• 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%

Ikari said:
He probably wouldn't win anyway, but I really think it would be much closer if Ron Paul ran than some of y'all will give credit for. The Republocrats will vote their respective party line regardless; that won't change. However, Ron Paul would do something that most of the other GOP candidates can't....capture the independent vote. National elections are essentially decided by the "noise". Hardcore Republocrats are split pretty much 50/50. So all elections come down to that 50/50 + noise, which is represented by the independent and third party candidates. Ron Paul can capture that, and pretty much the majority of the Libertarian vote as well. While alone the Libertarian vote may not be enough to get any one candidate elected on the national level, the number of votes it represents certainly can provide a tipping point for one of the main parties.
Click to expand...

Actually the "Independent Vote" goes to people like Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, Chuck Baldwin, Donald Trump and who want TARIFFS, not anarcho-capitalist neo-Confederates who want to import 50 million new slaves into the country to "pick the lettuce cause they are doing jobs Americans won't do."

Ron Paul can only trick those independents into voting for them by saying he voted against NAFTA, but never getting into the detail of why he voted against NAFTA. This lunatic wants Unilateral Free Trade which is worse than NAFTA.

Ron Paul can only trick those independence into voting for him by saying he is against Amnesty, but never getting into the details like he is for Guest Workers which is the same thing.
 
Redress said:
Reread what I posted: margin of error + undecided. That plus sign is important. Further, the Des Moines poll, while the results of the full poll is as shown, the numbers skewed heavily the last two days, with Paul being significantly lower and Santorum significantly higher.(Battle for third place shapes up in Iowa behind Romney and Paul - CNN.com)

Meanwhile, Santorum's fundraising has soared, getting more in the last week than he has gotten in the last 6 months online(Santorum’s fundraising soars along with his poll numbers – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs). Longterm this represents where Santorum will have his trouble, as he has not had the money to put any effort on other states, nor has he any organization beyond IIRC Florida. However, he is poised to potentially be be top 3, with any of the top 3 positions possible. If I had to bet, I would bet the result will be Romney, Santorum, Paul, Gingrich, every one else in Iowa, but I would not bet alot. For what it is worth, right now InTrade has Paul at 29 % chance to win Iowa, Santorum 24 %, Romney 50 %.
Click to expand...

The PPP have pointed out rather plainly that the "surge" for Santorum appears to be completely manufactured courtesy of sub-par polling by CNN.

Hatuey said:
Ikari - be realistic for a second - Ron Paul capturing the "independent" vote is about as likely as Obama capturing the religious right vote simply because he's a Christian too. The minute Ron Paul opens his mouth about the gold standard, completely doing away with foreign aid and his extreme pro-life views, it's over and done with.
Click to expand...

Do you really think there are that many voters who find the gold standard to be a deal-breaker? If people knew more about the Federal Reserve they would probably accept anything that gets rid of it. Also, foreign aid is not exactly a deal-breaker either. Now, Paul's views on abortion could be a deal-breaker for some, but you seem to have some bizarre notion that independents are all "pro-choice" or more inclined to the "pro-choice" side. Also, you seem to be under the odd impression that all or most independents will see any stance on abortion as a deal-breaker. I think you are projecting a bit.

AdamT said:
I think it would be a historic landslide for Obama, but we will never know because Paul won't come within shouting distance of the nomination.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, that could be the case, though for somewhat different reasons:

Breitbart.tv » Exclusive: Republican Strategist Says Iowa GOP Will Not Allow Paul To Win

It is clear that the corporate and political establishment are only going to intensify their efforts should Paul win Iowa. So far the typical voter manipulation schemes have been the norm. Outright manipulation of votes is the next logical step.
 
Demon of Light said:
The PPP have pointed out rather plainly that the "surge" for Santorum appears to be completely manufactured courtesy of sub-par polling by CNN.
Click to expand...

CNN did not do the polling. Nor is the surge manufactured. Don't let facts get in the way though.
 
Redress said:
CNN did not do the polling.
Click to expand...

It's their poll either way.

Nor is the surge manufactured. Don't let facts get in the way though.
Click to expand...

Santorum's numbers were not even in double digits in the first two days of the DMR poll, but after the CNN poll came out with reports of a "Santorum surge" he suddenly jumps to 21% in the DMR numbers. Manufactured? Yes.
 
Demon of Light said:
It's their poll either way.



Santorum's numbers were not even in double digits in the first two days of the DMR poll, but after the CNN poll came out with reports of a "Santorum surge" he suddenly jumps to 21% in the DMR numbers. Manufactured? Yes.
Click to expand...

The Des Moin Register Poll is not a CNN poll. Again, do not let the facts get in your way. The first Poll showing Santorum in double digits was by PPP, back almost 3 weeks ago. Facts, not wild assed claims with nothing to back them up.
 
Redress said:
The Des Moin Register Poll is not a CNN poll. Again, do not let the facts get in your way. The first Poll showing Santorum in double digits was by PPP, back almost 3 weeks ago. Facts, not wild assed claims with nothing to back them up.
Click to expand...

Facts are quite important. Like the fact that I was clearly saying the DMR poll showed a jump only after the separate CNN poll came out, not suggesting they were the same poll. Also, the fact that no poll showed Santorum around 15% until after the release of the CNN poll. These are facts that you like to ignore just like the fact that the "first one showing him in double digits" was a poll that had him at 10%. You may also choose to ignore that the establishment media has been plugging the Santorum "dark horse" notion for months.
 
Demon of Light said:
Facts are quite important. Like the fact that I was clearly saying the DMR poll showed a jump only after the separate CNN poll came out, not suggesting they were the same poll. Also, the fact that no poll showed Santorum around 15% until after the release of the CNN poll. These are facts that you like to ignore just like the fact that the "first one showing him in double digits" was a poll that had him at 10%. You may also choose to ignore that the establishment media has been plugging the Santorum "dark horse" notion for months.
Click to expand...

I guess Republicans are very easily lead, eh?
 
Demon of Light said:
Facts are quite important. Like the fact that I was clearly saying the DMR poll showed a jump only after the separate CNN poll came out, not suggesting they were the same poll. Also, the fact that no poll showed Santorum around 15% until after the release of the CNN poll. These are facts that you like to ignore just like the fact that the "first one showing him in double digits" was a poll that had him at 10%. You may also choose to ignore that the establishment media has been plugging the Santorum "dark horse" notion for months.
Click to expand...

Except your "facts" lerave out everything that does not support your position, such as other polls showing a surge already. Your "facts" are actually assumptions as to cause and effect. Your "facts" are wild assed claims that the CNN poll was flawed.
 
AdamT said:
I guess Republicans are very easily lead, eh?
Click to expand...

People in general are very easily led. If that were not the case advertisers would not have such fat salaries. Do you think the same principles behind selling products cannot be applied to selling elections?

Redress said:
Except your "facts" lerave out everything that does not support your position, such as other polls showing a surge already.
Click to expand...

Really? Where are these polls exactly? CNN's poll came out December 28. All the polls showing the "Santorum surge" were conducted at least partly on or after December 28. Before that he hovered around 10% with the occasional poll showing him around 5%. Only in the last five days did this "surge" materialize, and only after the CNN poll came out.

Your "facts" are actually assumptions as to cause and effect.
Click to expand...

My facts are facts, while I think it is more than assumption, I did not say it was a fact that the "Santorum surge" was manufactured.

Your "facts" are wild assed claims that the CNN poll was flawed.
Click to expand...

A poll that looks only at registered Republicans without any regard to the fact that Independents and even Democrats vote in the election is indeed flawed.
 
Demon of Light said:
People in general are very easily led. If that were not the case advertisers would not have such fat salaries. Do you think the same principles behind selling products cannot be applied to selling elections?



Really? Where are these polls exactly? CNN's poll came out December 28. All the polls showing the "Santorum surge" were conducted at least partly on or after December 28. Before that he hovered around 10% with the occasional poll showing him around 5%. Only in the last five days did this "surge" materialize, and only after the CNN poll came out.



My facts are facts, while I think it is more than assumption, I did not say it was a fact that the "Santorum surge" was manufactured.



A poll that looks only at registered Republicans without any regard to the fact that Independents and even Democrats vote in the election is indeed flawed.
Click to expand...

So how did that manufactured surge in Iowa turn out? Looks like it just might have been legit. So much for your "facts" that you never once back up. By the way: RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus

We call that documenting claims. You might try it.
 
Redress said:
So how did that manufactured surge in Iowa turn out? Looks like it just might have been legit. So much for your "facts" that you never once back up. By the way: RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus

We call that documenting claims. You might try it.
Click to expand...

How does any of what you just said even make sense to you? You point out RCP, which shows exactly what I said about the polls demonstrating the "surge" came up after the CNN poll, then say I did not back up anything I say with these very facts you provide. After it got the desired results you insist this means the initial "surge" was real and not manufactured. However, just because real voters ran with the hype does not mean it was support any more real than that for Bachmann, Perry, Cain, or Gingrich. I think Santorum did have real support and that said support was at 10%. Then a single skewed poll came out putting Santorum in a better position and the media went gangbusters like they did with Herman Cain after the Florida Straw poll. Just like in that case a "surge" suddenly materialized for Santorum.

You can call that real, but I call it an orchestrated farce that is only clever to the extent that most people are mindless.
 
Demon of Light said:
Do you really think there are that many voters who find the gold standard to be a deal-breaker? If people knew more about the Federal Reserve they would probably accept anything that gets rid of it.
Click to expand...

The Federal Reserve keeps a deadly virus locked up in it's vault?
 
The Santorum surge is a result of the anti-Romney block of voters shifting candidates.

There is a "ceiling" that Romney cannot rise above.

After Perry and Bachmann drop out, their supporters will move to one of the remaining "anti-Romney" candidates.
 
Demon of Light said:
Do you really think there are that many voters who find the gold standard to be a deal-breaker? If people knew more about the Federal Reserve they would probably accept anything that gets rid of it.
Click to expand...

This of course ignores the fact that even people who know what the gold standard is don't want to go back to it. ie. the overwhelming majority of the economist community, politicians, political science advisers etc.

Also, foreign aid is not exactly a deal-breaker either.
Click to expand...

Really? Who in the right wing going to vote for the guy who opposes funding for Israel? Evangelicals? Doubt it. What about the guy who opposes funding for AIDS research in Africa? The college kids? No, foreign aid is a deal breaker for a large percentage of the electorate.

Now, Paul's views on abortion could be a deal-breaker for some, but you seem to have some bizarre notion that independents are all "pro-choice" or more inclined to the "pro-choice" side.
Click to expand...

No. I am inclined to believe that after 40 million abortions and a public that tends to side with a moderate approach to the abortion topic, a guy who wants to outright ban it - is not going to get the vote of the so-called "moderates" and "independents" if that's what they are.

Also, you seem to be under the odd impression that all or most independents will see any stance on abortion as a deal-breaker. I think you are projecting a bit.
Click to expand...

Yawn. This from a Libertarian is quite rich.
 
Last edited:
Matt Foley said:
The Federal Reserve keeps a deadly virus locked up in it's vault?
Click to expand...

If by "deadly virus locked up in it's vault" you mean "is an institution required by law to be run by corporate banking representatives to protect their main source of profit" then yes, if more people knew that I imagine they would be quite hostile towards the Federal Reserve.

Hatuey said:
This of course ignores the fact that even people who know what the gold standard is don't want to go back to it. ie. the overwhelming majority of the economist community, politicians, political science advisers etc.
Click to expand...

I.e. anyone and everyone who stands to lose should the current system be preserved. Of course, I am not really into the idea of a gold standard either, but I am definitely not into the Federal Reserve and Paul is dedicated to getting rid of it.

Really? Who in the right wing going to vote for the guy who opposes funding for Israel? Evangelicals? Doubt it.
Click to expand...

I know for a fact that Evangelicals have and will vote for Paul knowing full well that his foreign policy includes such positions. Evangelicals are not single-issue voters you know, and certainly not over foreign policy matters. His consistent and principled stance on abortion is a sweetener for them.

What about the guy who opposes funding for AIDS research in Africa? The college kids? No, foreign aid is a deal breaker for a large percentage of the electorate.
Click to expand...

Most college students don't see a lack of government funding for AIDS research as a deal-breaker. They tend to be more concerned about things like war and civil liberties.

No. I am inclined to believe that after 40 million abortions and a public that tends to side with a moderate approach to the abortion topic, a guy who wants to outright ban it - is not going to get the vote of the so-called "moderates" and "independents" if that's what they are.
Click to expand...

Plenty of candidates have pushed that idea of a full ban while still getting moderates and independents. There are a few reasons for that, like most believing it won't happen even if the person gets elected or because they really aren't that obsessed with the issue.

Yawn. This from a Libertarian is quite rich.
Click to expand...

1. Never said I was a Libertarian.
2. I am not sure what that has to do with projecting. You are clearly taking what is a deal-breaker for you and projecting that on nearly every non-conservative. Where do you get that I am projecting?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom