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.