Gallup: Mitt crumbles?
posted at 10:28 am on September 18, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
It’s tempting to read that as McCain cutting into Rudy in the center and Fred cutting into Mitt on the right, but Fred’s only up three points since he announced and Mitt’s down seven. Clearly McCain’s cutting into him too. Also, follow the link and scroll down to see Mitt’s favorable/unfavorables. That should be largely independent of the other candidates but even that shows a crumble: 27/35 now when it was 22/18 six months ago and 33/24 after his straw poll win at Ames just last month. He’s hit a few potholes, like when he misspoke by suggesting that his sons serve the country by working for his campaign, but I can’t think of anything that would explain this. Unless his faith is starting to become an issue for people. Is it?
Note well: it’s not just the national trend, either. Romney led Rudy by 12 in his backyard last month. Now he leads by three, with Fred having gained eight points in the same period. Exit question: What’s happening to Mitt?
Update: Then again, is anyone not crumbling right now? Except Fred, maybe?
Sen. John McCain’s troubled presidential campaign organization is imploding in Michigan, senior Republicans in the state say.
Attorney General Mike Cox has told state party officials he is resigning, possibly tomorrow,TUE as Michigan chairman of McCain campaign, several top Michigan Republicans told The Washington Times…
A meltdown in Michigan could presage the early demise of the McCain effort nationally, since Michigan was the one big state the Arizona senator won, with independents’ help, in his 2000 GOP nomination contest with George W. Bush…
A McCain insider told The Times today that the McCain campaign’s financial woes nationwide are so deep that “John isn’t going to make it without taking [federal] matching funds. He’s just not raising the money.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
Republicans are waking up and realizing that only Rudy can beat Hillary.
JayHaw Phrenzie on September 18, 2007 at 10:33 AM
Hunter can beat Hillary, too. It’s a shame nobody realizes it.
Nethicus on September 18, 2007 at 10:35 AM
I was expecting to see a official assessment/report of: “Ask Mitt anything” online forum from last night.
Any chance of that on HA?
Mcguyver on September 18, 2007 at 10:40 AM
Mitt wasn’t that impressive in the last debate. Maybe that hurt him a bit?
Slublog on September 18, 2007 at 10:40 AM
What Jay said. The Democrats are going to pick up seats in the House and Senate unless some sort of miracle happens in Iraq. It looks like Clinton’s going to get the Democratic nod. I don’t see anyone other than Rudy with a good shot of beating her.
BadgerHawk on September 18, 2007 at 10:41 AM
I’m not sure why Mitt’s support is dropping. But I can tell you why I have never been able to get behind him. The main factor is that he has that indefinable plastic politician-first-human-being-second quality about him that is a real turn-off for me.
I also have the perception that what gains he’s made in the early states have been bought and paid for, not earned. It’s hard to take him seriously because I don’t believe he can buy enough states at the price he’s been paying–and even if he could, I’m about 99% sure he can’t beat Hillary in the general.
aero on September 18, 2007 at 10:41 AM
His poll numbers are inversely related to his exposure to the electorate. The more people see him the less they like him. I don’t think it has much to do with Mormonism. He’s an obviously artificial candidate: his hair, his clothes, the way he speaks, his oh-so convinient change of views.
He’s a Ken Doll with the Republican Presidential Candidate accessories pack. People don’t want to vote for a Ken Doll. They want a human.
Thomas the Wraith on September 18, 2007 at 10:45 AM
Rudy’s support is down a bit too, guys. Lower than it’s been this year, in fact, except for a brief dip in June.
Allahpundit on September 18, 2007 at 10:46 AM
National numbers are meaningless at this point. Mitt’s strong and deep in Iowa, and that’s the big game right now.
There has been no major event in the past month that would hurt Mitt, any more than there was anything in August that would account for that 6-point jump.
The variation over time in national polls is probably mostly due to sampling differences, exaggerated by media coverage. Most voters are not very familiar with the GOP field yet.
Focus on Iowa and the early primary states. That’s where the real action is.
Ali-Bubba on September 18, 2007 at 10:46 AM
What’s happening to Mitt?
I thought for sure his Mormonism would be his downfall. Now I think it’s because he really doesn’t have much to offer. His whole election message seems to be “I want to be your President because I want to be president.” And his strategy reflects it. I look at it as if he’s playing a prevent defense, yet he’s not ahead in the game.
lowandslow on September 18, 2007 at 10:48 AM
Anybody see Newt last night? He’s now arguing there’s an 80% chance of a President Hillary.
I think he’s right.
Conservatives better wake up.
Professor Blather on September 18, 2007 at 10:51 AM
I like a lot of what Mitt has to say and think he could be a good governor and an upstanding guy we could largely depend on.
However, I think it could already be starting to come down to electability. For some reason, his religion is a HUGE stumbling block, and some of his flip-flops hurt him. I am surprised McCain’s coming back, and can’t explain it other than liberals mucking up the pollworks.
As I do believe it comes down to electability, I’m worrying about Thompson. He just might not have the stuff. I think (though upcoming debates and such could alleviate such concerns) Mitt might have the stuff but people don’t see him as likely to beat Hillary as Rudy.
That’s it, I think, in agreeing with JayHaw. It looks like Rudy might be the best shot. I keep hoping Fred will get into the groove, but am losing a bit of hope in that regard.
Darksean on September 18, 2007 at 10:52 AM
Get a grip, everyone! Gallup has measured precisely no movement in the GOP primary poll since the first one in July. The changes we are seeing are noise.
Big S on September 18, 2007 at 10:52 AM
If Guiliani is the only one who can beat Hillary, what’s the point?
The only thing conservative about the man is his hawkish stance on the war.
Abortion is the issue on which candidates live or die in my book. If they cannot come out and openly condemn something so vile as abortion, how can one expect them to make solidly rational decisions about anything else?
I am tired of electing people who are supposed to have some kind of standard, only to see them compromise that standard in the interest of politics.
samuelrylander on September 18, 2007 at 10:52 AM
Dead on.
opusrex on September 18, 2007 at 10:55 AM
Beating Hillary.
Slublog on September 18, 2007 at 10:57 AM
I believe Mitt’s performance in the last debate hurt him a little bit. I’m surprised Rudy’s performance didn’t hurt him more though. I thought he was horrific in that debate. He pretty much came out and told me and every other republican voter that he is a George Bush clone in regards to that issue.
Lets not forget though, at this point in the last primary election John Kerry was no where to be found. Howard Dean was running away with it and getting all the glorified press coverage. Much can and will change before this is over.
Zetterson on September 18, 2007 at 10:58 AM
The issue of illegal immigration of course.
Zetterson on September 18, 2007 at 10:59 AM
Sorry, Nethicus…this is the statement of a committed Hunter voter, but not necessarily one living in political reality. I like Hunter too, for what I know of him, but he has no chance against Hillary, just out of name recognition alone. No one aside from die hard repubs really knows who this guy is. I will assure you that the nom will more than likely be Rudy or Fred.
Everyone KNOWS who Rudy is. Everyone’s SEEN Fred before. The “Sheeple” vote for what’s familiar to them. And we can’t only rely on our familiarity with candidates to make the judgement call on who will get the nod.
I feel your pain tho, I’d like to see a true conservative in that nom position…but I think it will more than likely be Rudy.
tickleddragon on September 18, 2007 at 11:00 AM
And perhaps that’s another reason Mitt’s support is dropping. Perhaps there’s a long overdue backlash against the idea that Iowa and New Hampshire get to pick our candidates for us. They’re leaning toward Mitt, so the rest of us lean away?
Just because Mitt has dumped huge tons of cash on two small states and has shaken more hands there than anyone else does not make him presidential material as far as the entire rest of the country is concerned.
aero on September 18, 2007 at 11:01 AM
Oh, and Mitt has no chance. Someone used the word “plastic” above… I think that nails it.
tickleddragon on September 18, 2007 at 11:01 AM
Why? Rudy is no conservative either, and I really beleive there isn’t hair’s breadth difference between the two.
samuelrylander on September 18, 2007 at 11:05 AM
Mitt’s problem isn’t that he’s plastic so much as that he’s redundant. For most voters, there’s nothing about him that they can’t find in another candidate that is better known. He has needed to distinguish himself from the rest, and he hasn’t. He can talk about his “energy” and “competence” as much as he likes, but until he shows it in a way that the other do not, he will continue to lag behind.
Big S on September 18, 2007 at 11:05 AM
I think this is more a case of election weariness. Everyone is stagnating or going down. I bet its similar on the democrat side as well.
lorien1973 on September 18, 2007 at 11:07 AM
Mitt has always looked to me like a game show host. Too rich, too manicured, too TV-looking. He looks like he should be hosting the Newlywed Show.
jihadwatcher on September 18, 2007 at 11:07 AM
I don’t think it is his faith because I think that would be front-loaded into all the polls. What voter is going to say yeah I supported Mitt until finally his religion got to me – seems he wouldn’t have their support in the first place. Nor do I think it is Rudy-Hillary as some comments suggest.
I don’t know, but maybe it’s related to the news of the month: Petreaus and Iraq. With the acknowledgment that 100K troops will be in Iraq at the end of Bush’s term, and the increased emphasis lately about the situation, maybe some of the fiscal cons are moving toward security concerns taking precedent.
Spirit of 1776 on September 18, 2007 at 11:08 AM
I agree re: Hunter. Though, I would like to see him as SecDef in a GOP administration.
CP on September 18, 2007 at 11:08 AM
CP on September 18, 2007 at 11:08 AM
+1
Spirit of 1776 on September 18, 2007 at 11:10 AM
On the war, there’s a great deal of difference. And the war is the most important issue in this upcoming election.
Slublog on September 18, 2007 at 11:10 AM
Slublog on September 18, 2007 at 11:10 AM
Not only that, but health care, taxes, trade come to mind as well. In fact, the only place they’re really similar is on a few social issues.
Big S on September 18, 2007 at 11:17 AM
N
True. And they probably wear the same dress size.
Slublog on September 18, 2007 at 11:19 AM
This is not good news. Romney is strong and smart and capable of leading the West in the war. I wish him well, though Rudy’s still my guy. Romney wasn’t supposed to crumble until the
jihadthe MSM started their holy war against Mormonism. Maybe this is just temporary.Halley on September 18, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Does anyone know why Duncan Hunter is polling so low? Is it just name recognition? He seems to be doing ok in the straw polls, right?
Tanya on September 18, 2007 at 11:20 AM
I bet he had to reach deep into his cornhole to pull that figure out
Ochlan on September 18, 2007 at 11:21 AM
Hunter won the Texas straw poll but none of the biggest competed in that, I think. It was just a stunt for Townhall and some local radio station. He got creamed at the Ames straw poll, which didn’t include any of the big four except Mitt.
Allahpundit on September 18, 2007 at 11:21 AM
This war is a symptom of America’s real problem, political correctness, which is a euphamism for the prohibition against speaking out against those things which are wrong in the world. Al Quaeda attacked us because they perceive us as weak.
I’m all for fighting and winning this war, not just in Iraq, but the broader WOT.
I would be shocked if Hillary pulled us out of Iraq as president, losing the war on her watch. Shocked. She is more than willing to let the Repubs lose the war before she becomes President, but she won’t let that be on her record. So, assuming I’m right, what would really be the difference between Rudy and Hillary? None.
This is not a pro-Hillary stance, it’s an anti-Rudy Stance.
samuelrylander on September 18, 2007 at 11:22 AM
A very credible statement – from the perspective of the extreme right (as in John Birch or Timothy McVeigh), or maybe for people whose idea of “conservative” equates strictly with social issues.
The favorite phrase a few years back was “not a dime’s worth of difference” – as in, not a dime’s worth of difference between McGovern and Nixon, not a dime’s worth of difference between Reagan and Carter. Lots of people believed that. Alien visitors from a galaxy far, far away might have said the same thing, if they had dimes.
Seen from the center, where most Americans and most elections are decided, Rudy is to the right of Hillary on every important issue.
CK MacLeod on September 18, 2007 at 11:22 AM
On the abortion issue, I think some folks forget the obvious: all that matters is whether Rudy will appoint strict constructionists. If he does – his personal abortion politics are irrelevant.
George Bush, Sr. swore he’d get Roe v. Wade overturned. He also appointed Souter to the Court, with the result being 5-4 decisions in cases like Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey and Stenberg v. Carhart in 2000 (the odious decision overturning Nebraska’s partial birth abortion ban).
My point is that its the justices that matter – not the views of the President.
If Rudy can convince me he’ll be appointing Alito’s and Scalia’s and not Ginsburg’s and Souter’s, he can stick a pro-choice sticker on his car for all I care.
Don’t forget one thing: we all know EXACTLY what kind of justices President Hillary Clinton would appoint.
Maybe you disagree, but I don’t care about the rhetoric of abortion or what politicians say about it. I care about ending it. If Rudy will take actions that help end it – even if freakin’ loves abortion – I’ll gladly vote for him. He can march in pro-choice rallies as long as the justices are right.
There is no chance of saving a single baby’s life if we stay home on election day and Hillary wins as a result.
Professor Blather on September 18, 2007 at 11:23 AM
And how does this translate into an anti-Rudy stance? He’s hardly politically correct on this war.
Slublog on September 18, 2007 at 11:24 AM
Touche
samuelrylander on September 18, 2007 at 11:25 AM
Sorry, couldn’t resist a shot at Hillary.
There is nothing about Hillary that suggests she’s going to keep our troops in Iraq. Nothing. Her public statements, her votes – I believe she would pull us out of that country because she’s said that’s what she’s going to do.
Slublog on September 18, 2007 at 11:27 AM
Doesn’t Mitt’s hair automatically give him the presidency?
It should. It’s fabulous.
Do you suppose Edwards is jealous?
Professor Blather on September 18, 2007 at 11:29 AM
Like I said before, Abortion is the kicker for me. It’s such and obviously right vs. wrong issue that anyone who can’t make a firm statement about that can compromise anything.
He is totaly politically correct about this issue and the other social issues proffesorblather referred to.
I would also dispute that the WOT should be the defining issue of the election. It may be that way for most people, but it ought not to be.
I refuse to give authority to someone who can’t get these moral basics straight.
George Bush, Sr. held a pro-choice position before he became Regan’s VP. I wasn’t old enough to vote when he was president, but I wouldn’t have voted for him either.
samuelrylander on September 18, 2007 at 11:34 AM
I wonder why Hotair is promoting everything but Fred Thompson?
Thompson is 9 points ahead of Guiliani among valid Republican voters!
Thompson 28%
Guiliani 19%
THOMPSON IS 9 POINTS AHEAD
Why are you ignoring this Hotair?
msipes on September 18, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Ah. Ok. So is it just name recognition, do you think? Or is he too far right? Or is there some scandal that I don’t know about?
Tanya on September 18, 2007 at 11:37 AM
What else should be?
Slublog on September 18, 2007 at 11:40 AM
Abortion
samuelrylander on September 18, 2007 at 11:43 AM
Tanya on September 18, 2007 at 11:37 AM
Hunter has very little support because he holds office in the House of Representatives, which means that he represents a relatively small number of people, has little name recognition outside of his immediate constituency, and has a rather mundane resume based only on a voting record and little more. He seems like a smart, competent, and honorable man, but that’s just the way it is.
Big S on September 18, 2007 at 11:43 AM
Newt says that there is an 80% chance that the Hildabeast will win the Presidency.
Is he saying that he believes not one GOP Candidate can win agains the Hildabeast, including himself?
OR
Is he saying this to talk down the GOP candidates, so that when he enters the race, he will be viewed as the Savior of the GOP?
Newt = 20% Possibility of GOP Win?
PappaMac on September 18, 2007 at 11:44 AM
How is that more important than the war? I’ll stipulate it’s an important issue, that our country should respect life and the various philosophical arguments underpinning the pro-life movement.
Slublog on September 18, 2007 at 11:45 AM
No offense, but I’m firmly convinced that the greatest obstacle to saving unborn babies is not the left – but those on the right who put being right above doing right, who put moral purity above actual tangible results.
I care about the babies. I don’t care about the opinions of the person who saves them. All that matters is what justices will go on that court.
Again, if you care about abortion – you know for a fact what President Hillary will do.
Professor Blather on September 18, 2007 at 11:46 AM
It has killed tens of millions of Americans over the the last several decades. Terrorists, while a threat, have only killed a few thousand. If one’s goal was to preserve human life and liberty, winning which of the two wars would accomplish more?
samuelrylander on September 18, 2007 at 11:46 AM
As for Mitt, he’s the perfect candidate – for 1992 maybe. He stakes his appeal to the social cons, and trots out his credentials as family man, but his religious and regional background at least partly cancel out any chance that the social cons will reflexively identify with him, and his statements and actions as Mass governor and elsewhere add greater distance. That he tends to project slickness and salesmanship rather than gravity and authenticity makes it even harder for him to close the gap. And even if he had a better basis for his strategy, the social cons are in relative decline – with divided and fragmented leadership, and their natural supporters split in wartime between pragmatic security-first voters on one side, and dogmatic religionists on the other, and much better first choices in the field.
Mitt’s final appeal is as a kind of lowest common denominator choice – ok on the war, ok on social issues, ok on economic issues, an energetic candidate, no scandals to speak of. He could still be the last man standing if Rudy’s too liberal, Fred fails to impress, and John’s time has passed, but he looks like a very energetic landslide loser to a Hillary machine that would eat up his real credentials (as a great businessman) for breakfast, lunch, dinner, dessert, and snacks.
CK MacLeod on September 18, 2007 at 11:46 AM
Thanks. :)
Tanya on September 18, 2007 at 11:48 AM
Oh, so it’s simply a numbers game?
Read Professor Blather’s post upthread – 11:23 a.m.
Slublog on September 18, 2007 at 11:48 AM
I knew that bias existed against Mormons but I am surprised at the amount of that bias.
Mitt is great quality candidate, he’s to the right of Rudy and has the CEO ability that Fred! hasn’t yet demonstrated.
Rudy is the leader and Huckabee, Hunter and especially Tancredo aren’t because that’s where the RNC wants them to be.
Fred! & Mitt, we’ll see.
Speakup on September 18, 2007 at 11:48 AM
If that is a national poll it’s because national polls are meaningless in the context of state races.
csdeven on September 18, 2007 at 11:52 AM
Believe me, I’m no fan of President Hillary. I’m just no more of a fan of President Rudy than of President Hillary.
And I don’t even know what that means. Tangible results? My point, in response to your point earlier that Rudy would appoint strict constructionists, is that while he says he would do that, you have no guarantee that he would follow through. He has already shown himself to be wishy washy in this area. How can he be counted on to do what he said he woudl do? Your own reference to George HW Bush proves this point. He said one thing, then did the complete opposite. The same thing was true, incidentally of his (HW’s) statement on taxes.
samuelrylander on September 18, 2007 at 11:54 AM
How has he shown himself to be wishy-washy in this area? Specifics, please.
Personally, I’ve seen encouraging signs that he intends to keep his word on this.
Slublog on September 18, 2007 at 11:58 AM
I abhor abortion, and I would very much like to see it ended. But abortion is not a threat to MY babies (ages 5 and 10), while terrorism IS.
The president honestly can’t do much about abortion beyond appointing conservative judges. But the president most definitely CAN do something about terrorism.
aero on September 18, 2007 at 11:58 AM
The single issue voters (abortion) people kill me. They’ll ignore the fact that rudy is the only guy who can beat hillary in the general – and not vote for him because he’s pro-choice; but are more than happy to, then, guarantee a victory for someone who is -more- pro-choice in hillary. It’s maddening.
2008 isn’t about abortion, people. Abortion is a pretty minor issue; when faced with the prospect of a free head-removal program instead.
lorien1973 on September 18, 2007 at 11:58 AM
samuelrylander is a prime example of why Rudy might not beat HIllary in the main election. People who feel that way are in the millions and they can turn an election. It’s easy to get mad about it, but there it is and it’s time for us to face it. Millions upon millions are not going to vote for a pro-choicer period.
I agree that Mitt is going up against some Mormon bigotry. No one is going to say it out loud, but they will say it in the voting booth by not voting for him. This is why I don’t think he has a chance. We shall see.
Fred seems to be stumbling around. His only chance is to hit it out of the ballpark at the next debate. If not….
McCain is finally saying what everyone wants to hear. I don’t know how he can appease those angry with him on campaign finance and immigration. (although he is trying on immigration with strong border control talk now) but you guys who feel that way aren’t in the millions.
McCain has been through this fight before. That helps. It will be interesting to see.
Rightwingsparkle on September 18, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Abortion is a State’s Rights issue. In that respect other than appointing proper Judges, it should be far down list on things that are important in a President. Where in the Constitution is the President authorized to be concerned about such things?
No. The main issue is the Global Jihad. If we lose that there won’t be any babies that need protecting.
VinceP1974 on September 18, 2007 at 11:59 AM
And in doing so, they’re going to allow the election of an extremist.
That’s mind-numbingly, weapons-grade stupid.
Slublog on September 18, 2007 at 12:00 PM
The Rasmussen poll is an outlier compared to all of the other national polls, so much so that it’s obvious that their methodology for selecting “likely voters” is very different from the others’. Rasmussen’s screen seems to be rejecting a lot of more “moderate” voters for some reason, based on the relative positions of the “big four.” Personally I hope Rasmussen is wrong becuase if likely voters are as conservative as he seems to be saying, then the (R) party is in for a long, rough stretch.
Big S on September 18, 2007 at 12:00 PM
Unfortunately, I think I can rest my case now.
Many will hold your view: they won’t vote for Rudy based on the possibility that he might appoint the wrong justices – even if it means electing someone they know will appoint the wrong justices.
To too many, saving unborn lives is clearly not the issue. Political and moral purity is. Your post illustrates that well.
Last time: if you care about unborn children, ANYTHING is preferable to President Rodham-Clinton.
Tangible results? Simple. Less dead babies. And less unwanted pregnancies.
Professor Blather on September 18, 2007 at 12:00 PM
McCain has absolutely no chance in hell in being the nominee. To me he’s the moot candidate.
VinceP1974 on September 18, 2007 at 12:01 PM
single issue voters are the death of this country. hate to tell you, but they are.
lorien1973 on September 18, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Exactly. They’re willing to destroy social conservatism in order to save it.
Slublog on September 18, 2007 at 12:02 PM
VinceP1974 on September 18, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Actually, abortion is an individual rights issue. It just turns on a.) which individual’s rights you think are more worthy of protection and b.)which level of government has jusrisdiction over the protection of such rights.
Big S on September 18, 2007 at 12:03 PM
I’m sure Limrick will agree, the drop in Mitt’s support is because of his statements about his sons service, which wasn’t perceived as being about his sons, but about Mitt’s lack of respect for the troops. I was very disappointed in it and in general his rhetoric about the war. His expertise is in management and leading, not enforcing the law and America’s status as the only super power on the face of the earth. I have emailed him on this issue, but as of yet have received no response. Lately he has been less than active towards these issues, as we saw in the moveon attack on Petraeus. From Mitt and Fred we got NOTHING inspiring. From Rudy and McCain we got an in your face attack of the liberal dems and moveon.
An explanation might be that Mitt just announced his security advisers and he may be keeping a low profile until the Petraeus flap fleshes out and then “nuance” his position toward poll results. He’s still strong in Iowa and NH, so he has some time to be patient.
A side note, didn’t I read the other day that we weren’t supposed to pay attention to the Gallup results because they are liberals? Or was that the Rasmussen polls?
csdeven on September 18, 2007 at 12:05 PM
That deer-in-the-headlights moment for Mitt on the gaffe regarding his son in the last debate was painful to watch. How could he not be better prepared for that question?
That hurt a lot.
TallDave on September 18, 2007 at 12:05 PM
And my point is that he doesn’t even have to keep his word specifically on abortion.
All he has to do is appoint strict constructionists. He can do it for constitutional reasons, or because he likes their views on the role of government, or the exercise of executive privilege in foreign policy.
It doesn’t matter. All that matters re: abortion is that justices that hold to those ideologies are ALSO not exactly likely to be NARAL members. With the right justices, the abortion issue will take care of itself. Casey and Roe are bad law; conservative justices will deal with it.
If Rudy manages to find a good conservative justice who is also a screaming pro-choicer and appoints that person, I’ll be wrong. But it ain’t likely.
And yeah, its a little disingenuous to make the terrorism versus abortion a numbers game (especially if you’re willing to be all or nothing and let Hillary win the White House).
The only reason the terrorists haven’t matched abortion size numbers is because they haven’t gotten their hands on the right tools yet.
Do they have to before we can all agree its important?
Professor Blather on September 18, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Exactly. What I was trying to say, but in a sentence. Nice.
Professor Blather on September 18, 2007 at 12:06 PM
I agree with you here, but I’m not convinced we can’t get a candidate who can beat Hillary and who is also socially conservative.
And isn’t that what the primaries is about, picking the candidate whose views you support the most?
Esthier on September 18, 2007 at 12:07 PM
Yup. And his Advisory Committee is chock-full of them. I think that list is a preview of who Rudy intends to appoint to the courts if elected, and it’s a darned good list.
Slublog on September 18, 2007 at 12:07 PM
That isn’t a national poll csdeven. It is a poll for the Republican nomination taken from likely Republican voters.
Again, I ask hotair… why are you ignoring that?
Thompson is 9 pts ahead of Guiliani
msipes on September 18, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Agreed. Single issue republican voters will put Hillary in office.
csdeven on September 18, 2007 at 12:09 PM
Millions upon millions are not going to vote for a pro-choicer period.
What do they think any GOP candidate can do about this that Rudy wouldn’t? Is President Romney going to issue an executive order banning abortion? It’s all going to come down to judges, and frankly I trust Rudy to fight for conservative, constructionist judges more than I trust Fred or Mitt to do the same.
TallDave on September 18, 2007 at 12:09 PM
Yeah, a national pool of voters.
Slublog on September 18, 2007 at 12:09 PM
Fred has not been in a debate, so you have no idea how he’ll actually look -on stage- with other candidates where it matters. Fred’s support comes from those (me included) who wanted a conservative candidate in the race. Until fred shows he can perform on stage, in a debate, being excited about a lead is worthless.
lorien1973 on September 18, 2007 at 12:10 PM
My point here is not to minimize the WOT. It is crucial. It is because of Ron Paul’s stance on the WOT that I won’t be voting for him. That, and the large dose of crazy that comes with him. But abortion is a much larger issue.
I just don’t buy the pragmatism argument – that it is ok to vote for those who support “choice” as long as they promise to act like they don’t while in office.
When California was recalling Gray Davis, Hannity was using this argument in support of Arnold. That it wasn’t like he was going to make abortion more legal than it already was. He was a fiscal conservative. Dadadadada.
Disaster.
It points to their ability to make sound judgements. If rudy is Pro-Choice (Pro-Abortion), What does that say about his ability to reason? 1. It is completely flawed, or 2. It isn’t flawed, but for the sake of political correctness or political gain he holds a position that he knows is wrong. I don’t want either of those attributes in my leader because if he can do that, with an issue as fundamental as a humans right to live, what other of my rights is he willing to sacrifice to poor judgement or dishonesty? My right to low taxes? My right to not have to pay for everyone else’s crappy government run healthcare? My right to not have the government seize my property and give it to a business that will pay them higher taxes?
samuelrylander on September 18, 2007 at 12:11 PM
And it’s a little disingenuous to say Hot Air has ignored Fred.
Slublog on September 18, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Conversely, you could get a million pro-choicers who want to be tough on terrorism who would consider rudy whereas they would not consider a pro-lifer. I think it’s a wash.
If you are willing to have a free head-removal program instituted because of abortion, then you are what’s wrong with our electoral system; not what is right about it.
lorien1973 on September 18, 2007 at 12:12 PM
I hate ranting about things. You are all supposed to just agree with me. It would all go a lot smoother if I was president.
samuelrylander on September 18, 2007 at 12:12 PM
Hey, don’t get me wrong. I’d rather have Tancredo or Thompson (no, the other Thompson) or Hunter or Huckabee. Or Newt Gingrich, if I had my way. All of my above babble envisions a Rudy v. Hillary general.
I don’t like Rudy’s abortion position, either. I hate the “I loathe it personally but won’t outlaw it” shtick. It’s illogical and dishonest. I’d prefer a full-on pro-choicer. At least they’re consistent.
But like I said, if its Rudy – he’s got my vote easily. I’ll vote two or three times if I have to.
The alternative is unthinkable. In all issues, specifically including abortion.
Professor Blather on September 18, 2007 at 12:13 PM
It’s odd that Rasmussen’s numbers are so different than the others. Apparently Thompson is more popular among people likely to answer robo-polls.
But I keep hearing his personal appearances are “blah,” so we’ll see if he can campaign.
I think polling of Republicans is difficult anyway. GOPers are much more likely to have high-paying, demanding jobs and not want to waste time answering stupid polls.
TallDave on September 18, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Since Giuliani has actually given his opinion on a number of these issues, it seems a bit one-issue-centric to make assumptions based on other issues.
Are you against the death penalty? Why not? If not, how can I trust that you’re really pro-life if you’re willing to compromise on what lives should be saved and which shouldn’t?
Now, I don’t want to actually get into that argument, but simply illustrate the absurdity of making assumptions about character based on political views held.
Slublog on September 18, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Goodbye Mr. Plastic.
omnipotent on September 18, 2007 at 12:15 PM
Hmmm.
Good point.
Professor Blather on September 18, 2007 at 12:15 PM
You are mistaken. That poll is nation wide and has no bearing on local voting. The only way that poll could have any credibility would be if Mitt wasn’t leading in Iowa, NH, Michigan, and Nevada.
You poll doesn’t account for that popularity. And when we have the primary vote, it is done state by state and not on a national level.
csdeven on September 18, 2007 at 12:16 PM
Well at least that confirms that you are a true conservative as opposed to liberals who don’t care so much about the group safety:
However, it’s better to support a “plastic” but smart candidate that includes all five….
….rather than a rambling, sanctuary “big” city, lib-con “tool”.
I’m just say’in…
Republican elections are won by the candidate running as a true conservative as much as possible…
‘Think Ronald Reagan.
Mcguyver on September 18, 2007 at 12:16 PM
Has anybody seen BKennedy lately?
steveegg on September 18, 2007 at 12:17 PM
When California was recalling Gray Davis, Hannity was using this argument in support of Arnold. That it wasn’t like he was going to make abortion more legal than it already was. He was a fiscal conservative. Dadadadada.
Disaster.
Well, he’s not Reagan, but compared to Gray Davis he’s been a godsend.
TallDave on September 18, 2007 at 12:18 PM
TallDave on September 18, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Remember, Rasmussen doesn’t just tabulate the number of people who answered the phone and took the poll. They ask a number of “screening” questions to everybody who takes the poll, and uses those answers in order to determine if they think the person is a “likely voter” and therefore should be included in the results. Rasmussen’s screens are letting through a large number of Thompson (and to a smaller extent, Romney) voters compared to the others. Unless we know what assumptions go into determining likely voter status, we can’t even compare the polls.
Big S on September 18, 2007 at 12:18 PM
Yeah, no kidding. I’m starting to think AP might be a Fred shill. Almost every photo he uses of Fred is those BS retouched photos of him that make him look young, energetic, and spry. Just look at the guy in person! He looks like he was rode hard and put away wet.
csdeven on September 18, 2007 at 12:19 PM
The candidate that attacks the democrats will win the vote. Passive candidates (like Mitt, and before McCain, and Fred) will not make it, I guess that leaves Rudy. Rudy is not afraid of a bloody nose. Rudy and Newt, maybe a chance.
Bye Bye Fred, and Mitt. Can’t lead a nation with “thoughtful” statements, and passive actions.
right2bright on September 18, 2007 at 12:19 PM
I think that perhaps Fred could charm people into giving him enough votes to topple Shillary. His charm versus her ice-cold ways… it could work. His admitted agnostic faith, though, is almost a deal-killer in many parts of this country that reliably vote Republican. I agree that Rudy has by far the better chance, and, so far, he’s the only one who has really come out swinging gloves-off against her. I think JayHaw is right on with his words.
The public needs stern reminders pronto and frequently about Whitewater, Somalia, Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinsky, the damage to and theft from the White House, Sandy Burglar, Norman Hsu, etc. We all know Shillary is going to make this campaign the ugliest we’ve ever seen, and we need the figurative equivalent of a pack of pit bulls in our corner to have a chance. Rudy is the only one with that kind of instinct. I don’t want mudslinging, but, as it’s going to happen, it might as well start.
flutejpl on September 18, 2007 at 12:20 PM
That’s actually the opposite of what I’m saying here.
I don’t care what he “promises.” What I care about is what is likely to happen. A President’s only real impact on abortion is in the Supreme Court.
I think Rudy is likely to appoint good conservative constructionist justices – for reasons that may have nothing to do with abortion.
But those justices will vote the right way on abortion.
The end result is all I care about if we’re focusing on that single issue.
—————
By the way, your “the whole thing calls his judgment into question” thesis is a much better argument. It’s actually that that gives me pause in supporting Rudy.
I respect pro-choicers who believe the unborn aren’t alive. It’s stupid and evil, but logical, if you can make yourself believe it. I don’t have much respect for those who do understand that an unborn child is either alive or certainly not proven not to be alive … yet still acts wishy washy on abortion.
That does indeed make me question Rudy on other issues. Including immigration and the war.
——————-
But he’s still eight billion times better than Hillary. Roughly.
Professor Blather on September 18, 2007 at 12:21 PM
Next. Question. Please.
Mcguyver on September 18, 2007 at 12:24 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »