McCain’s Momentum Gone?
Joe Klein wrote a fascinating post for Swampland (the blog of TIME) about John McCain, Mitt Romney, New Hampshire and last weekend. He first mentions that he too has seen the polls which put McCain firmly in the lead in the Granite State but he goes on to say that he doesn’t “believe them.”
Why not? Because McCain just had a horrible weekend. He performed lousy during Saturday’s debate, and he didn’t do much better during Sunday’s debate either. Romney on the other hand has proven to be a man who performs well under pressure: his performances were perhaps the best of his entire campaign.
Klein also – and I think correctly – writes:
The futility of the various attacks on Romney was apparent in tonight’s debate: none of the Republicans chose to go after him, except Fred Thompson, who seems to be campaigning from a hammock even when he’s sitting upright…and whose toughest barbs (Ted Kennedy endorsed Romney’s Massachusetts health care plan) float across the stage like soap bubbles. That meant each of the candidates had been told by their staffs that Saturday night’s assaults hadn’t worked.
During Saturday’s debate, McCain and Huckabee hoped that they could take Romney out of the race. Instead, however, they winded up hurting themselves. Their attacks may very well have enabled Romney to make a surge.
Klein’s conclusion:
McCain was nowhere. His answers lacked zing. He seemed tired. He was unable to make a vigorous case for himself as a leader–even his references back to his days in the military didn’t cut it with this Republican audience. McCain won here in 2000 because independent voters found him far more compelling than the independent alternative on the Democratic side, Bill Bradley. This time, he’s competing with Barack Obama for independents in a state decidedly more blue than it was in 2000…He may still have enough heft to win this thing. But I wouldn’t be surprised to see the race tighten or swing toward Romney over the next few days.
And neither would I.
Meanwhile, the latest Rasmussen poll has McCain at 32% and Romney at 31%. People thought after Iowa that Romney would quickly fade away, but instead he’s (mildly) surging. Not only that, but this latest poll doesn’t take the two debates into account in which Romney did and McCain stumbled and fumbled. It seems to me that Romney should be leading now. Or at least tied with McCain.
And the latest Zogby International polls shows just that: it has Romney leading by 1. Whatever else happens, tomorrow will be exiting. Aside from that, it’s – once again – important to point out that these polls confirm that McCain’s surge has indeed come to a halt. No, the polls don’t have to be entirely correct, but they may tell us something about the current trend.
For McCain New Hampshire is make or break. If he has to do well there. His lousy performances, then, come at a horrible time for him.
Also blogged at TNR. H/t Memeorandum.
Look, the reality is McCain is simply too old among a field of younger, stronger candidates.
Obama has surged in part because of the more youthful voters. This is a new era in our country and the same old faces in government no longer appeal to the new generation of voters. If the Repulications are to keep the White House they must have a candidate who can appeal to the younger voters who have taken an interest in Obama. Even Hillary understands that. The Republications better understand it as well our they will not win in November.
Dear Michael,
Sometimes it appears to me that you have called things in an unbiased manner, but it appears on the balance that you are an unacknowledged Mitt Romney supporter. Mitt Romney won the support of the vast majority of the chattering classes with some arguments (he looks Presidential!) that were idiotic, some that were false (he is the most electable social and fiscal conservative) and some that were true (he loves and cares for his family and has been faithful to his wife).
Mitt Romney will see his campaign end when he loses Michigan. With no Obama on that ballot, McCain or Huckabee or maybe both will beat him there.
Mitt Romney has spent alot of money but he has always been an opportunist. He was facing losing his executive position because the citizens of his state believed that another person could run it better (indeed he was behind several in the polls) and so he changed positions on almost everything that matters to social conservatives, Gun control, Abortion, Homosexual rights, Illegal Immigration (he did nothing about the sanctuary cities in his state) and even started supporting the Bush tax plan Barney Frank praised him for opposing.
Unacknowledged?
Mitt Romney has paid off more people than anyone in this cycle and it shows with the shrill pundit attacks but also with the unbalanced journalism that repeats his campaign emails (as Sean Hannity did last night with the verbatim "2 silvers and a gold" comment).
Mitt Romney has engaged in dirty tricks. His campaign lied and said Fred Thompson would drop out and endorse McCain. He also claims regularly to misspeak or be misunderstood. He also claims one of his greatest strengths is as a communicator. Romney is a liar. On guns when he said he was a "lifelong hunter" it was a lie and he only backed off when it was revealed he has gone hunting twice in 50 years. On guns again he lied when he said the NRA endorsed him. He did say "the NRA is not going to make a hero out of me" and he did support gun control as recently as 2002 (Boston Globe has the roundup).
One misstatement I buy, but over and over and over? He lied Saturday night saying his ads did not say McCains plan was amnesty. Now he either was lying or did not watch his campaign ads (his claim the next morning) which means he is not an effective manager at all. He said he saw his dad walk with MLK, then he said something that depended on your definition of saw (sounded to many of us very Clintonesque).
The man is an opportunist, and one of his greatest accomplishments (the Olympics) cannot be replicated. Mitt Romney could not have turned around the winter Olympics in Vermont in as stunning a fashion. When the church thought it was about to get a huge black eye, they went to Romney to fix it and clean it up and he did, but there is not an analogous group messing up the federal government but ready to listen to the Prophets council and stop the shenanigans when Mitt rolls into town. Do the research on that if you think I am wrong as to what happened.
Mitt Romney has paid off more people than anyone in this cycle and it shows with the shrill pundit attacks but also with the unbalanced journalism that repeats his campaign emails (as Sean Hannity did last night with the verbatim "2 silvers and a gold" comment). Mitt Romney has engaged in dirty tricks. His campaign lied and said Fred Thompson would drop out and endorse McCain. He also claims regularly to misspeak or be misunderstood. He also claims one of his greatest strengths is as a communicator. Romney is a liar. On guns when he said he was a "lifelong hunter" it was a lie and he only backed off when it was revealed he has gone hunting twice in 50 years. On guns again he lied when he said the NRA endorsed him. He did say "the NRA is not going to make a hero out of me" and he did support gun control as recently as 2002 (Boston Globe has the roundup). One misstatement I buy, but over and over and over? He lied Saturday night saying his ads did not say McCains plan was amnesty. Now he either was lying or did not watch his campaign ads (his claim the next morning) which means he is not an effective manager at all. He said he saw his dad walk with MLK, then he said something that depended on your definition of saw (sounded to many of us very Clintonesque). The man is an opportunist, and one of his greatest accomplishments (the Olympics) cannot be replicated. Edited by MvdG: no anti-Mormonism allowed.
Sorry for the multiple posts. I am new to this.
Also mvdg, respectfully I am not opposed to his mormonism per se, I am claiming that his religious connections made a huge difference in his ability to turn around the olympics. That is not a secret, it is a fact. I also found it interesting it is okay for the punditocracy to harangue Huckabees supporters in Iowa for being so evangelical, but NO ONE did exit polling in Wyoming to determine whether religious beliefs played a factor there. It is okay to vote for someone for any reason, although I think it should be out of bounds to argue against voting for someone based on their religious beliefs (unless they are a Wahabi Muslim).