Race in Flux After Herman Cain Exit

Pages: 1 2

On Saturday, former front-running presidential candidate Herman Cain suspended his campaign following a series of allegations about sexual harassment and a recent affair. He said he will endorse a rival soon, which a former advisor says is likely to be Newt Gingrich. If Cain’s supporters move mostly into Gingrich’s camp, then the former Speaker of the House will solidify his frontrunner status and the other campaigns’ survival will depend upon bringing him down.

Cain, standing with his wife behind him, denied the accusations against him and said they were taking a steep toll on him and his family. The stories have made it impossible to get back on message, he said. Cain admitted that his campaign was suffering a loss in support and fundraising. A poll out of Iowa shortly before his decision to quit found him in fourth place at 8%. Cain unveiled a new website, TheCainSolutions.com, to promote his ideas.

Cain and Gingrich have a close friendship and Cain has said that if he had to choose a rival to be his running mate, it’d be him. A former senior advisor says he is very likely to endorse Gingrich soon and a large amount of his supporters will follow. About 37% of Cain’s backers pick Gingrich as their second choice, followed by Michele Bachmann with 14%, Mitt Romney with 13% and Rick Perry with 12%. Nearly three-fourths of Cain’s supporters view Gingrich favorably, but only 33% view Romney favorably.

“Cain’s supporters absolutely love Gingrich. And they absolutely hate Mitt Romney,” wrote Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling.

According to the RealClearPolitics poll average, Gingrich has a national lead of 6.2 points. The most recent Rasmussen poll has him with a whopping 21% lead over Romney. In Iowa, which will hold a caucus on January 3, Gingrich has an average lead of about 10%.

A poll by NBC News-Marist was adjusted to reflect the second-choice picks of likely caucus-goers and determined that Gingrich’s support is currently at 28% with Ron Paul and Mitt Romney tied for second at 19%. Rick Perry is in third at 10% and the rest are below 5%. Nate Silver observes that of 11 Iowa caucuses held since 1980, 8 were won by whoever was ahead one month before the vote.

Newt Gingrich’s strong leads in South Carolina, which the eventual Republican nominee has won each time since 1980, and Florida, are likely to strengthen in the wake of Cain’s exit. In South Carolina, Gingrich has an average lead of 8.6 points. The latest Insider Advantage poll has him at 38% with Romney far behind at 15% and Cain in a close third at 13%. In Florida, Gingrich has a massive lead in the latest poll with 50% of the likely primary voters backing him, followed by Romney at 31% and Cain with 10%.

Mitt Romney is now going on the offensive against Gingrich by painting him as a Washington “insider.” New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who endorsed Romney, says Gingrich has “never run anything” and will speaking at a rally for Romney in Iowa on December 7. Depending on which poll you believe, Romney is in second or third in Iowa.

Pages: 1 2

  • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

    With all due credits to Newt Gingrich for acknowledging the threat of Islam, in the past he showed complete ignorance in such issues as the global warming sham and the so called fairness doctrine (muzzling the free speech).

    Most importantly, he is no different than the other party apparatchiks in betrayal of the US Constitution. The 2008 coup happened on his watch – the enthronement of the illegitimate impostor Obama/Soetoro. Yet he is in a state of denial! There cannot be any justification for maintaining a taboo and being in denial about the opponent(!) in election – a notorious fraud and impostor!

    Only if one is in cahoots with the perpetrators of the coup one keeps being in denial.

    It is grotesque and obscene if the presidential contenders have nothing to say about the rival who is an illegitimate and demonstrable fraud!

    It is grotesque and obscene if his name is going to illegally appear in the ballot on the second time!

    But perhaps it will not be allowed to happen. Watch the unfolding drama in New Hampshire and 3 more States <a href="http://(http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/)” target=”_blank”>(http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/).

    Do it to us once – we were lazy fools.

    Do it to us twice – we are cowards not worth of having a nation.

    • Glennd1

      Bad link.

      • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

        Sorry, the editor corrupted the html part, and editing is closed now.

        Please copy and paste the llink as you see it (it is displayed correctly).

    • Don Kosky

      Alexander, how did Obama’s election fall on Newt’s watch. Was Newt president? Lets not blame Newt for not taking on the birther subject, that falls predominantly on the media. The mainstream media dont want Newt, they are lying and playing the devil’s advocate when they say Mitt would beat Obama by larger margins. It wont happen, Obama will sound like a kid in a debate with Newt. All my support is for Newt and I am a birther and tea party guy, but im absolutely convinced that Newt would destroy Obama so bad in the debates it would rally huge support for tea party candidates who will have the real power. Remember the tea party doesnt need a leader because the liberal media will focus on that person to destroy. Its about ideas. To sum it up, Newt will get the vote out and the tea party will govern, he wont veto this tsunami called the tea party.

  • mrbean

    There only will be two real choices, Obama and whoever the Republican Nominee is. Vote for "whoever" ! Any vote for any third party candidate will elect Obama – as did with the fools that voted for Perot in 1992 and elected Slick Willy.

  • Bamaguje

    May be Cain should be Gingrich's running mate…if Gingrich gets the Republican ticket.

    • Geneww

      I wish Herman would publically repent for the sins he knows [and we suppose] were committed, ask for forgiveness and then support and honest candidant. He knows God forgives sins of His blood bought children. Most people can not understand forgiveness because they have never truly experianced absolute forgiveness themselves. See http://jc.does-it.net !

      I would rather have an average leader seeking God's direction that a brilliant orator endorsed by corrupt and evil folk who ignore and fight God's tenets.

      Romney, Perry and Newt march to the wishes of their own god of greed, lust, and corruptions endorsed by the One World leaders.

      • Questions

        You're confusing a presidential candidate with a seminarian. If Cain wants divine forgiveess, he'll seek it in private, not public.

    • Beth

      I had the same thought Bamaguje

  • Geneww

    Where is Michelle Bachman? The press narrows their field to three RINOs who are pro UN and One World supporters and just ignores candidates whose priority is God, family and then country. Sadly, anyone who knows how to pray, maintains a one mate relationship and has not collected multi-millions from lobbyist is ignored because these pundits and half of Ameica just do not understand Judeo-Chistians!

    Any person who supports a fact, opinion, thought or action contary to the tenets of the Bible assumes to know more than our creator God … http://jc.does-it.net … and has been misled by Satan.

    • Questions

      The Constitution makes clear that no religious test shall be required for holding public office. Faith in God is not a requirement to become president. And rightly so.

  • Stephen_Brady

    RINOs …

    I love the term. It is so misused, today, that it virtually has no meaning.

    Although I've never ran for public office, I've been involved in politics as long as Newt Gingrich, whom I support. To know what a RINO is, you've got to know what a Republican traditionally has been. In essence, the Republican conservative view includes:

    Faith in God …
    A respect for the Constitution and the natural laws which led to it …
    A value of the traditional American family …
    A strong support for civil rights for all …
    Less government …
    Lower taxes …
    Support for business …
    Engagement in the world community, and leadership of that thereof, along with the reluctant use of force, diplomatic, covert, and overt, when needed, which leads to ….
    Support for the military and the intelligence community …
    A love of all things American, and a belief in the exceptional nature of the country.

    Which of the candidates is a true-blue, Republican conservative? You'll have to make that choice, and I won't attack you for it (unless I get attacked … I'm also for self-defense!). Anyone who significantly deviates from the ideals that I've listed above is truly a Republican In Name Only.

    • ObamaYoMoma


      I love the term. It is so misused, today, that it virtually has no meaning.

      Spoken like a true RINO in denial.

      Sorry, I couldn't help myself. It slipped.

      • Stephen_Brady

        I'm sorry, OYM, which of the traditional conservative values do you not agree with?

        • ObamaYoMoma

          I'm sorry, OYM, which of the traditional conservative values do you not agree with?

          First of all, so you want be so confused, being conservative and being Republican are two entirely different things altogether. I'm a conservative independent and not a Republican, because the Republican Party has been hijacked and co-opted by the Left and is today virtually identical to the Dhimmicrat Party.

          Indeed, who crippled this country by doubling the size, scope, and power of the federal government in response to 9/11 under the guise of protecting the homeland like a Dhimmicrat on steroids, a Dhimmicrat president or a Republican president? And never mind the fact that expanding the size, scope, and power of government never ever works for anything much less for securing the homeland. Who gave us a totally unnecessary and very invasive Patriot Act, a Dhimmicrat president or a Republican president? Who gave us the canard that Islam is a so-called Religion of Peace™ being hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists, a Dhimmicrat president or a Republican president? Who abandoned Reagan's “peace through strength” defense policy in favor of Powell's “you break it, you own it” defense policy, a Dhimmicrat president or a Republican president? Who pursued two extremely counterproductive fantasy based nation-building missions in Afghanistan and Iraq that inevitably turned into the two biggest strategic blunders ever in American history, a Dhimmicrat president or a Republican president? For the previous 8 years before Obama's election, who continually undermined Israel's national security for 8 years, a Dhimmicrat president or a Republican president?

          Therefore, just so you understand where I'm coming from, the leftwing hijacked and co-opted Republican Party is my enemy, just like the Dhimmicrat Party supposedly is your enemy. However, the reality is they are two sides of the same coin. Only you haven't figured that out yet.

          Indeed, RINO establishment Republicans just like you have for years been betraying conservatives and abandoning core conservative principles and values in favor of pandering to liberal Hispanic voters because they believe that Hispanics will become the biggest demographic in the future, which is also why they only support amnesty supporting professional career politicians, longtime Washington insiders, and loyal RINO establishment Republican has-beens like Gingrich for president.

          In fact, as the above certainly demonstrates, the Republican Party hasn't been conservative for a very long time now. Hence, please forgive me if I refuse to play their game, especially because I'm not a Republican like you, but instead a conservative independent. Screw you Republicans.

          Indeed, I don't vote for anyone for president just because he or she happens to be a Republican. If a candidate can't pass my conservative litmus test, then I'm sorry I won't vote at all. Just like I did in 2008 and am more than prepared to do again in 2012, and if Obama is the result, then so be it. You get what you deserve. Not that there is much difference between Republicans and Obama, in any event, as they are just two sides of the same coin.

          • Stephen_Brady

            Okay, the novella wasn't necessary. You're not a Republican, and this explains a lot. NOTE: That wasn't an attack.

            Why didn't you tell me this when I urged you to become an activist in the GOP at the local level? It woud have saved us both a lot of typing.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Damn…watching Fox News today is like watching a perpetual pro political ad for Gingrich and a perpetual negative political ad for Romney, as they are now pulling out all the stops. Indeed, instead of just portraying Romney as the moderate in this race like they have erroneously been doing to harm Romney for months now, Fox News is now portraying Romney as the Washington insider and RINO establishment Republican candidate and Gingrich as the Washington outsider and true conservative candidate. Talk about inverting reality big time, while never mentioning the word amnesty. Indeed, as soon as this election is over, I will be removing Fox News from my favorites list and start getting all my news strictly from the Internet. This is utterly pathetic.

            Anyway, when Obama inevitably wins reelection in a bigger landslide victory than 2008, you RINO moonbats will get exactly what you losers deserve.

    • Glennd1

      I'll try once. You are a bald-faced liar. The Republican party has never stated that a "faith in God" is necessary to be a Republican. Look at the 2008 Platform, it says no such thing. They only thing they do is mention a "humility" before God and Country in the preamble.

      What you present is the NeoCon agenda – or don't you realize that? And of course the support for civil rights you mentioned is the exact opposite of the platform. If you consider that Repubes still want to prosecute the failed war on drugs, outlaw internet gambling, gay marriage, use govt coercion to promote two parent families -and many other "values" based policies, you'll see that the very idea of civil rights is a joke to them. In fact, it's more of a Communitarian approach than one based on my civil rights, but I'm pretty sure that a guy like you doesn't even understand what I'm saying.

      • Stephen_Brady

        "You are a bald-faced liar."

        Thank you for your erudite attempt at civil debate.

        I know more about you with one word – NEOCON – than anything else you could have said. Only the Ron Paul fanatics use this term. It has serious anti-Semitic overtones to it. I will make one attempt with to talk with you, but it will likely end with me "sighing" while you shout obscenities at me.

        Faith has ALWAYS been a part of the Republican values system. We've never demanded that anyone be a person of faith in order to be a Republican, but the Republican base has always been faith-based. That led to the Republican stance on civil rights, in which the DEM party …. over a period of one hundred years … was dragged kicking and screaming to to a modern view of the Rights of Men, based upon Natural Law, which I'm pretty sure that a guy like you doesn't even comprehend.

        I hope you enjoy Dr. Paul's last campaign …

        • Glennd1

          I'm not a Ron Paul supporter. Gary Johnson is my guy, Ron's history of racist and homophobic rhetoric, which littered his newsletters for decade and all too friendly dealings with truly whacked out conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones, as well as his affection for the John Birch Society all conspire to make him anathema to any thinking citizen.

          You are a pseudo-intellectual ponce who thinks he is smarter than he is, which is perhaps the most devastating of character defects. I'm sure it gets you in trouble all the time. I use facts – citing the platform – but you just make stuff up that sounds good to you. As for your facile assertions about the nature of our rights, you obviously listen to way too much Glenn Beck as he peddles the debunked lies of David Barton. Just google 'Liars for Jesus' – and simply watch the videos. You'll be embarrassed at how misinformed you are.

          As for the civil rights movement in this country, again you are simply misinformed. While it is without a doubt true that religious people and clerics were a big part of the movement, it's just as true that many Christians and clerics were against it. You cherry-pick the supporters you want and ignore all the christians who opposed it – again, Beck is corrupting your mind.

          As for Natural Rights, what folks like you ignore is that Locke's claim that our rights come from God was offered with no proof. He never claimed he knew how they were given to us. What he claims is that we can observe a natural order to things in nature and human relations that we should codify and protect. He presumes these come from God, but never asserts it as a proven fact. He actually spends very little energy on God, and certainly, Locke himself would laugh at you using his theory to claim certain knowledge that God gave us our rights. Perhaps if you read him, you'd know this.

          Worse yet, you ignore the entire epistemology of classical liberal thinking which rose in objection to man's state in the world as being the property of God and King. The entire idea of Individual Sovereignty claims that we are our own masters, not to be subjugated to a God or King by anything other than our own conscience. It actually values the individual conscience greatly which is why we value freedom of conscience. For you to foist your religious views on others via political means is the antithesis of our classical liberal values – ones that you clearly know little about.

          I'd debate you anywhere, anytime and you would be reduced to fleeing the room in embarrassment and tears after I wiped the floor with you, as I just did. Finally, what's with the anti-semitic comment? How could you possibly come up with that as a response? Did you see my other comments on Israel? They are of course not anti-semitic at all, you weasel. On second thought, why would I debate you? I'd just be giving intellectual credibility to a cretin.

          • Stephen_Brady

            "I'd debate you anywhere, anytime and you would be reduced to fleeing the room in embarrassment and tears after I wiped the floor with you, as I just did. "

            You're so funny, it's pathetic. I would run from the likes of you? Son, I was fighting the enemy in Vietnam when you weren't even a twinkle in your daddy's eyes.

            As for your limited knowledge of epistemology and the philosophy of John Locke, I'll leave that to your professors to sort out with you. Quite frankly, you are not worth another moment of my time.

  • BLJ

    I wish Paul Ryan would run. The most important thing is to make Obummer a one termer. If this guy gets re-elected kiss America good bye.

    • Stephen_Brady

      I agree. Paul Ryan would make a great President. He's a little young, but probably no more so than Jack Kennedy was, when he ran.

  • mrbean

    It is just starting, the DNC and Axlerod's Obama campaign thugs will pull any stunt fair or foul to try to get the clandestine Muslim Marxist anti-semite Obama a second term – including threats and physical force. The country will survive another 4 years of this Prince of Fools but it will take 50 years to fully recover.

  • Glennd1

    Watch the bouncing ball of fundo politics – anyone will do as long as they 'jump for jesus', what a joke you folks are. I thought maybe Santorum would bounce a little but I guess I didn't fully appreciate the evango hatred for Catholics. Some will drift back to Bachman now but it's all over now. Palin to Bachman to Perry to Cain – and back to whatevs, each time you move to the next one you lose some because they and you look so foolish. Here's an idea, how about supporting someone who might be a good president?

    • Stephen_Brady

      In point of fact, most evangelicals don't "hate" or even dislike Catholics. Fundamentalists may have some problems with them, depending on the person, but evangelicals don't. The Left's "evangelicals" … like the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the American Baptist Association … certainly have no love for Jews, or Israel, for that matter. But right-wing evnagelicals are some of Israel's most ardent supporters.

      The fear of the Pope having control of America died after John Kennedy was elected, Glenn.

      As for this right-wing evangelical, I support Newt Gingrich, who would make a fine President …

      • Glennd1

        You are simply a liar. I've heard many fundos say that Catholics aren't even Christians in their eyes, since they don't form that "personal relationship with Jesus" (i wonder how many evango chix fantasize about 'doing' Jesus?).

        Go back to pleasuring yourself while watching GlennBeckTv. Or explain why fundos don't jump on the Santorum bandwagon? He hate's homosexuals, will support the teaching of mythology in public schools and most importantly supports the further ethnic cleansing of Muslims from Jerusalem so the third temple can be built and you can have your armageddon, lol, it's hard to even write such idiotic ideas, but that's what you're all about.

        Finally, any Christian who supports Newt is simply a hypocrite. His character is deficient. He's been weighed, counted and measured – and found wanting. Put it this way – if two wives couldn't trust his word, why would you now?

        • Stephen_Brady

          You realize that if you called me a liar to my face, I would probably drop you like a stone. Isn't the anonymity of the internet a wonderful thing? You can play tough, and not suffer any consequences.

          Are you a homosexual? You've come back to this issue, twice. It's alright for you to be a homosexual, if that's what you are. I don't judge you, God does. Chill, Glenn …

          Concerning Mr. Newt, penitence and forgiveness are at the heart of the Christian faith. It is perfectly within the nature of the Christian faith to take someone at his word.

          " … most importantly supports the further ethnic cleansing of Muslims from Jerusalem …"

          What you said fits in perfectly with the NEOCON comments, you made earlier. You reveal much about yourself, Glenn.

          • Glennd1

            Threats now? You should know better. We don't do that in civil discourse or on these forums, what kind of animal are you exactly? And I'm not gay but it's just what a 'Jesus Jumper' would say. What a joke you are. You do realize that most people with a brain who meet someone like you conclude you are a fool – they also realize that there is no point telling you as you would get violent. So they just smile politely, nod and try to get out of there quick. I'm sure self-awareness isn't your strong suit.

  • Jim

    Newt is the king of the revolving door politicians. It is the lobbyists like Newt that buy favors from congress to the detriment of the public. The country now has a congress that has recreated the pre depression conditions very similar to the late 1920s..
    He is the symbol of corruption . He and his fellow bribers are the main reason the Occupiers have become so strong.
    If Mr Smith went to Washington today he would be shot for being honest.

    • Stephen_Brady

      And Barney Frank left Congress to lead the simple life?

      • Glennd1

        Idiot – so Barney Frank's low morality relieves Newt of his sins? Do the world a favor, stop posting, you are too stupid to contribute anything worth paying attention to.

        • Stephen_Brady


          More edudition from Glenn …

          If what I post is too stupid to pay attention to, then why are you paying attention to it?