Skip to comments.Gingrich Collapses In Iowa, As Ron Paul Surges to the Front
Posted on 12/19/2011 8:38:13 AM PST by Grunthor
.....A new poll from Public Policy Polling shows that Ron Paul has taken the lead in the Iowa caucus race, while Newt Gingrich's support is fading fast. A different Gallup poll still shows Grinrich still holding the lead, but slipping, while The New York Times has Paul in the lead as well.
Gingrich has seen his numbers in the PPP poll drop from 27 percent to 14 percent in just three weeks, while his favorability rating is now split at 46 percent for to 47 percent against, the worst of any candidate not named Jon Huntsman. That's quite a fall for someone who looked to be running away with the state and taking charge on the national level.
Mitt Romney has also seen his tick up slightly, putting him just behind Paul for second place. The poll measured voters who are planning to vote in the Republican caucus.
Perhaps the most telling secondary question was, "Do you think Newt Gingrich has strong principles?" Only 36 percent say that he does, but for Paul that number was 73 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Uh-oh, someone who actually thinks. Houston, we may have a problem. ;)
“You realize you are not making any sense, don’t you?
Are you certain we weren’t married to each other once?”
Yes, in a past incarnation, most likely. Two peas in a political pod.
Your very statement is where Obama is laughing as a good deal many of people think the Palin only- but then settled for Cain and then Gingrich thinkers; are enabling Romney with-Gingrich because they dissed Bachmann and Perry because they were direct competition to Palin.When all along it is most likely Perry that would pick Palin as VP.
So we all lose playing the blame each other for Romney/Obama game.
You and I have had this conversation before.
No one said they are contributing $500 a piece except you -- most of his contributions are small $20, $50 dollar donations. Would Paul fans spam polls? Sure. Would they-- en masse--risk committing a Federal offense by falsifying their Federal political contribution information? Not likely.
Believe what you like. Doesn't change anything.
Don’t believe these bogus polls. The only poll that counts happens on the day of the caucus.
Here’s my prediction:
Michelle Bachmann — 27%
Rick Santorum — 20%
Ron Paul — 18%
Mitt Romney —12%
Newt Gingrich — 11%
Rick Perry — 10%
Huntsman — 1%
Other — 1%
There are no "Veterans for Newt Gingrich", no "Veterans for Mitt Romney" organizations that I can find on a Google search, and no Veterans' orgs for any of the other candidates with the exception of Rick Perry. There was a "Veterans for Rick Perry" organization that got him to run for president but according to their website, they disbanded when he jumped into the race.
That should lso tell you something.
Why am I not surprised? (I doubted its authenticity, which is why I didn't comment on it).
Ron Paul attracts a large number of unethical followers, so I pretty much don't trust anything that looks like he has widespread popularity - graph, poll, anything...
When the real numbers turn up in Iowa we'll see how 'attractive' this mentally unstable, dangerous pseudo-con really is.
Narrow, freakish and left-leaning, boka.......that is the reality of the Paul crowd.
First of all, what's the proof that any of the Paul spammers ARE veterans just because they say they are?
Secondly, what's the proof that they aren't Viet Nam draftees who are now leftist peaceniks (like he is)?
No proof in that whatsoever. Paul's dummkopf foreign policy can't attract that many legit military people. He despises the very thing they have risked their lives for.......the national security of the United States of America.
These poll results are from a left leaning poll
I do think Gingrich did drop but I don’t think Ron Paul will win Iowa.He MAY come in 2nd or third but he won’t win.
They'd love to see the GOP nominate some leftist like Ron Paul.
Ain't gonna happen.
And spam monkeys.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2818671/posts?page=42#42 Imposters, one and all, I’m sure!
Our military swears their life to preserving US Constitution — so does Ron Paul. Ron Paul wants them only to go to war when it is specifically for national defense and not for regime-change or nation-building, and only when Congress passes a Declaration of War, the whole country is behind it, they go to win and come home — rather than turning them into the policemen of the world with no win & no end of the WOT in sight. Ron Paul is a Veteran and Ron Paul has fought even Obama to preserve Veteran’s benefits.
If you don’t see the appeal of that message to members of the US military, then you aren’t putting yourself in their place at all. And if you can’t do that, then you aren’t even rational.
our policies definitely had an influence and you talk to the people who committed it and those individuals who would like to do us harm. They say yes we dont like American bombs to be falling on our country and we dont like the intervention that we do in their nation so to deny this I think is very dangerous. But to argue the case that they want to do us harm because were free and prosperous is very dangerous notion because its not true.
In other words, 9/11 was America's fault because we bombed Iraq. Oh, wait-that can't be. 9/11 was in 2001 and we invaded Iraq in 2003. But in Ron Paul's mind cause follows effect in the race to blame America first.
And you call ME irrational.
I'm sorry that your guy is a loser, Bokababe, but he is. He hasn't got a prayer to win any election anywhere, ever again.
Sorry for your loss. But it's the country's, and conservatism's gain.
That's why I question your ability to be rational on this -- because you must personalize it and can't even see possible motivations why someone else might do something you wouldn't do -- for reasons that you don't have.
I'm extremely rational about this, and this is not the first time you've accused me of 'smoking' things or being irrational.
I'd say it's you for whom this is 'personal.'
Merry Christmas, Bokababe. Good luck in Iowa.
Never but never believe anything from PPP!
Iowa has always been a flakey state.
Go to the site that is putting this bunk out and they are saying that is the average contribution.
And which site would that be? ABC News? The Wall Street Journal? Politifact?
As near as I can figure, what you are are referring to is some obscure article on a blog from the 2008 election saying that he had "the highest amount of military donations and the average was $500". That was then -- and I agree, in all likelihood bogus. But this is now and it's real.
That Ron Paul has the highest amount of military donations of any candidate in this election cycle is a an accepted fact -- even by his Republican rivals.
Romney 35%, Paul 21%, Newt 16%, Huntsman 13%. Everyone else in single digits. 8% Undecided.
Ron Paul is not a serious candidate, no matter how hard his groupies try to make it happen. There aren't enough of them to make a dent in the actual voting of the Republican primaries.
If you believe that, you have to believe Obama has the second most donations. The men and women serving our country in the military do not make enough to contribute to anti-Americans like Cut and Run or Obama. There may be a few gays and druggies in the military who want the surrender monkey or the other terrorist supporter, but not many. Most serving love our country and do not want it destroyed by either of the two who want to blame America for every problem in the world. The two you say have the most military contributions.
This generation, even in the military, doesn't just blindly trust what the politicians say like Vietnam era Vets did. This generation has access to news, information & opinions via the internet -- and so do their wives and families -- in ways that earlier generations never had before. (My husband said that when he went to Vietnam, he was the only one in his group who even knew continent Vietnam was on.) And with information on politics, locations and wars, come opinions -- political opinions -- again, political opinions that earlier generations of military really didn't have before they went.
This is an all volunteer military. They are in it because they chose it. It's more like "employment" than being drafted was.
Given all that, should it really be such a surprise that they would attempt to also chose their own boss -- their Commander and Chief? Especially, given which Commander and Chief they get might mean the difference between their own life & death? I really don't think it's so shocking. That they'd choose political candidates and send them a few bucks really doesn't surprise me at all.
That said, it's Obama's popularity with them that astounds me -- but then again, his picture is on their wall everyday whether they like it or not.
When I was a kid I worked on one of Ron Pauls campaigns. I used to drive him from event to event sometimes. He was saying the same stuff back then that he does now. Except now he mixes in his own brand of insanity. He is way too old and too nutty to be president.
We agree on sealing the border but I didn’t know this thread was about George Bush. This is about the dangerously naive presidential candidate who can never be allowed to be commander in chief.
I am going to say this again on this thread for those who might have missed it. Four years ago, the day before the Iowa Caucuses, I got through to Ron Paul on a talk radio show in Iowa. I applauded his defense of our Constitution and then asked a foreign policy question. He was asked if N. Korea was sending nuclear missiles to Iran, would he board and seize or sink the ship. His answer was, “Why would we do that. It’s none of our business.” None of our business? Good grief.
Europeans have been sleeping as the Islamic cancer has spread through the continent. Almost all of the conflicts around the world have one thing in common - radical Islam. No, Ron Paul, you cannot be commander in chief.
Did you see post 54?
Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus
Poll Date Sample Paul Romney Gingrich Perry Bachmann Santorum Huntsman Cain Spread
RCP Average 12/13 - 12/18 — 21.7 20.3 15.7 12.0 9.7 6.3 4.3 — Paul +1.4
Insider Advantage 12/18 - 12/18 391 LV 24 18 13 16 10 3 4 — Paul +6
PPP (D) 12/16 - 12/18 597 LV 23 20 14 10 10 10 4 — Paul +3
Rasmussen Reports 12/13 - 12/13 750 LV 18 23 20 10 9 6 5 — Romney +3
54 posted on Monday, December 19, 2011 10:00:17 AM by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
During the primary season all polls that are published are push polls.
There is no logical reason to publish a statistically correct poll; what would be gained? Published polls are designed to sway voters; internal polls are done to adjust the campaign’s aim, but are never shown to the public.
Sure sounds good but you also told me once that Sarah Palin was running for President so, yeah.......
Uh...yeah. Ron Paul's appeal to the left is not exactly a selling point.
Speaking of the military, isn’t Paul the only veteran besides Perry?
Boy, did you hit the nail on the head.
And it appears that the "Palin's gonna jump in!" crowd is all wound up again, with no real evidence to support that
Ron Paul’s likes or dislikes of Israel’s government policies is irrelevant. He has always respected Israel’s sovereignty and its right to defend itself:
Ron Paul has defended Israel sovereignty since 1981.
He defended Israel’s decision to bombard Iraq’s Osiraq nuclear site. He defended Israel against Obama’s proposal to return to the pre 1967 borders: “only Israel can make that determination on her own, without pressure from the United States or coercion by the United Nations.
Unlike this President, I do not believe it is our place to dictate how Israel runs her affairs.”
He wants to cut the 12 billions a year of foreign aid we give to Israel enemies (they get seven times as much aid as Israel). He wants to withdraw from the U.N who not only tramples Israel’s sovereignty, but usurps U.S sovereignty as well.
Israel has 200-300 hundred nuclear missiles. No one is gonna touch them.
I was literally shocked when I saw Palista’s in the last LIVE debate thread make fun of Bachman’s face,eyelashes called her voice annoying and squeaky. They attacked Bachmann like Chris Matthews attacks Bachmann and Palin(I GUESS THEY HAVE BEYOND BDS).All this personal attack on Bachmann because Bachmann spoke up about Gingrich and his insider /outsider crony FM/FM deals and flip flops..
How ironic it is that Bachmann speaking up in warning about Gingrich is exactly what Palin would do.Yet Palinista’s attack Bachmann and Perry? All because they were competition to Palin.It boggles my mind that they are starting threads AGAIN about Palin running and have the nerve to say all those who don’t worship Gingrich are the bad guys..as they bash Bachmann and Perry.I am flamed on a conservative forum for liking Bachmann,Perry and Santorum.I changed my mind on Newt being any kind of a real deal and I am again the bad guy?Obama is Dividing and conquering alright.We all lose in the end.
Yes. Both Ron Paul and Rick Perry were Air Force and both were discharged with the rank of Captain.
Ron Paul served 1963-1965 in the AF as a Flight Surgeon, then in the United States Air National Guard from 1965-1968. Rick Perry served 1972-1977 as a pilot.
No matter what his past record on Israel, his present policy is that its survival is none of our business. Iran is no big deal. Its threats are no big deal. Its nuclear capacity is no big deal.
We cannot have a President who so cavalierly and naively disregards the survival of one of our strongest allies.
His 'dislike' of Israel's government is most certainly NOT 'irrelevant.'
Ron Paul leads in active duty military donations by far
GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul consistently has said that the United States should get out of Afghanistan and Iraq and that American military bases around the world should be closed.
In this campaign, Paul is getting more donations from people who work for the military than either President Obama or any of the other Republican presidential candidates
Ron Paul's not a viable candidate because he has a dangerous, naive, and one might say, stupid foreign policy.
I fully expect Ron Paul supporters to put "Dennis Kucinich for Secretary of the Department of Peace" signs in their front yards.
Besides which, Ron Paul attracts a myriad of unethical spam monkeys, so any rational freeper should question claims about military support of Paul.
If it doesn't make any rational sense, it's usually not true.
Seeing that I am in the age group of most who serve in the military, and in a serious relationship with a woman who just left the Navy 4 months ago at the end of her service, I see it in person that many of our 20 somethings who are fighting for America are also some of the biggest Ron Paul supporters I have met.
It was a marine that fought in Iraq who first told me about Congressman Paul
The data just confirms my observations
I heard a young person claim that Jon Huntsman was the best candidate for his peer group. As ridiculous a claim as the one that Ron Paul is our best shot at beating Obama. Silly.
Ron Paul is not a viable candidate. Period. His foreign policy is dangerous.
I'm (hopefully) done with this thread. Ron Paul is a non-subject, and any discussion of his having a snowball's chance in hell of winning, or coming close to winning the Republican nomination is ludicrous.
He's not even a Republican.
My anecdotal observations are supported by hard data (i.e donations by members of the military)
Yours are simply pulled out of your ass with no basis whatsoever.
(Wonder if Paul agrees with Joe Biden that the Taliban isn't our enemy? Bet he does..... wonder what our military serving in Afghanistan would think about that?)
See you, Mad. Once the nasty ad hominems begin, it's best for me to leave. Merry Christmas to you and yours.