Iowa: Gingrich 32%, Romney 19%, Cain 13% Paul 10%

Everyday another poll comes out saying something entirely different then the last one, wasn't it just a few days ago that a recent Bloomberg poll had Paul at 19% in Iowa? Now Rasmussen has him at 10%? Talk about a dramatic drop. I find these polls to be absolutely useless, I did however notice that this poll was done with "Likely Republican Voters". Key difference there.

Here's another useless poll,
Iowa Republican Caucus

reply to post by shadowmyst
Yeah, this is one reason polls drive me nuts. They're easy to get ideas from, but hard to put a lot of stock in - one way or the other - when you consider things further.

Sample sizes come in to play (this one was 700), targets polled and how contacted, questions asked, and so forth. I can't really believe this one as Paul got 10% support in Iowa back in 2008 and has a MUCH-expanded ground game this time around. No movement despite all indications to the contrary and so much more active campaigning? Yeah, I've got doubts on this one.

EDIT:
Just on a side note, I believe Ron Paul was polling at around 2% prior to the Iowa caucuses in 2008...so does that mean we should actually understand this as Ron Paul at 50% this time around?

Thats the thing, numbers can drastically change depending on who your 'likely caucus goers' are, this poll won't even release demographics for us to see, you must be a platinum member.

Ron Paul has been winning the Iowa power rankings hands down and I always thought that it was a little far fetched until those bloomberg had him at 19% Iowa/17% NH, and Iowa State/KCRG/Gazette poll had him at 20.4%, were released. It all started to make sense because in interviews, Ron would talk about how the campaigns' internal polling numbers were good but releasing the numbers would, in my opinion, be a desperate move so they didn't.\

They can show polls with Ron @ 2% in Iowa and I wouldn't be phased, it is a fact that he has the best ground game in Iowa, most organized, most energized and strongest movement of volunteers and supporters.

I highly suggest you guys take a look at this article.

An accurate pollster without an agenda to 'predict' anything but only show the data.

realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com...

Ann Selzer, the only pollster who correctly predicted the massive turnout and nailed the outcome of the Iowa caucuses in her final survey for the Des Moines Register

I spoke to Selzer briefly on Friday (before the Free-Press survey) and asked her how it was that she was able to see something in Iowa that other pollsters - and even the campaigns themselves - clearly missed.

"Our success was in keeping our hands off the data and not presuming ahead of time what we thought would happen," Selzer said.

Well we need to make sure he wins California, from what I understand it's the biggest prize.

Many in CA actually like him, many also say he can't win but still like him. I just tell those here in CA to get ready to vote for him because he is going to win Iowa. Just make sure he is properly set up for people who like him but aren't ready to dedicate their vote to a 'loser'. People need motivation, they're so used to voting for the lesser evils.

Now that's impossible because everyone knows that Ron Paul is an absolute hands down winner all over the US. That's why the media downplays him because he is so far ahead of everyone else Isn't that right?

reply to post by shadowmyst

I did however notice that this poll was done with "Likely Republican Voters". Key difference there.

Actually, the Bloomberg Poll is even more relavent because it was "Likely Iowa Caucus Goers."

A Bloomberg poll out Tuesday put Ron Paul in a statistical dead heat with Herman Cain, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich among likely Iowa caucus goers.

Read more: politics.blogs.foxnews.com...

Originally posted by damwel
Now that's impossible because everyone knows that Ron Paul is an absolute hands down winner all over the US. That's why the media downplays him because he is so far ahead of everyone else Isn't that right?

Almost. They downplay him because he is a threat to their bosses who tell them to downplay him. Ron Paul is an absolute hands down winner all over the US.

reply to post by eLPresidente



He won the California straw poll by a landslide if I remember correctly, he's also won every independent poll done in California aswell by a landslide.

Originally posted by damwel
Now that's impossible because everyone knows that Ron Paul is an absolute hands down winner all over the US. That's why the media downplays him because he is so far ahead of everyone else Isn't that right?

Hah...while I would love to say so, I can't lie - even to myself.

Now, if the media would just do what the media is SUPPOSED to do, for all the candidates (as compared to trying to "kick people out of the race," please their politically-aligned owners/shareholders, CRAFT the news instead of reporting it, and whatever else they actually do) and simply report fair and evenly for all - and if all the people saying "I like Ron Paul but he just can't win" would just realize that they represent the largest voting bloc I've heard of and he WOULD win if they just all voted their conscience instead of trying to "pick a winner", then I might be able to agree with this.

Oh well. We'll see what all comes of it, I suppose.

Originally posted by shadowmyst
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

He won the California straw poll by a landslide if I remember correctly, he's also won every independent poll done in California aswell by a landslide.

Yea, I was there when he wont he CA straw poll and he recently won the San Diego GOP straw poll as well but these events are only glimpse of the type of organization that can win caucuses, not primaries.

I think CA has a bunch of RP fans but he will only benefit from CA if he wins Iowa and NH (or 2nd in NH) and the avalanche begins. He could effectively win CA or at the very least take about half of the state delegates.

reply to post by eLPresidente


I'd argue that if Paul wins Iowa and NH, he could very well win the nomination. I could be wrong, but the media would have to cover the fact that he wins and it would put themselves in a bind. Cover too little of it and people get suspicious and check out Paul for themselves. Cover too much and Paul's support explodes.

It's still my belief that if Paul got the airtime other candidates got, his support would be at 50%+

reply to post by mossme89


I agree!

If he places 1st or 2nd in those two polls, and then hopefully wins some support from Cain/Bachmann/Tea Party types, he will likely get 1st or 2nd in Florida, and he will be a steamroller difficult to contend with!!

January 3, 2012 Iowa (caucus)

January 10, 2012 New Hampshire (primary)

January 21, 2012 South Carolina (primary)

January 31, 2012 Florida (primary)

Source

"Likely Republican Voters"

That's doom for Ron Paul. If it wasn't for them pesky Republican voters Ron Paul would be a shoo-in for the Republican nomination.

reply to post by mossme89


This is what independent media was created for. Only when CBS, ABC, CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC go under will we ever truly get "Fair and Balanced" media coverage.

If the GOP had any brains and wasn't being controlled by special interests these so called debates would be moderated by independent news outlets and give each candidate a more REASONABLE time limit.

reply to post by Carseller4


Actually, if they would outlaw the reporting of poll numbers, and enforce existing campaign finance laws that require equal coverage, then Ron Paul would likely have the support of all of the Republican voters.

Airtime on network television is valuable, and other candidates are benefitting from free time that is not afforded to Ron Paul. Likely voters are being influenced by this disparity and writing Paul off, and their decisions are supported by inaccurate reporting of poll numbers.

Many of these "mainstream" polls have less than 500 respondents. Most of the last few I have reviewed only had 300 respondents. Anybody familiar with statistics will tell you it is beyond impossible to extrapolate anything useful from 300 samples.

I feel bad for Ron Paul, I myself am voting for him, but it seems that every time I see him on TV he gets the shaft, and every single political talk show/commentator keeps saying the same thing: "Ron Paul has no chance of winning". It's as though they are following a script where they are told under no circumstances to endorse him as a viable candidate. Pay attention, and you'll hear it too. Sad really.

The attack dogs have been set loose. Already they're trying to discount Paul's poll numbers in the Bloomberg poll, Here's the online hit piece,

Source: Hot Air

This comes from a sample of 700 respondents, which is larger than the Bloomberg survey released this week showing a four-way tie in Iowa. This survey took place more recently than the Bloomberg poll as well, incorporating the Saturday debate on foreign policy, in which Cain struggled. As far as the Ron Paul surge Bloomberg noted, it seems to have bypassed Rasmussen’s sample. In fact, while Paul continues to hold onto about 10% of the caucus goers in Iowa, he’s not likely to get much more:

Ron Paul, while placing fourth overall, is also the candidate Iowa voters least want to see win the nomination. Eighteen percent (18%) hold name Paul as the least favorite candidate followed closely by Bachmann at 15%. Thirteen percent (13%) don’t want to see Romney or Huntsman grab the nomination, while 11% would like to see Cain miss the nod. Only eight percent (8%) name Gingrich as the candidate they least want to see win.

reply to post by shadowmyst


lol who the hell is writing articles at Hot Air?


Look at this very closely folks.

This comes from a sample of 700 respondents, which is larger than the Bloomberg survey released this week showing a four-way tie in Iowa.

Now, the Rasmussen poll sampled 700 people

The Bloomberg/Selzer poll sampled 2,677, 100% of them registered to vote in Iowa, 52% definitely attending the Iowa republican caucus and 48% probably attending the republican caucus.


All these guys are, is a bunch of hot air.