James Carville: "It's a feel-good story, this Romney thing. Romney is an ascendant guy."
Posted on 11/19/2007 5:35:14 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
A new CNN/WMUR-TV poll in New Hampshire finds Mitt Romney way ahead with 33% support from likely Republican primary voters, followed by Sen. John McCain at 18%, Rudy Giuliani at 16%, Rep. Ron Paul at 8% and Gov. Mike Huckabee at 5%.
Key caveat: Just 14% have "definitely decided" who they will vote for in the primary while 56% "are still trying to decide."
Complete survey results are available.
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalwire.com ...
The possibility of Romney being the nominee is becoming more real every month.
Big fish? definitely a small steam
Not really, Bush won New Hampshire against Reagan and we all know how that turned out.
If you're referring to 1980, Reagan defeated Bush in the NH GOP primary 49.6% to 22.7%.
LOL.
Regan lost to Bush, eh?
Better check your history on that, yank.
Reagan won the 1980 primary and the 1984 primary. The only one he ever lost was 1976, to President Gerald Ford.
Mitt bump!
I think he has a good temper, variety of experience, has made millions in private sector and governed a state. Not bad. Hes got a nice personality. He could make Hillary look pretty bad when the two are on stage together.
Rats, you beat me to the glory of correcting someone on GOP politics history.
I have to move quicker next time....
Yeah, but remember, Pat Buchanan won NH in 1996, for all the good it did him. And IIRC, NH just lost half its delegate value due to the national party’s ire at its early primary date.
Actually, I don’t think they’ve gone after New Hampshire, because they are just following the rules, allowing them to be in front of any other primary. Yes, those others are too early, but NH still has the right to be first.
Fred Thompson will eventually pull this out when the Conservatives truly unite behind him.
Yeah, but remember, Pat Buchanan won NH in 1996, for all the good it did him. And IIRC, NH just lost half its delegate value due to the national party’s ire at its early primary date.
Yes, but Mitt Romney isn't going to just win New Hampshire. He's 11 points ahead of his closest rival in Iowa, and, at least according to one recent poll, he's in the lead in South Carolina as well.
There's a good... and increasing... chance that Romney will go 3 for 3 in early primary states. That's a hell of a lot more than Pat Buchanan ever got.
I thought I had read that NH was included in the Big Ding because they had moved up too. I might have misread....
Romney might possibly take it, but (and this is just gut intuition, mind you) I just don't get the sense that he's going to do it. Who knows. I'll just do what little tiny bit I can to make sure it doesn't happen.
You sound like you may be in the market for some bridge stock. :)
I agree. America will not know how much it hates Hillary until she standing on the same stage debating an optimistic, smiling, friendly, articulate, loyal husband and father like Mitt.
The time will come when they will ask themselves (as they always do), "Who do I want to look at and listen to from the White House over the next four years?" Hillary will be fortunate to pull 40-45 percent of the vote.
Incredible. Pathetic.
We gave that one away to slick willy on a silver platter.
Fred Thompson will eventually pull this out when the Conservatives truly unite behind him.
He will have to project a more energetic approach to the voters.
That would be interesting because numerically, Giuliani+Romney supporters far outnumber Fred+Hunter supporters nationwide. The math does not favor a Thompson/Hunter type of ticket. The goal is to beat the Dems, not each other.
Why is this “breaking news”???? Why is this news at all?
He’s their Governor — of course he’s in the lead at this point!
Stupid to even post it..
James Carville: "It's a feel-good story, this Romney thing. Romney is an ascendant guy."
No, you were right, and I was wrong (mostly). It’s not because they moved up, but because they did not move back. In 2000 republicans set the 1st tuesday in February as the earliest you could hold a contest binding delegates. In 2004, NH had their primary 1 week before that, but they were not penalized because nobody really cared (Bush Incumbent, no real contest).
Its IOWA who isn’t being punished, because they are a caucus and don’t actually bind delegates.
The NH delegate count drops from 12 to 6. 12 delegates was no big deal to begin with, I guess.
Do you know that for sure? Honestly, I have no idea where the heck Romney lies on any of the major issues. I'm not even sure he knows.
The contrast will be obvious.
I hope Hill wins the nomination so I can see her crushed.
This very poll claims 0% of the people think Hunter is best on illegal immigration.
He’s the guy who built the fence for crying out loud!
Are the people of New Hampshire that stupid?!
Romney is FOR socialized medicine, state-enforced gay marriage (even when the Mass Constitution was against such change).
Thus, Romney is against Constitutions (Massachusetts and probably US).
Romney is AGAINST giving citizens the vote on anything.
Romney is FOR fake badges, fake LEO, fake push polls, fake. ... (fill in here)
Romney was FOR illegal immigration until he decided he wanted
to be the first Stake-President-President.
Romney is for socialized medicine for Hezbollah paid for by
American taxpayers (he says).
....
And guess what? With Romney, we’re all set to do it again. This time, it’s a slicked back pretty boy empty suit who is a “good manager”. As FDT said, a manager is someone a LEADER hires.
Actually, America wouldn't.
It would be a great campaign, a study in stark contrasts--the ultra-liberal, pessimistic, stone-faced, capitalism-hating, scandal-stained, lifelong politician Hillary versus the pro-life, pro-family, upbeat, charismatic, capitalism-championing, scandal-free, politically fresh Mitt Romney.
Yes.
“Just 14% have “definitely decided” who they will vote for in the primary while 56% “are still trying to decide”
Mitt will have burned a bunch of cash for no good reason in the end. Any Republican, who has politically compromised himself to the point where he can get elected in Massachusetts to ANYTHING, especially governor or senator,cannot expect to pass muster with the general Republican electorate in the rest of the USA. It is a sad waste of pride and money.
Romney forced HillaryCARE(TM)=RomneyCARE(TM) down the throats of all in Massachusetts.
Look what the Democrats say about him:
Dictator RINO-Romney signing his enforced socialized medicine law,
surrounded by beaming Democrats.
Sen. John Kerry to Don Imus: "I like this health care bill".
Sen. Hillary Clinton: "To come up with a bipartisan plan in this polarized environment is commendable."
Duncan Hunter for VEEP...if he could be a VEEP for eight years, and get plenty of Executive experience, I would be very pleased to support Duncan for President.
Big Time.
Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo have cancelled each other out. If only one or the other had run, things might have turned out differently.
Oh, Mitt's much more than a mere manager (alliteration, no extra charge). He was a CEO, remember? CEO's hire managers.
Mitt led (he did not managed) the thousands of employees and investors of Bain Capital to the very top of the venture capital business. It's an amazing story. You ought to read about it sometime. As CEO, Mitt can stand shoulder to shoulder with any of the giants of American capitalism.
Mitt led (he did not manage) the hundreds of thousands of contractors, politicians, contestants, participants, and volunteers at the Salt Lake Olympics transforming it from a catastrophe collapsing into scandal-ridden bankruptcy into one of the cleanest and most successful Olympics in history.
That's leadership--not management.
What has Fred done apart from "lead" his small senate staff through about eight years of routine senate work?
Well, he did get McCain-Feingold passed. He did show leadership there, I'll grant you.
So voting for Romney would be any worse a choice than voting for Hillary. They both want socialized medicine. What makes you think that is what America wants? Romney will kill the Republican party and the dems will rule the entire government. Is that what you want? Romney will not beat Hillary Clinton or any other democrats they put up. He is just too much like them.
Oh, Mitt's much more than a mere manager (alliteration, no extra charge). He was a CEO, remember? CEO's hire managers.
Mitt led (he did not manage) the thousands of employees and investors of Bain Capital to the very top of the venture capital business. It's an amazing story. You ought to read about it sometime. As CEO, Mitt can stand shoulder to shoulder with any of the giants of American capitalism.
Mitt led (he did not manage) the hundreds of thousands of contractors, politicians, contestants, participants, and volunteers at the Salt Lake Olympics transforming it from a catastrophe collapsing into scandal-ridden bankruptcy into one of the cleanest and most successful Olympics in history.
That's leadership--not management.
What has Fred done apart from "lead" his small senate staff through about eight years of routine senate work?
Well, he did get McCain-Feingold passed. He did show leadership there, I'll grant you.
Did I miss something in his resume...when was Romney the Governor of New Hampshire?
Some people really hate Mitt, which being right conservative I cannot comprehend. I am glad I don’t carry that kind of hate in my heart. I think he’s decent and will be a good president.
I don't hate Romney (unlike others on this thread), but I don't trust him. He campaigned to the left of Ted Kennedy, as governor he passed a socialized hillarycare lite in Massachusetts, and just as he was starting his presidential campaign he suddenly had epiphanies on immigration, on guns and on abortion.
What does he really believe? Who's the real Mitt? I hope he's being honest about his new-found conservatism, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.
Replace “stupid” with LIBERAL... that’s the truth.
LLS
He’s heading for 3/3. That’s very dangerous.
He didn't do too bad from what I see.
If he’s leading in the polls, maybe hes a leader?
Maybe his campaign managers would disagree with you.
I really do not understand why “socialized medicine” is so horrible. Why is it so wrong for the government to help those who are incapable of paying their medical bills?
I remember seeing a gravely ill man laying in the grass outside a hospital emergency room in the Philippines just because his family couldn’t afford to pay for his treatment. I remember holding a premature baby girl whose family couldn’t afford her treatment - I cried when she died two days later. I remember a desperately ill one year old boy who needed a blood transfusion who then died because his father ran off with another woman and his mother couldn’t pay the hospital. Lastly, I remember my first wife who suffered from cervical cancer for three years before dying at 41. Without the “socialized medicine” of Canada, her treatment would’ve bankrupted us.
Sure, “socialized medicine” is inefficient, but compared to the current situation that destroys the middle class during expensive illnesses; it’s better than the alternative.
I firmly believe privatization and competition, ala John Stossel, is the best way forward. Until then ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.