Posted on 11/23/2009 4:34:15 PM PST by Lou Budvis
Big caveat right off the bat: PPP is the same polling firm that predicted a Hoffman landslide in NY-23. But (a) they had Mitt’s favorables comparable with Huckabee’s earlier in the year, so it’s not like their data’s historically been screwy, and (b) this isn’t just a one-month snapshot but a trend dating back to July.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Mitt “Individual Mandate” Romney’s favorables are at zero with me.
Zero Mitt!
Good one!
Romney’s favorables are zero with me, but then so are Huckabee’s. I dont intend to vote for either.
Romney and Huckafraud are going to be left standing on the beach.
For the GOP to remain a viable party for conservatives the number needs to be below 10%.
Our government is NOT too big to fail.
Stop buying, working over time, building, and get out of debt instead. Starve the Washington beast, and take care of yourself first. We can survive without their money, but they can't survive without ours.
It will be interesting what the polls will show in mid December or January. That would be after Palin’s wildly successful book, all her interviews, and all the great local press she got on her book tour.
My prediction is that Mitt’s numbers will stagnate, or even continue to decline over the coming months, in large part due to Romneycare.
Everyone will start declaring their intention to run by March 2011, Palin will have had at least one huge bestseller, probably 2, by then, plus her proven ability to draw huge crowds everywhere she goes. That’s going to be a big psychological barrier that the others will have to try and overcome. We know that when Mitt campaigned in VA and NJ he drew tiny crowds of “dozens.” Huck drew 500 to his book signing in Birmingham yesterday, at the same place where there are close to 2000 waiting for Palin. She also drew about 4,500 at Ft. Bragg earlier today.
He’s not on my ‘short list’. Never has been.
It's even lower among conservatives!
RINO Mitt Romney: “People will look back and see that I, Mitt Romney,
was the very first to impose death panels. Do you love me now, Ted?”
I bet Romney is the nominee in 12. He is the overwhelming favorite in CPAC polls.
Not even in the picture for real conservatives.
"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party
over to the traitors in the battle just ended.
We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged
to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support.
Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates
wouldn’t make any sense at all.""
-- President Ronald Reagan
Romney is just too slick for me. Greasy hair = greasy candidate.
Yep
I’m just saying he is by far the candidate of choice for the membership of CPAC.
>> Big caveat right off the bat: PPP is the same polling firm that predicted a Hoffman landslide in NY-23. <<
Oh, come on. Be fair to PPP. It was five points, and it was before Scuzzyfava withdrew and threw her support to Owens.
we have got to do better
than Romney
So Mitt’s “counting on the fact that New Hampshire will keep him alive in the early running and the “anyone but Huck/Palin” vote will put him over the top.”
I don’t think any conservatives, even those who aren’t for Palin or Huckabee, will ever consider voting for that liberal Romney. My guess is he’ll be canvasing all the hard core RINOs, DIABLOs, and dems in the open primary states.
My short list only has one person on it. And it’s not Romney or Huckabee. Though I do appreciate Huckabee sticking up for Sarah.
If Romney is the nominee he will lose. Most conservatives will not vote for another RINO, no matter what. I know I won’t. I will write in Palin or some other conservative candidate if it comes to Romney or Huckabee or some other puke a**ed RINO.
Good, the sooner we can dispense with Myth Romneycare, the better.
Meanwhile, Romney is at 0% in my household. And, that ain't changin'.
But if a politician doesn't have a secure base it's hard to make a winning run at the nomination after losing it.
Politicians have a sell-by date. And if you don't actually hold office now and didn't hold one for very long, that date approaches quicker.
McCain was able to come back 8 years after losing the nomination and Nixon was able to win the presidency 8 years after losing it, but neither of those examples is encouraging.
He won the last vote in March with 20% of the vote, but he never seems to get much above 20%, not very good if you want to win elections. I don’t see where he has much hope at all thank goodness.
Economically, Romney TANKED Massachusetts.
Mitt Romney got a "C" rating from CATO.
And that was BEFORE Romney's failure re: Socialized medicine. He would get an “F” now.< br>
"As U.S. real output grew 13 percent between 2002 and 2006, Massachusetts trailed at 9 percent.
* Manufacturing employment fell 7 percent nationwide those years, but sank 14 percent under Romney, placing Massachusetts 48th among the states.
* Between fall 2003 and autumn 2006, U.S. job growth averaged 5.4 percent, nearly three times Massachusetts' anemic 1.9 percent pace."
Huckabee actually praised Landrieu as a good politician, bribing for her vote the other night. “That’s how politics works”, he said. Not for long, Huckleberry.
Liberals in Massachusetts may miss him but the conservatives in that state and those around it are still suffering under his gay marriage legacy and the Romneycare misery index grows by the day in Massachusetts.
In my opinion, Nixon was a GREAT President; one of the brightest and most accomplished. It was dramatically sad how he brought himself down. But I will always have respect for him for the positive he did in office.
Romney will NEVER be a Republican Nominee. We live in a predominantly Christian Nation. Always has been; always will be. As soon as all the mormon facts really come out, his political career will be toast (again), but at a stage of finality. No rebound after that.
Thank you for bringing the focus back to reality.
You think the GOP should reward Romney for throwing the election to Obama?
Romney did not "throw the election to Obama." He is not that powerful.
It was McCain's to lose, and he did.
Mitt took over when the state was already losing jobs every month and had a large deficit. I can't say he solved those problems, but things were better during his term than they were when he came in and a lot better than they are now.
Massachusetts is one of those states like California that are locked into a high tax, high rent pattern. There are limits to what any governor can do to create jobs in one term, especially when the legislature is dominated by Democrats. But Mitt wasn't the worst and I wish he'd run for reelection (as do a lot of people in the state, considering who we got instead).
My point isn't that Romney's perfect or that he ought to be president. I don't think so. But he isn't as awful as people make him out to be.
That high eh ???
Mitt and his best pal, Barry, are neck and neck...
Romney and Huck need gone ASAP from any chance of being the nominee for the president.. these guys represent what is WRONG with the Republican party, and have no business being anywhere near the presidency.
I don’t believe Romney’s favorables were ever above 30%.
Remember how many times Romney stood up for us common folk while the Kenyan and his merry band of fascists in DC have been rolling over us the last few months???
********* sound of crickets ************
Romney is a scumbag go along to get along politician and I have no use for him
What, you judging romneycare? whats wrong with you?/s/
Romney could not even win reelection (and he wanted to).
When his term ended, Governor Mitt Romney slinked out of town as a disappointing loser, his approval rating was only 34% with 65% disapproval and he turned the office over to the Democrats.
People did not like the man.
Now?
NOW??
NOW???
I think PPP was right about Hoffman. It was a landslide if you don’t count fraud.
Mitt's always been politically clueless. Wither it's having his clock cleaned by the high school dropouts of the Massachusetts legislature, or being against Reagan when everyone was going for Reagan, or as now, sucking up to the RINO, big gov, big tax, elderly, out of touch GOP elites.
When Joseph Smith ran for president in 1844, a pamphlet expressing his views (“General Smith’s Views”) was distributed across the nation. Probably penned by Phelps, the New York Herald described the document as “a very remarkable and original document…a more curious and unique thing has probably not been published since the time of Mohamet…” The following are some of Joseph’s positions*; they are worth reading for their striking humanity alone, born, no doubt out of his own deprivations:
MORE --> http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/12/19/joseph-smiths-views/
I like the far a way, telescopic gaze. Just like Smith, scamming and stealing outright, but pointing off in the distance some fairy tail for the boobs. Then there is Prince Mitt, stealing going on in Boston/Mass such that you couldn’t step out on the street without getting knocked down by some hack, burdened with a heavy sack of looted state cash (not that Mitt ever saw anything, the dolt ).
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.