Iowa wasn’t close; how about New Hampshire?

Last week, there was quite a bit of talk, in the 48 hours before the caucuses, that Mike Huckabee was slowly imploding in Iowa. His margin in some polls was slipping; Mitt Romney was gaining on him; after a ridiculous press conference, reporters were mocking him; and most of the insider scuttlebutt was that Huckabee’s support would collapse in the 11th hour.

Indeed, the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza asked seven political insiders, all with extensive campaign experience, to predict the outcome of the Republican contest. Five of the seven predicted a Romney victory (one “expert” thought Romney would win by double-digits). Obviously, we now know that Huckabee cruised to an easy victory, and all of the last-minute chatter was wrong.

Interestingly enough, we’re seeing the same thing right now, only instead of rumors about an 11th-hour Huckabee implosion, it’s John McCain who’s reportedly in trouble. Time’s Joe Klein is one of many making the case.

The polls still have John McCain comfortably ahead of Mitt Romney in the New Hampshire primary, but I don’t believe them. For one thing, McCain has just dragged himself through two of his worst debate performances ever. For another, Mitt Romney — even though under assault constantly in Saturday night’s debate — has had two of his best debate performances yet.

Maybe. Granted, I didn’t see last night’s debate, but after having seen Saturday’s event, I’d hardly consider it one of his “worst debate performances ever.” It seemed to me he delivered quite a few “zingers,” kept Romney flustered and on the defensive, and came out of the debate at least as strong as he went into it.

The futility of the various attacks on Romney was apparent in tonight’s debate: none of the Republicans chose to go after him…. That meant each of the candidates had been told by their staffs that Saturday night’s assaults hadn’t worked.

Again, that’s one interpretation, but I have another: maybe the candidates backed off on Sunday night because they’d already beaten Romney down on Saturday night, and didn’t want to be seen as piling on against the guy who’d already been beaten up pretty badly the night before.

For what it’s worth, Klein sat in on a Frank Luntz focus group in New Hampshire, with a Republican audience.

[T]hey…Just. Loved. Romney. Most of those who came in undecided had switched to Mitt by the end of the show. They just adored his position on illegal immigration (their dials plummeted when McCain said we had to be “humane.”) They loved his explanation of why he had switched his position on abortion. They loved it when he nailed Huckabee as a tax raiser…in fact, Huckabee’s failure to acknowledge that he was a net raiser of taxes ended his credibility with the audience (which, since this is New Hampshire, had been wary of his flagrant religiosity from the start).

Meanwhile, McCain was nowhere…. 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.

Honestly, I’d be delighted. If I had a choice, I’d love to see Romney trounce McCain. I just don’t think it’s going to happen.

Update: The focus group hated McCain’s desire to be “humane” to immigrants? Stay classy, Republicans.

Are the forecasters predicting what they want to have happen?

Since Romney on several levels is the most nearly human among the candidates, my suspicion is that Republicans won’t nominate him. They want rabid torturers.

  • Since Giuliani has sunk out of sight, Romney is the “great white hope” of the Republican establishment. McCain is too hard to predict or control, and Huckabee is… Well, you know. It’s a class thing, and Huck doesn’t have any.

    Hence the MSM have picked up on the message. It’s Romney now, Mormonism be damned. He’s pro-corporation and pro-war. ‘Nuff said.

    Does this mean that the establishment has abandoned Rudy completely? Perhaps. Stay tuned.

  • Luntz has a history of manipulating focus groups to choose the desired result. Even if Klein is dumb enough to treat his work as a reliable source of information, I don’t think anyone else should.

  • Shoot, not sure where I saw the link … but is this the Luntz focus group that had some of the same people as a focus group in another state 4 months ago?

  • Like I said in my last post: Is this the same press that was reporting McCain’s demise in late 2007???

    “Are the forecasters predicting what they want to have happen?”

    Don’t know… but it’s clear CB is posting what he wants to happen!

  • The focus group hated McCain’s desire to be “humane” to immigrants? Stay classy, Republicans.

    Indeed. Wouldn’t it be interesting to get a room full of Republican Christians and a room full of Humanists to dial those knobs while someone read something similar to the words of Jesus Christ to them, just to see which people believe what. I’ll bet the Republicans would beat the crap out of anyone who advocated the teachings of their alleged “savior”.

  • Also, ever since Jeb promoted Romney, I’ve assumed Big Dig was the Bush guy. The press could be responding to whatever spin’s been coming backdoor from the White House.

    Note that in both states, were the fresh spin correct, Mitt would benefit.

    The Bush team has to be flustered because the head of their Rotary Club has the personal appeal of the retarded janitor at the Odd Fellows Lodge.

    (Yeah, that’s a horribly un-PC analogy, but it’s about as apt as I could come up with on a tired brain)

  • : The focus group hated McCain’s desire to be “humane” to immigrants? Stay classy, Republicans.
    Being humane to immigrants means affording them public services, allowing them to unionize, vote, have drivers’ licenses, and give them access to courts for redress of abuses.

    All of these are granted to LEGAL immigrants.
    True compassion would involve prosecution of employers of illegals so corporate pressure would push for realistic immigration quotas.

    It’s no favor to immigrants to hand them low wages (or not) and nothing else when it means legal immigrants will be forced to compete with these abused people for the same jobs.

    I’ve no idea why illegal immigration enforcement is seen as a conservative cause. Properly executed, it would help the poorest among us. How is that not “progressive?”

  • I think this is just more proof of the fact there are segments of the Republican’t party that really hate John McCain.

    “The [Republican Audience] just adored [Romney’s] position on illegal immigration (their dials plummeted when McCain said we had to be “humane.”)

    Nothing makes me believe more in the inherent racism of that wing of the Republican’t party then such an unconscious rejection of Christian values towards undocumented workers.

  • I think one of the things that is confusing the polls and the pundits is that the fundie Christians aren’t happy to be voting for a guy they think is a cult member. They won’t say this out loud, but it’s very real.

  • They adored Mitt’s position on illegal immigration? Really? Do you tremble at conversations you don’t understand? Do visions of a Tancredo presidency give you wet dreams? If so, I have the perfect candidate for you! A man who spoke out against faulty immigration policy long before it became cool. Unlike Ron Paul who is shunned only by Fux News, this man is ignored by the entire MSM and subject to specious rumors of his premature demise. Purists and xenophobes, I give you Mr. Pat Paulsen:

    “All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an
    unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian.”

    Those heathen ba$tards!

  • Klein’s main fallacy is assuming that NH primary voters watched the debates or would be influenced by them. Kerry kicked W’s ass by a million miles in both debates, but it didn’t make a big difference.

  • Chopin: My wife observed the other night that Ron Paul reminds her a lot of Pat Paulsen.

    (Paul fans: that isn’t a slam on Paul. We always liked Pat Paulsen. He was a much better candidate and made more sense than most of this year’s Republican candidates.)

  • actually, klein’s main fallacy is assuming that he knows what he’s talking about, and yet as we see, over and over, he rarely does.

    why, exactly, joe klein thinks he has an insight into the republican voters of new hampshire is beyond me: since i’m not a pundit, i get to tell the truth, which is i’m just watching here like everyone else, waiting to see what happens tomorrow.

    PS. the idea that the saturday night attacks didn’t “work” because no one repeated them on sunday is about as dumb as klein’s normal level. no one could possibly know on sunday what had and hadn’t “worked” on saturday night….

  • Pundification and polling should be banned in general, but definitely three days before the election happens. These guys are all hired guns or believe their own press releases, which makes them utterly useless. The DesMoine Register ran the only credible polling operation in Iowa, and they nailed it. All the rest was bull twinkies.

  • CB wrote:

    Again, that’s one interpretation, but I have another: maybe the candidates backed off on Sunday night because they’d already beaten Romney down on Saturday night, and didn’t want to be seen as piling on against the guy who’d already been beaten up pretty badly the night before.

    Sure. What if Clinton had taken advantage of the “What’s wrong with Obama?” question to really sail into him? Of course, she’s not stupid or caddish enough to do that, but an adverse question-writer might be stupid or caddish enough to think that other people would be like that if only given enough opportunity.

    Voters who watched might even feel like they’d like more fire, but if they’d actually gotten it, maybe a lot of them would have been turned off.

  • I guess there can be a fine line between real fire and being caddish, it can be hard to distinguish between the two, and what you think is ‘just enough’ on one side may look to others as, or be easily characterized as, falling on the opposite side of the line than the instance merits.

    So sometimes it becomes a matter of ‘better safe than sorry.’

    You can’t always have just what you (think you) want from a candidate.

  • Comments are closed.