NEW POLLS SHOW ROMNEY AHEAD IN FIRST FOUR STATES

National Journal ^ | 10/26/11 | Steven Shepard

[Elle Bee]

ORC International is an astro turf firm

.

[Tonytitan]

You've got to poll likely voters to get a better idea of how it is really leaning.

I've heard Rush make that distinction. I've wondered how pollsters differentiate "registered" from "likely".

[normy]

If anyone could be honest with themselves they would see this race is wide open. Cain is at 25%, Romney at 25% Newt and Perry around 10%.

After the next debate Nov 9th they need to have 4 way debates only.

There is little momentum except perceived momentum or spin.

This is going to come down to money and organization once again.

[EmilyGeiger]

Interesting how this is reported after it has been found that someone other than Romney is showing a lead with likely voters. Cain has been very smart in how he is running his campaign, what with the “smokers” ad and running ads on Rush’s show. I really am starting to believe he is starting to show that he can be, and hopefully will be the frontrunner. :)

[central_va]

The game is played like this. MSM props up the RINO, 4 weeks before the general when the sheeple “are paying attention” the MSM turns on the RINO like rabid hyenas. Lather, rinse, repeat

[fieldmarshaldj]

Depends on how they want to spin things. A respectable pollster will ask a registered voter the likelihood of their voting. As we often know, sometimes half or more registered voters don’t vote, so that’s why those types of polls not showing likely voters can be dismissed. I think “registered” voter polls also tend to skew Democrat (well, at least when done party vs. party rather than just GOP).

[6SJ7]

Romney is Obama Lite.

[StonyBurk]

Didn’t Gov.Christie endorse Romney? Aren’t they now joined at the hip so to say? If so one more reason to not vote for Romney.Christie says his church believes homosexuality is a sin-but he does not. What kind of Christian is Christie? IF Christie supports Romney they must share certain things in common. Are they both Sodomites?

[dools0007world]

Ping. This poll was outcome designed. Cain is beating the heck out of GOP Rinos Romney and Perry. RINO-led GOP, Media and demrats, are desperate for Romney to oppose Onada. Which ever guy wins is a demrat win.

[dools0007world]

Cain will not choose Romney as VP. A smart pres. candidate chooses a VP who (1) draws votes, (2) stengthens the team and (3) mirrors his life philosphy.

Romney will not draw votes from the Peoples Republic of New England states. Moreover, if he chooses Romney, he risks losing votes. Conservatives loathe Romney. Romney has no credible foreign policy experience. Finally, Romney is the antithisis of Cain.

[meadsjn]

The perception that is out there ...

No. That "perception" only exists among the 25% of establishment Republicans who are the Trotsky wing of the communist movement (and some Republicans in Utah).

80% of Republican primary voters are not supporting Romney.

[Arrowhead1952]

I’ve already killed a couple of bugs on my computer screen and tried to smash the one you posted too.

[paudio]

I respectfully disagree. First of all, Romney being an antithesis of Cain is a self-projection on the part of some conservative. Cain himself doesn't see it that way. After all, Cain endorsed him in 2008. Had he not run himself, I wouldn't be surprised if Cain endorses Romney again. Second, Cain will not choose someone who has never hold elected office. So, despite what some FReepers want, the likes of John Bolton is out of question. I'm not sure who would have the foreign policy credential among the well-known Republican. Who knows, Cain might pick Condi or Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the current chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee (that will fill two different shoes: women and Latino). Third, Reagan didn't choose a VP who mirrored his philosophy. Instead, he picked Bush Sr. Fourth, Cain might want to 'soften' his conservative image by picking a moderate to woo the independent voters. Who is going to be better than Romney on that account? Huntsman, probably, but Cain would't pick unknown person. Five, Romney is popular among the Mormons, which will help the ticket in NV, NM, and CO. Yes, some conservatives may not vote for a Mormon for President, but some of them may hold their nose for a VP.

Having said that, there is a 500-pound gorilla hanging over Romney's neck: his RomneyCare. However, since Cain is in #1 ticket, he probably will make argument that he doesn't approve what his VP did in the past.

[Yosemitest]

I love it.

[BenKenobi]

Ugh, what a time to shift to “most recent poll leader”. This bites. NH, btw, polls more indies than pubbies. I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s what they did for all 4.

[4everontheRight]

Here in SC I can honestly say no one I know supports Romney. Not one person I discuss politics with plans to vote for him and as we have gotten closer to the primary most people believe that because SC has a stupid primary set up, Romney may win since Dems can control who wins the Republican primary in SC.
I would say that Cain is in with 6 out of 10 of people I talk with. People love him for his frankness and just one of you kind of personalities. I plan on voting for Cain.

[campaignPete R-CT]

When I go to NH next, should I:
a. do some real work for Cain?
b. observe and take notes like a pundit and report back to the web so I become a web celebrity?

[Yosemitest]

It's just the LAME Stream Media selling horse hockey.
But I'm not buying it.
Palin was my first choice
Bachmann is now my first choice, and Cain is my second.
Newt is my third choice, and I might consider Rick Santorum.

But Romney, Perry, Ron Paul, Huntsman, and Johnson are NOT acceptable,
and if on the ballot for the general election for President or V.P., would cause me to do a write in.

There's no way in hell I can compromise my values.

Jack Kerwick wrote an article on May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican and he expressed some important issues that I agree with.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising.

This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.

It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.

It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct by interrelated objections.

First,
they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.

Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party,
they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.



Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.

Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming.


No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:
“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing;
“I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.



As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.

Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”

Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.

For example,

as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.


It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.

The "Establishment Republicans" can go to hell!

[Yosemitest]

"When I go to NH next, should I:
a. do some real work for Cain?
b. observe and take notes like a pundit and report back to the web so I become a web celebrity?"

c. BOTH!!!

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

If this survey was of registered Republicans in Iowa, it is meaningless. It should be of likely caucus goers.