Hat tip to reader econ grad stud for this poll:
Mason-Dixon New Hampshire Republican Primary
- Romney – 27%
- McCain – 16%
- Giuliani – 15%
- F. Thompson – 12%
- Huckabee – 5%
Survey was taken June 4-7 and has an MoE of 5.3%.
Little on the details of this poll – the actual results are on M-D’s website but are only available to their subscribers. The link above takes you to MSNBC, where they are reporting what you see above. New Hampshire is currently Romney country, as the last four polls there (excluding the ARG poll which is evident now was an outlier) have him winning by 9, 16, 10, and now 11 points.
June 8th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
F. Thompson has yet to make his move here…
interesting…
June 8th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
He’s visiting on the 28th, and this is a 9 point jump from the last poll, where he was at 3%.
June 8th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
I’m convinced that FDT will draw support from Rudy and McCain, and very little from Romney. Most of the polls back this up. FDT is mostly fluff and intangible appeal in my opinion, and I think McCain and Rudy are similar. Therefore, their support is the softest, and would naturally gravitate toward a guy like FDT.
I think if Romney wins IA, NV, and NH, it’s over.
June 8th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
That’s actually the best showing for Freddy in any NH poll I can remember. I’ve seen him as low as 3% wit within the last few weeks. Is this a sign of strength for him? I don’t think he’ll wow the north-easterners . . . but will probably play to his strength in the South. We shall see though.
June 8th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
A GOP nomination of Thompson hands the presidency to Clinton…I wish republicans would realize that…Thompson has no ability to win NH in the general election against her..Mitt already is pounding Iowa because of its importance in the general election..in addition Thompson has no ability to challenge in states that the Dems do not want to be challenged in or spend money in like Maine, Conn, NJ, PA…Thompson is a sure loss.. I wish he and his supporters would realize that
June 8th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
I agree that this is great for Thompson, but I don’t see how he can win there when the other three candidates have such natural and large advantages. FDT needs to win or come in a close 3nd in Iowa and then win SC. Otherwise he won’t ever be able to get a chance to enact his FL strategy.
Before I wanted Thompson to jump in at Ames and I thought it was good strategy for him because he would be in a no lose situation and he would get to stick it to Rudy and McCain which is good for all the candidates. Now I really want him to stay out because it is no lose for Fred. I want all the headlines in Iowa to be about Romney, not any about how well FDT did for only having a couple months of formal organizing.
I think Romney by being the only candidate brave enough to compete at Ames Romney will have a virtually insurmountable lead in Iowa. He will then be able to spend more time in NH, NV, SC and FL so that he will be able to capitalize on his victory in IA.
June 8th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
I don’t think Thompson is a sure loss, I think he can win any Bush state, but that doesn’t give much leeway. I do agree that Romney and Rudy put more states in play.
June 8th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Romney leads us to general election defeat. Don’t miss the forest for the trees.
June 8th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
exactly!!!, there is no leeway for Fred…there is no state that bush lost that he can win back…this is huge because NM, AZ, and NV will be tougher for the GOP this round because of the immigration fall out….if the GOP loses NM and Nevada losses have to made up somewhere….Fred has Zero…Zero ability to do that because he will have to get NH at a min..then go after NJ, ME, etc
June 8th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Grant,
The only reason this would happen would be because Rudy is more lliberal than Romney. I don’t want someone that liberal in office.
June 8th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Here is a very interesting article about NH and the primaries in general. I think Todd is right about how what the order and dates of the primaries will be. I also hope that Michigan moves it’s primary to the 29 with FL like they have been talking about. That would be fantastic news for Romney.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19111739/
June 8th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
In addition, 3 states switched from 2000 to the 2004 elections…NH, NM, and IA….so happens that NH and IA are the first two primaries and Mitt is building massively in both ..not just to win the nomination but to win them in the general…because any GOP guy has to win 2 of 3…again neither Fred nor Rudy can do this
June 8th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
JasonJack, scroll down 2 threads. Romney is more liberal on the war. And that is the paramount issue facing our nation/civilization.
June 8th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Somebody should post this video about Thompson.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19111739/
He talks to Kudlow and gives some answers, dodges some questions and sounds like a guy who definitely isn’t in campaign mode. He better hurry quick or the August debate in Iowa will kill his chances there.
I can’t remember who said it the other day, but Thompson does totally put federalism ahead of reality. Thompson argues against tort reform demonstrating that he either doesn’t understand the issue at all, or he really is a trial lawyer at heart like some say.
I wish Tommy would weigh in on this and I wish we could get a main page contributor who is pro-Thompson.
June 8th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Good news for Romney and Thompson. But wait until the negative ads start flying!
June 8th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
David B,
If you hadn’t noticed, the war on terror is the real issue.
We cannot simply attack every country…Iran, Syria & NK.
massive loss of life.
b/c Romney would be more reluctant to invade, it doesn’t mean he’s weak.
I would like the party to be slightly less hawkish–and that’d get us more votes/
June 8th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
and I wasn’t presuming you didn’t identify the GWOT as the real issue, I’m just distinguishing between that and Iraq.
June 8th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Technically Paul is the most conservative here…and he’s anti-involvement at a whim.
NOT saying I support Paul.
June 8th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
[...] Poll Watch: Mason-Dixon NH GOP Primary [...]
June 8th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
John McIntyre probably thinks this poll is another “huge blow” to the Romney campaign.
June 8th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
NH was never suspected of being huge Fred country. He’ll be fine in Iowa and SC.
More on Fred
http://political-buzz.com/?p=221
June 8th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
I agree Fred Thompson has a very narrow margin of error to win the general election, but the same is true for Romney. Living in Pennsylvania, neither candidate will be competitive in my state.
June 8th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Au standard, aside from how shaky the southwest has become in general. In fact it may be the selection of a vice-presidential candidate that flips this region. If Hillary or Obama is smart they will put Richardson as VP and I believe likely take at least 3 of the 4 of Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, and Arizona and game over.
To be fair to FDT the problems he would face carrying states like Ohio, Iowa, and the Southwest will likely be the same story for everyone but Giuliani. Now I’m not one to buy Giuliani putting a tons of blue states in play. I have serious doubts about California and New York. But there is one state I believe he can put in play that no one else can and thats Pennsylvania. The reason: liberal Republicans around Philadelphia. The Philadelphia suburbs have posed problems for the GOP in that state since Clinton first ran for office and kept Bush from taking the state in 2000 and 2004.
June 8th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Who cares about Fred Thompson? Huckabee’s gaining and will continue until he’s passed everybody by.
June 8th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Dskinner, the negative videos outweigh the positive videos for FDT by a margin of about 1,600 to 2 on this site. Thompson has had some great videos and response by focus groups to his speeches and interviews, and nothing gets covered. Hopefully, Kavon will have something up, because you guys are only mostly getting to see the negatives. Some of Fred’s answers weren’t that strong, but Kudlow loved his corperate tax overhaul idea, and then the conservatives who analyzed it was none other than our own Jennifer Rubin, who is not a Thompson fan to begin with, judging by some of her recent editorials in the Weekly Journal. There was only one moderately pro-Thompson analyst, with four anti.
One thing I’ve noticed about the Romney blogs is that they have gone negative attacking Thompson. Yes, I know Fredstate is one alienating place, but if you read through the pro-Thompson blogs, there is very little negativity towards Mitt. Granted, things might get ugly in discussions on sites, but I mean, I go onto the electromney blog and they’re all bashing Thompson’s wife, and talking about trying to find out the juicy details of his divorce.
Thompson didn’t oppose all types of tort reform, as some outlets have reported. When President Clinton vetoed the Securities Litigation Reform Act, Thompson voted to override the veto. (John McCain? voted with Clinton.) After Sept. 11, he voted to protect businessmen from liability for terrorist attacks. And he voted for class-action reform, too.
“Mr. Thompson has also been criticized for failing to back some comprehensive tort-reform bills because of his background as a trial lawyer. Here he insists his stance was based on grounds of federalism. “I’m consistent. I address Federalist Society meetings,” he says, noting that more issues should be left to the states. For example, he cast the lonely “nay” in 99-1 votes against a national 0.8% blood alcohol level for drivers, a federal law banning guns in schools, and a measure limiting the tort liability of Good Samaritans. “Washington overreaches, and by doing so ends up not doing well the basics people really care about.” Think Katrina and Walter Reed.
Indeed, the federal government’s inability to function effectively would likely be a major theme of any Thompson campaign. “Audits have shown we’ve lost control of the waste and mismanagement in our most important agencies. It’s getting so bad it’s affecting our national security.”
- John Fund, WSJ Opinion Journal, March 17, 2007
June 8th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
On Friday, Ramesh Ponnuru penned an article called “Thompson’s Tort Trouble.” While he referenced my conservative voting record he took issue with two instances when I voted against “tort reform.” He noted my stand on federalist grounds but thinks I must have a mistaken view of federalism and that conservatives may want to ask me a few hard questions.
This hardly constitutes the stuff of a major dispute, but I would submit that the problem is not so much my mistaken view of federalism as much as it is his lack of commitment to the principle. This presents conservatives with an opportunity to have a much needed discussion.
First let’s discuss the two cases that Mr. Ponnuru cites. The first case involves the issue of “preemption.” Congress routinely passes laws and resulting regulations which are in conflict with state laws and regulations. These federal laws do not state whether or not they are intended to preempt the state regulations. Clearly, members of Congress don’t want their constituents back home asking why their state authority has been stripped. But Congress can have it both ways. They leave the legislation ambiguous, knowing that the federal courts will more often than not interpret the statute as preempting state law, allowing elected officials in Washington “the federal court did it, I didn’t” excuse. This allows for no debate on the issue in Congress, just a decision by that source of so much conservative affection: the federal judiciary.
Mr. Ponnuru begins with the assumption that federal preemption of state regulations is inherently a good thing (how federalist does this sound so far?), because then companies won’t have to keep up with all the state laws. I recognize that changes in transportation and communication have created legitimate federal interests where none previously existed. My votes reflect that. But the idea that the commerce clause allows the feds to regulate anything effecting commerce, no matter how remote, hopefully, is something we can all agree is not acceptable. But I digress. Actually my alleged offense had nothing to do with that. Rather it was the fact that I introduced a bill that essentially said, “Congress must state whether or not the federal legislation is intended to preempt the state regulation.” Period.
Mr. Ponnuru not only seems to favor federal preemption in general but thinks that Congress should not be required to acknowledge the fact that it is preempting. Ponnuru says that if my proposal had passed, “the practical result would have been a gold mine for trial lawyers” (although he doesn’t say how).
I disagree. The practical result would have been an open debate as to whether, in any given instance, preemption is a good idea then we would have had a discussion about federalism. I wonder if Jefferson and Madison thought that we should pick the result we want based upon who we perceive to be the good guys and the bad guys, then get there any way we can?
The other perceived offense on my part had to do with the anti-tobacco bill that came before the Senate in 1998. Senator Lauch Faircloth proposed an amendment that placed a cap on attorneys’ fees fees which had been negotiated between the states and their lawyers. I opposed any fees at all because I opposed the bill. But when the amendment on attorneys’ fee came up I opposed it too. Get this: Under the amendment the states would have been required to send the attorneys’ bills to the House and Senate Judiciary for approval. As I said on the floor on May 19, 1998, “I did not come to the Senate to review billing records from lawyers in private lawsuits.”
For the record, I oppose the federal regulation of any fees negotiated by two competent parties at the state and local level. This goes for lawyers, doctors, butchers, bakers, or the occasional candlestick maker. Even if excessive fees offend congressional sensibilities, there are other remedies that make far more sense than the federal one. In the tobacco case, for example, those who negotiated the attorney’s fees had to run for reelection. Also, local courts strike down fees they find excessive. Apparently the absurdity of Patrick Leahy and me (or our staffs) rummaging through records to determine exactly what some second-year lawyer in a Hoboken law firm did to earn their hourly rates is lost on some of my conservative friends. All that matters is that I “sided with the trial lawyers.” This is always supposed to end the debate.
This discussion is not an idle exercise. Republicans have struggled in recent years, because they have strayed from basic principles. Federalism is one of those principles. It is something we all give lip service to and then proceed to ignore when it serves our purposes. During my eight years in the Senate, I tried to adhere to this principle. For me it was a lodestar. Not only was it what our Founding Fathers created a federal government with limited, enumerated powers with respect for other levels of government, it also provided a basis for a proper analysis of most issues: “Is this something government should be doing? If so, at what level of government?”
As I understood it, states were supposed to be laboratories that would compete with each other, conducting civic experiments according to the wishes of their citizens. The model for federal welfare reform was the result of that process. States also allow for of diverse viewpoints that exist across the country. There is no reason that Tennesseans and New Yorkers should have to agree on everything (and they don’t).
Those who are in charge of applying the conservative litmus test should wonder why some of their brethren continue to try to federalize more things especially at a time of embarrassing federal mismanagement and a growing federal bureaucracy. I am afraid that such a test is often based more upon who is favored between two self-serving litigants than upon legal and constitutional principles. Isn’t that what we make all the Supreme Court nominees promise not to do?
Adhering to the principles of federalism is not easy. As one who was on the short end of a couple of 99-1 votes, I can personally attest to it. Federalism sometimes restrains you from doing things you want to do. You have to leave the job to someone else who may even choose not to do it at all. However, if conservatives abandon this valued principle that limits the federal government, or if we selectively use it as a tool with which to reward our friends and strike our enemies, then we will be doing a disservice to our country as well as the cause of conservatism.
Fred Thompson
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWM0OGRmY2E4ZmZmYzlhYWQxZjE4MDZlNzZhYjRhODc=
June 8th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
I got things to do, talk to ya later
June 8th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Let me quote that one more time before I go, to not miss the effect:
“Adhering to the principles of federalism is not easy. As one who was on the short end of a couple of 99-1 votes, I can personally attest to it. Federalism sometimes restrains you from doing things you want to do. You have to leave the job to someone else who may even choose not to do it at all. However, if conservatives abandon this valued principle that limits the federal government, or if we selectively use it as a tool with which to reward our friends and strike our enemies, then we will be doing a disservice to our country as well as the cause of conservatism.”
Fred Thompson
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWM0OGRmY2E4ZmZmYzlhYWQxZjE4MDZlNzZhYjRhODc=
June 8th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
It’s interesting — FDT comes out sounding far better in his writings than in his talks or interviews.
June 8th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Tommy, I agree and I want to hear the positive news on him. That is why I have been asking for a main page guy that is pro-Thompson. I really think the only issue that I disagree with Thompson on is tort reform. The other things mentioned I agree with Thompson on, states should decide that and that is part of the reason I would support Thompson so much, he will cut the size and scope of the federal government. One of the biggest reasons I support Mitt over Fred is that I believe Mitt has much more experience as an executive and we got burned with Bush by having a poor executive. I’m not saying Fred would be one, but until I see more information I’m not convinced he won’t be. I hope that makes sense.
I believe Mitt will cut the size of government also, Rudy I think is going to expand it in the name of fighting terrorism.
June 8th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
KAVON,
I HOPE YOU ARE WORKING ON GETTING AT LEAST ONE MAIN PAGE GUY THAT IS PRO-THOMPSON.
I don’t think Tommy and I are the only ones asking for it either. It would do us all a lot of good if we got some more Fredheads on this site.
Right now this is how I see the main page contributors. Let me preface this by saying I fully consider myself a Romneybot, so if I think someone is a Rudybot that isn’t a slam.
Kavon – Rudy supporter
DaveG – Rudybot
Aron – Rudybot
Jason – Romneybot
HeavyM – Romney supporter
Republius – closeted Fredhead (Also MIA from the site)
LJ – McCain supporter
Rubin – neutral
I’m sure I am missing some contributors, but either way it would be nice to have a contributor or two who are supporting Thompson, that way the site would be more representative of the actual support the candidates have in the polls and in the blogosphere.
Also, I know it isn’t easy and I’m not meaning to be impatient if you are working on it already. I just haven’t ever seen that you’ve acknowledged the need. I love the site right now, I just think getting some Fred contributors would lead to Fred visitors, both of which would make the site even better.
June 8th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
I agree that it will be difficult for the GOP guy this time…however I do believe the margin of error for Mitt is far less than Thompson and even less than Rudy…Rudy will bring in alot of votes in states like NY or Cal that the GOP will still lose anyway…Mitt’s people are already running the general election by securing IA and taking back NH…just on that basis he is way ahead of the game (incidently, the Dem analysts on CNN see this too, which is why they blast him every chance they get,ie ..a real threat)…as far as Ohio I think he can play pretty darn well to southern Ohio conservatives…New Mexico will be gone, but his Utah connections can help him offset hispanic losses in NV, CO, and AZ…those will be close no doubt….like I said before I think he can go on the offensive in ME, MI, NJ, CT and if not steal one and least force the Borg Queen to spend money there…I just don’t see Thompson or even rudy having the money, organizational, or strategic skills to pull off a victory….if Rudy is the guy, because of his wimping out of (or pissing off of)Iowa he will lose it in the general election, thus he is seriously behind the eight ball already….for the Republican to win he must, must, must win NH and IA no doubt about it…
June 8th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
error in last post…flipped the margin of error line in opening sentence
June 8th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Tommy–
very impressed with those quotes you gave about the 99-1 thing.
Kavon–
A Fred blogger would help things.
June 9th, 2007 at 12:05 am
for anybody interested go to “270towin.com”….again it shows what locking up IA and NH means….all you need is to hold FL and OH…Rep wins…and still wins even if GOP loses CO, NV, and NM
June 9th, 2007 at 12:38 am
Don’t forget Michigan. Gov. Romney’s ties to the state make him at least capbable of putting that state back into play. Nevada and Colorado would probably stay in the GOP catagory.
With that, he could even drop Ohio and pick up the win.
June 9th, 2007 at 12:41 am
Post 10 is ironic. Get it?
In case you’re not getting it — if he doesn’t want someone that liberal in office, then he shouldn’t support Romney.
Still not getting it? Romney will lose. Whoever he loses to is going to have a last name beginning with either C, E, or O.
So if he doesn’t want someone liberal in office, supporting Romney is a pretty stupid way to go about it. Romney is a general election loser because he’s cast himself as Mr. Conservative. Mr. Conservative on every single issue. He has no leeway. He is a bomb for the general election.
June 9th, 2007 at 12:58 am
Are we back to the “If we don’t nominate Giuliani we’re DOOMED” spiel again?
June 9th, 2007 at 1:04 am
As long as Mr. Conservative gets four states (IA, NH OH, Fl), all of which are conceivable, Mr. Conservative wins…esp if the opposition is Mr. or Mrs. Socialist
June 9th, 2007 at 1:33 am
One of the strongest arguments that exists for Rudy is the idea that he is somehow the most electable, despite a very predictable schism he would bring to the Grand Old Tent. The danger is obvious…as he continues to drop in the polls, many Rudy supporters will have to do some soul searching.
June 9th, 2007 at 1:58 am
Also let’s not forget that the majority of GOP voters don’t even know he is pro-choice yet. What was it something like 60% don’t know. Obviously that wouldn’t disqualify Rudy for all of those voters but it sure would for some. It stands to reason that Rudy will lose some of his support when we get closer to voting time and everyone knows he is pro-choice. If Rudy lost even 5% that would put him easily within striking distance of Romney and Thompson.
(5% isn’t such a leap, that is just less than 20% of his support. Over 60% don’t know so that leaves a ton of room for people who don’t care about abortion, and for the possibility that most of his supporters already know. Of course it is probably more likely that a higher proportion of his supporters don’t know since less informed voters naturally gravitate to the candidate with the highest name recognition who is the front-runner.)
June 9th, 2007 at 5:54 am
TLG,
Ridiculous. So Romney’s simultaneously become a Democrat on defense, and cast himself as absurdly conservative on every issue? Why can’t team Rudy make up their mind here? Here are just a few issues where I’ll concede is closer to the center then other GOP candidates.
1. Health Care: Here Romney is admittedly considerably less conservative then his GOP competitors (with Huckabee a possible exception). His Massachusetts health care plan was quite conservative, for a universal health care plan, but any universal health care plan must be considered not fully conservative.
2. Education: Here Romney hasn’t quite fully fleshed out his position, but he supports charter schools and vouchers. But he also supports increased pay for teachers and the No Child Left Behind Act. Though, I’m not aware of any Rudy or McCain statements on the latter, it seems to me he’s probably ever so slightly closer to the center on this issue.
3. Gun Control: Here Mitt supports a narrowly tailored assault weapons ban. Rudy has a ridiculously liberal on gun control. But, he’s playing the “I won’t impose my lunatic views on the country, I promise” card, so currently Mitt is actually to the left of him on gun control.
4. Abortion: Here Romney wants to send the issue back to the states, and typically doesn’t mention that he’d ban it, at the state level, except in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. He’s clearly then to the center of Brownback and Huckabee. And his rhetoric seems to put him ever so slightly to center of McCain’s current rhetoric. For instance, Romney generally talks about wanting Roe changed to allow states to make pro-life legislation (defacto overturning), whereas McCain has been explicitly calling for it’s overrule.
5. Trade: Romney seems to have some sympathy for Duncan Hunter’s concern with China’s inflation of currency. He’s likely ever so slightly to the left of Giuliani (now that Giuliani miraculously accepts NAFTA) and McCain here.
6. Taxes: Romney’s tax plan, thus far, only includes extension of the Bush tax cuts (which every Republican supports) and an end to taxes on savings, capital gains, etc for MIDDLE CLASS Americans. This has extremely broad appeal. Giuliani by contrast is “open” to a flat tax, and Huckabee is pushing a fair tax. No idea about McCain.
7. Defense: Apparently, Rudy wants to immediately use nukes in Iraq. All kidding aside, I’m fully willing to admit Romney is probably marginally less hawkish then Rudy and McCain. He focuses more on changing the social dynamics of the Middle East.
7. Energy: Romney talks about this consistently, and his discussion of the issue in the last week’s debate highlights a fairly centrist position on the issue.
So where exactly is Mitt running the most conservative campaign in history? He’s running a right of center campaign, which attempts to reach out to centrists. Unless of course you think that suppporting a federal marriage amendment automatically makes a candidate the most conservative candidate ever?
June 9th, 2007 at 6:37 am
Go to Rasmussen poll today. Rudy is by far the strongest Republican candidate. Edwards the strongest Demo. People see Romneyas more conservative and Romney runs fourth among the Republicans.
June 9th, 2007 at 6:54 am
Nice try Grant, but the Thompson poll with Obama is considerably more recent then the Romney poll with Obama. Thompson and Romney, as judged by other Rasmussen polls, and by other general election polls, seem to be running virtually identically in general election matchups.
June 9th, 2007 at 7:19 am
Matt, Grant has a poll fetish. For some reason he’s willfully ignorant about how early polls have more often been wrong about what would occur far in the future.
Since early polls get the winner wrong most of the time we can actually conclude Rudy is the weakest candidate since he’s ahead in an early poll (I’d not claim this but by Grant’s reasoning it’s true).
June 9th, 2007 at 7:36 am
Dskinner,
Not that I am offended, just curious, what’s the difference between a Roney-bot and a Romney supporter?
June 9th, 2007 at 8:38 am
Robert Novak is reporting that McCain only raised 5 million in the second quarter through the end of May, and expects to only raise 2-3 million in June. That’s absolutely stunningly bad. If McCain ends up sub 10 million, or even sub 15 million, for the second quarter (which if Novak is correct, is almost certainly going to happen) I can’t see how his campaign surivives. Here’s the article. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RobertDNovak/2007/06/09/mccain_without_money
June 9th, 2007 at 8:53 am
I trust polls because they get me out of my own personal biases. We all tend to think our view of the world is believed by everyone else. If we don’t use polls, we have no quantitative ability to judge the situation. Without polls, it is all just personal bias. I admit the polls may change, but we should use them until they do. Based on present info, Romney is most likely to lose the general election.
June 9th, 2007 at 8:58 am
Grant,
But you conviently ignore historical trends in your analysis. No one claims polls are irrelevant. Merely that they must be examined in context. And the context of Romney fareing worse then Giuliani in general election matchups includes his low name recognition, and the generic Republican fatique. And the context also includes a demonstrated history showcasing Romney’s ability to win over independents (he won nearly 70% in Mass) and moderates, when he presents himself to them fully. In addition to numerous, numerous other factors. I’ve given you a poll previously which you apparently didn’t like. A poll that showed Romney pulling off a 38 point swing among independents, and 7 points among the general electorate, following his final debate with Shannon O’Brien. How about that poll?
June 9th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Romney will not be running againsy Shannon O’Brien. I’m not going to use how Rudy did in Ny years ago to claim he will win NY this year. This is a presidential election. Earlier state and city elections are not terribly relevant. The presidential race is a whole new ballgame. I’ll vote for the Republican who ever he is, but why count on Romney to convert people to vote for him, when Rudy and McCain already have converted them.
June 9th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Thaks for conceding that polls matter. I agree they must be taken in context. But why should I assume Romney will turn things aroun d anymore than McCain, Thompson, or Giuliani will? Anyone of the candidates might do better or worse as time goes along. Am I supposed to make assumtions that Romney will improve based on my feelings about how attractive he is.
June 9th, 2007 at 9:24 am
37–
you got me there.:)
Let me clarify….
I don’t want to support someone that liberal (mainly on social issues) for office.
June 9th, 2007 at 9:24 am
I might note that Rasmussen shows that in the last month, Americans see Romney as conservative at 40% {up from 29%}. It seems this could hurt Romney in the general election with moderates and liberals. Some on this board have argued that Romney is not running to the right. American people apparently see it differently.
June 9th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Grant,
I don’t want to vote for Rudy. Rudy does not meet my job requirements for the job.
remember that three-legged stool Reagan & Mitt & McCain talked about? Rudy only has 2 legs.
June 9th, 2007 at 9:28 am
JasonJack–I don’t like Rudy’s liberal social issue positiond either. But you could get someone worse{demo}. We will be very lucky to hold our own on the social issues in the next 4 years. Half a loaf is better than no loaf. I just ask that you realistically assess our chances of electing a true conservative.
June 9th, 2007 at 9:31 am
Rudy is conservative on many things. I would like a president I can tolerate for the next 4 years.
June 9th, 2007 at 9:34 am
If someone’s positions are so different than mine that I won’t vote for them in the Generals (and only 1 or 2 Republicans (Rudy & Paul) fit that), why on earth should I support that person in the primaries?
TLG on here doesn’t like Romney, he should vote for Rudy, who matches his positions more.
I have problems with Rudy, hence my choice.
June 9th, 2007 at 9:37 am
I don’t want Rudy or Hillary in the White House.
Just because I don’t want Hillary more doesn’t mean I’ll support Rudy.
June 9th, 2007 at 9:37 am
So who will you vote for in a Rudy-Clinton race?
June 9th, 2007 at 9:39 am
3rd party, most likely.
I’m from Cali, and didn’t support Arnold.
June 9th, 2007 at 9:41 am
Then you are helping elect Clinton. If we don’t hang together, we will all hang separately. I’d have voted for Arnold all day long. Sometimes you have to take the best you can get.
June 9th, 2007 at 9:43 am
ha ha….
have you seen what Arnold’s been doing in this state?
he’s worse than Rudy would be.
June 9th, 2007 at 9:45 am
I do understand that your vote in Cali doesn’t matter as the Demo will win Cali. But if your position is widespread, the Demos have the presidency. Then I predict a reversal of all the good that has been done on the social issues.
June 9th, 2007 at 9:46 am
So is Arnold worse than Gray Davis or Barbara Boxer?
June 9th, 2007 at 9:48 am
no, I said worse than Rudy.
Haven’t studied Gray’s or Arnold’s record that closely… But it sure is better than Boxer’s!!
June 9th, 2007 at 9:49 am
How about Phil Angelides or the mayor of San Francisco?
June 9th, 2007 at 9:51 am
“Then I predict a reversal of all the good that has been done on the social issues.”
um…Rudy is Pro Choice…his election may undercut the prolife wing of the GOP as ‘extremists.’
he will not advocate banning of civil unions.
and who knows what other moral issues will come up?
will he keep the FCC in somewhat controlling the airwaves? etc.
we’re talking about reversal either way, hence why I want to give Mitt (or Fred or Sam or Mike or John M.) a chance
and I fully understand my general election choice is idealistic.
June 9th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Prediction–Hillary and a Democratic Congress{which is a given} will give us socialized medicine, much higher taxes, stem cell researtch, gay marriage, looser abortion laws, and a muslim terrorist in everyone’s backyard. Things could get worse.
June 9th, 2007 at 9:53 am
(66)
–I assume so.
just because A is better than B doesn’t mean I endorse A’s Actions by voting for him.
June 9th, 2007 at 9:54 am
68–
true, and than we’ll win running away next time.
“we’re talking about reversal either way, hence why I want to give Mitt (or Fred or Sam or Mike or John M.) a chance”
June 9th, 2007 at 9:56 am
You sound like a reasonable person–let’s vote for our children and grandchildren. Stopping terrorism is the bottomline. If we aren’t safe the rest doesn’t matter.
June 9th, 2007 at 10:00 am
I’m sure we won’t turn into an Israel.
I’m voting for the future generations to keep them safe morally and physically.
Rudy doesn’t fit that. Mitt might. John might. Sam or Fred might.
June 9th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Grant, this is fon but I will need to go in a couple minutes.
June 9th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Note:Stem cells weren’t an issue in 2000.
now, that’s not the most important issue for me, but new issues like this can prop up.
June 9th, 2007 at 10:06 am
and I’m off to other things…
bye for now!
June 9th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Go! Fredhead, Go!
June 9th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Grant, supposedly by some miracle (in politics, we call it reaching out to voters via grassroot organizations, sites visits, ads, etc… but apparently you do not believe in them) the polls just before the first primary is exactly same as one from last November, except that Romney is where Rudy once was (in 40s), and Rudy is at Romney’s level (in high single digit), and the contest polls with Democratic candidates, shows the same, with Romney beating everyone of them by the same margains as Rudy once had, would you continue to argue that Rudy is the man for the job? This seems to be your solo argument on why Rudy should be elected, because of that first polls which by itself is worthless.
The scenario above at the present pace is very likely. In fact, it seems to many campaign analysts that Romney’s plan is ahead of schedule. However, most of us, myself included, believe that Romney will reach the plateaus that he needs to work harder to overcome (for instance, being in 5% to 8% in SC for a long time which he finally overcame only a couple of weeks ago). The ONLY and yes, I mean, ONLY, reason why Romney did not look good in the first polls was BECAUSE HE WAS VIRTUALLY UNKNOWN AMONG THE AMERICANS. This is the only advantage Rudy had over everyone on both side; his 9/11 image gave him the boost. But I must admit that I am very disappointed in Rudy’s performance, as he does not have to work as hard as anyone else to maintain his leads. But yet, his leads are being eroded quickly on both sides.
June 9th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Douglas Brinkley was just on CSPAN explaining that Republicans need moderates to win 2008. Romney will not appeal to moderates like Rudy will. So I don’t accept your premise. But if the polls show Romney as the strongest candidate I would support him.. But I believe Rudy is the one to keep us safe and that is the primary issue for me . Although I like Rudy’s law and order position.
June 9th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
We need a conservative, not a “moderate.”
June 9th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Grant, it is good to know you are willing to consider other strong candidates. Your argument so far do show that you are in favor of Rudy only because of the results from the early polls, and ignoring the work of the campaigns.
Now, we need to understand what a moderate candidate is. There are two definitions here that I can see, and I am not sure which Brinkley are referring to, so I will cover both.
The first one is someone who won’t go to the extreme to either end of the political spectrum. I believe most of the candidates we have on our side are in this category. I mean, for instance, Rudy believes that the choice of abortion should be enforced from the Federal level (he is not too thrilled about overcoming the Roe vs Wade, among others). Then, we have Sam Brownback who comes from the opposition side — enforcing the bans of the practice with no exceptions. Under those lights, Romney is moderate on his stance that the abortion decision should be up to people at the state level, even though he is personally against it.
The second definition is that the person should be able to work with both sides. It is not all about “me, me, me”. Again, we have some like McCain who took 2 steps forward and only one step back. He is going too far across the asile. We should stay in as far toward our side as much as we can (Bush failed to do this when the Republicans were in control of both houses), and go no further than the middle point. Do I need to say anything about Rudy, what, with his history of bashing everyone? I am not sure he can work well with many groups (definitely not those who are soc-cons!) Again, Romney has the history of stare at BOTH sides fully in the faces until he understands the perspectives AND data from both sides and work toward the solutions that were truly benefical for the people. That is a moderate person at work.
Now, I am not claiming that Romney is a centerist — which is something entirely different. He believes in the conservative principles, which basically means that our country are only as good as our people. They should be allowed to govern themselves. They should keep more of their money (tax cutting and responsible spending), they should feel safe to purse the happiness (security), and they should decide what is right for them as a whole (social).
Grant, is that what you think of when you heard the word, “moderate”, or is it more of centerist? If you still think it is a centerist, then we will need to disagree.
June 9th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Note
Fred pulled 3% in the lame poll that had McCain in front in 3 states.
June 10th, 2007 at 7:11 am
I mean a centrist on the issues. Based on where the American public is. On abortion, Brownback is an extremist. Rudyis in the mainstream. What can I tell you–according to Rasmussen, Rudy is seen as Moderate by 52% and conservative by 25%–Romney is seen as 40% conservative and 29% as moderate. I t isn’t enough for Romney to convince me-I am strongly on the right. He must convince the middle.
June 11th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Give the people what they want. Very inspiring and principled, Grant.