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.
Correct me if I am wrong but aren’t the primaries proportional this time as opposed to winner take all? If so then the primary season will be a long one and nothing will be settled until mid summer.
Yeah, I’ve been saying that for a while for people who think this is a doomsday based on IA and NH. All candidates who place will get some delegates and if it’s close, some will have almost the same as others. In fact, I posted one longshot scenario where Newt could “lose” the first 4 states, and still come out with the most delegates. You’d have to have different first place winners among all 4 for that to happen.
Still, “winning” one of them will help with the media spin (Not that Romney needs any more, now they’re all saying even if he comes in second in IA he’ll have this wrapped up! Nonsense!) and I guess help with fundraising. Also, some have said the RNC changed the delegates to proportional specifically to help Romney, because the candidate with the most money has the capacity to outlast the others. So if a conservative had won a lot of early races, Romney would still be picking up delegates in 2nd or 3rd place and could catch up later when the conservative runs out of money. That was probably because they didn’t expect Romney to win IA.
There has still never been a candidate who won both IA and NH that didn’t become the nominee. And there is only one candidate who won neither, but got the nomination anyway, Bill Clinton in 1992 (the IA and NH winners were different people then though).
Just talked to my brother in SC. He said the lies against Newt are having no impact in SC and Gingrich will win going away. He also said that the republicans in the state are trying to get a recall vote going to get rid of Nikki Haley. Said her endorsement of lefty Romney was the last straw. She is despised by her own party. Newt will carry SC. Lets hope he can get Rubios endorsement and win Florida. Just cant see Tea Party favorite Rubio endorsing lefty Willard Romney.
“This is the state that proved that white people were stupid enough to vote for Brak last time around.”
And I’m pretty sure Edwards came in second... There’s something about really, really obvious fraudsters that just appeals to Iowans, I guess.
This has become the new narrative for the Romney supporters like Drudge and the Register (who endorsed Romney). Santorum is supposedly surging but in reality has no hope due to lack of organization and funding beyond Iowa.
Attempt to damage or knock out those who represent the greatest threat to Romney. I do believe Gingrich is tanking in Iowa for real, but there’s little doubt Perry is going to well outperform what this poll indicates. They realize Perry is the real threat here and they’re doing everything they can to kill his momentum.
These results were very predictable based upon no more than it’s a Register poll.
Huh? Perry is a non-factor. He doesn’t have a prayer of winning the nomination any more than Santorum does. Newt is the only viable threat to Romney and that is why 100% of the negative slime from Romney and the media has been directed in Newt’s direction.
Boy you read my mind!!!!!!
If Newt can get Rubio’s endorsement it will be a game changer in Florida. I think Gov Scott is a RINO who might endorse Willard. But I don’t think his endorsement will carry much weight because his approval ratings are low. He’s a one term governor. If Newt can carry SC and Florida he’ll win the nomination. I don’t see Willard winning any Southern primary.
O’Reilly replayed an interview with Rubio yesterday. He asked him about the candidates and I believe Newt was the only one Rubio mentioned by name as liking the policies he stood for.
I guess Scott can join Mittney Mouse in one-termer-ville.
Romney lied in Massachusetts, he lied in the Republican primaries, he lied about Newt...anything and everything he says can be a lie. He has utter contempt for the voting public and a blind ambition and lust for power. He’s the Republican party’s answer to Bill Clinton.
Good article about Rubio and endorsements. I think Newt
will get it.
I don’t know where this “Faux news is pushing Romney” crap comes from.
I heard Brett Baier tell Huckabee on tonight’s show that he thinks Newt is not going away any time soon and is going to give Romney a tough fight. He made the point that as the field thins the anti-Romney vote will consolidate. I also heard FNC contributer Stephen Hayes from NRO say from what he’s seen on the ground in Iowa, there’s a backlash brewing from all the attacks on Newt and he doesn’t think Newt is as bad off as the polls are showing him.
Besides, nothing annoys me more than seeing conservatives referring to it as “Faux News” not only because that is a Libtard construct but that it’s also a faggot sounding French word.
Bret Baier had a strange moment a few weeks ago. Maybe I was the only one who picked up on it, but he looked like he’d been told the FNC meme was going to be a sunshine & roses approach to Romney and he wasn’t comfortable with it. Fox has started every day for the past few weeks with negative news toward Newt, positive news for Romney, wishy-washy news about all others, and hesitantly neutral about Ron Paul. They are following the GOP guidelines and I am reminded every day why I stopped watching Prime Time Fox 4 years ago.
I get where it’s coming from. Krauthammer and Brit Hume have been surprisingly anti-Newt. A whole lot of the newscasters like the Fox & Friends and weekend show people who aren’t actual analysts seem to be pro-Romney and anti-Newt.
It’s not as bad as people here who claim they’re never going to watch it again make it sound though. Hannity is very pro-Newt, although he’s basically pro all the candidates except Ron Paul. Greta’s been fair. O’Reilly’s been fair to Newt, but started leaning to Romney recently. He gave Romney a really fair interview with lots of tough questions, so it wasn’t set up to make him look good. O’Reilly showed a bias against a candidate with Cain who he definitely dismissed. He isn’t acting that way to Newt.
Stephen Hayes predicted Romney would win the nomination last week, but he looked very disappointed about it. He said Obama would lose. Two other female panelists also agreed Romney would win it, but said Obama would defeat him.
One trend I’m seeing from a lot of people who think Romney will win the nomination is that possibly the majority of them think Obama will go on to defeat him. People who think someone else will get the nomination almost universally think Obama will lose. A strange and very distinct difference there. I think it shows a liberal bias on the part of people who think it’s going to be Romney. They just are more attracted to liberal candidates and hence think he’ll win the most votes, but their greatest admiration is reserved for Obama.
Rush has also said the RNC is backing Romney because they think Obama will win. They’ve written off the election and maybe just want Romney’s big money out there to help win house and senate races. Romney is the candidate of the defeatists, that’s for sure.
Newt will not be the nominee...mark that down if you want.
Rubio discussed the candidates on O’Reilly in October starting at 3:30 in this video. Romney, Newt and Cain were mentioned. Pretty good that Newt got a mention back in October when he was still low in the polls I think. Rubio said here he would absolutely not take a V.P. slot which I think is good. I don’t believe in elevating newly elected people to such a high position, based on affirmative action or otherwise. He should run for reelection at least once before being in a presidential position.
I think that probably explains the anti-Newt bent among all the smalltime daytime hosts. Only the big primetime hosts have the power to go against that directive and tell the honest truth about Newt.
I have seen Stuart Varney and some of the Fox Business hosts as guests giving strong support for Newt.
I glad you’re watching for me. There isn’t a candidate out there who isn’t “flawed,” but there also isn’t one out there with Newt’s knowledge. Santorum is close, but the rise of the socially liberal Libertarians have screwed SoCons. Perry, I have to admit I don’t know that much about. I listened to speeches where he sounded great & debates where he sucked. I am just so sick of Romney and Romneybots whose nastiness has equaled that of the Paulbots.
Really well, he has a shot at winning Iowa and a compelling case that conservatives should rally behind him as the nominee.
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.