“Epiphany”: Mitt doing well in early states, may actually win nomination
posted at 5:35 pm on November 27, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Big scoop on the left, apparently. Mitt’s strategy since day one has been to spend spend spend in Iowa and New Hampshire to sell himself as the true social conservative and then ride the buzz of primary wins there into Super Ultra Mega Tuesday. With one exception, he’s led in every major poll in each state since June. He’s right in the thick of it in South Carolina now, too, and has been since Insider Advantage put him within five points of the lead as far back as the first week of October. The more social cons learn about Rudy, the more Mitt markets himself as an alternative, the clearer his path is.
The one piece of real news in TPM’s graphs is that Mitt’s support has stayed firm even as Huckabee has gained. To me that suggests two things: (1) even if Huck upsets him in Iowa, Mitt still might have enough left to take New Hampshire and Michigan while pouring money into South Carolina to edge Huck, setting up Rudy’s last stand in Florida on January 29th; and (2) irony of ironies, it may now be to Mitt’s advantage to keep Fred in the race for as long as he can. Fred’s got 15% in his pocket and most of that’s probably southern and social conservative, just like Huck. It’s hard to imagine Fred doing so badly in Iowa and New Hampshire that he’d drop out before South Carolina, the primary he’s been banking on, but if he loses there then he may pack it in before Florida. That would leave Huck the lucky recipient of many Fredheads and, quite possibly, the beneficiary of some key evangelical endorsements around the same time — and remember, he’s already surging in Florida. The upshot? Mitt vs. Huck on Super Tuesday, each with a couple of primaries in his pocket, one with big cash and the other with big momentum. Or not. I don’t know.
Update: Or is the big winner here McCain? A reader e-mails:
Let’s say — just as a thought experiment — that Huckabee wins in Iowa.
Assume also that Hillary wins Iowa convincingly and thus becomes the presumed Democrat nominee.
Finally, assume that McCain continues to make gains in NH (he has been doing well in the polls there the past few weeks).
In this scenario, lots of GOP voters will be looking for someone who can beat Hillary.
Voters will be hearing a steady stream of very negative information about both Romney and Huckabee–especially Romney’s flip flops and Huckabee’s weakness on taxes, spending, immigration.
Both will be (accurately) considered weak candidates in a general election not withstanding the one recent poll that showed them ahead of Hillary.
NH independents will vote in the GOP race (which will still be unsettled), not the Democrat race (which will be considered over).
With the conservative vote split between Romney and Huckabee (with a sprinkling of conservatives voting for Thompson or Paul), I think McCain would carry NH. It would be a stunning upset and would give him a lot of momentum going forward.
The potential problem with this scenario is that Huckabee’s not registering in New Hampshire: Mitt leads him 33-6 in the RCP average and has the homefield advantage. There are only five days between Iowa and New Hampshire, too, making it hard for Huck to exploit an upset in the former. As such, it’d be foolish for Mitt to preoccupy himself by taking shots at Huck unless his Iowa bounce is enormous. Also, even if McCain did win, how much momentum can it give him in a deep-red state like South Carolina that loathes his immigration policies? He’d have to win either Michigan or Nevada before SC and Rudy and Mitt are both in front of him at the moment.
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:
Is smart strategy because of horse race aspect of politics
However when it gets down to one on one that goes agianst mitt
Mitt doing well ultimately hurts rudy
William Amos on November 27, 2007 at 5:41 PM
No thank you to Mitt. I’ve had enough flipping in my life already.
CTDeLude on November 27, 2007 at 5:45 PM
I have always wanted Duncan Hunter and Mike Steele as a ticket. Knowing that it is probably not possible, has gotten me into a funk. I’m sensing a Bob Dole malaise again…. Mitt has alot to prove!! What is he? A social con or another opportunist?
MNDavenotPC on November 27, 2007 at 5:45 PM
alot of people wont vote for Mitt simply because of his religion
offroadaz on November 27, 2007 at 5:54 PM
That’s hard to imagine. Thompson is conservative. Huckabee is an odd bird: a liberal Protestant who has a strong belief in God.
Assuming Tancredo and Hunter are out, Fredheads would probably flock to Romney, provided Romney answers some questions about his religion à la Kennedy 1960.
jaime on November 27, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Fred got the NRLC endorsement. A lot of those voters will be looking for somewhere to go.
Allahpundit on November 27, 2007 at 6:04 PM
I haven’t seen any effect on Thompson’s polling numbers because of the NRLC endorsement. Thompson’s not a regular church-goer, and doesn’t support a Right to Life amendment. I really don’t see much similarity between Thompson and Huckabee.
jaime on November 27, 2007 at 6:11 PM
I don’t understand the concern over Mitt’s religion. Do people think if he is Pres. he’s going to make everyone convert. What’s the big deal?
I was a Fred supporter (money support) and I am really concerned about his ability to win. I’m slowly drifting towards Mitt.
I saw Mitt in person today at a press conference in St. Pete. He was pretty impressive. I also will be at the debate tomorrow – should be interesting.
stenwin77 on November 27, 2007 at 6:16 PM
My faith in democracy has never been lower. It’s starting to look like a candidate’s actual record and policy positions are far, far less important than his bankroll, pandering ability, joke telling skills, and hair.
Substance? Who cares as long as they have style?
Hollowpoint on November 27, 2007 at 6:19 PM
The hope is that social cons will start to reject Huckster as they learn more about his fiscal, immigration and ethical record and migrate back to Fred. Much of Huckster’s gain in the polls was at Fred’s expense.
Hollowpoint on November 27, 2007 at 6:21 PM
Yeah, and I’m scratching my head over that. Thompson and Huckabee are very different. Thompson and Romney have a lot more in common (current stated policy positions) than Thompson and Huckabee.
True, Romney only talks the talk and he’s never walked the walk… Of course, now that I think about it, if you watch the old clips from Romney and Huckabee they could be the same person. I guess it’s just that my impression is Huckabee acts from conviction and Romney from opportunism. In my eyes, that makes Romney more trustworthy. Disheartening.
jaime on November 27, 2007 at 6:32 PM
People see mormonism as a cult. They also know mormons control alot of large companies. These two things together turn alot of people off from Mitt
offroadaz on November 27, 2007 at 6:36 PM
Good point.
I think the Huckster will lose momentum once people find out his other views, but that could be wishful thinking. I also think Hillary is going to lose Iowa.
He hasn’t led a sufficiently conservative life for you? Doesn’t have enough experience? What do you think will happen if he’s elected? Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s protege’ on the bench?
Buy Danish on November 27, 2007 at 6:49 PM
He doesn’t have a sufficiently conserative record for me in his single term as governor. And what do I think he’d do in the unlikely chance that he was elected? I don’t know; we can’t even pretend to know- he’s been so inconsistant that you can’t predict what position he’s going to have over the course of a single campaign much less a 4 year presidential term.
All we have to go on are campaign speeches, and typically the promises made during a nomination campaign dry up faster than the ink at the inauguration ceremony.
Hollowpoint on November 27, 2007 at 7:21 PM
I like Mitt’s tax platform so much that I’m thinking of switching my primary vote to him. He got a standing ovation on his tax ideas at his “Ask Mitt Anything” event last Sunday night. As for flip-flopping, I keep hearing that over and over and frankly, after hearing him in person, I have to give him very high marks for sincerity—no matter what he did or did not do in MA. If he could pull off even half of the things he says he’d like, I think it would be a good thing.
jeanie on November 27, 2007 at 7:24 PM
I do think that Fred supporters might turn to Huck or even McCain, but predominately Huck for right-to-life reasons (HA advocates excepted I suppose). But I don’t see McCain winning NH because it is too close in Iowa, in fact I suspect Obama might win there actually. If that is the case, the independents will probably vote on the Democratic ticket and that will torpedo McCain there imho.
Spirit of 1776 on November 27, 2007 at 7:30 PM
There does seem to be a fair number of Obama supporters in NH, judging by the yard signs only–but I think they are mostly Dems anyway. I suspect that the Indpendents(myself included)will be apt to choose the Republican primary as there seems to be some popular scuttlebutt touted out there that Hillary is a shoo in already. There are a lot of Ron Paul signs too, and they are calling every five minutes. Have’nt heard much from McCain but he’s focusing on other parts of the State. I’m not even going to begin to call it here because it’s just too uncertain. Could surprise us all.
jeanie on November 27, 2007 at 7:56 PM
At one million dollars a week, he better be on or near the top.
Think, look at his record on flipping. He ran from being a Reagan conservative (you know the guy who hated taxes). Naturally Mitt sounds good at his “Ask Mitt Anything”, but has he put anything in writing, so it can be traced back to him? That is how “flippers” survive, they change to get the vote, not out of commitment. When he puts these fippin ideas into a policy, like Fred has, then we can hold their feet to the fire. Meanwhile it is just rhetoric…words without action.
right2bright on November 27, 2007 at 8:00 PM
Each of the candidates have policy proposals. Thompson’s are impressive, but it would be nice to see his supporters stop pretending he’s the only one who has created them.
Slublog on November 27, 2007 at 8:08 PM
His actual record is that he endlessly vetoed liberal policies. The notion of flip flops seems to be born entirely out of sound bytes. What exactly is hard to understand about that?
Check the Mitt thread from yesterday because I believe at least one of your flip flop accuations is wrong. (or possibly totally fabricated?)
Resolute on November 27, 2007 at 8:08 PM
I didn’t ask you, did I? Why bother since I can predict your response before your write it!:
Pull string on the I don’t ♥ Mitt Talking Points Doll and out comes a prerecorded message.
Buy Danish on November 27, 2007 at 8:09 PM
Mitt is picking up momentum, we could do worse.
He really does need to publicly address his potential Presidency and his Mormon faith.
I was shocked the other day by someone who is an avid church goer and would vote for Hillary before voting for a Mormon.
He needs to clear up the confusion.
He believes in Jesus folks, Hillary? not so much.
Speakup on November 27, 2007 at 8:20 PM
Try to keep up.
jaime on November 27, 2007 at 9:06 PM
I don’t understand the concern over Mitt’s religion.
Simply: I find Mormonism sufficiently disgraceful a system of belief that I question both the character and the intelligence of anyone who subscribes to it, to the extent that I will not vote for them for any position of public authority.
Fortunately, Mitt’s such a two-faced piece of crap that his faith isn’t even the deal-breaker for me.
Centerfire on November 27, 2007 at 9:28 PM
Bigotry. It’s not just for Democrats in the Klan anymore.
BKennedy on November 27, 2007 at 10:00 PM
With this? Note the time Jamiekins:
Not that that new thread has anything to do with the comment I made to you anyway.
You know, generally speaking when one says “try to keep up” it means that the commentator is not keeping up with the existing thread.
Jackazz.
Buy Danish on November 27, 2007 at 10:18 PM
Notice the linked article was posted yesterday, Danee-poo. You didn’t even watch the clip of Romney at the end, either, which bears directly on:
which was what your original inane question referenced.
As long as you’re here, Danish, you’re depriving a village somewhere of an idiot
jaime on November 27, 2007 at 10:45 PM
Before anyone raises a toast to the Mittster, they ought to ask themselves what really happened in Massachusetts with government-subsidized abortion services and same-sex marriage:
Romney, the Courts, and the Constitutions
The answer in both cases is that Mitt acquiesced. With subsidized abortion, he expanded it further than it already was when he signed RomneyCare — AFTER that supposed “epiphany.”
In the case of SSM, he unilaterally, and without proper legislative authorization, instituted it in Massachusetts, effectively creating his own definition of marriage and imposing it on the Bay State.
Tom Blumer on November 27, 2007 at 10:51 PM
Wow, I didn’t know Romney was all 3 justices in the Massachusetts Supreme Court.
Take a course in constitutional law.
The Legislature passes bills. Romney vetoed them and was overridden.
Once again, another anti-Romney troll who doesn’t even understand the US Legal system.
BKennedy on November 27, 2007 at 11:24 PM
Huckles will fade; the Rudiani-Kerik administration will go away too (if only they will take the illegals and mob with them). Mitt and Fred! will survive. Mitt wins Iowa and NH. Fred will win SC.
saved on November 28, 2007 at 12:09 AM
Jamie Jackass,
Which “Linked article”? Allah provide numerous links. The one dated November 23rd which was most definitely not “yesterday”?
What video are you talking about? The Log Cabin Republican’s ad? I saw that. So what? Is that what you mean by “not walking the walk”?
Go back to the post from the link you provided, and you tell me what article that was posted yesterday that I’m supposed to know about. Okay, sugar?
Not that I am under any obligation to read every thread that appears here, but I digress!
Buy Danish on November 28, 2007 at 12:20 AM
That blog advocates stabalizing rule of law by, get this, the executive branch should ignore or overrule the judiciary on its whim. Yes lets fault Mitt for not becoming dictator of MA in order to impose his values when the Legislature and Judiciary are aligned against him!
Your link and ideas are almost comical.
Resolute on November 28, 2007 at 12:49 AM
OK, Smiths fans… I always thought Mitt had a passing Morrissey look going on, but whoever snapped the photo linked with this entry was definitely going for the Kill Uncle look, no?
saint kansas on November 28, 2007 at 4:54 AM
The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of Massachusetts, in its ruling, “told” the legislature to come up with a law in 180 days.
The Legislature never passed a same-sex marriage bill. Never. So Romney NEVER vetoed anything; if you have a post-Goodridge link that shows otherwise, I’d love to see it. Romney never had a law to implement, but he imposed SSM anyway. This is not arguable. The SJC did not order Romney to do anything, so Romney had nothing to “defy.”
If not following the constitution you’ve sworn to uphold is comical, laugh away. A President Romney will have you in stitches, while we descend further into rule by personal whim instead of the rule of law.
Perfect parallel: The Ohio Supremes declared the state’s school funding mechanism unconstitutional about 5 years ago, and “ordered” the legislature to come up with something new that is more “fair.” The legislature didn’t. School funding in OH hasn’t changed. Ohio’s governors followed the Constitution by doing nothing. I guess an OH Gov. Romney would have just imposed something, and you’d be okey-dokey with that. Baloney — that’s not how it works.
Tom Blumer on November 28, 2007 at 5:58 AM
So what you’re saying is that Romney imposed same-sex marriage by not vetoing a non-existant bill. I assume he was going to use invisible ink as well.
Perhaps you’ve heard of judicial fiat. It’s the same reason we have legalized abortion on demand, sent to us from the Highest Court in the land in 1973. SSM was imposed on Massachusetts by judicial fiat, not Governor Romney. The fact is the only thing Romney could do to curb it was argue for legislation that made SSM licenses in Massachusetts avaiable only to Massachusetts residents, in order to avoid making the Bay State “the Gay State.”
But these minor details really aren’t important to you, you’ve got an anti-Romney crusade to go on. Damn constitutional principles, Romney is responsible for not overturning a renegade court and an entrenched legislature with his super-strength and heat vision.
BKennedy on November 28, 2007 at 8:19 AM
I can see you were a little muddled and dizzy last night, Toots.
Look at the nonsense in your post:
But I’m happy that, of all the things I said, you chose to focus on this facet of Romney’s character: Romney only talks the talk and he’s never walked the walk. The term flip-flopper doesn’t do him justice. He’s thrashing around like a tarpon in need of a lip gaff. All media is replete with examples. I pointed out an obvious one out of courtesy.
Let’s use one of your own comments earlier in this thread as an example:
Now, if someone asked you a series of addled questions like “what do you mean his other views? He hasn’t led a sufficiently conservative life for you? Doesn’t have enough experience? What do you think will happen if he’s elected? Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s protege’ on the bench?”, I’ll bet your answer would be something like “try to keep up”.
But I don’t think you really wanted an answer, did you? It’s probably just that you get verbally pushed around at home and you come on here to let off some of your frustration. That’s OK, Dear. If you didn’t have the fortitude to make it all the way down to the end of the linked article, I linked the clip directly on YouTube so you don’t have to bother your little head about it. Just click.
jaime on November 28, 2007 at 9:30 AM
Right on. They are all sorry in one way or another.
saiga on November 28, 2007 at 12:39 PM
What an insufferable horses’ ass you are! And quite the mind reader too, aren’t you? /Sarc.
I asked you a simple question and instead of responding directly you answered with a snarky “try to keep up” and then linked to another post as if that somehow provided a satisfactory explanation.
I am fully aware of charges that Mitt is a flip-flopper. My question was very specific and is still unanswered:
When someone says “try to keep up” the implication is that a commentator is not following a thread. Well gosh, irony of ironies, it appears that it is YOU who is not “keeping up”, as evidenced by the fact you couldn’t answer a very simple and direct question, and then proceeded to pile on falsehoods and irrelevancies:
1. “The article was posted yesterday” (What article are you talking about? Do you call Allahpundit’s blog posts “articles”? If that’s it, you have a lot of nerve calling me the village idiot). Although, if the truth be told you have a lot of nerve under any circumstances, but I hesitate to bother you with cold, hard facts.
2. “You didn’t watch the video” (false)
3. A new charge which is impossible to justify – that if I were pressed to describe what Hucksters “other views are” I’d respond by saying “try to keep up” (and with that I’d presumably follow your example and link to another Huckabee thread and pretend that served as an explanation!)(Also false)!
Actually, Jamiekins, I’d say his other views are buying into global warming propaganda, giving the children of illegals rights to attend college on the taxpayer’s dime, and so forth. Seriously, why on earth would I not respond, since it is so freaking easy to answer?
4. I must not forget to mention your obnoxious psycho analytical BS that I am “pushed around at home”! (I will not dignify with a response).
All this because I asked a very simple question that you have yet to answer! Nope, by clicking on magic blue lines which show past statements made by Romney I am supposed to divine what you think will happen in the future if Mitt is elected!
Okay, I’ll play. How about this?: The Log Cabin Republicans won’t be happy? Yep, since you haven’t responded I think I’ll go with that one since neither that video or anything you say make any predictions about the future. Indeed, I can say with 100% certainty that my prediction will come true! Aren’t I amazing! Too bad you don’t have my mad skillz!
P.S. I NEVER shrink from a challenge. See this thread and my conversation with Spirit of 1776 for incontrovertible evidence.
Buy Danish on November 28, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Must be a matter of style.
Who challenged whom? [He hasn’t led a sufficiently conservative life for you?]
jaime on November 28, 2007 at 3:53 PM
Go screw yourself. I know Mormons. I know ex-Mormons. I know something of Mormonism.
When you embrace racist, sexist lunacy, you call your own character and judgment into question. Mormonism is racist, sexist lunacy. QED.
Centerfire on November 28, 2007 at 4:47 PM
Perhaps you can show me where judicial fiat resides in Massachusetts’ Constitution.
It does not reside in Ohio’s, which is why the Ohio Supremes “order” did not force the Legislature to redo school funding, or the governor to redo it in the absence of a law passed by the legislature.
The fact remains that Mitt Romney was compelled to do nothing wtih SSM until an enabling law was enacted. One never was, and one hasn’t been to this day. Yet HE imposed SSM on MA.
The last paragraph of your latest response demonstrates your fundamental lack of seriousness, and total absence of a coherent argument.
Tom Blumer on November 28, 2007 at 5:01 PM
O.M.G.
The question was in four parts.
1. He hasn’t led a sufficiently conservative life for you?
2. Doesn’t have enough experience?
3. What do you think will happen if he’s elected?
4. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s protege’ on the bench?
The first and second were clearly rhetorical; The third question is the one that an answer; The fourth was an illustration of what sort of ludicrous and hysterical concerns you might have. A guide of sorts!
Can you answer it now, Jamie or is it too darn difficult?
What do you think will happen if he’s elected?
As for this unintelligible response:
What does the bracketed sentence have to do with the question? You challenged me HERE:
.
Buy Danish on November 28, 2007 at 5:19 PM
You accuse others of “lack of seriousness”, yet you seem to have no grasp of the logical consequences of your statements. By your reasoning George Bush should right now be defying the Supreme Court, ignoring Roe vs Wade and he should enforce a ban on abortion by executive order. By all means lets enforce morals by shredding the constitution and rule of law. Great idea! :(
Resolute on November 28, 2007 at 7:37 PM
.
Your Roe v. Wade example is irrelevant to this discussion, as it struck down an existing law, and obviously was a US Supreme Court matter.
.
In US Court matters, the better analogy is a ruling like Beck in 1988, which in essence said that unions can’t withhold dues for political purposes. To put that ruling into effect, legislation has to be passed, which has happened in only a few states and not at all at the federal level in the intervening 19 years. Therefore, Beck is unenforceable by a president, who can only nibble at the edges with notifications and the like, as Bush 41 and Bush 43 have done. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, issued EOs that nullified Bush 41’s EOs, and said he would do nothing to enforce Beck or inform workers of their rights. Clinton was perfectly within his rights to ignore Beck, and actually was constitutionally bound to not enforce Beck, because Congress had passed no law in response to the Supremes’ decision.
.
Individual workers can still bring actions against unions withholding dues for political purposes, and will presumably win, but that’s the extent of it. In most states, until real laws signed by real governors or real federal legislation signed by the president are passed, that’s as far as anyone can legally go with the Supremes’ Beck ruling.
.
Analogously, the Goodridge SSM case ruling specifically required the MA legislature to pass legislation amend or replacing an existing law that specified that marriage is one man, one woman. It did NOT throw out the existing law. The legislation never acted. The one-man, one-woman law is still on the books, unchanged. The legislation has passed no other related legislation. Yet Mitt Romney unilaterally instituted SSM in MA. He had not authority to do it, and violated his oath of office by doing it.
Tom Blumer on November 28, 2007 at 9:45 PM
Comment pages: