Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03
    Announcement
     
    Announcement
     

    Alabama and Mississippi polls: Gingrich on top, but not by much

    Alabama and Mississippi polls: Gingrich on top, but not by much

    A slew of new polls have recently been released showing that the Presidential campaign in the southern states is essentially a dead heat. Newt Gingrich appears to have a tenuous lead over the other candidates but, in almost every poll, he is within the statistical margin of error.

    In Alabama, Rasmussen reported Gingrich on top with 30%, while Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum were close behind at 29% and 28% respectively.

    Mississippi presents a bit of a conundrum with its conflicting poll numbers. An American Research Group poll has Newt leading Romney by four points 35%-31%, and Santorum lagging way behind with 20%. However, a recently released Rasmussen poll has Romney leading the state with 35%, while Newt and Santorum are deadlocked at 27% apiece. Its not immediately clear why the two polls, taken only one day apart, came up with such differing results among the candidates but, as with Alabama, it appears to indicate that there is still room for any of the top 3 candidates to push their way to victory in the state.

    Its no secret that Newt needs to do well in the south, he has based his entire strategy around it. However, this is not to say that Tuesday’s primaries don’t hold heavy significance to both Santorum and Romney. If either of the latter two campaigns swoops in and takes a win in Mississippi or Alabama, it would be a real blow to the Gingrich campaign strategy.

    A win for Romney would show that he can, in fact, appeal to the southern electorate. A win for Santorum, on the other hand, would lend credence to his argument that he is the best conservative alternative to Romney.

    Conversely, Gingrich victories in both Mississippi and Alabama would poke holes in Santorum supporters’ argument that Newt should bow out. After all, its difficult to make the argument that a competitor should fold up shop when he’s winning.

    Whatever the outcome is to be, top Gingrich advisers have declared Mississippi and Alabama “must win” battle ground states. Although the polls currently offer no clear frontrunner in the two southern states at stake this Tuesday, Santorum and Gingrich have accepted an invitation to participate in a televised Presidential Forum in Alabama the night before voting is to take place.

    Gingrich will undoubtedly be looking to use that opportunity to play to his strengths, and put a little more cushion between himself and the other candidates.

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    “Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum scored wins against each other, but it was former Speaker Newt Gingrich who single-handedly drove President Obama into panic mode.

    “…the undeniable fact remains that he [Romney] has not demonstrated the ability to win a race without vastly outspending his opponents, often by 5-to-1 and even 12-to-1. He will not enjoy this luxury against the sitting president and the billion-dollar Obama machine. Veteran political writer John Fund says Republicans are “fooling themselves” if they ignore this sobering reality…”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/8/mitt-beat-rick-but-newt-beat-barack/


       
       0 
       
       0
      WoodnWorld in reply to raven. | March 10, 2012 at 4:02 pm

      What world do you live on where a candidate must match, or underspend, his/her opponents to “demonstrate” there a ability to win an election/primary/caucus (whatever)?

      Worse, what universe do you inhabit where the Romney liability of (perhaps ) being outspent by the “billion-dollar Obama machine” this Summer/Fall will be mitigated by another candidate who has proven themselves entirely incapable of fundraising? Romney will not “enjoy this luxury” then so we must put our faith and resources in someone who was never capable of attaining that “luxury” now?

      Well done rave. Yet another stellar example of your logical faculties and argumentative prowess.


     
     0 
     
     0
    WoodnWorld | March 10, 2012 at 5:26 pm

    Oh, I will try although I must confess how terribly difficult it is to follow the moves of one who oh so selectively cherry picks her sources to make her case and oh so subjectively deems her opinions beyond repute and the opinions of others beneath consideration. I will do my best though.

    On the contrary, it is both your faculties and your prowess that are consistently the issue here. The points Dr. Wolf, not the Washington Times writ large (try to pay attention, there is a difference) make here are points you have made, word for word, many times before. In challenging the logic and objectivity of the source you subjectively selected I am, in effect, challenging you. Once again: weighed, measured, found wanting. Next…


       
       0 
       
       0
      raven in reply to WoodnWorld. | March 10, 2012 at 5:36 pm

      Let’s examine the logical formula of money vs. results.

      Romney has been running and raising money for six years (Gingrich and Santorum nowhere close); it makes sense he’d have more structural money-raising advantages, and more money. He is also personally wealthy and borrows from his personal fortune to finance his perpetual campaign for the presidency.

      As of 1/31/2012, according to Center for Responsive Politics and NY Times, Romney had raised approximately $64 million. He’d spent most of it, with $7.6 million on hand. The bulk of his funds come from large donors (hedge funds and corporate bundlers, not small individual donors). Around a fifth of this money comes from his own personal fortune. For this investment, as of 1/31, he’d accumulated around 1 million votes. It comes out to around $51/vote. Santorum spent 5.2 million to this point for around 380,000 votes, a per vote investment of approx. $14. Gingrich paid $16.5 million for around 818,00 votes — $20 per vote.

      Bang-for-buck, Santorum and Gingrich whip Romney. That Romney has outspent a divided not-Romney opposition by this amount and is still struggling is a rather clear statement as to his political “Q Factor”.

      Obama, meanwhile, has about $75 million on hand.

      Romney’s burn rate – money-for-votes ratio – is unsustainable.

      While the Republican candidate in any case will be outmatched, who does logic tell us would be the more efficient and effective candidate, one who pays $51 per vote, or one who pays $14 or even $20?


         
         0 
         
         0
        WoodnWorld in reply to raven. | March 10, 2012 at 6:30 pm

        It’s 2:20am here in Iraq. I will come back to this later today, probably late morning, with a response to both posts.

        Between now and then, I will say this (and it is probably as true, if not more so, for me as well), you are much easier to respond to when you leave the sarcasm and the condescension at the door. I know I can be an ass. It is a character flaw. I, sometimes too stridently, try to be snarky and imagine the attitude I actually project makes it hard for you or anyone else to take a measured tone while responding to me. I say this only because you are far more likely to get a “real” response, a real “case” from me if you comment in the way you just have in these last two posts, rather than how we have handled one another up to this point. If you want to have a debate, I am willing to accept. I am under no delusions that either of us will be converted but, differences aside, I think if either one of us dropped our swords, we might realize neither of us is *that* far from the other.

        I own my share of this, admit my failings and, in spite of them, am willing to share my perspectives with someone who I think might at least listen to what I have to say. I have a reason (reasons?) for believing the way I do, am absolutely capable of articulating those reasons, but have no desire to see my own opinions sarcastically shat upon simply because those perspectives are not in the majority here or because a single dissenter wants to get personal and try to tear both me, and my opinions, apart.

        Please remember that, all differences aside, as a commenter here I do admire both your passion and your consistency. Until then, enjoy the rest of your day.


           
           0 
           
           0
          raven in reply to WoodnWorld. | March 10, 2012 at 7:17 pm

          Emotional straw men.

          Just stick to the issues.


           
           0 
           
           0
          AnniNomiNous in reply to WoodnWorld. | March 10, 2012 at 11:51 pm

          I did not know you are in Iraq…God Bless You, man.


             
             0 
             
             0
            Tamminator in reply to AnniNomiNous. | March 11, 2012 at 12:40 am

            sympathy troll.
            I told you, guys.

            She’ll suck up to anyone who will accept her.

            No one is coming back to this post, because this whiner is getting old, but I called it.

            I thought you were never coming back to this site?

            Like I said, you’re a hypocrite and a liar.
            You proved me right.


             
             0 
             
             0
            WoodnWorld in reply to AnniNomiNous. | March 11, 2012 at 5:56 am

            Tammi, you don’t need Anni or I to prove you right. All you need is yourself. Your self righteous assurance that everything you say is gold and anything anyone else says is crap, your tinny little echo chamber here, your thin-skinned “defense(s), your lack of class/bearing/self discipline, is more than enough to appease you here.

            Talk about sympathy troll, I am starting to feel very sorry for you. While part of me wants to believe you were not raised very well, are really not that educated, and/or are just hiding behind the Professor’s/raven’s coattails, deep down I know that this has nothing to do with where you came from, but rather who you are as a person.

            It is comforting to see you and raven high-fiving one another here (yay, headbutt!). I have long associated raven as one of the most toxic, sociopathic, anhedonic and angry little birds here and am happy for the opportunity to so closely associate your personalities with one another in both space and time.

            The only tools either of you have are destructive. While Hope may be woefully ignorant about the reality of this race, at least she tries to maintain an upbeat attitude about things and answer “attacks” with a positive message. Neither you nor raven are capable of either.


             
             0 
             
             0
            WoodnWorld in reply to AnniNomiNous. | March 11, 2012 at 6:13 am

            Anni, thank you. Yes, I am in Iraq now so many of my posts will be off cycle with a lot of what you all are doing back home.

            I have mentioned it, sporadically, elsewhere but I am a veteran, prior service Reconnaissance Marine, and have spent a number of years trying to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat here in the region. When I left active service I worked my ass off to get into a very good school, I did very well there and have been back over here ever since.

            Put another way, both my military service and my education have imminently prepared me to deal with the, with devastating results if I do say so myself, tyrants/bullies/blowhards and angry, pompous, self-righteous, holier than thou, pseudo-academic, self-proclaimed geniuses of the world.


           
           0 
           
           0
          AnniNomiNous in reply to WoodnWorld. | March 11, 2012 at 1:09 pm

          WoodnWorld – quite an impressive resume and many thanks for your service. Take good care of yourself. I wish Tamminator, Raven, etc., etc., would realize that a guy like you is what makes this country exceptional and that you are looking out for them and their families. It’s the radical left they should be disliking and criticizing, not those who support and sustain freedom.


             
             0 
             
             0
            WoodnWorld in reply to AnniNomiNous. | March 11, 2012 at 2:05 pm

            I speak from experience when I say that both raven and Tamminator are more against Mitt Romney than they are for their candidates, and, Raven at least, is more against Mitt Romney than she is against Barack Obama. I don’t need to tell you there is something wrong with that dynamic.

            My first priority is beating Barack. Everything else is secondary to that. Their first priority is stopping Mitt Romney. Priorities.

            Thank you for the kind words and thank you for coming back, if even for just a little bit. (Personally, I would like to see you stick around if for no other reason than to send Tamminator further into apoplexy…)

            Most importantly, thank you again for standing up for yourself, your opinions and what you believe in. I know it’s not easy to hold your position when you are “taking fire.” Again, well done!


         
         0 
         
         0
        WoodnWorld in reply to raven. | March 11, 2012 at 9:18 am

        “Let’s examine the logical formula of money vs. results.”

        Yes, let’s examine that “formula.”

        Romney’s “burn rate” is only a valid point if the amount of money he is capable of raising in the future is either limited or finite. It’s not. There is always more money out there. There is always more that could be raised. As someone who has worked on a number of campaigns, I will tell you right now these are both facts. I personally have not contributed a dime to any of the candidates in this race. I am not alone. When Romney wins the nomination he WILL see a jump in fundraising.

        The “burn rate” can also be (easily) be debunked by the fact that this primary, from the beginning, was designed to be more protracted that 2008 or any other primary before it. So many of you ask why Mitt hasn’t “put this thing away” yet, why it is taking so long for him to seal things up. We both know that this primary, with it’s backloading many of the contests later in the season, diminishing the total number of races on Super Tuesday and making more of the races proportional allocations rather than winner-take-all, this race was ALWAYS designed/destined to last longer than others. Races that last longer cost more. It’s that simple.

        Your “bang-for-buck” and “money-for-votes” argument is specious and only serves to make you and yours feel a little better about the state of the race thus far and the extremely uncomfortable fact that your candidate(s) is (are) losing where it really counts. In the real world, the only measure that matters in this race is whether your candidate wins delegates and wins states, or not. Sure, Newt and Rick may have saved a lot of money by switching to Geico, but doing so has not delivered results. This contest was never about who can earn the most amount of candidates with the least amount of cash. Historically, winners have almost always tended to spend more than those who lost. It’s nearly a maxim in politics, “he who has the most, wins.”

        Let us not forget the uncomfortable facts that first, if Rick and Newt had the money, they would spend it. Second, they can’t raise that kind of money, this absolutely reflects poorly on both of their campaigns and neither has proven they have the ability to change this reality even if they wanted to.


       
       0 
       
       0
      raven in reply to WoodnWorld. | March 10, 2012 at 5:54 pm

      What exactly are you challenging? That Mitt Romney is the most inefficient political spendthrift of our time? That he can only win primaries contests by vastly outspending his opponents on unrelievedly negative ads? The contentions in the Washington Times piece?

      Your point seems to be that Romney is a better candidate because he’s demonstrated greater ability to raise more money, and this puts him in better stead than the others against Obama, who will raise and have more than anybody. But this a shriveled piece of the fuller argument. The larger argument should include questions about how a candidate spends money, how the candidate will do when outspent (Gingrich and Santorum obviously do better than Romney; Gingrich was outspent in South Carolina and drubbed Romney, Santorum has been consistently outspent and more than held his own) and the message and personal inspiration and skills in battling media narratives that each candidate offers to overcome such money disadvantages. Has Romney ever won when being so seriously outspent? Has Romney EVER been outspent? Has Romney ever challenged a media narrative?

      Given all this, you wish to maintain, to extrapolate from Romney’s extravagant inefficiency and demonstrably poor ability to inspire or consolidate the Republican electorate over two election periods, that he is better suited to face Obama?


         
         0 
         
         0
        WoodnWorld in reply to raven. | March 11, 2012 at 9:36 am

        What exactly are you challenging?

        I am challenging the “fact” that “efficiency” is any measure at all. I am challenging the fact that because Romney has raised a lot, and spent a lot, he will somehow be weakened in the future for it. That he will not be able to continue to do so, to an even greater extent, when he wins the primary.

        Your point seems to be that Romney is a better candidate because he’s demonstrated greater ability to raise more money, and this puts him in better stead than the others against Obama, who will raise and have more than anybody.

        My perhaps “shriveled” (lol) point is that Obama’s numbers, his projections, are likely (and at least five different sources I can think of right now say this), extremely inflated. Not only that but they are inflated by the same water carriers in the MSM that you and yours claim to despise until they give you a projectile, like this one, that you can use to throw at Mitt Romney. Even if the numbers are not inflated, just because a candidate is outspent does not mean they are certain to lose. You yourself cite, correctly, that Gingrich won SC in spite of being outspent. I will be the first to concede money helps, and more of it helps more, but it is not the only factor that matters in a race.

        My point is that there is only one candidate who has proven they can even come close to Barack Obama in fundraising. If having a little less than his campaign is a liability, surely having far less makes for a far greater liability. Ergo, by your own logic both Newt and Rick are toast in a head-to-head with Obama.

        If you want to talk pure numbers, the pure “economics” of the race, yes, Romney is absolutely “better suited to face Obama” and I personally challenge you, using your own metrics, to find someone who is better suited than him.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend