Rasmussen: Fred now trails Huckabee nationally?
posted at 12:32 pm on November 27, 2007 by Allahpundit
He played up the fact that he’s second in the national polls during his mano-a-mano with Chris Wallace on Sunday, and according to the RCP average he is. In only two of the last six polls has he had second place to himself, though; in two others he’s been tied with Romney and actually trailed Romney in a third (the admittedly outlier-ish ARG). Rasmussen’s daily numbers do bounce around a bit — note Mitt’s fleeting surge on November 13-15, followed by his return to earth — so we might well see a return to form tomorrow, but after a month of inching closer Huck finally vaulted past him today. Do a long scroll down through RCP’s archive of (three-day) national polls and you’ll see this is the first survey from any pollster where Huckabee’s bested him. Rudy 23, Mitt 15, Huck 13, McCain and Fred 12.
The good news for Fred is that he’s still well ahead of him (albeit behind Romney) in Florida. Or is he? Exit question: Now that Huckabee’s proved he’s a serious candidate, what are the yet-to-endorse evangelicals waiting for?
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
That Fred really took off like a rocket didn’t he after he graced us with his announcement on the Leno show?
Hilts on November 27, 2007 at 12:35 PM
Hey it really only matters 6 weeks from now then the rubber hits the road when 5 candidates are 50% inside the margin of error Fred may never have been ahead of McCain, McCain could be ahead of Huck – it really only matters on Feb 5
EricPWJohnson on November 27, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Temporary, and that polls lagging. Huck is stuck and bleeding and he won’t be the nominee.
see-dubya on November 27, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Dear God don’t let Nanny Huck be the nom.
Bad Candy on November 27, 2007 at 12:37 PM
I’d like to support Huckabee, but his record on illegal immigration is troubling, plus the accusations from his home state about misuse of funds while in the state house. Maybe that’s why there is hesitation?
Ordinary1 on November 27, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Polls don’t mean sh*te.
Wasn’t Dean a shoe-in in 2004?
Hmmm, makes you wonder who these pollsters are ACTUALLY calling.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d rather see Fred! with Rudy’s #s, but I ain’t afeared.
omnipotent on November 27, 2007 at 12:39 PM
Unless, of course, they’re the constantly-cited polls showing Thompson in second place nationally.
Huckabee is the greatest threat to Thompson’s campaign. Thompson should have realized this earlier and moved to contrast his record with Huckabee’s. It was a strategic error, and it’s cost him.
Slublog on November 27, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Agreed.
The RINOs (Rudy vs. Mitt) can slug it out between themselves.
The Huckster could steal value voters from Fred!
omnipotent on November 27, 2007 at 12:44 PM
Boy, that Fred-acolypse really fizzled out, didn’t it?
brak on November 27, 2007 at 12:46 PM
I think he is taking those voters already. Thompson spent too much time going after Romney and Giuliani. I expect we’ll see Thompson going after Huckabee’s record in the debate. If he does not, then he should expect to lose further ground.
Slublog on November 27, 2007 at 12:47 PM
csdeven, toomylotto and BKennedy crowing I told you so in 5…4…3…2…1…
doriangrey on November 27, 2007 at 12:49 PM
I think that Rasmussen has gone off his toot.
MB4 on November 27, 2007 at 12:51 PM
I’ll second that Bad Candy! How are Republicans even considering this nanny stater to be our nominee?
Hahahahaahaaa! You Fred heads just make me laugh.
Zetterson on November 27, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Why?
amerpundit on November 27, 2007 at 12:53 PM
I heard O’Reilly and John Gibson saying that they’ve been trying to land a Thompson interview for months and Thompson’s campaign didn’t even respond to their requests.
What’s up with that? I don’t even understand why he would do that and then go on Chris Wallace’s show and complain that Fox is against him. Sure, Barnes and Krauthammer might be but apparently, not everyone there is against him.
stenwin77 on November 27, 2007 at 12:53 PM
For Chuck Norris to give the signal.
He just gave his endorsement a while back. They don’t want to steal Chuck’s thunder.
That’s dangerous. One grumpy roundhouse kick and they get to meet Jesus sooner than expected.
Professor Blather on November 27, 2007 at 12:54 PM
I think as more people learn about Huck’s nanny state-ism, his very recent conversion from an aggressively pro-illegal immgrant stance, and his compassionate conservatism on steroids, he will fall right back down to where he was originally.
Ron Paul is the only candidate worse than Huck in this field.
thirteen28 on November 27, 2007 at 12:54 PM
I think both of them suck equally. Ron Paul has his obvious faults but at least he isn’t a nanny stater. The only thing worse then a Democrat is a Republican nanny stater.
Zetterson on November 27, 2007 at 12:57 PM
I told you so.
Say, what were Fred’s numbers when he started his campaign? I think they were about double. I’ll say one thing for Fred, he really knows how to run his campaign! Why, so amazing was he that he managed to do the inverse of double for his numbers in two months! DOUBLE I SAY!
Just so we’re clear:
Third in national polls (OSNAP!)
Third or worse in every primary poll (Goin’ down…)
Except for South Carolina, where Fred is second. (HA!)
Fear the Fraud! coming from the Fredheads in 5..4..3..2..1..
BKennedy on November 27, 2007 at 12:57 PM
An argument that would hold weight, save for the fact Fred emphasized them.
Spirit of 1776 on November 27, 2007 at 1:00 PM
Why do you care?
I ask sincerely. I don’t understand the root causes of FDS. What is it about Fred that brings on the Fred-hate?
I just don’t see what’s interesting enough about him to hate.
Just curious. Somebody explain. What’s with the obsession?
Professor Blather on November 27, 2007 at 1:01 PM
He is too many standard deviations from the mean.
MB4 on November 27, 2007 at 1:02 PM
Hucks support is a mile wide and an inch deep. Even a political junkie like me is still undecided.
These early polls are meaningless. This whole thing may be decided early and I think both parties will regret that come Nov 08.
roux on November 27, 2007 at 1:04 PM
It’s called FEAR…Fear that Fred will knock their favorite candidate out of the race and win the nomination.
doriangrey on November 27, 2007 at 1:07 PM
BEEP BEEP PERSONAL ATTACK ALERT ELIMINATE ALL OPPOSIT…
MadisonConservative on November 27, 2007 at 1:08 PM
Hahahahaa! Oh my stomach!
Zetterson on November 27, 2007 at 1:09 PM
Why else would a otherwise rational and civilized individual resort to vicious prevarications of a decent honest persons character? There is no other reason, it’s a simple case of childish immature behavior on the behalf of scared insecure individuals.
doriangrey on November 27, 2007 at 1:13 PM
Why on earth is he sinking? Everyone (other than csdevin) who meets him (or reads/views his videos/articles online) likes his personality and message.
What seems to be the problem?
AlexB on November 27, 2007 at 1:14 PM
In July, everyone was running around with that ridiculous *Fred!* crap. Fred was writing a bunch of rehashed conservative columns that anyone at Hotair could have written.
In August, Fred told us he was thinking about testing the waters while chiding other candidates behind Hannity and Leno’s skirts.
In September, he blew off New Hampshire in order to announce on Leno. He’s blown New Hampshire off ever since.
In October, Fred started to sink. His debate appearances were lackluster, his “Lincoln-Douglas debates” line was a cowardly ploy to make up for the fact he has nothing to bring to the table.
Now it is November and Fred is at his lowest point ever due to his horrible campaign strategy. A strategy based on assuming he would be the knighted “none of the above” conservative Republican.
Add this to the fact Fred’s conservative bona-fides are wafer thin, his greatest known accomplishments have been assaults on conservatism, and he’s never lifted a finger to do anything more than type up a position paper to be posted at Townhall and NRO, and Fred Thompson is in the aggregate a lackluster joke candidate who should have just stayed home.
Combine this with his personal problems as a Washington insider who lobbied for many unsightly clients funneled campaign cash to his son for services not rendered, and he is a contemptible man who is as radioactive as Newt Gingrich.
Duncan Hunter is a better conservative in every concievable way, and Duncan Hunter has never whined about “a constant mantra.”
McCain is a more accomplished Senator, despite having the same achilles heel as Fred with McCain-Feingold.
Huckabee, Romney, and Guiliani are all proven executives.
Fred literally has brought nothing to the table, his nomination would be a surefire failure, and his entire attitude: a combination of arrogance and laziness, is disgusting.
And yet still we have people spouting “fear the Fred!” as if this is still July and Fred is still “none of the above.”
To end: “Fred is dead. Get over it.”
BKennedy on November 27, 2007 at 1:16 PM
Media attention…….
doriangrey on November 27, 2007 at 1:17 PM
First off, think about this:
How many of us have caller ID? How many of us don’t answer the phone for any nonidentified callers?
Basically, you’re getting polling results only from people who answer the phone, number one, and answer the poll, number two. I’m not a fan of statistics anyway. They can be read however you want them to be if you set up “acceptable” parameters.
Still, makes you wonder who is answering these poll questions.
Tennman on November 27, 2007 at 1:20 PM
Gingrich happens to be very popular, and has practically endorsed Fred.
If you meant to say “FDT is as bad as Gingrich” then your views on Fred are out of touch.
AlexB on November 27, 2007 at 1:21 PM
I think it is because for ever action there is an equal and opposite reaction. When it was first rumored that Fred was considering a run for the Presidency the hype went off the charts. Not only was it off the charts but it was pretty much unchallenged as well. Every Fred post on this site was accompanied by an unvarying flow of GO FRED! comments. Csdeven and a few others recognized this opportunity to become the lone skeptical challenging voices within the crowd of pro Fred blind enthusiasm. They adopted this role with, in my opinion, rather hilarious discipline. Their challenges drove the pro Fred crowd nuts and then the game began. And now we find ourselves with a dynamic such that there is a diminishing band of pro Fred “goupies” mirrored by the same core of anti Fred critics.
Plus, it took him forever to actually get into the race. :)
Zetterson on November 27, 2007 at 1:21 PM
Well, that’s an answer. Mighty short on specifics, but it’s an answer.
I’m still confused by the degree of the obsession: it would seem much more understandable if it were directed at Rudy or McCain – or Huckabee.
The main complaints against Fred seem to boil down to laziness and lacking inspiration. Which seems a good enough reason to ignore the guy – but the hatred? I still don’t get it. Fred hasn’t done enough to make him hate-worthy. Except marry a wife who is either ridiculously hot for a President … or a hideous she-beast who should keep her hideous mouth shut (depending on which anti-Fred talking points we’re going by, I guess).
UNLESS … unless the truth is that the hatred isn’t directed at Fred at all, but actually at the breathless hysteria of his supporters last summer?
Now that might make a bit more sense. Is it all a backlash against the Fred-is-our-Savior silliness from last June and July?
Personally, I still don’t see it — but I guess I can understand that. Those folks were kind of annoying.
For the moment, Fred! can’t get much more than a yawn out of me. It doesn’t look like his candidacy was worth the response from either the Fred-heads or the anti-Freds, if you ask me.
Maybe we could direct some positive energy towards the candidate of our choice? Or, if that’s too much, some of that anger towards Hillary and Silky?
I assume that makes too much sense. Never mind. Back to your regularly scheduled Fred-is-a-Fraud!-festival. Thankfully, the Democrats are having an equally stupid circular firing squad at the moment, so ‘sol good.
Professor Blather on November 27, 2007 at 1:25 PM
He needs to lose more weight.
Valiant on November 27, 2007 at 1:26 PM
By that I meant “unelectable.” Gingrich is indeed awesome. He’s like Fred, only he wouldn’t let Clinton slide and he’s actually done more than write position papers for conservatism. If Gingrich were running, I wouldn’t care. But Gingrich isn’t running, Fred is, and Fred is nobody.
BKennedy on November 27, 2007 at 1:26 PM
I’m sure that’s part of the problem, but for all of the hype about a new campaign style and greater use of the web, Thompson has not fully plugged into (forgive the pun) the amount of free publicity he could have received from sympathetic bloggers.
Why hasn’t Thompson sat down to speak with the Hot Air crew for a Vent? I’m sure Michelle, Bryan or AP would have been more than happy to interview him. Glenn Reynolds and his wife have a streaming audio program, as do many other bloggers. Another opportunity not utilized. Does the Thompson campaign have someone uploading appearances to YouTube and sending emails to bloggers letting them know about it?
There are numerous opportunities for coverage among the truly politically geeky on the web, and Thompson has done a poor job reaching out to that constituency in any meaningful way.
Slublog on November 27, 2007 at 1:26 PM
Winner of the best explanation ever.
sweeper on November 27, 2007 at 1:27 PM
Heh heh heh with regards to csdeven you are spot on, BKennedy and tommylotto, not so…
doriangrey on November 27, 2007 at 1:27 PM
Yup. I think that’s exactly it.
I don’t think it even matters what Fred does or doesn’t do, or did or didn’t do. I think you nailed it.
It’s just a reaction. Got it.
Professor Blather on November 27, 2007 at 1:27 PM
Bingo, the adulation of the pro Fred side is equal and opposite to the professed “hatred” from the Anti-Fred side.
Zetterson on November 27, 2007 at 1:28 PM
You know Sublog, that is a great question. When Mitt sat down and had that long discussion with Michelle (primarily about illegal immigration) I really appreciated that. In an age of short soundbites designed to fit a news program, such a thoughtful detailed discussion was a breath of fresh air and was very valuable to me. I have no idea why Fred didn’t do that. It would have meant a lot to me anyways.
Zetterson on November 27, 2007 at 1:35 PM
Yeah, I’ll buy that explanation.
As to the rest:
I’ve already stated I have a moral problem with voting for Rudy. His “the Catholic Church is supposed to be inclusive of sin” comments did that for me, so he’s even more of a nonstarter now.
McCain seems to be getting too old for this and has the triple threat of amnesty, McCain Feingold, and “gang of 14″ fame.
As I just explained, Fred is lackluster as a whole and completely radioactive.
Ron Paul is insane.
Duncan Hunter is a great man and true conservative, but has not been able to run a campaign.
Which leaves Romney as the last man standing. He knows how to run a campaign, he keeps his promises no matter how much flak he takes for it, and he has no outstanding moral or ethical problems. Therefore, Romney is who I support. If he wins the nomination he will have the passion, energy, and know how to beat Hillary, and is basically untouchable from a “politics of personal destruction” standpoint. Even when he’s attacking opponent’s he’s polite and cordial.
BKennedy on November 27, 2007 at 1:41 PM
Hasn’t the Huckster gotten many evangelical endorsements so far? He did well out in Washington State a couple weeks ago from what I remember.
And as for Fred…the guy I’ve been touting for over a year…I’m about to give up on. He’s just not running like he wants the job. He had more fire in his belly before he jumped in the race officially. And that Chris Wallace interview didn’t look too good either.
Perhaps it’s time for another candidate…not Mitt though, there’s still something I can’t put my finger on about him that I just don’t like…perhaps I’ll back Rudy. Fred’s got one last shot to “wow” the nation…and he better.
JetBoy on November 27, 2007 at 1:45 PM
I keep wondering whether its Fred not campaigning well or the media shut him out.
Then I read stuff like this and it really makes me despair. I don’t get a media strategy that inculdes ignoring two of the most popular shows among conservatives. He can’t go on Hannity every night.
Bill C on November 27, 2007 at 1:59 PM
If you are going to pick someone to be behind…make it Huck. The least conservative of all the candidates. Big, big taxes, weak on immigration, Huck is no worry down the road.
right2bright on November 27, 2007 at 2:28 PM
Romney cannot be trusted. He has flipped flopped time and time again. He is no better then a John Kerry. I would rather vote for Hillary then Mitt Romney. At least with her I know what I am getting. (And btw, I am very conservative)
msipes on November 27, 2007 at 2:32 PM
He changes his positions based on what political campaign he’s in.
I can’t believe this flip-flopper even stands a chance.
omnipotent on November 27, 2007 at 2:35 PM
Mitt Romney has pulled a Reagan: He has most definetely flipped. He has not flopped back. He has become preogressively more conservative.
Please don’t tell me you’re now going to pull out that video from 1994 and say “look! Mitt flip flopped! He said this yesterday but he’s saying something different today and I bet he’ll say this tomorrow.
Fact is, Mitt made some promises running for Governor that conservatives didn’t like and many that liberals didn’t. He kept those promises.
“Flip-flop” requires flopping back.
BKennedy on November 27, 2007 at 2:45 PM
You’re going to use only one instance of him over 13 years ago? There are countless video examples that are no older then 1 year that have him saying one thing and then doing another. You are sitting on a dead horse. Romney is not to be trusted. I do not believe him and majority of Americans do not believe him.
msipes on November 27, 2007 at 2:50 PM
Really? If that were the case, he would probably rate lower in the polls.
Slublog on November 27, 2007 at 2:57 PM
huckabee is a socialist at heart.
snake oil, baby.
JazzBass on November 27, 2007 at 2:59 PM
And you don’t think the fact he has the lowest rating against Hillary of any of the conservatives is evidence of that?
msipes on November 27, 2007 at 3:00 PM
How does that translate into a “majority of Americans?” They may like him less than the other candidates, but that’s not evidence of distrust.
Slublog on November 27, 2007 at 3:04 PM
If they are “countless” as you describe, perhaps you can pull ONE of them up. And please, make sure it’s dated on the clip. Anyone can take a video of any time and say it happened any day except tomorrow.
BKennedy on November 27, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Professor Blather, this is an example of a Rombot. Repeating endlessly that Mitt is our guy, repeating endless slander about the other conservative who has a chance at the nomination. I am quite sure these guys are an organized group whose purpose is to support Romney in the Blogosphere. I have had some of them show up at my blog. Romney has not progressively become conservative, he has suddenly, as in when he decided to run for President, become conservative.
Truth is that Fred has not run a great campaign and missed opportunities. I don’t know that if this is because he got a late start or if he is lazy. I do know that he is conservative and has been for much longer than Rudy or Mitt. That is why I plan to vote for him and maybe enough of us conservatives who don’t like waffling will do the same and at least give Fred a voice at the convention.
No. I am still going to vote for him. If that Log Cabin Republican ad every gets airplay then it will be Mitt who is dead.
Bill C on November 27, 2007 at 3:06 PM
You sound like a liberal. I’m not your political science teacher or your personal assistant. If you can’t read or watch the news, then you’re SOL.
msipes on November 27, 2007 at 3:07 PM
I guess Bill C is nice enough to do your studying for you BKennedy. =)
msipes on November 27, 2007 at 3:10 PM
Less blabby more linky.
And “you sound like a liberal” is a classic around here.
No, you act like a liberal. You make an allegation you claim to have proof for, I call you out, and you make insinuations about me without rendering evidence.
Try again, skippy.
BKennedy on November 27, 2007 at 3:10 PM
Exibit A:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elx3UWmyAY4
We could keep going but I actually have to get some things done rather then google stuff that you are probably capable of yourself.
msipes on November 27, 2007 at 3:13 PM
Because log cabin Republicans aren’t Republicans. Cause they’re, you know, gay.
I’ve seen the fliers, I didn’t think it was a big deal. Considering, you know, Mitt’s stance on the Federal marriage amendment and doing everything in his power to limit the expansion of gay marriage in Mass, depsite dealing with an overwhelmingly Democrat-ridden legistlature and court system.
BKennedy on November 27, 2007 at 3:13 PM
Why was it Huck who rose from the third tier? Why wasn’t it Hunter, who seems to be conservative all around? Is it Huck’s charm and humor? He is an engaging speaker and debater. Or is it his religiosity? Are those who put social issues first so desperate for a religious social con that they are willing to completely overlook his fiscal liberalism? I really don’t get it. I looked at Huck briefly–very briefly–after he came off so well in a couple of debates. But it didn’t take me long at all to dismiss him as a poor choice overall. I just don’t understand why he’s on the rise.
aero on November 27, 2007 at 3:14 PM
You know it’s funny, we just talked about that video from 1994. Those are cuts from it.
As I said, anyone can post up anything from any time and say it happened any day except tomorrow.
As I said:
Nice try, skippy.
BKennedy on November 27, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Good questions, why Huck and not Hunter? Because Huck policies are more in line with the media who report. Raise taxes, pro-immigration, pro-government, Huck fits their idea of a candidate. The MSM actually believes that is what middle America wants.
right2bright on November 27, 2007 at 3:19 PM
Are you kidding me? Are you seriously not going to do your own homework. UGH!
2002 Video (40 seconds):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzZC92IXHyw
2002 Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4&feature=related
2005 Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxV-QNXoRIc&feature=related
2007 Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DY-Qqe5uiDo
Anything to get elected:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvQTqFKgZBc
Uh Uh Uh Uh Uh Uh
Everyone can keep going with this.
msipes on November 27, 2007 at 3:33 PM
Ah oh …here’s some more for our friend BKennedy!
2002 Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKwVNUz52vo
msipes on November 27, 2007 at 3:37 PM
That’s great…the only problem is that we don’t have a national primary.
This poll is pretty meaningless.
ConBlog_NH on November 27, 2007 at 4:20 PM
msipes on November 27, 2007 at 3:37 PM
All of these videos you submitted clearly prove BKennedy’s point. Mitt flipped…but when did he flop?? It is clear that he became pro-life soon after being inaugurated as Governor of Massachusetts in 2003. All of these videos you submitted reference footage from 2002 and earlier….and in the debate footage he clearly describes when/why he changed his position and has been consistant ever since. I can find no evidence that Romney inconsistant with what he has been saying all along.
MattyIce17 on November 27, 2007 at 5:18 PM
A&E could have a new show called “Intervention: The Fredheads” and get almost as mythical ratings as Fred’s strategy has generated.
For the non-Fredheads it would be the sleeper comedy of the season.
Bradky on November 27, 2007 at 6:18 PM