PDA

View Full Version : New Poll---Gingrich pulling closer



SaintLouieWoman
01-30-2012, 10:32 PM
I guess we'll have to see which poll is correct, Reuters or InsiderAdvantage. At least after tomorrow we'll be free of those robo calls till the general election.



Breaking News from Newsmax.com

InsiderAdvantage Poll: Gingrich Surging, Race 'Tighter Than Expected'
A new InsiderAdvantage poll conducted Sunday night of likely Republican voters in the state of Florida shows a significant surge for Newt Gingrich.

The poll has Romney leading with 36 percent of voters, followed by Gingrich at 31 percent.

The Sunday results of 646 likely GOP voters are as follows:

• Romney 36 percent
• Gingrich 31 percent
• Santorum 12 percent
• Paul 12 percent
• Other/Undecided 9 percent
"The race will be tighter than expected," Matt Towery, chief pollster of InsiderAdvantage told Newsmax.
Towery noted that his poll showed a surge for Romney on Wednesday, with him leading Gingrich by 8 points.

The InsiderAdvantage poll was among the first to show Romney's resurgence after his dismal showing in the S. Carolina primary.
The InsiderAdvantage poll was also the first to show Gingrich's rise in S. Carolina and accurately forecast his win there.
"The trend is favoring Gingrich," Towery said, noting that while Romney's lead was still outside the margin of error of 3.8 percent, "It's not by much."

Towery said Gingrich is doing "substantially better" with men than Romney, 38 to 28, but the former House Speaker still faces a "gender gap," as women are still favoring Romney.
"Men are moving in droves to Gingrich and away from Romney," Towery said.

Rockntractor
01-30-2012, 10:36 PM
That looks more betterer!:)

SaintLouieWoman
01-30-2012, 11:02 PM
That looks more betterer!:)
Had another Newsmax email stating that Rush really blasted Brokaw today on that lousy ad that Romney is running. It seems Brokaw and NBC aren't disturbed that the old clip was factually wrong, just want it off the air.

Rush seems to be furious about what's going on in Florida. He advises that the conservatism of Gingrich, if he sticks to the positives, will overcome the 5-1 or higher jugurnaut of negatives that Romney is launching down here. Here's hoping that Rush is right.

mike128
01-30-2012, 11:33 PM
I sure hope that InsiderAdvantage poll is right, SaintLouieWoman. Most people already know that I'm not nuts about Newt. But he seems to be the only viable alternative to Flip at this point. Let's hope Newt can win Florida and get that momentum going into Super Tuesday.

SaintLouieWoman
01-30-2012, 11:38 PM
I sure hope that InsiderAdvantage poll is right, SaintLouieWoman. Most people already know that I'm not nuts about Newt. But he seems to be the only viable alternative to Flip at this point. Let's hope Newt can win Florida and get that momentum going into Super Tuesday.
Possibly Rush with his support of Newt, along with Palin, will help more than the multi-millions Romney is pouring into this state.

This state is not in good shape. It's a shame so much money is being wasted on the robocalls. We live in a nice neighborhood, but within a stone's throw some homeless folk set up tents in the underbrush near a creek. It's happening here, so many losing their homes. We need someone who will get this economy turned around. I think Newt can do a better job, but if Romney gets the nod, here's hoping he'll stick to his campaign promises and not do another of his many flip flops. I will concede Romney would be better than Obama.

MountainMan
01-30-2012, 11:55 PM
Newt just needs to go away. The man is unlikeable. No other candidate has higher negative ratings, not even Obama.

Make this a three way between Romney, Santorum and Paul.

Rockntractor
01-31-2012, 12:01 AM
Newt just needs to go away. The man is unlikeable. No other candidate has higher negative ratings, not even Obama.

Make this a three way between Romney, Santorum and Paul.

How about if mittens just takes a hike instead.

mike128
01-31-2012, 12:07 AM
How about if mittens just takes a hike instead.
Yeah! Why doesn't Mitt just take his lying, flip-flopping ways back to the People's Republic of Massachusetts?

MountainMan
01-31-2012, 12:07 AM
How about if mittens just takes a hike instead.

No because unlike Newt, Mitt Romney is not only likeable, but electable.

All three of the major candidates have very little difference in their policies, and no, I don't include Ron Paul as a major candidate. Newt, Romney and Santorum are all conservative where it counts. What this election will come down to is organization and likeability. Santorum is very likable but has very little in organization. Mitt Romney has both organization and likeability. Newt has none of the above.

MountainMan
01-31-2012, 12:09 AM
Yeah! Why doesn't Mitt just take his lying, flip-flopping ways back to the People's Republic of Massachusetts? Because unlike you, he actually believes in something other than trolling.

Mitt has stated he is pro-life. Whether you want to believe it or not is your problem. You believe it is ok to vote in liberal democrats so whatever you have to say should be taken with a very small grain of salt.

Rockntractor
01-31-2012, 12:09 AM
No because unlike Newt, Mitt Romney is not only likeable, but electable.

All three of the major candidates have very little difference in their policies, and no, I don't include Ron Paul as a major candidate. Newt, Romney and Santorum are all conservative where it counts. What this election will come down to is organization and likeability. Santorum is very likable but has very little in organization. Mitt Romney has both organization and likeability. Newt has none of the above.

It's the attack of the MittBots!!!!:OhNoes:

Go polish your tusk!:D

MountainMan
01-31-2012, 12:11 AM
It's the attack of the MittBots!!!!:OhNoes:

Go polish your tusk!:D Truth hurts if thats the best you got. My presidential hopeful(s) never entered the race so now I am going to vote for the person whom I know can beat Obama which is Mitt Romney.

Rockntractor
01-31-2012, 12:15 AM
Truth hurts if thats the best you got. My presidential hopeful(s) never entered the race so now I am going to vote for the person whom I know can beat Obama which is Mitt Romney.

You've spent too much time on the west coast, the earthquakes rattled your brain!:D

MountainMan
01-31-2012, 12:17 AM
You've spent too much time on the west coast, the earthquakes rattled your brain!:D

Nope, no earthquakes recently. However, the rain is really becoming a bore. I miss living in a state with five distinct seasons. You know summer, fall, winter, spring and hunting.

mike128
01-31-2012, 12:20 AM
Truth hurts if thats the best you got. My presidential hopeful(s) never entered the race so now I am going to vote for the person whom I know can beat Obama which is Mitt Romney.
"Moderate" Republican presidential nominees NEVER win general elections. It didn't work in 1996 with Bob Dole, it didn't work in 2008 with John McCain, and it certainly won't work with a lying flip-flopper like Mitt Romney, who's even MORE liberal than both Dole and McCain.

Rockntractor
01-31-2012, 12:31 AM
Nope, no earthquakes recently. However, the rain is really becoming a bore. I miss living in a state with five distinct seasons. You know summer, fall, winter, spring and hunting.

We could probably use some of your rain and our deer season just closed.:(


If you can get Mittens to the big time in November I'll vote for him, until then I'd rather hear Newt giving Bama a tongue lashing then hear Mittens whimper why mittencare is better than Bama care!

fettpett
01-31-2012, 10:38 AM
Because unlike you, he actually believes in something other than trolling.

Mitt has stated he is pro-life. Whether you want to believe it or not is your problem. You believe it is ok to vote in liberal democrats so whatever you have to say should be taken with a very small grain of salt.

Mitt is NOT a conservative, he's a flip flopper more than Kerry ever was, He supported Carter, Mondale, and Tsong, all liberals. I don't hate the guy, but there is no way in hell that Romney is electable or even well liked, especially now.

that said, Newt isn't anymore Conservative than Romney as their stances are pretty similar, only difference Newt actually supported Reagan.

Only real conservatives in this race left are Santroum and Paul

linda22003
01-31-2012, 11:01 AM
Mitt is NOT a conservative, he's a flip flopper more than Kerry ever was, He supported Carter, Mondale, and Tsong, all liberals.l

His name was Paul Tsongas; he wasn't Chinese. :cool:

Bailey
01-31-2012, 11:03 AM
Mitt is NOT a conservative, he's a flip flopper more than Kerry ever was, He supported Carter, Mondale, and Tsong, all liberals. I don't hate the guy, but there is no way in hell that Romney is electable or even well liked, especially now.

that said, Newt isn't anymore Conservative than Romney as their stances are pretty similar, only difference Newt actually supported Reagan.

Only real conservatives in this race left are Santroum and Paul

So he supported Tsongs chicken? I like the non spicy kind. :D

Odysseus
01-31-2012, 11:51 AM
Newt just needs to go away. The man is unlikeable. No other candidate has higher negative ratings, not even Obama.

Make this a three way between Romney, Santorum and Paul.
A threeway? Kinky...!
http://digitaljournal.com/img/2/1/0/8/2/9/i/4/0/5/o/HK_RIP.jpg

Yeah! Why doesn't Mitt just take his lying, flip-flopping ways back to the People's Republic of Massachusetts?

Okay, everybody, on three: One... two... three:

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k50/siolfir/Fun%20Posters/deadhorse.jpg

fettpett
01-31-2012, 05:13 PM
His name was Paul Tsongas; he wasn't Chinese. :cool:

:rolleyes::rolleyes: couldn't remember how his name was spelled, nor really cared, he's another Liberal that Romney supported

JB
01-31-2012, 07:01 PM
No because unlike Newt, Mitt Romney is not only likeable, but electable.

All three of the major candidates have very little difference in their policies, and no, I don't include Ron Paul as a major candidate. Newt, Romney and Santorum are all conservative where it counts. What this election will come down to is organization and likeability. Santorum is very likable but has very little in organization. Mitt Romney has both organization and likeability. Newt has none of the above.Good post Mau.

+1

Zathras
01-31-2012, 09:57 PM
A threeway? Kinky...!
http://digitaljournal.com/img/2/1/0/8/2/9/i/4/0/5/o/HK_RIP.jpg


Okay, everybody, on three: One... two... three:

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k50/siolfir/Fun%20Posters/deadhorse.jpg

Damn you beat me to it...good job. :D

Odysseus
01-31-2012, 11:15 PM
No because unlike Newt, Mitt Romney is not only likeable, but electable.

All three of the major candidates have very little difference in their policies, and no, I don't include Ron Paul as a major candidate. Newt, Romney and Santorum are all conservative where it counts. What this election will come down to is organization and likeability. Santorum is very likable but has very little in organization. Mitt Romney has both organization and likeability. Newt has none of the above.

I hate to say it, but Mitt lost major points with me during his exchange with Santorum on Obamacare, when he said that it wasn't worth getting angry about. I consider the corrupt, miserable charade that preceded the passage of that shameful leviathan of legislative excess and my impending servitude to the federal medical bureaucracy to be very much worth getting angry about.

JoeKwonDo
02-01-2012, 12:19 AM
I hate to say it, but Mitt lost major points with me during his exchange with Santorum on Obamacare, when he said that it wasn't worth getting angry about. I consider the corrupt, miserable charade that preceded the passage of that shameful leviathan of legislative excess and my impending servitude to the federal medical bureaucracy to be very much worth getting angry about.

He has answered the question how many debates now and it goes in one ear and out the other for Santorum. I like Santorum a lot, but he should consider this practice and come back in eight years and Newt can go with Paul and they can be wacky and wackier

Odysseus
02-01-2012, 10:53 AM
He has answered the question how many debates now and it goes in one ear and out the other for Santorum. I like Santorum a lot, but he should consider this practice and come back in eight years and Newt can go with Paul and they can be wacky and wackier

Yeah, but Santorum has a point, and Romney doesn't see it. Obamacare has created tremendous anger in the American people. Literally everything about it, from the secrecy in the drafting, the corrupt kickbacks and bribes to lawmakers, the chicanery in the final passage against the overwhelming opposition of the American people and the sheer volume of horrendous details that have emerged from the substance of the law have created a tremendous opportunity for Republicans, and conservative Republicans at that. The Tea Party arose because of Obamacare. People were so outraged that Democrats stopped having town hall meetings with their constituents becaues of it. That anger is there, it is legitimate, and it needs to be tapped. Santorum and Newt get that. Romney doesn't, and that tells me that he's prepared to be a good loser, like McCain.

fettpett
02-01-2012, 12:24 PM
Yeah, but Santorum has a point, and Romney doesn't see it. Obamacare has created tremendous anger in the American people. Literally everything about it, from the secrecy in the drafting, the corrupt kickbacks and bribes to lawmakers, the chicanery in the final passage against the overwhelming opposition of the American people and the sheer volume of horrendous details that have emerged from the substance of the law have created a tremendous opportunity for Republicans, and conservative Republicans at that. The Tea Party arose because of Obamacare. People were so outraged that Democrats stopped having town hall meetings with their constituents becaues of it. That anger is there, it is legitimate, and it needs to be tapped. Santorum and Newt get that. Romney doesn't, and that tells me that he's prepared to be a good loser, like McCain.

to give Romney some credit, he did say last night that he wants to overturn Obamacare completely, so he does get it somewhat...He just doesn't seem to understand that Obamacare was based almost completely on Romneycare.

Odysseus
02-01-2012, 01:17 PM
to give Romney some credit, he did say last night that he wants to overturn Obamacare completely, so he does get it somewhat...He just doesn't seem to understand that Obamacare was based almost completely on Romneycare.

Actually, it wasn't. Romneycare (which, BTW, is failing spectacularly in Massachussetts) was a much more deliberate set of rules. Obamacare was just a cobbled-together piece of different leftist wish list items with no final reconciliation. It was done in haste and has numerous internal contradictions which Romneycare lacks. This, BTW, is an indictment of both, but more so of Obamacare, since if a carefully drafted plan for one state is failing to reign in costs or improve services, what can we expect from the half-assed, last-ditch, "we need to pass it to see what's in it" monstrosity that came out of congress?

Still, this makes another point, which is that Romneycare is failing, and Romney needs to address that. If he got up and said, "I know that Obamacare won't work because we tried it in Massachussetts, and it failed miserably, despite my best efforts. I learned from my mistake, which was to try to use the power of government to impose decisions on consumers, and I will not repeat it," I'd feel a lot more comfortable with him. Instead, he's trying to thread the needle to demonstrate how he differs from Obama, but the main difference, the one that would matter to the majority of the electorate, is that he learns from his experiences, while Obama keeps trying to repeat failure.

Arroyo_Doble
02-01-2012, 01:39 PM
Still, this makes another point, which is that Romneycare is failing, ....

Leaving out the "liberty" arguments, how is it failing?

fettpett
02-01-2012, 02:39 PM
Actually, it wasn't. Romneycare (which, BTW, is failing spectacularly in Massachussetts) was a much more deliberate set of rules. Obamacare was just a cobbled-together piece of different leftist wish list items with no final reconciliation. It was done in haste and has numerous internal contradictions which Romneycare lacks. This, BTW, is an indictment of both, but more so of Obamacare, since if a carefully drafted plan for one state is failing to reign in costs or improve services, what can we expect from the half-assed, last-ditch, "we need to pass it to see what's in it" monstrosity that came out of congress?

Still, this makes another point, which is that Romneycare is failing, and Romney needs to address that. If he got up and said, "I know that Obamacare won't work because we tried it in Massachussetts, and it failed miserably, despite my best efforts. I learned from my mistake, which was to try to use the power of government to impose decisions on consumers, and I will not repeat it," I'd feel a lot more comfortable with him. Instead, he's trying to thread the needle to demonstrate how he differs from Obama, but the main difference, the one that would matter to the majority of the electorate, is that he learns from his experiences, while Obama keeps trying to repeat failure.

then why did Obama's people go talk to Romney's people when Obamacare was being cobbled together? I know there was a whole lot of crap thrown in, but the core of it is based on Romneycare. Even Romney hasn't denied it (only said he was at the state level).

Odysseus
02-01-2012, 03:02 PM
Leaving out the "liberty" arguments, how is it failing?

By almost every objective measure. Its stated intent was to reduce costs and provide universal coverage. It has failed on both counts. The Cato Institute (http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v30n1/cpr30n1-1.html) had an excellent analysis of the program that addresses both points:


372,000 to 618,000. Under the new program, about 219,000 previously uninsured residents have signed up for insurance. Of these, 133,000 are receiving subsidized coverage, proving once again that people are all too happy to accept something "for free," and let others pay the bill. That is in addition to 56,000 people who have been signed up for Medicaid. The bigger the subsidy, the faster people are signing up. Of the 133,000 people who have signed up for insurance since the plan was implemented, slightly more than half have received totally free coverage.

It’s important to note that the subsidies in Massachusetts are extensive and reach well into the middle class-available on a sliding scale to those with incomes up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level. That means subsidies would be available for those with incomes ranging from $30,480 for a single individual to as much as $130,389 for a married couple with seven children. A typical married couple with two children would qualify for a subsidy if their income were below $63,000.

What we don’t know is how many of those receiving subsidized insurance were truly uninsured and how many had insurance that either they or their employer was paying for. Studies indicate that substitution of taxpayer-financed for privately funded insurance is a common occurrence with other government programs such as Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP). Massachusetts has attempted to limit this "crowdout" effect by requiring that individuals be uninsured for at least six months before qualifying for subsidies. Still some substitution is likely to have occurred.

The subsidies may have increased the number of Massachusetts citizens with insurance, but as many as 400,000 Massachusetts residents by some estimates have failed to buy the required insurance. That includes the overwhelming majority of those with incomes too high to qualify for state subsidies. Fewer than 30,000 unsubsidized residents have signed up as a result of the mandate. And that is on top of the 60,000 of the state’s uninsured who were exempted from the mandate because buying insurance would be too much of a financial burden.

>SNIP<


The Massachusetts plan might not have achieved universal coverage, but it has cost taxpayers a great deal of money. Originally, the plan was projected to cost $1.8 billion this year. Now it is expected to exceed those estimates by $150 million. Over the next 10 years, projections suggest that Romney- Care will cost about $2 billion more than was budgeted. And the cost to Massachusetts taxpayers could be even higher because new federal rules could deprive the state of $100 million per year in Medicaid money that the state planned to use to help finance the program.

Given that the state is already facing a projected budget deficit this year, the pressure to raise taxes, cut reimbursements to health care providers, or cap insurance premiums will likely be intense. Romney likes to brag that he accomplished his health care plan "without raising taxes." Unless something turns around, that is not likely to be the case much longer.

Moreover, the cost of the plan is also likely to continue rising, because the Massachusetts reform has failed to hold down the cost of health care. When Romney signed his plan he claimed "a key objective is to lower the cost of health insurance for all our citizens and allow our citizens to buy the insurance plan that fits their needs." In actuality, insurance premiums in the state are expected to rise 10–12 percent next year, double the national average.

However, other sources are equally down on the plan. Regardless, it is failiing in all of its stated goals.

Rockntractor
02-01-2012, 03:03 PM
Romney still needs over 1000 delegates, nothing about this primary race has been normal.
Buckle up and watch!

BadCat
02-01-2012, 03:08 PM
Romney still needs over 1000 delegates, nothing about this primary race has been normal.
Buckle up and watch!

I heard that Mittens ran 60+ ads for every ONE that Newt ran.
How long can he afford that??

Arroyo_Doble
02-01-2012, 03:14 PM
However, other sources are equally down on the plan.

I will search them out. Cato is useless due to their stated political and economic philosophy and cannot be trusted to be objective.

DumbAss Tanker
02-01-2012, 03:22 PM
I heard that Mittens ran 60+ ads for every ONE that Newt ran.
How long can he afford that??

I think his spending strategy was to steamroller all the opposition in the first four states, and weaken any opposition beyond recovery in them, not to play for the long game. Unfortunately there is a shitload of Wall Street money behind him so he is a long way from having shot his wad, but at least Step One did not succeed as he had planned in that he is not in a commanding position now.

Odysseus
02-01-2012, 03:39 PM
I will search them out. Cato is useless due to their stated political and economic philosophy and cannot be trusted to be objective.

On the contrary, Cato is of value because it openly admits its philosophy, and can therefore be trusted to present that philosophy honestly. It's the allegedly non-partisan partisans who falsely claim not to have an agenda, that have zero credibility. Does the Alan Guttmacher Institute admit that it is a liberal organization, or that it only supports Democrats? Would you trust them over Cato in a discussion on abortion? Regardless, the numbers themselves are there, and unless you are arguing that Cato has fabricated them, they tell the whole story.

Arroyo_Doble
02-01-2012, 03:43 PM
On the contrary, Cato is of value because it openly admits its philosophy, and can therefore be trusted to present that philosophy honestly.

Oh, I agree with that. But I was talking about objectivity, not truthfully presenting your bias.

noonwitch
02-01-2012, 04:05 PM
I heard that Mittens ran 60+ ads for every ONE that Newt ran.
How long can he afford that??

He's got a lot of money.

I'm voting for Buddy Roemer, if he's on the Michigan ballot.

Odysseus
02-01-2012, 04:21 PM
Oh, I agree with that. But I was talking about objectivity, not truthfully presenting your bias.

I don't expect objectivity in politics, but an honest partisan is more likely to present good data than a dishonest one.

Arroyo_Doble
02-01-2012, 04:29 PM
I don't expect objectivity in politics,

Really? I do. I pretty much demand it in terms of trust.


but an honest partisan is more likely to present good data than a dishonest one.

I suppose. But that's like bragging about being tallest midget.

fettpett
02-01-2012, 05:10 PM
Really? I do. I pretty much demand it in terms of trust.



you're going to be quite disappointed as their aren't very many, if any, that don't have some bias one way or the other. And bias isn't a bad thing. The problem comes when the source/organization is unable to be intellectually honest and say they were wrong when they are.

Odysseus
02-01-2012, 05:34 PM
Really? I do. I pretty much demand it in terms of trust.
Politics is inherently subjective. The best that you can hope for is that someone is honest about their approach and that they are open to discussion.


I suppose. But that's like bragging about being tallest midget.
No, an honest partisan is just that: Honest. The information that you get from an outlet that admits to a bias or point of view is more likely to be reliable, even though it reflects the POV of the outlet, than the information from an outlet that refuses to admit bias or, worse, cannot even see its own biases. CNN is at least as far to the left as FOXNews is to the right, but of the two, only one admits that it has any point of view, and that's Fox. The NY Post freely admits that it is a conservative paper, while the NY Times refuses to admit that it is a liberal one (although at this point, it's gone farther than that), and while the Post is more sensational and a tabloid, I've found it to be a far more accurate news source than the Times. CNN, MSNBC, the networks and the major papers either don't recognize their biases (which comes from being in a bubble) or refuse to admit them because they put partisanship above truth, but an outfit that admits to its leanings puts truth ahead of partisanship.