Posted on 01/01/2012 9:31:16 PM PST by TBBT
Raleigh, N.C. – The Republican caucus in Iowa is headed for a photo finish, with the three leading contenders all within two points of each other. Ron Paul is at 20%, Mitt Romney at 19%, and Rick Santorum at 18%. Rounding out the field are Newt Gingrich at 14%, Rick Perry at 10%, Michele Bachmann at 8%, Jon Huntsman at 4%, and Buddy Roemer at 2%.
(Excerpt) Read more at publicpolicypolling.com ...
Andrea Michell already made the statement IA is too “white, evangelical and rural.” I guess that was a pre-emptive strike.
You drank the bad koolaid against Perry, so what?
Moving on, you have the blind spot to trash Perry supporters for backing somone who you swear isn’t going to make it, while at the same time flacking for Huntsman?
Pretty funny...
Obviously the best candidates don’t always get their due. And the men with money to burn still poll low. I didn’t say Perry wasn’t going to make it (although 5th doesn’t look good), but it would be a massive disaster if he did.
Don’t count Rick out just yet. People wrote off Newt after his campaign’s growing pains, but he came back strong. People said that Herman Cain lacked the money to do anything, and it started pouring in once his message caught on.
With everything that we’ve seen so far, I think anything can happen.
Or it could just be wishful thinking.
Not as far as I'm concerned. I saw the so-called retraction, and it didn't change my mind about him.
There's a joke that the definition of a political "gaffe" is when the politician tells the truth about what he really thinks, inadvertently.
Perry's "no heart" statement struck me as that kind of gaffe. And even if he didn't really mean it -- i.e., he was simply pandering to Hispanic voters? Well that's even worse.
Perry's subsequent poor performances appear to have sealed his fate. Time will tell if I'm wrong.
Interesting. Will have to see if the vote reflects this data. Santorum could be a big surprise.
I wouldn’t get too excited. Santorum has spent a career promoting big government and has a lifelong record of championing massive spending. Besides being a serious neo-con that draws all of 10 people to his events. I don’t see it happening, but as you say, politics is a strange animal. Particularly this year.
Rick Santorum: Top-tier on Most Corrupt Member of Congress list 2 years running. Maybe a contributing factor to why he lost his senate seat in historic fashion?
I am not of one mind about states grabbing “Federal” money. Should you accept a tip from the guy who just robbed you? I’m not so sure I’d say no.
If Perry meant it when saying he wanted Uncle Sam to be of little consequence (other than national defense of course) then he’d have to change his tune in Washington about the idea of “taxing and returning” to states. That is not necessarily a bad idea either.
“Seriously ? Perry’s polling is higher than Huntsman ? Those of you who are still sitting here pining away for Gov. Perry are wasting valuable time. This kind of blind foolishness is going to sink us all. Huntsman is the only anti-Romney candidate that can beat Obama. No negatives, an extremely strong conservative record and the president is immune from making foreign policy criticism or the kind of personal attacks he favors against someone he vouched for by appointing him to an extremely important and sensitive post.”
Hey I got nothing against Huntsman. He’s a solid conservative governor, and 100 times better than Mitt. If he’s your guy, more power to you! Keep pushing him, and may the best man win. But for whatever reason, Huntsman hasn’t caught on with more than 2% or 3% of the GOP voters outside of NH. And yes, I do believe Perry’s polling higher than Huntsman-at least he is in Iowa, where it matters this week.
The rest of the state by state polling is really meaningless right now cause everything is fluid. At this point in 2008, Hillary was thought to have the nomination wrapped up, and Rudy I believe was first nationally on the GOP side. What really matters is who the GOP electorate eventually sees as the anti-Romney that is acceptable and can win. And in the end, I believe that Perry can be that guy.
I do like Huntsman though, and I wont say you’re wasting you’re time supporting him even though he’s close to last in most of the polls outside NH, but don’t tell me I’m wasting time supporting the 11 year governor of the nation’s second largest state that has tons of money and a strong organization behind him. He has just as good a chance of winning as anyone else.
Huntsman was actually up to 5% in the last 2 or 3 national polls (including Iowa). I am at least gratified he finally seems to be getting the respect and notice that his candidacy deserves. Momentum is also snowballing in New Hampshire not a moment too soon, which gives Jon leverage for a leading role in the party even if it is too late for the nomination this cycle (hopefully not though ;). Anybody but Romney !
This is direct from politifact.com:
We’ve previously reported that there were indeed budget surpluses during his time as speaker of the House, from 1995 to 1999. By fiscal year 1998, the federal budget did reach a surplus of $69 billion. And in fiscal year 1999 — which Gingrich can claim some responsibility for, even though he was out as speaker for most of the fiscal year — it was in surplus as well, to the tune of $126 billion.
“The budget ended up balancing faster than either party expected simply because economic growth was so strong,” said Chris Edwards, an economist at the libertarian Cato Institute.
He does credit Gingrich for pushing President Bill Clinton toward reducing the deficit.
In his 1996 budget, “Clinton proposed to stabilize the deficit at around $190 billion. He did not propose to balance the budget. The Republicans under Gingrich pushed him into it,” Edwards said, and that materialized in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
“The debt increased due to interest on the debt that had accumulated while Tip O’Neill, Jim Wright, and Tom Foley were serving as Speaker.”
Let's look at the bottom line, shall we? Our national debt increased each and every year that Newt Gingrich was in Congress, and every year since. Such a state is not indicative of a surplus. It is indicative of not having enough money to cover all the spending that has been authorized, and borrowing ensued.
The “most accurate pollster” gets it wrong...
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.