The Devil Is Inside The LA Times/Bloomberg Poll

I don't have much faith in this new poll Allah links - claiming Huckabee is over Romney 37 - 23. It's actually 36 - 28 among likely caucus goers and is still out of sync with some other polls at RCP. But it's the internals that are most troubling, especially if the poll is accurate.

First, a red flag for Rudy - 18% claim they couldn't vote for him in a national election. That's much higher than for any other candidate.

And the real trouble is with Huckabee. Scroll down to Q37 and read on down. Huckabee scores well as the candidate on social issues, abortion and changing Washington, but does worse than Romney and others on virtually every substantive issue from terrorism to taxes. That suggests you have a lot of Evangelical, or conservative Christian voters supporting Huckabee even though they find him weak on the majority of issues that matter most across the board.

If those numbers are accurate, Huckabee is dead once he gets out of Iowa, or maybe South Carolina - that's the extent of his clout. And said voters are marginalizing themselves by suggesting they see Huckabee's faith as the only real criteria for voting for him. Of course, the won't vote for numbers also debunks the Evangelicals won't vote for Mitt myth.

Still, if the, presumably, religious conservatives show themselves so willing to go for a guy they know doesn't measure up across the board on other issues simply because he's a Christian, they make themselves look as though they have no business picking a POTUS at all.

Comments

[seekeronos]

Methinks 2008 will be the Year of the RINO, unless Fred picks up some serious traction in Iowa and SC, despite what the almighty polls and the MSM would have us believe.

"--- Still, if the, presumably, religious conservatives show themselves so willing to go for a guy they know doesn't measure up across the board on other issues simply because he's a Christian, they make themselves look as though they have no business picking a POTUS at all. ---"

This is a very troubling thing, because if Christians/Evangelicals really are supporting Huckananny "just cuz" he is a minister (but a raving socialist), and Mitt (or some other RINO) still wins... the Christian/Evangelical vote will be forever discredited and not even considered worth the time to consult with in future POTUS election cycles (while they might carry some weight in regional/congressional matches).

I hope that people - and the Christians really do wake up.

[el gordo]

Huckabee changing Washington? Ok, once more unto the breach: "changing Washington" does not happen just because somebody has good Christian values. To impose change on a vast bureaucracy takes experience, passion, willpower, a certain ruthlessness and bullheadedness. Note that I said "impose" not "inspire". How exactly will Huckabee reign in the State Department and the CIA when George W. Bush couldn´t do it?

Sorry, but the only candidate who can claim to have turned around a government is Rudy Giuliani. Not even Romney, though he is at least well-prepared. Certainly not Huckabee.

The only candidates who have proved steadfast IN OFFICE and risked hurt in the face of rabid opposition have been Giuliani and McCain, but in Giuliani´s case the headwind came from liberals, in McCain´s case it came just as often from conservatives (and he is just a senator). Only Rudy has consistently governed to the right of his constituency. You can shout RINO all you want, but that is a fact. That tells me what kind of president he will be, not his record on push button issues (which btw isn´t nearly as bad as some claim). Here is a candidate who under fire got the big decisions right - no need to hope for the best. Rudy/Fred, I´d like that.

Read up on what Giuliani was up against and ask yourself how the other candidates might have fared. There is a lot people don´t know or have forgotten. You can start with Deroy Murdock´s series of articles defending Rudy at NRO. Or maybe here:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/9_3_a1.html

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_1_rudy_giuliani.html

[Mr. Obvious]

el gordo makes a solid point.

We all know the buyer's remorse feeling of electing someone who talks conservative and turns RINO in office. Other than Thompson and Hunter, the GOP field is packed with guys likely to be just that way.

Guliani does have a history of being to the right of his constituency, and he has shown that he can take heat from liberals without caving. Yes, on some fronts he agrees with them, but they are well documented. If he could convince us that he would take a federalist approach to those issues that he disagrees with the GOP base on, abortion, gun rights etc., then he has a good chance.

OTW I do think he would make the best possible director of Homeland Security. Heck, even that department name reminds me of my dissapointment in RINO Bush. Very Orwellian name.

[Sharon]

I read that there were only 174 likely voters in that sample. 174!!!!!!! How can that be an indication of anything?!!!

[jj]

"...they make themselves look as if they have no business picking a POTUS at all."

I expect to see statements like this on dKos and Atrios, and maybe on DU, but seeing this crap on right-side blogs make me sick. Who voted you God, Dan?

There are numerous single-issue voters, notable ones being anti-abortion and pro gun rights. Why aren't you bashing them, or why haven't you in the past?

You are consistently anti-conservative Christian, I'll give you that, and are doing nothing but helping the Democrats with this silly mission you're on, Dan. You ought to wake up. You can be against someone without demonizing them. You've crossed the line.

[JustADude]

Look at the days the poll was done.

That was enough to make it worthless on it's own.

This poll will likely be off from all trends due to the timing and the sample size makes it worthless.

Waste of time.

See how much it changes with a new poll at a later date.

[cindi]

demonize? LMAO!

[el gordo]

jj, please do not feel insulted but here are my thoughts: single-issue voters - whatever the issue - are being irresponsible. The future president is not going to face any single issue. We are charged with selecting the best man to be president as best we can and some are taking a shortcut. I suspect single-issue people are too easy on themselves and more concerned with feeling good about themselves.

Instead we must face the dilemmas that come a great number of viable candidates: the guy with the best overall policy positions may not be the most effective as president. The candidate with the best chance of winning may not be a good president. But at least our side has many good people - in fact I don´t know what the grumbling is about. It´s a stellar roster of candidates. If we could just get the right mix of Fred, Rudy, Mitt, Duncan, John and yes, Mike - but we can´t.