Posted on 08/20/2007 7:38:04 AM PDT by hardback
The chart of numbers in the article go chronologically backwards from left-to-right.
The statewide polls are certainly a better indicator than a stupid worthless national poll, which is nothing more than a current popularity contest based on name recognition. The only poll that will count in the nominating process will be the primary election results, state by state. Anything else is a waste of everyone’s time.
Not just Iowa, EV.
Illinois, Indiana, leading in New Hampshire...
I wonder if next Summer, when Romney is the ‘08 nominee with Thompson or Hunter as his running mate, you’ll still be trying to submarine his campaign?
I’ll never vote for any ticket that has Mitt Romney on it. The GOP will be done.
“I wonder if next Summer, when Romney is the ‘08 nominee with Thompson or Hunter as his running mate, you’ll still be trying to submarine his campaign?”
Rudy Guliani must be paying EV pretty well to torpedo all his opponents.
What a crock.
Not to mention that by my reading Freds numbers also went down in the exact same poll. The poster must have learned headline writing from the MSM.
“I suspect a lot of McCain’s “support” at this point comes from Democrats who have signed up as Republicans.”
There is much of that in Rudy’s support too.
“This poll says everything is extremely loose for the republicans. 75% is spread among the top 4 poll winners, and “someone else” is the choice of 25%.
This nomination will go to the winner of the money race OTHER THAN Rudy.”
The logical conclusion from your logic is that Romney will win ... unless Thompson moves in aggressively.
It’s pretty clear that the Democrat nomination is down to one name: Hillary.
And the Republican nominee will be one of 3 names: Guliani, Thompson, Romney.
The great danger for conservatives is to watch our support fracture and see Rudy win by default, even though majority of GOP base voters want someone else.
Really, you should just get over it and move on.
“What a crock.” Apt description of your incessant attacks on Romney and Thompson.
Yet ... The man reaping benefits from your actions is Rudy Guliani. And the killer is, he won’t even send you a thank you note.
LOL. You are a legend in your own mind.
You have demolished your own credibility with misrepresentations and ‘win’ arguments by buffoonish non sequitors. Just because people tire of your pointless sophistry doesn’t mean you ‘won’ anything.
In the end, your slams just churn up negativity; you are just paving the way for a liberal triumph in 2008 by attacking electable conservatives. Your negativity will result in the same kind of election disaster than Keyes had in 2004 against Obama.
Time for me to repeat the advice you refuse to take: Don’t tell me what you are against, tell me what you are FOR.
“Really, you should just get over it and move on.” Could be said of your stalking of GOP candidates. Wow, so they are not the Sainted Alan Keyes. Get. Over. It.
One of these days you’ll realize that it isn’t 1976.
I can support Thompson, but I’d prefer Hunter, the best conservative in the race. Apparently, though, he’s either broke or poor. Too bad.
Romney’s flip-flops still have me keeping him at arm’s distance.
Giuliani I wouldn’t touch with a 10 foot pole. His recent, radical support for federal funding for abortion should alarm every conservative of every type, if not on the pro-life side, then certainly on the fiscal side.
Its the brilliant Thompson strategy of waiting and waiting and waiting until nobody believes his intentions of running are sincere. At the very least, McCain REALLY wants to be President, so he's got that much over Thompson.
We do NOT need a LIBERAL to head our Party!
“Folks are just becoming aware of Romney’s ultra-liberal record in MA. He’s doomed.”
“Ultra-liberal”? Get real.
He may not be the reincarnation of Barry Goldwater, but I see him firmly to the right of both Rudy and McPain.
He may not win the nomination, but I see him as ultimately electable.
You need to dig a little deeper. If Romney wasn't ultra-liberal as Governor of MA, no one anywhere qualifies for that title.
Even if true, which I don't believe [no candidate of either party but Hillary has higher negatives], no conservative worth that label should enable such a thing.
I’d prefer Hunter too, but he seems to not be getting traction.
It’s really down to Rudy, Romney or Thompson and Rudy has the upper hand based on polls.
I agree with you on Guliani. I dont want him to be the nominee, he’s wrong on too many issues, too liberal, and he’s going to fracture social conservatives and the party; it’s a bit strange for any social conservatives to go for him over more acceptable alternatives.
I believe that from a competence and character perspective, Romney is the best man in the race. There are not too many candidates with his business and management track record. There are some issues where he was wobbly in the past, but I could cite same on all candidates. He’s running on a fiscal, social and nation-security conservative platform; but is it real? I’d say no less so than the other candidates’ positions; anyway, would you trust him more if he was running a less conservative race?
Thompson could make himself the conservative choice, and thereby win the nomination, but he will have to be an aggressive, high-energy candidate. Otherwise, conservatives will peel off into Romney, smaller candidates and Thompson, and some to Rudy, while Rudy get the lions share of moderate voters. If Thompson doesn’t shake things up, then we may get Rudy by default.
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.