Skip to comments.Mitt Romney and Ron Paul top new Iowa poll, but Rick Santorum has momentum
Posted on 12/31/2011 7:49:55 PM PST by NKP_Vet
Just saw the new poll from Iowa that shows the ultra liberal Willard Romney at 24 percent, leading as of right now. His lying attack ads on Gingrich, with an assist from Faux News have all but destroyed New Gingrich's chance of even placing in the top 3. Gingrich led two weeks ago, then came the lies from the father of homosexual marriage in America Romney. Never knew that Iowa republican voters were so liberal and so gullible as to believe this type of garbage, especially coming from the Amway salesman Romney. If Romney wins Iowa it means the state is just as liberal as as New England state. The lefty will follow it up a week later with a win in the liberal state of NH. Hate to let Faux News down, but two weeks after that Gingrich will hand lefty Romney his lunch in SC. This race is far from over, no matter what the RINOs at Faux News want you to believe. "Mitt Romney: 24 percent Ron Paul: 22 percent Rick Santorum: 15 percent Newt Gingrich: 12 percent Rick Perry: 11 percent Michele Bachmann: 7 percent"
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Gee, how’s that Santorum ‘surge’ working out?
Well ... I don’t agree. Now understand, I will not vote for RINO Romney. He is a liberal and a liar. Having said that, if he wins Iowa, at BEST he will get 30% That means 70% didn’t vote for him.
Therein lies the problem. The GOP doesn’t want Romney but the vote is diluted which may nominate the scumbag.
Gingrich isn’t handing lunch to anyone. He’s done.
Right, everyone comes out of the woodwork with these “If X wins” then it means .... the end of the universe, etc.
It’s perfectly easy to see how Romney may win. The anti Romneys split the vote, and each of them has been found too imperfect to hold the lead.
No one gets elected in the US without increasing gov’t spending and becoming more Socialist. Wish this wasn’t so, but after decades of indoctrination, people are slaves to food stamps, labor unions, Social Security, Medicare, etc.
Two of my in-laws, Republicans both, are now Democrats because on is 66 and the other is 86. In fact, they are now Republican haters.
Even young people want to play and not work anymore. Socialism kills the spirit.
So, it doesn’t matter which goon we get. They will ALL sell out to stay in office.
Why do folks persist in thinking that Iowa is the key to anything in the Republican primary? Has the winner of the Iowa Caucus WON the Republican primary in the last few elections? I don’t think so, so why is everyone so exorcised about whether or not Romney will win it? Same with New Hampshire; neither seem to be ‘kingmakers’ anymore.
Too bad it’s such a crappy field. I have to wonder if Palin isn’t kicking herself now. She could have had the nomination in a walk. It’s unreal that we’ve been reduced to the point of considering a statist retread like Gingrich as some great alternative plan to stop Willard.
In 2008, Willard was being pumped as a way to stop McCain. Four years later we’re still lost in the desert.
Welcome to FR.
Your comments on the story really belong in the “comments” section; the headline is required to match the headline at the source and you should be posting an excerpt of the story in the “body” section.
You are talking about a state who has Tom Harkin as a Senator. What do you expect?
Willard’s waterloo will be SC. Mark it down.
Well, Bush did in 2011, but "guessing the winner" has never been Iowa's role. Iowa's role is to trim the field, which it does quite well.
Er, 2011 = 2000.
Who do you think will win SC and FL?
Santorum is going to win this. Newt gets his top four.
Perry and Bachmann, 5th & 6th must bow out Wednesday morning to STOP further splitting of the CONSERVATIVE vote.
This thing gets settled in South Carolina as always. Period.
We already knew this. This is the state that proved that white people were stupid enough to vote for Brak last time around.
Exactly and marked.
No, she’d be polling even with Bachmann. They merely split the conservative vote, too.
Go back in time to say 1950. Make a list of the perfect candidates that have come along since then. Here's my list:
Add in the maybe OK candidates and you get pretty much the same list. And remember it's the "going in" view of the candidate that counts. As I have stated in other posts, even Ronald Reagan wasn't RONALD REAGAN in 1980. He was an average talented actor who happened to be a pretty good governor who rode a speech that he made in support of the Goldwater campaign in 1964 to the Presidency of the United States. A great President no doubt. But we didn't know that in 1980. It was a roll of the dice that worked out for us.