And quite handily at that.
CNN/Opinion Research General Election Poll
Without Veeps
- Obama – 49%
- McCain – 46%
With Veeps
- Obama/Hillary – 52%
- McCain/Romney – 46%
With Third Party Candidates
- Obama – 47%
- McCain – 43%
- Nader – 6%
- Barr – 2%
Just like in the most recent EPIC-MRA poll of Michigan, the percentage of the vote McCain receives is exactly the same with or without Romney. That indicates that while Romney is not actually hurting the ticket, he’s also not helping it nationally or elsewhere. And because Romney is unable to bring a single additional voter to the McCain column, he is essentially a drag on the ticket provided that Obama selects a running mate who can bring undecideds into his column. Hillary brings Obama’s share of the vote from 49% to 52%. I am fairly confident that Hillary won’t end up on the ticket, meaning that McCain has a shot at winning those wavering Hillary voters by selecting a running mate who appeals to them. If McCain won the “Hillary 3%” instead of Obama, they’d be tied with 49% each. Given McCain’s Electoral College advantage due to Obama’s weakness in big states like Ohio, Michigan, and Florida, I’m pretty sure that a tied race means a McCain win. Just more evidence that McCain’s strategy has to focus on undecideds in the middle, and cannot resemble an Indiana Jones-style quest for mythical new right-wing voting blocs that may or may not exist.
June 8th, 2008 at 10:52 am
People vote for President not V.P. despite what any far out from the elction poll says. Unless McCain did something crazy like picking Lieberman it wont affect him at the end.
June 8th, 2008 at 10:52 am
“Just more evidence that McCain’s strategy has to focus on undecideds in the middle, and cannot resemble an Indiana Jones-style quest for mythical new right-wing voting blocs that may or may not exist.”
Be my quest, have McCain run to the left to attract moderates – just don’t be surprised when he ends up losing because Conservatives stay home.
And you have to take this along with the SUSA polls – one shows he helps greatly, one shows he does little either way. I’m waiting to see if Rasmussen starts doing Veep polls.
—-
But it really concerns me that we have people in the GOP like Dave G. who are willing to completely sell the soul of the party just to win one election.
June 8th, 2008 at 10:59 am
I think its also worth pointing out that Romney does nothing to drag down the ticket – and its highly likely that the additional 3% for the DNC comes from Clinton voters who are tied to the candidate – those who are willing to give up one election to see Clinton have another shot. I don’t think you would see that bump if it was just Obama/??? vs. McCain/Romney.
Also, many of Romney’s benefits, such as his economic know-how and executive experience are not things that immediately make someone want to vote for him, but instead things that we can use during the campaign to point out the weakness of the Democratic ticket in those areas.
June 8th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Just to win one election? ACT apparently has lived long enough to know what damage can be done in 4 years–not to mention future implications.
June 8th, 2008 at 11:04 am
act hasn’t lived long enough–how old is act anyway?
June 8th, 2008 at 11:05 am
ACT–explain to me the soulof the party? Are you a member?
June 8th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Obama/Hillary Vs McCain/Giuliani is the only way we win
June 8th, 2008 at 11:07 am
These percentages would be interesting if there was no electoral system! The percentages in key swing states is what I want to see.
June 8th, 2008 at 11:12 am
ACT is 16. But that’s neither her nor there. DaveG isn’t suggesting we sell out the soul of the party to win one election – he’s being pragmatic. We don’t want Barry and an ultraliberal legislature to have free reign and this year especially we have to make some concessions to prevent that from happening.
And one could argue that “selling the soul of the party” could be better accomplished by having a vice-presidential candidate that well say anything to anyone anytime and then take the opposite position at the drop of a hat just to advance his political career. Selling one’s soul is easy – just pander to your audience and have no core.
June 8th, 2008 at 11:12 am
If Romney’s supposed to shore up the base…where is it?
Is it possible that the base is already voting for McCain out of fear of Obama?
Even if some conservatives are planning to sit this one out, they don’t appear willing to come home to McCain for Romney.
So if Romney doesn’t bring more conservatives to the ticket, and if he doesn’t bring more moderates to the ticket, why put him on the ticket?
June 8th, 2008 at 11:14 am
DaveG “That indicates that while Romney is not actually hurting the ticket, he’s also not helping it nationally or elsewhere. And because Romney is unable to bring a single additional voter to the McCain column, he is essentially a drag on the ticket provided that Obama selects a running mate who can bring undecideds into his column.”
What a complete misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of what this poll shows!!! GRRR!! When you add a very strong VP candidate to the Obama ticket, and Mitt does not hurt, that is basically saying that it helps to have him on the ticket!!!! If you can’t understand that, you have been completely ignoring the impact of adding Hillary to the ticket in all of the other polls thus far. They all show that she adds 6 – 10% to the ticket, so for McCain to hold his own when simultaneously adding Mitt while Obama adds Hillary shows Mitt is a net help.
What it does show, is that it will be a tough ticket to beat, no matter who we run. Secondly, a nationwide poll shows absolutely nothing at this point. Individual polls such as Michigan, Ohio, Colorado, and Nevada mean everything. So please, either wise up in your interpretation of what is being shown in polls or become more honest, one or the other, or both.
June 8th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Ding ding ding! We have a winner! They’re not already – but they will, as long as the GOP and Independent groups expose Obama for what he is.
Easy – that way the Rombots can make sure that Romney has a clear shot at the nomination in 2012 instead of the old-fashioned way, namely, winning it on his own merit. Megamillions didn’t help this year. It won’t help in 2012 and the Rombots know it. So they’re only hope is to install him now so if McCain wins and retires it’s going to be a RomTastic 2012.
June 8th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Oops – “they’re” should be “their”. I hate when I do that.
June 8th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Adam, honestly, at least with me, this is not about Mitt Romney and/or 2012, its about getting McCain elected, and adding tremendous intelligence and problem solving abilities to our ticket.
However, a pro-choice candidate will drive away millions. Its ironic that most of the others that would satisfy the social conservatives have little experience, except MItt, which has more of the right kind of experience than anyone we have had for a very long time.
June 8th, 2008 at 11:41 am
This is precisely why McCain needs to pick Sarah Palin. This is not rocket science here folks.
June 8th, 2008 at 11:42 am
This poll partly reflects the absolute obsession the media has with Obama and Clinton. One cannot underestimate the influence of daily (hourly on cable) talk about them. And this is not a case of media reflecting what society wants to talk about because frankly many people are sick of hearing about it.
June 8th, 2008 at 11:48 am
I guarantee that once Sarah Palin’s true life story gets out, it will be difficult for (even for a liberal/Dem) media to not obsess about Palin.
June 8th, 2008 at 11:51 am
I’m not arguing for Romney as Veep, but your analysis is simplistic as is the poll. We don’t know where in fact those percentages come from or are going. If Perhaps that extra percentage is a wide swing in California indies who were already trending Obama but now are more likely with Romney on the GOP ticket, yet McCain’s numbers hold steady because what he lost in California is made up in states like MI and Iowa.
I really don’t care who the Veep is actually. I just don’t think it’s worth the hoopla and I don’t think if McCain wins will be voting in his Veep as president. There won’t be three GOP presidents taking up 5 terms in a row.
June 8th, 2008 at 11:54 am
And yhour analysis is short in another area. This is Obama with hillary on the ticket, in other words more united. Of course his numbers are going to go up. The poll would be more helpful if it took Obama/Clinton vs. Several GOP Veeps. Then you might have a point about Romney, until then you analysis seems to operate in a vacuum.
June 8th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Want to know why we’re within three percentage points of Obama rather than, say, ten? (There’s a reason. ACT Blog, do you know what it is? Or would Romney be running three points ahead of Obama?)
June 8th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Palin may have a great story, but one can argue that nearly everyone McCain is considering does as well. A woman as CEO is compelling as is an indian-american southern governor. But its worth remembering that we have to go back 30 years to Carter choosing Mondale to find a nominee who either had not run for president or in the case of Cheney, didn’t already have 90% name ID.
June 8th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
…Jack Kemp, Memnon? Joe Lieberman? Dan Quayle? 90% name ID? C’mon now…
June 8th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Alex,
I doubt Romney would do any better against Obama. But I seriously doubt any of our candidates would have and I am pretty certain they all would have ended up in the same place.
June 8th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Name ID only carries you far initially, in the end it means very little, we saw that with Guiliani.
June 8th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Alex, forgive me but I meant winning VP selection. Although I did forget Quayle, which is a statement as well.
June 8th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Rasmussen Poll – June 6
Obama 45%
McCain 40%
Obama/Clinton 46%
McCain/Lieberman 44%
By the way, Barry’s bounce has grown to eight points in Scott’s Presidential Tracking Poll. Obama now leads McCain, 48-40 percent.
June 8th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
I would have to put my hat in with Illinoisguy on this one when he says 3% on the national poll means nothing right now. This eleciton is going to be won in the 8 or 9 states that are wavering. If Obama can hold his own and get a few states like Colorado, Virginia, Nevada, and New Mexico he wins. If McCain can hold Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and get Michigan he wins.
Hillary as VP will make it one tough road for us, so I first say, hope she isn’t on the ticket. Her followers combined with Obama’s is massive. Ohio would definately go Dem and Florida would be close with her on the ticket. Even with us putting Palin on the ticket Hillary would hold a majority of her voters that are angry.
June 8th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
With all the hoopla going on about Obama’s historic win and thew swell of “feel goodism’s” with Obama right now I’ll be that bounce goes even higher before it comes back down.
June 8th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Case,
Lets not forget voter turnout. Dems spanked the Republicans in early primary state voter turnout.
June 8th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Jason,
You are very correct. The dems have everything on their side right now. Which is why it is lucky the dems have such a flawed candidate in Obama. It has kept the polls pretty close so far. Hopefully he goes with a lesser known VP because that will give the rebuplican party a chance to push strong experience and hope the undecideds go for experience. If Hillary gets on the ticket a lot of undecideds will look at her as the experience and Obama as the orator.
June 8th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
“There won’t be three GOP presidents taking up 5 terms in a row.”
..you assume that McCain would run for two terms. I don’t believe that to be the case, and if McCain is a popular President, which, provided he doesn’t swing too far to the left, I think he would be, it would be very easy for the GOP to win in four years.
Right now, you have a sputtering economy, an unpopular war, and a GOP that is basically unpopular. Its hard to see any way that it could be easier for the Democrats to win in four years.
—
As for saying that you aren’t selling the soul of the party, what you are proposing is for McCain to run to the center, toss out Conservatives, pick a VP who will run to the center, all to win one election. How is that not selling the soul of the party for a short-term, temporary gain?
—
Also, you say that, if Romney doesn’t add extra voters when first asked, why add him? Because, he bring economic experience, and executive experience, and experience on domestic issues – none of those things come to a voters mind the moment they hear his name, but during the election, they could provide significant benefits on the trail.
Romney also gives the party a direction for the future. I guess most VP picks do this, so this is largely a matter of opinion. But I don’t want our party to go to the left as its future direction.
—
And if you really want to say that Romney will say anthing, do anything, blah blah blah, fine, we can have that debate AGAIN. But you better provide examples, and it better be more than abortion.
June 8th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Seriously. Don’t pull this “soul of the party” crap.
Name the top 5 Republican presidents.
Your list has to include Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Reagan. The fifth is debatable, but the leading candidates are McKinley, Coolidge, and Nixon (brilliant president, morally lacking human being). Of those seven, you have two “bonafide conservatives”- Reagan and Coolidge. The rest? Moderates. Yup. You heard it here. The Republican party has historically been the more moderate party. Moderate-to-liberals who liked the idea of big government started this party. States-rights xenophobic conservatives were Democrats back when we started this gig (Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan). Somehow, we let you guys crash the party and produce a fantastic list of presidents, including Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Harrison, Taft, Harding, Hoover (I think you get the picture). On the list of presidents, Conservatives, excluding Reagan and Coolidge, are nothing but fly-over country.
June 8th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
I notice no one mentioned Nader’s 6%.
All these polls that just show Obama and McCain are worthless.
Nader and Barr will have to be factored in and I guarantee you that they will make a difference in a few states.
June 8th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
ACT,
You vastly overstate Romney’s economic experience. He was a venture capitalist who excelled in leveraged buyouts. A corporate raider of the Gordon Gekko variety.
That may play well with the blueblood CEO types, but they won’t decide this election.
If you think it will play well with the voters McCain will need to win in OH, MO, PA, and other blue collar areas, think again.
All it will take will be a few ads featuring the many workers that were laid off as a result of his takeovers and McCain can forget about it. Get a few of those workers and parade them in front of the cameras. Have Obama give some speech and talk about how McCain says he cares about the folks and his choice as VP is a multi-millionaire who made hundreds of millions of dollars buying up companies, laying off their workers, shipping jobs and resources overseas, etc…
In this economic climate, the addition of the starched shirt millionaire hundreds of times over could be a disastrous.
June 8th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
ACT,
Whatever. You and your vocal minority of Romney supporters can think Romney is genuine. The other 70 percent of us in the party know better. It doesn’t matter anyway. Did you hear McCain’s campaign manager yesterday? The McCain team has a strategy for combating Barry’s financial advantage. RNC + McCain money > DNC + Obama money. The financial worries were the only rational reason to put Romney on the ticket and now that’s less of a problem than originally thought.
Jim,
If Nader really manages six percent in November then Obama isn’t going to win. I don’t think that number will hold though. Do you?
June 8th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Jim,
blah blah blah, we’ve heard that crap many times here. Romney may have lost a couple hundred jobs at Ampad but he created 10’s of thousands more. They’ve got room at Daily KOS for populists like yourself.
June 8th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
That whole selling the soul of the party thing is grade-a crap.
The soul of the party isn’t conservativism. Name the top 5 Republican presidents. Your list has to include Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Reagan. The last spot is debatable, but the leading candidates are McKinley, Coolidge, and Nixon (great president, abhorrent human being). Of those seven names, you only have two bonafide conservatives- Reagan and Coolidge. All of the rest are in the middle or to the left of the modern Republican party. When we started this gig, the Republican party was easily the more liberal of the two parties, as the states’-rights xenophobes were Democrats back then (Pierce, Buchanan). Somehow, we let you guys crash the party and you have produced a fantastic list of presidents along the way- Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Harrison, Harding, Hoover, etc…(I think you get the picture). The moderates have historically been the soul of this party, and you guys are the fringes. And you’ve made some pretty bad presidents to boot.
June 8th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Arch-conservatives like to say that only rightwing candidates win. But Eisenhower, Nixon and Bush 41 were not as conservative as the GOP base is today.
June 8th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Robbie,
If the quality of the party is judges solely by the presidents that are elected, you may have a point. But in case you missed it, there are more to parties and politics than who wins the presidency.
BTW, It’s debatable that Eisenhower was a great president, and I think what made Lincoln great had little to do with Conservatism or being a moderate.
June 8th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
The greatness of Lincoln was made so by the persistence and pushing of radical congressional Republicans… Emancipation Proclamation, etc.
So radical were those non-presidential Republicans that Lincoln ran and was elected in 1864 as a member of the “National Union Party”, not as a Republican.
Having said that, twenty-first century conservatives and liberals cannot be directly compared to conservatives and liberals of the nineteenth century.
Trying to link our modern ideologies to the political parties of the nineteenth century if somewhat ignorant considering that Marxism in the twentieth century shaped who we are today.
June 8th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Robbie,
McKinley was fairly conservative as was Taft (which is why Teddy ran 3rd party in 1912). Hoover was nothing like a conservative; FDR stole the agenda Hoover began in the early 30’s in creating his New Deal. But, regardless it simply doesn’t make sense to compare Presidents across the centuries in this sort of fashion. Ideas ripen and mature. Issues change. Maybe the Republican Party no longer favors tariffs, but, to the extent that we favor spending, we’re as invested in creating infrastructure as Lincoln’s Republican Party was. The creation of needed infrastructure has been “good” spending in GOP for over a century. And we’re every bit as focused on law and order, a theme which has prevailed in GOP Presidents as diverse as Lincoln, Nixon, and Reagan. Using your standards, we’d also say, of course, that Barack Obama is almost uniquely liberal for a Democratic President. Only Carter and Wilson come close to his level of liberalness. But, then again, this fact doesn’t make much sense as a means of evaluating whether or not he’s likely to be a good President either.
June 8th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Eisenhower was a war hero, so its a bit of a different case, Nixon won one of the closest elections in history, and after the Democrats experienced a disasterous convention mess. Bush I won because of Reagan’s coattails – and Reagan WAS a strong conservative. No doubt many thought he would be Reagan’s third term.
—–
And if you want to go back 60 years to talk about what the “soul” of the party is, then you might have a case. But for the last thirty years, the soul has been conservatism. Name the three biggest electoral victories of the last thirty years for the GOP – Reagan ‘80, Reagan – ‘84, and the 1994 midterms – all when we ran as Conservatives. Name the defeats – 1992, 2006 – that is when we didn’t act like full conservatives, either through scandal, excessive spending, or taxes.
But lets even go beyond actual positions – the reason I said Dave G. is willing to sell the soul of the party isn’t because he believes we need different positions – like Metro. The reason I said what I said was because he wants us to abandon principle, and start chasing opinion polls.
–
As for Romney – he recieved nearly as many votes as McCain, so if 70% of the GOP see Romney as bad, then nearly that many must see MCCain the same way. And, someone will have to pull up the poll, because I never saw it, but apparently, if peopl in CA had voted for who they liked, rather than who they thought could win, Romney would have won CA, and would probably be the nominee now.
June 8th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
First of all I don’t think that VP candidates, for the most part, help the ticket; Hillary is somewhat of an exception given that she has millions, literally millions, of die-hard supporters. But I do think they can hurt the ticket. Romney would be one such candidate.
As Jim said, a stuffed-shirt CEO (and I am a white-collar professional myself who loathes populism, so don’t go there) is only going to hurt with blue-collar voters in the industrial Midwest, where this election will be decided. Moreover, Romney’s Mormonism will hurt with evangelicals in the Southeast and border states. Personally I think that is very unfair – there are plenty of reasons to not support Mitt Romney but his religion should not be one of them.
And just to build on what Adam said – the 5% to 8% of voters who are blinded by Mitt love are the only ones who cannot see his total lack of authenticity and routinely will dismiss his history of adjusting positions to fit the political landscape.
I think this is all moot anyway – Senator McCain is not going to select Romney as his VP, regardless of any (if there are any that is) advantages Willard brings to the ticket. That ship sailed when Romney equated campaign work for one’s father to military service to one’s country.
June 8th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
I do not personally care for Romney, but I think he would be a benefit to McCain as VP. His religion is not going to be a hindrance because a lot of religious bigots are also racial ones. And he can overcome all the talk about being a wealthy businessman by saying Washington needs a successful businessperson. Indeed, a nice comeback to the question would be, “would you prefer someone in Washington who was an unsuccessful businessman?”
Plus, Romney is vetted and tested as a campaigner. No risk.
June 8th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
“As Jim said, a stuffed-shirt CEO (and I am a white-collar professional myself who loathes populism, so don’t go there) is only going to hurt with blue-collar voters in the industrial Midwest, where this election will be decided.”
I think you are are underestimating the intelligence of the voter. Yeah, up against some former auto worker it might hurt, but Obama was a lawyer, and doesn’t have much more of a claim to blue-collarness than Romney.
Also, the economy is going to be critical this year. While at first appearance Romeny could have a small negative impact, having him on the ticket will allow us to run on economic experience and know-how. We aren’t going to be able to stake a claim to sharing the pain of the average voter, but, with Romney, we could run a stong case on knowing how to fix the economy.
—-
“Moreover, Romney’s Mormonism will hurt with evangelicals in the Southeast and border states”
Romney led in SC during the campaign, and virtually tied Huckabee and McCain in Georgia. He also led in Texas in at least one poll before exiting the race. There is no evidence to support the “Mormonism hurts Romney” claim.
—
“and routinely will dismiss his history of adjusting positions to fit the political landscape. ”
This same $%^#@ again???
Yes, Romney changed on abortion – moving steadily rightward since 1994. In 1994 he was completely pro-choice, in 2002 (when he ran for Gov. of MASS), he said he would keep the law as it was, and now he is completely pro-life. Reagan was also a convert, as were others.
As for other issues – http://www.politico.com/pdf/wmr_1994_senate_flier_side_1.pdf – see how many changes you can find.
—
“I think this is all moot anyway – Senator McCain is not going to select Romney as his VP”
Don’t be so sure – Romney has been getting a lot of assignments from the MCCain camp, and McCain is getting a lot of pressure from Conservatives to pick him.
June 8th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Memnon – Yes Romney was tested as a campaigner but he failed.
When someone panders relentlessly to the right, outspends his opponents by a wide margin, has the perfect looking all-American family and has much of the talk radio universe behind him and still cannot win a GOP primary contest we cannot conclude he is an adept campaigner.
Tested and failed is a better way to look at it.
June 8th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Well, Romney did better than virtually anyone. He started at 6-9% in the polls, and eventually led on Super Tuesday. He had a broader appeal than anyone else – performing well in IA,NH,FL,CA,MN, etc.
He beat “America’s mayor”, he beat the savior of Conservatism, he beat Huckabee, who had a sudden rise and was able to escape vetting by the media.
To say that he “Failed” is a bit simplistic.
June 8th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
oh, and talk radio – they only got behind Romney after Thompson dropped out, and only really got behind him after FL.
Six days of support, that was it. You would have an argument if they had been with him since he started, but they weren’t.
June 8th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Most candidates started with less than 6-9% in the polls. Many radio hosts backed Mr. Romney essentially for more than 6 days. Many radio hosts were sympathetic to Mr. Romney long before, Mr. Thompson dropped out. My own local host is an example. At least he did not trash the other candidates like some host. It may be simplistic to say that Mr. Romney failed, but Dan has a point, considering the name recognition and the campaign money that Mr. Romney had, in a way he should have done at least somewhat better. Perhaps he would pull up his socks if he were to be the VP candidate, but so far 2008 was not a great year for him, albeit he did better than some.
BTW, I think that in the end, McCain/Romney could beat Obama/Clinton, but McCain/many people could beat Obama/Clinton. Such a Democrat ticket is probably a walking disaster.
June 8th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Dan,
Yes Romney lost, because only one person could win. Yeah he did outspend all his opponents, but who didn’t out spend John McCain? And who expected McCain to come back in such a fashion? And who came closer to winning than Romney? If the GOP had an across the board rule of proportionally allocating delegates in all states, Romney very well could have been ahead after Feb 5th.
Let’s also not forget Romney sat in single digits until early fall, had no name recognition and was the object of all the other opponents derision (whether rightly or wrongly) yet he beat the pants off of every one but McCain. He happened to beat America’s Mayor, the presumptive nominee for years, he beat out the Christian leader who rode lots of support from the Christian Right, and made Fred’s golden platter ascent nearly impossible.
Romney Lost but I hardly would say he failed.
June 8th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Ohio,
Somewhat better would have been to win. Besides that he got as good as results as possible.
ACT,
I missed your #45, please don’t accuse me of plagerism.
June 8th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
I wouldn’t exactly say he beat out Huckabee.
Huckabee cleaned his clock in IA, the state that was the key to the entire Romney strategy. When Mitt lost in IA, he lost the nomination. Huckabee beat him in SC and everywhere else in the South. Huckabee ended up with more delegates I believe.
There was really only one contest where Romney and Huckabee went head to head. It was in Iowa, a state that Romney had blanketed since early 2007. A state that Romney had won the Straw Poll in. A state where Romney outorganized and outspent him in by an extravagant amount.
And Huckabee absolutely rolled him and ended his chance for the nomination.
June 8th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
These kind of polls drive me nuts! We do not have a national vote. This is meaningless in the electoral college scheme of things. Its a question of keeping red states red and flipping some swing or blue ones. That is how McCain will win. A Romney pick will not change a single red state and may help win over some swing states and blue ones. NH, CO, MI, NV. I hear even NJ may be in play, and CT too, can you believe it? Romney won’t hurt McCain in these states and may help.
June 8th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Jim – Huckabee was only in real play in the south – Romney won states, or came very close, in virtually every region of the country. Besides the nominee, McCain, no candidate performed as well in multiple areas of the country.
And I don’t think Huck actually did end up with more delegates, but he did stay in longer, well beyond the point where we knew McCain would be the nominee.
June 8th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
It is noteworthy that Romney came from nowhere to get within the nomination – but a loss is a loss. New England didn’t win the Superbowl, they may have been the best team but New York hoisted the Lombardi trophy. A loss is a loss, no need to try and dress it up.
Given all that he had going in his favor – conservatives’ antipathy for McCain, tremendous financial advantage and a support from at least a sizable portion of the conservative media – he should have won. The fact that he could not close the deal should be telling. He was unable to remove the doubts of conservatives who should have been predisposed supporting him. I think it came down to the sincerity factor; given Romney’s history of disingenuously adapting himself to fit the political landscape (e.g. running as Mr. Conservative when he should run as CEO Mitt, the pragmatic technocrat) he left doubts in the minds of those whom he could have won over.
I think some of you around here are over-stating Mitt’s economic appeal as well. Despite Obama’s elitism and zero experience in private sector business the public, for whatever absurd reason, does trust Democrats more on the economy. Hillary, if she is the VP nominee, will given the Obama ticket a leg up on winning over those blue-collar swing voters. A former venture capitalist, white-collar, CEO-type is not going to reassure those voters the McCain ticket will have a better handle on matters economic. Moreover with a Council of Economic Advisors, an Office of Management and Budget, a Treasury Dept, a Commerce Dept, a Labor Dept and an Office of US Trade Rep, a President McCain isn’t going to be bereft of advise on economic issues.
I ultimately think it is all going to come down to McCain picking someone he can trust. No matter how much work Mitt does for the McCain ticket, whether he is a part of it or not, McCain will know Mitt’s primary focus is going to be putting himself in the best possible position for 2012. And I don’t think that is what McCain wants.
June 8th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Act,
Iowa is not the south. And, as the Survey USA VP polls show, Huckabee plays better that Romney even in Massachusetts, and just about every other state outside the south.
June 8th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
If you guys can’t see why Alaska Gov Sarah Palin is far far far far far better than Romney or any of the others, that is IF WE WANT TO WIN THE ELECTION, then, with all due respect, I can’t have too much respect for those opinions. This is NOT rocket science, folks.
See the below C-SPAN Washington Journal program from this morning if you still have any question on this. (Watch the whole segment!)
rtsp://video1.c-span.org/archive/c08/c08_wj060808_oconnor.rm
June 8th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
#53 wrote: “Moreover with a Council of Economic Advisors, an Office of Management and Budget, a Treasury Dept, a Commerce Dept, a Labor Dept and an Office of US Trade Rep, a President McCain isn’t going to be bereft of advise on economic issues.”
Thank you, Dan for making that point. I keep reading blog postings that Romney should be on the ticket so he can advise McCain on economic issues. And I keep asking myself why can’t McCain can surround himself with people who are just as knowledgeable, or more knowledgeable about economics issues as Mitt Romney?
June 8th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
If you guys can’t see why Alaska Gov Sarah Palin is far far far far far better than Romney or any of the others, that is IF WE WANT TO WIN THE ELECTION, then, with all due respect, I can’t have too much respect for those opinions.
Translation: If you guys don’t agree with me I have no respect for you.
I like Palin, I guess she would be as good as anyone else. If Romney had won, I had hoped he would pick her so and create the Beauty ‘08 ticket.
June 8th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Having economic advisors in the cabinet does nothing for a nominee during the election. McCain needs someone on the trail with him to talk about the economy and it must be his running mate because a regular surrogate won’t get the same amount of coverage.
June 8th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Let’s follow the money talk… McCain vs Romney… McCain needs all help, and he’s not exactly lighting the fire under his supporters. Enough said!
June 8th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
“And I keep asking myself why can’t McCain can surround himself with people who are just as knowledgeable, or more knowledgeable about economics issues as Mitt Romney?”
He can – but so can Obama. Only by putting someone with solid economic creds. on the ticket does he gain any toutable advantage on the issue.
June 8th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
With all due respect, Palin seems somewhat vacuous on camera. I respect her, but she is not ready for the national stage… 100,000+ votes in Alaska and a grand total of two years gubernatorial experience does not make for a strong VP candidate. Besides, she should be at home taking care of her newborn baby (with special needs)… that’s the example America needs.
June 8th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Act (#2) I agree with you. Not only is it who McCain can get into voting booths, but who can do the grassroot movement with passion. Moderates, regardless of how much you focus on them, WILL NEVER be active in the movement. They will not call strangers, knock on doors, or host fund-raising parties. They are moderates because they do not care too much for any issue, one way or others. McCain needs to get those with passion to get behind him, along with getting the moderates to vote for him, and he fails at it terribly. His campaign will die without any breath of the passionate supporters behind it, especially when we consider Obama’s supporters who would faith or shives when his “Holy” name is mentioned!
June 8th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
SGS – I agree and McCain can only rally the troops with a strong message. I have to confess though that copying Obama’s message and even his slogan is not worthy of a leader. McCain is no better than the Chinese and all their pirating.
June 8th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
#61 wrote: “Besides, she should be at home taking care of her newborn baby (with special needs)… that’s the example America needs.”
Todd and Sarah Palin are experienced parents. They have plenty of family living in Alaska who support them. Todd Palin has taken a leave of absence from his job on the north slope so he is there to care for Trig as well as Sarah. Does this make Sarah a bad mom if Todd puts in more parenting hours in the day than she does? Of course not. No one is suggesting that fathers can’t take care of babies as good as mothers can, right?
Trig has an extra chromosome. As far as I know, he isn’t hooked up to a ventilator or needs any special care at this point in his life. There is no reason why Trig couldn’t travel with Sarah if
that is what Sarah and Todd decide. Other male candidate leave their family to campaign and no one gives them flack about it. Why should this be an issue for Sarah Palin? While there is no doubt that three months of campaigning would be rigorous, I think being the Vice President is an easier job than being a governor.
What many of you don’t know is that north slope oil workers in Alaska usually work a two week on/two week off schedule. Todd Palin was gone 50% of the time when Sarah was giving birth to and raising their four other children. So I bet this time around Todd Palin is glad he doesn’t have to pack his bag and leave his family for two weeks at a stretch.
The Palins are good people and good parents. There should be no doubt that Sarah Palin can campaign, govern Alaska, or be the Vice President of the United States, and still be a good mom.
June 8th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
For a first-time GOP presidential candidate without a nationally known name, Romney did very well. I don’t feel like looking up the numbers, but he likely did just as well or better than Bush in 1980, Dole in 1988, Alexander in 1996 and maybe even McCain in 2000. Probably Reagan did better in 1976 than Romney did this time. In any event, hardly anybody knew Mitt Romney’s name before the primary, and he turned out to be the only realistic alternative to McCain, whom everybody knows. Rudy and Thompson were far better known and much bigger flops in the campaign than Romney was. In fact, Romney may even have been the nominee now instead of McCain had he ignored Iowa and came into New Hampshire unscathed by a disappointment that likely dampened his support in the first primary.
June 8th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Romney would be beating Obama as he would not have sat on his ar” for the last 4 months. Really what has McCain been doing??
By the way has Obama agreed to stick to his promise with McCain re money?
June 8th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
CBL, let’s face it, Obama excites (especially with the lib/Dem main stream media).
Romney does NOT excite.
Huckabee does NOT excite.
Pawlenty is a snoozer.
Sanford — ditto
Jindal, too young.
PALIN EXCITES. (Sorry to be repetitive here, but anyone of these other than Sarah Palin is off the mark, that is, if the GOP genuinely wants to win.)
Perhaps the only downside is that Palin is too obviously the best choice, and the GOP wants to continue in its tradition of picking loser/add nothing Veeps.
June 8th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
PALIN excites who? What polling have you been doing?
June 9th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Mark, OK, go see this on YouTube –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXfiOSCfY44&eurl=http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/
June 9th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Romney doesn’t excite? You must have missed CPAC then when he had a room full of fired up supporters.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:45 am
This is a forum on Presidential politics. I’m using those Presidents as a case study in how moderate Republicans and conservative Republicans have stood the test of history. Moderate Republicans often stand the test of time and come out on the other end as great presidents. There have been some averages (Ford, Bush I) but the moderates have more often than not, put simply, been much better and more effective leaders than their conservative counterparts.
My examples certainly aren’t “relevant” to modern politics, but there is a larger precedent. The entire list of great Republican presidents- even Reagan- arose against frustration to change the shape of the party, not to be in the exact mold of the party. Lincoln came out of the ashes of the Whigs. McKinley/Roosevelt came after years of nameless, faceless, hopeless, generic conservatives. Eisenhower beat back conservative voices like Dewey and Taft. Reagan arose from the dust of a Republican party that had danced with the middle and immersed itself in Federalist Hamiltonianism. I’m not saying that the moderates are better because they’re moderates (though I do think that’s part of it, that’s not my point here), I’m saying that they’re better because they stand up to status quo conservativism. Listen to anything on talk radio and tell me that McCain isn’t at odds with status quo conservativism. There’s a long list of available, capable, and exciting Republicans who either do that or have overflowing potential to do that. Romney doesn’t. He epitomizes status quo conservativism. If we had been running on the terms of a party that had notably drifted away from free markets and core social values, then perhaps- PERHAPS- Romney would have been the Reagan this time around.
But we haven’t. We still stand on those issues, and the voters are damn tired of it. There needs to be a new dialogue. It’s a dialogue that Mitt Romney can’t start because he’s too busy defending the old one. McCain is appealing because, for all of his flaws, he has the ability to change the dialogue and attack new problems from a different stand point that doesn’t compromise core GOP beliefs. If you believe that John McCain compromises “core GOP values,” then you are thinking much too inside the box. If your only acceptable candidate is Ronald Reagan and his disciples, then you should probably sit Presidential politics out.
If you don’t get votes, you can’t govern. Even worse, if we don’t get votes, Barack Obama governs. It pisses me off when people say “Well maybe the GOP can use 4 years of Obama to rebuild,” because that shows that you’re not committed to the big picture cause.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:59 am
Romney doesn’t excite anybody but his supporters. His speech is often dry and defensive, he gets hostile with people who don’t agree with him, he’s too sharp and accusatory, and it’s very obvious that his remarks are well rehearsed and pre-packaged. His supporters are very fired up because his policies are geared strictly towards them. He lacks a seeker message that draws in someone who isn’t ideologically matched with him.
June 9th, 2008 at 2:12 am
Analysis of Romney is simplistic. Romney is a good choice, but Rudy is better.
June 9th, 2008 at 3:22 am
This poll is shocking, shocking, I say!
June 9th, 2008 at 5:47 am
I think a lot of us have a similar goal in mind but with different ideas how to get there. Romney and Palin supporters argue that a new type of candidate – one younger, possibly more conservative than McCain – can inspire and energize voters. Others including myself say it must be a message and it needs to come from McCain (and amplified by his VP).
I believe McCain gets this, but he has not yet developed a message that will resonate. Indeed, I think he is falling into a trap by emphasizing his POW status. There is no doubt voters honor and respect McCain’s service, but what two things does reference to Vietnam remind us of? War and McCain’s age. Instead of projecting forward his message directs us to the past. A youthful VP will get us to think of the future, but its more important that the message also talk about what can be istead of what has been.
June 9th, 2008 at 7:00 am
I agree heartily, with post# 7. A McCain- Giuliani ticket versus Obama- Hilary ticket is
a sure win for the former, because of the chemistry between the two great friends as well
as name recognition. They are both identified by the white working Americans in the rural
segments of the country, independents of the northeastern sector, Reagan democrats of the
blue statesas well as the swing states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan. Again. i repeat
Rudy Giuliani can take over the Presidency, at a moment’s notice, because he has been tested
and accomplished an almost insurmountable task as a complex New York City. Like John McCain,
he had worked and extended a hand across the aisle, thus breaking gridlock. He has proven
that he is a ‘ can do guy”.
June 9th, 2008 at 7:40 am
Its interesting that none of the people McCain has hosted for his VP bar-b-ques have been openly pro-choice. That is a war he wants to avoid.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Ted et al,
Palin who? Excites who? No offense… I just cannot get excited about a governor from a very small (population) state that has only two years tenure. I believe she is a good woman, but that would not make her a good commander-in-chief.
What great natural constituency does she supposedly excite? Women? Former beauty pageant contestants?
Now, it seems to me that most women and especially conservative women are not so loyal to their femme sisters, or Hillary would still be riding in her coronation parade. The women in my circles would actually be aghast that Palin abandoned her newborn for the campaign trail.
Excite? Well, Romney would at least excite Mormons. Huckabee would excite the much larger evangelicals and pro-life Catholics, as well as appeal to the working middle classes.
If I am going to hold it against Romney for only completing one term as governor, then Palin is not ready. If I’m going to reject Jindal as too inexperienced, then Palin is not ready.
And, yes… whoever it was that asked… moms are better caretakers than dads or the strangers at daycare. I’m not saying that dad’s can’t do a good job, but something tremendously important and irreplaceable is lost when that mother-child relationship becomes of secondary importance.
Palin would do far more good for our country by her example of withdrawing her name from consideration (if it is even being considered) so that she can focus on caring for her family. I know, in a culture that values celebrity above all other things, imagine someone actually putting their family first when they are on the threshold of great things.
As for men leaving to go campaign as a supposedly double standard? Well, men have not through the centuries been immediately present in the day to day caring for children; whether it is to provide for or to protect the family, it has been for the greater good. The important role of nurturing and training the next generation has fallen to women who are better equipped for such tasks.
Yes, women are better equipped to breast feed a child and men are better equipped to swing an ax, be it in chopping wood or chopping heads. (Oh, here comes the pro-women-in-combat crowd to chastise me.)
June 9th, 2008 at 10:57 am
#75. Rudy? What are you basing that off of? He brings what to the table for McCain?
June 9th, 2008 at 11:07 am
CBL, you make a lot of good points. While, I like and respect Mrs. Palin and her policies, I have to agree that 2008 is not the year for her. And at the risk of being sexist, perhaps 2008 is not the year for any woman because we are at war. However, I do not believe that it is a good practice to hold her state against her. Alaska may be one of the smaller states, but it is a state nevertheless.
Ted:
I admire your loyalty to your candidate. However, if you pardon the expression, you have crossed the line and become a Palin-bot. It is one thing to promote your candidate, it is another to say that none of the other candidates excite anybody.
June 10th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Does the GOP want to win Michigan, Colorado, Florida? Does the GOP want to keep standing up for conservative principals? Does the GOP want to gain credibility by fixing the economy? Does McCain want my vote? If the answer to any of those questions is “yes”, McCain should bring Gov Romney aboard. ps- I’m a Michigan voter and I have at least 40 people I know here in MI who are all saying the same thing. Polls underestimated Gov Romney in the primary, and this poll has similar flavor. It couldn’t be more clear that Gov Romney as VP is the path towards reuniting the GOP, fixing the economy, fighting for families, solving illigal immigration, funding a machine that can take on Obama’s marketing phenomena, and ensuring that whoever the VP is is a capable leader.
If Sen McCain picks a liberal-leaning VP, I’m campaigning for the democrats because I’d rather have the opposition in office to work against instead of see the very party that’s supposed to stand for conservative principals get attacked from within like it did during the recent primaries with the rise of liberal-leaning politicians such as pro-choice Mayor Giuliani, pro-life liberal Huckabee, and a Sen McCain who has harshly disappointed me since I voted for him in the 2000 primary when it comes to his conservative credentials.
But that’s just me… and at least 40 other Michigan voters.