Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 41

Thread: Latest Iowa Poll: Gingrich Begins To Fade

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,587
    Post Thanks / Like

    Latest Iowa Poll: Gingrich Begins To Fade

    [url]http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/iowa/iowa_romney_23_gingrich_20_paul_18[/url]
    2012 Iowa Republican Caucus

    Latest Iowa poll shows a 12 point drop for Gingrich. Romney picks up a bit and Paul surges

    12/15
    23% Romney
    18% Paul
    20% Gingrich

    11/13
    Newt Gingrich
    19% Romney
    32% Gingrich
    10% Paul

  2. #2
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,764
    Post Thanks / Like
    Unless I am mistaken many of the Republican primaries are no-longer winner take all.

    This could drag out the Republican campaign for many months.

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    dont look now but Ron Paul could win this damn thing

  4. #4
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Buster;4277531]This could drag out the Republican campaign for many months.[/QUOTE]

    Just like Obama's very late win over Ms. Clinton.

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,587
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'd be happy if Paul wins Iowa because that crushes Newt and virtually insures victory for Romney. The latest storyline that is resonating with primary voters really hits it home.

    If Romney gets the nod the campaign will be about ideas, policy and Obama's job performance. If Gingrich is the guy the story line shifts and the campaign becomes about Gingrich. Primary voters want the campaign to be a contrast of ideas and a referendum on Obama. Romney as the "generic Republican" is the most ideal candidate for this sort of campaign.

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    7,949
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4277550]
    If Romney gets the nod the campaign will be about ideas, policy and Obama's job performance. If Gingrich is the guy the story line shifts and the campaign becomes about Gingrich.[/QUOTE]

    Bingo.

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4277550] Romney as the "generic Republican" is the most ideal candidate for this sort of campaign.[/QUOTE]

    one problem with that theory the GOP South hates Romney... for being in a Cult.

  8. #8
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    Christine O'Donnell in discussing her endorcement of Romney, when questioned about his flip-flopping:

    [QUOTE]“That’s one of the things that I like about him — because he’s been consistent since he changed his mind,” O’Donnell said.[/QUOTE]

    [IMG]http://failheap-challenge.com/images/smilies/facepalm.gif[/IMG]

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    7,949
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4277564]one problem with that theory the GOP South hates Romney... for being in a Cult.[/QUOTE]

    What is the GOP South going to do? Let Obama back in the WH? LOL :rolleyes:

    They'll role with Romney no problem when the time comes...

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,587
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite;4277570]What is the GOP South going to do? Let Obama back in the WH? LOL :rolleyes:

    They'll role with Romney no problem when the time comes...[/QUOTE]

    Agreed. This is not an election where the base needs to be shored up. They are fired up to begin with. Politics are like football in a way. Every contest requires a particular strategy. In some cases firing up the base is critical. This is not that type of year. The opponent is weakened by awful policy decisions and low approval. The strategy needs to be a referendum on ideas and on the Obama Presidency. It can't be about the baggage of the GOP candidate. Romney is squeaky clean. Gingrich has major baggage.

    For me another thing people ignore is that Gingrich brings a grandiose but unpassable economic agenda. The 15% flat tax idea is beyond silly. First because it will never happen. Next because it represents a tax break for the wealthy alongside a hike for the poor. That is both bad policy and unpassable. His plan is a fail. Romneys plan by contrast is reasonable and passable. Maintain personal income tax rates which are fine as they are. Enact corporate tax reform to make our corporations more competitive and give them less incentive to outsource or go abroad. Remove loopholes to keep it revenue neutral. Reform entitlements by lifting eligibility ages and adding means testing to reduce or eliminate benefits to the rich folks that don't need them. It just makes sense.

  11. #11
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,764
    Post Thanks / Like
    Arre Iowa and New Hampshire still winner take all?

    If not winning and getting 33% of the delegates doesn't really mean much.

    Does anyone have a link explaining what states changed to the proportional system?

  12. #12
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,587
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Buster;4277596]Arre Iowa and New Hampshire still winner take all?

    If not winning and getting 33% of the delegates doesn't really mean much.

    Does anyone have a link explaining what states changed to the proportional system?[/QUOTE]

    GOP went to a system similar to the one used by the D's in 2008. Early primaries are generally split delegates. They count more for momentum than anything else. Winner take all states hit in March and April. The idea is to prevent a split convention.

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,337
    Post Thanks / Like
    Iowa has not been very consistent in forecasting the GOP nominee.

  14. #14
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,764
    Post Thanks / Like
    [URL="http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2011/09/myth-of-republican-presidential-primary.html"]http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2011/09/myth-of-republican-presidential-primary.html[/URL]

    Wow.

    Was this system adapted from the original one used in the Byzantine Empire?

    For an organization that is chock full of members who rail against bureaucracy and "Chicago Style Politics" this is one crazy a$$ system.

    There is a table on this website that I was unable to post. You might want to look at it.


    [QUOTE]

    It was opportune that Stuart Rothenberg opted to pen an item in Roll Call today about the Republican National Committee rules changes for the 2012 presidential nomination process. FHQ had a revised look at the rules changes in the queue and Rothenberg's piece just adds fuel to the fire. It is another example of the media and commentators getting this wrong. And I couldn't disagree more with Rothenberg's interpretation. He essentially calls the new winner-take-all "restrictions" built into the RNC delegate selection rules a small change with a potential big impact. FHQ has just the opposite reaction:

    The rules change is big and the impact potentially small. That the RNC created a panel -- the Temporary Delegate Selection Committee -- to look at and possibly tweak the presidential selection rules was huge in and of itself. But the fact that the TDSC actually altered the rules and curbed the freedom it has in the past allowed states in terms of setting their own delegate selection plans is, in FHQ's view, fairly monumental.

    The back end of this is the impact the rules changes will have on the 2012 Republican presidential nomination process. As FHQ has stated previously, the rules across the two national parties have been wrongly interpreted in black and white terms: the Democrats have proportionality rules and the Republicans have winner-take-all rules. If any gradience has been added to the RNC rules, it has been to allow for the fact that Republican state parties could have in the past used proportional allocation methods if they so chose. But that misses -- and perhaps rightly so because you can get down in the weeds of this pretty quickly -- the true nature of the Republican rules both past and present. Those interpretations fail to closely examine the differences in allocation across the so-called winner-take-all states.

    Again, as I stated previously, the tendency is to think of it in binary terms. It isn't either winner-take-all or proportional in the Republican Party. In fact, there are only a handful of states where the allocation method is truly winner-take-all (The candidate who wins the most votes receives the all of the delegates.). No, instead the winner-take-all states are divided into two main groups: straight winner-take-all states and hybrid winner-take-all states. In 2008, there were 10 truly winner-take-all states and 14 hybrids that divided delegate allocation between the statewide vote and the congressional district vote or provided for some vote percentage threshold (typically 50%) that would trigger the winner-take-all allocation. In other words, under certain conditions, a candidate might or might not win all of the delegates in those hybrid states.

    This can get terribly complicated, so let me illustrate this in a different way. Basically, [B]any state Republican Party with a straight winner-take-all system will have to make some alteration to their rules in 2012 if the party is planning on holding a primary before April 1[/B]. To reiterate, that is only a handful of states. Of the 24 Republican primary states in 2008 that had some form of winner-take-all allocation (whether straight or hybrid), only seven are currently scheduled or are likely to be scheduled at dates prior to April 1 that also need to make changes to their rules. [B]For the straight winner-take-all states like Arizona or Vermont that could mean any number of changes. The path of least resistance is to split the allocation into statewide and congressional district votes.[/B] Only the statewide delegates are required to be proportionally allocated. The congressional district delegates can still be allocated using winner-take-all rules. [More on this in a moment] [B]Another possible route is to create a threshold rule. If one candidate clears the 50% mark in the contest, for instance, that candidate receives all of the delegates[/B]. If the majority barrier is not cleared, the rules require a proportional allocation method.

    In reality, [B]most states can maintain winner-take-all rules under certain conditions; even before April 1. The proportionality requirement in the new rules only applies to a state's at-large, statewide delegates[/B]. Let's parse this out by looking at the breakdown of the delegates at stake in the primary states scheduled or likely to be schedule for pre-April 1 dates.

    Again, in looking at this apportionment, the Base and Bonus delegates are the ones that are required to be allocated proportionally in a contest prior to April 1. A threshold can be included in the state parties' delegate selection plans, but if that is not met by one of the candidates, the least amount of change is to simply allocate the those two types of delegates -- the ones allocated based on statewide results -- proportionally and maintain winner-take-all rules for the congressional district delegates. [B]There are a couple of things going on here that bear some mention. First of all, the more loyally Republican a state's voting history has been, the more bonus delegates it receives. [/B]That, in turn, means that there are more potential delegates at stake proportionally in that state relative to a more Democratic state. [B]Secondly, smaller states are more disproportionately hit by this restriction because of the 10 base delegates that all states have. In other words, there are fewer district delegates that can be allocated winner-take-all.[/B] This is pointed out in the far right column. That accounts for the percentage of the state's total delegates that are open to proportional allocation due to the Republican National Committee's rules change.

    [Note also that [B]each state also has three automatic delegates. These are delegates within the Republican Party similar to the Democrats' superdelegates. They are free agents in some states and not in others. Each state has three: one for the state party chair, one for the national committeeman and one more for the national committeewoman[/B].]

    [B]The bottom line is that the rules changes will force an alteration of the rules in all true winner-take-all states and some more minor changes to state party delegate selection plans in some of the hybrid winner-take-all systems[/B]. The impact of the switch varies based on the two factors discussed above. In 2008, many of the hybrid winner-take-all states looked as if they were true winner-take-all states. Candidates, whether McCain, or Romney or Huckabee were able to do well across the board in a state and win, if not all, then most of a state's delegates. [The hybrid systems I've discussed here are often referred to as winner-take-most states.]

    In some ways, then, this is where we have to balance the changes to the rules and the impact that may have with the dynamics of the 2012 race.[B] The rules changes matter, though not to as great a degree as Rothenberg and others have described, but the dynamics are of consequence as well.[/B] If the race develops into a two-person Perry-Romney fight, then we could see this play out in any number of ways. The two candidates, on the one hand, could do well in particular areas of the country or among particular demographics that are prevalent in various state -- like the Obama-Clinton race in 2008 -- or we could witness a competitive battle everywhere on the map between those two. In the former instance, the new rules may matter very little. Perry, say, could do very well in the South; to the point that they appear to have been straight winner-take-all contests. Romney could likewise do well in western states or states with high LDS populations and the same would be true in terms of the delegate allocation. But if Perry and Romney end up, on the opposite end of this spectrum, battling evenly everywhere, then the rules changes -- the proportionality requirement becomes more consequential.

    In truth, the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle. One candidate may do well in some states or group of states and minimize the rules change while simultaneously running even with the other in other states, causing the proportionality requirement to be of greater influence.

    [B]But one thing is for sure, this rules change is not a complete abolition of winner-take-all allocation in the 2012 Republican presidential nomination race. It just isn't.[/B]

    NOTE: For the record, FHQ probably should not get so frustrated with the media and analysts when this comes up. At some point the RNC needs to take some heat for not having properly educated the public, and particularly its primary voters, on this matter.]



    [/QUOTE]

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite;4277570]What is the GOP South going to do? Let Obama back in the WH? LOL :rolleyes:

    They'll role with Romney no problem when the time comes...[/QUOTE]

    having lived through the Kerry/Bush contest of 2004, trust me, likability means something. people need a reason to leave their house and vote and "Anybody but Obama" is not a winning strategy, just like "Anybody but Bush" was not a winner.

  16. #16
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,587
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4277671]having lived through the Kerry/Bush contest of 2004, trust me, likability means something. people need a reason to leave their house and vote and "Anybody but Obama" is not a winning strategy, just like "Anybody but Bush" was not a winner.[/QUOTE]

    Thats a big reason why I don't want Gingrich as the nominee. He lacks a like-able personality. Obama is polling much lower than Bush did at this point in his presidency so it's not as big of an issue as 2004 but it is still important.

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,337
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4277699]Thats a big reason why I don't want Gingrich as the nominee. He lacks a like-able personality. Obama is polling much lower than Bush did at this point in his presidency so it's not as big of an issue as 2004 but it is still important.[/QUOTE]

    I agree, he isn't like-able. The main reason I wouldn't mind him being the nominee is to see him debate Obama. I think that would be worth the price of admission.

  18. #18
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,764
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Piper;4277700]I agree, he isn't like-able. The main reason I wouldn't mind him being the nominee is to see him debate Obama. I think that would be worth the price of admission.[/QUOTE]

    It would

  19. #19
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4277671]having lived through the Kerry/Bush contest of 2004, trust me, likability means something. people need a reason to leave their house and vote and "Anybody but Obama" is not a winning strategy, just like "Anybody but Bush" was not a winner.[/QUOTE]

    Ah, but people liked Bush and thought Kerry was a lying pretentious bozo. He and his phony wife. (Haven't bought a Heinz product since).

  20. #20
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,764
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4277710]Ah, but people liked Bush and thought Kerry was a lying pretentious bozo. He and his phony wife. (Haven't bought a Heinz product since).[/QUOTE]

    That was the point. President Bush was a likable guy and thus won.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us