November 8, 2007
Poll Alert: Rasmussen New Hampshire GOP Primary
Rasmussen New Hampshire GOP Primary Poll, conducted Nov. 5th, 2007
- Mitt Romney 32%
- Rudy Giuliani 17%
- John McCain 16%
- Mike Huckabee 10%
- Fred Thompson 7%
- Not Sure 10%
This telephone survey of 628 Likely Republican Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports November 5, 2007. The margin of sampling error for the is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
From the article:
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has opened a bigger lead in the New Hampshire Republican Presidential Primary. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows that Romney holds a fifteen-point advantage over Rudy Giuliani in the Granite State (see crosstabs). That’s up from a nine-point lead in October and a three-point lead in September.
Most of the other candidates have seen little change in their poll position.
http://race42008.com/2007/11/08/rasmussen-poll-new-hampshire/trackback/
November 8th, 2007 at 10:17 am
This continues to show Romney’s continued growth in New Hampshire. It is far from over, Giuliani and especially McCain can make a run, but they are quickly running out of time.
What does Giuliani do if he can’t gain traction here and Michigan has to change to a later date? If could be rough for him heading into Florida. Can’t wait to see what happens.
http://www.dryflypolitics.com
November 8th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Rudy’s campaign will be toast if he loses by this margin in New Hampshire. He better get his ads up soon. Go Mitt!
November 8th, 2007 at 10:18 am
I dont understand how 32% of NHers can be so dumb. Why dont they vote for someone with a chance of winning over Hillary..aka Giuliana or McCain. Voting for Romney in the primary is like voting for Nader in the general, a waste of a vote.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:19 am
So let me get this straight:
Among people who are actually paying attention to the 2008 contest, Romney leads by double digits. Among people who could care less about it, Giuliani leads by single digits.
I like the extrapolation.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:20 am
I personally would like to thank McCain and Giuliani for splitting the liberal vote and Thompson and Huckabee splitting the Dark Horse vote.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Well. no point in hiding it, that poll is disappointing for this Rudyite
November 8th, 2007 at 10:23 am
Here’s my one wish for Christmas… to get Romney’s number up to 34% to double his lead over Rudy… just a wish
November 8th, 2007 at 10:25 am
“and Michigan has to change to a later date”
That WILL NOT happen - there is no way the legislature is going to allow Michigan to be forced into the back seat again. All that needs to happen is a change in our laws.
Actually, an argument on appeal that there is not enough time to change the primary date could ver well produce good results.
–
“I dont understand how 32% of NHers can be so dumb. Why dont they vote for someone with a chance of winning over Hillary..aka Giuliana or McCain?”
Because, they want to support a candidate who actually shares their views, and who is qualified and energetic. They realize that, more than electability, we need someone who can help keep Conservative values strong - in or out of office.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Did any one see that Iowa was also released today, where he built up to 16 point lead also.
Perhaps not as significant as New Hampshire, but bad news for the rest of the field…Huckabeeites??
http://www.mittreport.com
November 8th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Mitt Romney 32% (25)
* Rudy Giuliani 17% (22)
* John McCain 16% (12)
* Mike Huckabee 10% (4)
* Fred Thompson 7% (19)
Here are the numbers in relation to the last Rasmussen.
Thompson took a HUGE nosedive.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Well put marK:
We’ll see how the national strategy hold by early February after Romney has won the early primary states. If by Feb 5th Giuliani still maintains a decent lead in the national polls, then he’ll have a shot.
The question I have is why are not the other candidates seriously campaigning? Seems to me they are coasting primarily on name recognition with a few campaign stops here & there. Romney is working his can off making dozens of visits each days. Here it is November already and I keep wondering when the other candidates are going to step it up and act like candidates.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:28 am
New Iowa Poll:
Zogby 11/06 - 11/07
Romney 31%
Huckabee 15%
Rudy 11%
Thompson 10%
McCain 8%
Looks like Robertson got on the wrong train!
November 8th, 2007 at 10:28 am
polling with last Ras poll numbers:
Mitt Romney 32% (25)
* Rudy Giuliani 17% (22)
* John McCain 16% (12)
* Mike Huckabee 10% (4)
* Fred Thompson 7% (19)
Thompson bites it hard.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Brett, may it be you that do not think like a common voter? Which of Hillary or Rudy is perspected to be more friendly toward families? Bingo - Hillary! Which one of them actually have the foreign and military experiences? Gap! Hillary has served on military and foreign committees in Senate, while, Rudy has done, what, nothing? 9/11 is NOT an experience with defeating the terrorists, but rather, the tragedy, exactly like Kathrine. Which one of them has tried to do something about the cost of healthcare. Yes, you got it, Hillary, Hillary and Hillary! Brett, perspective is everything in this race, and Hillary has it more than Rudy, among the typical voters WHO DO NOT READ BLOGS FOR HOURS DURING WEEK LIKE US! If you want to scream the numbers from polls, they are worthless, as they only count which one you are likely to recognize. Go to mall and ask any shoppers what various positions does Hillary or Rudy has, and you will draw a blank face, every time! They do not know, and unfortunately, most of them do not care either way.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Ron Paul is at 4% but he will rise with the new ads. Thompson better watch out!
November 8th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Mitt’s the shit!
November 8th, 2007 at 10:39 am
SGS,
Using your analysis,ditto Hillary vs Romney.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:43 am
This is just horrible news for Romney! He has obviously peaked too early. Once (insert random candidate’s name here) starts to really campaign, Romney’s numbers will plummet overnight. Just wait for it. (Insert random candidate’s name again) is going to really hit the campaign trail any day now.
I really feel sorry for all you poor deceived Rombots who can’t see this for what it really is.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:46 am
POLL MICHIGAN!!!
POLL MICHIGAN!!!
POLL MICHIGAN!!!
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/2007/11/forces-slanting-polling-trends-to-rudys.html
November 8th, 2007 at 10:47 am
POLL NEVADA!!!
POLL NEVADA!!!
POLL NEVADA!!!
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/2007/11/forces-slanting-polling-trends-to-rudys.html
November 8th, 2007 at 10:49 am
TennJoe, Romney not a family man? He’s much more of a family person than Hillary, no question there. As for his security experiences, Romney has served on homeland security committees; he has implemented the world-class security at Olypmics (FBI mandated it from him, and threatened to close it if he did not do it well). His state was first to qualify for biohazard preventation. Romney did live in France for 2 years. Well, at least, he has more to go on than Rudy. Then as for the healthcare, do we need to go there??? Come on. With Romney, we can make Hillary looks weak, while with Rudy, he has been about being tough on terrorists (no experience yet), on crime (what crime? it is declining here in country). Yes, Rudy can do better than Hillary on immigration issue. Yes, Rudy has executive experiences, more than Hillary, so does Romney! If we can get the package, and the perspective to boot, then I am for the latter!
November 8th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Texas Tyrant8, peak argument? Mitt has peaked in NH, as claimed on this site, like 3 or 4 times already
November 8th, 2007 at 10:50 am
When push comes to shove Romney’s a fighter and a winner.
He’s focused on IA, NH, SC, and MI and he’s winning or tied in RCP averages in all of those.
Once he’s the nominee the “electability” issue will not be an argument for GOP supporters to write him off.
If Mitt can stand up and take out a national hero with 100% name ID then Hillary should be a piece of cake.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:52 am
I am embarrased that my namesake (Brett) would be so ignorant as to imagine that a person voting for a true conservative (Romney) is wasting a vote. It seems to me that the CONSERVATIVE party is more likely to rally around a CONSERVATIVE when the general election comes around. Why would a vote be wasted on someone who actually stands for the beliefs of this party? It seems to me that he is just bitter that Romney has leaped ahead in every state he has campaigned in. I guess I could see how that could be embarrasing to a Rudy supporter. Rudy–national name recognition. Hero of 9/11. Romney–unknown Governor from Mass. Which one has captured the hearts of NH, Iowa, Michigan, and (gasp) SC? President Romney 2008!
November 8th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Well I am actually McCain fan because I am a solid conservative. Giuliani is my distant second choice. Mitt ran as a liberal in Mass. How does he represent the party? I say its a waste of a vote bc Mitt has no shot against Hillary. In the same sense that Dems shouldnt pick Hillary bc of her negatives (they will) Repubs shouldnt elect someone who cant win.
My order is
1. McCain
2. Rudy
3. Huck
4. Fred
5. Mitt
That doesnt mean I dontlike Romney…but not for the POTUS. He is a good politicia, I’ll give him that though.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:01 am
thesmartbrett
yeah romney has captured the heart of NHers by being the only one to run any significant ad campaign and….oh that’s right, borrowing money from himself to keep his campaign afloat. just like thompson, when people get a good look at romney on stage during the debates, they realize he is a empty suit chock full of political banter. if you put a D by his name and switched his positions on the issues (not that he doesn’t already do that enough), you wouldn’t even know he was a republican thanks to all that sweet talking. the more this happens, the more NH and SC (honestly, does anybody care about what Iowa thinks?)will look towards other candidates (Rudy & McCain.)
November 8th, 2007 at 11:03 am
SGS (#20),
Don’t forget that he ran an international business (international officies in Europe, Asia, etc . . .)
Here’s some more detail on his homeland security credentials:
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/2006/07/romney-on-homeland-security-part.html
November 8th, 2007 at 11:11 am
But… BUT… Romney’s peaked! He’s got nowhere to go but down! And he’s the ONLY one running ads here! He’s got to be disappointed with a 15 point lead after spending millions here! Once people REALLY start paying attention, they’ll realize Romney is a used-car salesman!
Did I cover everything?
Oh wait…
MORMON!
November 8th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Wow, lots of ad hominem attacks on Romney today.
Instead of attacking Romney personally with “empty suit chock full of political banter.” Be constructive by stating how Romney is going to lose out with his traditional early state primary strategy.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Must admitted not thrilled. Another Poll is coming out this weekend.
Have the Rudy campign may of shown where they money is going since it not TV
http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=John+DiStaso%27s+Granite+Status%3a+Presidential+campaigns+had+trial+run+in+city&articleId=6747cf1a-d947-40b0-814c-f82d59b8f15f
November 8th, 2007 at 11:13 am
A 3 point lead turns into a 15 point lead… I like that. Meanwhile, Wes Clark continues to implode and waste away to irrelevancy. Very nice.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Brett (not TheSmartBrett), I am surprised you are supporting McCain since you are “a solid conservative.” McCain has stuck his finger in the eye of “solid conservatives” enough to earn the maverick label that the media has given him. That’s exactly why I would not support him.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Right on Matt C:
They can always play the Mormon card, that is a safe one..
November 8th, 2007 at 11:16 am
I am a undecided voter. I am not planning to vote for Romney.
I don’t think Romney can beat Hillary in the General election. It might be Rudy or McCain. In my home state in NC,
Romney is in the fourth or fifth poll.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:17 am
DaveW,
“honestly, does anybody care about what Iowa thinks?”
Keep up the sentiment like that!! It projects onto the “elite” image of your candidate.
“when people get a good look at romney on stage during the debates, they realize he is a empty suit chock full of political banter.”
That’s why Romney has the highest net positive real-time polling in Frank Luntz’s focus groups, eh?
The “empty suit” argument is an image creation by his opponents and the MSM. That you would 1) buy into it, and 2) propagate such nonsense tells us a lot about you.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Romney’s platform is more consistent with core Republicans than any other GOP candidate. Romney is THE ONLY gop CANDIDATE TO REPRESENT ALL THE REPUBLICAN CORE VALUES IN HIS PLATFORM.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Dblagent007 (#31), yeah! You cannot get more conservative than the Gang of 7! In reality, McCain is more for bipartisanism than conservativism. For every step he took for conservativism, he took two for bipartisanism!
November 8th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Mary (#33), thank you for sharing your decision. Yeah, if you are looking for someone who could win the general election right now, then Romney is not the man for it. However, we also need to look at his track. With every challenge he has taken head-on, he made the difference. He gave Kennedry the biggest scare ever in the state that worship him! In this race, he started out virtually zero, and almost from day one, he gave everyone a run for their money. If there is one thing that matter for the general election, it is that you get the voters to go and vote for you, because we rarely get more than 50% of registered voters to go out to the booths. Only one man in this race has shown the ability to get his voters out, straws polls after straws polls. And it is Mitt. No one else even come close. Rudy with his frontrunner status should be able to reap cash from left and right, but he barely could keep up with Mitt. Even in your home state, he has much more endorements from the local leaders, from the religious and political arena, than Rudy. He is giving McCain a run there. Are you sure you want to play by the polls that really do not matter this early?
November 8th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Interesting indeed. Mitt may yet prove that the GOP ticks the same way the Donkey does. Don’t recall anyone copying the Clinton ‘92 campaign quite so fastidiously: Swamp the early states + Pander as if your life depended on it.
Still one thing to work on: the Comeback Kid narrative. So Mitt needs to try to lose at least one early state in order to accomplish that.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:33 am
jeff fuller…
first of all, i could care less what ‘us’ thinks about me. second…the point I was making with Iowa is that aside from tradition, what significance does that state carry? it’s a caucus and not even an election, so to imply that iowa would represent the will of the republican majority is nonsense. therefore, why do we care what iowans think? I know i don’t. and when rudy wins the nomination without putting in much effort you will be eating crow.
next, i can’t believe you would actually refer to luntz’s real time polling…it has been said over and over, but i will repeat it again. real time polling never correlates to actual vote choice. people probably experience high positives because when he talks he does ’sound’ good. any reasonable evaluation of his record combined with the fact that he is best friends with the word ‘pander’, should erase these temporary feelings come time to pick the nominee.
last, romney certainly has a good deal of credentials, and i do not discount the man, but in terms of being POTUS…he is indeed an empty suit. when he touts his business and executive experience, he stretches the truth each and every time. the man doesn’t even realize that the line item veto (without an amendment allowing it) would be unconstitutional. if you cannot understand simple constitutional and legal theory, how can you be POTUS?? he simply does not have anough experience. I guess i cannot blame him for acting like he does, but i just hope people will see through this.
if he loses the bullshit banter (which americans on either side of the political spectrum truly detest)and possibly works within the Rudy admin for some time, i could see supporting him for pres in about 8 years.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Mary won’t be voting in NC until MAY 6th . . . among the last 10 states.
Paying any attention to how NC is polling now is worthless . . . the race will change dramatically by then and will probably be locked up by somebody by then.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Romney’s platform is more consistent with core Republicans than any other GOP candidate.
Of course, that’s why he’ll have to toss the SoCon hardliners under the bus faster than a senator’s toe-tapping before he can win the general election. Billary’s already keeping her options open to recapture the center. And if the economy continues to confront normal folks with increasing prices for everything, it’ll be easy for her to go all bleeding-heart “compassionate Christian” in demagoguery against “malefactors of great wealth” — with the ultimate aim of picking off disaffected non-FiCon SoCons.
Ah, the suspense.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:40 am
McCain supporters….I love how your boy has now changed his mind on immigration, and why???
To pander to the conservative voters!! Wait…is this the same man that attempted to bash Romney at the debate for his “changes” on issues years ago???? Where are the flip-flopping charges?
I guess you can only be a panderer or used-car salesman if your name is Romney.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:41 am
41….If it is “the economy stupid!” then Mitt will have an upper-hand over anyone, esp. Hillary!!
I wouldn’t worry on that basis.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:45 am
DaveW,
Boy, you’re good at changing the subject.
“to imply that iowa would represent the will of the republican majority is nonsense.”
Who implied that? I called you out for an elitist and condescending comment and you attacked back at some “straw man”.
About Luntz’s polling:
You said that “when people get a good look at romney on stage during the debates, they realize he is a empty suit chock full of political banter.�
I was debunking your comment because you stated that those people who watch ROmney in debates will come to your conclusion. Well, the focus groups haven’t agreed with you. True to form, you changed the subject about how focus groups don’t represent votes. You lost me on that one.
Line item veto: The supreme court vote was 5-4. Are you saying that those 4 who thought it could be upheld “cannot understand simple constitutional and legal theory?” It’s hardly as obvious as you state and there is a strong argument to the contrary.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:48 am
DaveW….
Along your lines, no pro-life candidate should be elected POTUS since he cannot understand simple legal theory that there is a penumbra of rights that eminate from that Constitution, including abortion!!
November 8th, 2007 at 11:51 am
DaveW:
“what significance does that state carry?”
Plenty of significance. First, whomever places in the top two has won the GOP nomination. That fact has been consistent over the past 30 or 40 years. If IA is completely insignificant, they why do they even bother with a Caucus? Even if Rudy & McCain blow off IA or choose to not seriously organize & compete there, there is still significance. At what point do they actually decided to compete with Romney? Just look again at these NH numbers.
I take offense at your “empty suit” smear and yet you still say he has a good set of credentials? How can someone have a “good deal of credentials” as you put it and yet be smeared as an “empty suit?” For me, I’d like to see Washington run more like a business, there would be less waste and more accountability. That is huge in my book, this is the reason why I support Romney.
“the man doesn’t even realize that the line item veto (without an amendment allowing it) would be unconstitutional.”
Sound like you don’t realize that there are different versions of the line-item veto that would pass constitutional muster. That is off course if Rudy does not decide to challenge these other version to have them rule unconstitutional.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Rudy supporters who bring up the line-item veto are on thin ground.
The fiscal conservative in all of us realizes that it is a vital and necessary tool to help reign in spending.
Poor Rudy couldn’t survive without his federal dole and so sued to get his money in NYC.
He got his money, but how many billions (trillions?) could have been saved since then if Rudy wouldn’t have been so selfish and shortsighted.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
I understand why Rudy did what he did as NYC mayor having the Line-Item Veto destroyed. He brought the federal bucks to his city and off-set tax burden to his constituents as Jeff Mentioned. He also further offset other taxes by increasing commuter taxes to all non NYC residents. He did lower taxes for NYC no doubt, but I prefer the term tax displacement.
Some history on the Line Item Veto:
At the presidential level, the line-item veto was short lived. Congress passed it in 1996, President Clinton used it in 1997, and he Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional in 1998. One of Clinton’s line-item vetoes kept New York from raising taxes on hospitals. Clinton withheld that money from NYC because NYC owed the Feds billions. Giuliani filed a lawsuit resulting in the high court’s ruling.
So basically, Rudy was responsible for getting the line-item veto struck down as unconstitutional. The line-item veto is perhaps the most important weapon in a fiscal conservative’s arsenal, is now a weapon no more. Thank you Mr. Giuliani! I don’t know what upsets me more, John McCain’s campaign finance reform or Giuliani suing to have the presidential line-item veto set aside as unconstitutional. Both have done major damage.
I remain optimistic that the SC can either change it’s mind or that Congress can give a different version of the Line Item Veto which would be constitutional. We are all in deep doodo with out it.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Byron York of NR corner says:
“Giuliani also talked at some length about his strategy for the upcoming Republican primaries and caucuses, and I’ll have that story tomorrow. ”
Should be interesting.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
America’s Mayor sure as hell wasn’t looking out for the the good of the nation when he went after the line-item veto. I’m happy that he has since changed his mind and decided that the line-item veto is a good thing- better late than never.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Rudy is a serial adulterer, a man continually corrupt within the walls of his own home. If he can’t even manage things within his home, do you really want to entrust the presidency to him? He is supposedly the man of the people in NYC, but he just jumped in bed with the guy who said that NYC deserved 9/11 because of gays and abortionists. Does not this sour anyone on Rudy. Is this the type of man you want leading you? He’s never been trustworthy
November 8th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
The fiscal conservative in all of us realizes that it is a vital and necessary tool to help reign in spending.
The line-item veto should only be foisted upon the nation with the consent of the governed: Do it by constitutional amendment.
I’m totally against it because of how it would undermine the given system of checks and balances while eliminating congressional responsibility for spending. Any elected congressman worth his salt would simply start promising the sky to all comers, no matter how mind-numbingly irresponsible the porcine item in question. It would be up to the President not only to propose a budget, but ultimately to keep it from getting out of hand. It would lead to rapidly expanding federal spending due to intensified politicization of even the most stupefying earmark.
It would be a move as radically revolutionary to our form of government as the Sixteenth Amendment was in expanding federal reach into our individual lives by permitting federal income taxes.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
wow…a lot to tackle here. makes it harder when you have to educate romneybots.
first: IA, as i said, has traditional significance. my point is only this: the current political environment is so different from elections past that you might as well toss out all the numbers on winning IA and its correlation to winning the nomination. I believe you will see a number of anomolies come election time. records and trends will be broken, and therefore i do not believe that a romney victory in IA and NH will be of much significance this time. remember, every state has a primary. people have begun to understand that winning the first two states doesn’t really mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things. this is why i ask, who cares what iowa and NH wants?? they have little to offer in terms of valuable political power to dems or repubs, so why should we be placing this predictive status on their primaries. do people really eve pay attention to these states after the convention?? doubtful.
as far as the line item goes…many well known federalist scholars wrote articles in support of rudy after the debate, essentially saying that his logic was correct. the idea of a line item is fine, and would help a republican president immensely if it were implemented legally, but you all would be whinning if a Dem used and abused this priv. seems like double talk to me. do you really want to give somebody like HC the line item power?? be smart here. i say it’s better to do without than to be pummeled by it when we are not in the white house.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
MarkG:
“I’m totally against it because of how it would undermine the given system of checks and balances while eliminating congressional responsibility for spending.”
Congress has to give this authority to the president. As with the presidential line-item veto, Congress had to pass it in 1996 so Clinton could use it.
Since it is a right which can be both given & revoked by the Legislature, I don’t agree that this would be totally undermining Congress or checks & balances. Congress could give it for a year, or restrict it to certain types of budgets or spending. Congress still has the power to set any limitations on the line-item veto. Make it a constitutional amendment and that may no-longer be the case.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Dave #53:
Your post this time was much more reasonable and tempered without the ad hominems and smears. I can agree that perhaps IA & NH may have less significance this cycle, but I think IA & NH will have enough significance to help carry Romney to the nomination. Time will tell.
“as far as the line item goes…many well known federalist scholars wrote articles in support of rudy after the debate, essentially saying that his logic was correct.”
..and also I could retort that several disagreed with him on this. The fact of the matter remains that Rudy won out with the narrowest of margins 5-4. It could have gone either way. As a disciplined fiscal conservative, I’m deeply disappointed to see the Line Item Veto done away with at the presidential level. I think the side-effects of Rudy’s decision will hurt his presidential bid.
I do remain optimistic that somebody somehow will figure out a way to reign in Federal spending, perhaps by using a different line item veto or by some other means..
November 8th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Can’t spin this! This is awful news for Rudy.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
#56 TLG
You just gave yourself a lot of credibility. Thanks.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
As a McCain supporter I get upset when someone says he has “flip-flopped” on immigration. You only flip flop on an issue that has two sides like abortion or gun control. For example ” I will do more for gay rights than Ted Kennedy” to “I represent traidtional families in America”. Or “I am pro-choice” to “I am pro-life”.
McCain wants the same things accomplished with immigration, just now he wants it done in two steps instead of all at once. Also if the citizens you represent demand it be separated into steps, it might be a good idea to liste; aka what McCain has done. Farrrrrrrr from a flip-flop.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
TLG,
And this is where we see the difference between you and the metro/sampo types.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Brett,
You might have more credibility defending McCain if you didn’t misquote Romney in the same breath. Both of your liberal sounding quotes are made up.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
#56 TLG,
I almost fainted when I saw your comment and actually had to do a double take on your screen name (Making sure it was spelled right, I actually went letter by letter..LOL). Good for you, others on here will try to spin these numbers to make it look like Mitt has “topped out”. Anyway, you now gained a little more respect and credibility.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
So Romney was leading Rudy in NH by 3 points in September, 9 points in August, and 15 points in November. At this rate of progression, Romney will blow him out by 25 in January. The interesting thing is that it was in September that Rudy started campaigning hard in NH, advertising incessantly on the radio, and sending out tons of direct mail. For Metro’s sake, I hope his television spots work a lot better than everything else he’s been doing! Adam promised not to bring up the subject of NH until a single poll showed Rudy leading in the state. Translation: he’ll never bring it up. Check out today’s Iowa poll…it gets even better.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
They arent specific quotes, they are sum-ups of his position changes. But apparently some people believe him which shows you how good a politician he is, which in some sense is a good thing.
I dont dislike Romney, I just dont trust him. Hes not a bad candidate, hes just not the best one.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Brett,
Were you aware that Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat in good standing. He famously stated, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. They left me.”
November 8th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Well, not only are they not quotes, but they’re not accurate sum-ups of his positions. It’s a misrepresentation not only of what he said, but of what he meant.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Yes, Im very aware of Reagans switch. He did say he would do more for gays than Ted kennedy in a debate and now hes Mr. traditional marriage.(In 1994, while running against Ted Kennedy for the US Senate, Romney assures the Massachusetts Log Cabin Republicans that “as we seek to establish full equality for America’s gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.�)
And he has openly stated his shift from pro-choice to pro-life.
I would say the sums ups are extremely accurate.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Brett,
Regarding the pro-choice label, Romney has not changed his personal pro-life stance. What has changed is his political stance, he’s been completely open and candid about that, and we’re possibly talking about the same stick from different ends on this one.
As for your trumping up of the gay rights though…”More effective leadership” means exactly what he said. Romney would be more effective at raising awareness on certain issues of the gay agenda as they existed in 1994…housing and workplace equality, for example. Everyone expects that stuff from a lefty like Teddy, though, so he would not be as effective. Context, man!
Furthermore, Romney WAS Mr. family values in 1994, and he IS Mr. family values now. You’re being blatently misrepresentative to present this as a flip. Romney is on record in 1994 telling the LCR that he was against gay marriage.
Romney continues to be FOR equality for people regardless of sexuality, and FOR the traditional definition of marriage and family values. Give it a rest.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
I listened to Rudy today on Shaun Hannity. His message: “I am the only
one who can put all 50 states into play against Hillary”. This message
is not appealling to voters right now. It is a negative message. He needs
a positive message.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Jeff (#45), not only did the Supreme Court overode the line-item veto by 5 to 4, but they also pointed out some concerns which we can get around easily with a new bill. I am not into lawyer’s pseudo-blah, so I cannot explain how it is so. I just read a few articles some time ago explaining how the law can be changed to get around those points.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Dave (#54), your argument here is only true — if the behaviors of the individual humans and the society have changed. It has not. The sad fact is that most of us are busy with our lives, and we (meaning the Americans not someones like you and I) do not have time for stuff like this. They do not sit at a desk or computer, and study the candidates for hours. They can only look at a couple of candidates and decide which of 2 or 3 is better. Then they will go for that candidate. First, which of 2 or 3 will they look at? The ones that are most familiar to them (like Rudy and McCain) and the one that has done very well (those who won early states). This is the behavior of the common voter, and you cannot change it by declaring the tradition no longer matter. After all, traditions are the rituals of the habits!
November 8th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
TLG (#57), Glad to see your RomBot personality winning you over to our side
November 8th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Brett (#67), I want to enforce what Murphy (#68) is saying. Romney did not say he is for more gay rights. He said he will be more effective. And remember, the rights had moved beyond what it was in 1990s. Gay marriage/same-sex marriage was not even an issue back then.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
That was my point, Brett. In 1994, “Gay Rights” did not include same-sex marriage. Romney has always been “FOR” rights of employment, housing, education, ect.. He has always been “AGAINST” same-sex marriage. There has been no flip. No flop. No change. It has only been in the last few years that “gay rights” was expanded to include same-sex marriage. HE hasn’t changed, the movement has.
It is the same for those people who insist that he has flip-flopped on guns. Romney has always been FOR guns for self-defense and sport. He has always been AGSINST assault weapons. He has never changed. But because he isn’t 100% FOR guns in all situations, or 100% AGAINST guns in all situations, spinners try and make him sound like he has switched sides on the issue.