December Republican Primary Poll

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gingrich’s credibility increases as Republicans and Democrats realize: the rise of Newt is for real

“President Obama’s advisers, long convinced that Romney would be their opponent, now think he has a realistic chance of facing Gingrich, and are frantically rewriting a playbook that has been three years in the making. … Republicans, at the same time, find themselves both appalled and in admiration of Gingrich’s ability to channel the base’s anger and capture the anti-establishment moment in a way that Romney never could.” - Politico

Gingrich fighting massive debt racked up in campaign’s extravagant early days - Washington Post

New polling shows Gingrich continues to lead in Iowa, is making inroads into other states

“New polls from Public Policy Polling in North Carolina and Colorado confirm the Gingrich surge, putting the former House Speaker Newt Gingrich lengths ahead of rivals in the Republican presidential nomination race.” - WSJ

Gingrich is even being Romney in one of Nevada (a traditionally pro-Romney state)'s congressional districts “The survey also found Newt Gingrich slightly ahead of Mitt Romney in the district among likely GOP voters… by 39 percent to 34 percent.” - Las Vegas Sun

“Mr. Gingrich is rated more favorably than any of the other six remaining candidates in the race among voters who say they are likely to attend the Republican caucuses in Iowa. He would be supported enthusiastically as his party’s presidential nominee by more voters than any of his rivals” - [New York Times

](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/u...l-finds.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2)
Team Romney get serious about attacking Gingrich

“Mitt Romney, facing anxiety from some of his own supporters after sliding back to second in a slew of polls, took a series of steps Tuesday to signal he’ll get more aggressive in the final weeks before voting begins.” - Politico

The Romney attack lines will be:
  1. Integrity: “Romney will not go after Gingrich on personal issues, but ABC News has learned that you can expect to see Romney surrogates making fairly direct references to Gingrich’s tumultuous past”
  2. Temperament: “Romney himself will highlight the importance of temperament by discussing his record as a leader. Surrogates are likely to go after Newt directly. The question that will be posed is, “Who do you want to make decisions?””
  3. Money: “You will see the Romney team begin to utilize their huge financial advantage. One Republican says expect ads in South Carolina soon. Not because they think it will guarantee victory (polls show them trailing there), but because they are concerned with keeping it close.”
  4. Organization: “The Romney team will flex its organizational muscle, especially in Florida where they have an extensive infrastructure. The campaign just sent out an email blast touting its support in West Virginia, which does not hold its primary until May.”
More at ABC News.

Given Newt Gingrich’s rapid rise, Mitt Romney’s only path to victory may be a war of attrition. - Washington Post

Mitt Romney becomes latest GOP candidate to decline Trump debate - CBS News

Questions raised about Romney’s disposal of records - CNN

One anti-Newt line that doesn’t work - and one that does

The line that Newt is a Washington insider may not go down well. New York Times polling from Iowa showed: “The rise of Mr. Gingrich comes after a year in which a forceful anti-Washington sentiment has driven the agenda of the Republican Party. A leading attribute cited in interviews with voters here is his deep experience in Washington.”

However, the attack against Gingrich’s personal life may have some sway with conservatives. Erick Erickson writes: "I do not know that I can support a man who is on his third wife having cheated on his two prior wives. … if a man cannot be faithful to his vows made before God related to his marriage, how can he be faithful to the constitution he swears to God to uphold?
 
SwissGuard25 said:
Yes
the 2000 Elections
More people voted for Gore than Bush
Click to expand...
Four candidates won the popular vote but lost the presidency: Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but lost the election to John Quincy Adams (1824); Samuel J. Tilden won the popular vote but lost the election to Rutherford B. Hayes (1876); Grover Cleveland won the popular vote but lost the election to Benjamin Harrison (1888); Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election to George W. Bush (2000).

Read more: Presidential Trivia — Infoplease.com infoplease.com/spot/prestrivia1.html#ixzz1ftQBoUMR
 
gilliam said:
Four candidates won the popular vote but lost the presidency: Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but lost the election to John Quincy Adams (1824); Samuel J. Tilden won the popular vote but lost the election to Rutherford B. Hayes (1876); Grover Cleveland won the popular vote but lost the election to Benjamin Harrison (1888); Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election to George W. Bush (2000).

Read more: Presidential Trivia — Infoplease.com infoplease.com/spot/prestrivia1.html#ixzz1ftQBoUMR
Click to expand...
I know they asked me when the Electoral College elected someone without popular vote.
 
SwissGuard25 said:
Yes
the 2000 Elections
More people voted for Gore than Bush
Click to expand...
SwissGuard25 said:
I know they asked me when the Electoral College elected someone without popular vote.
Click to expand...
Actually, that’s not what I asked. It was mentioned that electors don’t have to vote based on the votes cast in their districts. I was asking when electors did so. Winning an election where the electoral vote is different than the national popular vote is not indicative of this. Such an election can happen due to simple math and the electoral process.

For example, hypothetically look at three electors (from a small state that has the electors determined by their related district rather than all or nothing). If one elector was elected by a close vote - 5001 to 4999 in favor of candidate A; a second also with a close vote - 5001 to 4999 for candidate A; and the third elector was determined by a landslide - 8000 to 2000 for candidate B; then candidate A would win on electoral vote - 2 to 1, but would have lost in popular vote - 17998 to 12002. The electors voted according to their district, so the electors did not subvert the will of the people.
 
rlg94086 said:
Actually, that’s not what I asked. It was mentioned that electors don’t have to vote based on the votes cast in their districts. I was asking when electors did so. Winning an election where the electoral vote is different than the national popular vote is not indicative of this. Such an election can happen due to simple math and the electoral process.

For example, hypothetically look at three electors (from a small state that has the electors determined by their related district rather than all or nothing). If one elector was elected by a close vote - 5001 to 4999 in favor of candidate A; a second also with a close vote - 5001 to 4999 for candidate A; and the third elector was determined by a landslide - 8000 to 2000 for candidate B; then candidate A would win on electoral vote - 2 to 1, but would have lost in popular vote - 17998 to 12002. The electors voted according to their district, so the electors did not subvert the will of the people.
Click to expand...
Yah well,
I don’ think the Electoral College system is too wise itself.
I mean if you think about it it makes no sense.
Lets say that California has a vote Orange beats yellow by one vote. So Orange gets all the Electoral votes in the State of California. And then Rhode Island has a vote Yellow beats Orange by a landslide, but sense Rhode Island has a small population it only gets a few Electoral Votes.
You see where it is unfair?
it doesn’t mater on Vote it’s a winner take all plan.
The only two states that don’t have the winner take all method is Maine and another state who’s name a can’t remember.
 
Team Romney going full force negative on Newt. I expect a LOT of mud slinging.
 
2012 candidates appear at Republican Jewish Coalition forum, pledging strong support for Israel

“Newt Gingrich… criticized a line of public discussion — which he blamed on the Obama administration — that he said holds that “it’s always Israel’s fault no matter how bad the other side is.” This, he added to sustained applause, “has to stop.””

“Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, said the White House had “chastened” Israel while pushing an appeasement strategy”

“One reason Republicans seek to sound serious on Israel is to appeal to evangelical Christians who make up large portions of the Republican primary voters in South Carolina and the caucusgoers in Iowa. Down the road, they also know that Jewish voters are critical to victory in general election swing states like Pennsylvania and Florida.”

More at the New York Times.

Perry hits Obama for war on faith - CNN

Perry blames Obama for defense cuts that could mean ‘another Pearl Harbor’ - The Hill

Gingrich and Bachmann would move Embassy to Jerusalem - National Journal

Ron Paul doesn’t budge on Israel - CNN

Gingrich continues to lead polls in early states

Iowa: Gingrich 33 — Romney 20

New Hampshire: Romney 35 — Gingrich 26

South Carolina: Gingrich 43 — Romney 20

Florida: Gingrich 48 — Romney 25

From The Page, which titles the polling results “Newt Nation”.

Gingrich’s latest fundraising take: $4 million and counting - LA Times

Democrats start to focus on attacking Gingrich as well as Romney, to force a long primary contest…

“The White House and its allies are starting to turn their sights to Newt Gingrich, invoking his tumultuous history as House speaker to brand him as the “godfather of gridlock,” a testament to his new viability and the sudden realization that he could be President Obama’s Republican opponent. Democrats have made it clear they have no plans of letting up on Mitt Romney. But they are hoping to help stretch the Republican nominating contest into a longer and bloodier battle” - New York Times

…a long battle would favor Romney

“Of the two campaigns, Romney’s has been preparing far longer for a potentially lengthy nomination battle. But that means Romney cannot allow Gingrich to embarrass him in January.” - San Francisco Chronicle

Karl Rove: Gingrich’s Organization Deficit Disorder

“Mr. Gingrich has little or no campaign organization in Iowa and most other states. He didn’t file a complete slate of New Hampshire delegates and alternates. He is the only candidate who didn’t qualify for the Missouri primary, and on Wednesday he failed to present enough signatures to get on the ballot in Ohio. Redistricting squabbles may lead the legislature to move the primary to a later date and re-open filing, but it’s still embarrassing to be so poorly organized.” - Karl Rove for the WSJ

Romney’s attack dogs: Chris Christie, John Sununu, and Jim Talent - Politico

Chris Christie talks up Romney in Iowa - RealClearPolitics

John Sununu hates Newt Gingrich - Matt Lewis at the Daily Caller

2012 roundup:

GOP field preps for key debate - Politico

“As expected, Romney and Gingrich will share center stage.” - Politico

Gingrich says he would consider Romney for his VP - TownHall

Gingrich would name John Bolton to be his secretary of state - WSJ ($)

Romney’s latest ad plays the family card against Gingrich - Washington Post

The WSJ says Romney’s entitlements policies are more radical than Newt’s - WSJ

Sarah Palin says she won’t endorse before Iowa, praises Gingrich - LA Times
 
So, after Rick Perry’s “Strong” video, do you think he is done?

I think it may have been too bold.
 
bbarrick8383 said:
I think it was right on, but I don’t think it will change anything for him.
Click to expand...
The parodies that appeared on the internet were hysterical. Wearing the same jacket that Heath Ledger wore in Brokeback Mountain did not help one bit.
 
Pro_Bono said:
The parodies that appeared on the internet were hysterical. Wearing the same jacket that Heath Ledger wore in Brokeback Mountain did not help one bit.
Click to expand...
Never seen the movie and never will, as a matter of fact I doubt he has either.
 
SwissGuard25 said:
Yah well,
I don’ think the Electoral College system is too wise itself.
I mean if you think about it it makes no sense.
Lets say that California has a vote Orange beats yellow by one vote. So Orange gets all the Electoral votes in the State of California. And then Rhode Island has a vote Yellow beats Orange by a landslide, but sense Rhode Island has a small population it only gets a few Electoral Votes.
You see where it is unfair?
it doesn’t mater on Vote it’s a winner take all plan.
The only two states that don’t have the winner take all method is Maine and another state who’s name a can’t remember.
Click to expand...
No, I don’t see where it’s unfair, but I would prefer that all the states divvied up its votes according to district rather than winner take all. However, that is each state’s decision.
 
rlg94086 said:
No, I don’t see where it’s unfair, but I would prefer that all the states divvied up its votes according to district rather than winner take all. However, that is each state’s decision.
Click to expand...
You should move to Nebraska!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top