Results from Democratic firm Public Policy Polling poll of likely GOP caucus goers: Newt Gingrich (22 percent), Ron Paul (21 percent), Mitt Romney (16 percent), Michele Bachmann (11 percent), Rick Perry (9 percent), Rick Santorum (8 percent), Jon Huntsman (5 percent), and Gary Johnson (1 percent). The poll’s margin of error is 4.2 percentage points.
Down in the weeds, PPP notices a couple of factors that might be contributing to these numbers:
He’s [Gingrich] also seen a significant decline in his favorability numbers. Last week he was at +31 (62/31) and he’s now dropped 19 points to +12 (52/40). The attacks on him appear to be taking a heavy toll- his support with Tea Party voters has declined from 35% to 24%. Paul meanwhile has seen a big increase in his popularity from +14 (52/38) to +30 (61/31).
PPP polled Tim Tebow’s favorability among Iowa likely GOP caucusgoers and found that his net favorability (35 points) puts him ahead of all the GOP candidates. Anyone know his position on immigration or the individual mandate?
Good Lord, this is going to be a messy 6-months. If this doesn't end in a Thunderdome match hosted by Donald Trump and televised on PPV, between Paul, Romney & Gingrich, I'll be shocked. Maybe we should just have it next week, and get it over with.
To quote Fred Thompson as Admiral Josh Painter: "This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDo conservatives want a smaller scope and size of government enough to vote for Ron Paul? I can't see Gingrich or Romney delivering on shrinking Leviathan. I'm getting disheartened that in the "Age of the Tea Party" that the only small government candidate that the GOP can rouse is Ron Paul.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEven though I do not support Ron Paul and find his supporters frequently insane/annoying, I definitely approve of him running for president. If Paul pulls off an upset in Iowa, it will force all of the other candidates to take "fiscal restraint" even more seriously, and maybe - just maybe - people like Romney will not immediately demagogue anyone who dares suggest entitlement reform (see, for example, Romney's attacks on Perry's de-nationalization proposal for SS).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDon't be silly. We have learned from Old Fan that Romney would never do such a thing as engaging in demagoguery. Completely unthinkable!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSure, I want a smaller government...when it comes to domestic affairs. But I also want a bigger military and assertive foreign policy, and on these Ron Paul is more aligned with Code Pink than traditional conservative thinking.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe's to the LEFT of Code Pink.
He's in-between Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan.
Not only does he blame you and me and our government for 9/11/01, but he eschews Moore's recent comment that Moore believes his conservative opponents mean well and are patriotic.
Ron Paul doesn't believe that for a second. Now, neither does Moore, but unlike Moore, Paul would never even intimate that in public.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseron paul may have 10,000 supporters on the planet. but they will all be in iowa for the caucus. until then, they will all be posting on the internet.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThey all attend the same seminars?
Thought so.
I guess it's always been pretty easy to round up the pitch-forked garrison in front of the castle wall.
"Do not wait -- Don't wait for orders from headquarters. Mount up, everybody, and ride to the sound of the guns!"
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse-Patrick J. Buchanan-
I don't know his positions on those issues, but I do know he's 10 years too young to be elected president next year.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat happens to Gingrich and the race in general if Paul wins Iowa, and Romney ekes out an unimpressive win in NH?
This thing is still too early to call, imho.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePalin 2012!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI believe the Romney-campaign is cheering on Paul in Iowa. They know that Paul can't possibly win the nomination, and the more he reduces Newt's share of the vote in Iowa, the better for Romney.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Insider Advantage poll from yesterday gave Gingrich a ten point lead, for what it's worth.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Meanwhile, support for Paul is on the rise, particularly among younger voters and voters who identify themselves as "new.", Among likely caucus-goers under age 45, Paul leads Gingrich 30-16. The numbers are nearly flipped for caucus-goers over age 45." - Business Insider
IOW - Paul's support is coming from the group that's least likely to actually get off their butts and go vote.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePaul's ads against Gingrich in Iowa are reportedly the toughest, and this explains his rise at Newt's expense. Would have thought to see more improvement in Santorum's numbers -- he had a great debate on Saturday I thought.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI guess the fight between Gingrich and Romney over who's the "consistent conservative" is having unintended consequences. Who woulda thunk it?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWeekend polling.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOut of all the choices being offered, if Ron Paul is the best GOP voters can come up with, we deserve another four years of Barack Obama. I have no problem with Paul other than he's a loon on foreign policy. The U.S. can't afford to sit on the sidelines for another four years, allowing other countries to call the shots that impact us - and most of which we pay for.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJenna, I absolutely agree. You described my sentiments regarding Paul perfectly.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou don't like being blamed for why Islamists hate you?
You don't feel comfortable with a man being Commander-In-Chief who's rooting for Iran to go nuclear?
You're not in favor of the same isolationism that predominated the 1930s, and preceded WW II?
What's wrong with you? You're supposed to be all hot and bothered by a pol who counsels we sit here and get blown up.
If we just sit here, Jenna, our enemies will like us. Don't you get that?
I mean, the pacifists have been yelling that for 50 years. And still you don't find them convincing?
Isn't it even slightly more compelling to hear a supposedly conservative member of Congress from TX talk like Michael Moore?
"Um, no!"
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse