Time/CNN/ORC poll in SC: Romney 37, Santorum 19, Gingrich 18
posted at 2:55 pm on January 6, 2012 by Tina Korbe
If the results of the latest Rasmussen poll were good news for Mitt Romney, then these results from Time/CNN/ORC are really good news. Romney doesn’t merely lead, he vastly outstrips his competitors.
The poll, which surveyed likely primary voters on Wednesday and Thursday, found Romney commanding 37% support, a 17-point gain since early December. He’s not the only one carrying momentum out of Iowa’s photo finish. Rick Santorum has surged 15 points to 19%, picking up the largest chunk of Newt Gingrich’s shattered coalition. The former Speaker is still in the hunt with 18%, but that’s down from 43% in December.
Ron Paul’s share has doubled to 12%, while Rick Perry’s has dwindled to a mere 5%.
The new data, which come a little more than two weeks before the Palmetto primary, confirm the broader contours of the GOP race. Romney’s solid position is strengthened by the splintering effect produced by his rivals–his 37% support is equal to that of Santorum’s and Gingrich’s combined. The largest remaining threat to Romney is a conservative bloc coalesced behind one candidate.
Note that Romney’s support in this poll is more than Santorum’s and Gingrich’s combined. As Time put it, “For now, everything is coming up Romney.” If Santorum and Gingrich are serious that they want to team up against Romney, now would definitely be the time. Indeed, if Gingrich does go crazy on offense against Mitt in New Hampshire, then that could significantly help Santorum in South Carolina.
The crosstabs show Romney taking the plurality of the vote among virtually all demographics. Whether a voter has a college degree or doesn’t, supports the Tea Party or doesn’t, considers himself (or herself) conservative or doesn’t, is a registered Republican or isn’t, he (or she) is most likely to vote for Romney, at least according to this poll.
Sheerly because of that uniformity, I’m apt to think the Rasmussen poll is more up-to-the-minute. Indeed, the Time poll took place January 4 to January 5, whereas the Rasmussen poll was entirely conducted yesterday. Maybe even a day makes a difference? To be sure, every day builds momentum for Santorum — until New Hampshire either solidifies or threatens it.
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 4
Yet when President Romney takes the oath in 2013 it will be these same people claiming credit for his election….
Bradky on January 6, 2012 at 11:24 PM
Romney Hears Perry is still in.wmv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=novRzrrymFQ&feature=share
nancysabet on January 6, 2012 at 11:25 PM
Ditto.
Texans like me think 6 debates in a month (Jan) is hooey…let alone 28 from May 2011 to March 2012.
Hmmmmmm….
From May to August there were 3 debates.
In September there were 4
October 2
November 5
December 4
The debate schedule ramped up September.
workingclass artist on January 6, 2012 at 11:36 PM
You really don’t realize how ironic your screeching about other people’s intellect is, do you?
You paint with a very broad brush and you make way too many assumptions. Not everyone who strongly opposes Romney is a “Romney hater,” and they have presented much more substantive things than just screeching RINO. Are you sure you’re not engaging in a bit of psychological projection, here? You seem to be demonstrating everything in yourself that you are decrying in others.
Frankly, you come off sounding like a nut. You might want to tone it down, if you intend to persuade anyone.
JannyMae on January 6, 2012 at 11:43 PM
That is a riot…one of the best ones I’ve seen.
“Perry is from Texas…they don’t know how to quit”
workingclass artist on January 6, 2012 at 11:43 PM
Hysterical hyperbole that pegs the BS detector.
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but what exactly do you think you’re going to accomplish by screaming at people and calling them names?
JannyMae on January 6, 2012 at 11:46 PM
Number of GOP primary debates…
2012 – 28 to date
2008 – 16
2000 – 3
1996 – 3
1992 – 4
1988 – 3
1984 – 3
1980 – 2
1976 – 4
1960 – 4
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/debates.php
Yikes!
workingclass artist on January 7, 2012 at 12:00 AM
By the time this primary is over the GOP nominee will have had almost a debate a week for 28 weeks…Obama will totally suck as a debate opponent having zero debate practice surrounded by liberal suckups.
Obama never argued a case in court even though he has a law degree from Harvard and was editor of the Law Review.
Gig Em’
Perry 2012
workingclass artist on January 7, 2012 at 12:07 AM
Hey, after watching the majority of commentators on this blog whip themselves into a frenzy on the very mention of the name “Romney” (akin to how a piranha reacts upon the first drop of blood in the water), it’s nice to finally be able to give them perspective on how they look from the outside.
The seething hatred towards Romney as seen on this blog has been deeply troubling. I am simply expressing my views on how ridiculous the Romnots look. The majority of them suffer from RDS (Romney Derangement Syndrome) and if it continues, it will ensure that Obama is reelected.
Firecracker729 on January 7, 2012 at 12:11 AM
That’s good and all, but how does that make Romneycare and signing a gun ban, for example, go away? You’re angry because we won’t fall in line behind your guy but is it really fair to expect us to simply ignore such issues? How am I, a 2nd Amendment supporter, supposed to get behind someone so anti gun? Or a pro-lifer support someone who donated money to Planned Parenthood? Or why should someone who opposes Obamacare simply forgive and forget that Romneycare was the blueprint for it?
I’ll vote for Romney if he is the nominee, but don’t expect me to pretend he is a conservative in the primary because he’s not.
Malachi45 on January 7, 2012 at 12:33 AM
Mitt Romney = Scott Brown
From the same state and cut from the same cloth.
Need I say more.
Sparky5253 on January 7, 2012 at 12:37 AM
The media has given Romney and his policies a complete and blatant pass. They even go to the point of deflecting and blocking for him.
Has anyone in the media taken a hard look Romney’s 57 step economic plan? I thought not.
Sparky5253 on January 6, 2012 at 6:38 PM
Hey, hard-looker, It’s 59 points.
almosthandsome on January 7, 2012 at 12:41 AM
haha, that says a lot about what ‘thorough’ Mitt’s detractors are :-)…guess he confused it with O’s 57 states :-)…
jimver on January 7, 2012 at 12:57 AM
I am as incredulous as you are that they actually think that a single indie would ever vote for any of the two basket cases…think only how many on the right of center think the two are extreme cooks, now try to imagine how the indies view them and guess who are they going to vote for…and can you blame them, the truth is the two loons you just named shouldn’t be anywhere closer to the presidential office….
jimver on January 7, 2012 at 1:10 AM
You said they don’t do anything but scream RINO!!! over and over. That’s clearly not true. There may be a handful who do that, but there is another commenter who responded to your challenge, jyst now, and provided a list of several things that bother him. See Malachi at 12:33AM.
It seems to me that you are so hyped up about the “hatred” for Romney that you are doing what you accuse your opponents of: not providing substantive arguments. Why don’t you get to it? If you can, that is.
Just for the record, I have no preferred candidate now, and I have no idea who I will vote for in the primary. I can not get enthused about any of these guys. I would have supported Palin, if she’d run, but I am not a Romney hater. So, convince me that Romney should be my guy.
JannyMae on January 7, 2012 at 1:38 AM
Romney has organized his campaign in a very intelligent fashion, and he is relentless. Gingrich has of late morphed from Dr. Jekyll to Mr. Hyde. While Santorum comes off as quintessentially second tier.
Romney is smarter, better educated, has the advantage of experience both at the executive levels of business and government. He has excelled in all his endeavors. Is it any wonder that only second tier candidates have tried to run against him this time around.
Gingrich was ejected from his last high position by his own party. Santorum lost his last election by almost 18 points, running as an incumbent! What exactly was Cain about anyway? Just some simplistic sloganeering and glad-handing.
Other than Romney the only one I have real respect for is Paul. He knows he will not be President , but he continues in order to influence policy in a direction that he sees as very important.
Romney will be a President to be proud of again. Drive the Democrat traitors from the field, down with Obama, and on to victory!
claudius on January 7, 2012 at 1:49 AM
I just threw up a little in my mouth.
Good night folks. Beddy bye time!
JannyMae on January 7, 2012 at 2:02 AM
I’m not about to make the “case for Romney” as the nominee, but I will attempt to explain why he should be considered.
None of the candidates is perfect. All except Paul would right the ship on foreign policy and defense, but none has a credible plan to deal with the deficits and runaway spending. That will HAVE to come from Congress anyway. If we don’t put people into Congress who will do this, including taking over the Senate by enough to thwart filibusters (or at least intimidate a couple of Democrats into voting with us for cloture), it’s not going to get done, period.
We need the White House of course, for judicial appointments and reversing the regulatory binge among other things, but the leadership on spending comes from Congress both under the Constitution and as a practical political matter.
IF we elect that Congress, any of the candidates would sign the legislation we need. Romney is best suited by experience to carry it out. His experience in reorganizing failing enterprises and laying off workers will come in handy for that.
The next President will be a one-termer. The cuts to federal spending mean a lot of layoffs, which means unemployment won’t come down. If we don’t make the cuts, things will be even worse.
Romney would then be the sacrificial lamb to get the dirty work done and rely on history to redeem his reputation. He’s already shown he can take the hint when he isn’t going to be reelected.
Adjoran on January 7, 2012 at 2:07 AM
South Carolinians, have you lost your minds?
AshleyTKing on January 7, 2012 at 2:16 AM
Make that 73% and dwindling.
MJBrutus on January 7, 2012 at 4:14 AM
They had, but they’re now coming to their senses.
MJBrutus on January 7, 2012 at 4:16 AM
Romney’s not another McCain, he’s another Rudy. Big difference. Giuliani was running ahead of Obama in the polls, had plenty of executive experience, had considerable smarts and was superbly articulate. But the evangelicals despised him. Now they want to block Romney, another potential winner from the NE.
writeblock on January 7, 2012 at 4:52 AM
I would love it if Romney won NH, SC AND FL. Romney is who we need right now. We need to start focusing squarely on taking out Obama. I’m growing very tired of all this inter-party fighting… it has gone on too long.
Romney will be the president who sets the country on the course for a huge comeback.
bluegill on January 7, 2012 at 5:17 AM
I think it’s unfathomable how someone who presumably follows the campaigns closely would have no preferred candidate. Are you being honest? Are you truly not leaning towards anyone? Do you like how it makes you appear to claim that everyone is bad? It reminds me of those people who claim to be undecided right up until the day of the general election, even when there are two very different candidates to choose from. You hear these kinds of people say, after an entire campaign season of nonstop coverage of nearly every utterance by the candidates: “I’m still deciding. I have to wait and hear what the candidates are going to offer someone like me.”
When it comes to this primary season, I am sick and tired of the fashionable lamenting and hand-wringing over choices. Ok, I can see complaining once or twice, but enough is enough already. No candidate is going to be totally perfect. Snap out of it, people, and enter reality. We need to select the best person who can beat Obama. You need to do your own research, learn about their records, their positions, etc. and then come to a decision. It’s not that difficult. How many debates have we had up to this point? Quite a few. How much have the candidates’ positions been scrutinized on this site alone? Oh, I’d say quite a bit. Do you want to sit back and have other people kiss your behind and do a song and dance in order to get your approval or to get you “enthused”? What are you waiting for?
bluegill on January 7, 2012 at 5:52 AM
I meant to say, do you like how it makes you appear when you announce that all the candidates are bad and that you have no preference? It just seems like a trendy, easy out to me.
bluegill on January 7, 2012 at 5:56 AM
Ron Paul has been in office for a very long time. Name one accomplishment.
Ronnie on January 7, 2012 at 6:20 AM
True, not everyone is a wild-eyed Romney hater. But enough are to make the rest of us wonder what it is that unhinges them. He’s center-right, smart, articulate, has executive and business experience, has good family values, polls well against Obama and has roots in the Rust Belt which is vital for Obama’s reelection. Is he conservative down-the-line? No. But neither are the other candidates. So why are some conservatives frothing at the mouth? Seems to me Romney’s being scapegoated to give vent to conservative frustration in general. Time to face reality: there is no ideal candidate. He’s the best of the lot. Deal with it.
writeblock on January 7, 2012 at 6:35 AM
I’ll be glad to tell you why I am enthusiastic. Hopefully you can find some reasons for why you would want to vote for him.
Mitt has a track record of turning around failing enterprises. From his days at Bain Capital rehabilitating businesses both large and small to rescuing the international mess that was the Olympics. He knows how free market capitalism works and he is its champion. As governor of MA he balanced the state’s budget, having again taken on the job of turning around a fiscal basket case while serving for the salary of $1/year.
Fixing financial disasters both public and private is his specialty and at no time in modern history have such skills been needed in our nation’s highest office. He has not allowed politics or other obstacles keep him from getting the job done.
Mitt has laid out a realistic agenda for turning around our nation. While some fault him for not being ambitious enough, he has proven that he knows what changes are needed and is not reaching for solutions that are unrealistic pipe dreams. What good are pleasant sounding promises that can never be kept? He has shown himself to be scrupulously honest in his public and private dealings. He has committed to his reforms in widely published papers that you can read them on line. For these reasons I believe that he is both reliable and accountable for doing what he says he will do.
His agenda includes such items as increased domestic production of oil and gas, lowered corporate taxes, tax simplification and elimination of vast amounts of credits and loopholes, a territorial tax to allow businesses to invest in America by bringing their overseas profits home, elimination of capital gains and dividends taxes for the middle class to allow us to rebuild the wealth we lost, Medicare reform via Ryan-Widen that he helped bring about, SS reform via gradually increasing the benefits age and indexing to price inflation instead of wage inflation and so much more.
I hope that you can find some of this compelling and that you will find additional reasons on your own for wanting to vote for Mitt.
MJBrutus on January 7, 2012 at 7:30 AM
To all the Mitt supporters out there, I have an honest question:
why would you insist on nominating someone who, as you acknowledge, turns off such a large segment of the base? Didn’t McCain and Dole teach you anything?
Whoever the nominee is, he will need the GOP base to be enthusiastic and committed, because the attacks from Obama, the MSN, and his other surrogates will be relentless. And I believe the attacks on Romney’s record at Bain Capital and his ideolotical inconsistencies will be extremely effective, thus neutralizing his supposed appeal to independents.
If you want to defeat Obama, you cannot take the risk that large numbers of the base will be sitting on their hands, not volunteering, not defending their candidate, or even worse, staying home or voting third party on election day.
For these reasons, I honestly believe Romney is a doomed nominee. Too many Republicans in the grass roots simply do not want him.
None of these candidates will bring everyone on board, but none of them are as offensive to the base the GOP relies on as Romney. That goes for Gingrich, Santorum (who I don’t like), and Perry.
DRayRaven on January 7, 2012 at 8:15 AM
Romney will be a President to be proud of again. Drive the Democrat traitors from the field, down with Obama, and on to victory!
claudius on January 7, 2012 at 1:49 AM
I just threw up a little in my mouth.
Good night folks. Beddy bye time!
JannyMae on January 7, 2012 at 2:02 AM
If you were to replace ‘Romney’ with ‘Palin’ and make that statement a helluva of a lot more ‘messianic’ combining a few…’Great Sarah-our conservative dominatrix is the mother-figure this country is yearning for’ etc… and you’ll start to feel as sick as us non-Palin worshipers feel on the Palin-threads. Btw: The snark that I used…are things that have been written about SP-on HA.
The Mitt worship is actually pretty tame.
annoyinglittletwerp on January 7, 2012 at 8:16 AM
I disagree. I may be a recent addition as a poster, but I’m a long-time reader. csdeven, drballard, petunia, and several others are at least as cultish, slavish, and nauseating in their Mitt-worship as the most ardent Palin supporters were. Not to mention just as insulting and offensive to others in their writing technique.
Besides, I remember when you supported Palin yourself. ;)
But it was pretty clear unseen and a few others turned you off of her pretty quickly.
DRayRaven on January 7, 2012 at 8:37 AM
That is great for those who are not conservatives…of course you left out some important facts.
Forget Bain, for every “rehabilitation” he has left many without a job…taking a company and selling it’s assets to boost one or two year profits so a consultant can make a windfall is not a prerequisite for being president…or Forbes, Perot, Rockefeller, any number of business people would be president, we have over 400 billionaires in this country, many more conservative. His money and acumen didn’t help him against McCain.
He was the architect for RomneyCare, a federal govt. subsidized health care plan. Spin it however, it was a federal govt. sponsored and subsidized health care plan which was the model for ObamaCare.
Romney has never won or supported any real conservative. Indeed he ran away from conservatives to become gov. of one of the most liberal states…of course the Mittwits state his is honorable, to say whatever you need to, to win.
His last try was losing to a person who lost to the person we want to defeat…after spending a record amount of money in the primaries.
The fact, the simple fact is, the media want him, the populace does not…he has never won the confidence of conservatives, let alone the Republican’s. And I don’t think you can beat Obama with a base of just 25% of the people.
Mitt will never receive the 40+% of the vote. With Mitt, Obama is the next president and we have to start focusing on winning the senate.
Which will be more difficult because the momentum swings back to the dems with Mitt as the target.
He is a great, intelligent guy, but he will lose to Obama…look at his track record…he is not a conservative.
Maybe the Mitt supporters can point to what conservative organization he has been associated with, what conservative movement he has embraced, maybe point out his conservative appointments he made as governor. Instead of just saying you think he is, show us the facts that proves he is a conservative.
Great in business? So is Pelosi, Feinstein, Bloomberg, Gore, Edwards, Kennedy, Reid, Jessie Jackson…there has to be more than he made money, and ran a liberal campaign in Mass…show us.
right2bright on January 7, 2012 at 8:40 AM
“Conservatives” don’t think a conservative can win, so the “conservatives” support a RINO.
A true conservative knows that conservative values and policies will win the election, because it is the truth, it’s a core value that is unshakeable, and that is why Reagan won so easily and why Mitt will lose so easily.
right2bright on January 7, 2012 at 8:47 AM
because he can win the general election.
you use mcain and dole as exapmples.
Dole had Perot in 3 way race.
McCain couldn’t overcome Bush-hate
gerrym51 on January 7, 2012 at 8:51 AM
Sorry, but I’m a long time involuntary lurker myself and have been reading for quite a while here. No one here except the Paul people can genuinely be compared to the Sarah Palin followers. It’s embarrassing to watch. I think the Romney people have blinded themselves to his left wing flaws, which are many, but I don’t think they are cult like: particularly not the ones who are basically just sold on his electability, notwithstanding his flaws.
Malachi45 on January 7, 2012 at 8:53 AM
I just read two posts on why Janny Mae should vote for Romney. I would definitely give MJBrutus an “A” for his post. Bluegill on the other hand receives a “D.” Telling people to basically get off their butt and research the candidate themselves is not a good way to sell your guy. Lol.
By the way, I’m still not for Romney THIS cycle–sorry MJBrutus. I supported him in 2008 when he would have been the right guy to handle the fallout from the collapse of the economy. This cycle, we need a fighter in Washington. Someone who is not as malleable as Romney. I would be happy with Santorum, Perry or Gingrich. I think all of them would fight for limited government. People point fingers about how Santorum, Gingrich and to a lesser degree Perry have all been big government guys, and that is true. However, I believe they all recognize that the era of government largesse is over and they would be more inclined than Romney to fight to make it leaner.
I think the debates this weekend will give us all a better handle on who to support. I’m looking forward to them.
KickandSwimMom on January 7, 2012 at 8:55 AM
Fair point. Though Dole was also a poor candidate running against a popular incumbent during an economic boom. I think he would have lost regardless.
I don’t think any Republican could have won in 2008. It was a perfect storm and some may have held the margin closer, but it is fantasy to think McCain even had a chance once the bank crisis hit. Add that on top of Bush hatred and he never stood a chance.
Malachi45 on January 7, 2012 at 8:56 AM
That doesn’t answer my question.
You’re simply asserting he can win the election.
I’m asserting he can’t.
I guess you’re saying conservatives in the grass roots are expendible. I’ll remember that on election day.
DRayRaven on January 7, 2012 at 8:56 AM
I still say Romney is electable. That isn’t my problem with him. I also think he will govern more conservatively than people give him credit for, as long as he has a conservative congress to work with.
Malachi45 on January 7, 2012 at 8:58 AM
Romney’s “coronation” needs to be cancelled:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OQoBxZZPqU&feature=player_embedded
Czar of Defenestration on January 7, 2012 at 9:03 AM
Monday, January 02, 2012
Which Republican Has The Guts To Speak The Truth About Obama And The Democrats
From: http://invinciblearmor.blogspot.com/2012/01/which-republican-has-guts-to-speak.html
TITLE: “Which Republican has the guts to Speak the Truth about Obama and the Democrats?”
MY ANSWER: ONLY GINGRICH
As we enter 2012, the presidential candidates would do well to wrap their minds and messages around these seven mathematical facts:
1.Every day, the U.S. government takes in $6 billion and spends $10 billion. This means that every day the federal government spends $4 billion more dollars than it has.
2.The real unemployment rate is a jaw-dropping 11 percent.
3.Every fifth man you pass on your way to work is now out of work.
4.College graduates are now 34% less likely to find a job under Obama than they were under President George W. Bush.
5.Every seventh person you pass on the sidewalk now relies on food stamps.
6.The ravages of the Obama economy now mean that more Americans live under the federal poverty line than at any time in U.S. history since records have been kept.
7.Under President Barack Obama, every fifth child in America now lives in poverty.
Czar of Defenestration on January 7, 2012 at 9:07 AM
I guess McCain is getting forgettful in his old age. He said this only awhile back:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IS33Hkgnls4
Czar of Defenestration on January 7, 2012 at 9:08 AM
AP provided a link last night on another thread to Jay Cost of the Weekly Standard analyzing why conservatives repeatedly cannot capture the party:
Cost assumes that voters who are not conservative are prima facie uninformed, which is revealing, and he bemoans the primary process that allows them a voice. I think that, while HA posters and ideological conservatives a la Levin are a significant faction, they are not the overwhelming majority of the Republican Party as it is constituted today. I am a conservative, and I am not in the least politically uninformed. Romney has my vote on January 31 in Florida.
entropent on January 7, 2012 at 9:19 AM
I’ll believe when I see it come Primary day.
Mittens winning SC … LMAO
Never Happen
~(Ä)~
Karl Magnus on January 7, 2012 at 9:19 AM
the only objective info are polls which say Romney has the best chance. I also agree that polls aren’t everything.
but in the absence of polls you only have your opinion. you have absolutely nothung else to go by
gerrym51 on January 7, 2012 at 9:25 AM
From PJMedia: “The Truth About RomneyCare”
http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-truth-about-romneycare/
Czar of Defenestration on January 7, 2012 at 9:29 AM
It sounds like you looked at the facts and made up your own mind. That’s what its’ about. I just hope that you are as committed as I am to supporting the GOP nominee, whoever wins, and sending PBHO back to ChiTown. Any of the candidates are a quantum improvement over the disaster now in office.
MJBrutus on January 7, 2012 at 9:38 AM
Polls this far out from November are useless. The vast majority of the electorate isn’t paying attention yet, and they certainly don’t know enough about Romney to make an informed choice.
Trust me, Romney’s record at Bain Capital is not going to play well…not the way Obama and the MSM will present it, anyway. He will be the personification of greedy Wall Streeters who destroy American companies, lay off hard working Americans, and ship jobs overseas to line their own pockets.
After that, they will expose his flip-flops on nearly every issue that matters, with video included. most independents will come away with the same opinion of Romney that I have: that he’s an unprincipled, opportunistic political hack who will say anything to get elected. The only thing that matters to Mitt is Mitt, his own personal ambition, and his sense of entitlement.
Throw into that mix a grassroots base that is disinclined to support him and will be unenthusiastic about his candidacy…and his chances do not look good.
Wait until polls come out after Labor Day…after Obama and the Dems have had their convention and the MSM attacks have begun in earnest. Then look at Romney’s numbers to see how “electable” he is.
DRayRaven on January 7, 2012 at 9:54 AM
opinion-opinion=opinion. you have no objective info
you-opinion and nothing else.
me-opinion-and polls(like i said polls not everything but better than nothing)
gerrym51 on January 7, 2012 at 10:11 AM
Rubbish. Such polls are a not-so-subtle mix of advertising and propaganda.
YOU’RE letting these faux-info “polls” make up you mind FOR you.
An opinion one derives WITHOUT such garbage is more likely to be accurate.
Czar of Defenestration on January 7, 2012 at 10:17 AM
Because your assumption that Romney is anything at all like McCain or Dole is wrong. You and others repeat it ad nauseam–but it is still a false assumption.
Romney is an executive-businessman, they were legislators with weak economic backgrounds. Romney is in his prime, they were and are over-the-hill. Romney is articulate and quick-witted, they were, and still are, just the opposite. Romney is fiscally center-right, McCain and Dole were fiscally to his left. Romney shows polling strength, they showed only polling weakness. Romney’s campaign is superbly organized, theirs were absurdly disorganized. In other words, the likeness you see is a myth. No matter how many times you repeat the comparison, it’s still a myth.
The real likeness is between Romney and Rudy, two NE executives who struggled to push through conservative policies despite overwhelming liberal opposition. Both are smart and articulate. Both show polling strength against Obama. In fact the very same people who gave us McCain, a sunbelt legislator with no executive experience and even less economic competency, are now advising against Romney, just as they turned down Rudy last time around. He simply wasn’t pure enough–exactly the charge against Romney.
writeblock on January 7, 2012 at 10:18 AM
LMFAO!
Yes, of course they will. And that is the fight we should be licking our chops to have! Mitt makes the line clear, free market capitalism versus statism. Capitalism is based on voluntary activity among human beings. It is FREEDOM! As Milton Friedman so eloquently proclaimed, political freedom is not possible without economic freedom. Government statism is the antithesis of individual freedom, that being force or coercion. I for one, look forward to comparing the successes of capitalism to the failures of statism. I for one, look forward to backing up the ultimate advocate for freedom over the forces of state control.
The LSM can talk about the failures of Bain but for each one failure, for each layoff, many more successes and new jobs bloomed. Politicians talk of how they “create” jobs. Well Mitt was directly responsible for achieving what most pols only pretend to have done. They can show business that went under, with the private investors losing out, we can show the many Solyndra’s with we the taxpayers losing out.
This is what the fight is all about. Acting like cowards, rolling over in just the anticipation of the other sides propaganda is truly pathetic. I don’t care who your candidate is, he is going to be the standard bearer for free market capitalism and if he doesn’t present the target that Romney does it is because he is no true advocate for the one cause that matters most to a free society. The one cause that is most responsible for America being the exceptional nation that it has become.
MJBrutus on January 7, 2012 at 10:21 AM
Mitt won’t defend Bain Capital by appealing to free market principles! That might work in the GOP nomination race, but based on his history running for Senate and governor of MA (and history is all we have to go by), in the general election, he will likely defend his successes (just as you state)…but he will otherwise pander to the left and talk about how we need to reign in abuses on Wall Street, thus giving legitimacy to Obama’s illegitmate talking points. And in the process, he will depress his own base even more…just like McCain.
It’s funny, you know? Having read your posts in the past, that is how I would have described your reaction to a possible Palin candidacy: cowardly and pathetic. Pot, meet kettle.
My analysis of the current (and future) political environment, the obvious lines of attack against Romney, and the mood of the GOP grassroots is more substantive and objective than your reliance on polls taken nearly a year out from an election…which are ephemeral and meaningless.
DRayRaven on January 7, 2012 at 10:32 AM
again you-opinion
me=opinion and polls.(it’s all we have at this juncture)
gerrym51 on January 7, 2012 at 10:34 AM
i would be interested in your “analysis” if it offered something beside opinions
gerrym51 on January 7, 2012 at 10:36 AM
I’m a conservative also–both socially and fiscally. But I still resent the evangelicals who are clustered in two early primary states and have far too much political clout–clout that distorts the process by giving undue emphasis to social principles and far too little to fiscal realities. Why should somebody from IA have more input in the process than somebody from PA or OH? It makes no sense at all since the swing states are more critical in the general election. Yet most states are virtually shut out of the process. By the time Pennsylvanians or Ohioans–or New Yorkers, for that matter–have their primaries, it’s all over. And again, why should the media have so much influence in the process–to the extent of creating temporary momentum through incessant hype and games of expectation? Better the old smoke-filled rooms than this.
writeblock on January 7, 2012 at 10:37 AM
I hate Romney.
See, that isn’t so bad now, is it?
SurferDoc on January 7, 2012 at 10:39 AM
Aint that the truth! We already have a POTUS like that.
~(Ä)~
Karl Magnus on January 7, 2012 at 10:39 AM
I would say that the head-to-head matchup numbers v Obama are not very good indicators at this point of the GOP’s chances v Obama, but they do provide a good indication of the candidates’ prospects relative to each other should they be the nominee. Clearly Mitt is the one with the greatest (and I would say the only) chance of winning the election.
MJBrutus on January 7, 2012 at 10:42 AM
Now that’s honest and an opinion that does not have to be backed up with facts.
I hate Ron Paul,Perry. I like Gingrich and Santorum but don’t think they have a chance of winning general election.
ps. i also hate Huntsman.
that was easy
gerrym51 on January 7, 2012 at 10:43 AM
Are you sure? Did the previous poll include Bachmann? Mind you, I think the concept is silly, because the same could be said about all the candidates the vote is split between, but let’s not be dishonest in trying to promote something as positive.
JannyMae on January 7, 2012 at 10:44 AM
If all you’re going to offer are circular arguments and variants of is-not/is-too, I’m not going to bother with you anymore.
I disagree with MJBrutus, but at least he brings something substantive to the discussion.
Thanks for playing.
DRayRaven on January 7, 2012 at 10:44 AM
I use the RCP average of polls. The most recent data has him at 26.8% nationally.
MJBrutus on January 7, 2012 at 10:46 AM
bluegill on January 7, 2012 at 5:52 AM
I never said “all the candidates are bad.” I said I can’t get enthused about any of them. I was trying to draw the Romney supporters out as to why I should be enthused about him.
I don’t expect a “perfect” candidate, but all the candidates are flawed in ways that make me not want to support them in the primary. They all have good points, too. Would that we could take all those good points and put them together, then we could make an awesome candidate, but as it stands, that “awesome” or even “really good” candidate doesn’t exist for me to get behind.
That’s not my fault, but the fault of the candidates. I still like Bachmann, and she was the best of the candidates, IMO, but she fizzled out. I was excited about Perry, at first, and then he proved himself to be an incoherent mess. Now, I’m floating around and it seems every day I find something else out about another of the candidates that make me reluctant to support that person.
That’s not my fault. It’s the fault of the candidates.
You can complain all you want about the complaining, but it’s justified. Somebody recently, here, said we have to the hand with the cards we’re dealt. Well, I just am not ready to decide which cards are the best to play, yet, and I don’t think I’m obligated to choose to satisfy you.
JannyMae on January 7, 2012 at 10:51 AM
It may seem like an easy out to you, but it’s simply the truth.
JannyMae on January 7, 2012 at 10:52 AM
You specifically said”my analysis” on your post.
my analysis is opinion plus polls.
gerrym51 on January 7, 2012 at 10:55 AM
Oh, Ronnie, haven’t you heard? It’s now being touted as an accomplishment that Ron Paul has done nothing while in congress but bring home pork and “vote against stuff.”
JannyMae on January 7, 2012 at 10:55 AM
Conservative principles and values don’t always win elections. Sharon Angle and Christine O’Donnell lost because they were politically unsophisticated and couldn’t inspire confidence–not because they failed to articulate conservative principles and values. You underestimate other factors–the power of incumbency, charisma, personal credibility, organization, identity politics in general, media savvyness, etc. Even where a candidate comes from plays a part. Romney has roots in the Midwest–which helps him in his appeal to the central swing states of the Rust Belt. All this has little to do with ideology but plays a huge part in determining who wins and who loses.
writeblock on January 7, 2012 at 10:56 AM
You had me until you got here. This made me wonder what unhinges Romney’s most rabid SUPPORTERS.
To me there is no “best of the lot,” but I will continue to weigh the pros and cons and by the time I have to vote in the primary next month, I will have chosen a “least objectionable candidate” to vote for. That’s just the way it is.
Deal with it.
JannyMae on January 7, 2012 at 11:01 AM
I do find some of this persuasive. Thank you.
JannyMae on January 7, 2012 at 11:02 AM
Raven: conservatives such as me are supporting Romney because he can WIN the general. We need this election to be about Obama’s record. Romney is squeaky clean and REASSURING to seniors, moderates, independents, soccer moms – the very groups that will decide the election.
Yes, it will take effort to shore up the base (Rubio or another TP type will help as VP), but in the final analysis it will be MUCH easier to get conservatives to vote for Romney than to get moderates to vote for Santorum or Gingrich or Perry. Think about it.
Lastly, a President Romney will govern right-center, consistent w his mandate. He will have a GOP House and Senate. Moreover, he cannot risk a primary challenge from the Right in 2016. He will be terrific for our nation.
matthew8787 on January 7, 2012 at 11:05 AM
MJBrutus, you didn’t answer my question. Was Bachmann previously included in these polls you tout as showing an increase for Romney? Not that it matters. I am not persuaded by poll data.
JannyMae on January 7, 2012 at 11:12 AM
I thought the link would suffice. She’s been dropped from their coverage. She may have been included in some of the individual polls comprising the average, but her tally if she had one was not reported.
MJBrutus on January 7, 2012 at 11:14 AM
I just looked again. She is no longer tracked in the numerical grid, but the chart shows her at 6.3%.
MJBrutus on January 7, 2012 at 11:15 AM
I hope you are right, Matthew, but my fear is that Romney will govern like Dubya did in his second term, and do more harm to conservatism than four more years of Obama would (presuming we recapture the Senate and retain the House). That’s why I didn’t support McCain in 2008, although I held my nose and voted for him and Palin. To me Romney is another squishy, moderate Republican just like Dubya and McCain.
Dubya started out more conservative than his father, but then he went down the compassionate conservative™ rabbit hole after his father. That’s why we ended up with Barry. This is becoming a cycle, where a Republican gets elected and turns into a moderate and then leads to a leftist Democrat. I want to stop the cycle and turn this country around. We won’t do it with a squishy moderate. Just my opinion, of course.
JannyMae on January 7, 2012 at 11:18 AM
Okay, thank you for the clarification.
JannyMae on January 7, 2012 at 11:19 AM
Back to Bluegill….
I will say that I honestly get frustrated with the doom and gloom “all the candidates suck” complaining, too. That’s the character of this site, a lot, is that people WANT to complain and vent their frustrations over the lack of guts in our Republican politicians.
I also get frustrated with the masses of commentators who rush to jump OFF the bandwagon of a particular candidate, based on some little verbal gaffe, or one thing the candidate says that they don’t like. How many times to we hear, “Oh, I was going to support so and so, but after this, he’s off my list!” The “flavor of the week” trends here are more “disturbing” than the “cult followers” IMO.
That, and I get tired of seeing people screaming at the HotAir bloggers, and calling them “shills” for other candidates, when something negative is posted about their “pet” candidate. Part of what we are supposed to be doing here is evaluate the candidates honestly, so that we can determine who is the best one to get Obama OUT! Sniping at each other doesn’t do anything but piss people off.
JannyMae on January 7, 2012 at 11:28 AM
Janny, look at it this way: in order to get re-elected, Romney and a GOP Congress are going to have to enact the Ryan budget w entitlement reform. Whether desirable politically or not, we cannot continue spending at this rate.
Moreover, as unpleasant 2013-14 might be with the RATS screaming like petulant children, the economy will grow MORE strongly w budget cuts and tax reform. Keynesian assholes like Bernanke (and I don’t give a damn who appointed him) are crippling this economy by crowding out capital formation in the private sector with this reckless spending.
Anybody who says all this spending props up the economy more than spending cuts and budgetary reform is no conservative and has no business leading this nation. We are bankrupting our children.
matthew8787 on January 7, 2012 at 12:50 PM
Romney is more cold blooded (analytic vs. emotional) than Bush. You have to be kind of that way working in private equity. So I don’t really think he would go all compassionate conservative on us. His flip-flopping on social issues suggests that he is fundamentally someone who just doesn’t give a hoot about these issues, and views them as morally controversial political litmus tests that he is willing to pander. Romney is driven more to fix America’s economy structurally than on any moral imperative to end abortion or defend Christianity.
haner on January 7, 2012 at 2:01 PM
Not a bad argument for your guy. Honest too.
Malachi45 on January 7, 2012 at 3:27 PM
I don’t disagree with anything you have said, but you could just as easily replace Romney’s name with “Gingrich” or “Santorum,” which is where my dilemma lies….
JannyMae on January 7, 2012 at 3:30 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4