home

Florida GOP Primary: Pick Your Poll

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2012
Posted on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 09:20:50 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Q Poll - Romney 43, Gingrich 29.

PPP - Romney 39, Gingrich 32.

SUSA - Romney 41, Gingrich 26.

NBC/Marist poll - Romney 42, Gingrich 27.

I like the Insider Advantage/NewsMax poll, that says Newt is surging to within 5 points and has the momentum.

Go Newt! I don't believe it, but I like it. Now, if only Trump decides to run, this would be perfect.

< David Broder Wrong Again | Monday Night Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Florida GOP Primary: Pick Your Poll | 71 comments (71 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    RCP Average (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 09:37:21 AM EST
    Romney up by 11.5

    And RCP now has Romney up 12.5% (none / 0) (#39)
    by Towanda on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 02:23:12 PM EST
    as the day progresses, with more polls.

    Thanks for the link, reminding me to bookmark RCP again for another go-round, every four years.

    Parent

    Maybe it's because it's Monday; (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 11:20:43 AM EST
    maybe some things just strike me a certain way, I don't know.

    But every time I read this post's title, I want to make a substitution:

    Florida GOP Primary: Pick Your Nose

    It's pretty much just as disgusting an activity as the GOP primary, given the cavalcade of clowns who are in it and who surround it.

    Sorry if my sick Monday humor offends anyone...

    It Does... (none / 0) (#15)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 11:36:42 AM EST
    And I can't help it if my super sensitive sniffer needs allergy remnants removed from time to time to operate at peak efficiency.  It's a private matter between me and my sniffer, done in private and no one else's business.

    And by no means should ever be compared to republican lowly political shenanigans presently occurring in Florida.

    Parent

    Funny to watch ... (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 02:18:11 PM EST
    the Republican establishment wake up from their hibernation to save Romney. I think the thing that really pissed them off was Newt's attacks on their allegiances to Saudi princes. The establishment loves them some Saudi princes.

    They will now go back to sleep. Their real puppet Obama wins handily in the fall. While their show horse, Romney, loses gracefully without causing any major damage to the party.

    And the banks continue to grow and grow and grow.

    I Thought BTD & JB Were Nutz (none / 0) (#2)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 10:15:32 AM EST
    When they called it Friday, but every poll and talking head says the same, Newt is toast.

    That has to be the fastest fall in history.  Could not have happened to a more deserving clown.

    Any chance we get a thread on the Protest DC's noon curfew to get out.  Curious to what folks say before hand since it is Federal, which the talking heads are saying was Obama's call.

    3rd time is a charm for Newtie :) (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 10:18:30 AM EST


    Parent
    As to the Occupy DC protests (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 10:34:37 AM EST
    Apparently a moving truck was brought in for those who want to store their stuff, and a few have complied.

    I may walk over there in a bit to see what's going on, but the protestors have been allowed to stay there a really long time - even past the time of the permit.  They are going to have to go eventually - I don' t see this ending well.

    Parent

    I think we may have reached an OWS (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 11:12:04 AM EST
    tipping point.  I know many of the peaceful only protesters have peeled off because there isn't a place to peacefully go with this now.

    Rightwing protests always garner the weapon wielding scary people, Leftwing protests have always attracted the Anarchist and anyone who falls in between.  And at the start of any protest, we tolerate each other well because we are only there to exercise our rights and we are currently expressing many of the same grievances.  There is always a time that comes with any long term protest though when the initial starter group splinters because of differences in how this will go forward.  And when the stress of the grievances is very high, those who are not afraid of experiencing the violence will stand their ground and the violence will start and they are waiting for it.

    Parent

    Violence is not the answer, and Occupy (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 11:45:00 AM EST
    has to find a way to be relevant, to inspire, to push the establishment, to be visible, without engendering the anger of the people they purport to represent, or the presence of cops in riot gear, the lobbing of tear gas or flash bombs or bean bags.

    Actually, that's something we all need to do, regardless of whether we formally consider ourselves part of the Occupy movement.

    How do we do this?  I think there are a number of things we can do that, if nothing else, make us feel more in control and empower us to speak out.  

    Move your money out of the big banks into local credit unions, and telling people you know what you did and why - including the representatives of the bank you are leaving.  

    Stop giving money and time to politicians and parties who aren't serving your interests, aren't listening to you and talk down to you.

    Be a local business supporter as much as you can.

    If you're one of the 99% who isn't at the bottom of that group, help those who are; even if the powers that be aren't doing what we want, it doesn't mean we have to let the needs of the people go unaddresse, so to the extent we can, we should.  

    Talk, explain, educate the people you come in contact with.

    Don't stop communicating with your representatives at the state, local and national level: don't go away or they'll think they've solved "the problem."

    Getting action is more than just being part of a visible crowd, and if the visibility is because the crowd is damaging, in some way, the communities they're congregating in, they really aren't getting closer to what they want, but farther away.

    Occupy doesn't just have to evolve, it has to find a way to evolve toward something better.

    Parent

    The Leftwing isn't just only made up of people (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 12:03:01 PM EST
    who are peaceful in how they go about their pursuits though Anne.  It has never in the history of the world been that way either outside of Tibet and Buddhist Temples.  The Leftwing has always had the ability to produce and engage in violent means.  And it is the right of all Americans to protest.  We had this "problem" at Crawford in a way.  The Anarchists and the Communists showed up too, and Carl Rove's crew tried to make something out of it....out of those three people showing up with their tent :).  It's a free country though.  And they thought it was bullshit that Bush was going to arrest war protesters too.  So you can't tell the Anarchists to go home, that the Park is ours and they can go each dirt.  That isn't how a democracy works :)  Of course if so many people didn't have a beef, how could the Anarchists be relevant right now?

    Violence makes things relevant too, just in a different way.  Look at the 60's, and there was a lot of protests and violence that goes unmentioned in the 30's too.

    Parent

    MT, in my city, (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 12:21:13 PM EST
    Occupy has become almost entirely self-focused

    it's now about Occupy's right to assemble & basically nothing more

    i certainly support the First Amendment in every respect, & absolutely the right to assemble, especially in this era of "free-speech zones" <barf>

    it's just that most of the local 99 percent, whom Occupy Oakland claims to speak for, find OO's current raison d'être quite abstract at best, & its tactics highly alienating as violent crimes against working people & their property go unaddressed while the cops destructively engage with destructive young visitors in jackboots & bandannas, all at considerable expense to a city that was already broke before OO cost Oakland almost $2.5 million in expenses during its first month alone

    Parent

    Didn't say that anybody is going to enjoy (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 12:44:41 PM EST
    any of this did I?  If our government hadn't upped the ante though and disenfranchised and really PO'd so many people, we wouldn't be in this position now.  If our President addressed abandoning the little people as he has felt so comfortable in doing, we probably wouldn't be in this position either.  This is all very organic and we needed an FDR to avoid the oncoming violence and that isn't what we got.

    Those of us who have the time and inclination to blog about things all day like we often do here, we have no idea how badly some people are suffering out there.  We are a little special.

    Parent

    well, sure (none / 0) (#30)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 12:51:43 PM EST
    my issue with Occupy Oakland (i'm not addressing the rest of the Occupy movement) is precisely that the people who now represent it, & who presume to speak for the "99 percent," appear, as you say, to "have no idea how badly some people are suffering out there"

    Parent
    I could see that happening (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 01:16:11 PM EST
    Mostly from my exposure to Code Pink.  And I'm not knocking them.  Many of their leaders though have no financial worries, not married..no children, they live in a sort of bubble. They are very serious about what they do though.  They do sometimes miss the big picture.  But they do represent something very specific that often needs an unhindered voice and I loved watching them try to arrest Carl Rove.  None of them liked me though.  I married a soldier, what the hell was that about?  They didn't throw me out of the Crawford protest though and they were probably the dominant presence in the first days and hours.

    Everyone finds their space on the leftside that they gravitate to.  I usually hung out with the LA lawyer who showed up to address legal issues, and the Vietnam vets who just automatically understood why and how my heart was so hurt.

    At this point I would suspect that the different OWS protests are evolving into movements with certain dominating influences...whether that be certain strong leaders....or certain regional concerns....or certain groups and movements with assets and infrastructure.  I would also suspect that Homeland Security and the FBI were trying to infiltrate them.

    Parent

    The attempt to shut down the port of Oakland (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 01:51:24 PM EST
    was not a good sign.

    Parent
    we agree (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 01:59:22 PM EST
    & others here disagree with us - man bites dog & dog bites man

    Parent
    OWS (none / 0) (#14)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 11:26:36 AM EST
    This is the point I was talking about a few months back.  With no definite agenda and no real leadership, the movement was going to eventually devolve.  

    I believe OWS was invaluable in highlighting the topic of income inequality (which I think could end up deciding the 2012 election) but in terms of lasting/concentrated goals and such, this is obviously the way it would end given its structure.

    Too bad. It could have been much more, but people were so against the movement being "co-opted" that they rebelled against changes that could have given it more long term relevance.

    Not to say "we told you so" to those who disagreed (don't think this was MilitaryTracy), but yeah.

    Many told them so.

    Parent

    I wish you knew what you were talking about (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 11:52:34 AM EST
    Every protest begins the same way OWS did.  Governments have the ability to listen and respond, ignore them because they are marginal and nobody cares, or if people do care and the government doesn't want to address the grievances the government ups the ante.

    Officially our government has upped the ante.  Some people folded their hand and went home, those were the nice people, those were the easy people.  Every protest begins this way though ABG.  Your ignorance is astonishing sometimes.  This is how Weathermen are created though, and you would think that if anybody understood that it would be President Obama.

    He's probably enamored in his state of art ability to kill the bad people though right now.  He has upped his desire to spy on all of us too, and that is because his administration is afraid of what they are going to breed by ignoring the people.  Anonymous has shown THEM ALL how truly weak the rulers are.  I hope our President pulls his enamored self out of whatever happy place he dwells in at this time.

    Parent

    Your analysis of the OWS movement (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 06:44:41 PM EST
    seems to rest upon your dislike for the protester's process allowing for the eclipse of its real  outcomes.   You note,  the invaluable "highlighting" of income inequality, when it  did much more than that:  it changed the nation's dialog from the destructive deficit reduction to not only income inequities, but also, jobs.  However, the president needlessly and dangerously dropped the ball, to an extent, with his return of the grand bargain in the SOTU--essentially, we will cut the 99 percent's social security and Medicare, if  the Republicans will let us increase taxes a little on the one percent.

     The president and Democrats should not look a gift horse in the mouth--no need to "co-opt", just observe its course, successes are theirs to seize, failures theirs to distance themselves.  Moreover, you are correct in that OWS outcomes may impact substantially, the election--it latched the "Mr. One Percent" albatross around the neck of the president's likely rival.  It worked for Gingrich, although, not sufficiently, but that was not due to OWS but to Gingrich as damaged goods.

    OWS is not going away, no matter how much some may like it to--it may seem to be devolving, but I do not think so.  It is, after all, winter but the spring and, of course, the summer in Charlotte and Tampa are coming.  OWS should not go to those cities, necessarily, but continue to make their voices heard.
     

    Parent

    I don't think (none / 0) (#55)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 07:21:42 PM EST
    Obama said anything close to what you are claiming in the SOTU, and in fact, those most supportive of the speech were liberals and dems.  I think you heard a conservative speech while most liberals heard a fairly liberal one.  Make of that what you will.

    I am sure OWS will be around for a while.  My point is whether anyone outside of lefty blogs and the more liberal observers will care.

    Parent

    I heard and read the speech he gave (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 09:29:15 PM EST
    I, too, was supportive of the SOTU, while "something for everyone", he also was feisty and effective.   However, he did, once again, offer up the grand bargain which should worry any concerned liberal.  

    Parent
    Still talking out of both sides of (none / 0) (#44)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 03:35:00 PM EST
    your mouth, eh, ABG?  One the one hand you declare that Occupy had no definite agenda and no real leadership, and in the next breath, you pat them on the back for raising an issue which you think could end up deciding the election.

    Oh, wait - it isn't that you give a crap about the real issue of income inequality - one that has wide-ranging consequences across a broad swath of America - you only care that it may have given your guy a boost.  Of course, what was I thinking?

    What a coup - Obama got to co-opt the message (words only), while simultaneously sitting back and watching the police state broom the DFH's off the street, and off the front pages and the nightly news.  I guess that's what Occupy deserves for not being willing to sell its soul to the Obama campaign, right?  And I'm sure he would have been so generous to them, too - why, he might have even formed a commission/task force/blue-ribbon panel and called it something like Occupy Democracy and given them a nice sandbox to play in while he went about the real business that all the serious people engage in.  

    Golly, what a missed opportunity!

    I'm not sure if we took up a collection, we would have enough money to buy you the going rate for a clue.  The many Occupy outposts have not all approached things in the same way, to the same positive or negative effect - despite the most sensational things you can't help seeing on the news.  Occupy isn't something that has rolled off an assembly line, each piece looking the same and doing exactly the same things.  No, this is more organic; Occupy has grown differently depending on the climate in which it has decided to plant itself.  

    I wish there were real regret in your comment, but all I'm getting from you is what we always get: relentless cheerleading for Obama on the backs of people he has not served well; that combined with your juvenile I-told-you-so's - that may be premature - do not reflect well on you or your guy.


    Parent

    I thought you were concerned (none / 0) (#45)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 03:47:30 PM EST
    about "ugly" comments.

    I had to read ABG's post twice to see what so drew your ire.

    I think he has a valid point that OWS had certain vulnerabilities due to its lack of overt organization.  It does not have to be a binary, all-or-nothing, good or bad assessment. OWS could both help move the discussion and be at risk of devolving into pointless aggravation of others.

    I am not sure I agree with the critique but it is worth considering.  I would like to see a further discussion.  He did not say that he did not value the Occupy values, and only supported them so long as they helped Obama--that is your polemical conclusion.

    You did jump down his throat unnecessarily.

    Reasonable discussion does not mean agreeing with your position, or open season on Obama supporters here.  But that seems the operating definition that is at play here.

    Parent

    I am not (none / 0) (#54)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 07:18:41 PM EST
    Taking the bait with your attacks as Don says.  I am concerned with income inequality and give OWS a lot of credit for the fact that we aren't talking about deficits as much now.

    But the movement was about more lasting change I thought and it has devolved into something I don't know if I can support any longer.

    My only point is that what you view as a good thing (it's lack of central organization and focus) I view as ultimately something that could hurt its goals. I said as much before.

    That doesn't mean I don't appreciate what they have done.  I feel that it has been a lost opportunity.

    Also, it is clear now that dems were correct in not embracing the movement with both arms.  OWS is going to tick off much of the 99% in the coming months and may actually do some bad things.

    I am glad dems gave themselves some space to separate themselves when the bad stuff happens.

    Parent

    Looks Like They Aren't Getting the Boot... (none / 0) (#13)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 11:25:39 AM EST
    ...just the camping gear.  It's the Park Service doing the removal, so I don't think we will see anything like Oakland/New York, just some Park Rangers telling/begging people to pack up the tents and sleeping bags so they don't have to do it.

    But more importantly, where is this coming from.  Several people are saying Obama, but nothing confirmed.  

    They can stay, but no one sleeps.  Which of course will turn the Park Service into junior high study hall monitors, making sure the kids aren't sleeping when they should be...

    I don't like how the authorities are saying there is no Constitution right to camp, WTF, do they really think people from all over the country are going to assemble and redress grievances, then go home or to a hotel every night.  To me it's implied and I don't like authoritarians interpreting the First Amendment and using it to curtail speech because it doesn't specifically say 'stay overnight, a week, or a month'.

    Parent

    I was just over there (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 11:46:35 AM EST
    Not much going on.  The protestors are chanting and they put a huge tarp over the statue of General McPherson.

    I saw one guy that is trying to provoke an arrest - he was dressed in black and wearing a mask and is screaming and yelling at a Park Police officer. The officer is not reacting, and the guy is drawing a crowd - all with their phone cameras out (which he wants) and is getting closer and closer to the officer and getting his finger closer and closer to touching him.  What may get him in trouble is the last thing I heard him shout which was "We will take you down and we will take the Obama down!" He better watch what words he chooses next because I'm sure there will be a liberal interpretation of something that constitutes a threat against the president.

    Other people are packing up, but it seems right now, there are actually more spectators around the park - all out on lunch from the offices that surround the area, than are actual protestors in the park.

    The Park Service said that they will enforce the no-camping regulations (which they have failed to enforce for the last five months and let the protestors do it anyway), but they will not evict the protestors.

    Eleanor Norton-Holmes:

    District Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton called on demonstrators to cooperate with the NPS as they move to enforce camping regulations in the public spaces.

    She said she hoped demonstrators on Monday will respond, "with the same respect and civility that NPS and the District of Columbia have shown to Occupy DC."  She did offer demonstrators praise for their past responsiveness to lawmakers' concerns.



    Parent
    I really appreciate your updates on this (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 11:54:12 AM EST
    How protests go, you really need someone there to tell it all like it is going down.

    Parent
    You're welcome (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 12:02:44 PM EST
    I only had a half hour for lunch, so who knows how things can change. But it certainly is interesting to watch!


    Parent
    I bet it is (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 12:05:22 PM EST


    Parent
    This is one way to hold off violence (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 11:55:27 AM EST
    You leave them with an out.  You don't cut them off at the knees, just a couple of toes :)

    Parent
    I Think More Importantly (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 01:36:24 PM EST
    The Park Services isn't looking 'To show those dirty hippies who's the boss', they just want to do what they are told to do.

    Who knew treating people like human beings gets better results then treating them like dogs, and cheaper with less causalities and animosity towards authority.
    _________

    I really wish ABG would quite with the constant, 'I told you so' non-sense.  No one cares and more importantly saying it would die out isn't some grand prediction, no one thought it was going to last into the next millennium.

    How astute of him to make the prediction and how classy to come back and pat himself on the back for the awe inspiring prediction, which technically hasn't happened.

    I can't wait for the day when he can gloat, and actually be right about it, aka the occupy movement is dead.  While liberals, like myself, want to stick a fork in his head because something meaningful to me, and I suspect many others, has ended and all he cares to do is gloat about being right.

    For the record, the phrase 'stick a fork in his head' is not meant to be literal.

    Parent

    The movement is morphing (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 01:55:03 PM EST
    When everybody who is a leader thought they were safe to look the other way, that fed the protests.  Suddenly OWS speak started showing up everywhere, even the Republican candidates speak OWS speak, just not in a way that any of it makes full circle sense and that's deliberate :)

    I remember being at Crawford though.  The plan was to march to Bush's ranch and be arrested.  That was the plan though it was "secret" because the Secret Service was watching us constantly and photographing us.

    But we went to the rally, and about 25,000 showed up on a Saturday.  Crawford TX is bull$hit, it is a gas station and a trinket store, there isn't even a real hotel for anyone to stay at.  So when 25,000 people drive to Crawford TX to attend your rally, you have done something.

    The Vietnam Vets gathered everyone together after that and said it was done.  We weren't going to  be arrested.  There would be no march. They had done this all before.  They said we had to win the war one battle at a time and this battle was SQUARELY in our column rock solid.  If we got arrested it would almost seem like we did not care about all the people showing up who cared about us and cared about the Iraq War, and we got good press coverage finally.

    It was time to spread the word, find the next battle, and then win that.  If we had been infiltrated and they were prepared to make the most and the best out of us in the press marching to an arrest after so much agreement showed up for us, they were sorely fricken disappointed weren't they?  We just took the pot on the table and went home :)  And the nation's dialogue about the Iraq War was forever changed.

    It was hard knowing though that it couldn't be over right there.  And pain, kept many people in the game fighting the fights that had to be fought.

    Parent

    No Offense (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 03:17:27 PM EST
    And the nation's dialogue about the Iraq War was forever changed.

    Because of Crawford ?  Not IMO, no disrespect Tracy, but that dialog took years, countless occurrences, and a different President to... not sure of the word, but it never really changed.  Plenty of people who think it was all worth it; still worth it.

    From yellow cake, to to the never discovered WMD's, to thousands of our boys dead, to never ending money pit; for anyone one particular protest to take credit is reaching at best and quite frankly rather silly.

    Glad you were there, but please don't act like it was a game changer, because there never was one.  We left because everyone was sick and tired of it, but I can't think of any defining moment, even change of a President that was intricate in wrapping it up beyond pure American war fatigue.

    Plus not sure how that correlates at all to the Occupy people.  IMO Crawford wasn't very effective and certainly it's not a blueprint for protesting if that's what you are suggesting.  Two totally different set of circumstances with totally different players on both sides.

    I think it served it purpose, getting the issue front and center, but the problem is not many people seem to really give a damn about income inequality in the United States.  And I think that's the hard pill to swallow, like Iraq/Afghanistan, many people just don't care enough to even vote, much less vote these clowns out.

    You would think someone could rise out, but nothing, and that's truly disappointing.  Not one soul has emerged from any of it to lead the fight for income equality on the National level.

    Parent

    I could not speak my mind in public (none / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 08:02:35 PM EST
    before Crawford, so IMO you are very wrong about what happened there.  Many people held their tongues too because we had soldiers lives in Iraq and they struggled between whether expressing themselves was somehow harming those people, Crawford was a social effort that allowed that guilt to be put aside.

    As for OWS, so sad that you cannot connect the dots how they have changed and shaped the very discourse.  But I can't help you with any of this.  You want to see lightening, you want to see instant fire, real social change without violence occurs much differently.  And I don't need to argue with you that Crawford TX changed things, I lived it.

    Parent

    Scott (none / 0) (#56)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 07:25:21 PM EST
    If you remember the responses I got when I suggested that OWS could face future problems, you understand why I would subtlety suggest that maybe my thoughts weren't as off base as many claimed they were.

    If you are going to say someone is ignorant or stupid or delusional when they make a point, stand up and be accountable when a person you called ignorant or stupid or delusional reminds you that he or she wasn't.

    Shorter: don't dish it out if you can't take it.

    Parent

    Missed the Point (none / 0) (#61)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 09:44:14 AM EST
    The point was predicted it would end is like predicting I will run out of gas.  Eventually both will happen, so quit taking credit for something that hasn't happened, and acting like when it does you are Nostradamus.

    I don't think your stupid, and we are all delusional, you just seem to try harder than most.

    Parent

    Just as fast (none / 0) (#6)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 10:48:02 AM EST
    was Romney's fall in SC, and Santorum's rise in Iowa (although no one noticed the latter).

    Parent
    Again (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 10:50:05 AM EST
    Newt's 3rd fall.

    He's done if he can't pull this out.

    Which he won't.

    Parent

    mazel tov (none / 0) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 10:23:07 AM EST
    on the 30 million plus in ad dollars pumped into the FL economy in the last few days.  that cant hurt.  (heh was it worth it?)

    20 years ago in 1992 the entire presidential campaign cost 192 mill.  this year we spent 30 on one state in a primary.  thinking about that makes my head hurt.

    about today
    this time if it NOT double digits there will be many unhappy people.  if its 5 or 6 you may actually begin to see some republicans prematurely  explode Im thinkin.
    at this point, what ever happens is good for us wouldnt you say?

    Parent

    by the way (none / 0) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 10:27:30 AM EST
    already this morning I have seen, still, conflicting information about delegates.  I believe Michael Steel who said a few minutes ago that it will not be winner take all.  which matters a lot as far as Newt continuing.

    Parent
    As long (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 11:52:42 AM EST
    as the sugar dadddy keeps handing Newt money he is going to keep going. The only thing that is going to stop Newt is when the money dries up. He really thinks that he can win in November and thinks he has a better chance than Romney. This just shows how clueless he is. Gingrich has never won any election outside of a gerrymandered district.

    Parent
    You already have Trump. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Addison on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 10:21:35 AM EST
    Newt is Trump, Trump is Newt. They just have a slightly different signature word sets (notably, Newt uses "frankly" and "fundamentally" in every sentence -- because he's being evasive and has no core beliefs to rest on).

    I think Newt might have more money than Donald, though. Even if it's not true, you could drive an everlasting wedge between Trump and anyone else simply by suggesting the other person has more cash.

    Apparently Insider Advantage is run by a (none / 0) (#9)
    by tigercourse on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 11:16:48 AM EST
    Gingrich supporter, so might be no joy there.

    This nomination has been a pretty wild ride.

    Insider (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 11:22:14 AM EST
    Advantage is a polling company out of GA. I think Matt Towery runs it. Anyway, their record has been spotty at best.

    Parent
    It sure (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 11:23:28 AM EST
    looks like the Newt is going down. A lot of this has to do with the voting base in FL I guess which is a lot different than SC which is more akin to the GA GOP.

    You are very accurate (none / 0) (#24)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 11:55:44 AM EST
    in your read on the Florida GOP. There is a little bit of everything depending on which part of the state you stroll, ultimately bringing them back to an average GOP population. Once you venture south the I-10 corridor from Pensacola (south Alabama) to Jacksonville (south Georgia) you start leaving the South behind.

    Parent
    PPP has a very good track record (none / 0) (#16)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 11:43:11 AM EST
    It was the most accurate in South Carolina.....

    It will be intresting to see how close it is in Florida.

    Keep holding on to that dream (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 11:47:56 AM EST
    to the very end!

    Parent
    What a snide response (none / 0) (#20)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 11:49:33 AM EST
    My comment was not at all about any dream....

    It was a statement of fact....

    And, yes, Florida, will be a good test case for PPP.

    Give it a rest.

    Parent

    BTD (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 01:48:03 PM EST
    are you going to vote in the GOP primary or no? Of course, you may not be able to if it's closed. I think the one here in GA is open.

    Florida (none / 0) (#34)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 01:50:21 PM EST
    has closed primaries.

    Parent
    Me Personally (none / 0) (#40)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 02:25:57 PM EST
    I know you weren't asking me, but I was in Texas when Rush had his minions vote for Hillary in the D primary.  

    I think it stinks, it's manipulating the system in a way it's not meant to be.  This is the same.  

    To me, our right to vote is too sacred to play games with, especially when all that could be possibly won is political chaos for the other party, aka entertainment for thee.

    Parent

    what does this mean? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by CST on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 02:45:46 PM EST
    "way it's not meant to be"

    It was originally meant to be decided in smoke filled rooms by the nation's elite with little to no say by the common man, nevermind woman.

    Personally I consider voting to be a sign of caring and far too few people vote as it is.  If you care enough to vote for/against someone in the other party's primary, go for it.  I don't assume people vote for entertainment, it's not that much fun, maybe they just care a lot.

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 02:59:42 PM EST
    I'm thinking of voting in the GA GOP primary not to cause chaos but to vote for the person I would rather have as the GOP nominee. I mean if Obama loses it's not like I want to be a part of making Newt president. I would be voting for the least offensive candidate not the one I deemed "weakest" against Obama.

    Parent
    What I Said... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 05:10:20 PM EST
     ...is true of voting against someone IMO.

    Obviously this is just a matter of opinion, but I totally disagree with voting against someone as well.  And without getting too deep into it, it's why the parties toss out these poor candidates.

    Why put up a candidate and actually run on their qualifications/policies when we can give you whatever, knowing we have your vote because we can make the other guy look so bad you will vote against them.

    IMO if people only voted for the people they want, we would get much better then Obama/Romney, neither of which is really liked, but between the two, will certainly garner nearly every vote cast in November.

    Which is shameful, probably over 50% of the votes going to keep the other guy out, not really wanting the guy they actually voted for in.  Then wondering why we keep getting garbage as options.

    We expect nothing from our candidates, if we did, certainly Obama would be running a primary and losing IMO.  But it's more important he win, then any abstract principles/policies he may allude to in speeches.  I for one am sick of it, but I totally get that others disagree.

    Obama is pretty much an epic failure, not really sure how much worse, at this point, a McCain presidency would have been.  Certainly it would be hard to 'beat' Obama on jobs and income and poverty and drones and privacy and presidential powers and on and on.  I suppose McCain could be dead and Palin could be screwing up the country.  But at least D's wouldn't be making excuse after excuse as to why all the non-senses is actually good or how losing some battles is actually really good.  Not to the folks on the battle field, but I digress.

    It's like American Idol, people voting to keep so and so on, even if they suck, they don't care about the contest or what it represents, they just want their horse to win, even if that horse really blows.

    Sorry, didn't mean to get into it and it's certainly not aimed at Ga6thDem or anyone, just my 10 cents.

    Parent

    But, but (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 07:07:42 PM EST
    Sotomayor and Kagan!

    Parent
    You can try and belittle an important issue (none / 0) (#53)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 07:15:43 PM EST
    but the Supreme Court is an important issue, or do you disagree?

    Parent
    What I disagree with (none / 0) (#60)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 07:51:59 AM EST
    Is your constant insistence that McCain would have had two picks and the workd would have ended.

    Parent
    I find your insistence (none / 0) (#62)
    by CST on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 09:58:44 AM EST
    that we are no better off with them in the court a bit naive.

    McCain certainly would not have appointed them.  And while there is no guarantee he would have gotten any appointments, there is also no guarantee we would replace him with someone who would make those appointments.

    Bottom line is they are on the court and you either like it or you don't.  Personally I like it and no amount of wondering how long McCain and co would be in charge is going to change my mind that those were good appointments.  I will take the young liberal justices over the old ones.

    You don't have to like Obama, you don't even have to like the two justices, but you can't deny that we wouldn't have them there if McCain were in charge.

    Also, I'm sorry, but the idea that McCain would've been the same on the economy I find completely laughable.  On a completely selfish level I think there is a very real chance I would be unemployed today if that were the case.  ARRA saved my @ss, and that of many others.  Your mileage may vary.  But the "negligible" difference between the two of them includes my job.

    Parent

    I find your insistence (none / 0) (#65)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 10:33:11 AM EST
    That he would have had two picks at all to be up there with ponies and fairies and unicorns. It's laughable.  McCain would have also had a Democratic Senate, but if you're saying they can't be trusted to stop a Republican president, then why bother to vote for them?

    No, Kagan and Sotomayor wouldn't be there with a McCain presidency - but maybe we'd still have Stevens and Souter. Dreaming about McCain's picks is as silly as insisting on what the economy would be like if Hillary was president.

    I'm not sure where I said McCain would be better on the economy, but maybe you have great powers and can divine in my subconscious that even I am not aware.

    Parent

    sorry that was scott (none / 0) (#66)
    by CST on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 10:49:44 AM EST
    and i accidentaly attributed that to you.

    I've never said McCain would have any picks.  I said we don't know, and we don't know that whoever would have come after him would have been any better.

    What we do know is that we have two young justices on the court who wouldn't be there otherwise.  Stevens and Souter are not young.  They have a shorter shelf life.  Maybe they would have stayed through McCain, but what next?  What makes you think the next person would be better?

    There are no guarantees, so why risk it?

    Sure, maybe the senate would "stop" mccain from putting in someone truly obsurd, but they wouldn't have gotten anything great out of it.  They can't force him to appoint anyone.

    Parent

    But What is Missed Entirely (none / 0) (#68)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 08:16:37 PM EST
    And the base of my argument, is if people had voted for the person they thought would be the best leader instead of voting against the evil other, GWB probably would have been a 1 termer, or even better, a real candidate affiliated with no party could actually compete and win at some point who actually represent the commoners and not the lords.

    Going even more abstract, maybe supreme court appointments wouldn't be so damn important because the people appointing them would actually be real leaders who are capable and obligated to forgo party when it counts.  Just maybe the court would be less polar are more intune with our needs instead of the money pulling the strings currently.

    But Democrats, just like Republicans were/are falling over themselves to makes excuses knowing damn well the current leadership is bad.  And I suspect when Obama leaves those same fools will be like the GWB fools never claiming any responsibility and certainly shouting to anyone that will listen that he wasn't a real Republican/Democrat.

    At what point does the party say, nominations aren't worth it ?  They are very important, but so is poverty, privacy, justice, jobs, the economy, the unfettered DEA, GITMO, the copyright non-sense, drones, and on and on.

    I was all about the SC nominee business when, to me they were worth the sacrifice, but that scale has tipped long ago for me, far too many souls are suffering for a possibility on the court, or even a guarantee of the nomination.

    They system is flawed and I simply choose not to enable it the only way I can, with my vote, nothing more, nothing less.

    Bush sucked for sure, but this guy is no peach and even Bush never dreamed of sanctioning the assassinations of Americans.  After all the left would have went ballistic and demanded impeachment, but that was then, and this is now, and, "There are more important things at stake, like winning you fool."

    Parent

    show me (none / 0) (#69)
    by CST on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 08:30:03 PM EST
    a candidate to vote for and I will vote for them.

    Until then, I will continue to vote for the best person available.  Because the only other alternative I see is not voting, and that's not acceptable to me.  Look I'm from MA, so I have no problem supporting 3rd party candidates.  The only real problem I have is the elevation of the GOP as an acceptable alternative.  I recognize that that's not exactly what you mean, but I hate the arguments that say they are the same.  They are not the same.

    I would love to vote for the kind of candidate you are describing, I've just never seen them on a presidential ballot.  And I am not convinced it's the two-party system that's responsible for that.  I think it's just hard to recruit good candidates  to a completely insane political atmosphere.

    Parent

    And I'm Not Argueing You Shouldn't (none / 0) (#70)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 12:07:22 PM EST
    I will vote, and to be honest, here in Texas, I don't really have the luxury of thinking my vote matters.  Now if Texas was purple, or we didn't have the Electoral system, I might not have the luxury of idealism and join the reality crowd.

    I am actually surprised that someone hasn't risen out of the Occupy movements as a progressive voice.  I really though someone would maybe even generate enough interest and funds to make a run for it.

    Parent

    Occupy (none / 0) (#71)
    by CST on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 12:11:31 PM EST
    by nature was a leaderless movement.

    They wouldn't really let anyone emerge.

    I'm pretty excited to have Warren on my ballot this year, even if she did ignore my question about civil liberties which gives me severe pause.  But she's the only candidate I've seen even attempt to pick up that mantle and she took some heat for it (by Occupy) when she did.

    Parent

    Oh (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 05:13:11 PM EST
    I agree that the choices are bad and I for one am sick of voting "against".

    Parent
    "Operation Chaos" was a flop (none / 0) (#58)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 08:27:02 PM EST
    Obama won the Texas Republican crossover vote 53-46%.  Much as Rush tried to convince everyone, he had no effect.

    Parent
    Florida TV Commercial Numbers (none / 0) (#48)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 06:07:50 PM EST
    Total number of TV ads bought in Florida by the candidate or their super PACs through last weekend:

    Romney 13,000
    Gingrich 200
    Santorum 0
    Paul 0

    My dream ticket: (none / 0) (#49)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 06:16:28 PM EST
    Trump/Gingrich.

    A Smackdown Raw Steel Cage match with

    Obama/Biden.

    Grrrrrrrr

    PPP: Romney Up by 4 on Sunday (none / 0) (#50)
    by Dan the Man on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 06:34:56 PM EST
    Daily Kos' favorite pollster PPP says Romney was up by 4 on Sunday.

    "Meanwhile, a Public Policy Polling survey, conducted Saturday and Sunday, has Mr. Gingrich with a manageable-looking 7 points deficit. And he was down just 4 points in interviews conducted on Sunday alone, according to a cross-tabulation provided to FiveThirtyEight."

    Florida GOP Primary: Pick Your Poll | 71 comments (71 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment