Paul leads in Iowa (PPP Poll -- Paul 23, Romney 20, Gingrich 14, Perry 10)

Public Policy Polling ^ | 12/18/2011

[SeekAndFind]

Newt Gingrich's campaign is rapidly imploding, and Ron Paul has now taken the lead in Iowa. He's at 23% to 20% for Mitt Romney, 14% for Gingrich, 10% each for Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry, 4% for Jon Huntsman, and 2% for Gary Johnson.

Gingrich has now seen a big drop in his Iowa standing two weeks in a row. His share of the vote has gone from 27% to 22% to 14%. And there's been a large drop in his personal favorability numbers as well from +31 (62/31) to +12 (52/40) to now -1 (46/47). Negative ads over the last few weeks have really chipped away at Gingrich's image as being a strong conservative- now only 36% of voters believe that he has 'strong principles,' while 43% think he does not.

Paul's ascendancy is a sign that perhaps campaigns do matter at least a little, in a year where there has been a lot of discussion about whether they still do in Iowa. 22% of voters think he's run the best campaign in the state compared to only 8% for Gingrich and 5% for Romney. The only other candidate to hit double digits on that question is Bachmann at 19%. Paul also leads Romney 26-5 (with Gingrich at 13%) with the 22% of voters who say it's 'very important' that a candidate spends a lot of time in Iowa. Finally Paul leads Romney 29-19 among the 26% of likely voters who have seen one of the candidates in person.

Paul's base of support continues to rely on some unusual groups for a Republican contest. Among voters under 45 he's at 33% to 16% for Romney and 11% for Gingrich. He's really going to need that younger than normal electorate because with seniors Romney's blowing him out 31-15 with Gingrich coming in 2nd at 18%. Paul is also cleaning up 35-14 with the 24% of voters who identify as either Democrats or independents. Romney is actually ahead 22-19 with GOP voters. Young people and non-Republicans are an unusual coalition to hang your hat on in Iowa, and it will be interesting to see if Paul can actually pull it off.

Romney's vote share is up 4 points from a week ago to 20% from it previous 16% standing. His favorability numbers have improved a little bit as well from 48/44 to 49/40. One thing Romney really has going for him is more room for growth than Paul. Among voters who say they're not firmly committed to their current candidate choice, Romney is the second choice for 19% compared to 17% for Perry, 15% for Bachmann, and only 13% for Paul. It's particularly worth noting that among Gingrich- who seems more likely to keep falling than turn it around- voters, he's the second choice of 30% compared to only 11% for Paul.

In addition to having more support right now Paul also has firmer support (73% solidly committed) than Romney does (68% solidly committed.) But at the same time Romney appears to have more room for growth, which could allow him to overtake Paul in the last two weeks.

Two other notes on Romney: he's now winning the electability primary- 25% of voters think he would have the best chance to defeat Obama compared to 17% for Gingrich and 16% for Paul. And he also leads Paul 24-18 among voters who watched the Sioux City debate on Thursday night, confirming general perception that he had the stronger performance.

The rest of the field isn't getting much traction. Among the three candidates tied at 10%, Santorum has gained a couple points compared to last week, Perry has moved up a single point, and Bachmann is down a point. There is some indication that Iowans are warming up to Perry a little bit. He's gone from a -4 (43/47) favorability to a +8 (48/40).

With six candidates in double digits there are still a lot of different things that could happen the final two weeks in Iowa. But it looks like Paul and Romney have emerged as the clear front runners.

[Marcella]

“Only 25% of Republicans will come out on Caucus Night.”

Really? After all this time candidates have spent in Iowa and all the media type, only 25% show up? I am stunned.

So, the winner depends on which candidate hires the most buses to pick people up and deliver them to the caucus? I’ve read they do this, but it matters more than I thought if attendance is that low.

What you say being the case, no one can really tell which 25% is going to show up unless one counts the number of buses each candidate has and makes a guess. I realize bus count is not a true method, but I see now why the “ground game” is so important there.

[trismigistus]

Ron Paul and his (1987) RESIGNATION letter to the GOP

A Tea Party Document

Congressman Paul’s Letter

As a lifelong Republican, it saddens me to have to write this letter. My parents believed in the Republican Party and its free enterprise philosophy, and that’s the way I was brought up. At age 21, in 1956, I cast my first vote for Ike and the entire Republican slate.

Because of frustration with the direction in which the
country was going, I became a political activist and ran for the U.S. Congress in 1974. Even with Watergate, my loyalty, optimism, and hope for the future were tied to the Republican Party and its message of free enterprise, limited government, and balanced budgets.

Eventually I was elected to the U.S. Congress four times as a Republican. This permitted me a first-hand look at the interworkings of the U.S. Congress, seeing both the benefits and partisan frustrations that guide its shaky proceedings. I found that although representative government still exists, special interest control of the legislative process clearly presents a danger to our constitutional system of government.

In 1976 I was impressed with Ronald Reagan’s program and was one of the four members of Congress who endorsed his candidacy. In 1980, unlike other Republican office holders in Texas, I again supported our President in his
efforts.

Since 1981, however, I have gradually and steadily grown weary of the Republican Party’s efforts to reduce the size of the federal government. Since then Ronald Reagan and the RepublicanParty have given us skyrocketing deficits, and astoundingly a doubled national debt. How is it that the party of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together? Tip O’Neill, although part of the problem, cannot alone be blamed.

Tax revenues are up 59 percent since 1980. Because of our economic growth? No. During Carter’s four years, we had growth of 37.2 percent; Reagan’s five years have given us 30.7 percent. The new revenues are due to four giant Republican tax increases since 1981.

All republicans rightly chastised Carter for his $38 billion deficit. But they ignore or even defend deficits of $220 billion, as government spending has grown 10.4 percent per year since Reagan took office, while the federal payroll has zoomed by a quarter of a million bureaucrats.

Despite the Supply-Sider-Keynesian claim that “deficits don’t matter,” the debt presents a grave threat to our country. Thanks to the President and Republican Party, we have lost the chance to reduce the deficit and the spending in a non-crisis fashion. Even worse, big government has been legitimized in a way the Democrats never could have accomplished. It was tragic to listen to Ronald Reagan on the 1986 campaign trail bragging about his high spending on farm subsidies, welfare, warfare, etc., in his futile effort to hold on to control of the Senate.

Instead of cutting some of the immeasurable waste in the
Department of Defense, it has gotten worse, with the inevitable result that we are less secure today. Reagan’s foreign aid expenditures exceed Eisenhower’s, Kennedy’s, Johnson’s, Nixon’s, Ford’s, and Carter’s put together. Foreign intervention has exploded since 1980. Only an end to military welfare for foreign governments plus a curtailment of our unconstitutional commitments abroad will enable us really to defend ourselves and solve our financial problems.

Amidst the failure of the Gramm-Rudman gimmick, we hear the
President and the Republican Party call for a balanced-budget amendment and a line-item veto. This is only a smokescreen. President Reagan, as governor of California, had a line-item veto and virtually never used it. As President he has failed to exercise his constitutional responsibility to veto spending. Instead, he has encouraged it.

Monetary policy has been disastrous as well. The five Reagan appointees to the Federal Reserve Board have advocated even faster monetary inflation than Chairman Volcker, and this is the fourth straight year of double-digit increases. The chickens have yet to come home to roost, but they will, and America will suffer from a Reaganomics that is nothing but warmed-over Keynesianism.

Candidate Reagan in 1980 correctly opposed draft registration. Yet when he had the chance to abolish it, he reneged, as he did on his pledge to abolish the Departments of Education and Energy, or to work against abortion.

Under the guise of attacking drug use and money laundering, the Republican Administration has systematically attacked personal and financial privacy. The effect has been to victimize innocent Americans who wish to conduct their private lives without government snooping. (Should people really be put on a suspected drug dealer list because they transfer $3,000 at one time?) Reagan’s urine testing of Americans without probable cause is a clear violation of our civil liberties, as are his proposals for extensive “lie detector” tests.

Under Reagan, the IRS has grown bigger, richer, more
powerful, and more arrogant. In the words of the founders of our country, our government has “sent hither swarms” of tax gatherers “to harass our people and eat out their substance.” His officers jailed the innocent George Hansen, with the President refusing to pardon a great American whose only crime was to defend the Constitution. Reagan’s new tax “reform” gives even more power to the IRS. Far from making taxes fairer or simpler, it deceitfully raises more revenue for the government to waste.

Knowing this administration’s record, I wasn’t surprised by its Libyan disinformation campaign, Israeli-Iranian arms-for-hostages swap, or illegal funding of the Contras. All this has contributed to my disenchantment with the Republican Party, and helped me make up my mind.

I want to totally disassociate myself from the policies that
have given us unprecedented deficits, massive monetary inflation, indiscriminate military spending, an irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming foreign aid, the exaltation of international banking, and the attack on our
personal liberties and privacy.

After years of trying to work through the Republican Party both in and out of government, I have reluctantly concluded that my efforts must be carried on outside the Republican Party. Republicans know that the Democratic agenda is dangerous to our political and economic health. Yet, in the past six years Republicans have expanded its worst aspects and called them our own. The Republican Party has not reduced the size of government. It has become big government’s best friend.

If Ronald Reagan couldn’t or wouldn’t balance the budget, which Republican leader on the horizon can we possibly expect to do so? There is no credibility left for the Republican Party as a force to reduce the size of government. That is the message of the Reagan years.

I conclude that one must look to other avenues if a successful effort is ever to be achieved in reversing America’s direction.

I therefore resign my membership in the Republican Party and enclose my membership card.

[octex]

maine-iac7, your comments reminded me of a question I’ve had for some time.

Why is it required to register for a specific political party to be eligible to vote in some States?

I hear folks on TV and read FReepers’ comments that state they are registered for certain political parties. I’m 69 and have never registered with any political party, but I’ve been voting since I was legally of age to do so.

[Hoodat]

Congress already has the power to dissolve whatever courts it desires, including the judges who oversee those courts. He had far greater power to do this when he was House Speaker than he ever would as President. His words today, marked by his inaction 15 years ago, ring hollow.

[rovenstinez]

We NEED someone from the outside with different ideas...and some good OLD ideas that worked. Give Ron Paul a chance. He has my support.

[Fresh Wind]

We NEED someone from the outside with different ideas...

Yeah, an "outsider" with a 24 year career in Congress.

[nathanbedford]

His words today, marked by his inaction 15 years ago, ring hollow.

His words ring with the undeniable power of truth.

If you're audible perception goes to politics, 15 years ago he was trying to shut down the government not just the judicial branch, he was balancing budgets, reforming welfare and cutting taxes.

Since then he had a bit of a spiritual journey which one can accept or deny depending on one's level of cynicism, which, he says, woke him to the secular war being waged on America by the courts, especially the lower court ruling forbidding any spiritual component to graduation ceremonies.

You deny his credibility, I affirm it: his words ring with the undeniable power of truth.

Now where do we take the argument? I hope it does not degenerate into a "he said- she said" debate in which one side interminably repeats an unprovable point which is denied vehemently by the other side with an equally unprovable counter assertion.

[normy]

Paul has been in Congress for a quarter century. He makes big bucks doing what he is doing.

If you really want an outsider, the only Governor running is Rick Perry. His part time Congress along with the balanced budget amendment would disarm Washington and put the power back in the hands of the people. It would destroy lobbying as we know it.

It takes will and conviction to pull this off, not just from the candidate but from the people.

It is still going to come down to Perry-Romney. Perry will be in until at the very least Florida, he's said so himself. He's 2nd in Iowa right now amongst Republican voters (Dems and Indy's he's not in the top 3 right now which knocks him down to 4th place.)

If Perry finishes in the top 3, Santorum and most likely Bachmann will drop out (unless one of them wins of course).

I could see Santorum endorsing Perry but my assumption is Bachmann would back Romney.

Huntsman plays around in NH and then drops out.Paul and Huntsman could dilute the NH vote to give Romney a very small win

That leaves S.C. where the military and gun owners vote will catapult Perry to the front going into Florida.

[Yaelle]

But this is Gingrich. Too much does end up coming out of him. He has strong positive qualities, but he is known for opening his mouth and dashing his goodness to the rocks below.

It’s better he shows himself now.

Glad to see Santorum is up to double digits. If perry and Bachmann were gone, he’d win.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

Not totally sure on this poll but if it is true than the RINO establishment is going to shove Mitt Romney down our throats come hell or high water. I support Newt as the person to stop Mitt.

I'm going to thumb my nose at the establishment and vote for the one I want. No one is going to tell me who vote for. Just tell them to go jump in the lake and vote for whichever one you want.

[Proudcongal]

I’d rather Paul win Iowa than Romney. At least Romney can’t claim victory. Because Iowa would be the only state Paul could win. Then Gingrich would go on to win SC and Florida. Romney would pick up NH.

That billionaire who was going to contribute $20 million to Newt needs to do so. It’s now or never. Other supporters need to step it up. People like Sarah Palin need to do what’s best for the country and endorse Gingrich. Otherwise, imo, they are looking out for themselves, waiting to see who appears to be the winner closer to the end. Give a crap and do something now!

[Hoodat]

While Speaker, I will readily credit him with reforming welfare. However, I cannot credit him for shutting the government down (Clinton did that), cutting taxes (never happened) or balancing the budget (never happened either). My point is that while Speaker, he did have the power to drastically wreak havoc with the runaway federal courts. As President, he won’t have that power. To me, claiming such powers as President is Obama-esque.