Skip to comments.Super Tuesday Polling: Mittmentum?
Posted on 02/04/2008 5:49:24 AM PST by jdm
Rasmussen and Real Clear Politics have done their best to keep up with the Super Tuesday primaries across over 20 states, and the polling seems to show a slight shift in momentum for Mitt Romney, at least in California. Mitt has pulled into a tie with John McCain, whose support among moderates made this a more likely win for the Arizona Senator:
In California, Republican Primary Voters are evenly divided between John McCain and Mitt Romney. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds McCain attracting 38% of the vote and Romney earning an identical 38%. Mike Huckabee is a distant third at 10%, Ron Paul picks up 6%, and 6% say theyll vote for some other candidate.
Earlier in the week, McCain had a small advantage over Romney. Since then, Giuliani dropped out of the race and endorsed McCain. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger also endorsed the GOP frontrunner. While those events may have helped McCain, a conservative backlash for anybody-but-McCain appears to have helped Romney.
Romney leads 42% to 37% among conservative voters while McCain leads by eleven points among political moderates. McCain has a slight lead among men while Romney leads among women.
Zogby has Romney on top by eight in the Golden State. If that holds, Romney could pull off an impressive win and secure more delegates than he'd dreamed in California. Zogby, however, is normally an unreliable predictive indicator, and Rasmussen's polling has proven more reliable than most.
Rasmussen also has Romney behind by four nationally in its daily tracking poll. That is a step backwards for Romney, who had tied McCain in its tracking poll last week. The tracking polls are not as reliable as the standard Rasmussen polling either, but the fluctuations probably capture the volatility in the race accurately enough.
Real Clear Politics' polling aggregates don't show much Mittmentum elsewhere. Romney only has a commanding lead in Massachusetts, while McCain leads by significant margins in at least a half-dozen major states, including the winner-take-all New York, New Jersey, and Arizona primaries. If Romney plans to battle McCain to a draw tomorrow, he'll have to overcome a 200-delegate head start.
That dang Mickey Mouse! Well, I guess it's somewhat of a home state for him....
101 New York
52 New Jersey
294 delegates just from winner-take-all
Romney winner-take-all wins
Unknown advantage winner-take-all
Sick of McClaim. Did everything against conservative values, and now claims he is a conservative.
A vote for Mike Huckabee is a vote for John McCain.
Montana is definitely Romney territory.
I hope there is “Mittmentum”.
He's the only one to campaign there. We'll see. There are a very small number of people who vote. I'd imagine Romney got a lot of Mormons into precinct positions.
This may be true on the whole, but in Florida, Rasmussen had Romney up by about 2-3% and Zogby had McManiac up by about 5-6%, and as it turned out, Zogby hit it spot-on in FL.
Rasmussen’s polling has been more weighted to Romney than other polls, and has underestimated McCain. I suspect his turnout screening is tighter and higher turnout has pushed things McCain’s way.
McCain is going to leave the GOP when he doesn’t get the nomination this time.
Maybe you can follow him out : )
John McCain changed after the 2000 election. Now he will try to return to being the pre-2000 McCain. It won’t work.
...”Zogby hit it spot-on in FL.”
Exactly. And I sure hope and pray Zogby’s spot-on in California too.
After McCain’s terrible performance in the debate last week, maybe Republicans in California are beginning to wise up to the fact that McCain would make a very poor nominee.
Believe me, I’ve thought of leaving the GOP. Too many scumbag liberals like Mitt as officeholders.
But it is working and will likely continue to work. The American People as a whole do not follow politics as do Freepers and they will believe whatever the MSM tells them.
How else can you explain McCain winning anywhere among Republicans.... how soon they forget Keating, alliances for bad legislation with Feingold, and Kennedy, and Lieberman.
And perhaps one of his worst moves, leading the gang of 14!
I’m supporting John McCain. I didn’t used to, but now I do.
McCain is mentally unstable, and would put this country in grave danger.
But let prophesy be fulfilled...
"Moderate" is the key here, and it's unacceptable.
You would have this piece of garbage "McCain" run the party?
We need a song based on "Next Time ... He'll Think Before He Cheats" by Carrie Underwood , " about McCain.
This is a rush transcript from "Hannity & Colmes," January 31, 2008. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated. [ 5 minutes 32 seconds ]
SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: And Senator John McCain is gaining momentum, but not all conservatives are jumping for joy.
Senator McCain is a polarizing candidate for many. And critics point to his stance on immigration, his work with Russ Feingold.
But with a potential Hillary Clinton candidacy on the Democratic side of the aisle, will true conservatives eventually fall in line and support the Arizona senator?
Joining us now, author of the "New York Times" best seller, "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd be Republicans," our friend Ann Coulter.
How are you?
ANN COULTER, AUTHOR, "IF DEMOCRATS HAD ANY BRAINS": Fine, thank you.
HANNITY: Your thoughts about -
Look I'm standing on substance here.
HANNITY: It's immigration.
It's limits on free speech.
It's not supporting tax cuts.
COULTER: It's Anwar. It's torture at Guantanamo.
HANNITY: Class warfare rhetoric. It's interrogations. It's Guantanamo. It's Anwar.
These are not small issues to conservatives.
COULTER: No, and if you're looking at substance rather than whether it's an R or D after his name, manifestly,
if he's our candidate, then Hillary's going to be our girl, Sean,
because she's more conservative than he is. I think she would be stronger on the war on terrorism.
I absolutely believe that.
HANNITY: That's the one area I disagree with you.
COULTER: No, yes, we're going to sign up together. Let me explain that point on terrorism.
HANNITY: You'd vote for Hillary
COULTER: Yes. I will campaign for her if it's McCain.
HANNITY: If Hillary is watching tonight, you just got an endorsement
COLMES: I just heard the word no.
COULTER: I was touched when she cried.
That part isn't true.
But the rest of it is true.
He has led the fight against
well, as you say, interrogations. I say torture at Guantanamo.
She hasn't done that. She hasn't taken a position in front.
HANNITY: Without interrupting you, let me give you one distinction
that's what liberals do to you. Let me give you one distinction, he did support the war
COULTER: So did Hillary.
HANNITY: But he stayed with it. He supported the surge.
I didn't like his criticisms of Rumsfeld, but he was right
COULTER: OK, let's get to him supporting the surge.
He keeps going on and on about how he was the only Republican who supported the surge and other Republicans attacked him.
It was so awful how he was attacked. It was worse than being held in a tiger cage.
Okay, well I looked up the record.
Republicans all supported the surge. He's not only not the only one who supported the surge,
I promise you no Republican attacked him for this. And you know why he's saying that, Sean,
because he keeps saying it at every debate, I'm the only one. I was attacked by Republicans.
He's confusing Republicans with his liberal friends.
They're the ones who attacked him for it, his real friends.
HANNITY: Hillary Clinton, if she gets her way, will nationalize health care.
She's going to pull the troops out of Iraq.
COULTER: I don't think she will.
HANNITY: That's what she's saying she's going to do.
COULTER: Compared to John McCain, she will do better.
HANNITY: She says in a hundred days she's immediately going to begin to pull out.
COULTER: Look, she's running in a Democratic primary. He's running in the Republican primary, and their positions are about that far apart.
When George Bush said at the State of the Union Address that the surge is working in Iraq,
Obama sat on his hands,
Kennedy sat on his hands,
Hillary leapt up and applauded that we are winning in the surge and that the surge is working in Iraq.
She gave much better answers in those debates when Democrats like Obama and Biden were saying what do we do? What do we do if three cities are attacked. She said, I will find who did it and I will go after them.
HANNITY: You want to sit back.
ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: Can I just say something Ann -
Coulter: I would trust any republican - any republican - but John McCain - more than Hillary Clinton
.HANNITY:)Hey, you want to sit back -
COULTER: - Because with John McCain - Hillary is absolutely more conservative.
COLMES: My work is done. My work is done.
COULTER: Moreover, she lies less than John McCain.
I'm a Hillary girl now.
She lies less than John McCain.
She's smarter than John McCain,
so that when she's caught shamelessly lying, at least the Clintons know they've been caught lying.
McCain is so stupid, he doesn't even know he's been caught.
In fact, could you fill in for me next week?
COULTER: If it's McCain, I will.
COLMES: Let me get this straight, would you vote for Hillary Clinton?
COLMES: You would actually go in a voting booth
COULTER: If it's close and the candidate is John McCain, because John McCain is not only bad for Republicanism,
which he definitely is. He is bad for for the country
He is very very bad for the country.
COLMES: Can I tell you the last thing that Hillary Clinton wants? Ann Coulter's endorsement.
COULTER: He will not give up on amnesty.
He will not give up on amnesty. Now -
Even now he's running as a Republican, he won't give up on amnesty. I'm at that debate the other night, he's coming in attacking profits, capitalism -
COULTER: I'm serious.
COLMES: I know, but let me get serious for a second, because so far I haven't been.
Look, are you telling me
look at all the people endorsing McCain.
I'm not talking about Johnny come lately Republicans.
Nancy Reagan is wrong?
Rick Perry is wrong?
Arnold is wrong?
Charlie Crist is wrong?
COULTER: Okay, other than Nancy Reagan
COULTER: No. I will explain. It's not that they're wrong other than Nancy Reagan. And by the way
we loved Nancy Reagan for loving Ron Reagan. We didn't love her for her political positions.
Who wants embryonic stem-cell research? And I'm moving Nancy reagan to the -
COLMES: Hello. Hello. Are all of these people are off the beat.
COULTER: I'm trying to answer the question. Stop talking.
I'm moving Nancy Reagan to the side, and I'm saying all the rest of these political endorsements mean one thing;
they think he's the front runner. They want a job in his administration.
Nothing means less than an endorsement from someone who wants a position.
COLMES: They're all hoes just looking for a job?
but they all do want jobs.
COLMES: I'm giving her the opportunity
COULTER: They do all want jobs. What they want -
It's good to be friends with the king.
Some people - like me -
HANNITY: Will you be careful.
COULTER: Some people don't care about being the king.
Read Mark Levin
I don't think most conservatives are interested in McCains class ranking at Annapolis or how many planes he was nearly killed in. There have been a few posts here mentioning it.
And I appreciate all the references to Reagan's efforts to advance his agenda, which did involve making compromises with a Democrat House and, throughout most of his presidency, a Democrat Congress.
And if John McCain showed this kind of temperament and vision in his political career, I don't think most who object to his candidacy during the primaries would be objecting to it today. I think we would be enthusiastically supporting him.
Painting Reagan as a tax-and-spend Republican, who basically went along with Washington and appointed a bunch of moderates to the Supreme Court, in an apparent attempt to build up McCain's conservative and leadership credentials and mollify his critics, has the opposite effect mostly because it is inaccurate. It reminds me of Bill Clinton's supporters using Thomas Jefferson's alleged adultery to explain the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Reagan challenged his party from the Right. He sought the Republican nomination in 1968 against Richard Nixon and lost. He sought the nomination against Gerald Ford in 1976 and lost. He fought the Republican establishment in 1980 as well, including Bob Dole, Howard Baker, and George H. W. Bush, and won.
McCain has challenged his party from the Left. I don't know how many more times I and others have to lay out his record to prove the point.
To put a fine point on it, when he had to, Reagan sought compromise from a different set of beliefs and principles than McCain. It does a great disservice to historical accuracy and the current debate to continue to urge otherwise.
Let me be more specific, rather than spar in generalities. Reagan would never have used the phrase "manage for profit" as a zinger to put down a Republican opponent. Reagan believed in managing for profit because he believed in free enterprise. That doesn't mean he didn't agree to certain tax increases (after fighting for and winning the most massive tax cuts in modern American history), which were incidentally to be accompanied by even greater spending cuts.
McCain believes the oil companies are evil, and said it during one of the debates.
Among his first acts as president, Reagan decontrolled the prices of natural gas and crude oil with the stroke of his pen because, as he understood, profit funds research and exploration. Reagan had a respect for and comprehension of private property rights and markets that McCain does not. There never would have been a Reagan-Lieberman bill, in which the federal government's power over the private sector would have trumped the New Deal.
Reagan opposed limits on political speech.
The Reagan administration ended the Fairness Doctrine and the media ownership rules, which helped create the alternative media that McCain despises. Reagan's reverence for the Constitution would never have allowed him to support, let alone add his name to, something like McCain-Feingold.
As for Reagan's Supreme Court appointments, it is wholly misleading to simply list those who turned out to be disappointing as evidence of Reagan's willingness to compromise on judicial appointments or appoint moderates, or whatever the point was.
In Sandra Day O'Connor's case, he was assured by Barry Goldwater and Ken Starr that she was an originalist. While on the Court, she started out on fairly sound footing, and then lurched toward the Left, something Reagan could not foresee or control.
Yes, Reagan appointed Anthony Kennedy to the Court, but only after:
Reagan sought to abolish all kinds of federal programs and agencies from the Department of Education to the Action Agency/VISTA and the list goes on and on.
I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult for someone with the time and inclination, such as a think-tank scholar, to go back and examine the early budgets that Reagan sent to Congress. Am I the only one who remembers all the horror stories in the media portraying Reagan's budgets
The one area Reagan drastically increased spending was defense.
And while McCain is said to be among the most capable of hawks, he used little of his political capital and media savvy to oppose the Clinton cuts or to warn the nation about the rising threat from al-Qaeda, for that matter. He did not call for the resignation of his good friend Bill Cohen, who was a terrible defense secretary. McCain was not alone, of course. But a more fulsome examination of McCain's senatorial record relating to defense, intelligence, and law enforcement is met mostly with silence or admonitions to avert our eyes.
Reagan would not have led efforts to grant the enemy constitutional and international rights, as McCain has. I believe he would have sided with President Bush. After all, as president, Reagan rejected efforts to expand the Geneva Conventions to cover terrorists.
This is a key area of departure for McCain not only from Bush but most national security advocates. But, alas, we must avert our eyes, again.
As for the 1986 Reagan amnesty for illegal aliens, we've been down this road time and again.
The bill was carefully reviewed within the Reagan administration, including at the Justice Department (at the time, the INS reported to the attorney general). Reagan agreed that amnesty would be conferred on 2-3 million illegal aliens as a one-time event in exchange for adequate funding for border security. The bill passed in 1987. The border security part of the deal was never enforced.
To say that Reagan supported amnesty and no more is to rewrite history. There would have been no Reagan-Kennedy bill, written largely by LULAC and LaRaza.
But we must rewrite history
if we are to make the case that McCain is no different from Reagan,
Reagan is no different from his predecessors,
and Reagan's speeches weren't all that revolutionary.
And if we object to such characterizations, then the argument shifts to Reagan wasn't perfect,
the Reagan era is dead,
these are different times, etc. Then, if we criticize McCain's record we are told
Look, I do not believe that McCain is a principled conservative.
I believe he is a populist hawk in the tradition of a Scoop Jackson. This isn't a perfect comparison, of course, but nothing is ever perfect, is it?
In my view, this is why the hawks will support McCain regardless of his record in virtually every other respect. Moreover, they see McCain as the only Republican who has the will or ability or whatever to fight terrorism. I don't.
But please, can we at least agree, on National Review's website of all places, to stop dumbing down or dismissing the Reagan record. If you are going to use it, at least be accurate about it. It isn't perfect, but it is far superior to the backhand it received earlier.
02/02 12:52 PM
Mark Levin isn't called the GREAT ONE for no reason.
I hope you are happy with Amnesty. McCain (and Hillary, Obama) guarantee amensty for illegals. Romney at least would veto it and give hope to this country. People like you allow amnesty by rooting for McCain.
McCain went much, much farther than Romney in pushing liberal policies. But we all know you don’t care about McCain’s liberal positions because you are for amnesty. And Romney would never allow an amnesty, so that’s why you are against him.
Unlike you, I support conservatives, not lying scumbag liberals.
I would love to have a conservative to vote for at this point.
But now, we have to grow up and face reality. We have what we have.
But why are you attacking conservatives who continue to oppose him and cheer his demise? You admit he's not a conservative, at least.
Try to have some civility, if we truly are on the same side.
I’ll be voting Hunter or Thompson in my primary, most likely. But I could vote for McCain in a general election, where Romney is just such a blatant liar and opportunist that I cannot and will not vote for scum like that. I would much rather have a relatively honest pol with some liberal positions than a slimeball. But Romney is a slimeball who still has liberal positions, which puts him way beyond the pale.
The way I see Romney is that he really doesn’t have a set liberal agenda. He bounces back and forth without having a set of principles that are obvious, so we have no idea what he really thinks.
McCain, on the other hand, has been steadfast in the last 20 years in backing liberal policies and agreeing with Dems over Republicans. I see his agenda as following liberal principles (except when it comes to the military). So we can tell what he will do easily - amnesty, higher taxes, reductions of liberties.
He also likes to be the ‘maverick’ and turn against those he is with. He’ll lash out at the Republicans in Congress, just as he’s done his entire career. He’s dangerous to the country and the party, much more than a liberal Democrat.