Mitt Romney's Finest Hour.
By Leon H Wolf Posted in 2008 | New Hampshire | Presidential Debates — Comments (101) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Although I have been a Romney supporter, I have not generally joined the chorus of Romney supporters who have claimed that he has won all the previous debates: he hasn't. Although he hasn't done poorly, exactly, I don't think he's had a debate where he actually shined, and stood out from the rest of the candidates - but he did tonight.
It's possible that Fred Thompson had the best objective performance of the debate, but let's be clear - for the purposes of New Hampshire, tonight was about who could win between McCain and Romney, and Romney was the clear winner. Although I have made peace with the possibility that McCain could win the nomination, and would cheerfully support him in the general, he did not perform well tonight. As contrasted with his widely criticized performance in last night's debate, McCain looked like he'd been force-fed Prozac before this debate. As a consequence, it was hard to remember at most points that he was even there, and when he was there, he was oddly and forcefully cheerful - a motif that just doesn't work for McCain. By way of contrast, Romney was clearly on his game, landing at least two solid blows against his old nemesis Huckabee, and on one occasion (when he interjected into Huckabee's immigration answer) provoking the temper that Huckabee has kept carefully hidden on the campaign trail, but which Arkansas know exist. Romney clearly impressed the focus groups, and spoke to issues that appeal to the folks of New Hampshire. And the thing that impressed me the most is that Romney let the "real Romney" out of the can a couple of times tonight - the guy that so many of us have been begging Romney to let out - this guy. The Romney who doesn't feel the need to be perfect and polished 100% of the time, the guy who you can believe actually gives a crap about the principles he is espousing. That guy has been conspicuously missing for too long (and I think the results in Iowa and polls in NH have reflected that), and it was good to see him tonight.
Although Romney has the resources to continue the race beyond New Hampshire even if he loses, the reality is that New Hampshire represents his last stand when it comes to having a realistic shot at winning the nomination. If Romney loses NH to McCain, he stands to lose MI to either Huckabee or McCain or both, and he won't get enough of a bump to take SC from Huckabee. So the real question from tonight was whether Romney could begin to swing the tide against McCain. If the Luntz group was any indication, he may have done just enough to accomplish that.
The next two days will tell us for sure, but the last two days may have righted the Romney ship in time.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Winners and Losers Tonight — Comments (189) »
Mitt Romney's Finest Hour. 101 Comments (0 topical, 101 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I think McCain will win New Hampshire. I am a bit cynical about these debates. I don't think that they really change many minds. I figure that most of the folks who watch these debates are already committed to one candidate or another. Maybe I'm wrong.
As for the state of Romney's campaign if he loses New Hampshire (I think he will come out about 6 points behind McCain), I think it might all come down to Michigan for him. And that is a bit problematic for Romney because many independent voters might vote for McCain in that race.
The problem Romney seems to have is the Phil Gramm problem of 1996. McCain is playing Bob Dole, the guy who has been in the Senate since the stone age. Huckabee is playing Pat Buchanan, the guy winning the bulk of the social conservatives. Romney is less plausible as an across the board conservative than Phil Gramm in 1996 was. But Romney is running against less conservative competition than Gramm did (maybe).
So, Romney seems like a candidate without a strong base of support. Maybe Romney will hang in there until South Carolina and Romney will win there to become the across the board conservative candidate that Robert Bork and National Review believe he is. (To be fair, Fred Thompson has as good or a better claim to being the across the board conservative, but doesn't have the money to pull it off.)
Spiral,
The key to Romney's campaign is to expand his base of support from "upper middle class" to "middle class". He is very depended on the upper income brackets, and has to diversify his base of support. Rudy and McCain started with a broader range of support; their objective is to deepen the support. We shall see, and the results of NH will be important, even if the margin is 1 vote.
MOlsen6
Proud supporter of McCain '00 and McCain '08
I agree that Giuliani and McCain, with higher name recognition and having served longer in the public eye, started off with more support, especially in the national polls, which depend a lot on name identification.
That's really why Romney has spent as much money as he has. If you don't start a race with high name identification, you have to purchase it. Or if you are in the position of Mike Huckabee, an evangelical minister trying to appeal to evangelical Church goers, you can just run a low budget "I am one of you" campaign, as he did in Iowa (but that template might not work in most other states).
Still, it's easy to see why Romney would stay in this race at least until South Carolina. South Carolina (excluding Wyoming) is the first Red State contest. Given that Romney is running as an across the board conservative, he might believe that South Carolina and Florida are better places for him to win than Purple states like New Hampshire and Iowa or a Blue state like Michigan.
But given that Thompson and Giuliani have also taken a "long view," which means that they are conceding that they will not win in New Hampshire or Michigan, this just clutters up the race.
This means that a brokered convention is very likely. Even February 5th won't necessarily settle the race. It is likely that the candidate who does best on February 5th will win about 40 percent of the delagates awarded on those contests.
a room full of people who started the night with no clear pick. After watching 95% of raised their hand said they left the debate watching with a support for Romney.
I guess if others were really watching who will be at the primaries, it may have done Mitt a lot of good. I was very pleased with his performance tonight and I will be happy, quite happy with him as president of the United States.
If you like Mitt, that's fine. He's my second. But that focus group, like all focus groups, is non-representative, probably hand-picked, and basically filler air time while the Fox All-Stars were busy in the powder room before their show.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
and for those who don't know what that is, it died shortly after birth.
This stunt was nothing but political theater. He never even asked how many supported McCain. Typical Fox, tell half the story, spin the rest.
I like Frank Lutz, but I think there might be something about how they screen participants that decreases McCain's support. For example, in his focus group in Iowa, he pointed out that NOBODY supported McCain. McCain finished with 13% of the vote. I certainly thought Mitt did well, but I thought McCain did well and helped himself as well. I found the result ... odd. Let's look at the final NH numbers and then make up our mind on Frank's groups.
MOlsen6
Proud supporter of McCain '00 and McCain '08
I think a focus group made up of people who have not made up their mind this close to the actual primary is full of people who are either mushy minded or uninformed. I would be more interested in seeing a group that was more of a cross section of the actual voters. Who can say whether the voters who were swayed tonight might not turn in another direction tomorrow.
...how much they interact with each other. It would only take one or two type A personalitlies to talk the rest of the room into "seeing" things a certain way.
Exactly right. It would be much more revealing to sample people who watched the debate alone or with their families since this is how 99% actually watched it. Perhaps not as good TV however, so it won't happen.
Fox pulls out graphics against Mitt to support McCain and you guys claim Fox is favoring Mitt? I have been felt they have showed favorable coverage for Huck am McCain for the last week. One focus group is hardly reason to make a fuss.
Don't know that will happen.
But assuming it doesn't Your choice probably wont be supporting McCain in the general but supporting Rudy in the general.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
But in the event he doesn't, don't expect me to blindly follow (or follow at all) his endorsement.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
but I can imagine Romney strategically encouraging his supporters to vote for Guiliani (or any other nominee for that matter) in specific states to try to prevent any one candidate from wrapping up the nomination before the Republican convention.
This assumes, of course, that Romney DOESN'T win New Hampshire or Michigan.
The other candidates have been playing a little tag team against Romney. If it works, Romney can always stop trying to win every state and play a little tag team back, fracture up the results and send this to the convention. Turn about's fair play, isn't it?
How many polled are independents that will vote for Obama anyway? I also think that Romney gained among solid Republicans last night and tonight.
Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney
So it could only be 2 points
The four is plus or minus... so if the race is McCain +6 with a MOE of +/- four, it could be anywhere from Romney +2 to McCain + 14. The problem is that the RCP average does not have a MOE.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
You don't understand MATH. Just kidding, I'm sure it was a typo.
Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney
I think it's spelling that I don't understand in that case.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
Oh hey, no offense. 6+4=10, not 14 as you wrote.
Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney
which is why most polls aren't worth spit.
for instance, if McCain is at 32 and Romney at 26 (McCain+6), the real result for McCain could be anywhere from 28 to 36, and 22 to 30. In McCain's best case scenario that is 36-22 (+14), in Romney's its 30-28 (+2).
I feel like McCain right now, tried to make a joke and I'm the only one laughing! Thanks for the insight.
Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney
the Margin of Error does not matter the margin, as such, it is a measure of the level of confidence in the statistical sampling, and it applies to both questions. Thus, both the number of people who answered McCain and the number of people who answered Romney are subject to plus or minus variations of four points, which means that (in simplistic terms) if a poll shows McCain with a 6 point lead over Romney, with a MOE of +/- 4, that means that the pollsters have 95% confidence that it is somewhere between Romney +2 and McCain +14.
To wit, suppose that the poll shows McCain 36, Romney 30. Thus, the possible range for McCain's actual total is 32-40, and for Romney's total is 26-34. So, the real margin is somewhere in the range I just mentioned, subject to a 5% probability that the poll is just totally wrong.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
So did Huckabee's real results fall within the MOE of the last polls taken?
Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Romney had the night he wanted. Whether it will be enough is yet to be seen, but if he does pull out the win, this will certainly prove to have been the night that made it possible.
Yes, I'm a Romney supporter, too. I know my bias, but even when I look objectively, I still have to say that Mitt had the debate he was looking for. He got his point out clearly. He fended off any attacks shot his way and got off a few of his own (albeit at Huckabee moreso than McCain).
Some think Fred won. I'm not so certain of that, though I think he had an okay night. However Fred performed, the attention was on two men tonight, Romney and McCain, and it was Romney who was able to shine.
I think Romney has to lose twice to the same candidate before he can be considered done. Granted, a loss to McCain in NH would hurt, but it wouldn't be fatal. Now, if he loses to McCain in NH and McCain or Huck in MI, it's probably over.
__________________________________________
First State Politics
Between last night's winks and tonights praise of McCain's mother, I was beginning to think that Huck/McCain are the same candidate!
Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney
I agree that Romney is not seriously injured until he loses to the same candidate twice.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Romney loses New Hampshire and Michigan to McCain. You think he should get out at that point? I don't think so. I think he should play his hand to bring about a selection of the nominee at the Republican convention.
I think Romney's major problem so far is that he has been trying to unite the Reagan coalition BEFORE it is ready to be united. He should take a que from John McCain and let his campaign go on idle (i.e. show up at the debates but stop spending money). In doing so, the other candidates, representing certain factions of the Reagan coalition, will be forced to address each other (no more kissing between McCain and Huckabee and Guiliani) and as they do so the need for a full-spectrum Reagan conservative will become evident. If the selection of our nominee happens at the Republican convention, I think Romney has a good chance of being our nominee because there will have already been a vicious fight between the Huck, Guiliani, and McCain camps.
So, if Romney loses both New Hampshire and Michigan to McCain, I think he should sit back and move his supporters strategically in different states to ensure that no candidate wraps it up before the convention.
Unlike in New Hampshire in 2000, Bush won R's in Michigan handly, but McCain got alot of Dem and Indy help. I think Mitt will win amgonst R's and attract some indy support because he has run aganist Granholm up there hard. Also the Huck's defacto anti-NAFTA stuff (I know he has not come out as being NAFTA, but his rhethoric suggests he is) will take some Dum support from McCain. I think the final vote tally will be something like 35% Romney, 31% Huck, 27% McCain.
Romney 08
(As a Thompson supporter, I give this one to Romney.)
During tonight's debate (forum) on FoxNews, Sen. McCain gave a litany of reasons why he had the best foreign policy credentials, stressing the "right" choices he has made during his tenure.
It is long forgotten that before 9/11, John McCain was an avid supporter not only of Chechnya, but of the Chechen rebels (Muslim nationalists) who commit untold acts of horror during and since Russia brought an end to the conflict. Following 9/11, these "rebels" looked more and more to the Western world as terrorists.
From http://www.takimag.com/site/article/persecuting_putin/
Sen. John McCain, one of the leading candidates for the Republican nomination in 2008, was already on a tear about Russian depredations in Chechnya in his 2000 campaign and gave indications during the campaign that he considered it an important priority to intervene in Chechnya in some manner to bring an end to the war there. As some will recall, Sen. McCain was at that time the poster boy for aggressive, neoconservative foreign policy activists inside the Republican Party, and his hard line on Chechnya matched the long-running neoconservative interest in encircling, containing and weakening post-Soviet Russia that recurred throughout the ‘90s. Beginning with the infamous 1990 Wolfowitz Memo, which laid out a proposal for massive military buildups and interventions in the non-Russian republics, it continued throughout the decade and included brazen, full-throated neoconservative support for the U.S. and NATO bombings of Yugoslavia in 1995 and 1999 respectively. Praise for the Chechen cause, descriptions of Chechnya’s “president,” Aslan Maskhadov, as a freedom fighter, and apologias for Chechen terrorism.
What kind of "freedom fighters" were these? The same who have done the following:
Behind the Moscow Theater Siege
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,383909,00.html
Terrorists Free 31 Hostages in Russia
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131248,00.html
334 Killed in Beslan School, 186 Children
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis
Russia's attacks on it
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
I am calling all to recall that John McCain was a supporter of the Chechen cause AND the Chechen rebels.
During the 1990s, these "rebels" were known to raise money for their "cause" by kidnapping innocent civilians for ransom, demanding cash for their relatives safe return. The consequences, if ransom was not paid, these "rebels" threatened to either cut off part of the body or simply murder them, slowly. When ransom was not paid, the victim's relatives would receive a cassette tape of the torture, mutilation and/or murder.
And these muslim nationalists are whom John McCain supported (before 9/11)?
This might be one of those unusual races where none of the 5 candidates gets knocked out.
It's easy to see why Romney won't think of himself as needing to end his campaign as long as he is coming in 2nd place everywhere (at least until South Carolina). After all, Romney can conclude that he is doing better than all of the other candidates except the guy who came in first place and the guy who comes in first place keeps changing.
How do you justify getting out of a race under those circumstances? Similarly, Thompson obviously isn't getting out until South Carolina. Giuliani isn't getting out until Feb 5th no matter what. McCain? I can't really see him getting out given that he will come in 1st or 2nd in New Hampshire. Huckabee? He won Iowa for goodness sake (or is it for God's sake?).
So, the traditional line about how this candidate has to win here or he's toast might not apply anymore. And even if Romney beats McCain in New Hampshire, doesn't really mean that McCain leaves the race? Why? With Michigan just around the corner?
“It is not the possession of truth, but the success which attends the seeking after it, that enriches the seeker and brings happiness to him.”"-Max Planck
Yeah, a grand clamor to for the guy who's never gotten lower than 2nd, never been beaten by the same guy, and who has the lead in total delegates.
Sorry, weak argument MSM.
Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).
Mitt did what he does best, attack. He scored some hits on Hukabee, but McCain is his current problem. I'm a McCain supporter, so I tend to overlook his goofy gestures and sometimes grating manor. That being said, I think McCain stayed on message rather than take the opportunities Wallace presented to attack Mitt. He tried to stay above the fray and make clear, presidential statements about why he should be the GOP nominee. That is a strategy befitting a secure front runner. We will see this week if it was the right strategy.
CSPAN showed a lot of the townhalls this weekend. i watched rudy, mccain and romney(the huck scares me too much on spending liberalism and foreign policy naivete to pay attention).
Mitt has depth and experience, realistic plans and goals he explains simply and matter of fact that rudy and mccain just dont or cant do. That will be big in the election.
If youre on the edge or youre guy is going nowhere currently, you might check him out.
I don't know which wins but it would be a great debate.
"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman
Romney has some ads in Michigan that are inspirational. About how awesome America is, etc. I wish he could project that in the debates! But you're right, people would watch. I noticed they were buddy buddy at last night's handshake gaggle.
Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney
I agree, this was Mitt's finest hour. I don't agree that McCain did as poorly as you stated. I thought McCain did well, not nearly as good as Romney, but well enough to not hurt himself. It may have been well enough to seal the deal.
* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”
Of how many people watched the debate? Given that there isn't much time for media reporting of it, that is probably immensely important to how it may have affected voters.
it's not just who impressed the voters. It's also the media spin about who impressed the voters.
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
then he deserves to lose the NH primary and drop out. I think he won the debate, but if this is what you point to as his finest hour then that's why he will lose.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
but if he loses the NH primary, it's because his performance tonight was his finest hour. It was a good performance, but hardly the performance you would want to point at as your finest hour.
win the NH primary. To accomplish the latter he needed to take out McCain in the debate (or goad Mccain into taking himself out). He did not accomplish this. McCain played the front-runner strategy, pleasant (for him) above the fray, solid, making his case, not attacking. Very different from what I thought was a poor performance in the Saturday debate.
Romney was also solid, pleasant, articulate, etc. but he didn't get the job done.
I thought I had read or heard somewhere (possibly on this site) that Romney initially was not in favor of the Bush tax cuts. But tonight, he said that he had never opposed them.
I am sure there are 12 different truths, but did I misunderstand his original stance?
"We all share the same goals: clean air and water...safe transportation systems, to name a few of the good things that can come from regulation. " -Fred D. Thompson
Romney never endorsed the Bush tax cuts, nor did he ever say he opposed them. Sort of like how he handled the immigration issues years ago. He simply described proposals that he had heard of and said that they were "reasonable," admitting that he had not studied the proposals in detail and refused to endorse any of them.
So, you could call Romney's current positions on tax cuts and immigration as a half-flip-flop. Or maybe a flip, but not a flop.
"In 2003, Romney stunned a roomful of Bay State congressmen by telling them that he would not publicly support Bush's tax cuts, which at the time formed the centerpiece of the president's domestic agenda. He even said he was open to a federal gas tax hike."
I'm not accusing him of being a flip-flopper, I just was surprised when he commented on it tonight in the debate.
"We all share the same goals: clean air and water...safe transportation systems, to name a few of the good things that can come from regulation. " -Fred D. Thompson
I think Mitt did just fine, as did they all. I think the man with the most poltical intelligence and courage is Fred, with John right up there too. The fact is I will support whoever gets the nomination. I still think it is going to be Rudy or John, with Mike a long shot.
Mitt did a good job of pointing out that he has run plenty of positive ads. He pointed out that it has helped him go from a relative nobody to getting name recognition. It has worked.
Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney
"I am proud to support John McCain for president," said Jack Kemp. "John McCain is the only candidate who can be trusted to cut taxes, eliminate wasteful spending and enact conservative pro-growth policies to expand the economy. John McCain is the best choice to lead America to a more prosperous and secure future."
Another supply-side fiscal conservative endorsing Senator McCain. They know he's the anti-pork crusader. They know that tax cuts without spending caps would creat a deficit.
but only because of some logistical circumstances at home, and because I was a little tired and felt like watching from a more comfortable chair.
Did anyone else notice the candidates seeming to come together in positive territory towards the end, as if to begin to redefine the future of the party for all of us? It was what Michael Steele said must be done for both parties, to redefine themselves in post-Reagan and (maybe) post-Clinton times.
Overall, I thought this debate enjoyed the same rewards as last night's, which is to say, the candidates seemed more comfortable and gave us more substance to consider.
Fred did equally as well, and no one has yet laid a glove on him in the debates. When you factor in that Mitt was run over last nite, it would have been hard not to improve on his showing from last nite.
I still haven't heard one Romney supporter cogently argue that Mitt would do better in the South than Fred would. Mitt would not pick up one blue state either. Mitt has the highest negatives on the Republican side, irregardless of the New Hampshire Luntz group. The bottom line is that Rudy or Mitt as general election candidates would have big problems in the South- and without the South....
I don't think Romney got run over last night at all. I think McCain and Huckabee took some bizarre cheap shots at him, with Huckabee's turning out to be a bit...*ahem* factually challenged. I thought Romney actually scored points by sticking to the issues. I should note I'm a Romney supporter, but it seemed about 50/50 that this helped Romney.
Fred has been doing very well in the debates, I'll agree. He's easily my #2. Truthfully, out of this whole pack, I'm really only happy with Mitt and Fred.
"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan
he addressed well critical issues that need to be addressed. He told the hard truths we need to face to fix the major problems that no one else is willing to address. His answers on these problems are the right answers.
Unfortunately, his honest answers tend to lose votes and will not get him elected. Most people want to assume that continuing to do nothing to fix Social Security won't be a problem.
I think Fred is the bravest candidate of the group, but that won't get him elected.
Romney said the things tonight that could get him elected. He had good answers for many of the problems. However, even Romney did not propose Social Security solutions. It's a vote loser. And Romney, apparently unlike Fred, wants to get elected.
"The next two days will tell us for sure, but the last two days may have righted the Romney ship in time."
God I hope not. The sooner Romney drops out, the sooner the rest of us can get about the business of nominating someone who (a) is actually conservative and (b) can win.
Romney is the most electable in a general of all of them based on his traits. His persona, his tight use of language, his positive aura, his strong tax, immigration and foreign policy stances. His experience as an executive, not a debater like McCain.
Romney most definitely could beat Obama or Hillary. McCain will piss off so many real conservatives that I bet many stay home to teach the party a lesson. Huckabee is a joke in the general. Rudy is strong. Fred is asleep in his chair swivelling around like someone in an office cube.
Who do you think is more electable?
Romney's "persona" is that of bloodless, perfectly-coiffed patrician who oozes "politician". Like John Kerry with less charisma.
Romney's "tight use of language" is apparently what enables him to claim that he's a staunch defender of the Second Amendment while simultaneously waxing regulatory about "weapons of unusual lethality" and defending his pro-assault-weapons-ban past.
Romney's "positive aura" is similar to that of a smiling mannequin: phony.
Romney's "strong tax policy" stance includes raising taxes in Massachusetts and then claiming that it doesn't really count because those were fees.
Romney's "experience as an executive" amounts to getting whipped like a dog by the Democrat-dominated Massachusetts legislature, and chickening out of a re-election campaign against Devall Patrick.
There is not a snowball's prayer in the hot place that he'll come within sniffing distance of beating either Hillary or Obama in the general election. He has the highest base opposition of any GOP candidate: something like 47% of those polled will not vote for him under any circumstances.
Who's more electable? Virtually anybody. This doesn't mean that the GOP has a great chance to win with another candidate, just that it has a better chance with almost anyone else than with Romney.
Unfortunately, judging by the blinders that the pro-Romney crowd are wearing, it'll probably take until the day after election day for conservatives to realize this.
I'm not sure how anyone can think electability is a Romney stregnth. Every head-to-head poll out there shows that he matches up against Clinton or Obama the worst of all the GOP candidates.
instead of allowing polls to decided election results.
Many candidates who have trailed at this point have gone on to win elections. The head-to-head polls are virtually meaningless now.
Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney
I'll agree that Romney was very strong tonight. He certainly beat up on Huckabee, for sure, and made McCain look just awful with his clumsy attempts to attack him.
Question I have is... what happens to McCain if Romney should win NH? He would have come in fourth in Iowa (let's call it tied for third) and second? third? in NH (which he was supposed to win).
Anyone care to guess?
-TS
"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt
He doesn't have the money to keep going if he doesn't win NH. If Romney wins NH, I'm afraid he's the nominee. I don't think Rudy's late state strategy will work.
try and get terrorists sent to Kansas so they can sue in US courts for damages; sticks his head back up Chris Matthews butt and bashes Bush and the GOP just enough to keep his co-starring role on Sunday MSM shows.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I know you're a more astute analyst than that, GC. As one Fredhead to another, let's set aside our preferences for a minute.
What do you think really happens? Do you really think he drops out? And if he does, do you really think he endorses Fred?
I mean... a Rudy/McCain ticket would be incredible on National Defense. Plus they can claim the Mr. Executive and the Mr. Insider-Who-Gets-Things-Done (as the President of the Senate, mind you) synergy as well.
Not exactly a true conservative ticket, I would surmise, but I could see it playing well in the general.
And that's with me hoping personally that McCain does endorse Fred.
-TS
"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt
That's his style. He stuck around in 2000 long after the writing was on the wall, and that was in a 2 man race. In a 5 man race the whole thing will be much closer and there's a much better chance for somebody to make a comeback. I don't think this thing is going to be over any time soon.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Best guess. 2008 is a unique, weird year, but here goes.
I feared McCain for 72 hours. That fear ended tonight. He will not be the GOP nominee. Issues matter in the GOP, and McCain is disqualified.
Yes, if he loses in NH, his "path" to the nomination is probably fatally obstructed because then he would have no momentum coming into THE crucial primary. SC picks GOP nominees. See 1980-2004. Compare to Iowa and NH and you see what matters.
McCain's only chance to mend enough fences to win the state he insulted in 2000 is to come in a NH winner.
Remember, the only reason Mccain has any chance is the weakness of the others. A Mitt win in NH ends Mitt's weakness.
The battle in SC will be between Huck, Fred and the NH winner. Fred has the advantage on issues, and SC is much more conventional conservative than NH or Iowa. Huck will have some evangelical and other support based on his charisma, but SC is not Iowa.
SC is more military, which gives McCain an opening, but it is also Reaganite, three legged stool and it likes to go with a winner!
Evangelicals here are also war hawks and fiscal conservatives, so Huck and Mccain have major problems here.
Fred can win here. So can Mitt. I don't think Huck can
UNLESS
he clarifies some of his positions and moves to the right
FAST.
I think SC will pick the nominee. That means that Rudy will not be the nominee. The nominee will be the person that conservatives decide to rally around.
Mitt or Fred
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Hahaha.. I'm sorry, but his appearances on Chris Spitty Mathews alone deserve him a place on a plane back to Arizona.
If he had real courage he would tell the media to shove it as Fred has done, or at least keep his head out of their but, as Romney has managed to do.
But I guess I'm in the minority on that. And I'm not biased against the guy, because I'd love to see him beat McCain. I thought his comments on social security were really pathetic and nonsensical, for example.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
But still the strongest of the three that Fox seemed to care about.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Since when?
1. Romney had a huge lead, double digit, for months in NH, when McCain was nowhere. At one time Rudy put in a lot of money on TV and spent time campaigning there. McCain took the lead about two weeks ago at most.
2. If anyone was "supposed to win" it was Romney. Normally when one of the candidates is from massachusetts, he is expected to win NH as a favorite son. Eg, Kerry, Tsongas, Dukakis, etc.
3. Romney made the state a must win and spent huge sums of money on TV and his organization.
if Romney loses he can stay in for a while, because he has money and the support of some important sectors of the Republican establishment.
I still don't see how he wins in the south against thompson, Huckabee and Giuliani. The reason he made iowa and NH the focus of his campaign is because he believed they were states where he could win -- Iowa a good place for his strong family values and NH being goodas a Northeast state.
Fourth (third) in Iowa.
Does he have to place? Strong second? What in your mind would be a good result for McCain if he doesn't win NH outright?
-TS
"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt
Well, McCain was supposed to win New Hampshire because:
1) He won it previously.
2) Romney came out wounded in Iowa, even though he met finished with exactly what he was initially polling.
3) McCain had momentum leading into the primary.
4) Huckabee's uptick here was being fueled by social conservatives who might have otherwise grudgingly voted for Mitt or Thompson.
You see talk across the internet that a McCain win was inevitable--at least before these debates.
"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan
I think Gov. Romney did extremely well compared to Saturday's debate. There are important things that I think we need to keep in mind on who we really want for President though aside from who is the biggest pork cutter or tax cutter.
One election can have effects on policy in this country for decades. Once the next President takes office in 1-2 years he is likely to have 2-3 appointments to fill for the U.S. Supreme Court, those appointments are for life. President Eisenhower was elected in the 1950's and from that election we got the Warren Court and we still feel the effects of it today even though Warren is dead now and the Court has had a total turnover with J. Stevens the remaining Burger Court veteran.
Sen. McCain I think is a good man, he should be respected for his tenure in the Senate and service to our country. That said I do not believe he should be considered the nominee for our party. To nominate McCain, would show to conservatives we don't really embrace change, we just end up running the same people each time only problem is this time we could seriously lose to Obama if we're not careful.
I think Fred Thompson also shined tonight. Luntz's focus group said that Fred rambled I disagree with that, Fred is running for President not auditioning for Wheel of Fortune, when he talks we listen because he is a smart man.
The 2008 GOP candidates should be Romney and Thompson. I think both have the ability to unite all three sides of the conservative field and while they are not perfect, they would both be candidates voters could support without having to surrender their conservative ideals in the name of beating a Democrat.
You make some good points but... do you really think conservatives really trust Romney? Not whether they like him or not -- he's very likable, and I like him quite a bit too. I just wonder if conservative truly trust him.
BTW, I am specifically saying conservatives, not Republicans. There is a difference.
-TS
"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt
I don't know if they really trust him but I think they would trust him more if Fred were on a ticket with him. They may not know him that well but know that Fred is a strong conservative and I think as a VP he would balance the ticket out.
Romney would not go and nominate pro choice liberals for the Supreme Court, think of the backlash that would happen if he did that. I picture that as Harriet Miers take 2, Immigration, he saw what happens if you try to push an Amnesty bill, the people rise up and put you back in your place.
I'm a strong conservative myself, I trust him, and I want to see Judge Janice Rogers Brown as our next SCOTUS nominee, you can't get anymore conservative than her. Jay Sekulow of the American Ctr. for Law and Justice is backing Romney as well. I'm sure your aware of the hard work he and his lawyers do in fighting for what we believe. I don't believe Jay would support someone he honestly didn't think was serious about our views.
from Massachusetts. And I think he knows that if he were to betray any promise, he would go the way of no new taxes Bush 41.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
I have Romney pencilled in at #2 behind Fred, and it means alot to hear you do trust him.
BTW, it's cold comfort to hear he'll go the way of Bush 41, since... that resulted in 8 years of the Clinton Retreat from History.
-TS
"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt
There are two important dynamics in play tonight. First you saw how an audience can be led. Can we really trust any of the media to be truely "Fair and Balanced"? I didn't see each of the candidates getting equal time, or was that my bias leaking in? Secondly, Follow the money. Romney's got it and the others are struggling to find some. At this point that is the big difference. If the others don't catch fire soon, they aren't going to make it to the big show,(and yes that includes the guy I want,Thompson). All of the candidates made good points tonight and no one made any big mistakes so i'd say this one was a wash.
All news media is biased. Personally I think they are too hard on Thompson sometimes, he's not going to get up and jump up and down screaming and hollering or praising messages of hope in the way Obama gets his crowds riled up. And when I say media I include Politico, they spin everything to whatever way they feel but for some reason Thompson doesn't mesh with their views...that's their problem.
I agree but we have to deal with reality here. Thompson is the right guy but the voters want to see the WWF Smack Down. Fred is a adult but he's trying to talk to voters who i'm afraid were raised in the me first generation. it's a tough stretch for them to connect.
I support Fred. When I lived in TN he ran a brilliant campaign against the Democrats. They threw every charge at him they could and he still trounced his opponent. He campaigned around the state in his red pickup with a down-home charm and you knew exactly where Fred stood on the issues and what he would do. Importantly, he could phrase those issues in a way that showed a clear common sense.
So what has happened on the Presidential trail? The only things I believe most Republicans know about him is that he seeks to balance the budget, provide strong national security and change how social security is indexed. Yawn!!! This is not the campaign I expect from Fred. Why should I be excited about his campaign? The other campaigns have things that people can get excited about supporting (whether I agree or not):
Huckabee has his get rid of IRS and have a national sales tax plan where workers would not even have to pay social security taxes anymore-exciting even if hard to do!
Romney has his record of working to increase health coverage!
McCain has his hero status and his crusade against powerful business special interest (IMHO, he is a Demagogue but it is exciting to his supporters)!
Even Giuliani has his plan to increase the size of our military including increasing the size of the navy to 300 ships (not close to Reagan's 500 ship navy) OK. Giuliani needs more but at least he has something.
So Fred, why do you want to be President and why should it excite me? Show some fire! The best Fred did was refusing to raise his hand regarding the global warming question.
Why not go after Gore and say that this global warming stuff is a scam!!? I know it that it makes me mad that Bush signed the stupid Democrat energy bill that mandates that we have to switch to those awful florescent light bulbs in less than 4 years! I hate those things: Hate the flicker, hate the weak lighting and they are expensive.
So I ask: Is Fred lost? Has the late start to the campaign thrown him off? or has it been too many years out of practice running for office?
Fred did 3rd in IA and 2nd in Wyoming. He's doing as well as anyone else is, aside from Romney. Huckabee is a one hit wonder.
McCain will win NH and MI, Fred will win SC, Rudy FL and then it's a 3 way race on Super Tuesday.
wins South Carolina I agree with you, except he might surprise us in Florida. It all depends on the boost he can get moneywise from SC...
With Obama pulling away indepedents from McCain and Romney's debate performances and win in Wyoming...I wouldn't be so sure.
If Romney wins New Hampshire, even by a small margin, it would greatly increase his chances in Michigan.
That would be three victories in a row for Romney coupled with a second place finish in Iowa. I think a lot of people are also forgetting that Nevada holds its caucus on the same day as South Carolina. Romney leads in Nevada, as well.
Just saying a lot can happen and South Carolina might not be as big as it has previously been. Nevada, for instance, has 10 more delegates than does South Carolina.
The oddball factor in this is Huckabee. He's been making major ground in South Carolina in Nevada. If he won both after a win in Iowa... Let's hope not. I really dislike the man. Mitt or Fred for me (and from the tone of my post, I bet you can guess who is #1 in my book).
"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan
In another thread last night, I said that Fred had lost. (and I'm a Fred Head).
In part this was based on my wife (strong social conservative) to his performance. She's a "pizza test" voter (no beer in our house). Thompson failed that last night. He came across as old and confused.
At the time I forgot her most interesting comment on Romney -- "He reminds me of JFK."
While she wouldn't vote based on that, knowing where they stand on the issues and knowing that my top three are Fred, Mitt, and McCain, she will definitely be looking at Mitt in the primary here.
While I plan to vote for Fred in Georgia, that won't make any sense if he gets creamed in SC.
So know that my brain has had a few moments of rest, let me give you my impressions from last night.
FRED -- He did great on the social security issue. He got in his requisite moderator interrupt and was good at not letting Wallace characterize his answer. He did well with the John Wayne line. His amnesty line was also good and I think it hurt McCain. What gave me the two biggest problems was his over overall debate performance. I don't know if he's got a cold or what, but there was a lot of off mike noise and he looked just awful.
MCCAIN -- He seemed forced for the first time in the debates I've seen. He had some good answers, but I think he lost on immigration and the fact that he pointed to BCRA as his big "change" point (along with ... yes, yes .. we know you got it right on Iraq) is a problem. Bragging about something that most Republicans hate is not going to help you here (or anywhere).
RUDY -- I agree with the general comments that Rudy was sidlined. When he was in, he did pretty well and the "I told the Saudi prince were he could stick his $10 million check after 9/11" was good and would have been an applause line if there was an audience.
HUCK -- He got pinned to the table by Romney on the pardons. According to the focus group, he fumbled the life question.
I think he was smart to highlight that as a governor, he solved problems and also that he is experienced. The problem is that since McCain is the leader in the polls, I saw a lot of Huck and Romney double teaming (sort of the executives versus the senators) so he was helping Guiliani and, more so, Romney.
ROMNEY -- I thought this was the best I've seen him. Less sound byte and more being able to be extemporaneous. Admitting that he had made mistakes in business and admitting that had made mistakes on abortion and now he changed his mind was PERFECT to soften his image of the rich kid know it all. People can relate to that. They may like their boss, but they know people screw up and when Romney talked about it, I thought it was very strong.
TAKEAWAYS FOR ME FROM THE DEBATE:
MITT -- He can win in November.
FRED -- I'm not sure he can win in November.
RUDY -- I would feel good with Rudy as President.
MIKE -- Got beat up by Fred and Mitt. Not teflon.
JOHN -- Still doesn't get it on BCRA, immigration, etc.
I came into the debate with the candidates in this order and on this scale:
1) Fred 9
2) Mitt 7
3) McCain 5
4) Rudy 4
5) Huck -9
I left feeling like this:
1) Fred 8.1
2) Mitt 8
3) Rudy 5
4) McCain 4
5) Huck -9
While I've given to Fred and I continue to support him, at this point its almost out of loyalty rather than thinking that he's got a better chance to win. Fred's losing me on electability (not on issues).
Fred HAS to win South Carolina or I think he's done.
Mitt WILL win New Hampshire (of course, I said that Mitt would win Iowa so take that with a grain of salt).
It looked like McCain was trying to make a joke about Romney being the "change" candidate. Only it was very hard to tell why McCain thought this was so funny.
Romney Republican