Des Moines Register/Selzer & Co. Iowa 2012 GOP Caucus Poll
December 27-30, 2011
- Mitt Romney 24% (16%) {18%} [22%] (23%)
- Ron Paul 22% (18%) {19%} [12%] (7%)
- Rick Santorum 15% (6%) {3%} [5%] (4%)
- Newt Gingrich 12% (25%) {17%} [7%] (7%)
- Rick Perry 11% (6%) {7%} [7%]
- Michele Bachmann 7% (8%) {5%} [8%] (22%)
December 29-30, 2011
- Mitt Romney 24%
- Rick Santorum 21%
- Ron Paul 18%
Survey of 602 likely Republican caucus-goers was conducted December 27-30, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. In the final two days of polling, 302 likely caucus-goers were interviewed, with a margin of error of +/- 5.6 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted November 27-30, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted November 10-12, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted October 23-26, 2011 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted June 19-22, 2011 are in parentheses.
Inside the numbers:
Forty-one percent (41%) of likely caucus goers say they could still be persuaded to change their minds
–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal
December 31st, 2011 at 9:13 pm
If Santorum wins, Newt and Perry might as well drop out next Wednesday.
I’m beginning to like the idea.
December 31st, 2011 at 9:15 pm
Romney soars to 53+ to win Iowa on Intrade.
December 31st, 2011 at 9:17 pm
41% could still change their minds………Gulp!
Santy is going to be on “Meet the Press” tomorrow. High risk…high reward.
Is Mitt going to be in Iowa tomorrow?
Mitt and Paul were both not in Iowa today.
December 31st, 2011 at 9:18 pm
2:
Odd. Santorum rising actually has me down on Mitt winning Iowa.
December 31st, 2011 at 9:20 pm
It’s a three man race in Iowa now. And it’s a relatively close. Romney has solidified his support, Ron Paul is lurking, and Santorum has the most momentum. My guess is based on this poll that Ron Paul is going to win IA. I eagerly await the PPP poll to modify that assessment though
December 31st, 2011 at 9:22 pm
Yeah baby!!! Go mitt!!!
December 31st, 2011 at 9:22 pm
Craig for Santorum? Craigs final stand.
December 31st, 2011 at 9:23 pm
Am I understanding the results of this polls correctly? Did Santorum get an overall average from the polling done Dec. 27-30th of 15% but an average of the last two days of the polling of 21%?
December 31st, 2011 at 9:23 pm
My prediction:
1. Santorum
2. Mitt
3. Paul
4. Perry
5. Gingrich
December 31st, 2011 at 9:26 pm
Perry & Gingrich need to go after Santorum and/or Paul.
Third place is the key to survival.
Give em hell Mitt!
December 31st, 2011 at 9:27 pm
I can’t predict, but I’d love Mitt at #1. I’m OK with Paul ahead of Mitt, but I do NOT want Mitt behind Santorum. No way.
December 31st, 2011 at 9:27 pm
The die is cast.
My prediction:
1) Mitt
2) Paul
3) Santorum
4) Gingrich
5) Perry
6) Bachmann
December 31st, 2011 at 9:28 pm
REPOST:
Smack1968 Says:
December 31st, 2011 at 12:05 pm
FINAL SMACKDADDY IOWA PREDICTION:
Mitt Romney 30,364 23.11%
Rick Santorum 26,986 20.54%
Ron Paul 26,389 20.08%
Rick Perry 19,201 14.62%
Gingrich 18,408 14.01%
Bachmann 8,681 6.61%
Huntsman 1,339 1.02%
I made this prediction 9 hours ago and it already seems obsolete. If the DMR “last 2 day poll” is accurate…well…..I’m going to be off on Santy’s numbers. I didn’t think the Perry-Gingrich-Bachmann trifecta would get less than 35% of the total vote…..it looks like I was wrong again.
2012 is not SMACKDADDY’s cycle for predictions.
December 31st, 2011 at 9:29 pm
Do I read that poll correctly? Didn’t Mitt go up 8 points (from 16 to 24)? Isn’t that as much of a surge as Santorum’s?
December 31st, 2011 at 9:29 pm
I have to admit that these poll numbers were unthinkable a month ago for Mitt. Didn’t compete at the straw poll, ignored the State…now leads.
There’s still a chance Santorum gets the win, but he’s not a bad guy to go to South Carolina against. The Mormon v the Catholic. The gov v the Senator. The executive v the only government guy.
December 31st, 2011 at 9:31 pm
RCP averages have Mitt slightly ahead in Iowa:
Romney 22%
Paul 21.3%
Santorum 14.2%
Gingrich 13.7%
Perry 11.7%
Bachmann 8.3%
Huntsman 2.6%
December 31st, 2011 at 9:32 pm
I thought my Santy number of 20.54% would catch Santy at his zenith…but it looks like Santy has 23-24% in his future. Mitt is not going down to 23% either.
Well at least I nailed Bachmann’s number.
Small consolation…but I will take anything at this stage.
December 31st, 2011 at 9:32 pm
I’m not always 100% on board with Mitt’s views or his platform and on social issues, I tend to agree with Santorum more. So of all the guys peaking at the last minute, my two favorite ones are.
Having said that. I hoping for a Romney win. Santorum does not have the lasting power nor the vet-proofing he needs to be tough enough for the whole process to the White House. Romney does. I trust Romney more than I don’t.
December 31st, 2011 at 9:33 pm
11.
The key is to keep Newt Perry & Santorum all competing in South Carolina.
A Santorum win in Iowa will fragment the vote in SC.
Give em hell Mitt!
December 31st, 2011 at 9:34 pm
Very glad to hear that, Six.
I could actually support Santorum if he weren’t so whiny and if he hadn’t talked over Mitt’s answer and then told him his time was up — and if he’d shown any kind of leadership skill in building a national organization.
But, really, he’s the only other candidate besides Mitt I could feel “okay” about as the nominee. (But, it’s DISTANT second.)
December 31st, 2011 at 9:36 pm
Wow. So assuming the polled about the same number of people the first two days as the second two, doesn’t that mean the first two days Santorum was at 9%? Ao 9% to 21% in a couple days? Pretty impressive. Now let’s see how many come out to vote on Tuesday.
December 31st, 2011 at 9:41 pm
Smack,
Now that Gingrich is toast, who are you rooting for?
December 31st, 2011 at 9:41 pm
21
Personally, I find it hard to believe.
December 31st, 2011 at 9:44 pm
No matter what happens on Tuesday, I think Santy is moving toward the center of the stage and getting off the edge in next week’s debates.
If Bachmann bows out of race on Wed, and if Santy comes in 2nd or 3rd in Iowa to Mitt… the stage will look something like this….
Perry-Gingrich-Santorum-Romney-Paul-Hunstman.
That is not only going to look different, but it’s going to cause a whole new dynamic to the race.
December 31st, 2011 at 9:48 pm
Santorum’s jump up in the polls is blowing my mind since I thought we’d seen the last of the FOTM’s in Newt Gingrich. My mistake.
Does Santorum have anything else going for him in other states, or is he going to be Huckabee 2008 revisited with little money and little organization but lots of volunteers and voters from those who don’t trust Romney?
December 31st, 2011 at 9:49 pm
Massachusetts Conservative,
I’m rooting for Newt.
Mitt is my second choice..and always has been, except for 4 weeks after TPAW left the race when Mitt was my number 1#.
Newt will go to SC along with Perry and will split the vote up enough with Santy for Mitt to win SC…at least that’s what it looks like now…..but who the hell knows.
My predictions of 9 hours ago already suck……I have no idea what is going to happen….clueless.
December 31st, 2011 at 9:51 pm
Thanks for the reminder, Smack. We’ve got a couple of debates between Iowa and New Hampshire. Ugh. I’m getting rather tired of them.
December 31st, 2011 at 9:51 pm
25 — scratch your last two words.
They instead should read “…don’t want a Mormon President.”
December 31st, 2011 at 9:53 pm
Santorum did it in the space of two days.
Remember, the 15% number includes two days where he was polling at 21%. Which basically means that Santorum was polling at approximately 9% on Tuesday and Wednesday. His support essentially jumped 133% overnight.
That’s movement.
December 31st, 2011 at 9:53 pm
I thought when I made my Final Iowa prediction 9 hours ago that I was ahead of the curve……now my predictions are already behind the curve.
Santy is getting more than 20.54%..and Newt % Perry are not getting to 14% because they are collapsing a little faster than I thought they would.
This Iowa race is really moving now…..HOLY SMOKE!!
December 31st, 2011 at 9:59 pm
There goes Firecracker, elevating the conversaton again.
Go do your Religious pouting somewhere else…..you are a bore.
We all understand there is some bigotry against Mitt..we get it. But we are not going to intergrate that narrative into everyone of our posts.
Now shut the hell up kid.
December 31st, 2011 at 9:59 pm
Firecracker #28 – does it really matter much WHY some voters don’t trust Romney? In the end, they don’t trust him, period. It sucks, but there it is. Exploring the reasons doesn’t do much good unless those people can be persuaded by logic, emotion, or other means. So far, a certain segment has proven remarkably un-persuadable – no different than for any other candidate, really. Romney’s just betting that he’ll win over enough voters to get the nomination and then win over the vast majority of GOP voters if he gets the privilege of taking on President Obama.
December 31st, 2011 at 9:59 pm
Tuesday is going to be a nailbiter. Buckle up.
December 31st, 2011 at 10:03 pm
Didn’t Romney actually only gain a couple points after recouping the points he lost – rather than “surge”?
December 31st, 2011 at 10:04 pm
28. A percentage of them could be as you describe. But why do you continue to repeat the same thing again and again? We get it. You think a bunch of ‘em are bigots. Some probably are. Why the constant reminders?
December 31st, 2011 at 10:06 pm
34. Granny T,
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder! One person’s recouping is another’s surge!
December 31st, 2011 at 10:08 pm
Massachusetts Conservative,
Tuesday..election day, is the only day I look at INTRADE. The early bettors in the day get their hands on early exit polling and dump money into the pool.
I never talk about INTRADE here at Race42012, because they don’t mean squat…except for on election day.
The big recent exception being the 2008 DEM NH primary of course when INTRADE had Hillary at 5% early in the morning…
……but when those late afternoon exit polls came out the Hillary numbers on INTRADE skyrockted.
Yep…nailbiter it will be.
December 31st, 2011 at 10:09 pm
I’m not going to vote for a Mormon just to show I’m not a bigot. It didn’t work out very well for those that voted for Obama. It reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw that said something like: For those that voted for Obama to show you’re not a bigot – vote for someone else to prove you’re not stupid.”
December 31st, 2011 at 10:10 pm
No one is accusing you of being a bigot, Granny T, that I can see. I’m fine with you voting your conscience and trust you’re fine with me doing the same.
December 31st, 2011 at 10:10 pm
With my last comment I’m not implying that I think Romney would be as bad as Obama. I’m just trying to make a point that not everyone is stupid enough to vote for someone just to show they aren’t a bigot.
December 31st, 2011 at 10:12 pm
37
One thing to remember is that (I think) all caucuses start at 7pm CT, so we will not have exit polls until late anyway.
December 31st, 2011 at 10:13 pm
ogrepete,
Thank you. But the comment was actually directed at Firecracker.
December 31st, 2011 at 10:14 pm
How is going from 6 to 11 “collapsing” for Perry?
Newt is the one who lost half of his support
December 31st, 2011 at 10:15 pm
MC,
Interesting point.
December 31st, 2011 at 10:16 pm
31 – You shut the hell up! If it were your religion that got slammed in a daily basis you would be throwing a fit.
There are prominent pastors in Iowa and South Carolina literally telling people that voting for Mitt is equivalent to supporting the enemies of God. It isn’t just a “little bit of bigotry”.
If you don’t think that is something that deserves discussing, you have a serious problem.
December 31st, 2011 at 10:16 pm
Smack…Please stop calling him Santy.
December 31st, 2011 at 10:19 pm
It IS an interesting question: Voting FOR someone who is unqualified for racial/gender/religious reasons–or voting AGAINST the most qualified person for the same reasons.
In either case it is our right–but not especially good for the country.
December 31st, 2011 at 10:19 pm
46
Lol. I always have the urge to call him Santy as well. It seems others on the blogosphere feel the same urge we do.
December 31st, 2011 at 10:19 pm
I just remembered that they actually conduct “entrance” polls for Iowa, due to the late hour. So, by the time the caucuses begin, people should have a lot of data to compile.
December 31st, 2011 at 10:23 pm
Romney won 25.23% of the 2008 Iowa Caucus. IMHO he needs to do at least better than that on Tuesday to show any type of “surge”.
December 31st, 2011 at 10:26 pm
Shame DMR does not give us the 2-day results for either Gingrich or Perry. I’d like to see if both of their trends are continuing (Perry up and Gingrich down).
December 31st, 2011 at 10:26 pm
38 – What are you basing your vote on than?
December 31st, 2011 at 10:27 pm
What’s wrong with “Santy.” Santorum is way long and Santy for short is not derogatory, is it? We could call him Sanity, but that would offend Newt.
Whatever we call Santorum, I don’t believe it will be for long–even tho it won’t surprise me to see him win Tuesday, stealing votes from Perry, Bachmann and Newt. The strategy is to coalesce around one, and Santorum has been annointed The One, the reason being he hasn’t been vetted so for now he’s a clean slate.
Timing is everything, they say.
December 31st, 2011 at 10:28 pm
LOL @ Granny T
After visiting the state 12 times this campaign and almost nearly writing the state off you expect him to do better than last time when he tried much, much harder?
December 31st, 2011 at 10:32 pm
jaxemer11,
As I’ve mentioned many times before, I am basing my vote on who comes the closest to representing my views. I do research, voters match quizzes, and have even called campaign offices when I can’t find where a candidate stands on issues. I am a Huckabee supporter because no one else even came close to matching me as well as he did. IMHO the primary is the time to choose the candidate you think is best of the current crop – not the time you have to settle.
December 31st, 2011 at 10:35 pm
jaxemer11,
Ok big fella……you can discuss all night if you want.
Go ahead…go for it.
December 31st, 2011 at 10:35 pm
Mitt’s 8 pt increase is just as impressive as Santorum’s increase. I think Mitt will be a few points higher caucus night because he is just starting to campaign in the state and is getting a lot of great reviews from local press + great reception from the crowds.
December 31st, 2011 at 10:36 pm
ogrepete,
To classify as “surging”? Yes! Look at where Paul ended up in 2008 (9.96%) compared to how he’s polling now. Has he really campaigned that much more in Iowa than Mitt to show that “surge”?
December 31st, 2011 at 10:39 pm
As for Santorum’s “nickname” – IF Perry drops out after Iowa and Santorum is still in – we could refer to him as “Rick” like we do Mitt & Newt.
December 31st, 2011 at 10:42 pm
smack, may you predict who can IA?
December 31st, 2011 at 10:43 pm
It’s no secret that IA isn’t especially friendly territory for Mitt. That he’s polling well now is pretty amazing. However, his numbers raise expectations at this point, which may not be realized. His numbers will no doubt hold, but it’s easy to see how Santorum pulls votes from the others and wins by quite a bit. It looks like Mitt’s on a mini-roll too though (his bus stop speeches have been really good).
Santorum surges, Mitt holds, Paul falls back a bit, and the others get cannabalized by Santorum if they don’t come out with some negative ads tomorrow and Monday.
December 31st, 2011 at 10:45 pm
#59 Granny, good point. Rick Perry needs to take it for the team and drop out. It would make our lives so much easier.
December 31st, 2011 at 10:46 pm
Possible alternatives to Santy:
1. Santo
2. Ricky S.
3. Saint Orum
4. R.S.
5. RickSa
6. Surgin’ Santorum!
7. S
Ok, I’m going to get carried away.
December 31st, 2011 at 10:48 pm
Granny T
Well, by that measure (what’d they poll 4 years ago?) every single candidate except for Mitt Romney (and Jon Huntsman, who isn’t polled) is surging in Iowa.
Newt went from 0% four years ago to 12% in this poll. Rick Santorum went from 0% to 15%, etc. Four years ago, Romney was being pushed by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. as the conservative alternative to John McCain – four years ago, Iowa pastors were all converging on Mike Huckabee as the one candidate who best matched their values and telling anyone who’d listen.
Tell me, are we really talking about a Newt Gingrich surge or a Rick Perry surge? Umm, no. No one is talking about what happened four years ago, because it isn’t relevant. Different race, different circumstances, different candidates. We’re talking about this race, and this race alone, for very good reasons.
December 31st, 2011 at 10:50 pm
Let’s call Rick Santorum “The Juice.” OJ can sue if he wants.
December 31st, 2011 at 10:51 pm
LOL @ 65
December 31st, 2011 at 10:53 pm
66
Whaddaya say? Let’s do it! Maybe it will spread around the internet!
December 31st, 2011 at 10:54 pm
I use mathematics to determine whom to support. For example,
–Candidate A is 90% close to my thinking on the issues. Candidate is incompetent and, therefore, is likely to actually achieve 10% of his agenda. Score: 9%
–Candidate B is 80% in line with my thinking. Candidate B is great at giving speeches and pontificating, but has little attention to detail. Likely to achieve 50% of agenda. Score: 40%
–Candidate C is 80% in line with my thinking. Candidate C competent, capable, a high achiever. Likely to achieve 90% of agenda. Score: 72%
I go with Candidate C.
December 31st, 2011 at 10:58 pm
Great post, hamaca. I like that way of thinking.
December 31st, 2011 at 11:01 pm
Romney has a decent chance of turning out as many caucusgoers as he did last time which is, under the circumstances, fairly remarkable and probably a testament to his organization (they have the lists of everyone who caucused for them in ’08 and apparently have made something like 200k phone calls).
December 31st, 2011 at 11:09 pm
Happy New Year!
December 31st, 2011 at 11:12 pm
Ha! Matt Y. and I are in the new year and some of you aren’t!
Happy New Year!
December 31st, 2011 at 11:14 pm
I’m spending half my NY Eve with all of you, so I guess that makes you my new, extended family!
Happy New Year!
December 31st, 2011 at 11:18 pm
Hamaca – Perry, Newt, and Romney
December 31st, 2011 at 11:18 pm
I’m afraid Santorum will win Iowa. On Fox, Cameron reports that 24 pastors are going to be pushing Santorum tomorrow morning in their churches, many of them being mega churches. Enough people will drop off of Bachmann and Perry to try and beat Romney and accomplish it.
Good news is, Romney will still get the nomination.
December 31st, 2011 at 11:23 pm
75
I am afraid Romney could even come in 3rd. If he does, that’s trouble.
December 31st, 2011 at 11:30 pm
I believe Santorum for sure will win IA. Paul could have people that aren’t being counted in the polls and take second. Mitt could absolutely be third. But will it matter? Mitt will take NH, might not do too well in SC, but then who is there in FL? Not Paul or Santorum.
Obama came out of nowhere but Santorum is no Obama.
But, as my dad used to say, Don’t cry till you’re hurt. Let’s be positive (but not stupid).
December 31st, 2011 at 11:34 pm
My concern is that between IA and NH, all the candidates are going to attack Romney nonstop. Almost every candidate has risen and been beaten back by Romney, now they’ll have a chance to get their revenge and try to deprive him of the much needed NH victory.
He’ll probably still win, but winning IA would make me feel more comfortable.
December 31st, 2011 at 11:43 pm
78:
How many candidates will be left between Iowa and New Hampshire?
December 31st, 2011 at 11:45 pm
Or they could just cede NH and start their revenge in SC–almost immediately.
January 1st, 2012 at 12:03 am
update with more data….Paul fell from 29 to 16 fromt he start to end of polling……..
January 1st, 2012 at 12:06 am
79- everyone except Bachmann. The others are done but will stick around ought of spite and increase their chances to sell books or, in the case of Perry, get reelected.
January 1st, 2012 at 12:10 am
55 – All good ways to choose candidates. Do you not think it is a problem to automatically disqualify mitt because of his religion regardless of what his views and opinions are?
January 1st, 2012 at 12:11 am
56 – Sorry to get pissy. It just gets a little old to hear people constantly telling us Mormons that it doesn’t matter that our religion is lied about on a daily basis. It does matter. It is disgusting and isn’t something to be tossed around so lightly.
January 1st, 2012 at 12:15 am
81:
Agreed about Bachmann. She’s gone from winning Ames to probably coming in 6th on caucus night in the state she pretty much adopted.
Santorum is odd. Really, even if he manages 2nd in Iowa, he has nowhere to go. He has no support anywhere but that state, and no way to spin a good finish there into any momentum in another state like S. Carolina. He may stick around, but I’m not sure what he could accomplish.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:15 am
yep, Fox News says the religious fix is in tomorrow as pastors will emotionally plea to their members to stop the Mormon. Iowa politics at its finest.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:17 am
Cannot wait for Iowa to lose its first in nation status. A Santorum win will almost guarantee it.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:33 am
Smack your predictions suck. Almost as bad as Craig for Losers!
Happy New Years mate.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:59 am
Happy New Year!!
Except Craig for Santorum!
Nah.
Even Craig for Santorum!
January 1st, 2012 at 2:10 am
Romney will win the caucuses. Marginally, but will win. Santorum in 3rd. Carl Cameron has always hated Romney and whether or not 24 pastors will do the unfair bidding for Santorum from the pulpits, he won’t have the operation to bring the actual voters to the polls.
January 1st, 2012 at 2:12 am
Just finished the ball drop in the West Coast.
Happy New Year all of you on Race42012!
You have made my last 2 months brighter (though poorer, since I spend too much time here, rather than getting billable hours in — but, it’s been worth it!)
January 1st, 2012 at 4:10 am
The key to all of this is the 41% that are still open to switching their vote at the caucus. Which candidate has the most pursuasive supporters? Paul definitely has the most passionate – but does that transalate into the most pursuasive? Lets also remember that these polls skew towards registered Republicans. If Paul brings the Indys and Dems out of the woodworks like many are predicting, Paul may end up winning this thing in a landslide……
January 1st, 2012 at 4:24 am
There is much noise going around about a hysterical attempt by some SoCons/Evangelicals (there are many that support Romney, however
), many from out of state, to stop Romney (we know why, no need to debate it) and today, Sunday, is ground zero for that effort. It appears that out of desperation, they are trying to rally behind Santorum—there is no other explanation for his sudden rise in the polls.
Support for Grigrich, Bachmann, and Paul is falling before our eyes. Why?
Can the anti-Romney SoCon/Evangelical network get it done for Santorum in the next 3 days?
I wish somebody with cameras were attending those mega churches today—I’m sure many of them will be violating their non-tax status in an effort to take down Romney.
Anyway, it’s not sour grapes; I’m just amazed at all the ignorant fear mongering.
It will be interesting to see what happens in South Carolina. Will this hysteric mass of anti-Romney’s take their horse and pony show to SC right after the Iowa caucus?
We shall find out…
January 1st, 2012 at 4:26 am
What’s this I keep hearing about out of state? Can non Iowa residents participate in the caucus?
January 1st, 2012 at 5:25 am
#93…Keith
Out of state folks cannot vote in the caucus, but they are providing organizational backup, GOTV, guest sermons, etc., to try to sway the IA voters to vote for the candidate they are pushing…
January 1st, 2012 at 6:13 am
#92 Jerald
Alot of fear mongering going on in all corners. Romney and his camp aren’t without blame……..
January 1st, 2012 at 6:50 am
#92: “It will be interesting to see what happens in South Carolina. Will this hysteric mass of anti-Romney’s take their horse and pony show to SC right after the Iowa caucus?”
Duh! As we speak. This is why I keep saying this race begins in FL. Happy New Year.
January 1st, 2012 at 7:57 am
#95..Hot Pocket
Fear mongering = “We can’t allow a Catholic, Jew, or Mormon to become president because {insert wild, baseless claim}”
Stating what we fear = “4 more years of the Obama Administration would further damage the economy and hurt our foreign policy”
January 1st, 2012 at 8:02 am
Amazing Mitt never seems to lose support to anyone.
What is it about Mitt supporters?
How are they so firm and stable? Wait what am I saying? Of course it makes sense Mitt supporters actually used reasoning and good sense when they chose a candidate for President.
We have been trying to help and will continue to help the confused ones.
We are the leaders and the most secure of the republican conservative base it is our duty to inform.:)
January 1st, 2012 at 8:17 am
Can’t wait until Wednesday–when we will never have to hear about IA again.
January 1st, 2012 at 8:56 am
I just read an article written by a Huckabee supporter that is “vetting” Santorum. My FaceBook friend pointed out several pro-choice candidates that Santorum’s PAC supported as reason to question his pro-life stance. Now I really don’t know who to vote for.
January 1st, 2012 at 9:11 am
100
Did it mention that Santorum backed pro-choicer Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey?
January 1st, 2012 at 9:17 am
PPP Iowa poll out tonight
January 1st, 2012 at 9:18 am
Yes it did. It also listed Lisa Murkowski and Mark Kirk.
January 1st, 2012 at 9:19 am
Ahhh and Scott Brown
January 1st, 2012 at 9:32 am
So 90 percent are against Perry. To apply some Rombot lore and logic, this is absolute proof that 90 percent of Iowans are anti-evangelical bigots! Guards, seize them!
January 1st, 2012 at 9:37 am
Terry Branstad blasted Jon Huntsman for dissing Iowa this morning on Fox News Sunday. Newt would have cried. Mitt would have declared it “uncalled for.”
Anyone else see it?
January 1st, 2012 at 9:44 am
I’m not so sure Santorum is really at 21%. Four other polls taken Dec 21-28 show Santorum between 13 and 16 percent, before the 27 and 28 of this poll, which only shows him at 9%, suppposedly. That 9% is an outlier.
But news tends to beget news, so maybe this inaccuracy will propel him.
Santorum’s political views are closer than the other candidates to mine, but I doubt very seriously he can beat Obama. Santorum wants to preach about social issues and most people don’t want to be preached to. I would also be concerned about his ability to govern, as he is pretty much a loner.
If he wins Iowa, that’s probably an even better result for Romney than if Paul won. He will be much easier to compete against down the road.
January 1st, 2012 at 9:45 am
The Des Moines Register has tons of data from their poll that they had not released last night. Charts, graphs, second choices, crosstabs, etc etc….
http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/12/31/romney-leads-paul-in-new-des-moines-register-iowa-poll-santorum-surging/
January 1st, 2012 at 9:48 am
Des Moines Register Poll:
Second Choice
The Juice – 15%
Rick Perry – 15%
Mitt Romney – 13%
Michele Bachmann – 12%
Newt Gingrich – 11%
Ron Paul – 11%
Jon Huntsman – 2%
Not Sure – 14%
No First Choice – 7%
January 1st, 2012 at 9:55 am
105.
>>So 90 percent are against Perry. To apply some Rombot lore and logic …
This word logic, I do not think it means what you think it means.
January 1st, 2012 at 9:59 am
Prefaced with the adjectival use of the term “Rombot,” it does exactly what I tell it to do.
January 1st, 2012 at 10:02 am
David Gregory is really going after Santorum. Has Gregory ever gone after a Democrat?
No, I will not call him Santy.
January 1st, 2012 at 10:04 am
Marque,
Our logic is not to subtract a candidate’s support from 100 and claim that the number represents the percentage of people who would rather said candidate die a slow and painful death.
We use that logic to make fun of RomNots who perform this hatchery on the numbers and use it to claim Romney is hated by everyone.
January 1st, 2012 at 10:06 am
#108: MassCon: Interesting article. It will be interesting to see if the 24 pastors can orchestrate an even bigger bump for The Juice–or if these DMR numbers already reflect their support. I say The Juice wins IA on the backs of the 24 pastors and that leaves Mitt and Paul fighting for second.
In the end will this race matter much? Mitt will take NH, who knows what will happen to Mitt in SC? He will fight the same anti battle there as he has in IA–except there will probably be 124 pastors.
January 1st, 2012 at 10:08 am
Interesting stuff:
http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/12/31/romney-leads-paul-in-new-des-moines-register-iowa-poll-santorum-surging/
January 1st, 2012 at 10:11 am
Iowa is going to give a first or second place finish to Santorum: the only candidate yet to be vetted. Are Iowans a really emotional people? Do the ever use their left brains?
January 1st, 2012 at 10:12 am
Iowan newspaper Quad City Times endorses Romney
http://qctimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/romney-stands-alone/article_932d5cae-3422-11e1-8924-001871e3ce6c.html
January 1st, 2012 at 10:19 am
114
If Romney comes in 3rd in IA, it will cause him some damage. 2nd is okay.
In the end, I think Romney will win the nomination regardless, but doing it after winning IA and SC would provide him with some serious legitimacy.
January 1st, 2012 at 10:31 am
Buddy Roemer has played this perfectly. The Santorum surge will be over by Monday at 1:13 pm.
Then its Buddy time!
January 1st, 2012 at 10:35 am
The DNC is holding press conference today with a man who was laid off by Bain Capital when Romney was there. the DNC is pulling out all of the stops to get to Romney
January 1st, 2012 at 10:39 am
119. Exactly!
January 1st, 2012 at 10:48 am
“When he (Haley Barbour) was chairman, he recalled, friends teased him for campaigning for Vermont Sen. Jim Jeffords. Jeffords was the most liberal Republican in the Senate, Barbour said, but he was also the most conservative member of the Vermont delegation and the best the GOP was going to do. “They were not going to elect Haley Barbour senator from Vermont,” he said in his deep Yazoo City drawl.”
Scott Brown pro-choice but has the endorsement of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, who believe he would vote for a pro-life Supreme Court judge. All the pro-choice Republicans pretty much always vote for the Republican SCOTUS nominees, so that is much better than having a Democrat there. If Scott Brown or Mark Kirk had been pro-life, they wouldn’t have won in Massachusetts or Illinois. The 21st century SCOTUS nominations have been relatively low smooth, because the nominations didn’t alter the balance that radically, but there will be more friction if for example Ruth Bader Ginsburg leaves the SCOTUS during Republican president. I don’t think supporting pro-choice Republican, who is going to vote for a Republican SCOTUS for other reasons, since 99.9% of SCOTUS cases don’t have anything to do with abortion, in a state where pro-life could not win, it’s not a sin, it’s common sense.
January 1st, 2012 at 10:50 am
So we are going to need Snowe, Collins, Kirk and Brown for replacing a liberal SCOTUS judge with a conservative one, they will vote for Republican nominees because they agree more with conservative judges than liberal judges.
January 1st, 2012 at 11:37 am
Rand Paul hammers The Juice
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2012/01/rand-paul-santorum-a-fair-weather-conservative-109245.html
January 1st, 2012 at 11:46 am
So Iowa evangelicals are afraid that Romney will take orders from Salt Lake City, but they aren’t afraid that Santorum will take orders from the Vatican?
January 1st, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Please IA consider that by choosing Santorum this is the dialogue that will continue. I wonder how this will play out in a general election with black voters.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/santorum-obama-should-be-pro-life-because-hes-bl
January 1st, 2012 at 12:11 pm
The DNC and evangelical pastors are working to deny Romney the won in Iowa these last couple of days.
January 1st, 2012 at 12:19 pm
This is an interesting breakdown of past Iowa caucuses as far as turnout and who eventually won. Worthwhile read.
http://blog.sofo.co/?p=90
January 1st, 2012 at 12:27 pm
boy, I’m not sure if Santorum wins that huntsman does not win NH…I think the paul is starting to fall up there too and newt likewise…He seem to be having good crowds this weekend for his town halls and his favorbity rating in the PPP poll was second to only romney…
January 1st, 2012 at 12:38 pm
Mitt Romney is spening his time today in Southwestern Iowa….in Coucil Bluffs, while Santorum has 3 rally’s scheduled today in Northwestern Iowa…..Sioux City,Orange City & Rock Rapids.
It will be interstnig to see what happens tomorrow if Mitt goes back to Eastern Iowa, and if Santorum stays in Western Iowa.
January 1st, 2012 at 12:38 pm
105 – Since when did Craig become a RomBot? This is Craig logic you are using.
January 1st, 2012 at 12:39 pm
105 – And there isn’t a single person on this board that has said all opponents of Mitt hate him for his religion. If you don’t think it is a sadly significant factor though, you have your head in the sand.
January 1st, 2012 at 12:41 pm
Greg,
Is it conceivable that evangelical pastors simply care about government, as they have been more or less active for 30 years now, or do you think that everything really has to be about Mitt Romney?
Did evangelicals exist before Mitt Romney?
Do they have existence apart from Mitt Romney?
Does Mitt Romney sustain the existence of evangelicals?
Ponderous questions……
January 1st, 2012 at 12:41 pm
At least Huck had a couple weeks of real vetting. Santorum has had NO VETTING at all.
In the end, I am not worried though. Mitt will be the nominee. The only question is whether the primary ends in February or May/June.
January 1st, 2012 at 12:44 pm
129 – Wrong. Romney is all over the state. He will be in Des Moines tomorrow.
January 1st, 2012 at 12:45 pm
Roughy,
“So Iowa evangelicals are afraid that Romney will take orders from Salt Lake City, but they aren’t afraid that Santorum will take orders from the Vatican?”
No. If your premise were correct- that evangelicals are terrified of “cultish” religions that have authoritative hierarchies- then they WOULD be scared of the devout Catholic.
But they’re not.
Further evidence that the Rombots’ jihad against evangelicals is misplaced.
January 1st, 2012 at 12:45 pm
132 – Listen to what they are saying and then tell me it has nothing to do with Mitt’s religion.
January 1st, 2012 at 12:45 pm
#119 LOL!
January 1st, 2012 at 12:46 pm
135 – Take your bigotry denial elsewhere. The proof is there on its face. Ignoring it isn’t going to get you anywhere.
January 1st, 2012 at 12:48 pm
jax,
What are *they* saying?
I see lots and lots of chatter about sinister e-mails and what is whispered in the vestibules of churches that the accusers don’t attend, but I’ve not actually seen anything but accusations.
January 1st, 2012 at 12:49 pm
139 – It is all over the internet. If you want to keep your head in the sand, go right ahead. You are wrong though. I’m not going to do your homework for you. It wouldn’t do either of us any good.
January 1st, 2012 at 12:49 pm
jax,
So show me your evidence.
What are all those eeeeeeeeeeevil evangelicals doing now?
January 1st, 2012 at 12:50 pm
#140
LOL!
Very convenient.
January 1st, 2012 at 12:50 pm
There is “evidence” of alien abductions all over the internet too.
Just look.
January 1st, 2012 at 12:52 pm
Oh Lord. Here we go again…
January 1st, 2012 at 12:53 pm
139 – Just google “should a christian vote for a mormon” or “biblical voting” and see what you find. There are prominent pastors in South Carolina and Iowa, with large congregations, making the religious case against Mormons.
As I have said many times, I don’t have a huge problem with this. People can vote however they choose. If people sincerely believe voting for Romney is equivalent to supporting Satan, then who am I to stop them from voting for someone else.
But at the same time, we shouldn’t try to sweep what is going on under the rug. It is plain on its face, and your denial is making you look absurd.
January 1st, 2012 at 12:53 pm
143 – You are an asshole!
January 1st, 2012 at 12:54 pm
The single biggest thing I’m looking forward to when Mitt is nominated is the off chance that all the whining and sniveling and persecution complexes will go dormant.
Of course, if Mitt doesn’t win in November, that will no doubt be blamed on evangelicals.
And if he doesn’t balance the budget in his first term, that will probably be evangelicals’ fault too.
If Iran gets nukes…… evangelicals.
If Mitt can’t get unemployment down, it’s the fault of evangelical employers trying to sabotage his Presidency.
Evangelicals are the new Jews!
January 1st, 2012 at 12:56 pm
jax,
What pastors?
How do you know they are prominent?
How do you know their flocks follow them “mindlessly” as other Rombots suggest?
January 1st, 2012 at 12:56 pm
148 – Congregation size, genuis.
January 1st, 2012 at 12:58 pm
147 – see 146
No one has made any of those arguments at all. If it were anti-Catholic sentiments being preached from the pulpits today, you would be screaming about it and you know it.
But no, because it is acceptable to hate Mormons we are supposed to just shut up and take it. Well, I will shut up now. I hope that makes you feel safe in your voluntary ignorance again.
January 1st, 2012 at 12:59 pm
When I googled “Can a Christian vote for a Mormon” here is the first result that popped up. It’s from Franklin Graham, the son of a rather prominent evangelical crusader. Here is what he said”
PURE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL!!!!!!!
The jihad is on!!!!!!
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/franklin-graham-answers-can-a-christian-vote-for-a-mormon/
January 1st, 2012 at 12:59 pm
Mitt is the only evidence I’ve ever needed as proof of alien abductions. Until Jax arrived here.
January 1st, 2012 at 12:59 pm
jax,
“Congregation size, genuis.”
So give me some examples.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:02 pm
What I don’t is how Glenn Beck can have so many eeeeeeeeeeeevil evangelical listeners.
They must not know……….
January 1st, 2012 at 1:02 pm
151 – Head in the sand
January 1st, 2012 at 1:02 pm
I think Jax has just broken his New Year’s resolution to get control of the anger within. Just as I’ve broken mine of not goading Jax. Oh, well. Better luck next year.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:02 pm
120
Gregi, that HAS to come across as desperate by the DNC. Bald faced ulterior motives.
I say it gives Mitt a boost by showing exactly who Obama FEARS the most.
Love it.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:04 pm
jax,
I know there is a lot of preaching against the Catholic church in pulpits today. I heard it growing up. I’ve heard it from my best friend’s preacher father. I’ve heard it from my own dad.
I don’t whine about it. It’s not a good witness to whine.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:06 pm
jax,
Google “9/11 was an inside job”.
There are LOTS of things you can learn from Google.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:08 pm
Keith,
Fair or not, the Democrats will be highlighting the lives of LOTS of workers who were laid off by Bain acquired companies. I expect a whole series.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:09 pm
146
Oh, Jax. What a wonderful impression of Mormons you are making, here. (sigh)
You should be able to make your point without calling names. And, we tend to like our Mormons profanity-free.
What you trying to do, here, Jax?
January 1st, 2012 at 1:10 pm
Since I’ve already concluded that Mitt will be the nominee, I think it helps immunize Mitt against the issue in the general election. The DNC cannot sustain this line of attack for months on end, without contrasting narratives taking hold: Mitt saved companies and jobs, created new companies and new jobs, and Obama has overseen no job growth.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:10 pm
147. Matt, MUST you continue to bait Jax? Just ignore his rants and they’ll fizzle out. Good grief, Matt. Please stop fanning the flames.
Or, is it on purpose? Are you enjoying watching him make a fool of himself?
January 1st, 2012 at 1:12 pm
I think Jax is actually the famed evangelical pastor from Iowa, Reverend Will B. Dunn.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:12 pm
160
Oh, I know it. Mitt knows it.
But, starting it NOW actually HELPS Mitt, because it shows everyone just how scared Obama is of Mitt.
I love it. I really do.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:14 pm
161. im mormon, but everyone nos that every church or religion there r people that do not so good things and some good things. so really doesnt matter wat church or religion u go too its more on the person i guess
January 1st, 2012 at 1:15 pm
Quad-City Times Endorses Mitt Romney
This morning, the Quad City Times in Iowa endorsed Mitt Romney. Here are a couple of excerpts from the endorsement:
Before Romney even launched his 2012 campaign, he’d spent more time in Iowa than any of the current or former GOP candidates. Even with his limited 2011 caucus campaigning, Romney’s 2007 through 2011 Iowa visits top every candidate in the current field.
During those visits, we’ve found an articulate, polished chief executive with a range of business and governing experience that far exceeds his rivals. More than any other caucus contender, Romney acts as if his sights are set on the presidency, not just a nomination.
The paper goes on to list some of the other major contenders, and gives a brief explanation why they don’t support them, then concludes:
Romney stands not as a last resort, but as a solid, first preference.
Like Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and Sen. John McCain, Romney makes his second presidential bid as a much stronger candidate. We wished we’d have seen him more often this go-round. But his choice of a national – not just Iowa – strategy affirms our belief that his sights are set on the presidency, not just a nomination.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:17 pm
BTW, I had a small dinner party last week with a few couples from my son’s school. I’d only briefly met them, previously, but my wife knew their wives reasonably well. They were all Mormon.
So, at dinner, I assumed it would be safe to bring up how well Mitt is doing.
WRONG! No one at the table was for Mitt. “He’s not conservative enough for me” was the main argument.
After quizzing them, it was clear they’d not been paying real attention. They just accepted the headlines they keep hearing.
I tried to educate them but it seemed to fall on deaf ears.
Of course, this wasn’t a scientific sampling, but I was pretty surprised that none of the Mormons at the table support Mitt.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:19 pm
167
itchme3, what a GREAT line! Super endorsement. Does Quad City Times carry much clout?
January 1st, 2012 at 1:20 pm
Keith,
But it’s not just jax. I’ve read all kinds of vile spewed at evangelicals on these boards the past 4 1/2 years. That they are unthinking. That they are sheep. That they are bigots. That they are stupid, or inbred, or whatever, etc… etc…
I’ve read the kind of hate that would never be tolerated were it directed at Jews, Muslims, Mormons, blacks, or any other group.
I’m sick of it, and I want it to stop. I can’t stand the hypocrisy of people who demand tolerance and understanding for their own group, but refuse to extend it to others. I can’t stand the hypocrisy of people who become verbally violent and abusive if people make generalizations about their coreligionists, but who in the next breath, make sweeping generalizations about others. I’m sick of those who shriek when someone calls their religion a cult, but then treat others’ religion as a cult.
I’m not talking about all Romney supporters, of course. But enough.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:21 pm
168. BTW, I thank my time here on Race42012 for my ability to speak knowledgeable and intelligently on the topic. My wife said she was impressed that I was able to explain the facts without sounding defensive.
That’s because of you, folks! Thanks!
January 1st, 2012 at 1:21 pm
Keith,
I agree that the DNC is making a mistake wasting their ammo now. They should be doing that in Sep. and Oct.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:26 pm
170. But, Matt, what you’re doing WON’T stop it. Just like I’ve posted, many times, here, to stop the few Mormons here who keep trying to explain stuff like why we’re not a cult or why we’re really Christian. I said they only make it worse by making the others feel the need to prove their own position.
So, yeah, I get that you hate it. And, I’m with you.
Too many people over generalize any group. So, the fact that there is a minority of very vocal evangelicals and leaders who are as Jax says, it’s not the majority of either and it’s wrong so suggest it is.
I also think Jax has his dander up because he thinks you’re suggesting it doesn’t exist at all, and it clearly does.
But, I just think you can be the bigger man and let it go.
Just like I had to do with Craig For Whomever. His posts would get me so worked up in a lather and I’d try to reason with him. But, it just emboldened him and he’d keep coming back with more blithering comments.
I finally realized my best path was to ignore whatever he posted.
You’ll find Jax won’t keep defending his position on bigotry if you stop commenting about it.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Romney is so ready for the Bain attacks. He will run a positive campaign, while Obama divides, blames, and lies.
It will make Mitt look really sunny in the general.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:27 pm
170
Oh, and I noticed your kindness, there, but refraining from using “Rombots”, so thank you for that, Matt!
January 1st, 2012 at 1:28 pm
^ BY refraining (not but refraining) (sigh)
January 1st, 2012 at 1:28 pm
40, or just the opposite, eh? Why not vote for romney? Because he’s a …. m?
January 1st, 2012 at 1:30 pm
Did you all see today’s Intrade for Iowa?
Romney 52
Santorum 27.5
Paul 19
Gingrich 1.2
Everyone else <1
Wow!!
And, for the nomination:
Romney 79.9
EVERYONE ELSE
January 1st, 2012 at 1:30 pm
^ EVERYONE ELSE < 5
Double Wow!! (Wow! Wow!)
January 1st, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Tuesday night on this site is going to be a bloodbath.
The Juice is going to come in 1st, and it’s very possible Ron Paul comes in 2nd.
The howls of bigotry are going to shatter the mountains. Just wait.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:32 pm
172
They’re clearly hoping that by doing it now, it won’t be necessary.
And they’re just as clearly deluded!
January 1st, 2012 at 1:32 pm
But no, because it is acceptable to hate Mormons we are supposed to just shut up and take it.
I don’t know anyone that “hate[s] Mormons”. But, if there are, they aren’t following the teachings of the Bible. We are told to love our neighbors, love the brethren, and even to love our enemy. If we follow Christ we should learn to hate sin but still love the sinner. If we are supposed to hate other human beings – I must have missed that part during my Bible readings.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:33 pm
Because he’s a Michigander? Good ’nuff for me. I’d cross the street without looking both ways for the joy of voting against Michiganders. The bastards.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:33 pm
Keith,
I’ll take that under advisement.
And then, as I write this, I see that our old friend “rightgal” is taking the baton from jax, and is insinuating that the venerable “granny T” is a bigot.
**sigh**
Where does all this hate come from?
January 1st, 2012 at 1:33 pm
180. Masscon, you really think Sssss will come in first? (I refuse to call him The Juice, and the others didn’t like Santy, so I’ll just go with his first initial, held out!
)
January 1st, 2012 at 1:34 pm
169. idk my bro if they do, but i thought id post it since its new years and the people who post here must be gone on vacation cause they aint posting it. they sure did love putting that small newt endorsement up. idk who that radio host person was lol. just trying to help out:) i can say i contribute to the next president of the united states getting elected. MITT ROMNEY
January 1st, 2012 at 1:34 pm
184. I don’t know. It’s sad, really.
As I say, those comments from the guys “on my side” aren’t helping my side, at all.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:35 pm
MassCon,
Who is “the Juice?” Santorum?
You should have been here caucus night ’08.
First it was shock. They it was rage.
It got pretty ugly.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:36 pm
So…the DNC is going to give the mic to one person who was laid off while Romney was heading Bain. Isn’t that a pretty stupid idea that can be met with a simple couner ad showing Mitt standing next to a map of NYC and saying something to the effect of: “…and this map of millions of people represents the number of people who have been laid off while President Obama has been in charge of this economy.” This stunt by the DNC completely opens up Obama’s economic failures, n’est-ce pas? (pardon my French)
January 1st, 2012 at 1:36 pm
MWS: “Evangelicals are the new Jews!”
Although I don’t dig Jax’ approach and I don’t think it benefits Mitt to have his supporters whine about anti-Mormon bigotry, comparing Jax’ possibly exaggerated claims to conspiracy theories is clearly disingenuous. There really is substantial anti-Mormon bigotry and Evangelicals easily fear Mormonism more than Catholicism. A big part of the 24 pastors attempting to mobilize for Santorum today is to keep the Mormon out. It is what it is. Part of their fear is based around Mormon missionaries stealing their “flocks” (Catholics don’t pose an equivalent conversion threat), but politically, we’ve already tested a Catholic @ POTUS and he was more connected to Hollywood than the Vatican. Some still fear the Mormon connection to SLC.
If Mitt loses Iowa, anti-Mormon bigotry will probably be a substantial reason why, but focusing on it only wastes time. It’s like when a ref makes a bad call that “costs” you the game. Yea, it was unfair. But if you’d just played better at other points in the game the bad call would probably have been irrelevant. Why whine about it? It’s over and whining makes you look like Raiders fans (who are still whining about the “Tuck Rule” vs. NE in 2002 & the “Immaculate Reception” vs. Pitt in the 70s). BTW, I’m a Raiders fan.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:37 pm
188. Yeah, last night there was a long discussion about what to call Sssss, since the full name was too long. Supporters found Santy demeaning. Someone suggested The Juice and it looks like some are going with it.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:37 pm
If we’re looking for a shortened nickname for Santorum, how about “Saint” or “St.”?
Not that he is…. canonically speaking, but it’s a derivative of his name.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:39 pm
184. “Where does all this hate come from?”
Being marginalized your entire life unfairly due to your religion causes frustration.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:40 pm
192. Well, obviously, since I’m against a Sssss win, I can’t give him a very cool, lofty nickname like Saint or St! That would be counterproductive!
January 1st, 2012 at 1:41 pm
Blood,
Is is possible that some Mormons are oversensitive towards evangelicals because evangelicals are also aggressive missionaries who are trying to “steal” from the Mormon flock?
Personally, I suspect that sense of animus born of long standing rivalry runs both ways. This site is evidence.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:41 pm
I’ve never heard Jehovah’s Witnesses whine like this, and everyone hates them.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:42 pm
What about Rum?
January 1st, 2012 at 1:42 pm
193. I’m sure it’s worse in other parts of the country (south, for example), but I’ve lived in CA and WA most of my life and NEVER felt persecuted or shunned because people found out I was Mormon.
It’s either been neutral or respectful. And, possibly just kept inside.
But, never open hostility.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:42 pm
“If you were a Republican in 2011, and you liked Donald Trump, and then you liked Michele Bachmann, and then you liked Rick Perry, and then you liked Herman Cain, and then you liked Newt Gingrich … you can still hate Mitt Romney, but you can’t say it’s because he’s always changing his mind.”
“The press must stop saying that each debate is “make or break” for Rick Perry and call them what they really are: “break.””
“You can’t be against same-sex marriage and for Newt Gingrich. No man has ever loved another man as much as Newt Gingrich loves Newt Gingrich.”
“Jon Huntsman must get a sex change. The only way he’s going to get any press coverage is by turning into a white woman and disappearing.”
“Let’s stop scheduling the presidential election in the same year as the Summer Olympics. I get so exhausted watching those robotic, emotionally stunted, artificial-looking creatures with no real lives striving to do the one thing they’re trained to do that I barely have energy left to watch the Olympics.”
-Bill Maher [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/opinion/sunday/bill-mahers-new-rules-for-the-new-year.html?_r=2&smid=fb-nytimes&WT.mc_id=OP-E-FB-SM-LIN-NRF-010112-NYT-NA&WT.mc_ev=click]
January 1st, 2012 at 1:43 pm
or Rummy?
January 1st, 2012 at 1:43 pm
197. “Rum”??? you’ll have to explain the connection for that!
January 1st, 2012 at 1:44 pm
OH, SantoRUM! I get it!!
January 1st, 2012 at 1:44 pm
So, you don’t like, Sssss? But, it’s so CATCHY! Just rolls off the teeth!
January 1st, 2012 at 1:44 pm
185
I think Santorum will come in 1st. His surge is occurring just as rapidly as Perry’s, Noot’s, and Cain’s. All three of the previous surges (visible on the RCP site) rose about 20 points within 4 or 5 days.
Santorum’s last 2 days of polling were at 21%, and that didn’t even include yesdterday, today, or tomorrow.
In addition, his supporters are more dedicated than Paul’s and Mitt’s. According to the crosstabs on the DMR site, 76% of Santorum’s supporters are definitely attending a caucus, while 58% of Mitt’s will definitely attend, and 56% of Paul’s will definitely attend.
On top of that, 7% are undecided, and I expect about half of them will break for Santorum, given his late surge and dedication to the state of Iowa.
I don’t think there is really any doubt that Santorum wins.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:46 pm
I’ll have a double, thank you very much.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:46 pm
Keith,
Yeah. “Rum” as in santoRUM, and “Rum” as in…….. he’s Catholic.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:46 pm
196
They are hard to come by, and most probably don’t blog.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:48 pm
National Review’s analysis of Mitt on social issues:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/286884/pre-caucus-credentials-kathryn-jean-lopez
January 1st, 2012 at 1:49 pm
MassCon.,
I’m not so sure. It depends on if his rise is as meteoric as the others’, I suppose. Plus that ground game. I’ve got to think Mitt is amped up after the disappointment last time. I suspect he feels that if Iowa went the other way, he’d be President now, or at least have been the nominee. So he’s probably peddle to the metal on the GOTV.
At this point my gut says Mitt is 50% to win Iowa, Rum is 40% and Paul is 10%.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:50 pm
“Jon Huntsman must get a sex change. The only way he’s going to get any press coverage is by turning into a white woman and disappearing.”
Is there a reference I’m missing, or is that just completely random?
January 1st, 2012 at 1:51 pm
207. In this neck of the woods, they tend to get chased off the property by the gun-totin’ heathen homeowners. And yet they still go out door to door and hand out their Watchtower and such.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:52 pm
210
Just that every time a white woman disappears, it becomes a national story for months.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:54 pm
170 – I have never once spewed vile about evangelicals. Shut the hell up. Some of my dearest friends are evangelicals.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:54 pm
LOL, Matt, so the contest is on:
Place your bets, folks. Best nickname for Santorum (objective analysis in parentheses):
Sssss (just kidding)
The Juice (Yuck)
Rum (Hmmmmm)
January 1st, 2012 at 1:54 pm
211
My neighbors are Jehova’s Witnesses, and aside from their religion, they are your typical run-of-the-mill losers and windbags.
About the only thing abnormal about them is that their kids didn’t pledge allegiance to the flag in school because of their religion, nor do they celebrate birthdays.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:56 pm
215. That’s OK, MassCon, it looks like it might be illegal to pledge the flag, soon, anyway!
January 1st, 2012 at 1:56 pm
212:
Ah…a Greta joke. Thanks.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:57 pm
My hometown hosts some kind of national convention for JWs, I think. I took my daughter out last year for dinner, and the first restaurant we went to was packed with people who had some kind of “Kingdom Hall” name tag on . We didn’t want to wait, so we went to another restaurant, which had more of the same.
Thomas,
Greta on FoxNews could rename her show “Pretty Young Missing White Girl Show”. I haven’t watched her for years (my wife used to) so I’m not sure if she’s still doing it, but it was Natalie Holloway every night, or some such thing.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:58 pm
190 – I’m not whining about anti-Mormon bigotry. It exists, but there is oohing that can be done about it. What I am whining about is those that want to sweep it under the rug as if it isn’t a problem. As if Romney isn’t getting thrashed from the pulpits for his religion today. It exists and is plain on its face. Pretending like it doesn’t is worse than believing it, in my opinion.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:58 pm
jax,
Some of George Wallace’s best friends were black.
Just sayin’……..
January 1st, 2012 at 1:59 pm
That doesn’t win them a whole lot of popularity out here in the boonies. That and the “conscientious objection” to military service. Hence the shotgun welcome.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:59 pm
Greta has gotten off the tabloid garbage this year, and I began watching her show again as a result. She usually has good guests like Karl Rove, Donald Trump, and such.
January 1st, 2012 at 1:59 pm
I think JW also refuse blood transfusions. But I could be confusing them with some other religion.
January 1st, 2012 at 2:02 pm
From what I have gathered over the years, the essence of Jehovas Witness scripture is that they believe we are born to serve God, basically as slaves. We aren’t allowed even birthday parties or celebrating holidays. They believe also that national boundaries are against God’s will and that we all exist in one world community.
January 1st, 2012 at 2:03 pm
Hey, guys. Are we really turning this thread into a discussion of various religious beliefs?
January 1st, 2012 at 2:03 pm
jax,
“As if Romney isn’t getting thrashed from the pulpits for his religion today.”
Romney isn’t getting trashed from the pulpit. His religion is. So is mine. So is that of evangelicals. And Muslims. And even Presbyterians!
Welcome to the free market of religious competition.
January 1st, 2012 at 2:04 pm
204,
I think it’s essentially a toss-up between Romney and Santorum in Iowa. I still think Mitt may edge Santorum by a point or two. Santorum can only grow if he takes from Bachmann, etc, and each of the other NotRomney’s has a floor. Also I think a few of the undecideds may go to Romney at the end of the day. I don’t know. We’ll see I guess.
January 1st, 2012 at 2:05 pm
Maybe we should have one religious open thread a week, so we can hash all this out…….
January 1st, 2012 at 2:07 pm
228
You would love, that, wouldn’t you?
January 1st, 2012 at 2:09 pm
MassCon,
I would.
Years ago, I used to tear it up over at BeliefNet.
January 1st, 2012 at 2:09 pm
As a preview/review for you all, Race42012 indicated at 8:55 pm in 2008 that Fox and CNN called the race for Huckabee.
This was 1:55 after the start of the caucuses.
Expect a similar timing this time, but perhaps the race will be called later since this race is more crowded.
http://race42012.com/2008/01/03/fox-news-calls-iowa-for-huckabee/#comments
January 1st, 2012 at 2:11 pm
MassCon,
I love reading old threads. But that one obviously wasn’t the active one. Can you link the long thread from caucus night?
January 1st, 2012 at 2:13 pm
232
Yeah, it’s right here:
http://race42012.com/2008/01/03/race-4-2008-gop-iowa-caucus-open-forum-part-ii/#comments
January 1st, 2012 at 2:35 pm
220 – You disgust me. The truth is plain on its face. For you to equate telling the truth about what is happening in Iowa today without anti-Mormon bigotry is farcical on its face.
This has nothing to do with Mitt for me. His success or failure is completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. But until we wake up and admit that there is still major bigotry going on in this country, it will continue to thrive. I have lived in the south. I have experienced it firsthand. Pretending like it is just something made up to make people sympathetic to Mitt is farcical and offensive. So yes, MWS, I do care a great deal, and your denial is offensive. It is staring you in the face.
Everyone wanted to deny anti-semitism and anti- Catholicism in the 1800s as well.
January 1st, 2012 at 2:36 pm
226 – You keep telling yourself that.
January 1st, 2012 at 2:37 pm
228 – I think telling the truth about it is healthy. Pretending like it doesn’t exist or that we should just pretend like it doesn’t exist only makes it worse.
January 1st, 2012 at 2:40 pm
Mitt LIVE IN IOWA
NOW
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Romney-Spends-the-First-Day-of-2012-in-Iowa/10737426760-1/
January 1st, 2012 at 2:43 pm
237. Dang. I’m off to church. I’d love to have watched that. Maybe they’ll do a replay link.
By all.
Happy New Year.
January 1st, 2012 at 3:14 pm
Does it feel to anyone else like this cycle has been a lot less covered and hyped than last cycle? What’s up with that?
Because we only really have one good candidate?
R412 seems like it has been more sparse as well. In 2008 it looks like you folks had campaign insiders, reports from on the ground, pictures with the candidates, etc. Perhaps this cycle is just too pathetic?
January 1st, 2012 at 3:14 pm
Usually, other religions or beliefs aren’t the subject over the pulpit. Expounding on doctrine, practical application of scripture, or exhortation to stand fast in the faith is the kind of things that are preached about.
On occasions when other beliefs are attacked over the pulpit, liberal Christianity, Catholicism, and other “dangerous” movements within evangelicalism are attacked more often than marginal Christian groups like Mormons or JWs. In my church, for example, I’ve heard far more teaching against Calvinism than anything else.
January 1st, 2012 at 3:15 pm
173. “You’ll find Jax won’t keep defending his position on bigotry if you stop commenting about it.” Why does it have to be this way and not the other way around? Appeasement. Not a good thing for a Rombot to suggest.
196. “I’ve never heard Jehovah’s Witnesses whine like this, and everyone hates them.” Well how many Jehovah’s Witnesses have you heard of running for POTUS?
228. “Maybe we should have one religious open thread a week, so we can hash all this out…….” Would they have to be all civil and boring?
236. “I think telling the truth about it is healthy. Pretending like it doesn’t exist or that we should just pretend like it doesn’t exist only makes it worse.” Yes, shining a light on some of the uglier parts of our history helped stamp the behavior out more effectively than asking politely for it to stop.
January 1st, 2012 at 3:23 pm
Dictionary definition of bigotry:
Ooh we have all sorts of bigotry going on here it would seem. Stubborn and complete intolerance of any…opinion that differs from one’s own? LOL! We even have some anti-bigotry bigotry on this very thread!
January 1st, 2012 at 3:35 pm
MWS,
“Is is possible that some Mormons are oversensitive towards evangelicals because evangelicals are also aggressive missionaries who are trying to “steal” from the Mormon flock?”
Yea, I’m sure you’re right. I think it’s less on that side though just due to the fact that no religion comes close to Mormonism when it comes to converting the world through missionary work (they have over 50k full-time missionaries). Also, Mormons make a point of never talking about any other religions during their services unless it’s positive, so Mormons don’t hear anti-Evangelical propaganda at church like Evangelicals sometimes do about Mormons. But yea, I’m sure it’s not PURELY a one-way street.
“Romney isn’t getting trashed from the pulpit. His religion is. So is mine. So is that of evangelicals. And Muslims. And even Presbyterians!”
This is also very true. Mormons feel it more than most because they seem to hold a special despised spot in some religions’ minds. But since Mormonism hasn’t been around as long and we’ve never had a Mormon POTUS, Mormonism at this level of politics isn’t mainstream yet. Additionally, the anti-Mormon nonsense has really subsided this cycle–it’s nothing like 07/08, suggesting that people are becoming less fixated on it with exposure.
January 1st, 2012 at 3:37 pm
The usually calm Nancy French over at Evangelicals for Mitt is having a tizzy fit over Bob Vander Plaats and his big fat lies re: Romney that Vander Plaats and the other pastors are spreading all over Iowa–”partying” like it’s 2008!!!!
And YES, there is something we can do about it. Get on over to Evangelicals for Mitt and click on the place where you can begin making calls on behalf of the truth about Mitt.
And this means YOU, Matt “MWS”!!!! And anyone else interested in fair play in the American electoral system. This doesn’t require you to be a Mitt supporter, but a truth supporter.
January 1st, 2012 at 3:51 pm
244. Here are the reasons I wouldn’t be calling anyone in Iowa:
1. Each resident probably gets multiple calls a day regarding this candidate or that candidate pro and con. They’re probably fed up with calls.
2. Anyone who is pre-disposed to listen to Vander Plaats is likely to be pre-disposed to not listen to anything anyone says in favor of Romney. And the reverse is true.
3. I’d venture a guess a majority of Iowans have not even heard whatever Vander Plaats is saying. Why bring more attention to it?
January 1st, 2012 at 3:53 pm
245
Bingo.
January 1st, 2012 at 3:58 pm
#245 Suit yourself, hamaca. And you may be right. But we’ve been down this road before and the lying IA pastors had a huge impact against Mitt last time. It’s not right what they are doing and the best way for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing.
January 1st, 2012 at 3:58 pm
In this last DMR poll RUM was receiving 23% of the EVANS, and ROM was receiving 18%….they were 1st & 2nd in this Sub Group.
Not making a point here…just an observation….although, maybe I just did make a point…hhuummmm…
January 1st, 2012 at 3:59 pm
245. In sum, the only real solution is to have everyone call Vander Plaats.
I’m just here to help.
January 1st, 2012 at 4:02 pm
#248: Hey, Smack. I really like your Rum/Rom appellations.
January 1st, 2012 at 4:05 pm
243. Mormons who support Mitt will have to develop thicker skin than some have displayed here if he gets the nomination. Displaying what for others is a persecution complex will not be seen as a very positive trait regardless of history. This is further compounded by those who grew up Mormon, went to Church every Sunday to worship Christ, have pictures of Christ at home, read the Bible, talk about Christ, preach of Christ, etc., etc., etc. life revolves around family and Christ. Suddenly they’re told they’re not Christian. Human nature would make them naturally not all that kindly disposed to whomever is stating such. So, there is a built-in complex that needs to be dealt with in the first instance.
Yes, bigotry exists. Yes, persecution complex exists. Exactly how widespread each is, no one knows. Let’s see who gets over which first!
January 1st, 2012 at 4:07 pm
Jax,
Are you a racist because you didn’t vote for Obama, would never vote for Obama, under any circumstances? It’s not because of the universal healthcare or the stunning lack of experience or even the lack of the most basic leadership qualities, it’s because he’s black isn’t it? You sound like Keith Olbermann….but that’s OK because this is righteous anger, right? That’s what he says too
January 1st, 2012 at 4:07 pm
247. The premise of your theory is that Mitt would have been the nominee absent “lying pastors.” There’s no way to falsify that.
But one thing that Rombots of all
stripesmodest difference in hue have proclaimed all along is observably true: that Mitt’s prior run around the presidential track has taught him a lot about running a presidential campaign. He has simply shown himself to be a better candidate this time around, from his own presentation to overall campaign strategy.Or what are you going to propose if Mitt wins the nomination, much less Iowa? That the “lying pastors” dropped dead? How impressive is that if you aim to talk up Mitt’s positive attributes as a nominee?
January 1st, 2012 at 4:08 pm
249,
Is that teledude posting under a different name?
242: Brilliant!
I’m taking Ron Paul to win IA, has the PPP poll out of IA come out yet?
January 1st, 2012 at 4:09 pm
249. “In sum, the only real solution is to have everyone call Vander Plaats.
A splendid idea! What shall we call him?
247. K.G., there may be a case that Mormons should not participate in such calls. Such news could get blown out of proportion and be counter-productive.
January 1st, 2012 at 4:11 pm
255. Everything but a child of God.
January 1st, 2012 at 4:16 pm
Alvin,
I believe, and I could be wrong, that PPP is still out in the field with their Iowa survey. PPP wanted to go late into Sunday with their polling to get the latest movements possible. The PPP poll is suppose to come out late tonight. The first day of polling sounds like PPP had it RON & ROM tied for first, with RUM in striking distance. PPP will have the best Paul sample of all the polls (it does not mean PPP is inaccurate…or accurate)so whatever number we see coming out of the PPP poll tonight for Paul, could signal his ceiling.
Battle of the Candidates.
Battle of the Pollsters.
Loving it!
January 1st, 2012 at 4:17 pm
Jaxemer, you just need to cool down and stop acting like it’s the end of the world, alright? Goodness, the openly Mormon forum-poster should consider how he is portraying himself and his religion. I see a lot of anger and quite frankly some language that the “For the Strength of the Youth” pamphlet would condemn. I also see quite a bit of contention. Seriously, do yourself and the way people here perceive your religion a favor and take a deep breath, count down from 10 (or from 100), and enjoy a little eternal perspective.
I have trouble believing your main concern is the people “sweeping it under the rug.” Most people, don’t personally experience their pastors spew anti-mormon bigotry, so it is easy to be skeptical of it happening. Skepticism isn’t what should disgust you, that is generally a healthy attitude to have towards new information. I would appreciate it if you expressed an effort in understanding other people’s skepticism instead of labeling people as disgusting because you assume they MUST be denying what they know.
Further, religion is a completely legitimate factor when voting. Any candidate that believes their views ought to have the backing of the force of law should be scrutinized. If a candidate is a biblical literalist that denies evolution and is openly skeptical of science as some sort of concerted effort to undermine religion and hide evidence of God, and thus wants to use government to force everyone into public schools where all children must be taught this, while simultaneously dismantling funding to science, then I can’t see how a person’s religion could be taken off the table. If a person has expressed that their religion is in favor of slavery, human sacrifice, or believes that a drought is the product of witchcraft and should be followed with a witch hunt, then it is completely a legitimate concern. (Mormonism does not teach that).In a general election, atheists would have more hang-ups than an evangelical electing a zealot Mormon president. I do not believe that Mitt Romney is a zealot Mormon president that wants to make the Book of Mormon required reading in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and if he can convince independents that he doesn’t mix his religion much with his politics, he should be able to do fine.
January 1st, 2012 at 4:23 pm
257,
Thank you for the information! I am eagerly awaiting that poll because, as you said, it could very well signal the very best that Ron Paul could do on caucus night. If he is not leading the poll, even if he is just tied, then I would be tempted to change my pick. I don’t know if Rick Santorum has the time necessary to get all the way to Mitt or not though. I think that people would really have to defect from Rick Perry in the next day at a reasonably significant rate….thanks for the analysis by the way, I love your work, keep it up
January 1st, 2012 at 4:25 pm
#251: hamaca: I assume you mean me. I can assure you it’s not a matter of a thicker skin. It’s not a matter of doctrinal differences or religion competition. And it’s not a matter of a bigotry or bias. It’s a flat out campaign of lies to assure that no Mormon can take the White House. Ever.
We saw thing coming a mile away: The Iowa pastors were NEVER going to allow a Mormon candidate to win IA if they could help it. They will go scorched earth if they have to.
Imagine if a bunch of pastors decided no Catholic should be president. Or no black should never hold high office–and they launched a blatant campaign of lies to prevent that from happening. There would be a hue and cry heard around the world.
American parents can tuck their little sons and daughters, black or white or brown, Catholic or Protestant in to bed at night and promise them, Someday you can grow up to be president. Except Mormon parents cannot make that promise.
Now, Mitt may, as predicted do just fine, and overcome. It still doesn’t make it right; and it doesn’t make it right that people turn a blind and cowardly blind eye. Have you read The Help lately? I’m not comparing the assualt on Mormonism to what happened to the blacks during Jim Crow: There’s a vast difference in proportion, of course. But the principle is the same: Mormons need not apply. At least for president. And perhaps vice president and surely the SCOTUS.
You maybe just fine with it; I’ve been putting up with it for way too long. It’s time for honorable people to put their foot down.
January 1st, 2012 at 4:25 pm
Blood,
Actually, when if comes to ropein’ in the converts, the Pentecostals have been kickin’ everyone’s keester for a while now.
January 1st, 2012 at 4:30 pm
260. To be honest, Mormon-paranoia only discredits those evangelical pastors who do that crap. The hurdles that Mormons face are much smaller than the hurdles black Americans had to face. They overcame, Mormons can, too.
January 1st, 2012 at 4:31 pm
What Brett said in #258.
January 1st, 2012 at 4:32 pm
260,
“American parents can tuck their little sons and daughters, black or white or brown, Catholic or Protestant in to bed at night and promise them, Someday you can grow up to be president. Except Mormon parents cannot make that promise.”
Wow….this is really getting out of hand. Again.
January 1st, 2012 at 4:33 pm
I’m posting this with complete acknowledgment that the single day MOE in the DMR must be about 7-8%…..however with that being said…
ROM – Thursday = 24% Friday = 23%
RUM – Thursday = 19% Friday = 22%
January 1st, 2012 at 4:36 pm
KG,
“But the principle is the same: Mormons need not apply. At least for president. And perhaps vice president and surely the SCOTUS.”
You know who is massively under-represented in Washington?
Evangelicals.
They are about 1/4 of the country, but around 1/8 of Congress, have only had Jimmy Carter for President (I believe) and no seats on the SCOTUS.
Mormons- in part because they are concentrated geographically- are actually over-represented.
Ironic, isn’t it?
Also, a Pew poll from earlier this year had almost identical numbers of respondents saying they wouldn’t vote for an evangelical as wouldn’t vote for a Mormon.
January 1st, 2012 at 4:39 pm
262,
I understand what you are saying, but please don’t legitimize the paranoia that Romney was and could be denied the presidency just because he’s a Mormon. There is a difference between the acknowledgement of some level of bigotry and then the excuse making that has blinded some for four years now. Thankfully, Romney was smart enough to attempt to address the issues that lost him the nomination four years ago.
January 1st, 2012 at 4:39 pm
KG,
“It’s time for honorable people to put their foot down.”
Yeah, talk to me about that.
You didn’t even have the courage to condemn ConInd’s and Firecracker’s hate last night.
January 1st, 2012 at 4:41 pm
This “Mormons are being OPPRESSED” business is getting exceedingly tedious. Mormons are well-educated, relatively wealthy, and have a strong sense of community and values- and they, unlike blacks or other ethnic minorities, haven’t been subject to systemic discrimination for decades. Sorry if I don’t cry a river because some subset of Mormons are apparently so paranoid about bigotry that they’ve convinced themselves that there’s some sort of mass barrier to a Mormon achieving high political office. There are currently 6.1 million Mormons in the United States- there are 5.3 million Jews. Seems to me that neither group has had a US President but only one of those groups has a very serious reason for believing they’re victims of some sort of widespread bigotry. And it aint Mormons.
January 1st, 2012 at 4:42 pm
Alvin and Marque,
I think some people- who have never experienced real persecution- are just eager to imagine themselves in the center of same grand drama.
Hence, some of the overwrought verbiage.
January 1st, 2012 at 4:43 pm
What MEM said in #269.
January 1st, 2012 at 4:44 pm
#268: Oh, right, Matt. Somebody on some obscure blog calling some evangelicals “non-thinking” is precisely the same thing as “men of God” pulling out all the stops to make certain a member of a certain religion does not become POTUS. You betcha. Apples and apples. Good grief!
January 1st, 2012 at 4:46 pm
KG,
And yet, you still lacked the courage.
January 1st, 2012 at 4:52 pm
Seriously: there are 50 million Hispanics and yet we’ve never had a Hispanic President. We’ve never had a Hispanic on a national ticket. We’ve only had 1 Hispanic Supreme Court justice and 3 years ago had had none. Why aren’t you whining about the mass discrimination against Hispanics, a group more that 8 times as large as Mormons? As an actual minority I have some sympathy with religious minorities- but get a grip. This strikes as roughly as self-indulgent and annoying as upper middle class blacks who complain that they occasionally have a hard time getting a cab.
January 1st, 2012 at 4:58 pm
….aaaaaaaannnnd….
this is not an obcure blog.
Any Blog that has SMACKDADDY in it. is not obscure.
It just can’t be.
January 1st, 2012 at 4:59 pm
Everybody, come to your senses. Mormons are not oppressed. Mormons are happy people going about their business. Mormon leaders were shocked last election when they did polls are discovered how some people felt about them (negatively) and have worked to inform and improve relationships.
This discussion is about one thing and one thing only: The presidency of the United States. Fact: There are those in the evangelical community for whatever motive strongly desire to keep Mormonism from being accepted as mainstream–(even tho it’s already the 4th largest US denomination and growing).
It wouldn’t matter which Mormon was running for office and his/her qualifications, there are those who would do all in their considerable power to influence voters from voting for a Mormon. It’s not about a dang persecution complex or a conspiracy theory. It’s a fact of life–and one that will not change until non-Mormons stand up and say this is wrong.
There have been some: Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, Mona Charen, GHWB and Barbara Bush tacitly in their hosting of Romney’s speech Faith in America, perhaps others. Among other reasons, Jimmy Carter left the SBC because of their policies against Mormons.
January 1st, 2012 at 4:59 pm
There are a 160 million women and yet we’ve never had a woman President. We’ve only had two women on national tickets. Michele Bachmann, by any measure more impressive, knowledgeable, and substantive than Rick Perry, and no less so than Rick Santorum, is about to place 6th in Iowa, a state where she’s devoted considerable time. Isn’t this phenomenon mildly curious? Worth a little introspection? A phenomenon that might, actually, be explained by a widespread bias? No? Oh well, moving along. Better to worry about whether Romney- former Governor of the bluest state in the country, former pro-choicer, former Planned Parenthood donor, former gay pride marcher- is being picked on by conservative Republican evangelicals because of his religion.
January 1st, 2012 at 4:59 pm
http://static.hypervocal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/transparency.png
January 1st, 2012 at 4:59 pm
270,
260 really is a gem. The implication is, of course, that the only reason Romney lost the presidency and the only reason he might lose the presidency is because he is a Mormon. The discussion has to be defined. They jump on you for denying that bigotry exists, but that is the not the point they are constantly making. The point that they are making is that not only does it exist, but that it is the only reason people won’t accept Romney. Which is paranoia that does not deserve legitimacy
January 1st, 2012 at 5:00 pm
The Mormon talk of the last 2 days makes the Battle of Stalingrad look like make-up sex.
Gimme a break.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:01 pm
Smack,
I love your posts! I think you will be rather pleased with the exit of one Michele Bachmann on Wednesday morning!
January 1st, 2012 at 5:03 pm
280,
Agreed. I know you are a Romney supporter, do you have any connections with anybody working on the Romney campaign? If so, how are they feeling about IA? I need some inside info!!
January 1st, 2012 at 5:05 pm
282
I don’t have any connections with anyone high-up in the campaign, but I’ve heard from some low-level Romney volunteers who live in Iowa. They say the enthusiasm is big for Mitt, and his events are packed.
However, this talk existed in 2008 and Mitt lost by 9% so I wouldn’t lend it any credence.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:07 pm
#277 Perhaps many Americans feel that most women are unsuited to be commander in chief of the Armed Forces. That’s my belief.
Being a member of Congress or the Cabinet is a substantially different type of vocation than commander in chief.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:08 pm
MassCon,
“The Mormon talk of the last 2 days makes the Battle of Stalingrad look like make-up sex.”
LOL!
January 1st, 2012 at 5:13 pm
Alvin,
“The implication is, of course, that the only reason Romney lost the presidency and the only reason he might lose the presidency is because he is a Mormon.”
There are a few Rombots (a minorty, thank God) who truly believe that there is no legitimate reason to oppose Romney. They seriously lack the imagination to conceive any reason, perspective, or rationale that would cause anyone to not love him, as they love him. And so they ascribe it to “bigotry” and imagine that anyone who opposes RomneyCare or doesn’t trust his well timed conversions are only masking latent anti-Mormonism. In fact, some of them have actually said on this site that “don’t trust him” is anti-Mormon code.
There is no winning with these self-absorbed paranoids.
It’s like have a little brigade of Al Sharptons.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:16 pm
econ grad stud,
However,
A woman has never won a statewide race in Iowa for any office ……..period.
But I choose to believe Iowa is about to reject Bachmann based upon the great work SMACKDADDY did as TPAW’s RACE42012 Campaign Manager in taking her apart…..instead of the long history of Iowa not choosing woman in political races.
Sometimes I choose, for the sake of my own mental health, fantasy above reality…….and if ROM loses to RUM on Tuesday….well…some here will do the same just to get through the next day.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:16 pm
Let me be one hundred percent transparent. Although I have been raised a Mormon and attend BYU, I do not believe in the church. I am not antagonistic towards it or anything, and I keep my opinions of the religion itself mostly to myself. I guess I’m technically atheist, but agnostic is more accurate. When will we acknowledge that atheists and Muslims are much more hated and despised within the Republican party and among evangelicals than almost any other demographic, Mormons included?
When an openly atheist president is elected, maybe then will I be sympathetic with the possibility of an anti-Mormon conspiracy. Mormons have it good in comparison. Let’s not pretend evangelicals would be mobilized in taking down Fred Karger if he was the front-runner. If the only thing that matters is executive experience and policy positions, then it wouldn’t matter if the person was Gay, Muslim, Mormon, 5’3″, or a woman, yet the only bigotry some Mormons can see is the kind used against their own. Open your eyes and be outraged about it all. When you start getting ticked off about the anti-gay sentiments in the Repub party, then maybe us non-Mormons will feel more comfortable caring about yours.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:16 pm
286
Ha! Looks like you’ve read through the open thread from 2008 where you kept saying Rombots were like Al Sharpton.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:18 pm
econ grad stud,
I’m the last one to deny there are legitimate genetic differences between men and women which effect broadly what sort of things they’re suited for. But still, the notion that women are unsuited to be commander-in-chief- and I agree that’s probably the subtext here- ought to be EXTREMELY interesting, at the least, and quite controversial. And yet no one seems to be concerned about it, outside of feminists. The media was practically silent on the question in ’08 and expended most of their “is America ready for…?” talk on Romney and Obama. I have indeed heard that Bachmann’s falling standing is a result of a widespread belief, among evangelicals, that women are not suited for the Presidency. But in passing. As if it was nothing particularly notable. And yet we’re treated to constant hysterics about how anti-Mormon evangelicals might be.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:19 pm
252 – Of course not. Did you read all my posts? I specifically said that you can vote for and against Romney for any reason you want to vote against him. My problem is with people who are pretending like there isn’t real bigotry going on, because there is.
I am not saying anything about how much of an impact it plays on the race. That is not clear. But it is real and chewing out people that point out its existence, and pretending like it isn’t a factor, disgusts me.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:20 pm
Lutherans are more numerous than Mormons but we rarely have US Senators, infrequently have Governors (Jan Brewer is the only one currently) and usually are underrepresented in the House by a wide margin.
We’re OPPRESSED. Well, actually we probably find more positive things to do than be leaders in Gomorrah on the Potomac.
Besides that we’re probably less in tune with American culture and religion than Mormons.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:22 pm
258 – You are just as bad as the others who try an pretend like it isn’t an issue.
As I have said over and over and over and over. I don’t condemn all evangelicals. I love evangelicals. Some of my best friends are among them.
I also don’t fault anyone for voting on whatever grounds they want to vote on.
What pisses me off are the people who refuse to acknowledge what is obvious right in front of their own faces.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:22 pm
Too many things come under consideration in electing president to blame one single thing.
A state chooses a candidate if that person is the best fit for the voters in that state.
Over a hundred thousand people will be voting, and people are all different. No one takes just one factor into consideration, and everyone takes different factors into consideration.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:22 pm
“Well, actually we probably find more positive things to do than be leaders in Gomorrah on the Potomac.”
That’s the truth. Honestly, as corrupt as government is these days, you’d think it was a complement if your demographic was unrepresented.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:22 pm
How’s this: I’m almost positive that Bachmann’s gender is more of a liability in the Iowa caucus than Romney’s religion. But people are quieter about their hang-ups about women (they simply don’t vote for them) and the press is basically indifferent, so the issue disappears.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:24 pm
262 – You don’t know what you are talking about. It is far from paranoia. Anyone that has experienced that would realize that. Get out of your happy valley bubble and join the real world.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:25 pm
266 – How does that justify any of the hate that you are trying to sweep under the rug?
Evangelicals are hated in this country as well. Everyone knows that. That doesn’t give them the right to hate back.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:25 pm
I know much is being made of this poll showing Santorum’s numbers rising in the last 2 days of this poll, but his final percent is in line with other polls done before this poll.
In short, I don’t think Santorum is very close to Romney & Paul.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:26 pm
A VERY interesting take on yesterday’s DMR poll from Dianne Bystrom, Director of the Carrie Chapman Catt Center for Women and Politics:
http://www.politico.com/arena/
Interesting. What’s up with that?
If I had to guess, Romney and Santorum probably do well with women voters, while Paul and Gingrich do not.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:26 pm
293,
Ok, but what is the scope of what you are talking about. You yourself have said that it is impossible to know how widespread it is or to what extent it changes the race. Yes, bigotry is real, and it is disgusting. I reject the idea, however, that it is holding him back from being president.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:27 pm
269 – Except the bigotry is overt. How can you deny its existence? For me, this has nothing to do with who gets elected President. It is the open and notorious bigotry and lies that are spread on a daily basis. How can we tolerate this and pretend like it isn’t an issue?
Tell me why I should ignore it.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:27 pm
MassCon,
“Ha! Looks like you’ve read through the open thread from 2008 where you kept saying Rombots were like Al Sharpton.”
LOL! I didn’t see that.
I guess I’ve just been having this conversation too long…….
January 1st, 2012 at 5:28 pm
270 – Again I refer you to 146
January 1st, 2012 at 5:28 pm
274 – You are completely missing the point. Nice try though.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:29 pm
PPP just tweeted:
“We’re shooting to have the final Iowa poll out between 11 and Midnight eastern. We’ll be in the field right up until 10″
SWEET!!!!
January 1st, 2012 at 5:30 pm
277 – And there isn’t a single person proclaiming to the world that women should not be considered for the presidency, or hispanics, or Jews, or Catholics.
Again, you are completely ignoring the point.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:30 pm
306
NICE
January 1st, 2012 at 5:30 pm
306,
Thank you for that! I’m looking forward to seeing Paul’s numbers in particular. Maybe it starts to become clearer how close Santorum is or isn’t to the top two as well
January 1st, 2012 at 5:32 pm
#302
I think bigotry is too often invoked to still have much meaning. It’s almost been defined down to “someone outside my identity group doing things I dislike”
It makes the rare cases of authentic discrimination hard to pick out from innocent behavior that childish hypersensitive types whine about.
When we make the President a cross between temporary dictator and national mascot of course people consider identity politics. Would I want to be ruled over by a group I distrust?
Now if a President was just the federal clerk/administrator (as the constitution envisioned) then hardly anyone would care about the personal attributes of the President. Who cares about the religion of the dog catcher or even their local mayor?
January 1st, 2012 at 5:32 pm
Jax, a valiant effort, but you really aren’t helping right now.
I think I know what you’re saying: That people who oppose Mormon politicians convince others to do so as well, while people don’t do that with blacks, women, etc.
But it’s a moot point and all it does is bring down the level of discussion here and make people angry.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:32 pm
297. You do not know what you are talking about. I worked on the Romney campaign in Des Moines in 2007-08 and experienced first-hand the bigoted push-polling that went around the state just days before voting. New Years’ Eve of 2007 I had dinner with a prominent evangelical leader (name escapes me, he was a little boring) that was working with the Romney campaign going around the state trying to persuade evangelicals to put aside their differences to vote for Mitt and encourage their churches to do the same. I remember talking to Huckabee voters that had no idea what Huckabee advocated for, but pulled the lever because he was “their kind.” It was very frustrating to me and remember even crying on election night because I felt the anti-mormon sentiments was why “the best candidate” lost. I’ve been there Jax. I’ve felt the anger, the frustration, and the pain of bigotry in politics. Just get over yourself.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:32 pm
286 – And yet you attach that fallacious argument to every possible Romney supporter.
There is an area between arguing that the only reason to oppose Mitt is his religion and saying that he his religion plays no role in this race at all.
Surely you aren’t stupid enough to believe it is only one or the other.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:32 pm
Massachusetts Conservative,
Thanks for that post on the DMR poll breakout.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:33 pm
288 – That makes sense now.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:34 pm
jax,
“Evangelicals are hated in this country as well.”
Odd. I don’t recall you shedding any tears or expressing any outrage on their behalf.
Did you even bother to condemn the hateful comments of ConInd and Firecracker last night?
January 1st, 2012 at 5:35 pm
MassCon,
Given his aggressive posture and the doctrinaire aura surrounding Rum, I’m guessing he does better among men.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:36 pm
Where’s CF been? Is he perma-banned like Casuist?
January 1st, 2012 at 5:37 pm
296 – Which is the whole point. I don’t deny that people vote against Bachmann because of her gender. That is not my argument at all, in any way. My problem is with those who would suggest that being a woman isn’t an issue for Bachmann, just as MWS and others are trying to insist that being a Mormon has no negative impact on Romney’s chances in Iowa at all.
I am not lamenting Romney’s struggle. I am lamenting the tendency to try to cover up irrational bigotry in general. Romney’s religion is obviously playing a role in the election. Any rational, objective person that knows anything about politics can see that.
Does that mean it is the sole reason he won’t be elected? Of course not. But to pretend like it isn’t something that is worth talking about or even acknowledging is offensive to me.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:38 pm
301 – Why would you reject that? It is obvious in the polls that it plays a role. Rejecting that makes you look like a fool.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:38 pm
318,
Causist is perma-banned? Wow, although I guess it’s not so shocking really
313: It’s a shame to see what would otherwise be valid points get lost in the name-calling. Try to move the soapbox to higher ground, it’s getting wet down here
January 1st, 2012 at 5:38 pm
317
I donno, The Juice wears some pretty snazzy sweater-vests. I’ve heard that Juicy’s record with scoring cougars rival’s Bill Clinton on that basis alone.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:39 pm
321
I was really just making that assumption. I don’t see why else he hasn’t been here in a month.
Plus, Sojourner is gone as well.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:39 pm
jax,
Does it give you even a moment’s pause when some of your coreligionists tell you your name calling and profanity are a bad witness?
They were embarrassed for you, re #146, and yet, you felt the need to call attention to it again.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:40 pm
322,
LOL! The Juice must be Ricky S! The sweater vests gave it away!
January 1st, 2012 at 5:40 pm
311 – I don’t care. I am tired of the nonsense. Nothing anyone says on this board helps anyone anyways.
I am sick and tired of the idea that I should just shut up and take it.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:40 pm
322
Ugh….. rivals should not have that apostrophe. God, do I hate that error when others make it.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:41 pm
312 – Then your indifference to it is even more disturbing.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:42 pm
316 – Oh please. When an evangelical becomes disadvantaged in the Republican primary wake me up.
We are talking in a specific context. Your need to play rhetorical games is absurd.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:42 pm
Mass Con,
Paul doesn’t do well with women and that University of Iowa poll was an outlier- Romney crushes with women. If that poll actually is badly unrepresentative of the gender composition of the caucuses, Romney stands to outperform. The last PPP poll has Romney with 22% of women voters and Paul with 19%, despite Paul leading overall. The CNN poll has Romney with 27% of women and Paul with 19%, while Paul actually leads Romney 24-23 with men. Incidentally, the GOP has some REALLY big problems if the Des Moines Register sample is correct and less than a third of caucus-goers are women. The nominee is going to need to win at least 45% of the female vote and it doesn’t bode well for us if our candidates can’t even get Republican women to vote during the primaries. Romney may be relatively strong with women voters- but if everyone else practically sends women running for the hills, that’s not much of an achievement.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:43 pm
316 – I have no idea who ConInd and Firecracker are. I have condemned evangelical hate many times on this board and elsewhere.
Take your triflings and shove them. Your refusal to acknowledge what is plain before your face is absurd.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:44 pm
321 – You thought casuist made valid points? LOL … that explains a lot.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:44 pm
I honestly don’t see a great deal of difference between a bleeding heart Methodist like Dubya and a Mormon like Romney who segregates his religion from his public life. Their two faiths seem to function about the same to me (inward focused piety and justifying yourself with ‘good works’).
Both speak in the same nauseating civil religion of America (that mixes a nondescript religious sentiment with schmaltzy patriotism).
I’d like to have a President that would say “I wasn’t elected to be your Pastor, Priest or Rabbi. If you want to know about God speak to them; I’m just your President.”
Perhaps I just expect less since no one in politics has ever said anything religious that didn’t make me cringe.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:44 pm
Matt “MWS”
Comment 316#
I told Firecracker to shut the hell up on the very next thread last night because he was again, accusing ALL EVANS PASTORS of bigotry…..Jax jumped in and told me to shut the hell up. This after I spent 2 hours claiming Mormons and Mitt do come under some bigotry, no doubt….and it should stop.
Jax is more interested in being seen as the one who holds the “truth”, than having a political discussion where two resonable people can come to two different conclusions on a subject, issue or candidate.
Jax lives in a “White or Black world” when it comes to the “truth”……
..and in his mind only he has the “truth”
I’d rather have a beer.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:45 pm
324 – Does it disturb you at all that you are shoving the truth under the rug because of your “dislike” of Romney? Or that your condescending bull crap is found to be offensive by many?
I’m guessing not. You are what you are. Someone needed to say it.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:45 pm
330
I think we should be concerned if the entrance polls bear out that DMR gender breakdown.
However, I don’t believe it’s true. And if it isn’t true, I think Romney wins.
If the DMR is correct in its estimation, it will be a nailbiter.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:46 pm
332,
Hmmm…you might really want to re-read it again, I guess anybody can be susceptible to a little foolishness, even truth tellers such as yourself
January 1st, 2012 at 5:47 pm
334 – I told you to shut the hell up because you were trying to do the same thing MWS did. Pretend like pastors preaching that a vote for Romney is equivalent to a vote for the devil is something to be ignored and shoved under the rug.
I still think you should shut the hell up.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:47 pm
EGS 333. Yep.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:48 pm
Jax, if you feel discriminated against because of your religion, move to Massachusetts.
No one here asks (or cares) what your religion is.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:48 pm
321 – Oops. Sorry.
Where did I call anyone a name?
January 1st, 2012 at 5:50 pm
340 – I don’t feel discriminated against. My life is just fine. But I recognize that there is real discrimination that is going on, and those who like to ignore it or pretend like it isn’t happening bug the hell out of me.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:50 pm
342 – was meant for 337
January 1st, 2012 at 5:50 pm
The best part of this site are the Matthew Miller comments!
January 1st, 2012 at 5:51 pm
328. Considering that the Mormon religion is one of the few enlightenment religions that praises rigorous education and rationality, your willingness to jump to conclusions is a little disturbing. Of the 50 states, Utah is in the top five for weekly church attendance and also in the top quarter for percentage of population that holds college degrees. Utah is nearly an outlier to the trend among the other 49 states (there is a moderate statistical relationship; the more educated, the less religious a state). There is a strong culture within Mormonism to seek higher education and be guided more by reason and steady judgement and not by reckless passions. Romney is VERY good example of that culture. Please be more like Mitt.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:52 pm
I apologize. I lied in 150.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:53 pm
#342 If your Mormon forefathers were as prissy as you they’d have never made it in a country that really did hate them and their polygamous ways. Today most people just consider Mormons to be friendly clean cut neighbors who are a bit too enthusiastic about their religion.
Both George Romney and Willard Romney have gotten flak for flip flopping and being out-of-tune with their party on some issues. Neither one has been much effected by religious issues.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:55 pm
Matthew E. Miller,
The DMR poll is another reason I’m nervous about Paul. As much as I like to ding Mitt from time to time, I would run through cut glass barefooted to vote for Mitt over Paul.
However,
Ann Seltzer does not weigh her polls/samples. If Men seem to be much more much enthuastic about going to the caucus this time when she is doing the field work…then Seltzer’s poll is going to reflect that.
I’m a bit nervous that PPP & DMR might be picking up a Paul boom with Men flooding the polls in much greater numbers…
..I’m nervous period.
I wouldn’t mind seeing RUM test Mitt some more and do well in Iowa on Tuesday night, but not at the expense of Mitt losing to both men.
That release of the PPP poll tonight is going to be huge!!
With Massachusetts Conservative new information on the DMR poll I can’t make up my mind if that is actually good news for Mitt or not.
Maybe the Men do bury the Woman this time at the Iowa Caucus?
Those single, young, Men-libertarians may run wild on Tuesday night.
GULP!
January 1st, 2012 at 5:56 pm
New tweet from PPP: still very close between Romney and Paul, Santorum not too far behind but probably still 3rd. Yesterday, they said that Iowa still looks very close between Paul and Romney. Notice they reversed the order. Clearly this is an unconscious slip showing that yesterday Paul was leading and today Romney is. Geez, PPP should stop being so transparent if they want to generate interest. I’m onto them.
January 1st, 2012 at 5:58 pm
348
Smack, you made me think of something. Paul is bringing voters to the caucus who have never caucused before. Young people, mostly men, who like to smoke pot and believe America is an empire rather than a nation.
Okay, so this helps explains why Ann Selzer’s sample had a higher percentage of men than 2008. These people are new, and brought to the process only because of Ron Paul.
So does that mean the women from 2008 are staying home? Of course not.
I think we are looking at a high-turnout scenario, folks.
January 1st, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Jax, the problem is that no one thinks it’s a real problem. And you don’t convince anyone that there is a problem of “anti-Mormon bigotry” when your prime poster child in the victim’s role is Mitt Romney, who’s been spectacularly successful in his family life, education, and career. It’s the same impression one has of Mitt’s entire family. And of Jon Huntsman’s family. And tons of other Mormon families that folks might know.
You’re burdening yourself with an impossible task, and no one but you knows why. What sense does the claim make: These fantastically successful folks are the lifelong victims of bigotry! Outrage!
It’s similar to the problem — if reversed — that opponents of the death penalty have: Most of the folks on death row are heinous criminals who have shown no human mercy in committing their crimes. People want these types of animals to cease sharing their planet. The poster children for campaigns against the death penalty make the instant opposite case by their very existence.
January 1st, 2012 at 6:00 pm
349
Could be right. I hope that’s the case. Maybe we are seeing a late break for Romney?
January 1st, 2012 at 6:01 pm
345 – LOL … you condescending little twit. You have no idea who you are talking to.
January 1st, 2012 at 6:01 pm
347 – Shut up and take it then? OK
January 1st, 2012 at 6:02 pm
352,
If Romney is ahead in the PPP poll tonight given the likely sample of respondents, then there is a very good chance that Romney will take IA. And that would pretty much be the end of it, right at the beginning
January 1st, 2012 at 6:05 pm
MEM,
Huuuummmmm……
RUM probably still third?…..PROBABLY?.
That means RUM is within 4pts….correct?
ROM 23%…RON 22%……RUM 19%…?
Yep, SMACKDADDY is on to them as well.
January 1st, 2012 at 6:06 pm
353. Guilty as charged. I pride myself in both being condescending and a twit. I’m considering working on my pretentiousness, too (let me go start up Rach’s Piano Concerto N. 2 while eating my Camembert brie cheese). Give me some time to read through all your posts Jax, I’ll slowly develop the necessary vocabulary to consider myself a profane trash talker as well.
January 1st, 2012 at 6:10 pm
Brett
#357
HA!
January 1st, 2012 at 6:11 pm
355 – I agree with you. I am guessing Romney has some news tomorrow that should grab some headlines and take some of the spotlight off of Santorum.
In most cases, people who decide last are people that end up siding with the most well known candidate. If it is true that 41% could change their minds, I do think that favors Romney as the known candidate.
Romney’s hard work in the state in 2007 is paying dividends. It is a boost in this race that no one else had. He was allowed to have a base of support in Iowa while building a virtually unstoppable wall in Iowa.
Ultimately, I’m not sure how important 1st, 2nd, or 3rd really is out of Iowa. You get some headline boost out of taking third, and that is certainly worth something. But if it is nearly a three way tie at the top, I would imagine the delegate count will be pretty even.
Does anyone know how exactly they are allotting delegates? It is proportional based on statewide results, or is it subdivided by region?
January 1st, 2012 at 6:11 pm
Romney’s best case scenario, for the primary, is something like:
Romney 24
Paul 22
Santorum 20
Perry 14
Gingrich 11
Bachmann 7
Huntsman 1
This probably keeps Perry in, though with extremely limited resources, and limits Santorum’s ability to consolidate the conservative block in South Carolina. Gingrich is probably gone. No one gets enough of a bump to really hammer Mitt. South Carolina probably looks like a replay of ’08, with the moderate running up the middle because the surging conservative candidate (Santorum standing in place of Huck) is held-back by a distant Southern Candidate (Perry playing the role of Fred). I could easily see Romney winning NH by 20+ points, followed by a result like this in SC:
Romney 34
Santorum 28
Perry 20
Paul 15
Huntsman (who will probably pester Romney as long as he can afford it) 3
At which point, it’s pretty much over.
January 1st, 2012 at 6:18 pm
If Perry and Gingrich are both more than 7 or 8 points behind Santorum, I wouldn’t be surprised if both drop out. At that point, things do start to get interesting. Maybe Santorum- odd fit as he is- could win SC in that scenario. He’d still have almost no chance at winning the nomination but could prolong things a bit. Unless Iowa goes something like this:
Santorum 24
Paul 23
Romney 21
Perry 12
Gingrich 11
Bachmann 7
Huntsman 2
That looks bad for Romney. Probably Perry, Gingrich, and Bachmann drop out. Probably Romney’s weakened enough to let Huntsman get within 12 in NH. Probably Santorum wins SC and Romney looks increasingly weak. But as long as he avoids 3rd in Iowa, it’s hard to see how he loses the nomination.
January 1st, 2012 at 6:18 pm
Any more endorsements or new ads for Iowa? Are we pretty much down to retail politics now?
January 1st, 2012 at 6:20 pm
If I heard right, Santorum today said he aims to go straight to New Hampshire on Wednesday and try to barnstorm the state. Perry and Gingrich have both said they plan on going straight to South Carolina on Wednesday.
Santorum is counting on a big bounce into NH, but I figure the negative press will rain down on him before the primary takes place. Plus the negative attack ads from Paul and the Romney PAC. Santorum won’t have enough time to raise enough funds and reserve enough TV ad time to counteract all of that. I’m guessing Romney and Paul have the two tickets out of New Hampshire.
January 1st, 2012 at 6:24 pm
MWS: “Yeah. “Rum” as in santoRUM, and “Rum” as in…….. he’s Catholic.”
Are you referring to ‘Rum, Romanism and Rebellion’?
January 1st, 2012 at 6:27 pm
No matter what happens, Noot and Perry will not drop out until after SC. They have made that clear enough by their actions and rhetoric.
Bachmann IS out on Wednesday. At least, if she’s not mentally impaired.
Other than Bachmann, no one drops out until SC. This should keep the race muddy enough, with Romney picking up steam in IA and NH, and winning SC as a result.
January 1st, 2012 at 6:29 pm
Marque (196): “I’ve never heard Jehovah’s Witnesses whine like this, and everyone hates them.”
This reminded me of the Tom Lehrer classic ‘National Brotherhood Week’:
Not sure why he left the Mormons out (probably an indication of his deep-seated bigotry, that he wouldn’t deign to mention them).
January 1st, 2012 at 6:41 pm
Jax and KG are right. . . . to deny that there is anti-Mormon bigotry going on in this race is just ridiculous beyond words. Surely you political folk remember all the stuff from 2008. The fake “Christmas cards” from Ann and Mitt Romney sent out with pictures of Mormon temples to people in SC? The Huckabee phone calls in IA last go round? etc etc etc ad nauseum.
So go ahead an hate Mormons, or hate their doctrine, or whatever. But to deny that there’s no bigotry in this is just ridiculous.
As for him taking “orders” from Salt Lake, this is absurd as well. Last time I heard, Harry Reid was a member in good standing in the LDS church; anyone want to argue that HE’S taking orders from Salt Lake?
January 1st, 2012 at 6:50 pm
Harry Reid is a very devout Mormon. I have heard him talk about it
January 1st, 2012 at 6:50 pm
318
I’m still here. My services haven’t been needed much with Romney pretty much running away with this (and I’ve been vacationing a lot lately).
I’m still going to predict a 3rd place finish for Romney in Iowa. Best to keep expectations low so we can beat them. Regardless of what happens there, I have no doubt he’ll still win the nomination. Newt’s done, Paul is too nuts, and Santorum is a grouchy lightweight.
January 1st, 2012 at 7:00 pm
334
What a racist comment!
January 1st, 2012 at 7:00 pm
341
Jax, you called Matt MWS an a**hole in this thread. I called you on it.
January 1st, 2012 at 7:03 pm
348
Was it wrong of me, Smack, to hope for just a moment that Paul would win just for the chance to see you do that? LOL (jk)
January 1st, 2012 at 7:04 pm
Do these last minute polls become self-fulfilling prophecy?
January 1st, 2012 at 7:08 pm
360.
YES, that would be precisely my preference for the order of the results. I don’t care if the numbers match up, though.
January 1st, 2012 at 7:10 pm
361
I honestly don’t see any scenario where Perry drops out this early. He’s proud. Still has some money. And he has a brand new campaign head who has publicly TRASHED the old team’s handling of Rick. They’re going to want a chance to “do it right”.
January 1st, 2012 at 7:11 pm
363
Really? NH? I thought he said SC.
January 1st, 2012 at 7:11 pm
373:
It was in ’08.
This poll is pretty muddied in its message though.
January 1st, 2012 at 7:11 pm
Great photo of our next first lady Ann Romney at a campaign event in Iowa Jan1 2012 http://mittromneycentral.com/uploads/Jan-1-2012-Ann-Romney-kicks-of-her-heels-hops-on-chair-greets-enthusiastic-crowd.-Photo-Sarah-Boxer.jpg
January 1st, 2012 at 7:16 pm
Keith 363, here’s a mention of it from yesterday:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/rick-santorum-looks-beyond-iowa-weve-got-the-campaign-that-can-win-everywhere/
I must have seen a clip of him speaking yesterday somewhere today.
January 1st, 2012 at 7:16 pm
“Keith 376,” that should be.
January 1st, 2012 at 7:24 pm
Keith,
I keep hearing all this talk about how Perry’s a better bet than Santorum because he has the money to go the distance. And you know this…how? I think you’ll be shocked to see how little money Perry brought in this quarter (I’m guessing under 10 mil) and how high his burn rate has been, what with his dropping 4+ mil on Iowa ads. I wouldn’t be surprised if he and Newt are locked up, COH-wise, when the reports drop. Sure, he has more money than Santorum who probably has no money at all, but Santorum- who’s been a non-factor thus far- would get a much bigger bump out of a strong showing in Iowa. Remember, only 4 states have more electoral votes than PA, and Santorum’s a former 2-term Pennsylvania Senator. It’s not as though he’s an obscure congress-critter with no fundraising network at all. He gets viable, he’ll be able to draw from a lot of old donors, quickly. Of course, unlike Perry, he doesn’t even have a skeletal organization anywhere outside of Iowa, so it’s going to be a lot harder to turn that money into votes, but not totally out of the question.
January 1st, 2012 at 7:32 pm
PPP is indicating that Santorum’s surge has leveled off today. Interesting
January 1st, 2012 at 7:32 pm
381. Matthew, No, I agree with you about Perry’s money.
He fudged his reporting last quarter by delaying many of the salaries and contractor payments, so that would have cut deeply into his reported 15 mill. Plus, he’s been spending a ton on ads.
I’d say 10 mill is about right or high.
But, I still feel he’s the more dangerous candidate to let catch his breath.
Santorum will be easy to knock down, I think.
BUT, I have no skill or special insight into this, so I’m just going by my (growing daily) gut.
January 1st, 2012 at 7:33 pm
MEM, I agree with your points. But one big challenge that I think is coming to Santorum is the intensive press scrutiny that everyone has faced who rises in the polls. For the most part, Santorum’s rise has coincided with the holiday period when many press organs have been understaffed. I figure he’ll soon get follow-up stories based on anonymous oppo dump material over the next week. But the media won’t be back fully until Tuesday at the earliest.
Santorum’s aggressive interrogation from David Gregory this morning was just a foretaste.
January 1st, 2012 at 7:38 pm
381:
I agree that Perry’s money is likely bled dry by now. Pretty soon he’ll be like Dean was in ’04. Everyone thought he had money, but once everything really started all the sudden he had nothing. But I don’t think Santorum has the capacity to build nationwide organization out of scratch in the next couple of weeks. Plus, let’s face it, Santorum isn’t going to be any more exciting a person with an Iowa win under his belt than he was in all those debates.
Like I said yesterday. Whether it’s Romney, Paul, or Santorum that takes Iowa, Romney is the winner.
January 1st, 2012 at 7:41 pm
384.
MarqueG, got a replay link for that? I’d love to see it.
January 1st, 2012 at 7:49 pm
Don’t count out Herman Cain!
He only suspended his campaign and could restart it tomorrow just in time to catch the inevitable Santorum drop.
Yes We Cain!
January 1st, 2012 at 7:50 pm
More from the Demoines Register:
January 1st, 2012 at 7:51 pm
Let’s make some guesses about COH, shall we? Last quarter, Romney spent about 12 million. That’s a baseline for a fully churning campaign, in the 3rd quarter. Perry spent considerably less than that (like 2ish million) but didn’t have a fully churning campaign. In comparison, Bachmann spent 6 million and Paul spent 7.6 million. That’s what seriousish candidates needed to maintain a full campaign. Now in ’08, the candidates typically increased their spending by at least 50% from the 3rd quarter to the 4th (Rudy went from 13 to 19, Romney went from 21 to 34, Obama went from 21 to 41, Hillary went from 23 to 40). Some, like Paul and McCain who only started rising in the 4th quarter, saw considerably larger spending increases.
So if we start from the premise that Perry’s spending in the 3rd quarter was modest only because he didn’t yet have an extensive organization in place, and that now he does (more extensive than anyone’s other than Romney and Paul’s) we can get a reasonable idea of his likely spending this quarter. From what I can tell, Romney has blown relatively little of his wad on advertising (Paul and Perry are both swamping him in Iowa and he’s yet to really make huge buys in NH). But of course, Romney’s organization goes to more than advertisements so we can assume that the additional elements make up for Perry’s higher ad-buys. Well how much has Romney spent? If we use ’08 as a guide, we can assume that he spent at least 50% more than he did in the 3rd quarter. That would be 18 million. Let’s use 20 million to be safe. That’s in-line with the reports of his fundraising. Let’s be conservative and call it a wash- Romney had a 100% burn-rate and still has 14 million on-hand. Well, how much has Perry spent? Again, we have to assume that- as the only non-Romney, non-Paul, candidate with a substantial organization- his spending comes close to equaling there’s. Ok, maybe 17 million. Now how much has he raised? 10 million? If so, he has about 8 million on hand? 8 million? That would give him 6 million on hand? And his spending could be even higher, given his near “go broke or go home” attitude in SC.
In short, Perry is unlikely to come out of Iowa with even half as much COH as Romney. I don’t see why he hangs around if he gets absolutely no momentum and all of the conservative money (such as it is) gravitates towards Santorum.
January 1st, 2012 at 7:52 pm
And, this
January 1st, 2012 at 7:52 pm
334 – As opposed to the shades of gray truth world you live in Smack?
Yes, I don’t live in a world where the truth is relative to which candidate you support or don’t support.
January 1st, 2012 at 7:57 pm
#376 It was Perry who said he was going straight to SC. And well he should. Or just straight back to Austin. Don’t care, poor baby.
January 1st, 2012 at 7:58 pm
389 – I doubt much money is going to be flowing to Santorum either. No one wants to throw money at someone who can’t win, and most rational people see that Santorum is a very long shot to win … even if he can prolong the race.
I don’t see many money people throwing money at Santorum just to prolong what is inevitable. He might get some grassroots money, but I’m not seeing that being very significant either. He hasn’t been vetted at all, and when he does some will be turned off. He doesn’t have the dynamic personality that won so many over to Huckabee.
January 1st, 2012 at 8:05 pm
The simple truth is if Romney finishes in the top 3 he will be the nominee. Pundits will continue to game this thing and if Romney doesn’t win or take 2nd it may take a little longer but he will still win.
The only reason Santorum is where he is in Iowa is because 1) he is the last not Romney standing and 2) he has spent his entire campaign doing retail in Iowa. He literally has no game beyond Iowa.
Perry has had his moment in the sun and the verdict on him is that he isn’t ready for prime time. You don’t recover from that.
Newt fell, then rose, then fell again. He’s not getting a 3rd look and anyone who does care to look sees an angry, whining Newt. Angry and whining don’t make a Presidential nominee.
Bachmann ain’t happening and neither is Huntsman.
Let’s get this over with already.
January 1st, 2012 at 8:07 pm
Is anyone slightly disturbed by the huge gap between ’08 fundraising and ’12 fundraising? Granted, we got started a quarter late but the actual caucuses and primaries exist on basically the same time-table (Iowa is actually on the same day as in ’08) and therefore the need for spending isn’t any less substantial. But maybe a lot of the perceived gap has to do with the fact that Romney hasn’t loaned himself 8 zillion dollars this cycle. So re-phrase: is anyone disturbed that, even in a much better year for the GOP, Republican fundraising is no better than in ’08, and considerably less robust than Democratic fundraising that year? I mean, Romney’s almost certainly going to spend half of what Obama and Clinton spent in this quarter in ’08. Is the big-money still sitting on the sidelines? Is Romney going to suddenly raise 90 million in the first quarter of ’12, between General election and primary money, because he’ll have the nomination all but wrapped up? I mean, I’m thinking minimum, the Republican nominees going to need to raise 350 million this year (again, between primary and general). Romney’s the only one I can envision even sniffing at that number and he may well fall considerably short- unless, again, something odd is going on to keep the big donors perpetually on the sidelines.
January 1st, 2012 at 8:07 pm
Thanks for the info SMACK….I’ll stop refreshing the PPP website every 30 sec
)
What’s with the pollster? Darn them! They get us addicted and then they withhold the goods.
Gallup went dark for 2 days again. Where’s a junky gonna get a fix?
I’m going to be on a IV before Tuesday night gets here…
GOTTA.BREAK.THE.HABIT…
January 1st, 2012 at 8:07 pm
388.
Well, now. We get to adjust a couple of theories here:
1) Romney is perhaps more electable than certain Romnots would have us believe, even in flyover land
2) The aforementioned pastors are simply not doing that great of a job influencing their parishioners re Romney
January 1st, 2012 at 8:14 pm
395 – No. I think it is obvious why money stayed out of the primary. Romney had what he needed, given his strategy, but the rest of the field is pretty farcical.
I think, despite Mitt being favored, there was serious doubt about whether he would win the nomination. People didn’t want to commit general election funds to him if he wasn’t going to win, and didnt want to commit them to anyone else.
If Romney loses the general election, it won’t be because of money. I think he will have plenty, but either way, it is quite easy to use the free media to get your message out these days. Social media is cheap or free. He can get volunteers to drum up turnout.
January 1st, 2012 at 8:16 pm
Huckabee is evangelical, Santorum is not. Gingrich was evangelical nit quit the religion. Perry is really the best match. Some pastors are supporting Perry this weekend
January 1st, 2012 at 8:20 pm
Has the Ames straw poll been completely undermined now? The fact that Bachmann is in last place is pretty amazing. TPaw made a HUGE mistake by basing his whole campaign on that thing.
January 1st, 2012 at 8:24 pm
If being an evangelical is important to voters, Bachmann is the most believable in that vein. Heck, she even campaigned for Jimmy Carter because he was a fellow evangelical.
January 1st, 2012 at 8:42 pm
397
The low fundraising is because of bad candidates with no shot to win, besides Romney.
Plus, the cycle has been so turbulent that donors don’t know who is likely to win and who isn’t.
January 1st, 2012 at 8:59 pm
Not to beat a dead horse, but if you deniers don’t think the pastors are not teaching people not to vote for Romney, just urn on CSPAN right now. Bachmann just gave a wonderful sermon that I enjoyed very much, but now the pastor is giving tons of references about the need to vote for a “Christian” candidate or else we will go further towards hell.
Right there in front of your face, and yet you will still continue to deny it. Heads in the sand.
January 1st, 2012 at 9:19 pm
397:
Yes, I’m quite disturbed by this trend. Heck, you don’t even need to look to ’08. Even in ’00 Bush alone was raising more money than practically the entire field. This is especially disturbing since Obama is likely going to be raising money hand over fist.
The only thing I can say is that in ’08 there was a lot more media attention on the primaries because the Democrats were involved that year.
January 1st, 2012 at 9:33 pm
Bachmann is only recently a convert to American evangelicalism. She was a Lutheran until this election cycle.
Ron Paul was raised Lutheran (now Baptist). Huntsman went to Lutheran day school (but remained Mormon). Gingrich came from a Lutheran family but converted to Baptist in college and Catholic for his latest floozie.
I’ve always found folks who jump from religion to religion (more than one conversion per life) to be highly suspect characters.
At least Romney has stuck to the Mormon religion and not floated around like a dead carcass (I’m looking at you Newt).
January 1st, 2012 at 9:38 pm
#405 So what?
If someone doesn’t want to vote for a Mormon, an atheist, a Muslim or a Baptist that’s their business. If a pastor teaches that, that’s still none of your business (unless you’re a member of the church).
Your only concern is your own vote. You have no business sticking your nose into other religious group’s voting standards.
January 1st, 2012 at 10:19 pm
Usually this site does a New Years predictions FPP on politics, elections, sports, and entertainment. Is there gonna be one this year?
January 1st, 2012 at 10:19 pm
397
My take on it is that the money has not been NEEDED so it hasn’t been donated, yet. When the eventual nominee is clear, the money will POUR in to defeat the Big O.
January 1st, 2012 at 10:20 pm
I see Mitt Romney winning the GOP nomination and narrowly defeating President Barack Obama, 52-48. Romney will receive a clear but not overwelming majority of EVs. I see the President losing from his 2008 states Indiana, North Carolina, Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Pennsylvania. 302 Romney to 236 for Obama.
Romney’s list of VP picks will include Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Virginia Governor Bob McDonell, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez, and former Governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee. It comes down to Rubio, Christie, Portman, and Huckabee. Rubio and Christie reject offer and he goes for Rob Portman of OH.
President Obama keeps Biden as VP running mate.
The GOP has a net gain of 5 in the Senate, winning in North Dakota, Nebraska, Montana, Virginia, Missouri, and Florida, but losing in Massachusetts and holding on to the Nevada seat. Bill Nelson is narrowly defeated by Connie Mack in FL due to coattails against Obama in the state. Scott Brown goes down in Mass. Claire McCaskill and Jon Tester lose. George Allen narrowly beats Tim Kaine in the most high profile Senate race in 2012.
The GOP retains control of the House, but lose 6-8 seats to still have about just north of 230 seats in the chamber. GOPer Allen West loses in South Florida due to a redrawn more Democratic district. Dem Brad Miller loses in NC.
The Baltimore Ravens defeat the New England Patriots in the AFC Championship game, 27-24. The Green Bay Packers defeat the New Orleans Saints in the NFC Title matchup, 41-37. In Super Bowl XLVI in Indy, the Ravens defeat the Packers 31-27 to win their second Super Bowl.
The Miami Heat defeat the Chicago Bulls in the Eastern Conference Finals, 4-1. The San Antonio Spurs defeat the Los Angeles Lakers in the Western Conf. title series, 4-3. The Heat defeat the Spurs, 4-2 to win the NBA Finals.
The Texas Rangers defeat the Tampa Bay Rays in the ALCS, 4-3. The Phladelphia Phillies defeat the Milwaquee Brewers in the NLCS, 4-2. The Rangers defeat the Phillies, 4-2 to win the World Series.
January 1st, 2012 at 10:28 pm
“Usually this site does a New Years predictions FPP on politics, elections, sports, and entertainment. Is there gonna be one this year?”
Ssshhhh … as bad as mine were the last couple years, I’m grateful to not have to do it again.
January 1st, 2012 at 11:02 pm
I haven’t received much guidance with regard to etiquette on this board; perhaps the moderators are mellow and don’t particularly care, one way or the other, about message length. So here’s my observations on all the posts that caught my eye. If anyone feels this message is too long, just give me a gentle hint (or YELL AT ME), and I’ll split a message like this up into pieces next time; thanks.
1. Perry won’t drop out. He’s got too much $$$$. He’ll hang around on the off-chance of a comeback, even if he doesn’t do well in Iowa.
8. Yes, Granny T, that’s correct. The overall 4-day Santorum average was 15%, but the Santorum average for the last two days of that was 21%.
14 and 57. Where are you seeing all these low-to-high numbers for Mitt? You honestly have me stumped. Where was Romney ever that low, please?
19. With regard to an active and split SocCon field, be careful of what you wish for. If Paul and Santorum go into Tuesday with energized supporters, and if, in addition, another candidate should go in with a little oomph, say Perry or Gingrich, we could be looking at a situation where Mitt misses ALL THREE of the Iowa tickets. Specifically, as an example, if the top finishers are Paul, Santorum and Gingrich, in that order, Romney could go into New Hampshire looking real bad. Huntsman would be a happy guy!
21 and 29. Actually Santorum’s number for the first two days was 10%, not 9%.
51. Actually all three two-day results are now available for Gingrich and Perry. See http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/m0101pollnightlyRolling.jpg , and it’s a fascinating graphic.
107. I don’t think that figure for Santorum in the first two days of the Register poll is an outlier. Once one factors in the margin of error, it fits comfortably with the PSRs for Santorum provided by CNN, PPP, ARG, NBC/Marist, Insider Advantage and Rasmussen. Santorum’s CPSR for all those surveys combined is 12-14.1%.
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:12 am
criggs: “14 and 57. Where are you seeing all these low-to-high numbers for Mitt? You honestly have me stumped. Where was Romney ever that low, please?”
They apparently are referring to Romney’s increase from the Nov 30 poll (16 in that poll 24 in this), not to the splits of this poll.
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:25 am
Jax – All in all I think you’ve reduced the sympathy posters on this board have for Mormons facing bigotry in the political process. I really do. I usually enjoy your comments, but I couldn’t even finish reading what you had to say today because it was so unnecessarily repetitious, negative and mean-spirited. If you read my posts you’ll see that I agree w/your perceptions and defend them in many cases, including on this thread. But you really need to take a step back and recognize the intense negativity you’ve brought here today. Bring the old Jax back bro.
January 2nd, 2012 at 9:46 am
In defense of poor Jax. . . it’s hard to remain upbeat and positive when people are gang-slamming you. I get his point – the bigotry is patently obvious. But to be told over and over again that it’s NOT, is just plain disingenuous. “The grass is green.” “no, it’s not.” One can only take so much of that. . . . but let’s hope that clearer heads prevail today. . . .