Rasmussen national poll: Mitt 30, McCain 30, Huckabee 21; Update: “Battle for the future of the party”; Update: McCain 44, Mitt 24, says Gallup

posted at 1:06 pm on February 2, 2008 by Allahpundit

See-Dub’s search for reasons to climb down off the ledge has taken him to strange hallucinatory places that only the diehard Fredhead knows, so let’s give him something a bit more reality-based. 30-30-21, a two-point gain for Mitt from the day before although he and Maverick have been bouncing around within a few points of each other for the past week. How to square this with Fox News’s suicide poll yesterday? Gallup has it 39-24, more in line with FNC than with Ramussen, but the national polls mean less than the state polls anyway so let’s look at those instead. There’s cause for hope in California, but otherwise, er…

I’m hoping Mitt has some surprise endorsements lined up for Monday although I can’t think of anyone so big that they might turn the tide. It’s safe to say no Republican governors will be among them. George H.W. Bush would be nice, as would Condi Rice, but neither’s in the offing. The best hope is for some sort of coordinated effort by talk radio to all endorse him on the same day: Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, etc etc. That’d make for a sweet headline on Tuesday morning as people go to vote, but then that gets us back to their dilemma: If they pull the trigger and McCain wins anyway, they’ll never live it down. The media won’t let them.

Update: MM highlights the Times’s account of Romney’s last-ditch strategy:

Operating in survival mode, Mr. Romney’s circle of advisers has come up with a detailed road map to try to salvage his campaign. The plan is complete with a new infusion of cash from Mr. Romney, a long-term strategy intended to turn the campaign into a protracted delegate fight and a reframing of the race as a one-on-one battle for the future of the party that seeks to sound the alarm among conservatives about Mr. McCain.

The advisers have drawn up a list of states, dividing and ranking them into those considered relatively easy and inexpensive targets, along with a broader grouping of more costly battlegrounds where the advisers hope that Mr. Romney can be competitive.

Remember, he outspent McCain 10 to one on ads in Florida.

Update: Oy. That’s a five-point pick-up for Maverick in 24 hours and 12 points since Florida.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

If they pull the trigger and McCain wins anyway, they’ll never live it down. The media won’t let them.

And that is different how?

Keeping hope alive. Romney in ’08’.

DannoJyd on February 2, 2008 at 1:11 PM

Mittmentum!

Now if the Huckster would drop out and support Mitt … ooops, forgot about the whole *Mormon* thing.

Tony737 on February 2, 2008 at 1:11 PM

What does it matter what the media says to them. It won’t hurt their audience or credibility in the long run. Frankly, I’m tired of the media choosing the Republican nominee.

Romney ’08

MCPO Airdale on February 2, 2008 at 1:14 PM

If they pull the trigger and McCain wins anyway, they’ll never live it down. The media won’t let them.

BS. This is the media that con erns me, not NBC, CBS, ABC or CNN. As to the tree media, good for comics, sports and locals news – nothing else.

Onager on February 2, 2008 at 1:14 PM

It won’t hurt their audience or credibility in the long run.

Yeah, it will. Their audiences consume mainstream media too. If they all swing for the fences with Romney and McCain runs away with it, the embarrassment won’t be lost among their fans.

But if what you say is true, it raises a simple question: Why haven’t they all come out harder for Romney yet? I know Hannity and Ingraham say they’ll vote for him but Rush keeps holding back. How about a big endorsement jamboree on Monday?

Allahpundit on February 2, 2008 at 1:18 PM

Don’t toy with my emotions, Rasmussen!

SouthernGent on February 2, 2008 at 1:22 PM

Helping Mitt is the fact taht California isnt Winner take all. Also California is a closed eleciton but we all know what that means.

Where Mitt is hurting is the South. But saving him there so far is Huck who is spliting the vote. It a weird election but Mitt really needs Huck to do well to deny McCain those southern states. The problem with that is it gives Huck more power at the convention.

Also Unmentioned is the fact that like the Dems the Republicans have many superdelegates. Those are the congressmen and senators of the republican party. They also cast delegate votes. In a close delegate race they might follow their states lead and vote for the same candidate but many tend to endorse. Right now those delegates are backing McCain more than Mitt.

William Amos on February 2, 2008 at 1:24 PM

We’re Dem’ed if we do, and Dem’ed if we don’t

wryteacher on February 2, 2008 at 1:24 PM

But if what you say is true, it raises a simple question: Why haven’t they all come out harder for Romney yet? I know Hannity and Ingraham say they’ll vote for him but Rush keeps holding back. How about a big endorsement jamboree on Monday?

Allahpundit on February 2, 2008 at 1:18 PM

Maybe we’ll find out if Rush is a conservative heavyweight, or just an entertainer tryng to protect his market.

a capella on February 2, 2008 at 1:24 PM

Now if the Huckster would drop out and support Mitt … ooops, forgot about the whole *Mormon* thing.

Tony737 on February 2, 2008 at 1:11 PM

Sadly Huck could make the point if he wins enough Delegates that Mitt make him VP to get evangelical votes.

Could we see Romney/Huck 08 ?

William Amos on February 2, 2008 at 1:25 PM

Allah

Rush was out Friday, or he might have endorsed Romney. At any rate, with Coulter stating that Hilary is preferable (thereby giving the kiss of death to both McCain & Hilary), I doubt that any Conservatives out there still support McCain.

How much do endorsements matter anyway?

infidelpride on February 2, 2008 at 1:27 PM

Maybe we’ll find out if Rush is a conservative heavyweight, or just an entertainer tryng to protect his market.

a capella on February 2, 2008 at 1:24 PM

It’s pretty obvious that Rush doesn’t like Huck or McCain, so anyone who is going to be swayed by his marching orders opinion has probably already taken that into account. An endorsement won’t move the needle much, so he probably won’t make one, since he does have his own credibility to protect.

Big S on February 2, 2008 at 1:28 PM

It’s come down to a question of whether conservatives have the convictions of their beliefs and are willing to sacrifice the possible scorn of the pandering politcos that only represent themselves and their future credibilty. Dick Morris is a perfect example of the panderding self indulged.

It’s come down to “fight or flight”! I vote for fighting for conservartive beliefs and that is what is happening in “Radioland” and amongst true conservative journalist.

Self sacrifice is a noble thing and will help solidfy the base in the furture, assuming one exists.

Nelsa on February 2, 2008 at 1:28 PM

Polls have been very unreliable in this primary season and momentum has been elusive. Although I think Mac may wrap it up on Tuesday, I do admit this year, anything is possible.

Anything, except Ron Paul winning, of course.

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 2, 2008 at 1:29 PM

For anyone who knows anything about polling, take a look at the tabs on this. The Opinion Dynamic / Foxnews poll is much more valid. Sorry Romney fans

georgealbert on February 2, 2008 at 1:29 PM

Sadly Huck could make the point if he wins enough Delegates that Mitt make him VP to get evangelical votes.

Could we see Romney/Huck 08 ?

William Amos on February 2, 2008 at 1:25 PM

That’s a loser. We already know there aren’t enough evangelical pro-Hucksters to offset the revulsion many clear eyed evangelicals and secular folks feel about Huck. Might as well tie an anchor around his neck.

a capella on February 2, 2008 at 1:30 PM

I’m hoping Mitt has some surprise endorsements lined up for Monday although I can’t think of anyone so big that they might turn the tide.

Didn’t realize you had officially endorsed Mitt, too, AP. I know Bryan did, and MM might as well have done so.

If McCain runs away with the nomination, then the “Rally for Romney” will be rightly seen as the dextrosphere’s Ned Lamont moment.

By the way, one of the most pathetic aspects of the whole spectacle is seeing pundits and commenters who have mercilessly pummeled Huckabee and his supporters, in the most disrespectful and frequently foul terms imaginable, now begging them for their help. These are in many cases the same people who saved Bush’s bacon in ’04, and they’re on the verge of saving the party and the movement from the exhibitionistically self-destructive insanity of the MDS victims.

CK MacLeod on February 2, 2008 at 1:31 PM

My understanding is that Rasmussen is much more selective in who they call. They go more for likely voters than just voters. On the other extreme you get Zogby who loves to throw everyone into the mix including potential voters who may not even be registered.

William Amos on February 2, 2008 at 1:32 PM

Now if the Huckster would drop out and support Mitt

NOT.GONNA.HAPPEN.

His lips are securely fastened to McLame’s brown eye.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on February 2, 2008 at 1:32 PM

It really is a none issue for Rush… – without changing his MO – who else is there?

It’s definitely not the ole ‘Cain or eyebrow-twitching Huck.

Who else is left? Mitt? Alan Keyes?

Now this could be interesting.

James Dobson et al, is the one that could have the most sway here by revoking his implicit support for Huckabee and making a public statement, accordingly.

Seems to me Dr. Dobson started a lot of the Huck’s bounce in Iowa and beyond, and as such, should be held accountable for it.

Mcguyver on February 2, 2008 at 1:32 PM

There is no shock that pollsters very specifically design which people to poll in order to sway their results to reflect the pollsters’ innate prejudices.

Hence, the FoxNews most current poll depicts Romney without votes. FoxNews was already pro-McCain when Fred Thompson entered the race, blatantly pro-McCain when Fred Thompson departed from the campaign.

The habit of generating uncomplimentary epitaph propaganda as Romney’s campaign threw at Thompson could be interpreted to still be hard at work now against McCain.

There is no reason to trust any remaining campaign. All endorsements are nice to have, but the voter must realize that there is yet no basis for trust as everyone has their own agenda, friends or not. McCain has the official GOP and MSM endorsement. Romney has the endorsement of talk radio hosts and bloggers. HotAir has its own dirty hands manufacturing lies in order to destroy Fred Thompson’s campaign, and contributors here have yet to own up to their fault. So any endorsement is taken with a grain of salt if not with blind trust.

maverick muse on February 2, 2008 at 1:33 PM

Also, If all the newly minted, born again Romney backers are suce believers in the Rasmussen poll, that same company shows McCain beating Obama or Clinton and Romney losing to either.

YOu can’t claim Rasmussen as your shining hope and ignore that painful little fact.

Romney is a losing ticket.

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 2, 2008 at 1:33 PM

That’s a loser. We already know there aren’t enough evangelical pro-Hucksters to offset the revulsion many clear eyed evangelicals and secular folks feel about Huck. Might as well tie an anchor around his neck.

a capella on February 2, 2008 at 1:30 PM

True I meant it as a joke but the sad thing is Mitt’s fate right now is tied to Huck. The better huck does in the South prevents McCain from getting those delegates. If huck folds they go to McCain not Mitt. So Mitt needs help to win the nomination and he needs it from huck.

William Amos on February 2, 2008 at 1:33 PM

An endorsement won’t move the needle much, so he probably won’t make one, since he does have his own credibility to protect.

Big S on February 2, 2008 at 1:28 PM

Yeah, he’s gambling against the odds, if he does endorse.

a capella on February 2, 2008 at 1:34 PM

We’re Dem’ed if we do, and Dem’ed if we don’t

wryteacher on February 2, 2008 at 1:24 PM

Cute!

mikeyboss on February 2, 2008 at 1:34 PM

Novak: Bush is mad at Romney for Mitt’s (new) hard-line approach to illegal immigration!?!?

WTF?

Scroll down to the last paragraph…interesting stuff!

SouthernGent on February 2, 2008 at 1:35 PM

My understanding is that Rasmussen is much more selective in who they call. They go more for likely voters than just voters. On the other extreme you get Zogby who loves to throw everyone into the mix including potential voters who may not even be registered.

William Amos on February 2, 2008 at 1:32 PM

Thanks. That was a useful observation.

Even the Rasmussen model is subject to contorted end results, because, will they actually vote? But it’s definitely better than Zogby.

Mcguyver on February 2, 2008 at 1:35 PM

So Mitt needs help to win the nomination and he needs it from huck.

William Amos on February 2, 2008 at 1:33 PM

Well, he isn’t going to get it from Huck. Huck has his goal clearly in front of him, and that is the VP spot for the boost it will give him in 2012. That election will be even worse than this one, unless Jindal comes through.

a capella on February 2, 2008 at 1:37 PM

Romney is a losing ticket.

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 2, 2008 at 1:33 PM

In 2004, a friend of mine who leans democratic took great joy in showing me polls in February and March showing Kerry beating Bush. I told him to see what happens in November.

This far out, polls like that are just about meaningless.

smithinmich on February 2, 2008 at 1:38 PM

So any endorsement is taken with a grain of salt if not with blind trust.

maverick muse on February 2, 2008 at 1:33 PM

Wait a minute! The Chosen One said we should vote for McCain because Nancy Reagen adored him. Should we disregard that?

a capella on February 2, 2008 at 1:41 PM

Even the Rasmussen model is subject to contorted end results, because, will they actually vote? But it’s definitely better than Zogby.

Mcguyver on February 2, 2008 at 1:35 PM

Well I was generalizing I dont have much insider info on how they do their polls. All pollers ask voters if they are registered and then when was the last time they voted. Rasmussen likes to focus on the people that answer yes to the first and have voted receintly. If you get a consistant hardcore voter who votes all the time they are more reliable to predict that the first time or occasional voter. The problem with that is sometimes occasional and first time voters get motivated to come out and vote changing results.

IF you limit too much you miss a swing of less reliable voters of you make your poll too inclusive you get voters whom might not vote. Rasmussen suffers more from the first type and Zogby from the second.

William Amos on February 2, 2008 at 1:41 PM

This far out, polls like that are just about meaningless.

smithinmich on February 2, 2008 at 1:38 PM

They are meaningless to those of us that are informed. The uninformed take them as gospel, and that is how the MSM plays it to their own interests…

Nelsa on February 2, 2008 at 1:42 PM

Is unfortunately the fatigue factor coming into play now. After months of debates and campaigning people are getting tired of all the coverage and talk. So there is a natural tendancy to fall behind a frontrunner just to get past all the electioneering. Thats why frontrunner statis is so important people start voting just to end all the voting and fall behind a candidate that is already in the lead.

William Amos on February 2, 2008 at 1:46 PM

BTW its groundhog day so if Huck sees his shadow does that mean he eats groundhog tonight ?

Groundhog stew just as good the second day.

William Amos on February 2, 2008 at 1:48 PM

But if what you say is true, it raises a simple question: Why haven’t they all come out harder for Romney yet? I know Hannity and Ingraham say they’ll vote for him but Rush keeps holding back. How about a big endorsement jamboree on Monday?

Allahpundit on February 2, 2008 at 1:18 PM

Yeah, and lend credibility to the liberal notion that Rush listeners are a bunch of mind numbed robots. Great idea! /sarc

BTW, it was you who first raised the concern over what the liberal media reports.

DannoJyd on February 2, 2008 at 1:50 PM

Rasmussen likes to focus on the people that answer yes to the first and have voted recently. If you get a consistant hardcore voter who votes all the time they are more reliable to predict that the first time or occasional voter. The problem with that is sometimes occasional and first time voters get motivated to come out and vote changing results.

IF you limit too much you miss a swing of less reliable voters of you make your poll too inclusive you get voters whom might not vote. Rasmussen suffers more from the first type and Zogby from the second.

I’ve been harping all season about the 2006 hangover effect, in which a tight screen for likely voters overpolls conservatives at the expense of moderates. The 2006 election, in which moderate Republicans and Independents were unmotivated and did not turn out in large numbers for Republican candidates, may have resulted in many of them being tagged as “less reliable”, which may be the reason why McCain’s support has been underestimated in the three well-polled primaries (FL, SC, NH) that have occurred so far.

Big S on February 2, 2008 at 1:52 PM

BTW its groundhog day so if Huck sees his shadow does that mean he eats groundhog tonight ?

Groundhog stew just as good the second day.

William Amos on February 2, 2008 at 1:48 PM

LOL. Can’t get one in a corn popper. Too big.

a capella on February 2, 2008 at 1:53 PM

This far out, polls like that are just about meaningless.

How soon you forget: Kerry almost did beat Bush – despite being a lousy candidate running against an incumbent president in time of war and economic expansion. The polls were very meaningful – underlining Bush’s and, more important, the Republicans’ weakness, as born out further in the disaster of ’06, a 2nd term spent under water, and the continued devaluation of the Republican brand.

The polls underline that McCain at the very least would have a fighting chance to fend off a Democratic take over of all three branches of government at a time of peril to the Republicans’ basic political viability. It probably is an index of the conservative movement’s weakness that its main chance lies this time around in a relative moderate viewed by some as little better than Hillary. That’s what conservative failings have done for the movement: A center-right electorate increasingly views the hard right as even crazier than the left. At least the Democrats are pragmatic, responsible, and tolerant enough to accept something less than the whole loaf, then unite and try to win.

CK MacLeod on February 2, 2008 at 1:54 PM

A question I would like someone to ask Senator McCain is, if he doesn’t win, will he campaign for the nominee? Or better yet, will he remain in the Republican party? It appears that both parties will nominate the perons who’s “turn” it appears to be. I don’t expect to “love” another candidate in my life time but must they all be so frightening? We better work on Congress.

Cindy Munford on February 2, 2008 at 1:56 PM

If Huck folds they go to McCain not Mitt. So Mitt needs help to win the nomination and he needs it from huck.

William Amos on February 2, 2008 at 1:33 PM

Your last observation was spot on… this one not so much.

the reason is.. do you remember how many times the Huck fans reminded us why we don’t vote for the ole ‘Cain? Amnesty and McCain/Feingold are the biggies.

I found this in Dr. Dobson’s newsletter of May 2007, to wit:

This is precisely what occurred five years ago as a result of the regrettable McCain-Feingold legislation. It specified that 501(c)(3)-type nonprofit organizations, such as Focus on the Family, can’t even mention the names of politicians running for office within three months prior to an election.

(Note: union officials were exempt from the restriction.) We, and numerous other conservative organizations, were effectively silenced by Congress.

In this case, John McCain and his Republican colleagues were in on the scheme, and the president signed the bill.

We, and perhaps he, thought that the Supreme Court would strike it down, but they let it stand in a 5-to-4 decision.

In response, Focus on the Family’s board authorized the creation of a 501(c)(4) organization, called Focus on the Family Action™, which paid for this letter. In order to do so, however, we must try to raise funds that are not tax-deductible. That is very difficult to do.

There are other initiatives being considered in Congress intended to muzzle conservative communicators.

One is called “the Fairness Doctrine,” aimed at Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and others — including, perhaps, yours truly. According to two members of the House Democratic caucus, Nancy Pelosi has said she will “aggressively pursue” its reinstatement.

They are quoted as saying, “Conservative radio is a huge threat,” and that “We want to make sure the GOP has no advantage going into 2008.”

A Democratic source has indicated that Salem Radio Network, which airs Focus on the Family’s program, will be a target of the investigation.

Though this issue is on the back burner at the moment, look for it to come to the fore in the future. What it boils down to is that elected officials want to operate entirely without scrutiny or accountability.

Did we need a reminder why there is so much hatred for the ole ‘Cain?

Apparently.

According to all the bias we see even here, among so called conservatives who are supporting the ole ‘Cain, as my smack down here so shamelessly illustrates.

Mcguyver on February 2, 2008 at 1:58 PM

That’s a five-point pick-up for Maverick in 24 hours.

It’s cold and windy on this ledge.

see-dubya on February 2, 2008 at 1:58 PM

I’m not angry but I am seeing red. Is it just me? Annoying.

a capella on February 2, 2008 at 1:59 PM

Come out here and keep me company.

see-dubya on February 2, 2008 at 1:59 PM

Update: Oy. That’s a five-point pick-up for Maverick in 24 hours and 12 points since Florida.

As with the 2 point gain for Romney in the Ras poll, this could very well be noise. Remember:

For results based on these samples, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

Big S on February 2, 2008 at 2:03 PM

Sorry.

Here’s the Dr. Dobson…. letter that comes with a warning:
This letter is intended to be read by adults only.
Please keep it out of the hands of children
– that I referred to earlier.

It’s a very long article. But if you do a “ctrl F” search (windows) for McCain, then click on “next” it’ll come up quick.

Mcguyver on February 2, 2008 at 2:05 PM

I’m hoping Mitt has some surprise endorsements lined up for Monday although I can’t think of anyone so big that they might turn the tide.

Allah – I can think of two (Rush won’t, unless he sees it dire to do so)… Can we say Dobson? The thought came to me about it from this Huffpo headline:
Last week, the political arm of James Dobson’s Focus on the Family released an online video voter guide to help Christians sort through the “pro-family” records of the presidential candidates. The guide offers largely negative appraisals of Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mike Huckabee, and a far more glowing description of Mitt Romney.

Guide here.

Ok, so my logic goes like this: Rudy is gone, so no need to throw a 3rd party run… that’s unless he sees enough of a peril with McCain to do something. That something would be to prop up Romney against McCain. I would venture a guess Monday would be a good news cycle for any such release.

Thoughts?

SkinnerVic on February 2, 2008 at 2:06 PM

What I don’t understand is how McCain would think Huck brings enough to the VP table to offset his negatives which are beginning to mount up. Huckster evangelicals certainly wouldn’t counter all that, would they? I realize there is the southern thing, but lord almighty, there are lots of smart people down there. Huck will be teed up like a golf ball by the media, when the time comes.

a capella on February 2, 2008 at 2:07 PM

Mcguyver on February 2, 2008 at 1:58 PM

I now see your posts earlier, good to see I’m not on crack with my thought above..

SkinnerVic on February 2, 2008 at 2:09 PM

BTW finally found this story. Hope it enlightens some

MSNBC talks to Florida voters before primary

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22896871/

In mostly blue-collar precinct 11C at the Oceanway Assembly of God Family Life Center in north Jacksonville, Ken Westbrook said he’d voted for former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee.

“He’s a conservative Christian,” explained Westbrook. It was not any one position that Huckabee took so much as “his history and his lifestyle,” said Westbrook. “One wife, that sort of stuff. He has lived a moral lifestyle.”

Westbrook himself is a Baptist pastor, as Huckabee was before entering politics.

“I thought all of them were good; I don’t have a serious problem with any of them – except maybe Ron Paul” whose position on the Iraq war Westbrook disagrees with.

Confidence in Huckabee

Sheridan Kernop, a legal assistant, said Huckabee “was absolutely the best choice. I’ve been researching my candidates pretty well and (Mitt) Romney was in the running when I thought Huckabee was not going to be an issue. I always liked Huckabee, but I didn’t think the country would get behind him. But now that the country is starting to get behind him, I think that is the way to go.”

Tom Curry / msnbc.com
Jacksonville, Fla. Republican Sheridan Kernop voted for Mike Huckabee in Tuesday’s primary
——————————————————————————–

Asked whether she’d considered voting for Sen. John McCain, Kernop replied simply, “McCain’s too old.” The Arizona senator is 71.

She also rejected former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. “His views on same-sex marriage — it’s just completely killing him,” she said. “I wouldn’t be surprised if he pulled out of the race this weekend.”

Huckabee “has good Christian morals and that’s the reason I’m voting for him,” said Ann Heath, who works at the driver’s license bureau. Why did she not choose Romney instead of Huckabee?

“The honest truth? Because he’s a Mormon.”blockquote>

William Amos on February 2, 2008 at 2:09 PM

How about a big endorsement jamboree on Monday?

Allahpundit on February 2, 2008 at 1:18 PM

Are you endorsing Mitt?

Connie on February 2, 2008 at 2:11 PM

How about a big endorsement jamboree on Monday?

Allahpundit on February 2, 2008 at 1:18 PM

Yeah, how about it?

see-dubya on February 2, 2008 at 2:12 PM

If any of you are considering donating to Mitt, now would be a good time. Besides, it will annoy the recent crop of stealth-Dem trollsters around here.

https://www.mittromney.com/contribution/form:sc=INT051

fiatboomer on February 2, 2008 at 2:13 PM

William Amos on February 2, 2008 at 2:09 PM

Thanks. it does speak to my 2:07 post re Huckster, although his usefulness as a anti-Mormon hitman will be eliminated in the general.

a capella on February 2, 2008 at 2:13 PM

I’m hoping Mitt has some surprise endorsements lined up for Monday

I think a nice Jeff Sessions endorsement would be wonderful at this time. Who better to rip McLame on his shamnesty plan then one of the men who actually listened to the American people and defeated it together.

Mojack420 on February 2, 2008 at 2:16 PM

And if you would like help a true American hero fight back a mountain of slime from a constantly morphing, newly minted conservative that will lose to even the weakest dem nominee, then you can join me in donating to John McCain at:

https://www.johnmccain.com/CONTRIBUTE/ContributeB.aspx

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 2, 2008 at 2:17 PM

Thanks. it does speak to my 2:07 post re Huckster, although his usefulness as a anti-Mormon hitman will be eliminated in the general.

a capella on February 2, 2008 at 2:13 PM

True. The problem is those same voters have an impact in the south. AS long as the stay with Huck the arent voting with McCain to spite Romney. however if Huck fades they will go with the candidate most likely to prevent Mitt from becoming president.

But not all voters are evangelicals and not all evangelicals think like that. Shame our party isnt fighitng over issus as much as differing church doctrine.

William Amos on February 2, 2008 at 2:17 PM

Thoughts?

SkinnerVic on February 2, 2008 at 2:06 PM

Dobson endorsing Romney? That would indeed put the cat amongst the pidgeons. Time is gittin’ short, though.

a capella on February 2, 2008 at 2:18 PM

A 20 point differential?

And thus we learned polls are useless.

Christoph on February 2, 2008 at 2:19 PM

This morning Foxnews called any who don’t support McCain “ultra-right wingers”

Maybe, Maybe not. BUT IF I am it’s because this nation’s MSM has moved so FAR LEFT. Murdoch and FOX WILL manipulate polling data to get a political end result. (They did it during amnesty)

I just went and donated to MITT for the first time- In Ronald Reagan’s name. Not because Mitt needs the money.
BUT because he needs the support-

AND I WANTED TO SEND A MESSAGE!

If ALL conservatives donate to Romney between now and Monday- If we MELT THE SITE and DO A RON PAUL SIZE F-McCain-a-thon then maybe, just maybe the media WILL REPORT IT!

Ex-tex on February 2, 2008 at 2:20 PM

Poor spelling. Preview wouldn’t work.

a capella on February 2, 2008 at 2:20 PM

Remember, Hate is the path to the dark side.

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 2, 2008 at 2:22 PM

Remember, Hate is the path to the dark side.

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 2, 2008 at 2:22 PM

Heh considering what names McCain has called other republicans Im sure many veiw him as a Sith lord for his anger.

William Amos on February 2, 2008 at 2:25 PM

Remember, Hate Fear is the path to the dark side.

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 2, 2008 at 2:22 PM

Fixed that! Says something about McCain’s use of fear mongering.

SkinnerVic on February 2, 2008 at 2:29 PM

Copied from a commenter at MM’s site.

Quoted for truth!!!

On February 2nd, 2008 at 2:24 pm, mike volpe said:
I would like to point out that all of this bashing of good decent people who are running for President makes me sick of the process. I have had it with the lot of you, not so much with the candidates, all of whom I find to be perfectly qualified to hold the office.

Reaching across the aisle and working with the other side used to be noble. Being able to attract folks of different persuasions used to be noble.

Now, Michelle points out every single person that supports McCain as some sort of blunt object. The whole thing is unnecessary.

All of you hate McCain because he dares to stray from some sort of ideological threshhold and he does what he thinks is right rather than what some ideology tells him to. Worse than that, all of admire Joe Lieberman for the exact same thing. Some of you are equally cynical toward everyone because no one fits some sort of ideological test. Ideology is not now and never has been the most important measure of Presidential success. We have had very successful Presidents of all ideological persuasions.

What you have all done is turned good, honorable men into monsters, and frankly the only ones that are really ugly are the critics that find every single little thing to attack each of them with.

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 2, 2008 at 2:30 PM

Allah, what do you make of Romney being up in Texas by a point?

SkinnerVic on February 2, 2008 at 2:32 PM

Yeah, it will. Their audiences consume mainstream media too. If they all swing for the fences with Romney and McCain runs away with it, the embarrassment won’t be lost among their fans.

Allahpundit on February 2, 2008 at 1:18 PM

Totally disagree with this. El Rushbo’s fans don’t give a flip about what the MSM says and are incapable of embarrassment in that regard.

In any case, it’s highly unlikely that Rush is going to endorse anyone.

Buy Danish on February 2, 2008 at 2:32 PM

Novak: Bush is mad at Romney for Mitt’s (new) hard-line approach to illegal immigration!?!?
WTF?
Scroll down to the last paragraph…interesting stuff!
SouthernGent on February 2, 2008 at 1:35 PM

That is a great link, SG:

While President George W. Bush has maintained neutrality among contenders for the Republican presidential nomination, he privately expresses to friends his exasperation with Mitt Romney’s hard-line stance on immigration.

Bush is upset that Romney changed his position on the issue, compared to what it had been when he was governor of Massachusetts, at the expense of the president’s immigration reform.

Bush and Sen. John McCain are not close, but the president is grateful for McCain’s support on Iraq and immigration.

Oxymoron, the name is BOOOOSCH!…..
maintained neutrality vs…..
privately expresses to friends his exasperation with Mitt Romney’s hard-line stance on immigration.

REFER BACK TO MY SHAMELESS RANT, PLEASE!

Mcguyver on February 2, 2008 at 2:38 PM

SkinnerVic on February 2, 2008 at 2:32 PM

Interesting tidbit from your Texas poll:

Only a quarter of Romney’s supporters would support even a gradual reduction in troop levels in Iraq, while this idea had around 40% approval from supporters of McCain and Huckabee, as well as undecided Republicans

How ironic that the John “Surge” McCain’s supporters are more ready to support a reduction troop levels. Must be all those women voters who are on his team.

Buy Danish on February 2, 2008 at 2:38 PM

iatboomer on February 2, 2008 at 2:13 PM

I did I gave all I could right now im just a broken down gimpy ex construction worker going back to school to get some new training and start over in a new field . You know that 50$ an hour summer lettuce picking job would help me out a lot there McLiar.

Mojack420 on February 2, 2008 at 2:39 PM

The various polling numbers swing so wildly that any credence is impossible. The only thing they do is likely influence the actual vote and I’m afraid they are ofter used that way. I can’t think of a legal way to do it but they should be banned.

duff65 on February 2, 2008 at 2:40 PM

The only entities who have generated polls that are mathematically valid and reliable are the candidates themselves. The rest of this garbage isn’t worth the bandwidth it takes to publish it.

rplat on February 2, 2008 at 2:41 PM

And if you would like help a true American hero fight back a mountain of slime from a constantly morphing, newly minted conservative that will lose to even the weakest dem nominee, then you can join me in donating to John McCain.

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 2, 2008 at 2:17 PM

I will repeat…John McCain will be elected POTUS the day Charles Manson is paroled.

Firmworm on February 2, 2008 at 2:42 PM

Allah, what do you make of Romney being up in Texas by a point?

SkinnerVic on February 2, 2008 at 2:32 PM

Way early for TX. They don’t have their primary until March 4th (kinda think things will be decided way before then)

bnelson44 on February 2, 2008 at 2:42 PM

Real Clear Politics, which is an average of dozens of polls, has McCain ahead by 12%. As far as southerners being against Mitt because he’s mormon, I really don’t think so. McCain will do well in the south because people here are sick and tired of the constant bickering and gridlock. Mac’s main problem seems to be amnesty. But as soon as the border is actually secured and the criminal illegals deported, most average americans will be okay with some getting amnesty. The ultra right wingers say they don’t have a party, but what they don’t have is a candidate.

myamphibian on February 2, 2008 at 2:43 PM

I just went and donated to MITT for the first time- In Ronald Reagan’s name. Not because Mitt needs the money.
BUT because he needs the support-

AND I WANTED TO SEND A MESSAGE!

Ex-tex on February 2, 2008 at 2:20 PM

Yep, and if you use PayPal you can donate in 2.5 seconds and can donate as little as $5.00 if that’s all one can afford.

Buy Danish on February 2, 2008 at 2:43 PM

McCain will do well in the south because people here are sick and tired of the constant bickering and gridlock. Mac’s main problem seems to be amnesty. But as soon as the border is actually secured and the criminal illegals deported, most average americans will be okay with some getting amnesty. The ultra right wingers say they don’t have a party, but what they don’t have is a candidate.

myamphibian on February 2, 2008 at 2:43 PM

Agreed. Anyway, we can’t afford to deport the hard workers, we would have a depression.

bnelson44 on February 2, 2008 at 2:45 PM

Allah, what do you make of Romney being up in Texas by a point?

SkinnerVic on February 2, 2008 at 2:32 PM

Good hat tip Skinner….

I though the ole ‘Cain got the “manly” vote in Florida!?!

But, what this?:

TX Pres Primary 1/30-31:
Looking into the numbers, McCain and Romney have opposite gender gaps, with men choosing Romney by a nine point margin and women choosing McCain by a nine point margin. Huckabee had no gender gap.

I can tell you why…. it because I live in Texas! :)

Here’s your chance to tweak the polls….! PLEASE VOTE!

P.S. this here: Huckabee had no gender gap…. leaves me speechless! I knew it!

Mcguyver on February 2, 2008 at 2:47 PM

I was wondering the other day about the Ron Paul blimp. It looks like it is out of money so I guess we won’t see it tomorrow above Phoenix. :(

I saw a blimp yesterday though, too far away to tell who was sponsoring it :)

bnelson44 on February 2, 2008 at 2:48 PM

The Boston Herald doesn’t seem to like Romney much.

bnelson44 on February 2, 2008 at 2:44 PM

Who really cares what that rag’s opinion is. They cater to the epicenter of liberal indoctrination.

Firmworm on February 2, 2008 at 2:50 PM

Ex-tex on February 2, 2008 at 2:20 PM

can we get a blimp too

Mojack420 on February 2, 2008 at 2:50 PM

Totally disagree with this. El Rushbo’s fans don’t give a flip about what the MSM says and are incapable of embarrassment in that regard.

You are right about their relationship with their fans. Though, an endorsement of Mitt followed by a (probable) defeat can make a host seem less influential within the Republican party. Part of the brand equity for Rush or Sean is being the spokesmen for core of the Republican party. A McCain nomination diminishes that.

dedalus on February 2, 2008 at 2:50 PM

The Boston Herold doesn’t seem to like Romney much.

bnelson44 on February 2, 2008 at 2:44 PM

The Wall Street Journal points out my main problem with Mitt, the man has no conviction.

Complete7 on February 2, 2008 at 2:53 PM

Who really cares what that rag’s opinion is. They cater to the epicenter of liberal indoctrination.

Firmworm on February 2, 2008 at 2:50 PM

Your thinking of the Boston Globe. The Boston Harold is a very conservative newspaper. And they have endorsed McCain. What do they know that we don’t know?

bnelson44 on February 2, 2008 at 2:53 PM

The Wall Street Journal points out my main problem with Mitt, the man has no conviction.

Complete7 on February 2, 2008 at 2:53 PM

That is my objection as well, and also seems to be the objection of the Boston Harold.

bnelson44 on February 2, 2008 at 2:54 PM

Your thinking of the Boston Globe. The Boston Harold is a very conservative newspaper. And they have endorsed McCain. What do they know that we don’t know?

bnelson44 on February 2, 2008 at 2:53 PM

I stand corrected. I’m a little wound up !

Firmworm on February 2, 2008 at 2:56 PM

The Wall Street Journal points out my main problem with Mitt, the man has no conviction.
Complete7 on February 2, 2008 at 2:53 PM

How do you measure conviction? Maybe he should stand in front of a blackboard and write “I have conviction” 500 times.

duff65 on February 2, 2008 at 2:58 PM

Complete7 on February 2, 2008 at 2:53 PM

What do you expect the wsj was for shamnesty in a big way, so it’s in their best interest to push for captain shamnesty.

and McLair has conviction they are just for the wrong things 9 times out of 10

wot good
gitmo bad
free speech bad
amnesty very very bad{ how can you be strong on the wot when you have a back door for the terrorist to explote}
bad on anwar
bad on global warming
bad on taxes
bad on gun rights
bad on listening to the american people
and a out and out liar when it comes to his claims of being against special interest groups when he has special interest groups in key positions of his camp Juan Hernandez.

Mojack420 on February 2, 2008 at 2:59 PM

Hickabee gives Christianity a bad name.

volsense on February 2, 2008 at 3:00 PM

Maybe he should stand in front of a blackboard and write “I have conviction” 500 times.

duff65 on February 2, 2008 at 2:58 PM

Wait! Wait! He should write it on the back of his hand!

RushBaby on February 2, 2008 at 3:04 PM

Heh considering what names McCain has called other republicans Im sure many veiw him as a Sith lord for his anger.

William Amos on February 2, 2008 at 2:25 PM

He’s got someone else to do that for him now. Remember Shi’ite Republicans in Arkansas?

a capella on February 2, 2008 at 3:05 PM

From the looks of it we are screwed 7 ways till 2012. The only bright side is hillary will screw thing up so bad by then they will be begging a conservative to take office. Till then hide your guns and your money this is gonna be a hard 4 years.

Unless Mitt pulls it out. Go Mitt Go!

HotAirExpert on February 2, 2008 at 3:08 PM

Mojack420 on February 2, 2008 at 2:59 PM

Mojack you summed McCain up perfectly even with leaving out a few other negatives. I can’t believe that we want this for our nominee or for the next president.

duff65 on February 2, 2008 at 3:09 PM

Part of the brand equity for Rush or Sean is being the spokesmen for core of the Republican party.

dedalus on February 2, 2008 at 2:50 PM

Rush always says he is a conservative first, so he only represents that wing of the Republican Party. Hannity also talks about his conservative principles and how he can’t compromise them.

I don’t see either of them as king makers. I see them more as people who articulate conservative ideas and help voters focus on those principles.

In the process they help the Republican Party even if their candidates don’t always win, but their loyalty to the Party is dependent on that core conservatism.

Buy Danish on February 2, 2008 at 3:13 PM

Buy Danish on February 2, 2008 at 3:13 PM

Beautifully said.

RushBaby on February 2, 2008 at 3:17 PM

duff65 on February 2, 2008 at 3:09 PM

I don’t know who the we is well yes i do the msm the open boarder shills , the establishment moderate rinos . But they sure in the hell don’t speak for me.

I wonder how well McLair is going to do in his own home state since they just passed one of the harshest anti illegal laws ever. Or is he counting on alienating so many republicans who left the GOP and went independent after the shamnesty push that he has a chance now in closed primaries.

Mojack420 on February 2, 2008 at 3:18 PM

Why the hell ain’t ‘core conservatives’ voting for Willard? We’ll get our chance on tuesday, I guess.

countywolf on February 2, 2008 at 3:24 PM

How about a big endorsement jamboree on Monday?

Allahpundit on February 2, 2008 at 1:18 PM

It would be great if Rush made a last-minute announcement.

amerpundit on February 2, 2008 at 3:31 PM