The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Gingrich Campaign ‘Imploding’ in Iowa; Ron Paul Leads; Rick Santorum Gains

Posted on | December 19, 2011 | 48 Comments

Newt Gingrich’s campaign in Iowa is “rapidly imploding,” according to the latest poll, as the former House Speaker has tumbled to third place and Ron Paul has moved into the lead in the Hawkeye State, with Mitt Romney in second place just two weeks before the crucial Jan. 3 caucuses.

Meanwhile, Rick Santorum moved into a three-way tie for fourth place with Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry in the latest Iowa survey by Public Policy Polling. It was the second consecutive gain in the PPP Iowa poll by the Pennsylvania senator, who has seen his support in the state nearly double since Dec. 3.

CANDIDATE ……… Dec. 3-5 … Dec. 11-13 … Dec. 16-18
Ron Paul ……………………… 18% ………… 21% ……….. 23%
Mitt Romney ……………….. 16% ………… 16% ……….. 20%
Newt Gingrich ………………. 27% ………… 22% ………. 14%
Michele Bachmann ……….. 13% ………… 11% ……….. 10%
Rick Santorum …………….. 6% …………… 8% ………… 10%
Rick Perry …………………… 9% …………… 9% ………… 10%
Jon Huntsman …………….. 4% …………… 5% …………. 4%
Gary Johnson ……………… 1% …………… 1% ………….. 2%

“Newt Gingrich’s Iowa support was extremely soft and has collapsed in only two weeks,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “Ron Paul has taken the lead, but it will be interesting to see if he can turn out his unique base of voters for the caucus.”

(Via Memeorandum.)


Category: Election 2012, Iowa, Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Polls, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul

Comments

48 Responses to “Gingrich Campaign ‘Imploding’ in Iowa; Ron Paul Leads; Rick Santorum Gains”

  1. Dcmick
    December 19th, 2011 @ 9:31 am

    One doesn’t “implode” when one is hit by salvo after salvo of unrelenting bombardment. 

    Unless that is you could describe the HMS Hood “imploding” after receiving a broadside from the Bismark!

    The RNC, the Conservative establishment decided to destroy any viable alternatives to Romney, ——————— and now they’ll have to deal with the base moving to Paul.  The establishment STILL doesn’t understand the DEPTH and the INTENSITY of the DETERMINATION not to grant the nomination to Romney.

    Watch Iowa go for Paul, after the most intelligent of the candidates had more cold steel rammed through his flesh than had Caesar at the foot of the statue of Pompey Magnus!

    Unintended consequences!

    Now by shivving and bombarding Gingrich, they’re going to make our entire nomination process resemble a sick joke if Paul emerges as the victor in Iowa.  After a full year of campaigning, how will our party look to the rest of the citizenry if the Iowa winner is a conspiratorial kook!

    Unbelievable!

  2. NAME REDACTED
    December 19th, 2011 @ 9:53 am

    Go Paul!
    Let cut! 
    Thats trillion with a T baby!

  3. ThePaganTemple
    December 19th, 2011 @ 10:02 am

    See there, what have I been telling you? The percentage of booger-eaters among Iowa Republican voters has risen five percent, from 18% to 23%. It’s like a damn disease. And no damn wonder. All this Whack-A-Mole bullshit would turn any sane person into a Paultard booger eater.

    Now if you’ll excuse me, it’s time for breakfast.

  4. Anonymous
    December 19th, 2011 @ 10:15 am

    PPP is a joke- and a DEMOCRATIC polster- something tells me they’re about as trustworthy for our side as CNN debate moderators

    And they’re a fringe outlier with dubious sampling, to say the least

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/19/ppp-paul-leads-iowa-gingrich-drops-to-3rd/ 

  5. ThePaganTemple
    December 19th, 2011 @ 10:15 am

    Just imagine, as bad as Goldwater was beat, how much worse it would be with booger-eater Paul as the GOP standard bearer. Hell I might vote for Obama myself. Seriously though, you know that old saying. If Gingrich can’t take the heat, etc. You have to admit there’s a lot there to criticize. If he can’t handle it now, how is he going to handle Obama? Another point, Republicans are making themselves look silly with this constant shifting and changing with every strong gust of wind. I’m almost resigned to four more years of Obama.

  6. Natasha
    December 19th, 2011 @ 10:39 am

    This is neither here nor there, but I read the excerpt to this piece in my reader and it finished with this partial sentence (before the ellipsis):

    “Meanwhile, Rick Santorum moved into a three-way […]”

    Struck me as mildly humorous, that’s all…

  7. Newt violated the Surber Rule « Don Surber
    December 19th, 2011 @ 10:55 am

    […] From Robert Stacy McCain: Gingrich imploding in Iowa. Apparently he did not need Bob Schieffer’s help to […]

  8. Dcmick
    December 19th, 2011 @ 11:05 am

    Oh, —————- that was what that was, “heat?” 

    As Levin said last week, “I resent and resist” the establishment dictating to me my nominee, especially a nominee as flawed, as heretical as Mitt Romney.

    The establishment has so screwed this thing up that they’re dragging Obama back into a real race.

     

  9. Dcmick
    December 19th, 2011 @ 11:06 am

    Other polls are confirming a general drift towards Paul.

    This is no joke.

    “Air raid Pearl Harbour, this is NO drill!”

  10. Dcmick
    December 19th, 2011 @ 11:10 am

    Perry and Bachmann have done yeoman’s work for the Romney campaign.

    Perry by staying in a race that he’s become an embarrassment in, Bachmann by acting a tool in Romney’s hands.

    Santorum’s ENTIRE campaign, ab initio, was always viewed by most as some weird, Quixotic journey, by a guy blown out by an inarticulate stiff, Bob Casey, jr.

    The establishment, especially NR, has so screwed this up that we all need to go to God and implore his help for our country, for only now by prayer will we get a nominee and a new President equal to the challenges confronting us.

    Reagan didn’t deem open prayer beneath him, as he openly begged God for help at the GOP Convention in 1980.

    We need help.  And instead all we’re getting is garbage from NR.

    God help us!

  11. The Wondering Jew
    December 19th, 2011 @ 11:11 am

    TPT, the problem with your analysis is a complete lack of facts to support it.  I have no doubt that we’d lose a fair number of nanny state “conservatives” and those for whom conservatism means spending trillions on military adventurism, and as far as I’m concerned, “Good Riddance!”.  We’d also pick up a lot of independents and even a few Democrats who would be drawn to Paul’s message. Paul has been polled numerous times against Obama by respected independent pollsters and has been very competitive.

    The only”scandals” against him are a bunch of old newsletter items,that Ron Paul didn’t write, the vast majority of which weren’t really that big a deal anyway, unless you’re a “conservative” who pees in your pants like a liberal whenever someone mentions race in a less than perfectly politically correct way.  Or if (and it truly pains me as a conservative Zionist to say this) if you are one of the many Jewish conservatives who simply can’t distinguish the interests of Israel from those of the U.S. and can therefore reliably be counted on to tear down Paul for his failure to toe the neocon party line.  Meanwhile Rush Limbaugh (out of his own mouth” called Michelle Obama “uppity” a couple weeks ago and . . . . Double standards everyone?

    Even more to the point, Paul leads 2 to 1 over the 2nd place candidate in this poll among voters under 45 years of age.  That ain’t just the “college kidz” its basically anyone who has untethered himself from the MSM bubble– and all this is despite the unremitting hostility of the conservative establishment to his candidacy.

    Look, Paul certainly has his problems as candidate and a person– I’ve never denied that.  But he understands the fundamental problems we face as a nation, he understands that a return to Constitutional government is the solution to those problems, and compared to the rest of the Lilliputians in this field (or in our 2008 field) he is clearly the best choice.

    Having said all that, I’ll enthusiastically support whoever our nominee is against Obama.

  12. Dcmick
    December 19th, 2011 @ 11:15 am

    I’ve never for one moment thought Obama’s reelection likely.

    But after watching the establishment unload salvo after salvo after salvo on Gingrich and things Gingrich, after watching these creatures pretend that they’re just “against” Gingrich and not really for Romney, after watching Bachmann obliterate whatever respect I and many another Conservative had for her, —————————————————- there’s no way to conclude anything else than that we’re up the proverbial creek, and without a proverbial clue.

    Now the only way to drive Paul down and out is by unleashing on him, and Paul, as he did after Gingrich shut him up in the debate by quietly reminding the audience that “McVeigh succeeded,” Paul is a creature apt to nurse grievance and bitterness.

    That idiot could very easily launch a 3d party bid or sow enough mischief to curtail overall Republican vote totals in November, 2012.

    Instead of wisely maneuvering Paul off the stage entirely, thus minimizing his role and influence, instead of doing the same to a barely coherent Cain, the establishment deliberately allowed such creatures in so as to distribute all anti-Romney sentiment amongst a host of contenders.

    This is a fricken’ disaster!

  13. Depressing | Daily Pundit
    December 19th, 2011 @ 11:22 am

    […] Gingrich Campaign ‘Imploding’ in Iowa; Ron Paul Leads; Rick Santorum Gains : The Other M… CANDIDATE ……… Dec. 3-5 … Dec. 11-13 … Dec. 16-18 Ron Paul ……………………… 18% ………… 21% ……….. 23% Mitt Romney ……………….. 16% ………… 16% ……….. 20% Newt Gingrich ………………. 27% ………… 22% ………. 14% Michele Bachmann ……….. 13% ………… 11% ……….. 10% Rick Santorum …………….. 6% …………… 8% ………… 10% Rick Perry …………………… 9% …………… 9% ………… 10% Jon Huntsman …………….. 4% …………… 5% …………. 4% Gary Johnson ……………… 1% …………… 1% ………….. 2% […]

  14. ThePaganTemple
    December 19th, 2011 @ 11:28 am

    I agree with you on every point except one. I don’t think it makes that much difference if Paul runs third party. The vast majority of his supporters won’t vote for a Republican candidate other than him anyway, and as far as that goes, he’s liable to draw just as many Democrat protest votes against Obama, Democrats who just could never be able to bring themselves to vote for a GOP standard bearer. Real Republicans will not vote for Ron Paul in any significant numbers, and damn sure not on a third party ticket.

  15. republicanmother
    December 19th, 2011 @ 11:29 am

    An apt assessment.

  16. Dcmick
    December 19th, 2011 @ 11:38 am

    That’s a wild card at play there!

    Now your assessment might be deadly accurate.

    But that’s not something I’d be comfortable allowing to be out there during a general.  Recall too that Paul would be placed on the stage, as was John Anderson before him.  Who here thinks that the MSM would allow any debate without him to take place; they would know that whatever votes he gleaned came at the expense of the GOP nominee.

    That’s out of control variable in a race where we’re assured we’re all going to see the worse from the Democrats and the media.

    We Republicans HAVE to have our act together!

  17. ThePaganTemple
    December 19th, 2011 @ 11:40 am

    See that’s just the difference between you and most of Paul’s other supporters, the booger-eaters. Most of them won’t vote for anybody but Paul. I’ve even had them tell me they won’t vote for another Republican even if he, or Bachmann, was to put Booger Eater Jr. on the ticket. So what’s the use of pretending Paul is any more reasonable than his booger eating supporters?

    The man that wrote those newsletters, what ones were not written by Paul himself using the First Person, was a man named Lew Rockwell, a longtime Paul friend and supporter, and who stands with Paul to this day. Paul has never disavowed them or him, and has gladly accepted money from leaders of Neonazi groups, refusing to return it when it was reported.

    And I’m sorry, but when you go around making statements about how only 95% of blacks have sensible political opinions, and if a black man steals your wallet there’s no way you’ll be able to run him down and catch him because he’s too fast, and the only time crime is down in black neighborhoods is when its time to wait for the welfare check to arrive, that’s more than just a little politically incorrect, that’s jumping out of bed and out of the house wearing your bed sheet.

    And you can talk all the shit you want about some phony probably liberal pollster saying Paul is competitive against Obama, but I can promise you one thing you’ll never see is a cross-lighting at a presidential inauguration. If Paul were to get the nomination he’d bring the GOP down to the most crushing defeat they’ve ever experienced. You can make book on that.

  18. Finrod Felagund
    December 19th, 2011 @ 11:49 am

    Ron Paul will not win Iowa.

    His supporters generally don’t vote, and sure as hell aren’t going to waste an entire evening at a caucus.

    Look at the poll sampling, it way oversamples Democrats who aren’t going to be coming to a GOP caucus.

  19. Dcmick
    December 19th, 2011 @ 12:00 pm

    But the margins are now so fine that the establishment can’t take any chance but unload on Paul, and all things Paul.

    And we know with Paul he doesn’t take criticism well.

    He got into a tussle with Bachmann on stage, became incoherent, {he’s apt to do that…} read the next day that Bachmann supposedly “took him on” and almost immediately got on Leno and attacked Bachmann as a “hater.”

    He did the same earlier to Gingrich when Gingrich shut him up by quietly reminding everybody that the Timothy McVeigh that Paul trivializes “succeeded.”  What then did Paul do?  Within 72 hours massive attack ads were unleashed against who?  Gingrich, that’s who.

    Paul is a wild card.

    A wise and prudent party leadership would have maneuvered him off the debate schedules altogether, thus marginalizing him. 

    BUT the establishment wanted him, wanted Cain, wanted Bachmann too, likewise Santorum.  They wanted as many “Conservative” candidates as possible all so as to splinter up the overall non-Romney vote.

    Then whenever any one guy seriously made a move in the polls over Romney, they went after him.

    And now the unintended consequence of all this is that Paul’s numbers are moving northward.

    This is serious shit!

    This isn’t the minors here!

    We’re about to go into THE Presidential election year with our nomination process in shambles, and the rank and file clearly perceiving the heavy hand of a hated establishment imposing their unwanted nominee on the party.

    This is a disaster!

  20. ThePaganTemple
    December 19th, 2011 @ 12:07 pm

    Have you lost it? There are going to be so many Paul supporters some of those caucuses are going to be flat out Booger-Eater Conventions. And yes, there would be Democrats who would gladly go to the caucuses, and would even be willing to re-register if necessary to do so. What’s more, Paul winning in Iowa might be the best case scenario, because if Romney wins it, and goes on to win New Hampshire, that’s it-game over. Gingrich doesn’t have the organizational or financial support to do better than third or fourth in Iowa, if that. The only real hope for us is Michelle Bachmann. People need to get over their butthurt over her telling it like it is about Mitt buying votes and go with a real conservative reformer, otherwise known as THE ONLY ONE IN THE FUCKING RACE!

  21. Author Brad Thor Endorses Santorum: ‘The Right Man, at the Right Time’ : The Other McCain
    December 19th, 2011 @ 1:07 pm

    […] */ google_ad_slot = "2046026383"; google_ad_width = 300; google_ad_height = 250; RECENTLY:Dec 19: Gingrich Campaign ‘Imploding’ in Iowa; Ron Paul Leads; Rick Santorum GainsDec 19: Rick Santorum Will Campaign Today in Creston, Osceola and Indianola, IowaDec 18: Santorum […]

  22. Dcmick
    December 19th, 2011 @ 1:13 pm

    But she didn’t “tell the truth” about Romney “buying” votes.

    Instead she tried to finger Gingrich for “buying” votes when we know that if any such attempt had been made it was made by Romney.

    As for those, as you term them, “booger-eaters,” ———– those people have votes too, and there isn’t some device sifting rational votes from those that are irrational.    They all count.

    Nor do I share your confidence that the Paulbots won’t show.  Heretofore they might not have shown because they never really had a chance to prevail.  But that’s not the case now, is it?

    As for Bachmann, she proven to be a one-trick  pony in the debates. 

    We can do better than her.

    Santorum would be preferable to Bachmann.

    And Gingrich to both.

  23. Finrod Felagund
    December 19th, 2011 @ 1:49 pm

    I will bet you $5 straight-up that Ron Paul will not win the Iowa caucuses.

    And Bachmann?  She’s been speaking way too much crazy for anyone to take her seriously.  She’ll be gone after New Hampshire or South Carolina, mark my words.

  24. ThePaganTemple
    December 19th, 2011 @ 2:18 pm

    Demick you must have misread my comment. It was Finrod who said the Paultards wouldn’t show I was the one disputing his point.

    As for Santorum being preferable to Bachmann I remind you of how Santorum joined with Romney in putting down Gingrich for telling the truth about the Palestinians. Santorum and Romney doesn’t think its wise to tell the truth about them, nor do they think the American people deserve to hear the unvarnished truth. Bachmann was the only one who backed Gingrich up.

    But you do have a point about Bachmann being a one trick pony. The name of that pony is THE CONSTITUTION!

  25. ThePaganTemple
    December 19th, 2011 @ 2:19 pm

    Is “crazy” your term for the truth, or is it your opinion of first principles of the constitution, or both?

  26. Finrod Felagund
    December 19th, 2011 @ 2:36 pm

    Crazy is not only believing weird stupid shit someone tells you, but repeating it in front of a national audience like she did while accusing Perry over Gardisil.

    I note you haven’t taken my bet.

  27. Fear of a Ron Paul Planet : The Other McCain
    December 19th, 2011 @ 3:19 pm

    […] saying. Listen to your heart. Lead. Don’t follow.” – Rick SantorumThink about it: Santorum has gone from 6% to 10% in the PPP Iowa poll within the span of two weeks. He is now in a three-way tie for fourth with Perry and Michele […]

  28. Pathfinder's wife
    December 19th, 2011 @ 3:20 pm

    The one striking thing this tells me is many of the people in this country, both Republican and Democrat, have lost their patience with the two parties and their status quo.  While it looks alarming on the surface, perhaps this is a very good turn of events.

    For myself, I think it is a positive thing if the people are starting to decide to be sick of business as usual in Washington and are willing to voice their displeasure in the voting booth (it could be worse when you think about it).

  29. AngelaTC
    December 19th, 2011 @ 3:24 pm

    According to the polls, the only candidate who consistently polls even or above Obama is Paul.    He won’t get the nomination, but hypothetically speaking….if he did, the establishment would run a third party candidate against him. Trump comes to mind, as does Bloomberg.  There shouldn’t be any doubt that the GOP would rather have Obama in office than a principled small government conservative.   Obama is no threat to the status quo.

  30. Dcmick
    December 19th, 2011 @ 3:27 pm

    No, it’s not that she chirps about the Constitution.

    It’s that she pretends that she alone was waging a one man battle against Obama.    She even says it like that, that she “alone” did this, that or the other.

    When in reality she’s been a backbencher who only avoided obscurity by hurling bombs here, there and everywhere.

    Now chucking bombs can be fun, and can be politically amusing.

    But there has to be more to your political resume than chucking political hand grenades.

    Moreover, where did we hear something similar before?

    McCain!

    Remember McCain, four years ago, pretending that the surge was all his idea, that he alone of those assembled pushed for it, and that any and all credit due to it was his, and his alone.

    And as for misunderstanding?   Yea, I misread.

  31. AngelaTC
    December 19th, 2011 @ 3:27 pm

    Apparently it’s turned a normally rational fellow conservative into a liberal, name-calling Obama voter.  Paultard? Booger eater?  

  32. ThePaganTemple
    December 19th, 2011 @ 3:31 pm

    (Paul) won’t get the nomination, but hypothetically speaking….if
    he did, the establishment would run a third party candidate against him.
    Trump comes to mind, as does Bloomberg.

    Stop eating those damn boogers.

  33. AngelaTC
    December 19th, 2011 @ 3:33 pm

    Real Republicans might not, but conservatives would.   

  34. ThePaganTemple
    December 19th, 2011 @ 3:41 pm

    When she said “me alone” I think she was talking about her alone of all the candidates on the stage, not her alone out of everybody in the Congress. Granted, she’s the only person there from the Congress besides Paul, who hasn’t done jack shit other than send out racist e-mails, appear on the Alex Jones Show and solicit donations from the KKK and Stormfront members. Bachmann of all those on the stage IS the only one that has opposed Obama on practically everything. You can call her a bomb thrower all you want, but I would consider my words if I were you. What do you want her to do, ask Obama nicely to change his mind, pretty please? Is that the kind of campaign we could expect from Newt, a “positive campaign about the issue”, a la McCain? No offense but I’m not interested in hearing Newt and Obama engage in a “respectful dialogue”.

  35. ThePaganTemple
    December 19th, 2011 @ 4:08 pm

    Why should I make a crazy damn bet like that? I never insisted Paul would win, I’m just saying you’re dead wrong if you think the Paultards won’t show up in any significant numbers, which was what you said. I said they would, and they would definitely be a factor, not necessarily that Paul would win. I do say there’s a damn good chance he will.

  36. Finrod Felagund
    December 19th, 2011 @ 4:27 pm

    If you won’t take a $5 straight-up bet, I’ll give you 2:1 — Paul wins Iowa, I give you $10, if he doesn’t, you give me $5.

    I also note you don’t have any reply to Bachmann repeating bogus shit about Gardisil that she should have known better about.
     

  37. ThePaganTemple
    December 19th, 2011 @ 4:36 pm

    Real conservatives care more about beating Obama than they do about making some shitty point with a protest vote.

  38. ThePaganTemple
    December 19th, 2011 @ 4:43 pm

    Again, I didn’t say Paul would definitely win, I just said his supporters are going to be a major factor, because they are devoted, mobilized, and organized. I’m not going to bet you, so drop it.

    As for Bachmann, I was one of the first ones here who criticized her over her debate performance with Perry over the Gardasil business, and I have criticized her over other things as well. So your point is lost with me. I don’t look for perfection in my candidates, and when they fuck up, I call them on it, because I want them to be better candidates. But I will never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

    Michelle Bachmann is still the only Tea Party conservative in this race, and that includes Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. Though Perry might run a close second to her.

  39. Adjoran
    December 19th, 2011 @ 4:45 pm

    So Gingrich should be immune from criticism?  Elect him, and it may come true. 

    But his fall in Iowa is at least as much because of Paul’s hard-hitting TV and radio campaign against him as anything “conservatives” or “establishment” Republicans have offered up.

  40. Adjoran
    December 19th, 2011 @ 4:46 pm

    You and Levin must have secret antennae to receive these establishment dictates.

  41. Adjoran
    December 19th, 2011 @ 4:49 pm

    A one-time item might be excused as “not written by Paul” but a lifetime of similar stuff in the newsletters cannot be discounted.  Neither can the wild things he’s said about AIDS or his relationship with Alex Jones and the Truthers.

    Paul is insane.

  42. Adjoran
    December 19th, 2011 @ 4:50 pm

    The truth often hurts.

    We call it, “tough love.”

  43. Adjoran
    December 19th, 2011 @ 4:54 pm

    Conservatives will not support that insane little hypocrite.  Your “man of principle” has been one of the leading Republican House earmarkers and pork-spenders for 20 years (top three, last ten years through 2010).  He loads his spending in committee or in conference, then votes “NO” on the final bill (sure to pass anyway) as a “vote of conscience against spending,” knowing his supporters are too stupid or stoned to figure out the deception.

  44. Adjoran
    December 19th, 2011 @ 5:05 pm

    Part of the problem is the media – including Fox AND conservative bloggers – get so hung up on the horse race aspect of the campaign (“…and Gingrich takes the lead!  Paul coming up fast on the outside, Romney fading back into the pack, and who’s that moving up fast on the inside?”) that the issues have been practically ignored in the process.

    Instead, we are treated to a diversion of minor clown issues like a rock at a gate in the middle of nowhere, vaccines, sex scandals, arguing over who’s been purest longest, proposals to arrest federal judges – and that doesn’t include Paul’s insanity.

    How much of our debate time has been focused on jobs, the economy, the specifics of overregulation?

    Oops, can’t talk now, gotta go – another poll just came out!

  45. Pathfinder's wife
    December 19th, 2011 @ 5:06 pm

    Don’t completely count on this assumption.  People are very angry.

  46. The Wondering Jew
    December 19th, 2011 @ 6:14 pm

    Actually, let’s focus on the actual stuff he’s said in more than three decades of  public life.  Nothing crazy about AIDS– and nothing even remotely racist.  And its a fact that Paul’s supporters are by far the most racially diverse of any of the GOP candidates.  So we’re left with the fact that he goes on Alex Jones’ show too much. I agree that Jones is a nut, and I think Paul is too inclined to give  conspiracist nonsense credence.  But I have to weigh that against the others flaws, which is that none of them to me have anything resembling a consistent record of principled conservatism.

  47. Memo From the National Affairs Desk: Strange Rumblings in the Heartland : The Other McCain
    December 19th, 2011 @ 11:30 pm

    […] survey, which shows Newt falling from 37% to 26 percent in the past two weeks, mirroring the “collapse” that PPP reports in Gingrich’s Iowa numbers.Category: Election 2012, Fear and Loathing in Iowa, Iowa, Shoe Leather FundComments […]

  48. The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Iowa Forecast: Moderate Weather?
    December 25th, 2011 @ 5:23 pm

    […] during the past week have shown a sharp decline for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who left the campaign trail in Iowa last week to hold […]