Rasmussen: Romney as unelectable as Clinton?

December 22, 2007 – 3:29 pm

Core Favorability/Opposition Among All Voters

Candidate

Def. FOR

Def. AGAINST

Net

Obama

29%

36%

-7

McCain

22%

33%

-11

Huckabee

21%

34%

-13

Thompson

21%

34%

-13

Edwards

23%

38%

-15

Clinton

30%

47%

-17

Giuliani

23%

42%

-19

Romney

19%

47%

-28

Paul

10%

48%

-38

Bloomberg

5%

49%

-44

Rasmussen has released another set of polling that allows us to compare all the candidates. The summary table to the right captures the main facts. You will recall that there is a horrible environment for Republicans in 2008. On the generic ballot, Democrats crush Republicans. However, Clinton has such an awful public image that the generic GOP problems are counter-balanced. Well, the conclusion from Rasmussen is that Mitt Romney has a comparable problem:

Among the leading Presidential candidates, New York Senator Hillary Clinton and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney have the highest level of core opposition among voters. Forty-seven percent (47%) say they will vote against each of these candidates no matter who else is on the ballot.

Republicans often argue that Hillary is beatable because of this opposition. What about Romney who has no environmental advantages? Back to Rasmussen, which notes that John McCain is doing the best:

At the opposite end of the spectrum is Arizona Senator John McCain. For the second straight month, McCain finds himself with the smallest level of core opposition–just 33% say they will definitely vote against him. That figure is unchanged from a month ago, down from 39% a two months ago and a peak of 42% in June. These results are just one part of the reason that it is a good time to be John McCain.

Assume for a second that swing-voters will be the key in a general election, consider the additional facts among unaffiliated voters:

McCain has the lowest level of core opposition among unaffiliated voters–just 26% are committed to voting against McCain.

On a net basis, McCain (-6) and Obama (-11) have the best numbers among unaffiliated voters. Clinton (-26) and Romney (-20) have the weakest showing among this group.

In other words, the Clinton/Romney unelectability numbers extend into unaffiliated voters. While McCain gives Republicans the best chance of picking up substantial independent voters. That means keeping the White House. 

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (6)

Substance-free Drudge attack on Rudy; Same for McCain?

December 21, 2007 – 2:54 pm

The day of the CNN/YouTube debate, Matt Drudge, handmaiden of  Mitt Romney’s campaign, raised the issue that became known as "Shag Fund." The claim was that Rudy Giuliani had improperly hid expenses for visiting his then girlfriend. Well, it turns out that it just wasn’t true. Powerline and Captain’s Quarters have the details. Total exoneration from the New York Times.

In other words, Drudge pushed a bogus story at a time that was quite opportune for the Romney campaign.

Yesterday, Drudge pushed a story on John McCain. Drudge first claimed that an NYT story was in the works. Then he claimed that it would publish tomorrow. McCain was forced to answer a question. What happened?

No story. Nothing happened in the Times. And, in fact, it was clear from the facts Drudge provided that no story would be there. No substance, as was made clear in the Washington Post story today.

That’s the story guys. Matt Drudge is a Romney shill.

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (5)

Romney cites his education as authority

December 21, 2007 – 9:30 am

The whole Mitt Romney/Martin Luther King thing just gets weirder and weirder. He told the Detroit Free Press:

"You know, I’m an English literature major as well. When we say, ‘I saw the Patriots win the World Series, it doesn’t necessarily mean you were there — excuse me, the Super Bowl. I saw my dad become president of American Motors. Did that mean you were there for the ceremony? No, it’s a figure of speech."

This reminded me when he tried to weasel out of answering a question about whether abortion was murder by invoking being a lawyer:

I don’t want to use that term because it means different things to different people. … It is taking human life … Murder has — I used to go to law school — murder has malice of forethought and  all sorts of other things …

You know, I don’t know any serious person who cites their college and graduate school education as authority when they talk. Experience, sure. That just strikes me as a weird, weird trait. And also note that it is ad hoc. He didn’t cite his lawyerly authority when he said "I’d have to ask my lawyers" about Iran.

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (5)

Romney: “I saw my father march with MLK”

December 20, 2007 – 6:24 pm

As you probably know by now, Mitt Romney said "I saw my father march with Martin Luther King." It seems that what Romney means by that isn’t what you and I mean. Let’s break the sentence down and see how Mitt Romney parses it:

I saw …

Romney explains what he means by "I saw":

“If you look at the literature, if you look at the dictionary, the term ‘saw’ includes being aware of in the sense I’ve described,” he said. “It’s a figure of speech and very familiar and it’s very common and I saw my dad march with Martin Luther King. I did not see it with my own eyes but I saw him in the sense of being aware of his participation in that great effort.”

Ahh. That’s clear. So not "I saw" in the sense of seeing it actually happen but in the sense of being aware that it happened. So Romney was aware of his:

… my father march with Martin Luther King

So what does "with MLK" mean? According the Boston Phoenix:

Fehrnstrom had originally told the Phoenix that the two men marched together in Grosse Pointe, Michigan, either in June 1963 or March 1968, a claim the Phoenix called into question earlier today. An additional source, William LeFevre of the Reuther Library at Wayne State University, who is in charge of the papers of the Grosse Pointe Civil Liberties Association, has since confirmed to the Phoenix that George Romney was not at the 1968 event, and that King was not at the 1963 event.

Fehrnstrom now says that the event in question was King’s “Freedom March” in Detroit on June 23, 1963. …

However, numerous contemporaneous and historical accounts say that Romney did not participate in the Detroit Freedom March, because it was held on the Sabbath. The New York Times, for example, wrote the next day that “Gov. George Romney, who is Mormon and does not make public appearances on Sundays, issued a special proclamation.”

So it seems that when Romney said "I saw my father march with Martin Luther King" he means that he was aware that his father participated in a civil rights marches that were supported with Martin Luther King.

The dude clearly doesn’t know what the definition of "is" is. So he just makes stuff up.

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (7)

Tancredo endorsement

December 20, 2007 – 1:54 am

UPDATE: Marc Ambinder hears interesting whispers on this endorsement:

Will he endorse? Unclear. If he does, the betting is on Thompson or Romney, although advisers to both men expect the other to get it, if it’s gettable. Note that Bay Buchanan is a member of the LDS church and is said to be pushing Tancredo to endorse Romney as a way of repudiating Huckabee, somehow. We’ll see.

So the word is that Tom Tancredo is dropping out this afternoon. That’s the good news. There is some speculation that he will endorse, although Marc Ambinder, who is smarter than me, thinks that he will not.

Here are some thoughts:

1. Tanc only has two kinds of juice left.

1a. He can provide a good press day for someone. The question is whether he blows his wad today or after Christmas. If I am getting the endorsement and I don’t need a big kick of momentum, I probably want it after Christmas. On the other hand, a Thursday endorsement may be the last real story going into Christmas. Scheduled at 3pm EST to guarantee that it is talked about on the afternoon talk shows and it is hard to get other stories in. That sounds to me like an endorsement of someone else.

1b. He provides a potentially solid endorsement for the xenophobic crowd. Of course, Tancredo has real baggage (crazy mecca comments, crazy xenophobia, etc.), so mileage may vary.

2. Mitt Romney needs a good press day. I have been hearing that he will get the endorsement. The entire Colorado GOP establishment is backing Romney. Tancredo would actually be helping Romney in Iowa. And if the rumors about Steve King are true, it would seem that Romney would be the natural choice of King’s buddy Tanc. Of course, in the past, Tancredo’s campaign has accused Romney of supporting amnesty. Furthermore, if Tancredo believes that Romney will be the nominee, a very credible position right now, then Tancredo can be there for Romney at the right time.

3. Fred Thompson. If Tancredo wants to help make the Fred Thompson boom happen, here’s his chance. Fred’s numbers aren’t taking off too much. He would need it. Of course, Tancredo would be wondering if it would be wasted.

My gut is Romney. I have a lot of trouble figuring out what Thompson is telling people with interest groups, not bloggers, who are endorsing him.

Tags: , , , ,

By eye | Comments (1)

The strategy of emotion

December 18, 2007 – 11:55 am

Stephen Hayes at the Weekly Standard notices that Mitt Romney is scoring with more emotion:

Many other (far more influential) people praised Romney for showing some emotion, too. And since then he has become emotional twice more – once on Meet the Press this weekend and again during a speech yesterday.

Jonathan Martin’s reporting suggests that the emotion could be a strategy…. Dangerous:

These moves come after months of aides and advisers pushing him to let his guard down some. They recognize that he does not always connect with voters. And that it’s no small part for the rise of the folksy Huck in Iowa.

Reminds me of Fred Thompson’s line against Romney, legit or not.

Tag:

By eye | Comments (2)

Romney is doing better in Iowa than you think

December 18, 2007 – 7:46 am

First, I want to say that I have no problem with what I am about to talk about, and I am not alleging anything conspiratorial. In politics, affinity groups are affinity groups and great things. Barack Obama will do better among African-Americans than other candidates. Joe Lieberman got huge electoral and financial turnout from Jews. And the Wall Street Journal talks about Mitt Romney’s support from Mormons:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says it has more than 22,500 members in Iowa in 68 congregations. Joseph Cheney, the president of one of seven "stakes," or geographical groups within the church, estimates that as many as 7,000 Mormons are likely to show up on caucus night, and that nearly three-quarters of the Mormons in the state support Mr. Romney.

This suggests that about 50% of the adult Mormons in Iowa will caucus for Romney. (Assuming that 70% of the 22.5k are adults, not an unreasonable assumption) That 50% number is extraordinary. In a November analysis of polling, a CBS analyst said:

In 2004 about 124,000 people attended Iowa Democratic caucuses, out of a statewide population of about 2,200,000 adults. Even if that Democratic turnout is matched on the Republican side (which might not happen, given the greater enthusiasm of Democratic voters this year), that would still mean a turnout of only 11 percent of the adult population. The hard part for polling is finding them in advance of the caucuses

In other words, the very high end of typical turnout is around 10%. IA Mormons are looking at 50%. Assuming that, under normal circumstances, Mormons participate in higher numbers, perhaps 20% would normally participate in the caucus, (just a guess) that would mean 2,800 votes. Romney will be beating that by at least 2.5x.

That means that Romney will be increasing the universe of caucus-goers by approximately 4,200 people. Increasing the universe is the Holy Grail of winning the Iowa caucuses, but most people don’t succeed. (Exhibit A is always the famed Youth Vote)

The upshot is that you can safely add 5% or so to Romney’s numbers in any Iowa poll. Furthermore, if the Romney campaign is smart — and they are very, very smart — they are trying to drive these numbers even higher. What if turnout was 70% not 50%? Then that would be the equivalent of adding about 7% to his numbers.

The bottom line is that Mitt Romney will win a caucus that looks close. Romney starts with 5-7% of the vote. Any attempt to play down Romney’s chances in Iowa is just a game, the expectations game.

UPDATE: The LA Times has a similar report about California.

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (11)

New Huck and Mitt ads in IA

December 17, 2007 – 5:51 pm

New ads are up. The verdict is in. Huck wins the exchange. I do agree that the crime and ethics issues are what ought to hurt Mike Huckabee.

One of the big questions was how people were going to handle ads around Christmas. Huckabee has managed to come up with an ad that can run the whole time and that is part of his message.

Now the real question is going to be whether someone (paging Fred Thompson) goes negative on Mitt Romney. Thompson has great material for this.

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (1)

Mitt’s Meet mistakes

December 16, 2007 – 11:40 pm

It has turned out that Mitt Romney’s Meet the Press appearance appeared decent at the time, but mistakes seem to be coming out of the woodwork. Race 4 2008 has one write-up.

First, there was Romney’s lie about the NRA endorsement. He claimed that he had received it in 2002. He hadn’t. Just made it up.

Second, he claimed that "…every piece of legislation which came to my desk in the coming years as a Governor, I came down on the side of preserving the sanctity of life." Fred Thompson’s campaign sent out a press release basically blowing that up.

Third, Jen Rubin at the Spectator drills down and finds Romney’s statements on taxes totally lacking. Key quotes:

On the subject of fees and taxes a pre-The Note Rick Klein reported in 2003: "A survey of states grappling with spending crises has found that Massachusetts imposed more fee hikes than any other state in the nation this year - at least $500 million. … ‘These are just indiscriminate, broad-based fee increases because of a reluctance to raise taxes,’ said Michael J. Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. ‘It’s been disingenuous to say there’s no new taxes, in the sense that there’s very little connection to the fee increases and the cost of services that the fees are supposed to represent.’" Groups like Citizens for Limited Taxation at the time were similarly suspicion about the distinction.

And fourth, Romney "I was an independent in the time of Reagan/Bush" and "I voted for Paul Tsongas" said:

OK, Tim, let’s go back and let’s, let’s–I’m going to reject the premise, to begin with because, when I ran against Ted Kennedy, I realized the shot was a long shot, to beat Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts.  But I was tired of his liberal policies.  And as you’ll recall, I fought for the death penalty, I said secure the borders, I said at the same time we’re going to completely redo our welfare system and get rid of the old welfare system.  I ran as a Republican and a conservative.  And when I ran for governor in Massachusetts, you were there.  First question you asked me in the debate, "Tell me about the death penalty." I was for the death penalty.  I was for English immersion in our schools.  I said, I said…

Yeah. Whatever dude. Again, Jen Rubin whips out the quotes:

“I Am A Fiscal Conservative And A Social Moderate.” (2002)

“I Was An Independent During The Time Of Reagan-Bush.  I’m Not Trying To Return To Reagan-Bush.” (1994)

"I don’t know that the world is pining for a progressive-on-social-issues governor of Massachusetts." (2002)

Then there’s my personal favorite "my R doesn’t so much stand for Republican as Reform."

I just can’t wait for the video mashup of the 2007 statements against his actual record.

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (4)

Romney lied about 2002 NRA endorsement

December 16, 2007 – 7:28 pm

Mitt Romney didn’t tell the truth. Again.

In answer to questions about whether he would sign an assault weapons ban, Romney said: "Just as the president said, he would have, he would have signed that bill if it came to his desk, and so would have I. And, and, and yet I also was pleased to have the support of the NRA when I ran for governor. I sought it, I seek it now. I’d love to have their support."

Later in the interview, he added the following:

"I just talked about, about guns. I told you what my position was, and what I, what I did as governor; the fact that I received the endorsement of the NRA."

So? It just ain’t true, as his campaign even admits:

He was never endorsed by the NRA, and didn’t have their official support during his 2002 gubernatorial campaign. The NRA declined to endorse in that race, as was acknowledged by Romney’s spokesman this morning.

"The NRA did not endorse in the 2002 campaign," said spokesman Kevin Madden, when asked about Romney’s comments. "Mitt Romney as a candidate received a respectable B grade rating from the NRA, and when he was governor he had the support of the NRA and the Gun Owners Action League in relaxing some of the state’s burdensome licensing regulations."

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (8)