Stacy McCain reports Newt has got a conspiracy theory to explain why he’s losing to Romney:
During his speech today at Page Field, Newt Gingrich spun a conspiratorial view of the opposition to him, saying that Mitt Romney’s campaign is using “recycled” bailout money to attack him.
Saying that Goldman Sachs chose Barack Obama in 2008, Gingrich said the giant Wall Street bank — using taxpayer funds from bailouts — had “recycled” that money into support for Mitt Romney’s campaign. Gingrich said that, if elected president, he would request “a thorough audit” to find out “where the money went.”
Gingrich also referenced remarks by international financier George Soros critical of his campaign. Soros, Gingrich said, was “in Europe, and he’s explaining to Europeans the American campaign … And so Soros says, you know, we think either Obama or Romney’s fine, but Gingrich, he would change things.” Gingrich said, “They are uncomfortable with me and they should be.”
It’s all a grand conspiracy, never mind that Goldman repaid any money it got from TARP years ago. This sounds like the first time that Newt held a rally and people could easily be confused into thinking it was a Ron Paul rally. Meanwhile, Newt has already achieved a lot with his rhetoric on space according to proponents of the program:
“Gingrich, if he made it not sound crazy — which he did — could have used this,” lamented Arlin Crotts, a Columbia astronomer and space travel backer. “But now — Gingrich just can’t control himself sometimes.”
Others believe the former Speaker did lasting harm to his pet cause.
“To treat building a base on the moon as a grandiose joke, as the media and many conservatives are doing, is really sad,” said a senior aide to a member of the pro-space Florida Congressional delegation. “Regardless of what happens to Newt, I’m afraid he’s poisoned the issue for at least a decade, and really set back the future of human space exploration.”
Wow, this is an achievement. A whole decade? Perhaps, it’s an overstatement. It’s hard for people to remember who won American Idol three years ago, let alone all the crazy and poorly presented ideas Newt Gingrich puts out. It’ll probably only set them 2-3 years back. Tops.
But don’t tell Gingrich. A decade is a much larger period.
Remember, Newt thinks grandiose thoughts.
Update:
Newt will clean Obama’s clock in the debates unless the Commission on Presidential debates insists on holding them in the same manner they always have. From CBS:
PENSACOLA, Fla. – With his poll numbers lagging in Florida, Newt Gingrich returned Monday to his tried-and-true offensive against the media, declaring that if he’s the Republican nominee, he will not debate President Obama if a reporter serves as moderator.
“The reporters who run the debates have no interest in asking any question which will affect Obama,” Gingrich told a crowd gathered to see him at the Pensacola airport. “That’s why, as your nominee, I will not accept debates in the fall in which the reporters are the moderators because you don’t need to have a second Obama person on the debate.”
The funny thing here is that Gingrich is implying he’d have any leverage to dictate format. If Newt were to get the nomination and said no media moderators, Obama would just shrug and say, “Fine.”
Seriously, I don’t know if Newt can say anything more crazy.
January 30th, 2012 at 7:26 pm
How can anyone still defend Newt?
January 30th, 2012 at 7:28 pm
The desperate ramblings of a desperate man. I’m so glad my state is the one that will pummel Gingrich into the floor tomorrow. No one deserves it more.
I’m starting to think that it isn’t inconceivable that Newt goes third party. He’s so consumed by his hatred of Romney and the Republicans who’ve taken him down, not to mention his massive amount of self pity, that he could do anything.
January 30th, 2012 at 7:29 pm
And oh by the way, according Newt, Romney tried to deny Kosher food to old people in nursing homes. Never mind has absolutely no evidence to back him up.
Ron Paul was right, we need to send Gingrich to the moon.
January 30th, 2012 at 7:30 pm
24 hours until the blowviator gets what’s coming.
Give em hell Mitt!
January 30th, 2012 at 7:37 pm
Me thinks you’re whistling past the graveyard, big guy.
The Goldman Sachs schtick is gonna play and play well, out here in the real world. Gingrich may be a bigmouth blowhard, but he’s got plenty of campaign shyster horsepower, and they’re all telling him precisely that. But would he truly push it? I mean really, really push it?
As in:
Obama = Willard = Goldman Sachs cash to both = Geithner = the guys who crashed the economy = Bernanke is a treasonist per Perry = grab your pitchforks, everybody = Main Street and Willard in a mixed martial arts showdown = well, I don’t know what but Gingrich better have Secret Service protection 24/7 because he’ll be on a Wall Street assassination list = it’d be a good show no matter what.
January 30th, 2012 at 7:39 pm
Newt is not only sounding desperate, he now is starting to sound unstable…..and perhaps a bit psychitzophrenic. He also said that Romney was a threat to religious liberty.
How can any sane man vote for Gingrich?!
January 30th, 2012 at 7:40 pm
Maybe the Newtster could throw in a side order of Corzine on this menu, too.
January 30th, 2012 at 7:43 pm
Romney is using tax payer bailout money to slam Gingrich, and perhaps even his WallStreet cronies are in on it too.
Gingrich 2012!
OCCUPY WALL STREET for Gingrich!
January 30th, 2012 at 7:45 pm
Even Newt Gingrich couldn’t find the adjectives to describe the depth of derangement he’s stumbled into. Unless he added some from French, the language of traitors and dangerous characterless pro-abortion liberals.
January 30th, 2012 at 7:45 pm
Wow Newt . . . you’re an embarrassment to the GOP. Just sit down and shut up.
January 30th, 2012 at 7:46 pm
5
You, proclaiming to live in the real world?
That’s RICH.
January 30th, 2012 at 7:47 pm
10 Jeff
Chris Christie was right. Newt is an embarrassment to the GOP. But more importantly, he is an embarrassment to himself.
January 30th, 2012 at 7:48 pm
Newt seems to be counting on a theory that a majority of Republicans feel like victims to such a degree and they just want a victim’s advocate, not a President.
Boomer said this better than I could a coupld a of days ago, but to paraphrase, the vast majority of Republicans aren’t committed to felling and acting like victims.
And Newt has to be killing his vote total tomorrow by the way he’s behaving. Could all ya’ll who can’t vote for Mitt please vote for Rick tomorrow and put this guy out of his misery?
January 30th, 2012 at 7:54 pm
A mind is a terrible thing to waste. This is leading to the final flip.
January 30th, 2012 at 7:55 pm
“… never mind that Goldman repaid any money it got from TARP years ago…”
True, Goldman Sucks paid back all their TARP money (partly so they could avoid being restricted from paying zillions to their top executives). However, Goldman benefited hundreds of times more from the AIG bailout, which was taxpayer dollars directly to AIG, who then directly transferred the billions into Goldman’s bank accounts.
On the other hand, Newt is far more liable for taking taxpayer handouts because of the $1.6M in F&F money. Since taxpayers eventually had to bail out F&F, presumably if they hadn’t have wasted $1.6M on NewtCo’s history lessons, we could have reduced taxpayer liability to F&F by $1.6M.
January 30th, 2012 at 7:59 pm
I see even Rush is beginning to distance himself from mental Newt…
Gingrich will take the Conservative movement, the tea party and his Surrogates down with him if they keep supporting him. He has a record of feeding friends and loyals to the lions.
January 30th, 2012 at 8:03 pm
Classic Newt: Rise and implode. Everybody here saw it coming. And because we’re brilliant prophets? No, we are mediocre historians. We’ve seen this over and over and over. Anybody with eyes to see should have seen it.
And yet, the only talking heads who seem to see it are Beck, Coulter and Medved. The real shock here is that Limbaugh/Palin/Levin/Ingraham are completely deranged in their support for the deranged Gingrich.
The GOP in general may not feel like victims but Palin, Limbaugh and their supporters definitely have inferiority complexes. Palin’s determined “not to sit in the back of the bus” and Limbaugh refuses to have the oh-so-hated Establishment “choose our candidate this time.”
All those that literally hate Romney this time endorsed him last time, and were furious the Establishment shoved McCain down our throats. Now they are hysterical the Establishment is forcing Mitt down our throats–and they are running pell mell after the notoriously nutty, nasty, Newt.
January 30th, 2012 at 8:04 pm
Hate to always be the bearer of the willardbot fever swamp’s worst enemy, data, but I gotta do it again, gang.
The people are dissatisfied with what’s going on in big business (READ: Goldman Sachs) and government (READ: progressive soulmates Willard and Obama), to a degree that is historically unprecedented:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152096/Americans-Anti-Big-Business-Big-Gov.aspx#1
This data set would be one that Gingrich’s campaign shysters are quite familiar with, and know will gain traction if properly harnessed. Willard’s gotta face the music, when it arises. He better get his cover story ready, because this won’t be just a fumbled income tax moment, it could last.
I’d guess the media won’t be giving him free air time for this strategy, mind you.
January 30th, 2012 at 8:05 pm
Gingrich now predicting a “decisive victory” tomorrow and claiming that Romney’s like Obama since Obama was the establishment candidate in ’08 (Hillary who?).
January 30th, 2012 at 8:14 pm
The real conspricay is the networks want their politcal season drama to continue to make $…i guess most good things involve $ though.
January 30th, 2012 at 8:14 pm
Holy Cow: Hannity finally pushing Palin to say exactly who the “establishment” is. What a pretzel, stupid explanation. Basically, it’s those who “embrace the status quo, who’ve never ballanced a federal budget.”
So, Sarah, name names: Who are those who embrace the status quo and have never ballanced a federal budget that are funding Mitt in order to kill Newt, “who will be a Big Dog and shake things up?”
I’ve listened to Limbaugh and Palin harangue about the Establishment for months and yet I have no idea who they’re really talking about. Just that they need to be hated and Mitt’s their candidate, so he needs to be hated too.
And now, Palin is refusing (or cannot) find ONE weakness in Newt. Good hell.
January 30th, 2012 at 8:14 pm
Does anyone out there in Florida have a sense of how Newt’s comments and behavior are playing out? Is he coming across as crazy? Believable? Sympathetic? Pathetic?
January 30th, 2012 at 8:16 pm
Question: when Newt looks back on this period two years from now, will he be ashamed or embarrassed?
Wait. Newt? Shamed or embarrassed? HA!
January 30th, 2012 at 8:18 pm
21,
I think deep inside, Sarah Palin is really a closet Paulite.
January 30th, 2012 at 8:19 pm
I just saw Palin on Hannity… she is one step away from being Bill Ayers… I wonder how long until her and Newt bomb the Pentagon.
There people are left overs from the 1960s with all the establishment talk.
I saw Laura Ingraham… she has totally establishment mentality, that we all owe Newt.
We owe Newt. We owe him, he paid his dues, and no matter how crazy he is, not matter how he disgraced himself and took us with him… we owe him.
Because?
Mitt Romney didn’t pay his dues… so we can’t possibly vote for someone who didn’t bow to them and pay his dues.
Newt’s mania is contagious. They have all gone insane.
January 30th, 2012 at 8:19 pm
Newt and Callista wrote a book on the history of shame and embarrassment.
January 30th, 2012 at 8:21 pm
#23 According to Palin all Americans will look upon this time, i.e. the Gingrich presidency, as a Golden Age, when Gingrich will be the “Big Dog” going to DC and “shake things up” and save America like he did in 1994. “He knows how to do it,” dontcha know.
January 30th, 2012 at 8:21 pm
23.
A man who can skip to a new woman when his gets a serious illness, and still show his face in public has no shame.
Newt Gingrich has no conscience.
January 30th, 2012 at 8:22 pm
turn it to cnn and see a real guy right now
January 30th, 2012 at 8:23 pm
And Palin is wrong… the last thing we need is a Big Dog. A Big Dog who further divides this country will only give power back to the Democrats.
The left made this mistake… can we not learn from their mistake and take reasonable approach?
January 30th, 2012 at 8:23 pm
#21…
I hate to say it, but this is the same tactics used by Community organizer Saul Ailinsky’s …Find a villian and create anger.
January 30th, 2012 at 8:24 pm
I think he is well past nutty. Remember this gem from a few months ago?
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/387033/may-19-2011/john-lithgow-performs-gingrich-press-release?xrs=share_fb
How quickly we forget.
January 30th, 2012 at 8:25 pm
This is quite sad. I don’t even know what to make of it. He isn’t even basing what he is saying in reality. I ask this seriously…how can people listen to him and give him their support? He sounds unhinged.
January 30th, 2012 at 8:25 pm
Newt on now; I had to turn him off. He’s bragging about now Mike Reagan “has been going with him all over the state, vouching Newt is the real Reagan candidate.”
What Newt really needs is mental health professional vouching for his emotional stability. Oh, wait! I guess no one is going to put their professional credibility on the line for Newt.
January 30th, 2012 at 8:27 pm
Maybe what I am most surprised about is the fact the so called true conservatives have hitched their wagon to this guy. Santorum is much better than Newt in just about every way, yet he is overlooked. Very, very strange.
January 30th, 2012 at 8:27 pm
#33: This week Medved was referencing a 1994 Newt book re: getting government and private enterprise to unite to take dinosaur DNA and start a real Jurassic Park. I wonder if Newt can get any of Mitt’s venture captital friends to invest any of their buckets of cash sitting on the sidelines for that idea in order to get the economy moving again.
January 30th, 2012 at 8:29 pm
This is really disgusting stuff. He is clearly trying to scare people into thinking Romney is some kind of manchurian candidate for Soros and the socialist left.
The man has no shame.
January 30th, 2012 at 8:30 pm
Newt wants a “team” election. Does that include the “establishment” candidates that he has been railing against?
January 30th, 2012 at 8:30 pm
Newt Gingrich’s battle against Mitt Romney today reminds me of Pat Buchanan’s battle against Bob Dole in 1996.
January 30th, 2012 at 8:33 pm
Hannity on Fox Newt Channel, interviewing Noot:
“When you get the nomination, how hard are you going to go after Obama?”
I haven’t seen a meatball thrown like that since t-ball at age 6.
January 30th, 2012 at 8:34 pm
…And there’s no pitching in t-ball.
January 30th, 2012 at 8:35 pm
#32 omg how did I miss that? That was awesome!
January 30th, 2012 at 8:35 pm
The truth is that there are thousands of people as stupid and gullible as Harold. People respond to this vile crap, which is why Newt is putting it out there. Luckily, such dolts will never make up a majority of anything, but they do give Newt a base of support that will allow him to stay in the race as long as he wants to.
January 30th, 2012 at 8:36 pm
I take it Newt didn’t stay to watch the end of Jurasic Park.
January 30th, 2012 at 8:37 pm
#39:
In all fairness to Pat, he never ran a campaign like this.
January 30th, 2012 at 8:41 pm
31 – Absolutely it is. Everything he does comes straight from Alinsky. Same with Limbuagh. And yet they rail on about Alinsky all day and all night. If you need proof of the hypocrisy of the right, just go read Alinsky.
January 30th, 2012 at 8:41 pm
If Obama wanted to have some cheap entertainment at Newt’s expense, he could proclaim that he’ll follow Newt from city to city…
Or even dispatch Biden to do it.
January 30th, 2012 at 8:43 pm
astronomy is my other great passion besides politics and I must say, people underestimate the potential gain from space development. a moon colony would be short term pain for long term gain…but the truth is we cant afford any more short term pain rught now, though it pains me to say it. It should be a priority…AFTER the deficit and economy are turned around.
January 30th, 2012 at 8:44 pm
How does Romney respond to all of these crazy lies from Newt? Does he just keep punching him on the ethics charges, lobbying, etc. or does he need to show how unhinged he is becoming?
January 30th, 2012 at 8:44 pm
47,
I say have Pelosi chase Newt. Afterall, she’s the one who says she has things on Newt that will go public in the general election.
January 30th, 2012 at 8:46 pm
48
WHAT benefit is there, EVER, of spending #10 trillion making a base on the moon?
January 30th, 2012 at 8:46 pm
48,
I say forget the moon colony and let’s just start developing the starship Enterprise.
January 30th, 2012 at 8:48 pm
48 – What do we gain from a moon colony? We already know how to get to the moon. I would be fine with a permanent base, if it is necessary to help us get to Mars or something else. But why do we need a colony, and why should it be the 51st state (which would violate a treaty)?
That is Newts problem. He promises more than we need or can afford. You need a justification for our grandiosity, if you are going to spend so much money on it.
January 30th, 2012 at 8:49 pm
Found this article that gives a good explaination of Newt right now.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/gingrich-undone/2012/01/30/gIQAqQM6cQ_blog.html
January 30th, 2012 at 8:50 pm
Newt lies even more than Obama
January 30th, 2012 at 8:51 pm
Moon bases are cool. I’d love to have one. I’d also love to not have trillions of dollars of debt.
Some day we’ll get there, but there are much more pressing concerns right now.
January 30th, 2012 at 8:51 pm
51,
The construction alone would be costly. But, logisticly, how expensive would it be to get the building crew up there to build it. And after the trillions spent building it, who would want to live there? And how much would it cost to get food, electricity, energy, and oxygen up there to everyone. How do shield the people from the sun? There’s no ozone layer on the moon. How do get on the internet up there? How do watch TV on the moon? How can you go out for a morning jog on the moon? This is not a well thought out plan.
January 30th, 2012 at 8:53 pm
48. We get the return of the ever popular moon boots!
January 30th, 2012 at 8:56 pm
Have you heard that Palin’s facebook page is promoting anti-mormon posts? Anyone who trys to defend the Mormon relgion is having their post removed and then are banned from her page. This is one classy lady folks.
January 30th, 2012 at 8:56 pm
Is the moon a right to work place?
January 30th, 2012 at 8:56 pm
The moon colony would cost $10 trillion to build, and at least $400 billion annually to maintain.
This is legitimately something that would be hatched out on an SNL skit. And people would have thought it was hilarious in that setting.
To see a presidential candidate argue for something like this is something for the history books. It’s truly remarkable in its idiocy.
January 30th, 2012 at 8:56 pm
Anyone trying to get to Mitt Romney Central try going in through Facebook.
I don’t know what happened but the chat is open if you can get in.
And there is not very many people to talk to… so come on in!
January 30th, 2012 at 8:57 pm
I will also add that Noot is in favor of statehood of the moon, but not Puerto Rico. The moon has no people, Puerto Rico has American citizens, many of whom favor statehood.
January 30th, 2012 at 8:58 pm
62
Paul bots. Clearly.
January 30th, 2012 at 8:58 pm
#46…It’s sad that this is happening in the Republican Party. Never thought I’d see this kind of division.
January 30th, 2012 at 8:59 pm
WHEN IS OUT PPP POLL?
January 30th, 2012 at 9:02 pm
New Romney add…I really like it!
http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2012/01/romney-president-releases-new-web-video-tomorrow-stand-mitt
January 30th, 2012 at 9:03 pm
61,
I expect when he’s in California for their primary, Newt will next support to drill to the core of the Earth and create a colony at the center of the Earth to help prevent earthquakes. I can see it now, Newt-”If we control the core of the Earth, we can control the way land masses shift and help prevent earthquakes in California and all over the world.”
January 30th, 2012 at 9:03 pm
#54: The best take away line from the Rubin piece is:
January 30th, 2012 at 9:03 pm
Palin goes anti-Mormon.
http://www.article6blog.com/2012/01/30/gingrich-goes-nuclear-shame-on-gingrich/
January 30th, 2012 at 9:08 pm
PPP Poll will be out around 10:30, expecting it to be around a 10-12 Point lead for Romney, but still think he wins in between the 15-20 Point range.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:10 pm
68
That’s not even funny. It’s an honest commentary. Seriously, this guy is nuts.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:16 pm
whacko.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:19 pm
70,
That’s a serious accusation and one that I honestly find hard to believe. Afterall, she is very good friends with Glen Beck and Beck is a mormon himself.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:21 pm
#70..
Newt started the interview off by saying, “he was tired of being lectured on having to respect every religion on the planet”. unbelievable!
January 30th, 2012 at 9:21 pm
#74 It’s probably not Sarah, but her “people.” Like it wasn’t Perry, but his pastor Going Rogue.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:22 pm
70,
Well, now Sarah has shown her true colors. I just lost all respect I once had for her. The kind of behavior described there is reprehensible, and disqualifies her from high office anywhere, imho. Now, I don’t even want her as a party spokesperson, much less a candidate for anything.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:22 pm
75. Look at the proof. Why does she leave up all of the anti-Mormon posts yet have the Mormon defending posts removed and then blocked.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:24 pm
76 – She’s still responsible for her own facebook page. You can’t turn it over to other people and then eschew all responsibility for things done in your name. That just doesn’t fly.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:24 pm
#78…That was for #74 (Ozzy)
January 30th, 2012 at 9:28 pm
#78: I understand. But do you really believe Sarah sits around all day reading her millions of FB posts? Probably not. My point is that she’s hired people who are anti-Mormon. Does Sarah even know this is happening? If so, how does she feel about it? Is she like Perry, who was more than happy to have Pastor Jeffress spewing all over the place? Or not.? But somebody needs to call her on it and she what she has to say for herself.
Of course, she’s proven herself to be a nutty hypocrite lately, tso who cares? She certainly hates on Mitt in an irrational way and loves on Newt in an even more irrational way.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:29 pm
He’s cracking under the pressure. Poor Humptdy Dumpty.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:30 pm
74 – they have been deleting any pro-Romney posts of any kind for the last few days. It isn’t just religious posts, though it is interesting that the anti-Mormon posts are left up. You can go look at the comments section on her page if you want. It is there for everyone to see.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:31 pm
81. Regardless, it is her name on the FB page.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:35 pm
PPP still only has Mitt at +8. So either they’re going to have egg on their face for really the first time this primary season (likely) or they’re going to be almost alone in their accuracy.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:35 pm
See how cleverly he tries to divide the Catholics against the Mormons. Newt is like a trapped junk yard dog.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:37 pm
78/80,
With any accusation must come into question the credibility of the accuser and if there is any true hard evidence. An accusation like this can ruin a person in public service even if it proves to be false. Look at the way the dems tried to ruin the Tea Party and certain GOP members of congress by accusing them of being racists.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:38 pm
#84: The Article6 guys are serious guys and pretty careful. If they put it up there, it must be real. It’s a test for Palin. Somebody needs to call her out and see what she says.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:39 pm
85. MEM…Did you get a look at this? Thought you might enjoy it.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/polls-diverge-but-all-point-to-a-romney-win/
January 30th, 2012 at 9:39 pm
81,
Hi KG, I’ve been thinking about what you said the other day about Mitt wanting to choose a Governor as his VP. What were your choices again?
January 30th, 2012 at 9:40 pm
#87: Except Ozzie, being called a racist is political death; being called an anti-Mormon is a political boon.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:41 pm
87. Ozzy..the evidence it there. If you don’t believe it I challenge you to go to her FB page and leave a pro Mormon post and see what happens to it. I would bet that it is removed. That should be true hard evidence for you.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:41 pm
85 – The first time? They under-represented Romney in their poll in Iowa and in New Hampshire.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:41 pm
The scariest part, is there are people that buy into it. Continual talk of avoiding the “professional politician” or “snake oil salesman” and here they are blindly following Newt and his political speak. Newt is about as professional a politician as I have seen. He really knows how to use a shotgun too. I have never seen a politician try and throw so many things at once to try and get something to stick. It is like watching him frantically throw everything and then if something slightly sticks “ah-ha!”. And with such anger. Crazy.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:42 pm
It is interesting how their numbers haven’t really changed and several others show a double digit lead.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:42 pm
87 – Which is why you should go look at her page yourself. Try posting something positive about Mormons and see what happens.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:42 pm
PPP still essentially alone in their prediction that Newt will win Hispanics. Back of the envelope calculations (they split Hispanics into Cubans and non-Cubans) I get Newt carrying Hispanics like 36-31. And carrying Cubans 49-23, despite the fact that essentially every major Cuban leader is behind Mitt. Suspect stuff.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:43 pm
85 MEM
Isn’t it a 3-day tracker? If so, Mitt made up 2 points from the previous 2 days. PPP hinted on Twitter that Mitt was up by 10 today.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:45 pm
97
It will be one of the things we look at tomorrow. Who wins hispanics?
I give it a 99% chance Mitt wins hispanics tomorrow. PPP is probably way off, and I’m not sure why that is.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:46 pm
I think the disparity in the polls makes some sense. Florida is much bigger than any of the states to this point, yet they are using similar sample sizes. You need a large sample size to get a good random sample in a big state.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:47 pm
97 – yeah … that doesn’t make sense. I would be shocked if Newt won among hispanics. They must just have a bad pool they are drawing from.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:48 pm
I posted the video of Newt advocating for the federal mandate (which has nothing to do with Mormonism or Romney) which I pasted below, and it got removed and I got banned, all within 5 minutes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSXJLZx5mpY&feature=player_embedded
January 30th, 2012 at 9:48 pm
100
PPP actually uses the biggest sample size. And they will probably be wrong tomorrow.
We’ll see. My prediction had Mitt winning by 15, a safe prediction. I could see him winning 50% (by 20-22) tomorrow, however.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:48 pm
MEM & MassCon,
How quickly do you expect either Foxnews or CNN to call Florida tommorrow. Both got an idea of who won by the exit polls last time in South Carolina. If the exit polls are heavily for Mitt, would they immediately call it for Mitt or will they wait until some precincts are in?
January 30th, 2012 at 9:49 pm
102
Was it a link to a blog, or the YouTube video? Kavon does not like links to other blogs here. YouTube, he doesn’t seem to care.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:49 pm
92,
Have you done that, youself?
January 30th, 2012 at 9:49 pm
104
CNN likes to be careful, but Fox will definitely call it immediately.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:51 pm
105, Sorry I should’ve specified – I was referring to the discussion about Sarah Palin’s facebook page. It’s not just pro-Mormon posts that are being removed.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:51 pm
jaxemer11,
PPP’s polls in NH and Iowa seemed, to me, like a case of them just not pushing undecideds very hard. Their NH poll was actually incredibly accurate once you account for undecideds (they had Romney at +17 and he won by 16.4). And they came closest to fully capturing the Gingrich surge in South Carolina, putting him at +9 (he won by 12.6) when no other polling company had him better than +6. So yeah, I’d say they’ve been pretty darn accurate. But right now they look wrong. The only thing close to confirmation- in the last 5 days- is IA. Everything else puts a +8 result in serious doubt. Plus, like I said, the eternals look off. I have a hard time, in particular, understanding their findings on Hispanics. If you turn that 36-31 Gingrich victory among Hispanics into the something closer to a 45-22 Romney victory (more in keeping with past polls), than that alone changes it to a 10 point margin.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:53 pm
#90 Hi Ozzie: I cannot remember them exactly, so don’t hold me to this: I remember Susanna Martinez, Bob McDonnell, Christie, Brian Sandoval, Rob Portman, maybe Jindal, Kasich and Daniels. Maybe Pawlenty. It was a long list; most of the GOP governors. Huckabee was not on the list as far as I can remember. I don’t remember Scott Walker either, but I’m not sure.
But he was very specific that he was looking at governors because he wants “someone with executive experience.”
Is he chooses a legislator it kind of undermines his “leadership” narrative. Jennifer Rubin believes he will go for “amplification” like Clinton did. I’m thinking maybe it’s McDonnell.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:57 pm
I cannot wait to see if Mitt hits 50% tomorrow. If he does, Noot will need to be held accountable for saying Mitt will not hit a majority any time before Super Tuesday.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:58 pm
I just posted a comment on her facebook, calling out Newt for anti-mormon dog whistle comments. I’ll let y’all know how long it stays up. And yes there are anti-mormon comments still up on her page.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:59 pm
McDonnell, Rubio, and Christie appear to be the three most likely VPs, with outside shots for Thune and Huckabee.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:59 pm
103. I hope you are right I’ll be happy with anything over a 10 pt difference btwn Mitt and Newt.
What time do the polls close tomorrow?
And what is the read on the early voting results?
January 30th, 2012 at 10:00 pm
110,
I’ve been thinking about what you said about a governor being VP and given it some thought. If a governor or executive is gonna be the VP for Mitt, my top choice is Chris Christie. He’d make the perfect attack dog on Obama while Romney can stay calm, cool, and presidential. My runner-ups are Govs. Jeb Bush and Bobby Jindal.
January 30th, 2012 at 10:02 pm
#111: MassCon: If Mitt hits a big number, it will be serious good news because IMO it means that people understand that Newt Is Nuts. Not just another candidate with differing views and personality, but a person with a serious disorder that should never be POTUS.
Newt has certainly showed all the signs in FL; I wonder if they are catching on.
The best way to clobber Newt once and for all and end this nastiness is for people to understand how unstable he is. I’m here in CA; I went to lunch today with with big Mitt supporters/Newt haters. But they were shocked when I shared my “theory” that Newt suffers from mental health issues. Even if Floridians get it, the rest of the country does not…yet.
Our work is not yet done.
January 30th, 2012 at 10:03 pm
Mass Con,
Christie is screwing the pooch on judges and gay marriage. Mitt’s not going to be able to afford a guy who A.) Has a gay judge and a Muslim judge to the state Supreme Court and B.) Seems kind of indifferent to gay marriage. I’m thinking he’s off the list.
January 30th, 2012 at 10:04 pm
114
ET polls close at 7pm ET, and CT polls close 8pm ET.
The polls you’ve seen recently already include early/absentee voters. However, if you’re curious, Romney leads among them by somewhere around 10-20 depending on what poll you believe.
January 30th, 2012 at 10:04 pm
113,
IMO, I’ve narrowed the field between a legislative VP or an executive VP. And of that I make my top choice as Marco Rubio for the legislative VP and Chris Christie for the excutive VP. Of the two, I truly believe Rubio when he says he’d turn down the offer to be VP if asked. Christie says that he doesn’t expect to be asked but would not say no if he did.
January 30th, 2012 at 10:04 pm
117
That’s what I was saying here the other day, and I got ganged up on about it. I’m glad you noticed it too.
January 30th, 2012 at 10:06 pm
#115: You could be right with Christie. Or Christie would make a great AG. I don’t believe Jindal would make a great campaigner but he’s a good, smart guy and would make a good VP IMO.
Chistie as an attack dog against the Obama administration would be a beautiful thing.
January 30th, 2012 at 10:08 pm
117,
What’s wrong with a Muslim judge? Christie is a former attorney general. Is it possible that he selected those judges not on who or what they are but what kind of job he thinks they can do on that job? It’s kind of the fundamental rule of hiring or selecting someone to a position.
January 30th, 2012 at 10:09 pm
Christie called a gay rights activist “numb-nuts.”
I think we need to question whether we need gaffes on the campaign trail.
January 30th, 2012 at 10:12 pm
Adam Baldwin retweeted someone on Twitter who was trying to say that around this time in 1980, people thought only George HW Bush could beat Jimmy Carter. That would be an apt comparison these 32 years later, if someone other than Romney was the Reagan in this race.
January 30th, 2012 at 10:12 pm
123. I agree. While I like Christie’s toughness, he might be more of a distraction.
January 30th, 2012 at 10:12 pm
As for McDonnell, he has a lot of boxes checked off, but his speech-giving ability has been a bit inconsistent recently. His positives outweigh his negatives by far, and he’s a true Conservative.
January 30th, 2012 at 10:13 pm
124. Uh…ahem…uh…Adam Baldwin? Sniff…
January 30th, 2012 at 10:13 pm
#123: MassConn: It’s the old conumdrum: People love combative people who tell it like it is. They don’t like it that Mitt is so careful and scripted. On the other hand, people who tell it like it is are uncredibly gaffe-prone and cause all kinds of trouble.
I’m inclined to go with the “amplification” theory: Mitt chooses a smart, sane, competent, non-controversial VP and IMO that would be McDonnell.
January 30th, 2012 at 10:14 pm
MassCon: Ha! We are crossing posts.
January 30th, 2012 at 10:17 pm
Ozzy,
The problem is, they don’t seem especially conservative. I mean, Republicans are all about conservative minorities. I imagine they could even find a half-hearted cheer for a gay conservative judge . But this gay judge has written and a letter in support of gay marriage (unsurprisingly) and has no discernible signs of conservatism, other than his party registration. The Muslim judge had other sorts of problems (represented problematic clients). And he’s also just appointed an Asian judge. This looks very odd from a conservative perspective. Lots of tactical tokenism, with limited emphasis on judicial philosophy. I just don’t see how Romney, who already has problems with so-cons, can get away with selecting Christie who not only has made these sorts of decisions, but has picked high-profile fights with conservatives in vocally defending them.
January 30th, 2012 at 10:17 pm
128
Choosing McDonnell pretty much puts VA in the bag, allowing Mitt to focus on OH, MI, NH, NV, CO, and safer swing states as well.
If Mitt had to campaign in states like VA and NV this summer, he would need two messages. The economy in VA is solid. He would have to focus on issues besides the economy if that were the case.
Putting VA solidly in the bag allows Mitt to go to the other swing states with a consitent, orchistrated message.
January 30th, 2012 at 10:19 pm
I’m actually concerned about Arizona, by the way. It has a growing hispanic population and more northeastern snowbirds every year.
January 30th, 2012 at 10:21 pm
While I like the work Christie is doing here in New Jersey, his becoming VP would be a great help to him. Although his job approval here is high, and he has helped us get out of the Corzine debacle, in the polls he’s beating all his potential democratic challengers for 2013, except one, Newark Mayor Cory Booker. NJ is a blue state, where Obama is still popular, and Booker is an Obama-lite and very well liked. I fear that if Christie can’t get the VP nod on the Romney ticket, he might lose to Booker in 2013 and that might ruin his chances at a POTUS run at a future time.
January 30th, 2012 at 10:21 pm
MEM,
PPP almost always underestimates Mitt’s numbers. As a liberal polling agency, I have to suspect it’s not by chance.
January 30th, 2012 at 10:23 pm
132,
Arizona is McCain country and he has endorsed Mitt. All Mitt has to do in have McCain campaign for him in Arizona and tell everyone why Mitt should win, and bingo, Mitt wins Arizona.
January 30th, 2012 at 10:23 pm
If Mitt is forced to campaign in Arizona, he’s going to find himself in trouble nationally. Romney’s position on immigration is a little too far to the right for the independents nationally to get excited about. The more he has to go hard right on immigration in AZ, the more damage he causes himself in NV, CO, and even FL, not to mention GA.
January 30th, 2012 at 10:24 pm
Mass Con,
Picking McDonnell puts VA and NC in the bag. I’ve written posts before suggesting that Veeps actually probably add 2-5 points in surrounding states as well. Or at least that was the evidence with Edwards. NC was probably in the bag anyway but there’s no harm in putting it further in the bag. Of course, if we’re going by that theory- that a Veep brings in 2-5 points in surrounding states and maybe 3 to 7 in his own- then Rob Portman probably makes the most sense. Brings Ohio and Indiana, for sure, and maybe PA. Mitch Daniels- who never gets talked about for some reason- would also make a lot of sense- Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan (which will be close to a swing state with Romney as the nominee anyway).
January 30th, 2012 at 10:26 pm
70 – Hopefully this is the end of Palin’s already shrinking influence in the political world. She’s an embarassment to the party just like her good buddy Newt.
January 30th, 2012 at 10:30 pm
137
An Ohio statewide official as VP sounds good – but how much do we really know about Rob Portman? He’s pretty new, and there’s little evidence that the incumbent GOP statewide officeholders are popular in Ohio right now. Just look at Kasich, for instance. If we really want to win Ohio, I’d rather pick someone who cannot be held accountable for the goings-on in Ohio in the Fall.
Just imagine Obama and the Cleveland Dem machine telling Ohioans how evil Portman is for being Senator there while the state was suffering.
Something to consider.
In the case of VA, things are pretty good there, and as a result, McDonnell looks like a net benefit in that case.
January 30th, 2012 at 10:30 pm
138,
Someone with over 3 million followers on facebook doesn’t necessarily have a shrinking influence. I get it, you don’t like her. Fine, let’s move on already. I’m starting to think Sarah Palin should start paying me for being her public image defender on this site.
January 30th, 2012 at 10:33 pm
#138: Palin is my personal embarrassment. I was following her long before McCain tapped her and when he did, I was estatic. I loved her convention speech which was brilliant. I was very disappointed with her apparent clueless–and her stubborn insistence on not getting a clue by doing her homework.
As time went on her screechy voice was like nails on a blackboard, but I still defended her as a woman of good sense and integrity. Her stint on Fox was the deal killer as she just became a lame parrot of what Limbaugh had already said during the day.
She is not only an annoying doofus, but a completely idiot in her bizarre defense of Newt. She wants him to go to DC and become the “Big Dog, shaking things up.”
Huh?
She’s the Mamma Grizzly; Newt is Big Dog. She’s a pitbull; he’s a definitely a male dog and she’s…..um….not what I ever imagined she was. A complete disappointment. She’s just like Newt: A great rise and a complete implosion.
January 30th, 2012 at 10:33 pm
As for Daniels, I’m afraid he’d inspire the GOP base too little. We need a VP who can tell the base that Mitt cares enough about them to dedicate his running mate to them. It worked to some extent for McCain in 2008. Indeed, the folks who stayed home for McCain in the GOP were actually more moderate folks who were embarrassed by Palin.
In my case, I stayed home because McCain was too moderate and I was upset about the primary. Plus, MA was in the bag for Obama ten years ago anyway.
January 30th, 2012 at 10:34 pm
139,
A former governor would also help. Someone like a Jeb Bush or Mike Huckabee on the ticket would be key players in the South or Florida for Jeb.
January 30th, 2012 at 10:35 pm
And with that, I’m going to bed. Tomorrow should be fun.
January 30th, 2012 at 10:37 pm
From the campaign trail – a reporter following the Gingrich campaign. Is Gingrich just losing it?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-end-of-the-road-for-newt-gingrich/2012/01/30/gIQALmfZdQ_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop
January 30th, 2012 at 10:38 pm
143
Last post today. Jeb would probably not take the position if offered. Plus, he’s not exactly anti-Establishment. Although I guess when Romney chooses a VP, the VP becomes a perceived Establishmentarian regardless of the facts or logic anyway, so there’s that.
Huck is an excellent option, one I’ve supported since he decided not to run. I’m torn between him and McDonnell.
Rubio is a heartstring pick, but my head tells me he’s too young and risky. Plus, he has really no legislative accomplishments to speak of as of yet.
January 30th, 2012 at 10:39 pm
Gingrich was blasting romney for comments soros made when soros paid for his ad with pelosi
http://mittromney.com/news/press/2012/01/newt-nancys-loveseat-brought-you-george-soros
Gingrich cited a poll that he said came out just last hour that he said he was tied with romney 35-35. The problem was the poll was from last monday and tuesday and gingrich cited it at the time.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/gingrich-cites-days-old-poll-as-new-in-florida-speech/
January 30th, 2012 at 10:48 pm
146-
I agree that it’d be ideal for Rubio to have more experience right now; he’s definitely a high risk/high reward VP relative to others on the short list.
I think Rubio or McDonnell make the most sense right now. Huck would be good to rally some of the base, but he’s a little to liberal for my tastes. I do have to admit he’d one of the wittiest candidates of recent memory.
January 30th, 2012 at 10:52 pm
Mass Con,
Portman won Ohio by 18% in ’10. I haven’t seen many recent public polls there but I’m pretty sure he’s above water. Senators are not Governors. They’re rarely in the public eye and their approval rating tends to fluctuate based on party dynamics, not their individual actions. If Portman’s less popular than he was a year ago, it’s only because Republicans in general are less popular in Ohio (PPP’s been tweeting that things look really good for Obama there). He’ll still provide a bump there- it just may not be enough. In that case, we have bigger things to worry about. Because there aren’t many plausible maps which don’t include Ohio. You’d have to basically hope that Romney could make the “Obama’s declaring War on Catholics” charge a center-piece of his campaign in the hopes of tipping PA. But much better, really, just to pick somebody who could help in both states.
Not saying Portman’s at the top of my list. Or Toomey or Corbett. Even though all of them would help in two hugely important states. But they certainly ought to make the short-list. If Romney’s doing well (even nationally through the summer) he can afford a rainmaker pick, which may help everywhere (Jindal, Rubio, Fortuno) but, for all the attempts to re-write the conventional wisdom, VP’s really are a geographic help. Those who say “but no VP has brought in his state since Johnson” are missing the point. Few VP’s are in the position to bring their states. Because they generally don’t hail from states or regions which are just on the cusp of flipping.
January 30th, 2012 at 10:59 pm
The fact is that all the Wall Street money is going to Mitt Romney. The question is what do they want from Mitt? SEC enforcement of Wall Street during the Bush and Obama years has been non-existent. Is that what we can expect from Romney? The fact is that I don’t trust Mitt Gingrich or Newt Romney as far as I could throw them.
If gas prices continue to go up, Obama will wrap it right around Romney’s neck. Unleaded gasoline is being bid up by traders despite the fact that demand is down from last year and supply is up.
January 30th, 2012 at 11:06 pm
What a total bunch of BS!!!! From the beginnig to the end! Who ever wrote this NEEDS A new JOB!! I have watched all of the GOP debates AND speeches and what these writers and the MEDIA see and hear is pretty much what they DREAM UP! Talk about Newt’s GRANDIOSE statements!! This article is just so bad!
January 30th, 2012 at 11:07 pm
Been a while, and my post on Sarah Palin’s facebook account is still up. Maybe they got the memo about the bad optics.
Either way, the Newt supporters on the account are way too easy to debate with. I’m having way too much fun tearing apart their arguments. They are all feeling without anything to back it up.
January 30th, 2012 at 11:10 pm
150,
Which article are you talking about?
January 30th, 2012 at 11:15 pm
149 Franklin Says:
“If gas prices continue to go up, Obama will wrap it right around Romney’s neck”
What????
Obama is the President, even a stupid liberal couldn’t blame Romney for gas prices.
January 30th, 2012 at 11:19 pm
As long as we’re on the subject Palin’s gone nutty as well. She’s so far off the deep end now that I just can’t defend her anymore. She’s an idiot, she has little grasp on reality, I don’t think she’s a good parent, and she doesn’t have a conservative record. Any help she once gave to the republican party is now gone, and she’s just an embarrassment now. She just makes the party look bad.
January 30th, 2012 at 11:20 pm
85. For what it’s worth, Matthew, the PPP figures are confirmed by Insider Advantage very nicely, so I’m predicting PPP will prove to have been right.
I’ll admit I’m a bit surprised that we haven’t seen the latest PPP numbers here. They were released at 1030PM, as promised, and they do indeed resolve the conflict between the two other surveys taken exclusively on the 29th from Insider Advantage and We Ask America.
In favor of Insider Advantage.
So it would appear that there HAS been some bleed in the Romney numbers. Excluding We Ask America from my number-crunching, and creating the composite CPSR picture on the basis of the Insider Advantage and latest PPP release (conducted on 1/28-30), and comparing that information with the previous batch of seven polls conducted between the 27th and the 29th from ARG, Rasmussen, Quinnipiac, Survey USA, Suffolk and two from PPP, we get the following CPSR picture and accompanying trends:
FLORIDA Composite 1/28-30 Final
1. Romney 36-39.5 -3.1-6.6
2. Gingrich 28-34
3. Santorum 12-16.2
3. Paul 8.4-14
5. Undecided 4.8-8
Notice that the only statistically significant movement between the seven polls conducted from 1/27-29 and the two surveys conducted from 1/28-30 is on Romney’s part: He appears to have moved down somewhere between 3.1 and 6.6 points within that period spanning the two sets of surveys, for an average of 4.85 points. Since that loss appears to have taken place over the course of the 29th and 30th, Romney appears to be sustaining an average daily loss somewhere between 1.55 and 3.3 points, for an average of 2.43 points. I will therefore assume that Romney loses another 2.43 points from where he is now by the time the polls close in the Panhandle tomorrow night at 8PM Eastern time.
The earliest survey that shows that downward movement comes from Insider Advantage, conducted exclusively on the 29th. Since we have individual data from PPP’s survey conducted on the 28th, as well as PPP’s combined data from the 28th and 29th, we can extrapolate PPP’s data for the 29th only. And I stress again that it turns out that PPP’s figures for the 29th match Insider Advantage very nicely. The slight Romney bleed, whatever caused it (my money is on the Palin Friday night Facebook release), was and is real. And it appears to have started on the 29th.
I think it is also telling that, while those who voted early supported Romney solidly, PPP established that the two-thirds of the Florida GOP Primary electorate who are voting tomorrow are only supporting Romney over Gingrich by 36-30. Two-thirds of the PPP number is 728 responses, which translates to a margin of error of +/-3.6 points, meaning we’re seeing a statistical tie, a far cry from the 20-point blowout for Romney that seemed likely just a few day ago.
Since this is not the proper thread for predictions, I’ll save that for the Predictions thread at http://race42012.com/2012/01/30/florida-primary-predictions-thread/ . I’ll be posting that in a few minutes. But I figured I’d give you my thoughts on this PPP release in this thread by way of explaining somewhat the thinking that will go into the prediction I will shortly post in the other thread.
January 30th, 2012 at 11:28 pm
155
Dream on
January 30th, 2012 at 11:32 pm
155 – Insider Advantage is a front group for the Newt campaign. Go look at the ten other polls that contradict IA and PPP and come back and try again. There is no way that Newt will win the Hispanic vote.
January 30th, 2012 at 11:33 pm
I think it’s time to now starting to talk about VPs for Mitty.
By the way I bet South Carolina is feeling a bit stupid about now!
January 30th, 2012 at 11:37 pm
BREAKING NEWS!
Newt Gingrich caught in another lie.
He has been using a “torch” quote to show himself as the heir of Reagan. Sources close to Nancy Reagan now say that Newt is taking the quote out of context..
Link: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/30/10273435-reagan-sources-say-gingrich-torch-quote-taken-out-of-context
January 30th, 2012 at 11:39 pm
154 – you just worked this out now??
January 30th, 2012 at 11:41 pm
Hey! Todd Palin is making robo calls for Newt? Todd is a Democrat!
Newt Gingrich is a lib.
January 30th, 2012 at 11:53 pm
I just heard Gingrich say that as President, he would on day one, name Rick Perry to head a Tenth Amendment Enforcement Project. What does that mean?
January 30th, 2012 at 11:54 pm
criggs,
PPP was saying that Romney was leading by 7-8 all week. At the same time other surveys showed him leading by 15-22. Their write-up basically says that the race hasn’t changed since the 28th or 29th. So plainly they can’t “resolve” any conflict between IA and the other polling companies. Because they’ve differed substantially from those other polling companies all along. Either PPP and IA have simply blown the sample somehow or about 10 other polling companies have blown the sample somehow. Those are the only options. PPP’s new survey tells us nothing we didn’t know earlier today- that one of these things is not like the others.
January 31st, 2012 at 12:14 am
163. PPP wasn’t really saying that Romney was leading by 7-8 all week. You need to take the margin of error into account. What PPP was actually saying was that Romney was leading Gingrich by somewhere between 2 and 14 points. If you look at the PPP PSRs for each candidate you will see that they consistently overlap those from contemporaneous surveys. And I just scrolled through my entire Florida database looking for any rogue PPP polls, that is to say PPP surveys whose PSRs did NOT match those of contemporaneous surveys. And I found just one, conducted 1/22-23. That compares favorably with Quinnipiac, for example, which had two.
As for resolving a conflict, there are only three pollsters for which we have figures exclusively for the 29th, and that is Insider Advantage, PPP and We Ask America. And We Ask America is the odd man out in that equation. Surveys not taken exclusively on the 29th can not be compared directly to these three surveys, and therefore cannot be adduced as examples of alternative results. Just to drive the point home, this is not a question of having to pick either PPP and Insider Advantage or “10 other polling companies,” because those other polls were not taken at the same time, and therefore cannot be used as a basis for comparison.
Is it possible that both Insider Advantage and PPP are both wrong? Sure. If they are, then Romney is indeed headed for something like a 15-point win. But I submit that assuming both surveys are wrong, when the two agree with each other, and we have no contemporaneous surveys other than We Ask America that directly contradicts them, is the riskier conclusion, in my opinion.
January 31st, 2012 at 12:33 am
164.
“Is it possible that both Insider Advantage and PPP are both wrong? Sure. If they are, then Romney is indeed headed for something like a 15-point win. But I submit that assuming both surveys are wrong, when the two agree with each other, and we have no contemporaneous surveys other than We Ask America that directly contradicts them, is the riskier conclusion, in my opinion.”
For the record, PPP came out with a new update on the tracking poll, and it shows Romney expanding his lead over Gingrich compared to the one released last night.
But also for the record, PPP and IA are the only two that show a single digit lead by Mitt Romney in the last couple of days. The last Reuters tracking poll out on the 30th places Romney’s lead at 15 points. I’m sure you know that SurveyUSA has practically the same margin, and at least one new poll out actually has Romney up by 20 points. The vast majority of polls agree that Romney is in a double digit lead, and disagree with both PPP and IA.
January 31st, 2012 at 12:40 am
162,
Does that mean he’s thinking of Perry as a VP?
January 31st, 2012 at 12:44 am
Aspire, Heath, Petunia,
I would try to explain why Palin still has a voice in the GOP and why she is not dumb, crazy, or an embarassment to the party. But, it would just fall on deaf ears here on this site.
January 31st, 2012 at 1:18 am
So being against Romney is anti-Mormon? Maybe you religious bigots need to take a hike.
January 31st, 2012 at 1:31 am
Obama is the President, even a stupid liberal couldn’t blame Romney for gas prices.
=============================================
The price of gasoline is determined by the price of gas on the spot market. That is determined by traders who buy and sell gasoline. Try looking at CNBC one day and you will see what oil is trading for. It is higher despite
lower demand. A number of Wall Street firms trade commodities as well as stocks. Romney is Wall Street.
January 31st, 2012 at 1:33 am
This bizarre behavior of Newt’s should change any individuals vote that was supporting him. If you are a Floridian with the info out there, no one in their right mind can vote for Newt. This guy can’t win and is only staying in to continue his vendetta.If you are a Republican, you better believe this is hurting the chance of the GOP in Nov, but the the Republican party is full of self righteous religious fanatics and tea party lunatics that follow their defacto leader(Limbaugh)he has always wanted the party flushed and purged of moderates and rhino’s, look what they ended up with! Example: the insanity of the SC vote after Newt fed them a little red meat and a lot of the showmanship of a huckster and snake oil salesman.
January 31st, 2012 at 1:36 am
The anti-Palin crowd is off the deep end. The Republican Party and Romney look bad when they try to redistrict Allen West out of office. Perhaps they don’t want blacks in their party. The Republican Party can go ehere a snowball doesn’t stand a chance in. I would rather have 4 more yearsof Obama than 4 years of Romney and his ilk.
January 31st, 2012 at 1:40 am
No one in their right mind can vote for Romney either.
Romney and Obama agree on healtcare. Romney was for global warming before he was against it. Romney is for the same crony capitalism that Obama is for. Go for it Kamikaze Newt. Take yourself and Romney out.
January 31st, 2012 at 1:40 am
165:
This has same issue as PPP had in previous Florida polls, the combined total numbers of “Somewhat conservative” + “Very conservative”, 77%, is 16% higher than in 2008 exit polls, 61%.
No reason for 16% point jump, South Carolina exit polls had the “Somewhat conservative” + “Very conservative” stay the same compared to last time, the “Very conservative” was couple points higher and the “Somewhat conservative” couple points lower
January 31st, 2012 at 1:49 am
166. I would disagree with your conclusion that tonight’s PPP update, which in fact I have indeed seen and indeed taken into account in the analysis I posted here and the prediction I posted in the prediction thread, shows Romney increasing his lead. Once one takes into account the survey’s margin of error, it would be incorrect to say that it shows Romney increasing his lead; it does not. Rather it continues to show the same picture as the two previous days of tracking.
Also, I think it remains very important to point out that while PPP and IA are the only two with a single digit lead for Romney, they are also the only two for which we have figures that can be derived exclusively from the 29th. So it’s simply inaccurate to state that they are “the only two that show a single digit lead…in the last couple of days.” The fact is there is only one other survey taken in that same time period: We Ask America, and the latter survey wildly differs from both IA and PPP.
I am flummoxed by your reference to a Reuters tracking poll released on the 30th. The closest to such an animal of which I’m aware is a Reuters/Ipsos survey conducted on the 26th and 27th which showed Romney leading Gingrich by 8 points. If you know of Reuters release that postdates that, please provide a link. I see no such listing either on this site or the Argo Journal Blogspot or the Real Clear Politics list or any of the other poll-listing web sites which I regularly check, like Huffington, Talking Points Memo or National Journal.
As for Survey USA, that is not comparable since it was conducted on the 27th to 29th.
Finally, every single survey, other than We Ask America, which shows Romney with a double-digit lead was conducted BEFORE the 30th; so the fact that they may disagree with IA and PPP’s latest releases is not really relevant. If there is anything we have learned during this nomination battle, it is that public opinion has NOT remained static.
Look, I’ll be frank: If some pollster releases information from the 30th which contradicts IA and PPP but agrees with We Ask America, then I’m more than ready to revise my forecast. But the numbers we have now are the numbers we have now; and they lead in a certain direction; those are the facts.
January 31st, 2012 at 1:56 am
166. Tonight’s PPP update does not show Romney increasing his lead, once one takes into account the survey’s margin of error. And IA and PPP do show Romney with a single-digit lead, but that does not contradict other surveys since there are no other surveys which were taken exclusively on the 29th and/or 30th (other than We Ask America, which disagrees with EVERYONE).
I know of no Reuters poll that postdates the one conducted on the 26th and 27th, and that survey showed Romney with only an eight point lead. Can you provide a link to this later Reuters survey?
Survey USA is not comparable to these late releases; it was conducted on the 27th to the 29th, earlier than either than these final IA and PPP releases.
Look, if some pollster releases results from the 30th which contradict IA and PPP, I’m happy to recrunch my numbers. But right now there is no evidence refuting IA and PPP, and the fact that IA and PPP agree with each other reinforces the likelihood that both are correct.
January 31st, 2012 at 2:13 am
#170 Franklin….
The price of crude oil is rising because Iran is threatening to close the strait of Hormuz.
January 31st, 2012 at 2:14 am
criggs, PPP overpolls “very conservative” and “somewhat conservative” vote, the combined total numbers of “Somewhat conservative” + “Very conservative”, 77%, is 16% higher than in 2008 exit polls, 61%.
No reason for 16% point jump, South Carolina exit polls had the “Somewhat conservative” + “Very conservative” for 2012 stay the same compared to 2008, the “Very conservative” was couple points higher and the “Somewhat conservative” couple points lower
January 31st, 2012 at 2:23 am
I used 2008 exit poll political Ideology and adjusted PPP results with the help of their cross tabs.
Adjusted numbers.
Romney 41%
Gingrich 27%
January 31st, 2012 at 2:46 am
44
ROFLMBO!!!!
January 31st, 2012 at 2:55 am
When an athlete is injured, he would be wise to first focus on recovering rather than planning any grandiose events…
The Lunar Olympics can wait. Romney will handle them when Newt is finally ready for launch. ;]
January 31st, 2012 at 6:02 am
Well, the polls in Florida are opening now.
Go Mitt!!
And good luck Santorum and Paul!
Stick a fork Newt…The only candidate where ALL 3 legs of the stoll are phony…
January 31st, 2012 at 6:02 am
Criggs,
MoEs are basically useless, because different polls can vary from one another so drastically.
The way margins of error work is, it is a 95% confidence declaration that the results reflect THE SAMEPLE within a certain number.
If the sample is off, the margin of error is useless.
January 31st, 2012 at 6:16 am
* sample
January 31st, 2012 at 8:38 am
Excellent commentary, mr. criggs. I’d assume you’re an engineer, or present to engineering types on a regular basis. To my ears, your analysis is smooth like a rhapsody. Keep it coming… this fever swamp here needs your vaccinations, desperately.
Look, gang, you shouldn’t be surprised at any movement in polling numbers. The electorate is fully volatile right now, upwards of 40-50% of them are fluid, and most all of them but you willardbots recognize that your boy Willard is a progressive liar, who’s blowtorching the State of Florida, and may even be buying some of this favorable poll data, much like he’s likely buying Santorum’s campaign.
Good thing he paid for that Ogalalla Cattle Drive, and bought up an early vote, because it could be the only thing that saves his campaign.
January 31st, 2012 at 8:39 am
Willard is the only candidate that can die today. That’s the shape of this race.
January 31st, 2012 at 8:47 am
A point of order, if I may. Posting 175 above was REJECTED by the system when I first posted it, I don’t know why. I got a message that the posting had been killed for examination by the moderators. So I posted a revised shortened version, figuring that if I also got rid of the caps it would pass muster, which it did. Therefore I consider 176 to be my third thread message, not my fourth, since, in good faith, I thought 175 had been rejected. This morning I was surprised to see that 175 had been approved. So I consider this current message to be my fourth, not my fifth message. I hope that strikes you as reasonable, and thank you.
179. Very interesting, Teemu, thank you. For now, I am assuming that PPP has it right and that you have it wrong, inasmuch as PPP may have correctly concluded that this year’s distribution will be different from 2008. However, as an exercise, I redid my numbers based on your adjusted numbers for PPP. I am presuming you performed your readjustments on the final three-day PPP report, released at 1030 last night. Here are my final CPSR results incorporating your PPP changes, with trends based on the previous collection of polls taken 1/27-29:
FLORIDA Composite 1/28-30 Final
1. Romney 38-39.5 -3.1-7.5
2. Gingrich 27.3-30
3. Paul 8.4-14
3. Santorum 12-16.2
5. Undecided 4.8-8
Note there’s really not much difference, as long as I include Insider Advantage.
Taking the above numbers as a jumping-off point, here’s how my final prediction would turn out:
Romney 39
Gingrich 31
Santorum 15
Paul 12
Others 3
So, accepting your PPP massage, results in my prediction giving Romney another 2 points and taking 2 points away from Gingrich, for an eight-point victory instead of a four-point victory.
Just for the sake of completeness, I also crunched your PPP numbers while REMOVING the Insider Advantage survey. Here’s the final CPSR picture that results:
FLORIDA Composite 1/27-30 Final
1. Romney 42.6-44 +.1-5.8
2. Gingrich 28-30
3. Paul 8-12
3. Santorum 12-15
5. Undecided 5.5-8
As you can see, we now wind up with a picture that shows Romney climbing rather than descending in comparison to the previous collection of polls (1/26-27). And taking the above numbers as a jumping-off point, here’s where my prediction would end up:
Romney 44
Gingrich 29
Santorum 14
Paul 10
Others 3
So we now wind up with a prediction which gives Gingrich 7 more points, takes 4 points away from Gingrich, takes a point away from Santorum and two points away from Paul, for a fifteen point victory for Romney. I’m sure those on this board who refuse to believe Insider Advantage’s and PPP’s numbers will accept the numbers above as plausible. Well, it was an interesting exercise; thank you, Teemu. But I’m sticking to my guns; I believe Romney is experiencing a slight bleed, I believe Insider Advantage and PPP are accurate, and that the bleed was most likely triggered by Palin’s little Facebook manifesto late Friday night. So I’m staying with my original prediction, which I’ve already posted to the prediction thread, which is as follows:
Romney 37
Gingrich 33
Santorum 15
Paul 12
Others 3
183. In general, I’ve found that my system usually works, as long as I have polling info from the day before the election. My New Hampshire and South Carolina predictions were spot on; I even won the South Carolina contest, with a prediction that was only 6.4% off (see http://race42012.com/2012/01/22/the-debate-success-victory-falacy/).
And my system lives and dies on the margin of error, so I do not view it as accurate to say that the MOE is useless. On the other hand, I completely agree that if the sample is off then the margin of error is pointless. I actually made that very point in another thread yesterday, the Poll Watch We Ask America Florida Primary thread, posting 33.
However, in this case, the evidence refuting PPP is weak and the evidence supporting PPP is strong, in my opinion. Hence PPP’s margin of error is VERY relevant.
185. Thanks for the compliments, Harold; I appreciate them. And yes, I WAS an engineer (retired now) although it was not a job where I was required to make presentations. You may, however, be a bit surprised to know that I would actually prefer Romney over Gingrich for the Republican nomination. My analysis is not in fact what I was hoping to see in the final days going into this primary; I’m actually a bit disappointed that Romney’s support appears to be bleeding a bit. But the numbers are the numbers, assuming Insider Advantage and PPP are right.
And with that, this really is my good-bye to this thread, since I consider this to be my fourth message.
January 31st, 2012 at 10:18 am
I can see romney with a bowl of popcorn just watching newt implode as he expected he would as soon as he started attacking him.
i want a space moon base! romney’s is beneficiary of bail out money and in cahootz with george soros! Romney is a liberal who hates religous freedom!
cooookoooo. coooookoooooo.
January 31st, 2012 at 11:52 am
criggs,
Yes, I’d assumed you were with Willard, and that was much the reason I appreciated your analysis. I know it’s straight.
You may be surprised to know that I don’t much care for Gingrich, and am part of the 50% or more who’d like to see another candidate besides the current 4 up there right now.
But yeah, Willard is the worst of the 4, and I don’t think he has any shot in November. None. There are too many like me to allow that.
January 31st, 2012 at 12:03 pm
189.. Assassins?
January 31st, 2012 at 6:51 pm
Conservatives.