IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.
IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.
*****************************************************************************************************************************************************
Posted on 12/30/2011 4:41:59 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Mitt Romney and Ron Paul are battling for the top spot in Iowa but the second tier of candidates is closing in, according to a NBC News-Marist poll released on Friday.
Romney leads the poll of likely Iowa caucus-goers at 23 percent, followed by Paul at 21 percent.
However, the second tier of candidates, led by Rick Santorum and Rick Perry, are suddenly within striking distance of the frontrunners.
Santorum came in third at 15 percent, followed by Perry at 14 percent.
Newt Gingrich has fallen to fifth place at 13 percent. The former House speaker led the same poll earlier this month at 28 percent, but has been battered by his rivals over his divorces and ties to Freddie Mac.
Michele Bachmann is at six percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
But...but...but..
Romney’s campaign headquarters (Fox News) is keeping its finger on the pulse of all the polls - informing us that Mitt is surging ahead of Newt - 27% to 23% with a MOE of 4%.
Oh yea of little faith - Mitt has it in the bag!!!!
(the BARF bag;)
Ouch.
You can have Newt.
I want the guy with the conservative record, Gov. Rick Perry.
The RNC called me the other day trolling for money. I told them they will NEVER get another cent from because of the way they are pushing for their boy Romney. I am so diisgusted with the political reality I could scream. Leave it to the RNC to successfully so far attempt to nominate someone even more pathetic than Mclame. I now believe it was a mistake for the Tea Party to work within the Republican Party. I truly can’t believe caucus voters are ideologically brain dead enough to give even one vote for Reomney. I think Obama should (finally) do us all a favor and get rid of Biden and make Romney his VP! It would save us a lot of trouble.
Your proposal would favor wealthy people i.e. Romney, Trump or Bloomberg would be the strongest candidates.
What you describe is anything BUT simple. Each candidate now has to run the equivalent of a general election campaign AND with the financial restrictions you've created. How are they going to do that? By going out and getting more smaller donations. OK, how are they going to do THAT?
Also, your plan reminds me of the South Park underwear gnomes--"Simply make everyone only give $2300 donations, and have the candidates run in fifty states, and presto, we have a final candidate who's of the people, not the establishment," or whatever.
What are you going to do to the political parties who will give their support to individual candidates (like, uh, Romney, whose support by the establishment, I am guessing, has you thinking about this, at least in part)? With candidates relying on smaller donations, and with no bundling and McCain-Feingold-like restrictions on freedom of people to organize and pool their own money (those evil PACS), all that's happened is that the same monied interests will donate from individuals who make up those interests--which is what they do NOW.
Your solution is no solution at all. It makes the problem worse because you're having these smaller candidates spreading themselves so thin across the country instead of focusing their limited resources on ONE primary at a time, where they can get the most bang for their limited buck.
How does your way make anything better, instead of giving us one candidate who emerges from this fifty-primary day a winner--and that winner will be the one who is best because....?
Welcome to Italy.
So we improve the choice of candidates by FORCING people to stay in a party?
I don't think you've thought this through.
Well, NOT ONE vote has been cast yet.
We need to back a strong conservative, and like Rush said before he left on his Christmas break, “They’re going to try to depress us (I include the GOP establishment in here as well as the MSM) but we need to keep looking at the goal and not get depressed and distracted.” [heavy paraphrasing]
Rush is right about this.
“Want a REAL indicator...wait for South Carolina. The media loves Iowa because they can propel false positives and makes it easier for them to pick our candidates for us.”
And also because Iowans are idiots.
Exactly. That sort of unconstitutional free speech limitations are complicated and something liberals (and that fat rino who was head of senate centrist coalition, fred something) have been trying to achieve fir years. If I have money, why shouldn’t I have the right to buy ad and say positive things about some issue or candidate?
Having some government official checking whether my ad is political, is big government policy and unconstitutional.
I vaguely renember Newt supported this.
That danged free speech, it always seems to trip up these folks who know just how to solve all of our woes, don’t it? :D
LLS
Working on it!
Thank you!!!! It’s so refreshing to hear someone say it!
How stupid are you if you need a campaign “ground game” to point you in the direction of the polls? How stupid are you if the WEATHER is what determines how your state will vote?
Not really; you can Register as an Independent, and then not vote in ANY Primary. The "Party-Switching" crap can only be eliminated by minimizing the Fraud opportunities. This would be a move in that direction.
This thing is over, and your group of geniuses made it happen. Congratulations! Get used to saying Romney by the way, you deserve it.
Sorry, still not buying it. The ‘party-switiching fraud’ sure seems like an urban myth to me, and I’ve seen no evidence to show it impacting an election other than folks saying it does. If you have data supporting this, please share it.
As for "Proof"; it's similar to the typical "there's no evidence" meaning it's been shredded, hidden, destroyed, etc. when any investigation of corruption is forth-coming. It's not rocket science.
IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.
IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.
*****************************************************************************************************************************************************
Newt has a far more Conservative record than does Perry!
When Newt was setting up the House to handle the first Republican majority in 40 years, that he was given credit for making happen, your “genius” candidate was still a Democrat, in love with Al Gore!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2815463/posts
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.