still hold out hope that we can have success in Iraq. I think it is naive to not consider the possibility that victory is impossible without double the number of troops and a decade long commitment.
My point is that if we lose the election we will lose the war anyway because the Dems will pullout first thing. I am looking at the bigger picture here. The moderate Republicans in Congress may be doing us a favor by overriding a veto. If they don’t vote to override odds are we will lose both the election and the war in that order. If they do vote to override we will lose the war and win the election, which would give whichever strong leader we elect the opportunity to fight the GWOT.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Speaking of historical terms, in July 1988, Dukakis led George HW Bush in the polls of his home state of Texas, while Bush went on to win.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Dskinner,
This is a hard one for me, because it almost causes me to choose between the two issues I care the most about: the GWOT & SC appointments.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
“Speaking of historical terms, in July 1988, Dukakis led George HW Bush in the polls of his home state of Texas, while Bush went on to win.”
I would be interested in reading more about that one Tommy. Do you have a link?
May 10th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Hmmm…this section was supposed to be about Thompson, and who is everybody talking about? let’s see…hmm…Rudy Giuliani… Who again is the most popular candidate??
May 10th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
It’s a tough one, but we risk losing both by staying in versus buying a sure victory with a sure loss (though as I said the sure loss might be inevitable).
May 10th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Nobody is talking about Rudy but nice tactic to turn the conversation towards him.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
A KT prediction: The most famous words from the 2008 presidential election process will be:
“It’ll be OK”
Just like the most famous words from 1980 were “I paid for this microphone”.
May 10th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Just a minute Kavon:
It was after Dukakis named Bentson to his ticket, which would’ve somewhat evened out the Texas appeal at the moment:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE4D61331F936A25754C0A96E948260
May 10th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
DsKinner, EVERYBODY talks about Rudy
May 10th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Thanks Tommy!
The money quote from that article:
May 10th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Kavon,
We have the same top two priorities (though I’d tend to put Supreme Court appointments ever so slightly above the War on Terror).
May 10th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
I thought that was hilarious
May 10th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
BIG BREAKING NEWS!!!!! WHICH GOP FRONTRUNNER IS SUING FOX NEWS??????
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/17206744.htm
May 10th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
“Frontrunner” Tommy?
May 10th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Hey….. It’s a slow news day. Had to get excited about something
May 10th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
except, now….. pro-life leaders are apparently calling out Romney to abandon his health care plan, just came over the wire
I had come across this part of his plan earlier, but hadn’t brought it up because I figured it was just a hit piece, and I hadn’t studied all the details of his plan that closely. What’s the story on this?
http://campaignsandelections.com/nh/releases/index.cfm?ID=473
May 10th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Tommy,
The signatories are the same old hacks who’ve been at Romney for months over this. Some of them are serious pro-lifers, who are simply in bed with another candidate (Zandstra for one), but most are gadflies.
May 10th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Tommy,
The story is that Romneycare funds abortions…
You don’t think this is going to get any play over the next six-months do you
?
May 10th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
…and calling Jerry Zandstra and/or the AFA “hacks” is not going to help matters either…
May 10th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
That Rudy abortion video, is the first reasonable response I’ve heard Rudy give to an abortion related question. He didn’t defend his position so vigorously that he seemed like he was attempting to convert people (though I didn’t like “in a country like ours” line at all), he didn’t caricature pro-lifers, he limited his personal opposition to abortion, rather then pretending like he thought it was the worst thing in the universe, and he wasn’t an utterly incoherent waffler. I obviously totally disagree with his position, but had he been answering abortion questions like this for months (though, again, he should probably jettison the “in a country like ours” line), I wouldn’t be so adamant about never voting for him under any circumstances. I’m afraid it’s too late for me, but good for Rudy for getting on the ball on this issue.
May 10th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Tommy,
No big surprise. Jerry Zandstra works for Brownback, and has been attacking Romney for a long time. Brian Camenker, another one of the sign-ees to that statement you dug up, is a kook of the highest order. He calls Mitt “the father of gay marriage” in MA…you might reconsider the credibility of a guy who once claimed to be able to find a link between air quality and gay marriage. I’m not kidding.
Regarding the specifics of the health care plan, there are many portions of it which are hold-overs of previous MA law. In 2002, Romney pledged to maintain the states abortion laws. His supposed “support” for public funding for abortion (as your link attacks him on) was phrased in this manner: “This state made that decision. This state does provide Medicaid funding for abortions, and that’s something which I would keep in place.”
Romney is bound by his campaign promise, the same one that he used to veto several bills liberalizing several abortion laws. But you might consider something…had Romney broken his campaign promise and used his line-item veto to strike the Medicaid funding for abortions, the legislature would simply override his veto…as they did with a dozen other line-item vetos to the healthcare plan. Romney would have broken his word to accomplish nothing more than a symbolic wave of the pen.
May 10th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
I’m suprised it hasn’t been reported. I had seen it, but thought it was something planted by the MassResistance guy.
May 10th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Is he the Mass Resistence guy that always pops up?
May 10th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Tommy, it has been reported. This is old news.
May 10th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Yup, I think Mitt accidentally ran over his dog while Governor
May 10th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
It certainly does lose credibility when one guy who is bent on going after one candidate in an obsessive fashion is tagged on a list with some otherwise credible names.
May 10th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
I didn’t mean that as bad as it came out. It makes me question the letter
May 10th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Not really related but regarding the upcoming GOP SC Debate but wanted to get it on the board..
John Cox really wants in.. In fact he is suing to get into the debate..
http://thestatecom.typepad.com/ygatoday/2007/05/cox_takes_legal.html
May 10th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Kavon,
I haven’t researched this issue thoroughly, but I am fairly familiar with “RomneyCare” (I met many of the principles involved during a health care class), and I don’t think it “funds” abortion in any meaningful sense. What happens, is the Massachusetts Connector authority decides what sorts of coverage, the standard plan must include. Under Massachusetts law, something that far pre-dated Romney, abortions and various other gynecological procedures, were required to be part of health care plans. The Massachusetts health care system is an odd one, to be sure (they only have 4 health insurance providers by statute I believe, for instance), but I think many states, at least require abortion coverage in Medicaid plans. Certainly, all the blue states. As far as I’ve been able to gather, it was entirely outside of Romney’s control.
Now if by “fund” you mean that, because the Massachusetts Health Care plan subsidizes plans for those up to 300% of the poverty level, I suppose you’re right. Massachusetts, under other regulatory statutes, requires that health care plans include funding for abortion, and RomneyCare pays for some health care. But, it’s certainly nothing that began with Romney, nor was it at issue in any meaningful sense, in the creation of RomneyCare.
May 10th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
I just noticed that Erick at FRed State just flip-flopped (again) and dumped Romney in favor of McCain. LJ, you have my sympathy, but for those who support Romney, this is a moment to cherish.
May 10th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
1- I really dislike that component of the Mass Healthcare plan, but I recognize that a majority of people in Mass probably love it and .
2- Romney didn’t write the bill so I would be interested to see if he vetoed this part and it was later overridden.
3- I want to hear Romney’s explanation of this before I get too excited about this.
Let’s not forget that the Heritage Foundation worked on this bill with Romney.
May 10th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Thanks Matt and Murphy I guess you just answered my questions.
May 10th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
This is the argument of the people who are upset about this in a nutshell (I am summarizing their complaints. Not mine necessarily):
1. Romneycare requires everyone to have insurance. Those that can’t afford it are covered under the state plan. The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that Romneycare had to provide coverage for abortions since it was covered in previous state plans.
2. Therefore, Romneycare essentially created a new class of people who get to have aborions at taxpayer expense who didn’t recieve the benefit before.
These people firmly believe that the problems that came with the old system in Massachusetts are preferable to even one-penny of tax money going towards abortion.
See here, here, and here for more info.
My two cents is that whenever you stick government’s nose in a place where it doesn’t and shouldn’t belong, you have to make compromises like this one.
May 10th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Did you guys see this?
Senators Jim DeMint (S.C.) and Jeff Sessions (Ala.) joined former Attorney General Ed Meese on Capitol Hill this afternoon to spell out the essential requirements for immigration reform — drawing a line in the sand as congressional Democrats appear ready to move ahead with an irresponsible bill.
The press conference coincided with a new Heritage Foundation paper by Meese and Matthew Spalding that will serve as a marker for conservatives. It includes six points that DeMint and Sessions said they’ll adhere to when the debate begins in the Senate.
I got this from Redstate. Also here is the link to the Heritage Foundation paper. If they can make this happen I will be satisfied.
http://www.redstate.com/stories/featured_stories/essential_requirements_for_immigration_reform#comment-447495
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/bg2034.cfm
May 10th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Romney must be doing better than most people give him credit for if this is all the opposition can come up with to discredit him. The fact that he got elected as the republican governor in Taxachusettes (where there only 13% registered republicans) speaks volumes about his skills as a politician – that we was able to reign in spending/balance the budget and passed legislation for a market based health care solution is amazing.
May 10th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
[...] Fred Thompson vs. the Democratic “Big Three” [...]
May 10th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Well, all I can say is ……….
OUCH!!!!!
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1619212-1,00.html
May 10th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Yeah, I read that piece earlier Tommy. I thought it was hilarious how blatant of a hit piece it was. Romney needs to stop being an idiot, and respond to these charges more substantively (beyond abortion anyway). It’s absolute childs play to debunk most of them (gosh, he was FOR gay rights, now he’s a against gay marriage…total insanity). Because these “boy, oh boy, he’s a conviction-less, perfect haired, weirdo” stories are getting pretty tedious, and are obviously not helping his campaign. Romney’s inability to find one of the many obvious responses to flip-flopping charges, is nearly as puzzling as Rudy’s previous flailing on abortion. What exactly are these political consultants getting paid for?
May 10th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Boy, Tommy, you’re all about the old news today.
The Times article is, yet again, rehashing the flip-flop charges of abortion, tax pledges, gun control, gay marriage, etc etc etc. And as we’ve mentioned a hundred times, the only policy item of any substance which Romney flipped on was abortion.
It’s old news. It’s been old news for months. It’s gonna be REALLY old news by next Spring.
May 10th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Matt,
As you surely know, it’s not Romney’s inability to find obvious responses to the flip-flopping charges. No doubt we’ve both seen the press releases his campaign puts out when a new charge surfaces.
Your disagreement is probably about the timing of when Mitt should address these attacks in a big public way.
May 10th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Murphy, I wasn’t attacking him. I just saw the article and thought it was a hit piece. The letter was something that I was honestly curious about, as I’d not heard anything definitive one way or the other about what exactly his part in that specific part of the legislation was.
Not everything I say is made to make a candidate look bad.
May 10th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Of course you weren’t attacking him, Tommy. It’s just some innocent and harmless posting of unfavorable press. I see you do it with FDT all the time.
May 10th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Yes, murphy, I want Romney to answer these questions publicly, and substantively. I don’t want him to say things like “I’ve only changed my position on abortion. Oh there were a few really minor changes, but my principles have remained the same”. That’s an awful response. It’s awful, because it doesn’t in any way address the charges themselves, and seems leave open to question the definition of “minor”. Of course by minor Romney means, you know, whether or not gays should serve openly in the military. That actually is a fairly minor issue. But it’s umbrellaed in with the idea that he supported “gay rights”, and now doesn’t because he opposes gay marriage.
In other words, when someone says “hey, why have you changed your positions on abortion, gay rights, and guns”, you don’t say, “well, i changed my mind on abortion because…blah, blah” then say “besides that, my principles have stayed the same”. You say “I’ve always opposed gay marriage and civil unions, and i’ve always supported equality for homosexuals” and maybe you give them quotes from past campaigns to confirm this. And then you say “I supported narrowly tailored assault weapons bans previously, and I’m still to that type of bill”. But, more generally, when people consistently accuse you of being a political opportunist, you don’t say “well, but I’m not”. Even the most skilled salesman can’t sell that. Instead, you point out the numerous instances where you did things that WEREN’T politically advantageous. This stuff is so simple as to be breathtaking. But, for whatever reason, Romney’s team seems as oblivious as Rudy’s on this issue.
May 10th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
At this same point in time during the 1980 election cycle, polls showed that a guy named Ronald Reagan was unelectable.
The Quinnipiac national poll (of registered voters; margin of error = +/-2.9%) from last week revealed the following percentages of voters across all party affiliations who claimed not to know enough to assess favorability or unfavorability one way or the other by candidate: Mitt Romney (65%), Fred Thompson (63%), Barack Obama (34%), and John Edwards (27%).
Let’s see how these candidates look in the polls once they are all formally engaged in campaigning and debating, they put forth platforms and priorities, they are vetted by the media and the competition, and the country has a chance to get to know and assess them.
I am unaware of any experienced Republican national campaign operative who has publicly opined that Fred Thompson would be a weak GOP nominee in the general election.
But there is plenty about all of this that will change between now and when voting begins in earnest next January.
May 10th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
“Of course you weren’t attacking him, Tommy. It’s just some innocent and harmless posting of unfavorable press. I see you do it with FDT all the time.”
Murphy, I don’t have to ask questions about FDT, because I am well aware of what he’s done, and what his positions are, what the responses to attacks on him are, and I don’t deny that I am very in favor of his candidacy, just like some of Romney’s people on here are. I don’t know that about Romney. I’ve given Romney praise on here before, but I admit to being somewhat skeptical, part of which comes from not knowing enough about him. If something catches my eye, you can be sure I’m going to bring it up. If he has a chance to be the nominee, I want answers to questions that I feel need to be answered. I don’t need to question McCain either, because I am familiar enough with him to know who he is, his background, what he’d done, and what he stands for, at least in the basic sense. I don’t know that about Romney, just what I read and learn. I don’t take the criticism or the hype at face value, but I will call it out, just like all the questioning of Thompson.
May 10th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
TM,
You should know better than to take a CNN poll at face value. While the Republicans are undoubtedly entering the primary race playing into the wind, that steady incoming breeze providing unhelpful resistance is by no means the inpenetrable gale force gust CNN and the MSM would like you to believe.
Election 2008
Democrats by 12
April 27, 2006
Democrats currently hold a 12-point advantage over Republicans on a generic 2008 Presidential ballot. However, a third-party candidate focusing on immigration enforcement issues could fundamentally alter those political dynamics.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national opinion survey finds that 44% of Americans say they would vote for a Democrat if the Presidential Election were held today. Just 32% would vote for a Republican. Those figures are likely a reflection of unhappiness with the Bush Administration rather than a commentary on prospective candidates from either party (see crosstabs).
The survey also asked respondents how they would vote if “a third party candidate ran in 2008 and promised to build a barrier along the Mexican border and make enforcement of immigration law his top priority.”
With that option, support fell sharply for both major parties. The Democrats still come out on top with support from 31% of Americans. The third party candidate moved into a virtual tie at 30% while the GOP fell to 21%.
This result probably reflects unhappiness with both parties on the immigration issue rather than a true opportunity for a third party. Historically, issues that drive third party candidates get co-opted by one of the major parties as they demonstrate popular appeal. Most Americans favor a barrier along the border and enforcement of existing law prior to other reforms.
With the immigration issue candidate as an option, 36% of conservative voters opt for the Republican candidate while 35% take the third party option. Among political moderates, 34% pick the Democrat while 32% prefer the third party option.
The impact of the immigration issue is found despite the fact that Americans believe both the situation in Iraq and the economy are more important voting issues. However, on issues such as Iraq and the economy, both parties have fairly established positions and voters line up with the party whose views they share. Immigration is unsettling for the status quo because it cuts across the typical partisan and ideological lines in ways that could reshape the nation’s political equilibrium.
An earlier survey found that, in a hypothetical race for Congress, a plurality of Americans would vote for the candidate who favors more enforcement on the immigration issue.
Another earlier survey found that two-thirds of Americans believe it doesn’t make sense to debate new immigration laws until we can first control our borders and enforce existing laws. That same survey found that 40% of Americans favor “forcibly” requiring all 11 million illegal immigrants to leave the United States.
While the short-term benefit may accrue to those who favor a tougher enforcement policy, the long-term implications of the issue are less clear. At the moment, neither political party enjoys unity within its own ranks on the issue. Politicians from both sides are struggling with the nuances of the issue.
http://www.rasmussenresearch.com/2006/April%20Dailies/Election%202008.htm
If Congressman Tancredo is serious about becoming president, as tempting as it may be after seeing poll results such as these, he should think long and hard before pulling a Perot; assuming, of course, he wouldn’t want to be complicit in facilitating the election of Hillary, Obama or Edwards.
May 10th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Arrgggghhh!!! Where’s the edit function on this site? I was re-reading the Rasmussen poll and just noticed this poll from April 27th I was citing as recent is, in fact, April 27th…2006.
I will now try to find data from a more objective source than CNN… Hopefully, with better news for Republicans.
May 10th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Gallup is showing a 15-point divide. It’s not 12, but 20 points down sounds a helluva lot worse.
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27187
May 10th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Look at Ohio! Hillary (generic D) beats Thompson (generic R) by 15 points!
That’s a big deal. Ohio and the other Great Lakes states voted very similarly in 2000, 2004, and again in 2006. If we’re losing Ohio by 15, we’re losing PA by 17, MI by 19, and MN by 20. More or less. The race might as well be over.
A generic R can’t win in 2008. Only a superstar can. That means Rudy or McCain. The Thompson we see on Law and Order could probably do it. But not the boring old senator we saw last week.
May 10th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
For all the talk about abortion, Iraq, I have always contended a huge problem for the GOP in the Upper Midwest was domestic/economic issues…more specifically trade policy. There is a huge populist streak running in this country from Western Pennsylvania all the way over to Minnesota and Iowa. I know a lot of folks on this board have talked about populism in certain GOP candidates but I think voters in this part of the country have focused on these issues for so long that it will be interesting to see if these candidates will stick to keywords such as “free trade.”
May 10th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
DaveG, how accurate can general election match-up polls that are 18 months out be, especially when one of the candidates is not known well enough for 63% of the country to assess favorability?
Such posts strain credulity to the breaking point and are obviously all spin and no analysis. It is difficult to even engage in debate when the hypothesis is so nonsensical.
There isn’t a credible national Republican political consultant alive thinking that Fred Thompson should reconsider running because a poll 18 months out shows him down to Hillary in the key swing state of Ohio by 15 points. That is just crazy talk.
Fred Thompson may or may not be a strong GOP nominee, same with Giuliani and McCain, but we hardly know that this far out.
It is amazing to see folks panic or rejoice with regard to this or that favorite candidate based on polls of meager value, meaning, and credibility this far out from actual voting. The campaign has barely begun, and the focus around here on polls in order to puff up or shoot down a candidate is stifling better analysis, I think.
May 11th, 2007 at 10:50 am
UGADawg, I totally agree. As the US auto market get beaten up and more and more processing moves overseas those in the midwest are hurting. You can say all you want about fair trade but how can American’s compete with $1 a day labor? This is a huge issue in the midwest and Republicans are seen as caring more for Big Business than the average Joe. Especially with the middle class being squeezed out.
May 11th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
[...] year, I’m not so sure. Look at the electoral map from 2004. Kerry, as bad a candidate as he was, did not fall far from [...]