PPP poll: Romney now biggest threat to Obama head to head
posted at 9:08 pm on February 18, 2010 by Allahpundit
I post their dopey match-up poll every month, and every month — unfailingly — it’s Huckabee who does best against The One.
After trailing in one of the hypothetical match ups on our monthly 2012 poll for the first timein January, Obama is back ahead of all the potential 2012 hopefuls. He’s up 45-43 on Mitt Romney, 46-43 on Mike Huckabee, 50-43 on Sarah Palin, and 46-28 on John Thune.
For Romney this is his first time flying solo as the closest Republican to Obama. In the previous ten polls Huckabee was the closest nine times and the tenth was a tie between Huckabee and Romney. The former Massachusetts Governor fares the best of the GOP contenders among independents, leading Obama 43-38…
Palin continues to be the weakest of the leading trio of Republicans. Where Romney and Huckabee hold small leads with independents she trails by 10 points. She also loses 14% of the Republican vote to Obama compared to only 10% for Romney and 11% for Huckabee.
I have no explanation for Mitt’s surge (or is it Huck’s decline?) except that, the more ObamaCare recedes as the burning policy issue of the day, the more RomneyCare fades as a burning policy issue in the minds of conservatives. Which is to say, the Democrats aren’t the only ones desperate to put health care in the rearview mirror. As for Sarahcuda, she’s a point closer to Obama than she was last month, but 34 percent of voters think she’s too conservative compared to 22 percent for Mitt and 24 percent for Huck. As always in these polls, a big part of that difference is name recognition: Undecideds simply don’t realize yet how conservative Romney and Huckabee are, and once they do, those numbers will even out. But this, needless to say, is more problematic:
That’s not as bad as those gruesome ABC/WaPo numbers from last week — in fact, PPP found that 22 percent of those who say she’s unqualified would still vote for her over Captain B+ — but there’s less time to turn those numbers around than you may think. The primary campaign will start rolling a year from now and should be in full swing in about 16 months. Palin’s got a sweet platform at Fox News to show off some policy knowledge before then, but images don’t change overnight. If she’s thinking of running, time’s a-wasting.
One other footnote worth mentioning, if only for Chris Matthews’s sake. Despite what the MSNBC crowd would have you believe about Palin being some sort of white icon, she actually polls worse among whites head to head with Obama than Huck and Mitt do. Obama/Palin split 41/51 versus 33/53 for Obama/Romney and 36/53 for Obama/Huckabee. So much for that narrative.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
Good summary. Mark my words, the day will come when people will hide their Ivy league pedigrees. When Ahmadinejad spoke a few years ago at Columbia U. I went to protest and offered my diploma (made useless by the invite)for sale for 50¢.
JiangxiDad on February 19, 2010 at 8:45 AM
davidk, you’re a deep thinker alright. Riddle me this though. What’s yer game plan if Sarah doesn’t want to run? I guess you’re okay with Obama…..
adamsmith on February 19, 2010 at 8:47 AM
fify.
Only the Stupid Party would even consider nominating the Godfather of the Individual Mandate after the country narrowly missed imposition of the Individual Mandate by the skin of its colletive[ist] teeth.
james23 on February 19, 2010 at 8:55 AM
I thought it was pretty obvious that the ‘next in line Republican’ concept does not yield many good candidates and time in service to a party that has bi-partisanship in the manner of giving the Left half or three-quarters of what it wants is not a good deal for politics, culture or our fiscal outlook. The MSM wants Mitt Romney as the ‘next in line Republican’ and will play up his time in the party, his governorship, his bi-partisanship… and play down Romneycare, fee increases, ‘closing loopholes’, and generally finding anyway to suck money out of the people for government services across the board.
Mind you its the same guy who wondered why he couldn’t tax off-shore funds in accounts and holding vehicles while having many of those, himself, for over a decade to avoid taxes. But perhaps he was only using Turbo Tax…
The idea of bi-partisanship that expands government is cruel and unusual punishment to the American people. Lock up DC with partisanship… lock it up until it freezes solid and can’t move. Propose tiny budgets that cut sections of government and see what those on ‘the other side’ cry about… then hit those parts harder. The Tea Party members need time to infiltrate both parties at the district level as they have done in FL, NV and now in OH.
Both parties need a makeover from the inside and a strong voice in both for fiscal sanity and small government that ignores party lines and isn’t ‘bi-partisan’ as they believe in the same things, they are wearing party hats to get the message of Americans to DC. Neither party can ‘absorb’ the Tea Party movement with a few slogans… both parties can be eaten out from the inside as they are vacant in so many districts it isn’t funny.
I’ll give Obama this: he has started to lock up government with Cloward-Piven, but the results you get are not those of a city council or even small corporation. On a National scale where people adore liberty, the people decide that those running the system ARE the system AND the problem. Get rid of the people, get rid of the system and get it back to something small and understandable. I’m not seeing that from the party leadership of either parties, or from Mitt or Huck. It 2012 is the year of massive lock-up of DC, so be it. We will see what still keeps going, make note of it and then decide if those are truly vital parts of government.
I welcome extreme partisanship and clear bright lines to define who wants what and why.
Send me no more bi-partisan, big government hacks. I will vote for Nader if that happens on both sides, at least he is a swell minded fool who makes his points clearly and brightly. Anyone who will lock up DC in partisanship.
Until the people can get roll it back to something small and manageable.
Partisanship.
Roll back.
Then we can see what we really do need and what we can do without.
ajacksonian on February 19, 2010 at 9:00 AM
Not really. He actually stayed away except initially.
It was McCain who really backed Brown.
AnninCA on February 19, 2010 at 9:02 AM
Oh well, the regular GOP want Romney, clearly. It’s up to the primaries.
I sure can’t see it. He’s Bush Redux. I don’t think the Independents are remotely interested in that.
AnninCA on February 19, 2010 at 9:03 AM
He’s up 45-43 on Mitt Romney, 46-43 on Mike Huckabee, 50-43 on Sarah Palin, and 46-28 on John Thune.
and out of those 4 only one has been vetted to an inch of her life. the rest have so much dirt waiting to come out that all these numbers are meaningless except for the Palin one. the GOP is ineffect 7 pts down on Obama which when taken as a EV is a very good place to be.
And a note to George will 7% down in a national poll is not 6 states. that means at the moment the battleground states are about the same as 2008
unseen on February 19, 2010 at 9:04 AM
ah, hahahahahaha. No way Palin signs up again to haul some sorry RINO’s butt across the finish line again. Been there and done that, and still has knife wound scars on her back to show for her efforts in 08. On the other hand, Mittens Romneycare would make a fine Bailout/Buyout Czar for some other lucky Stupid Party candidate like Huck or TPaws. Put him in charge of selling off the Gov’t stake in GM, AIG, Citibank etc etc.
james23 on February 19, 2010 at 9:07 AM
That is only partially true. Yes, McCain backed Brown, but it is misleading to say that Romney “stayed away except initially.” Such phrasing trivializes Romney’s role and fails to give him credit where credit is due. That “initially” part was critical – which is why Mitt’s support was acknowledged by his having spoken on the evening of Scott Brown’s election. Furthermore, while Mitt may not have been very visible until that night, he was in fact raising money for Brown behind the scenes the entire time.
OneVision on February 19, 2010 at 9:15 AM
Deep this: I will not vote for another RINO.
davidk on February 19, 2010 at 9:17 AM
@JiangxiDad: I don’t see you hiding your educational pedigree.
Going rogue doesn’t mean going khmer rouge. Are you going to shoot anyone who wears glasses? (Uh-oh, Sarah, better duck!)
Seth Halpern on February 19, 2010 at 9:18 AM
I simply can’t see 3 or 4 points in polling as proving that Romney would do a bit better than any other candidate at this point.
Seriously, what does the regular GOP think? Everyone won’t notice that Romney is just another Bush type?
Independents aren’t going to be interested in that.
AnninCA on February 19, 2010 at 9:19 AM
I really never saw how much he raised for Brown. Did you?
I suspected that was a “need to acknowledge” comment by Brown since Mitt is a MA guy.
AnninCA on February 19, 2010 at 9:20 AM
I think the GOPers who are making waves are the ones who have DISTANCED themselves from the GOP insider group. They are “remotely” GOP. Those are the folks pulling in Independents.
They walk like a GOP, they talk like a conservative, but they try to not mention the party too much.
It’s a form of a third party appeal, without the hassle.
Mitt definitely wouldn’t be able to pull that off. He’ll sound like Obama trying to pretend to understand our pain. LOL*
It’s not going to work is my prediction.
AnninCA on February 19, 2010 at 9:22 AM
Um, I’m pro-choice. Want to try again?
NoLeftTurn on February 19, 2010 at 9:25 AM
me, too.
AnninCA on February 19, 2010 at 9:27 AM
Picking Mitt would be like picking McCain again. Besides, his MA health care reform is one of the things the Democrats use as a success to push ObamaCare on us. If MA has it, might as well do it in every state. They said that about Gay Marriage as well. Thanks Romney but I’ve already seen how well you fight for Conservative ideals against Democrats. I’ll pass.
Sarah too Conservative? AllahPundit, you say that like it’s a bad thing? What’s too Conservative exactly anyway? She’s supporting McCain.
Sultry Beauty on February 19, 2010 at 9:37 AM
Maybe you mean too fiscally responsible? Nowadays, seems the difference between Conservatives in Congress and too Conservative is that very fact. Maybe you think the ones already in Congress are the only ones who can get elected still. Wash, rinse, repeat. Try again new this time.
Sultry Beauty on February 19, 2010 at 9:40 AM
WE MUST FIX THE PRIMARY SYSTEM! I can’t stress this enough. If we don’t, then the deck will be stacked. We blame the MSM and democrats for picking our candidates, but the GOP is LETTING THEM. The beltway republicans have this game fixed by having open primaries they can eliminate candidates who are truly conservative. These primaries guarantee that a moderate RINO will be all there is on offer to the base in the general. This is done with the GOP’s blessing folks.
KickandSwimMom on February 19, 2010 at 9:42 AM
Where’s Newtie in all this? He’s running around like he’s gonna be runnin’ in ’12. Lord help us, he’s just the kind of squishy tool we don’t need to run or get elected.
Kissmygrits on February 19, 2010 at 9:46 AM
Not sure I understand. The school I graduated from has turned into a Marxist training camp, and I threw their diploma back in their face. And to be perfectly honest, there was nothing I learned there that couldn’t have been learned elsewhere, and they certainly didn’t contribute to any moral or ethical development.
JiangxiDad on February 19, 2010 at 10:05 AM
True – or with a disclaimer.
redridinghood on February 19, 2010 at 10:15 AM
Look up! The Newt thinks the Repubs should waltz into Presidente Pinnochios HealthScare and Casterate the Republicans summitt
and get all Bi-Partisan with the Indonesian imbecile and pass something effectively savin Pinnochios’ bacon.
Another ef’n RINO needs to STFU and retire, but no Newt is still fleecin the American people by takin money to spout his pap on any show that will pay the puke.
A rope is just too good for these panering politicians thats why i like Sarah she has a desire to serve the people and do whats right while tellin the truth not tell us what to do, how much smarter she is or just say sh.t to get money.
Newt, Mccain, Grahamnsty, and other assortered pandering RINOs need to be hung from the lampposts alongside the Dems and the Presstitute enablers.
Go JD Hayworth beat the professional panderer
dhunter on February 19, 2010 at 10:18 AM
LOL. Awesome!
redridinghood on February 19, 2010 at 10:19 AM
Oops, wrong thread.
redridinghood on February 19, 2010 at 10:21 AM
Oops, right thread.
redridinghood on February 19, 2010 at 10:22 AM
Oh, yawn.
And, as soon as their Hit Squad comes out with a row of
*R*O*M*N*E*Y*C*A*R*E* ads,
just how well will the GOP do then?
Forget about it.
Lockstein13 on February 19, 2010 at 10:27 AM
The bad thing about this poll regarding Palin isn’t that she is the farthest behind or that she is only getting 43 percent. The scariest thing is that she is driving Obama’s number up to 50 percent.
lavell12 on February 19, 2010 at 10:30 AM
Romney will never win. As a matter of fact, Romney is the perfect candidate for the Dems to concentrate on. The media will never give Romney a pass on his self made wealth, or his Mormon faith. They did however give Obama a pass on his faith growing up, his friends and his money. Will never happen. The media and the Dem’s will make Mitt out to be a crazy Mormon with unbelievable wealth.
shar61 on February 19, 2010 at 10:40 AM
We should never have backed down from the healthcare debacle after Scott Browns victory. They are going to get it in. Who gives a rats ass who is running in 2012, we are not going to make it that far.
shar61 on February 19, 2010 at 10:42 AM
It’s not AP saying it, it’s those responding to the poll.
Someone being “too conservative” or “too liberal” is a matter of perception. Leftist Obama got elected because people liked him personally and he portrayed himself as centrist. That his true liberal ideology was there for anyone to see didn’t matter to the leg-tingling set. Likewise, Reagan won Dem votes because people liked him personally.
Is there such a thing as “too conservative”? Perhaps not- but there is such a thing as being percieved as too conservative.
It all boils down to what might be called “The Six-Pack Factor”. Find the candidate that the average voter would rather share a six-pack with, and they’re almost assured a win regardless of political ideology. Left-leaning independants will vote for a conservative they personally like, and right-leaners will vote for a liberal.
That might sound cynical, but recent history shows it to be almost universally true, at least with regards to presidential elections.
Hollowpoint on February 19, 2010 at 10:53 AM
You’re right to a point. The error factor in a poll like this is beyond the deviation between Romney, Huckabee and Palin. The most telling result is that Thune is so low. It proves the results are driven by name recognition.
That Palin has the same 43% as Romney is remarkable considering she gets Way More Press and all of it on the MSM side Negative.
I don’t think she’s qualified to be President. I would vote for her over Romney in a primary though.
rcl on February 19, 2010 at 10:57 AM
Why are people blaming Romney for McCain’s crappy campaign workers? Just because Maverick’s gutless henchmen couldn’t wait to blame Palin doesn’t mean Romney’s staff would. I think Romney’s executive experience would show that he knows how to pick a loyal group of people to advise him.
Speedwagon82 on February 19, 2010 at 11:00 AM
I think Independents are clearly connecting with conservative candidates on issues, not so much on ideology.
I’m probably a very typical moderate Independent. I loved my teaparty over the tax propositions. It was local. It was authentic. It meant a lot to me. I got on-line, found out where to go, and went. I had a very good experience, too. I didn’t feel I was joining some wingnut group at all.
However, I’m just not that into purity pledges or constitutional stuff. I don’t mind if others are. I agree with Palin. Everyone needs to have the right to speak up.
But I am very suspicious of GOP regulars. They are just too much like what got us into this mess.
No thanks.
AnninCA on February 19, 2010 at 11:00 AM
Head-to-Head polls this far out are meaningless.
However, it does give us two clear indication:
1. The 2012 nomination will end up being a battle between Huckabee, Romney & Palin. Pawlenty might be a fourth minor player that would draw votes from Romney primarily.
2. Dark horse candidates like Thune, Daniels, etc. have no chance. Their name recognintion is in the toilet. They only way they can break through in polls and fundraising is with charisma a la Huckabee in 2008. Of which they (Thune/Daniels) have none.
Norwegian on February 19, 2010 at 11:03 AM
I agree with Buy Danish. Just Wow.
Really!? Then back it up. Please find ALL of Mitt’s business partners and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they’re cronies.
Who gives a sh*t what Mitt’s religion is?
It is close minded people like this that give Conservatives a bad name.
Conservative Samizdat on February 19, 2010 at 12:07 PM
Ummm… you do!
I wanted Mitt Romney to win rather than John McCain but that doesn’t mean he was a good candidate. The fact that he lost to McCain kinda tells you he just hasn’t got it.
He sat there in the debates and let McCain control the conversation. McCain was a babbling idiot detested by a large part of the right and he beat Mitt Romney.
What makes you think he will do any better this time around?
sharrukin on February 19, 2010 at 12:34 PM
Ummm…no I don’t. Granted Romney is of my faith.
But I’ve stated many times on HA that I don’t care what the GOP candidate’s religion is. They could be Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu or even Atheist…as long as they fight for conservative principles and values…what the candidate’s religion is irrelevant to me.
Probably that the economy will still be in horrible shape in 2012, that Obama’s poll numbers will still be low and that people will start to see Romney in a different light.
Conservative Samizdat on February 19, 2010 at 12:50 PM
When has Romney done that?
sharrukin on February 19, 2010 at 12:53 PM
Here is a great campaign slogan for Romney….
GOTT MIT UNS?
……get it?
A play on Got Mittens? which is a play on an oral porn star asking Got Milk? which is a play on and old milk board commercial that asked Got Milk? But here it refers to Mitt in a non threatening, non Mormon, non porn and non milk kind of way. It is German for “God with us” it’s not the Christian or Mormon God, it’s the German God of War (apparently).
No? Not a good one? (Was it the German affiliation you racists?)
BL@KBIRD on February 19, 2010 at 1:12 PM
Hmmm…let us start Mitt helping with getting Republicans elected in NJ, VA, and Mass?
If you were a politician and you needed support: Would you ask for Palin, Huckabee or Romney to help you win the 2010 elections?
If you were smart, you’d ask for Romney’s help. He’s the only conservative who actually helps other conservatives get elected.
If you want to learn more about conservative Mitt’s positions, go here.
Conservative Samizdat on February 19, 2010 at 1:15 PM
Can’t believe HOTAIR hasn’t linked to this video yet:
http://www.tmz.com/videos?autoplay=true&mediaKey=e087bf10-8cb8-4a2e-af81-6454a2d02bf1&isShareURL=true
joncoltonis on February 19, 2010 at 1:19 PM
And what does that have to do with fighting for conservative principles and values? He rolled over when he was Governor of Mass. Why would he suddenly not do the same thing when under even more pressure at the national level?
Well oddly they keep asking Sarah Palin for help. They must be fools!
You are pushing the ‘Fantasy Mitt’ who will stand up for conservative values (in real life… not so much), and the ‘fantasy policies’ of Mitt which he never enacted.
The reality is that he is not what you are claiming, or if he is he lacks the strength to stand by his convictions.
He thinks Jihad has nothing to do with Islam. How does someone get that out of touch with reality?
sharrukin on February 19, 2010 at 1:25 PM
But that’s the problem in a nutshell. Mitt does not fight for conservative values. He has been AWOL in the fight against Maobama Socialism.…And there is a good reason for his absence. He, Romney, is the author of the biggest government powergrab since WWII–ie, Romneycare. He has no standing to oppose its implementation on the federal level.
And now, since it is clear that Romneycare does not fight for conservative values, can we deduce from your statement above that his religion is highly relevant to your decision?If you are Mormon, I wouldn’t blame you a bit for supporting another Mormon, but stop trying to sell it as a principled conservative move.
james23 on February 19, 2010 at 1:28 PM
The Flotsam and Jetsam
of today’s typical Republicans
(and Allahpundit)
will be swept away in the next five years.
Pay them thanks and no heed.
Lockstein13 on February 19, 2010 at 1:30 PM
Curiously, didn’t the media at one time say Carter was going to win huge over Reagan?
How’d that work out?
Nuff said.
Badger40 on February 19, 2010 at 1:43 PM
Add to that, Romney spent record amounts of money, no candidate had ever in the history of pre-elections ever spent so much money…and he couldn’t win.
As simple as it sounds here it is…He just doesn’t connect with the people, no rhyme or reason, it is just that way, on a national level, people won’t “connect” with him.
That is why it would be best for him to be a VP, or a high ranking cabinet member. Whomever runs should use him that way…but he won’t, because he really isn’t a team player. Great guy, great looking, speaks intelligently, has a few moral issues, but much fewer then others…but people just don’t embrace him.
Compare his fans to Palin’s…step back and look at who actually motivates people.
Mitt’s intellect, and Palin’s personality and you would have a winner…it’s just that Palin is closer to Mitt, then Mitt is to Palin.
right2bright on February 19, 2010 at 1:45 PM
I’m one of those ‘nutjob Mormons’ you like to refer to.
As an American citizen, I take umbrage at your comment.
Keep your bigoted opinions to yourself, please.
I don’t like what the ‘religion’/political ideology of Islam stands for, but I don’t lump all muslims into a nutjob group. I judge each individual I meet on how they present themselves to me.
So kindly save your ignorant behavior for some other place.
As far as I am aware, Mormons can still participate in the political process in this country.
Badger40 on February 19, 2010 at 1:49 PM
or here…
right2bright on February 19, 2010 at 1:52 PM
I agree bcs it’s what happened the last time.
And yet the Dems love their ‘crazy Mormon’ Reid.
GO figure.
America voted for BO to save face with themselves over a lot of issues, but there is way too much prejudice against the Mormon religion in this country for Mitt to ever get elected.
Having lived all over the US, I have seen a lot of the prejudice 1st hand & it isn’t pretty.
Badger40 on February 19, 2010 at 1:52 PM
Most of the “prejudice” is fueled by the paranoia of the Mormon’s…much like the “black prejudice” that amazingly, somehow, was overcome to get Obama elected.
It seemed to disappear…most of the “prejudice” is based facts.
Example: Is it prejudice to say that blacks, as a percentage, have a higher drop out rate, more out of wedlock children, higher unemployment, higher crime rate, then most of other demographic groups?
We do, initially, use generalizations to identify people, that’s not “prejudice” that is filtering what information we have.
Their is a general knowledge about certain religions, and it is up to those religions to correct those impressions if they are wrong.
The Jews have had to do that for hundreds of years…Catholic priests…Baptist ministers…Jehovah’s witnesses, and yes, even the Mormon’s.
right2bright on February 19, 2010 at 2:04 PM
I’m a convert & I’m not ‘paranoid’.
I saw the prejudice way before I ever became one.
I don’t care how educated people are, they are still prejudice about something.
I agree that a lot of it goes away when people know the facts.
But it never entirely goes away.
Lots of blacks still hate ‘whitey’, lots of latinos still hate the ‘gringo’ & on & on.
I’ve lived back & forth all over & for those that willfully remain steeped in ignorance, there will never be a change in those attitudes. And since a huge part of the populace likes to remain willfully ignorant…
I am also fully aware of what the Jews & Catholic priests & Baptist ministers & Jehovah Witnesses (best friend in high school is one) & so on.
It doesn’t make it right.
And I never tell anyone what my religion is when I get to know or meet them.
And my experience has shown that when religion comes up, they have lots of nasty things to say about Mormons, Catholics etc.
I live in a Catholic & Lutheran community.
I am the only Mormon in town & on occasion I still hear stupid insensistive comments.
But when the primaries were going on, you shoulda heard how many people wouldn’t vote for Romney based solely on his religion.
It was pretty chilling.
Badger40 on February 19, 2010 at 2:18 PM
I am not saying it is right…but it is blown way out of proportion.
You say they wouldn’t vote for him for being a mormon…well they would not vote for him if he was fat, or had an ungainly beard, or was gay, or stuttered, the fact is, a lot of things “unfair” disqualify someone, call it bigotry or whatever. It is human nature not to select someone that doesn’t meet whatever standards you have. And some standards are pretty complex.
Maybe being a mormon, raised to be political, dodging military service, and living off of your fathers “friends” who you “consult” for and being a progressive Republican is enough of a combination to not vote for him…or being a handsome man, mormon, faithful to his wife and and excellent businessman is enough for you to vote for him…one is more biased then the other?
right2bright on February 19, 2010 at 3:16 PM
Folks unless you didn’t catch it the PPP this months is skewed beyond belief:
JAN FEB
LIBS:14 MODER:47 CONS:39 LIBS:16 MOD:48 CONS:35
DEMS:36 GOP:35 INDIES:29 DEMS: 40 GOP; 34 Indy: 26
Sample: Libs up 2 points, moder up 1 point and cons down 4
Dems up 4 points, GOP down 1 point and Indy down 3
Now for the actual amount: Dems at 40% is way too high-Rasmussen has it at 35.6%; GOP % now down to 24% in many surveys and indies up to as high as 35% in some surveys.
technopeasant on February 19, 2010 at 3:29 PM
When two morons like McCain and Huckabee decide to screw Mitt by making a back room deal to prevent Mitt from winning West Virgina…
No amount of money is gonna prevent other republicans from being as stupid as these two cronies were. Nobody saw that happening except for the two cronies.
Mitt hasn’t been fighting against Obama’s socialism?
Are joking!?
Romney took Obama out right where it hurts. He helped Scott Brown win. Obama can’t get the 60 votes he needs.
What other better way to sink Obama’s chances of passing ObamaCare than help Scott Brown win and rob the democrats of the majority they needed to pass the monstrosity?
Romney kicked Obama in the nuts pretty good, I think.
Like a good chess player, Romney’s move has forced Obama to make a bad play. Obama is now considering bypassing Congress to pass healthcare but that is only gonna piss off the American people more making Obama’s poll numbers drop even more.
I say Romney has been doing a pretty damn good job of hurting Obama…
Two questions for you to consider:
1) Did you know that Mitt’s health care plan lead to the death of ObamaCare?
2) If Romney really supported ObamaCare, why did he help Mike Brown win and thereby kill Obama’s chances of passing ObamaCare? Think about that.
3) Did you know Mitt Romney opposed Obama on Obama’s health care plan?
4) Do you know the difference between Obama’s plan and Romney’s plan. I don’t think you do.
Its amazing how idiotic and stupid certain conservatives are about the differences between Romney’s plan and Obama’s plan.
Let me spell it out for you and educate you on the differences here:
Hopefully, you understand the difference between the plans because they’re not even remotely the same. They’re different in terms of implementation, the philosophy behind the programs and etc.
I don’t support Romney because he happens to be of my faith. I have said many, many, many times on HA that I don’t give a damn what the GOP candidate’s religion is:
Conservative Samizdat on February 19, 2010 at 3:31 PM
I apparently asked more than two questions…lol.
But think about those questions.
Conservative Samizdat on February 19, 2010 at 3:33 PM
You do have the link to that deal right?
You are saying that Huck didn’t want to be president, he just ran to stop Mitt?
And this “allegiance” was formed before Mitt spent and wasted all of that money?
I think, first your timeline is a little off, and second, Huck is still running.
Good try, but take the blinders off, and at least report facts. You did pretty good on RomneyCare, you just left out the portion of supporting abortion.
That is basically the definition of a slippery slope…
Click on my link above, in my previous posts and listen to Romney spew the democrat party line…like I have said, Romney needs to learn to be a team player, on the conservative team…not just a cheerleader on the side.
right2bright on February 19, 2010 at 3:42 PM
If Romeny is the GOP nominee- I am ALL in !!
If it’s Palin, I’m still in!!
Thune? I’m with him!
Huckabee? First time I will not be voting Republican in my life !!!
WyoMike on February 19, 2010 at 3:59 PM
Hmmmmm….
Well, I have to admit, after all the news about Huckabee having the high numbers for the last few months, I’m relieved that Mitt’s moved into the lead, even though he’s not my first choice.
Romney would not be a bad candidate, in my opinion, just a very mediocre president, which is not what we need right now. We’ve run the “safe” candidate many times, and we see now where that got us. I’m not going to jump out there and say Sarah is our best and only option, because I’m not convinced she is even though I like her very much, but I do think we need someone with more fire, more boldness than Mitt displays. This is not to say our candidate must alienate independents, who obviously are going to be very important to success in any election – the point is that, if a candidate is not willing to take risks, talk tough, and demonstrate real tenacity in an election, how will that same person act with the boldness necessary to turn this Titanic around once elected?
The attributes required of the next president are almost impossible to find contained in a single person: they have to make strong executive decisions without becoming authoritarian, they have to be able to go it alone but also cooperate with a potentially hostile Congress, they must be experienced but not jaded or corrupt, they have to be able to prioritize and change direction when necessary, and they’ll be tasked with doing what no one has done since Reagan (and even didn’t manage it to the extent necessary), and start the ball rolling toward dismantling a massively-bloated federal government.
I actually don’t think there’s anyone in the field in whom we can yet have the confidence to manage all of the above. To some extent, 2012 will be a gamble, whoever ends up as the nominee: who they are now may not be who they are in office, which itself could be a blessing or a curse. Considering this fact, I’m tending to think more and more that the 2010 elections are actually going to be much more important, in the grand scheme of things, than 2012. We need to remake America the right way – through the legislative process, and that requires rebuilding Congress with responsible representatives of the people. The president is really secondary to this.
Animator Girl on February 19, 2010 at 5:07 PM
Pa-thetic…Romney promoted a more left-wing plan that made everybody hate the Obamacare plan. Problem with that, CS, is that Romney urged Obama to look at Romneycare as a better method for the national health care plan.
For one thing, Mitt Romney has a friendly senator that he would not have if Brown had not won. For another, Mitt Romney supports a “further left-wing” (your Slate cite) plan for national health care.
Yes, he urged Obama to look at the wonderful result obtained in Massachusetts.
Romneycare mandates that citizens buy insurance or be punished. I don’t “provide coverage” by ordering you to buy an umbrella, somewhere, anywhere.
Not when it’s applied BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT over the entire nation, as Romney has proposed.
Chris_Balsz on February 19, 2010 at 5:36 PM
That is blasphemy young Jedi! When your training is complete you will be able to make all voting levers and buttons appear to be the name of other candidates when it is actually Palin’s lever/button.
Bradky on February 19, 2010 at 6:13 PM
Confucius say “polls are evil until they say what one wants to beleive“
Bradky on February 19, 2010 at 6:15 PM
Breaking News, circa 1978: Liberals say that Anybody But Reagan is the biggest threat to Jimmy Carter.
Mr. Wednesday Night on February 20, 2010 at 12:45 AM
Romney couldn’t beat McCain, a weak candidate, and he has done little in the interim to assert himself on any national issue. Verdict? Move along.
virgo on February 20, 2010 at 11:32 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3