"Romney Rising" Like Bread. McCain Wins New Hampshire.

By Erick Posted in Comments (262) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

I bake bread on occasion. I like me some homemade bread.

Here's a lesson I learned:

If you let the bread rise too much, it collapses on itself in the oven.

You must re-knead and re-rise to have a successful loaf. There's always Michigan and Mitt Romney's dough. But considering he said he was going to win New Hampshire because he was Governor next door, yadda . . . yadda . . . yadda . . ., conservatives are going to need to question his continued viability.

Two bits that keep Romney very viable: He's got money and he's in the lead in delegates. In fact, the top three are Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson McCain after New Hampshire. You'd be very, very foolish to count Romney out now. Nonetheless, he's now very vulnerable.


« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims?Comments (2) | NH Evening Open Thread #1Comments (114) »
"Romney Rising" Like Bread. McCain Wins New Hampshire. 262 Comments (0 topical, 262 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

He’s the last social conservative left. He beat or out lasted them one by one. I know Romney and Thompson are still in the race, but c'mon, they're done. The funny part is that Romney and Thompson help Huckabee the longer they stay in the race.

Brownback
Thompson
Romney

Oh, right -- just in time to run for the GOP presidential nomination.

he can go back to being pro-choice. I expect a Mitt endorsement of Rudy after Michagan.

Also- by edm

Where does Romney's support go?

and decides to drop out, I think he'll endorse Thompson, thus securing a job in the administration (if not the VP spot), and ending the insanity.

Texas Proud and Texas Loud

Romney will not be a part of any administration, at least not in the next 4 years.

Romney expected to get 25,000 votes in Iowa, he got 51 shy of 30,000. Romney's RCP average in NH was 28%. Wow, check out what he just got: 28%. Romney's been dead on in reaching his expectations. The problem? Both Iowa and NH had better turnouts for the opposition than Romney expected.

He's not done yet, but like Erick states, he needs to reknead the dough.

It was Iowa, New Hampshire, and down go the dominoes.

He said he's "going on to Michigan, South Carolina, Nevada..." Brings to mind: "YEAAARRRRGH!"

Giulani was big front runner, now this race is wide open. He will have a full week in MI to recover. The economy and not the war will be the major issue, also he will not be running aganist some one campaning in MI for 9 years and that helps Romney.

Romney 08

In fact, if Fred wins South Carolina, which is a genuine possibility, he's in good shape with a bunch of southern (Bible Belt) states to rattle off some wins. Two weeks ago, I didn't see a path for Fred to win. It's still uphill but it's still doable. Here's why.

1st Romney is in for the duration… now if he had lost to Ron Paul maybe he’d think about packing his bags.

2nd Romney’s support is varied and if he did drop out it would split. Me I’d probably hold my nose and go McCain.

My guess as to who he would endorse if he left is: I doubt he has thought about it because he plans on winning.

“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

If that's the case, his ego is much bigger than I ever gave him credit for, and that's saying a lot. I'd say he's toast now, but how anyone couldn't say the same when he loses Michigan is beyond me.

www.republicansenate.org

So Romney has placed 2nd ,1st and 2nd. Where has Rudy and Thompson placed? No one is calling for them to drop out. Just because they didn't try isn't an excuse.

Before you pull out the Phil Gramm analogies they don’t even compare. Phil Gramm got 5th in Iowa and pulled out before New Hampshire!

It would be one thing if he was strapped for cash. Then he couldn't go on. That was McCain’s Problem.

And of course his ego is huge. He is running for president. You don't run for president of the most powerful nation in the world if you don't have a big ego.

Even when Jefferson had to be "drafted" into running it was all political posturing because it was necessary in his time.

“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

Its not over, until its over.

Sure, I have no problem asking Fred and Rudy to drop out. Hell, the most important thing to me about this whole primary business given our sorry lot of candidates isn't who gets the nomination but who doesn't. If Rudy dropped out, I'd breathe a deep sigh of relief and, though I certainly wouldn't be thrilled with whoever's left, be voting Republican in November. So fine, all three of them should drop out. Happy now?

I should note that the only reason I hadn't suggested that Rudy drop out until now is because I gave up a long time ago on him ever listening to people like me, i.e. those who have not excommunicated themselves from the Church.

www.republicansenate.org

he is a favorite son. His father turned AMC around and became the Governor. The name is very well known, and very well respected.

IN addition, he has bee running very effective ads for the past month talking about what it takes to be a successful businessman, and reducing the size of government. Right now, the people of MI are ready to listen to smaller government -- ours has gotten totally out of control.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

McCain beat Bush in Michigan in 2000. People in Michigan like McCain. He pulls all the independents.

Since the Dems don't have much of a race in Michigan (Hillary is the only big name candidate on the ballot due to DNC issues) there won't be independents in Michigan voting for Obama.

Romney does have name recognition - but it primarily with older folks who remember his father. But people under 40 never heard of his father.

His sister in law, Ronna Romney, a powerhouse figure in Michigan's GOP, tried to run on her ex husband's name recognition but she lost big in 2 US Senate attempts. (I think she lost in the primary once, I don't recall the details of the other race.)

From ABC's Gary Langer:

"Moderates, independents and late deciders were crucial for McCain, and he was boosted by a large advantage on personal qualities of leadership, experience and straight-talking. Moderates (just over a third of voters) went overwhelmingly for McCain, 43-26 percent; he also won liberal Republicans, who are somewhat less rare in New Hampshire than elsewhere (12 percent of voters). Among conservatives, by contrast Romney won, by 37-30 percent. (Conservatives were the much larger group, 54 percent of all voters.)"

In Michigan, Independents don't vote.

Independents DO vote in MI and there is no Dem race.

John S. McCain III.

The Dem ballot has Hillary and some of the 2nd tier guys - some of whom have already dropped out.

The majority of voters will be party activists and seniors who get ballots mailed to them. Those leaning Dem will vote for Hillary. Activists are voting uncommitted.

But all the independents who could be swayed by either McCain and now apparently Obama don't have Obama as a choice. If independents turn out, they will vote for McCain.

“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

I realize that the upper peninsula of Michigan has some, shall we say individualists, but were they subscribers to Paul's racist news letters?

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

I'm think of those that would vote for Obama. The anti war vote. Not the I hate blacks vote.

“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

Wow I need to slow down and proof read my posts. Sorry for the ignorant grammar.
“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

Who was the guy with Timothy McVeigh -- Terry Nichols or something -- he was in Dexter which is about an hour from Detroit. I don't think they really get involved politically. They hate the government and carry out their own personal protests by not paying taxes, etc.

My understanding was that in Michigan both Independents and Dems vote.

"The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions."

Admit it Mittsters, this ain't good. Let's take those millions of bucks and ground troops and get behind Fred. I will talk Fred into letting you be VP and then after learning at the feet of the Conservative master for 4 years, you can run in 2012.

Yes I said 4 years. Fred only needs 4 years to make sure this party does not go soft.

Time to be FREDucated

although I think I want Fred for 8

And why wouldn't it be the other way around?

One had more money and more delegates. And that one ain't Fred.

"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan

Bye-bye Mitt Headroom. McCain is winning GOP voters as well as independents.

John S. McCain III.

...by moderate and liberal independents & Democrats? Does anybody put any credence into the candidate that most CONSERVATIVES are voting for?

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

McCain is winning GOP voters - you don't get to say that some GOP voters are more equal than others.

John S. McCain III.

"I'm just beginning...The pen's in my hand...Ending unplanned"

As of this day, Mitt Romney is in the LEAD in the all important DELEGATE COUNT. Even if he keeps splitting the vote with McCain and Huckabee he will still be in the lead. HE will win Neveda. Thank you!

Hugh Hewitt declares victory for Romney at 11:30 PM Eastern Time. He'll say the heroic comeback combined with his epic victory in Wyoming will carry Romney to victory in Michigan and beyond.

"The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions."

But I'm having some trouble doing it.

Let's see what Michigan and SC have to say first.

I don't think you'll have any trouble with contrasts for the general election.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

that leaves 48 states last time I checked, why do people give up so easily nowadays?

Texas Proud and Texas Loud

In years past, these two contests--Iowa and NH--effectively proved nothing. Can anyone say Howard Dean or Wes Clark? Take a deep breath, folks, and just enjoy the show. The future hasn't been decided yet--no matter what Anteater thinks.

...or perhaps if it comes down to him or Huck. Jesus H. Christ - what is going here.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

you can be sure that the Democrat will win. I would guess that at least 10% of the conservatives would sit out the election. Republicans will reap what they sow...

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

I'm no big fan of the man, but let's not discount the fact that he's steadily received second place twice, while McCain and Huck flirt with the second tier. A consistent placing in the first tier will serve him well on Super Tuesday.

the Republican party is fracturing - We seem to have liberal Republicans and Conservative Republicans and seems that the liberal Republicans are winning this race.

Well, unfortunately, the Republican Party will not win with this kind of disparity. Well, maybe it is time for a new party anyway - either Liberal Republicans (Fiscal Conservatives, Liberal Social), or Conservative Republicans (Fiscal Conservatives, Conservative Social).

It does seem that this may be the time for a hard break either way...which of course will leave the party in the minority for some time to come...but something better usually survives.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

Since when is Huckabee a liberal Republican?

talking about the evils of capitalism and business. When he got endorsed by the NEA. And probably when he bought into the Government Can Save You mentality that permeates his campaign. There is nothing about small government in that campaign.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney

Even if Huck doesn't raise one tax, he will expand the deficit with more government programs and ditch his political capital on a tax plan that can't pass. It sounds to me to be the weaknesses we've come to endure with Bush, bigger government and no Social Security solution.

Fred Dalton Thompson

If you are a true Conservative, and do not want McAmnesty or Huckster, send in a donation tonight for Fred!

www.fred08.com

It will do your heart some good and you will sleep better. Trust me

That, at least gives Mitt the Chance to do well in those states in a general election, when we only have two choices. I still think Mitt will stay in the race and be our nominee. Oh great, people who thought pesonal qualities were MORE important than the isses..voted for McCain. The economy is gaining strenth as an issue...bodes ill for McCain.

with 16% of the precincts in, but can't call it for Hillary with 17% in is the MSM wants McCain and Obama...

I never thought I'd say this...GO HILLARY GO!

Texas Proud and Texas Loud

No, it's because the actual results and the exit polls are in disagreement with Hillary/Obama and were in agreement with McCain/Romney.

In his speech, Romney sure sounded like he knows it's over.

Especially if Obama wins the Dems nomination. We will not be winning the general elections without the independent and the moderate vote.

Many of my liberal, independent and apolitical friends really like McCain. He could do it.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

but lose a larger portion of the conservatives. The numbers don't add up.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

conservatives would care too much about the country to waste a vote or to abstain.

"I'm with Fred" but I'll go with our nominee. That's a promise.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

I WILL NOT VOTE FOR MCPAIN

Well by skey

If I'm going to have to spend four years opposing every move of the President, I'd rather it be a Democrat than a Republican. So nope. I won't be voting for McCain.

Thompson I can vote for. Romney, just barely, because there's some small chance he'd govern like he's been campaigning this time rather than like he was campaigning for MA governor. Rudy, McCain, Huck? Nope. A Republican party that nominates any of the three isn't one I can support, because they would have obviously left my values behind. A Republican party that nominates any of the three is no longer a conservative party.

Just what is the difference between a liberal and a semi-liberal - not much let me tell you. The only major difference between the two is the war and I expect that even the Democrat will be convinced of the right course once in office. Don't even begin to tell me about spending...(maybe taxes - but that will do the Democrats in).

So, I agree, I will sit out this election if McCain is the nominee not only me, but my entire family has said the same. The parties today have much in common and little in differences.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

A liberal republican president is worse. Congress will fight a dem. A liberal republican will drag congress to the left and some will follow out of party unity.

So yes, there are several on the ticket I refuse to vote for, and McPain is at the top.

If McCain "loses conservatives" -- vote for others, don't vote -- it will not be very many. Of the bunch we have running now, and apart from Thompson, McCain's arguably the most conservative. One of his problems is that he has been erratic, finding issues which carry him not just to left field but all around the ballpark.

I wondered if I should paraphrase McCain and ask if some would rather lose a war than an election. I don't think they really would but it would be good if the abstentions are few.

When we see people vote in other countries, often at much higher turnout rates than we have, we should remember that they don't do it because they're especially thrilled with their choices. They do it because they have the choice and feel a duty to use their right to vote.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

McCain is little different from Kennedy to those that pay attention. Another politician in office too long and knows how to make the deals. He will not prevail over any Democrat...but of course that is my opinion as the previous is yours...

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

That may in fact be true. But if it is, that's a really sad thing, because McCain is no conservative. That's damning him with faint praise.

My favorite McCain quote...

A day earlier, in Milwaukee, in front of an audience of more sympathetic businessmen, McCain had been asked how debate over the immigration bill was playing politically. “In the short term, it probably galvanizes our base,” he said. “In the long term, if you alienate the Hispanics, you’ll pay a heavy price.” Then he added, unable to help himself, “By the way, I think the fence is least effective. But I’ll build the goddamned fence if they want it.” (from Michelle Malkin website).

I keep hearing this stuff about not knowing what Romney believed. Look at his record while governor.

How many other governors do you know who put over 800 line item vetoes in 4-years on the budgets alone? Romney is a fiscal conservative. The Mass legislature attempted to spend 100s of millions of dollars, and Romney vetoed it.

The information is out there. A lot of people just don't seem willing to look for it.

"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan

This is the third reply I've written in as many minutes to this issue, so I hope I'm not spamming, but you are right on. Romney will focus on his economic record in MI, and the people there are thirsty for that. Also, the only ad's I've seen that Mitt has done that are inspirational and focus on his vision alone are the the ones that have been aired recently in MI.

Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney

He's a jerk.

I know Moe, and you're no Moe.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

He might get Independent and moderate vote, but what about us?

I would hold my nose and vote for him against any liberal democrap, but if he wins we will not have what I call an energized base.

www.fred08.com

... and the guy who was right about Iraq since the very beginning and took us out of that mess won't energize the base? The base is not only about talk-radio. We need to reverse Roe vs. Wade, we need to win this year. McCain can do it.

20 years and not one single piece of legislation that actually reduced pork--what a crusader.

That's some spin.

Not a huge McCain fan, but I don't have the sick feeling I did, after Iowa. Huck just made him look so much better by comparison.

Mitt's a nice guy, but he just never connected with the voters. He didn't even win among Republicans. Poor Hugh Hewitt is in full melt down mode right now. I'm a Fred guy, but McCain can beat Hillary or Obama.

It's a very sad night for the Republican Party if McCain wins in New Hampshire. What this party needs is a fresh face with a lot of money and a lot of talent. John McCain has so much baggage that nobody -- including me -- is going to be very enthusiastic about supporting him.

Barack Obama now has a phenomenon associated with him that's so big it verges on being Beatlemania. You're not going to counter that with a horse-jawed playboy warhorse. If this party nominates McCain, it can expect to lose to Barack Obama and we can expect Socialism in our Time.

McCain is Ford. Romney is Reagan. Obama/Hillary = Carter
4 years of a train wreck and the Nation will wake up.

...from those guys. Obama wasn't, Hillary wasn't and Romney wasn't.

Reagan wasn't REAGAN until 1980. How do you know who Romney supported in the 80's?

Because of what he said in his 1994 Senatorial race. However, I will grant you the possibility that he was just pandering to the Massachusetts electorate and really did wholeheartedly support Reagan.

On several counts.

First, Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan, neither ideologically nor personally.

Second, this is not 1976. Remember, Ford was an incumbent who had replaced a nearly-impeached President in Nixon. Ronald Reagan was an ideological conservative when such things were considered to be fringe, when the party was still, I believe,in the grips of Nelson Rockefeller's goons. Obama and Hillary are not sudden-appearances from nowhere as was Jimmy Carter, who in 1976 was an honest if incompetent man.

If the Republicans lose the election, our next nominee (2012) will not have been involved in this race.

of what you say except Reagan wasn't REAGAN until 1980. We were weak on defense and damned near in a depression and we were looking for someone to fix it. He did and if Hillary/Obama win we we will be looking for someone to fix it again. Mitt might be that man.

Newt in 2012.

As long as you're going to compare potential candidates to Ronald Reagan --

I prefer the real deal. That's Newt. Not Mitt.

He fixed the country in 1992 when Clinton and the liberals were about to take us off the cliff.

He can do it again.

Mitt reminds me of Pete Wilson. Too calculating.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Speak for yourself - I'M enthusiastic about McCain. And don't worry about Obama - he's SO 2 hours ago!

John S. McCain III.

Your guy lost. It happens. Don't take it out on another Republican who is fighting pork, defending our troops, trying to win our wars, and trying to keep the Presidency and the executive branch in Republican hands.

I know you have convinced yourself that Mitt is somehow God's gift to winning elections. But he isn't winning Republican primaries even though he is telling people exactly what they want to hear. Polls show him getting crushed by Obama and Clinton.

It's time to think about why Mitt couldn't win IA and NH after spending more money and airing more ads than his competition.

I will posit that it is A) because he seems like a patrician politician (like Kerry) and B) seems to say what he thinks people want to hear rather than what he truly believes.

The clip of Mitt off camera that is on the internet is the best video I've seen of him. I know Mitt will be thinking about what he can do better and not cursing his fellow Republicans for voting for someone else.

I hope his supporters can do the same.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Romney's still in it though, as with Reagan in 76, he is headed for a close loss like Reagan. Maybe at the convention.

Romney reminds me more of Gerald Ford than Ronald Reagan.

Romney is a political pragmatist, to put it lightly, much like Ford.

Reagan was the leader of an ideological movement, one he had been a leader of since he gave his speech for Goldwater on the eve of the 64 election.

It took Reagan's form of Conservatism over a decade and a half to prevail in a party controlled by moderate Michigan "Republicans" like George Romney and Gerald Ford, and Northeastern liberal "Republicans" like Nelson Rockefeller. Mitt Romney falls more into the category of his father, Ford, and Nelson Rockefeller than he does into a true visionary ideological leader like Reagan.

What the $%$Q@ are indepedents doing voting in a Republican primary?

I fail to see how a bunch of half-committed swine should be allowed in the electorate.

The Republican voters aren't even voting for conservatives. This is pathetic.

Two primaries and we end up with Huckabee and McCain. *rolls eyes*

"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan

And yeah, those are sour grapes. I'm absolutely guilty as charged.

Congrats to McCain. He did well enough and drew out the independents.

As someone who actually cares about the border, I'm not exactly pleased with the results we've been seeing as of late.

"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan

He brings back the Reagan Coalition to this party - including moderate GOPers and Republican-leaning indies. That's exactly what we need to win the general.

I would have to boycott all TV and probably Rush too if McCain becomes president. He could hardly be more unlikable except for Hillary!.

My husband, as hardcore a conservative as you will find, has been watching TV all evening and swears if McCain is our nominee we will lose. I can't disagree.

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

I think I said this last night, but I'll say it again. "Your" indicates possession. "You're" means "You are." You meant to use "You're."

Sorry, former English major.

"I'm just beginning...The pen's in my hand...Ending unplanned"

that one uses a word in its proper form :)

lesterblog.blogspot.com

and means that I'm not alone in having it drive me nuts.

"I'm just beginning...The pen's in my hand...Ending unplanned"

all the best women I know are married :)

lesterblog.blogspot.com

but when typing fast, I do tend to make errors... My apologies... I do know the difference as you will see is other posts.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

McCain wins by taking the GOP's strongest issue, the border, off the table? I don't think so.

And yes, it's the one issue where conservatives absolutely dominate liberals in the public opinion polls. And McCain has his name written all over a bill vehemently opposed by the American people.

Strong work, independents. Strong work.

"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan

Is a state when it was within a point in 2004?

"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death. I'm very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that." - Bill Shankly

at a minimum 55/45, unless you're suggesting large numbers of conservatives voted in the Democratic primary. Seems pretty liberal to me.

The dem base is fired up. Their turnout was massive. We need someone with a broad appeal, who can put a fight on those guys in purple states. Romney can't do it, Huckabee can't do it, Thompson would only win the Solid South.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

that you mention Cheney. I dont know how many people are still looking at this thread, but my question to all is how do you think Cheney would be doing if he were running. I know its far fetched because he never sought the presidency, but I just wonder, as we who make up the base are clamoring for a true conservative, how he would have done in these primaries.

My guess is that not too well in iowa or NH, especially with the independent voters in NH who are mostly moderate dems, but in other, R only primaries, is it possible that he would have carried the day? Imagine a Clinton-Cheney match up.

Just a question for those out there.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

-- John Adams

If Hillary pulls this off, we will see a meltdown of the Obama campaign.

You think the MSM will be asking Huckabee if he's gonna quit now since he came in third?Thompson came in third in Iowa and they said he was done.

Huckabee has first and third. Thompson has third and sixth. Huck also has a chance to win Michigan. Thompson will probably come in sixth there, too.

www.republicansenate.org

Huck is ahead in S.C., running a close 2nd in Fl and is leading the latest national polls according to the RCP. Not to mention this was a better finish than anyone expected.

It's 3 Pony race going forward.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

Independants are allowed to vote in the MI primary...In MI there is no party id. And guess what, Only Hillary is on the ballot on the dem side. So ANY PERSON can vote on the Repub side or Dem side. Pick a pink or blue ballot, in 2000 MANY dems voted in the republican primary and voted for McCain. This year they will vote, and vote for Huckabee. Guess what, they will do so just to F*** up our primary.. Just wait and see.

Still does not have a chance then. If he wins MI, he wins SC, he then wins FL. He will have made it a 2 man race between him and McCain. The FI and Def cons will rally around McCain. That is Huck's problem 2/3rds of the base hates him.
Romney 08

Michigan

Republican Polls
EPIC/MRA for The Detroit News and WXYZ TV
12/18/2007
N=612
w/o Newt Gingrich

Mitt Romney 21%
Mike Huckabee 19%
Rudy Giuliani 12%
John McCain 10%
Ron Paul 4%
Fred Thompson 4%
Tom Tancredo 1%
Duncan Hunter 1%
Unsure 26%
Source

South Carolina

Republican Polls
Rasmussen Reports
1/6/2008
N=882
w/o Newt Gingrich

Mike Huckabee 28%
John McCain 21%
Mitt Romney 15%
Fred Thompson 11%
Rudy Giuliani 10%
Ron Paul 4%
Other 2%
Source

Florida

Republican Polls
Survey USA
12/16/2007
N=431
w/o Newt Gingrich

Rudy Giuliani 29%
Mike Huckabee 24%
Mitt Romney 20%
John McCain 10%
Fred Thompson 8%
Unsure 3%
Other 6%
Source

Georgia

Strategic Vision (R)
12/8/2007
N=400
w/o Newt Gingrich

Mike Huckabee 23%
Fred Thompson 20%
Rudy Giuliani 17%
John McCain 11%
Mitt Romney 10%
Ron Paul 4%
Tom Tancredo 2%
Duncan Hunter 1%
Unsure 12%

Texas

IVR Polls
11/15/2007
N=500
w/o Newt Gingrich

Rudy Giuliani 23%
Mike Huckabee 16%
Fred Thompson 16%
Mitt Romney 12%
John McCain 9%
Ron Paul 5%
Tom Tancredo 3%
Duncan Hunter 3%
Alan Keyes 1%
Unsure 11%

California

Survey USA
12/15/2007
N=497
w/o Newt Gingrich

Rudy Giuliani 28%
Mike Huckabee 20%
Mitt Romney 16%
John McCain 14%
Fred Thompson 13%
Unsure 3%
Other 7%

New York

Quinnipiac University Poll
12/7/2007
N=335
w/o Newt Gingrich

Rudy Giuliani 34%
Mike Huckabee 12%
John McCain 11%
Fred Thompson 7%
Mitt Romney 5%
Ron Paul 5%
Tom Tancredo 1%
Unsure 18%
Other 3%
Wouldn’t Vote 5%
Source

Congratulations to Sen. McCain, a true American Hero.

Huckabee, outspent 20-1 continues to dominate the polls. Of course things can change, but they are moving in the right direction. Our anticipation was he would finish fourth.

My point is Huck can not win a 2 person race. The Def and FI cons will rally around his opponet. In a 3, 4, 5 way race he can win. Those who want the Republican Party to stand for Freedom and Prosperity need to rally around someone before Huck turns it into America's equivalent of the Christian Democrat parties of Europe.

Romney 08

I think that's overly simplistic. Those concerned primarily with immigration will go to Huckabee if it's a two-man race. McCain-Feingold will also turn people off. McCain may win, but it's far from a slam dunk.

www.republicansenate.org

I am but one person, but if McCain wins this nomination, I will NOT vote. I will sit home.

And I'll tell you why. Yes I care about our future and no I wouldn't prefer Hillary or Obama over McCain, however I believe if this party nominates a man who is mostly anathema to our party values, then we need a realignment. I would hope we all make sure we never nominate a man like McCain again and the only way to do that is to make sure he isn't elected.

Yes, if McCain or Huckabee wins, I will simply not vote.

Romney, Rudy or Fred, or any combination therefore (with Fred as VP frankly) is what I would vote for.

A lot of McCain supporters in 2000 sucked it up and voted for Bush for President. They did it again in 2004. But if you want perfect (or whatever the other candidates are) to be the enemy of the good, that's your problem, not ours.

We've heard this same speech about Rudy, about Huckabee, and even once in a while about Romney. So I guess every candidate will turn off some so-called Republicans. I'm done worrying about it.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

"I'm just beginning...The pen's in my hand...Ending unplanned"

you dont have the margin to win the general ;)

after one first place and one 4th place? lol!

also, this party is in a very weak position. Many Republican leaders are looking for someone that can bring in indies. Sure, it would be great if Thompson lit a fire, but he has not even found his matches yet.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

I think we vote for who we want in the primary. And then we come together and win the general. That worked in 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004.

So yeah, this is McCain's party. He's been in it longer than me and probably you. He's campaigned for Rs all over the country. He has helped expand the party. And he will continue to do so.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

HAHA..

You guys are so rich.

We don't want to expand the party include liberals..

When will McCain supporters get this simple point?

only liked McCain when he gave Bush problems in the first term. Also, Mathews has hang ups about not serving in Vietnam, so he is a vet jock sniffer. Mathews does not like McCain's politics. And many nouveau Republicans don't even know McCain's politics. BTW, I am supporting Fred, but he is on life support.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

We'll consider that after you concede that 51% of the country will not reflexively vote for Jesse Helms clones.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

They pretty much all stink. Not one is a true conservative.

but do you honestly believe McCain is less of a Conservative than Rudy?

Pam

Huck thinks that jobs grow on trees and employers are evil fat cats.

Rudy is pro-choice and pro gun control.

McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts and pushed comprehensive immigration reform.

Romney is pro-choice and pro gun control... oh sorry, "was" pro-choice and pro gun control.

There isn't a perfect conservative (since Fred isn't going to make it). So now you get to choose among the imperfect. I think McCain is the best of that group. You may disagree.

But your vitriol is uncalled for and hurts your case.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

that of the 3, Huckabee, McCain, Giuliani, I don't want _any_ of them in the white house. Will they hurt the country if they're elected? Yes, in all three cases, some to more degrees than others. If any of them are the nominee we're looking at a guaranteed four years of damage.

At least with a Democrat president we might get a Republican congress in 2 years, and then gridlock. Which would be preferable to the programs that all three of these would back.

passion of comments.

I didn't use foul language. I simply am strongly stating my case.

Please get over yourselves and using words like vitriol.

I am laughing more than anything reading the silly self congratulatory nature of McCain supporters in this thread.

Really, lol.

...but less of one than you. He'll at least vote.

"Not voting" is the 18+ year-old's version of "I'm gonna hold my breath til I turn blue."

There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa

Try not to get too sad about it. You will probably have to come to terms with many republicans like myself.

Calling us children will not help your case in persuading us, if McCain actually pulls out the nomination.

Better start pulling out the honey and put away the vinegar.

After all tonight you are the winner ;)

How well have they been at predicting the actual Republican candidate in recent years, or does the front loaded primary schedule change things that drastically?

Go Fred! I wish I had more money to help out right now :/

but I had the name first and I'm still a National League guy :)

lesterblog.blogspot.com

We need a new start for picking our nominees. The first three states have NO REQIREMENT to belong to a party in order to vote. Is this a good thing? I don't know, maybe the "bi-partisan" era is really here. I doubt it. This kind of makes me sick.. And YEs Mitt won more conservatives and republicans than McCain.

McCain won registered Rs 38-31.

Humorously, it seems Clinton won the Ds but Obama won the Is. They may put Obama over Clinton.

But in the R race, McCain won the Rs and Is. That's a majority coalition... just like Reagan had.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

You have been beating Romney supporters with this statistic throughout. I checked your link because it seemed odd to me that with 78% of precincts reporting that McCain leads Romney by 5 points, 37% to 32%, but you are claiming 7 points among registered Republicans.

I am not sure where to look to find your figure. The link says that Registered GOP went 37 for McCain vs 33 for Romney.
Independents went M 38 vs R 30.
Unregistered went M 23 vs 26.

Interestingly conservatives went M 30 vs R 38
More interestingly the subset of conservatives identifying as Very Conservative went M 18 vs. Romney 43.

Just in case anyone doesn't click on your link. I found the following results interesting.

These are all categories of voters Senator McCain won. These are the percentages of those who voted in the Republican primary and voted for Senator McCain:

41% of those who are dissatisfied with the Bush Administration

37% of those who are angry with the Bush Administration

56% of those who believe the next President should be less conservative than Bush

47% of those who have reservations about their candidate

45% of those with liberal ideology

44% of those with moderate ideology

[source CNN results linked in Adam C's post above]

but I disagree that Romney is out. He has all the money he needs to keep at it.

He does lead delegates as well. If he continues to come in second everywhere and Guiliani, McCain, and Huckabee split the firsts then Romney could still lead the delegate race headed into the convention although I'm starting to doubt that anyone is going to win it.

Keep Romney technically "in" the race, but without a strong regional base of support and pretty tepid feelings about him by conservatives, he's really no longer viable and wasting everyone's time.

You can talk about convention delegates (I thought Wyoming's delegates are getting thrown out anyway), but the bottom line is once the race switches to the South and the border states then Romney is toast.

Face it, Romney's strategy was almost entirely based on winning Iowa and especially New Hampshire then Michigan to create an aura of inevitability. Then the dominoes were supposed to fall elsewhere as the supposedly weaker candidates dropped out (Huck, Fred, McCain, et al). Then it was supposed to come down to Mitt and Rudy, and of course the Southern and Western states would go for Mitt over the liberal Rudy.

Then (as the strategy went), Mitt would face the "unelectable" Hillary in the general and win the Presidency by default as Americans reject the Clintons returning to power.

It was a great strategy in theory, but like they say in football: "That's why they play the games on the field, and not on the chalkboard".

Time for Mitt to go and save himself and everyone else the embarrassment of further defeats in other parts of the country.

is beginning to think that "bi-partisan" is codeword for "Democrat"?

BTW, I thought Bush was a poor public speaker. McCain makes him look like Cicero. At least Huckabee is a gifted public speaker, whatever his policies.

-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

Oh by pwest

just a thought. If Hillary wins, will we be treated to how she stole the election from Obama. Will Jessie and Al be there demanding a recount?

These are most interesting times.
Pam

The Parties should pick the order of the states based on their voting according to the platform and not for religious bigotry or for allowing non-party voters

His speech to his supporters in NH was tremendous. One of the most inspiring political speeches I've ever heard.

but Huckabee's 3rd place speech was better than McCain's 1st place one. Mac is putting me to sleep.
It doesn't help that he's reading and doesn't know the speech.
R.J.

Huck is awesome, but McCain's speech was deep showing a reverence for the process that has been lacking. The night goes to McCain, give him his due.

Tomorrow goes to Huckabee.

Huckabee 2008!!

Mike Huckabee all the way. This is the first I've posted on this blog.

I understand that he wants to use the spotlight to get his message out, but this is not a debating club. Next time just talk to us John.

New Hampshire is good at knocking out the weak candidates, but it isn't so great at predicting the nominee the last few cycles.

South Carolina is usually the firewall state for the Establishment candidate. Since there really isn't one this cycle, it may simply turn out to be the best sample of what true red state conservative Republican voters think of this field. I'd be inclined to put a lot of weight behind whoever wins and who finishes a very close second there.

The only thing New Hampshire has shown me tonight is that Mitt Romney is definitely not our best candidate to be the nominee. If he can't even win the state nextdoor to where he was Governor -- to a guy like John McCain of all people (who has done so many questionable things to upset the base since his win there in 2000), that is a very ominous sign for the Romney campaign. That would be like Huckabee losing Oklahoma or Missouri to someone like Romney or Giuliani. It would never happen.

Even if Mitt wins Michigan, he won't be defying expectations and the comeback would be very shortlived after South Carolina anyway.

I hope Mitt wakes up and realizes that, like Al Gore, he will not live out his father's dream of being elected President and that when the people who know you best reject you then it's time to devote your energies into reinventing yourself in the private sector.

I also hope Romney stops running down the viable candidates left in this race with all of his negativity and expensive attack ads.

GO FRED! A win in South Carolina and he is right back in it!

Wyoming is a far more conservative state than even South Carolina, if you want to use that line of thinking

And who won?

It wasn't Fred.

"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan

My sister's in Wheatland. I've been waiting to ask them about their caucus experiences.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

campaigned there a very short time.

Texas Proud and Texas Loud

_however, few even went to Wyoming, Mitt did. Also, they have a lot of Mormons there.

__________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Darn, those pesky little facts get in the way of things again! LOL

90% non Mormon. Not a big Mormon state. Now do you get it?

when he won over 70% of the vote. It wasn't Mormon Only Caucus day :P

a whole lot of money to "win" that primary. He can't do that in bigger states -- obviously. Kind of like he did in that Iowa Straw Poll last summer.

If you want to take a Wyoming caucus that barely anyone paid any attention to as a rationale for the Romney campaign continuing or having success in South Carolina, go ahead, but you're likely setting yourself up for heartbreak when Romney gets waxed in SC.

If Romney keeps trying to fall back on his big win in the Wyoming caucus as evidence that he's earned his conservative stripes, that's pretty laughable.

Are Wyoming's caucus delegates even going to count at the convention? I thought I heard something about them losing 14 delegates for scheduling their caucus so early.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Like I said below...

..."I still think Romney's the man. 2nd in Iowa and N.H. is nothing to sneeze at. It shows that McCain and Huckabee were local faves, but not national ones. I think Romney is solid nationally.

"Which is better?... to be second in the major caucuses (Mitt/Iowa & NH), and being first in a minor one (Wyoming), or being first in one caucus (McCain/NH), and being fouth in two others (McCain/Wyoming & Iowa)?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
“It must not be supposed that folly is as powerful as truth,
just because it can, if it likes, shout louder and longer than truth.”

--Augustine

And saying it twice doesn't make it any more true.

The fact that you consider Romney to be strong nationally exhibits you know little about what's going on.

The truth is Romney is very week nationally and will probably fall back to 10% or less (5th or 6th place) in a few weeks. He's also a smart business man and therefore probably won't waste much of his money by staying in the race long after that.

Romney doesn't need to win South Carolina.

Nevada is held on the exact same day as South Carolina--and has more delegates than does South Carolina.

Will that garner attention away from South Carolina? Probably. Will it outpace attention given to South Carolina? No way.

"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan

Even if Mitt wins Nevada, and that's not exactly a done deal either, the winner of South Carolina is still going to be considered by the MSM to be the frontrunner because of its historic relevancy in deciding the eventual nominee.

As a matter of fact, I think the winner of SC has gone on to be the nominee going back every election since 1980. It's usually the firewall state for the Establishment candidates (Bush after Michigan loss to McCain, Dole after Arizona loss to Forbes & NH loss to Buchanan, etc.).

Maybe Nevada will turn out to be the new bellweather, but it might not matter for Romney anyway if he loses Michigan.

If Mitt comes in 2nd again in Michigan I hope he will have the sense to drop out of the race and not continue with this spin about moral victories by finishing 2nd and "silver medals".

It should be getting pretty clear by Romney losing in his own backyard to an Arizona senator that his appeal is rather limited -- even in his own home state region.

and will not determine our nominee. Michigan, Florida, and California will be more significant.

Just my two cents. Perhaps you're right. We'll see.

W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

Half of Wyoming's delegates had already been subtracted from that total, i.e. Wyoming originally had 28 delegates. It now only has 14.

South Carolina, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Michigan, and Florida all lost 1/2 of their delegates.

Of the early states before Super Tuesday, only Iowa and Nevada were not stripped.

"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

If Hillary wins, she'll be the comeback kid II.

The biggest problem I have with McCain is that the GOP loses the immigration issue in the general.

Romney, Fred, and even Guiliani have a credible road on immigration.

1) McCain got the message.
2) Do you know where the Dems stand on immigration? That bill was a compromise.

when was that? we should believe you just because you say so? lol

I don't trust McCain. He says he got the message, but isn't that pandering? After that shamnesty nonsense he expects me to believe that he is now our man to fight against illegal immigration?

I want a leader who truly believes in cracking down on illegals- fencing the border, penalties for those who hire illegals, etc. I DON'T want a leader that fights for amnesty, demonizes those who stand against it, and the caves when the AMERICAN PEOPLE say "NO WAY!"

Oh, now he gets it? Change of heart, huh?

Plus, I don't like that he beats the drum that Romney is a rich guy who spends his money on attack ads. ...Thanks to McCain/Feingold only rich guys can run for president. You and I couldn't. So, McCain should shut his cake hole. He's the one that made the door that only guys like Romney could walk through.

I think McCain lacks moral insight.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
“It must not be supposed that folly is as powerful as truth,
just because it can, if it likes, shout louder and longer than truth.”

--Augustine

... from now on, I guess. It didn't work and will never work, btw.

McCain will keep the borders safe. You just won't see mass deportations.

"McCain will keep the borders safe. You just won't see mass deportations."

Also known as amnesty.

I guess he didn't get the message.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
“It must not be supposed that folly is as powerful as truth,
just because it can, if it likes, shout louder and longer than truth.”

--Augustine

Snort by skey

Sure he will. Safe for anyone to cross at will.

Seriously, I agree. He should shut his cakehole. And another good reason to not vote for him is that he is a Senator. How's that?

We don't need *compromisers*, we need *executives*. I don't want someone who actually excites Chris Matthews and Andrea Mitchell. Do you?

Do you associate with Andrea Mitchell on politics? I mean hello? Is anyone home?

I have yet to see one McCain supporter on this site explain away McCain's penchent for pandering to the worst media hacks in the business (Mathews, David Schuster, Tim Russert, Andrea Mitchell, etc.)..

and all 4 of them have shifted over the last year.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Enforcement first.

Nobody else led the effort for the bill (McCain's name was on the bill) and nobody else took such effort to impugn those who opposed the bill as McCain and his South Carolina sidekick did.

Polls just suck. Let's face it. They're media tools to make stories where there are none.

I still think Hillary is done for, but the more I think about it I think the GOP, if it could ever get it's act straight, could defeat either Hillary or Obama.

If it's Hillary expect to hear the horn sound, and a exhuberant "Release the hounds!!" She has NEVER really faced the fire, and what she went through so far is nothing. Her unlikability will all but glow.

If it's Obama the message of his inexperience will be pounded, and pounded, and pounded some more. Why? Because it is TRUE. If he were a bit more seasoned I'd say "Uh-Oh!"... but that's not the case.

I still think Romney's the man. 2nd in Iowa and N.H. is nothing to sneeze at. It shows that McCain and Huckabee were local faves, but not national ones. I think Romney is solid nationally.

Which is better?... to be second in the major caucuses (Mitt/Iowa & NH), and being first in a minor one (Wyoming), or being first in one caucus (McCain/NH), and being fouth in two others (McCain/Wyoming & Iowa)?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
“It must not be supposed that folly is as powerful as truth,
just because it can, if it likes, shout louder and longer than truth.”

--Augustine

its the better set of victories.

for very little unless you are angling to get on the ticket as a VP.

Unfortunately, Romney's burned a lot of bridges with the other candidates with the negative campaign and attack ads. It was pretty clear in the debates the other night that the other candidates can't stand him.

Romney's dad finished in 2nd place in 1968, so that it obviously counts in the history books, but that's about it.

Once the campaign shifts to the Southern states Romney will be toast. His appeal is too limited to appeal to Republicans down there.

I spoke to my father in law in Florida. He is an ex-Pensylvanian. A real republican. He will not vote for a pro tax, pro closing GITMO, a pro amnesty, and a GW smacking and MSNBC fanboy loved McCain.

I think you're setting yourself up for a big ol' dissapointment down south ;)

Just ask yourself why it is that McCain is SO loved by LIBERAL journalists?!?!? Does that not have some meaning to you? Or anyone else here who is trumpeting this guy who looks half asleep while giving a *victory* speech?

Viable? LOL. Only in liberal NH.

If it doesn't win the nomination, GOP will be doing an historical mistake.

And cut taxes without spending caps is useless and isn't fiscal conservatism. Borrow and spend is as bad as tax and spend.

You can stop saying nosense like "McCain is pro tax". People just don't buy it. They know him too well.

Can't we leave the "electability" rational for candidate selection to the Democrats?

Or was John "Electable" Kerry a good lesson Republicans should follow?

McCain had the opportunity to seat conservative judges across the board and chose to stand with his Senate buddies.

McCain had the chance to deep-six the Kerry campaign but let "possible Kerry VP" swirl so he could lap up some more of that sweet, sweet media love he craves so much.

And the Swift Boats? Who did McCain side with? His Senate buddy.

Now, Romney's a flip-flopper but it's ok McCain now "says" he's for enforcement? That's not flip-flopping?

Looks like McCain has a history of saying and doing what gets him the most media love; the party is just a vehicle to get McCain to the spotlight.

Kerry spent months talking about how McCain was the only person who can unite the country long enough for McCain to sabtoage him by strongly backing Bush.

Romney 08

right?

He voted against the Bush tax cuts? Right?

He could have worked harder using his media friends at MSNBC to fight for spending cuts, or maybe instead of lashing out at Bush during the early days of the war, he could have written letters to him requesting more fiscal responsibility.

But the fact is that McCain is a Johnny come lately on his war criticism, and has manufactured a myth that he was against the early Rummy strategy, when video tape clearly shows him saying that he had no problem with the early low troop strategy.

McCain would have stopped the one thing that kept this economy growing for the last 7 years.

No thanks, I'll take Bush over McCain every day for the next century.

Your comments this evening are beyond absurd. Who, precisely, are you hoping to persuade? Or are you just having a temper tantrum?

Pro-tax. Just silly.
absentee

If you're not going to stand by the President during his fight against liberal taxers, as you seem to want me and other anti mccain voters to do if he's nominated, then you are de facto helping to tax us.

Nobody is having a temper tantrum. What did you expect, everyone to fall in line for MCcain just because he won NH? I think the hubris from the McCain crowd is quite ridiculous.

Get used to a tough discourse over the next few weeks. If you can't fend off simple questions about McCain's cozyness with MSNBC crowd, how will your candidate win in FL?

Seriously, maybe you can start answering with substance. I have thrown out many examples for you to refute, so far, so little is heard back from the McCain crowd.

McCain was a johnny come lately on war criticism? McCain was one of the first to criticize Rummy, and he was right. Bush had no problems using McCain to get re elected in 2004. Also, what does Bush have to do with any of this? Bush is not running.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

McCain may have been an early decryer of Rummy, but FOX showed video tape of him after the war answering media questions about whether or not Bush should have sent more troops in and he said he DIDN'T think so.

So how do your facts look now my friend?

How about McCain stop taking credit for the Petraus surge? How about Bush gets credit for going into Iraq in the first place, something I am hardly convinced McCain would have had the political stamina to have done in the face of his desire to remain popular at MSNBC.

Tough Discourse. Fall in line. Give. Me. A. Break.

You throw around ridiculous, indefensible hyperbole like pro-amnesty, no borders, pro-tax and try to defend it as some kind of substantive discourse? Get real, you're just tossing garbage around the house because you didn't get your little way.

Heh. Substance. It is to laugh.

absentee

McCain comes in 4th in Iowa and barely wins in NH (now looks like a 6% margin) and we're to all fall in line?

Wow, you McCain supporters, you don't seem to fall far from the tree, know what I mean? Better perk up a bit, or Hillary will start to look like the optimistic and most likeable candidate.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

McCain has a whole lot of baggage for the Republicans. He is a very liberal Republican and has show his colors in the Senate. If you can stomach his co-authored bills with Ted Kennedy, then you have a wide latitude for Republicans. He is possibly the worst selection that can be made on our side (front runners) and will damage the party considerably.

I know you are already aware of his short-comings so I won't bother repeating them but you should be more understanding of those that appose him. If these problems don't bother you, then you are certainly not a conservative and I am wasting my breath.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

is pro tax. They are just taxing the unborn.

You know, the world didn't start last January. McCain is one of the most solid fiscal conservatives ever. Just check National Taxpayers Association ratings.

When you try to say that McCain is a pro tax, like Romney tried, people raise their eyebrow - on you. And you'll get a blowback. They know him. He's the biggest anti-pork crusader. He built a national reputation on it.

is pro tax. They are just taxing the unborn.

You know, the world didn't start last January. McCain is one of the most solid fiscal conservatives ever. Just check National Taxpayers Association ratings.

When you try to say that McCain is a pro tax, like Romney tried, people raise their eyebrow - on you. And you'll get a blowback. They know him. He's the biggest anti-pork crusader. He built a national reputation on it.

he is strong on spending. But he sided with liberals and didn't give Bush the benefit of the doubt.

To me he is likely to side with liberals again.

And please stop suggesting I am intillectually dishonest. I have my opinions, I disagree with you, but enough of this garbage from a bunch of you attacking me. Frankly you may not like the strength with which I tackling McCain's problems. It behooves you to deal with them now, rather than in the General, when conservatives start to ask questions.

I would *really* like you to address the MSNBC issue. The liberal media love of McCain. This is a huge Achilles heal for him.

And you already said you won't vote for McCain. So why the heck do you think you are relevant at all to McCain supporters? Why would they answer your questions?

You come in here and aggressively a lifelong Republican and then expect everyone to bow to your questions.

I did a write-up on McCain and MSM on the front page in November. If you really care, go find it yourself.

And then come back after you're done throwing your toys out the window.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

he is the biggest anti pork TALKER ever. But at the end of the day he always seems to crawl in bed with any deal his pals in the Donkey party come up with.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

He is *so* eager to please the other side. He reminds me of Chuck Hagel and Arlan Spectre.

These are not republicans I want in the white house.

They are not strong for our party. They will weaken our party and create an expectation in the media that conservatives are a dying breed.

We all owe it to elect someone who can and has never been associated with the liberal talking points or the liberal media.

Just check:

He voted against the 2003 Medicare prescription drug plan
He voted against the 2005 Highway Bill, one of only four senators to object to the pork-stuffed bill[25]
He voted against providing Amtrak with an extra $550 million for the fiscal year 2007
He voted against $2 billion in milk subsidies[27]
One of fifteen senators to vote for Senator Tom Coburn's amendment transferring $223 million for the "Bridge to Nowhere" to the repair of a Louisiana bridge damaged by Hurricane Katrina.
He voted for welfare reform

Because he is the anti-spending, small-government conservative.

to continue to fight for small spending...

Seriously. But those votes are not enough to make up for how he was quick to run to the MSNBC shows in the early war, and stand opposite Biden while whining about how the war was being fought.

Really, I continue to await for a response on this issue, I think most people who are not for McCain are also troubled by his coziness with the liberal media.

He took heat for challenging the war's execution, but he was right.

Not the blow away everyone here wants us to believe is going to cripple Romney. That is what I call a strong 2nd.

A lot of people seemed to miss the point... that Mitt is still very much in the running. Before and after NH, he has more delegates than any other candidate. How the #1 guy in delegate count with plenty of money and a solid organization is going to be sent home packing after getting 2nd place is beyond me. McCain won NH by about 20 points in 2000. This time it looks more like 5. Certainly not the end of life for Mitt.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

How did Huckabee do with that momentum again tonight?

Distant third.

Did that get him the delegate lead?

No.

When will we all realize this? The internet has changed this. This very site helps change that. Just look at the strong debate we're having here on McCain's big win. It's clear that nobody plans on simply falling in line. McCain has a HUGE fight ahead of him, and Romney and Rudy and Huckabee are all going to be fighting just as hard, if not harder, with much more money.

If you want to know how Huckabee did with the momentum, check the polls in SC, FL, etc. He's gotten a big bump from Iowa (including doing better in NH than predicted). Now it's McCain's turn to get a bump nationally. For Mitt, the story is that he's just a loser, despite all his money.

that Huckabee was supposed to get 12.2% in New Hampshire. Is that what you mean by saying his momentum gave him a

big bump from Iowa (including doing better in NH than predicted).

?

Yup, nothing like momentum.

If people don't start dropping out and if there isn't a candidate who can win a whole bunch of states. Romney has done pretty well in all 3 states that have gone. Nobody else can say that. He isn't out of this thing by a long shot.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Mitt is very in this, very much so.

This talk of conservatives abstaining if Mac wins is sort of like cutting off ones nose to spite ones face. Would we really prefer sitting through a Billary presidency? Would that be good for the country? Stop pouting and suck it in and do what is best for the country...And a Democrat in the oval office ain't doing the right thing.
Dilbert ( Libertarian Conservative ...Little L, Little C)

who are dismayed to find that one first place victory by a mere 5% in a liberal state is not winning them any adulation online.

I care about the long term nature of the conservative platform, which I think McCain will seriously put in danger if elected to the White House, simply because of his close ties to liberals and the media.

Getting tired of hearing this connection? Then refute it. Nobody has tried yet on this site in the past month to address this incredibly serious relationship between McCain and the MSNBC hacks. But they complain about people like me mentioning it.

I don't think it's cutting off one's nose to spite the face, I think it's taking a principled stand for *my platform*, for the party and for a someone who doesn't abandon a war time president while he's being pummeled by the drive by media.

And I continue to be amazed that people really expected that McCain's slight victory here, which is 20% less than he won it by in 2000, should lead people like me to "do what's best for the party", which is what? Give up on the man who actually leads in delegates?

LOL.

I really don't ever post to any of the comments because I can usually see at least some part of both sides of an argument. However, I can't sit here and read all of these pro McCain posts without asking a question.

Do all of the McCain/Huck supporters have any attention span at all?

McCain...
-Finished near the bottom of his graduating class
-Keating Five
-McCain-Feingold Act
- Strong opponent of "enhanced interrogation techniques" in the War on Terror
- Voted against President Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003
- On May 18, 2007, after Cornyn expressed concerns about the number of appeals that illegal immigrants could receive. According to multiple sources, Cornyn told McCain, "Wait a second here. I've been sitting in here for all of these negotiations and you just parachute in here on the last day. You're out of line," to which McCain replied, "[Expletive] you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room."
- Over estimates the importance of getting Osama and promises he can do it. There is no way anyone can promise that with any level of certainty. Is he going to go to war with Pakistan to get Osama?

Now don't get me wrong, I have some respect for the Senator but I would seriously have a hard time voting for him. I praise his military service and his hawkishness but he is a conceited a$$.

Huckabee...
- Won't answer any direct question in any debate
- Huckabee met privately with the parole board to talk about the DuMond case. DuMond was paroled on the condition that DuMond leave the state. Are you kidding me? So some poor woman in Missouri gets raped and murdered? He then lies about his involvement while running for president.
- Increased state spending 65.3 percent (1996–2004) and supported five tax increases
- 2003 signed into law increases in cigarette and tobacco taxes as well as a three percent income tax surcharge.
- supported a 2005 bill by Arkansas State Representative Joyce Elliott to make some illegal immigrants eligible for scholarships and in-state college tuition, while vehemently opposing a bill sponsored by Arkansas State Senator Jim Holt which would deny state benefits to illegal immigrants, calling it "un-Christian.
- Roy Beck NumbersUSA - Every time there was any enforcement in his state, he took the side of the illegal aliens. Huckabee responded by saying if voters are looking for the toughest guy on immigration, he's not their man.
- On December 26, 2007 the conservative organization Judicial Watch announced that Mike Huckabee was named to its list of Washington’s "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians" for 2007. They state that Huckabee, as governor, was the subject of 14 ethics complaints and a volley of questions about his integrity, ranging from his management of campaign cash to his use of a nonprofit organization to subsidize his income to his destruction of state computer files on his way out of the governor’s office. Judicial Watch further accused Huckabee of attempting to block the state ethics commission's investigations of the allegations.
- The Cato Institute, a libertarian non-profit public policy research foundation, gave Huckabee an "F" for spending and tax policy in 2006.[123] Huckabee has asserted he did not raise spending significantly in areas he could control and in those areas spending rose six-tenths of one percent a year during his entire governance. He also signed the first broad-based tax cut in Arkansas's history. For 2007, he says that his state enjoyed a surplus of nearly $850 million. However, during his tenure, the state’s general obligation debt increased by almost $1 billion.

OK so I MIGHT be able to plug my nose and vote for McCain, but I don't know. There is NO WAY I could ever vote for Huckabee. The only reason he is even in contention for the nomination is that nobody has the attention span to do ANY research on the people they intend to vote for.

I could vote for Mitt or Fred. And yes I know all of the sound-bites about Mitt being too liberal but if you look at his actual record he is more conservative than most.

I may be able to vote for Rudy, not sure, I would have to do more research.

Seriously, people need to look past the one liners and see what the candidates are made of!

Oh, BTW, did you know that Mitt took no pay while he was Governor and he took no pay for his turn around of the Olympics?

I don't trust Mitt and he governed as a centrist. Rudy is pro-choice and socially moderate. McCain has been a maverick on some issues. And Huck thinks employers are evil.

Fred is great, except after SC he won't be in the race. So you get to pick from the other 4.

You can focus on all of their negatives (which Romney fans seem to like to do) or you can look at their positives and choose.

I think McCain is serious about fighting pork and actually bringing fiscal conservatism back to the GOP. I think he is serious about the military and the War. I think it is good for the GOP to nominate a pro-lifer like McCain.

But no one is perfect, not this year. So you have to pick one.

If your choice was Mitt then you have discounted his flip flopping, his pro choice views, his tax raising as Governor, etc. That's fine. But the idea that you found the pure conservative is just wrong. Everyone has flaws.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

You talk about McCain being the guy going after pork.

But Romney used used the line item veto over 800 times on the Massachusetts budget alone in 4-years.

McCain isn't the only candidate with a noted history for going after pork. Frankly. Romney has been leading the charge, as well.

"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan

Sanford carried two pigs into his legislature to protest pork. That's leadership on pork. I'm from OK. I started blogging to support Coburn in his primary. I'm happy we have a candidate who has spent time fighting pork and has credibility in doing it. It's been a long 7 years on that.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

The other four have about half a conservative between them, and that's giving Romney a lot of credit I'm not sure he deserves.

You say we have to choose among these lousy candidates. That's the same sort of attitude that gave us our heads handed to us in the 2006 midterms. But we don't. We can take a mulligan and wait four years. And given the choices, that may be what happens.

Look, I know you're a McCain guy. You've obviously decided that the numerous flaws you have to recognize that he has aren't a big deal, but do you at least understand why we're so opposed?

But we have 5 (actually 4) plausible candidates. Now we choose (or in May in my case).

But also for the record, I supported McCain-Kennedy or something like it. I think Rs should reach out to independents and moderates. I don't think Conservatives Only is a good short, medium or long run strategy. The Reagan-H.W. coalition was really an anti-liberal coalition that included the middle. Remember the real amnesty, O'Connor and Souter, etc. Heck, Reagan would get destroyed in this primary over immigration.

I think McCain has a few issues that I disagree with him on them. But I know his views are sincere. I know his motivation is one of duty, not gain. And I trust him to do what is best whether it is in military policy, fiscal policy, or social policy.

And as a cherry on top, I think he may be the only R who can help rebrand the GOP in ways that can win in this cycle. Another 2006 would make Ds a strong majority in the Senate, House and give them the Presidency.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I think we should work to convince independents and moderates that conservative ideas are best. I think we should attract people to conservatism, not water it down to meaninglessness. If people have a choice between Democrat-lite and Democrat, they're going to choose the Democrat, because at least they know for sure what they're getting.

As for the amnesty bill, it is something that reasonable people can differ on. But it's not _just_ the amnesty bill. It's that, the gang of 14 debacle, campaign-finance reform, the terrorist bill of rights. It's the whole package.

When you ask a candidate who's been in office a long time "what are your signature accomplishments?" and there's not a single one of them is something that's broadly supported by the Republican base, what does that tell you?

If I look at positives I think Mitt has more than most. I know you will accuse me of being a Romneybott but I am not. I am more than willing to be persuaded to vote for someone else if the argument is valid.

Let's take a look...

Romney

Pros...

- In 1975, Romney graduated from a joint Juris Doctor/Master of Business Administration program coordinated between Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School. He graduated cum laude from the law school and was named a Baker Scholar for graduating in the top five percent of his business school class.

- During the 14 years he headed the company, Bain Capital's average annual internal rate of return on realized investments was 113 percent.

- In 1990, Romney was asked to return to Bain & Company, which was facing financial collapse. As CEO, Romney managed an effort to restructure the firm's employee stock-ownership plan, real-estate deals and bank loans, while increasing fiscal transparency. Within a year, he had led Bain & Company through a highly successful turnaround and returned the firm to profitability without layoffs or partner defections.

- On February 11, 1999, Romney was hired as the new president and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee. Romney revamped the organization's leadership and policies, reduced budgets and boosted fund raising. He also worked to ensure the safety of the Games following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 by coordinating a $300 million security budget. Despite the initial $379 million fiscal shortfall, the Games ended up clearing a profit of $100 million, not counting the $224.5 million in security costs contributed by outside sources.

- Romney contributed $1 million to the Olympics, and donated the $825,000 salary he earned as President and CEO to charity.

- His record as Governor goes back and forth between cutting spending and lowering taxes to raising taxes (if you count combined state and local taxes per capita) but still cutting spending. His raise in taxes was, I believe less than 1%. In Taxachusettes I would not say that is a net negative. But I will not give a positive for the taxes, just the spending cuts. This is assuming that the "Tax Foundation" is accurate.

- Now everyone likes to say how pro choice Romney is. I assume it is because of the following legislation. But if you read everything about it you may come to the conclusion that I did that the man was in an extremely liberal state trying to do what he could...
At the beginning of his governorship, Romney opposed same-sex marriage and civil unions. Faced with the dilemma of choosing between same-sex marriage or civil unions after the November 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision legalizing same-sex marriages (Goodridge v. Department of Public Health), Romney reluctantly backed a state constitutional amendment in February 2004 that would have banned same-sex marriage but still allow civil unions, viewing it as the only feasible way to ban same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. In May 2004 Romney instructed town clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but citing a 1913 law that barred out-of-state residents from getting married in Massachusetts if their union would be illegal in their home state, no marriage licenses were to be issued to out-of-state same-sex couples not planning to move to Massachusetts. In June 2005, Romney abandoned his support for the compromise amendment, stating that the amendment confused voters who oppose both same-sex marriage and civil unions. Instead, Romney endorsed a petition effort led by the Coalition for Marriage & Family that would have banned same-sex marriage and made no provisions for civil unions. In 2006 he urged the U.S. Senate to vote in favor of the Marriage Protection Amendment.

- Romney has been a strong supporter of some gun control legislation, backing the Brady Bill, a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on certain assault weapons, and he still backs the ban on assault weapons. Romney has also supported some legislation that was endorsed by the National Rifle Association and the Gun Owners' Action League. That doesn't sound like pro gun control to me.

- Romney has called for increased military spending to at least 4 percent of the United States GDP and wishes to increase the size of the military by at least 100,000 troops.

- Romney welcomes increased legal immigration and supports giving "a biometrically-enabled and tamperproof card to non-citizens and ... a national database for non-citizens" in order to reduce illegal immigration.-

- Romney supports the death penalty, charter schools, and sentencing under the three strikes law. Romney opposes the use of "torture"; however, he supports the limited use of "enhanced interrogation techniques," which he believes are not torture.

- Yes, I know that one of Huck's ads said that Romney didn't execute anyone as Governor. That just means the man obeys the law as execution is illegal in Mass.

- Romney has received some very impressive endorsements from very conservative groups that tend to believe in most of the policies that I do.

Cons...

- He may make me be even more fiscally responsible than I want.

- I am not completely sure if he is hawkish enough for me but he may be.

OK his cons are lame.

McCain

Pros...

- Even though he graduated near the bottom of his class at the Naval Accademy most of what I hear about his days as a POW make me want to give the man a medal.

- Oh wait, he already has a bunch. He received a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, the Legion of Merit, the Purple Heart, and a Distinguished Flying Cross.

- While in solitary confinement as a POW McCain turned down the offer of repatriation due to the Code of Conduct of "first in, first out": he would only accept the offer if every man taken in before him was released as well. Damn immpressive!

- Even though he signed some stupid paper saying he was some sort of criminal he did so to stop the torture and used words and phrases to show that it was being forced. I consider this a positive because the man endured more than I probably could and then only gave a psuedo confession. Brave as hell if you ask me.

- Attacked pork barrel spending.

- That's about it. I could now add a near 200 line list of things I don't like about the man but these few things I do find very impressive and he is do my respect for them. He sucks on Fmaily values, weak on 2nd ammendment, weak on affirmative action, gang of 14, keating 5, etc. Way more cons than pros.

Huckabee

Pros...

- Huckabee supports the ongoing War in Iraq and the troop surge.

- Huckabee opposes abortion, same-sex marriage, and civil unions.

- Huckabee is against gun control.

- Huckabee supports the death penalty.

Not sure how much weight to give his pros as there doesn't seem to be an extreme amount of action to go along with his "support".

Cons...

- Too many to list. Most of his pros have one or more cons that negate the pro. This guy is scary as hell. I am seriously disgusted that he has any support at all in the Republican party. He has more questions about his character than I think anyone in the race including the Dems.

Fred

Pros...

- Too many to list

Cons...

- I think his candidacy is a pipe dream. Other than that not much.

Like I said before. I would happily hear any factual evidence you have to support your candidate. I am leaning Mitt/Fred but I think Fred is a pipe dream.

Please don't give me sound-bites. Give me facts that I can look up.

Excellent post, excellent!

And to some smart alec up there that said McCaon won conservatives..no he did NOT....Go look at drudge report and the associated press report.

Romney won the majority of R's tonight in NH.

That's what makes this thread and all the grumpy McCain people here so amusing.

Because that is what they reported tonight.

There's also this:

http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/romney_rising_like_bread_...

But they may be referring to the strong conservatives, as opposed to registered R's, which to our point is more important in the general election.

That may account for the confusion here.

Hopefully you'll agree that winning amongst liberal conservatives in NH and losing the strong conservatives to Romney is not exactly the sign of a strong GE republican candidate.

get some sleep. come back when your senses are working better.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Yes it said "liberal republicans" not "liberal conservatives"...

feel better now? you got me on a typo, but it doesn't matter, because it proves my point regardless.

mccain did not win the type of republicans who he will need the rest of the way.

that is just a simple fact.

He won registered Rs. He won registered Is. That's exactly the formula for winning any election.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

is obsessed with Hillary's comeback. This will cary for a few news cycles and McCain I doubt will see the usual media excitement. She is definitely overshadowing him tonight.

...but i think it could benefit from more of john_stewart_is_a_tool's opinions.

For example, john_stewart_is_a_tool, you've persuasively argued that an important criteria for my vote in the is the depth of the candidate's relationship with Andrea Mitchell.

Therefore, I was wondering if you could you handicap the rest of the field in terms of how much Andrea Mitchell likes them?

Kind of a john_stewart_is_a_tool voter guide...

I think a scale of 1-12 would be good, where 12 is Andrea Mitchell's lifelong affection, and 1 is Andrea Mitchell's deep antipathy.

I was considering Fred, but I've heard rumors that he's nice to Andrea Mitchell (could be just spin), so maybe I should consider another candidate?

Help!

as a response from McCain supporters as to why McCain is so well loved by MSNBC liberal hacks?

I guess the fact that he is on that network all the time, but by comparison is not on FOX nearly as often, well I guess that means nothing.

And I guess that the excitement of a team of liberal hack reporters for a so called republican candidate, well wow I guess we are to ignore that as well.

I was actually hoping someone from your camp would compose a reasonable explanation for why McCain does this. I was hoping I could actually be persuaded to understand that McCain has ulterior motives that benefit our party. But I don't see these types of responses.

Instead I see Huckabee-like aversion to answering the simple questions surrounding McCain's obsession with being liked by the liberal media.

And as long as that continues, well I suspect he'll have a problem.

But feel free to keep verbally attacking posters who ask substantive questions, I am sure that will really help narrow the field even more.

Based on that criteria, who should I vote for?

That's why reading his comments gets old.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

The only reason for any of the top 5 to quit any time soon is lack of money. Each of them can convince himself that he has a chance.

If Thompson, McCain or Huckabee have to accept matching funds, they won't be viable in the general, so they should give up the primary. Romney and Giuliani have the money to go at least through SuperDuperMegaUltraTuesday; Romney can write the checks he needs to go all the way.

If it turns out that Romney beats McCain because he can self-fund and McCain can't raise the money he needs, then I'd call that justice.

Anyone that thinks he can predict how this will turn out is a fool.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service