If not Obama... who?

[irvinehomeowner]

So approval ratings for the POTUS aren't exactly very high... but who do the Republicans have to offer?

Is this a chance for the Libertarians or the Green Party to sneak in a candidate?

I am a fiscal conservative but I don't think there is anyone who gets me to dangle a chad.

 

[Nous]

They are pretty hosed right now.  The only electable candidate is Romney and it is pretty clear at this point that the party wants anyone but him.  Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan will sink him, Perry will be too much like Bush the Sequel, Bachmann is too fringe (and a bit nutty butters), Paul is laughed at by republicans, and I don't think anyone else is even close.  I saw Buddy Roemer speak and thought he did better than anyone else that is big right now, but they won't even include him in debates.

On another note, I don't thin Obama is doing too bad given the situation.  Regardless of who would have been in office, our nation would be in the crapper.  If anything it is more the fault of congress than the POTUS.  People in congress simply cannot agree and fight about everything while showing no values whatsoever.  The republicans blocking the Zadorga bill is the first thing that comes to mind.  I simply can't stomach a group of people claiming 9-11 was the most terrible thing ever while refusing to fund the first responders.  So what if we spend some money to help a first responder with the cancer he got before helping with 9-11, he was in there anyway!  Dems don't do much better, I swear whenever I hear Nancy Pelosi speak I want to punch a baby.  All she does is manipulate people by trying to play the emotional card.  Ya know what, people starving is more important than field mice, get your priorities straight woman!

</rant>

 

[Irvinecommuter]

So approval ratings for the POTUS aren't exactly very high... but who do the Republicans have to offer?

Is this a chance for the Libertarians or the Green Party to sneak in a candidate?

I am a fiscal conservative but I don't think there is anyone who gets me to dangle a chad.

I think most presidents have poor approval ratings in the year or two before their re-election.

Reagan had a 56% disapproval rate in early 1983.  Clinton had a 54% disapproval in 1994.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Reagan had a 56% disapproval rate in early 1983.  Clinton had a 54% disapproval in 1994.

...and Reagan won 49 states in 1984. Unless the Tea Party faction can really get behind Romney or Huntsman, I just don't see them taking out Obama.  And they hate Romney and Huntsman can't even get a question at a debate.  The rest of the GOP field is just cartoonish. Honestly, I don't think the election will even be close.  Obama has a huge stash of cash he is sitting on, and if there are any doubts I bet they swap Biden and Hillary's jobs --- putting Hillary in the VP slot would probably lock it up, and also put her in line for 2016 --- what she really wants.  She's be 69, younger than both Reagan and McCain were.

Chris Christie was wise to steer clear of this disaster of a field.  He's going to sit back and watch one of them go to slaughter in 2012, then lose 100 lbs over the next four years (while also watching the Tea Party go the way of the dodo bird), and be the GOP frontrunner in 2016.

I wonder what would happen if Bloomberg and Clinton both ran in 2016

 

[Liar Loan]

Romney has consistently hovered at 25%, with the remaining candidates presumably splitting the 75% "conservative" vote.  It will be interesting to see if the field consolidates quickly enough to increase the support for 1 or 2 of the "conservative" candidates to give them the lead.  The line that Romney has this thing wrapped up is pure media hogwash. 

Remember in 2008 that Giuliani was the media pick as well, yet he didn't win a single primary.  They also said Hilary was a shoe in for the Democrats.  Presidential elections rarely follow conventional wisdom.

Lately, Newt Gingrich has been picking up steam and the media has mostly ignored it.  With Perry and Cain all but discredited, Newt may be the new flavor of the month.  Personally, I like him and Ron Paul the best.  If Romney wins the nomination, I would rather just see Obama stay in office.  Romney is a fake.

 

[Nous]

I agree Christie was smart to avoid it this time.  I think something inside me would die if Hillary got into the white house as pres.  It seems that the right will lose a lot of steam on whoever they pick and would have a hard time hitting the finish line for the win.

Reagan had a 56% disapproval rate in early 1983.  Clinton had a 54% disapproval in 1994.

...and Reagan won 49 states in 1984. Unless the Tea Party faction can really get behind Romney or Huntsman, I just don't see them taking out Obama.  And they hate Romney and Huntsman can't even get a question at a debate.  The rest of the GOP field is just cartoonish. Honestly, I don't think the election will even be close.  Obama has a huge stash of cash he is sitting on, and if there are any doubts I bet they swap Biden and Hillary's jobs --- putting Hillary in the VP slot would probably lock it up, and also put her in line for 2016 --- what she really wants.  She's be 69, younger than both Reagan and McCain were.

Chris Christie was wise to steer clear of this disaster of a field.  He's going to sit back and watch one of them go to slaughter in 2012, then lose 100 lbs over the next four years (while also watching the Tea Party go the way of the dodo bird), and be the GOP frontrunner in 2016.

 

[Nous]

Like I said, take a look at Buddy Roemer.  If he could get some backing I think he'd stand a chance (at least from what I know of him currently, who knows what kinda scandals are in his past).  He has some strong republican cred with his economic outlook, but still isn't too hard line rightwing.

Remember in 2008 that Giuliani was the media pick as well, yet he didn't win a single primary.  They also said Hilary was a shoe in for the Democrats.  Presidential elections rarely follow conventional wisdom.

I think Fred Thompson also had it locked up for a few week about this time in 2007, as well. 

Do you think anyone else could win the general, though?  So assume we scratch Romney, Cain, and Perry --- who is left?  Santorum, Newt, Bachmann, Paul, and Huntsman?  Did I miss anyone?  Assuming in the general election you have to win Independents (me) and some moderate Democrats, can any of them get those votes?  The only one on that list I could even remotely see myself voting for is Huntsman, but he's got no support at all it seems.  Newt I do not have fond memories of from my early 20's (contract w/America, gov't shutdown --- just generally overreaching, kind of like the Tea Party of the mid-90's).  I'm probably not alone in that perception, and he may have too much personal baggage, anyway.

Agree on Romney.  I don't like him either, but he may be more acceptable to moderates looking for an Obama alternative.

 

[Nous]

Don't take too much offense, but Ron Paul is a joke.  He has too many policies that go against fundamental pillars of our society.  His stance on drugs is absurd and would end up costing the country way too much.  His take on credit is insane, switch back to the gold system?  Really guy, how do you figure that is to better when you can't start small businesses or let qualified people get homes?  His take on how small government should be is wrong, we still need a fed to help facilitate a global initiative meaning more government, not less there.

Real Libertarianism would crush this country.

Romney has consistently hovered at 25%, with the remaining candidates presumably splitting the 75% "conservative" vote.  It will be interesting to see if the field consolidates quickly enough to increase the support for 1 or 2 of the "conservative" candidates to give them the lead.  The line that Romney has this thing wrapped up is pure media hogwash. 

Remember in 2008 that Giuliani was the media pick as well, yet he didn't win a single primary.  They also said Hilary was a shoe in for the Democrats.  Presidential elections rarely follow conventional wisdom.

Lately, Newt Gingrich has been picking up steam and the media has mostly ignored it.  With Perry and Cain all but discredited, Newt may be the new flavor of the month.  Personally, I like him and Ron Paul the best.  If Romney wins the nomination, I would rather just see Obama stay in office.  Romney is a fake.

 

[Liar Loan]

Remember in 2008 that Giuliani was the media pick as well, yet he didn't win a single primary.  They also said Hilary was a shoe in for the Democrats.  Presidential elections rarely follow conventional wisdom.

I think Fred Thompson also had it locked up for a few week about this time in 2007, as well. 

Do you think anyone else could win the general, though?  So assume we scratch Romney, Cain, and Perry --- who is left?  Santorum, Newt, Bachmann, Paul, and Huntsman?  Did I miss anyone?  Assuming in the general election you have to win Independents (me) and some moderate Democrats, can any of them get those votes?  The only one on that list I could even remotely see myself voting for is Huntsman, but he's got no support at all it seems.  Newt I do not have fond memories of from my early 20's (contract w/America, gov't shutdown --- just generally overreaching, kind of like the Tea Party of the mid-90's).  I'm probably not alone in that perception, and he may have too much personal baggage, anyway.

Agree on Romney.  I don't like him either, but he may be more acceptable to moderates looking for an Obama alternative.

EDIT:  And for the record, the more the Tea Party stonewalls, the more appealing Obama is to me.  If any Tea Party strategists are reading this, that tactic is not working.  Kind of like how coming out of that gov't shutdown in 1995 Clinton started picking up steam, while Newt and the GOP were painted as immature babies.  Right or wrong, that is the same perception I get now.  Time for a new playbook.

I think the general election is going to be determined by turnout.  A lot of Obama's base of support has been eroded and his only hope is to scare people into voting for him by pointing at the alternative.  The Tea Party still has the momentum, most recently by stealing Anthony Weiner's seat in New York.  I don't consider myself part of the Tea Party movement, but every attempt to discredit what they have accomplished has been silenced by additional election victories.  Therefore, I don't see them moderating their stonewalling tactics in Congress.  It has been successful for them.

I also like the spirit of the Occupy Wallstreet movement.  They are trying to change their world for the better, but I'm not sure it's the answer establishment Democrats are looking for right now.

 

[Liar Loan]

Don't take too much offense, but Ron Paul is a joke.  He has too many policies that go against fundamental pillars of our society.  His stance on drugs is absurd and would end up costing the country way too much.  His take on credit is insane, switch back to the gold system?  Really guy, how do you figure that is to better when you can't start small businesses or let qualified people get homes?  His take on how small government should be is wrong, we still need a fed to help facilitate a global initiative meaning more government, not less there.

Real Libertarianism would crush this country.

Romney has consistently hovered at 25%, with the remaining candidates presumably splitting the 75% "conservative" vote.  It will be interesting to see if the field consolidates quickly enough to increase the support for 1 or 2 of the "conservative" candidates to give them the lead.  The line that Romney has this thing wrapped up is pure media hogwash. 

Remember in 2008 that Giuliani was the media pick as well, yet he didn't win a single primary.  They also said Hilary was a shoe in for the Democrats.  Presidential elections rarely follow conventional wisdom.

Lately, Newt Gingrich has been picking up steam and the media has mostly ignored it.  With Perry and Cain all but discredited, Newt may be the new flavor of the month.  Personally, I like him and Ron Paul the best.  If Romney wins the nomination, I would rather just see Obama stay in office.  Romney is a fake.

No offense, but Obama's policies go against the pillars of our society.  There is a reason that Dems are getting crushed in every election since his Presidency began.

I actually agree that some of Ron Paul's more extreme policies wouldn't be good, but he would still need to go through Congress, and unlike Bush or Obama, he actually would.  Legalizing marijuana is a no-brainer at this point.  It's already all but legal in California.  Maybe Irvine residents aren't aware of this, but pot shops, hydroponic shops, grow fields, and doctor's prescribing "the card" are everywhere now.  Just legalize the shit and tax it.  Stop wasting money on cops and jails for harmless potheads.  It's not helping our society to have it illegal and it's costing us a fortune.  That is money that could really help improve our schools.

The Fed has a disastrous history.  The housing bubble was caused by the Fed.  It was their attempt to paper over the early 2000's recession that led to where we are now.  I think a central bank is probably a necessity, but having our currency backed by something would be nice.  Personally, I hate the fact we are encouraged to borrow as much as possible by the Fed's policies.  I would rather have stable values that encourage saving money and discourage speculative investing and overborrowing.

Of all candidates running, he's the only one with a detailed plan to get the budget balanced in 3 years without any tax increases.  At least he tells it like it is, and puts his money where his mouth is.  Romney will say or do anything to get elected.  That scares me.  I would rather have a joke as President rather than another disaster like the Bush presidency.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

Nice. I need to thank everyone in this thread.

I like it when people can discuss stuff like this civilly and with intelligence.

ME LERN MOR TINGS DAT WAY.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

No offense, but Obama's policies go against the pillars of our society.  There is a reason that Dems are getting crushed in every election since his Presidency began.

What policies would those be?  The Dems have been getting crushed because 1) they spent most of their time passing healthcare, 2) the Republican blocked everything else, and 3) a large portion of the population have a hard time realizing that the President cannot pass laws.

Also, Ron Paul's isolationist strategy alone would kill this country.  The US do not put troops overseas because it's fun...they do it  to 1) ensure stability in a particular region, 2) project the US power to would be challengers, and 3) to keep potential challengers  in check.  Taiwan, South Korea, and Israel are prime examples of this.  All three things significantly help US economically and to have major clout in the international community. 

 

[Liar Loan]

No offense, but Obama's policies go against the pillars of our society.  There is a reason that Dems are getting crushed in every election since his Presidency began.

What policies would those be?  The Dems have been getting crushed because 1) they spent most of their time passing healthcare, 2) the Republican blocked everything else, and 3) a large portion of the population have a hard time realizing that the President cannot pass laws.

Also, Ron Paul's isolationist strategy alone would kill this country.  The US do not put troops overseas because it's fun...they do it  to 1) ensure stability in a particular region, 2) project the US power to would be challengers, and 3) to keep potential challengers  in check.  Taiwan, South Korea, and Israel are prime examples of this.  All three things significantly help US economically and to have major clout in the international community.

The Democrats controlled Congress for 2 years of Obama's 3 year tenure, even having enough Senate seats to override a Republican filibuster until Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's seat.  Blaming the Republicans for "blocking everything else" is ignoring that until November of last year they didn't control anything.

Blaming the stupidity of Americans for "having a hard time realizing that the President cannot pass laws" is an interesting idea.  I have more faith in Americans to understand bad governing than you do.  That's what the protests by both Tea Partiers and Occupiers are all about.

The Dems spending most of their time passing healthcare was a bad move because most Americans did not want mandatory healthcare to begin with.  A simple reading of polls would confirm this.  What Americans wanted, and still want, is jobs, but the President is anti-business.  He was a community organizer and lawyer, but never a businessman.  He HATES big business, but unfortunately businesses create the jobs.

I guess we are going to have to disagree on non-intervention into other countries.  The US has not won a war since WWII, unless you count the 10 day Persian Gulf War that left Saddam Hussein in power.  Every empire sees themselves as a stabilizer in their occupied territories.  Eventually, the cost of occupying so much territory bankrupts the mother country and the empire crumbles.  One hundred thousand Iraqi civilians died as the result of our faulty intelligence and innuendo.  I guess in a sick way killing so many people did contribute to stabilizing the region, temporarily. 

That's not the type of foreign intervention that I want to see any more of, but Romney openly supported this policy.  Look at his 2008 statements to refresh your memory.  To Obama's credit, he was against the invasion and so was Ron Paul.

 

[Nous]

No offense, but Obama's policies go against the pillars of our society.  There is a reason that Dems are getting crushed in every election since his Presidency began.

Where is your proof it is Obama's policies?  I believe I gave reasons for why Ron Paul's are against us some, I can clarify those if needed.  Yet, where are yours?

I actually agree that some of Ron Paul's more extreme policies wouldn't be good, but he would still need to go through Congress, and unlike Bush or Obama, he actually would.  Legalizing marijuana is a no-brainer at this point.  It's already all but legal in California.  Maybe Irvine residents aren't aware of this, but pot shops, hydroponic shops, grow fields, and doctor's prescribing "the card" are everywhere now.  Just legalize the shit and tax it.  Stop wasting money on cops and jails for harmless potheads.  It's not helping our society to have it illegal and it's costing us a fortune.  That is money that could really help improve our schools.

Ok wow, this is so very wrong.  All studies show it would COST $9 for every $1 brought in by tax revenue to legalize pot.  By legalizing it the costs on health care, police, fire department, and an assortment of other services all go up.  There is zero factual basis that legalizing pot would do anything but hurt us economically.  On top of that, 80~ish% of the weed in the US is from Mexican drug cartels, and we all know they are people we want more of in the US.  Also, Ron Paul's stance isn't simply about weed, but all drugs.  He would allow heroin and coke which is what is the strike at a pillar of our society I was referring to.  If you don't understand why those would be bad, I suggest you spend time looking up with it does to people/society.

The Fed has a disastrous history.  The housing bubble was caused by the Fed.  It was their attempt to paper over the early 2000's recession that led to where we are now.  I think a central bank is probably a necessity, but having our currency backed by something would be nice.  Personally, I hate the fact we are encouraged to borrow as much as possible by the Fed's policies.  I would rather have stable values that encourage saving money and discourage speculative investing and overborrowing.

Blaming the Fed for the housing bubble is just silly.  There is so much that helped lead to it between deregulation and promoting home purchase for those who couldn't afford it.  It was a complete cock up of our political and banking systems that in the end lies with us.  We elected the people in there and let them be bought out by special interests.  People need to stop blaming the government or a single administration for the housing bubble and start looking at the culture we've fostered.  So I guess I agree we need a culture change, but don't think the Fed alone should be blamed.

Of all candidates running, he's the only one with a detailed plan to get the budget balanced in 3 years without any tax increases.  At least he tells it like it is, and puts his money where his mouth is.  Romney will say or do anything to get elected.  That scares me.  I would rather have a joke as President rather than another disaster like the Bush presidency.

And the fact that anyone says we shouldn't raise taxes is just plan silly.  We spent ourselves into the mess and the way out is to be responsible and pay our debts.  Yes, the costs need to go down, but we need to pay more too to help balance it out.  The tax issue is something that was completely screwed up by the Bush administration.  If they had planned budget cuts when they lowered taxes things would have been fine.  Had they have not thrown us into a war over false pretenses, we would have been fine.  The republicans completely mismanaged it and now we have a budgeting issue.  That is where the credit is due.

 

[Liar Loan]

Where is your proof it is Obama's policies? 

If you think Dems are losing elections because Americans are happy, then there's nothing I can do to change your mind.  I'm not here to convince you, only share my opinion.

I don't think the majority of Americans approve of:

TARP - Started under Bush but executed under Obama
GM/Chrysler bailouts
$700 billion stimulus
Forced national healthcare
Libyan intervention
Jobs Plan (stimulus 2.0)

A couple of these, like Libya and healthcare, explicity violate the text of our Constitution.  Personally, I think TARP and GM/Chrysler bailouts were necessities to stave off a Depression, but many Americans don't see it that way.  Occupy Wallstreet is in essence protesting that big business got bailed out, while the little guy was left to suffer.  The dissatisfaction with Obama is from all sides.

Ok wow, this is so very wrong.  All studies show it would COST $9 for every $1 brought in by tax revenue to legalize pot.  By legalizing it the costs on health care, police, fire department, and an assortment of other services all go up.  There is zero factual basis that legalizing pot would do anything but hurt us economically.  On top of that, 80~ish% of the weed in the US is from Mexican drug cartels, and we all know they are people we want more of in the US.  Also, Ron Paul's stance isn't simply about weed, but all drugs.  He would allow heroin and coke which is what is the strike at a pillar of our society I was referring to.  If you don't understand why those would be bad, I suggest you spend time looking up with it does to people/society.

Please post these studies.  I agree that healthcare costs may go up, but I'm not sure how police or fire services get more expensive.  If it were legalized then 0% of weed would be grown in Mexico.  The cartels would give up on that business.  I don't know what the percent grown in California is, but all of northern Cali is one big grow field these days.  There are no reports of mass violence or crime as a result of this.  I think keeping heroine and coke illegal is fine.  Ron Paul, like any President, has to go through the Congress and he won't get everything he believes in.

Blaming the Fed for the housing bubble is just silly.  There is so much that helped lead to it between deregulation and promoting home purchase for those who couldn't afford it.  It was a complete cock up of our political and banking systems that in the end lies with us.  We elected the people in there and let them be bought out by special interests.  People need to stop blaming the government or a single administration for the housing bubble and start looking at the culture we've fostered.  So I guess I agree we need a culture change, but don't think the Fed alone should be blamed.

The Fed had the single-handed ability to stop the housing hysteria in its tracks.  Instead, Alan Greenspan was openly encouraging people to take out Option ARM's.  Neither the voters, nor the members of Congress, have any power over who gets selected to the Fed board of governors, other than Senate approval of the chairman.  The Fed not only had the power, but the responsibility, to regulate the banks under its jurisdiction.  The primary duty of the Fed is to control runaway inflation, yet they let houses go up 16% per year from 1999 - 2005.  The price of gasoline doubled from $2 to $4.  No other regulator has the power to directly intervene in the economy that the Fed does, and they failed in that duty.

Deregulation happened under both Democratic and Republican presidencies and Congresses.  Therefore, no matter how one voted over the past 30 years deregulation would have happened.  The voters had no power to stop it because money corrupts our politicians.  What we need is an outsider not beholden to powerful special interests.  Somebody not afraid to buck the system and be ridiculed for it.  Somebody that cannot be bought off.  Can you name anybody, not named Ron Paul, that fits this description?

And the fact that anyone says we shouldn't raise taxes is just plan silly.  We spent ourselves into the mess and the way out is to be responsible and pay our debts.  Yes, the costs need to go down, but we need to pay more too to help balance it out.  The tax issue is something that was completely screwed up by the Bush administration.  If they had planned budget cuts when they lowered taxes things would have been fine.  Had they have not thrown us into a war over false pretenses, we would have been fine.  The republicans completely mismanaged it and now we have a budgeting issue.  That is where the credit is due.

Nobody is advocating defaulting on our debts.  Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate proposing a balanced budget within 3 years.  Period.  If you want to stop increasing the debt, getting the budget balanced is the highest priority.  Why is it that Obama can't propose a balanced budget in three years, even though he advocates for tax increases?  The answer is he continues to increase spending right along with those tax increases.  He is not serious about the issue.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

If Hillary becomes president... I'm moving to Riverside.

 

[Liar Loan]

Lately, Newt Gingrich has been picking up steam and the media has mostly ignored it.

Hold up... scratch that last statement.  The bastion of all things neoconservative, the Wall Street Journal, has all but declared that Newt should be the new frontrunner for the "conservative" vote.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204190704577026041280212400.html?mod=opinion_newsreel

Newt Gingrich's rise in the polls?from near zero to the third slot in several polls?should come as no surprise to people who have been watching the Republican debates, now drawing television viewers as never before. The former speaker has stood out at these forums, the debater whose audiences seem to hang on his words and on a flow of thought rich in substance, a world apart from the usual that the political season brings.

Wow... It almost sounds like the author is in love.

Whoever his competitors are in Iowa and beyond, Mr. Gingrich faces a hard fight for the nomination. His greatest asset lies in his capacity to speak to Americans as he has done, with such potency, during the Republican debates. No candidate in the field comes close to his talent for connection. There's no underestimating the importance of such a power in the presidential election ahead, or any other one.

His rise in the polls suggests that more and more Republicans are absorbing that fact, along with the possibility that Mr. Gingrich's qualifications all 'round could well make him the most formidable contender for the contest with Barack Obama.

Expect this to be the final nail in Cain's coffin.  If Newscorp has switched loyalties to Gingrich, it's all but certain that Cain doesn't stand a chance now.

You heard it here first...

 

[Liar Loan]

Some very conservative Republicans just lost their jobs.  So Pat Star might be correct that a backlash is forming against the Tea Party movement.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-1110-election-analysis-20111110,0,3052488.story

Russell Pearce, the influential Republican state senator who pushed Arizona's stringent anti-immigrant measure, was tossed from office in a recall. In Michigan, the state teachers union, enraged by Republican moves to cut school spending and weaken tenure for teachers, engineered the ouster of state Rep. Paul Scott, the GOP chairman of the House Education Committee. It was the first successful recall of a Michigan lawmaker in 28 years.

Americans seem to be fed up with extremists of all stripes. 

I don't buy the article's premise that Obama's new strategy of talking about the middle class will somehow rebuild his support.  People are sick of talk.  They want jobs.  Still, he may end up being the de facto winner just by being less extreme than the Republican nominee.

 

[Liar Loan]

The LA Times recognizes the rise of Newt.  I think it's officially mainstream news.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-poll-cain-romney-gingrich-20111111,0,259952.story

Herman Cain is slipping. Conservatives remain lukewarm on Mitt Romney. And Newtmentum is real.

That?s the takeaway from the latest CBS News/New York Times poll?and the numbers suggest that the Republican race for president remains unsettled with less than two months before the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary.

Tellingly, no candidate was able to secure more than 20% of the support of Republican-leaning voters surveyed. Cain led the pack with 18%, with Romney and Newt Gingrich tied at 15%. Those numbers are good news for Newt. Bad for everyone else. The poll was conducted from Sunday to Thursday and surveyed 1,182 voters nationwide.

 

[Liar Loan]

I just stumbled across this as well.  The Marist Poll released today says that Newt has overtaken Cain as the "conservative" candidate.  Romney still leads overall as Cain is splitting the conservative vote with Gingrich
http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-con... McClatchy-Marist Poll Release and Tables.pdf

Among Republican and Republican leaning independents, here is how the contest stands:

? 23% for Mitt Romney
? 19% for Newt Gingrich
? 17% for Herman Cain
? 10% for Ron Paul
? 8% for Rick Perry
? 5% for Michele Bachmann
? 1% for Jon Huntsman
? 1% for Rick Santorum