First post Cain scandal national poll

[keaggy220]

Cain continues to pickup momentum, but so does Newt...

Election 2012: Republican Presidential Primary

National Poll: Cain 26%, Romney 23%, Gingrich 14%

Related Articles

Thursday, November 03, 2011

Georgia businessman Herman Cain, who continues to battle past allegations of sexual harassment, draws the most support nationally for the Republican nomination.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely GOP Primary voters shows Cain with 26% of the vote over former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s 23%. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich draws 14% support, with no other GOP contender reaching double-digits. Thirteen percent (13%) of GOP voters are undecided at this time. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

As for the rest of the field, Texas Governor Rick Perry picks up eight percent (8%) support, Texas Congressman Ron Paul gets seven percent (7%), both Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman each pick up two percent (2%), while former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum draws support from just one percent (1%).

It is important to note, however, that only 32% of GOP voters nationwide are firmly committed to their current candidate. Most (68%) say it is possible something could come up that causes them to change their mind.

While Cain’s edge over Romney is within the margin of error, this is the first time the former CEO has held any sort of lead in a national primary poll. Last month, Cain and Romney were tied at 29% each. In September, Cain picked up just seven percent (7%) of vote and Perry was the frontrunner.

The latest survey was conducted Wednesday night, after three full days of press coverage about the sexual harassment allegations against Cain.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... al_primary

[Werner]

Looking at this list of contenders gives you a porrtrait of the quality of the Republican electorate. To be approached (or rejected) with total caution.

What responsible and patriotic party can pick such a bunch?

[rwetmore]

Very interesting. It appears if anything the smear campaign is backfiring.

Still a long way to go though. I agree if Cain can weather the storm and get the nomination, he has the potential to win big.

[keaggy220]

Very interesting. It appears if anything the smear campaign is backfiring.

Still a long way to go though. I agree if Cain can weather the storm and get the nomination, he has the potential to win big.

Well, if (a pretty big if) Cain weathers the storm I believe he will win the nomination, but the general election will be another story. Obama holds all of the cards with the only wild card being the economy. IF the economy even begins to show signs of returning to health it's lights out - Obama wins...

At least that's the way I see it one year before the election.

[keaggy220]

What responsible and patriotic party can pick such a bunch?

Thanks for sharing the stereotypical liberal view.

[Proton]

Well, if (a pretty big if) Cain weathers the storm I believe he will win the nomination, but the general election will be another story. Obama holds all of the cards with the only wild card being the economy. IF the economy even begins to show signs of returning to health it's lights out - Obama wins...

At least that's the way I see it one year before the election.

Then, to clarify, do you mean to say that you would prefer that the economy NOT improve, if it will prevent the re-election of the Dusky Kenyan Usurper?

[keaggy220]

Well, if (a pretty big if) Cain weathers the storm I believe he will win the nomination, but the general election will be another story. Obama holds all of the cards with the only wild card being the economy. IF the economy even begins to show signs of returning to health it's lights out - Obama wins...

At least that's the way I see it one year before the election.

Then, to clarify, do you mean to say that you would prefer that the economy NOT improve, if it will prevent the re-election of the Dusky Kenyan Usurper?

I'm trying to figure out if you're a racist or if this is lame attempt at being a clever liberal.

[Proton]

I'm trying to figure out if you're a racist or if this is lame attempt at being a clever liberal.

Neither one. Nice attempt at deflection, though.

Let me rephrase the question without the hyperbole:

Do you believe that tanking the economy would be a good thing, just as long as Obama is denied re-election?

I look forward to your response.

[rwetmore]

Interesting video interview of Cain about this today:

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/whats-ne ... nch-alert/

[keaggy220]

Interesting video interview of Cain about this today:

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/whats-ne ... nch-alert/

I believe that Cain's poll numbers show just how little influence the MSM have over conservatives. Years of liberal bias have eroded trust to the point of having little to no power over the Republican nomination process. Conservatives aren't taking the story serious at all, even though Cain has stumbled.

You would think this would be a wakeup call, but I doubt it.

[keaggy220]

I'm trying to figure out if you're a racist or if this is lame attempt at being a clever liberal.

Neither one. Nice attempt at deflection, though.

Let me rephrase the question without the hyperbole:

Do you believe that tanking the economy would be a good thing, just as long as Obama is denied re-election?

I look forward to your response.

I know what you were trying to do with your hyperbole - you silly liberal... I was just giving you a hard time.

We know a majority of liberals were wishing Bush would fail:



http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/FOX ... se_web.pdf

I've shown my absolute glee on this board with each successful kill Obama has had and I'm absolutely thrilled with the sudden bloodlust that has possessed the liberal base now that the killer has a "D" next to his name and not an "R."

I want Obama to succeed at job creation if it's done in a responsible, proven way - not through some Keynesian nonsense that will push us into further debt or through government handouts. In my opinion we need to reduce regulations because we are now competing in a global economy.

[Cosima___J]

I think what Proton (and others) fail to understand is that the majority of Republicans and the majority of Democrats have a huge stake in the health of the economy (jobs, investments, the future of their children, etc) and absolutely want to see the economy improve. It makes no difference whether you're a Democrat or a Republican when you hear rumors at the office about job layoffs. It makes no difference whether you're a Democrat or a Republican when you see your 401k going down and have to re-calculate when you might be able to retire. These economic issues affect ALL of us. So nobody wants to see the economy tanking.

[rwetmore]

I want Obama to succeed at job creation if it's done in a responsible, proven way - not through some Keynesian nonsense that will push us into further debt or through government handouts.

Forgive me, but I have to ask. Do you really think Obama is interested in job creation? You don't really think he believes Keynesian economics and gov't spending and handout works to create jobs and grow the economy, do you?

[rwetmore]

So nobody wants to see the economy tanking.

My goodness, Cosima - you're so naive. Do you not know that the Democratic political class and elites thinks economic growth and prosperity in general is bad because it's polluting and destroying the planet with GHG emissions? They're goal, especially long-term, is to bring down the economy because they think it's required to save the world from anthropogenic climate change. This is not just the case here in the US, but all over the world. All of this talk about green jobs, job creation, desire for economic recovery - it's all a scam. Aside from what it might mean for their re-election, they have no interest in seeing the economy recover. Now of course the troops and Democrat voters are totally duped and don't know this, but I can assure this is the case among the liberal elites (as disconcerting as it is to think about and accept). As I've said before, this is evil in disguise and people are totally asleep at the wheel. They are just not seeing this for what it is.

Something for you to ponder:

Let's say that you believed that in order to save the world from disaster, the economies of the world had to be destroyed and brought down. You couldn't say this is what you want to do and ever get elected and achieve it, right? You'd have to disguise it or better yet make the people think you're doing the opposite of what it is you're really are trying to do. This is what the whole notion of green jobs being promoted to re-ignite and recover the struggling economy is about. They are actually designed to further cripple it and lead to its collapse.

I've been warning about this for quite some time now, but it appears no one is listening. Lord knows I've tried.

[keaggy220]

I want Obama to succeed at job creation if it's done in a responsible, proven way - not through some Keynesian nonsense that will push us into further debt or through government handouts.

Forgive me, but I have to ask. Do you really think Obama is interested in job creation? You don't really think he believes Keynesian economics and gov't spending and handout works to create jobs and grow the economy, do you?

I don't think he cares if Keynesian economics works or not - I think that he, and the rest of the political establishment, likes the fact that Keynesian economics is the acceptable method of the enlightened that allows for the excuse to impose more central planning and exert more government controls.

I believe the greatest concern for almost all politicians is retaining power. They'll hold onto principle as long as they can, but in the end they'll do anything to hold onto power.

Just look at the way liberals are trying to protect the DoD budget. It's the funniest thing I've seen in a long time because I know how disgusting it must be for their swooning supporters to see the abject hypocrisy of their heroes. In the end the puppets will fall into line though...

[rwetmore]

I don't think he cares if Keynesian economics works or not - I think that he, and the rest of the political establishment, likes the fact that Keynesian economics is the acceptable method of the enlightened that allows for the excuse to impose more central planning and exert more government controls.

Fair enough.

[Proton]

I know what you were trying to do with your hyperbole - you silly liberal... I was just giving you a hard time.

Looked more like you were tap-dancing around the question.

We know a majority of liberals were wishing Bush would fail:

If you are basing that assertion on a single Fox poll [for Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, n = 347, 289, and 264 respectively] conducted in 2006, then actually we “know” no such thing.

What I do know, and what you had no way of knowing until now is this: I never wished for Bush to fail at the expense of our country. For that matter, neither did anyone else I knew. Capisce?

What we both know is that the poll you cited was conducted 5 ½ years into the presidency of Bush The Lesser, by which time, that administration’s manifest failures were a matter of historical record

What we also know is that a few days before Obama’s inauguration, Rush, otherwise known as the de facto leader of the GOP, openly and unambiguously stated: “I hope he fails.” Rush has repeated that sentiment a number of times, as did a number of leading Republicans, as did you in your recent post.

If you still insist that both situations are equivalent, then you're gonna have to do better than a 5 year old Fox poll. If it really happened, then you should have no problem finding tapes and transcripts of Democratic leaders openly wishing for Bush to fail, and I’m not talking about some random bozo on the Internet, or some obscure community college instructor. Show me footage of Reid and Pelosi standing in front of a camera stating “I want Bush to fail.”

Until you can do that, you’re just blowing smoke.

I've shown my absolute glee on this board with each successful kill Obama has had and I'm absolutely thrilled with the sudden bloodlust that has possessed the liberal base now that the killer has a "D" next to his name and not an "R."

What "R" kills??

I want Obama to succeed at job creation if it's done in a responsible, proven way - not through some Keynesian nonsense that will push us into further debt or through government handouts. In my opinion we need to reduce regulations because we are now competing in a global economy.

So your wish for success in job creation is conditional? What if the Keynesian approach is successful? Would you have a problem with that?

[Proton]

I think what Proton (and others) fail to understand is that the majority of Republicans and the majority of Democrats have a huge stake in the health of the economy (jobs, investments, the future of their children, etc) and absolutely want to see the economy improve. It makes no difference whether you're a Democrat or a Republican when you hear rumors at the office about job layoffs. It makes no difference whether you're a Democrat or a Republican when you see your 401k going down and have to re-calculate when you might be able to retire. These economic issues affect ALL of us. So nobody wants to see the economy tanking.

Cosima, I think your post deserved a better reception than scorn and outright dismissal by one of our resident right-wingers. I realize that my politics are anathema to you, but it so happens that I have always agreed with what you wrote above, although I’d slightly amend the last sentence by substituting “should not want” for “wants.”

The time to set aside petty partisanship in search of solutions to our nation’s economic woes was back in January 2009. The record since then points to obstructionism and stonewalling from our "Loyal Opposition", for whom it seems that ideology trumps the Common Good.

Very unfortunate for the great majority of Americans, for as you mentioned, hardship knows no party affiliation.

[rwetmore]

I think what Proton (and others) fail to understand is that the majority of Republicans and the majority of Democrats have a huge stake in the health of the economy (jobs, investments, the future of their children, etc) and absolutely want to see the economy improve. It makes no difference whether you're a Democrat or a Republican when you hear rumors at the office about job layoffs. It makes no difference whether you're a Democrat or a Republican when you see your 401k going down and have to re-calculate when you might be able to retire. These economic issues affect ALL of us. So nobody wants to see the economy tanking.

Just to clarify, I would agree this is accurate as far as the 'troops' are concerned, of course. And yes, I know economic hardship knows no party affiliation. My point was the ultimate goals and what's generally trying to be achieved by the liberal political establishment is not the same as what the unwashed 'troops' or liberal democrat voters think it is. Obviously, they're duped and completely oblivious to this, but that's a separate issue.

[keaggy220]

I know what you were trying to do with your hyperbole - you silly liberal... I was just giving you a hard time.

Looked more like you were tap-dancing around the question.

We know a majority of liberals were wishing Bush would fail:

If you are basing that assertion on a single Fox poll [for Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, n = 347, 289, and 264 respectively] conducted in 2006, then actually we “know” no such thing.

What I do know, and what you had no way of knowing until now is this: I never wished for Bush to fail at the expense of our country. For that matter, neither did anyone else I knew. Capisce?

What we both know is that the poll you cited was conducted 5 ½ years into the presidency of Bush The Lesser, by which time, that administration’s manifest failures were a matter of historical record

What we also know is that a few days before Obama’s inauguration, Rush, otherwise known as the de facto leader of the GOP, openly and unambiguously stated: “I hope he fails.” Rush has repeated that sentiment a number of times, as did a number of leading Republicans, as did you in your recent post.

If you still insist that both situations are equivalent, then you're gonna have to do better than a 5 year old Fox poll. If it really happened, then you should have no problem finding tapes and transcripts of Democratic leaders openly wishing for Bush to fail, and I’m not talking about some random bozo on the Internet, or some obscure community college instructor. Show me footage of Reid and Pelosi standing in front of a camera stating “I want Bush to fail.”

Until you can do that, you’re just blowing smoke.

I've shown my absolute glee on this board with each successful kill Obama has had and I'm absolutely thrilled with the sudden bloodlust that has possessed the liberal base now that the killer has a "D" next to his name and not an "R."

What "R" kills??

I want Obama to succeed at job creation if it's done in a responsible, proven way - not through some Keynesian nonsense that will push us into further debt or through government handouts. In my opinion we need to reduce regulations because we are now competing in a global economy.

So your wish for success in job creation is conditional? What if the Keynesian approach is successful? Would you have a problem with that?

Look if you don't want to believe the poll that's fine with me. Pick and choose which ones you believe,,,

Here's actually what Limbaugh said:

If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here's the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that." Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it

Everyone has conditions on success so I'm not sure what you're driving at... If Obama decided he was going to create jobs by drilling for oil in every National Park and use the revenue to pay down the debt I would think environmentalists would want him to fail.

[rwetmore]

keaggy,

Well said.

The "I hope he fails" comment about Obama's presidency was designed to tweak liberals and the media, and of course they fell for it hook line and sinker as always. Aside from Limbaugh knowing the real agenda, which was not what Obama was advertising or what the 'troops' or the media by and large thought it was, what he meant was he hoped Obama would fail in implementing what he wanted to implement because he believed it would be harmful to the nation and ultimately the people. Of course, Limbaugh doesn't want country to fail under Obama, but he knew this is the way it would get reported and ultimately what liberals would believe. And sure enough....

I can still hardly believe how easy it is for Limbaugh to play the average liberal over and over again, year after year. I think a quote of his captures it perfecty: "This is one of the funniest shows - I can tweak these people (liberals) anytime I want and they don't even know they're being played."

[lennygoran]

>Lord knows I've tried.<

I thought you said you were an agnostic/atheist! Regards, Len

[lennygoran]

>Everyone has conditions on success so I'm not sure what you're driving at... If Obama decided he was going to create jobs by drilling for oil in every National Park and use the revenue to pay down the debt I would think environmentalists would want him to fail.<

Way to extreme an example--your analogy fails--there's a difference between destroying national parks and wanting to fix the infrastructure. Maybe Obama could hire all the unemployed into a military force and invade Mexico. Regards, Len

[keaggy220]

>Everyone has conditions on success so I'm not sure what you're driving at... If Obama decided he was going to create jobs by drilling for oil in every National Park and use the revenue to pay down the debt I would think environmentalists would want him to fail.<

Way to extreme an example--your analogy fails--there's a difference between destroying national parks and wanting to fix the infrastructure. Maybe Obama could hire all the unemployed into a military force and invade Mexico. Regards, Len

The most extreme example to a conservative is continuing with a Keynesian economic theory that has delivered a $15 trillion debt. Drilling in a National Park is less outrageous in my opinion.

[lennygoran]

>Drilling in a National Park is less outrageous in my opinion.<

No Golden Eagle Pass for you! Regards, Len

[rwetmore]

I thought you said you were an agnostic/atheist! Regards, Len

Good one, Len. You got me there.

[lennygoran]

>Good one, Len. You got me there.<

We just got over 8 days without power--I wonder if in the course of this torture I uttered the word God! Regards, Len