• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Iowa PPP Poll (12/18): Paul 23%, Romney 20%, Gingrich 14%

Redress said:
Oddly, if you look at the chart from RCP's Iowa page, it doesn't look like that...

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus
Click to expand...

hmm the numerical stuff seems a bit off but the swig swigs (lines) seem about right.

Another poll done by ISU/Gazette/KCRG.

Firstchoice.jpg


Cain making a comeback!
 
Last edited:
 
Demon of Light said:
With numbers like this the establishment has no choice but to at least discuss him. The fact there is a resounding response of vitriolic coverage and insistence that a win in Iowa would discredit the caucuses says more about the media now.
Click to expand...

Well that kinda kills the whole media whine then.
 
Redress said:
Well that kinda kills the whole media whine then.
Click to expand...

It was never a whine. Any objective observer who really analyzes the differences in coverage would have no choice but to conclude a general bias against Paul in the media. Honestly, for a while in 2007 I didn't really believe it either, but then I began seeing every single media organization leaving Paul's name out of a poll even when he was ranked higher than other candidates they did mention. Despite massive fundraising successes he got only a flurry of coverage in the first day or so and then nothing. I saw them touting Huckabee as a "dark horse" well before he had any major showing in the polls. Then came some of the blatant actions by Fox News that rose to such levels of absurdity that they were even omitting his image and reporting as though McCain had come in second in Nevada even as the result going by at the bottom of the screen clearly showed otherwise.

Being upset about that is not whining. This time around a lot more attention has been given on this issue because it has become increasingly obvious. Several third-party studies have demonstrated that he had been the least-mentioned candidate even when he was polling in double digits. Only now that he has risen around 20% have the media shifted tactics. Have you not been paying attention to what people like me have been saying? None of us Paul supporters are surprised that there has been more coverage. It is necessary that the media maintain the appearance of credibility, especially after people like Jon Stewart pointed it out to millions of viewers, so there is no choice but to give him some more coverage.

Just as was predicted, now that they can no longer play the "he will never win a single state" game the media have shifted gears, though I imagine they will always make some effort to downplay or omit Paul in their coverage. It is now, as predicted, more about attacking the legitimacy of the Iowa caucuses as an indicator of who will win the nomination (while a first place finish has never been treated as a lock, it has regularly been treated as important) and smearing Ron Paul. Since he also has a very strong showing in New Hampshire right now a win in Iowa could easily catapult him to a win there given the short time frame. The next tactic would simply be to write off New Hampshire because it is a small state, with the Republican Party establishment insisting on the need to offset the influence of these smaller contests, and the pundits will say that South Carolina is the real test.
 
Last edited:
Demon of Light said:
It was never a whine. Any objective observer who really analyzes the differences in coverage would have no choice but to conclude a general bias against Paul in the media. Honestly, for a while in 2007 I didn't really believe it either, but then I began seeing every single media organization leaving Paul's name out of a poll even when he was ranked higher than other candidates they did mention. Despite massive fundraising successes he got only a flurry of coverage in the first day or so and then nothing. I saw them touting Huckabee as a "dark horse" well before he had any major showing in the polls. Then came some of the blatant actions by Fox News that rose to such levels of absurdity that they were even omitting his image and reporting as though McCain had come in second in Nevada even as the result going by at the bottom of the screen clearly showed otherwise.

Being upset about that is not whining. This time around a lot more attention has been given on this issue because it has become increasingly obvious. Several third-party studies have demonstrated that he had been the least-mentioned candidate even when he was polling in double digits. Only now that he has risen around 20% have the media shifted tactics. Have you not been paying attention to what people like me have been saying? None of us Paul supporters are surprised that there has been more coverage. It is necessary that the media maintain the appearance of credibility, especially after people like Jon Stewart pointed it out to millions of viewers, so there is no choice but to give him some more coverage.

Just as was predicted, now that they can no longer play the "he will never win a single state" game the media have shifted gears, though I imagine they will always make some effort to downplay or omit Paul in their coverage. It is now, as predicted, more about attacking the legitimacy of the Iowa caucuses as an indicator of who will win the nomination (while a first place finish has never been treated as a lock, it has regularly been treated as important) and smearing Ron Paul. Since he also has a very strong showing in New Hampshire right now a win in Iowa could easily catapult him to a win there given the short time frame. The next tactic would simply be to write off New Hampshire because it is a small state, with the Republican Party establishment insisting on the need to offset the influence of these smaller contests, and the pundits will say that South Carolina is the real test.
Click to expand...

Which is bull**** and 100 % false. Paul has gotten coverage commensurate with his performance, just like every other ****ing candidate.
 
joko104 said:
The Republican establishment will never support Ron Paul. The day the Republican establishment will agree with Ron Paul that our soldiers are mass murderers and that Abraham Lincoln was a mass murderer akin to Hitler is exactly never.

If Ron Paul ever appeared an even 1 in 1000 possibility the Republican establishment, media, military and institutional government would smear him into the ground. Now he's just seen as an oddity of an extreme fringe almost like a freak show they prefer to pretend doesn't exist - other than possibly to use Ron Paul to knock down someone they don't want such as Gingrich. They can use Paul's ads to rip down Gingrich, while continuing to smile adding a reminder that Ron Paul himself is a kook. In short, other than now using Ron Paul as a means to tear down Gingrich, they otherwise will continue to minimize Paul.
Click to expand...

That is dishonest, hyperbolic nonsense! Paul never called US soldiers "mass murderers" nor did he ever call compare Lincoln to Hitler.
 
haymarket said:
100% agreed. Libertarianism could never stand the harsh light of a public examination of all that it would destroy that Americans want and love. Right now Paul gets by because he is a kindly nice old man who seems pretty sensible when he talks about aspects of our foreign policy. But any detailed look at his views on domestic policy puts him on the far far right wing of the political spectrum.
Click to expand...

Yea RIGHT! Legalizing hard drugs and prostitution, and leaving gay marriage up to the states is "far far right wing?"
 
ElijahGalt said:
Yea RIGHT! Legalizing hard drugs and prostitution, and leaving gay marriage up to the states is "far far right wing?"
Click to expand...

Riiiggghhhttt. Because 2 issues so determines where some one falls on the political spectrum. About all you have proven is right or left, Paul is extreme.
 
Redress said:
Riiiggghhhttt. Because 2 issues so determines where some one falls on the political spectrum. About all you have proven is right or left, Paul is extreme.
Click to expand...

Technically, that was three issues, and two of them remain major issues in the 2012 election. But I could go on with the domestic convictions of Paul that are far from the right, and subsequent policies would be met with great applause from both democrats and independent voters. Namely, we could talk about the PATRIOT Act and the ability of the federal government to wiretap citizens. How many republicans, or those on the far right, support such policies? Paul supports the right of citizens to burn flags, and though this is no longer a hot-button issue, it still is in the hearts of many nationalistic, right-wing Americans. He's against abortion and the death penalty, but he leaves it up to the states. Again, how many republicans support such measures? All I'm saying is that in terms of domestic, Paul is hardly on the "far right." That would be social conservatism with a mix of economic freedom and behavioral regulation.
 
The irony is going to be the more the media now focuses on him, gives him air time and has air time about him, the more his poll numbers are going to fall.

His slogans and platitudes can be attractive to some people. But the devil of Ron Paul is in the details. Any politician can sound good when allowed only to spout platitudes and slogans.
 
joko104 said:
The irony is going to be the more the media now focuses on him, gives him air time and has air time about him, the more his poll numbers are going to fall.
Click to expand...

He actually went up by 4% in a poll.

ARG Iowa Poll

Sample Dates: December 19-22, 2011

600 Likely Caucus Goers
+/- 4%

Paul 21% (+4)
Romney 20% (0)
Gingrich 19% (-3)
Perry 9%
Bachmann 8%
Huntsman 6%
Santorum 4%

Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus Preference

Trend from previous polls they did.


3%-> 14%-> 12%-> 16%-> 17%-> 21%!
 
Congratulations, Ron Paul! Have to wonder aloud if Iowa has forgotten Michele Bachmann.
 
Redress said:
Apparently the word "performance" is difficult. Have you watched Paul? He is painfully boring. His campaign also entirely lacks in anything interesting to report on. This victim crap is retarded.
Click to expand...

The only thing "retarded" here is your response. How "boring" you think a candidate is has no relevance to whether the media report on a candidate. John Kerry was notoriously boring and he was a vanilla Democrat. At least Paul has views that are less common in the typical Republican field of candidates. Him being high in the polls should have gotten him a lot more attention than Rick Santorum, who has struggled to break 4% in any poll. Now they are only giving him his due because it would be too obvious if they didn't.

It is not about Paul's personality or alleged lack of charisma but his views. You need to understand that the media has long been a tool for the establishment. Whether it comes to selling a war or attacking any challenge to the political and corporate elites the media are always there to back up the establishment's play.
 
This year's campaigning has decided me.... I'm voting Cthulhu.


cd2012.png



cthulhu4prez.png


Uncle_Cthulhu.jpg
 
Voldemort VP?

Politico came out with a national poll http://images.politico.com/global/2011/12/emolink.html

Vote Choice Vote Certainty
Romney 30.2%
 10.3%
Gingrich 24.8%
 23%
Paul 17.3%
 40.9%
Bachmann 9.7%
 16.6%
Perry 9.2%
 11.5%
Santorum 4.5%
 25.2%
Huntsman 4.4%
 18%



Emotional Linking Index: Emotional connections are more predictive of how voters say they will vote than how voters' assesses the candidates on the issues. Ranges from 0-100.



 National
 Iowa
 N.H
Romney
 50.1

 44.7
 55.7
Gingrich
 50.1

 39.5
 38.6
Paul
 49.3

 51.2
 51.3
Bachmann
 49

 48.5
 38.3
Perry
 46.3

 46.1
 37.3
Santorum
 44

 43.4
 36.5
Huntsman
 39.3

 36.4
 44.1
 
Last edited:
So basically he is third, and that is with things ideal for him so far. As the attack ads start to roll, he will fade fast. As he showed on CNN, he does not handle pressure well.
 
Redress said:
So basically he is third, and that is with things ideal for him so far. As the attack ads start to roll, he will fade fast. As he showed on CNN, he does not handle pressure well.
Click to expand...

Depends how they edit them to seem like he doesn't.

He's been steadily going up nationally which is a good. But I never gave to much credence to national polls as it's a state per state affair. Win Iowa, possible upset in NH and it will reflect elsewhere..
 
jasonxe said:
Depends how they edit them to seem like he doesn't.

He's been steadily going up nationally which is a good. But I never gave to much credence to national polls as it's a state per state affair. Win Iowa, possible upset in NH and it will reflect elsewhere..
Click to expand...

I have seen the full interview. He got in a huff.

He is going up, but no one has bothered to actually target him. That is going to change. He provides a plethora of easy ammunition to use against him.
 
Redress said:
I have seen the full interview. He got in a huff.

He is going up, but no one has bothered to actually target him. That is going to change. He provides a plethora of easy ammunition to use against him.
Click to expand...

Well if anything, Romney will probably throw ads in NH as he can't afford to come in 2nd or a near tie there. Since it's one state, Paul can easily fight back (null). Right now, both sides of the media has been on RP with the newsletters and msm pundits saying they're going to discredit Iowa if he wins theme.

I think polls are coming out tomorrow so it should be interesting to see how it shapes up. 8 days till Iowa.
 
Redress said:
I have seen the full interview. He got in a huff.
Click to expand...

No. He really didn't. The only reason you think that is because you are obviously incapable of looking at the situation objectively.

He is going up, but no one has bothered to actually target him.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the last few days has been a light dusting of praise. :roll:
 
Demon of Light said:
No. He really didn't. The only reason you think that is because you are obviously incapable of looking at the situation objectively.
Click to expand...

Coming from you that is one of the most hilarious things ever.

Yeah, the last few days has been a light dusting of praise. :roll:
Click to expand...

Paul gets no coverage, Paul gets negative coverage, it's so unfair, wah wah wah.
 
Redress said:
Coming from you that is one of the most hilarious things ever.
Click to expand...

I am perfectly open to being wrong, but all the evidence in this case says I am right. Nothing about that interview suggests anything other than him being taken aback by the absurdity of some of the questions, congenially answering them all the same, and, when the interview is over, walking casually away.

Paul gets no coverage, Paul gets negative coverage, it's so unfair, wah wah wah.
Click to expand...

Treating my comment like whining is absurd. He has been getting piled on by the media for days, with several candidates jumping on the bandwagon, and yet you claim "no one has bothered to target him" like all that isn't happening. Pointing out your ridiculous disconnect with reality is not whining.
 
PPP is coming out tonight around 11pm -12am.

They said it's a tight race for first between Paul and Romney. I kinda have a feeling Romney may be first. It'll definitely be within the margin of error though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom