Poll: Mittmania descends on New Hampshire?
posted at 5:46 pm on June 12, 2007 by Allahpundit
The April poll ran 29-29-17; now it’s 20-20-28. Frank Luntz said the focus group thought he won the last debate and this does nothing to disprove that. But what about this?
Mitt does better in only one of the five categories but still leads overall by eight. I wonder if that’s evidence of Rudy’s social liberalism coming back to haunt him (New Hampshire is famous for its “maverickness” so it’d probably hurt him less there than elsewhere) or evidence of the home-court factor helping Mitt a lot. But speaking of mavericks, look at St. John’s numbers. His amnesty record is blaring in that fifth line, but the first two numbers make him look like John Kerry without the “electability” factor. And this is in a state where he’s not only won before but increasingly needs to win to survive to Mega-Tuesday. Where are his numbers going to be once the right-wing Messiah blows into town and turns on the charm?
Patrick Ruffini thinks the only way he’s the nominee is if the other big three implode — which would leave us with a general election where the only way we win is if the Democratic nominee also implodes. Four implosions. Where’s the smart money?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
So, Rudy still leads in “Most Believable”, “Best Chance of Winning” and “Strongest Leader”. He’s tied on the one about unpopular positions.
amerpundit on June 12, 2007 at 6:00 PM
Mitt!!
Zetterson on June 12, 2007 at 6:02 PM
csdeven, Mitt wins, you buy us all the drinks in SD, Fred wins, we buy them for you.
Entelechy on June 12, 2007 at 6:04 PM
You guys and yer petty squabbling what ever happened to Reagans rule?
/sarc off
-Wasteland Man
WastelandMan on June 12, 2007 at 6:21 PM
For what it’s worth, here in neighboring Vermont I suspect we’ll hold our own primary… in which we give the nod to Mao.
RightWinged on June 12, 2007 at 6:24 PM
Turning your back on Che?
right2bright on June 12, 2007 at 6:29 PM
Mitt will make a great VP for Fred.
right2bright on June 12, 2007 at 6:30 PM
You got it, but what happens if fred? and/or Mitt! implode before then? We all demand the Rudy supporters buy us drinks? :-)
On the surface these numbers look good, but Mitt! isn’t going to get any real credibility until he can win over the south. For me, that’s the make or break point for Mitt!. And hopefully it’ll happen AFTER the Mormon hit piece movie, “September Dawn”, has done it’s damage. We need to get Mitt! out there and beat the daylights out of him. If he’s still standing, I might feel comfortable that he will beat Frankenstein (hillary).
csdeven on June 12, 2007 at 6:34 PM
I think The Mitt will be the vice-presidential nominee, and I can’t wait to see him crucify The Messiah.
SouthernGent on June 12, 2007 at 6:37 PM
That’s the good thing about the vicious Republican nomination process. If a candidate can survive everything that their fellow conservatives can throw at them (not to mention the media), the Clinton attack machine is going to seem like child’s play. :)
JadeNYU on June 12, 2007 at 6:39 PM
Mitt Romney says all the right things that a conservative would want to hear. Having grown up in the west where there is an LDS ward in every town, I have nothing against the Mormons, although I don’t feel the “burning in the bosom” the way they seem to.
I just don’t think slick wins this election. And Mr. Romney is certainly slick.
Tennman on June 12, 2007 at 6:42 PM
I think there is difference between well-spoken and slick. On that spectrum, I think Romney’s closer to well-spoken than slick. But, to each his own.
7 years ago we went with the opposite of slick and got Bush. At least if we get fooled and Romney’s another ‘compassionate conservative’ (i.e. liberal lite), we won’t have to endure another 8 years of ‘he’s so stupid’ jokes. Then we’ll be back to being the evil, overly-educated elitist Republicans that we were all born to be. :)
JadeNYU on June 12, 2007 at 6:48 PM
Again, this is only my opinion, but I was talking more about the whole package, not just the speaking ability. One cannot argue that he is not well-spoken. (I counted all the double negatives in that sentence; it’s okay.) The man can put together a well-planned-out thought. Having judged many a speech meet, he’d be winning a lot of Lincoln-Douglas rounds, but he’d make me feel disconnected from his argument.
If he wins in the prelims, I’ll vote for him in the general.
Tennman on June 12, 2007 at 7:32 PM
That’s how I feel about most of them.
With McCain, I’d have to close my eyes, go to my happy place, and pull the lever.
With Ron Paul, I’d be seriously considering the Democrat nominee’s stand on the war on terror. If they’re both equally batty, at least Ron Paul will be solid on shrinking the government.
JadeNYU on June 12, 2007 at 7:40 PM
I think Mitt’s the real deal. There’s many good candidates in the hunt. I think a Huckabee/Brownback Administration would be great if it could happen. I could vote for most of them. Right now, if I could only pick one it would be Mitt. Go Mitt!
Buck Turgidson on June 12, 2007 at 8:53 PM
SG, in the event that she is nominated, I believe she’ll pick Richardson for VP.
Entelechy on June 12, 2007 at 11:24 PM
Speaking of tartin’ it up and dumbin’ it down: AP, when are we going to get some threadage on the red-on-red going on over in fake-but-accurate land?
pedestrian on June 13, 2007 at 1:30 AM
I’ll have lemonade, gave up alcohol when I turned 21.
I don’t see any implosions on the horizon for Rudy, Mitt, McCain or Fred!.
If Rudy has survived his known history for this long, it would be hard to imagine that some new tidbit is likely to ruin him. It is far more likely that his “America’s Mayor” image will lose its draw with the social cons, the values voters, and any evangelicals left that have been leaning his way.
Mitt is an unknown quantity only in the depth and sincerity of his “conversion” to more traditionally conservative positions. As more people choose to believe that it is for real, not political pandering, his numbers will continue to grow.
McCain? He imploded long ago, he just doesn’t know it yet.
Fred, contrary to singular rants, is the most known and knowable quantity of the bunch. His work, his opinions, his choice of battles to fight are there for anyone to read about. His commentary on radio, blogs, and yes, even interviews have carried one consistent message, and it’s one which conservatives have been waiting to hear. If he were “parroting” the existing candidates’ message, he would have been thoroughly ignored by now, but that simply isn’t the case. Chance of implosion? Let’s ask his ex-wife, or his ex-girlfriends. Those are usually good sources for the worst that is within a man.
Freelancer on June 13, 2007 at 11:16 AM