Rasmussen's new survey of 700 likely Republican caucus participants was
conducted entirely after last Saturday night's South Carolina GOP debate on
foreign policy. It finds Gingrich leading the field with 32% and Romney in
second with 19%. Cain follows with 13% (down from 28% last month), then Paul at
10%.New Hampshire -Romney clings to a small two point lead in the new
survey, coming in at the top with 29 percent of the Republican electorate.
Gingrich is second with 27 percent, making it a statistical tie for the lead,It is easy to see through what the Murdoch-Forbes-Koch Brother coalition
is trying to do via the tea party and extreme right. They are trying to force
Mitt Romney to their camp. They know that Gingrich, Perry, Cain nor Bachmann
have no chance of defeating Obama. If Romney will hold steady and not cave in he
could be the next President.
Romney is the only adult in the field. I guess I agree with a lot of Ron Paul's
political views, but he comes off as a crank. It's ok to have a Congress full
of cranky old libertarians (in fact it would be great) but not as
Commander-in-Chief and leader of the free world.All anyone has on
Romney is "flip flop." If that's the strongest argument against
Romney, then I'd say he's doing just fine. Well what person doesn't changes
some views. People forget that Reagan was a Democrat before he was Republican.
@DougBMy impression of Paul as a liberal myself is that a lot of
conservatives like some of the things he says for domestic policy, but don't
like his foreign policy at all. A lot of liberals like some of the things he
says on foreign policy and on the very libertarian issues that just aren't held
by mainstream conservatives, but strongly dislike a lot of his domestic policy.
I absolutely loved some of Paul's answers in debates, especially that one where
he was listing the reasons why Al Qaida attacked us on 9-11 (it's like he's the
only one who understands what's going on except maybe Huntsman) and then he was
booed during that answer because reality didn't gel with the narrative many on
the right want to believe (that whole "they hate us because of our
freedoms" nonsense). Then he talks about eliminating departments and other
things that completely turn me off of his candidacy. I basically love half his
platform and loathe the other half, and I think that's a very common sentiment
since he doesn't really fit into the standard left-right spectrum.
Once Republicans finally accept that Romney has been the only candidate to
occasionaly beat Obama in the national head-to-head polls, the answer should be
clear. No other Republican has EVER beat Obama in the polls, only Mitt since he
can bring the independent vote.Voting for anyone other than Romney
ensures a 2nd term for Obama and a final term for the United States of America
as we know it!
Pagan, Yes or no? And why?Hawkeye79's question is a good
one.Slamming Romney is as easy as pasting a headline...back it up
I'm looking forward to someone in the White House who can cut our bloated
government and excessive bureaucracy and restore some fiscal sanity in
Washington. Romney's Bain Capital experience is a plus!
Hi Pagan,It stinks when you get caught making nonsensical arguments,
huh? I find it amusing that you don't think someone is "addressing your
criticism" of a candidate when they point out the logical and factual
shortcomings of said criticisms. How is this not addressing your criticism?Just as providing information is a contribution to a conversation,
verifying the credibility of that information is just as much of a contribution.
I doubt anyone would consider the following to be non-contributions to a
political dialogue:-Calling someone out when they provide
misinformation and allowing them a chance to clarify (see your continuous FALSE
claims about how the unemployment rate and national debt were doubled from
2001-2006).-Pointing out when someone makes arguments that
contradict the very evidence they present (see your comments on this article)
and allowing them a chance to clarify.You claim to be guided by
principle and not blind partisanship. I look forward to you demonstrating this
in the future. Imagine what one can learn if they focus on finding substantive
truth instead of simply scanning headlines for information that confirms their
current point of view!
I don't know about the rest of you but I'm sick to death of these daily rants
about who's leading, who said what and the rest of the garbage were getting
daily from the media. And to think we have more than another year of this is
unbearable. Several daily polls from everywhere and quite frankly they mean
"NOTHING"! Lay off media enough is enough. Let us know at a max once a
week or better yet once a month for the next few months.All but two of these
candidates are outright liars, theives and are unqualified!
Here is a little context to the position that Romney's Bain Capital job cutting
activities means he doesn't know how to create jobs. I work in the finance
department for a very large corporation. When our division hit a downturn, I had
to work with management to develop layoff plans for a large portion of our
employees. It was very difficult to do as I was constantly thinking of the
impact this would have on those families. But, when you take a step back, what
these actions actually do is preserve the remaining jobs. It's either let some
of the people go, or let things continue to run into the ground until everyone
loses their jobs.What Bain did was acquire businesses that were
running into the ground. Bain (Romney) restructured things, including the
staffing so the business had a chance to continue on to make a profit to be
sure, but created a sustainable business that could continue to employ people.
I'm sure those who were let go weren't happy, but the majority of the employee
base that was retained were very grateful for Bain's intervention. Othewise,
they would all have ended up out in the cold.
'A simple yes or no will suffice, but you are certainly welcome to explain why
you feel a certain way. Surely you are guided by some principle and not simply
partisan politics, right?' - Hawkeye79 | 2:07 p.m. Nov. 17, 2011 Of
course. Just as I'm sure you are. However, your entire
post has been questions. And, by this logic, if I answered EVERY question you
asked me, I would not be adding to the conversation. Your
hypotheical 'why' would be my ONLY response. And there are things I would like
to do. RATHER, than address my criticism of, Romney, you would
rather ask me questions. As if, I am the subject of the story. Instead of supporting why you would support/not support Romney and a
war with Iran based on ANOTHER claim of 'Nuclear Weapons'... you
are, instead wasting your time and my own, with questions about myself. You are free to ask them. I am under zero obligation to answer
them. Good day to you.
atl134, I guess we'll see if your prediction is true. My experience is that
Paul appeals to voters that are the most informed. Paul has at least had an
opportunity in Iowa to explain his views -- nationwide that isn't yet the case.
Out here in the Mountain West where I live that's certainly not the case. My
parents in Arizona didn't even know that he'd delivered babies for 30 years.
They knew nothing about him other than mostly incorrect aspersions they'd gained
from media pundits who've written him off.I hope and pray that Paul
does as well as he is polling now in Iowa and New Hampshire. It would certainly
improve the quality of our debates and discourse. The recent "Foreign
Policy Debate" was the silliest thing I'd ever seen. 89 seconds in an hour
to the man who has spent a lifetime studying foreign policy; 7 other mostly
indistinguishable viewpoints that represent the already un-workable status
quo.Ron Paul asks the right questions and has many of the right
answers. I think the category of voter he appeals to could grow exponentially
if people had a chance to actually hear those answers.
I think it's funny how this article posits New Hampshire as being full of
contrarians who will refuse to vote for a candidate that wins in Iowa just to
Paul isn't winning Iowa, or New Hampshire. Sorry but his appeal is to a very
specific category of voter. Cain is coming apart at the seams so I
really like Gingrich's odds in Iowa now. Perry is a wild card, I don't think
he'll win but he has a large warchest and he's primarily been launching ads
against Romney so it'll be interesting to see if he goes after Gingrich too. @J-TX"The Iowa winner rarely wins the nomination. Why
should we care? I would think the Romney camp would want to show respectably,
but avoid the #1 spot in Iowa like the plague. Better to win NH, as that winner
has often been the party nominee. "I agree that Iowa is like
50/50 in predicting winners but the biggest issue for Romney is if someone is
able to ride that thin line between establishment and tea-party and Gingrich
might pull that off. New Hampshire is good at predicting winners, but so is
South Carolina and if Romney/Gingrich are able to clear the field I see
Bachmann, Cain, and Perry endorsing Gingrich, so South Carolina will be the key.
If Romney takes that, it's over.
Hi Pagan,So, I'm still awaiting your answer to the simple
question:Do you support corporate bailouts, or not?A
simple yes or no will suffice, but you are certainly welcome to explain why you
feel a certain way. Surely you are guided by some principle and not simply
partisan politics, right?Additionally, could you explain why you
think that opposing a taxpayer bailout of a corporation equates to "putting
Corporate Profit before the well-being of the American people." I'm
failing to see how allowing a company to face the consequences of its financial
decisions is in any way advancing the cause of "Corporate Profit."Oh, and you might want to double check the meaning of the word
"Nirvana." You aren't using it correctly.
Deal breakers with Romney:Pro-torture and enhanced interrogation
techniques. I find it very surprising that so many LDS members teach loving your
enemy and doing good to them that hate you, yet turn a blind eye to the
horrendous things we do to people. Torture was never a Christian value, nor was
it ever anything the Constitution allows or founding fathers condoned.If you are pro-torture, I must ask you why.Ron Paul is against
torture, and believes it is against our better nature to do so. How can we
spread "democracy" when we don't practice moral principles ourselves?
Hawkeye79 | 11:52 a.m. Nov. 17, 2011, 1) You claim that Romney is
'disagreeing' with Washington politicians. I guess he is. Because he
is putting Corporate Profit before the well-being of the American people. As supported by Phyllis Detro, 68, who lost her job. 2)
Your first mistake was lumping me with 'most liberals'. You cannot
claim you want my opinion, and then first, generalize my response, before I even
make it. The bailouts are like Nervana from the Gods to
Democrats. Because, on the ONE hand: Conservatives are against
'goverment spending'... and on the OTHER the bail outs of Wall Street AND
the Auto-bail outs were signed into law by Republican President, George W.
Bush. *Bush signs $700 billion bailout bill AP Published by
Denver Post By Tom Raum 10/03/08 WASHINGTON President Bush
quickly signed into law a far-reaching $700 billion bill to bail out the
nation's tottering financial industry, calling it "essential to helping
America's economy" weather the storm. It's perfect! It 1)
Contradicts the claims of Republicans 'against' government spending because
under their leadership, the national debt, DOUBLED... & 2) Only
puts money in the hands of big business. :)
Hi Pagan,You bring up the "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt"
headline as evidence that Romney "epitomizes how [Washington] works."
I have two questions about this:1) How does disagreeing with what
Washington politicians did suggest that someone epitomizes how Washington works?
This appears contradictory.2) Do you support corporate bailouts or
not? My understanding is that most liberals oppose corporate bailouts, but you
appear to be dissatisfied with someone because they opposed them. A little
clarification here would help others to understand what principles you are
'I thought America was sick of how it works in Washington. Newt Gingrich
epitomizes how it works and the type of people that are making it work.' -
FDRfan | 9:32 a.m. Nov. 17, 2011 Not just Newt... *'Mitt
Romney raises $18.25 million, but Republicans worry it might not be enough' - By
Jamshid Ghazi Askar - DSNews - 07/07/11 *Firm dissolves after giving
pro-Romney PAC $1 million' - By Ken Thomas - AP - Published by DSNews -
08/04/11 *Mitt Romneys wealth raises new questions By Jamshid
Ghazi Askar DSNews 08/15/11 'Romney owns between $250,000 and $500,000
in horses.' then... *'Mitt Romney as job creator clashes
with Bain record of job cuts' - By Lisa Lerer, Bloomberg News - Published by
DSNews - 07/20/11 'Employees who lost jobs at Bain-controlled companies
more than a decade ago say they still hold Romney responsible."I
would not vote for him for anything," said Phyllis Detro, 68, who lost her
job...' *'Let Detroit Go Bankrupt' - By Mitt Romney - NY Times -
11/18/08 finally... *Mitt Romney: Corporations are
people...my friend - By Phillip Elliot - AP - Published by DSNews 08/11/11
So Geraghty is saying that New Hampshire voters would cast their votes just to
spite Iowa? I can't believe that people would really be that ridiculous. Does he
have some exit poll interviews where people have said, "Ha! Voted fah the
othah guy! Take that Iowah!" Not likely.
The Iowa winner rarely wins the nomination. Why should we care? I would think
the Romney camp would want to show respectably, but avoid the #1 spot in Iowa
like the plague. Better to win NH, as that winner has often been the party
Nov. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Newt Gingrich defended payments of at least $1.6 million
he received from mortgage company Freddie Mac, saying he provided
"strategic advice over a long period of time" and that his work would
remind voters of his knowledge of how Washington works.I thought
America was sick of how it works in Washington. Newt Gingrich epitomizes how it
works and the type of people that are making it work. Yet he could win in Iowa.
Makes me wonder what they are doing with their corn. Some of my ancestors from
the Appalachian hills migrated there and maybe they took some of their recipes
Thank you David King for mentioning some context.I understand why
the Deseret News is so over-the-top with their "all-Romney,
all-the-time" coverage and even why they so often skip the rest of the
field and jump right to Huntsman so often, but the lack of context this creates
is becoming increasingly absurd and unhelpful for readers genuinely interested
in the candidates actual views, policies, and platforms.We're not
electing a 'Prom King' or European-style figurehead whose job it is to smile
handsomely, look Presidential in pictures, and shake hands. The person we're
going to elect has incredible power to affect our national economy, world
politics, and our daily lives. I think it's a travesty the way the Deseret News
has oversimplified the Republican Presidential race.I look to
newspapers for *more* context and details than the TV network news
"sound-bite" updates. We've been getting *less* in this newspaper
than the TV and radio sound-bites even.In my opinion, Deseret News
readers are not well served by a political news staff pretending they are
nothing more than "People magazine especially for Mormons". That's my
I hate to think that New Hampshire voters are really so shallow that they would
not vote for a candidate just because Iowa voters did vote for him. Really?
2% points separate him from Cain and how many separate him from Newt who is
leading in GOP polls
This article forgets to mention a candidate who could win in Iowa. A recent
Bloomberg poll has Dr. Paul polling in a statistical dead heat with Gingrich,
Romney, and Cain. Ron Paul has strong organization in Iowa, finished second in
the Ames Straw Poll, and the Caucus style favors very enthusiastic supporters,
which he has. 60% of likely Iowa Caucus goers said they could still change
their mind, but of those who say they will not change their mind, Ron Paul leads
with 32%It's also a little bit of a stretch to say a Romney win in
Iowa would lead to a Huntsman victory in New Hampshire, because it neglects the
fact that Huntsman is not second, or third in Iowa. He's fourth or fifth in
most polls. Who's second in New Hampshire? Ron Paul.If you would
just mention him in your articles, I wouldn't have to write all this, and the
added benefit is you wouldn't have to all act surprised when Ron Paul wins in
Iowa and takes second in New Hampshire.