Sniff, sniff
Posted on 12/31/2011 7:53:08 PM PST by xjcsa
Link only per FR rules.
Topline numbers: Romney 24, Paul 22, Santorum 15, Gingrich 12, Perry 11, Bachmann 7, over a 4-day polling period.
The pollster notes that in the 3rd/4th day period, the top three change to Romney 24, Santorum 21, and Paul 18, saying “Momentum’s name is Rick Santorum.”
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.
Lol, 2500 registered voters, of which 600 said they actually would vote? Yeah, that’s reliable. </s>
about 30% of GOP registration ... shows up for caucus.
Lets see what happens. This is a caucus, not a primary, meaning votes change. I think Romney and Paul will get 18-25 percent, but I think either Perry, Newt, or Santorum win by getting the anti Romney vote. I dont see all 3 within the margim of error, someone is going to pull all that. I support Perry, but I agree, if he finishes 5th, he should drop out.
It is a good thing to stop The Socialist, no matter who has to do it. Thanks be to God for whoever does it. For me, the race begins for real in South Carolina. We need very much to find our non-Romney there, and he better be able to sell nationally. And not to only evangelicals. Anything less going into Florida will not be good for stopping The Socialist.
Iowa has around 620,000 registered Republicans. A good caucus turnout would be 130,000.
Contrary to FR hysteria, the number of crossover Democrats will be negligible. There are over 1,700 precinct locations for those 130,000 attendees. Do the math. How much caucus-crashing would be tolerated when people recognize each other?
If there is any Mittens left after South Carolina we will finish him off in FLA. Newt still holding a 18 pt lead, like in SC. No amount of negative ads will sway us conservatives. I was with Romney after the Fla primary last time when he conceded. He only lost by 4 or 5 that time. This time it will be triple that!
Looks like Morman hate isn’t is much as the MSM is reporting. Newt is easily the biggest RINO in the race and Santorum is the Conservative. I would be for him if he had a chance to win.
To all you Morman bigots BWHHHHHAAAAAAAAAA!! You LOSE
No people in IA are just stupid enough to believe the MSM. Watch the MSM will dig out all the ‘fun’ quotes by LDS leaders if Mitt gets the nomination.
Do you support Mittens? You sure sound like it.
FWIW, telling the truth about a cult isn’t bigotry.
Register polls are like PETA listings of preferred steakhouses.
A new flavor of the week. So there’s just time enough for a Huntsman surge before the election ;-)
Sniff, sniff
With people getting multiple calls a day for polls; I question who is answering them and who their sample is.
I would take any poll with a big grain of salt.
LOL. Great response.
Like the new graphic and, yeah, that poster smells.
Rombot,
Mormonism is a cult. No bigotry towards it. Just facts.
I think it’s a cult too but I don’t vote based on religion.
You are someone who probably wanted McCain/ArmCandy last round.
So I can assume from your name that you love disrespecting women since Cain is pure pond scum.
So why does this make you so happy on this site of Conservatives unless...
OH....
Wow...
Well good for you, but INDVIDUALS can vote how they see fit for whatever reason they want.
So do you want Mitt in or what?
So if he was a wicken? scientology? Raelian? Jehovah’s Witnesses? what about those guys that off’d themselves with speial tennis shoes on when they thought the mother ship had arrived with a commet a few years back? Heaven’s gate or something like that.
sorry, I am not voting for any nuts.
Conservative Wiccan vs. socialist Obama = I vote for the Conservative Wiccan.
Conservative scientologist vs. socialist Obama = I vote for the Conservative scientologist.
Conservative Raelian vs. socialist Obama = I vote for the Conservative Raelian.
Conservative Jehovah’s Witness vs. socialist Obama = I vote for the Conservative Jehovah’s Witness.
Romney's religion is not the problem. Romney's liberalism IS the problem.
The even bigger problem is that Romney is a liar, cut from the same cloth as Bill Clinton. No one with any sense who looks at his history of statements can possibly believe a word the man says.
We are just different then, because I will never vote for someone I think is insane or who is not a Christian to rule over me.
God then Country, in that order.
I don't see how you're putting "God, then country first" by opposing someone who shares your beliefs about America and has a strong faith in God. Only electing people who have the same religion as you is very unChristian to me and goes against Christ's wish to love one another.
If you look back on history, I would argue we've already had several non-Christian presidents. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, and didn't believe in any of the miracles in the Bible. John Adams and John Quincy Adams were Unitarians, and rejected Jesus' divinity. I don't consider those views to be Christian and not only do most Christians reject Unitarians as Christian, most Unitarians themselves don't use the "Christian" label to describe their faith. William Howard Taft was a Unitarian as well, and almost certainly the most conservative of the 3 presidential candidates in 1912. I would have voted for him over the other 2 candidates, who were mostly certainly traditional Christians: Teddy Roosevelt (Dutch Reform) and Woodrow Wilson (Presbyterian).
I'm sorry if you feel differently.
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.