From an email I received.

 

It happened. We broke 20% in Iowa, which pulled us to within 6% of Governor Romney!

 

How significant is this poll? Well a news report on MSNBC yesterday said that Governor Romney has spent over $10,000,000 on television ads in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. We have spent $0 on television advertising. As a supporter said on our campaign blog last night, it’s all about "Message, Message, Message!"

 

From the beginning of this campaign, we’ve taken each voter seriously and spoken to them sincerely about the issues that matter most to them: the sanctity of life, secure borders, education, preventative health care, the fair tax and so many more issues. Clearly people are responding.

 

So where do we go from here? We must redouble our grassroots efforts, expand our outreach in New Hampshire and South Carolina, and prepare to defend ourselves from a wave of negative attacks. When you raise and spend the kind of money some of these campaigns have, you can expect they won't give up easily, and I am afraid we haven't seen the worst of their false attacks.

I'm not much on polls; but I've said before that Huckabee is a man I could cast a vote for if I thought he could win the general. He still needs to explain his Arkansas tax hikes to my satisfaction.

I'm not much on polls; but I've said before that Huckabee is a man I could cast a vote for if I thought he could win the general. He still needs to explain his Arkansas tax hikes to my satisfaction.

 

I will search for an answer for you.:ylsuper:

Here's the problem with polls. Strategic Vision did an Iowa poll at the same time as CBS/NYTimes and they gave Romney 30% and Huckabee 19%. Also if you look at the national polls completed this past week, Huckabee is hovering around 8.5% compared to Giuliani with 27.5%, Thompson with 15.5%, McCain with 12.5% and Romney with 14.8%. I think the Iowa and New Hampshire caucuses/primaries are overblown. Why would we let two states with a total of less that 1.4% of our population decide our presidential outcome.

 

BTW, in New Hampshire:

 

Romney 34%

Huckabee 6%

Who won Iowa four years ago? Eight? Who won Iowa when Clinton was elected?

Who won Iowa four years ago? Eight? Who won Iowa when Clinton was elected?

2004- George W. Bush* (unopposed)

2000- George W. Bush* (41%) defeated Steve Forbes (30%), Alan Keyes (14%), Gary Bauer (9%), John McCain (5%) and Orrin Hatch (1%)

1996- Bob Dole (26%) defeated Pat Buchanan (23%), Lamar Alexander (18%), Steve Forbes (10%), Phil Gramm (9%), Alan Keyes (7%), Richard Lugar (4%) and Morry Taylor (1%)

1992- George H. W. Bush (unopposed)

1988- Bob Dole (37%) defeated Pat Robertson (25%), George H. W. Bush* (19%), Jack Kemp (11%) and Pete DuPont (7%)

1984- Ronald Reagan* (unopposed)

1980- George H. W. Bush (32%) defeated Ronald Reagan* (30%), Howard Baker (15%), John Connally (9%), Phil Crane (7%), John B. Anderson (4%) and Bob Dole (2%)

1976- Gerald Ford defeated Ronald Reagan

Here's the problem with polls. Strategic Vision did an Iowa poll at the same time as CBS/NYTimes and they gave Romney 30% and Huckabee 19%. Also if you look at the national polls completed this past week, Huckabee is hovering around 8.5% compared to Giuliani with 27.5%, Thompson with 15.5%, McCain with 12.5% and Romney with 14.8%. I think the Iowa and New Hampshire caucuses/primaries are overblown. Why would we let two states with a total of less that 1.4% of our population decide our presidential outcome.

 

BTW, in New Hampshire:

 

Romney 34%

Huckabee 6%

 

You are now officially BANNED from my Huckabee threads.:lol::lol::lol:

You are now officially BANNED from my Huckabee threads.:lol::lol::lol:

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Huckabee. I could go for a Romney/Huckabee ticket. I think he'd make a good VP. I don't think he's electable as President at this time. I just choose not to wear the rose colored glasses.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Huckabee. I could go for a Romney/Huckabee ticket. I think he'd make a good VP. I don't think he's electable as President at this time. I just choose not to wear the rose colored glasses.

 

I think he is the only Republican that is close to being electable.

 

Rudy is not as I hope the evangelicals who are responsible for GW's election don't sell out their principles and vote for him.

 

Romney, not politically correct, but I don't think this country is ready to elect a Mormon.

 

McCain, his luster left in 2000.

 

Thompson, his lack of work ethic and seemingly disinterest will not create any enthusiasm.

 

I think Huckabee simply has those qualities Republicans want IF the $$$$ would get behind him. It is a sad self-fulfilling prophecy. They say they won't give him any big donations because he cannot get the big donations and he is not electable because he cannot get the big donations.

 

And yet, if they would give him the big donations, he all of a sudden becomes electable because he has the $.

You do know that Democrats get to vote too don't you?

You do know that Democrats get to vote too don't you?

 

You know I am a registered Democrat.

I think he is the only Republican that is close to being electable.

 

Rudy is not as I hope the evangelicals who are responsible for GW's election don't sell out their principles and vote for him.

 

Romney, not politically correct, but I don't think this country is ready to elect a Mormon.

 

McCain, his luster left in 2000.

 

Thompson, his lack of work ethic and seemingly disinterest will not create any enthusiasm.

 

I think Huckabee simply has those qualities Republicans want IF the $$$$ would get behind him. It is a sad self-fulfilling prophecy. They say they won't give him any big donations because he cannot get the big donations and he is not electable because he cannot get the big donations.

 

And yet, if they would give him the big donations, he all of a sudden becomes electable because he has the $.

 

I agree. I think the key is the "evangelical" vote that seemed to push GW over the top...if Rudy is the Republican nominee, then that group will be split. There will be some that probably won't even bother voting, and the rest will likely be split too much to give Rudy a big enough boost.

 

Just my opinion...I really think it's going to be hard for any other Republican to win.

I agree. I think the key is the "evangelical" vote that seemed to push GW over the top...if Rudy is the Republican nominee, then that group will be split. There will be some that probably won't even bother voting, and the rest will likely be split too much to give Rudy a big enough boost.

 

Just my opinion...I really think it's going to be hard for any other Republican to win.

 

I will NOT vote for Rudy. I will either not vote, choose a 3rd party or simply write in someone's name as a joke as I did in the KY governor election.

I agree. I think the key is the "evangelical" vote that seemed to push GW over the top...if Rudy is the Republican nominee, then that group will be split. There will be some that probably won't even bother voting, and the rest will likely be split too much to give Rudy a big enough boost.

 

Just my opinion...I really think it's going to be hard for any other Republican to win.

The evangelical vote is going to go for whoever gets the Republican nomination. But who will get the moderates and independents votes?

The evangelical vote is going to go for whoever gets the Republican nomination. But who will get the moderates and independents votes?

 

Disagree totally. I don't think they support Rudy G. Some will but masses won't. They simply won't vote or they go 3rd party.

 

Rudy G is the candidate and I think Hillary has it in a walk as he will lose a huge amount of support in the Rep party's base.

 

If I vote Rudy G, I might as well vote the Dem candidate. Not much difference in the areas that raise my concern.

 

And most of the people that I talk with about politics that would be considered evangelicals have the same concern and have said they will not be voting for Rudy G either.