The latest Gallup poll has some interesting conclusions from the pollsters:
Mitt Romney stands out as the candidate who is significantly less well known than the others. Over half of Republicans say they don’t know enough about Romney to be able to rate him. His image among those Republicans who do know him is quite positive. This suggests the possibility that if Romney maintains his net positive image among Republicans as the campaign progresses, he could be in a position to become more of a factor in the presidential nomination picture.
Both Romney’s overall likability numbers and likebilty numbers among Democrats have risen.
Yet his name recognition is still low, thus showing that Romney’s chance to define himself (as noted by Gallup) is still strong.
But the real story is shown among republican respondents to the poll, as reported at The Politico:
|
|
Favorable |
Unfavorable |
Net Change Since 2/11 |
|
Giuliani |
78% |
10% |
-2 |
|
McCain |
67% |
19% |
-1 |
|
Gov. Romney |
37% |
11% |
+12 |
|
Gingrich |
52% |
30% |
N/A |
Wow! Romney’s likability among republicans has climbed nearly 12% Both Giuliani and McCain have dropped. It is starting to look like Romney’s showing at CPAC and his TV adds are paying off. I did a rather informal check on www.pollingreport.com and found that Romney has climbed an average among all the polls by 1 percent each month since December- 5%, 6% and 7% in February. So far the first few polls in March have Romney averaging 9%. These aren’t huge gains like Rudy’s, but with Romney’s favourability climbing and Rudy’s slipping, we are starting to see the kind of growth that Romney needs.
The first two graphics are courtesy of Gallup and the last one is pulled from www.politico.com
March 8th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
This is inevitable: his issues are more line with the average GOP voter, he’s a dynamic speaker, has a track record as an outstanding leader in the private and public sectors, and has a spotless personal life. I don’t know if he’ll overtake Rudy, but it’s going to be a lot closer than the polls now indicate. And your starting to see some of the movement.
Of course, it would help Rudy immeasurably if his kids decided to stop giving interviews. If Rudy gets the GOP nod, I hope his family is planning on staying mum for the campaign, and not using the race 4 ‘08 as an opportunity to get “revenge.”
March 8th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Rudy needs to address this issue NOW. I don’t know if that involves a meeting with his family or what, but he can’t just ask for privacy and forget about it. The blogs are getting chuck full of negativity on this topic.
March 8th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Agreed. But it cuts both ways: Huge portions of the electorate are blended families will sympathize with the man. Especially since his character, as it relates to being in command, was proven on 9-11. Voters look at a candidate’s personal life as an indicator of how he will perform under pressure. Rudy’s already proven how he will, making these personal issues less important.
March 8th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Mitt has a fantastic family life. There is no question about that. Giuliani has a very troubled family life. There is no question there, either. That has to be a plus for Romney over Giuliani.
However, the argument can be made that other than your spouse, you can’t chose your family. I know of many families with outstanding parents that have produced estranged offspring. So just the fact that Giuliani has a child or two who shuns him is not (in and of itself) that revealing. Ronald Reagan, after all, had children who were not on the best of terms with him either. I think a better gauge of how well a man will do as President is to see the people he surrounds himself with on a voluntary basis.
Romney has a history of choosing outstanding people to be close to him. His administration never had the taint of corruption or scandal that I am aware of. (Anybody know differently? I would appreciate learning about it.)
What can be said about Giuliani’s administration? Any of you students of Giuliani care to fill us in on this subject? Were there scandals? Indictments? Convictions? Resignations under clouds? I know about that guy that he recommended to Bush, who nominated him as the head of Homeland Security and then had to withdraw his name almost immediately.
March 8th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
I heard Denis Miller saying that Rudy’s line should be “Who doesn’t have problem wit their kids?” which at first made sense- almost to the point f convincing me. But then I thought “Who divorces there wife at a press conference unannounced to his kids?” This isn’t just a little family squabble it’s a man who loved his mistress and the press more than his own kids, a serious problem of integrity.
March 8th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
I agree this is trouble for Rudy. You can report that to your Romney folks, Jason. However, there is an old saying, and DENNIS Miller (spelled correctly) IS RIGHT: “He who casts the first stone…
I also think it is really desperation on the part of other republicans to use this issue to bash Rudy, with the hope that it helps to damage him. NOBODY is perfect. Do you all have any idea that Donna Hanover was no saint?
March 8th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
PS Do any of you supporters of prickly perfect Romney recall that Reagan was divorced, and he was estranged from his children.
GEEEZ…
March 8th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Just so nobody thinks I only like polls that are positive for Romney, I still think there’s way way too much between now and the primary for this poll to be a useful indicator. I’m holding my breath until after some debates and seriuos campaigning.
March 8th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Very maturely stated. I agree…. I’m getting tired of this already lol
March 8th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
This post is silly. In DEC he had a net favorable of 7, now that is down to 4. By comparison McCain has a net positive of 32.
Romney’s negatives are somehow higher than Rudy’s, despite being known by less than half as many people.
I predict that Romney’s fundraising March 31 is going is going to be a big disappointment.
Further, I predict that his cash on hand will also be very low since he is running the most expenstive campaign right now, paying for expensive Boston leases, and already running ads in many states.
March 8th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
KT, a few things.
1. No need to be terribly concerned. You had to know this was coming, right? I don’t know that Rudy responding to this right now in a very public manner is a good idea. Not enough people are listening, and he’ll just have to address it agiain later. Also, by holding off on the big address he can send out feelers for the best way to respond.
2. The Dennis Miller line of “who doesn’t have family problems” is NOT the way to go. That will simply invite the media to document exactly how far above the “average” family problems Rudy goes. Every. Sordid. Detail. No, the better approach is for Rudy to directly acknowledge his fault, not make jokes about it or pass it off as “just your typical divorce”.
3. Don’t blame Romney for Rudy’s drama. Neither Romney nor McCain are slipping leaks to the media. Everyone already has all the documented footage from Rudy’s Mayorship. This is living fulfillment of the Law of the Harvest. I mean, he had a public mistress and divorced his wife on TV, for crying out loud. I’m not saying Romney or McCain will defend the Mayor’s scandals…but they have no need to get involved.
March 8th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
KT: “PS Do any of you supporters of prickly perfect Romney recall that Reagan was divorced, and he was estranged from his children.”
Uhmm…you did read my #4 post, right?
March 8th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
marK,
Regarding your #4 and scandals, allow me to quote from a comment I made on another entry:
“There will be another Bernie Kerik. Read Rudy’s book about his choice to hire him it’s a long section. He took a risk. Would you rather have someone who plays it safe, like Bush? Or would you rather have someone who takes some risks in a total war to take down the teachers unions on public schools, the ponzi-scheme of Social Security, our enemies abroad? Rudy will govern in a way that makes GWB look like a timid woodland creature. And this isn’t SPECULATION, this is how he DID in fact govern. War isn’t pretty. But you’ll smile when it’s being waged against the welfare state and Islamism.
Supporting any other candidate is squandering this historic opportunity.”
March 8th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Kate O’Beirne and Rich Lowry on whether some conservatives might see something to LIKE in Rudy’s divorce(!):
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGI4NDIzMzMzODU5ZjY1MTQ5NWMwYjA5ZWMzOGJkNTQ=
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWZhMzNmNDU3ZGZlZTFlZTg1ZmE5ZDFlN2Y0ZjI2NWM=
March 8th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
I’m encouraged to see Romney’s numbers up. No doubt his extremely well delivered speech at CPAC contributed to his favorability ratings increase recently as others have mentioned. Just to second what has already been posted, it is way too early to read much into the polls.
Right now, I don’t care so much as to what percentage Romney or Rudy or whomever is polling at. I care more about movement. Which candidates are increasing support verses which candidate(s) are losing support. I’m definitely more interested in the trends and movement of these polls since it is way early. Now, if it were a week or two before the big dance, that would be different. Perhaps some of the Rudy supporters need to calm down a bit?
If Rudy trends down (and I think he will), he’ll need to take proactive step(s) to pre-empt any major damage. My opinion of the Rudy campaign is that they are costing on celebrity (like a Republican Obama but not quite as bad). He needs to put more effort into his speeches, not skip any debates or straw polls. Rudy may be able to afford to do this for a while, but not too long. He needs to act like the front runner if he is the front runner.
March 8th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
David,
Please tell me that you are not saying that the ends justifies the means.
March 8th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
No, I said if you want a President who’s going to wage war against the Democrats, it isn’t always going to be pretty. Comes with the territory. He chose Kerik because would get the damn job done. He’s got a legendary life story of a tough guy who succeeded in everything he did, military, warden, NYPD, and he in fact did an awesome job for the NYPD. He’s the kind of guy you want to appoint when you don’t care about PC B.S. and want to get the JOB DONE.
March 8th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Much better.
I don’t know much about Bernie Kerik. Doesn’t sound like that much of a scandal. It sounds more like he wasn’t vetted enough for the federal position. Any other problems with Giuliani appointees?
Lest I give the wrong impression, I am not on an anti-Giuliani fishing trip. I want to hear about problems any of the big three have had with their appointees. My impression is that Mitt managed to run Massachussetts for four years without a single scandal. Is this wrong? Let’s hear about them.
How did Rudy do? How has McCain done?
March 8th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
I have no doubt Mitt is an excellent CEO. Rudy is Patton. Mitt is Montgomery. I want a Patton to win the war with the Islamists abroad and, more difficult yet, the Democrats at home. Mitt isn’t that kind of man. Great CEO though.
March 8th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Gingrich’s numbers suggest a lot of Republicans don’t like him, and that he would be absolutely unelectable in a General. So how about he forgets about running for PResident, and goes back to being a king-maker instead?
March 8th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
You really think Rudy is a Patton? Certainly he is bull-headed like Patton was. He is also rough and tumble like Patton was. But Patton always put out 100% effort. He did anything and everything to win the war. He was tireless. I think Rudy has not shown that Patton trait, do you?
Oh, you know that scene where Patton was directing traffic in a mudhole? That really happened. My history teacher in High School had a brother who witnessed it. This was before the movie came out. Guess what. Romney did the same thing during the 2002 Olympics. There was a traffic jam. He drove up and got out into the freezing cold weather to direct traffic until a cop came by. Then he went in hunt of the cause of the problem and corrected it. (Does that sound like Montgomery to you?)
Who would I compare Mitt to? Hmmm. Possible Grant without the booze and a little more polish. He fought hard. His Black River campaign stands as the most brilliant ever fought on American soil. He won that by sheer energy and determination. Everyone said he was going to fail. Halleck ordered him (too late) to stop it. Sherman insisted it was going to be a disaster. Yet he persisted against odds, violating every rule in the book, and won. After it was all over Lincoln wrote to him to say that, “I feared it was a mistake. I now wish to make the personal acknowledgment that you were right, and I was wrong.”
Grant also had tremendous calm under fire. When an emgergency took place, he wouldn’t yell, he wouldn’t throw things. No swearing. No abuse of soldiers. Just a dead calm. He would take care of problem, then take steps to avoid it ever happening again. He learned from his mistakes.
He would set himself a well-defined goal, and he worked tirelessly to achieve it.
Grant became President. Patton didn’t.
March 8th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
JayPe: His “running” is all about kingmaking. He knows his negatives are a big problem in the general. He is no McCain fan. Likes Rudy– we’ll see how much. His negatives are so bad he may not even be able to be VP. He wants candidates to adopt the ideas he has been generating. Look for them to do that.
March 8th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Grant was very devoted to his wife, Julia. Many union officers report coming into Grant’s office during the James River campaign and finding Grant and Julia holding hands while Grant was working.
Romney’s devotion to his wife, Ann, is legendary.
When Grant arrived in Washington DC to accept the command of all the Union armies, he and his son arrived at the hotel and asked for a room. The clerk, not seeing anyone important, told him they had a room on the fifth floor (top floor, no elevator). Grant said fine, and signed the registry. When the clerk glanced down and saw the name of the man who was about to control all the nation’s armies, he was shocked, and immediately offered him a first floor suite. He had expected General Ulysses S. Grant to travel with an entourage of staff members. Not just a simple man carrying his own baggage accompanied only by his son.
When Romney travelled as Governor, he often travelled commercial in Coach. He didn’t travel with a large entourage. He didn’t travel with the trappings of office. Often he traveled with Ann, his wife as his sole travel companion. He didn’t go through the VIP lines. He travelled with the rest of us.
March 8th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
David B, I totally agree. Who do you think he’ll endorse? Is he waiting to see who adopts his ideas the most?
And separately, his endorsement will obviously help the endorsed get nominated, but would it be a problem come general election time?
March 8th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Indeed, mark. When you compare Romney’s relation to the “trappings” of fame to that of the current buffoon in his former office, the difference could not be more stark. Patrick’s an absolute disaster 8 weeks into his term. I feel ashamed to be in the state.
March 8th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Matt,
When even the Boston Globe is beating up on Patrick front-page-above-the-fold, you know he is in deep trouble.
March 8th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
JayPe: He clearly won’t endorse McCain. I think Rudy, especially given the WSJ piece they wrote together a few weeks ago. But I wouldn’t be shocked if he endorsed Romney. No, I don’t think primary endorsements from those with negative ratings hurt in the general. Rudy will have endorsements cross the whole spectrum. (He already does.)
March 8th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
An interesting statement re: Romney from a Chuck Todd article in National Journal:
March 8th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
David B, ?????????????? Dumping your wife is now comparable to rooting out corruption??? You people amaze me.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Excellent points Matt & Mark:
The Patrick Cadillac is typical of the big hat no cattle substance of many liberals. They are going to have deficits back due to more government spending.
Let them parade around with a fancy entourage on the tax payer’s dime while they sell out their children’s future. Perhaps in four years, they’ll wise up & elect a Republican to bail them out again.
March 9th, 2007 at 1:04 am
Peter, I tried to figure out which post you were talking about and couldn’t.
March 9th, 2007 at 1:19 am
Peter, I got it: It was the links to the National Review editors. THEY put that out there. I used a (!) to indicate I was surprised at the argument; wasn’t mine.
March 9th, 2007 at 10:42 am
RE: Patrick’s problems.
Patrick came in and immediately restored the ‘Gazebo’ cuts that Romney had made. Now, barely two months into his term, he is “warning of a $1.3 billion deficit and asking state agencies to trim spending”. All the while he is agrandizing he and his wife at the taxpayer’s expense.
I know every politician wants to make a distinction between himself and his predecessor, but this is going a bit too far, don’t you think?