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.
“What’s Driving the Romney Surge?”
It’s called hard work. Romney has been campaigning hard in NH and IA. Thompson should take note.
It’s also the drip, drip, drip of Rudy’s personal life and questionable friends.
ROTFLMAO I LOL’D
Whoopssss!
It’s called a toxic blend of naivete and sleaze.
I've seen stranger things. I've seen a lot of youtube video of Romney saying quite different things.
doesn’t that say something about his commitment to the voters he’s reaching out to?
A plausible alternative: naked ambition?
The Romnoid, Rudy and/or McLoon on any part of the ticket will keep me home election day.
“It’s called a toxic blend of naivete and sleaze.”
It’s called hard work. Romney has been campaigning hard in NH and IA. Thompson should take note.
Unless you are retired it seems being here all the time you don’t much hard work yourself!
Ahhh, now come the personal attacks. Right on schedule for the Romney Sleaze Machine.
It’s called a toxic blend of naivete and sleaze.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I had it in my head that it was a “.com”, not a “.org”.
If it had been you, I would have sent you a private email.
Don’t let those others bother you, there have been 4 or 5 topics alone today on Mitt.
The others can’t stand the fact that when long shot candidates got shaken out and people had to get behind a candidate, they’re choosing Romney.
Their boy Fred (who I was pulling for) has put little to no effort in this election hoping to run purely on name recognition.
As for the others, they have no name recognition or national support.
The best move for any of those candidates to make would be to get behind Romney and hopefully get the VP nomination from him, that way they stand a better chance down the road.
However, ambition to be the best one can be, to achieve for the sake of building something better for all or to serve others for unselfish reasons no matter how small or large the sevice, that is not evil, in my opinion. It's not ambition that's the problem, it's the personal motivation behind the ambition. Those who suspect Mitt of less than pure motives, have only their cynicism and assumptions to back up their accusations.
Hillary is ambitious in the way you speak of. She truly believes that she is our better. She's "the smartest woman to have ever lived," just ask her. In her opinion, we cannot live without her. She will not answer hard questions, tolerate dissent of any kind and takes angry offense at the drop of a hat when someone offers even the smallest bit of criticism. Her husband was/is the same way. It's all self-serving. It's all about them and their egos. That is blind ambition.
I have never, in the 30 years I have known Mitt Romney, seen even a hint of this kind of egotism in him and those who have met him on the campaign trail seem to agree given these poll numbers. Again, if it was all about him and his ego, all this work and money would simply expose that and it's not. Mitt Romney is the genuine article and people are beginning to see that.
truth hurts!:)
I doubt your anecdotal observations. When a guy is on TV all the time it creates the impression that he is out there pounding the pavement more than the guy that is not on TV. Do you have any actual proof that Romney is working harder than anybody else.
All I know is I was very unimpressed after seeing him in Afghanistan and that was before I knew he had a position to please everyone on every issue.
Well, I’m you’re hurt, but truth is truth.
That is,
I’m sorry you’re hurt, but truth is truth.
I have watch you never take responsible for your actions and reversing for months towards the other person.
The Lord is watching all of us in how fair and just we are!
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.