E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIn the past two weeks, support has fallen sharply in Iowa for Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich. NBC's Chuck Todd reports.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Texas Rep. Ron Paul are running neck-and-neck in Iowa, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum is surging and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich collapsing just four days before the state's Jan. 3 caucuses, according to a new NBC News-Marist poll.
Romney drew the support of 23 percent of likely caucus-goers in Iowa – identified based on interest, chance of voting and past participation – ahead of Paul, at 21 percent.
They are followed by Santorum at 15 percent, Texas Gov. Rick Perry at 14 percent, Gingrich at 13 percent and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann at 6 percent.
The Republican presidential hopefuls are in high gear with just days left until the Iowa caucuses. NBC's Peter Alexander reports.
The poll numbers, which are similar to those published in a recent CNN/Time survey, represent a reversal of fortune for Gingrich, as well as an improvement for Santorum and (to a lesser extent) Perry. The NBC-Marist poll conducted in late November had Gingrich in the lead among likely caucus-goers at 28 percent, Romney and Paul tied at 19 percent, Perry at 10 percent, Bachmann at 7 percent and Santorum at 6 percent.
“More than half of [Gingrich’s] support has evaporated,” said Lee Miringoff, the director of the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, which conducted the survey.
Negative advertising hits Gingrich 'on the chin'
Miringoff adds that the millions of dollars in negative TV ads targeting Gingrich – from a pro-Romney Super PAC and the Paul campaign – have played a major role in this erosion, with 35 percent of likely caucus-goers now saying he’d be unacceptable as the GOP’s nominee. That’s a 19-point increase from last month.
"The fight I'm in with Romney is exactly the fight that Reagan was in with the establishment in '80," GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich tells NBC's Chuck Todd in a one-on-one interview.
What’s more, only 6 percent in the survey identify Gingrich as the “true conservative” in the Republican contest.
“He took it on the chin,” Miringoff says of the negative advertising campaign, which has questioned Gingrich’s conservative credentials and tied him to Washington.
Splintered Tea Party support
Although just 7 percent of likely Iowa caucus-goers believe that Romney is the true conservative in the GOP field, he has two variables working in his favor, according to the poll. One, only 21 percent of likely caucus-goers say he’s unacceptable as the Republican nominee (compared with 35 percent for Gingrich and 41 percent for Paul).
And two, the conservative vote appears to be splintering between the various candidates, and is no longer coalescing around a single Romney challenger.
The wild card in this race has been and continues to be Ron Paul, the Libertarian who has a growing following inside the Republican Party. NBC's Chuck Todd has more.
Last month, Gingrich had a large lead over Romney (and the other GOP rivals) among Tea Party supporters.
But in this new poll, Tea Party supporters – who make up about half of all likely caucus-goers – are divided.
Santorum gets 20 percent from them, Romney and Paul 17 percent, Gingrich 16 percent, Perry 15 percent and Bachmann 10 percent.
“This is the Romney dream scenario,” Miringoff says. “When you look at the Tea Party and conservatives, they are all splintered.”
Obama’s approval rating ticks up in Iowa
The poll also shows an improvement in President Barack Obama’s approval rating in Iowa.
Forty-five percent of registered voters in the state approve of him, while 43 percent disapprove.
Last month, those numbers were upside down, with 43 approving and 46 disapproving.
Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum vaults past Newt Gingrich and into third place in the GOP presidential race in Iowa, according to a new poll. Santorum talks to TODAY's Savannah Guthrie about the surge, his conservative values and why he can beat Barack Obama in the general election.
The Iowa NBC-Marist survey was conducted Dec. 27-28 of 2,905 registered voters (margin of error of plus-minus 1.8 percentage points) and of 433 likely GOP caucus-goers (plus-minus 4.7 percentage points).
Also, unlike the recent CNN-Time poll, the likely voter model in the NBC-Marist survey included independents and a few Democrats, and it measured some respondents by cell phone.
Follow Mark Murray (@mmurraypolitics) on Twitter.
More from First Read:
- Paul's surge might help Romney in Iowa
- Bachmann campaign loses 2nd key staffer in Ron Paul flap
- Huntsman says Paul is 'unelectable'
- Pro-Gingrich Super PAC: Romney is '2nd most dangerous man in America'
Leave a Comment:
My good guess is that 39% of the population is racist
Most of them are the dying breed....the old boomers
But in Texas? .... 99.9% of that state is racist
umm hmm
Racism is not relegated to any one race. There will always be a certain percentage of any particular race that will be racist. Just reading these posts you can see the racism from all ethnicity's. We can only educate and hope for the best. Teaching at home is primary in creating a society of people blind to skin color. In the last presidential election I watched Charles Barkley say he hoped Obama would win as we need a black person in office. There was no mention of qualification or what he could do differently. The only factor was his skin color. African-American unemployment went from 10% under George Bush to over 22% under Obama. Yet, no matter how bad things seem to be economically for African-Americans they whole heartily support Obama. I do believe somewhere in the not to distant future we will have a successful African-American president, and also a female president. Unfortunately, Obama has not been successful. We must change based on who knows what to do to fix the economy. Let the cream rise to the top whoever it may be.
I am not even a big Ron Paul fan, but for all of those calling him racist based on some newsletters, one could easily say that President Obama is equally, if not more so, racist. His years long association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who spouted some of the most vile anti-white statements, is proof enough of that. When confronted, Obama said that is not the preacher he knew all of those years. Yeah right!! Do you mean to tell me that of all the sermons he heard Rev. Wright preach, they were all civil and non-racist? I don't think that defines Obama as a person, but nor should it be used against Republican candidates as I read the comments here without it being complete hypocrisy.
JAM you on right on the money. Dr. Paul is not racist, and we cannot automatically call Obama a racist because of his former reverend. Just as we should not be anti-Romney just because of his Mormon faith. The presidency is under the watchful eyes of Congress and the American people who vote them in. If someone were to show a blatant act of bigotry or hatred of a race or religion I am certain they would be impeached immediately. Hopefully, that's not what it will take to unite the country.
I don't think Ron Paul is racist, or a homophobe, or any of those things. I DO believe that Ron Paul lives in an economic and foreign policy fantasy land that wouldn't work for myriad reasons. There is not going to be a gold standard, ever again....not gonna happen, kids. We're not going to take our military toys and go home. These things simply aren't going to happen.
Remember, Ron Paul is running for President, not Emperor. How is that working out for Barack Obama, in terms of being able to get anything done in more than a half-a**ed manner, because he can't get his own idiots to agree on anything, and the only thing the other idiots can agree on is that no matter what he wants, the answer is "no"? And keep in mind- all HE is trying to do is tweak this, that and the next thing; he's not trying to put the cat back into the bag....Ron Paul hasn't the slightest prayer of doing anything that he's talking about doing, regardless of whether or not those things make any sense, and regardless of whether or not he's a racist or anything else....and that's why I would never vote for him.
KooKooo Krispies! The whole bunch of you Obama bashers!
I truly beleive that someone calling "racist" is likey the only racist in the room.
Just for the record, I don't believe Ron Paul is a racist (anymore).
Nor probably any less!
MSNBC hasn't gotten the news accurate in so long i can't remember. They are SO far left, i think they have fallen off the planet and are living in their own little world. Get real jobs people. Or at the VERY least, start reporting UNBIASED news. I know, beyond your abilities.
On racism we need to look at Dr. Paul's voting record, not his personal opinions. Dr. Paul is an honest public servant who can vote for what he believes is in the country's best interest even when it conflicts with his personal opinions. For example, Dr. Paul has stated numerous times that he does not approve of GLBT lifestyles yet he voted to repeal DADT.
"He who stands for nothing will fall for everything" I don't recall who said that but it's true. When one legislates to get votes instead of on his principles he becomes a hypocrite.
OK....I will say this again. This economy is not the fault of Barack Obama. It is not the fault of George W. Bush, although he didn't help it by simultaneously taking us to war while reducing taxes (of course, in reality, that was just more of the long standing tradition of idiocy that IS what caused the problem, but we were already neck deep in the cowsh*t by the time Bush the Lesser showed up at the White House).
The problem with this economy is the fact that the economic policies of the likes of Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan, with the championing/backing of the likes of William F. Buckley, have held sway in this country since the day Ronald Reagan became President. These are the same economic policies that have failed everywhere they have been tried; even the fantasy that is Chile (which was actually free-market economics by coercion of a dictator, however THAT works....ha-ha-hee-hee-ho-ho....to the funny farm.....etc..) is on the verge of collapse.
Yes, yes, I know....the problem is TOO MUCH regulation, especially of Wall Street. Let's examine that for a minute- basically, what Congress did was inform Wall Street that the immoral things in which its major players partook along the way to causing the near complete economic failure of 2008 were now also illegal, as well as immoral. To Wall Street, this is "burdensome regulation".....in other words, "we can only do business properly if you let us screw speculators out of all of their money, by withholding information, or providing misleading information. If we have to do business honestly, we'll take our toys and go home." This is why these people should have been imprisoned in the first place, but I digress.
The bottom line is this: full free market capitalism doesn't work, because....well, put it this way- if (insert your favorite team sport here) didn't have any rules, referees, umpires, or anything else to stop all of the players from just doing whatever, how would that work? Yes, that's correct- IT WOULDN'T. Supply side economics doesn't work either, because....well, all income taxes have done for the last thirty years is decrease, and all established corporations have done for the last thirty years is......shed large portions of their payroll. In other words, it not only doesn't work as advertised, it works PRECISELY CONTRARY to what is advertised. One could not possibly find ANYTHING worse to do for the purpose of job creation than reduce personal income taxes on the wealthy, or create more loopholes for corporations to avoid paying taxes. It simply isn't possible.
In short, it is and always has been a failure, and now there are no more cards from which to build a new house. The end game is coming soon...my only interest now is observing how long it takes for all of those "free market" righties to figure out "what happened" when it finally collapses altogether...
DB- you illustrate with your remarks why liberals have bankrupted this country.
1. We haven't had free market capitalism since the 19th century-all it did was to make us the greatest economic power in the world
2. Decreasing taxes has ALWAYS produced more revenue- increasing taxes ALWAYS REDUCES REVENUE.
“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference
"Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session
If you increase tax rates the wealthy simply shift their investments back as they did before to tax exempt bonds or to overseas investments. For some reason the left thinks the wealthy are too stupid to do what's best for themselves when it comes to their money and taxation.
California for the first time is going to lose Congressional representation because of a net loss in population because of high taxation and over regulation. But that doesn't stop leftists. Gov Moonbeam is trying to raise taxes even higher; Obama and the Dems in Congress are no different. They will try and tax us to death and when they run out of our money, they will simply default on things like Social Security.
Finally, the left in general and the Federal Govt in particular are clueless about job creation (which they should not be involved in anyway). It is this ignorance combined with the potential insolvency of the govt that has created our jobless problem. We are involved in economic and technology paradigms for which most Americans have not prepared themselves, thus creating high unemployment. We are still the world leader in manufacturing, but we because of technological advancements, we don't nearly as many people to produce more goods. Few Americans are developing the skills and academic requirements for other fields including developing technologies or new service businesses.
What we need is leadership that recognizes that until the Federal govt decides to get serious about fiscal responsibility and to stop restricting the ability of both business and individuals to respond to these changes, we will continue plunging downward towards 3rd world status.
Go Perry Go Gingrich those are the only ones that have some b— — — S besides M. Bachman . Who cares what IOWA thinks let them pick Ron and Rommey . IOWA is out of touch with reality with the rest of the country . geesz do they even have satellite tv out there ? do they not know that IRAN is about to start WWIII and ROn PAul thinks its OK.....
It should be rather obvious by now that Ron Paul is the only real alternative to a bankrupt corrupt system and endless war and military intervention. Nothing can touch Ron Paul in terms of integrity and dignity because the man is not a sell-out, nor is he a consummate insider politician. The only fault that he has is honesty; he tells it like it is, and has been doing that for over thirty years. Anyone who runs against him runs against his record and his consistency, so naturally the other candidates pale by comparison.
We are in a REAL crisis that is deeper and much more involved than anyone understands. If Ron Paul is not elected, things will deteriorate very fast.
RON PAUL 2012
I too hope that Ron Paul wins in Iowa! They have acurately predicted "1" of the last "44" Presidents, the odds are in our favor!
I find it remarkable that, after O'Romneycare in Mass. that Mitt has any takers. Or are these numbers engineered? Also: after being tricked into the Iraq war over Sadam's weapons of mass destruction, why is anyone listening to these same people repeating the wmd claim, only in Iran?
Looks like we will be stuck with President Romney. He'll be better than Obama because even a nutless monkey would be better. But he's just part of the problem not the solution.
"the conservative vote appears to be splintering between the various candidates"
Between is for two items and among for more than two. Should be "among the various candidates". You should really get the "editor" positions back from Hyderabad.
Ron Paul wins Iowa, so what. Who cares what a bunch of old white farmers think anyhow, won't influence how anyone with a brain thinks. In fact he could win NH and SC and it still would'nt mean a whole lot. We are looking at an insignificant portion of the electrate other then the press gets people all pumped up these three states are meaningful. And, if he got nominated he would never be elected; akin to Goldwater running in 1964.
Emil
First Emil, I think 13 pages of posts indicate who cares. Second, "bunch of old white farmers", nice. "Won't influence how anyone w/ a brain thinks", nicer. Tell me Einstein, these three states are meaningless? Enlighten us all on which states are meaningful, and why?
I think Ron Paul winning Iowa or even if he wins the nomination would be a sight to see!!! Now I have done no research on if the man's a racist or not but to me he seems to be just a principled man who believes in dissolving government to the pointthat he'll over state of lot of things. I would like to see him get on stage with the President and have an American debate about how we want our government to be apart of our lives, what is going to be our standing in the world on foreign policy, what about the children and education and is that going to mean for our future what kind of new industry and new educational ways of creating that new industry with less cost to our students and our parents. Then finally what about direct job growth to get this country back rolling again. Now that's a true straight-forward debate on issues and only Dr. Paul can give the President a direct debate about those issues compared to all the other candidates in the Republican field. The President needs to be challenged and only Dr. Paul can on stage with him and do it.
First, after having read MOST of these posts, I'm really tired of the Iowa bashing. I notice that most if not all those who trash Iowa don't have the fortitude to announce what great and glorious state they're from. Second, if you're bashing Iowa you haven't lived here. Iowa schools are one of, if not the, most highly regarded educational systems in these US. Enough already, this is only about Iowa because of the caucuses. Jesus freaks? Irrelevant? C'mon. We're just as American as everybody else, ergo, we are relevant. Pompous ignorance.
Next, I fail to see where Ron Paul is wrong in his beliefs. The federal government is here to protect our individual rights, not to dictate those rights. That is up to the individual states to decide. I believe that is the intent of our Constitution. If not we would not be the "United States", we'd be "North America just south of Canada, and north of Mexico". Dr. Paul is very forthright about his "beliefs". He's not anti-gay, not racist, does not condone drugs, just that those matters are for the states to decide. He's saying what he believes is not the point, the point is that they are individual/personal liberties to be decided, not federally mandated issues. Just because I may not agree w/ someone's lifestyle, doesn't mean I have a right to take that liberty away as a government. This is supposed to be the land of the free, not the land of I don't like what you're doing so stop it.
I honestly think Obama has done the best he can w/ what he's had to work with. But as w/ all politicians, he's said one thing, then done his about face. He started laxing on the priority of government intervention when it comes to marijuana. He stated that it should be put on a very low priority for law enforcement. Then he turns around and starts to go after dispenseries (legal in that state). What happened? Big Pharm and alcohol lobbyists (among others) whispered in his ear that he can't do that. So, let's flip flop to appease them. At least Ron Paul seems a man of his word. I'm not ignorant and think that everything he wants he's going to get, but it's at least a step in the right direction. Give us our liberties back, which include the liberty to make bad decisions and learn on our own, and the liberty to fail. The government is certainly the last body I feel can tell me what to do or not to do because of possible failure. This is not going back to 240 years ago as I've read, this is going back to our Founding Fathers intents. Yes things change w/ time, but some of those things we can't control. The ones we can control are getting back to civil liberties as long as they don't infringe upon others rights.
Call him old, call him insane, call him what you will. He's a breath of fresh air in this politically stagnant course we're on, and I for one would vote for him. He's honest even if you don't want to hear it, but it's his right to speak the truth. The others I've heard know nothing about truth, just what the latest poll or tv tell them to do.
Last, enough of the name calling ppl. For crying out loud, some of you sound like you're 2 year olds. We're supposed to be adults here, but sometimes these posts sound like 2 little kids fighting over ice cream. And let's drop the "hate" word. At the risk of sounding old-fashioned, I continually teach my 10 and 13 year old that hate is not acceptable. Dislike if you want, but hate is an ugly word, and beneath any self-respecting American. Thanks for the attention and your ear. We're all Americans, so let's set an example!!
Jaydub: "Last, enough of the name calling ppl. For crying out loud, some of you sound like you're 2 year olds."
I agree with you. When liberals are losing the argument ( most of the time) they resort to name calling. They have nothing else. They disregarded what Obama, their idol, asked when he said stop with the name calling and vitriol.
When liberals are losing the argument ( most of the time) they resort to name calling.
So LEONA -- do you mean name calling like Marxist, socialist, communist, skinny crack dealer from the ghetto, monkey, ape, Stalinist, things like that?? You conservatives do have a knack. Just about every time you attempt to describe a liberal, you end up describing yourselves.
Gary Stein.......Sen. Rand Paul was officially named Randal Howard Paul. His wife gave him the nickname "Rand" not his father. He went by "Randy while growing up".
So this makes you 100% wrong about Dr. Paul so far. Why not start reading his suggested federal budget, plans, etc. .........thx
I'm keeping my vote a secret. Why should I share it with this blog? I know for a fact, it won't be for a republician. Even the republician leaders don't like them dudes, so why should I waste my vote on clowns. My only clue is that I will vote democratic. "To all, I wish you a Happy New Year."
One last thought. Can someone tell me why everything needs a label affixed? "Liberal, conservative, progressive"? We're all entitled to our opinion, but why do we have to add the political labels? I for one an am American, end of description. I want what's best for my kids and their future. I want them to have a better life than I've had. I believe we all agree on that. Which label applies for that? This is why no one can agree on anything, because it's not what they believe their "party" stands for. How about the "What's best for America despite my party convictions" party?
For everyone bashing President Obama the party of NO said on day one they will do any and everything to make him a one term president. They have voted against their own ideas just to make him fail (translated into the American people suffer). Some of you say he can't lead. Well the Party of NO had already shown they will not agree with him on anything. If he agrees with one of their ideas, they turn around and vote against it.(Translated into the American people suffer)
The Party of NO is the problem but none of you GOP/Teabaggers understand that. If their only goal was to make him fail, they have made the people of the United States suffer. And you want to vote them into office while we have suffered all this time. Not a snow balls chance in hell will I vote for any GOP candidate. Some of you may be very short sighted or have a very short memory but I don't and many many others don't. The GOP is done come November. And you think 2010 was a blood bath wait and see what happens to the GOP this time. President Obama will get reelected and the same bashers will be right here whining and crying again come November.
Ret_Msgt,
We want Obama to fail because his marxist policy views are disasterous for America and anybody that loves liberty. Tell me Msgt, did you want anyone to succeed that you thought was dangerous for America or it's citizens? And if you thought that they were dangerous, don't you and didn't you take an oath to preserve and protect this nation and it's citizens?
So why do you think we should sit back and willingly allow this incompetent marxist to destroy our country without putting up resistance?
I'm a Military Vet who enlisted under LBJ and I will not back off on my lifelong fight for liberty because some marxist sympathizer like yourself wants this incompetent president to continue destroying our nation.
If the gopers want the Whitehouse, they netter get someone better than these clowns running now. The closest these people will get to the Whitehouse is the sidewalk on Pennsylvania Ave.
Ret_Msgt, I absolutely agree with Larry and I am also a vet that believes obama is backed by soros, and intends to destroy this country.
Dis-associate obama from this following list;
This next election is not about the differences between Republican and Democrat's basic philosophies.
It is the differences between communist and Democratic ideology's!
All of his life obama has been mentored and supported by these people:
George Soros: Jew that hates jews and the U.S.A.
Anthony Van Jones: socialist/communist Hates the U.S.A.
Valarie Jarrett: Communist
Vernon Jarrett: Communist, Valarie Jarrett's father-in-law
Frank Marshall Davis: Communist obama mentor
Cass Sunstein: Socialist/Communist obamma tsar
Rev Wright "God Damn America"
Bill Ayres: Socialist/Communist, Weather Underground
Bernadine Van Dohrn Socialist/Communist, Weather Underground
Tony Rezco: Chicago crook
Andy Stern: SEIU
Dick Trumpka: UAW
Lil Jimmy Hoffa: That son of a bitch!
Acorn: Criminal enterprise big obama supporters
Black Panthers: Guardians of the Poll
Then there is:
Solyndra
Tonopha
Light Squared
Fast and Furious: BTW, obama Officer Terry's parents deserve answers.
obama your book has an ugly cover.
U.S.A./Capitalism, obamazuela, or Cuba --- You choose in 2012!!!!
Oh yes Larry -- you're such a great American. You're an expert at repeating exactly what Rush the draft dodging junkie tells you to say. Remember -- patriotism is the last bastion of the scoundrel.
Charlie- I'm a military vet with a purple heart with cluster, how about you?
I have held these views since Rush Limbaugh was in elementary school. I certainly don't need his viewpoints to shape my own. I'm not like you leftist lemmings who are mentally incapable of independent thought.
Larry
Are you bragging or complaining?
NBC= OBAMA
CNN= Corrupt News Network
CNN= Obama
USA= Corrupt
After reading these post, It must REALLY suk to be a republican!!!!
I say Ron Paul will win the day in the end. Mitt he will continue to be a mormon less, genghreith or is it gengivitas whatever his name is will continue to lobby for the elite, look at the brown on his nose!! haaa, a first class ass kisser he's the best. The rest will go back home sulk for a bit ,go back to congress until their voted out next year and laregly be forgotton by the rest of mankind. you people who think your important and that you will keep the clowns we have in there now are all deceived and will come to nothing, i laugh at you all except for the supporters of ron paul, you all have low foreheads probably rarely bathe and have to pay for your sex, You all have my leave be gone peaseants you offend my sensibiltys but sense yours are all down in the sewer be gone, I have spoken, let be written, let be done.
Ron Paul / Frank Serpico 2012. Restore Liberty.
Yeah, restore liberty.
Remove every last right-wing buffoon from public office we can get our hands on.
Then and only then will Americans begin to repair the damage left in the wake of the last 43 years of conservative destruction.
Bush,Clinton,Bush jr,Obama...no difference....all the same ,except maybe in your dreams.
I can't believe that Iowa's conservative Republicans would go for Santorum over Perry. Santorum seems like a nice guy, but he has only been a short-term senator and a congressman and has no executive experience.
ROFLMFAO!!!!! SUSAN YOUR A WIT!!!!! again ROFLMFAO!!!!!
Perry has no experience neither. Most people know it is the Lt. Governor here in Texas that has the most power.
Amen MSG, most people don't realize that. Every time I see someone say vote for Perry I swear I die a little inside or at least cringe a whole lot ;)