Posted on 01/17/2008 6:17:03 AM PST by jdm
The question of viability for Mitt Romney comes on two levels today. First, he appears to have given up on South Carolina just a day after restarting ads in the Palmetto State. Second, a new Rasmussen poll shows Romney coming up considerably short against both of the Democratic front-runners:
Just a day after his big win in Michigan, Mitt Romney ceded South Carolina to his rivals.
“This is a state I’d expect that Sen. [John] McCain has pretty well wrapped up,” Romney told reporters at the Sun City Hilton Head Retirement Center in Bluffton. “It would be an enormous surprise if he were unable to win here.” ....
Polls show Romney standing in solid third place in South Carolina, taking anywhere from 13 percent to 17 percent of the vote. But in Bluffton, Romney put himself in fourth place, noting that “even a strong fourth is better than what some of the other guys saw in Michigan last night.”
Romney is probably correct that he doesn't figure to challenge for the win in South Carolina. He has a much better shot in Nevada, where the state's caucus plays more into his organizational strengths. A win in Nevada will give him a small boost, a little more than widely-ignored and almost-uncontested Wyoming, and will balance out what is almost certain to be an also-ran finish in South Carolina.
He may have more trouble balancing out some of the latest polling on the national head-to-head contests. Rasmussen shows Mitt losing to both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the latter by double digits:
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of general election match-ups shows Hillary Clinton leading Mitt Romney 47% to 41%. Barack Obama leads Romney 49% to 37%. The survey was completed before Romney’s victory in the Michigan Primary and is show both Clinton and Obama gaining ground over the past month ....
The former Massachusetts governor enjoys a double-digit advantage over Clinton among male voters, but trails by five points among that group when pitted against Obama. In both match-ups, Romney suffers a deficit of around 20 percentage points with female voters. Among unaffiliated voters, Romney is dead even with Clinton, 40% to 40%, but trails Obama by twelve points among this group, just as he does among likely voters as a whole.
It's still early, and the poor response to Mitt may reflect the volatile nature of Republicans in the primary. However, his numbers dropped against Hillary over the last four weeks. In mid-December, he beat Hillary 44%-43%, and this latest result shows an eight-point turnaround. He went from a six-point deficit against Obama and doubled it in the same period.
The polling took place before Mitt retooled the message and won Michigan. Perhaps that may reverse the trend and give him a bigger boost for the next head-to-head polling Rasmussen conducts. Something needs to change if Mitt wants to make the case that he can beat Hillary in a 50-state campaign.
Trouble for Mitt ahead?
If you were a candidate, I think, as of today, you would like most to be McCain. He has had the best month so far.
I’m not really a Romney fan, but these polls mean nothing this far away from the general election and the fact that only 4 states have had their primaries.
CNN is blowing smoke for Hillary and Obama.
Oops...
Read it wrong...Captains quarters.
Now I’m confused.....:0(
Still to far out for any real meaning tho.
I heard that if Mitt flops in Nevada he is dropping out and supporting McCain.
This appears to be disinformation on the part of pro-Democrat CNN. Romney will be focusing on Nevada, where he stands a better chance of winning. Like Wyoming, the state does have a significant Mormon population. Additionally, this is a state where McCain has been strong, as he is a Senator from a neighboring state. Winning Nevada will be a second blow to McCain after his Michigan defeat.
I posted this on another thread. Mitt will be Kerry on steroids. He will be destroyed. And it will be easy.
If Romney is the nominee, imagine the debate with Hillary.
On abortion.
Hillary: I am pro-choice and in fact my opponent was also at one time.
On taxes.
Hillary: I opposed the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and in fact my opponent was also against them at one time.
On healthcare for all.
Hillary: I support and will fight for healthcare for all, just like my opponent did in Massachusetts. In fact he said the biggest difference between his plan and mine is that his became law! I welcome his support for my plan.
On gays serving openly in the military.
Hillary: It is time to end ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ In fact you Mr. Romney were all for ending that plan even before me and my husband. You were ahead of the curve and supported gays being allowed to serve openly way back in 1994.
On a huge stimulus package.
Hillary: I want to spend 100 billion in an effort to bring the economy back from this recession! My opponent wants to spend 100 billion over 5 years just on the automobile industry, so my plan is in fact a lot more fiscally responsible than his!
On illegal immigration.
Hillary: My opponent supported the comprehensive immigration bill that I voted for. In fact he called it reasonable. Now he says he is against it. Yet he in fact had those immigrants working in his front yard? Where does my opponent really stand on this issue?
I could go on and on and on....
Yep....after 4 states and having a lead in the delegate count, Mitt’s going to pack it in and go skiing for the next few months...
Oooooo....more polls....they’ve been doing a bang-up job with polls this cycle.....accurately predicted every contest thus far....right?
The survey was before Michigan. Comparing the GOP to the Demos at this point is pretty loose. So much can change. The article ignores the appeal that Romney had to suburbanites in Detroit - the so-called Reagan Democrat crowd.
Obama in the debate: Hey everybody. Look at me, I am the black guy and I am so well spoken. Issues? Nah. Audacity of hope, from my father, you know. Oh, and I am STILL no longer a muslim. Christian Christian Christian, and BLACK !!!!
“The polling took place before Mitt retooled the message and won Michigan. Perhaps that may reverse the trend...”
_____________________________________
I’m admittedly a big Mitt supporter. But I think this last statement says alot. Time will tell how this all shakes out, but my gut feeling is that he will continue to do well in each primary, winning some, losing others, but showing well in all. He will emerge as the only candidate that can unify enough of the party to gain momentum heading into November.
As for the head-to-head numbers...that is worrisome, but again, it is too early to tell.
One thing he has going for him is that he will steal away a significant number of the female vote from Hillary, not the hardcore women’s lib bunch, but many of the “soccer mom” group. And I don’t think its just his looks, but the character and strong family that will ultimately win out.
And once the debates start...well, he’ll destroy either her or Obama.
A few days ago, this was the same rumor that went out about Thompson dropping out and supporting McCain.....by the Huckster campaign, probably the Huckster campaign behind this rumor too.
Still, millions of Americans want to vote for a black for President to prove to themselves that they are not racially prejudiced. To heck with the country’s interest!
I oppose Romney, but this article is downright silly.
That rumor was spread by Mike Murphey.
He worked for McCain and then jumped to the Romney camp.
Where did you hear that? From the Huck camp?
*snicker, snicker*
If head to head polling was predictive then we should have gone with Howard Baker in 1980 because the polls said neither GHW Bush nor Reagan could beat Carter.
They weren’t. We didn’t. We won.
People on this forum were arguing that Romney was nowhere near a “favorite son” in Michigan, with most people not even remembering his dad back in the 60’s.
Now we hear from the anti-Romney crowed that the 9-point win was clearly due to favorite son status.
And it was “only” a 9-point win? Pretty big win. I don’t think that we’ll see many states with as large a margin of victory in the coming months. Do you?
Yep, the Hucksters are as nasty as the people they accuse of being nasty.
Riiiight. This is pretty amusing.
The guy thats leading is ‘in trouble’? Leading in delegates, leading in cash on hand, not using taxpayer matching funds (from what I recall).
He’s won two primary’s, came in second twice in those primaries where Democrats cross over to vote...and he’s ‘in trouble’?
I understand partisanship, I understand backing ‘your guy’.
But I don’t understand how you conclude the ‘leader’ is in trouble today, and thinking about dropping out.
Thats so ridiculous I’d say its counterproductive to the apparent goal in short.
Reminds me of Pelosi asserting the ‘surge has failed’ despite all evidence to the contrary, or ‘the economy sucks!’ even though we have virtually total employment.
So which man (or woman) are you pulling for?
Well, no, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express.
OK, I haven't looked as to how Romney did amongst NH & MI female voters, but among Iowa female voters the breakdown was: Huckabee, 40% of female voters; Romney, 24% of female voters...Huckabee, 29% of male voters; Romney, 26% of male voters. So Romney did 2% better among male voters than female voters.
Then, when you factor in that usually the most liberal voters, aside from the youngest voting block, are single women (who are going to be much more represented in the non-Iowa types of states)...I think you need to re-evaluate your assumption.
And you frequently do.
That’s a pretty damning case against Romney, but it’s spot-on.
I think political commentator Jonathan Martin of Politico hit a Red Sox HR when he wrote:
“Lacking a pure conservative record of his own, Romney is unable to get off any clean shots at his rivals without them — or the media — pointing to a past quote or stance that calls into question his own consistency.“ (Martin, 12/27/07)
And:
“But his challenge is that there are seemingly few issues where he has not been previously more moderate than he is now or where a rival can’t at least find a discrepancy sufficient to blur an attack."
Source: See: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1945351/posts
I don't understand where people think that he could either get traction against Hillary based on this factor, or get traction against a socialist minded Obama who's also the exact color Romney's religious commitment discriminated against for almost 150 years--a discrimination that will still in universal practice when Romney freely chose as an adult to join the "Good Ole' White Boys Club" branch office of the "Salt Lake City Valiant Pre-Existent Society."
(Why are GOP voters naive that this race comparison aspect of a potential Romney vs. Obama match-up won't become a MAJOR, MAJOR MSM/Dem issue? I mean if MSM-inflamed race flare-ups are occurring even now between Obama & Clinton, just wait til the Mormon dirty laundry of black skin being considered a "curse" because of what blacks supposedly did in some "pre-existent spirit world" hits the broad MSM shelf!!!)
Trouble for Mitt ahead?
I think he is better off concentrating on Nevada which he will take first place and have more delegates than the first place winner of South Carolina.
Don’t forget this is part of the plan. This is payback to the FREDHEADS who helped Mitt get number one out of Michigan. Don’t forget Mitt remembers those who help him. He is getting out of South Carolina (or at least not running hard) to help out FRed!!!!!!!
Odd that Mitt was castigated for not winning the state next to the state where he was governor (not his birth state), but now he’s castigated for not winning the state next to Fred Thompson’s home state, a state where McCain took 44% of the vote in 2000, and where Huckabee is also treated like the guy next door.
Anyway, this is what the Fred Thompson people wanted — Romney has cleared the deck for Fred to show what he’s got. Now lets see what Fred can do.
And Hillary, why, she is just as sweet as can be ...and...everybody just loves her.... and has no negatives...and never says anything stupid...and has accomplished sooooooo much in her political career...and can’t possibly be beaten....
Romney will beat Hillary.
I heard that if Mitt flops in Nevada he is dropping out and supporting McCain.
You have three big boppers here. First flops in Nevada? He will be number one! Second, drop out after Nevada??? He will stay in as will all candidates until after 5 February. Third...He will not support John McCain unless he is the ultimate candidate and that won’t be for awhile.
Now where is this source????
Romney has a 7-point lead in Nevada over McCain. McCain isn’t doing anything in Nevada. What’s Romney going to do in Nevada to improve his win?
How about naming the states you have in mind?
(IMHO, there's no way the Dhimmis can carry even one Southern state with either Hillary or Baraq heading their ticket -- no matter who turns out to be the 'Pub candidate.)
Mitt is the worse matchup against Hillary!
He will be plastered as a flip flopping country club republican (which is hard to defend in his case).
Plus, he may lose in states where Republicans usually win. He could be a disaster for the Republicans in November (not only in the presidential race but also congressional races, etc.)
You spelled his name wrong, and made up the part about who he worked for. As to “spreading”, he did provide a link to the article on his blog. I guess Free Republic also “spread” the rumor because we reprinted it here.
He hasn’t worked for Romney since early 2006, almost 2 years ago.
“I think you need to re-evaluate your assumption.”
________________________
Yeah, I should say that I’m not assuming it’ll happen...more of a gut-level feeling at this point.
True, IA women didn’t vote for him. I think the evangelical women played a big part in that. However, in MI he got 38% of the women vote, 10% more than McCain, more than double Huckabee.
We’ll soon see which of these was the abnormality.
If McCain is the candidate, I’m voting third party.
Oh wait, this is Oklahoma. They won’t let me. Calling President Bush. Help, we need true democracy right here in Oklahoma!
oops, make that 39%.
and it was consistent from 30 years old on up....not so well in the 18-29 crowd.
forgot the link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21228184/
Unfortunately, it seems nobody thinks enough of Fred Thompson’s chances right now to spend money to ask how he does against the Democrats.
And not so oddly, the polls done against democrats are all showing that the more liberal the candidate on the republican side, the better that candidate does against Hillary and Obama. McCain looks great, Giuliani still does well. If we ran Leiberman, I bet he’d be crushing those two in the polls.
Given the constant negative attacks on Romney over the last month by the liberal press, coupled with the widespread talk of gloom and doom after he came in 2nd in Iowa and New Hampshire, it is surprising that he didn’t fall FURTHER in these head-to-head matchups.
Wasn’t he Thompson’s guy in 1980?
Romney may very well deliver Michigan in the general.
LLS
Romney had the highest percent win yet for a republican — 40% in a 5-way race.
If McCain wins South Carolina, he will be lucky to break 30%.
Romney also had the highest percent win in a caucus, taking 66% of the delegates in Wyoming.
Now it’s time for Fred Thompson to crush McCain and Huckabee in HIS next-door state. Romney has cleared the airwaves.
And before the Michigan win, Mitt was running second in CA.
It’s hilarious watching people quoting Jonathan Martin from the Politico with credibility and authority.
Yes. Senator Baker was Fred's friend, mentor, and home state Senator so that is not too suprising.
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.