Skip to comments.New poll finds Romney and Paul in neck-and-neck battle for Iowa (Gingrich 5th pace)
Posted on 12/30/2011 4:41:59 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Mitt Romney and Ron Paul are battling for the top spot in Iowa but the second tier of candidates is closing in, according to a NBC News-Marist poll released on Friday.
Romney leads the poll of likely Iowa caucus-goers at 23 percent, followed by Paul at 21 percent.
However, the second tier of candidates, led by Rick Santorum and Rick Perry, are suddenly within striking distance of the frontrunners.
Santorum came in third at 15 percent, followed by Perry at 14 percent.
Newt Gingrich has fallen to fifth place at 13 percent. The former House speaker led the same poll earlier this month at 28 percent, but has been battered by his rivals over his divorces and ties to Freddie Mac.
Michele Bachmann is at six percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Perry and Santorum may have a chance. We conservatives need to decide which one now.
When the Ralien (aka, Ron Paul, who has been the victim of at LEAST two Alien Abductions, in my book) has enough nutcases planted in the Iowa Caucus to get his goofiness to let him contend in the "race".
Nationwide, to get a REAL Candidate of the People's choice, ALL States should have their Primaries on the same date, period. Eliminate this B.S. of the State-Run-Media and Establishment spoon-feeding us the "choice" of their hand-picked minions. Let all Primaries be "Open Primaries", and let's get REAL quality Candidates out there and available to the Public.
... and COMPLETELY eliminate letting our enemies vote in our primaries and decide our candidate. THAT’S JUST INSANE.
I sympathize with your point of view, but this kind of primary would do nothing to change the problem. If non-Romney millionaire types dominate now, how will they dominate when smaller-money candidates have to run a fifty-state primary campaign all at once?
Hang in there, Rick.
(Perry, of course)
I sympathize with your point of view, but this kind of primary would do nothing to change the problem. If non-Romney non-millionaire types are struggling now, how will they fare when they have to run a fifty-state primary campaign all at once?
Sorry for the double-post, second one is the corrected one.
I laughed at the Ralien line. Lordy, he is a weirdo.
Gov. Perry (as a former Tx AG Commissioner, 10th Amendment advocate and a farmer) told the farmers NO subsidies for ethanol, or oil or gas, or wind. CUT regulations and let the market place decide If states want to invest, fine, but keep the feds out of it.
Newt Gingrich supports federal ethanol subsidies.
SO HERE ARE the grades given the candidates:
Iowa Farmer Today Decision time draws near - December 29, 2011:
....."The Iowa Corn Growers Association sent questionnaires to the Republicans involved in this years caucuses, then issued grades on how it judged those candidates as part of its Iowa Corn Caucus.
...........We call that our town-hall conference call, explains Mark Jackson, ISA president-elect. We want to give people the opportunity to hear the candidates talk about agricultural issues.
The first of those calls came in early December with former Georgia congressman Newt Gingrich. More than 3,000 people listened in.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry was the subject of another call.
The report cards issued by the corn growers spotlighted the differences between some of the candidates.
For example, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, earned a D from the group, and U.S. Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn., earned a D+ while Gingrich earned an A and Rick Santorum earned an A-.
President Barack Obama earned a B as did former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Perry earned a C-. Herman Cain, who has since dropped out of the race, earned a D.
Oh, by the way, ethanol subsidies are dead. Details here and here: the short version is that the Senate back in June kicked off opposition to continued ethanol subsidies via a bipartisan amendment: it didnt pass, but Congress has just let both the ethanol subsidy and a restrictive foreign tariff (on Brazilian sugar-cane ethanol) lapse. Given that the Iowa caucuses will be finished by the time Congress reconvenes and given that the House of Representatives is currently chock-heavy with people who spit at the very phrase ethanol subsidy getting back either is going to be a problem for the domestic ethanol industry. Mind you, there are still mandates for using ethanol in place, but note again the ending of the tariff; Im not a businessman, but effectively lowering the price of Brazilian ethanol by 54 cents/gallon while simultaneously effectively raising the price of domestic ethanol by 45 cents/gallon sounds to me like it would at least raise some intriguing alternatives.
Iowa’s moronic conservatives have tossed this to Romney and Paul out of some myopic quest to find the most boring but ideologically pure guy.
Its not the rest of our jobs to take the crap sandwich from them.
Rick Santorum talks of taking on Democratic consultants Paul Begala and James Carville in his first Senate race 17 years ago. (Santorum lost bid for 3rd Senate term by largest margin in PA GOP history)
Rick Perry took on Obama consultant David Axerod (winning against a popular Texas democrat, John Sharp, A&M classmate and friend) 22 years ago becoming the first Republican Lt. Gov. since Reconstruction (Rick Perry is in his 3rd term as Governor by popular demand).
Romney...the clown that has won a total of ONE ELECTION over the course of his life...by 5% over the weakest Dem candidate Assachusetts has ever seen.
Any vote for Newt is a vote fir mitt.
Finally, we have conservative alternative to the two rinos.
It is Santorum or Romney.
ROMNEY (64) lawyer Bain Capital Massachusetts Governor [2003-07] 4 years public office, plus additional 6+ years running; 1994 U.S. Senator [MA] bid lost; U.S. Presidential bids [2008, 2012]; author
SANTORUM (53) lawyer [Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC. D.C. and Pittsburgh offices since 07] Fox News Contributor - 16 years public office, U.S. House of Representatives, Pennsylvania [1991-95] - U. S. Senator [1995-07] lost bid for 3rd term by largest margin in PA GOP history]; author
BACHMANN (55) lawyer Minnesota State Senate [2003-07]; U.S. House of Representatives [MN] [2007- _____] 8 years public office ; political activist; foster parent; 2011 autobiography
GINGRICH (68) U.S. House of Representatives [GA] - 20 years [Speaker 1995-99] Resigned from U.S. House of Rep after win - Fox News Contributor adviser - speaker author
PAUL (76) - U.S. House of Representatives [TX] - 20 years + 6-8 odd years running - Libertarian presidential bid  GOP presidential bids [2008-2012] -- U.S. Air Force flight surgeon [1963-65/Natl G. 1965-68] OBGYN; author
PERRY (61) - Texas Governor [2000 - ______] 26 years public office: TX Lt. Gov [1999-00]; TX Agriculture Commissioner [1991-99]; TX House of Rep [1985-91] ; Cotton Farmer [8 years]; Captain, U.S. Air Force pilot [1972- 77]; author
That will guarantee the rich candidates to win since they have the resources to campaign in all 57 states.
Let all Primaries be "Open Primaries", and let's get REAL quality Candidates out there and available to the Public.
For this, primaries for all parties need to be the same day as well. It means a voter can vote candidates of both parties in the same day. Or just one?
Want a REAL indicator...wait for South Carolina. The media loves Iowa because they can propel false positives and makes it easier for them to pick our candidates for us.
Simple; eliminate "bundled" Campaign Contributions, and ALL campaign contributions are limited to $2300, per individual, per PAC, per Union, etc.
Take the millions that are collected via bundlers, lobbyists, etc., and limit EACH 501 to a contribution equal to what an individual is limited to. ONLY single $2300 maximum contributions can be made, period.
Then, we have a Primary Election Day, nationwide, where all States select their candidates. Likewise, voter Registration for Party Identification purposes, is for a 2-year mandatory period. No Party switching to vote in opposing Party Primaries.
This will reduce Elitist Candidates, and force expenditures to be focused on each State's interest on local media.
I have a feeling the gloves will come off in the next debate... look for fireworks from Newt.
I know I'd hate to face him in the next debate.
People are hungry for a fighter and sick of mealy mouthed contenders that are too frightened to take the fight to the enemy. If Newt fires both barrels in the next debate the people will jump from their seats and cheer!
Romney’s campaign headquarters (Fox News) is keeping its finger on the pulse of all the polls - informing us that Mitt is surging ahead of Newt - 27% to 23% with a MOE of 4%.
Oh yea of little faith - Mitt has it in the bag!!!!
(the BARF bag;)
You can have Newt.
I want the guy with the conservative record, Gov. Rick Perry.
The RNC called me the other day trolling for money. I told them they will NEVER get another cent from because of the way they are pushing for their boy Romney. I am so diisgusted with the political reality I could scream. Leave it to the RNC to successfully so far attempt to nominate someone even more pathetic than Mclame. I now believe it was a mistake for the Tea Party to work within the Republican Party. I truly can’t believe caucus voters are ideologically brain dead enough to give even one vote for Reomney. I think Obama should (finally) do us all a favor and get rid of Biden and make Romney his VP! It would save us a lot of trouble.
Your proposal would favor wealthy people i.e. Romney, Trump or Bloomberg would be the strongest candidates.
What you describe is anything BUT simple. Each candidate now has to run the equivalent of a general election campaign AND with the financial restrictions you've created. How are they going to do that? By going out and getting more smaller donations. OK, how are they going to do THAT?
Also, your plan reminds me of the South Park underwear gnomes--"Simply make everyone only give $2300 donations, and have the candidates run in fifty states, and presto, we have a final candidate who's of the people, not the establishment," or whatever.
What are you going to do to the political parties who will give their support to individual candidates (like, uh, Romney, whose support by the establishment, I am guessing, has you thinking about this, at least in part)? With candidates relying on smaller donations, and with no bundling and McCain-Feingold-like restrictions on freedom of people to organize and pool their own money (those evil PACS), all that's happened is that the same monied interests will donate from individuals who make up those interests--which is what they do NOW.
Your solution is no solution at all. It makes the problem worse because you're having these smaller candidates spreading themselves so thin across the country instead of focusing their limited resources on ONE primary at a time, where they can get the most bang for their limited buck.
How does your way make anything better, instead of giving us one candidate who emerges from this fifty-primary day a winner--and that winner will be the one who is best because....?
Welcome to Italy.
So we improve the choice of candidates by FORCING people to stay in a party?
I don't think you've thought this through.
Well, NOT ONE vote has been cast yet.
We need to back a strong conservative, and like Rush said before he left on his Christmas break, “They’re going to try to depress us (I include the GOP establishment in here as well as the MSM) but we need to keep looking at the goal and not get depressed and distracted.” [heavy paraphrasing]
Rush is right about this.
“Want a REAL indicator...wait for South Carolina. The media loves Iowa because they can propel false positives and makes it easier for them to pick our candidates for us.”
And also because Iowans are idiots.
Exactly. That sort of unconstitutional free speech limitations are complicated and something liberals (and that fat rino who was head of senate centrist coalition, fred something) have been trying to achieve fir years. If I have money, why shouldn’t I have the right to buy ad and say positive things about some issue or candidate?
Having some government official checking whether my ad is political, is big government policy and unconstitutional.
I vaguely renember Newt supported this.
That danged free speech, it always seems to trip up these folks who know just how to solve all of our woes, don’t it? :D
Working on it!
Thank you!!!! It’s so refreshing to hear someone say it!
How stupid are you if you need a campaign “ground game” to point you in the direction of the polls? How stupid are you if the WEATHER is what determines how your state will vote?
Not really; you can Register as an Independent, and then not vote in ANY Primary. The "Party-Switching" crap can only be eliminated by minimizing the Fraud opportunities. This would be a move in that direction.
This thing is over, and your group of geniuses made it happen. Congratulations! Get used to saying Romney by the way, you deserve it.
Sorry, still not buying it. The ‘party-switiching fraud’ sure seems like an urban myth to me, and I’ve seen no evidence to show it impacting an election other than folks saying it does. If you have data supporting this, please share it.
As for "Proof"; it's similar to the typical "there's no evidence" meaning it's been shredded, hidden, destroyed, etc. when any investigation of corruption is forth-coming. It's not rocket science.
IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.
IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.
Newt has a far more Conservative record than does Perry!
When Newt was setting up the House to handle the first Republican majority in 40 years, that he was given credit for making happen, your “genius” candidate was still a Democrat, in love with Al Gore!
Buying candidates through corporate and special interest bundling gets us the Socialist/RINO country we have.
You wanna keep it that way, I guess.
This is a poll conducted by two left wing operations
NBC and Marist !
These commies spread lies and spin for the DNC and nothing else.
The Keyesian Trap Moreover, [his] self-assuredness disabled in him the instincts for self-censorship that allow most people to navigate the world without getting into constant fistfights. [He] said whatever popped into his mind, and with dogged logic would follow over a cliff just about any idea that came to him.
These words describe almost perfectly the intellectual and rhetorical bearing and style of Newt Gingrich. Only they weren't written about Gingrich. They are Barack Obama's words -- from The Audacity of Hope -- about former Ambassador Alan Keyes, Obama's Republican opponent in the 2004 election for Illinois' open Senate seat.
I was struck by two things as I recently watched old footage of the 2004 Obama-Keyes debates. First, Keyes comes across as a better debater than Obama. He seems more polished, smarter, and more confident than Obama. Keyes' verbal fluency makes Obama's use of verbal fillers and stutters, his repeated words and incomplete and restarted sentences, all the more noticeable.
The second thing I noticed were the striking similarities between Keyes and Gingrich. Keyes is more theatrical than Gingrich, while Gingrich is more overtly egoistic and self-reverential. (He has at various moments called himself "the most serious, systematic revolutionary of modern times" and a "definer of civilization.")
But the two share many characteristics. For one thing, they both hold Ph.D.s (Keyes in government, Gingrich in history). Perhaps this helps explain why both Keyes and Gingrich have a tendency to talk down to opponents and debate moderators. Keyes was antagonistic toward the Illinois journalists who moderated the Senate debates, cutting off questioners and reacting harshly when moderators told him his time was up.
“Perry and Santorum may have a chance. We conservatives need to decide which one now.”
Maybe this will help:
Rick Santorum, Earmarxists, and the Pro-Life Statist
by Erick Erickson
Thursday, December 29th at 7:23PM EST
A number of people read my post yesterday -— http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/28/no-surprise-iowa-social-conservatives-are-about-to-shoot-us-all-in-the-foot-again/ -— about Rick Santorum and still are scratching their heads.
In my book RedState Uprising I spent a bit of time dealing with pro-life statists who will be the death of the conservative movement if we do not start standing up to them.
Rick Santorum is a pro-life statist.
My friend Ned Ryun introduced me to the term and his post on pro-life statists written in the wake of Congressman Mark Souders resignation sums up every issue I have with Rick Santorum:
A hard-line conservative, Souder recently survived a tough GOP primary in the Hoosier State, edging two opponents who held him under 50 percent. Souders Republican rivals criticized Souder over his support for the Troubled Asset Relief Program and Cash for Clunkers programs.
I take exception to that description: no real conservative would have voted for TARP or Cash for Clunkers. The mistake made is the assumption that because someone is pro-life means he or she is a conservative. Someone who is pro-life, but votes to expand the state and state spending, is in fact not a conservative, but a pro-life statist.
As someone who is deeply pro-life, and became even more so when my daughter was born four months premature, I absolutely believe in the sanctity of life. But I have a problem with many elected officials who call themselves social conservatives, as though that were all that mattered, and then go and vote for more government and more government spending.
The bigger government becomes, the more invasive it becomes, the more it becomes the enemy of life and freedom. So these pro-life statists show a deep ignorance of government and freedom: the greatest freedom is economic freedom. I say that because if you are an economic ward of the state, you can neither be politically or religiously free. Exhibit A: China. The invasive state dictates how many children you may have, the free flow of information, and political freedom is not even worth really discussing.
I believe one of the reasons that we have gotten to this stage as a country, with the massive growth of government, is because some have thought only one or two social issues are all that matter, and willingly give a pass on pretty much everything else. To those people I would say enough, stop living under an illusion. You must become more comprehensive in your conservatism.
Rick Santorum participated in raiding the federal treasury as an earmarxist, perfectly happy to pork away on Pennsylvanias behalf. He did not join conservatives who fought against No Child Left Behind. He did not join conservatives who fought against the prescription drug benefit.
Rick Santorum was part of the problem in Washington. He was one of the Republicans the public rejected in 2006. The voters in Pennsylvania rejected him in 2006 because of his and the Republicans profligate ways. Along with Tom DeLay, Rick Santorum led the K Street Project, which traded perks for lobbyists for money for the GOP funded with your tax dollars through earmarks and pork projects.
Sure, you can say 2006 was a bad year for Republicans, but in 2006 Rick Santorum fell 18 percentage points behind his Democratic rival and his defeat and terrible campaign can be linked to the loss of four Pennsylvania house seats.
That was not a defeat for Rick Santorum. It was punishment. He is a pro-life statist and I see nothing in his career since leaving Washington that shows he has changed his ways.
Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard coined the term big government conservatives in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. He wrote
IS PRESIDENT BUSH really a conservative? When that question came up this summer, the White House went into crisis mode. Bush aides summoned several of Washingtons conservative journalists to a 6:30 a.m. breakfast at the White House to press the case for the presidents adherence to conservative principles. Aides outnumbered journalists. Other conservative writers and broadcasters were invited to luncheon sessions. They heard a similar spiel.
The White House neednt have bothered. The case for Bushs conservatism is strong. Sure, some conservatives are upset because he has tolerated a surge in federal spending, downplayed swollen deficits, failed to use his veto, created a vast Department of Homeland Security, and fashioned an alliance of sorts with Teddy Kennedy on education and Medicare. But the real gripe is that Bush isnt their kind of conventional conservative. Rather, hes a big government conservative. This isnt a description he or other prominent conservatives willingly embrace. It makes them sound as if they arent conservatives at all. But they are. They simply believe in using what would normally be seen as liberal meansactivist governmentfor conservative ends. And theyre willing to spend more and increase the size of government in the process.
Being a big government conservative doesnt bring Bush close to being a moderate, much less a liberal. On most issues, his position is standard conservative: a pro-lifer who expects to sign a ban on partial birth abortion, hes against stem-cell research and gun control, and has drawn the line at gay marriage. His judicial nominees are so uniformly conservative that liberals are furious.
Thats Rick Santorum. He sees government as the means to conservative ends. But in using government to get conservative ends he has expanded government and set precedents for liberals to use government in the same ways for more liberal government. Rick Santorum was complicit in making Americans more dependent on government and justified it under the rubric of compassion.
Before Rick Santorum was purged from Washington for his pro-life statism, the Washington Post summed up his, George Bushs, and the GOPs sins in an editorial titled Big Government Conservatism.
Back in 1987, when Mr. Reagan applied his veto to what was generally known at the time as the highway and mass transit bill, he was offended by the 152 earmarks for pet projects favored by members of Congress. But on Wednesday Mr. Bush signed a transportation bill containing no fewer than 6,371 earmarks. Each one of these, as Mr. Reagan understood but Mr. Bush apparently doesnt, amounts to a conscious decision to waste taxpayers dollars. One point of an earmark is to direct money to a project that would not receive money as a result of rational judgments based on cost-benefit analyses.
Mr. Bush, who had threatened to veto wasteful spending bills, chose instead to cave in. He did so despite the fact that in addition to a record number of earmarks the transportation bill came with a price tag that he had once called unacceptable. The bill has a declared cost of $286 billion over five years plus a concealed cost of a further $9 billion; Mr. Bush had earlier drawn a line in the sand at $256 billion, then drawn another line at $284 billion. Asked to explain the presidents capitulation, a White House spokesman pleaded that at least this law would be less costly than the 2003 Medicare reform. This is a classic case of defining deviancy down.
This is why I do not support Rick Santorum. I do not want a co-conspirator to government largess premised on the rhetoric of compassionate or big government conservatism being rewarded.
I love how a Santorum surge turns into a
“It’s Perry and Santorum”
Deep in the minds of ever voter is the fear of the Perry sound of silence, long, painful...in front of Obama in a debate.
Sorry,can’t risk our nation to Perry.
...anyway, it’s Iowa...Nationally, Both Romney and Gingrich are beating Obama...only Gingrich can defeat Romney.
Zero's presidency is the most corrupt and scandal-ridden in modern memory if not US history - yet the enemedia ignores it all completely and will continue to do so no matter what monumental new scandals emerge next year. Ditto with bad economic news. Without question, we have the most pathologically dishonest press our country has ever seen.
And that press will rip Mitt Romney apart. It's delusional to believe he stands a chance, much less "We have to support him because he's the only one who can beat Obama." Rubbish. The same goes for Gingrich. Santorum is ridiculous. For me, I am seriously sick and tired of hearing about Iowans and their phony "caucuses."
Iowa on January 3 (next Tuesday) means nothing. It is all media hype. Not a single delegate is chosen. Iowa chooses its 28 delegates to the Republican National Convention at its state convention on June 16.
Let's keep going. By the end of February, only 174 delegates will have been awarded in GOP caucuses and primaries - just 15 percent of the 1,143 the Pub candidate needs.
By that time in 2008, 1,407 delegates had been chosen, with McCain having so many Romney dropped out. In 2010, the GOP changed its rules to slow things down, requiring states that award delegates prior to April 1 to do so proportionally. States agreeing to wait until April got the ability to give all their delegates to the winner.
The race for the Pub nomination is a marathon, not a sprint. There is no Super Tuesday after which it's all over. One of these days, this is going to dawn on the outside world. The only two candidates capable of this marathon, mentally (dogged persistence) and financially (fund-raising), are Perry and Romney. One of them will be the nominee.
Population of Iowa: 3,007,856 - Blue State - Voted for Zero 2008
Population of NH: 1,324,575 - Blue State - Voted for Zero 2008
There are 2 other states voting in January, South Carolina and Florida. All 50 states have a say in the primary. GO NEWT !
? - Iowa 28 delegates
? - New Hampshire 12
Newt - South Carolina 25
Newt - Florida 50
Newt - Nevada 28
Newt - Maine 24
Newt - Colorado 36
? - Minnesota 40
Newt- Arizona 29
? - Michigan 30
Newt - Washington 43
Newt - Alaska 27
Newt - Georgia 76
Newt - Idaho 32
RINO - Mass 41
Newt - North Dakota 28
Newt - Ohio 66
Newt - Oklahoma 43
Newt - Tennessee 58
? - Vermont 17
Newt - Virginia 50
Newt - Wyoming 29
Newt - Kansas 40
Newt - Alabama 50
? - Hawaii 20
Newt - Mississippi 40
Newt - Missouri 52
? - Illinois 69
Newt - Louisiana 46
Newt - Maryland 37
Newt or Perry - Texas 155
? - Wash D.C. 19
Newt - Wisconsin 42
? - Connecticut 28
? - Delaware 17
? - New York 95
Newt - Pennsylvania 72
? - Rhode Island 19
Newt - Indiana 46
Newt - North Carolina 55
Newt - West Virginia 31
Newt - Nebraska 35
Newt - Oregon 29
Newt - Arkansas 36
Newt - Kentucky 45
? - California 172
Newt - Montana 26
Newt - New Jersey 50
Newt - New Mexico 23
Newt - South Dakota 28
RINO - Utah 40
Perry was a conservative Democrat, changed parties and has explained this. What I look at is results and Texas is a showcase for this man’s ability to create a climate ripe for prosperity. I want that for the rest of the country don’t you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.