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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Thanks. This thread really wasn’t complete until you added a little Fred-hate. I was waiting for it.
Really didn’t need the “rode hard and put away wet” visual though.
Professor Blather on September 18, 2007 at 12:24 PM
I knew Mitt’s numbers would drop as soon as he started softening his support for Iraq, which happened big time at the last debate…
canvas on September 18, 2007 at 12:24 PM
If Hillary actually won … she’d be working in the same room in which her husband was, uh, serviced by Lewinsky. She’d sit in that room for four years.
That’s … funny. Disturbing. But funny.
Professor Blather on September 18, 2007 at 12:26 PM
What is absurd is equating an anti-abortion, pro-life stance (as it applies to abortion) to the anti-death penalty issue. They are completely seperate. I won’t argue about the death penalty here, except to say that this argument is used by leftists constantly to deny credibility to pro-life people. It’s dishonest. They say this while opposing the death penalty themeselves, but for the most part they support abortion.
And I must say, all this one issue voters will be the death of the country stuff is also absurd.
HmmHmmmm (that’s me clearing my throat to draw attention to the follow line).
samuelrylander on September 18, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Look at these two quotes together for why Newt makes his prediction. He knows he doesn’t stand a chance against Shillary now that news of his affair while leading impeachment proceedings against her husband has hit the press. We can rule out the option for setting up his own campaign, I think.
Enough abortion-crazed voters will vote for Hillary or will not vote for either Rudy or Fred to tip the scales in her favor. Enough religious zealots will stay home rather than vote for Mitt to tip the scales in her favor. Single-issue voting is a nightmare that we somehow HAVE to overcome.
Alternate proposal: make the war on terror (how it has been mismanaged and poorly presented to the public, how it really does exist, and why we MUST win it) the so-called single issue of the campaign.
flutejpl on September 18, 2007 at 12:32 PM
Geraghty talked to Rasmussen, and has a post in which Ras makes my point. He’s full of it, though, when he says his is the only polling outfit screening for likely voters.
Big S on September 18, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Not quite sure what your point is here, McG. But to clarify, I was saying that I do NOT support abortion in any way. I feel terrible for all the little lives snuffed out without a chance, and I wish we could end that barbaric practice. But I’m a pragmatist, too, and I know that at this juncture, neither I nor the president we elect can stop women who want to kill their unborn babies from doing so. But the president we elect CAN stop the terrorists who want to kill MY babies, who have already been born and are wanted. The “born” children need protection, too, and the president CAN provide that. So, unless we want the president to declare war on pregnant women, let’s stay focused on the terrorists as we’re choosing our next leader.
aero on September 18, 2007 at 12:33 PM
On this point you might have a chance of convincing me. It’s a hard sell though.
samuelrylander on September 18, 2007 at 12:34 PM
Don’t even think about starting up with this again sweetie. How’d he do in the fight you’re referring to?
McCain is done. Goose: cooked. Fat lady: singing. Ship: sailed. Fork: stuck in him.
Hollowpoint on September 18, 2007 at 12:34 PM
Once again, on the Rasumussen tracking polls: They’re useful for tracking purposes, and, as any given election draws closer, for prediction purposes – two very different things. At this moment, the pool of voters who make it through Ras screens on this particular poll are different from the pool that would a few days or weeks before the primaries, and even more different from the the pool that would be available a few days or weeks before a hotly contested national election.
It comes across as an outlier because it measures something different – what you might call core partisan support, which is normally less volatile, and in a “normal” election (an off-year election, for instance) more predictive than polls that screen less selectively.
At this point, in this contest, even core partisan support appears highly volatile, or highly sensitive to the news. Fred got his expected announce-bounce. Check back in a month or so, and Ras’s daily and cumulative tracking will give you a good, fairly trustworthy idea of trends in the race. It probably won’t give you a horse-race prediction for the primaries generally unless the overall race has decisively stabilized.
CK MacLeod on September 18, 2007 at 12:37 PM
I was mistaken by your question. I thought you meant to ask is that “the national” poll….meaning general election.
It is a national poll among likely Republican voters.
Rasmussen is usually dead on, so I wouldn’t know why any of you would criticize his accuracy.
msipes on September 18, 2007 at 12:39 PM
Wow. Really got me there.
I believe it’s the most important issue, and it will play a large role in which candidate I choose. However, unlike many social conservatives, I will not let my pet issue determine whether I stay home on election day and elect Hillary Clinton or not.
You’ve shown a willingness to do just that based on your issue.
Slublog on September 18, 2007 at 12:43 PM
My point is you get it all with Mitt….and all of you quit saying he cannot win because of “whatever”.
Mitt has been and is, the only one leading in the primary polls………………………………..
which by the way is the election season we are in……….
just in case…. anyone missed the memo.
Mcguyver on September 18, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Any further questions, kemosabes?
I’ll check back later….. gotta go.
Mcguyver on September 18, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Is it getting to be “Newt Time” ?
Blaise on September 18, 2007 at 12:51 PM
It seems like the less exposure McCain gets, the higher his poll numbers go. But that won’t win him any primaries. As the saying goes, money is the ammunition of politics – and McCain has none of that.
The main question is who will get McCain’s supporters. And Fred Thompson is positioned better than any other candidate for that.
logis on September 18, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Okay. I get your point now.
I just disagree. I don’t think Mitt is prepared to go after the terrorists with all we’ve got, polls and political correctness be damned. He has said nothing to my knowledge that indicates he’s a serious hawk in the war on terror. Rudy, on the other hand, quite unpolitely threw Arafat out of New York City for being a terrorist supporter and made clear he does not shake the hands of terrorists. Pretty good indication that he’s willing and able to do what it takes to make sure that the United States presents a strong and united front against terrorism. He understands the threat to our culture and our lives and is willing to act on that. Major points in my book. The only real role the federal government has that matters to me when all is said and done is protecting me. Its job is to protect Americans, and that’s what I’m mainly paying the federal government to do. That’s what I want the president to do. Pure and simple. Then get out of my way and let me take care of my own pursuit of happiness!
I don’t think Mitt’s prepared to go tooth-and-nail after Roe v. Wade, either, which is the other half of the equation we were discussing. How does that equal “getting it all” with Mitt? Seems to me like getting neither.
aero on September 18, 2007 at 1:01 PM
It bugs me that independants can’t vote in primaries (I think they can in a few). The candidates always move to the left or right, then dash back to the center during the general election. Clinton is going to be a perfect example. She won’t mess with MoveOn because they have more than 3 million members and unlimited cash flow, but as soon as she has their votes secured she’ll pretend they don’t exist, as she ‘triangulates’ for the general. The end result is independants, the ones who usually decide the elections, are left with a lesser of two evils choice between candidates they don’t like and can’t relate to.
I kind of like that Rudy has stuck to his guns through all the criticism. I like that he will appeal to moderates and blue dogs.
BadgerHawk on September 18, 2007 at 1:02 PM
Yes.
aero on September 18, 2007 at 1:02 PM
I’ve shown you nothing of what I plan to do on election day, except refuse to vote for Rudy. I’ll vote for someone else. It will be someone I agree with, primarily in the area of abortion, but in other areas too.
You asked me what my most important issue was, if it wasn’t the WOT.
Take all that stuff you just said, and substitute the issue of abortion for WOT, and you have my stance.
How is it that I am more fanatical for my issue than you are for yours? I’ll make an assumption here, correct me if I’m wrong. I’ll bet that you won’t be voting for Ron Paul. Why not? Other than the ambiguous accusations of “crazy” that float around his head, what’s wrong with him? He opposes the WOT. He panders to Truthers, or they pander to him. I’m not sure it makes much of a difference. (I think this is where the “crazy” comes from). So other than his opposition to your issue, and the crazy, he’s a conservative’s dream. He’s for small government. He’s for individuals rights, low taxes, the Fair Tax. He’s opposed to abortion. It seems like the only thing standing between him and respectability is his opposition to your one issue.
I say all this not in support of Ron Paul, because frankly, I think the WOT is a big enough issue that he needs to be on the right side of it to earn my vote too. But you make the argument I shouldn’t base my vote on one issue.
samuelrylander on September 18, 2007 at 1:04 PM
Damn, I’m going to have to start writing down my predictions because they have an uncanny way of coming true.
McCain crumbling, Mitt stumbling and having a hard time raising money and his Iowa Straw Poll bump being temporary, Fred climbing after his announcement… forget Dick Morris, Bob Novak and all the other professional pundits- just listen to Hollowpoint and you shall see the future.
Mitt is done. He’s hinted that he’s not been raising that much money, and he needs it- last reporting date he took in $26 million from donations, spent $31 million, and “loaned” his campaign $9 million. He has a large organization to feed and is still spending money- often foolishly- on TV ads (money spent in SC is money wasted). He’ll have to self-fund just to lose with his dignity intact.
His strategy of putting all his eggs in the early state basket won’t pay off- for it to work, he’d need to be in second or a close 3rd, but assuming he rebounds back to 14%, he’d have to rely on his support doubling after winning in the early states, and that just won’t happen. Besides, he’s very vulnerable in NH, and can’t win SC.
Polls show Romney having the lowest favorability ratings and least chance against Hillary in matchup polls. As people become aware of this it’ll be almost impossible to significantly improve his numbers- there’s just no particularly compelling reason to vote for the guy unless you’re a fellow Mormon or from Massachussets- where he still would lose against Hillary.
As it now stands it’s a two-way race between Rudy and Fred. Romney won’t drop out, since his (failing) strategy is counting on some huge boost after an IA win that won’t happen. McCain needs to hold on long enough to get matching funds, but if he stays in the race beyond November it would be out of pure stubbornness.
Hollowpoint on September 18, 2007 at 1:06 PM
I’ll vote for someone else. It will be someone I agree with, primarily in the area of abortion, but in other areas too.
samuelrylander on September 18, 2007 at 1:04 PM
So, if Rudy ends up getting the GOP nomination and Hillary gets the Dem nomination, who will you vote for in the general?
I think that’s what people want to know from you. If it’s between Hillary (whom you know will support killing babies) and Rudy (who might not fight against killing babies but might appoint constructionist, conservative judges who would), which do you and other single-issue abortion voters choose? Or do you stay home?
aero on September 18, 2007 at 1:08 PM
Actually, there are a number of reasons I disagree with Ron Paul – not just on the war. His general foreign policy is retrograde, his anti-FDA stance is a bit too broad, and his monetary policies are not suitable for a modern global economy.
So no, there’s not a single candidate I’m willing to rule out based on one issue.
Slublog on September 18, 2007 at 1:08 PM
It’s possible I missed it earlier, but if the election comes down to Rudy vs. Clinton, what will you do?
Please, please tell me you wouldn’t sit it out.
BadgerHawk on September 18, 2007 at 1:08 PM
If it were Rudy Vs. Clinton, and there were no other options, which is unlikely, but if that were the case I would probably go with Rudy because he at least makes a pretense of valuing some of the things I value.
samuelrylander on September 18, 2007 at 1:13 PM
McCain has been through this fight before. That helps.
Don’t even think about starting up with this again sweetie. How’d he do in the fight you’re referring to?
Hollowpoint on September 18, 2007 at 12:34 PM
In the 2000 Primaries, McCain got more Democrat votes than Republican votes.
There was never a chance he would win. None. Yet before the media started up this idiotic pre-primary primary campaign, they kept telling us that he and Giuliani were the Republican “front runners” and our “only hope” of losing to Hillary by less than 15 points.
That media buoy still accounts for about 7-8 points in the polls, but it’s going to evaporate as the real primary season begins.
logis on September 18, 2007 at 1:14 PM
What the hell are you talking about? He can’t win not because of “whatever” but because he has too low a favorable to unfavorable ratio, and matchup polls against Hillary reflect that. Whether his religion or his personality, people just don’t like him all that much.
And just what “primary polls” are you looking at? Among likely primary voters, pollsters universally have him either in either 3rd or 4th place, battling to stay in double digit territory.
In NH he’s very vulnerable, and as McCain found out in 1999, winning the first state (then NH, now IA) isn’t exactly a guarantee of victory.
Hollowpoint on September 18, 2007 at 1:16 PM
Sorry, missed your question. I wouldn’t stay home. I’ll accept the misnomer of “single issue voter” for right now, but I don’t think that in the world of rational people such a thing exists. Most of the people I know and hang out with feel the way I do about this issue, but I would be surprised if any of them stayed home on election day because Rudy was their only option. I’m just trying to encourage other options.
samuelrylander on September 18, 2007 at 1:17 PM
So lets say RP’s monetary policy, and FDA stance were wonderful, and he was your dream candidate. I’ll let you disagree with his foreign policy because it so hand in glove with the war. But other than that he was perfect. With his current stance on the WOT, you would vote for him?
samuelrylander on September 18, 2007 at 1:21 PM
But…they’re not wonderful. That’s kind of the point.
Slublog on September 18, 2007 at 1:23 PM
I’m glad you wouldn’t stay home. I think that’s what was freaking everyone out.
Sorry for calling you a “single issue voter.” You did say that you consider other issues, but that abortion was your top concern. I admit I was just following the herd in labeling you a single-issue voter. Moo. ;-)
aero on September 18, 2007 at 1:23 PM
I think the reason Mitt! is falling is because he doesn’t seem that strong when it comes to the war on terror.
Even though I do not like Fred!, I have a strong feeling that he would at least defend our nation, viciously if necessary.
Rudy would as well, although I’d rather not have him take our guns in the process (I know, 2nd Amendment would stop him, but he isn’t friendly towards it).
Either way, I think the US is going to be screwed the next election cycle (regardless who gets in). Anyone want to head out west (or is it east?) towards Australia/New Zealand?
Darnell Clayton on September 18, 2007 at 1:24 PM
No. The point is, is there any issue you would go to the mat over? Is there anything you beleive in strongly enough that you will absolutely not accept anything else?
Here, in my opinion, is the rub. I am not interested in electing the lesser of two evils. I want a good leader.
I don’t want to follow someone who doesn’t believe in anything.
samuelrylander on September 18, 2007 at 1:27 PM
When it comes to voting for a candidate, no. I don’t expect someone to agree completely 100% with me. When it comes to elections, I pick the person who is less perfect in order to avoid the hostile.
Slublog on September 18, 2007 at 1:30 PM
In my opinion, this is actually what will be the death of this country
samuelrylander on September 18, 2007 at 1:35 PM
We survived Jimmy Carter. We’ve survived Tip O’Neil. We’ve survived Bill Clinton. We’ve survived Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha, and Harry Reid. “Slow” Joe Biden almost bored us to death, but we survived him too. The USA will survive whatever befalls us the next election.
Things don’t look too good for Congress, but Hillary is vulnerable enough that we’ve got a good shot at retaining the Presidency. The only question for now is if we want a Republican who’ll repeat the same mistakes that Bush has made, or do we nominate someone who’ll turn things around for the Republican party.
Hollowpoint on September 18, 2007 at 1:37 PM
Does anyone know of a state by state poll showing the percentages of each candidate vs HER? That would be interesting to see.
(BTW, cs… did you make it to Hawaii? And did your son? If so, enjoy it. It is a great vacation and lots of history. I’ve been in and out of there a few times myself.)
Texas Nick 77 on September 18, 2007 at 1:40 PM
Optimism
samuelrylander on September 18, 2007 at 1:40 PM
This is the most thoughtful and dynamic conservative candidates discussion, in a long time.
Csdeven, even you were doing fine, except for when you had to comment on looks, anyone’s looks. Must.Control.Your.Fredgasms.
Professor, with your utmost clear-thinking, the party needs you as an advisor.
It’s not his Mormonism, it’s his slickness. Even those who claim to be perfect on this side, don’t like perfection. It’s not the American way. Flaws, real and overcome, are much more admireable and easy to accept/vote for. Hillary has the same problem as Mitt, except she’s also mean, regal and misanthropic.
For McCain “the party is over”.
Comment of the year!!! Was the case in Nov. ‘07 and will be the case in Nov. ‘08
Socialism, here we embrace the! Then we lament for the next 12 years, at least, while our pet peeves become even less significant.
Entelechy on September 18, 2007 at 1:44 PM
Forgot – met Duncan Hunter at the San Diego Freedom concert, recently. He is very nice and stands for something, but he made no effort, to not even shake hands.
There were signs with his name at the way to the arena, he stood there in one place and waited for others to come by and shake hands. Said a few nice words about the troops, to no one in particular – only the 3 tables around him, munching on BBQ, heard him, smiled, talked to other known figures who came by, and left.
No mingling with the people, shaking hands and going out of his way. Nice but not impactful in any way.
Entelechy on September 18, 2007 at 1:49 PM
“Hunter can beat Hillary, too. It’s a shame nobody realizes it.” Actually, a lot of people know this and that’s why the Me-dee-ya doesn’t cover him
Christine on September 18, 2007 at 1:51 PM
Correction – “was the case in Nov. ‘06″
Entelechy on September 18, 2007 at 1:53 PM
Yes, if it’s him, then it’s him. I can’t say he gets me excited about voting Republican, but I won’t let a Democrat, any Democrat, get elected just because I didn’t go out there.
But I thought we were talking about the primaries.
Esthier on September 18, 2007 at 2:01 PM
When a Republican candidate gets less than 1% support amongst Republicans, I think it’s safe to say that he’s pretty much unelectable.
He’d likely make a good President, but it’s just not going to happen in 2008.
Hollowpoint on September 18, 2007 at 2:25 PM
McCain is done. Goose: cooked. Fat lady: singing. Ship: sailed. Fork: stuck in him.
Hollowpoint on September 18, 2007 at 12:34 PM
—— – - – - ———– – - – ———
Do you think he’s through?
stenwin77 on September 18, 2007 at 2:35 PM
Bwahahahaha!!!
Sure. The guy who lobbied for a dictator and gave legal advice to terrorists will certainly take the republican party in a different direction. Lets nominate Fred. The guy that will make an entire new set of more serious mistakes.
csdeven on September 18, 2007 at 2:52 PM
He’s on life support, and the only question is whether to pull the plug.
Romney is in a little better shape- he’s alive but in intensive care, hoping for the miracle he’d need to survive.
Ron Paul has died, been cremated and had his ashes tossed in the ocean with his worshippers still praying to his shrine and swearing they see his image on a grilled cheese sandwich.
Hollowpoint on September 18, 2007 at 2:56 PM
I did see a series of state polls and Rudy is consistently the guy that beats all the dems.
Actually my wife and his girlfriend are flying to Hawaii a week from Wednesday. He should get in within a few days after or before.
csdeven on September 18, 2007 at 2:56 PM
I pretty much agree with samuelrylander, except if it does come down to Rudy vs. Hillary, I WILL either stay home or vote for a third party candidate.
Now you can all go ahead and flame me. I don’t give a rip.
2Brave2Bscared on September 18, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Do us a favor, just vote democrap for the rest of this cycle. You might as well vote for the people who your mentality will put in office.
csdeven on September 18, 2007 at 3:07 PM
Do you truly believe that the country would be equally well protected and served whether the next president is either Rudy or Hillary?
hillbillyjim on September 18, 2007 at 3:29 PM
Do you truly believe that the country would be equally well protected and served whether the next president is either Rudy or Hillary?
hillbillyjim on September 18, 2007 at 3:29 PM
I think Newt’s right about the 80/20 odds that Hillary is going to be our next President. Our party is in shambles with Iraq, illegal immigration and even huge government spending tearing it apart from the inside and even as we wade deeper and deeper towards November ‘08 the Republican leadership is much more interested in making sure their corporate buddies have lots of cheap labor than voting with the overwhelming will of the party’s voters. Looks to me like George W Bush is working hard towards his legacy as the last Republican President.
Buzzy on September 18, 2007 at 3:33 PM
Apologies for the double.
By the way I’m not a huge Rudy fan, but I believe that he understands the nature of the Islamist threat that faces us, and to me that supercedes all other issues in this election cycle.
hillbillyjim on September 18, 2007 at 3:33 PM
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
This whole “Presidents don’t affect abortion” argument is getting tiresome. President’s most certainly do affect this issue in many many ways. Clinton required doctors serving on military basis to perform abortions. President Bush got rid of that of course. Bush signed two important acts. Banning PBA and The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, making it murder to kill a mother and her unborn child. These are big in how they tell us as a society that AT LEAST a wanted child’s life has value. Rudy wouldn’t have signed either act.
Bush made sure that no tax payer’s money would go to fund abortion. Rudy would not be against that. Bush blocked funding to international groups that offer abortion. Rudy would not. And don’t even get me started on embryo research.
You who think that a President can’t affect abortion law are just wrong. And anyone who thinks Rudy will ever stand up for life are wrong too.
Rightwingsparkle on September 18, 2007 at 3:34 PM
Exactly.
Allah, if Rudy doesn’t get the GOP nod, you can say hello to Prez Glacier in ‘08.
clark smith on September 18, 2007 at 3:44 PM
Why? Rudy is no conservative either, and I really believe there isn’t hair’s breadth difference between the two.
samuelrylander on September 18, 2007 at 11:05 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
You may well have just written Rudy’s epitaph.
MB4 on September 18, 2007 at 3:45 PM
Why? Rudy is no conservative either, and I really believe there isn’t hair’s breadth difference between [him and Hillary].
samuelrylander on September 18, 2007 at 11:05 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.
CK MacLeod on September 18, 2007 at 11:22 AM
It does not take someone on the far right to view Rudy as being not a conservative. I view him as very clearly not being a conservative by any stretch and I am not on the far right, in fact some here think that I am a liberal.
MB4 on September 18, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Look, Mitt is a strong candidate against Hillary. I’m not sure the Mormon bigotry would lend itself to the general election. But personally he has great appeal.
Fred has the star power, but I worry about gaffs and his health. But if he can overcome that, then he would give Hillary a run for her money.
And finally, like it or not, McCain could surely beat Hillary. The moderates and the last minute voters love him and don’t care about the immigration or finance laws.
I think Rudy is strong against Hillary in the general election, but he has so many skeltons in his closet. They have all come out in drips over the years, but if the voters get a full look at everything he has done over the years (and rest assured Hillary will give it to them) The public might not look so favorably on him.
Rightwingsparkle on September 18, 2007 at 3:58 PM
hillbillyjim on September 18, 2007 at 4:11 PM
No flames here, I feel the same way.
Hollowpoint on September 18, 2007 at 4:12 PM
Hollowpoint on September 18, 2007 at 4:12 PM
Ditto.
Either stay home or vote for a third party candidate (and or get drunk).
MB4 on September 18, 2007 at 4:25 PM
Mr. Rassmussen and Mr. Gallup would like a word with you. Wear something nice:
Rasmussen:
Mitt Romney (R) 40%
Hillary Clinton (D) 49%
“Mitt Romney is now viewed favorably by 37%, unfavorably by 40%…”
Gallup:
“…Romney, who has the lowest positive-to negative-ratio among Republicans of any of these four leading candidates.”
“Each of the Democratic candidates has statistically significant leads when matched up against Romney. Edwards leads Romney by 29 percentage points (61% to 32%), Obama leads him by 21 points (57% to 36%), and Clinton leads him by 13 points (53% to 40%). link“
Hollowpoint on September 18, 2007 at 4:25 PM
I’m wondering darling, did you respond to these comments on looks?
Besides, AP does use photos of Fred that are not representitive of what he really looks like. That isn’t a big deal most times, but Fred is looking like the campaign trail is wearing him thin. That matters because the job of president is not for the weak.
csdeven on September 18, 2007 at 4:27 PM
in fact some here think that I am a
liberaltroll.MB4 on September 18, 2007 at 3:55 PM
hillbilly
jimbubba on September 18, 2007 at 4:11 PMMB4 on September 18, 2007 at 4:28 PM
Nonsense- this “only Rudy can beat Hillary” nonsense is getting absurd.
Without any significant difference in positon on abortion, gun control, immigration and the skeletons in Rudy’s closet he’s not the paragon of electability he’s being made out to be. I won’t vote for him, and neither will a lot of the social cons who turned out in large numbers to elect GW.
While Romney’s high unfavorable ratings mean that he’d likely lose against Hillary, Fred’s high favorability / unfavorability ratio with plenty of undecideds unfamiliar with him as a candidate suggest that he has an excellent chance to take her down should he win the nomination.
Hollowpoint on September 18, 2007 at 4:38 PM
Yeah, that turned out so well for us in 2006. Why not try it again?
Surrendermania!
Slublog on September 18, 2007 at 4:41 PM
hillbillyjim on September 18, 2007 at 4:43 PM
in fact some here think that I am a
liberaltroll.MB4 on September 18, 2007 at 3:55 PM
hillbilly
jimbubba on September 18, 2007 at 4:11 PMMoonBat4ever on September 18, 2007 at 4:28 PM
JimboBubbalouie
hillbillyjimDingBat4eternity on September 18, 2007 at 4:43 PMMB4 on September 18, 2007 at 4:53 PM
If you don’t believe that the direction of our government, the next four years’ legislation, the possible SCOTUS appointments, the federal judge nominees, and the war effort would be THE SAME under either Shrillary or Rudy, then a third candidate vote or a no-vote vote under the Clinton vs. Guiliani scenario would be nonsensical, and as Slu points out,
hillbillyjim on September 18, 2007 at 4:54 PM
So if the perfect candidate does not get selected, a bunch of you will not vote for Rudy. That’s foolish
If your team does not score in the first quarter do you go home? There is more at stake then this one election, thinking differently is real foolish.
Allowing the other team to get the upper hand in a long battle is foolish. The pres. vote of 2008 is not the last one, nor the only one, it is one of a series. And to make it more difficult to win the next time is just, well, foolish.
It is difficult to unseat a sitting Pres., senator, congressman, and to just give up something so valuable, that takes so much effort to gain, is just plain foolish.
If the conservatives can hang in there, we can effect change with our candidate, more so than with the liberal candidate. To think differently is obvioulsy foolish.
right2bright on September 18, 2007 at 4:57 PM
Damnright2bright!
hillbillyjim on September 18, 2007 at 5:00 PM
So if the perfect candidate does not get selected, a bunch of you will not vote for Rudy. That’s foolish
right2bright on September 18, 2007 at 4:57 PM
So if a liberal gets the Republican nomination, a bunch of you will vote for him just because he is like a milkshake with 3 scoops of $hit in it and Hillary is like a milkshake with 4 scoops of $hit in it. That is very foolish, not to mention gag me!!!
MB4 on September 18, 2007 at 5:08 PM
Here’s the thing, csdeven: Rudy and Hillary are both taking the country in essentially the same direction, only one of them is doing it at a more accelerated pace. If you want to keep voting for the moderate leftist because he’s “better than the other guy” then go ahead and do so. But just keep in my mind that the further left the country gets, the further left the ‘center’ becomes. Me, I’ll stick with the conservative, because unlike the ever moving, mushy ‘center,’ a good conservative doesn’t change his positions from day to day just because they contradict the latest Gallup poll.
Eventually, voting for the “lesser of two evils” simply isn’t good enough anymore. There comes a time when you have to stop messing around and stand up for what’s right — no ands, ifs or buts. For me, that time is now.
2Brave2Bscared on September 18, 2007 at 5:11 PM
Unfortunately some on here feel that it’s their duty to vote for whatever piece of crap the GOP trots out there. But yet those of us who refuse to settle are somehow painted as the bad guys? Go figure.
Principles over the party line every single time.
2Brave2Bscared on September 18, 2007 at 5:15 PM
Although a noble and worthy sentiment, it is neither logical nor practical. How can this possibly help if the end result is to elect the “greater of two evils”??
hillbillyjim on September 18, 2007 at 5:17 PM
Just because RudyMittMcFred have an ‘R’ next to their names, doesn’t mean that we’re on the same team.
2Brave2Bscared on September 18, 2007 at 5:18 PM
I vote for the candidate who best represents my principles and conservative beliefs. The rest I leave up to God.
2Brave2Bscared on September 18, 2007 at 5:20 PM
What it boils down to is this:
This country cannot afford four years of Hillary Clinton and her Socialist agenda, especially if the Democratic majority holds in the legislature. Period.
hillbillyjim on September 18, 2007 at 5:20 PM
Again, how can this possibly be a good thing if the end result is to elect the “greater of two evils”?????
hillbillyjim on September 18, 2007 at 5:23 PM
You mean like Bush? Yeah, that’s working real well.
What’s Bush done except expand government and spend, spend spend? Sure, he nominated some good Justices, and he cut taxes, but does that even begin to make up for everything else? No.
Like I said, the only difference between the Democratic candidates and the likes of Bush, Rudy, Mitt, etc. is one will give us rampant socialism today, the other tomorrow.
2Brave2Bscared on September 18, 2007 at 5:26 PM
This country cannot afford four years of Hillary Clinton and her Socialist agenda, especially if the Democratic majority holds in the legislature. Period.
hillbillyjim on September 18, 2007 at 5:20 PM
America survived 4 years of Jimmy Carter and 8 years of Bill Clinton (and coming up on 8 years of George W. Bush), it can survive 4 years of Hillary or
the other HillaryRudy.Then the Empire strikes back!
MB4 on September 18, 2007 at 5:38 PM
Now I get it.
If Hillary Clinton gets elected, it’s God’s fault!
Now I see where AllahP.’s coming from with this athiest point of view.
hillbillyjim on September 18, 2007 at 5:39 PM
O that it were so simple.
hillbillyjim on September 18, 2007 at 5:41 PM
If Hillary Clinton gets elected, it’s God’s fault!
hillbillyjim on September 18, 2007 at 5:39 PM
With awesome power goes awesome responsibility.
MB4 on September 18, 2007 at 5:41 PM
I’ll vote for Rudy,
I’ll vote for Mitt,
I’ll vote for Fred,
I’ll vote for (shudder) McCain (that one hurt to say)
Whomever gets the nomination will have my full support.
As for the number drops, just too many pigs for the tits right now. Once the low dogs get kicked off the porch there will be a lot more room for the big dogs.
(like my Fredism?)
conservnut on September 18, 2007 at 5:42 PM
O that it were so simple.
hillbillyjim on September 18, 2007 at 5:41 PM
The expectations of life depend upon diligence; the mechanic that would perfect his work must first sharpen his tools.
- Confucius
MB4 on September 18, 2007 at 5:44 PM
Where is Ron Paul? Oh, that’s right he is just a joke.
TheSitRep on September 18, 2007 at 5:44 PM
If Hillary gets elected, it will be the fault of those who voted for her. Just like if another squishy “moderate” gets elected it’ll be the fault of people like you who chose to settle because it was easier than fighting for what’s right.
Sorry if that’s harsh, but it’s how I feel.
2Brave2Bscared on September 18, 2007 at 5:47 PM
I’ve voted in every election since 1988, and not once did I vote for the “perfect” candidate… because there hasn’t been one. Reagan wasn’t perfect, and Dole sure as hell wasn’t but he got my vote anyways.
Now, after seeing a Republican Congress and President spend money like madmen, increase the size and scope of the federal government, bend over backwards to please illegals and the special interest campaign contributors- sometimes to the point of corruption- there will be no “lesser of two evils” for me. Earn my vote, you’ll get it. Don’t, and you won’t.
This time, I’m not taking a bite of a crap sandwich just because it’s on Republican bread. If party-line voting for whoever has an R next to their name got us in this mess, maybe holding candidates accountable to conservative principles is the only way out.
Fortunately, Rudy hasn’t won the nomination just yet, and there is a an electable, consistant conservative (imperfect though he may be) who’s become a serious contender. I’ll take my chances with Fred.
Hollowpoint on September 18, 2007 at 5:55 PM
If you think in terms of a year, plant a seed; if in terms of ten years, plant trees; if in terms of 100 years, teach the people.
- Confucius
MB4 on September 18, 2007 at 5:55 PM
What this time is for you now will not be the same after 8 years of Hillary. You will realize that Rudy would have slowed the pace toward socialism until we could get a real conservative elected. It is your stubborn insistence to cut off our noses to spite your face that gave us 8 years of the Clenis. Thanks but no thanks. Just vote democrap so we can put you on the left where you belong.
csdeven on September 18, 2007 at 5:59 PM
Yeah, Fred. The guy who lobbies for dictators and gives legal advice to terrorists.
Real conservative dude.
csdeven on September 18, 2007 at 6:01 PM
Please remember this when it comes time to vote.
Man who fly plane upside-down have crack-up.—Confucius
No, not entirely. It would also be the fault of those who stayed at home rather than vote for someone who didn’t agree with all of their pet issues and those who voted for a non-electable third candidate if this Clinton/Guiliani scenario plays out.
Damn, people, didn’t you all learn anything at all last Nov.??
hillbillyjim on September 18, 2007 at 6:01 PM
You’ve heard it before, but I’ll repeat: The Democrats didn’t deserve to win, but the Republicans deserved to lose. Tell me I’m wrong, I double dog dare ya.
Hollowpoint on September 18, 2007 at 6:01 PM
I did, but apparently you didn’t.
The lesson was: When Republicans abandon conservative principles and stop acting like Republicans are supposed to, they lose.
If Rudy gets the nomination and loses because people like me stay home it won’t be my fault, it’ll be yours for helping nominate someone who doesn’t represent conservative ideals.
Hollowpoint on September 18, 2007 at 6:05 PM
Standing on principle is a good thing generally, but not if the end result is detrimental to yourself, your party and your country.
He who lives in glass house need plenty big Windex.—-Confucius
hillbillyjim on September 18, 2007 at 6:09 PM
Wrong. I am hoping that someone other than Guiliani gets the GOP nod.
Doesn’t mean that I am willing to inflict Clintonism on our nation if I don’t get my way, though.
hillbillyjim on September 18, 2007 at 6:13 PM
What you don’t seem to get is if all you demand is junk like Rudy and Mitt and McCain, that’s all you’re going to get.
Thanks for the respect.
Exactly right, Hollowpoint.
2Brave2Bscared on September 18, 2007 at 6:13 PM
And yet you’re Mitt supporter, correct?
2Brave2Bscared on September 18, 2007 at 6:17 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »