E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThis weekend’s much-anticipated Des Moines Register poll gave a positive jolt to Rep. Michele Bachmann, a negative one to Tim Pawlenty, and cause for some cautious optimism to Mitt Romney. But with 224 days until the Iowa caucuses, candidates can take caution or comfort in looking back at how the competition was shaping up this time before the last round of nominating contests.
Romney, now the frontrunner for the 2012 race with 23 percent support in the Register poll, was at 30 percent in the same poll in May 2007. At the time, he was running well ahead of the eventual GOP nominee, Sen. John McCain, who garnered the support of 18 percent of that poll’s respondents.
But, as First Read pointed out this morning, the well-known Romney may be bumping up against a ceiling in the Hawkeye State. His unfavorable rating now is 38 percent, with 52 percent giving him a favorable rating. Compare that to his sky-high 72-to-13 percent net positive four years ago -- numbers that are closer to where native Iowan Michele Bachmann’s are now.
Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who clocked in at a disappointing six percent in the weekend poll, is taking comfort in the fact that the eventual winner of the 2008 GOP caucuses – former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee – sat at just four percent in the Des Moines Register survey in 2007. (It may sting a little bit, though, that he’s running slightly BEHIND where short-timer Gov. Tommy Thompson was – seven percent – this time four years ago.)
Leave a Comment:
What did it look like in '91?
How'd Clinton do then?
"Gallup is out with new Obama Approval Numbers today showing that his bounce after the killing of Osama Bin Laden is largely gone. Perhaps the key number is that among Independents, Obama's approval is down to 42% – close to where it was on May 1 before Bin Laden was killed (40%)."
According to Jennifer Flowers in 1991.....Clinton did very well....matter of fact......"like a champ"
8 years of peace and prosperity,leaving a SURPLUS to his successor, and what was essentially a personal issue resolved with his marriage stronger than ever...but please focus on the important things. That's what has been making our country so much better the past decade or so...
Dangerfield, Republican governors are making triple-sure there's no "peace and prosperity" in our country.
By signing a $66 billion budget yesterday without a single Democratic vote, Governor Scott Walker ensures there is no safe haven for ordinary people in his state of Wisconsin. Republican governors are doing same across the country.
For example, Walker's budget cuts health centers in small communities, denying birth control, preventive care like cancer screenings, annual exams, and SIDS testing and treatment.
BadgerCare, which also helps Wisconsinites with preventive care is threatened. The Dept of Health says BadgerCare saves WI $140 million a year and prevented 11,064 unplanned pregnancies in WI 2008.
Increased unplanned pregnancy, spread of STD and more undetected & untreated breast and cervical and will result, costing $millions more dollars in future state medical costs.
Walker's budget calls for $500 million in unspecified cuts to Medicaid program.
The budget eliminates $800 million in funding for schools.
Let' s see your research professor, no need for me to repeat your scholarship is there? I'm capable of following the links to where you get your information, so I would appreciate it if you would...
Actually I do know...and the Billie Bob thing just childish...and diminishes your argument if you actually have one, which remains to be seen...
Iowa's Senator Tom Harkin ran for President in 1992. Unlike in 2008 when Gov Vilsack ran (and dropped out in early 2007) the other Democratic candidates bypassed Iowa. The belief was they couldn't compete with Tom Harking in Iowa, so if the Register did an Iowa Poll in 1991 it probably didn't show any candidate other than Harkin doing well.
regarding comment 1.4
but by ALL means, df
Do NOT even remotely look at spending. I mean all indicators were that "W" saved the world if you just look at half the 'balance' sheet.
Pay NO attention to the facts on the OTHER side of the equation,...not relevant, they say.
lis (laugh in silence,...)
So Backhouse, what would you have him cut? Since there is no defense spending in the state budget, where else is he going to make up the shortfalls? Maybe it's about time for the citizens of Wisconsin to be a little more responsible in their sexual proclivities. Or does that seem to be too much to ask?
Maybe she means dumb f**k..I am not saying u are Ceno..just trying to answer it for you. U never know with some folks on here
My info above from CBS.News, "Wis. Gov signs budget cutting education $1.85B".
BrianB, I would have Governor Walker cut out what is left of his heart and analytical thinking.
the df is to dangerfield (whom ceno was speaking to).
I made a mistake in ceno's reference to Bush1 (thought he was referring to "W" and the 'inheritance' sarcasm came into play. My bad.)
However, the CBO also curried favor on Bush 2 by showing 'balanced budgets'. the devil was in those rascally supplementals, right?
Ceno-
Fan Club? Boy, do you have the wrong guy...:)
I think she really meant Dangerfield as DF and not Dumb F&&k as DF..dont think she was dogging u on that one Ceno
My money is on The Flaky Lady for the GOP nomination.
Ya..You couldnt pay her to run on that ticket....PALIN/FEISTY 2012??....Oh boy!!!
dangerfield - in reference to 1.3 can you show me where they stashed that Clinton surplus. I don't think Bush ever found it and I know Obama could use it now.
A close analysis of the data suggests that conservatives overwhelmingly support Bachmann and as FR reported, Romney may be close to hitting his ceiling. As I commented a week ago, Bachmann will win in Iowa. Tea Partiers will not support Romney. The question is, "Is there enough Tea Partiers throughout the country to knock out Romney. Maybe, just maybe.
This week Bachman, last month Trump, they fade from the scene quicker then a popsicle in 100c heat.
No one should be surprised if Bachmann wins the Iowa GOP caucus but it is a long way to Jan/Feb 2012. Iowa has Steve King and the far right, now TP segment of the GOP has increased to the point where moderate republicans in Iowa are few. The GOP of Gov Robert Ray, Representative Jim Leach has disappeared.
The TeaParty movement in the republican party reminds me of the anti-war democrats of the 60's. They were able to get an "ideologically pure" candidate to run in 1972. I think there is a chance that the very same thing could happen in the republican party for the 2012 election. Do you know how that democratic candidate fared?...
Yeah, McGovern won 1 state over Nixon. That was then, this is now. The issues are a lot more complex. We have 3 wars going on... a debt of $14.3 Trillion with deficits begging to add on to the debt. We have had 4 years of democratic party fiat over this country. Things are not looking good for the democrats at all. Normal people see through Obama's BS... his biggest supporters right now are the liberals and those that aren't paying real attention to what's going on in the world. As the election draws near, more people will wake up. Right now they are living out their lives and only pay attention when something smacks them in the face... It happens all the time. The ads haven't begun to run yet and it is way too early for any sort of results.
If Bachmann is the "Clean Gene" of this election cycle and a deadlocked republican convention produces a "McGovern" they will suffer the same fate he did.
Surprising that someone who quotes the history of that election is so short-sighted and naive as to believe that the issues are "more complex" now. Or that an ideologically pure candidate could ever succeed in the general election.
McGovern never had a chance. He ran on an immediate withdrawal from VietNam. That was it. I remember the election very well. Nixon showed leadership while McGovern showed emotionalism.
What do we have today? Obama is not a leader. He's an organizer, period. He has a good speaking voice... so what? What harm has his policies done to this country? Plenty. Your anaology that the republicans are trying to run a purist is absurd. The republicans don't even know what the republicans are doing at this time. There's plenty of time remaining.
Yep, I voted for him because I could not stand the site of Richard Nixon. I thought Carlin had him pegged when he said that all Nixon needed was a good enema. Said he looked like he had not taken a sh** in a month. I agreed.
I'm sorry but after Kennedy in Vietnam and especially after Johnson in Vietnam I think the country had enough of war mongering democrats.
Brianb--Obama is not much of a leader, but at least he's not the ignorant clown Palin and Bachmann (the "ideologically pure" candidates of the GOP—that's, of course, if any word with the prefix "ideo-" can be used to describe those two women) are. And yes, the issues are much more complex than in the 1970s, but that is also why Obama can't seem to pull off the whole "leader" thing very well; I contend that many presidents who fared well in their time would not do any better than Obama is doing right now.
I don't know who you are trying to defend here and pitch as the better alternative against Obama, but I hope it's Ron Paul. I don't agree with all of his ideas, but the man is honorable, knowledgeable, well-meaning, and most importantly, intelligent as hell. None of that seems to apply to Palin or Bachmann. You could kiss our privileged status in the world goodbye if either of them became President. I do NOT want that.
I don't see Obama as the strong leader we need today, nor do I agree with his priorities, but I will not endorse gratuitous, unfounded, short-sighted criticism of him. He has failed to do a lot of things, but he is credited with much of the harm that OTHER administrations have done to this country. For the love of God, if we are to replace him, let Ron Paul be our man. Even Romney, for God's sake. But not Bachmann, and oh, please, NOT Palin. They are neither pure nor ideological in any way.
Andres - you really don't think Palin or Bachman are going to be the nominee, do you? It's not going to happen. I personally think both of them want the VP position because they can't run a hard enough campaign to go up against the incumbent.
If Obama is to be beaten, the contender will have to draw upon Obama's shortfalls and play up the amount of government intrusion into our lives. They will have to attack his record, his spending, his hesitations, the unemployment rate, the debt accrued, etc. I don't know of any republican that is willing to do that at this time. There are a lot of negatives surrounding Obama, but unless they are hit with a full swing bat, Obama will win against any of the current contenders because of his ability to speak and spin at the same time without breaking a sweat.
Bachman has already begun to show her Palinesk mentality, thought not with the same idiotic flare. Yesterday she stated Romney's health care plan was unconstitutional. An odd statement since the Massachusetts state constitution does not ban health care or individual mandates. (if it did you would not be required to have car insurance in Mass.) And the Federal constitution states that the States shall have power to do pretty much anything apart from providing for the common defense of our nation, printing money, and managing foreign affairs.
I can only assume that Bachman will next proclaim that Romneycare was enacted to warn the British that they will not be taking our doctors away... or something like that.
Good points, Rhino40.
Rhino - you forgot that states are not allowed to ignore tariffs. South Carolina tried that back in the 1800s and got shot up, burned out and raped for their efforts.
Off topic, but wonderful wonderful news!!!
The DREAM Act is dead in Congress, but the White House is quietly moving to limit deportations of undocumented immigrants with strong ties to the US.
Hamstrung by a politically deadlocked Congress, the Obama administration is using executive authority to shape immigration policy instead. Obama’s immigration chief has advised officials to take pause before moving to deport certain undocumented immigrants who are particularly vulnerable or have strong community ties to the country—some of whom may have qualified for the DREAM Act, the bill that provides a pathway to citizenship for certain students, military veterans, and other undocumented youth that’s currently stalled in Congress.
//
According to the memo, there is a range of factors that federal agents, attorneys, and other officials should consider in deciding whether or not to pursue an individual undocumented immigrant for deportation. The list of “factors to consider” includes whether they are military veterans and their families, have family ties and “contributions to the community,” act as caretakers of the infirm and disabled, are very young or very old, or are pregnant or nursing.
In addition, the Obama administration instructs federal officials to weigh the circumstances of immigrants’ arrival to the US—especially if they came as young children—and whether they’ve graduated from high school, college, or are currently pursuing higher education. The memo explicitly states that no groups of immigrants are categorically excluded from deportation if they fit these criteria. But it emphasizes the need to “warrant particular care” when it comes to particular individuals, while advising officials to target serious felons, repeat offenders, known gang members and immigration fraudsters, and those “who pose a clear risk to national security.”
Pro-immigration advocates have cheered the memo for its potential to blunt the most punitive parts of the existing immigration law through the executive branch, in the face of Congressional inaction on the issue.
It's a paradigm shift…it's the first memo I've seen by an ICE director written in plain English so that a field officer and trial attorney can understand it," says David Leopold, an immigration attorney and president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. "What he's really saying is, look at the people you run across in the scope of your enforcement work as human beings, not merely as statistics and targets—have they developed ties, have they added to the social fabric and culture, do they have children that depend on them? I applaud him for that."
http://blackwaterdog.wordpress.com/http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/06/obama-dream-act-deportations?utm_source=twitterfeed
That really is "great" news.
Obama just won't enforce the law. How nice for him.
THis is really what you want your government to do - selective enforcement?
Cause see there are many laws I don't like. Perhaps I should simply pick and choose as to which I will follow.
It is never "great news" to have a president ignore the law. He couldn't get it changed politically because the majority of voters don't like or want the Dream Act. He is just pandering to his base and it will be used against him (rightfully) in the election.
Spanky-
I jaywalk right in front of the police, should they arrest me? There are HUNDREDS of laws on the books that are "selectively" enforced every day, and you know it if you are a lawyer. Enforcing every law to the letter world paralyze our law enforcement personnel and the court system. We RELY on selective enforcement of the law and on the discretion of police and court system.
And within a limited range of options, like jay walking, I do get to choose to what extent I follow the law, and you do to.
Good to hear Pat. There is not a lot that Obama can do lawfully, much like with the gay marriage issue, Obama can't be totally supportive of the immigrant's plight but this is a good shift. Some can call it pandering, but could it be he is doing the right thing and trying to weigh all factors prior to deporting certain individuals?
The memo explicitly states that no groups of immigrants are categorically excluded from deportation if they fit these criteria. But it emphasizes the need to "warrant particular care" when it comes to particular individuals, while advising officials to target serious felons, repeat offenders, known gang members and immigration fraudsters, and those "who pose a clear risk to national security."
__
Spanky it is good news. I'm see that you like me are encouraged that there is movement on this front.
Just in case you missed it reposted from above; Spanky no one is excluded in deportations however the memo seems to ask that all factors be considered. It seems to me that if we were deporting it is better to deport those that bring crime and mischief when they are in the country in lieu of hard working family folk.
It would be nice if like with other problems we try to solve an issue with comprehensive solutions, immigration reform - (border security, penalty for employeers, pathway to legalization with fines for those here.)
Same with debt ceiling and debt issue, parties need to agree to spending cuts and tax increases or removal of deductions a comprehensive solution.
dangerfield - Comparing jaywalking and illegal immigration is quite honestly the silliest straw man argument I have ever heard.
Unless of course you are an Illegal Immigrant, jaywalking and get hit by a car. Then an ambulance has to take you to the emergency room for free medical care.(Well, free to the Illegal, we, of course, will have to subsidize it) If you are disabled from your injuries and get deported, maybe you will have wished you had obeyed that simple "un-enforceable" law.
That is good news, Pat. I knew President Obama was considering an Executive Order to do this if Congress remained dysfunctional. Off topic sort of...one of MSNBC's best promo ads is Lawrence O'Donnell's about Congress granting citizenship to a young Mexican immigrant (brought here by his parents as a child) who joined the military and died in Iraq.....as Lawrence say "when it was too late."
Funny, when President Obama does something like this it is "ignoring the law" but when Pres Bush did it, it was okay. Under the Obama administration, more illegals have been deported, more employers have been prosecuted and fined than when Bush was in office--meaning Bush "ignored" the law.
Sorry you didn't like MY example of a selectively enforced law, but there are many others.
Selective enforcement and selective prosecution of the law is a reality of our society, so you pick your own example if you like, but we obviously have immigration and employment laws being selectively prosecuted and enforced in every state, or there would be a lot of employers in the court system and you would have to bus your own table here in NYC...
But based on the convoluted scenario above...I dunno if you can see through your talking points to do so...
I would like to hear what your ideas on solving the immigration issue are.
Dangerfield, I agree it was a convoluted scenario, purposefully so, to make my point not a talking point.
As far as immigration goes, two simple ideas:
1. Enforce existing laws
2. Bring our soldiers home from Afghanistan and deploy them on the Mexican border.
As far as immigration goes, two simple ideas:
1. Enforce existing laws
2. Bring our soldiers home from Afghanistan and deploy them on the Mexican border.
Good ideas and I do not disagree that they have merit in principle
The problem with "simple solutions" is that the world is complicated....
As an interventionist power (great phrase I learned from an Indian Air Force pilot at this years Strategic Conference at the Naval War College) we have an historical obligation to the countries we "help", that makes us tend to leave a substantial residual presence behind.
Why don't we bring them home from Korea first? We have had over 50,000 troops there sine the 1950's. How about Germany? Maybe Japan? That goes all the way back to "the big one" We still have over 60,000 troops in Iraq, let's get them home first. Why Afghanistan? Why not bring them ALL home? we could build a human fence! But even that wouldn't help with the millions of illegals working and paying BILLIONS in taxes (sales utilities, etc..everyone pays tax if they live here in the good ol' USA!)
What about the other border? What is stopping illegals from going to Canada FIRST and circumventing our southern border strategy?
If we enforced the existing laws, how many business would be shut down temporarily if not permanently? how many business owners would be facing thousands to millions of dollars in penalties, if not jail time, potentially paralyzing some industries? How would that affect our sluggish, shaky economic recovery?
The problem with most simple solutions is that implementing them becomes so damned complicated...:)
Why not? Selective enforcement worked for George W. Bush. Remember "signing statements"?
Or are you suffering from selective memory?
dangerfield, I should have put "simple" in quotes. If it were simple, it would have been done by now.
I do think that you have to start somewhere and just saying it's to big a problem, so lets's ignore it, is not a good plan.
So how about this. I said Afghanistan, because quite frankly, it holds no strategic benefit for the US. We are wasting our time there. Korea, Japan, Germany all have strategic implications for a US presence.
Yes, some businesses would be shut down, some penalties would be enforced, but you have to start somewhere. Just maybe some of the 14 million Americans out of work could fill the spots vacated by Illegals, we'll never know if we don't try something.
And that's the point AM - selective enforcement is a bad idea. Not ok when Bush did it, not ok now.
Fact is I was just reading an article about the new catch and release directice at ICE.
They catch criminal illegals - committing other crimes, but let them go.
Either change the laws or enforce them. But, the good news is this is exactly the kind of thing that will come back and bite Obama in the ass. Most people are not in favor of illegal immigration, particularly in tough times like these.
It's like the '67 borders things - he just keeps pissing people off.
Well said Anna -
I was wanting to ask the same question as I read the post.
Guess it is that same old tired double standard the repub-nuts keep insisting on, but the people are so sick and tired of...
White Collar
We agree about afghanistan, no strategic value AND it didn't even hold Osama,...talk about a cluster,...we need to leave and I don't really care how ungracefully we do it. Roll up the carpet and hit the lights,...
Not as stupid as yo uthink
No, the republicans mean what they say and say what they mean unlike the screw loose, bigoted, misogynistic, hypocritical, ignorant, crybaby, lying, egotistical, arrogant, sons of female dogs that they are.
Go Bachmann 2012! NOBAMA2012!
"Go Bachmann 2012!
Boy, hodwy. Gotta agree with you on this one!
Indeed!
To paraphrase what i used to say about Sister Sarah "please nominate her, please nominate her, please nominate her". (It doesn't flow as easily as 'please run, please run, please run', though)
You know how to end the illegal immigration problem?
Do what President Reagan did....give amnesty to everyone.
They're here, we're not going to track all of them down and deport them and there is the small problem of their children who were born in America and are US citizens.
Saves billions and billions and billions.
... and, as is being demonstrated here in Georgia, they provide a valuable service that citizens or legal immigrants are unwilling to perform for the offered pay.
WC Auto - Police select laws to enforce all the time. As stated above it would be a legal nightmare to enforce every law! Do you really believe the Republican/Tea-baggers want to enforce immigration? Most of the people who want to keep illegal immigrates are farms, construction companies, hotels and rich people. These are mostly Republicans! If they would stop giving them jobs, then they would not come to United States! No jobs, and no health care for illegals = no immigration problem!! Problem solved!
Yes, McGovern lost badly. But, as we all saw later, it wasn`t a very honest election process,was it? Aftter all, the antics of Nixon and crew cost him the job, Nixon is still the only one to leave under those circumstances.
"Gallup is out with new Obama Approval Numbers today showing that his bounce after the killing of Osama Bin Laden is largely gone. Perhaps the key number is that among Independents, Obama's approval is down to 42% – close to where it was on May 1 before Bin Laden was killed (40%)."
Michele the "flake" Bachmann seems to be suffering from RTS...."religious twit syndrome ".
Obama of course submitted a FY2012 budget in January, with $1.65 trillion in deficit spending, that was voted on in the Senate. The result was a 97-0 vote against the budget. He couldn't even get the socialist from VT, Bernie Sanders, to vote for his budget. Obama followed that budget up with a speech where he said he'd make trillions in cuts over the next 12 years. The CBO was asked last week why they hadn't scored Obama second "budget", they said they can't score speeches, that they need more details than just lofty goals and rhetoric.
Now Obama searches the golf courses across the land for a solution to the nations budget problems.