A: 
Posted on 11/14/2007 7:07:30 AM PST by Reaganesque
I realize everything can change fast in Iowa and New Hampshire, and some are rightly skeptical about the value of polling in a caucus state. I also recognize that some pollsters' methods of figuring out who's a "likely voter" are better than others.
But if I were a Romney guy, I'd be pretty pleased about the trends in those two primary states.
Romney's had a lead in the Hawkeye state for a while, but that lead seems to be growing, across several pollsters. Romney is up 16 on his nearest competitor (Huckabee) in Zogby, up 8 on his nearest competitor in ARG, up 23 on Rudy and Huck in University of Iowa, up 14 in Strategic Vision, up 7 in Rasmussen.
In New Hampshire, we see a similar dynamic. Romney is up 12 on Giuliani in the Globe/University of New Hampshire poll, up 11 on Giuliani in Marist, up 15 on Giuliani in Rasmussen, up 7 in ARG, up 9 in the previous Rasmussen, up 10 in St. Anselm.
When the Marist poll came out, I asked the Romney campaign what was driving that, and they responded, "we've been campaigning hard in New Hampshire, including three days there last week. Senator Judd Gregg's endorsement was certainly a boost for us. But while this particular poll may show us with a strong lead, we're going to continue to run in New Hampshire as if we were ten points behind."
Even the South Carolina numbers are starting to look better across several polls — he's leading the field at 29 percent, up 6 percentage points on Giuliani in ARG (okay, really, how is Fred Thompson getting 10 percent in South Carolina?), tied with Giuliani and one point behind Thompson in Winthrop/ETV, in a three-way tie for second and five points behind Thompson in InsiderAdvantage, leading the previous ARG by 3, and down 9 percent in Rasmussen, and even that's five percent higher than the previous poll by that organization.
Because we're seeing an effect in several states where there is advertising, and not just where Romney picked up a big endorsement (like Gregg), I suspect the ads are what is driving the Romney surge. I would also note that we've seen little, if any, change in Romney's national numbers during this time.
True. But if he’s willing to put so much effort into it, doesn’t that say something about his commitment to the voters he’s reaching out to? Would he put out this much effort to gain support only to turn his back on them once he’s elected? I don’t think so.
And come Feb 5th it'll be all for naught.
I think you are correct about ‘outworking’ his opposition, and I also think his performances in each debate are having a positive cumulative effect on voters.
I also think that people are now looking beyond Guiliani’s performance during and immediately after 9/11, and seeing his lawsuit mania as mayor, his ‘sanctuary city’ position, his gay rights stance, and his partial birth abortion support...and beginning to realize there is more to being President than National Defense and the War on Terror.
Add to it when Rudy gets bored, he has an affair or three, ala Bill Clinton...and the ‘charm’ is wearing off pretty fast politically.
I have no problem with Guiliani being in a GOP cabinet, and I might even be able to support a GOP ticket where he was the Vice Presidential choice.
But I will not, under ANY circumstances, vote for this guy as President.
BTW, I love your screen name!
Romney’s numbers are artificially high in the early states because he started advertising early. The other serious candidates are just starting to go on the air now. In a month Romeny’s early advantage will likely have disappeared.
Outworking the field, even assuming Romney is in fact doing so, won’t help him at all. In the end, he is not likely to win or do well in Iowa or anywhere else other than NH because he just isn’t a plausible Republican candidate. His conversion to conservative principles is too dramatic, too recent, and too well-documented on videotape.
I grew up in NH and as a child I remember watching a Romney candidacy which had appeared invicible go up in a puff of smoke because the candidate was all wrong for the party he wanted to lead. George Romney was a legendary manager who didn’t have much in common with most Republican voters. One chance comment about brainwashing and Romney’s candidacy evaporated.
History is about to repeat itself. This time it probably won’t be a single gaffe that does it. When Romney stumbles in Iowa he won’t ever have a chance to get up.
Money... and ‘moderate’ Republicans jumping the Rooty bandwagon.
I think subconsciously post the Kerik meltdown , folks are afraid of the next shoe falling on Rudy's bald head. just saying.
Can you imagine Romney vs. Hillary?
It would be this Reaganesque Man a 60's "Reg" vs. the Hippy Scum "Longhair" of 68'. Think about it....
Romney/Hunter, Romney/Huckabee or even Romney/Kasich (better yet Romney/Santorum) would do just fine.
A:
I could happily live with any of those combinations. Personally, I would prefer Romney/Huckabee. I’ve been very impressed with Huckabee. He’s seems to be a good man. I aslo think Romney/Thompson could work but I doubt Fred would go for it. We’ll see.
Pitifully weak opposition. Ding ding ding.
Good thing to have on hand when going up against Clinton Inc., don’t you think? Regardless, no amount of money can cover up a lousy candidate. Bob Dole, anyone? I don’t care how much you spend on a bad candidate, if that candidate can’t connect to the people with a message or his/her personality, then spending lots of money will only speed up the demise of that candidacy. You can’t put lipstick on a pig and be as successful as Romney has been thus far in the early primary states. It just doesn’t work.
I don’t think I’ll live that one down. :(
What did you do?
I think you’re right on.
This “surge” is simply people making up their minds.
What’s Driving the Romney Surge?
A toxic blend of naivete and sleaze.
Tend to agree. And I still think that in the age of television, appearance and manner is everything. Presentation trumps content. That's why at the beginning of the campaign I picked Romney and Obama as the most likely nominees.
Why didn’t Perot or Forbes win then?
I screwed up a link on a post. It went to an XXX site. Surprised I wasn’t banned for it.
As I've mentioned to freepers on occasion, it's because I live next door to a compound of fundamentalist Muslims. Several people have written private replies, and said they'd keep us in their prayers. And I guess they did because word around town, just last weekend, has it the compound is closing and selling the property! Not much fertile soil for radical Islam in anthracite country :)
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.