The EFM Feature

I know you’ve heard this argument: “Mitt may be steady in the polls, but he rarely gets over 25%.  That means he’s done.  No one wins with 25% of the primary vote.”  You might want to respond with a question of your own: When was the first time in the 2007-2008 primary season that John McCain polled over 25%?

The answer is found in this chart.  McCain became the clear front-runner only in January, 2008, and then by polling a mere 34%.  During an equivalent time period in 2007, he was polling only in the low to mid-teens.

Crowded primary fields mean low polling numbers for everyone.  When the actual voting starts, the field narrows quickly and polling numbers shift substantially.  And remember — in life and politics, nothing succeeds like success.  If Mitt can win some of the early contests watch for his numbers to move up very quickly.


Comments and Discussion

Evangelicals for Mitt provides comments as a way to engage in a public and respectiful discussion about articles and issues. Any comment may be removed by the editors for violating common decency or tempting flames.

10 Responses to Is Mitt at His Polling “Ceiling” or “Floor?”

  1. Terry says:

    Romney has been steady, and that is what encourages me. He hasn’t been a flavor of the month, nor has he bobbed up and down in the polls like the others. I would say that Mitt has been at his polling floor. The ceiling is yet to come.

  2. ignoramus says:

    What Mitt is doing is so obvious that political correctness refuses to express the truth. The pattern is illustrated in children’s stories with rabbits and turtles to children’s ponies that started slow and against great odds won, to boxers that had to defend titles and challenge all comers to retain the title.
    Now the candidate is business and the metaphor is business with its core values and customer retention ploys. Every business class uses the Basking Robbins model to explain that the core of the ice cream business is vanilla. Cynics say vanilla is boring. “Plain vanilla” is derogatory. Baskin Robbins 31 Flavors sustains their Vanilla core by offering a flavor of the month. Pumpkin and Egg Nog are nice in the fall and winter but if Vanilla was not there all the time, there would be no business. After seeing Real Clear Politics comparison charts of the candidates the flavors are as obvious as a schedule for Baskin Robbins. The peaks are as regular as if they had been scheduled. Now with Newt falling we only have to wait for the next one. We still have Vanilla of which I am very thankful. Mitt has been labeled Vanilla in a derogatory way by his critics, but to me, Vanilla is virtue. It goes with anything, bananas, nuts and blueberries.
    If Rocky Balboa shows up at the convention after all the primaries are finished I might be worried. There are sports metaphors, too.
    I am not a gambler but I own stocks. An Intrade bet on Mitt looks more and more like a reasonable investment to me.

  3. Larry says:

    Of course it’s a ceiling … after 7 years of continuous campaigning Mitt remains unable to break through the resistance. Additionally, if he were running against a single conservative candidate (as opposed to merely one other moderate … Huntsman) the failure to attract a majority of conservative Republicans would be even more pronounced.

    Indeed, this is clearly a part of Mitt’s two-pronged strategy. Ignore conservative candidates that siphon votes away from Mitt (or cooperate with other libelous efforts such as Paul’s) and attack Newt through surrogates and off-handed lies. Mitt is doing precisely what he has done in the past.

    In the single campaign he won, after months of campaigning he remained unable to break through the ceiling he hit in Massachusetts. He then went negative … in the same manner he now employs. Which is to say that Mitt cares little about the will of the people. They may not wish to support him, but he continues to want the office he’s running for. So he simply says and does what is necessary, regardless regardless of the truth, heedless of facts and entirely absent honor … to remove all other options from consideration.

    Consequently, once elected he is an unprincipled, unreliable and ultimately unsuccessful leader. Sadly, it the people who pay the price for his arrogant sense of entitlement. Principled? Honorable? Please … he’s animated by a profound sense of entitlement who arrogantly ignores the will of the people.

    • Terry says:

      Larry: “…attack Newt through surrogates and off-handed lies”?

      Now you are losing it, dude. You write as if Mitt and the other candidates have a conspiracy going–they bash Newt while Mitt remains above the fray. I wonder how much Mitt is paying them to do it? Had to have been some bribery going on, don’t you think? I know that the rest of them would not engage in something for free that would help Mitt more than them. OR…perhaps Mitt has a little game of extortion going on. As “entirely absent honor” and “unprincipled, unreliable” as you claim he is, I sure wouldn’t put it past him.

      And I doubt that you would either.

      (Demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. Rush would be proud.) :o P

  4. Larry says:

    Corrected version:

    Of course it’s a ceiling … after 7 years of continuous campaigning Mitt remains unable to break through the resistance. Additionally, if he were running against a single conservative candidate (as opposed to merely one other moderate … Huntsman) the failure to attract a majority of conservative Republicans would be even more pronounced.

    Indeed, this is clearly a part of Mitt’s two-pronged strategy. Ignore conservative candidates that siphon votes away from Newt (or cooperate with other libelous efforts such as Paul’s) and attack Newt through surrogates and off-handed lies. Mitt is doing precisely what he has done in the past.

    In the single campaign he won, after months of campaigning he remained unable to break through the ceiling he hit in Massachusetts. He then went negative … in the same manner he now employs. Which is to say that Mitt cares little about the will of the people. They may not wish to support him, but he continues to want the office he’s running for. So he simply says and does what is necessary, regardless regardless of the truth, heedless of facts and entirely absent honor … to remove all other options from consideration.

    Consequently, once elected he is an unprincipled, unreliable and ultimately unsuccessful leader. Sadly, it the people who pay the price for his arrogant sense of entitlement. Principled? Honorable? Please … he’s animated by a profound sense of entitlement who arrogantly ignores the will of the people.

    • TeejMac says:

      First off, I would love to see you honestly assess all the other candidates – both in their politics and positions history and in their personal lives – according to these standards. First off, any serious candidate has “strategies” to gain as many votes as they can…that does not equate to unprincipled. Second, you really think there is ANY candidate out there who has never been negative? You think Newt has not ever gone negative? Really? Mitt has in fact been more consistently positive that the vast majority of political candidates I’ve ever seen. Look at the record of negativity directed AT Mitt as compared with Newt by their political opponents. Sounds like you’ll be surprised by what you find.

      And where do you get the idea of Mitt having an “arrogant sense of entitlement?” Give me examples – I don’t see it. And again, you want to compare sense of entitlement and grandiosity to Newt? I love Gingrich but he wins any prize for big heads out there.

      Have you ever really learned about Mitt’s life and things he’s done for other people? One thing about Mitt is his tendency is to remain anonymous in helping others – it sometimes takes other people to tell these tales because he rarely does. You might want to get to know more about him before you assume you understand the man. Just one fact ought to mean something to you: Mitt has by all accounts had a committed, wonderful marriage for many years and his children show evidence of this stability and solid parenting. Not all of his political opponents can say the same. Talk about something that truly reflects a core integrity and reliability – that’s among the best in my book.

      And you say he ignores the will of the people? When? Where? I mean, such claims and no specifics or examples. Come on and take an honest look instead of knee jerk. You may like the man much more than you might think.

  5. Phillip Hall says:

    Mitt is ahead of where McCain was at this point by every measure.
    Romney is ahead of where McCain was on Dec 22 2008 in all three of the first primary states. He is now leading in two of the three. McCain didn’t do that at this point. Even in SC, Romney is ahead of where McCain was then.
    Here is my source for the state polls.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008

    Romney broke through resistance this week. in National polls too He polled at 30% here ttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postabcpoll_121811.html

  6. Annette says:

    Romney is a principled passionate consistent conservative. Romney’s so called flip flops have been dismissed by factcheck.org by the Washington Post. Factcheck.org finds that Romney has been consistent on his views. The only exception is abortion which he admits. If Romney abandons the truth for political gain, why does he stand by the MA Health Care plan even though it could cost him the election? Larry…check your facts.

    Rom

  7. gene says:

    FIELD OF DREAMS—-
    “BUILD A FIELLD AND THEY WILL COME “.
    All Mitt has to do is stay true to his principles….and the votes will come. there has been sooo many distortions about Mitt Romney….if I had $10,000.00 for each one I would be very well off($$$). (o:
    Poor Larry……..he’s so confused…I feel sorry for this turkey who survived Thanksgiving,Christmas.
    When Mitt makes it to the white house…I will beg Mitt to spare Turkey Larry@ Thanksgiving..!
    I have many on so-called conservative websites…WAS THE GOOD SAMARTIAN LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE?
    I Have not got a good answer yet! HE WAS NEITHER !

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>