Results from Democratic firm Public Policy Polling poll of likely Iowa caucusgoers released this morning: Ron Paul (23 percent), Mitt Romney (20 percent), Newt Gingrich (14 percent), Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry (all at 10 percent), Jon Huntsman (4 percent), and Gary Johnson (2 percent).
That's stunning. It just goes to show the power of negative ads. I believe Gingrich enjoyed his two best debates after he opened his commanding lead, and yet that lead still evaporated. Newt didn't implode and yet he still dropped 20-points in a week. This electorate continues to be schizophrenic.
A Paul win in IA is just what the doctor ordered for Romney - presuming of course Romney himself doesn't win IA, which I still think is highly unlikely.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWoo Whoo! Way to go, Katrina and the other Editors here. Is this the outcome you were looking for?
So you drag Newt down (like crabs in a barrel), and Romney can't even climb over Ron Paul????? But Romney's the guy who'll attract and enthrall all those Independents?
Romney's looking more and more like dead weight that's laying across the saddle, not sitting tall in it ( I really don't understand why he's SO inept at connecting with people, but the evidence just mounts to that observation, doesn't it?)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou're extrapolating form the Iowa GOP to the general election?
Brilliant, simply brilliant.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo know Newt is to hate Newt. I guess Iowans got reacquainted with him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePPP is a Democrat party affiliated polling org, with a history of fishy numbers when it comes to races, especially GOP primaries. This poll is debunked over at Unlikeleyvoter.com. The author runs the numbers, compares this to the history of past polling, and says that something stinks in Iowa.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSay what you want about PPP, what is undeniable is that in 2010, they were one of the more reliably accurate pollsters. They also had the good fortune of being the only pollster to predict Mike Castle's defeat in DE by Chrisinne O'Donnell.
External Link
External Link
External Link
With respect to the link you posted, I think a commenter on that site offers a sound explanation about why "Likelyvoter" is getting it wrong: 2008 was a hotly contested Dem caucus. There is no Dem caucus this time around. So, where are all those IA Independents going? They're going to vote in the Republican caucus, which makes an unusual Republican outcome not unlikely.
What should also be pointed out is that Democrats, as a practical matter, can vote in the Republican caucus. All they have to do is change their party affiliation when they physically show at the caucus location - that is not an actual barrier to voting. It's probably difficult to gauge how many Dems are actually going to be voting in the IA Republican caucus, but it goes without saying that at least some Dems will be voting with the GOP.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseStill Scott can a poll of likely Republican caucus voter really only have 55% who voted in a prior Republican caucus?
45% did voted in the prior Republican caucus, yet they are in a likely voter poll. The poll is an outlier and the sample is odd.
"PPP says that they are polling likely Republican caucus-goers, but there’s a reason for a little skepticism on their sample. At 597 respondents, the size is respectable enough, but its composition and definition of “likely” is quite shaky. Only a little over half (55%) bothered to caucus with Republicans in 2008, an election primary with as much publicity and import as this one. Thirteen percent caucused with the Democrats, which is reasonable because (a) Democrats aren’t conducting a primary this cycle, and (b) some who caucused with Democrats might be inclined to support Republicans this year.
However, almost a third (32%) didn’t caucus with either party in 2008. How can they be considered “likely” caucus-goers in this cycle? It can’t be because Ron Paul is running this time, because he was running in 2008 as well."
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama-Romney is like a redo of Clinton-Dole. Except that Obama is a much worse President and candidate than Clinton, and Romney is much much much less admirable than Dole, who at least had a few good features. To paraphrase Moynihan, "defining down the presidency." If you ran Obama as the Dem and Romney as the Rep against either Reagan or Clinton as a 3rd party candidate with zero state level organization, I swear the former two combined still couldn't get 50% of the vote.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRon Paul won't win Iowa, Romney will finish no better than third and Gingrich won't break double digits. Newtmania has met reality; the bubble has burst as everyone with a firing synapse knew it would. It will now be up to the voters of Iowa to choose the plausible conservative candidate from the lineup of Bachmann, Perry and Santorum. Let's see, will they pick the congressional backbencher, the guy who lost by 18 points to a cretin in his last outing or the thrice-elected governor of the largest red state? Tough choice.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI do hope that Paul not only loses, but loses big. But to think that the latter of your choices will have a chance of beating out Romney is really not rational.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow about a scientific poll showing how many National Review readers think that the editors and much of the authors of this publication are full of manure?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf Newt fails to win IA, then this pretty much guarantees the nomination to Mitt Romney--the Republican's version of John Kerry. We all saw how that went in '04. Good luck with that one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn my opinion, Iowa has a negative impact on our chief executive selection process. I welcome a Ron Paul win in Iowa and the circus that follows. Maybe Iowa will lose the power to narrow the field, farm subsidies and ethanol mandates will be weakened, libertarian ideas will get more exposure, and Ron Paul will finally get a full vetting. I don't think Ron Paul has ever shown any leadership ability, but I welcome his effort to upset the apple cart.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow many deleagtes come out of Iowa? 0
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse