Is Ron Paul about to win Iowa? He surges past Romney into 2d behind Gingrich

http://news.investors.com/Article/593688/201112032124/iowa-poll-ron-paul-newt-gingrich-mitt-romney.htm ^ | 120311 | Andrew Malcolm

[Fred]

Elderly, iconoclastic Rep. Ron Paul, the longtime champion of meaningless straw polls, is now doing it where it counts in the ongoing struggle for the Republican presidential nomination.

A brand-new Iowa Poll, just published by the Des Moines Register, reports the often-dismissed 76-year-old Paul has surged past one-time front-runner Mitt Romney and moved into second place, with his sights set on the current front-runner Newt Gingrich.

According to the new poll results, Gingrich leads the pack at 25% of likely caucus-goers with less than a month until they're held. Paul is second with 18% and Romney now trails with 16%.

[truthfreedom]

Electability numbers

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/111204_NBCMarist_NH_6a.pdf
New Hampshire
Obama (53) Cain (30) -23
Obama (53) Bachmann (33) -20
Obama (51) Perry (36) -15
Obama (49) Gingrich (39) -10
Obama (44) Paul (42) -2
Obama (43) Romney (46) +3

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/111204_NBCMarist_Iowa_6a.pdf
Iowa
Obama (54) vs Bachmann (31) -23
Obama (50) vs Cain (32) -18
Obama (48) vs Perry (37) -11
Obama (47) vs Gingrich (37) -10
Obama (46) vs Romney (39) -7
Obama (42) vs Paul (42) 0

[Tennessee Nana]

The “hare” has been left in the dust...

Oh noez...

[gardencatz]

Yeah cuz messnbc is such a reliable source. No thanks. Besides, polls this far out are fun to look at but meaningless.

Cindie

[fieldmarshaldj]

Polls this far out ? The caucus is in 29 days: Jan 3, 2012.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Y’know, it would serve the party establishment right to have Paul pull some upsets, given that it just ran the last REAL Conservative out of the race on Saturday. They made this unholy mess and they should choke on it.

[nathanbedford]

The overall significance of a potential Ron Paul win in Iowa is marginal.

First, it is a caucus situation and not a primary and therefore the victor is a victor by virtue of organization and the ground game. Many of the voters are not even resident in Iowa.

Second, Ron Paul has a defined support level which is extremely deep but limited in breadth. It is generally accepted that Paul has no chance for the nomination and therefore his potential victory will be discounted as an aberration due to the nature of the caucus and Paul's peculiar support.

Third, New Hampshire, which comes next, is notorious for discounting the results in Iowa.

I believe that the real significance will be in the fulfillment or the lack of fulfillment of the expectations game. Did Gingrich or Romney succeed at their expected level?

[edpc]

When it comes to straw polls and caucuses, it would not surprise me. A traditional ballot vote, however, is another story.

[Fred]

Here are the results from the 1996 primary

1996 - Bob Dole (26%), Pat Buchanan (23%), Lamar Alexander (18%), Steve Forbes (10%), Phil Gramm (9%), Alan Keyes (7%), Richard Lugar (4%), and Morry Taylor (1%)

Paul is looking alot lie PB right now.

[toddausauras]

Ron Paul will win Iowa, yes.

[truthfreedom]

Yes, that is exactly what the Liberal MSM is going to try to portray a Ron Paul win as.

The Liberal MSM does not want the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama foreign policy to change one bit.

Does not want to cut the size and scope of government one bit.

Does not want a return to Limited Constitutional Government.

Gingrich and Romney don’t disagree on very much, and are RINOs.

If Ron Paul wins Iowa, it will be a Huge Upset. A media that is doing it’s job of reporting the news will report a Huge Upset as a Major Story. If the Liberal MSM wants No Change, continued Big Government, in the form or Romney or Gingrich, it will pretend that it didn’t happen.

[sourcery]

No Republican other than Paul has any realistic chance of winning the Presidential election.

The Republican base will defect from voting for Romney by more than enough to deny him the Presidency, partly because Romney loses the independents to Obama (not by a lot, but by enough.)

The independents will overwhelmingly vote against Gingrich, Perry, Bachman and Santorum. None of the others except Paul has any chance of winning the nomination.

The libertarian wing of the GOP will defect almost en masse from any nominee other than Paul. The depth and breadth of this attitude among the libertarian wing of the party is off the charts. And it will be amplified by a concerted, formal effort to encourage libertarians to not vote GOP unless Paul is the nominee. This alone is probably enough to make any nominee other than Paul unelectable.

If Paul is the nominee, then the independents will vote for him by very wide margins, and he will (according to the polling data) capture a far higher percentage of registered-Dem voters than any GOP candidate in modern history—higher even than Reagan.

Paul is electable in November 2012. No other GOP candidate has a realistic chance.

[floridarunner01]

Paul has no chance because people are already too addicted to entitlements and to the government.

[nathanbedford]

If there is anything certain in politics besides death and Taxes it is that Ron Paul cannot get the nomination and cannot be elected.

His support is a mile deep but only an inch wide. His positions on foreign affairs, while leading the party in the direction it should go, nevertheless is so offputting to the bulk of American conservatives that they will not tolerate Ron Paul. We must not forget that national security is one of the three legs that supports the Republican Party stool.

I applaud Paul for leading the party to the recognition that our foreign wars have been disastrous but he is taking us to that understanding for the wrong reasons. He is right that we cannot afford them, he is right that they are counterproductive, but he cannot bring the country with him when he blames America for the attacks on the homeland which led us into those wars. He has thus disqualified himself.

As to the libertarian wing of the Republican Party defecting if Paul is not nominated, there is no chance of this happening if Paul does not run as a third-party candidate. Every American possessed of reason enough to see the danger presented by the Obama administration will not vote third-party and ensure the reelection of Obama. Only Ron Paul's fanatical followers will vote for him as a third-party candidate but that will do all the damage necessary.

If Paul runs as a third-party candidate, it tells us all we need to know about the man.

Similarly, if in fact a concerted campaign exists to pry libertarians away from voting the Republican ticket if Paul is not nominated, it tells us all we need to know about the libertarians.

If Ron Paul runs as an independent, he represents a very great threat to America because he will ensure the reelection of Barack Obama. The fact that he will not explicitly rule out a third-party candidacy warns us now to beware of him.

[LeoWindhorse]

I will NEVER support Ron Paul

As a President he would be even worse than Obama

May he fail utterly

[pepsionice]

Ron Paul as a third-party guy....likely means two states falling his way. In a really close election....that might be enough to hinder a 270-vote win in the electoral college.

[nikos1121]

ARe you sure about that? I would think Newt resonates with independents.

[sourcery]

Then neither does any other Republican. And so neither does the Republic. Deal with it.

[sourcery]

LOL!

Few libertarians or independents will be voting GOP this year, unless Paul is the nominee. That is a virtual certainty.

[sourcery]

Your only realistic choices are Paul or Obama. Deal with it.