Romney's lead dips despite wins: Reuters/Ipsos poll
February 7, 2012. By Patricia Zengerle
WASHINGTON | Tue Feb 7, 2012 3:37pm EST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Despite his strong showing in early state contests in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, Mitt Romney's support nationwide has dipped slightly during the past month, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Tuesday.
Romney was backed by 29 percent of Republican voters in the telephone poll conducted February 2-6, down from 30 percent in a survey in early January.
The former Massachusetts governor's three rivals in the race to oppose Democratic President Barack Obama in November were in a virtual tie for second, the poll showed. The gaps between the three were within the poll's margin of error.
Texas Congressman Ron Paul's support grew by 5 percentage points to 21 percent, moving him into second place and ahead of former House of Representatives speaker Newt Gingrich, whose support slipped to 19 percent from 20 percent.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Texas Congressman Ron Paul's support grew by 5 percentage points to 21 percent, moving him into second place and ahead of former House of Representatives speaker Newt Gingrich
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Ron Paul's Third Party Bid -- Would He Even Have to Run? By L. Lippincott | Yahoo! Contributor Network – 20 hrs ago
COMMENTARY | The most asked question on the campaign trail this election cycle seems to be if Texas Congressman Ron Paul will run as an independent or third party candidate if he fails to earn the Republican nomination. The more important question for the Republican Party to ponder isn't if Paul will run independent, but does Paul even have to run as an independent to divide the vote in a general election? Voters who support Paul for the Republican nomination do so in a desire to change the role of government, end preemptive wars and drastically cut federal spending, among others. These loyal voters are very independently minded and very dedicated to the goal to change government. If they do not believe a candidate will fulfill their campaign promises to reduce the federal government they won't vote for them, period. One example of how voters cast their vote with or without Paul's organization in the contest can be seen in the Florida primary. Paul's decision to skip Florida in favor of other upcoming contests like Maine was built on the understanding that Florida would be all risk and no reward as a winner-take-all primary having multiple costly media markets. Without Paul campaigning in Florida, not advertising on Florida TV stations and not hiring a single campaign worker in the state, one would expect a terrible finish there. A vote percentage not unlike Rick Perry's finish in New Hampshire, a state he ignored and got less than 1 percent of the vote -- only 1,766 votes. Or perhaps a fate like Jon Huntsman's in Iowa, a state he openly ignored and ended up with just 739 votes. Paul got 7 percent of the Florida vote total without ever campaigning there -- well over 100,000 votes. It is also noteworthy that in New Hampshire more registered Democrats wrote in a vote for Paul (2,273 write-in votes) than Perry got in total votes. No other Republican candidate drew that many votes from across the aisle in New Hampshire. Even if Paul does not run as a third party candidate, his voters can still tip the balance of some battleground states in a general election, and this movement is almost unstoppable. Even if Paul endorsed another candidate, his loyal supporters would carefully evaluate that candidate and decide for themselves if he or she is worthy of their vote. After all, that is what led them to Paul's candidacy in the first place -- careful study of politics and political record. It's looking more like the only choice voters have is between Paul or Barack Obama. Obama would win the general election if anyone other than Paul is the Republican nominee because they could not carry the Libertarian-Republican voter bloc, and Paul would win the general election if he is the Republican nominee because in a general election he would draw in the most independent voters and voters from across the aisle.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
(1) The American political establishment has done a super job keeping our country prosperous and our liberties protected, so I’m sure whatever candidate they push on me is probably a good one.
(2) Our country is basically bankrupt. Unfunded entitlement liabilities are in excess of twice world GDP. Therefore, it’s a good idea to vote for someone who offers no specific spending cuts of any kind.
(3) Vague promises to cut spending are good enough for me, even though they have always resulted in higher spending in the past.
(4) I prefer a candidate who plays to the crowd, instead of having the courage to tell his audience things they may not want to hear.
(5) I am deeply concerned about spending. Therefore, I would like to vote for someone who supported Medicare Part D, thereby adding $7 trillion to Medicare’s unfunded liabilities.
(6) I am opposed to bailouts. Therefore, I will vote for a candidate who supported TARP.
(7) The federal government is much too involved in education, where it has no constitutional role. Therefore, I will vote for a candidate who supported expanding the Department of Education and favored the No Child Left Behind Act.
( Even though practically everyone was caught by surprise in the 2008 financial crisis, which we are still reeling from, it’s a good idea not to vote for the one man in politics who predicted exactly what was bound to unfold, all the way back in 2001.
(9) I am not impressed by a candidate who inspires people, especially young ones, to read the great economists and political philosophers.
(10) I am concerned about taxes. Therefore, I will not vote for the one candidate who has never supported a tax increase.
(11) I believe it is conservative to support bringing the Enlightenment to Afghanistan via military intervention.
(12) Even though I lost half my retirement portfolio when the economy crashed from the sugar high the Federal Reserve’s artificially low interest rates put it on, I would like to vote for someone who is not really interested in the Federal Reserve.
(13) Even though 50 years of the embargo on Cuba did nothing to undermine Fidel Castro, and in fact handed him a perfect excuse for all the failures of socialism, I favor continuing this policy.
(14) If someone has a drug problem, prison rape is the best solution I can think of.
(15) Even though the Constitution had to be amended to allow for alcohol prohibition, and even though I claim to care about the Constitution, I don’t mind that there’s no constitutional authorization for the war on drugs, and I will punish at the polls anyone who favors the constitutional solution of returning the issue to the states.
(16) I believe only a “liberal” would think it was inhumane to keep essential items out of Iraq in the 1990s, even though one of the first people to protest this policy was Pat Buchanan.
(17) The Brookings Institution says Newt Gingrich’s 1994 Contract with America was an insignificant nibbling around the edges. I favor people who support insignificant nibbling around the edges, as long as they occasionally trick me with a nice speech.
(1 I am deeply concerned about radical Islam, so it was a good idea to depose the secular Saddam Hussein — who was so despised by Islamists that Osama bin Laden himself offered to fight against him in the 1991 Persian Gulf War — and replace him with a Shiite regime friendly with Iran, while also bringing about a new Iraqi constitution that makes Islam the state religion and forbids any law that contradicts its teachings.
(19) Indefinite detention for U.S. citizens seems like nothing to be worried about, especially since our political class is so trustworthy that it could never abuse such a power.
(20) Following up on (19), I believe Thomas Jefferson was just being paranoid when he said, “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
(21) Even though the war in Iraq was based on crude propaganda I would have laughed at if the Soviet Union had peddled it, and even though the result has been hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, four million people displaced, trillions of dollars down the drain, tens of thousands of serious injuries among American servicemen and an epidemic of suicide throughout the military, not to mention the ruination of America’s reputation in the world, I see no reason to be skeptical when the same people who peddled that fiasco urge me to support yet another war as my country is going bankrupt.
(22) I do not trust the media. But when the media tells me I am not to support Ron Paul, who says things he is not allowed to say, I will comply.
(23) I know the media will smear or marginalize anyone who would really fix this country. But when the media smears and marginalizes Ron Paul, I will draw no conclusion from this.
(24) I want to be spoken to like this: “My fellow Americans, you are the awesomest of the awesome, and the only reason anyone in the world might be unhappy with your government is because of your sheer awesomeness.”
(25) I think it’s a good idea to vote for Mitt Romney, whose top three donors are Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, and Morgan Stanley, and a bad idea to vote for Ron Paul, whose top three donors are the U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Air Force.
(26) I have not been exploited enough by the cozy relationship between large financial firms and the U.S. government, and I would like to see it continue.
UPDATE: Some people are saying, “I oppose Ron Paul for different reasons. Why, he’ll force little kids to work in mines for 30 cents a day, he’ll destroy the environment, he’ll fire many of our selfless public servants, he believes in ‘deregulation,’” etc. Or, on the right, I hear, “He’s great on domestic policy, but he should be more pro-war.”
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Crazies seem to draw crazies and no where is that more apparent than the news of WHO is running Ron Paul's SuperPAC... "Revolution PAC. "
Leading Paul's PAC, none other than Conspiracy Promoter, Gary Franch! ~ Franchi has supported the 9/11 Truth Movement, which supports the idea that the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were an inside job to create a pretext for a reduction in American liberty, or at least involved a cover-up, with the World Trade Center brought down by a planned U.S. demolition, instead of terrorist-controlled airplanes.
~ Gary Franchi is one of the leading promoters of a resurgent Patriot conspiracy theory that alleges the government is creating concentration camps for U.S. citizens.
~ Franchi operates 'Restore the Republic', which opposes the Federal Reserve, the IRS and the income tax, (This Is The Best Part)" and warns that the government plans to plant RFID microchips into all Americans.
~ The Franchi group also placed billboards fueling the bogus claim that Obama is not an American citizen, asking, "Where's the REAL birth certificate?" (OMG, Ron Paul Pac IS Run By A BIRTHER!) How embarrassing!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Ron Paul loses another state, and still in last place. Together Gingrich and Paul's delegates would not beat 2nd place. Together Gingrich, Paul and Santorum would not beat Romney.
The Delegate Count: Romney 123 Santorum 72 Gingrich 32 Paul 19
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Box, where did you get the delegate count from? The numbers provided by the media are "projected" and not even close to accurate since hardly any delegates have been selected and won't be selected until March in some states.
Box, where did you get the delegate count from? The numbers provided by the media are "projected" and not even close to accurate since hardly any delegates have been selected and won't be selected until March in some states.
Each state has its own method for allocating delegates. Some will award them according to the proportion of the vote each candidate gets, some will give them all to the winner, and some will award many of their delegates by the candidates’ performance in each of a state’s congressional districts. There are 2,286 delegates up for grabs in 2012, after some states lost half of their delegates for setting their contests too early (in violation of Republican National Committee rules), and a candidate needs 1,144 delegates to win the GOP presidential nomination.
DATE/STATE/DELEGATE ALLOCATION/TOTAL DELEGATES/ DETAILED EXPLANATION Jan. 3 Iowa Non-binding 28 All delegates are unpledged. AP allocated 13 delegates to Romney and 12 delegates to Santorum based on the results of the caucuses. The other 3 delegates are the state's RNC officials.
Jan. 10 N.H. Proportional 12 All 12 delegates are allocated proportionally by statewide vote, with candidates needing 10 percent of the vote to earn delegates.
Jan. 21 S.C. Winner take all 25 11 delegates are awarded to the winner of the statewide vote. 14 delegates are awarded to the winner of each congressional district (2 per district).
Jan. 31 Fla. Winner take all 50 All 50 delegates are awarded to the winner of the statewide vote.
Feb. 4 Nev. Proportional 28 13 delegates are awarded proportionally based on the statewide vote. 12 delegates are awarded proportionally by congressional district (3 per district). The other 3 delegates are the state's RNC officials.
Feb. 7 Colo. Non-binding 36 All delegates are unpledged.
Feb. 7 Minn. Non-binding 40 All delegates are unpledged.
Feb. 11 Maine Non-binding 24 All delegates are unpledged.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
The Delegate Count: Romney 123 Santorum 72 Gingrich 32 Paul 19
You just discredited your own post...You post a delegate count totaling 246 delegates, then post information that shows 143 (Iowa - Nevada) are even allocated. And if you subtract the 28 Iowa delegates, since they haven't allocated any yet, you are down to 115 delegates that are allocated. sh*t...You have Romney with more delegates than available.
The Delegate Count: Romney 123 Santorum 72 Gingrich 32 Paul 19
You just discredited your own post...You post a delegate count totaling 246 delegates, then post information that shows 143 (Iowa - Nevada) are even allocated. And if you subtract the 28 Iowa delegates, since they haven't allocated any yet, you are down to 115 delegates that are allocated. sh*t...You have Romney with more delegates than available.
If you can find more a reliable, UNBIASED count, then please share it with us all.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
If you can find more a reliable, UNBIASED count, then please share it with us all.
If news organizations are willing to report non-fact as fact, why would ANYBODY read the news without questioning the factuality of it? And they wonder why people don't trust the news...Now, if you don't trust the self appointed purveyors of truth in the MSM, you are considered a "conspiracy theorist", especially when you question their motives on why a news organization would report a lie.
There are no unbiased and reliable news outlets. They all serve corporate interests and have a horse(s) in the race.
Logged
Even though practically everyone was caught by surprise in the 2008 financial crisis, which we are still reeling from, it’s a good idea not to vote for the one man in politics who predicted exactly what was bound to unfold, all the way back in 2001.
