Poll: Romney leads New Hampshire, Huntsman in third, Perry in fourth
By Alexis Levinson – The Daily Caller | The Daily Caller – 2 hrs 22 mins ago
Mitt Romney still holds a commanding lead in New Hampshire, a state where Perry has barely broken through, according to a poll released Thursday.
The Suffolk University/7News poll found Romney leading with 41 percent of the vote from independents and Republicans. His closest competition is Ron Paul, with 14 percent, followed by Jon Huntsman with an uncharacteristically high 10 percent. Perry, who has topped most national polls since announcing his candidacy, does not even break double digits, getting just 8 percent of the primary vote.
Romney continues to have high popularity in the state, with 69 percent saying they hold a favorable opinion of him and just 20 percent saying they hold an unfavorable opinion. Voters are still much more ambiguous when it comes to Huntsman: Twenty-six percent say they have a favorable opinion of him, and 24 percent hold an unfavorable one. Another 24 percent have never heard of him, and 26 percent have yet to form an opinion.
Approximately one-third of New Hampshire primary voters have either not heard of Perry or have yet to decide what they think of him. Among the remaining voters, 36 percent say they have a favorable opinion of him, while 32 percent say they have an unfavorable opinion.
In New Hampshire, Romney is still seen as the favorite to win the election, with 28 percent saying they expect him to be the next president. Twenty-two percent expect Obama to win re-election, and 12 percent say Perry will be the next president. Thirty-two percent are undecided.
In the 400-person sample of likely New Hampshire primary voters, 50 percent say they are Republicans, 42 percent unenrolled or independent, and 6 percent Democrats. Ideologically, 49 percent describe themselves as conservative, 42 percent as moderate, and 7 percent as liberal.
That demographic breakdown has some New Hampshire strategists dismissing the results.
“It’s crap,” emailed Patrick Hynes, a national Republican strategist who lives in New Hampshire. “Way too many independents (42-ish percent) sampled and way too many self identified liberals/moderates (49 percent).”
“The numbers don’t make too much sense,” emailed New Hampshire Republican strategist Mike Dennehy. “Their sample includes 42 percent independents — should be 30 percent — and 49 percent are moderates/liberals which is WAY off — should be 35 at most. That’s why Romney is so high and explains Huntsman at 10.”
Perry’s results seem somewhat low, given the 27 endorsements from state representatives he announced Wednesday. Dennehy said the numbers were probably somewhat off for Perry, given that conservatives — the demographic with which he gets the highest support in other polls — were underrepresented in the sample, but noted that the Texas governor has yet to make a major play in New Hampshire.
“I believe Perry is at about 15 when you factor in more conservatives voters. Either way, Perry hasn’t been here too much and he hasn’t had any town hall style meetings. When he spends more time and campaigns the way he needs to I think he can do well. But New Hampshire is still Mitt’s to lose and he is extremely strong. And with respect to Huntsman, it’s important to note as many people dislike him as actually like him, which is a very unenviable place to be. That being said, he still has an opportunity but he’s going to need to spend a substantial amount of money to build a positive image.”
Professor Robert Pape has thoroughly researched suicide terrorism and summarizes his research in the videos below, in a lecture called Dying to Win. We are involved in at least 3 very expensive wars; therefore, it’s imperative that we understand the root cause of suicide terrorism. All Americans should watch these 4 videos to gain knowledge about the problem and hopefully develop the wisdom to stop suicide terrorism and end these wars.
Why does Professor Pape focus on suicide terrorism? He states that suicide terrorism kills an average of 12 times more people than terrorism where the terrorist is not committing suicide.
Suicide terrorism began in the early 1980′s. According to Pape, suicide terrorism is a recent phenomenon that didn’t exist prior to 1980. Interestingly and importantly, no Hezbollah suicide attacks have occurred since May 2000, when the Israeli army left southern Lebanon.
The majority of terrorism is not religiously motivated. Professor Pape’s research shows that the world leader of suicide terrorism is the Tamils in Sri Lanka, not a Muslim group. The Tamils are a Marxist secular group, of which some are Hindu. Furthermore, he states that 1/3 of terrorist attacks by Muslims are done through secular groups. Over 50% are not associated with Islamic fundamentalism.
How do suicide terrorist attacks prior to 2003 compare to attacks after the Iraqi war? From 1980 to 2003, there were 343 completed suicide terrorist attacks. During this time the Tamil’s committed the most suicide attacks. About 10% of suicide terrorist attacks prior to the American invasion of Iraq were against Americans or American interest. After the 2003 invasion, 91% are aimed at us. Some of this increase is due to decreases elsewhere, but not all.
What is driving suicide attacks? Pape says that what over 95% of all suicide terrorist have in common is that they are trying to compel a democratic state to withdraw their occupation or control of territory that terrorists consider to be there homeland or land they prize greatly. In other words, most terrorist feel they have been invaded by another nation and hope that the violent acts will get the occupiers to leave.
Conclusion: While religion may be mixed in, the primary cause/motivation of over 95% of suicide terrorism is foreign occupation, not religion. Mosques provide a network for demagoguery, but the religion is not the origin of motivation. Muslims do not hate us because we’re free, but because we occupy their land, just as other terrorist groups are attacking those that occupy their land. This coincides with the extensive research done by Gallup. Michael Scheuer, CIA Analyst for the Bin Laden Unit, agrees that foreign occupation is causing the attacks to increase. Invasion and occupation are not without consequences. Blowback is a serious problem. Presidential candidate Ron Paul is right when he tries to explain why we’re being attacked by suicide terrorists. He is not blaming you and me but our foreign policy, which research shows is creating more terrorists, not less, and needs to be critically evaluated if we are serious about stopping terrorism and respecting our troops by bringing them home. Our military people know these wars need to end, which is why Dr. Ron Paul receives more active duty military donations than any other Presidential candidate. Ron Paul was right and is still right.
Coming soon: A Suggested Reading List on the Subject.
PolitiFact says this statement is mostly true. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/14/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-us-has-military-personnel-130-nation/
This is something that every Christian should take to heart, and examine what they believe. Christians need to ask themselves why is ‘democracy’ through imperalism ok, as long as we’re the only ones spreading it?
The CIA is investigating whether laws were broken by helping the NYPD.
This comes at a time when the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security, Bill Gibbons, writes an ‘opinion’ piece that we are safer because of our “nation’s best” Fusion Center and a new terrorism law, at an enormous cost of $200 million.
Seriously Mr. Gibson $200 million? Does it really take that much money to stop a few terrorist in one state? There are 49 more States, plus DC and several territories and you feel we’re safer because we’ve fused law enforcement, encouraged people to report their neighbors and spent $200 million?
With solidification of a $200 million surveillance state in Tennessee, there continues to be one report after another in the news about murders and police brutality right here in Blount County. Are we any safer, after 9/11, from murderers, rapers and cops that beat people?
When asked if we are safer after September 11, 2001, Mr. Gibson says, “Yes, I think we are.” Mr. Gibson instead of a propaganda piece telling how you “think” a $200 million police state makes us “safer”, how about giving us some real facts.
How many terrorist activities have been prevented because of this $200 million? How many crimes have been prevented? How does this prevention rate compare to traditional crime prevention strategies? Is this more or less cost effective? With a federal government that is in debt over $15 trillion (much more when entitlements are included) do you really feel it wise to spend $200 million in just one of these united States? How much money is enough to stop terrorism in Tennessee? Are groups being targeted through increased surveillance? Who have Fusion Center partnered with? What kind of information is being collected and/or stored in the Fusion Center? Who is the information being shared with? Have you made any effort to inform Tennesseans that the Department of Safety collected biometric photos of them when renewing their driver’s licenses? Have you informed the people that the State has contracted with L-1 Identity Solutions, a company that was recently purchased by Safran, which is a French conglomerate partially owned by the French government? Does this foreign government owned company have possession of sensitive personal information? What company(ies) has/have our biometric information?
Mr. Gibson speak of traffic stops, as a way of stopping terrorism. Much of the terrorism of traffic stops is the government harassing the people, not the other way around. Many traffic stops are generated because of victimless crimes, where there is no danger to anyone, but a huge revenue motive for government. Moreover, if traffic stops are effective in preventing terrorism, then surely $200 million more isn’t needed.
I’d like to see some evidence that this $200 million police state expansion has made us safer. Quoting the constitution at the end of the article does not convince me that I, nor the people of Tennessee, are any safer because of this expensive surveillance state.
Though it is hard for many to believe, honest studies show that the real motivation behind the September 11 attacks and the vast majority of other instances of suicide terrorism is not that our enemies are bothered by our way of life. Neither is it our religion, or our wealth. Rather, it is primarily occupation. If you were to imagine for a moment how you would feel if another country forcibly occupied the United States, had military bases and armed soldiers present in our hometowns, you might begin to understand why foreign occupation upsets people so much. Robert Pape has extensively researched this issue and goes in depth in his book “Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It”. In fact, of 2,200 incidents of suicide attacks he has studied worldwide since 1980, 95% were in response to foreign occupation.
Pape notes that before our invasion of Iraq, only about 10% of suicide terrorism was aimed at Americans or American interests. Since, then however, not only is suicide terrorism greatly on the rise, but 91% of it is now directed at us.
Why is Ron Paul the only candidate running for President that understands this problem and openly speaks about it? Most terrorist acts (95%) relate to hawkish foreign policy causing the overall percentage of terrorist attacks on Americans to increase from 10% to 91%. Will Americans realize that our foreign policy causes blowback, making us less safe, not more? Americans need to ask what motivates these people to attack. Don’t fall into the intellectual slothfulness of blaming Islam or saying that Muslims hate freedom. It is true that a small percentage of attacks are motivated by interpretation of religious doctrine (around 5%), and we should not tolerate such violence, but the vast majority (95%) of terrorist attacks are not. That necessitates that we look within and examine our foreign policy. Diplomacy clearly has it’s place.
Here are some important questions we need to be asking about our foreign policy.