Posted on 12/24/2007 2:48:03 PM PST by Plutarch
--------------------------------------------------------
LOL. This poll shows Romney 2 points off the lead, and Thompson within the poll's margin of error of ZERO.
Thank goodness, felons can’t vote.
Think again, they are and have been for quite a few years.Convicted felons who have completed their sentence can vote.
Since none of the candidates have come sit in our living room (on-line in or in person), perhaps we are not as easily swayed by the physical presence. After all, this is supposed to be about electing the President of the United States, not inducting somebody into the local Lions club.
Since the people in Iowa and New Hampshire get all this personal attention, we should not expect their thought process or preferences to be the same.
Looking forward to see which polling outfit gets it right. My guess is that this upcoming weekend will determine who wins Iowa. Huckabee might squeak out a win, but any momentum he has will be lost if Romney wins in NH. So based on how the delgates are going to fall nationwide, Rudy is still in good shape. Fred, better win South Carolina.
ARG is trash, as always.
Among Men
Looking at the numbers in the chart, the only candidate who's show continued progress over the long term, combined with significant improvement is - yipes! - Ron Paul.
Aye, Captain, the "most fragmented and unpredictable primary race in decades", indeed.
And another prediction: 2008 is probably _not_ going to be a good one for Republicans. I wish this wasn't so. But it is.
- John
PING
Willard’s negatives are 47%.
Exactly. Then we'll see how conservative the Fredheads really are, as they trudge off to the camp of the MSM darling tax-cut opposing, Gitmo bashing, CFR pushing, open border pimping Mc Cain.
McCain is known to pay bloggers. We might then also find out who has been bashing other candidates while posing as conservatives or nominal Fred supporters. When they suddenly find McCain acceptable, you know that it wasn't conservatism providing their motivation.
Another factor that could impact results:
This is from an article discussing democrats, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it holds true with Republicans in Iowa as well...
“While both Clinton and Obama are attracting new faces, the demographics could favor Clinton: 57 percent of caucus goers in 2004 were over 55, while just 11 percent were younger than 34. Women 55 and older were half of those who turned out, while men under 50 were just 18 percent.”
LOL, see post #65 AND try reading the links. Not every candidate has a built-in church network of millions to work for him for free "for the building up of the kingdom of zion".
Almost makes you understand the establishment urge to coalesce, early and behind doors, for one candidate. For a moment it looked like Fred was being drafted as their guy, then they clearly backed off. Not sure why. Too much Romney money going around? Too many bad insider tales from early advisors who didn’t stick? Too maverick a campaigning style?
With such flawed Dem candidates it’s a crying shame how it looks we’re going for a mediocre candidate ourselves. Rudy McRomneyster doesn’t give me confidence at all for the general.
I only hope you’re right, Rome2000. I try not to think too much of ‘96.
They backed off because Fred fizzled.
Instead of running for president, he ambled half-heartedly on a half-schedule and his supporters figuratively flipped a finger at anyone who suggested his heart wasn't in it. Unable to prod him into a higher level of effort, they took to attacking other candidates--especially Romney--who have been working hard from the very beginning.
The other horses are now coming into the home stretch, but Fred is still only halfway around the track. He's running hard now, but with a frown suggesting that he really loathes what he's doing. Meanwhile his supporters, having seen too many cartoons where the ambling flea-bitten nag gets stung on the rear by an angry bee, slips into hyper-drive and wins at the wire, are hoping against hope that something magical and miraculous is going to happen.
Politics is strange, and you cannot rule out the highly improbable. But that isn't the way to bet.
Fred is rapidly running out of time, mired deep in single digits in most early state primary polls. It's beginning to appear that his last potent act will be to shift his support to another candidate. That will almost certainly be McCain--one of the LEAST reliably conservative top tier candidates in the race.
Just proves that he’s public enemy #1 on the Democrats’ radar.
You did notice that 44% of the people surveyed in that poll were Democrats.
The other 3% must have been disgruntled freepers like yourself who are bitter over Thompson’s non-existent polling numbers.
See, there it is right there. I criticized Willard, you insulted me.
It’s the Prime Directive.
I though this poll would show Fred had moved up. I know this is an outlier poll, so Fred is not really at 3%, though I hope he is not as high as Rasmussen's’s 16% .
He gets much higher than that before the 3rd and I am going to get worried...
“We might then also find out who has been bashing other candidates while posing as conservatives or nominal Fred supporters. When they suddenly find McCain acceptable, you know that it wasn’t conservatism providing their motivation.”
But, you must realize that I’m a Huckabee supporter first; I’m one of those “identity”(sarcasm) voters. If he doesn’t make the cut, I will opt for Thompson. If Thompson falls out that leaves McCain. On my core issues (abortion, homosexuality, and guns) McCain is not perfect, but his isn’t bad either. Whomever we Americans elect, they are going to have to deal with the immigration issue and the borders; the public outcry is just too great.
I don’t bash any candidate, per se. Except that I did, in frustration with all the mean anti-Mike stuff, stoop to posting one or two “make fun” posts about Thompson, and immediately regreted doing so.
I have been accused of “bashing” Romney because I have recently started pointing out (and I trully believe this to be true) that if he is POTUS it is the equivalent of putting the leaders of the mormons in the White House. The mormon “prophet, seer, and revelator” will be an unofficial cabinet member. Sorry to preach here. I don’t dislike Romney per se, I just don’t want a true mormon as POTUS anymore than I would want a homosexual as POTUS.
Now I don’t fault the mormons for wanting one of their own in office. My goodness, that is more or less what I’m doing by voting for Huckabee. Although, being Southern Baptist myself, I know that Huckabee will not answer to anyone (even other Baptists), because of the independent nature (no hierarchy) of the SBC denomination. Back in the President Clinton days (he was a nominal Southern Baptist) there was an attempt by other churches meeting in convention, to sanction Clinton’s home church in Arkansas for not disciplining Clinton (meaning they should have publically told him to come clean or remove him from membership) and the motion failed because agreement could not be reached. The SBC also failed to exert any influence over President Carter - who did many things to horrify us. Bottome line is a SBC associated person, no matter how sincerely so, is not controlled by anyone. However, a mormon, if the real thing, is most definitely controled.
“Yet by talking to each other in this echo chamber, Freepers start thinking the rest of the nation just must be like them.”
That is a sad truth. However, it is an accurate observation. FR is not representative of the vast majority of the GOP.
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.