Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

Romney appears headed for another victory in Nevada

By CAPITOL HILL BLUE Staff
February 3, 2012

Mitt Romney: Is he on a roll? (GEOFF ROBINS/AFP/Getty Images)

GOP Presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney goes into the Nevada caucuses Saturday with as much as a 20 percentage point lead in the polls while former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich lags back in second, Texas Congressman Ron Paul is third and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum brings up the rear.

Polls put Romney at 45 percent and Gingrich at 25.  The only question appeared to if Paul, who does well in caucus states, can challenge Gingrich for second.

“Romney has three things going for him Nevada,” political scientist Charles Moran tells Capitol Hill Blue.  “He has the money, he had the organization and he’s Mormon in a state with a heavy Mormon presence.”

Romney also gained an endorsement from real estate developer Donald Trump — a backing that may or may not benefit him — in a day when predictions first said the flamboyant promoter would endorse Gingrich.

Gingrich, meanwhile, is challenging Florida’s “winner-take-all” allocation of its 50 delegates with an appear to the Republican party for the state to follow the party rules and allocate the delegates proportionally.

Romney is still trying to explain away a comment earlier in the week where it appeared he was not concerns about the poor.

“I’m not concerned about the poor,” Romney told CNN Wednesday.  “We have a safety net. It is needs repair, I’ll fix it.”

The comment sent both the candidate the campaign scrambling to contain potential damage.

Enhanced by Zemanta

11 Responses to Romney appears headed for another victory in Nevada

  1. Bill cravener

    February 3, 2012 at 10:00 am

    Romney appears headed for another victory in Nevada

    Of course he is, after all he’s got sir Trumps endorsement.

    LOL!!

  2. Sandy Price

    February 3, 2012 at 10:44 am

    It is amazing that the National Republican Committee has not gotten the message that the voters, although missing in leadership qualities, can not see the trend among the Republican voters. There is no chance for a candidate like Senator Santorum who runs politically and religiously on the concept of pure unadulterated Christianity is not capturing the voters in the the number of voters. The voters are not accepting the nastiness and war mongering of Speaker Gingrich. It is a matter of choosing the lesser obnoxious person running for the Republican Candidate.

    I cannot think of any elected position that anyone in the Conservative mode should be the choice.

    I’m watching closely the mess that the religious right has done to the Susan G. Komen breast cancer group. They have somehow managed to have thousands of once faithful contributors to bypass the bigotry of this group and doubling their contributions to the Planned Parenthood group.

    I doubled my contribution and was pleased that my daughter made a considerable contribution to P.P.

    I made a comment on another forum about my work with the women who suffer from breast cancer and the Conservatives rudely called it “Dialing for Breasts.” It pointed clearly that the Conservatives on line are involved in castigating any possible help for women medically. To them, breasts are toys and to the rest of us they are a functioning part of a woman’s body.

    I would like someone to ask Romney and Gingrich what they thought of a Senator who started this action against Planned Parenthood. The Senator knew what he was doing but wanted to make a statement about his deeply religious stand against abortions and ended up against women’s health actions.

  3. Jon

    February 3, 2012 at 10:45 pm

    Will the real Mr/Ms C.H.B. Staff please stand up? A pseudonym would do if you’re consistent with it.

    J.

    • Doug Thompson

      February 4, 2012 at 8:03 am

      A “staff” report means several people contributed and the editor put the report together.

  4. Hal Brown

    February 4, 2012 at 9:37 am

    I am glad to see that you are including named sources and attributed quotes. I am tired of those who, for whatever “good” reason they have (and I am sure lots have truly good reasons), won’t let you name them as a source.

    A named source as you know holds more weight than an unnamed one.

    There are two or three professors of political science named Charles Moran. How about a link to which one he is.

    My late wife, a PhD reference librarian, would have also suggested this too.

    Yeah, Doug, I know I can pick nits but if I don’t, who else will do so in a friendly way?

  5. Carl Nemo **==

    February 5, 2012 at 12:07 am

    Hello fellow site participants. Seemingly I’ve been ‘blocked’ from further commentary relative to Ron Paul related articles…?!

    Doug…yur a real ‘gem’ when you become fearful of simply negative comments relative to your site…?

    Carl Nemo **==

    • Doug Thompson

      February 5, 2012 at 6:31 am

      What the hell are you talking about Nemo? The only “blockage” that exists is in that conspiracy-warped fantasy-driven mind of yours. You haven’t been blocked from anything.

      • Carl Nemo **==

        February 5, 2012 at 12:32 pm

        “The only “blockage” that exists is in that conspiracy-warped fantasy-driven mind of yours.” …extract from reply

        My comment had to do with me trying to reply to your commentary on “How Ron Paul used racist newsletters to wipe out debts, get rich” yesterday AM. I sent the reply twice, but it never posted. This AM my reply showed up on that article along with your examples of griff and Almandine’s ‘one-liners’. I’ve replied and it posted. I waited a number of hours in trying to post my comment and the same thing happened, it didn’t post. Maybe it was a glitch, but it showed up today along with your reply.

        Your reference to me as quoted above chaffs my hide. I’d never disrespect you with such a coarse description on this forum or any other. I’ve been a loyal supporter of you and your site over time, but seemingly you’ve become so full of yourself over the years; I.E., a legend in your own mind that everyone else is a lesser mortal…no? I think it’s time you did some self-evaluation and got your gig line straight sailor. None of us are all that…believe it!

        You may care to read my reply on the above referenced Ron Paul piece. I’ve made a promise to you that I’m not going to question your site content, editorial style or anything else in the future. It’s your ‘thought vessel’, you’re the Captain, we’re simply the passengers possibly even less so in your ‘mind’s eye’. / : |

        Carl Nemo **==

        • Doug Thompson

          February 5, 2012 at 4:33 pm

          Your post went into the Akismet queue because it contained a word that the filter considers either questionable or spam. It required human intervention, nothing more, nothing less.

          I replied the way I did because of your claim that I “fear” negative comments. I fear nothing Nemo, epspecially uninformed comments from those who consistently misunderstood how a web site works or who hand out accusations without ever simply asking if there is a problem with a post. Instead, you continually utter baseless conclusions that have no — I repeat no — basis in fact.

          So, your post didn’t get through the system as quickly as you wanted. Does that bring the downfall of civilization as we know it? Is it cause to accuse me of censorship or being afraid of your opinions? Hardly sir. It means I chose to spend a Saturday night out having dinner and a show with my wife and when we got home we had much better things to do than check CHB to make sure all of Carl Nemo’s posts go on line. When I logged in this morning I checked the Akismet quque and cleared it. No conspiracy, no censorship and no situation that had me trembling in my boots that someone didn’t like something we did.

          You’re welcome to your opinion and you’re welcome to criticise me or this site but when you post outright, uninformed lies that claims censorship that doesn’t exist or fears that I do not have I will put you in your place, sir, and I will not be gentle.

          Understood?

          • Carl Nemo **==

            February 5, 2012 at 6:44 pm

            Your explanation is noted and accepted. : |

            As I’ve promised, I will not…will not…question how you operate your site, your editorial content, or anything else in the future. It’s your thing and I have no interest or plans to be a ‘sour grapes’, rock in your shoe, site entity.

            Since I was seemingly off base in my assessment concerning how the post was handled. I apologize.

            Carl Nemo **==

            • Doug Thompson

              February 5, 2012 at 8:56 pm

              It’s your choice but I think you’re over-reacting. Nobody is saying you can’t criticize how I run this site or its editorial policy. Others do it all the time without any problems. My only fault with some of your comments is that you make assumptions that are simply not true. We’ve discussed this before yet you continue to assume the worst without even asking.

              Your comments are welcome. Your criticisms are appreciated, except when you assume that I censor comments (which I don’t unless it is to remove obscenities) or that I’m afraid of criticism (which a review of posts on this web site will show that I am not).

              Your apology is accepted. Let’s move on.