Redstate

question.

All candidates have a ceiling.

There are at least 8 candidates now.

Don't you think that if there were less candidates, and especially if Mitt were one of only two remaining candidates, that his ceiling would miraculously rise even if he didn't renounce Mormonism and get baptized by immersion in Lake Michigan?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com

You may be right, you may be wrong. Who cares? I don't. CNN doesn't even care about this. Don't you think if this was a big deal that they would be all over it?

Why are we doing this to ourselves? I don't understand the obsession.

This seems to be the only explanation that makes sense. None of the other campaigns would want to be caught dead pushing what could be termed religious bigotry, the nature of the calls, length of the calls, etc.

The only thing that still puzzles me is the coincidence that at least a couple of the people coming out publically as having been push polled were on the Romney payroll. Is Iowa really that small?

Was it an internal list used by amateurs, perhaps inside the campaign? Or did those paid supporters just see an opportunity to make hay -- maybe not having been polled -- to help their guy?

I'm not push polling here, just the questions I still have. I think it makes a difference since the Romney campaign used the incident after it was made public to try and get sympathy. If they created the incident as well... that would just be wrong.

LS

"It is one thing to show a man that he is in an error, and another to put him in possession of the truth." - John Locke

I guess it goes without saying that you believe Mitt to be a liar.

As soon as the Corner published an article tracing the "push polls" to camps related to Romney, the candidate stopped talking about it. I mean, Romney made such a stink about it being "un-American". Then, the Corner piece comes out and boom no more talk about it.

I think this speech is a mistake. The MSM has been itching to bring up some of the Mormon beliefs but have been afraid to talk about it. Now Romney will open the door for them to take up this issue and run away with it. He can't accuse them of being religious bigots anymore.

Obviously it was Rudy who had the push poll done, who was hoping people would blame it on Thompson, who was doing the push poll so that people would blame it on McCain, who was doing the push poll so people would blame it on Romney, who was doing the push poll so that people would blame it on Huckabee. Isn't it obvious?

The simplest explanation is probably the right one... some moron working for somebody's campaign in a low-level capacity went out and did this on his own, without the knowledge of the campaign. There are a plenty of idiots out there who think attacking his religion is a winning strategy.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

As you outlined what polls do and the constraints of polls it connected the dots on why Romney would launch a poll that seems to be a push poll. In order to find out the deep and politically incorrect biases you have to take a different approach.

The irony of all this is that there are probably plenty of shallow biases that prevent a candidate from winning. Religion happens to be an easily understood and scintillating one. There are plenty of complex biases that are in operation everyday. For example, why are we choosing chief executives on the basis of physical appearance, the ability to speak, and on the ability to react in a debate with one-liners and sound bites? Shouldn't a chief executive be chosen on the basis of leadership style, management acumen, and integrity? If you found the BEST person to run the country, would they be a polished robot or a charismatic tall older Southerner, or would be be a short bald guy who has a lisp and a goofy laugh?

If you eliminate religion as a shallow prejudice there are a dozen more complex ones waiting in the wings.

"I can say - not as a patriotic bromide...that the United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and...the only moral country in the history of the world. - Ayn Rand

I think it's more likely that there's a flip-flopper ceiling. If there was a ceiling on voting for a Mormon, it would be a lot higher than 35% anyway. There's also the fact that although he may have a great bio, Giuliani has an even better bio, Thompson is more consistent, and Huckabee is more likeable. I'm not trying to bash Romney more than he deserves; other candidates have problems too. I'm just pointing out reasons why he might have stalled in the polls.

Another very likely reason is that likely Iowa caucus voters have all heard of him by now. Perhaps the attacks are starting to balance out the effects of his advertising. There are so many possible reasons other than an anti-Mormon bias.

I'm honestly baffled at the writer. I can't imagine that you are a full-time writer if you are allowed to post something twice that has zero proof behind it. Show me a single other article on this site that posts a similar damaging accusation that has zero facts behind it - please, find it and send me an email. Take for example Rudy's affair and police expenses - there are facts, paper work that demonstrates at least what is in question. You have no facts and you are posing as a journalist, at least a semi-journalist with a forum.

In any employment setting you would be fired, or at least disciplined but besides that I'm just surprised that someone thinks like this, no not that they think like this but that they are willing to post it where it can cause damage to someone when there are no facts behind it.

You owe Mitt Romney an apology. I believe you should lose your ability to blog on this site and really you should just feel kind of sleezy. This is really bizarre, I can't help but wonder what goes on in your mind.

Nice hit piece - just curious, who do you support?

Nah, I suppose that would be too painfully obvious and thus couldn't possibly have anything to do with the decision to give the speech.

Has nothing to do with the Huckster (aka "did ya'll know I'm CHRISTIAN just like you?") overtaking Romney in the Iowa polls after running off with Romney's socon momentum at the Values Voter Conference. (As I stated at the time, Romney should have given the speech then and closed the sale. Now he gives it with his back to the wall).

By the way, Romney went on record multiple times in the last couple of months and prior to the push polling incident saying that he was leaning toward giving the speech and his staffers and advisers were leaning against it. The conclusion that his staffers finally convinced him to give the speech appears to be offbase as written.

So, just to recap, Romney was behind this because you think you would do something similar based on your 10 yrs of running local campaigns and because multiple reporters have privately opined to you that they think Romney or his supporters are responsible? That's some rock solid supporting evidence you have there.

Apparently there are enough tin foil hats still feeding on this drivel for you to see some value in continuing to peddle it.

The Martian theory. They say follow the money, or in this case, who had the most to gain. That would be Huckabee or one of his supporters. He has been the only one trying to make this about religion. If it walks like a duck, quakes like a duck, it probably is a duck. The same people who are quick to try to blame Romney will quickly flame you if you suggest it could have come out of Huckabees group.

We may soon know.

For now, though, Romney’s campaign is hoping that they can get to the bottom of the calls.

They’re directing those in New Hampshire (where there are strict laws requiring such callers to identify who they’re working on behalf of) who received the calls to the state attorney general’s office, which launched an investigation on Friday.

“We’re getting as much information as possible,” said Madden, the Romney spokesman. “Phone calls leave fingerprints.”

While few think that any of Romney’s rivals were directly responsible for the calls, another line of thinking goes that a third-party affiliated with or at least sympathetic to McCain, Giuliani or another Republican may have been behind the Mormon-bashing.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6946.html

This continues to be a marginally interesting theory that may, perhaps, turn out to be true. And far be it from me to tell you how to run your site or to question your experience on the subject of running campaigns.

But, simply, you have precisely no more in the way of backup beyond "I have this crazy theory" than you had before. So given that your impetus for writing this was that Mitt is now planning on giving The Speech™ I would have thought you would wait for him to, you know, actually give it before re-accusing his campaign of push-polling their own candidate - a charge they continue to rather strongly deny, by the way.

Whatever, I still think the "push-polling" is a zero-day story unless someone actually fesses-up to doing it on behalf of someone else.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

who posted above in the comments.

Huckabee has started rounding up the evangelical vote, in spades.

Romney counted on that vote to make it a two man race with Guiliani.

Now, he's clearly got to explain himself to the masses.

As I pointed out in a Romney speech thread last night, if he talks about shared VALUES then he'll do okay. If he tries to equate Mormanism with Evangelical Christianity, he'll be done.

Oz

Read my most recent story, "What is Thompson's path?" on First Cut Politics

Although I disagree with Erick, the political rational is sound. No other candidate was hurt by this, so the Romney camp doing this push poll to find out how deep the LDS bigotry runs, is a win/win.
Lets say Mitt does win Iowa. Does that mean the south automatically says he A-OK with them, or do they (the evangelicals) dig their heels in and figure Mitt bought his way in Iowa? I don't think evangelicals are mindless robots that follow the lead of the evangelicals in Iowa. I think they will vet Mitt for their own reasons.
If we concede those as facts, then it is best for Mitt to get this issue out of the way ASAP. So, a push poll of that nature is a wise move and I don't have a problem with it.
I doubt this speech will address any specific teachings of the LDS church. I think, as many he have already stated, he will talk about values and the constitution and how expecting a religious litmus test is anti-American.

Reminds me a little of the Bugs Bunny cartoon with him and the gangsters...

"Would I toynn on the gas and light a match if my pal Mugsy was in deaaa?"

"You might, rabbit. You might."

It's a riveting explanation and you should probably be writing for television, and it's one of those things that if it's true and it works is going to go down in the history of the wisdom of "It's better to ask for forgiveness than permission."

On the other hand, why not just call likely voters, even Republicans, and say something like:

"Hi, I'm calling on behalf of the Mitt Romney for President campaign and I'd like to know whether you believe Mitt's religion is a serious obstacle for you voting for him?"

and

"If yes, do you think that Mitt Romney could improve the situation by making a comprehensive speech about his beliefs?"

....

Or, is that just not done in poltical campaigns anymore? You know, being above board and upfront with what you're asking? Or have the pollsters all gotten so "sophisticated" that they can ask about the weather in Duluth and decide that the person actually means "I will vote for Hillary Clinton."

Now, not putting anything past political campaigns (or at least people associated with someone from a political campaign) in this modern age, you might be right.

But I hope not. I know the Romney campaign has known for almost a year that his religion was going to be an issue. It could very well be that they decided this on their own, without any kind of formal or backhanded polling at all. It would seem among all the other variables that Mitt Romney has going for him to be the obvious answer at this point if they're wondering about his "plateau."

So my guess -- that's a heck of an election story, Erick, but my guess is that they didn't, and they just realize that for more than a year people have been making hay out of his Mormonism and it might be time for him to respond.

Erick's boot, reconstructed horse corpse. May you have a long and productive relationship.

I'm a little confused…and I'm not the only one. There are some Mormons out
there who are scratching their heads because of something Mitt Romney said:
Read below from an interview he did with ABC's George Stephanopoulos:

Stephanopoulos: "In your faith, if I understand it correctly, it teaches
that Jesus will return probably to the United States and reign on earth for
1,000 years…" http://tinyurl.com/yoaw4b

And This:
http://www.saintsalive.org/mormonism/israel_mormonism.htm

Mormon theology is itself an ancillary, though less tangible issue. Mormons
see themselves as Jews of the tribe of Ephraim, one of the tribes of Joseph,
whereas Jews are thought by them to be of the descendants of Judah. This
means that Mormons hold themselves as coequal in status to "other Jews,"
which is why to them all non-Mormons except Jews are "gentiles."

Mormon’s believe Native Americans are Jews. http://tinyurl.com/27b7sb

One of the 13 articles of faith #10 We believe in the literal gathering of
Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New
Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign
personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive
its paradisiacal glory.

Mormons view humans as ultimately spirits, who lived with God as spirits
before they were born on earth. God chose a specific time and place for each
spirit to come to earth to receive a physical body.

The Restoration of the Priesthood http://tinyurl.com/2fs6b4

Jesus Christ as Chief Editor of The Book of Mormon
http://www.cumorah.com/bookofmormon.html

LDS Church teaches that God the Father was once a man and was exalted to Godhood. God (and his heavenly Wife)
begat billions of spirit children, the firstborn of whom was Jesus. Lucifer was the leader of God’s rebellious spirit
children. Those spirits who did not rebel become human beings in order to begin process potentially leading to exaltation
to Godhood.

Death and Afterlife Joseph Smith also taught that Mormon families can live together forever in heaven
if they are "sealed" through special temple ceremonies. The rest of us are what?

And Romney wants to be President, Priesthood, and Godhood?

Erick's Ego 1, Christian Charity 0.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

I think you are wrong in your analysis of Mitt's ceiling, but I think you are due compliments for posting the only theory I've seen so far that posits no one was intentionally working an underhanded ploy.

I think Mitt's problem, and Guiliani's as well, is that he comes from a liberal state where political necessity made him support liberal positions. He has since changed many of those positions, as his position papers indicate. The problem is we have come off a Republican congress that didn't represent Republican ideals, and therefore people don't actually care about your position papers, they care about what you believe. And for as much as they may WANT to believe, having just come out of an abusive relationship, they aren't willing to extend trust to someone who hasn't proven their credentials. Unfortunately, that also means that Mitt may really now believe in the pro-life position, but the trust isn't there.

And now that I write the above, I realize that is probably the core issue for all of the Republican candidates at the moment: we want to trust, but because of past events, we can't. So it's a hard sell for everybody in the field who passes the minimally electable criteria.

If Mitt Romney is considered to have a low ceiling because he can't seem to get higher than 25 percent in the Iowa polls, what does that say about Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain? They are even lower in the polls. And not only in Iowa but in New Hampshire too.

I think a more rational explanation for Romney's low ceiling is that there are so many candidates in the race and that none of them has, as yet, been able to unite both major factions of the Republican base: economic conservatives and social conservatives.

It makes no sense to propose that Mitt Romney's campaign or a Romney ally decided to do push-polling, which not only brought up Romney's Mormon religion, but also said complemantary things about John McCain.

That would go under the category of "With friends like these, you don't need any enemies."

As the news reports are that Romney's advisers have been and continue to be opposed to his giving this speech.

I always felt it was more likely to have been a Clinton-linked poll- trying to prepare in case Romney is the Republic Candidate (as most insiders figured he would be at that point), while stirring up trouble inside the Republican camp in the process.

After Mitt delivers the much-anticipated "Faith in America" speech on Thursday, there will be a ton of buzz online and offline for Mitt. The day after this event, Mitt's supporters are hosting an event that you can check out at http://www.December7thforMitt.com