Mitt Trounces Jeb in Reader Poll
Reader Poll Results: Mittmentum or Jebabhorrence?
I didn’t see this coming.
When Aleister posted the Reader Poll matching Mitt versus Jeb, I thought there would be a relatively close split.
We deliberately forced the readership into that choice to get a sense of how people who normally would not vote for either in a primary would split between the two top likely “establishment” candidates.
Not only did we get more voting and commenting than usual, the result wasn’t even close, with Mitt prevailing 91% to 9%.
So it’s not a “scientific” poll of a cross-section of the Republican Party. So what? It’s a temperature gauge of how an important slice of the base would vote.
What it revealed, from the vote count and the comments, is that there is a huge amount of hostility towards Jeb.
While Mitt may not have been the first choice in a more complete field, there’s a more forgiving attitude towards him.
Plus, Mitt turned out to be a better campaigner than expected, and having run the gauntlet, his negatives already are out there.
This should not be seen as an embrace of Mitt as much as a rejection of another Bush (any Bush) presidential run.
Am I right in how I’m reading the results?
Mittmentum or Jebabhorrence?
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
You should have allowed for a “none of the above” vote, because I don’t want either of them.
Sigh. But that wasn’t the *point* right? Read the third para again.
Well, “none of the above” will get my vote. And THAT is the point.
“It isn’t just because we lost and just because our base didn’t show up,” conservative donor Randy Kendrick of Arizona said in an interview with The Daily Caller, discussing Romney’s defeat in the 2012 presidential election. “Those are pretty big reasons. But it’s because he couldn’t fight against the primary thing that motivates me and motivates millions of other Republicans: ObamaCare.”
I think if Mitt turned out to be a better campaigner than people thought, then our expectations are a tad low!
I did vote for Mitt and I think he would have turned out to be a better president than Obama of course, but next time around I’d prefer someone more open to libertarian viewpoints. While I never thought Mitt would roll back government to levels some of us may want, I had some confidence that at least he would be friendly to business and robust economic growth.
If I had to vote today and Jeb was the nominee, I would vote Libertarian Party and join the club of many who a few republicans out there think are just wasting their vote and letting Democrats or the progressives win. If Jeb won, that to me is letting the progressives win. Maybe I would vote for Mitt again if whoever was the Democrat candidate was simply odious (e.g. Warren).
But I don’t trust Mitt to run a campaign anymore, 2012 was his year…Obama practically was served to him on a silver platter and he couldn’t follow through (and of course, that whole “Orca” disaster).
I have heard some point to Reagan as a comparison to Mitt, because Reagan lost a few times before becoming president…while I may not have been alive to that see for myself, I ask, did Reagan ever act timid during those campaigns, or not act himself? I’ve seen Reagan speeches in the 60’s and it’s the same Reagan that was president in the 80’s. Mitt, while I think is a nice guy personally, is still too much of a slick politician that only believes in smaller government when it’s the other guy running the show.
And while Mitt’s negatives are out there already, his reputation already got trashed enough. Are we going to have yet another campaign that lets the Democrats whip out the tired disconnected white rich guy shtick? The only thing I think he can run effectively on is a “I told you so” campaign, but that relies on people’s memories, which are notoriously short.
There was only one George Washington, and there was only one Ronald Reagan. We will never see the likes of them again.
Try holding the other imagined candidates against that standard. Only a complete idiot would put any of them up as a potential second Reagan.
“It’s a temperature gauge of how an important slice of the base would vote.”
How about another poll with the following two choices: “Mitt” and “Stay Home?”
How about a poll with the choices “stay home” and “Hillary”?
how about admitting that Mittens, who refused to attack Obola, who’s allegedly male, is NEVER going to attack a gurl, even one’s as masculine as Shrillery and Fauxcahontas?
he has no real interest in the position, he’s just a stalking horse for the GOPe, who runs just hard enough to get nominated, but who doesn’t really want to win the prize.
the Beltway RINOs would rather remain a party out of power, maintaining their personal access to money, power and moar money, than to allow the conservative arm of the party to ave a voice in things, since that might disrupt their cozy relationships with the Demonrats. (see Boner’s “date night” relationship with Obola, for instance)
People here clearly do not like Jeb, but many/most of the votes for Romney were qualified, essentially the lesser of the two proffered evils. I didn’t see many fully enthusiastic votes for either.
Understand the reason for the forced dichotomy of choices, but it makes the results impossible to read. It’s like a poll asking to vote between poison or hanging as cause of death. If poison beats hanging 90/10, it’s not a ringing endorsement of poison.
Run another poll, but add ‘none of the above’ as a choice, and I’ll think you’ll a 5/5/90 split.
Is the poison slow or fast acting?
5 minutes of agony.
that’s better than 4 years of Mittens or Jeb reaching across the aisle to the Demonrats, appointing judges that are pre-approved by them, and singing all sorts of stupid legislation they conned Boner & Mitch the Bit*ch into passing.
But how would “None of the above” govern? The Presidency is not left open.
If it means people opt out of the process, that’s their privilege. But those who are opting out should really STFU, shouldn’t they? Isn’t that what “opting out” means? How can we miss them when they just won’t go away?
No one likes choosing the lesser of two evils. I take some comfort in the knowledge that the opponent of the lesser of two evils is the greater evil. Makes the choice clear again.
Since 1932, the GOP has not won a presidential election in which a Nixon or a Bush was not on the ticket, going 0-7. In races with a Bush or Nixon, they are 9-2, the losses being Nixon in ’60 and Bush in ’92. It is time to stop dynasties.
There was a joke in the late 50″s: “Ever see an Eisenhower doll? You wind it up and it does nothing for 8 years.”
You write as though doing nothing is a bad thing when it comes to government. I would love to see 8 years of boring, nothing happening government again. Seems to me those do-nothing 50’s were pretty good for the economy as well.
I loved Eisenhower. Just told a joke going around is all.
Eisenhower rounded up illegal aliens and transported them to south Mexico.
I didn’t see any in the 60s in Pennsylvania, I can say that….
Lou Barletta is in Congress because he saw them in the 2000s.
I think the point I was trying to make is his name was not Nixon or Bush.
“We deliberately forced the readership into that choice…”
Sorry, but that didn’t happen. It’s impossible to tell how many sat this one out, but I’d argue for a substantial number. I think the poll does demonstrate what’s to come in 2016, though. Third party candidates and stay-at-home voters are a huge obstacle for the GOP to overcome. Given their track record in the past few years, I’d say the WH is the Democrats’ to lose in 2016.
If you’re willing to see Democrats win rather than your personal favorite, why not just join their party instead? You think they are the better choice, right?
You don’t like the winner who fairly won the most votes, that’s your problem. Most of us learned the lesson as kids. You don’t always get what you want, no matter how bad you want it.
Not sure whom you’re addressing here. You must have hit the wrong “reply” button, because nothing you said applies to me or anything I wrote.
I’m pretty sick of being told I can vote for a Tame Republican milquetoast or Hillary/Warren. How about the establishment types accept that if they keep running losers (quite literally in the case of Mitt, McCain and Dole) then they must accept responsibility for the outcome.
You are on notice. I won’t vote for another establishment type. Ever. Plan your campaigning accordingly.
I chose not to vote in that poll, IOW I followed the same procedure I would if it actually were jeb or mitt on the ticket.
I voted for Mitt, and if the 3-4 million Reps that stayed home had voted for Mitt, Barry O would be playing a lot more golf. Myself, I’ll vote for Scott Walker this time around.
Times establishment GOP-ers have whined about how if more GOP-ers had voted for Romney, Romney would have won: 329,117,304 ..5 ..6 ..7
Times per day establishment GOP-ers simply ask one of their fellow party members why they stayed home: 0
“I keep asking her out and she keeps saying no! She must be a bitch! She’s the problem, not me!”
Bush presidencies are like Godfather movies. Should have stopped after two.
How about “None ” vs. Romney? I voted for Romney, but felt abused by the Establishment…. tough taking hits/friendly fire all the while trying to save the country with my vote from this mess we have now. The Far Left votes because it knows they will get a payoff from it…. union contracts, welfare, under the table funding for their organizations/protest groups. The “Far Right” is hardly “far” from the concepts that formed this country and don’t want a government payoff. By slowly edging center-left the Establishment GOP types think they can win. How can they win with those that can get more goodies going along with the Far Left?
I generally see Romney as to the right of Jeb. Romney had a legislature that was over 80% Democrats. The number of Romney vetoes that were overridden by that legislature number literally in the several hundreds. Romney vetoed six entire sections of what eventually became Obamacare. Jeb had a friendlier legislature.
Practically the entire vision Romney laid out in reference to what another Obama term would look like has come to pass. He was right.
As mentioned, Romney’s negatives are already out there. Mitt Romney is the best qualified President both in domestic economic policy and foreign policy we have seen from either party in decades.
” Mitt Romney is the best qualified President both in domestic economic policy and foreign policy we have seen from either party in decades.”
except, of course, for Palin, Perry, Walker, etc…
I’d be interested to see a poll with the options “Romney” “Clinton” and “Stay Home.”
I voted for Romney in the previous poll, but in an actual election, I couldn’t, in good conscience, vote for him. I didn’t vote in the 2012 presidential election for that reason.
i refused to vote in the survey, just as i won’t vote for either of these RINO swine in 2016.
and please, spare me the “it’s your fault” when they lose to whichever criminal the Demonrats nominate…
first off, i live in #Failifornia, so my vote won’t matter. secondly, anyone who thinks the FSA is going to vote for an almost liberal RINO who *might* cut off a tiny fraction of their government largess when they can have the real deal thing who will increase them is taking better drugs than anything i’ve ever had access to.
i always go to the polls, and i never leave a seat/proposition unvoted, but i’ll do what i did for governor here last year, and vote for both candidates, thereby nullifying my vote.
that way, no helpful person down at the registrar’s office can fix my “mistake” for me…
You tried to force a choice. In point of fact, out of 165 comments [and there were a lot of repeat commenters] by my quick count 77 told you to take your forced choice and shove it and both JEB! and MITT! Better than 1/3 of the comments. Those who read and comment here are by definition more politically aware and active than the general run of voters. We are the ones who go out and do the work, are precinct committee chairs, and run campaigns on the Republican side. Even with an attempted forced choice with death not supposedly being an option, that was the result.
In my county, the normal voter turnout usually runs about 40%. In 2012, the Institutional Republicans ran the GOTV. We of the TEA Party helped [and we held our nose and voted for Romney], but it was their show. The 2012 turnout was 30%, and in our normally Republican county Romney barely won.
In 2014, the TEA Party started GOTV a year before the election. We worked our butts off. The Republicans sat on their butts, and did NO GOTV despite promises to help us. They did not want to be contaminated by contact. The 2014 voter turnout in our county was 68% and every Democrat candidate and ballot issue in our county was crushed.
We were repaid with the Cromnibus, which gave Obama everything he wanted for a year; accepted, validated, and funded the Amnesty by Executive Decree, and made it impossible for Republicans to effectively fight Obama for anything even after they assumed the majority position. Boehner and McConnell were more effective partisans for Obama than Reid and Pelosi.
After that, the activist portion of the Republican party and the TEA Party have no reason to come out and bust their butts for a Republican candidate, since literally the Institutional Republicans are better supporters of Obama than the Democrats. Now you throw in the Institutionals forcing candidates who are in their stated views and actions no different from Democrats.
The Republicans do not want to defeat Democrats. They will not defeat Democrats, both as an act of volition and they will not be able to because they will not have the support of the conservative base. They are nothing but Whigs, and the same fate awaits them.
what he said…
the GOPe needs to die. either we root out the corruption, or we stand back and let it fall, but doing more of the same is not a valid option.
“corruption”?
“Cromnibus” was of course already specified in the Ryan-Murray Budget Act of 2013, except we reneged and withheld full funding for HHS over the immigration orders. It is the first budget year that spends less than the previous year in real terms since the post-WWII reductions.
The only alternative was a shutdown, which I presume is your policy. All you had to do was explain how it made sense, other than satisfying you emotionally. Do you imagine Reid and Obama would have given in eventually? Even though a plurality of Republicans and 60% of independents opposed a shutdown?
That’s no policy. That’s no strategy. It’s a tantrum, nothing more.
You’re reading it right, Professor. If we only have a choice between Romney v Jeb, I’ll go for Romney. Jeb comes across as a guy with a sense of entitlement, and he has already demonstrated Establishment GOP behavior on several fronts, including lack of principles.
A Romney candidacy might be a long-shot, but Jeb being the nominee will practically guarantee the base staying home. Period. IMO.
Plus when the MSM,and the NYT tells us how great Jeb is, it’s time to pee on the fire and call in the dogs as far as Jeb is concerned.
Neither. Cruzalicious.
Jebabhorrence
I respect Mitt Romney; he can run a company, he can turn around a loser like the Olympics, he can speak well when he is tasked with speaking for me on the World Stage, and some of what I support is part of his philosophy.
Jeb Bush… he just seems like a guy who thinks it’s “His Turn,” an attitude that I DON’T respect. Sure he’ll support the ideals of his financial backers… but does he have any of his own? I mean, any that he hasn’t changed his mind about because his money men have insisted?
Come down to it, I’d most enthusiastically support Gov. Walker… I’d accept Mr. Romney as my candidate, and I’d weep for my Party if we nominate Jeb Bush. So yeah… Jebabhorrence here.
If both Bush and Romney are unacceptable to the base of the party, why worry about them? They can’t possibly win, can they?
The fact is both are not only acceptable to but popular with the Republican base. That’s why they are considered contenders at the mention of their names. That’s why they tend to be near the top of preferred candidates in polls, even ridiculously early in the process – pre-process, really.
– –
The truth is we are a conservative party, but for the most part a serious-minded party. Those who put more stock in high-blown rhetoric and impossible demands aren’t in our mainstream and certainly aren’t our “base.” A central part of being a “true conservative” is using common sense over emotion.
If the self-appointed “true conservative” commenters on conservative blogs believe they are the base, why would their hero Cruz consistently draw barely enough support – averaging 5% – to beat the margin of error in the polls, while Bush and Romney are out in front?
Actually, what we say here really does not matter. Y’all are going to do what y’all are going to do. That may well involve the nomination of either JEB! or MITT! or maybe them together as a ticket.
Those of us who consider ourselves conservatives will do what we are going to do. I rather suspect that working for, supporting, or voting for JEB!, MITT!, or any other candidate that we do not see as having enough overlap with what we believe on critical issues is not going to be included on our to-do lists.
I am sure that if, by some miracle, Ted Cruz was nominated over the objections of the Republican party Nomenklatura, the Republican party machinery would either work for/with the Democrat [remember Mississippi?], put up and fund a third party candidate to deliberately split the vote [that’s how we got a Democrat governor here after we nominated a TEA Party candidate], or just go dormant. We really don’t have that much in common with you nor you with us anymore.
The Republican party is sure that somehow it owns our votes, money, and time even though it works against us and with the Democrats. And it goes the other way too. Conservatives have the mistaken impression that the Republicans owe us a certain amount of give and take after we give the votes, money, and time. And they do not, because they do not view “us” as part of “them”.
Go ahead and nominate an “electable”, “moderate” who agrees with the Democrats on most issues. Or rather another. It hasn’t worked out all that well for you the last couple of elections, but if something fails repeatedly it just means you have to try again harder with more insults for those who do not agree with you, right?
Jebabhorrence.
I don’t know much about him, but what I do know, I don’t like. I don’t think W or HW were bad, but Jeb has been pretty far left.
Too much compromising in areas that don’t deserve compromise. The GOP doesn’t represent me any more.
In an interview on C-Span (Q&A) Katie Pavlich of PJ Media said that If Mitt Romney gets the Republican nomination Hillary Clinton will be the next president.