Posted on 12/20/2007 9:13:49 AM PST by tj21807
Romney - 26% (down 10 points) McCain - 26 % (up 15 points) Giuliani - 16% (down 6 points) Huckabee - 11% (down 2, wahoo!) Undedecided - 10% Thompson - 4% (up 1) Paul - 4% (up 2)
I think it has to do with FRUITS... get it? :)
And I could say the same for McCain, who (as you might recall) ran out of money and fired all his staff several months ago.
Huckabee hasn’t won a single vote yet. The idea that money and organization are key is because in the past it has been money and organization that has led to victory.
Before Iowa in 2004, we all heard how on the ground organization and big money donors were passe as Dean created a groundswell of support and a broad donor base from the internet. Dean faded quickly though as more and more people started paying attention.
Television advertising and mass mailing postcards and flyers influences the least politically savvy portion of our society. Unfortunately, that is by far the largest portion of society. Thus, getting effective TV ads and designing postcards that can quickly influence people (as they read them while taking them to their trash can) is the job of good staffers and the result of large amounts of cash.
We will see if 2008 is the year to break the hold on “staff and cash”, but I don’t think it will be.
What’s the explanation for McCain’s surge there? Any idea?No idea. The party's having a nervous breakdown?
It’s not just rights for illegals. McCain supports rights for terrorists, too. Of course, Huckabee would pardon Bin Laden.
“What?” says Huckabee. “Me worry?”
Good example of learning .... well, what *I* would consider the wrong lessons from history.
Gephardt had the best organization in Iowa. Look where it got him. Dean ended up with the most cash -- a result of his message.
He had a message that voters loved, and it took him a long, long way from nothing.
What he didn't have was a candidate they thought would make a realistic president.
Well, I don’t think Huckabee would make a realistic President. And if I remember the scenario correctly, Gephardt was apparently number two on Kerry’s list of running mates, so his showing almost got him a VP nomination.
Not bad for a Union hack who had no national presence.
That is a commonly voiced opinion, which I would guess is held by a fair number of caucus-goers. OTOH, a lot of Huck's support is likely very comfortable with a preacher-type running things. Arkansas is not too too different on a scale.
And if I remember the scenario correctly, Gephardt was apparently number two on Kerry’s list of running mates, so his showing almost got him a VP nomination.
Poor rationalization. Gephardt was a national Dem leader who had previously mounted a credible run for president.
McCain has decades of money network and a history in New Hampshire. He has hired people with national campaign experience. And they, like Thompson, have changed from lying low to opening the spigot, because they like Thompson see the juggernaut that is the Romney campaign and they dare not allow a crisp organization to add momentum to efficiency.
McCain will disappear without New Hampshire. He is spending it all right now. With New Hampshire he then spends 2 solid days asking for more money before leaving for Grand Rapids.
We have the campaigns feeding the media things right now at a traditionally slow news time so there will be a sense of changing positions daily. The ARG polling results that just released look suspect methodologically to me as I mentioned in another thread. They took 600 samples, declared only 8.7% to be likely, computed results from that 8.7% (only 52 people) but tried to use 600 for their MOE calculation. This is just wrong. The MOE for a sample size of 52 is 13%, not 4%.
No, I think we’re all looking at the very real possibility of Mike Bloomberg being elected as the first Independent President of the United States.
THAT makes a lot more sense. Thank you.
And that means one candidate may actually be 13 points lower and another 13 points higher, right?
In other words, better than a coin flip but not much.
Hard to say if that’s what they did. Maybe they have 600 likely voters in their sample, and just happened to mention the 8.7% number for . . . whatever reason.
Of even more interest in that sample is they took it over 4-5 days of sampling. This race is jumping around so much that 4 days ago look nothing like today.
Flaming liberal state. Its where the nut did good last time too.
What is that you’re smoking?
Fred Thompson is putting all his eggs in the Iowa basket.
If he comes in third or fourth in Iowa, he doesn't have good prospects. He will probably then withdraw.
If he withdraws, he would likely endorse McCain. Wouldn't that be something. The great conservative hope ends up helping open-borders McCain.
Nothing. I’m telling you to watch Bloomberg if Huckabee and Obama/Hillary are the nominees. Bloomberg is riding a wave of success and support in New York, plus he’s worth $26 billion dollars, he’s already stated publicly that if he ran he would self finance his campaign to the tune of $1 billion dollars. He’s going to run, I have no doubt, and if he does he will name a Repub as his running mate, or maybe Lieberman, but he’s going to run and he’s going to be very difficult for the dem or Repub to defeat him. My 1 cent wortth.
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.