Focusing on Focus Groups: Why Opposing Forces REALLY Fear Romney

More analysis of the debate. Jeff's right. Mitt is being reviled on both sides of the aisle because he is showing the most progress and the highest level of organization in this campaign so far. All the angry words, accusations and whispering add up to one thing: Romney is the biggest potential threat to either side.

Mitt Ping!

• Send FReep Mail to Unmarked Package to get [ON] or [OFF] the Mitt Romney Ping List •

Romney has also proven the best at striking out against the left in a way that is both critical but not just nasty. You don’t hear the same old platitudes from him, but rather critiques on policy...

You can hear the same old nonsense and name calling from the Dims....”cronies,” “evil corporations,” “richest 2%.”

Romney will play very well against that and would make a very formidable candidate in the general. His most difficult task is going to be getting there....

Most people who see Romney in person really like the guy. But the lack of name recognition in the populace needs to be overcome.

Exactly.

Mitt has run by far the best campaign. I think, in the end, everyone is going to rally around him. The man exudes competance with a track record to prove it.

(for evidence that Romney's target #1 for the DNC see here)

Hope all you Mitt-haters are comfortable with the allies you have chosen. This tidbit should make you stop and think about things for a minute or two.

"The call him Flipper, Flipper..."

It’s funny, “Flipper” seems to be the only Republican candidate capable of addressing the issues conservatives care about and putting together a campaign that doesn’t already have the wheels flying off.

I guess you’re backing a lib or a trailer park, eh?

Although I am undecided, IMHO Romney comes across as the “most Presidential” of all the repubs and rats.

He leaves a bad taste of distrust in my mouth. Too many positions have changed to what they needed to be once he decided to run.

Real Republicans don’t care about focus groups.

Romney actually has some successful executive experience behind him. (Business, Olympics, medium sized state Governor)

When it came time to pick a winner of the debate, however, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney had the most votes. Some participants said his cool demeanor and articulate speaking set him apart.

America at its best is cutting edge and Mitt is cutting edge. Handsome, smart, rich, great wife and kids.......he personifies the American dream. And he is NICE and moral.

Is there some unwritten rule that conservatives have to nominate a candidate who is rough around the edges, slow speaking but "charming" and panders to our amigos to the south? It's a big world out there. I think it would be great to show the world the other side to America. Here's a candidate fluent in French(as is his wife) who has the potential to appeal to a different set, especially Europe. Classy, not cowboy (no offense to cowboys).

Come to think of it, CheyennePress and Reaganesque you owe me answer about the Second Amendment.

Do you think the Massachusetts AWB infringes on the right of the people, of Massachusetts to, keep and bear arms?

As I’ve said in the past. They are scared of this man because he is George Bush with charisma and speaking ability.

Look, I love our president, but he is often painful to watch giving a speech.

I love President Bush too, the only thing I've disagreed with him on is illegal immigration. I think that he will go down in history as one of our most courageous presidents, accepting and willing to be reviled because of his strong stance on terrorism.

That said, I sometimes cringe when I hear him speak. Over the past few years, he seems to have gotten worse, instead of better. Have to wonder if it's because he knows the DBM is itching to catch him in a gaffe that he hesitates, mispronounces, ahs, uhs, etc.

I love President Bush too, the only thing I've disagreed with him on is illegal immigration. I think that he will go down in history as one of our most courageous presidents, accepting and willing to be reviled because of his strong stance on terrorism.

That said, I sometimes cringe when I hear him speak. Over the past few years, he seems to have gotten worse, instead of better. Have to wonder if it's because he knows the DBM is itching to catch him in a gaffe that he hesitates, mispronounces, ahs, uhs, etc.

I have to agree with you. I think the BDS situation has taken its toll on him and as you suggest, has likely made him more hesitant and deliberate when he speaks.

The amnesty thing never bothered me anywhere close to how mad the Harriet Myers nomination made me. To me Bush always had a soft spot in his heart for Mexico and granting amnesty was something that Republican presidents have done before. Plus, this was not inconsistent with his compassionate conservative ideology, imo.

However, during the original campaign, he promised at nearly every stump speech that he would appoint strict Constitutionalists to the court. Myers was so typical of past Republican behavior of given the rats one judge for every judge we get to avoid the confirmation battles. Hence a completely dishonest and known to be a total ACLU leftist, jurist such as Ginsberg gets around 95 confirmation votes and Alito and Roberts can barely muster 60. Our party is a joke compared to the rats in this regard.

There is some fear of Romney because he’s such a likeable and articulate candidate. It doesn’t hurt that he photographs well.

Like many Democrats during the 1970’s and 1980’s, Romney campaigned as less loyal to his party than he actually governed. That was understandable, given where he’s from, but it’s coming back to haunt him. IMHO, he governed MA as conservatively as was possible under the circumstances.

Hey EV, here is solid evidence that Romney would make a strong GOP general election Presidential candidate. I know you feel that Romney is a liberal in sheep’s clothing, however, you must agree he is preferable to Hillary or Obama, right? Romney chooses a solid conservative (maybe Southern) Veep, and hey, the GOP candidate can win in 2008. Whadya think?

It’s funny, “Flipper” seems to be the only Republican candidate capable of addressing the issues conservatives care about and putting together a campaign that doesn’t already have the wheels flying off.

Of course, it helps that he has hundreds of millions in personal wealth to work with.

Interesting breakdown of things, I must say.

And no, the author and I are not the same person— as far as I know, we’re not even related.

For A New Face, Romney Fighting High Negatives

Author: Soren Dayton
Wed Feb 28 2007 8:42 AM

Former Massachusetts Governor and Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s “introduction to the public has gone badly.” So say the editors of National Review, the flagship conservative journal of opinion, which Romney has worked hard to win over.

So when Romney appeared to re-launch his campaign with early television advertising in key states, eyebrows in the pundit world went up.

“You don’t run early advertising like that unless you see something alarming in your internal polling,” one Republican media consultant who is unaffiliated with any of 2008 candidates told The Daily Acts.

And if Romney’s internal polling is similar to the public polling data that have been released recently, he indeed has cause for alarm.

According to a Diageo/Hotline poll release on Tuesday, Romney’s Fav/Unfav ratio is just over 1:1; meaning for every one person who forms a favorable opinion of him, there is another who forms an unfavorable opinion of him. As Rich Lowry of National Review writes in “the Corner,” “Romney isn’t so well known, but is barely in favorable territory, 18/15.”

Writing in the American Spectator blog, Philip Klein counters with even worse news for Romney.

“A new Washington Post-ABC News poll is even worse for Romney: 26 percent favorable to 34 percent unfavorable, which is absolutely remarkable given his lack of name recognition,” writes Klein. “He’s also the only one of the big six candidates in both parties to have a net negative rating. Giuliani has the highest rating: 64 favorable to 28 unfavorable. So in other words, more people have an unfavorable view of Romney than Rudy—even though 40 percent of people don’t know enough about Romney to have an opinion, while only 8 percent have no opinion on Rudy.”

“Romney has time to turn this around,” our source tells The Daily Acts. “But that time is running out. If Romney’s current advertising blitz doesn’t move the needle, people will start to give up on him.”

http://www.thedailyacts.com/Republicans/51/for-a-new-face-romney-fighting-high-negatives.html

Romney may have money but the important thing is, he doesn't have a cohesive message.

I can already see the Dim 30-second ads against him in the general election. They'll make the GOP ones of John Kerry look serious and thought-provoking.

Mitt Romney receiving negative returns on investment

Ethan Boivie
Tuesday, July 17th, 2007

After starting out as the top Republican fundraiser (before Rudy Giuliani was fully in the race), Mitt Romney’s star has continued to fall, and donors to his campaign may feel their contributions would have been better invested in junk bonds.

Romney has been spending huge amounts of money on his presidential campaign, and at a clip faster than he has been able to raise it. The spending has been so prolific that he has had to lend his campaign nearly $9 million. Not that he can’t afford it, or that spending money is a bad thing, but one would hope, or even expect, that such spending would improve the fortunes of a candidate. Not so in Romney’s case. To the contrary, it seems the more he has spent, and the more people his message reaches, the further down the polls he slips. Granted, he did have some good showings in Iowa and New Hampshire, but on a national level he is performing horribly: trailing soon-to-announce-he-is-running Fred Thompson and soon-to-announce-he-is-no-longer-running John McCain.

Romney’s negative returns are intriguing. One possible explanation is that as people learn more about Romney, they learn about the various conflicting positions he has taken with himself, and voters are sure to disagree with at least one of his positions on a particular issue. So perhaps the best strategy for Romney would be to spend less money and keep quiet, and then maybe he’ll bounce back in the polls.

http://politicalderby.com/2007/07/17/mitt-romney-receiving-negative-returns-on-investment/

Posted February 28, 2007

Washington Post-ABC News poll

Romney in free fall as negatives climb

According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released Tuesday:

Romney is viewed positively by 26 percent of respondents, and negatively by 34 percent, for an astonishing 1.3-to-1 negative net ratio. Romney is the only political figure included in the positive-negative impression question whose negatives are greater than his positives. Every other candidate, even Hillary Clinton, just barely, has higher positives than negatives. Rudy Giuliani’s ratio is 2.3-to-1 positive by comparison, and John McCain’s is 1.5-to-1 positive.

Since early December, Romney’s negatives have increased ten points (from 24 to 34 percent), a 42 percent increase in negatives. Those who have a “strongly negative” impression increased by eight points (from 4 to 12 percent), an increase of 300 percent in “strong” negatives. In the same time period, the percentage of those who view Romney positively increased only four points (from 22 to 26 percent), an 18 percent increase in positives.

The positive-to-negative ratio is considered a prime predictor of the upward mobility potential of candidates who are not yet well-known. What Romney’s surprisingly early and increasing negatives suggest is that the more people learn about him, as they have over the last several weeks, the less they like him.

In the last five weeks, the percentage of those who say they would support Mitt Romney’s candidacy for president dropped by 56 percent! In a January 19th Washington Post-ABC News poll, 9 percent of respondents said they would vote for Romney over all other candidates offered. In this week’s poll, only 4 percent said they would vote for Romney.

What happened between January 19th and this week that might have significantly impacted voter opinion of Romney? The drop in his support occurred despite — or given the evidence, perhaps because of — Romney’s formal announcement of his candidacy on February 13th and his airing of paid political advertising in key early primary and caucus states during the very period the poll was in the field.

More telling, his formal announcement was immediately followed by intense focus by conservative bloggers and the mainstream media on (1) Romney’s past record of support for abortion on demand, gun control, “gays in the military” and other major elements of homosexual activists’ political agenda, and (2) Romney’s dramatic reversal of his views on those highly-charged issues in an obvious attempt to sell himself to skeptical social conservatives who dominate the GOP presidential primary process.

Apparently, in a time of war requiring strong leadership and strength of conviction, American voters aren’t buying another flip-flopping liberal from Massachusetts.

http://www.eyeon08.com/2007/02/27/are-the-ads-romneys-last-stand/

Romney not connecting with S.C. GOP voters

By: Lee Bandy - The State
Aug 6, 2007

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney holds a clear lead over his GOP rivals in Iowa and New Hampshire. But for some reason, Romney hasn’t been able to connect with South Carolina voters — a key primary state in Romney’s bid to gain his party’s nomination.

Romney should be more competitive in the Palmetto State. He has spent more than $1 million for television ads, staff and organization, and get-out-the-vote efforts.

But he has little to show for it.

“I don’t think people are comfortable with him yet,” said former U.S. Rep. Tommy Hartnett of Charleston, a Romney supporter.

Romney remains stuck in fourth or fifth position in statewide polls.

A new survey released this week showed South Carolina support for Romney dropped to 7 percent in July from 8 percent in June.

What reasons do GOP voters give for keeping Romney at bay?

They cite four.

• He’s from Massachusetts, which automatically makes him suspect among conservative Republicans.

• He’s too perfect, too slick.

• His religious faith — Romney is a Mormon — causes him problems with evangelicals, a major part of the GOP base. The Southern Baptist Church, the largest Protestant denomination in South Carolina, called Mormonism a cult in some of its recent teaching materials.

• He has flip-flopped on bedrock issues so much that Republican grass-roots voters question his commitment to GOP ideals.

Social conservatives are concerned specifically about inconsistencies in Romney’s record on gay marriage and abortion.

Romney also got himself in trouble in April when he boasted about his lifelong experience as a hunter. As it turned out, he had been on only two hunting trips.

That’s a no-no in gun-savvy — and early-voting — South Carolina.

“In South Carolina, you can lie about a lot of things but don’t claim to be a hunter,” said Chip Felkel, a Greenville-based Republican consultant.

Romney’s main Republican rivals — former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and, potentially, former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee — also are better known nationally.

To compete with them, Romney is hoping for a strong showing in early GOP primaries, which explains his focus on South Carolina. A win here would help propel Romney’s candidacy to the front of the crowded GOP pack.

While the early-voting states present Romney with a chance to break out, he must do better in South Carolina than he’s doing now if he hopes to remain a viable candidate.

Still, Terry Sullivan, Romney’s South Carolina campaign director, shows little, if any, concern over his candidate’s numbers.

“We are where we need to be,” Sullivan said, indicating the campaign will makes its move when the time is right.

“Right now, nobody is paying attention. It’s summertime in South Carolina,” Sullivan said.

Romney’s strategy is to focus on the Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina contests.

Romney cannot afford to falter. He must win Iowa and New Hampshire to be in a strong position to win South Carolina.

A sweep would set Romney on the way to the nomination, making him difficult to stop, said Winthrop University political scientist Scott Huffmon.

But to do that, Romney must find out how to excite South Carolina Republican voters like Tim Brett, a Greenville-based consultant and GOP activist.

“I haven’t found anybody who turns the light on,” Brett said of the field of Republican presidential hopefuls. “The Democrats are about to have a field day. I don’t see any excitement among Republicans. I haven’t seen a Republican candidate that can go all the way.”

And that includes Romney.

Lee Bandy is a political columnist for The State newspaper in South Carolina. Politico.com and The State are sharing content for the 2008 presidential campaign.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5259.html

Half of Americans say they wouldn't vote for Clinton in '08

June 28, 2007

The poll by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research found that 52 percent of Americans wouldn't consider voting for Clinton, D-N.Y.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, was second in the can't-stand-'em category, with 46 percent saying they wouldn't consider voting for him.

Clinton has long been considered a politically polarizing figure who'd be a tough sell to some voters, especially many men, but also Clinton-haters of both genders. Thursday's survey provides a snapshot of the challenges she faces, according to Larry Harris, a Mason-Dixon principal.

"Hillary's carrying a lot of baggage," he said. "She's the only one that has a majority who say they can't vote for her."

Clinton rang up high negatives across the board, with 60 percent of independents, 56 percent of men, 47 percent of women and 88 percent of Republicans saying they wouldn't consider voting for her. Romney struggled most with women: 50.9 percent said they wouldn't consider voting for him, while 49.1 said they would.

Live by the polls and focus groups, die by the polls and focus groups.

Sorry, I don’t make my political determinations based on a Frank Dunce focus group, or by polls.

~”Real Republicans don’t care about focus groups.”~

Nope, just victorious ones.

Face it, we’re talking about politics here. It’s not an ideal world. A Republican has to win votes to win an election. If a focus group states how to do that, then the Republican ignores that information at his or her own peril.

A Republican

Right. If Romney actually was one...

I don’t want a President who follows focus groups. Focus groups are for phony leftists who have to pretend to be something they are not to get elected. Traditional values and great vision are what is needed.

Sorry, I don’t make my political determinations based on a Frank Dunce focus group, or by polls.

If we are talking about the competitiveness of a candidate in a general election, to state you ignore polls and focus groups is tantamount to stating you are a dunce.

Those were your words, not mine. I’m always shocked at the propensity of Romney supporters to try and put words in my mouth.

So what do you think of the polls that have consistently shown negatives for Mitt up in the Hillary range?

~”I don’t want a President who follows focus groups.”~

I agree with you entirely. I also want a president who does the right thing, rather than the popular one.

McCain, however, is an excellent example of what happens, though, when the people - ostensibly represented by the focus groups - are ignored. I give McCain credit for political courage, but he’ll never be president.

This is politics. If the people want X, then the candidate better find a way to make them feel good about X, regardless of whether he actually agrees with and promises to accomplish X. It’s the nature of the beast, and what you and I want in this regard isn’t really relevant.

The awb is nothing but politics and a useful tool for others to attack their opponents with.

Bttt!

It violates the Second Amendment...which you apparently don’t care about

You sum up my feelings exactly. We need an un-Bush candidate. How about a smart, articulate guy who doesn’t talk like he has a slow brain and a mouth full of peanut butter? Folksy types with drawls and pickup trucks are passe. Twenty years of them as presidents since the 1970s are enough. A bald guy with a strange lisp and a peculiar personal life won’t wear well, either. I can barely stand to look at him, much less listen to him for four years.

Being fluent in French might win Romney support in Europe. And the French are turning our way which could be the beginning of the reversal of European anti-Americanism. It wouldn’t hurt to try something different and go for a handsome, extremely charming, smart, nice guy with a beautiful family and classy wife.

Thanks for posting this. Several of the videos were very interesting, especially, the Iowa video, showing Mitt’s stops throughout Iowa. The Romney team has some great production teams working on their videos. Its a real asset for them.

I don't disagree with a single point, well said.

However, Romney's strategy for capturing the governorship in Mass. and the way it has come back to bite him proves, painting oneself as a Liberal is not the best way to go. Then too many in the base won't trust one. It is better to emphasize one issue, issue(s) over another, other(s) depending on the office and area in which a candidate is running.

How many Presidents have voted for this ban?

How many Presidents have voted for this ban?

None, presidents don't vote.

Clinton signed it into law. As part of the law the Federal AWB automatically expired in 2004. The state of Massachusetts has their own AWB, which Romney renewed when came up for his signature. Mitt fans claim he signed it because he knew if he vetoed it the Mass Legislature would have overridden his veto. Weak position, no leadership. Mitt should have drawn the line in sand. He is RINO

IMHO, he governed MA as conservatively as was possible under the circumstances. Based on your statement, I he would govern as Liberal POTUS

“Flipper” seems to be the only Republican candidate capable of addressing the issues conservatives care about and putting together a campaign that doesn’t already have the wheels flying off.

Yes, he's demonstrated a remarkable ability to tell people what they want to hear, even if he doesn't believe it himself.

And before you get all huffy about that statement, that is EXACTLY what the Mittwits are telling us is supposedly a good thing about Romney -- that he LIED to the people of Massachusetts to get elected, and then governed a different way. (Well, except for his unswerving accommodation of the gay agenda, but the Mittwits don't like to talk about that.)

I ask you, and all of the other Mittwits out there -- how can you possibly expect any of us to believe that he means anything he says, when his entire history shows that he'll say anything to get elected?

I think Romney is joined at the hip to Bush. They were classmates at Harvard Biz school and have known each other a very long time. He is not advocating big change in policy. Just as Bush has eliminated hundreds of duplicate and failing programs, Romney is talking about sizing up 365 economic development programs and just keeping the winners to downsize the federal government.

As for trustworthiness, I put more stock in a man keeping his word to his wife and family than I do in hits from opposition research of political campaigns. He was chosen to take over a scandal pagued Olympics because he is squeeky clean and has no skeletons in his closet. If I am correct in thinking that it is Bush's goodness that really drives the hedonists nuts, then Romney will send them straight to the grave. They will just keel over with heart attacks.

But if he's that trustworthy, then why did he lie to the citizens of Massachusetts when he ran for governor?

Or maybe he didn't lie then, but he's lying now?

I simply can't trust someone who will simply tell the audience exactly what they want to hear, and change his tune according to the audience. That's what Bill Clinton was. Right now, Romney is trying to sound like a solid conservative, even though he's always previously ran as liberal-lite. he's consistent for the moment, because he needs to fool/convince (take your pick) conservatives to win the primary, but he'll change his tune to appeal to the "mushy middle" on the unlikely chance he becomes the nominee.

love President Bush too, the only thing I've disagreed with him on is illegal immigration. I think that he will go down in history as one of our most courageous presidents, accepting and willing to be reviled because of his strong stance on terrorism. That said, I sometimes cringe when I hear him speak. Over the past few years, he seems to have gotten worse, instead of better. Have to wonder if it's because he knows the DBM is itching to catch him in a gaffe that he hesitates, mispronounces, ahs, uhs, etc.

Well, I don't love him although I voted ~~for him~~ against his Democratic opponent twice. And if Romney is George Bush with a little more calories and with salt and vinegar added, then God help the Republican Party because it will be more like Bill Clinton lite including the bitter aftertaste of draft dodging during a time of national need for military volunteers.

Extremely well said WS and C_o_D. Let’s try excellence for a change. What’s wrong with that?

Let’s try excellence for a change. What’s wrong with that?

We might win, lol. :-/

~”If I am correct in thinking that it is Bush’s goodness that really drives the hedonists nuts, then Romney will send them straight to the grave.”~

You’ve got a good point; Bush’s “holy-roller” status in the eyes of the left would probably be dwarfed by Romney’s - Romney doesn’t even have a DUI to surprise us with in October, just a dog tied to the top of the car.

Add to that Romney’s obvious articulation advantage - meaning effective delivery of the conservative message and therefore support of the American moderates - and you’ve got a potentially very exciting president, particularly from the standpoint of how much he’ll rankle the libs.

I’m willing to overlook some ideological flaws in order to have that kind of player in the game.


Candidate	Pre-debate score	Post-debate score	Change

Brownback	5.7	5.6	-0.1

Giuliani	5.1	6.6	+1.5

Huckabee	5.8	6.2	+0.4

Hunter	3.1	5.0	+1.9

McCain	4.3	6.6	+2.3

Paul	2.2	2.0	-0.2

Romney	7.1	7.8	+0.7

Tancredo	4.7	4.9	+0.2

T. Thompson	4.4	5.0	+0.6