-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The latest CNN/Time/ORC poll results look good for Mitt Romney. He narrowly leads Ron Paul in Iowa, 25 percent to 22 percent. He has a bigger lead in New Hampshire, beating Paul 44 percent to 17 percent with Newt Gingrich in third at 16 percent.
Rick Santorum is finally surging in Iowa, after other polls have shown him with high favorables. Santorum finishes third with 16 percent. Newt Gingrich is at 14 percent and Rick Perry is at 11 percent. Michele Bachmann is at 9 percent.
The Iowa poll appears to include only registered Republicans, suggesting that Paul could still beat Romney in the Hawkeye State even if those numbers hold. It’s also unclear how much organizational muscle Romney is committing to Iowa at this point, while Paul is strong on the ground.
But the takeway is that no candidate who could make Romney’s life difficult by consolidating the South or, in Jon Hunstman’s case, contesting for establishment support appears to be in a very good position. Santorum doesn’t have the organization and it is hard to see Paul beating Romney in South Carolina or Florida, which may be ground zero for any conservative insurgent.
View all comments (12) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/12/28/latest-polls-good-news-for-rom
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
- Self-Righteous Republic
- Sarah Palin’s Rack
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Proud Mormon| 12.28.11 @ 4:50PM
Surrender Tea somethings, you lose.
Interested Conservative| 12.28.11 @ 5:21PM
You hit the wrong link. Here you go:
http://www.dailykos.com/
Clint| 12.28.11 @ 6:33PM
" Ron Paul triumphs in new Hawkeye State PPP poll
Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, triumphed in a new Public Policy Polling poll of likely Iowa GOP caucusgoers released late Tuesday. Mr. Paul battered former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who finished in second and third place, respectively. This is the first post-Christmas poll in the Hawkeye State.
Mr. Paul won the Iowa PPP poll with 24 percent of the votes. Mr. Romney pulled in 20 percent of the votes and Mr. Gingrich garnered 13 percent of the votes."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
sjccoach| 12.28.11 @ 6:03PM
The polls may be good news for Romney but they are bad news for the Republican party and conservatism. If nominated Romney loses to Obama in a landslide. He may even make us pine for the McCain candidacy.
Bill| 12.28.11 @ 6:43PM
Although Romney would lose to Obama, he may not take down other GOP candidates for the House and Senate as Gingrich would. Although he's very low in the polls, I still think Huntsman would do very well in a general election and make the real Republican proud.
C Bowen | 12.28.11 @ 7:58PM
Romney would be a repudiation of the Tea Party and a disaster for the Congress without a solid rightish Third Party to encourage turn out.
Clint| 12.28.11 @ 6:38PM
" New ( CNN ) Iowa Poll May Understate Paul’s Support
The issue is that CNN’s Iowa poll was conducted by using a list of registered Republican voters and registered Republicans only:
According to entrance polls in Iowa in 2008, for instance, about 15 percent of participants in the Republican caucus identified themselves as independents or Democrats on the way into the caucus site. Although the way that voters self-identify is not technically the same thing as which party they are officially registered with, this is probably a good proxy for what percentage of voters changed their registration to Republican when they signed in at the caucus location."
Ward Bond| 12.28.11 @ 7:54PM
Romney may end up as the Rep. nominee but he will never be president. Obama can't run on his record and should be beatable but we can't field a candidate who won't go after him tooth and claw. 2012 will be our last chance.
Sean| 12.28.11 @ 8:15PM
The PPP poll last night had Paul leading Romney 24-20.
martin j smith| 12.29.11 @ 8:10AM
The Iowa poll is the Iowa Poll not the national poll.
Iowa means what those who the pollster chose have made their choice and I would be this poll is false.
Oldefarte| 12.29.11 @ 11:40AM
'..... Only One Candidate Is Right On The Two Most Important Issues by Ann Coulter (more by this author)Posted 12/28/2011 ETUpdated 12/28/2011 ETIn the upcoming presidential election, two issues are more important than any others: repealing Obamacare and halting illegal immigration. If we fail at either one, the country will be changed permanently.Taxes can be raised and lowered. Regulations can be removed (though they rarely are). Attorneys general and Cabinet members can be fired. Laws can be repealed. Even Supreme Court justices eventually die.But capitulate on illegal immigration, and the entire country will have the electorate of California. There will be no turning back.Similarly, if Obamacare isn't repealed in the next few years, it never will be.America will begin its ineluctable descent into becoming a worthless Western European country, with rotten health care, no money for defense and ever-increasing federal taxes to support the nanny state.So let's consider which of the Republican candidates are most likely to succeed at these objectives.In order to allow Democrats to indignantly denounce Republicans who said Obamacare would add to the deficit, the bill was structured so that no goodies get paid out immediately. That way, when the Congressional Budget Office was asked to determine if Obamacare was "revenue neutral" over its first 10 years, government accountants were looking at a bill that collected taxes for 10 years, but only distributed treats in the later years.Starting at year 11, those accountants will be in for a big surprise when the government starts paying out Obamacare benefits without interruption.Because of this accounting fraud, Obamacare can still be repealed. But as soon as all Americans have been thrown off their employer-provided insurance plans and are forced to start depending on the government for health care, Republicans will never be able to repeal it.The vast complex of unionized government workers managing our health care from Washington will fight to keep their jobs (for more on this topic, see the Department of Education), voters will want their "free" government treats (for more on this topic, see Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security) -- and even if they don't, there won't be a private insurance market for them to go back to (for more on this topic, see IRS rules favoring employer-provided health care).The only way to stop Obamacare is to beat Obama in 2012, and repeal it before the health care Leviathan is born.Otherwise, starting in 2016, Republicans will run for office promising only to improve Obamacare. Newt Gingrich will be calling plans to reform it "right-wing social engineering."All current Republican presidential candidates say they will overturn Obamacare. The question for Republican primary voters should be: Who is most likely to win?2012 is not a year for a wild card. It's not a year for any candidate who will end up being the issue, instead of making Obama the issue. It's not a year for one wing of the Republican Party to be making a point with another wing. (And there are no Rockefeller Republicans left, anyway.) It's not a year to be gambling that America will vote for its first woman president, or that the country is ready for a nut-bar libertarian.Running against an incumbent president in a make-or-break election, Republicans need a candidate with a track record of winning elections with voters similar to the entire American electorate.Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich have never had to win votes beyond small, majority-Republican congressional districts.Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have won statewide elections, but Huntsman and Perry ran in extremely red states that don't resemble the American electorate.Only Romney and Santorum have won a statewide election in a blue state, making them our surest-bets in a general election.But if Santorum wins, we lose on the second most important issue -- illegal immigration -- and he'll be the last Republican ever to win a general election in America.Just as Americans ought to be able to learn the perils of a welfare state by looking at Greece, we ought to be able to learn the perils of illegal immigration by looking at California.Massive legal and illegal immigration has already so changed the California electorate that no Republican can be elected statewide anymore. Not so long ago, this was a state that produced great Republican governors and senators like Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, S.I. Hayakawa and Pete Wilson.If even Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman, two bright, attractive, successful female business executives -- one pro-life and one pro-choice -- can't win a statewide election in California spending millions of their own dollars in the middle of the 2010 Republican sweep, it's buenas noches, muchachos.And yet, almost all Republican presidential candidates support some form of amnesty for illegals in order to appeal to the business lobby.Among the most effective measures against illegal immigration is E-Verify, the Homeland Security program that gives employers the ability to instantly confirm that their employees' Social Security numbers are legitimate. It is more than 99 percent accurate, and no employee is denied a job without an opportunity to challenge the records.Although wildly popular with Americans -- including Hispanic Americans -- the business lobby hates E-Verify. Employers like hiring non-Americans because they can pay illegal aliens less and ignore state and federal employment laws.Any candidate who opposes E-Verify is not serious about illegal immigration. If anything, E-Verify ought to be made mandatory to get a job, to get welfare and to vote.Kowtowing to business (while pretending to kowtow to Hispanics), Paul, Perry and Santorum oppose E-Verify. As a senator, Rick Santorum voted against even the voluntary use of E-Verify.Jon Huntsman claims to support E-Verify, but also wants to give illegals amnesty as soon as the border is sealed -- as determined by someone other than us. Also, he gave driver's identification cards to illegal aliens in Utah. (You'd think a guy no one has ever heard of would be more careful about ID cards.)Following his latest guru, Helen Krieble, Newt Gingrich is for amnesty, combined with second-class status for illegals. Instead of giving illegal aliens green cards, Newt proposes giving them "red cards" so they can stay, take American jobs, have children, receive welfare benefits, attend public schools -- and eventually be granted amnesty. The Republican primaries will be over before most voters realize what Newt's "red card" scheme entails.Only Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney aren't trying to sneak through amnesty for illegal aliens. Both support E-Verify.Numbers USA, one of the leading groups opposed to our current insane immigration policies, gives Republican presidential candidates the following grades on immigration: Paul, F; Gingrich, D-minus; Huntsman, D-minus; Santorum, D-minus; Perry, D; Romney, C-minus; and Bachmann, B-minus.And that was before Romney said last week that Obama's drunk-driving, illegal alien uncle should be deported!That leaves us with Romney and Bachmann as the candidates with the strongest, most conservative positions on illegal immigration. As wonderful as Michele Bachmann is, 2012 isn't the year to be trying to make a congresswoman the first woman president.Two Little Indians sitting in the sun; one was just a congresswoman and then there was one.....'
steve in ohio| 12.29.11 @ 12:35PM
You somewhat convince me, but C- on immigration is hard to get excited about. I agree with John Derbyshire that the perfect candidate would have Bachmann's view on immigration and espouse a non neocon foreign policy similar to Ron Paul's.