Posted on 01/08/2012 8:31:13 PM PST by lilyfreeper
That's the point, and the media is going to beat America senseless with it between now and South Carolina.
So tell me why NH is an important primary state for conservatives?
It’s not an important state for conservatives. It’s an important state to the establishment, so their moderate nominees get momentum.
I am still amazed that the Boston Globe endorsed Huntsman.
I think the Globe did it to keep Huntsman in the race as they know Romney’s going to walk in the win in NH.
But you can never have too many RINO liberals so they go against their former Governor to keep a RINO heir and a spare in the race.
New Hampshire: you’ve really got to wonder about a state that has Romney first, Paul second and Huntsman third. It completely inverses the correct order for a Conservative. These three should obviously be at the bottom.
You are right, and what amazes me is that folks in South Carolina, to a considerable degree, will line up and vote in a way that shows they are impacted by those two states even though those oddball states have nothing in common with S.C.
"Left" and "highly accurate" are mutually exclusive.
The Romney campaign is not a great thing to support here.
Mentioning that a given poll gives Romney a large lead, and then asserting that poll is accurate, has absolutely nothing to do with supporting or not supporting Romney.
I'm sure you'll see the results tomorrow be very close to the average of all the polls released today (all two of which, so far, are reasonably similar.
“people often do and believe things because many other people do and believe the same things.”
Exactly. And this presents a huge potential to influence votes, particularly with polls.
The tough question for our left-leaning friends is this: what motive would a liberal pollster have to not skew his results?
Yes, and he is even worse than Romney, in my book. Maybe a little more substantive, if I had to grant him a positive.
Wow, that pic really says it all, doesn’t it...
Ah, well...
This is why Free Public Polls exist - they are using the power of conformity to manipulate gullible voters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQI8pZJiMe0
maybe if Santorum comes in dead last he will drop out and we can get back to the serious battle between Gingrich and Romney without having Santorum splitting up the conservative vote.
Unfortunately, with this electorate, we do need a 1 on 1 matchup or we hand it to Romney like McQueeg got it in '08 with only 33% in South Carolina. In '08, I think Huckabee, Thompson and even Romney would have beaten McQueeg head to head. But none of them ever got the chance soon enough.
The same thing is setting up this year. I think that Gingrich or Santorum, or possibly even Perry, would beat Romney head to head.
My hope is for some key Gingrich endorsements (e.g. Palin, Cain, Rush) in this week before the S.C. primary to put Newt over the top.
Wrong answer. PPP has never been accurate.
As well as his conservative message. :-)
“Wrong answer. PPP has never been accurate.”
PPP had Slick Willard at 19% in their last Iowa poll. All the other Iowa polls at RCP were much closer to the 24% Romney got. PPP is probably under counting Romney in this poll which leads me to believe this is a Huntsman troll posting this poll.
This just shows that both the Iowa Caucus and the NH primary are not close in representing the sentiments of republicans across the country. Any primary that is open to independents is not serious either.
If Newt OR Santorum stay in the race in February, the race will get interesting.
Right, let's focus on Gingrich who will go into SC with all of the momentum he'll have from coming in 4th in IA and 4th in NH. It makes about as much sense as still supporting Bachmann.
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.