New Iowa Poll Places Ron Paul Firmly in First, with 25%

Revolution PAC, the Super PAC formed to support presidential candidate Ron Paul, has received early data from the commissioned Iowa poll. The TeleResearch survey is the first to incorporate disaffected Democrats and Independents who will not vote to reelect Obama and will instead crossover to participate in the Iowa Republican Caucus, as well as likely Republican caucus-goers.


Survey sample size is approximately 2,900, with almost 700 likely Republican caucus-goers. Indiana’s TeleResearch Corp., which has been polling voters for more than 18 years, reports that the margin of error is less than 3%.


Factoring in both Republican caucus-goers and disaffected Democrats and Independents who’ve indicated that they will participate in the Iowa Republican Caucus, Ron Paul leads at 25%, with an approximate 4-point advantage over Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain.

Click to expand...

Source: Revolution PAC

While some might dismiss this because it was commissioned by supporters of Ron Paul, it does not seriously conflict with other polls in Iowa. At least two others showed him around 20% and those did not consider the the fact that there are Democrats who are liable to vote for Ron Paul in the Iowa caucuses since they can change their registration at the door. It's one of the larger samples of recent Iowa polls, with a very low margin of error, and the question does not appear to be designed in any way to favor a candidate. I also wouldn't be surprised if their likely voter criteria is also strict like the one used by Selzer in its Bloomberg poll. Should that be the case it would seem this is the most reliable poll out there concerning the Iowa caucuses considering even the Selzer poll excluded the likelihood of Democrats crossing over to vote for Paul.

I don't think it's especially significant. Paul has apparently been spending far more time and money there than anyone else. He can't afford to do that in too many places.

I haven't seen Paul above 12% during the entire nominating cycle>
RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination

Frolicking Dinosaurs said:

I haven't seen Paul above 12% during the entire nominating cycle>
RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination

Click to expand...

That would be a national poll that is ultimately impacted mostly by the national coverage, which is basically non-existent.

Frolicking Dinosaurs said:

I haven't seen Paul above 12% during the entire nominating cycle>
RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination

Click to expand...

Paul fans have optimism. It's misplaced optimism, but still.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus

Most recent polls in Iowa have Paul at(in order from most recent to least): 10 %, 10 %, 19 %, 11 %.

National poll released yesterday has Paul at 6 %: National (US) Poll * November 22, 2011 * Gingrich On Top Of GOP Pack As - Quinnipiac University – Hamden, Connecticut

2 polls in New Hampshire have him at 11 and 14 %.

South Carolina 5 %

Pennsylvania 9 %

Arizona 8 %

RealClearPolitics - Latest Election Polls

AdamT said:

I don't think it's especially significant. Paul has apparently been spending far more time and money there than anyone else. He can't afford to do that in too many places.

Click to expand...

a strong finish would undermine the notion that he is not electable.

If it can be shown that money and campaign effort can eliminate the media bias, that old canard would be gone for good.

ARealConservative said:

a strong finish would undermine the notion that he is not electable.

Click to expand...

Not it wouldn't.

If it can be shown that money and campaign effort can eliminate the media bias, that old canard would be gone for good.

Click to expand...

Never accept responsibility for your own failings when you can blame it on the media. SO much for the conservative notion of personal responsibility. It's not their fault, it's the media.

Redress said:

Not it wouldn't.

Click to expand...

yep. An Iowa victory would increase his numbers in every state immediately.

Never accept responsibility for your own failings when you can blame it on the media. SO much for the conservative notion of personal responsibility. It's not their fault, it's the media.

Click to expand...

you can choose to ignore it all you want, but a bias certainly does exist.

You realize Huckabee won the 2008 primary, right? McCain came in 4th...

Redress said:

You realize Huckabee won the 2008 primary, right? McCain came in 4th...

Click to expand...

you realize Iowa doesn't have a primary and Huckabee's caucus victory gained him major traction immediately after.

probably not.

ARealConservative said:

you realize Iowa doesn't have a primary and Huckabee's caucus victory gained him major traction immediately after.

probably not.

Click to expand...

Caucus, you are correct, I misspoke.

You do realize that Huckabee's momentum lasted until, well, he lost the next 7 states, getting 11 % and 1 delegate from New Hampshire? So much for that momentum.

Probably not.

Redress said:

Caucus, you are correct, I misspoke.

You do realize that Huckabee's momentum lasted until, well, he lost the next 7 states, getting 11 % and 1 delegate from New Hampshire? So much for that momentum.

Probably not.

Click to expand...

his donations certainly benefited. I relish the notion of Paul throwing a ton of money at whatever state you live in so you have to listen to his message constantly.

I feel like people continuously misinterpret what winning the Iowa caucus is. I do not choose who I vote for, nor do most people, based on who won the Iowa caucus. The Iowa caucus is not a deciding factor in any way other than its electorates just like every other state. The reason it is important rather is that it is an INDICATOR of where the other states will go. It tends to predict well how the rest of the country will vote, not cause the country to vote that way. Do not mistake causation with correlation.

Redress said:

Not it wouldn't.

Click to expand...

Not singularly, however it would significantly shake the notion. It would at least add an element of doubt into the notion and into the argument of those who suggest it if he is able to win a primary.

I would take an outlier poll commissioned by Paul supporters with a grain of salt until other polls begin showing similar. That said, this is further smoke indicating there may be some fire going. I still don't think Paul is likely to win Iowa, but a top 3 finish wouldn't shock me and I think could prove a boon for him in the following states. Its no garauntee of victory or even relevance, but would definitely be a benefit.

Sadly, Paul won't win. He's one of very few candidates I actually have confidence in to any degree, but his manner of speaking and his refusal to "dumb down the message" will lose him the primary.

I've known Ron Paul was leading in Iowa the entire time.
Michelle Bachmann tried to influence the Iowa Straw Poll by paying for 6,000 people to get in, yet she only received 4,XXX votes. If you discount the votes she paid for, Ron Paul won by a landslide.

Secondly, polls are always askewed. The younger half of the populous do not have landlines, and are not home to answer these polls.
Is an Iowa victory significant? Not sure. I would not discount it as many Republicans seem to be pulling for the one believed to be able to defeat Obama. It is still possible Paul will become that man.

Thaonnor said:

I feel like people continuously misinterpret what winning the Iowa caucus is. I do not choose who I vote for, nor do most people, based on who won the Iowa caucus. The Iowa caucus is not a deciding factor in any way other than its electorates just like every other state. The reason it is important rather is that it is an INDICATOR of where the other states will go. It tends to predict well how the rest of the country will vote, not cause the country to vote that way. Do not mistake causation with correlation.

Click to expand...

It seems that, with respect to Republicans, the Iowa caucus isn't a very good predicter at all. Is Iowa Irrelevant? - NYTimes.com

USAMP1970 said:

I've known Ron Paul was leading in Iowa the entire time.
Michelle Bachmann tried to influence the Iowa Straw Poll by paying for 6,000 people to get in, yet she only received 4,XXX votes. If you discount the votes she paid for, Ron Paul won by a landslide.

Click to expand...

They all pay people to get in -- that's how the straw poll works. Paul bought 4,750 tickets. Not as many as Bachman, but....

AdamT said:

They all pay people to get in -- that's how the straw poll works. Paul bought 4,750 tickets. Not as many as Bachman, but....

Click to expand...

not entirely accurate. grass roots bought a large percentage of those tickets, not the campaign, but your ultimate reason to denounce this is still correct. people are paid (and fed) to vote.

AdamT said:

They all pay people to get in -- that's how the straw poll works. Paul bought 4,750 tickets. Not as many as Bachman, but....

Click to expand...

You're right. I should have articulated that better. Please understand I am using a virtual cordi on a touch screen phone.
My real point there is that Michelle didn't even get the votes she paid for. But I stand by my stance that Ron Paul's support is very strong in Iowa. Much more than the media will ever admit.

tessaesque said:

Sadly, Paul won't win. He's one of very few candidates I actually have confidence in to any degree, but his manner of speaking and his refusal to "dumb down the message" will lose him the primary.

Click to expand...

No, his foreign policy will lose him the primary. That's really all there is to it.

On the other hand, I'm considering voting for Paul just as a protest vote for the lousy field we ended up with. I wonder how many other people are doing the same? His support would probably go down a notch if there were really a consistent, likeable conservative in the field. (Last time we had that was... 1984, Ronald Reagan. Sigh.)

If Paul wins Iowa, it will definitely carry momentum. Other candidates will drop out like flies and the media will peg it a Paul vs Romney race for NH. Paul usually scores a distant second but second nonetheless. So it will be a toss up of epic proportions. If he loses NH, then Romney could possibly take the cake. Although I do know Paul has California for sure if that counts for anything

This poll is the third one showing Paul around 20% and the latest poll shows him at 16% in Iowa, within the margin of error of 20% and second place. Like most polls that one does not contemplate the likelihood of Democrats voting in the caucus for Paul.

jasonxe said:

If Paul wins Iowa, it will definitely carry momentum. Other candidates will drop out like flies and the media will peg it a Paul vs Romney race for NH. Paul usually scores a distant second but second nonetheless. So it will be a toss up of epic proportions. If he loses NH, then Romney could possibly take the cake. Although I do know Paul has California for sure if that counts for anything

Click to expand...

I think you are being too optimistic and naive about the media. Already the seeds of doubt have been sewn by the media about what an Iowa win would mean. Their most likely response will be to claim Iowa is irrelevant and not a very good indicator of who is the nominee (several little lambs just offered that programmed defense up without the need for prompting in this thread) or to say that he had a great ground game and turned out his devoted followers. The candidates in second and third place are likely to be touted as the prospective nominees. Of course, you can't fool all the people all of the time (plus they can't exactly black out a victory in Iowa without giving up the game) and there will inevitably be a bump in New Hampshire that will greatly erode that 40% tripe Romney is being given.

Really, when all the machinery of the establishment is arrayed against you as is the case with Paul's candidacy, every battle is all-or-nothing. I think we can only relax a bit if Ron Paul gets straight wins through Florida. A loss in New Hampshire will give the media the opening they need to declare whoever wins the presumptive nominee. Even if Paul wins New Hampshire, a loss in South Carolina will be interpreted as Paul not being able to win the Deep South because of his libertarian views and/or being unable to win a big state. Paul wins South Carolina they will have a lot more trouble portraying him as a longshot, but they will still take great pains to push Florida as a major gauge of his ability to win. Paul pulling off a win there basically clinches Nevada for him and most of the contests in February.

Suffice to say, all of that would be terribly difficult to achieve when the entire system of social control is trying to put a line of pitfalls in front of him. At that point, should Paul reach it, any arguments the media present about his electability will be shot and they will go into full attack mode ranting about racist newsletters and any straw they can latch onto at any given moment.

You have a great deal of faith in the honesty of the media. Stow that nonsense. A win for Paul will mean fighting for every minute of airtime. Truthfully, it is probably only because of Paul's rising numbers and their belief that his foreign policy views and positions on drugs are a serious vulnerability that CNN gave him a fair amount of time in the debate yesterday.