Tomorrow's Primariy Predictions: Mitt in Colorado, Newt in Missouri, Santorum on Minnesota
36 replies, posted
[URL="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203315804577205192437882280.html#articleTabs%3Darticle"]Mitt Romney in Colorado (Source may not work for some people)[/URL]
[release][B]DENVER—[/B]He grew up in Michigan and governed in far-away Massachusetts, but coming off his easy win Saturday in Nevada, Mitt Romney enters Colorado's Republican caucuses on Tuesday with the closest thing a politician can get to home-field advantage.
Two of Mr. Romney's top aides hail from Colorado, and he won the Republican presidential caucuses here four years ago with 60% of the vote. Polls show Mr. Romney in the lead this time around. His upper hand in the state has shifted much of the suspense to the competition for second place.
Sensing Colorado could be a game-changer in the race for the Romney alternative, both Texas Rep. Ron Paul and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum have jetted into the state repeatedly over the past two weeks, investing far more time and attention on Colorado than has Newt Gingrich. The former House speaker plans to drop by for two stops Monday morning just outside of Denver before flying to Minnesota, which also is holding caucuses Tuesday night.
"We are in the position to change the election's momentum by giving a lift to whoever emerges as Mr. Romney's top rival," said Ryan Call, chairman of the Colorado Republican Party. His prediction: "Colorado could take the wind from the sails of Speaker Gingrich."
Mr. Gingrich's team in the state—all of it assembled in the last week—doesn't buy that assessment. "We see this as a very competitive race," said Patrick Davis, a top Colorado organizer for the Gingrich campaign. "We are not an AstroTurf, robo-call campaign," he said, referring to campaigns that aren't grass-roots oriented and rely on automated dialing of voters. "We have real people calling real Coloradans all over the state."
Colorado has at least one thing that's been plenty scarce through all of the first six nominating contests: snow. Three feet of it fell in some parts of the state over the weekend, with talk of more on the way, and that could affect caucus turnout.
Caucuses are notoriously hard to predict, but all signs point to another Romney victory. A new Public Policy Polling survey in Colorado found Mr. Romney leading with 40%, followed by Mr. Santorum at 26%, Mr. Gingrich at 18% and Mr. Paul at 12%. With numbers like that, and after Mr. Romney's wins in Florida and Nevada, where he won by more than 20 percentage points, few dispute that the former governor has a leg up in Colorado.
"There is no doubt Romney has the real edge here, both in organization and in strength of establishment support," said Dick Wadhams, a former state party chairman and longtime campaign operative who is unaffiliated.
Colorado is important beyond the Republican nominating contest, because it also figures to be one of the most hard-fought swing states in the general election. In 2008, Barack Obama won Colorado and its nine electoral votes by nearly nine percentage points.
Keeping Colorado in his column is now central to the Obama re-election effort, which helps explain why the president has visited the state three times since early September.
Four years ago in Colorado, Mr. Romney racked up the biggest victory margin of his 2008 primary campaign, beating Sen. John McCain by nearly 42 percentage points. He won all but eight of Colorado's 64 counties.
Mr. Romney's organizational ties to the state also run unusually deep, underscoring the importance the state will likely have in determining the next president.
The Romney campaign's national political director, Rich Beeson, is a Colorado native and a veteran campaign operative, having worked in Colorado and nearby states as finance director for the Republican National Committee.
The campaign's national field director, James Garcia, was executive director of the Colorado Republican Party during the 2010 election, and handled get-out-the-vote efforts for the state party during the 2008 election.
The Romney campaign has been working the state since the summer, creating a county-by-county network that GOP operatives say is rivaled only by the grass-roots labors of the Paul camp. It also is a network being built to extend well beyond Tuesday. "Romney is clearly assembling an infrastructure meant to last until November," said Mr. Call, the state party chairman.
Backing Mr. Romney is a who's-who of Colorado establishment Republicans, including billionaire Phil Anschutz, former Gov. Bill Owens and former Sen. Hank Brown.
For his part, Mr. Santorum also has notched endorsements from a number of well-known Colorado Republicans, among them former Rep. Tom Tancredo and former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton.
For weeks, the Romney campaign has directed all its fire at Mr. Gingrich. But in a sign that Mr. Santorum may be showing signs of momentum here, the Romney camp has paid for automated phone calls critical of the former Pennsylvania senator.
"Mitt has the advantage here, but this race will be tighter than in 2008," said former Rep. Bob Beauprez, a Romney supporter. "We're under no illusions we'll walk away with it."[/release]
[URL="http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2012/02/missouri_race_newt_gingrich_poll.php"]Newt Gingrich in Missouri[/URL]
[release] With the presidential primary campaign circus coming to Missouri both next week ([URL="http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2012/01/missouri_primary_most_importan.php"]for the election that doesn't count[/URL]) and next month (for the official caucus), we're likely to soon see a serious spike in the number of polls about us. Which means it's is a good time for some Horse Race talk. [URL="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_MOOH_013112.pdf"]Public Policy Polling[/URL] released a comprehensive one yesterday, surveying respondent on three compelling GOP primary races: presidential, senatorial, and gubernatorial.
Here are some notable findings:
[U]The Gingrich-Santorum Paradox[/U]
Newt Gingrich, taking 30 percent of the hypothetical vote, led the presidential primary field, although Rick Santorum, at 28 percent, was within the margin of error. Mitt Romney sat a close third with 24 percent and Ron Paul was at the back of the pack with 11 percent. Interestingly, though, when respondents were asked whom they would vote for if it came down to Gingrich and Romney, the former House Speaker led the former Massachusetts governor by just one point, 43 to 42. But when the choice was between Romney and Santorum, Santorum blew past Romney by 13 points, 50 to 37.
This seems to challenge the conventional wisdom that conservative voters will coalesce around whichever "Romney-Alternative" candidate sticks around longer, Gingrich or Santorum. These numbers suggest that there is slice of Santorum voters who will not necessarily jump to Gingrich in the event Santorum drops out. Of course this make sense, given that many in Satorum's base, the religious right, may be turned off by Gingrich's marital history and/or his tendency in past years to promote big government policies.
Santorum has a good opportunity in Missouri. Gingrich will not be on the February 7 primary ballot, as he decided not to file for the contest. While that election is purely aesthetic, it provides Santorum the opportunity to gain some momentum by showing the country that he can challenge Romney one-on-one, perhaps more effectively than Gingrich. When respondents were asked whom they would vote for among the candidates on the ballot here (Romney, Santorum, Paul), Santorum held a commanding 45 percent, eleven points ahead of Romney. He has the highest favorability rating in the state-- 63 percent to Gingrich's 52, Romney's 46, and Paul's 28.
He seems to sense this opening. He was the first of the candidates to campaign in the Show Me State, stumping in front of a packed auditorium in St. Charles earlier this week.[/release]
[URL="http://www.minnpost.com/dailyglean/2012/02/06/34847/rick_santorum_polling_well_before_tuesday_caucuses"]Santorum on Minnesota[/URL]
[release][B] Conventional wisdom may say that the Republican establishment, which may include talk radio hosts and SuperPAC moguls, will not allow anyone but Mitt Romney near the nomination.[/B] But Minnesota plays its small part Tuesday, and Rick Santorum is looking good in the polls.[URL="http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/Polls-Minnesota-Caucus-a-Toss-Up-Among-Republican-Presidential-Hopefuls-138749634.html"] A Voice of America story[/URL] says: “In Minnesota, polls suggest any one of the four candidates could take first place, with former senator [B]Rick Santorum currently in the lead.[/B] ... Public Policy Polling, which conducted the surveys, says Santorum has been helped because no other candidates have been attacking him. Romney has won the contests in New Hampshire, Florida, and now Nevada. He is hoping to maintain his momentum with wins Tuesday in Colorado, Minnesota, and on Saturday, in Maine. But if Santorum can pull off a victory in Minnesota and a second place finish in Colorado, he may become Romney's biggest challenger for the nomination.”
Says [URL="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/05/minnesota-could-serve-as-bulkhead-for-santorum/"]FoxNews[/URL]: “Despite barreling forward with two back-to-back persuasive victories, [B]Mitt Romney could face a significant challenge in the races ahead, including in Minnesota[/B], where Rick Santorum may have an advantage over the front-runner in a state where Republicans have turned decidedly conservative following a bitter government shutdown last year. ... "The latest polling data that has come out has Rick Santorum at the top," said Minnesota Rep. [URL="http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/michele-bachmann.htm#r_src=ramp"]Michele Bachmann[/URL], who ran as a presidential candidate until dropping out following a last-place finish in Iowa. Bachmann said she thinks the Minnesota race shows that the primary battle is far from over. ‘It looks as though there's a closing in. Some of these states are opening up,’ she told Fox News. According to Public Policy Polling, a Democratic firm, Santorum is running two points up in Minnesota in a poll released Saturday.” [/release]
And Ron Paul?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34572825]And Ron Paul?[/QUOTE]
Nope. Sorry. Nothing.
[IMG]http://images.uesp.net/thumb/5/5c/SR-npc-Courier.jpg/180px-SR-npc-Courier.jpg[/IMG]
Here's a consolation article just made by the Washington Post bestowing him the title of true conservative.
[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/the-true-conservative-alternative-ron-paul/2012/02/05/gIQAzW8tsQ_blog.html"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/the-true-conservative-alternative-ron-paul/2012/02/05/gIQAzW8tsQ_blog.html[/URL]
And of course the media ignores Ron Paul yet again.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb5aGgQXhXo[/media]
[QUOTE=Pat4ever;34573365]And of course the media ignores Ron Paul yet again.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb5aGgQXhXo[/media][/QUOTE]
Oh. [B]God.[/B] I thought the whole thing about Ron Paul being ignored by the media was an exaggeration. Holy fuck.
[QUOTE=Hidole555;34573457]Oh. [B]God.[/B] I thought the whole thing about Ron Paul being ignored by the media was an exaggeration. Holy fuck.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I was kinda peeved you didn't include him in the OP, but since you didn't actually know about that, I'll forgive you.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34573550]Yeah, I was kinda peeved you didn't include him in the OP, but since you didn't actually know about that, I'll forgive you.[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah. Don't get me wrong, I'm completely bewildered as to how anyone could even think of choosing a man like Santorum over Ron Paul.
I thought it was literally impossible for Gingrich and Santorum to win nominee. Of course Paul isnt even mentioned.
"I'm just some grumpy old dickfart thinking he can somehow be president"
[IMG]http://www.theblogismine.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Newt-Gingrich-Suggests-That-Santorum-and-Perry-Should-Drop-Out-and-Support-Him-01.jpg[/IMG]
"Wait, I might actually win a state!?"
[IMG]http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_image_full/public/Santorum%202012_Rich_0.jpg[/IMG]
Meanwhile Mitt Romney...
[IMG]http://the-american-journal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Mitt_Romney_Money_Money_Money.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=The Baconator;34573698][IMG]http://the-american-journal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Mitt_Romney_Money_Money_Money.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
If you look closely you'll see that this is fake.
Romney has never shown this much emotion.
[QUOTE=Pat4ever;34573365]And of course the media ignores Ron Paul yet again.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb5aGgQXhXo[/media][/QUOTE]
Even though his policies are hit and miss, he is easily the best candidate for the GOP. The fact that he is being ignored in this way by the media is tragic!
[QUOTE=Stockers678;34574291]Even though his policies are hit and miss, he is easily the best candidate for the GOP. The fact that he is being ignored in this way by the media is tragic![/QUOTE]
That's why they're ignoring him
[url]http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/yeah-ron-paul-is-racist-after-all-sorry[/url]
Why is there still such a love affair with Ronnie Stormfront
(Yes, HE TOOK MONEY FROM THE WHITE SUPREMACIST HATE GROUP STORMFRONT)
Bonus quote from elsewhere:
[release]I was in the middle of posting this in response to the Paulite who asked if Ron Paul's racism would really affect his ability to do his job when that post was deleted. Here's my reply to it anyway:
Well, he opposes the Civil Rights Act. He voted against renewing the Voting Rights Act. He authored a bill to allow states to resegregate schools. He authored a bill to allow states to establish theocracies and prevent even the Supreme Court from hearing challenges. That same bill would allow states to dictate how people are allowed to have sex in their own bedrooms. He sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would ban all federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from hearing cases on gay marriage laws or overturning DoMA, codifying permanently in US law that marriage is between a man and a woman without having to go through the process of passing an amendment. He authored the Sanctity of Life Act, which attempted to federally define life as beginning at conception, so while he's able to dodge the fact that he created a federal abortion ban by saying that the language of the bill doesn't explicitly ban abortion, the bill would render all abortions, hormonal birth control, and emergency contraception murder in the eyes of the law.
So, yeah. It would affect his ability to do his job. It has for his entire career. He's just unbelievably good at getting people to think it hasn't.[/release]
If you support Ron Paul you support white supremacy, segregation, and a ban on abortion and gay marriage.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;34575368]Why is there still such a love affair with Ronnie Stormfront[/QUOTE]
Because he has a really cool-sounding name I guess
[QUOTE=Zeke129;34575368][url]http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/yeah-ron-paul-is-racist-after-all-sorry[/url]
Why is there still such a love affair with Ronnie Stormfront
(Yes, HE TOOK MONEY FROM THE WHITE SUPREMACIST HATE GROUP STORMFRONT)
Bonus quote from elsewhere:
[release]I was in the middle of posting this in response to the Paulite who asked if Ron Paul's racism would really affect his ability to do his job when that post was deleted. Here's my reply to it anyway:
Well, he opposes the Civil Rights Act. He voted against renewing the Voting Rights Act. He authored a bill to allow states to resegregate schools. He authored a bill to allow states to establish theocracies and prevent even the Supreme Court from hearing challenges. That same bill would allow states to dictate how people are allowed to have sex in their own bedrooms. He sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would ban all federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from hearing cases on gay marriage laws or overturning DoMA, codifying permanently in US law that marriage is between a man and a woman without having to go through the process of passing an amendment. He authored the Sanctity of Life Act, which attempted to federally define life as beginning at conception, so while he's able to dodge the fact that he created a federal abortion ban by saying that the language of the bill doesn't explicitly ban abortion, the bill would render all abortions, hormonal birth control, and emergency contraception murder in the eyes of the law.
So, yeah. It would affect his ability to do his job. It has for his entire career. He's just unbelievably good at getting people to think it hasn't.[/release]
If you support Ron Paul you support white supremacy, segregation, and a ban on abortion and gay marriage.[/QUOTE]
Ignorance of a candidate you support is definitely rampant.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;34575442]Ignorance of a candidate you support is definitely rampant.[/QUOTE]
BUT WEED
weeeeed
ron p ual 2002
[QUOTE=Zeke129;34575483]BUT WEED
weeeeed
ron p ual 2002[/QUOTE]
dont foget te uh
uh
FEDARLISM SuCKs MAN
[QUOTE=Zeke129;34575368]
If you support Ron Paul you support white supremacy, segregation, and a ban on abortion and gay marriage.[/QUOTE]
Fallacy.
Even if Ron Paul tried to introduce legislation that brought back segregation, it would be shot down immediately, if not declared unconstitutional. Also, he's the one of the few candidates who [B]opposed[/B] a constitutional ban on gay marriage while being opposed to abortion is just par for the course for Republicans.
He's far better than the other Republican candidates because the negative aspects of him do not influence his stances. In choosing the Republican nominee, he is the lesser of 4 evils. That being said, it is not hard to be better than the other Republican candidates and for now at most what I wish to see is him [B]debating[/B] with Obama, something all the other candidates will fail [B]hard[/B] at since the only thing propelling their campaigns are slander commercials and money.
[QUOTE=Hidole555;34575595]Fallacy.
Even if Ron Paul tried to introduce legislation that brought back segregation, it would be shot down immediately, if not declared unconstitutional. Also, he's the one of the few candidates who [B]opposed[/B] a constitutional ban on gay marriage while being opposed to abortion is just par for the course for Republicans.
[b][highlight]He's far better than the other Republican candidates[/b][/highlight] because the negative aspects of him do not influence his stances. In choosing the Republican nominee, he is the lesser of 4 evils. That being said, it is not hard to be better than the other Republican candidates and for now at most what I wish to see is him [B]debating[/B] with Obama, something all the other candidates will fail [B]hard[/B] at since the only thing propelling their campaigns are slander commercials and money.[/QUOTE]
So don't choose a republican candidate.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;34575677]So don't choose a republican candidate.[/QUOTE]
If we let Obama just walk back into office with an opponent like Santorum nothing is achieved.
With Ron Paul, they will poke holes in each other's way of thinking and upon reflection our view of economic policy will come out for the better.
For some reason I can't help but think of Ron Paul as being like someone who was born with a great piano-playing gift, but was born without hands to balance it out.
I mean, it's like someone has given him the gift of intelligence and then rotted his brain to point where he's unable to impliment it.
[editline]6th February 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Hidole555;34575728]If we let Obama just walk back into office with an opponent like Santorum nothing is achieved.
With Ron Paul, they will poke holes in each other's way of thinking and upon reflection our view of economic policy will come out for the better.[/QUOTE]
So you only want them to debate?
That makes sense I guess, but the risk that Paul would actually win is nowhere near worth the potential rewards. I mean, I really want the economy sorted, but if Paul wins civil rights will regress a good deal, and that quite frankly isn't worth the potential reward.
[QUOTE=Hidole555;34575728]If we let Obama just walk back into office with an opponent like Santorum nothing is achieved.
With Ron Paul, they will poke holes in each other's way of thinking and upon reflection our view of economic policy will come out for the better.[/QUOTE]
Why do you believe that Ron Paul has a good economic policy? His answer is to cut everything.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;34575793]Why do you believe that Ron Paul has a good economic policy? His answer is to cut everything.[/QUOTE]
As well as more tax cuts.
Whoever cuts defense is awesome. Imagine NASA with 3T budget.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;34575793]Why do you believe that Ron Paul has a good economic policy? His answer is to cut everything.[/QUOTE]
I never said that, and I apologize if it seems that I am implying that.
Look at the situation strategically. If Ron Paul doesn't win the nomination, he'll continue spreading his, as you view it, bad economic policies and his large group of followers will replace him so that 40, 20, maybe even 10 years down the road you will see a resurgence of support for his views as the youths he influences start to get involved in politics. If he does win the Republican nomination, it serves as a benefit both to his opponents and his supporters. It obviously benefits his supporters since they finally have a chance to show off their philosophy to a larger audience. It benefits those opposed to him, such as yourself, as it gives them, more specifically Obama, a chance to put this way of thinking down for good. This battle of philosophical fate would ultimately be decided in the essential debates that would take place between Obama and Paul.
[QUOTE=Hidole555;34576852]I never said that, and I apologize if it seems that I am implying that.
Look at the situation strategically. If Ron Paul doesn't win the nomination, he'll continue spreading his, as you view it, bad economic policies and his large group of followers will replace him so that 40, 20, maybe even 10 years down the road you will see a resurgence of support for his views as the youths he influences start to get involved in politics. If he does win the Republican nomination, it serves as a benefit both to his opponents and his supporters. It obviously benefits his supporters since they finally have a chance to show off their philosophy to a larger audience. It benefits those opposed to him, such as yourself, as it gives them, more specifically Obama, a chance to put this way of thinking down for good. This battle of philosophical fate would ultimately be decided in the essential debates that would take place between Obama and Paul.[/QUOTE]
Ron Paul is 76 years old. He might not have supporters in 10, probably won't in 20, definitely won't in 40. He'll be dead.
Besides, Obama doesn't need Republican competition. He needs competition from the Democratic party - someone who will be sure to stand up for left wing ideals since Obama doesn't always seem to.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;34576899]Ron Paul is 76 years old. He might not have supporters in 10, probably won't in 20, definitely won't in 40. He'll be dead.
Besides, Obama doesn't need Republican competition. He needs competition from the Democratic party - someone who will be sure to stand up for left wing ideals since Obama doesn't always seem to.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you there, but that's an ideal situation. We have to deal with what we've got, and Ron Paul is the best one to put Obama through his paces.
[QUOTE=Hidole555;34576924]I agree with you there, but that's an ideal situation. We have to deal with what we've got, and Ron Paul is the best one to put Obama through his paces.[/QUOTE]
He'll need to stop being a niche candidate first.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;34576940]He'll need to stop being a niche candidate first.[/QUOTE]
Which is where our support for him begins.
Help us set up the chessboard, so that a great game may be played.
[QUOTE=Hidole555;34577011]Which is where our support for him begins.
Help us set up the chessboard, so that a great game may be played.[/QUOTE]
Sounds rather pretentious.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.