• 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%

jasonxe

I support ██ ███
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 7, 2011
Messages
1,405
Reaction score
355
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Paul leads in Iowa - Public Policy Polling
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_IA_1218925.pdf

Iowa
12/16 - 12/18
597 likely caucus voters
+/-4.0%


Paul
23
21
18
10
16
11
Romney
20​
16​
16​
22​
19​
26​
Gingrich
14​
22​
27​
8​
5​
15​
Bachmann
10​
11​
13​
8​
18​
14
Perry
10​
9​
9​
9​
22​
Santorum
10​
8​
6​
5
5​
Huntsman
4​
5​
4​
1​
3​
2
Johnson
2​
1​
1​
1​
0​




First time in first for Paul in Iowa. Newt took a large drop. I believe i read a tweet of Newt dropping in NH. Poll coming out tomorrow I believe.

Two man race? Which supporters will show up in the Iowa caucus and will the winner carry over to NH?

Side note:
Congrats to Paul for reaching 4 mil in donations in this weekend money bomb.
Romney won Des Moise Register endorsement.
If you're interested in speech comparison then watch this video.
Ron Paul vs Mitt Romney CPAC 2011 Speech Comparison - YouTube
 
Last edited:
Paul leads in Iowa - Public Policy Polling
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_IA_1218925.pdf

Iowa
12/16 - 12/18
597 likely caucus voters
+/-4.0%


Paul
23
21
18
10
16
11
Romney
20​
16​
16​
22​
19​
26​
Gingrich
14​
22​
27​
8​
5​
15​
Bachmann
10​
11​
13​
8​
18​
14
Perry
10​
9​
9​
9​
22​
Santorum
10​
8​
6​
5
5​
Huntsman
4​
5​
4​
1​
3​
2
Johnson
2​
1​
1​
1​
0​




First time in first for Paul in Iowa. Newt took a large drop. I believe i read a tweet of Newt dropping in NH. Poll coming out tomorrow I believe.

Two man race? Which supporters will show up in the Iowa caucus and will the winner carry over to NH?

Side note:
Congrats to Paul for reaching 4 mil in donations in this weekend money bomb.
Romney won Des Moise Register endorsement.
If you're interested in speech comparison then watch this video.
Ron Paul vs Mitt Romney CPAC 2011 Speech Comparison - YouTube
Oh wow, it just gets worse and worse for the GOP establishment.
 
The media blockade against Ron Paul needs to end. I wouldn't vote for him but enough people like him that he deserves a broader voice.
 
Oh wow, it just gets worse and worse for the GOP establishment.

So Ron Paul has now climbed into the front car of the GOP roller-coaster. Realize the highest point in the coaster ride is right at the start.
 
So Ron Paul has now climbed into the front car of the GOP roller-coaster. Realize the highest point in the coaster ride is right at the start.

Just curious.......Between Paul and Obama, who do you agree with concerning Indefinate detention?
 
We saw it with Perry, we saw with Bachmann, we saw it with Cain, why does everybody think that their favorite will be an exception?
 
We saw it with Perry, we saw with Bachmann, we saw it with Cain, why does everybody think that their favorite will be an exception?

This isn't a quick pop. This is a result of a steady climb and hard work. This isn't a result of the media pumping up the next player. This is a result of the caucus-goers being educated by the man who they are voting for. There is a big difference. Paul has the highest retention rate for these reasons. If your expectations are that people will leave Paul the way they've left every other candidate in their moment, you'll likely be disappointed.
 
Just curious.......Between Paul and Obama, who do you agree with concerning Indefinate detention?

I absolutely do not agree with indefinite detention. I think it is, as its forefounder the Patriot Act, a criminal infringement on fundamental constitutional rights (which, before people try to draw a distinction about US citizens, our constitution extends in most cases to cover ALL persons, not citizens).... So, on this particular issue, as well as other issues of American Imperialism, I like Paul. However, as I stated before, I do not think he is presidential material, nor do I think of Libertarianism as a particularly sound political philosophy.

I am fundamentally a democrat and generally vote that way. I will vote for Obama. I generally like him, but I am a disappointed Obama supporter, I expect more/better (including on issues such as the Patriot Act/Gitmo). Though ever morning I see the one guy whose political philosophy I endorse wholeheartedly, I am not voting for myself (though I have written him in for congress two times when my congressman ran unopposed). I have voted for a Republican or two along the way (one time in a Senate race, I completely disagreed with our Democratic senator, voted for the Republican, the Democrat won and then changed parties within the year) and voted for independents, I really doubt I go any other way but Obama this time round. Yes, the guy has warts, but he is way better, IMHO, than the alternatives.
 
Last edited:
Before the Paul supporters get their panties wet, I'd just like to point out that Iowa is just one state.

There are 49 others
 
Before the Paul supporters get their panties wet, I'd just like to point out that Iowa is just one state.

There are 49 others

It is traditionally an important measuring stick for campaigns. Nobody is suggesting this means Paul is definitely going to win.
 
Iowa hasn't been an important measuring stick for at least two decades. You are correct however that Traditionally it HAD been a measuring stick.
 
What Iowa does is push the candidates to the extreme of their Party. For Democrats if in a primary, Iowas forces them to go to the extreme left. For Republicans, it forces the candidates to campaign for the votes of ultra rightwing evangelicals.
This is due to their bizarre caucus system rather than an election system. On the Republican side, evangelical churches busing in delegates highly distorts the outcome. Republicans and Democrats alike would be wise to eliminate Iowa as the first primary and pick more diverse and partisan balanced states for the first states such as Missouri, North Carolina, Wisconsin and Rust belt states (Ohio, Penn, W. Virginia).
 
I absolutely do not agree with indefinite detention. I think it is, as its forefounder the Patriot Act, a criminal infringement on fundamental constitutional rights (which, before people try to draw a distinction about US citizens, our constitution extends in most cases to cover ALL persons, not citizens).... So, on this particular issue, as well as other issues of American Imperialism, I like Paul. However, as I stated before, I do not think he is presidential material, nor do I think of Libertarianism as a particularly sound political philosophy.

Fair enough.

I am fundamentally a democrat and generally vote that way. I will vote for Obama. I generally like him, but I am a disappointed Obama supporter, I expect more/better (including on issues such as the Patriot Act/Gitmo). Though ever morning I see the one guy whose political philosophy I endorse wholeheartedly, I am not voting for myself (though I have written him in for congress two times when my congressman ran unopposed). I have voted for a Republican or two along the way (one time in a Senate race, I completely disagreed with our Democratic senator, voted for the Republican, the Democrat won and then changed parties within the year) and voted for independents, I really doubt I go any other way but Obama this time round. Yes, the guy has warts, but he is way better, IMHO, than the alternatives.

I understand the position and appreciate the answer.
 
Ron Paul is an interesting character. But at the national level would suspect he is destined to be a side show. His foreign policy positions are going to be a deal breaker with both the Right and the Independents.

Believe Romney is improving his national image to some degree (when the dummy isn't calling out $10,000 bets) and he should be viable and palatable to most. He also has a well established organization and a lot of cash.


Not really all that huge of a Romney fan, just summing up what i see as the current circumstance. And Romney can swing the Independents.....
 
Question: Are liberals and democrats allowed to vote in Iowa's republican primary?

I know it differs among states... in some states you need to be a registered Republican to vote in primaries, in others it's not required.

The referenced poll included liberals, that's why I ask.
 
They gotta' give him one state at least so he doesn't cry.
 
It is traditionally an important measuring stick for campaigns. Nobody is suggesting this means Paul is definitely going to win.

Iowa hasn't been an important measuring stick for at least two decades. You are correct however that Traditionally it HAD been a measuring stick.

You are both right and wrong. Too many other factors in play. Iowa was a big part of Obama winning last primary. Huckabee, it didn't help so much. Paul is not doing well in other state polls, will not do well post Iowa.
 
You are both right and wrong. Too many other factors in play. Iowa was a big part of Obama winning last primary. Huckabee, it didn't help so much. Paul is not doing well in other state polls, will not do well post Iowa.

Iowa is good place for an unknown to do better than expected and gain some media attention. It can also help by hurting the frontrunner if s/he doesn't win, which is what happened to Clinton in 2008. It made it appear as if Obama had a chance to win the nomination, which until that point, wasn't the conventional "wisdom".
 
For fans of Paul. I'd say Iowa would hold some relevance if Paul was running for President of Iowa. Other than that...
 
New Hampshire, 1 week after Iowa, no one is going to touch Romney there, though Paul is slowing a little growth and could come in a distant second.

11 days after that, South Carolina, Paul still in single digits.

10 days after that, Florida, the first big state, Paul is a distant third, single digits.

Nationally, he is above 10 % finally, and looks like he could be the next NotRomney(Gingrich is sliding), but still way back of Romney. If Romney decides to run ads against Paul, it could be very effective as Paul has so many nutty ideas to bring out.
 
For fans of Paul. I'd say Iowa would hold some relevance if Paul was running for President of Iowa. Other than that...

Momentum push. If we "can't" get first in Iowa or atleast a close second then we might as well pack up our bags. We currently see ourselves second in NH so a 1st in Iowa should bring a showdown between Romney vs Paul. This is what we've been excepting to happen. If we pull off a upset in NH (Romney's strongest state) then that would be a game changer.

The hardest state for us is what Redress pointed out SC & FL. Newt biggest lead is SC so if Newt slips in polls, he may be damage there. The campaign focus will probably be there and toss up fl. (Media inflation may help). They've currently open up bases in a lot of other states so who knows how it will turn out until it gets closer to election. California seems to be a strong state for Paul from what I can tell.
 
Last edited:
Chris Wallace said if Ron Paul wins the Iowa Caucus, it'll discredit it.
Chris Wallace: If Ron Paul Wins the Iowa Caucus "It Won't Count" - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

Now we see what he thinks of Iowans! If they don't vote how he wants, they're vote doesn't matter! Un freaking believable!

Would say that you are notably distorting what Chris Wallace said. His comments were in no way disparaging to the people of Iowa. Wallace was speculating that if Ron Paul does wins in Iowa, the "Republican Establishment" will simply disregard the Iowa results. Which I believe is completely accurate.

The Republicans leaders are not going to embrace Paul because he is not considered a long term viable candidate at the national level. Have no personal dislike of Ron Paul. But his loyal, fierce following is not going to be able to carry him (or fund him) to the nomination.
 
Last edited:
Would say that you are notably distorting what Chris Wallace said. His comments were in no way disparaging to the people of Iowa. Wallace was speculating that if Ron Paul does wins in Iowa, the "Republican Establishment" will simply disregard the Iowa results. Which I believe is completely accurate.

The Republicans leaders are not going to embrace Paul because he is not considered a long term viable candidate at the national level. Have no personal dislike of Ron Paul. But his loyal, fierce following is not going to be able to carry him (or fund him) to the nomination.

If Ron Paul were to win or come in 2nd in every single primary state, will Chris Wallace say those results don't count? The Republican establishment, sooner or later, will have to recognize and support Ron Paul, as the alternative is scary to think about.
 
Back
Top Bottom