Romney Tied for Lead in New Hamsphire. Go Mitt!
By: Lowell
Published On: 4/5/2007 7:46:27 PM
According to the latest Zogby Poll of New Hampshire Republicans, Mitt Romney "has rocketed to the top of the field of contenders for the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary crown, running dead even with Arizona Sen. John McCain at 25% each..." Rudy Giuliani, who once again today defended his belief that abortions should be financed using public money, is in third place with 19%. Nobody else is even close to the top three Republican contenders.
All I have to say about this is: Go Mitt!
Why do I say this? Believe me, it's not because I have any fond feelings in my heart for Romney. No, it's very simple; Romney would lose badly to pretty much any Democratic nominee, at least according to the latest polls. Check it out:
Time Magazine (3/23-3/26)
Clinton 51%
Romney 34%
Obama 53%
Romney 29%
Newsweek (2/28-3/1)
Clinton 53%
Romney 38%
Obama 54%
Romney 34%
Edwards 58%
Romney 30%
That's right, it's Romney trailing the three leading Democrats by somewhere between 15 and 28 points. In contrast, McCain and Giuliani are neck-and-neck or slightly ahead of the Democrats. Going state by state, can anyone tell me one Kerry/Edwards state that Romney would win? Sure, Romney would win Utah big time, but since Utah went 72%-26% for Bush over Kerry, I don't think that matters very much. Which is why I say, GO MITT! (unless it's Jim Gilmore, which would be even better)
Comments
And Romney's "lifelong hunter" statement (PM - 4/5/2007 8:10:34 PM)
http://news.yahoo.co...
I posted on this elsewhere on the blog today, but saying you're a lifelong hunter when you've gone twice, 45 years apart . . .
Don't get your hopes up (DukieDem - 4/5/2007 10:21:36 PM)
Romney's low poll numbers are indicative of his low name ID.
Way Overblown (thirdestate - 4/5/2007 10:22:37 PM)
Those polls are pretty meaningless. Romney's name identification is so low that he is just getting the "generic Republican candidate" vote in head-to-head match-ups with Democrats.
Having said that, his flip-flopping is so egregious that the Democrats could tear him apart. Of course, how far do you think a Massachusetts flip-flopper is going to get in a Republican primary?
Mitt or Gilmore (Chris Guy - 4/6/2007 12:49:10 AM)
Wow, that's tough. The amazing thing about Romney, much like Gilmore, is that he was incredibly unpopular at the end of his one term, which Democrats cashed in on. Thanks to Romney we have our first Democratic Governor in Mass. since Dukakis.
He's the only Democrat or Republican who's risen to the top tier of candidates without any kind of name recognition to speak of. His performance in this presidential race is truly ASTOUNDING.
Counting the unhatched chickens are we? (presidentialman - 4/6/2007 1:14:32 AM)
Remember, although raisingkaine.com has members on it that care deeply about the state of the nation,it'll always be a political junkie site in between elections. Why we're in between elections right now. So no regular guy gives a crap about these polls because they've got more important things to do like get the kids off to school, going to work, etc.
Also, for us who just served on the Webb campaign, we knew that Webb was going to win, but despite Macaca, Allen really had the name recognition, the history of a Governor from this state and the last name of a Redskins coach. In otherwords people underestamated the Webb candidacy. There's a great history to that, Al Gore underestamated George Bush. California politicians underestamated Ronald Reagan. Lyndon Johnson underestamated the appeal of John F. Kennedy. In short that's what politics is, won by underestamating the opponent. There's a adage for this, don't count your chickens before they hatch.
Dems underestimate this man at their peril (Different Drum - 4/6/2007 2:20:51 AM)
This guy is slick. Look, he was elected governor of one of the most liberal states in the union! And Mass voters are a reasonably sophisticated bunch. He has a good resume (SLC Olympic "fixer," Mass. gov., etc.) My point being, this guy long ago proved he will say anything, do anything, and tap any monetary source available, to get elected. Most worrisome is that he's been exceedingly successful at it. Remind anybody of someone else currently in office?
Say what you will about "The Base" and Mormonism, but the 30% base doesn't elect presidents. I've long felt that Romney (well, until recent Fred Thompson rumors) was the guy to worry about. He has proven crossover appeal, made for TV looks, and a Reagan-like ability to perform on a stage.
I'm just saying.
Platypus (DanG - 4/6/2007 2:27:23 AM)
Did you know the platypus is deadly? That's right. Male platypie have spikes on their back feet that can inject a very painful, sometimes deadly venom.
Why am I saying this? Thompson, Romney, even Giuliani... they're all platypie. They look kind of cute and funny, and they don't appear to be much to worry about. But the second you aren't paying attention, you're going to get stabbed in the wrist.
Don't underestimate any of these guys.
Romney's Now Explaining His Lifelong Hunter Quote: LOL (PM - 4/6/2007 8:59:26 AM)
A nice pun to lead off the AP story:
INDIANAPOLIS - Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is taking a second shot at describing his hunting experience.
The former Massachusetts governor has called himself a lifelong hunter, yet his campaign acknowledged that he has been on just two hunting trips - one when he was 15 and the other just last year.
Campaigning in Indianapolis on Thursday, Romney said he has hunted small game since his youth.
"I'm not a big-game hunter. I've made that very clear," he said. "I've always been a rodent and rabbit hunter. Small varmints, if you will. I began when I was 15 or so and I have hunted those kinds of varmints since then. More than two times."
http://news.yahoo.co...
A scene from Mitt's trophy room
