Suffolk University has released their latest New Hampshire Poll. They polled 400 New Hampshire residents who claimed to be at least 50/50 likely to vote in the upcoming Presidential primary. Here are the top lines. Here are the crosstabs.
Three of their questions were as follows:
Here are the results:
| (Horse Race) | 1st Choice | 2nd Choice | President |
| Obama | N/A | N/A | 24 |
| Romney | 36 | 14 | 27 |
| Bachmann | 11 | 12 | 7 |
| Paul | 8 | 4 | 2 |
| Giuliani | 5 | 6 | 1 |
| Huntsman | 4 | 3 | 0 |
| Palin | 4 | 5 | 2 |
| Cain | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Gingrich | 2 | 3 | 1 |
| Perry | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Pawlenty | 2 | 6 | 1 |
| Pataki | 1 | 0 | - |
| Santorum | 1 | 4 | 2 |
| Bolton | 0 | - | 0 |
| DeMint | 0 | - | - |
| Johnson | - | 1 | - |
| Karger | - | - | - |
| Moore | - | - | - |
| Roemer | - | - | 0 |
| Undecided | 21 | 38 | 34 |
Here are a couple more interesting horse race type of questions:
Whom do you trust the most?
| Romney | 27 |
| Bachmann | 9 |
| Paul | 9 |
| Giuliani | 6 |
| Hunstman | 4 |
| Palin | 4 |
| Santorum | 3 |
| Cain | 2 |
| Gingrich | 2 |
| Pawlenty | 2 |
| Bolton | 1 |
| Perry | 0 |
| DeMint | - |
| Johnson | - |
| Karger | - |
| Moore | - |
| Pataki | - |
| Roemer | - |
| Undecided | 33 |
Whom do you trust the least?
| Gingrich | 19 |
| Palin | 17 |
| Romney | 10 |
| Paul | 6 |
| Bachmann | 2 |
| Hunstman | 2 |
| Bolton | 1 |
| Cain | 1 |
| Giuliani | 1 |
| Johnson | 1 |
| Santorum | 1 |
| DeMint | 0 |
| Pataki | 0 |
| Perry | 0 |
| Pawlenty | 0 |
| Roemer | 0 |
| Karger | - |
| Moore | - |
| Undecided | 38 |
And finally one more series of questions:
Do you think that the near-universal health care bill passed by Democrats last year should be repealed, modified or left alone?
| Repealed | 53 |
| Modified | 27 |
| Left Alone | 13 |
| Undecided | 7 |
Mitt Romney has changed his position on several social issues. Do those changes disqualify him from getting your vote?
| Yes | 24 |
| No | 69 |
| Undecided | 8 |
Thinking about Mitt Romney, does his involvement in helping to pass Massachusetts’s universal health care law make you more likely to vote for him, less likely, or does it not affect your decision?
| More Likely | 10 |
| Less Likely | 26 |
| No Effect | 64 |
| Undecided | 4 |
June 29th, 2011 at 5:31 pm
Palin should leverage her (4%) 7th place finish in NH to propel her into South Carolina.
June 29th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
74% say Romney’s involvement with RomneyCare has no effect or makes them more likely to support Mitt.
June 29th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
Even if you add the undecided and Second Place Backmann, Romney still leads. New Hampshire is looking solid for Romney.
June 29th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
What are the “several social issues” that Romney has changed his position on?
June 29th, 2011 at 5:39 pm
Looks like Mitt the untrustworthy “charlatan” doesn’t exist in New Hampshire (where they know him pretty well).
June 29th, 2011 at 5:40 pm
2 – Don’t tell Adam X. He will think that means RomneyCare is a killer for Romney.
June 29th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
4. 69% know the question was bogus.
June 29th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
Unless there ends up being a head- to-head matchup, this looks very good for Romney. 35% is a winning number with multiple candidates. Combine his first and seconds and he gets to an unbeatable 50%.
June 29th, 2011 at 5:43 pm
6. Or that these people just haven’t had it explained to them properly.
June 29th, 2011 at 5:44 pm
They found 8 of 500 likely voters who feel that Ron Paul is more likely to be President than Obama or anyone else? Yikes.
June 29th, 2011 at 5:44 pm
#4 . . . haven’t you heard of the power of “conventional wisdom?” If it’s said often enough then it becomes truth!!!! BTW . . . I believe “several” generally refers to 7 or more. It’s definitely more than “a few” which is usually defined as 3-6 I believe.
June 29th, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Mitt got 36% of the 79% that actually chose a candidate (i.e. not the 21% that were undecided). On a real election day “undecideds” generally stay home, so this would represent 46% total vote for Mitt. I think that’s enough to win NH, no?
June 29th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
So two vaguely anti-Mitt questions (one of them misrepresenting the facts) and none for any other candidates…was this a push poll?
June 29th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
quirky fact from this poll. More people thought Rick Santorum would be the next president than chose him in the horserace portion. Granted, it’s only 2% and 1% respectively, but that’s pretty odd IMO.
June 29th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
12 – Good point
June 29th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
Romney’s big problem in New Hampshire is managing expecations. The winner in Iowa always gets a bounce going into New Hampshire (Huckabee went from nothing to 3rd place). If they can leverage that into a strong 2nd place showing, then the media will report that as a “win” for them and a “loss” for the winer, presumably Romney. If I were in the Romney campaign, I’d be downplaying expectations in New Hampshire so that he doesn’t need a massive victory in order to be declared the winner.
June 29th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
14 – Probably a rounding error.
June 29th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
16 – You’re right. Although I think the early states are given more credit than they deserve. The race usually comes down to who wins on Super Tuesday, which is usually the candidate with the best name recognition early on. Most people don’t follow politics like we do, so they won’t even know anything about half these candidates until right before the elections anyways.
June 29th, 2011 at 5:55 pm
16 – 1st place is usually good enough to be declared winner. There is no reasonable way for him to manage expectations. You can’t poll double digits ahead of everybody then pretend to expect 2nd place.
June 29th, 2011 at 5:56 pm
Jon.16
Yup. You hit the nail on the head. Expectations is everything. Look what’s happening to Pawlenty in Iowa right now.
June 29th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
Hmm 1st choice for Mitt and 2nd choice for Mitt together = 50%. Lets keep that rolling along.
June 29th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
#18:
The last primary season, more specifically the Giuliani campaign, proved that winning the nomination requires winning either Iowa or New Hampshire. Momentum is hugely important (no doubt more than it should be) during the primaries and it’s almost impossible for a candidate to convince voters that you’re a winner after you’ve lost the first few contests.
June 29th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
20 – What does Pawlenty have to do with Romney leading a poll in New Hampshire? Pawlenty has never come close to leading any poll in this race.
June 29th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Romney just needs a simple 1st place finish. His second place finish there last time sets him up well if he wins this time.
June 29th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
22 – You are right. I think the early states can kill a candidate, but I think it is really hard to make yourself a viable candidate off the early states alone. It takes more than that, and I think that is evidenced by 70+ years of the Republicans nominating people who had either run in the past or had very high name recognition before the race started.
June 29th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
22 – In other words, to win you have to do well in the early states and have high name recognition early on. You can’t win without one or the other.
June 29th, 2011 at 6:09 pm
Obviously he flip-flopped. In NH he is a competent upstanding man of character but every else he panders by trying to be the opposite.
June 29th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
Jaxemer,
Pawlenty was expected to win in Iowa and blow away the competition at Ames. Enter Michele Bachmann stage left.
Now he has to blow her out of the water. Anything less than a resounding victory will be viewed as a loss. That is what happened to Mitt in 2008 in the same poll, same state.
June 29th, 2011 at 6:18 pm
28 – even worse, Romney DID blow away the competition at Ames. Huck came in 13 percent behind him. Of course, Pawlenty was mostly expected to win Iowa by insiders, most of the nation has barely heard of him until recently, so expectations for him won’t be as high as they were for Romney.
June 29th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
#28:
The way Pawlenty gets around that, I think, is to follow the McCain “live off the land” strategy of 2008 and to tell everyone that he is doing it. Ames is still a month and a half away. If Pawlenty essentially camps out in Iowa, he can cultivate at least enough support to perform well enough in Ames.
Here actually is the McCain 08 plan. The last page is the actual McCain finance plan http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM41_strategy_memo_-_july_18_2007_-_final.pdf
June 29th, 2011 at 6:24 pm
28 – I don’t know who expected that, besides perhaps Smack.
June 29th, 2011 at 6:26 pm
Does anyone disagree with my assessment of the early states in relation to the bigger Super Tuesday states? (see comment #18, 25, and 22). I’m not looking to argue, but I would like someone to point out where my thinking is wrong if it is.
June 29th, 2011 at 6:29 pm
ANOTHER POLL SHOWS PERRY AT 13
Romney 18
Perry 13
Bachmann 11
Giuliani 10
Palin 8
Paul 7
Everyone else 5 or less
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/29/romney-remains-top-gop-preference-as-perry-draws-close-behind/
Confirmation of the McClachy poll for Perry. That’s pretty impressive considering he is still just a “possible candidate”.
June 29th, 2011 at 6:29 pm
I wonder what would happen if Mitt got 3rd in Iowa. I’m sure he’d still win NH, so would that mean he’d have 2 similar opponents left?
June 29th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
34,
If Mitt gets third in Iowa then he very likely loses SC. That means he is in big trouble.
June 29th, 2011 at 6:33 pm
#32:
I think the early states can do it on their own. Look at Huckabee and Romney. A win in IA and 2nd place in both propelled them to the finals in the Republican primary. McCain won the nomination because absolutely everything went right for him, not because of his high name id.
June 29th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
36 – I don’t know that I agree with that. I’m not arguing that there won’t be other people in the race on Super Tuesday, just that they can’t win on Super Tuesday without significant name recognition before the race starts. McCain dominated on Super Tuesday, and I think a huge reason for that was his name recognition. Huckabee never had a chance, and while Romney made a good effort, he ultimately fell far short.
McCain wasn’t a good candidate, yet it really was Super Tuesday that won the race for him. Everything went right for him because of name recognition, not luck.
June 29th, 2011 at 6:48 pm
McCain won 602 delegates on Super Tuesday (mostly from the big states where name recognition is most important). Romney won 7 states to McCain’s 9, but only got 201 delegates. Huckabee did even worse with 5 states and 152 delegates.
McCain received 42% of the popular vote on Super Tuesday, far more than he did in the early states.
June 29th, 2011 at 6:50 pm
Of the pre-Super Tuesday states, Romney won 4, McCain won 3, and Huckabee won 1.
June 29th, 2011 at 6:50 pm
#37:
I attribute McCain’s Super Tuesday wins to momentum from Florida, Rudy dropping out, and the division of the anti-McCAin vote between Huckabee and Romney. That wasn’t name id.
June 29th, 2011 at 6:52 pm
38,
So Romney lost on Super Tuesday because he didn’t have name recognition? Really?
After all of the advertising, all of the millions spent, all of the debates Romney lost because he wasn’t well known?
His problem wasn’t that he wasn’t well known. He WAS. His problem was that he wasn’t held in high esteem.
June 29th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
40 – I guess we’ll just have to disagree. 70 years of evidence is pretty compelling in my mind though.
June 29th, 2011 at 6:56 pm
41 – How many people do you think watched the debates? Yes, I do think name recognition mattered.
June 29th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
43,
I think that of those Republican who cast ballots the vast majority of them either viewed at least one debate or watched coverage of them after the fact. Couple that with Mitt’s millions and the assertion that he just wasn’t well known falls flat.
People knew Mitt by Super Tuesday. They knew McCain in 2000. They knew both Reagan and Ford in 1976.
June 29th, 2011 at 7:01 pm
#42:
Every front-runner since the primaries began and even before than, has nearly lost the nomination. Nixon in 68 was less than 50 votes over the top on the first ballot, Ford had to fight Reagan all the way to the convention in 76, Reagan nearly lost to Bush in 80, Bush nearly lost to Dole in 88, Dole nearly lost to everyone in 96, Bush nearly lost to McCain in 00 and McCain got every break in the world.
If one of any number of little things had gone differently, then that streak would’ve been broken.
June 29th, 2011 at 7:01 pm
aspire.34:“I wonder what would happen if Mitt got 3rd in Iowa. I’m sure he’d still win NH, so would that mean he’d have 2 similar opponents left?”
There’s an old saying, “Three tickets out of Iowa. Two tickets out of New Hampshire.”
June 29th, 2011 at 7:01 pm
44 – I think you are wrong. Note that Ford and Reagan went to the wire (and split the big states), which actually supports my theory.
June 29th, 2011 at 7:01 pm
Romney won 6 or 7 states on Super Tuesday. What knocked him out was a series of very narrow losses in states he needed to pull ahead. Here in Missouri, he finished third, for example, but he was only 3 or 4 points behind. The same thing happened in Georgia and Tennessee, as well as in about 35 congressional districts in California that he lost by less than 5 points.
That was then. This is now.
June 29th, 2011 at 7:04 pm
#48:
California statewide was more decisive than that.
McCain: 42.25%
Romney: 34.56&
Huckabee: 11.62%
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/
June 29th, 2011 at 7:06 pm
47,
It doesn’t support your theory. It just says that there were warring factions within the GOP and that they were nearly equally balanced in power. No one can say that they didn’t know of Reagan by Super Tuesday in 1976. And they certainly knew the sitting president.
June 29th, 2011 at 7:10 pm
45 – In the early states that is true, but not once we got past them. Dole won a huge number of states. That supports my theory, it doesn’t hurt it.
McCain carried 31+ states in 2008 (and all but 2 after Super Tuesday)
Bush carried 43 states in 2000
Dole carried 44 states in 1996
Bush I carried 41 states in 1988
Reagan carried 44 states in 1980
As I said in 47, in 1976 Reagan and Ford were both very well known prior to the race and split almost 50/50 (Ford 27, Reagan 23)
Prior to that the primaries were different, so it is hard to compare.
June 29th, 2011 at 7:12 pm
50 – Are you even paying attention to what I am saying? The reason it was close in 1976 was because Reagan was so well known. Since that race, the well best known candidate has won convincingly every time.
June 29th, 2011 at 7:13 pm
Why does the fact that Reagan and Ford were close have to mean that they were MORE well known than other primary candidates in other years.
It could just as easily be that those candidates garnered support in such a way to make it close.
June 29th, 2011 at 7:14 pm
Buchanan was at least as well known as Bob Dole in 1996.
June 29th, 2011 at 7:14 pm
#51:
But like I said, in every primary race, the best-known candidate nearly lost. It wasn’t name id that saved Reagan in 80, it was “I’m paying for this microphone”, the “Senator Straddle” ad saved Bush in 88. Dole won in 96 because his top two opponents were the unelectable Buchanan and Forbes. If Lamar Alexander had beaten Dole in either IA or NH, he could very well have won the nomination.
June 29th, 2011 at 7:16 pm
53 – It doesn’t. It is just a theory. Do you have any evidence to contradict it?
June 29th, 2011 at 7:19 pm
55 – Name recognition doesn’t matter as much in the early states. What I am saying is that the candidates campaign really hard in the early states and everyone knows who they are, and then the neglect the later states and the one with the most name recognition usually always dominates.
I’m just saying that maybe there is too much emphasis placed on the close contests in the early states when in the end they aren’t that relevant. Sure, if a candidate does abysmally (like Giuliani did) early on it can kill them, but there is no evidence that an unknown candidate who wins in the early states can win the nomination. In fact, it hasn’t been done.
June 29th, 2011 at 7:21 pm
56,
Sure. Pat Buchanan contradicts it. After Buchanan’s Culture War speech in 1992, EVERY Republican knew who he was when he got 38 percent of the vote in New Hampshire. Bob Dole was just a wonk in the senate to the average voter who doesn’t live and breathe this stuff.
And Bob Dole won the primary contest.
June 29th, 2011 at 7:22 pm
54 – Was he? He had never won before. Dole was the heavy favorite early on. Dole only one won early state, yet he dominated on Super Tuesday and from there on out. Buchanan only won three states.
June 29th, 2011 at 7:22 pm
58 – How do you know every Republican knew Pat Buchanan? What are you basing that on?
June 29th, 2011 at 7:23 pm
59,
I genuinely believe he was. I don’t know how old you are – but I remember that 1992 campaign. He gave Bush a real scare.
June 29th, 2011 at 7:24 pm
60,
The fact that all of the media paid attention to his speech and his 38 percent showing against a sitting president in the first primary of the cycle. That was a big friggin’ deal.
June 29th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
59 .. excuse me, I meant to say that Buchanan had never run before, and I was wrong about that. He had run in 1992. Still, he didn’t do anything in 1996 outside of New Hampshire. I never said name recognition was the only ingredient, only one of them.
Do you have any evidence of someone that is unknown dominating in the early states and then winning the election, Adam X?
June 29th, 2011 at 7:27 pm
It is impossible to say whether I am right or wrong, but I think it makes sense and the history certainly seems to support it. No one has won the nomination without having previously won or been well known before the race. Furthermore, there are only a handful of cases where the nominee has won without California and New York.
June 29th, 2011 at 7:27 pm
#57:
All I’m saying is that the most well known candidates win the later states because of their win in the earlier states. Like I said, we saw in 2008 when two of the candidates with the highest name id, Thompson and Giuliani, won none of the early states and were out of it by Super Tuesday.
No doubt there is a certain instinct in the GOP to stick with what is known including with candidates. We are the conservative party after all. But I think the fact that the most well-known candidate has won in the past does not necessarily predetermine that the nominee will be that candidate this time. If Romney wins neither Iowa or New Hampshire, then I highly doubt he’ll be the nominee.
June 29th, 2011 at 7:27 pm
The only one that I am aware of is Ford in 1976 where California went for their favorite son Reagan.
June 29th, 2011 at 7:29 pm
63,
George W. was essentially unknown and had never run for national office and went on to win. Though admittedly its probably unfair to look at the son of a former president.
It just seems like a really flimsy theory. Everyone knows that Florida could have easily gone the other way in 2008. Crist endorses Romney or McCain loses SC and Romney is the nominee.
June 29th, 2011 at 7:29 pm
65 – I agree with that. I think I already said that. You can’t win the nomination without doing well in the early states. But it is also true that to this point that you cannot win without dominating on Super Tuesday, and no one that was unknown before the race has ever done that.
June 29th, 2011 at 7:30 pm
#63:
That’s not entirely accurate. Buchanan won the Louisiana Caucus, which was before Iowa, fatally wounding Phil Gramm. That caused Buchanan to move up to 2nd in Iowa and later win New Hampshire.
June 29th, 2011 at 7:30 pm
67 – Wait, I thought you said everyone knew Romney and hated him in 2008. How could he have won in the face of so much opposition by merely getting a Crist endorsement?
June 29th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
70,
Because McCain was extraordinarily weak. Either of them would have only won with a plurality and without enthusiasm from the base.
June 29th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
69 – Still, my theory is about whether unknowns can win, not about whether knowns can falter. It is surely the case that Romney can falter and lose this race. My question is whether someone that is unknown can do enough in the early states to win the nomination without Romney or Palin (the other person I count as a “known”) faltering early.
June 29th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
71 – LOL. How many knots are you going to tie yourself into?
June 29th, 2011 at 7:36 pm
73,
Knots? Really? The contest was within a handful of points. You want me to dig up quotes from the Rombots blaming Crist for Romney’s loss in FL?
That’s really that much of a stretch?
June 29th, 2011 at 7:39 pm
74 – How is that relevant at all to this discussion? You are a clown.
June 29th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
And besides, no one has ever tied themself into as many knots as Romney has over the last decade, so if that’s what I do then I have good company
June 29th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
#72:
Well, if anyone other than Romney is the nominee, then an unknown will have won. Even if Palin gets in, she has no chance and by definition all the others are unknowns.
June 29th, 2011 at 7:43 pm
77 – I realize that. Which is why I think it is an interesting theory. We will see how predictive it is this cycle or not. Anyone other than Romney winning would be pretty unprecedented, from a historical viewpoint.
June 29th, 2011 at 7:46 pm
75,
It’s relevant because your hypothesis is based on a small number or presidential contests since 1976 and there are several inflection points where very small subtle shifts or endorsements could have had major effects on the eventual nominee.
What if some of those states in 1976 that were close were shifted a few points in the opposite direct. Reagan could have won. In 2000, if McCain was able to capitalize on the fact that the Bushies played hardball in South Carolina and said he fathered an illegitimate black child, the election could have gone the other way. NH+SC could have propelled McCain to victory.
Likewise in 2008 – a shift of a few points in FL or SC could have had drastic effects on who won the nomination.
I don’t think there are any hard “rules” about who can or can’t win the nomination. If Romney runs the best campaign and garners support then he’ll win the nomination because of that and not because he ran before. If he falters it will be purely because someone runs a better campaign.
June 29th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
79 – Why do you keep bringing up 1976? Haven’t we already established that both candidates were well known and either of them could have won? If that wasn’t clear, that is what I meant in all my previous posts about 1976.
In all the other cases, the eventual candidate dominated on Super Tuesday, which is what I am arguing. I am not suggesting anything about the results of early states.
June 29th, 2011 at 8:01 pm
79 – You don’t know how things would have gone if the race was different early on. You are just speculating based on the common idea that an unknown candidate can gain enough momentum to win the nomination in early states. That is an idea that has never happened in reality.
June 29th, 2011 at 8:02 pm
79 – I am not saying there are any hard rules. I am trying to infer trends from past elections. The idea that early states are the only thing that matters is an idea that is often held to, but there is no evidence to back it up at all.
June 29th, 2011 at 8:08 pm
Has any unknown candidate ever been able to gain momentum out of early states to then go on and win the nomination? Why do we think it would be any different this time?
June 29th, 2011 at 8:17 pm
84 – That is uncalled for. Why isn’t this guy banned by now?
June 29th, 2011 at 8:26 pm
Suffolk Poll FAVS/UNFAVS for GOP & INDIES
Romney-71/15…….60/20
Palin- 54/31…….20/68
Huntsman-19/20…..22/17
Pawlenty-41/10…..32/18
Gingrich-30/49…..17/63
Bachmann-53/16…..38/25
Cain-34/13………18/17
Paul-42/34………33/42
Santorum-36/15…..20/23
Fantastic numbers for Romney in both GOP & INDIES FAV/UNFAVS. Best FAV/UNFAVS Ratio’s for both.
Pawlenty has the second best FAV/UNFAVS ratio’s among both GOP & INDIES…..but what does it get him?…..2%.
Bachmann has third best FAV/UNFAVS ratio’s and she gets…11%
Huntsman shows some strength among INDIES when compared to the rest of the GOP candidates..at least it’s something for him to hang his hat on.
As Nate Silver has said about TPAW….his FAV/UNFAVS numbers reflect a Frontrunner..but his top line numbers do not.
I have come to the belief that many of the GOP voters who like TPAW…who say they have a favorable opinion about the guy, are sticking with Mitt right now.
The only way out for TPAW is to have Romney not enter Iowa for any reason…money..debates…TV ADS…highly doubtful
Pawlenty needs Romney’s voters in Iowa to peel off and go to the TPAW camp.
Big uphill climb…but with great FAV/UNFAVS, TPAW is not going to give up until the people of Iowa make him give up at AMES.
June 29th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
84# – that’s a horrible comment.
June 29th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
Seriously, I’ve had enough of TheTotalConservative. Either he gets banned or I’m not coming back anymore. That crap is ridiculous.
June 29th, 2011 at 8:34 pm
Whatever amount of money Romney has raised that amount is just fine. Romney has some decent burn rate (big staff) but he hasn’t gone all out…not even close.
Bachmann and Paul will be ok as well.
Everybody else will be very poor.
Numbers will not be as high as we thougt for everyone because there is some apathy, but there is also another reason… we the people are broke..
Romney’s money ratio over everybody else will be as high as we all thought….so no big deal what the true raw numbers are..the advantage will be the same.
June 29th, 2011 at 8:38 pm
Jax,
Don’t leave, you bring alot to the table. Don’t let a guy like him run you out.
Who am I going to argue with if you leave?
June 29th, 2011 at 8:39 pm
89 – You’re right. I think the economy has something to do with it too. Romney will be fine financially, but I do think it would be a pretty big disappointment if he raised under $20 million. Nothing that would end his campaign though. He will still be way ahead of everyone else. Just not as far ahead.
June 29th, 2011 at 8:40 pm
90 – I am fine with people disagreeing, but I don’t need that kind of offensive language. If this site doesn’t care about policing it, then I can find somewhere else t talk about politics.
June 29th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
Jax.
I answered you on the Pawlenty thread.
….didn’t want you to feel ignored…..
June 29th, 2011 at 9:00 pm
93 – Thanks! … I think?
June 29th, 2011 at 9:18 pm
yo, jax – Total conservative’s comment was removed, what was the gist? Just wondering?
June 29th, 2011 at 10:17 pm
jaaron,
His remarks did not belong on a family website. Kavon had no choice but to ban him.
June 30th, 2011 at 7:04 am
Almost every comment he made was obnoxious and rude.
At least sometimes I throw in baseball scores or something….