Max is telling us to hunker down for a long campaign between the top 6 finishers at CPAC:
The early polling indicates a 6-way race between Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul( or due to his age, someone similar carrying the banner for libertarians).
He suggests others may join. The big problem here is that the CPAC strawpoll is pretty well worthless as a predictor of electoral fortunes or even top candidates.
The poll makes no sense when compared to public polls of Republican voters. Where’s the disparity? You have to follow the numbers. The Internals of the poll. First thing that jumps out right away is that 52% of the people who voted in this poll are students, 59% are under the age of 25. At least 59% are male. 12% refused to say. So, if we assumed the “refuse to say” are half male and half female, that would mean this polling sample is 59% under the age of 25, 52% college students, and 65% male. Is there anywhere this demographic makes sense ?
13% of the voters were from sponsoring organizations (mostly inside the beltway folks.) While 48 states were represented in the survey, can we say that they were represented proportionally? The beltway, Northern Virginia, and Southern Maryland will be far better represented than other states by nature of geography and having an easier time getting to where CPAC is held.
The CPAC strawpoll is a notoriously bad predictor. In 1999, it awarded the strawpoll victory to Steve Forbes. In 2005 and 2006, it went to George Allen, and this is Mitt Romney’s hat trick.
What states are most likely under-represented? The ones that will decide the nomation. Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.
The bottom line: if you want to hold a conference so that big name conservatives can easily get there, hold it in Washington. If you want to hold a conference that will tell you anything about 2012, hold a simultaneous 3-day conference in Concord, Des Moines, and Charleston.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
I will partially agree with you. It is no indication of who will get the nomination, especially since we are 3 years out. But it is a good indication of who the contenders are. Short of someone making a run at things, these are the individuals who will be the top contenders, but doesn’t indicate who will be the leader. From a historical point of view we can have a further indication, but that is another discussion.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
It’s also a good indication of who can raise money and attract volunteers. I think its clear that those 6 are the most practical and the most probable. Others such as Huntsman or Crsit may be also be able to organize as well, but they are unlikely to supercede the six I mentioned. The only wild card who has the organization and money to take on those 6 is Jeb Bush, and we all know that he is unlikely to run for obvious reasons.
As of now those six are the most likely, and without a doubt those 6 will have the top money and organization if and when they choose to run.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
“If you want to hold a conference that will tell you anything about 2012, hold a simultaneous 3-day conference in Concord, Des Moines, and Charleston.”
Adam, genius line bro and so true.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
so adam, at this stage who would you rank higher than those 6? seems as accurate as one can be at this point.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Is anyone surprised that Adam comes out with a post about how meaningless CPAC is after his guy nosedives into 5th place at 7%?
February 28th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
seems like those 6 are the most accurate. who are your frontrunners adam? seems like those 6 are the most likely as of now.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Martha, yes raising money, gaining influence and organizing volunteers are all important for putting together campaigns, but you cannot be for real to claim that this poll is scientific. Did you read the demographic information. Among other things, if the majority of primary voters are college students under 30, I’ll be more than impressed.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
“seems like those 6 are the most accurate. who are your frontrunners adam? seems like those 6 are the most likely as of now.” Dr. Paul and Mr. Gingrich in the top six? Are they seriously running?
February 28th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Demographics from the 2008 primaries for IA, NH, SC
Iowa
18-29: 11%
Female: 44%
New Hampshire
18-29: 14%
Female: 43%
South Carolina
18-29: 10%
Female: 49%
February 28th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Martha,
You can’t have it both ways, can you honestly say that you’d be downplaying the significance of the CNN poll if Mitt was ahead?
February 28th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
And your point is ?????
February 28th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
How many times does it have to be pointed out that Jindal is not running on 2012! Ron Paul will never get over 10% so ergo he is not a contender. Newt will have been out of a job for 12 years! Not a contender.
There are 3 main contenders (of which two really aren’t), and four outsiders in Thune, Huntsman Jnr, Sanford and Daniels.
These are our seven dwarfs guys.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
One thing that we need to discuss is whether Mitt should play in Iowa?
I say yes coz otherise the media will cover the Huck v Sarah race there as the only race in the world.
Mitt can still win Iowa even if third would be more than fine.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Martha, the demographics of the CPAC straw poll are nowhere near what any primary is going to be. Hence why a candidate like Ron Paul got 13% – look at all the college-attending males who voted (his one demographic). This is about as useless as polling Arkansas for the Oklahoma governor’s race.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
“Martha,
You can’t have it both ways, can you honestly say that you’d be downplaying the significance of the CNN poll if Mitt was ahead?”
Yes, it is a little funny that Palinites though happy with the CNN poll are not dancing in the end zone declaring victory even through the poll is scientific, but Romneyites are practically declaring victory when the CPAC demographics bare no reality to Iowa, NH or SC. Yes, Mr. Romney gave a great CPAC speech and it is certainly not going to hurt him, but let’s not jump the gun over an unscientific poll.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Things don’t happen in a vacuum though Heath; if Palin were to win Iowa, you can just imagine the media reaction.
If I were Mitt, I would play the strategy that Hillary should have played and that’s diminish Iowa and go straight to New Hampshire. Hillary didn’t have a chance in Iowa and she should have known that. The problem is that the media would not diminish a Palin win in Iowa because Mitt doesn’t have Hillary’s stature.
Mitt just has to hope that Huckabee wins Iowa. Huckabee’s inability to compete in Arizona and win Missouri is something that raises red flags with me regarding his ability to compete outside of the South. Those are two states that seem to fit the demographic profile that I have examined.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
“This is about as useless as polling Arkansas for the Oklahoma governor’s race.” Great line! Maybe they should poll me about who should be governor of Kentucky. Haha.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
I’m sure Romney will win a lot of straw polls between now and 2012, just like President Phil Gramm and President Steve Forbes and President George Allen.
It means nothing, and it didn’t work for Romney in 2008.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
The Hillary/Romney analogy in Iowa works in terms of second-choices, if not stature…
Hillary never had a chance in Iowa; what she got as a percentage in Iowa was her upper limit. Edwards vote would have gone to the second most liberal guy in the race, Barack Obama.
The analogy works because none of Huck’s Iowa vote would go to Romney and vice versa with Palin’s Iowa vote.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
In case you missed it in the thread below:
In 2012, I see Mitt & Mike winning all the states that W won in 2004, plus possibly WI, MI, and PA.
I don’t see any other combination of candidates doing as well as Mitt & Mike.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
I knew it wouldn’t take Graham long to try and create a post downplaying the CPAC poll. Who thinks he would have the same reaction if The Huckster had not come in under 10%? Anyone? The reason I can’t stand Graham is that unlike some of the other writers, he is not here to try and give any HONEST insight, analysis, etc. He trys to intentionally slant whatever the news is in favor of huckabee. That makes his commentary simply worthless.
The biggest joke is Graham’s attempt to try and create an expectation that Iowa, New Hamshire and, worst of all, South carolina are going to decide the next primary election. Right! LOL.
Its not that I put much stock in the CPAC poll, though obviously it shows Romney is still very much first tier, its that Graham, simply to try and stop any damage to huckabee, would try and quickly put up such a post. With Graham its simply all spin.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Bags, you cannot be for real. Yes it is possible that Mr. Romney might get 20% and Mr. Huckabee might only get 7%, but to base this on an unscientific polls is nuts. And then you wonder why some of us so-called simpletons think you guys have your freaking heads in the sand. Yes, Adam Graham has biases like the rest of us, but to call his analysis dishonest is so laughable, it is almost down right entertaining.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
It appears Mitt and Huck tied at 20% each then Palin took 13% of Huck’s votes and you end up 20-13-7
I do hope she runs for Mitt’s sake.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
I can tell when I’ve got a point. You can’t argue the demographics are representative, so you just throw out ad hominems. I guess I could respond, but I’m just not the “Your Mother wears army boots” type of guy…
February 28th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Yes, not very intellectually honest of them is it Adam Graham?
February 28th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
#6:
Regarding the top 6, I don’t think there’s a top 6. I think there’s a big 3: Palin, Huckabee, and Romney. And I would bet that at least one of those three doesn’t run.
Sanford has a shot to get in because he can raise some money through the Club for Growth.
Huntsman could run as a Centrist taking advantage of open primaries ala John McCain.
Beyond that, I don’t see a whole lot of great openings.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
so the demographics arent the same as a primary. Big deal.
I still say this vote today is most troubling for Palin and Huckabee.
Both should have done a lot better amongst this group of people. Huck at 7% is dismal. Palin at 13% is embarassing. Jindal fresh off the bomb delivery (although great substance) on Tuesday beat her out. Not very good.
So take comfort in your demographics, but truthfully this group at CPAC are the voters that HAVE to carry Palin and Huck. If they are this lukewarm on them now, I just dont see how either can hope to win in 2012.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
#27:
No, you’re wrong about that. The people who Huck needs are people who aren’t even usually political, but will work their heart out for someone they believe in. They’re the people who made 2008 great for him and will make it again.
Sarah needs those people who signed on with the campaign by the thousands and drove hundreds of miles to hear her.
You might not see them flying into the Swank Omin-Sheridan in Washington, but they are the people who make this country work.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
27
Corep,
My man, that comment exemplifies the major weakness of Mitt and his fans, the hubris is scary.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Romney should win 2012. He always wins, even when he loses. His genius is such that he intentionally won by losing in ’08 in a hopeless year for Repubs just to set himself up as the next in line, because Romney’s prophet, William Jefferson Clinton, instructed His Romniscience that this is how the Republican Party is meant to function.
Mitt will be appearing in Discover Channel specials to demonstrate his true aquapedestrian attributes real soon.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
30 – Romney may or may not win the primary, but if you don’t think he’s got as good a shot as any of the others running at this point I’d question your judgment.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
all last year everyone was screaming that the socons could not stand Romney. cal it flip flop, religion, whatever. The saviour of the conservatives was Palin, she rightly got everyone excited to work for a moderate John Mccain.
Last time I checked CPAC is all about Conservatives. so I stand by what I say. It is the leaders of the conservative movement who get those people to drive hundreds of miles and make the phone calls
You may not like it you may not agree with it, but I for one expected romney to finish 2nd at best and probably 3rd to both Huck and Palin.
and BTW if you have read my comments today you will know that I am not just a fan of Romney, but of Jindal, Newt, Pawlenty and to a lesser degree Huck. Palin scares me, I admit that, but only because she got thrown to the dogs last year. I need to see her strengthen as a candidate and get more wise to the political game then maybe she can win me over.
So before you discard me as another “rombot” consider that I distributed flyers for Ford, walked the streets of LA for Reagan, got behind Bush Sr, languished under Bill baby, and organized precincts for W. I have history with this party perhaps more than some of you have years alive. When I say that Huck and Palin need CPAC voters I know of what I speak.
In the end we have to nominate someone who WILL beat Obama in 2012. AS it stands right now Romney, imho, is our best choice. Come 2012 he may not be, but today he is.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
CPAC Is all about college students from this poll. I think there is no leadership, there is no real conservative that’s trusted. People are quite independent and they went out for Palin not because someone told them to but because they believed in her.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
Adam,
I am not disagreeing about Palin. Like I said I just need her to be a stronger political player. Meaning she has to define herself and not let others define her. I do worry that the defining has already been done and that it might never be undone.
Here in CO she motivated a lot of people who were on the sidelines for McCain to get in the fray. Problem is that she also motivated a lot of people on the sidelines for Obama to get in as well and we ended up losing alot, not only the state but we got Mark Udall in the process.
its that aspect about Sarah that has me wondering if 2012 is too soon. She may need some more time, not to strengthen her postion with the conservatives, but to have the “definition” of her made a little more fuzzy then might occur in just 3 years. I think she understands this too, and that is why she is staying in AK. Smart move on her part
March 1st, 2009 at 12:48 am
While Adam is off to say CPAC means nothing, he’s not far off. We all know that Romney, Huckabee, Palin, Jindal, etc. are top candidates. This confirms it. Any poll that has Ron Paul coming in tied for 3rd and just 1% behind tied for 2nd is not very representative of reality.
I’m concerned that Romney will continue to come off as “plastic” or “wooden.” Kavon says his speech didn’t appear that way, so perhaps he will be able to put that issue behind him. It sounds like all of the major candidates gave pretty good speeches (according to Kavon) that communicated conservative values with real-life solutions. Good for Republicans!
As an aside… I am really starting to despise Mr. I Know Everything Limbaugh. I didn’t catch his speech, but his radio show attitude really, really bugs me. When he sticks with talking about Conservatism, he’s great.
March 1st, 2009 at 1:07 am
Michael Steele just told DL Hughley that e was pro-affirmative action and that the Republican party needs to be the same.
March 1st, 2009 at 1:08 am
Results of CPAC poll in 2007:
Romney 21%,
Giuliani 17%,
Sen. Brownback of Kansas 15%
former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich 14%
Sen. McCain of Arizona 12%
Wow, what a great barometer.
Also, it was well known that Romney paid and bused in hundreds of supporters to inflate his vote total that year. If Romney didn’t have the $$$, Giuliani might have won.
March 1st, 2009 at 1:48 am
“I am not disagreeing about Palin. Like I said I just need her to be a stronger political player. Meaning she has to define herself and not let others define her. I do worry that the defining has already been done and that it might never be undone.”
I tend to agree with that when it comes to Palin. I love her and think she is part of this party’s future, but does need to be a better “politician” I guess you could say, better with handling criticism and the media and mosr importantly defining herself better, not letting her image in too many minds of her (wrong one at that) as a backwards and unintelligent person not ready to lead the nation become her dominant issue. I think running for President, rather than getting pushed into the campaign as a VP-nominee, could help her in this regard. I think the debates will help her.
March 1st, 2009 at 1:56 am
Holy crap guys! When does the Mitt-hatin stop. It is becoming increasingly disgusting. The race has been over for months now and the next primary race won’t start for 2-3 more years. Some of this stuff is unbelievable. Flip is a zero.
March 1st, 2009 at 2:02 am
37 – Its called CPAC, not RPAC. Its not supposed to reflect the entire spectrum of the Republican party, just conservatives. Romney lead amongst self-identified conservative voters in the primary, just like he did in the CPAC straw poll.
Where is it proven that he paid the supporters? Sure he bussed them in, but that’s not the same as paying them. He was getting his name in the news. He wasn’t like McCain and Giuliani who had been all over everyone’s TV for years. And Rudy had enough money to bus people in if he chose to, it just wasn’t important enough to him. Neither was campaigning in Iowa. Neither was running strong in New Hamsphire. You know the rest of the story.
Anyway, whatever you want to say about 2007, Romney won CPAC legitimately without any bussing in 2008 and 2009.
March 1st, 2009 at 2:15 am
Mitt Romney bused in college kids for the CPAC poll
Mitt Romney bused in college kids from Michigan and Massachusetts and paying their conference registration. The campaign “said such turnout efforts are focused only on getting bodies to the event for a show of force, it wouldn’t hurt if attendees took part in the presidential straw poll set for the CPAC event as well.” [The Politico, 2/28/07 ]
Michigan Young Republican Chair Says Students Will Vote For Whoever Brought Them. “Matthew C. Hall, youth chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, said that he had tried to get other campaigns to provide buses, too, but that none were willing. ‘”I would expect Romney will do pretty well in the straw poll because his campaign is the one we are seeing investing so much money and energy into it,’ Mr. Hall, who said he was not affiliated with any primary campaign, wrote in an e-mail message. ‘The response we’ve seen from students in Michigan is that regardless of who they are supporting for president, they are more than willing to take a free trip to the conference if all they have to do in return is wear a shirt and vote for him in a straw poll.’” [New York Times, 3/1/07]
March 1st, 2009 at 2:18 am
Prior winners in CPAC polls:
George Allen in 2006
Gary bauer in 1999 with 28%
Steve Forbes in 1998 with 23%
Phil Gramm in 1995 with 40%
March 1st, 2009 at 3:09 am
41 – You made it sound like he paid them money to vote for him.
March 1st, 2009 at 3:11 am
I remember a Robert Downey Junior movie called Less Than Zero.
Sums up the worth of this straw poll.
March 1st, 2009 at 4:30 am
You know who’s gonna win the GOP 2012 nomination?
Linda
Lingle
That’s right America. Get ready for her. You think I’m wrong? How are you right?
March 1st, 2009 at 4:47 am
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we get it! The CPAC poll is worthless! Especially if the person who wins it is someone you don’t like! FINE! WHATEVER!
But as a Romney supporter, I’ll take any good publicity we can get and I’m pretty satisfied with the all news sources reporting Romney’s win. Heck, it’s on Drudge Report! Woohoo!!
March 1st, 2009 at 4:51 am
errr! I meant “with all the news sources.”
It’s late. *yawn*
March 1st, 2009 at 7:19 am
For the record, I still think that Mr. Romney in the slight favorite despite the CNN poll, but unlike many, I do not think that he is running away with it by any means. I am sure that those who voted in the straw poll will vote in the primary 9and bring friends with them to the polls,) but so will a lot of other people and these people will be older than 25. I am not going to accuse Mr. Romney of busing people, in part because it is not totally relevant and even if he did, other have done the same. The main point of this poll is that the demographics are just way off and it is not representative of the average Joe (if you pardon the expression.) I know that a few of you have no use for Plumbers and Janitors because they do not go to CPAC, but some of them vote in the primary. If Mr. Romney continues to make great speech, many of them might very well in deed vote for Mr. Romney, so in that sense, CPAC might indirectly help him, but I place little value on this poll. No disrespect to Dr. Paul, but who will his 13% go to?
In fairness to the Romney camp, many of them understand the value of this poll and realize that there is still a few years of campaigning, but when Adam Graham post common sense and we have a derangement brigade come out, one has to wonder what is going on.
Kavon, I know that this is your site and nobody elses. I further realize that you are fair minded and you do not have an axe to grind or a camp to support unlike many of the rest of us. However, even though, I am not a Romney camp member, I do ask that you hire a Pro-Romney poster if possible. I want the best and right person to win, and if Mr. Romney happens to be the right person, those of us who have not officially joined a camp (though I for one know which camp I would like to join) would like to hear positive things (and negative thing said in a polite and respectful manner) about all major candidates so that we can make a good decision when the time comes. After all, if nothing else, Mr. Romney did prove at CPAC that he might be able to develop both charisma and personality.
At the same time, I would like to thank you for allowing Mr. Graham to post, I realize that many of your reader do not agree with him even I do not agree with him all the time, but I believe he is a sharp cookie and gives us food for thought should we choose to listen. Yes, he may be bias against Mr. Romney, but he is very thoughtful in his point of view and I for one do not believe him to be a trasher.
March 1st, 2009 at 7:37 am
48
Ohio Joe,
Well said my man.
March 1st, 2009 at 9:35 am
49 – Thanks Joe. I hope we get one soon. I think its good we have Adam posting here even though I often disagree with him. I just think we should have a balanced perspective on the front page of all of the top candidates. If someone is going to be attacking Romney’s record, there should be someone to defend it, just as the same is true with Huckabee and Palin.
As for the bussing at the straw poll, that took place in 2007, not this year. Romney doesn’t need to do that anymore because he’s well known and reasonably popular now.
March 1st, 2009 at 9:44 am
There’s nothing wrong with pointing out how worthless the CPAC poll is. I find it annoying how much attention this poll is getting, given how unrepresentative it is of the party’s demographic, and how little predictive value it holds.
If Palin had shown up to the event, and sent stronger signals she was interested in winning the poll, there is no doubt in my mind she would have won.
March 1st, 2009 at 10:00 am
Or at least finished a strong second, potentially boosting the Romney vote share by consolidating the anti-Palin votes. I was a bit surprised that Huckabee didn’t finish better by virtue of his attendance.
Polls are not indicative of much right now, straw polls are less so.
That said, assuming there are no unexpected external events over the next 30 to 40 months (and there surely will be), Romney has the most logical, straight-forward shot at the nomination.
It doesn’t seem to me that he has to stretch and strain himself as much to convince every GOP subset that he is acceptable. He doesn’t have to make the hard, difficult choices of a serving governor, say, which always winds up leaving some supporters disappointed. He’s in a good position for building bridges and appealing to his detractors.
March 1st, 2009 at 10:34 am
Flip.#51
Don’t you mean “I find it annoying that Romney won“???
Flip, polls represent a snapshot of a specific data point at a specific time. Which means no poll is totally worthless. Even the on-line polls have their value.
Say for instance that HuckPAC held an on-line poll on who was going to win the nomination in 2012. Would it be useless? Hardly. Would the results exactly mirror the final tally of the primaries? Don’t be silly. So what use is it? Simple. It would show the thoughts and impressions of die-hard on-line Huckabee supporters who happened to visit HuckPAC during a specific window in time.
Let’s face it. The only poll for the 2012 Presidential race that will have an absolutely known value will be the one taken nationwide on November 6, 2012. All others are just data points.
So the question is not “Does this straw poll mirror the final primary tally in 2012?” Rather it is “What does this specific straw poll represent for the 2012 race?” That is the real question.
March 1st, 2009 at 10:46 am
From MSNBC’s First Read’s characterization of the event:
“The results were announced just before Rush Limbaugh delivered the closing speech to the conference. When the results were announced, a very small number stood up when it was announced Romney had won. They clapped and cheered, but it was a tepid reception.”
March 1st, 2009 at 10:55 am
marK, if Romney was ahead in a scientific poll, I wouldn’t have much problem accepting it. I wouldn’t like it, but I would accept it.
The reality, however, is that the Romney supporters are relying on a lot of indicators that aren’t very trustworthy or credible. I’m sure CPAC is a fine event, but when Ron Paul is tied for Sarah Palin for third place, I can’t take it very seriously.
I remember when some Ron Paul supporters kept on pointing to on-line polls as evidence of their candiate’s hidden support, and it added up to nothing. So I don’t see how on-line polls really have any true value.
March 1st, 2009 at 11:06 am
Let me chime in here a little. Thanks for the plug for the Mitt poster Ohio Joe. The reason we need one is that, generally speaking, they are better writers than most of the rest of us. I want Mitt to be presented by those who are gifted at writing, and not force all of us who are mediocre at conveying ideas to do all the work. I don’t think we can hang our hats on this poll by any stretch of the imagination. However, I would rather Mitt have won it than not. My gut feel is that Mitt would have done better, not worse, had the demographics been more like the general voting conservatives. I think one thing it helps show is that some conservatives still like Mitt Romney, in spite of having to split them with several other conservative candidates. My gut feel is that if Palin and Huckabee are in the race, Mitt has a better chance of winning this thing next time. I agree with Ohio Joe that Mitt is slightly the front runner at this time, but anything can happen between now and primary season. One thing I would like to know is this: What part of Mitt’s speech do people on here disagree with? Or is it just a feeling that ‘he’s not genuine’, ‘not likeable’, not electable’, ‘doesn’t connect’, ‘plastic’, and all that other garbage?
March 1st, 2009 at 11:14 am
I don’t see much evidence that Romney is the frontrunner, other than the fact that his supporters desperately wish him to be the frontrunner.
A frontrunner finishes first in the polls, not second or third.
If the CNN poll is correct, then Palin has a pretty strong edge among GOP women (not me though). She does pretty lousy with women outside the party, but her edge among GOP women probably makes her the frontrunner at this point.
And believe me, if Huckabee runs, he will spend at least half of his time bashing Romney, which will hurt Romney’s campaign signifcantly among socially conservative voters. I just don’t see how Romney can survive that, given his flip-flops on social issues.
March 1st, 2009 at 11:28 am
Flip.#55
And supporters of other candidates aren’t? Rudy Giuliani led (often by double digits) all “trustworthy and credible” GOP polls from 2006 through most of 2007. He ended up with one whole delegate if my memory is correct. So who is to say waht is “very trustworthy or credible”?
Longtime posters here will tell you that throughout 2006 and the first half of 2007, I stated repeatedly that I would get excited about no poll until June 2007. Events proved me right. I intend to doing the same thing for this cycle through June 2011. Certainly they make interesting talking points. But take any of them seriously? I hope not.
March 1st, 2009 at 11:37 am
Flip. #57
Well I think one of the evidences that Romney is the frontrunner is his detractors keep using words like “desperately” to describe his supporters.
March 1st, 2009 at 11:41 am
I think the scientific polls right now are an accurate snapshot of what Republicans are thinking right now. Of course, that will change over time, but it’s accurate to that degree.
The fact that Romney isn’t doing better should be troubling to his supporters. It suggests that there is a ceiling to his support of around 20-25%.
March 1st, 2009 at 11:41 am
Is Romney the frontrunner? In some ways, yes. Is Palin the frontrunner? In some ways, yes. Is anyone the clear frontrunner? No way. Anyone who claims differently is either naive or just taking advantage of the bragging rights that some bit of good news of his candidate provides.
March 1st, 2009 at 11:45 am
“The fact that Romney isn’t doing better should be troubling to his supporters.”
Could not the same be said about the supporters of all the others, especially Huckabee and Palin?
“It suggests that there is a ceiling to his support of around 20-25%.”
Now who is engaging in wishful thinking?
March 1st, 2009 at 11:45 am
#59, I think it’s pretty silly to call your candidate the frontrunner when he finishes third in several polls. It’s just wishful thinking, which is why I think it reveals desperation.
Romney supporters should be honest about Romney’s shortcomings and have a realistic strategy to overcome them. They are not doing that at the moment, they are just glorifying him to an embrrassing degree.
March 1st, 2009 at 12:01 pm
“I think it’s pretty silly to call your candidate the frontrunner when he finishes third in several polls.”
Absolutely no argument there.
“It’s just wishful thinking,…”
Again no argument.
“…[W]hich is why I think it reveals desperation.”
Perhaps, but I suspect what it does reveal is the dislike you have for Romney. Those Romney supporters claiming frontrunner status for him are no more desperate than those Palin, Jindal, and Huckabee supporters claiming the same thing.
March 1st, 2009 at 12:03 pm
And this applies to Romney supporters and only Romney supporters?
March 1st, 2009 at 12:11 pm
marK, I don’t see too many Palin/Huck/Jindal supporters on here claiming their candidate is the frontrunner.
Again, this site is overwhelmingly pro-Romney, as all the race4008.com votes show. So I tend to push back against the Rom-bots, as opposed to the Palin or Huckabee people. This should not be interpreted as a dislike for Romney. I would prefer him over Palin or Huckabee or Jindal at this point.
March 1st, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Newt. Again.
By MATT BAI
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/magazine/01republicans-t.html?pagewanted=print
March 1st, 2009 at 1:23 pm
I would prefer him over Palin or Huckabee or Jindal at this point.
Flip, I am glad to hear you say that. On that we are in agreement.
Even though I am strongly in favor of Romney at this point, I am certainly not committed to him. This is a Presidential candidate we are talking about, not a marriage partner. Right now, he’s the best we’ve got.
By the way, if you haven’t noticed some of the Palin supporters falling into the trap as a number of us Romney supporters, I suggest you haven’t been paying close enough attention.
March 1st, 2009 at 1:40 pm
I like Sarah and I like Michael Steele but I am also resigned to the fact that it just might be Mitt’s turn and that he might not have many opportunities to run after 2012, so that needs to be a consideration.
March 1st, 2009 at 2:01 pm
This post causes me to suspect that Huckabee did not do so well in the CPAC straw poll.
March 1st, 2009 at 2:14 pm
“Even though I am strongly in favor of Romney at this point, I am certainly not committed to him. This is a Presidential candidate we are talking about, not a marriage partner. Right now, he’s the best we’ve got.” Haha, my marriage partner has a mind of her own and may or may not support the same candidate as me. In all seriousness, there have been many interesting points made by many people on this thread. While, I mentioned that I think that there is a front-runner, I repeat that there is not a clear front-runner and I think many people are starting to come to that conclusion, as such perhaps we are all desperate to promote our favorite candidates which is not a bad thing. A close race and honest respectful debates are healthy for the party.
To address Illinoisguy specifically, I do not think it is garbage to talk about likability and connecting with the voters and the like. For the record, if I were a politician, I would not connect well with the voters or be likable so I do not think it is a character slam to point out that most politicians not just one do a poor job at connecting with the voters. Look, it is fair to say that most in the Romney camp (not all) are going to think that Mr. Romney gave a good speech just because they like him. Most people who hate him are going to say it was not a good speech no matter what he says. I am not a Romney camp member, but I do not hate him. Perhaps that makes me a little objective, perhaps not, but for what it is worth, I think that this particular CPAC speech was well spoken and charismatically delivered and even made him a likable guy. I cannot put my finger on it, it is just my opinion. Of course I am not going to join his camp because of one good speech and I certain do not pretend that I could deliver the 3 CD delegates from my district to him even if I were to join his camp, but I suspect a few people as feeling a little easier about Mr. Romney because of his speech. In the end, that is just my opinion and perhaps others did not think he came across well, but again I am happy for him because it does not hurt to have as many strong electable candidates as possible.
March 1st, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Sorry adam. Iowa, NH and SC does not represent me. How about a 3 day all over. We in the west DO count.
March 1st, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Tommy,
Exactly what year was it that someone ‘won’ Iowa, and went on to win the presidency?
Thought so.
Iowa is meaningless at this point.
March 1st, 2009 at 2:37 pm
#73 — Obama?
March 1st, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Does anyone actually think that Newt Gingrich would have a chance in hell of beating Obama? Sure he is brilliant, but he has less than a zero chance to ever win the Presidency. Thus he would be the worst GOP nominee.
Note, I have no real issue with the man and I would support him if he were the nominee, but the realities are what they are among the general populace.
March 1st, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Qweenie, I do not live in one of those 3 states either, but if you do not like it, change the primary schedule.
March 1st, 2009 at 2:44 pm
I like Mr. Gingrich as well, but I’m afraid that I have to agree with you on this one Swint.
March 1st, 2009 at 2:58 pm
All of these potential candidates would be wise to stand up forcefully in opposition to Obama’s retreat and withdrawal in Iraq. WE NEED TO STAY AND FIGHT!!!! (as well as be looking at regime change in Iran).
March 1st, 2009 at 5:39 pm
54 Tommy Boy – did you hear it when Mitt was announced the winner? The crowd went wild. If it’s available on video, watch it and judge for yourself. MSNBC calling it tepid was way off the mark. It was anything but tepid. Makes me wonder what the motivation is for downplaying it.
Anyway, I’m not sure if frontrunner is the best place to be. Didn’t work out so well for Rudy!
This CPAC poll is not meaningless, but Romney supporters not putting as much stock in it as everyone seems to assume. The real insight from it is not so much that Mitt won, but that Huck had a very poor showing. Palin is about where I would have predicted. The MSM want to present her as our new leader, but she’s not there yet. That’s all this poll really shows.
Also, someone said that if she had been there in person, she would have been higher in the poll. I don’t think that’s likely true. Everyone there knows plenty enough about Palin by now – enough to vote for her or not. They understood that she stayed in Alaska for legitimate reasons. She’s also probably ticked off some supporters by dissing House repubs by lying about her reason for not going to their retreat (To meet Obama and attend the Alfalfa Dinner), by her lobbying for the stimulus (hand in the cookie jar), and even by the bone-headed Bristol interview with Greta.
March 1st, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Yes, obmama won it. But GOP?
March 1st, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Partisan Trends: Number of Republicans Up Slightly, But Democrats Still Have Huge Advantage
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:37 am
Obviously cpac straw poll is not a great predictor of who will win the nod, but it does say something about grassroots support of candidates. It is also some posotive free publicity. Mitt has been all over the MSM as the guy who is getting support from young conservatives.
So while the poll doesn’t say too much, it definetly helps the winner.
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:41 am
As a Romney supporter I still doubt he can win an election without some type of outside help, like a horrible economy for example.
It is no secret that he fails to connect with average voters, you know the type: “i want a president that i can sit down and have a beer with”.
Those who value competence and good communication skills draw to Romney. Those who vote fore someone because he makes them feel good inside have a hard time connecting with him. This is his greatest challenge. That and he comes off as a phony often times enough.
THat said, I freakin love Romney! He is very impressive. I have met him and seen him speak many times. He knows his stuff, is a hard worker, and is incredibly competent!! Perfect no, awsome, yes.
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:35 am
“It is no secret that he fails to connect with average voters, you know the type: “i want a president that i can sit down and have a beer with”.” I guess in some respects I am not an average voter because I am not a beer drinking so I doubt I’ll be drinking beer with any politician. I for one actually get scared when a politician claims to feel my pain and can walk in my shoes. However, swing voters still want somebody to be charismatic and connect with them regardless of whether he can drink beer or feel their pain. Most of us realize that Mr. Obama is not capable of feeling the pain of the average person, yet we recognize that he is more charismatic than most politicians.
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:47 pm
80 – Qweenie, you may be familiar with a former president named Bush…