InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion Research (R) Iowa 2012 GOP Caucus Poll
- Mitt Romney 22.7% (17.2%) {18.2%} [11.9%] (11.5%) {18.7%} [14.9%] (18.1%)
- Ron Paul 22.4% (17.3%) {23.9%} [16.5%] (13.3%) {11.4%} [8.7%] (9.6%)
- Rick Santorum 18.0% (13.4%) {2.9%} [6.8%] (3.3%) {3.4%}
- Newt Gingrich 16.1% (16.7%) {12.9%} [27.1%] (28.1%) {14.5%} [11.7%] (12.1%)
- Rick Perry 9.6% (10.5%) {15.5%} [13.2%] (6.6%) {8.8%} [5.6%] (5.8%)
- Michele Bachmann 5.8% (11.8%) {10.1%} [10.3%] (10.1%) {5.4%} [7.8%] (11.0%)
- Jon Huntsman 1.8% (2.8%) {3.8%} [3.6%] [1.9%] (0.9%)
- Someone else 1.3% (3.0%) {0.8%} [1.4%] (3.2%) {1.7%} [5.5%] (3.0%)
- No opinion 2.3% (7.3%) {11.9%} [9.2%] (14.1%) {12.8%} [14.2%] (13.1%)
Among Republicans
- Mitt Romney 23.3% (20.7%) {19.7%}
- Rick Santorum 20.4% (13.6%) {3.0%}
- Newt Gingrich 18.3% (18.0%) {14.9%}
- Ron Paul 17.3% (10.9%) {21.9%}
- Rick Perry 10.2% (11.5%) {15.0%}
- Michele Bachmann 6.1% (12.8%) {11.4%}
- Jon Huntsman 1.3% (2.6%) {1.4%}
- Someone else 0.7% (1.3%) {0.3%}
- No opinion 2.3% (8.7%) {12.4%}
Among Independents
- Ron Paul 38.2% (32.9%) {27.8%}
- Mitt Romney 18.4% (9.5%) {16.6%}
- Rick Santorum 15.0% (14.6%) {2.3%}
- Newt Gingrich 9.9% (12.8%) {8.4%}
- Rick Perry 6.8% (9.1%) {18.7%}
- Michele Bachmann 5.3% (7.3%) {7.5%}
- Jon Huntsman 3.4% (3.0%) {8.6%}
- Someone else 1.4% (6.9%) {0.6%}
- No opinion 1.7% (3.7%) {9.5%}
Survey of 729 likely Iowa GOP caucus-goers was conducted January 1, 2012. Party ID: 69.4% (69.5%) Republican; 25.7% (27.3%) Independent; 4.9% (3.3%) Democrat. Results from the poll conductedDecember 28, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conductedDecember 18, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 12, 2011 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted November 28, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted November 8, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted November 3, 2011 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted October 16, 2011 are in parentheses.
–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:35 am
If Perry and Bachmann both end up in single digits, it wouldn’t be hard to see both of them dropping out. Perry might limp into South Carolina, but a 5th place showing would be very devastating to his campaign.
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:38 am
From Ann Seltzer (The pollster for DMR)
Must READ!
EVANGELICALS — In 2008, they were 60 percent of those who participated in the entrance poll at the Republican caucus and famously handed Mike Huckabee the win. This year, our polls are showing far fewer likely Republican caucusgoers identifying themselves as born-again or evangelical Christians — about one in three.
When we weight our data from the last two days in the field to match 2008, Rick Santorum wins with 25 percent, Mitt Romney is second at 20 percent, and Ron Paul has 16 percent. Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry barely break into double digits. Each is within a point of one another.
&#; SENIORS — In 2008, they made up 27 percent of the entrance poll respondent pool. We are showing them under 20 percent in our polls this year. When we weight our data from the final two days of polling to match 2008, this greatly benefits Romney, who would rise to 26 percent and a 7 point lead over Santorum, 19 percent. Paul drops to third place, with 17 percent.
&#; INDEPENDENTS — They were just 13 percent of the entrance poll sample in 2008. In the last two days of interviewing, we saw elevated numbers of people who self-report their party affiliation as independent (26 percent).
What if there is a late surge of independents? We tested weighting independents to be an unlikely 30 percent of likely caucusgoers. That narrows the spread, with Romney holding a 2 percentage-point lead over Paul, followed by Santorum.
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:39 am
I think the number of “independents” (AKA Democrats spamming the GOP caucus for Paul) proves a need to reform the system – if you aren’t a registered GOPer a year out, no voting in the caucus.
Of course, the absence of Ron Paul in future cycles will be an obvious benefit.
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:44 am
Both PPP & DMR showed an elevated surge in INDIE participation in the Caucus on their respective last day in the field.
…In other words…….
I have no idea what’s going to happen.
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:47 am
Romney’s internal polling must show him winning. I’m sure he’s feeling very confident about a first or very very close second.
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:50 am
“NorahODonnell: In Polk City, IA, voter who came to choose between Santorum and Bachmann can’t get in to see him”
For what its worth, all reports on the ground today in Iowa has huge turnouts for Santorum rally’s….HUGE!
ROM,RON & RUM supporters all have about 5 different good valid reasons on why their candidate is poised to win the Iowa caucus.
Crazy.
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:54 am
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/02/politics/iowa-insiders-survey-main/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
2/3 of Iowa GOP Insiders polled polled over the weekend expect Romney to win, and none of them expect Santorum to win. Really interesting.
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:55 am
Romney is packing the house this morning in Iowa. Standing-room only crowds for Mitt. Looks like a lot of momentum in his “weaker” half of the state
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:59 am
3,
They have to be registered republican. So how exactly would you change it? Not allow them to register republican?
People don’t understand. They are NOT “spamming” the caucus. None of those people are going to stand there for several hours at the caucus unless they REALL SUPPORT SOMEONE. And Ron Paul does have a lot of support amongst independants and disaffected democrats. That just proves that he can win in november if he is the nominee. Isn’t that what we want? A nominee that can win!
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:07 am
” Isn’t that what we want? A nominee that can win!”
Not when that nominee is going to legalize drugs, get rid of state-recognized marriage, back a gold standard that will kill American exports, and single-handedly kill the American superpower by reducing our international presence and surrendering our influence to Russia and China.
I will do whatever is necessary to keep a candidate like that OUT of the White House.
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:07 am
Again we see Santorum hit a ceiling of 18 percent, just like in PPP’s polling on BOTH Saturday AND Sunday. Santorum can’t grow any further because Newt, Bachmann, and Perry have hit their respective floors. I think Santorum gets most undecideds and moves into second but loses to Romney.
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:08 am
9, WS,
I completely agree that no one is going to give up a whole evening unless they REALLY support someone. It’s just that that “someone” may be Barack Obama.
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:08 am
“They have to be registered republican. So how exactly would you change it? Not allow them to register republican?”
By requiring them to have been registered Republican for at least a year in advance. Long before any of these “Republican for a day” measures can get organized.
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:10 am
DG,
It’s because of those respective ceilings and floors that IA will severely damage but not kill any of the Socon Quad, meaning that all four can troop into SC with plenty to fight over and virtually no opportunity to win. SC may just look a lot like IA. But FL won’t.
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:11 am
13. What about young people who just turned 18? They can’t register a year in advance, but they still may want to participate.
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:18 am
“13. What about young people who just turned 18? They can’t register a year in advance, but they still may want to participate.”
You could make an exception for that…it wouldn’t be that hard to devise a system that didn’t shut legitimate support out, but also prevented fraud. But as things are now, something has to be done to prevent the caucuses from being taken over by trouble makers. Completely aside from Paul being a dangerous, radical, fringe lunatic, if he wins the Iowa Caucuses, it could do serious damage to that contest, and, by extension, Social Conservatism.
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:19 am
For Iowa caucuses 17-year-olds can also participate if they will be 18 years old by the date of the general election.
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:21 am
“13. What about young people who just turned 18? They can’t register a year in advance, but they still may want to participate.”
And for the record, nothing would stop an underage person from registering their intent with a particular party prior to actually being allowed to vote.
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:24 am
16,
What about someone who was never “excited” to vote before? They finally have a candidate they are willing to vote for. That would apply to a lot of people that support ROMNEY too. You can’t be that harsh with those kinds of things. You can require them to be registered republican 3 months in advanced…but that’s probably the most extreme it would ever get.
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:26 am
18,
That’s not true. In a lot states you can’t register to vote…until you are of an age where you would be able to vote in the general election. You can join a party…WITHOUT registering…but then you can’t use registration timelines as a key barrier for people. You’re not making sense at all.
One of the reasons we allow people to change registration…IS TO GAIN A VOTING BLOCK, LIKE DISAFFECTED DEMS AND INDEPENDANTS. If they have no say in the proces…they are more likely to start a 3rd party.
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:28 am
I’ve put my replies into one message; hope that’s okay.
10. The issue is not whether or not one agrees with Paul, or whether he would be good for the nation. The question is whether or not those who are not Republicans but are showing up at the caucuses to support Paul are engaged in legitimate democratic participation or whether they are “spamming” the caucuses. As I see it, these folks have a candidate they support, they are showing up and following the rules by changing their registration, and that’s the end of it. Nothing illegitimate about that. And, for the record, I’m not a Paul supporter.
13. Forget, for the moment, that it’s Ron Paul and his suporters whom we’re talking about. If a new candidate comes along and inspires folks, who might otherwise not have joined, to join a given political party, is he not performing a valuable service by recruiting new members for that party? Instead of imposing things like this one-year rule you’re advocating, don’t you want to encourage prairie brush fires that will benefit one’s political party? I repeat, forget about Paul, for a second. Think about the broad brush of political history, Reagan, Obama, and so on. Regardless of what you may think of them as political leaders or presidents, they were legitimate leaders with legitimate political movements behind them. Shouldn’t democracy be about enabling and encouraging such developments rather than stifling and thwarting them?
16. And I also am troubled by the idea that one should thwart democracy in the cause of protecting Iowa’s apparent “credibility.”
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:32 am
#20:
In Florida, you can pre-register on your 17th birthday and when you turn 18, your are automatically put on the voter rolls. Even though my 18th birthday was after the registration deadline, I was still eligible to vote in state elections since I had pre-registered.
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:33 am
I am feeling good about Romney’s chances, but still realize he may not get first place. I think it will be basically be a three way tie in Iowa, which is more than I could have ever hoped for a month ago.
When the difference at the top are a handful of votes, first place won’t mean as much.
The nomination is Romney’s. The only question is how soon people will let him start campaigning against Obama rather than swatting at Republican gnats. I am guessing he has some competition through at least Florida, and maybe on Super Tuesday. Then it will be over.
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:37 am
“What about someone who was never “excited” to vote before? They finally have a candidate they are willing to vote for. That would apply to a lot of people that support ROMNEY too. You can’t be that harsh with those kinds of things. You can require them to be registered republican 3 months in advanced…but that’s probably the most extreme it would ever get.”
Contrary to what you might think, Ron Paul is not God. And not everyone who says they are supporting him is doing so because they agree with his pro-gay, pro-drug, isolationist agenda.
Yes, there are some people who support Paul for those things, but there are also troublemakers out there. How do you allow the former without having to give way to that later? If you actually have a better proposal, by all means, suggest it.
====
And its not just about protecting Iowa’s credibility, its about ensuring that certain, VERY IMPORTANT issues have their say in our primary process. I’m not from Iowa, and, quite frankly, still feel burned by Iowa from 2008. But it keeps the focus partially on social issues, and ensures there is discussion about more than just dollars, cents, and foreign affairs. This is critical to the future of our nation.
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:38 am
23,
Romney will get 2nd behind Paul.
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:42 am
looks like the tea party isnt as adverse to Mitt Romney as some would think-
this out today
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Influential-Tea-Party-PAC-Endorses-Mitt-Romney-for-President.html?soid=1103080512401&aid=RSc5EaPwKq0
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:47 am
Anyone have an idea of what Santorum’s ground game looks like? That is very important. I know he has worked hard on the ground, but having a get out the vote effort takes some money (busses, people to get people on busses). I doubt the evangelical apparatus that helped Huckabee will be as strong as it was in 2008. Anyone have any insight on this?
Romney is an expert at winning caucuses, after 2008. I think he still has to be the favorite (although I don’t like the expectations that go along with that). I am still rooting for a Paul victory in Iowa. That will dominate the headlines in Iowa and will hurt Santorum’s chances to drag this race on any further.
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:47 am
“Romney will get 2nd behind Paul.”
Which would be nice, because it would pretty much guarantee him the nomination, but it would still be a lousy consolation prize if it meant that the importance of the Iowa caucuses – and with it, the discussion on social issues – was undone by a bunch of non-GOP troublemakers switching over to vote for a lunatic they have no intention of supporting in the general.
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:50 am
24. Yes, but how do you ensure that in one’s zeal to protect the process from alleged “troublemakers” you don’t wind up trashing legitimate democracy? You’ve said that you’re open to a better proposal, but your statement presupposes that there is a problem with people being moved to show up and participate. Frankly, I disagree with your premise; I don’t see this as a problem, so I do not see the need for a “solution.”
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:51 am
#27 -
Probably not all that great. He’s running on a shoe string budget, and doesn’t even have a well-funded backing from something like the fair tax movement, which Huckabee did. His evangelical support will be considerable, but its also much more recent and not quite as strong as Huck’s was.
Yes, I could see Santorum underperforming.
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:53 am
28. In reference to alleged “troublemakers,” none of us can read minds, or are in any way capable of claiming that this or that voter is voting in a caucus or primary for a candidate they will not support in the general election.
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:56 am
Most states allow election day party registration. It isn’t unique to Iowa. I don’t see any problem with it at all.
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:00 pm
criggs @31 dont be soblind. The paul camp has been telling dems how to register for the caucus as REP. The young OWS crowd isnt going to vote out Obama in 2012.
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:00 pm
No, Criggs, but if you have read what Teledude has been saying, there IS an organized effort to get Democrats and leaners to go out, register Republican for a day, vote for Paul in the caucuses to screw things up, and then support Obama in November. The numbers, which show Paul running much stronger among independents than polling from other places would indicate, seem to back this up.
You don’t see that as a problem? Well, probably not, because you seem to be a Paul supporter…
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:03 pm
If you guys reall doubt these crossover dems…just go to the ron paul facebook page and ask the question “any dems here that plan to vote for Paul in the GENERAL?” You’ll get a thousand responses with a YES.
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:04 pm
9:
A. Paul would lose 50 states.
B. I’d like to have a nominee that isn’t to the left of Obama on foreign policy and whose answer to most domestic policy questions is “See foreign policy”.
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:06 pm
36,
Shows what you know. He’s the ONLY candidate that is competitive with Obama in IOWA. He leads by double digits among independants AGAINST obama in almost every state that has done polling. It’s the republicans that haven’t committed to support him yet. So you are WRONG.
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:09 pm
As usual, lumping my replies into one message; hope that’s okay.
33. What is the problem with the supporters of a candidate encouraging their supporters to join their candidate’s organization? It’s called political campaigning, get over it.
34. Please read my remarks more carefully. I specifically stated in 21. that I am NOT a Paul supporter. Oy.
36. You oppose Paul. But, as I understand it, the pertinent question here is not whether Paul would be a good or bad candidate, or is right or wrong on foreign policy or domestic policy or apple pie, but whether his supporters have a right to show up and participate tomorrow if they haven’t been Republicans for a hundred years. I’ve yet to see a convincing argument that there’s anything wrong with non-Republicans showing up to change their registration and participate. And 36. doesn’t attempt to address that, which is what I thought we were talking about.
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:10 pm
“If you guys reall doubt these crossover dems…just go to the ron paul facebook page and ask the question “any dems here that plan to vote for Paul in the GENERAL?” You’ll get a thousand responses with a YES.”
Better idea – how about I look at the polling which shows Ron Paul losing to Obama, by an average of >7%?
RCP Averages, GOP Candiates vs. Obama:
Romney vs. Obama: Obama + 1.6%
R.Paul vs. Obama: Obama + 7.7%
Ron Paul will not beat Obama. Ron Paul does not attract more independents. Ron Paul will not outraise, out-roganize, out-campaign, or out-debate Barack Obama. End of story.
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:11 pm
so, who do you support Criggs?
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Jonathan,
I’m guessing there is a photo of you somewhere pre-registering, as well as one of you the first time you voted.
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:17 pm
39,
Check out the break downs in those polls. It’s REPUBLICANS that are “unsure” of Paul. Independants FLOCK TO HIM.
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:25 pm
well, you can go ahead and produce the crosstabs OF NATIONAL polls which show this, and then we can talk.
But consider that it doesn’t do any good to attract lots of independents if you can’t get the Republicans to turn out. And, while some think the base will stay home if Romney is the nominee, this wouldn’t even come close to the number of people who would stay home if Paul is the nominee, with his pro-gay, pro-drug, isolationist views.
I’ve expressed my view here, that Ron Paul will do as much damage to this country’s position and future as Obama could. Ron Paul advances Darwinism, and Isolationism – and calls anything which disagrees with him tyranny or socialism. The weakening of our nation that could come as a consequence of the things Obama wants to do would actually be GOALS of a President Paul.
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:28 pm
Wateredseeds- I would suggest that you calm down a little bit, maybe lose the caps. You just seem so angry, and no one legitimately changes someone’s views through anger. How about you get some links to back up your assertion?
As Paul supporters, we should not engage in contention with those we will desperately need as allies if Paul wins.
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:33 pm
43. I disagree that Paul would weaken our nation. He is far from isolationist. He wants open trade with all nations, including Iran and Cuba. He wants our enormous and powerful military to be on our borders, protecting us directly instead of the convoluted process of occupying sovereign nations that we currently call national defense.
Well, isn’t it tyranny to impose a moral system (left or right) upon people through the federal government? Why not let people impose their own morals on themselves through their state and local governments, which are far more likely to reflect their interests?
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:34 pm
So, can Iowa voters register as republican AT THE CAUCUS location? Or, must they do it before arriving?
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:47 pm
XorGate,
I’m very upset, because a lot of people here don’t take Paul seriously. I’ve been on this website for years….and it just baffles me how much people just disregard him…OR misrepresent his positions on the issues. It makes me mad when people lie.
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:49 pm
39. I am perfectly prepared to grant every one of your points. Yes, Paul may be a weak general election candidate. Yes, Paul may not have the appeal to independents that his supporters claim. But I thought what we were talking about is whether there’s a problem with Paul supporters who are not Republicans showing up at the caucuses to change their registration and vote. I’ve yet to see a convincing argument, based on democratic principles, that they do not have every right to do that.
40. The fact is that I explained this several threads ago. This raises the troubling question of how often one can post a similar message without being viewed as violating board etiquette. (I face the same question when talking about the Probable Support Range (PSR) system.) But, since you’ve asked, I’ll answer the question. However, before I describe where I’m coming from in detail, let me say that I consider the question irrelevant, and will explain precisely why in a moment.
Anyway, here goes.
I am a liberal Democrat, and will probably vote for Barack Obama in the general election. However, unlike most of my liberal Democratic friends, I do NOT quiver in delight and glee at the thought of your party nominating some clown like Bachmann or Perry. They all seem to think that will be God’s gift to the Democrats, who will then win easy. I beg to differ.
You see, I concur with most observers that this election will be extremely close. I believe that if unemployment stays south of 9%, and if the Eurozone doesn’t collapse, Obama is a slim favorite.
Contrariwise, I believe that if unemployment heads back up, and/or if the Eurozone phantoms become reality, I believe your candidate must be rated a slim favorite, no matter WHO you nominate.
It’s therefore in my interest, AS AN AMERICAN, to root for your party nominating someone who’s a mature adult with a brain. I am very glad and relieved to see you have two of them, Huntsman and Romney. Yes, Romney has shifted positions on several issues, and is certainly not a paragon of philosophical or ideological consistency of principle. And yes, I consider that a flaw in a politician. But history indicates that one doesn’t necessarily have to possess that quality to be an effective leader (I believe both Nixon and Clinton demonstrate that fact, though Nixon’s personal demons eventually destroyed him).
Of course, Huntsman does not suffer from the Romney problem. He has been, and continues to be, a consistent conservative, pro-Ryan, pro-life, etc. etc. The difference between Huntsman and the Not-Romney candidates is that Huntsman understands America is not a monolithic society of conservative church-goers, and he also understands that many in the country respect and encourage scientific education and analysis. In other words, to repeat, he is a mature adult with a brain.
Which is why I follow the Republican race this time so closely; I know damn well that one of these folks have a 50-50 shot at being my next president. And I would prefer you nominate a decent candidate; I find it scary that some of my liberal friends are rooting for some of the wackier people in your party, because they could possibly win the presidency, and I don’t like playing Russian roulette with my country.
Please understand that I am making a distinction between, on the one hand, a president who is a mature adult with a brain and, on the other, a president who agrees with me politically. I am pro-choice, I support universal access to health insurance, I oppose privatization of Medicare and/or Social Security, etc. etc. I fully realize that Huntsman, for example, will not lead in my preferred direction as president. I’m okay with that; as an American, I don’t get to dictate in which direction we are led; instead, that’s a decision we all collectively make. But what I do have every right to expect is that, in whatever directon we are led, the one leading us is competent, intelligent and mature. I will get that with Huntsman, and, to a somewhat lesser extent, with Romney.
As I’ve already indicated, I consider your question irrelevant, but I chose to answer it; I don’t want there to be any misunderstanding about where I’m coming from. So now, let me get back to what we’re basically discussing here, I THINK, and what IS relevant, and that is the issue of whether or not non-Republicans voting for Paul are a “problem” that needs to be “solved.”
Let me say first of all that I am not, to put it mildly, persuaded by Ron Paul. I consider many of his positions to be unrealistic, and if he were to be elected president that would cause me some real concern. For that reason, if I were only thinking about what I want the Republican party to do, I’d be disappointed if this mythical horde of Democrats and Independents were to succeed in overrunning the caucuses and hijacking them in support of a Ron Paul nomination.
In other words, my opposition to what you are proposing is not based on what I actually want your party to do. If I were king, I’d simply want your party to choose between Romney and Huntsman, and that would end the matter. By those standards, anything you, or others who think like you, would do to prevent a Paul nomination would be okey-dokey with me.
But your proposal flies in the face of legitimate democratic politics, and I’ve yet see you, or anyone, advance a convincing argument otherwise. In a nutshell, it’s WRONG, plain and simple, and I hope that most can see that.
Finally, sorry for the long message; I know I go on and on, sometimes, which is why I try not to repeat myself from thread to thread and why I try to write short remarks that pertain specifically to particular postings. I also try to cut down on the number of my messages in each thread by combining my multiple remarks about particular postings into one message. Regardless, I still think I get a bit carried away sometimes, but so far the moderators here don’t seem to be particularly bothered by that, for which I am grateful.
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:57 pm
Picture of an Iowa Caucus ballot
http://cdn.gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Screen-Shot-2012-01-02-at-8.07.13-AM.png
January 2nd, 2012 at 1:02 pm
criggs,
It’s good to have a smart, honest liberal around.
Welcome.
January 2nd, 2012 at 1:02 pm
Bravo, criggs, bravo. Way to stick it to the man, liberal style. XD I applaud anyone, lefty or righty, that recognizes that what matters more than our ideology is our country.
January 2nd, 2012 at 1:12 pm
19. “You can require them to be registered republican 3 months in advanced…but that’s probably the most extreme it would ever get.”
This is actually right I believe, per Supreme Court precedent. I’m pretty sure the SC has found a 6-month requirement to be unreasonably burdensome and therefore unconstitutional. The longest time requirement found acceptable was either six weeks or three months (I don’t recall which). That means the time requirement max is somewhere between 6 weeks and 6 months.
January 2nd, 2012 at 1:21 pm
I think 30 days advance registration as a Republican would be enough. Most people who plan to go to the other party’s caucus to select a weak candidate probably wouldn’t decide to do so a full month in advance.
January 2nd, 2012 at 1:22 pm
52. Even 6 weeks would discourage most disruptive voting.
January 2nd, 2012 at 1:27 pm
48.
Criggs, as I mentioned in post 52, it is Constitutional to require a pre-registration period–at least up to 6 weeks. That could fix a lot of the same-day-GOP problem and does not limit a persons options to participate in a democracy unreasonably.
While there are a few good reasons to allow every American, regardless of party, to vote in the GOP caucuses/primaries, there are several reasons not to. The parties are not Constitutional constructs. They are ways to unite support for common ideals. Allowing people who are ideologically opposed to the party’s goals to place their votes on the process of who we choose to represent us presents some major conflicts of interest and could undermine our goals as a party. While limiting the process could stop a few fair-minded people like you, it also protects the party from being overrun by people who hate the GOP. Based on observations of liberal internet blogs, you are a rarity among Democrats considering involvement in the GOP voting. For this reason, it seems very unreasonable to allow same-day registration. Even a two-week pre-registration requirement would likely eliminate the problem and would be perfectly Constitutional.
January 2nd, 2012 at 1:39 pm
48- That was very refreshing. You’ll find that the Huntsman-Romney relationship is like a sibling rivalry with the underachieving Huntsman trying to steal attention from his older brother (Romney), while the older brother rolls his eyes and says “whatever”. Huntsman has little chance barring a miracle, but trust me, we will be getting a much better candidate in Romney.
I think your analysis of the general election is spot on.
January 2nd, 2012 at 2:22 pm
47…yes it is amazing, the fact that the lack of a hawkish foreign policy stance is now the deal breaker issue in the GOP is pathetic…actually it is not even whether you are hawkish or not…Paul aside, the very questioning of any US military action that is intellectually supported or dreamed up by some lightweight like a Newt or Frum, is grounds enough for getting thrown out…look what happened to any GOP’ers like Armey who questioned the invasion of Iraq, they were excommunicated
January 2nd, 2012 at 2:26 pm
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13973
January 2nd, 2012 at 2:46 pm
Dr J,
“the underachieving Huntsman”
LOL! Yes. Who on this board hasn’t been ambassador to China, trade rep to Singapore, helped lead a multibillion company, and been elected governor twice?
What a slacker!
You Rombots are too funny!
January 2nd, 2012 at 3:03 pm
59. Underachieving is relative, Matt. The APPEARANCE is that much of Jon’s success was handed to him by his father and/or his father’s influence and money.
How else do you account for those accomplishments by a high school dropout?
And, compared to Romney, it IS a bit of an underachievement.
GOSSIP is that Jon was pining (and expecting) the Olympics post that went to Mitt.
January 2nd, 2012 at 3:13 pm
Keith,
Yes. Family connections always help. Just ask George Romney’s boy.
January 2nd, 2012 at 3:14 pm
37:
No, I’m right. Paul would be roadkill by election day, no matter what some polls show today (and frankly his polls today aren’t that great). Give Obama 10 months to run against a hardcore ideologue for an ideology that relatively few in the country actually agree with and whose party is not all that supporter of, and you will see an EPIC fail.
So just run that little “but Paul is electable” nonsense right on out of here. It has no place in reality.
38:
Mmmmm……that has nothing to do with my post.
January 2nd, 2012 at 3:27 pm
61.
Well, I knew you’d go there. But, can you point to anything suggesting Mitt’s success was helped by his father (other than instilling a massive work ethic)?
Did Mitt’s father help him get into BYU?
Did Mitt’s father make him valedictorian?
Did Mitt’s father give him 2 masters degrees?
Did Mitt’s father give him his job at Bain?
Did Mitt’s father make him CEO of Bain?
Did Mitt’s father help him turn all those companies around?
Did Mitt’s father give him the SLC Olympics?
There’s plenty to suggest that dropout Jon got some extra help from his father. Not much to suggest that Mitt did.
January 2nd, 2012 at 3:54 pm
Don’t knock high school dropouts. I’m one.
Frankly, you’re either an idiot or weren’t paying attention if you aren’t ready for college by the time you get out of middle school.
January 2nd, 2012 at 4:02 pm
64. My comments should not be construed as an opinion of HS Dropouts, in general. I was specifically referring to Huntsman as an underachiever compared to Romney.
January 3rd, 2012 at 6:46 pm
[...] 7) Iowa Caucus ruling allows non-Republicans to register as Republicans the day they go to vote at the caucus. Thus, Independents, Libertarians, and even registered Democrats will go to the polls and vote. Ron Paul is the most attractive to such swing voters due to his emphasis on liberty. EVIDENCE [...]