• 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%

The Prophet said:
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.
Click to expand...

He is not saying the results do not count. He is saying that if Paul wins Iowa the republican establishment still is not going to get behind Paul. That is probably true.
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

Here's the truth of the matter. I would love to be (more?) delusional and believe he has a shot. I don't see Romney creating negative ads against Paul in the short run only because Romney will want Paul supporters if/when Paul drops out/loses (I heard this point after a debate and it seems to make sense). You go against Ron Paul, you're going against his ideas. Paul supporters will go Libertarian party before voting someone against the libertarian ideas. which is why we haven't seen negative Ron Paul ads yet.

As far as the 'too late in the game' point you were alluding to: that's the real challenge now. How quickly can Paul organize, raise funds and stir up this race? Is it perfect timing or just too late? Even if he had control of the clock, I'm not sure it's possible, especially without GOP support. I would love for it to be possible and I'll do what I can to support him. But I'm not blind. It just means we have that much more work to do!
 
Ron Paul has pissed off too many republicans telling them the truth. They are a proud bunch.

He shoulda told them what they wanted to hear.
 
Cole said:
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.
Click to expand...

But McCain was. :roll:
 
NH has interesting results. I didn't want to spam polls but if someone wants to make a thread then feel free.

Romney dominating New Hampshire - Public Policy Polling

New Hampshire
12/16 - 12/18
1,235 likely Republican primary voters
+/-2.8%

12/16
12/18
 6/30
7/5
Romney
 35
 28
Paul

 19

 9

Gingrich
 17
 4
Huntsman
 13
 7

Bachmann
 5
 21
Santorum
 3
Perry
 2
 9
Johnson
 1


Comparing to Rammussen 12/12. Romney (+3), Paul (+1), Gingrich (-5), Huntsman (+3).

An interesting question asked though in the poll.

Q12: If the candidates at the time of the New
Hampshire primary were just Newt Gingrich,
Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney,
who would you vote for?
Newt Gingrich ................................................. 20%
Jon Huntsman................................................. 15%
Ron Paul ......................................................... 21%
Mitt Romney.................................................... 37%
Not sure .......................................................... 7%
Click to expand...

Pretty sure after Iowa, Romney attack ads will come. I can see Romney lowering to at least 26-29% in NH after that. Winner of Iowa will have a role in siphoning votes away from other candidates. I will sell on Newt, buy Ron & Jon stocks in NH.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

Romney won't run ads against Paul. Romney and Gingrich are too busy trying to cajole Paul - meaning both acting like gutless cowards - hoping his supporters come their way down the road.
 
The Prophet said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
Romney won't run ads against Paul. Romney and Gingrich are too busy trying to cajole Paul - meaning both acting like gutless cowards - hoping his supporters come their way down the road.
Click to expand...

If Gingrich continues to slide, and if Paul is the next NotRomney, then I will bet you see anti-Paul ads. Romney's campaign can certainly afford them.
 
Redress said:
If Gingrich continues to slide, and if Paul is the next NotRomney, then I will bet you see anti-Paul ads. Romney's campaign can certainly afford them.
Click to expand...

It's a bit ironic; Paul supporters are always upset that he doesn't get more attention, but if he ever falls under the bright spotlight of public attention he will be finished for good.
 
If Paul becomes the next "NotRomney" I'm actually going to get a bit excited, because that means the only two left are Santorum and Huntsman unless a former "NotRomney" heats back up somehow.

Though I may die a little inside if Santorum becomes the next one after Paul.
 
Excellent news. Lets hope Paul wins big in Iowa. And lets hope when he fails to get the GOP nomination next summer, he runs as a third party candidate.
 
AdamT said:
It's a bit ironic; Paul supporters are always upset that he doesn't get more attention, but if he ever falls under the bright spotlight of public attention he will be finished for good.
Click to expand...

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.
 
haymarket said:
Excellent news. Lets hope Paul wins big in Iowa. And lets hope when he fails to get the GOP nomination next summer, he runs as a third party candidate.
Click to expand...

Not going to happen. He's said unequivocally that he likely won’t run, stating the only reason he won’t promise not to is because he doesn’t like absolutes. He’s stated he positively cannot envision any scenario right now that would cause him to run 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] party. At this point hoping Paul runs third party is akin to hoping Chris Christie is going to run 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] party in 2012.
 
Zyphlin said:
If Paul becomes the next "NotRomney" I'm actually going to get a bit excited, because that means the only two left are Santorum and Huntsman unless a former "NotRomney" heats back up somehow.

Though I may die a little inside if Santorum becomes the next one after Paul.
Click to expand...

Huntsman is the only "NotRomney" who I think could withstand the scrutiny it entails. IOW, it would give him a credible shot at winning the nom *AND* the presidency. However, the qualities that make him credible (ie reasonableness, intelligence, moderation, etc) probably make him unacceptable to the ABR (Anyone But Romney) crowd
 
sangha said:
Huntsman is the only "NotRomney" who I think could withstand the scrutiny it entails. IOW, it would give him a credible shot at winning the nom *AND* the presidency. However, the qualities that make him credible (ie reasonableness, intelligence, moderation, etc) probably make him unacceptable to the ABR (Anyone But Romney) crowd
Click to expand...

At the end of the day, Huntsman isn't that notRomney. More like Romney v.1.05.
 
from Zyphlin

He's said unequivocally that he likely won’t run, stating the only reason he won’t promise not to is because he doesn’t like absolutes.
Click to expand...

Not to pick on you because you are just repeating what was said, but the idea that one can UNEQUIVOCALLY say it is not LIKELY that they will not do something seems far from the true meaning of the term.
 
sangha said:
Huntsman is the only "NotRomney" who I think could withstand the scrutiny it entails. IOW, it would give him a credible shot at winning the nom *AND* the presidency. However, the qualities that make him credible (ie reasonableness, intelligence, moderation, etc) probably make him unacceptable to the ABR (Anyone But Romney) crowd
Click to expand...

I think it largely depends on how Huntsman would handle his "NotRomney" time. Would he use that time period to continue to sound moderate and focus on his issues with the Republicans, or would he use that new focus and attention to push his significant conservative credentials and plans in a forceful and confident way to show the differences between his record and Romneys?

If he does the former, his time as the NotRomney would come and go quickly, not due to scandal or scrutiny but due to lack of reason to really back him over Romney. If he does the latter, I think he could actually gain momentum. Sadly little during this campaign has given me much hope he is capable of doing the latter, although the shift in political strategy and message over the past 2 to 3 weeks has given me a little hope.
 
Zyphlin said:
If Paul becomes the next "NotRomney" I'm actually going to get a bit excited, because that means the only two left are Santorum and Huntsman unless a former "NotRomney" heats back up somehow.

Though I may die a little inside if Santorum becomes the next one after Paul.
Click to expand...

Santorum would be NotRomney before Huntsman, since Hunstsman is running as IsRomney.
 
Zyphlin said:
Not going to happen. He's said unequivocally that he likely won’t run, stating the only reason he won’t promise not to is because he doesn’t like absolutes. He’s stated he positively cannot envision any scenario right now that would cause him to run 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] party. At this point hoping Paul runs third party is akin to hoping Chris Christie is going to run 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] party in 2012.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that made me laugh.
 
jasonxe said:
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.
Click to expand...

NC, VA, WVA, SC, KY, OH, GA (possibly) = Romney...Paul, can carry his bags to The White House.
 
coolwalker said:
NC, VA, WVA, SC, KY, OH, GA (possibly) = Romney...Paul, can carry his bags to The White House.
Click to expand...

Exception of SC, most of those states Romney couldn't even get to double digits in straw polls. I think people who say they would vote for Romney aren't motivated enough to vote for him unless they're being bussed in. Also Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan already have Romney carrying their bags.

----

Interesting graph from rcp for Iowa.

Poll%u00252BTrends.jpg

Perry, Cain, Newt = high inflation, rapid drop. (Also add bachmann)
Romney, small fluctuations but declining
Paul gradual increase.

Also nationally from the post-abc news poll - 15% (+5)

Paulchallenge2.jpg


Paulchallenge1.jpg
 
Last edited:
jasonxe said:
Exception of SC, most of those states Romney couldn't even get to double digits in straw polls. I think people who say they would vote for Romney aren't motivated enough to vote for him unless they're being bussed in. Also Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan already have Romney carrying their bags.

----

Interesting graph from rcp.

View attachment 67120169
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom