Mitt Romney’s rivals took aim at him in the Sunday-morning debate, but it’s hard to see a scenario where he loses all of his currently gargantuan lead in New Hampshire: 20 percentage points, 24 percentage points, 15 percentage points, 24 percentage points, and 17 percentage points in the past five polls.
Then there’s South Carolina, the kind of conservative, heavily evangelical state one would expect Romney to have a tougher time in . . . where Romney leads by 7 percentage points, 3 percentage points, and 18 percentage points in the last three polls.
Then there’s Florida, where Quinnipiac is out with new results this morning:
With 36 percent of Florida Republican likely primary voters, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has a double-digit lead three weeks before the nation’s first big-state presidential primary, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. But 54 percent of GOP primary voters say they still might change their mind.
Twelve points back in the Republican pack is former House Speaker Newt Gingrich with 24 percent, followed by former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum with 16 percent, the independent Quinnipiac University survey finds. Texas U.S. Rep. Ron Paul is at 10 percent with 5 percent for Texas Gov. Rick Perry and 2 percent for former ambassador Jon Huntsman. This first look at likely primary voters, a more select group, can’t be compared with earlier surveys of registered voters.
After that, it’s Nevada, which hasn’t been polled lately, but in mid-December, a survey had Romney at 33 percent, Gingrich at 29 percent, and Paul at 12 percent.
For a weak frontrunner, Mitt Romney sure leads in a lot of places.
Here’s more perspective: Since January 1, only one poll of the GOP field showed Romney trailing . . . anywhere, the PPP poll of Iowa that put Ron Paul up by one percentage point. That’s out of 21 polls of the nation, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida.
GOP voters need to recognize that a vote for Romney is effectively a vote to prevent any GOP candidate from making an effective argument against Obamacare. One of our foremost arguments this fall should be that Obamacare must be repealed because its reliance on government and individual mandates restricts freedom and drives up costs. If Romney is our nominee, the Democrats will have a very easy response to that: "your own Presidential nominee did the same thing when he was governor." While we can still point out some differences that make Obamacare worse, we will have effectively conceded the core principles if Romney is our nominee.
That is why Romney is the worst possible Republican to nominate this year. Ron Paul would be better. John McCain would be better. Bob Dole would be better. Herman Cain would be better even if he turns out to have had hundreds of affairs. Rick Perry would be better even if his brain froze in every general election debate. Newt Gingrich would be better even if he leaves Callista for a younger staff member this summer. Even Olympia Snowe would be better, because at least that would allow the party to make the arguments that the country absolutely needs it to make.
A vote for Romney is a vote to preserve Obamacare. It is really that simple.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn a general, the health care landscape changes, and independents are far more reasonable than the conservative base when it comes to our own principles (10th amendment).
Romney will never get credit from some---even if he 'breaks the ceiling', like he recently did, even if he wins the first three primary states...it won't matter---someone somewhere will be saying romney is 'weak'. It's just idiotic. HOW CAN HE BE WEAK IF HE WON IA AND NH??? No one has EVER DONE THAT before. But he's weak? WTH?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe have seen Eric's bias against Romney for some time now.
And no, a vote for Romney will actually empower a strong Candidate who has promised to remove Obamacare. And having studied Romney's record, we know he actually has a strong ability to fulfill his promises.
Romney is actually stronger in making the case against Obamacare, as he has such experience with the issue. Romney will rightly state he offered a State solution, which never should be provided on a Federal Level like Obamacare. Romney will say correctly he never raised taxation, never raided Medicare, never touched the plans of the 92% who had insurance, got the remaining 8% to pay their fair share. Romney will say all States are different and should be allowed to formulate their own plans. Romney will look extremely attractive politically on this issue, as he will remind everyone he lead everyone in MA to constructively create a State level solution which they passed in a legal manner following Our treasured "democratic" process, instead of the way Democratic Partisans bullied, threatened, bribed, etc., to install something a few wanted on all.
Eric is mistaken. In fact, Romney's Health Care Reform remains popular in MA, while Obamacare is not. Ironically, here is a very interesting new development:
"In many areas of health-care spending, the rate of growth for spending in Massachusetts either fell more than it did for the nation as a whole or fell at roughly the same rate. This data would seem to muddy the waters for the claim that Romney's reforms caused health-care spending in Massachusetts to skyrocket. Since Romneycare, health-care spending in Massachusetts (at least until 2009) grew more slowly than it did in many other states and also grew much more slowly compared to the rate of spending growth in Massachusetts before Romneycare took effect."
But most importantly, Romney is a proven Free Market Executive who comes from outside the Beltway, extremely capable, stable, articulate. Romney will be able to make the case for the Private Sector in the upcoming 2012 Election better than anyone. This election will be another referendum on the failed Public Sector weakness provided by Democrats, vs. the strength of the Free Market represented by Romney (as well as the vast Majority of hard working Americans).
Romney is an excellent candidate, and will do very well, including having a very sincere potential to be a sound President.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour response proves my point. Obama and the Democrats argue that their plan will do all the wonderful things you claim for the Romney plan. To rebut them, if Romney is our nominee, we will need to explain why his plan is so different. So we'd be stuck trying to argue about relatively minor technical points like funding mechanisms and bureaucratic organization, and whining about cuts to other government-funded healthcare programs.
If Romney is our nominee, we will be forced to concede the principal arguments against an individual mandate and government-dominated healthcare. A vote for Romney is a vote to make Obamacare permanent.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDon't forget that Romneycare is based on private, market-based insurance; whereas Obamacare is a gov't power grab of almost 1/5 of the Economy. Most importantly Romneycare is constitutional and Obamacare is an incursion on 10th Amendment States' rights. The same debate would have to take place no matter the candidate and no one is better equipped than Romney to defeat Obama on Obamacare because of Romney's experience.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree. The Obamacare issue will be dead. Apparently society is easily swayed by anything other than facts and substance. Shows the lack of basic education quality, to be honest. Show me graphs, show me statistics, all of it. That's what sways me. Another McCain or just right of center Obama with a weak constitution is not strength we need in a leader. Leader.... This is not a time of great compromise or gradual change from not wanting to make others upset. This is what I feel we will get with Romney as president. If we were about to hit an iceberg...I'd steer all the way, not slowly, to avoid a catastrophe.
Also, the shortsigtedness of possible scenarios is scary. If we put someone weak in that office...and do not give them the like minded senate and house needed to accomplish things needing to be done...we will end up, in four years, with Hillary Clinton as president. Maybe this is the desire of some, not myself.
I want debate on substance. I want constituents to be responsible and do their homework. I want someone who will stump Obama at the pulpit using fact.
I know our representatives are a reflection of society and things are bad. Also sad it comes down , it seems, to money. Who can afford to buy television time to trash the other guy and sway the public with it. Again, jmo from a person who loves my country and what it is supposed to stand for...opportunity. Lets be fair and balanced and give all the candidates the opportunity to accurately (fact check) their accomplishments, their knowledge, ability, sincerety and expect challenges. Lets not let these pac's do all the blood work so the candidates don't have to get their hands dirty. Again, jmo based on my upbringing and life experience.
We need someone to walk into the office, kick the trash can across the room (so to speak), and demand action. Saying "pretty please" does not work as we have seen. Give us a strong willed candidate to affect change.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMitt Romney has run a masterful campaign. He's not a weak front-runner, and he never really has been. He did the hard work to put together a national campaign structure and to raise the money needed to win. He has the real world business experience our country needs at this time, to turn this economy around and create jobs. Non-incumbents never win both Iowa and New Hampshire, and he's about to do it. As your article says, he's in the lead in every state (and nationally). He might actually win everywhere, which is unprecedented in my experience. While the media keeps banging the drum that he's a weak candidate, he might just be the strongest candidate ever -- and that's exactly what we need to beat Obama in November.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell said Mr. Geraghty.
"For a weak frontrunner, Mitt Romney sure leads in a lot of places."
Weak Candidates do not have the potential to win in Iowa and NH - (only the unopposed Presidential Incumbents).
The mythic fashion pushed by a small few, have tried to play the old Democratic Party game of saying "your unpopular" - hoping many would shy away for fear of not being apart of something socially acceptable.
It is truly embarrassing when one considers what sound conservative is about, not this weak image/identity shell game being peddled today (regretfully symbolized by the once promising Hockey Mom who foolishly says things like the Democrats are eager to face Romney in the General Election).
We all know long ago, the hype was deeply misguided. Jay Cost even referenced a poll which revealed Romney is favorable to some 80% of GOP supporters, which is a very high number compared to other candidates - even in comparison to big names not in the Race.
Also, the reason why Romney is doing well, is not because he is squeaking by. He is a strong Candidate. Even if the competition votes were not split, one can make the case Romney would still be doing very well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse