State of the Race (Intrade, Cash, and Endorsements)

116 Responses to “State of the Race (Intrade, Cash, and Endorsements)”

1. JKFNA Says:
   April 16th, 2007 at 3:42 pm

   Sure looks like Romney has negative momentum!!!

2. Tommy Says:
   April 16th, 2007 at 3:44 pm

   You left out Thompson’s endorsements, which is already quite lengthy considering….
   Off the top of my head: JC Watts, all of TN (all R and over half the D’s local and national, Missouri house leadership and Republicans, Oklahoma Republican Party

3. marK Says:
   April 16th, 2007 at 3:45 pm

   To show the either the value (or lack thereof) of endorsements, and/or straw polls; McCain has the endorsements of the majority of South Carolina’s legislaturers, but Romney is running a strong first in the Straw Polls this month. There are many more to come this week, so stay tuned.

4. Republius Says:
   April 16th, 2007 at 3:52 pm

   JKFNA (in #1), Romney is first in fundraising and first in endorsements, but fourth in national polling and has already won the flip-flop moniker among candidates in this presidential contest. Plus, Fred Thompson is certifiably hurting him (as well as Giuliani and McCain). So I guess momentum is a matter of what you look at and weight within the available data.

5. David B Says:
   April 16th, 2007 at 3:56 pm

   Correction: Romney is 5th in national polling, behind both undeclared candidates. Check the RCP average.

6. murphy Says:
   April 16th, 2007 at 3:56 pm

   Republius,

   Romney has won the flip-flop label from his critics because they have nothing to criticize him on other than his switch on abortion in 2005. Seems to me that this label is already becoming stale, Romney’s momentum is gaining despite the attacks, and that his critics have exhausted their arsenals…with almost a year to go!

7. JL Says:
   April 16th, 2007 at 3:56 pm

   US Sen Pat Roberts (R-KS)
   —-

   When did this become official? There were stories that he was going for McCain..

8. marK Says:
   April 16th, 2007 at 3:59 pm

   Ah but, Republius, he is moving UP in the national polls. And his being tagged with the flip-flop moniker is making the other candidates jump through some awfully awkward hoops hoping to avoid the same fate.

9. Tommy Says:
   April 16th, 2007 at 3:59 pm

   “US Rep Marsh Blackburn (R-TN)
   US Rep John Duncan (R-TN)”

   Duncan is one of the founders of the Draftfred movement and both have said they will go with Thompson when he gets in the race. Duncan I know for a fact has said that, and I’m pretty sure Blackburn said something to that effect to.

10. Republius Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:02 pm

    murphy (#6), the NRA/lifelong hunter fiasco only underscores that each and every Romney position need to be scrutinized for authenticity – hence the flip-flop label.

    Romney supporters can deny that this is an issue, but Flip the Dolphin is always at the Romney events.

11. JL Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:02 pm

    I wonder how many of those endorsements did Romney, McCain and Rudy have to buy? I am sure at least half not true conserative could endorse these men unless their is money involved.

12. Tommy Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:05 pm

    The bottom line is that Republius had a point one of his earlier posts where he stated that the campaign has started to early. There is a chance there are going to be a lot of backing out and switches, and I don’t mean everyones switching to Thompson. It’s just way too early to be thinking that everyone is going to stay where they are at right now.

13. JL Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:06 pm

    True I think most candidates stay until Ames if they do well there they will stay in if not we will see them start to back out..

14. David B Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:08 pm

    I take back #5. Romney finally surpassed Newt.

15. David B Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:09 pm

    P.S. I predicted 2 weeks ago that Rudy may well have more cash on hand, and I was totally ridiculed by the Romneybots.

16. State of the Race (Intrade, Cash, and Endorsements) at Conservative Times--Republican GOP news source. Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:12 pm

    [...] post by HeavyM and software by Elliott [...]

17. minnesota conservative Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:13 pm

    David,
    Your immense and irrational dislike for Romney sometimes gets the better of you. Perhaps next time should check before posting, e.g., #5.

18. David B Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:15 pm

    Also, I made the predicted based on substracting Romney’s 2.35M loan. Subtracting that, Rudy is $2.5M ahead.

    Also, I made the prediction based on Rudy transferring $3M from his Senate fund. He only transferred 1.35. If 1.65 remains, then Rudy is over $4 million ahead.

19. David B Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:15 pm

    Minnesota: I watch the RCP every day, and Romney has been in FIFTH place until today. For MONTHS.

20. cwpete Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:19 pm

    David B:

    Looks like you were right about Rudy having more cash on hand than Romney. Looks like Rudy has 120K more on had than Romney if the figures are accurate. We’ll see if that holds up..

21. minnesota conservative Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:23 pm

    P.S. “-bot” would describe someone who blindly follows without thought. I am quite sure the Romney supporters have demonstrated a great deal of thought in where their support should be placed. That seems not to be true in your support of Rudy “The Savior of the R’s” Giuliani or your continued ridicule of Romney and his supporters. In fact, it his hard to remember the last time your anti-Romney arguments included anything other than flip-flopping charges and anti-mormon bigotry.

22. minnesota conservative Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:24 pm

    ohoh…
    I forgot to mention that only Rudy! can get elected……………….

23. David B Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:27 pm

    I think “bot” is quite appropriate. You guys dutifully and in lockstep defend him as the only acceptable candidate.

    Notice how those of us supporting other candidates have the ability to admit disagreement in some areas with candidates we support. Some of us, to weigh whether to support one candidate versus another. To give a historical account of how we came to decide on the candidate we are supporting.

    There is no similar thought process evident amount the Romneybots, as if they were born Romney supporters and follow without question.

24. marK Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:28 pm

    David B, in #15

    I went back and checked. You got into an arguument with cwpete about it. No one else of any camp — Giuliani, Romney, McCain, etc. — commented on it that I can find.

    How did that morph into Romneybots, plural?

25. David B Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:29 pm

    Yes, only Rudy can get elected (maybe McCain, blech). Head to head polls will confirm this from now until the primaries. Republicans knowing this and voting otherwise will be guilty of allowing a leftist to be President.

26. minnesota conservative Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:30 pm

    David,

    congrats on forecasting the COH. I remember thinking that you would be wrong.

    I also have been watching the RCP averages for months and I understand where Romney is sitting in the race. But when I wish to cite them I prefer to check it.

27. David B Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:31 pm

    I forgot to say how badly the electorate wants to elect a Democrat President in GOP, with almost half again as many voters now identifying with R’s instead of D’s. Usually it’s the D’s who have no clue when their party is in the toilet. Right now, it’s half the R’s.

28. murphy Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:31 pm

    marK, because we are all the same, remember? Just “-bots” with no independent thought.

    For what it’s worth, I find the “Romney-bot” moniker so deliciously ironic that I don’t bother to complain.

29. minnesota conservative Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:34 pm

    why do you insist with this “only rudy can get elected” mantra? Everybody here knows that general election polling this early is mostly useless. Romney would beat Clinton as there is no way she would win with her negatives. Generic polling is not useful in evaluating the next election because too much can change between now and then.

30. Tommy Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:36 pm

    Dave, I usually defend you and your arguments, and you know that. However, I have a feeling the Dems would have a field day with Rudy and all the stuff that could be dragged up about him. They would swiftboat him every week. That’s not me knocking him, I just am not sure that he could stand up to all the dirt that will be thrown on him. He was a good mayor, and did well in NYC, but it’ll be a lot different and every single part of his life and administration will be under the microscope.

31. marK Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:37 pm

    David in #23.

    Perhaps you weren’t aware that when someone resorts to name-calling and other personal attacks, it is generally a sign that he is losing an argument?

32. David B Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:39 pm

    marK: On a later thread murphy accused me of doing mental gymnastics and to admit Romney was ahead in the money. But you’re right, when you guys all act indistinguishable, why would you expect us to remember you differently?

    Tommy: What’s ironic is the dirt the Dems would throw at him in the general, is stuff that would bring conservatives to him in droves now, i.e., his scorched earth war with the NYC liberal establishment.

33. David B Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:40 pm

    marK: Generally. I phrased it more intellectually this time. Sometimes these things are true.

34. minnesota conservative Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:41 pm

    Regarding #23, the same argument could be applied to your rejection of Romney.

    “I think “bot” is quite appropriate. You guys dutifully and in lockstep defend him as the only acceptable candidate.”

    Play nice David. Dishonesty is not a valid way of rejecting a candidate. I can remember many times when Romney supporters have said they would be happy with Giuliani, McCain, or even Brownback. I have never heard that from you. –>”maybe McCain, blech”

35. Tommy Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:42 pm

    Good point. I’m just concerned about it. There’s a lot of stuff floating around, and I hope he can withstand it all, for all of our sakes should it come to that.

36. fredo Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:42 pm

    Heavy-

    Shouldn’t that be ex-US Senator Jim Talent?

    Oh, Missouri, what have you done?

37. David B Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:45 pm

    minnesota, I know this may come as a shock to you, but I’m on record as preferring a President Romney to any other GOP President except Rudy. Even preferring a President Romney to a President Bush. I like the fact that he’s metro, love the fact he’s a Wall Street type, and like the fact that deep down he is socially quite moderate/liberal (even though he’s currently trying to cover it up).

    Except I don’t want to risk him being the nominee because of the Mormon factor.

38. Matt Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:46 pm

    That’s a totally absurd assessment of Romney supporters. I think McCain is a perfectly acceptable candidate. As is Tommy Thompson. I’d even consider Fred borderline acceptable. And with the exception of Giuliani, every candidate is “acceptable” in the sense that I’d vote for them in the general election. I’m perfectly willing to acknowledge strengths and weaknesses of other candidates. I can’t say that I’ve ever said a negative thing about McCain on this board. And I have no problem acknowledging Giuliani’s excellent leadership qualities, and his virtually historic performance on 9/11. I don’t need to result to name calling, or personal hatred. I’ve never done the former, and have never felt the latter. I simply don’t want Rudy to be the nominee, under any circumstances. So yes, this Romney supporter finds ONE candidate unnacceptable. But Romney supporters are hardly alone in their avoidance of Rudy Giuliani.

39. David B Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:50 pm

    Matt: Being able to name a second-choice candidate was specifically not one of the 3 things I mentioned in #23.

40. JF Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:52 pm

    David B, if I may humbly ask, when have you defeated me in an argument on this site? I can’t find a single instance, they have always ended with you resorting to emotional outbursts.

41. minnesota conservative Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:53 pm

    David,

    I am glad to know you’ll eventually be in our camp. Regardless of your personal convictions that does not explain your unilateral rejection and ridicule of Romney and his supporters, e.g., “I think “bot” is quite appropriate. You guys dutifully and in lockstep defend him as the only acceptable candidate.” You know that is not true yet you insist on repeating it time after time.

42. David B Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:56 pm

    JF: Whom defeats whom is up to the readers/lurkers of this blog.

    minn: Didn’t say I’d be in your camp. I said if Romney ended up being President, it’d be an improvement over Bush, but that I don’t want to risk him in the general. If Rudy’s out, I’ll sadly be rooting for Fred.

43. minnesota conservative Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:57 pm

    it is wonderful seeing you post time after time while avoiding the substance of the conversation.

44. David B Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:58 pm

    “Bot” refers to an undercurrent here I noticed weeks ago and aptly described in #23. We’ll let the readers/lurkers/undecideds here make up their own minds. Won’t be hard…

45. David B Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:58 pm

    minn: What substance am I avoiding?

46. JF Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:59 pm

    David B, you have accused me of following Romney without question. I am a Romney supporter, but I have been scrupulous in using facts to back up my arguments for why I support him. You have yet to contradict me using facts, so to accuse me of following without question is a falsehood. A more apt label would be AntiRomneyBots, for you attack him without question. Especially on the issue of Mormonism, which you have not once proven will interfere with a Romney Presidency. Your opposition is not based on logic, it is based on emotion, which makes your criticism invalid.

    When you prove to me that my support for Romney is unfounded, I will switch my support.

47. minnesota conservative Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 5:01 pm

    “I think “bot” is quite appropriate. You guys dutifully and in lockstep defend him as the only acceptable candidate.”

    This statement is false. You know it. We know it. If this isn’t true then “bot” is a meaningless designation.

48. David B Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 5:03 pm

    JF: One thing I notice about the Romneybots is an attempt to reduce everything to formulas/statistics/etc as “proof” when it is really a means to coverup the obvious existence of qualitative phenomena, when it comes to personality, charisma, character, electability, etc.

    Although the Romneybots do recognize such things when they say Brownback has a persona which will not win 270 electoral votes.

49. David B Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 5:04 pm

    minn: Lurkers/undecideds are making up their minds. Even without realizing how you are IMing and emailing one another to descend en masse whenever necessary and all giving precisely the same lines.

50. minnesota conservative Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 5:05 pm

    To Borrow from #29

    minnesota conservative Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
    “why do you insist with this “only rudy can get elected” mantra? Everybody here knows that general election polling this early is mostly useless. Romney would beat Clinton as there is no way she would win with her negatives. Generic polling is not useful in evaluating the next election because too much can change between now and then.”

    And yet you still use generic polling and general election matchups to preemtively declare the victor. You also ignore what Kennedy did for Catholics and what Romney could easily do for Mormons.

51. minnesota conservative Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 5:07 pm

    David,
    You are still failing to address your statement. Instead you resort to personal attacks and conspiracy theories. The amusing thing is that I saw the same thing months ago at RedState when I was undecided about the candidates.

52. cwpete Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 5:08 pm

    David B:

    I’m anxious for you to resond to JF’s #46. He makes excellent points about being factual while you have been very emotional.

53. David B Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 5:09 pm

    Yes, polling tells us a lot. That’s why it’s the bread and butter of political campaigns.

    Re Kennedy and Cathlolics, I’m not sure the Mormon Church WANTS Romney to the nominee because of what will come out. But per Kavon I’m not doing into that anymore. I’ll just say I don’t want to risk the GOP’s chances in the general election based on the Mormon factor and America’s perceptions of Mormonism.

54. JF Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 5:09 pm

    David B, let’s face it. Hard data is the only way to objective evaluate anything. You are paranoid that a Mormon President will turn the US into a police state, hunting down enemies of the Mormon church and enforcing its will upon the people. Romney’s been governor of a state and has exhibited none of those qualities, which means it’s incumbent on you to prove he will radically change if elected president. Until then, perhaps it would be beneficial to view a Romney presidency with an open mind. Is Romney perfect? Absolutely not. But he isn’t guilty of what you accuse him of, either, and your single-minded focus on his religion blinds you to his better qualities.

    That said, I think Guiliani would make a fine president. I don’t agree with all of his views, but on balance, I agree with him more than I disagree, and if we can survive Bill Clinton, a Guiliani presidency won’t be the end of the world, either.

55. Matt Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 5:11 pm

    Fine David, you want me to bring up areas where I disagree with Romney, relative to other GOP candidates? Ok. I like Sam Brownback’s position on abortion better. I’m not terribly keen on federalism, as an argument against a constitutional amendment banning abortion. It’s silly and illogical. I understand the political factors that go into such a decision, and the pragmatism, but frankly I think it’s cowardly. I’m more comfortable with Brownback on stem-cells too. I also much prefer Giulani’s pro-Civil Union stance, to Romney’s anti-gay marriage, and anti-civil union stance. Although I trust Romney on judges more then McCain and Giuliani, I trust virtually everyone else in the field (including Fred) more then Romney there. I trust everyone beyond Giuliani more on guns. I think Romney is much less of a “transformational” leader then either Giuliani or McCain. He seems much more “transactional” (see works by James MacGregor Burns for the difference between transformational and transactional leaders). That is, while I think Romney’s likely to improve the government a good bit in most areas, I don’t think he’ll improve any one area by a HUGE margin (something I could certainly see Giuliani accomplishing).

    Let’s see, what else is there? Well, I have plenty of issues with the way he’s campaigned. I think he’s been trying entirely too hard at times (thus the Hunter business), and hasn’t been nearly aggressive enough defending himself. I think he occasionally talks about the greatness of America too many times in a single speech for even someone with his eloquence to pull off. I actually think it’d be nice for someone to write a front page post encouraging people to discuss the weaknesses in their own candidates. We don’t do it nearly enough.

56. David B Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 5:11 pm

    cwpete: I answered it in #48.

    JF: I answered that in #37.

    Talk about who isn’t paying attention to the argument.

57. David B Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 5:12 pm

    Matt: Great, but I don’t include you among the Romneybots.

58. minnesota conservative Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 5:13 pm

    Yes, polling does tell us a lot. General election polling a year and a half out does not though.

    Re Kenned and Catholics: This statement just shows your own personal bigotry.

    P.S. You continue to avoid the substance and instead move from one attack to the next.

59. cwpete Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 5:14 pm

    “I’m not sure the Mormon Church WANTS Romney to the nominee because of what will come out. But per Kavon I’m not doing into that anymore.”

    But you just did. Sheesh, some guys never learn.

60. David B Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 5:14 pm

    cwpete: I’m actually being quite matter of fact. Don’t confuse me being emotional with your own emotional reactions to my matter-of-fact statements.

61. David B Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 5:14 pm

    minn: What subtance am I avoiding? (Keep asking this.)

62. murphy Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 5:15 pm

    Ooh, conspiracy theories. All that I would expect from you David, and more.

    By the way…I’ve just emailed the Romneybot network to your activities. You are getting too close to the truth for your own good, and we will discuss appropriate action at tonight’s meeting in our secret mountainous lair. I hear Fearless Leader Romney himself will even be parachuting in by black hawk helicopter to execute the plan…

63. cwpete Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 5:17 pm

    David B:

    I was looking for data instead of intellectual cliches. Are you capable of that?

    I can see we are in totally different worlds you and I.

64. minnesota conservative Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 5:17 pm

    “I think “bot” is quite appropriate. You guys dutifully and in lockstep defend him as the only acceptable candidate.”

    This statement is false. You know it. We know it. If this isn’t true then “bot” is a meaningless designation.

    ———

    I believe i keep answering with your statement and others. This is what started the conversation.

65. minnesota conservative Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 5:18 pm

    “I’m not sure the Mormon Church WANTS Romney to the nominee because of what will come out. But per Kavon I’m not doing into that anymore.”

    This statement is your bigotry speaking, nobody else’s.

66. cwpete Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 5:18 pm

    The Romneybot network!!??!

    Oh Goody! Can I sign up?

67. minnesota conservative Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 5:19 pm

    Peace out. I have a business meeting to attend to. David, we will continue this later.

68. David B Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 5:23 pm

    cwpete: Data on what?

69. JF Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 5:25 pm

    David B, fair enough. But when you say

    Except I don’t want to risk him being the nominee because of the Mormon factor.

    it just leaves a big question mark. Let’s look again at the data. Romney is essentially competitive with FDT and Gingrich in the polls at the moment even though he’s a Mormon, which means that even if people say they won’t elect a Mormon, this is an issue that can possibly be overcome. He can overcome this as JFK overcame it, as HRC can overcome fears of what it would mean to have a female president and as Obama can overcome latent racism.

    In other words, if the US electorate is ready to elect a female president or a minority president, why wouldn’t it be ready to elect a Mormon president? We should not fear the Democrats, but most importantly, we should not fear the American people.

70. cwpete Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 5:26 pm

    It is clear that David B is still envolking religious refrences to support his arguments against Romney. I thought that was cleared up this am. Apparrently not.

71. David B Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 5:28 pm

    cwpete: Nice answer to, “Data on what?”

    Then when I cite polls, the line is that they are meaningless this far out.

    By the way, folks, 90% of politics is not about hard data.

72. marksal Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 5:29 pm

    Perhaps Republius himself is that flipper guy who shows up at Romney’s events.

    Romney is my first choice, but I would be very pleased also if Fred Thompson got in the race, won the nomination and then beat the Democrat. Rudy was a phenomenal mayor but simply doesn’t share my values. McCain is a great patriot but too populist and anti-free-speech for my taste.

    And for the record, I do not agree with Romney on every issue. For example, I support a flat tax, while he, apparently, does not.

73. David B Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 5:31 pm

    Speaking of hard numbers, thank you Romney folks (notice the term) for recognizing I was right about the cash on hand numbers.

74. murphy Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 5:33 pm

    Regarding the “mormon factor”, there is very little support for this. The only evidence in the form of polls also shows even greater barriers against a candidate who is elderly or on his 3rd marriage.

    If you look at the GOP demographic who likes mormonism the least, evangelical leaders are generally sounding far more open to a Mitt Romney candidacy than they are to a Giuliani or McCain candidacy. And if you look at Romney’s past electoral experience, he was able to get elected in Massachusettes on a far more conservative platform than his constituency generally identifies with, despite the “mormon” factor. The only difference at the time was that he was pro-Roe, which is hardly enough to explain why he won people over in hordes during the debates.

    The only people I can imagine who are against a mormon are liberals who dislike the religious right in general. If the GOP makes reaching out to this block a strategy, it’ll make 2006 look like a day in the park.

75. econ grad stud Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 5:41 pm

    Mitt Romney is kind of like John Edwards. He’s too slick and too together. It’s creepy over TV (although highly effective in person).

76. Justin Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 5:41 pm

    Getting back to endorsements… here’s our latest from last week:

    http://www.mymanmitt.com/mitt-romney/2007/02/2008-endorsements-top-gop-candidates.asp

77. JF Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 5:44 pm

    Econ Grad Student, I take it you voted against the Great Communicator?

78. Kavon W. Nikrad Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 5:44 pm

    For gosh sakes everyone!! The topics of this post are the Intrade numbers and the endorsement race.

    Let’s all take a deep breath and get back on track.

79. David B Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 5:48 pm

    OK, “Amount Raised” in the chart should be “Raised Q1.” Rudy raised $2M+ in December.

80. David B Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 5:49 pm

    There’s slick-creepy and slick-charismatic.

    I think Romney is a mix of the two, while Edwards is creepy, Fred is charismatic, and Reagan was uber-Charismatic.

    I loved the man so much I drove hours and stood in line until dawn to pay my respects.

81. cwpete Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 6:05 pm

    David B:

    “Speaking of hard numbers, thank you Romney folks (notice the term) for recognizing I was right about the cash on hand numbers.”

    Please note my #20 post. You amaze me! You are so busy attacking you did not even catch the compliment! Do you still care to paint us all as

    “you guys all act indistinguishable, why would you expect us to remember you differently?

    Sheesh…

82. HeavyM Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 6:11 pm

    JL (#7): Check here – it’s the third story down (Sen. Roberts official endorsement of Brownback).

    Fredo (#36), thanks for catching that – it’s changed now.

83. HeavyM Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 6:17 pm

    Tommy (#9): You are right — Duncan has indeed announced that if Fred Thompson gets in the race, he will switch his endorsement from Romney to Thompson.

    Blackburn, though, is Romney’s co-chair for his TN campaign as well as the national chair of Women for Romney, and has not indicated she would endorse Thompson or leave those positions.

84. cwpete Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 6:22 pm

    David B:

    “Nice answer to, Data on what?”

    I’ll keep repeating myself over and over for you since I have nothing better to do at the moment. Is it wrong to ask for hard data regarding your specific attacks on Romney supporters regarding faith? You have stated that you could not support Romney due to him being a Mormon. You sound like a smart enough guy to understand why that is a bigoted statement (notice I’m attacking your statement & not you). I can tell you that these statements along with the cult references you have made in other posts are as offensive to Mormons as using the “N-word” or the “F-word” to describe gays. The fact that you believe that to be true and the fact that you think that masses believe that is true is irrelevant as a gay will always be a ____.” After understanding how that statement is very insulting to Mormons, why would anyone want to level them against a fellow Republican? After all, are they not “good hardworking conservative people?”

    One could make the other statements using the same logic?
    I can’t support candidate X because of race.
    I can’t support candidate Y because of sex.

    Attack Romney for being a flip flopper or because his hair is too whatever.. But don’t attack him due to his faith. Religion ought to be considered personal. Starting personal attacks against one Republican usually warrants personal attacks in retaliation. That would not be good for Rudy.

85. minnesota conservative Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 6:29 pm

    and I am back….

    David on #73, no problem. Thanks for using a far more endearing term to describe those of us who support Mitt. Regarding #71, there is no “line”. Each of us approaches this topic from a different angle.

    For the record, I would be somewhat satisfied with McCain or Thompson. Rudy just isn’t on my team.

86. cwpete Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 6:32 pm

    David,

    I apologize for #81 as I read it wrong. Please give me your take on #84.

87. dave M. Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 6:46 pm

    Are these money totals correct? The Washington Post reported Giuliani having $10.8 million coh and Romney having $12 million.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/14/AR2007041401543_2.html?hpid=topnews

88. dave M. Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 6:51 pm

    Sorry, it’s on the third paragraph of page 1.

89. Tommy Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 6:52 pm

    HeavyM, you’re right about Blackburn not coming out and saying it directly. I’d leave her up there for now. She has made some cryptical comments about it being to early to commit seriously, and left the possibility open, according to what’s on the ground here in Tennessee. It wouldn’t suprise me if she stayed on Romney’s staff. However, she will have a lot of pressure on her from her constituents to switch, as I’m sure would happen if Mitt was the late entry and one of his (if he hypothetically lived in a conservative base) had committed elsewhere earlier. Thompson is untouchable in the conservative base and I know that her district is pushing her to jump, which is always a fact in politics, and would have a considerable backlash if she didn’t. That’s just my two cents though. Sources aren’t always 100% accurate and tend to be optimistic. Either way, she’ll do a fine job whoever she ends up supporting. (The one time the local words were wrong was when I was here and said it was Frists campaign staff that would work for Thompson, when in fact it was Webb’s, who was planning to run until he stumbled in his reelection, if Jason is around, I think that was my mixup though)

90. minnesota conservative Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 6:56 pm

    Tommy,

    I assume you wanted to say Allen and not Webb…

91. Tommy Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 7:09 pm

    Whichever one lost. I get names mixed up alot, obviously.

92. minnesota conservative Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 7:21 pm

    Perhaps that is why you support Fred instead of Mitt…

93. Tommy Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 7:28 pm

    hahaha!!!!

    It’s the shallowness of us FDT supporters.

    (I can joke about it now, but that doesn’t mean it’s open season)

94. Argo Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 7:32 pm

    JF, minnesota conservative, murphy and cwpete….

    While I can’t speak for David B, I suspect it is poll findings like this that serve as the basis for his argument that Romney is unelectable. This well-crafted poll elicited responses that tapped unfortunate deep-seated biases which are unlikely to shift between now and next year, or even 10 years from now.

    For me, personally, the fact that Romney is a Mormon is irrelevant. If Mitt wins the GOP nomination, he will have my vote. The only faith-based comment he made that I found troublesome was when he said: “We NEED to have a person of faith lead the country.”

    I would like to know how he reconciles that belief with Article 6 of the US Constitution that declares “No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust.”

    The Harris Poll
    April 11, 2007

    Many U.S. Adults are Uncomfortable Voting for a Mormon in the 2008 Presidential Race
    The Mormon factor may actually hurt Mitt Romney in his quest for the presidency

    Sometimes it is difficult to determine whether there is prejudice against a political candidate as a result of their particular race, gender or religion group. Whether someone would vote for a Mormon is one such issue in the 2008 Presidential race, since Republican candidate and former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney is a member of this group. In an effort to understand this issue, Harris Interactive asked 2 similar questions of two different samples of U.S. adults; one question focused on whether they would vote for an “equally qualified” Presbyterian versus a Baptist, the other a Presbyterian versus a Mormon. This Harris Poll shows that being a Mormon candidate is an electoral liability.

    We asked adults if they would be more likely to vote for “Mr. Smith”, a 48 year old male, married, Presbyterian, with a Business Management degree, or “Mr. Jones”, a 54 year old male, who is married and has a law degree, if they were both equally qualified to be president. The difference is that for one half of our respondents, Mr. Jones is a Baptist and for the other half, Mr. Jones is a Mormon. In the race between Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones, the Baptist, Mr. Smith wins 41 percent to 18 percent, with 42 percent not sure. In the race between Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones, the Mormon, over half (52%) say they would vote for Mr. Smith with only 9 percent voting for Mr. Jones. Two in five were not sure. In other words, everything else being equal, 11 percent more would vote for Mr. Smith if he is running against a Mormon than if he is running against a Baptist.

    Age is an interesting indicator for this question. In the race featuring the Baptist candidate, Echo Boomers (those ages 18 to 30) split 31 percent for Mr. Smith and 25 percent for Mr. Jones. However, the gap clearly widens in the race featuring the Mormon candidate. In that race, over half (54%) of Echo Boomers would vote for Mr. Smith, the Presbyterian versus only 14 percent for Mr. Jones the Mormon.

    Partisan differences may also be an issue for Mr. Romney. Looking only at the Republican voters, just under half (46%) would vote for the Presbyterian candidate while 21 percent would vote for the Baptist. In the other race, over half (52%) would vote for the Presbyterian, while only 11 percent would vote for the Mormon candidate.

    A different picture emerges when adults are asked flat out, “Would you vote for a Mormon who is running for president if he was otherwise qualified?” Over two in five (44%) say they would vote for a Mormon while just 29 percent say they would not and 27 percent are not sure. Some groups are more likely than others to say they would vote for a Mormon. Over half (56%) of Matures (aged 62 and older), half of those with a post grad degree, and half of both Republicans and Independents all say they would vote for a Mormon. However, this support is soft. Across the board, less than 20 percent say they would definitely vote for a Mormon.

95. RayB Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 7:33 pm

    Blackburn will be Romney’s running mate – so she won’t be switching.

    Did anyone notice that the 3 previous MA governors are all supporting different candidates? Very interesting if you look at their records in MA and what they accomplished or didn’t (see Swift).

96. marK Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 7:47 pm

    Oh, I am not likely to say supporters of any candidate are shallow. However I will defintely say I feel a certain candidate’s support is shallow. There is a difference.

    If a candidate’s support is of the, “he’ll do for now until I start paying attention” variety, I am certain we can all agree that that is the definition of shallow support. Perhaps we should call these people the placeholder voters. They will go with the best know candidate until they they take the time to study the issue in any depth.

    Be honest, Tommy. How many people jumping onto the FDT bandwagon can say much about him beyond the fact he has portrayed great leaders on TV? It is the same for Bullhorn Rudy, and Ran-last-time John. These three candidates are going to divide the placeholder voters until the campaign really gets started and people start paying attention.

97. JF Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 7:58 pm

    Argo, it’s easy to call it a well-crafted poll because it sounds like it confirms that bias exists. But the Mormon MBA was never tested, the names were not switched, the ages were not switched.. I think you know by now that any number of factors could go into these kinds of poll results. But let’s not take the chance of nominating a Mormon, an African-American, a Jew, or any non-WASP, because, you know, that’s the way we do it in the GOP. Such a brilliant electoral move would ensure a permanent Republican majority, I’m sure.

    While we’re at it, since we respect polls so much, we should get out of Iraq. Do you know how popular we would be if we stopped leading and started following?

98. cwpete Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 8:02 pm

    Thanks for sharing that Argo:

    I’ve seen that article and read some others along those same lines before. I don’t believe that would hold true in a general election. Case in point, some of Romney’s most harsh critics are Republicans. Many of which (David B for example) have stated that they’d vote for Romney if Romney were to win the primary.

    It seems to me that they polled Baptists, Presbyterian, and others. I would think that the vast majority of those people would vote for whomever the Republican nominee is – even if it is Romney due to their faith.

    The Democrats have Harry Reid who is Mormon leading the Senate for them. They’ve voted for Romney in MA. I don’t think that any particular religion is an issue with liberals. The fact that one candidate is religious will be an issue to most liberals. Those types will vote liberal anyway regardless who the nominee is.

99. Justn Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 8:06 pm

    We should also point out the NH poll taken two weeks ago:
    http://www.mymanmitt.com/mitt-romney/2007/04/nh-voters-mccains-age-is-challenge-not.asp

    Voters were almost twice more likely to vote against McCain for his age (19%) than would vote against Romney for his Mormonism (10%).

100. cwpete Says:
     April 16th, 2007 at 8:20 pm

     Excellent point Justin.

     I think the reason why that is true there in NH verses the South is due to deeply held religious convictions (the Republican base in the South). However, I think Romney would have it easier in the South during a general election.

101. Tommy Says:
     April 16th, 2007 at 8:31 pm

     I can guarentee that Thompson’s support here isn’t shallow. I can also guarentee that some are quite excited by his prospects. Do I know every reason why? Unfortunately, no. However, I would not underestimate that support, being that we are both basing this on our own perceptions or assumptions. Just because Thompson’s support here is not that large, it doesn’t mean that it’s not large elsewhere. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Are all of them hardcore in Thompson’s camp? I doubt it, but his base support is extremely large. Remember, in the background is the TN political machine, which is quite formidable within the Republican leadership on the hill.

     Ray, in all seriousness for the sake of the Republican bond we all share, Blackburn for VP would be a bad idea. She’s experienced a downward swing in popularity lately (not election related), and is still VERY green. She’s been mentioned as a candidate for governor in 2010, but would more than likely face an uphill battle, and would likely lose to Ford, if he were to run.

102. Tommy Says:
     April 16th, 2007 at 8:32 pm

     That was in response to Mark, not the others

103. HeavyM Says:
     April 16th, 2007 at 8:38 pm

     dave (#87):

     Here is Romney’s FEC report – showing $11.86 million cash on hand at the bottom.

     Here is Giuliani’s report, and it shows $11.95 million cash on hand at the bottom. I must’ve had a typo and made that $11.98, but it’s updated now. Not sure where the WaPo got the $10.8 figure…

104. Justin Says:
     April 16th, 2007 at 8:44 pm

     While Senator Thompson, Newt and others are sitting on the sidelines waiting to get into the game… Romney, McCain, and Rudy have actual HQs set up and running.

     On Wednesday, Thompson will be speaking at a luncheon at the Capitol Hill Club while Mitt will be speaking at the American Gas Association across town and raising as much as $150,000.

     While Thompson will be waiting out the clock this week Mitt will have 100+ members of a Young Professionals for Mitt organized and ready to raise $2300 each this quarter.

     While Thompson starts to interview potential staff these next 3 weeks Romney will be putting the final touches on his Stafford County, NH team and calling up his newly organized West Michigan Team while chatting with his team of hundreds of Students for Romney.

     In short, to play this game you have to understand the ground game.

     As longtime political writer Matt Towery observed:

     As for the Republicans, the predominant notion that Rudy Giuliani is the frontrunner is a farce. Yes, he leads in just about every poll in every state among Republican voters. But I’ve been around national GOP politics for too many decades not to know one essential thing: To win, a candidate must have superior grassroots organization. Giuliani doesn’t.

     The leader in this race is the one who barely scratches in polls right now, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

     To borrow Barbara Bush’s line from 2004, “I’ve seen this movie before, and I don’t like the way it ends.” Well, I don’t know about the ending, but I can tell you that Romney has signed up virtually every Bush Republican in every key state. In Florida, he has the Jeb Bush organization and most of the prominent, longtime Republican establishment behind him.

105. Argo Says:
     April 16th, 2007 at 8:56 pm

     JF, I said it was “well-crafted” because it didn’t simply ask a less-than-subtle “Do you trust Mormons?” question that would only draw out hardcore bigots. This Harris poll was a little slicker in elicting prejudice.

     As for the comment about respecting polls, the president has the constitutional authority to wage war in Iraq as he sees fit. Bush maintains that authority because he was given that authorization by Congress in 2002 and reelected by the American people in 2004. Since, according to the newly-released CBS poll, only six percent of Americans believe Congress should use its power of the purse and cut off war funding, the opinion of the American people on how best to proceed in Iraq at this very moment is irrelevant, and will remain that way until they speak again in next November’s presidential election. And with that said, for every poll the MSM touts showing Americans wanting us to set a date for withdrawal, there are poll questions you’ll never see on TV or in print, such as the one in this new CBS poll that found nearly four times the American people think the threat of terrorism against the United States would sooner increase than decrease if the U.S. withdrew its troops from Iraq. A recent CNN poll shows that an equal number of Americans (46%) still believe we can win in Iraq as the 46% who do not. Perhaps the most revealing result is to be found in the just-released LA Times/Bloomberg poll, in which 50% of the poll’s respondents admitted that setting a timetable would be harmful to the troops; with just 27% saying the setting of such a timetable for withdrawal would help the troops serving in Iraq.

106. JF Says:
     April 16th, 2007 at 9:08 pm

     Argo, sorry, I keep forgetting that sarcasm is basically impossible in print. I completely agree with everything you said in #103. My failed point in the previous post was meant to imply that we should not fear to put forward a candidate because the polls say a certain segment of the population will not vote for that candidate. The polls could be flawed, but more importantly, they don’t take into account the opponent. Someone who might not have voted for a Mormon might do so if the Democrat is unappealing.

     It was my way of saying that the idea of “unelectability” doesn’t really exist. The proof of the pudding is not in the polls, but in the tasting (the elections proper).

107. texas_tyrant8 Says:
     April 16th, 2007 at 10:00 pm

     Romney-bot network transmisison delayed…stop
     Transmission receipt successful…stop
     DavidB alert @ race42008…stop
     Must post Romney defense…stop

     Romney Good! Romney Good! Romney good!
     All other candidates bad.
     All others unacceptable.
     Romney good. Vote for Romney.
     Polls up. Cash leader. Good manager. Olympics good. Bain good. MA good.
     Romney good! Romney good! Romney good!

     End transmisison….stop.

     Texas_tyrant8

108. cwpete Says:
     April 16th, 2007 at 10:29 pm

     Thanks for the laugh Tex,

     I hear you loud & clear!

109. Tommy Says:
     April 16th, 2007 at 11:04 pm

     Justin; it is still too early for endorsements to stick. There’s already been open talk of defections from all sides to others. By starting this campaign so early, it quite possibly could end up burning people out by fall, much less by next winter.

110. Justin Says:
     April 17th, 2007 at 5:57 am

     Never mind the endorsements Tommy. What about the ground game?

111. Tommy Says:
     April 17th, 2007 at 8:49 am

     Never to early for get out the vote. All the candidates who have any sort of momentum at this point are going to have some sort of ground game. It doesn’t hurt anybody to have that ground game in place, as long as you don’t wear out your welcome, which I would advise all candidates of being weary of (if they listened to me). In 2000, there was such a national burnout after the election, which went on for thirty days too long. Think about it much earlier now, and I have a feeling this will be a lot more intense since there are a lot more than two candidates with a chance on both sides. The candidates should be careful to make sure that the people don’t end up hating all of them befor the end of this.

112. Richard Brodie Says:
     April 17th, 2007 at 1:14 pm

     Results of the Google Poll (how many hits returned for a search on the candidate’s name):

     1 ron paul 55,000,000
     2 fred thompson 8,590,000
     3 john mccain 4,420,000
     4 mitt romney 2,220,000
     5 duncan hunter 1,980,000
     6 rudy giuliani 1,730,000
     7 tommy thompson 1,570,000
     8 newt gingrich 1,280,000
     9 sam brownback 1,250,000
     10 mike huckabee 1,240,000
     11 tom tancredo 1,240,000
     12 george pataki 1,090,000
     13 chuck hagel 1,060,000

113. Richard Brodie Says:
     April 17th, 2007 at 1:26 pm

     News of Ron Paul’s candidacy, and to a considerably lesser extent Fred Thompson’s, appears to have spread like wildfire on the internet. The American people seem to be thirsty for patriotic voices of principle and consistency, instead of those offering nothing but more of the same old stale rhetoric.

114. Tommy Says:
     April 17th, 2007 at 3:28 pm

     Richard, be sure to check out the other posts up at the main page, which you can access from the main label at the top. There’s always a lot of people chatting around in there, nad we need a Ron Paul supporter to voice their opinions.

115. race42008.com » Blog Archive » SC: McCain Endorser Votes For Romney in Straw Poll, May Withdraw Endorsement Says:
     April 17th, 2007 at 10:46 pm

     [...] of you who read my post from earlier this week know that McCain has managed to receive the endorsements of a majority of [...]

116. SC: McCain Endorser Votes For Romney in Straw Poll, May Withdraw Endorsement at Conservative Times--Republican GOP news source. Says:
     April 17th, 2007 at 10:51 pm

     [...] of you who read my post from earlier this week know that McCain has managed to receive the endorsements of a majority of [...]