Gingrich Collapses In Iowa, As Ron Paul Surges to the Front

Atlantic Wire via yahoo ^ | December 19, 2011 | Dashiell Bennet

[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.

[ohioWfan]

Hmmmmm.......you spend all your time on this thread defending, supporting, explaining Ron Paul's 'popularity,' complete with graphs and links and all sorts of fun things, and then you laugh that discerning people figure out that he's your guy.

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.

[John D]

And BTW, I already knew there was an active "Veterans for Ron Paul" organization, Facebook page and movement

Just because some paulbots say they are military does not make it true. Sure there are some anti-American cowards in the military, but not many. There are many more druggie anti-Americans that are hoping for legalized drugs.

[editor-surveyor]

Never but never believe anything from PPP!

[editor-surveyor]

Iowa has always been a flakey state.

[Bokababe]

No one said they are contributing $500 a piece except you

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.

[Bokababe]

And I won't even post this to another thread lest it cause mass wrist-slitting by many Freepers, but a new poll also shows that Ron Paul has overtaken Newt in New Hampshire, too.

Romney 35%, Paul 21%, Newt 16%, Huntsman 13%. Everyone else in single digits. 8% Undecided.

[ohioWfan]

There's no reason to slit one's wrists for a poll.....ANY poll......that has a freakish loser in the lead.

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.

[John D]

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.

[Bokababe]

I think that this is a very different generation than my husband's was going to Vietnam and a hugely different military.

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.

[isthisnickcool]

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.

[doug from upland]

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.

[Grunthor]

Did you see post 54?

[Grunthor]

To: Grunthor
Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus

Polling Data
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]

[editor-surveyor]

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.

[Grunthor]

Sure sounds good but you also told me once that Sarah Palin was running for President so, yeah.......

[Allegra]

Why? Paul will peel off demo votes whereas Romney will not.

Uh...yeah. Ron Paul's appeal to the left is not exactly a selling point.

No Romney.

No Paul.

No lefties.

[triceratop]

Speaking of the military, isn’t Paul the only veteran besides Perry?

[Allegra]

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.

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 claim wish.

[Gall]

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.

[Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!]

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.