Wednesday, July 18, 2007
|
|
More Good News For Romney
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
1:54 AM
|
From the latest New Hampshire poll:
On the Republican side, Sen. John McCain has dropped from first place early in the campaign to fourth. The Arizona Republican, who won the 2000 New Hampshire primary, is now trailing Fred Thompson, who has not announced that he's running.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney leads all Republicans with 33 percent. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani fell slightly from his 20 percent showing in a June poll to 18 percent.
Thompson was at 13 percent, up from 11 percent. McCain was fourth, dropping from 20 percent to 12 percent support.
"McCain has not lost voters in New Hampshire because of his support for the war, he's lost support because of other issues," Smith said.
The poll shows that two-thirds of Republican voters support the war in Iraq. Support for McCain slipped because of his support of President George W. Bush's immigration plan, Smith said.
In the meantime, with millions of dollars invested in TV ads and a strong grassroots effort, Romney keeps climbing. But Smith said that with so few people definitely decided on a candidate, there's time for anyone to recover.
"If anybody has 20 percent in the race by the end with enough money to spare, they have a chance of winning New Hampshire," Smith said.
Governor Romney is spending his money to excellent effect. Mayor Giuliani is bankrolling much of it, perhaps putting his sights on Florida, and California and the other Super Duper Tuesday states of February 5. Senator Thompson's strategy is...?
If you had to take one of the hands, I think most would pick Romney's cards. Patrick's worries below about Ron Paul's supporters picking up the "strategic" votes of the disappearing McCain effort etc overthinks the situation in Iowa, and the tide of the early contests generally. Winning is winning, and if Romney wins in either Iowa or New Hampshire, he's the conservative to beat in Florida. Beat him in both and he's almost certainly done. But a silver medal for Ron Paul in Iowa is about as significant as the innards of a pigeon.
|
|
"But a silver medal for Ron Paul in Iowa is about as significant as the innards of a pigeon."
What exactly is this supposed to mean? Ron Paul is going to win it! You just don't understand how many people are joining...... |
|
|
I'm not so sure that the amount of money that Mitt Romney has spent to date has produced results worthy of the cost. While he is leading in New Hampshire and Iowa, neither lead is insurmountable. Not to mention National he can't see to break out of the 9 to 11% range, Yes I know it's early, but can one honestly say that the money spent has garnered the appropriate returns? I don't know, maybe Hugh's a little dizzy after sitting atop that rotating attraction at Disneyland all day. |
|
|
Congress is where all the action is today. No one is noticing the Presidential candidates -- including Romney and Thompson. If this keeps up, the Republican turnout in 2008 will be the lowest in history. Obama seems to be the only one who is energizing people; all the wrong people. Come on Republicans, get some energy. |
|
But can Romney win without the support of the Evangelicals?
Dobson et al have already announced that they will burn him at the stake, along with all the Donnie and Marie CDs they can find.
Too bad..... there is a lot about Romney that I like. |
|
|
Grow up. There's no need to intertwine the names Hitler and Hillary. Comparisons like that are vulgar. And there's also no reason to call Obama a "negro". While you're probably trying to be funny, it certainly isn't. I would expect Dr Paul wouldn't condone this either. |
|
pigeon?
Does that mean that gold medal at Iowa is worth the feathers and beak of the pigeon?
It seems that Hugh is implying that Romney must win Iowa whereas it is now optional for the other candidates. |
|
Here is an interesting exchange between a Google Executive and Ron Paul in a public interview.
Google Executive: "So clearly, then, your position on issues like gay marriage--you'd be in favor of that?"
Ron Paul: "I'm in favor of all voluntary associations, and people can call it whatever they want." |
|
As the actual Iowa Electronic Market and Intrade quotes show, most do NOT pick the Romney hand. How can you sit there with a straight face and hypothesize about what most would do when we in fact have hard evidence to the contrary of what most ARE doing?
The rest of your post is equally inane:
"Winning is winning, and if Romney wins in either Iowa or New Hampshire, he's the conservative to beat in Florida."
Why in the world would that be true? Let me let you in on a little secret about Florida: we have newspapers, television, and the Internet. Even assuming that we were going to mindlessly follow Iowa's lead, we wouldn't have to wait until next January to find out what that was. It seems clear that Romney is on his way to victory in IA and NH - and yet he is still in a distant third in FL.
As the presumptive winner in IA and NH, whatever boost Romney will get for that is already priced into his FL, SC, etc. poll figures. There can't be a significant post IA-caucus win boost, because the win is already assumed.
And as you yourself acknowledged the other day, Florida early voting and mail voting start two weeks before our actual election day itself, which means one week before NH votes. More than half of us who will vote at all will have voted before the NH results (and probably IA) are even in. We can't follow NH's lead blindly, even if we wanted to.
"Governor Romney is spending his money to excellent effect."
He's spent millions in TV ads in a state with four electoral votes (a state that has a total of two VHF television stations), and you call that good effect? Because he's winning, I suppose. The fact that it's a neighboring state with a lot of MA transplantees makes it a soft target to begin with. And a win that is widely known and perceived to have been partially bought is a win that will be cynically discounted nationally - just look at the comments section of any of your Mitt threads for verification of this.
A better test of how the various candidates are faring is ten-vote Wisconsin, the most recent poll of which was released this morning.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/wi/wisconsin_republican_primary-269.html
Ridy Giuliani 24
Fred Thompson 15
Tommy Thompson 15
John McCain 10
Mitt Romney 6
We sensibly discount much of the local Tommy Thompson support (as you should have for Mitt in NH), and we get a much better picture of how the race is actually going.
One more thing I take issue with: your post title. It's hardly "More" good news for Romney that he still leads in NH. Generalissimo Franco is still dead, and Mitt still leads in next-door New Hampshire – true. But no matter how many different angles you approach a lead in a state with four electoral votes from, it’s still only the same single lead in the same tiny state. Mitt could commission fifty polls to come out in the next fifty days – but fifty more positive results wouldn’t really be fifty distinct pieces of additional good news. |
|
There's a headline we'll never see here in Mitt Romney Happy Talk Land: "Bad News for Romney".
Reading this blog lately I'm reminded of Voltaire: "Everything is for the best in this, the best of all possible worlds."
How's Harriet Miers doing on the Supreme Court, Hugh? |
|
|
All you guys who are so opposed to Romney that you come here to write long posts berating Hugh: Don't you have something better to do, like support the candidate you do like? |
|
This is HOW we support the candidates we do like. ;)
Not that I particularly dislike Romney. I think he's marginally more conservative than Rudy. But polls seem to shows he's drastically less electable (in a general election) than Rudy, and also far less electable in the immediate sense of gaining the nomination.
There's a certain entertainment value to listening to Baghdad Hugh ignore the buildings crumbling around him. At some point though Hugh will have to admit defeat for Quixote, and maybe then we’ll get back the pragmatic author of Painting the Map Red. This place will be a lot saner, though less fun, when the pretense ends. |
|
I have ask this before: Isn't Hugh the prophet of the new media, the blogosphere? How can someone see and predict the changes in the new media yet be blind to the fact that the primaries and the power they hold have totally changed. This is not Jimmah Cahter and 1976, this is now!!! FLORIDA, SOUTH CAROLINA, CALIFORNIA, those states matter now and Iowa and New Hampshire do not. Really does Hugh think that voters in Florida are gonna to wake up read the paper and say to themselves, wow, Romney won New Hampshire, I better vote for him!!!!
Insane, and quiet amusing
the dirL |
|
Hugh:
I have long felt that New Hampshire was Romney's to lose. Massachusetts candidates have always had a decided advantage in the Gem State's presidential primary, in both parties. NH gave boosts to the candidacies of John Kennedy, Michael Dukakis, Paul Tsongas, and John Kerry, on the Democratic side and to the unlikely write-in candidacy of Henry Cabot Lodge on the Republican in 1964.
If Romney doesn't win in New Hampshire, his candidacy is done. It's do or die there for him, especially because I don't think he can take the Iowa caucus and needs an early win. (He should do reasonably well in Nevada.)
So, his showing right now in New Hampshire is no surprise. What is surprising to me is that it's taken him so long to build his current lead there.
Mark Daniels |
|
...and so true. Even though Hugh seems to be losing it in his dotage, it IS entertaining to come here, and see what new way he has figured out to dress up a pig, er, sorry, pigeon.
I like Ron Paul, and no one is paying me to say it. He does not have a snowball's chance of getting into the White House, but I still respect him. I think his positions, including his "pro-gay marriage" one above, are the most sane and truly conservative of the lot. I also like Rudy, but I lost a little respect for him with his "gotcha" moment in that debate, when he disingenuously claimed to have never heard that American involvement in the Mid-East was a motivating factor for Al Qaeda. I found that cute little soundbite a shock, considering that Rudy is the head of all these security groups, and that Al Qaeda has been telling anyone who will listen exactly that for the past decade...
I actually like Romney alot more when I don't hear about him from Hugh. Hugh is such a shameless booster that I wind up finding Romney distasteful just by association. That said, I still think Mitt is a bit "plastic Fantastic," and I don't doubt that there isn't a single position he wouldn't change if Romney felt it offered him a strategic advantage to do so (and if he could get away with it; at this point, even minor tweaks would be jumped on as more Mitt-floppery...)
|
|
"If you had to take one of the hands, I think most would pick Romney's cards."
That is a rather bold statement by Hugh. Maybe if the race was decided solely on New Hampshire (and I agree Mitt has done very well there). But beyond that? Look at these national numbers: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/republican_primaries.html
Based on those and the early states, Giuliani and Thompson are the forces to beat. Mitt is doing better than I expected and very well in Iowa and New Hampshire, but he is still not making traction elsewhere. Mitt has to hope that either Giuliani or Thompson stumble or pull a McCain. |
|
The better news out of NH is the following.
Among Republicans, 38 percent said McCain was definitely off their list, 30 percent said they wouldn't vote for Thompson, and 22 percent rejected Giuliani. Seventeen percent of Republicans said they would not vote for Romney.
Romney has the least resistance. He seems to have overcome the flipflop and Mormon issues. He is definitely electable. It simply takes the right campaign.
With 2/3 of the Independents voting in the Dem Primary it will be harder for McCain. If his support goes to Ron Paul so much the better. Paul is not a threat. |
|
Not this Bush, but his pop. A lot of the Romney-ites love to focus on their man’s sterling résumé. That was the strength (and weakness) of George Herbert Walker Bush: he was a lifelong résumé-builder. His presidential run in 1980 was justified not by any actual accomplishments but by having filled a long list of important-sounding former positions, though he had served without distinction in any of them. Congressman? Check. Ambassador to the UN? Check. Chairman of the RNC? Check. CIA director? Check. Ambassador to China? Check. Even his eventual election win by default in 1988 came largely as a result of him checking off the biggest box on his to-do list: occupying the vice-presidency for eight uneventful years.
Mitt headed an Olympic effort – but so did Peter Ueberroth. Like Michael Dukakis and Bill Weld, he was the governor of MA, but that in and of itself won’t get you very far. His signal gubernatorial “accomplishment” consists of criminalizing being young and healthy – hardly a conservative or libertarian position.
And of course both Mitt and GHWB flipped from pro-abort to pro-life the instant it became expedient to do so. |
|
The Rompson fans are attacking the slingshot strategy that Romney is deploying. That is wise on their part as it makes their candidates look stronger than they are. The support for Rudy and Thompson is very soft and fluid(national poll yesterday).
Romney is using the classic strategy has been most reliable in the past. It is the only viable strategy for a candidate who does not have a strong national following. That is why McCain is now trying to use it.
National followings at this point in the race are often wrong. That is especially true if you do not have one dominant candidate.
If you have a one dominant candidate then national polls at this point have more relevance but in 2007 they are misleading at best as far as predicting who will win.
Romney is leading and gaining strength in early primary states. As the race continues it will get easier and more cost effective for him to get traction in the Super T states. He will concede some of those and concentrate on Congressional districts that he can win. Rudy already seems to be following that strategy. He gave up on IA and may on NH if the numbers get bad enough. Thompson seems to have the sense to do likewise.
It will become a battle of regional strengths. Zogby indicated that Romney and Rudy were essentially tied in the West Region. If Romney can add the West to the slingshot he is in very good shape. CA is proportional by Congressional district. Romney will get his share of CA. |
|
|
|
|
Excellent points, well stated. I have my doubts it will work, but that is certainly what Romney is trying to do. I think Mitt only has a shot if Giuliani or Thompson commit an unforced error (like John McCain did). I do not see him as a VP candidate unless he is solidly in as #2, otherwise Giuliani and Thompson will pick someone they perceive will help them in the general election (more than Mitt). |
|
|
Even if Romney's hand holds up to win NH, it's still a very small pot. |
|
FWIW, on Intrade the favorites for the Veep spot are Fred Thompson and Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty. Obviously the key factor will be who it is doing the picking!
I’ve always been an advocate of picking a popular politician from an in-doubt swing state who can help you win that state. Obviously there is the occasional “national” veep prospect like a Colin Powell, but in general you’d be wise to try to go with someone who could give you four of MI, OH, PA, MN, WI, and IA – which is why I think a Midwesterner would be the smart pick.
That makes Obama a natural fit for Hillary’s running mate. There’s not as obvious a choice on the GOP side. Pawlenty might help with MN, but MN isn’t exactly next door to OH. Unfortunately, the GOP doesn’t have such a ready-made prospect as Obama. And none of the likely also-rans for the nomination, save perhaps Fred, are likely to help any possible primary winner much. |
|
"Governor Romney is spending his money to excellent effect."
Heh. Being the shameless Romney supporter you are, you might consider rewording that sentence. |
|
I appreciate Hugh's enthusiasm. I am on the Romney train. I just have this aversion to over-confidence so on occasion I like to audit the system and do a reality check. Hugh said,
"Governor Romney is spending his money to excellent effect. "
I would have been a bit more modest while retaining my optimism. Perhaps he is doing that to counterbalance the unreasonable pessimism that some have for the Romney campaign. All the same, I am looking for and expecting improvement. I believe that he has had to spend what he has thus far to build the momentum that other campaigns take for granted by virtue of sheer name recognition, and he has been successful, too.
However, with some momentum brewing now, we should expect his spending to go down as more momentum requires less of it, or at least he should be able to offset that extra spending with additional fundraising. He can't have spent himself out by the time of the nomination. On the other hand, he can't just wait till the primaries and caucus with his cash in hand. I am interested in exploring what the next step in the strategy is or should be. Any ideas? |
|
|
Is there any reason to care about the Republican race for candidacy? Does you really believe there is even a chance for them to win in '08? The Democratic race is really the race for the White House. |
|
As I recall...It was AL SHARPTON who called Obama - "Barak the magic negro" - so Hal0 was actually quoting Sharpton...which by itself is kinda funny - but even funnier that you think Hal0 shouldn't be calling Obama a "negro" when it was a 'LEADER' of the Black Community that was the original culprit.
PS
Is it ok for me to say "Black" community????? |
|
I don't here you calling out the Libs who have called President Bush - "HITLER" (no play on words there)...
NOR have I noticed a post from you that decried the referrences to our Best and Brightest as "Nazi's", or that their actions were more akin to "guards if Soviet Gulags" or the "POL POT regime"...
Maybe I missed that open letter you authored to Sen Durbin and, if that is the case then I appologize...otherwise GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE! |
|
|
Mary Kay cosmetics is having a sale! |
|
I have gone after the libs plenty of times for their childish BusHitler crap and labeling conservatives and Republicans as Nazis. It's stupid for either side to do it. I did get on Dick Durbin's case. And at least to his credit, he cried while apologizing on the floor of the Senate.
And just because the Sharptons of the world run around spewing their filth doesn't mean the rest of us have to. Anyway, people can say what they want, but they certainly don't stand in a good light talking like that.
I'm not trying to be on a high horse. I just want us adults to act like adults and the let the libs continue to act like the children. |
|
|
It was not Sharpton who called Barack "the magic negro", it was an LA Times reporter. |
|
|
Holy guacamole! Your post wins my vote for the absolute dumbest place to attack Mitt Romney. You've got to be kidding. Romney has proved extremely capable in his many jobs in the past, in an exactly opposite manner than the typical resume builder you would compare him to. I'm taken aback, I'm nearly speechless at your attempt. The evidence from those who have worked with him in the past is consistently off-the-charts positive. |
|
|
No, he fits the description of a typical résumé-builder to a T. On paper he looks fine, until you start to look for specific accomplishments. Like GHWB. |
|
|
are the opinions of a great many people who have worked with Romney in his various endeavors in the past. People that work under a light-weight know it and reveal it. People that work with am intelligent and quality leader also know it. These people, the ones that know Romney's work best, are in complete disagreement with your assessment. I'm picking theirs over yours. |
|
|
the Lord Jesus Christ comes and runs for POTUS. Until then, we're going to have to choose from the few flawed but competent mortals that dare to put their hats in the ring. Among those, Romney looks pretty good to me. If I had a genie at my disposal, I'd change things to include some fantastic people I know personally that only .00001 percent of the US voters know. |
|
I just realized something.
Hugh + Romney = Wavy Gravy.
Look it up! |
|
|
I don't know how anyone can possibly construe Romney as light. He IS his resume. Everything he touches turns to gold. |
|
There ain't gonna be a slingshot effect from IA, NH, and SC this year. The voters will see their own primaries right around the corner and will say that, with all due respect to the good people of those states and their inside-the-beltway enablers, they want to make up their own minds. It won't matter if Romney wins NH by 30%--this year it will be done differently.
Bottom line is that you Repubs have some pretty slim pickings. Your record of governing stinks, your candidates stink, and even your political tactics stink. Think of 2008 as a year of "regrouping"--and you'll be lucky to get even that. Republicanism is a discredited worldview. Only the basers, the dead-enders, are hanging on and they are what, 20-25% of the electorate? What a beautiful thing when the Rush Limbaugh/Hugh Hewitt Republicans have lost their power to flimflam others into finding common cause with them. The power is gone, my friends. It was a nice run, but no one--not slick Willard, not Uncle Porkchop (FDT) and his Hot Tamale, not Rudy the Mayor--can pull a rabbit from this hat. The tricks have run themselves out. America has caught on.. |
|
|
|