Recovery? Mitt back up by 13 in Iowa in new Rasmussen poll
posted at 11:32 am on November 16, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
29-16 over Huck, with Rudy and Fred at 15 and 14, respectively. The numbers last month had it 25 to Fred’s 19, with Huck in at 18. In other words, contrary to the conventional wisdom that says Huckabee’s poised to take the lead, Rasmussen says Mitt’s more than doubled his lead in the past month. Who’s right? Well, the only recent polls to put Huck within single digits of the lead are ARG, which can be dismissed as an outlier, and … the NYT/CBS poll, which is more credible. Three other polls give Mitt double digits or more so until further notice I’m inclined to believe he’s in better shape than people think he is.
Another tidbit from Ramussen: “Only 5% of Likely Republican Caucus Participants believe undocumented workers should be allowed to get drivers licenses. Ninety-one percent (91%) disagree.”
As for that anti-Mormon push poll, McCain is confident enough of his innocence that he’s planning to file a complaint with the New Hampshire AG demanding an investigation. Over to you, Rudy.
Update: “What, precisely, does this man stand for?”
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:
I’m sorry, I’m not understanding the situation. I though Ben updated saying it was traced back to a firm that no longer works with Rudy’s polling firm.
amerpundit on November 16, 2007 at 11:44 AM
Right, in which case Rudy will presumably join McCain’s demand for an investigation.
Allahpundit on November 16, 2007 at 11:45 AM
As I would hope the other Republican candidates would.
amerpundit on November 16, 2007 at 11:48 AM
Wow, what a hit piece on Mitt. And, I note, a 5-part series! That guy has an axe to grind.
I’m glad to see Mitt’s support is still strong. Some interesting poll numbers, though.
I think that Huck will soon fade, however, just as Fred faded. The (policy) knock on Romney has been alleged flip-flops. Huck’s the one candidate that has that issue worse than Romney, I think. It’s hard to say you won’t vote for Romney based on flip-flops, but then say you can vote for Huckabee.
Vanceone on November 16, 2007 at 11:48 AM
I think the voters are starting to learn more about Tax Hike Mike and don’t like what they see.
Dudley Smith on November 16, 2007 at 11:49 AM
As a show and if someone is found guilty in Rudy’s camp, he’ll claim ignorance and fire someone.
Yeah, Rudy is a real saint. He has nothing positive to offer America other than ‘I’m not as bad as the other guy’. He learned all these techniques from ‘fighting’ the Mafia. If it is Rudy vs. Hillary be certain to not feel ‘proud to be American’ at all over the next year.
One thing about Hillary is that she offers a positive view of America for the future. I disagree with every avenue she’ll use for that positive view (raising taxes), but at least she’s not saying ‘vote for me because I’m not him’.
ThackerAgency on November 16, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Are you suggesting he didn’t? The mob bosses that wanted to kill him probably beg to differ. As do those behind bars.
Too bad it’s all crap.
amerpundit on November 16, 2007 at 11:56 AM
Regarding Mitt, I think there is ONLY ONE relevant question to ask regarding his candidacy.
Does he have a real legitimate shot to beat Hillary?
I read a piece from Dick Morris a day or so ago (OK,not the most credible guy, but not someone with an obvious axe to grind) who dismissively said, that Mitt has absolutely positvely NO CHANCE in hell to take out Hillary in the general election.
I thought that was a tad overstated, but if it ends up being true, and Mitt rides a populist wave in Iowa and NH to the nomination only to get trounced in the general, then where the heck are we? At this point Rudy and even McCain run better than Mitt vs HRC in every poll I’ve seen.
So what is the case that MITT can beat Hillary???
Thats the only Q I have about Mitt.
Always Right on November 16, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Look at the link in the update. This is my fear, Mitt needs to settle on a belief system that is his. He will take any side that gives him votes. These are major flips, not just minor ones.
Abortion
Stem-cell
Gun control
Conservatism
Taxes
Campaign reform
And the big one…Immigration
He has shown weakness and the inability to define himself (long term) on any of these issues.
I would rather have someone I sorta disagree with, but know exactly where he stands, than a waffler. You just don’t know which way the waffler will go.
No one can state what Mitt believes today, based on his history…no one. It is too inconsistent. It is a roll of the dice.
And that scares me…
right2bright on November 16, 2007 at 12:01 PM
And the one that should be the overriding question…good comment.
right2bright on November 16, 2007 at 12:02 PM
That’s my biggest problem with Romney as well. Maybe we should read Hugh Hewitt’s book to tell us what we’re missing.
Dudley Smith on November 16, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Here’s the case for Mitt beating Hillary. One, he’s an outsider. Two, he’s an executive, with success at both business and government (something he has against just about every other candidate as well).
Three, he’s smarter than she is. The guy has academic credentials up the wazoo.
Fourth, and the biggie. Romney versus Clinton is putting up a squeaky clean guy against possibly the most corrupt politician I know of today. After all the Republican scandals we’ve suffered, Mitt is the guy to clean it up. There aren’t any skeletons in his closet.
Just have to ask, “who would you want your child to be like” and I think the answer is Mitt. Seriously, Mitt is someone we won’t have to worry about hit pieces on whether he gets drunk, or cheats on his wife, etc. And putting up Ann Romney against Bill as the First Spouse? There’s no contest there either.
Mitt represents the Republicans trying to clean up their act in my opinion. I think just the fact he is one of the most decent people (and just about everyone has to admit that) versus the shrillness of Hillary would definately tip in Mitt’s favor.
Vanceone on November 16, 2007 at 12:07 PM
Bigot, bigot, bigot…all Italians are not mafia.
Just kidding, keeping Hillary out of office should be the number one priority of any Republican. It becomes a domino effect, and it is much tougher to get back in, once out. The damage done by Hillary in 4 or 8 years, will be disastrous. Hillary’s positive view is, I will take your money and give it to someone else…If you rob Peter to pay Paul, Paul never complains.
And one other passing thought. Clintons (both) admired Reagan for his campaign skills, they have copied their campaigns after Reagan. But you still need substance after all of the “positive” words…Reagan had it, Hillary doesn’t.
I will stick with any Repubican candidate…even, cough.spit.hack.choke…Mitt.
right2bright on November 16, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Absolutely.
csdeven on November 16, 2007 at 12:15 PM
I’m suggesting that the Mafia would have appreciated close ties with someone in a high position (Mayor, DA, police chief) who shares their religion and their heritage rather than having him dead.
In other words, if they REALLY wanted Rudy dead, he would be. The Mafia bosses are behind bars because the modern mafia (from the early ’90’s on) had no issues with ratting someone out. If they never said anything, Gotti would still be free. . . it had less to do with Rudy and more to do with the people in the mafia who didn’t regard loyalty as important.
But this is the classic ’scorched earth’ policy. Rudy can’t win Iowa or NH (heck he even said he was a Red Sox fan, what more could they ask for?) so he tries to take down those that he fears (Romney and McCain).
Hey, it works. The mafia knew what they were doing and they did it well.
ThackerAgency on November 16, 2007 at 12:21 PM
AND he can do all that without getting into the specifics of his faith.
The only chance Hillary has to go after Mitt’s religion is to do it during the primary while hiding behind a republican primary opponent of Mitt’s. In the general, ANY attack on Mitt will be seen as part of Hillary’s tactic and will have huge consequential backlashes.
I still think this latest giboted push poll attack is from Rudy’s side. But that is because McCain’s involvement looks to be an attempt to put in his lap and thus we come to the conclusion that it has to be Rudy because both McCain and Mitt are a threat to him.
BUT, the Klinton smear machine isn’t stupid and this could be their way of killing off Mitt, McCain, and Rudy by extension because we mostly think it’s Rudy’s doing.
Arrrrrgh! They want us to think that we know that they want us to believe that we aren’t actually sure, but it may be that we really are sure but just don’t know it.
csdeven on November 16, 2007 at 12:25 PM
I find these critisisms of Mitt for being a “flip flopper” increasingly meaningless as the campaign drives on. Every single candidate in the race on both sides of the isle have had wavering positions of various issues. Some worse then others and in fact I think when you look closely Mitt’s “evolution(s)” have been mild in comparison to some of the others.
Take Hillary for example. This is a woman who has had a 100% rating from NARAL. She has been the face of the pro-abortionists since day one of public life. She supports abortion on demand for minors paid for with taxpayer funds without parental consent. She is in support of partial birth abortion. She is as far left as anyone can be on this issue and always has been. But look at the headlines now. She is all of a sudden a moderate on this issue. She has repositioned herself from as far left as you can get into a moderate. Please.
Then there is her phoney accent. Mrs Yale Law School/Wellsley undergrad suddenly and temporarily transforms into Aunt Jemima when talking to a black church. Can you imagine what would happen if Mitt was this phony? He would be crucified.
Then there is all that “I’m your girl” nonsense. And who says that girls aren’t as tough as boys. From one side of her mouth she says that she is up to the challenge of taking on the Bin Ladens the Kim Jong Ils and the Ahmedinejads of the world but then from the other side of her mouth she complains about the boys ganging up on the girl in the debates. Quite the feminist icon she is though. Known for nothing more then having been married to some guy who cheats on her.
Then there is the statements she made one year ago in 2006 about ruling out the use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances, but now she has the balls to call Obama naive (which he is) for stating that he was willing to take the biggest option in the US arsenal off the table.
Now I’m picking on Hillary here because her evasiveness and wind shifting stances are the most egregious but all the candidates are guilty of this. They all do it! McCain has had to change is rhetoric about illegal immigration after nearly dropping out of the election because of it. Now he is out there saying that we need to close the borders. Fine, but does anybody actually believe he has really changed his mind? You can’t be arm in arm with Teddy Kennedy one minute and the next be all about enforcement. It doesn’t jive. The only reason he has changed his position is because he knows he cannot possibly get elected unless he does. John Edwards was supposably the moderate Southern Democrat who was supposed to be able to appeal to swing voters when he was running the first time around and then as John Kerry’s VP candidate. Now he’s the golden child for the Kos kids. He hasn’t just shifted on one issue here and there he has undergone a complete and total makeover politically. Guiliani has been all over the place on immigration and has been wishy washy at best on the abortion issue. Honestly, what is all this in comparison to Mitt having once been moderately pro choice? I mean seriously. He has gone from moderately pro choice to moderately pro life. And that is supposed to make him more of a flip flopper then the rest of the group how exactly? I really think the only reason that accusation sticks with Mitt is because they can’t get him on anything else. They can’t go after his personal life. Its a damn Norman Rockwell painting. They can’t go after him for corruption. There is none there to be found. They can’t go after him for incompetence because by talking about that they will just end up making him look good. So what do they decide to go after him for? They choose to go after him for BEING A POLITICIAN! Well, I’ve got a newsflash for you Walter Cronkite… HE IS A POLITICIAN!
Thats all. I’m done. Other then that I have no strong feelings on the matter.
Zetterson on November 16, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Two top mob bosses wanted a hit on him. The other Godfathers didn’t like the idea. Giuliani actually began prosecutions in 1983 when he became U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. That was after serving in the 3rd highest position in Reagan’s Justice Department.
See, he indicted 11 organized crime figures, including heads from the top five families during the Mafia Commission Trial. That took place in 1985-1986. Time Magazine called it “the most significant assault on the infrastructure of organized crime since the high command of the Chicago Mafia was swept away in 1943″.
amerpundit on November 16, 2007 at 12:29 PM
ZOMG, I agree with csdeven. I bet you have heard that a lot lately. ;-)
Electability in the general is the primary question but not the only one for me. I also want a candidate who will stick to core conservative principles. I also think that sticking to core conservative principles is a winning strategy.
As to electability, Mitt’s problem, IMHO, is that he is slick. AP’s link to Baseball Crank covers this topic pretty well.
Bill C on November 16, 2007 at 12:29 PM
These aren’t minor flips, read the update.
Is he for abortion or against it?…don’t care, ok
Is he for gun control or against it?…don’t care, ok
Is he a tax and fee increaser?…don’t care, ok
Boy, your tough, how about this;
Is he for campaign reform?…don’t care, ok…one more
Immigration, what is his stand, last year, this year, this week…you have to care about something!!
Ok, he looks presidential…
right2bright on November 16, 2007 at 12:42 PM
Did you read the last link in the post above? He makes a very compelling argument why Mitt’s flip flops make him unelectable. He has flip flops on most major issues on which he is campaigning today, and the flip flops were extremely recent — in some cases less than a year ago. His success in Iowa is based upon his conservative positions (”I’m from the Republican branch of the Republican party…”). However, he apparently didn’t hold any of those positions only a few years ago.
For example in a previous debate he called McCain’s Z-Visa, an A-Visa — “A for amnesty”, but just a few months earlier in support of comprehensive immigration reform he said of McCain’s proposed legislation that it is:
If he has recently change his position on immigration, taxes, CFR, stem cell research, guns, abortion, gay rights, etc. and it is merely his position on these issues that make him an attractive candidate then why bother? He is just a smart guy with a nice hair cut.
I guess now that the Fred menace is receding its time to take down Mitt.
tommylotto on November 16, 2007 at 12:45 PM
I think you better review the big dig. Giving Bechtel a free pass, after amassing one of the nations biggest boondoggles, boggles the mind. His saving grace was the Dems were just as much or more at fault. He shoveled so much money to Bechtel, who just happened to help bail him out of the Olympics and is a contributor to his campaigns.
He had no problem as a consultant closing down businesses, consolidating, firing execs…but Bechtel was left unscathed (well a little knuckle tap for the media).
right2bright on November 16, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Why do you guys hate Mitt so much? I realize every candidate has their detractors, (such as csdeven for Fred), but there seems to be a LARGE number of people who simply cannot remain quiet about Mitt, regardless of the topic. I haven’t the faintest idea who right2bright supports, if anyone. Nor Nailinmyeye, or numerous others. They seem to solely exist to attack Mitt, rather than promote another candidate’s positives.
Good news is, I am not quite sure how any democrat could be any worse.
Vanceone on November 16, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Guys, my point was not that Mitt doesn’t change positions. My point was that they all do. They all do very often and you can go back and find contradictory statements all of them have made throughout their careers on virtually every major issue.
The only exceptions to this are the candidates who have no shot at winning (Ron Paul, Kucinich, Gravel, Tancredo, etc). They don’t have to condradict themselves because they aren’t actually in it to win it. Its reality fellas. If you don’t like flip floppers good luck with either Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel or Tom Tancredo.
Zetterson on November 16, 2007 at 12:57 PM
What GOP needs is an ad featuring clearly tough conservative woman to get right in Hillary’s a$$ with both feet. Margret comes to mind.
She could start by saying…”OK, Hillary, you want to play gender politics, lets play. I was the PM of Briton for several years and not one time did I have to make an excuse for a statement that made me look like I was playing the gender card. As a representative of my country, I am what I am and my vagina has nothing to do with it. So, stick your gender politics in your vagina and buck up, because the enemies of the USA aren’t impressed with it.”
Can you imagine the effect of a female stomping a mudhole in Hillary’s butt?! She couldn’t claim the boys were ganging up on her and the stark difference between her and a REAL woman would be devastating.
csdeven on November 16, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Vanceone, they have all been around for a while. They are all good commenters and I like reading what they have to say about most things. They just have a strong passion against Mitt. I don’t know what fuels that. For my whole life that strong distain has been restricted to Mass liberals when talking about Romney. I don’t know if its the Morman thing or what but that was never an issue when he was Gov of MA. It honestly never even crossed my mind because it never seemed to be an issue for him. Why anyone would have a problem with that is beyond me. I’m not sure where the resentment stems from and it is kind of too bad.
Zetterson on November 16, 2007 at 1:03 PM
csdeven, that is perhaps the worst choice of words you could have possibly used. The horrible images that sentence inspires are going to take years to dissapear from my nightmares. As to your point, I totally agree. I really wish Jeanine Pirro didn’t get her pages mixed up in that speech while running against the Witch in NY. Thatcher would be great though, and I bet you could find a awful lot of prominent women CEOs, athletes etc that would be willing to share their opinions about hillary’s “if you sit when you pee vote for me” campaign slogan.
Zetterson on November 16, 2007 at 1:10 PM
I think that Huckabee now has the very best positions on illegal “immigration” of all the candidates.
Huckabee on illegal “immigration” from his web site
It is almost absolute perfection.
Only one thing wrong with it. It so flies in the face of his past pronouncements (very close to 180 degrees out) that it is hard to believe that he is not lying trough his teeth or that some enlightened staffer made it up without telling him or that someone hijacked part of his web site. Frankly it boggles my mind.
MB4 on November 16, 2007 at 1:21 PM
I really hate to say this, but MA isn’t known for evangelical conservatism so Mitt’s religion wasn’t an issue. It’s sad that now he is on a national stage his religion is an issue. This is driven by the evangelical gibots.
It seems strange that a Mormon destroying a city, county or state, isn’t an issue, but destroying a country is. I submit that destroying a little league is enough to take a stance. The problem is that no one can find one single instance of a Mormon destroying any of those things. As a matter of fact, my experience is that they generally make it better than it was when they got there.
csdeven on November 16, 2007 at 1:27 PM
Imagine it looking like this. Bwahahahaha!!! Oh happy days!!!
csdeven on November 16, 2007 at 1:30 PM
Sorry, its too late for me now. Go. Tell my story…
Zetterson on November 16, 2007 at 1:32 PM
That comment makes you a togib!!!
tommylotto on November 16, 2007 at 1:32 PM
Mitt up by 13 in Iowa still. That’s great news for this country. I think it’s time for Rudy and Mitt to debate mano-a-mano. Lets put the rest of the candidates in their own forum to bash it out for the most popular non-relevant candidate. (besides all the dems that is. They are ALL irrelevant)
csdeven on November 16, 2007 at 1:35 PM
It takes me to know me.
csdeven on November 16, 2007 at 1:43 PM
It’s not that we hate him, it’s that he’s just not a compelling candidate for most.
The “everyone does it” response to Mitt’s flip-flopping doesn’t hold water- no other candidate comes close; the list of issues he hasn’t flipped on is shorter than list of those he hasn’t. Plus his flip-flops seem all to be perfectly timed with changes in the political winds or other political strategy.
Seriously- what does Mitt even stand for besides getting elected? Does he even know? There’s no “there” there- he seems to lack any remotely consistant core political principles- not on social issues, not on fiscal policy, not on defense. To many of us, he represents what’s wrong with the system- a politician’s politician who’ll say anything to get elected regardless of their actual record or recently held previous stances. Mitt hasn’t even stayed consistant with his newfound conservativism- a fiscal conservative who’s in favor of ag subsidies, corporate welfare, homeowner buyouts, and increased foreign humanitarian aid spending? Please.
I realize that the Romniacs- particularly in the Mormon community- aren’t going to be swayed by any argument or event short of Romney announcing a change in affiliation to Communist NAMBLA Druid while snorting heroin off the body of a dead hooker, but you asked, I answered.
Romney just isn’t believeable as a conservative who’ll stick to conservative principles- not when he can’t seem to stick to a given position in the course of a few years or even months.
Hollowpoint on November 16, 2007 at 3:02 PM
PIMF
the list of issues he hasn’t flipped on is shorter than the list of those he has.
Hollowpoint on November 16, 2007 at 3:04 PM
tommylotto on November 16, 2007 at 3:41 PM
The question is…why do you love him so much? You have never met him, sat down and talked to him, you share the same religion, that’s all. I am not wooed by his religion, I have to look at what he has and has not done.
The famous “victim card”, why do you hate him so much? Read my post with his flips. These are not your normal little change of direction that all candidates do and should make. These are major policy, political decisions. Immigration, gun control, taxes, abortion, come on these are more than planks, they are the foundation of the Republican party, and he can’t define where he stands.
This is my proposal, from days ago and repeated. He is a fine candidate, that does not know who he is. He should be the VP (or some cabinet post), so we can all find out where he really stands. It will take about 4 years for him to decide and go with the path he chooses. Stem cell, where is he? immigration where is he? taxes he has changed on that so often…come on these are major issues in this campaign. I am asking for clarity, and unfortunately, he has been so wishy washy, words don’t do it (do it for you, not for me), one should judge people on their words, but more on their actions…he has to act, and action takes time. It is too late for pretty words.
But you don’t think; immigration, taxes, abortion, stem cell,gun control are important issues, you just blow them off as changes in opinion…the first sign of a sucker being sweet talked.
right2bright on November 16, 2007 at 3:48 PM
I wonder why the people of Iowa and NH don’t see it your way?
csdeven on November 16, 2007 at 6:18 PM
Interesting notion. If Romney adopted the Ace of Spades™ Lifestyle, he might pick up a few votes.
sulla on November 17, 2007 at 5:20 AM
Comment pages: