Medved Has It Wrong On Romney

I was going to post on this ridiculous topic of national polls as it was, then I saw this from Michael Medved. I don't normally read him, but given his reach I'd expect a little more intelligent and responsible punditry. Perhaps it's just Romney or some axe Medved has to grind that resulted in such an unthoughtful posting.

This weekend, CNN released results of general election trial heats, pitting each of the four leading Republican candidates for President against both of the leading Democrats.

The unmistakable message from this national exercise (surveying 840 voters on January 9 and 10th) is that Mitt Romney unequivocally qualifies as the weakest candidate the G.O.P. could field.

The fact is, these national polls have no real meaning at all. Two weeks ago McCain, Obama or whomever was dirt, this week they might be the cat's meow. Attempting to take a measurement of a head-to-head presidential election eight months before it even begins is simply the media looking for a project for its pollsters, one that generates a little buzz. Most every intelligent political pundit knows this as a matter of course. Heck, sometimes candidates shift or alter their presentation and positions from subtly to seemingly entirely as they move from primary to general election mode, assuming they win the former. They often include people who are barely paying attention and just giving their impression from the latest newscast they saw or heard.

If Romney wins one, or two states - Michigan and Nevada, for instance, he'll be up and someone else will be down, including against any prospective competitor. I guess I shouldn't fault Medved for tuning into what amounts to the entertainment portion of political coverage, I believe he has an entertainment background, after all. But there's also no harm in pointing out that it's utter foolishness to do so, particularly when someone with a presumably large number of readers tries to pass it off as insight, or wisdom.

What it is, is bunk.

Whoever wins the primaries on both sides typically introduces his or her self to the public in this context beginning after the conventions. Only then do such polls begin to matter. Unless of course you have some hidden agenda, or are simply trying to score some points in a game we can all probably do without.

Comments

[Nessus]

Miquel Medved is a joke.....He admitted a few months ago, that he was in fact, an unofficial mouthpiece for the administration.

Medved's position on the border and interior immigration enforcement is pathetic. He's apes the Jorge Bush/Carlos Rove "No Illegal Amigo Left Behind" policy.

[Erik]

Nessus has it right. One of the very top concerns of Medved is illegal immigration - he'll oppose anyone who's against it. Any candidate who expresses a willingness to enforce immigration law. You should hear him talk about Tancredo. Medved is a strange guy. Either that, or he's in someone's pocket and he's merely a liar.

[chris]

Better headline:

"2nd Rate Movie Reviewer Dislikes Cult Member"

That'll sell newspapers.

[Mark]

Eric is right, he is a strange guy. He can be very entertaining and enlightening, but about 50% of the time you want to yell at the radio, because he is such a loon. When he was denouncing Tancredo, I don't remember him ever quoting Tom, just namecalling him. He has interesting broadcasts about "homeless" people, but has both read out McCain, apologized to him, and endorsed him. He and Hugh Hewitt are insulting each other this week, because Hugh is backing Mitt.

[K T Cat]

How has this poll varied with time? If it's really nonsense, then it would have been going up and down as a function of the most recent primary. I don't think that's the case, but I could be wrong. If I recall, every time I've seen these head-to-head polls, Romney gets crushed. That can't be good.

I do recall a Rasmussen poll asking, for each candidate, if you would or would not vote for them no matter what. Romney and Hillary tied with 47% of the people saying the would not vote for them, no matter what. Unfortunately, only 18% said they would vote for Romney no matter what while something like 38% said that about Hillary. Romney had the worst differential of any of the candidates by far.

While these polls may be misleading or premature, this certainly isn't a position of strength. I think that needs to admitted by Romney supporters.

Well, except for Hugh Hewitt. We don't expect any rationality out of him any more. He can believe whatever he wants.