Gallup: Romney surges nationally

posted at 5:50 pm on December 29, 2011 by Allahpundit

Alternate headline: “Percentage of Republicans in Not Romney camp declines from high 70s to low 70s.”

Seriously, though, the end may be near.

That’s the highest he’s been all month in the tracking poll. I know, I know, “national polls don’t matter.” Maybe. Maybe Romney’s uptick here is simply a function of him seeming more inevitable as Gingrich has started to slide. After all, with the notable exception of Santorum, the universe of Not Romneys is now exhausted and Santorum’s long-awaited second look may be coming too late to get him over the finish line. Not surprisingly, Mitt’s above 75 percent on InTrade right now as the likely nominee. Which is to say, maybe this national surge will melt away if Santorum pulls the upset in Iowa or even if Paul holds on and noses past Romney. Or, since Iowans aren’t completely isolated from the growing feeling of Romney’s inevitability, maybe he’ll get a few more undecideds in Des Moines on Tuesday because of it than he otherwise would have and that’ll hand him a victory, which will all but finish the primaries before they’ve started. Note his trendline in Iowa, too — that recent spike looks a lot like the spike in Gallup’s graph.

There are four ways Romney could still stumble but they’re all unlikely. One: One of the social-con candidates wins Iowa. Byron York argued this morning that that could very well happen for Santorum if voters start to abandon Bachmann and Perry at the last minute and undecideds cast a Not Romney/Not Paul vote, but no one thinks Santorum has the organization to beat Romney in a long race, especially in bluer states. Two: Paul wins Iowa and wins New Hampshire, which would expose just how weak Romney is even in his alleged strongholds. The problem there is that a sustained Paul surge would scare the hell out of most Republicans, including many in the Not Romney camp, and that would turn the race into a Paul/Not Paul contest. Once that happens, Romney’s the logical (albeit grudging) alternative in South Carolina and beyond. He himself told RCP today, flat out, “Ron Paul’s not going to be our nominee.” True enough, and if push comes to shove, he knows his detractors will side with him on that. Three: The rest of the field could finally, finally, finally start attacking Romney, which — amazingly — they really haven’t done yet. That’s because Newt, the obvious Not Romney in the moderate/technocratic mini-primary that’s been going on, has refused to run negative ads and the others have been busy with mini-primaries of their own. Paul and the winner of the social-con mini-primary will start attacking Romney after Iowa, but I don’t know how much good it will do then, especially if he wins Iowa. He’s the presumptive nominee, and therefore he should have been defined negatively through ads very early on to counter his inevitability. Instead, the opposite happened. Wonderful.

Fourth, the deus ex machina: Some prominent Republican could endorse one of Romney’s opponents in the next 48 hours. Huckabee, Palin, even Jeb — any one of them could force an eleventh-hour second look at someone in the field. But … who? Again, Santorum probably can’t win a marathon with Romney so that endorsement would be wasted. Newt might be able to, but would any big-name GOPer want to bet on Gingrich reversing his Iowa slide in time to win? Perry’s been inching up verrrry slowly, but his problem is that none of the three I’ve named seem to like him much. Palin’s taken veiled shots at his tendencies towards crony capitalism, the Bush camp is famously chilly towards him, and we all know about the Huckabee grudge after Perry endorsed Giuliani four years ago. So how does Mitt end up being stopped? Tell me, please.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 5 6 7

ebrown2 on December 30, 2011 at 1:45 PM

Romney is not a legitimate convert to small government thinking, and he will not implement what is necessary to get our deficit under control in the face of massive opposition, its not in his character.

If you knew anything about his history in the private sector (and his private life for that matter) you’d know he is nothing if not a penny pincher, so I have no doubt he will work with Congress to cut the deficit and create an environment for economic growth.

Romney is not an inspiring leader or a legislative wonk, he’s a go-along to get-along technocrat who’ll tinker around the edges and not get anything done. He’s being advocated as “politics as usual,” ignoring the fact that “usual” will no longer cut it. Mitt is Scott Brown waiting to happen.

I do not want a “legislative wonk” in the White House. I want an executive with proven skills in that regard (and this is an undeniable attribute in his case). But I do find it interesting that you claim he only “tinkers around the edges” yet got the much-maligned RomneyCare through (with popular/bi-partisan support, but I digress). Which is it? Is he a do-nothing tinkerer who gets nothing done. Or has he demonstrated his leadership/executive skills both in the private sector and while governing a state?

Buy Danish on December 30, 2011 at 2:06 PM

I do not want a “legislative wonk” in the White House. I want an executive with proven skills in that regard (and this is an undeniable attribute in his case). But I do find it interesting that you claim he only “tinkers around the edges” yet got the much-maligned RomneyCare through (with popular/bi-partisan support, but I digress). Which is it? Is he a do-nothing tinkerer who gets nothing done. Or has he demonstrated his leadership/executive skills both in the private sector and while governing a state?

Buy Danish on December 30, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Congratulations on making my case for me. He was rolled by the MA legislature and got an economy-breaking boondoggle passed by going along to get along, just like I said. Do you always unconditionally surrender to your debate opponents like this?

ebrown2 on December 30, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Congratulations on making my case for me. He was rolled by the MA legislature and got an economy-breaking boondoggle passed by going along to get along, just like I said. Do you always unconditionally surrender to your debate opponents like this?
ebrown2 on December 30, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Ha! Now you’re fantasizing that I have “surrendered” to my “debate opponents”. He initiated a unique plan for the State (rather than just bend to popular goals of MassCare to get a single payer system through, or cause the state to lose $400 million in Medicaid dollars which would have occurred absent legislation). He used his leadership skills to build a bi-partisan coalition of support.

Whether or not you agree with the goals or the result it was undeniably an example of his leadership skills and in no way can be described as “tinkering around the edges” nor is it (by any stretch of the imagination) evidence he was unable to ‘get anything done’.

Therefore, in the future I suggest you remove those two particular talking points from your commentary.

Buy Danish on December 30, 2011 at 2:45 PM

I will NEVER vote for ROMNEY!

“Pragmatic” on December 30, 2011 at 6:55 AM

Powerful evidence of your pragmatism.

There are 15 trillion reasons (soon to expand to 100 trillion reasons) why Romney is completely inadequate to deal with the issue. He’s not a legislative operator and he’ll get killed on any attempt to actually cut the deficit or stop O-care.

ebrown2 on December 30, 2011 at 11:44 AM

Really? Why?

Jaibones on December 30, 2011 at 3:11 PM

My masters have ordered me to forward along the following communique:

There is not need to “out” The Establishment. We have already stepped in to the light and it is too late for you to stop us. Do you think that simply exposing the true purpose and aims of The Establish would impede our inexorable progress? We are in full control of your destiny. The Establishment has been elevated Mitt Romney to his proper status and nothing can stop us. You would do better to attempt to stop the ocean’s tides with your primitive and petty tactics than to cross wits or swords with us. Have a nice day.

MJBrutus on December 30, 2011 at 1:25 PM

OMG!!!! This is SCANDALOUS! They are committed to Mitt instead of the other flawed candidates who can’t make it on the Virginia ballot, or are kookoobananas. Why oh why is this not the headline at Drudge?/

Buy Danish on December 30, 2011 at 1:28 PM

Ha,ha,ha. Yes, I agree that the establishment elites/media slipped up a little this time in their cockiness. Their corruption is on display for all to see. Obama’s team/msm could take lessons from them on destroying the opposition.

They’ve been committed to Mitty as the 2012 nominee for years. Why even bother with a primary? The party bosses pick ‘the anointed one’ liberal/moderate that’s next in line and voila! he magically wins the nomination every time. Couldn’t be anything unseemly going on there; of course not.

70-75% of the republican party voters prefer a Not-Romney candidate, yet when each one gets near or above Romney in the polls, again voila! they’re magically and systematically destroyed. It’s all happenstance and magic of course.

IndeCon on December 30, 2011 at 3:17 PM

IndeCon on December 30, 2011 at 3:17 PM

They’ve been committed to Mitty as the 2012 nominee for years. Why even bother with a primary?

Really? Where were ‘they’ in 2007/2008 when we needed ‘them’ to stop the hapless McCain?

70-75% of the republican party voters prefer a Not-Romney candidate, yet when each one gets near or above Romney in the polls, again voila! they’re magically and systematically destroyed. It’s all happenstance and magic of course.

Ah, it’s an eeeevil plot to destroy the competition. Presumably it’s ‘their’ fault Herman Cain was weak on foreign policy and had a relationship with a woman he gave money to for years while married. And ‘they’ must have put something in Perry’s water to cause him to mumble incoherently and lose his memory in debates. Then ‘they’ must have hypnotized Bachmann into believing some woman’s tale about Gardisil (a woman who was surely a plant ‘they’ put there!). And ‘they’ forced Newt to earn megabucks with Freddie Mac, claim he was hired as an “historian” and declare himself the “eventual nominee” way to early. Not to mention the attempted coup as Speaker from fed up Republicans who wanted him to have an agenda and stick with it for more than a few hours at a time.

As for the “75%” figure, that number will change (actually it already has). Meanwhile, no other candidate has even come close to reaching 25%, never mind holding steady for months on end.

Buy Danish on December 30, 2011 at 4:03 PM

He’s not a legislative operator and he’ll get killed on any attempt to actually cut the deficit or stop O-care.

ebrown2 on December 30, 2011 at 11:44 AM

hhaha :-)…I thought he was an ‘establishment’ guy which was a bad thing…now, he’s not an establishment (oups, my bad, ‘legislative operator’ whatever that means :-) and it’s also a bad thing :-)…gee people, if you were only capable of grasping the absurdity of your own comments/arguments…the irrationality of this whole ‘no Romney’ thing beats by far the most absurd stance/position by the dems/libs camp on any matter…

jimver on December 30, 2011 at 4:19 PM

As for the “75%” figure, that number will change (actually it already has). Meanwhile, no other candidate has even come close to reaching 25%, never mind holding steady for months on end.

Buy Danish on December 30, 2011 at 4:03 PM

No other candidate has even come close to reaching 25%? Where have you been? You must be kidding again; what a joker. Ha,ha.

IndeCon on December 30, 2011 at 4:59 PM

No other candidate has even come close to reaching 25%? Where have you been? You must be kidding again; what a joker. Ha,ha.
IndeCon on December 30, 2011 at 4:59 PM

You’re right. Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Gingrich all zoomed up in Iowa for 15 minutes and then crashed back down. I don’t include Paul because he’s a kookoobananas outlier and is getting help from Democrats who relish the thought of a Paul win so they can paint the entire GOP as kookoobananas. I’m not counting any other states at this point because they’re too far in the future (and much will depend on Iowa). And I don’t give any weight to straw polls.

Buy Danish on December 30, 2011 at 5:42 PM

Don’t be so down, AP. He has by far the best matchup against Obama.

netster007x on December 30, 2011 at 10:10 PM

There is not need to “out” The Establishment. We have already stepped in to the light and it is too late for you to stop us. Do you think that simply exposing the true purpose and aims of The Establish would impede our inexorable progress? We are in full control of your destiny. The Establishment has been elevated Mitt Romney to his proper status and nothing can stop us. You would do better to attempt to stop the ocean’s tides with your primitive and petty tactics than to cross wits or swords with us. Have a nice day.

And you will very quickly find your absent the base of your party. And good riddance to you. We will vote for Obama just to spite you. One of us staying home is “one vote against you.”

One of us voting for the Marxist is taking one vote away AND giving one vote directly to the “establishment’s enemy.”

How do those apples taste?

And let me tell you sir… with megalomania tinged screeds like what you wrote there flying fast and furious, it is really making me wonder if the RINOS are in fact the GREATER of the two evils we face right now… at least the Democrats BELIEVE their stupid, wrong headed statist agenda – rather than the RINOS who pay minimal degree of lip-service to the people who are supposedly ideologically their “core.”

I have come to the conclusion, after watching idiots like yourself go on for the last few weeks, that the Republicans don’t deserve conservatives anymore.

If you won’t listen then it’s high time we use our votes to hurt you as badly as possible, consequences be damned.

SilverDeth on December 31, 2011 at 4:44 AM

Quote: Don’t be so down, AP. He [Romney] is by far the best matchup against weakest and lest able to combat Obama’s Greatest flaw – and compounding this, his supporters have come off as grade-a class one douche-bags in this and numerous other threads on the subject.

Fixed.

SilverDeth on December 31, 2011 at 4:51 AM

I would not vote for Romney if you offered to pay me 10,000 dollars to do so. Not for a million. Not for an entire Olympic sized swimming pool full of gold bullion. I will not vote for him to stop Obama, I will not vote for him to vote for the lesser of evils, and I certainly won’t vote for him to prop up a RePubic establishment that would sooner not have anyone not living 40 miles from a coast amongst their ranks.

To close: Go to hell RNC. Who wants to start a conservative party?

SilverDeth on December 31, 2011 at 4:55 AM

Romney-hate is ridiculous. He’s smart. He’s organized. He’s articulate. He’s center-right. He’s got business and executive experience. He’s personally squeaky clean. He’s got a nice family. He’s a solid campaigner. He polls well in swing states. He’s ahead of Obama in the polls. What more do you want? We live in an imperfect world. Deal with it.

writeblock on December 31, 2011 at 9:08 AM

SilverDeth on December 31, 2011 at 4:51 AM

You have a point on the specific issue of ObamaCare. However, recall that Newt is even worse on this issue, having supported the individual mandate on a national scale and thrown Paul Ryan under a bus for attempting to reform Medicare.

The big point though is that there are countless issues in a general election and many people have many different perspectives on these. Thus the need for polls to synthesize all the issues and gauge head to head matchups.

netster007x on December 31, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Romney-hate is ridiculous. He’s smart. He’s organized. He’s articulate. He’s center-right. He’s got business and executive experience. He’s personally squeaky clean. He’s got a nice family. He’s a solid campaigner. He polls well in swing states. He’s ahead of Obama in the polls. What more do you want? We live in an imperfect world. Deal with it.

writeblock on December 31, 2011 at 9:08 AM

Romney will win it all. I predict that it’s going to come down to the wire, but that Romney will run a strong campaign and edge out Obama in the important swing states. Don’t worry about the clueless Romney haters. They are irrelevant and just make fools of themselves.

bluegill on December 31, 2011 at 6:48 PM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7