A few days ago, Gingrich was to own Iowa, followed by Romney. The rest really didn't matter. Here are the numbers from a Reuters story on Dec 12th of those likely to vote in the Iowa caucuses:
Gingrich 29.8% Mitt Romney, 20.3%, Ron Paul 10.7%. U.S. Rep. Michele Bachman 8.5%, Rick Perry 8.2%. Since he didn't buy enough ads or hire enough ex/future media people from PR firms, and is a conservative that can win with conservative volunteers, Rick Santorum wasn't worth mentioning. Pat Caddell said that Santorum was in single digits a week before 01/03/12! Keep that in mind as you see the election results:
Santorum & Romney 25%, Paul 21%, Gingrich 13% Perry 10% Bachmann 5% Huntsman 1%.
The pollsters are rigging this election to whoever they think will buy the most ads/can be beat by Obama, Romney and Gingrich. The massive 40% undecided vote wasn't even mentioned until Sunday and has yet to be mentioned for New Hampshire, S. Carolina, Super Tuesday States, or any other state. Is there is a reason to trust a pundit claiming a candidate is "finished" after this "surprise"?
The "hispanic vote" is a media myth designed to scare Republicans into being soft on illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is not the #1 issue among hispanics. Many hispanics oppose illegal immigration. Most of those who support illegal immigration are in democrat strongholds. If a Republican tries to hispander to the illegal alien vote, a democrat can offer more taxpayer funds/quicker path to legal status/etc.
Illegal aliens are often mixed with legal immigrants to hide costs of illegal immigration. Candidates are baited by questions that have only a path to legal status or deportation of all illegal aliens as the options. The option of attrition and enforcement, that has been shown to work before, is left out of these questions and from polls. Can we trust polls and stories on illegal immigration?
___________________________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78mRVJCwYXE
Comments