The Republicans Most Unsatisfied with their Probable Nominee
Carroll Andrew Morse
National Review Online's Ramesh Ponnuru calls attention to a Pew Research Center for the People and the Press poll which gauged, amongst other things, which groups of Republican voters were most and least certain in their support for Mitt Romney between April 4th and 15th.
According to Pew's survey of Republicans and Republican leaners, self-described conservatives weren't the group least certain in their support of Romney. 82% of the respondents describing themselves as conservative expressed certainty that they would support Mitt Romney over President Barack Obama in the general election. And support was not highly-uncertain amongst Tea Partiers either, 89% of whom said they were certain to support Romney. ("Certain supporters" are defined in the poll as "those who back Romney and say there is no chance they will support Obama. Not certain are those who only lean toward Romney or say there is still a chance they will support Obama").
No, Mitt Romney's least certain support within the Republican party came from the self-described "moderates" and "liberals", only 66% of whom say they are certain to support Romney in a General election. For not-Tea Party Republicans (who presumably overlap with the "moderate"/liberal crowd) the not-certain figure was 65%.
This puts a serious dent into the idea that Republican unity problems begin with conservative demands for a perfect candidate (which many folks who observe actual Republican politics and not just its caricature could have told you anyway).
By the way, this particular poll had Barack Obama beating Mitt Romney amongst everyone surveyed (including Democrats and independents) 49-45.
It is doubtless that Romney has failed to set the Republican base on fire.
I guess his message was "I'm the only electable candidate in this group. Learn to like it."
Given that this election is a guaranteed loss for the Republicans, it might have been better to take a dive electorally while sending a principled message rather than sacrificing integrity yet again for a last ditch effort that will bear no fruit. Ron Paul could have gotten a lot more mileage in reforming the party in the ways it needs to be reformed going forward, which is what Goldwater did for the party in '64 despite his loss. You don't want to be "the establishment."
Arizona Senator John McCain summed up Goldwater's legacy thus: "He transformed the Republican Party from an Eastern elitist organization to the breeding ground for the election of Ronald Reagan." The columnist George Will remarked after the 1980 Presidential election that it took 16 years to count the votes from 1964 and Goldwater won.
2012 could have been a "building year." Just sayin'.
First, it's a "registered voter" not a "likely voter" sample.
Second, over the last few weeks anyway, does Pres. Obama ever tops 50% in any of these polls?
His consistent numbers below 50% means that he's in real trouble, even Romney is lower. Romney has room to pick up additional voters, but it's very unlikely that anyone who is now undecided will break toward the incumbent.
This has the makings of a major blowout by Romney, barring some major news event that changes the issues.
"First, it's a "registered voter" not a "likely voter" sample."
Good job, Brass! I'm not sure about the impact on the accuracy of poll results; I just know that it's an important distinction.
"Romney has room to pick up additional voters, but it's very unlikely that anyone who is now undecided will break toward the incumbent."
I don't know about that. There is a fairly good chance, due to the "law of averages," that the economy will start improving over the next 7 months despite the failed stimulus, mismanaged bailouts, etc. The economy is eventually going to recover, and it's been half a decade already. If that does happen, then a lot of misguided people will credit Obama for the improvement and will be fearful of switching presidents at that point. See also: FDR.
If Willard Romney-care lacks the fortitude to stand up to Rush Limbaugh (the undisputed leader of the American Conservative movement) in regards to prostitute-slut-gate
How is he going to stand up to the conservative wing-nuts in Iran ? ?
"If Willard Romney-care lacks the fortitude to stand up to Rush Limbaugh (the undisputed leader of the American Conservative movement) in regards to prostitute-slut-gate
How is he going to stand up to the conservative wing-nuts in Iran ? ?"
Well Sammy, first I would ask if anyone actually asked Mitt Romney what his position is on President Obama's forward security team hiring prostitutes. I'm sure he wouldn't support it but maybe you have some inside info.
Sammy the Democratic Troll strikes again.
Sammy,
If you have not spent time in a South American city, you cannot imagine the pervasiveness of the prostitution business. That said, most were married. I am also amazed to think one of the "sophisticated" agents was so unsophisticated that he thought $30.00 would do it. The girls weren't street walkers.
Aside from morals, the real problem (security breach) was allowing strange women relatively free access to whatever documents might have been in the agents' possession, cell phone numbers, etc., etc.
I hope we will see fewer movies about all of those incorruptible guys and gals "ready to take the bullet". Always remember that when Lincoln was shot, his "bodyguard" was in a local saloon knocking a few down while waiting for the play to end. I think that is why they fired Pinkerton and formed the Secret Service.
Click here for the new Anchor Rising & Ocean State Current page
About Community Crier
About Engaged Citizen
Administrator
It is doubtless that Romney has failed to set the Republican base on fire.
I guess his message was "I'm the only electable candidate in this group. Learn to like it."
Posted by: Warrington Faust at April 18, 2012 8:32 PMGiven that this election is a guaranteed loss for the Republicans, it might have been better to take a dive electorally while sending a principled message rather than sacrificing integrity yet again for a last ditch effort that will bear no fruit. Ron Paul could have gotten a lot more mileage in reforming the party in the ways it needs to be reformed going forward, which is what Goldwater did for the party in '64 despite his loss. You don't want to be "the establishment."
Arizona Senator John McCain summed up Goldwater's legacy thus: "He transformed the Republican Party from an Eastern elitist organization to the breeding ground for the election of Ronald Reagan." The columnist George Will remarked after the 1980 Presidential election that it took 16 years to count the votes from 1964 and Goldwater won.
2012 could have been a "building year." Just sayin'.
Posted by: Dan at April 18, 2012 9:17 PMFirst, it's a "registered voter" not a "likely voter" sample.
Second, over the last few weeks anyway, does Pres. Obama ever tops 50% in any of these polls?
His consistent numbers below 50% means that he's in real trouble, even Romney is lower. Romney has room to pick up additional voters, but it's very unlikely that anyone who is now undecided will break toward the incumbent.
This has the makings of a major blowout by Romney, barring some major news event that changes the issues.
Posted by: brassband at April 18, 2012 9:19 PM"First, it's a "registered voter" not a "likely voter" sample."
Good job, Brass! I'm not sure about the impact on the accuracy of poll results; I just know that it's an important distinction.
Posted by: Monique at April 18, 2012 10:03 PM"Romney has room to pick up additional voters, but it's very unlikely that anyone who is now undecided will break toward the incumbent."
I don't know about that. There is a fairly good chance, due to the "law of averages," that the economy will start improving over the next 7 months despite the failed stimulus, mismanaged bailouts, etc. The economy is eventually going to recover, and it's been half a decade already. If that does happen, then a lot of misguided people will credit Obama for the improvement and will be fearful of switching presidents at that point. See also: FDR.
Posted by: Dan at April 19, 2012 9:18 AMIf Willard Romney-care lacks the fortitude to stand up to Rush Limbaugh (the undisputed leader of the American Conservative movement) in regards to prostitute-slut-gate
How is he going to stand up to the conservative wing-nuts in Iran ? ?
Posted by: Sammy in Arizona at April 19, 2012 1:38 PM"If Willard Romney-care lacks the fortitude to stand up to Rush Limbaugh (the undisputed leader of the American Conservative movement) in regards to prostitute-slut-gate
How is he going to stand up to the conservative wing-nuts in Iran ? ?"
Well Sammy, first I would ask if anyone actually asked Mitt Romney what his position is on President Obama's forward security team hiring prostitutes. I'm sure he wouldn't support it but maybe you have some inside info.
Posted by: Max D at April 19, 2012 1:57 PMSammy the Democratic Troll strikes again.
Posted by: Dan at April 19, 2012 2:57 PMSammy,
If you have not spent time in a South American city, you cannot imagine the pervasiveness of the prostitution business. That said, most were married. I am also amazed to think one of the "sophisticated" agents was so unsophisticated that he thought $30.00 would do it. The girls weren't street walkers.
Aside from morals, the real problem (security breach) was allowing strange women relatively free access to whatever documents might have been in the agents' possession, cell phone numbers, etc., etc.
I hope we will see fewer movies about all of those incorruptible guys and gals "ready to take the bullet". Always remember that when Lincoln was shot, his "bodyguard" was in a local saloon knocking a few down while waiting for the play to end. I think that is why they fired Pinkerton and formed the Secret Service.
Posted by: Warrington Faust at April 19, 2012 9:07 PM