Tag Archives: New Hampshire

Not just #1 in Iowa: Scott Walker leads in latest New Hampshire GOP primary poll

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker

Here’s the story from the Washington Times.

They write:

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker leads a host of potential 2016 GOPpresidential contenders in a new poll in the early presidential state of New Hampshire out Wednesday.

Mr. Walker leads the NH1 automated poll, conducted Feb. 2-3, with 21.2 percent of the vote, followed by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush at 14.4 percent, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky at 8.3 percent, and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson at 8.2 percent.

Mr. Walker managed to ride a well-received performance at last month’s “Iowa Freedom Summit” into a place atop a recent Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register poll in the Hawkeye State among like caucus-goers there. He is scheduled to attend a GOP event in New Hampshire next month.

A NH1 “pulse poll” taken two weeks ago, prior to 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s announcement that he would not run for president in 2016, had Mr. Romney well ahead at 29 percent, with Mr. Bush at 11 percent and Mr. Walker at 8 percent.

In the poll out Wednesday, which was conducted by REACH Communications, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was next at 7 percent, followed by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee at 6.8 percent and Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida at 5.4 percent.

Next was Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas at 3.3 percent, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry at 2.7 percent, former New York Gov. George Pataki at 2.2 percent, and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina at 1.7 percent.

Among the names left out of the survey were former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who are also weighing presidential bids.

About 19 percent of the 1,012 voters were undecided or wanted someone else.

The poll included registered Republicans and undeclared voters that lean Republican and are likely to vote in the 2016 GOP primary, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.08 points.

Just a quick flashback to the Iowa poll I blogged about before:

Presidential stage newcomer Scott Walker, the conservative reform pit bull who inspired death threats from the left, has become the one to watch in the race for the Republican nomination a year out from the Iowa caucuses.

At 15 percentage points, he leads a big, tightly packed field of potential contenders in a new Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics Iowa Poll of likely Republican caucusgoers. The caucuses are scheduled for Feb. 1, 2016.

The Wisconsin governor is also the No. 2 most popular choice for likely caucusgoers who want an establishment candidate, and he’s the No. 2 for those who want an anti-establishment candidate, the poll shows.

[…]The day after polling wrapped up, Romney announced he’s out of the competition. When the numbers in this poll are shuffled — by giving Romney’s votes to the contenders his supporters named as their second-choice pick — the five others in the top tier gain support.

[…]Walker’s support has jumped 11 points since the last Iowa Poll. In October, only 4 percent of likely caucusgoers named Walker as their first choice for president.

[…]At the same time, the favorability rating for Walker has climbed 11 percentage points; Carson, 9; Huckabee, 7; Cruz, 6; Santorum, 5; and Paul, 5, the new poll shows.

And this is also interesting – the Drudge Report also started a GOP primary poll. With 450,000 votes counted, Walker leads with 44%, and Cruz is second with 13%.

I like winning. I don’t see how you can take a regular Joe like Scott Walker and lose to a rich, entitled Democrat elite like Hillary. Trust me on this, we need to nominate a regular person who has a record of smashing deficits without raising taxes. That’s the winning message. People will vote for the economy and jobs first. And they will also happen to get a President who passed socially conservative laws as governor of Wisconsin. We run on real fiscal achievements, and we get the social conservatism for free.

If you want to learn more about Scott Walker, I recommend Walker’s new book. I actually got the audio version, and it’s read by Governor Walker himself.

Related posts

Newt Gingrich denounces bias and bigotry by George Stephanopoulos and Diane Sawyer

If you missed the debate on Saturday night, don’t be concerned. It was completely ruined by the bias of the ABC News moderators and commentators.

I have never soon two people in the media with such outright disdain for conservative views, especially on social values. Newt was the only one to call them on it.

This article from CNS News explains.

Excerpt:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich staunchly defended traditional marriage, describing the union of one man and one woman as the “core of our civilization,”  and an institution that is worth “protecting and upholding.”

[…]Gingrich also raised the issue of bias in the news media. While homosexual activists blast discrimination against them, what about anti-Christian bigotry?

“You don’t hear the opposite question asked,” Gingrich said.

“Should the Catholic Church be forced to close its adoption services in Massachusetts because it won’t accept gay couples, which is exactly what the state has done? Should the Catholic Church be driven out of providing charitable services in the District of Columbia because it won’t give in to secular bigotry? Should the Catholic Church find itself discriminated against by the Obama administration on key delivery of services because of the bias and the bigotry of the administration?

“The bigotry question goes both ways. And there’s a lot more anti-Christian bigotry today than there is concerning the other side. And none of it gets covered by the news media.”

Here’s an article explaining how bad the moderation was. (H/T Director Blue)

When questioning former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Stephanopoulos, a former senior advisor in the administration of Democratic President Bill Clinton, premised some inquiries on the assertion — offered without supporting facts — that Romney’s job-creation statistics were inaccurate.

“Now, there have been questions about that calculation of 100,000 jobs. So if you could explain it a little more,” Stephanopoulos asked Romney of the former governor’s claims about jobs created by companies he has helmed. “I’ve read some analysts who look at it and say that you’re counting the jobs that were created but not counting the jobs that were taken away. Is that accurate?”

“No, it’s not accurate,” Romney bluntly responded. “It includes the net of both. I’m a good enough numbers guy to make sure I got both sides of that.”

Stephanopoulos did not cite any analysts by name.

In another line of questioning, Stephanopoulos asked Romney if he believes “that states have the right to ban contraception, or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?”

Romney responded by questioning Stephanopoulos’ logic and his choice to raise a hypothetical situation that would never happen.

“You’re asking — given the fact that there’s no state that wants to do so, and I don’t know of any candidate that wants to do so — you’re asking could it constitutionally be done?” Romney asked, with a hint of incredulity.

Stephanopoulos, undeterred, pressed Romney again: “I’m asking you, do you believe that states have that right or not?”

Amid a chorus of “boos” from the audience, Romney again parried the impossible hypothetical.

That’s what I mean when I say the debate was not worth watching. It was a parody of a debate.

Wikipedia says: Prior to joining ABC News, he was a senior political adviser to the 1992 U.S. presidential campaign of Bill Clinton and later became the White House Communications Director for two years, before being replaced by David Gergen after political fallout from the mid-term election of 1994, in which the Republican party took over the U.S. House and Senate.

Rick Santorum helps liberal college students to understand the logic of marriage

If you do a search on this, you will find most of the mainstream media talking about how the students booed Santorum. Apparently, neither the college students nor the media are capable of understanding that if you can marry anyone you want, then that means that there can be no prohibition of polygamy. And, of course, this is exactly what is happening in countries that have embraced same-sex marriage, like Canada.

Excerpt:

Canada’s decision to legalize gay marriage has paved the way for polygamy to be legal as well, a defense lawyer said Wednesday as the two leaders of rival polygamous communities made their first court appearance.

The case is the first to test Canada’s polygamy laws.

Winston Blackmore, 52, and James Oler, 44, are each accused of being married to more than one woman at a time. The charges carry a maximum penalty of five years in prison, British Columbia Attorney General Wally Oppal said.

But Blackmore’s lawyer, Blair Suffredine, said during a telephone interview that marriage standards in Canada have changed.

“If (homosexuals) can marry, what is the reason that public policy says one person can’t marry more than one person?” said Suffredine, a former provincial lawmaker. Canada’s Parliament extended full marriage rights to same-sex couples in 2005.

Actually, law professors at Queen’s University are already demanding that polygamy be legalized.

Take a look at this post from the Vancouver Sun.

Excerpt:

A Queen’s University law professor says that polygamy should be legal in Canada.

Queen’s issued a news release on the day that a polygamy reference opened in British Columbia, where the government is seeking a legal opinion on whether Canada’s 128-year-old ban on multiple marriage violates the freedom of religion guarantees in the Charter of Rights.

Bev Baines, head of the Department of Gender Studies and a constitutional law expert, argues that Canada is a multicultural country and it is therefore unconstitutional to criminalize people for their marital relationships.

“The law achieves nothing,” Baines said in the release. “We’ve had the law on the books since 1892 and we had no prosecutions in the last 60 years aside from a  failed attempt last January. We don’t stop polygamy by having a law.”

What I find disturbing is that the media and the college students are unable to follow the logic that legal scholars in Canada are now following. Are they not aware of what is happening in nations that have legalized gay marriage? Or can they only understand who is booing who? The journalists certainly think that booing a Presidential candidate is more appropriate than the use of reason to evaluate moral arguments. Sometimes I wonder if journalists learn anything at all in college except how to accuse conservatives of SIXHIRB – sexism, intolerance, xenophobia, homophobia, Islamophobia, racism, bigotry.

Here’s a previous post I write making the secular case against gay marriage.

RINO Mitt Romney now open to European-style VAT tax

ABC News reports.

Excerpt:

In a December 24 story in the Wall Street Journal, Romney is described not favoring the idea of “layering a VAT onto the current income tax system. But he adds that, philosophically speaking, a VAT might work as a replacement for some part of the tax code, ‘particularly at the corporate level,’ as Paul Ryan proposed several years ago. What he doesn’t do is rule a VAT out.”

A value added tax, or VAT, is a form of the consumption tax in which the tax is levied based on a product’s price, not including the cost of materials, that originated in and is popular in Europe, imposed by the European Commission, and the governments of France and the UK, among others.

Gingrich’s campaign was not the only one to notice. The American Enterprise Institution‘s James Pethokoukis wrote that “(m)any conservatives/libertarians simply hate, hate, hate the idea of a VAT….They view it as a way to fund a massive expansion of government. I would be surprised if those quotes don’t end up in a 30-second, anti-Romney ad in Iowa or New Hampshire”

Anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist once called the VAT “a European-style sales tax. It’s assessed on the profits generated at every stage of production (raw material, manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer, etc.), so there is constant reporting and payment. As such, it’s an extremely efficient money machine for big government. The VAT is embedded inside the price of a good … As such, people forget they pay it, and European governments have found it too easy to raise the tax repeatedly over time.”

People think that Romney should be the candidate because he “is the most electable”. But is that true?

Seven reasons why Romney’s electability is exaggerated

John Hawkins writing for Townhall.com lists the seven reasons. (H/T Right Wing News)

Reasons 2 and 3:

2) He’s a proven political loser: There’s a reason Mitt Romney has been able to say that he’s “not a career politician.” It’s because he’s not very good at politics. He lost to Ted Kennedy in 1994. Although he did win the governorship of Massachusetts in 2002, he did it without cracking 50% of the vote. Worse yet, he left office as the 48th most popular governor in America and would have lost if he had run again in 2006. Then, to top that off, he failed to capture the GOP nomination in 2008. This time around, despite having almost every advantage over what many people consider to be a weak field of candidates, Romney is still desperately struggling. Choosing Romney as the GOP nominee after running up that sort of track record would be like promoting a first baseman hitting .225 in AAA to the majors.

3) Running weak in the southern states: Barack Obama won North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida in 2008 and you can be sure that he will be targeting all three of those states again. This is a problem for Romney because he would be much less likely than either Gingrich or Perry to carry any of those states. Moderate northern Republicans have consistently performed poorly in the south and Romney won’t be any exception. That was certainly the case in 2008 when both McCain and Huckabee dominated Romney in primaries across the south. Mitt didn’t win a single primary in a southern state and although he finished second in Florida, he wasn’t even competitive in North Carolina or Virginia. Since losing any one of those states could be enough to hand the election to Obama in a close race, Mitt’s weakness there is no small matter.

For my own part, I find it surprising that people who are ostensibly pro-life are willing to appoint a Republican candidate who has no pro-life record. Until he started running for the Presidency, Mitt Romney was 100% pro-abortion. That’s 12 years of abortion advocacy. His record is pro-abortion. Many of the other candidates, especially Santorum and Bachmann, have a pro-life record. Newt has a 98% pro-life voting record. So why are we settling for someone who has a question mark on social issues?

New regulations causing fishermen to suffer massive financial losses

From WMUR in New Hampshire. (H/T Gateway Pundit)

Excerpt:

Fishermen on New Hampshire’s Seacoast are warning that new fishing regulations could destroy their industry and have already caused them severe emotional stress.

[…]”If they don’t do something to modify the fishing regulations, we won’t have a fishing industry on the Seacoast, is what it boils down to,” said Hampton Town Manager Fred Welch.

[…]The new regulations are known as “catch-share.” The team said they are not there to look at possible changes to the rules but rather to see what effects they are having.

[…]”One of the fishermen from Rye had said that there had been three suicide attempts and a half dozen divorces during this first year of catch-shares,” said Bob Campbell of the Yankee Fisherman’s Cooperative. “Commercial fishermen are usually pretty tight-lipped, and for something this serious to come out, I mean, you know that the whole situation is grave.”

Campbell said the cooperative has lost about $750,000 in business since the new regulations went into effect.

“We’re off 1.1 million pounds of fish from last year, and over a million and a half pounds from the year before,” he said.

This is what regulations made in Washington do to a business running in New Hampshire.