• Gingrich leads Iowa; Paul second followed by declining Romney
    10 replies, posted
[QUOTE](CNN) – With a month to go until Iowans select a candidate for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has extended his lead in the state, while Texas Rep. Ron Paul has entered second place and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has dropped to third. A new poll from the Des Moines Register finds 25% of likely Republican voters in Iowa backing Gingrich, while 18% support Paul and 16% say they’d go for Romney. Other candidates for the nomination – including Herman Cain, who announced Saturday he was suspending his presidential campaign – polled in the single digits. Gingrich’s rise in Iowa is a marked change from a month ago, when he was polling in fourth place in the Hawkeye State. A CNN/ORC International Poll taken October 20-25 found only 10% of registered Republicans in Iowa backing Gingrich, while Romney held the lead with 24%. Ron Paul was in third place in October, with 12%. Romney, who won the support of the Sioux City Journal earlier Saturday, has recently amped up his effort in Iowa, sending direct-mail fliers to voters and buying television advertising space. Gingrich has a smaller operation in the state, only opening his first campaign office there Wednesday. Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, a Republican, said Thursday that Gingrich would need to step up his campaign in the state if he planned on winning the first-in-the-nation caucuses. "He may be ahead in the polls, but can he deliver?" Branstad asked. "That's the question I have." Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, who have campaigned heavily in Iowa, came in at 6% and 8%, respectively. Bachmann won the intensely watched Ames Straw Poll in August, but has seen her support declining since then. Santorum recently completed an arduous campaign task – visiting all 99 counties in Iowa. Iowa holds the nation’s first presidential nominating contest on January 3. The Des Moines Register poll was taken by phone from Nov. 27-30 from 401 likely Republican caucus-goers. The sampling error was 4.9 percentage points.[/QUOTE] Source: [url]http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/03/gingrich-ahead-in-iowa-poll-shows-romney-drops-to-third/[/url] Note: The Iowa Caucus is on January 3rd, 2012 - one month from today
I don't see any mention of Jon Huntsman, and I want to know his percentage.
Oh my god, why does everyone care so much about these stupid opinion polls. They are almost always never correct once they actually vote for a nominee.
[QUOTE=valkery;33560582]I don't see any mention of Jon Huntsman, and I want to know his percentage.[/QUOTE] Probably around 3-4%
[QUOTE=valkery;33560582]I don't see any mention of Jon Huntsman, and I want to know his percentage.[/QUOTE] I couldn't find anything on Google about it except this article from early June: [release]Reporting from North Conway, N.H. — Prospective Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman said Saturday that he won't try to compete in the Iowa caucuses early next year. [url]http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/04/nation/la-na-huntsman-iowa-20110605[/url][/release]
[QUOTE=valkery;33560582]I don't see any mention of Jon Huntsman, and I want to know his percentage.[/QUOTE] Even though Huntsman is arguably the sanest and most logical of the candidates, he's far too moderate for most Republicans, about as moderate to the GOP as Obama is to the Democratic Party. He's also "batted for the other team," so to speak, because he's the only candidate there willing to work with the Democrats towards a compromise and has done so in the past. So it's rather fascinating to see that, despite Huntsman being the only one there who'd look the [I]least [/I]extreme compared to Obama(and therefore the only one who has a ghost of a chance against Obama in the 2012 elections), he'd never be the nominee because he's not extreme enough, seeing as how being an Extremist in all regards is now in vogue for the GOP. Not even Ron Paul could achieve that, despite looking interesting to the Tea Party for a while. On a side note, it's equally depressing, laughable and awesome how the GOP/Tea Party's own ignorance and stupidity drags itself down. Reagan would probably roll in his grave at the sight of these young upstarts. :v: [editline]3rd December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;33560670]I couldn't find anything on Google about it except this article from early June: [release]Reporting from North Conway, N.H. — Prospective Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman said Saturday that he won't try to compete in the Iowa caucuses early next year. [url]http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/04/nation/la-na-huntsman-iowa-20110605[/url][/release][/QUOTE] Which is very sad, he's the only one who could beat Obama at his own game. I mentioned "compared to Obama." because that is what it's going to boil down to, Obama standing, at the Presidential Debates, right next to whoever wins the Republican nomination. Gingrich compared to Obama? Too Flip-Floppy. How about Romney? Too yellow. What about Bachmann? Too [I]INSANE[/I]. No, at the rate this joke of a GOP race is going, we'll have four more years of the Democrats running the show.
Paul in second? In Iowa? Shit, he's come some way. I'm surprised.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];33561115']Paul in second? In Iowa? Shit, he's come some way. I'm surprised.[/QUOTE] Well basically all of the other candidates have just crashed and burned and Paul/Gingrich are the only ones who the media are acknowledging who haven't made some idiotic public mistake and/or aren't fucking insane. Huntsman is probably the most moderate and sensible candidate but the republicans (and subsequently right-wing corporate media outlets) hate/ignore him for exactly that.
Romney and Huntsman are the only two who can compete with Obama. In a normal election year, Obama would win without any suspense. But with a slowing economy and a high unemployment rate, Obama will have to work very hard to win.
[QUOTE=person11;33561196]Romney and Huntsman are the only two who can compete with Obama. In a normal election year, Obama would win without any suspense. But with a slowing economy and a high unemployment rate, Obama will have to work very hard to win.[/QUOTE] Romney? Pfffffft. Romney is a weak, milquetoast candidate. Obama would hand him his own ass on a silver platter.
It is not just about the candidates, it is about the trends. Since 2009, there has been a huge shift to the right in the political spectrum. Obama is likely to lose key states in the next election, regardless of the republican candidate. Not only that, but Obama is unpopular enough to get voted against, meaning Romney would not be getting votes for him, but votes for the guy who is not Obama.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.