Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll

Rasmussen ^ | November 15, 2007 | Rasmussen

[redgirlinabluestate]

Mitt never made any such “scurrilous” accusation. However, I do remember someone remarking that Mitt was buying South Carolina! Pot. Kettle. Black.

[bobjam]

The attacks on Bush by Democrats are very different in nature than the attacks Giuliani launches on Hillary. The Dem’s bashing is shrill, nit-picky and absurd. It’s what Limbaugh calls “Bush derangement syndrome”. Giuliani’s attacks on Hillary are thoughtful critiques of her policy objectives- particularly in the realm of taxing and spending. Giuliani then contrasts them with his own ideas and then shows why his ideas are much better than hers. Of the GOP candidates, he is the most capable of articulating and explaining the basics of conservative economic policy.

[eastsider]

Mitt never made any such “scurrilous” accusation.

I never said he did : )

[MEGoody]

Sure, starting viable political parties is easy

Please copy and paste where I ever said it was easy. Oh, that's right, you can't. I never said it was. (Here's a hint: Sarcasm only works when you are being sarcastic about something the person actually said. Otherwise, it falls flat, as did the rest of your post.)

We conservatives must have patience, candidates like Reagan come along rarely

Perhaps, but they will come along less rarely if the Republican party insists on nominating the most liberal of the candidates. If the party shows that it will embrace liberalism, why should someone like a Reagan bother to run? Shouldn't we be picking the candidate that is most like Reagan, not the one who is least like him?

and there is no way to “purge” them, they aren’t going anywhere.

Fine. They just need to be aware that there are many who will not vote for Rudy in the general election, and they need to take responsibility for what their choices have wrought. (But they won't - they'd rather blame it on the conservatives who refused to vote for a liberal.)

And Republicans as a whole better understand that the more left they move, the fewer conservatives who will be going along for the ride.

[papasmurf]

Yup, and Smiling Faces-The Undisputed Truth, and The Main Ingredient, etc, etc...(can you dig it, can you dig it) LOL

Oh, and don’t forget...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVxw2zj2IsY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Em9M527Bk4

...for the kids!

[eastsider]

I expect both Tancredo and Hunter to drop out soon, and I can't imagine either getting behind anyone other than Thompson. I also can't see how maybe 4% is going to break up the logjam, unless many of the undecideds are secretly Tancredo/Hunter supporters who don't want to commit to anyone else before their candidates bow out of the race.

What I am looking for is Huckabee to end his run as flavor of the month -- which except for IA, it looks like he has -- and for those numbers to break up the logjam.

[LibLieSlayer]

:-)

LLS

[Spiff]

Giuliani continues to dominate the field as he pulls even higher in these polls. His 4 closest rivals still continue to fight amongst themselves, allowing no clear challenger to Giuliani. Romney retains a 2nd place position for the 5th day in a row. Thompson loses another point and is tied for 3rd place with McCain and Huckabee. Thompson's point drop is surprising since the NRLC endorsement came 2 days ago and should be reflected in the poll results.

[LS]

Oh, I fully agree. My point of difference with the other posters is, I think EVERY Republican should be attacking Hillary, and the one that does the best job will benefit in the primaries. But when they "dis" each other, I think it hurts them.

SHE is the enemy, and to date, Rudy's attacks have been the best, and the most constant, Romney's second.

[eastsider]

I don’t understand how McCain has managed to stay as strong as he has. I admire his tenacity, but who’s funding him?

[mbraynard]

Yes, because I'm sure that the 0.05% of the R electorate that is aware of who Paul Wyrich is, what the NRLC is, and what was said, are totally turned off to Willard.

Excellent analysis.

[ZULU]

Conservatives split vote while JulieAnnie walks away with the nomination.

[eastsider]

Having a bad day, are we? : )

[mbraynard]

I was but then the PJ Patrol on FR started to entertain me by acting like they were on Russert.

[roses of sharon]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2259061911820027671&pr=goog-sl

A Rudy 300 ad made by a fan, found on National Review today!

[eastsider]

This post from Elephant Biz oughta really tickle your funny bone --

Romney Caught Playing Politics

Mitt Romney's camp, using a strategy often employed by self-funding candidates, sucessfully stonewalled the Dec. 4 Iowa debate into cancellation. Romney's advantage in Iowa comes from being able to maximize paid media, and denying free media to his opponents is to his favor.

That strategy however, has drawn the ire of the Iowa Republican party. The email sent by the Iowa Republican Party political director to all the county chairs and state central committee members, per Jonathan Martin:

From: Craig Robinson
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 2:29 PM
To: 'Craig Robinson'
Subject: FOX News - RPI Debate Cancelled

Dear Friends, Because of Mitt Romney’s unwillingness to participate, the upcoming Republican Party of Iowa/FOX News Channel Presidential Debate on December 4th has been cancelled.

We are very disappointed that Iowa Republicans will not have the same opportunity as Republicans in New Hampshire, Florida and South Carolina had earlier this year with their FOX News Debates.

The Republican Party of Iowa decided to partner with FOX News Channel because of their willingness to broadcast a live prime-time debate, with a large audience comprised of activist and caucus goers from all of Iowa’s 99 counties. We were also working with FOX News on a remote broadcast from one of Iowa’s 1784 precincts, featuring caucus goers from that precinct.

It was our hope to use a nationally-broadcast debate on FOX News and FOX News Radio to showcase Iowa’s unique caucus system at a time when the most people would be paying attention to the Presidential race in the days leading up to January 3rd.

You will be able to watch the Republican Presidential Candidates debate on TV before the January 3rd Caucuses at the following other debates: Sunday, December 9, 2007 – 7:00 p.m. EST: Univision Television Wednesday, December 12, 2007 – 1:00 p.m. CST: Des Moines Register Debate, moderated by Carolyn Washburn and broadcast by Iowa Public Television.

Again, we are disappointed that this debate has been cancelled. We know that hundreds of you have requested tickets and made plans to attend. We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience.

[Sola Veritas]

“I also can’t see how maybe 4% is going to break up the logjam”

Brownback’s endorsement of McCain has helped him stay competitive. If Hunter, God Bless Him, and Tancredo will drop out and endorse another candidate of their choice, I thing it will help.

There are many diehard Hunter supporters wasting alot of energy on a losing horse. That fervor is needed elsewhere.

I’m still undecided, but lean in this direction:

First Choice: Thompson
Second Choice: Tie between McCain and Huckabee

Although I don’t feel that strong about anyone in particular.

I won’t bad mouth Romney because I know there are many here that really hold him in high regard. I’ll just say that I’m not comfortable with him for several reasons.

I have a real dislike for Guiliani. I’m concerned he will be the nominee as things stand today. The only advantage I see in him over Clinton is I do believe he will keep the national defense strong. I don’t trust him when he says he will appoint “strict constructionists” to the SCOTUS - that label is being abused lately. Now if he were to say he would appoint another Scalia or Thomas then that would resonate well with me.

[The Pack Knight]

Absolutely. My point is that a focus on Senate and House races is essential even if we do have a conservative candidate. Even if we re-animated Barry Goldwater and put him in office, it wouldn't matter much if the Democrats manage to build a veto-proof, or even just a filibuster-proof, majority in Congress.

Now, I'm realistic enough to know that a Republican majority in either house in the 111th Congress is all but out of reach; the numbers just don't add up any other way. However, that doesn't mean conservatives can't hold the line and plant the seeds for a comeback in 2010.

If anyone from the NRCC or the NRSC is reading, it's time to chuck the "local issues" garbage that helped ensure a GOP debacle in 2006 and run on a national conservative message that offers real solutions to the problems facing the country today. If the Presidential nominee is on board, great. If not, well, he's not the one running for Congress.

If conservatives don't articulate a plan, then the voters will assume that the "plan" for a Republican Congress is to continue with business as usual - and they'll be right! They showed what they think of business as usual in 2006, and, if the GOP doesn't want more of the same, they'd better shape up for next year.

All considered, 2007 has been a better-than-expected year for the Republican minority, but if they ever want to be a majority again, they're going to have to do more than simply frustrate the Democrats. They're going to have to demonstrate that they've learned their lesson from 2006, prove that they can be trusted to do what they were sent to Washington to do, and offer some real and specific alternatives to the Democrats' big-government, anti-American agenda.