((( MITT ROMNEY PING )))
• Send FReep Mail to Unmarked Package to get [ON] or [OFF] the Mitt Romney Ping List •
Posted on 06/04/2007 8:23:46 AM PDT by John Cena
According to a new Public Policy Polling survey of likely Iowa caucus-goers, John Edwards and Mitt Romney hold double digit leads in the first major contest of the 2008 presidential race.
Edwards leads the Democratic field with the support of 31% of respondents, followed by Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama with 17% each, with Bill Richardson receiving 10%.
On the Republican side, Romney is at the front with 31% support, while Fred Thompson comes in second with 15%, followed by Newt Gingrich with 10%, John McCain with 9% and Rudy Giuliani with 8%.
That’s quite a change. Significant enough that I wonder at the methodology.
looks like Romney’s taken Guiliani’s votes...excellent
Pretty much every poll over the past couple of weeks have shown Edwards and Romney leading in Iowa, but I don’t think any of them have been by this much though.
Coolness!!
((( MITT ROMNEY PING )))
• Send FReep Mail to Unmarked Package to get [ON] or [OFF] the Mitt Romney Ping List •
Neither will win their respective nominations.
Romney’s campaigning in the early primaries has been been paying dividends, it would appear.
He went from deadlocked to up by double digits in New Hampshire, as well.
...because... you don't want them to?
only twice has the Iowa winner not been the nominee.
H.W. Bush in ‘80, and Dole in ‘88.
A Bush has won Iowa four times. GW carried it in the ‘04 general as well.
LOL, the RATs want a pony.
While unlikely at this point, I certainly would say either one definently won’t win their parties nomintations. This is actually what the Merlin Project projected would be the 2008 General matchup: Edwards vs. Romney.
For the Democrats, three times the winner has not been nominated. Harkin ‘92, Gephardt ‘88 and Muskie ‘72, before he cried in New Hampshire.
In 1976, “Uncommitted” defeated Jimmy Carter,
Interesting, our local talk radio was going on about how Hillary owned Iowa the other day..
Because there is no way that a flip flopper who has taken pro-abort stances, and changed his mind on gun control and things like gays in the military is taking the conservative vote. Its pretty clear that the man says whatever will help him get elected to the post he is running for. Who knows his real views? As more people catch on to his slipperiness, his support will only go down. Thinking Jesus walked on North American soil won’t help him in many quarters either.
But what is more important to look at is who the favorites were to win six months or more prior to the Iowa caucuses.
If nothing else, it is going to be fun trying to see the enemedia present a former governor of Massachusetts as a far right conservative idealogue.
Exactly. I know that Dean was doing well in Iowa early, but Kerry surged as he became viewed as “more electable.”
I think GWB was pretty comfortable most of the way.
Thompson will continue to wipe the board...
So, what you really mean is that you would not give Romney the party nomination.
Isn't it a bit arrogant of you to presume to speak for the whole party?
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.