America's Repudiation of Ron Paul's Unelectability

[Morganator]

Paul leads in Iowa (PPP Poll -- Paul 23, Romney 20, Gingrich 14, Perry 10)
Public Policy Polling ^ | 12/18/2011
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2011 12:19:18 AM by 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.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2822198/posts

I'm calling it now. Ron Paul will win Iowa. Personally, I think this shows American voters' repudiation of Paul's unelectability. The GOP race is getting very interesting.

[Funeralfog]

ron Paul is an idiot and that will show how backwards Iowa is if he wins. classic case of nobody researching anything

[Cyn]

ron Paul is an idiot and that will show how backwards Iowa is if he wins. classic case of nobody researching anything

Is he any more of an idiot than the dozens of idiots you people have elected, presidents included?

Surely Bush getting a second term shows how backwards the entire country is

[btbam]

Is he any more of an idiot than the dozens of idiots you people have elected, presidents included?

Surely Bush getting a second term shows how backwards the entire country is

Bush getting reelected just shows how awful John Kerry was. It's also pretty damn hard to beat an encumbent. Like or not encumbency gets votes not policy sometimes. You also have to remember, bush had Karl Rove. Underhanded yes, but also probably the most skilled person I've ever seen at creating coalitions. If he was a congressman he would be devistatingly effective as the GOP whip.

[bash]

Bush getting reelected just shows how awful John Kerry was. It's also pretty damn hard to beat an encumbent. Like or not encumbency gets votes not policy sometimes. You also have to remember, bush had Karl Rove. Underhanded yes, but also probably the most skilled person I've ever seen at creating coalitions. If he was a congressman he would be devistatingly effective as the GOP whip.

John Kerry wont that election until they screw him over...

[Morganator]

ron Paul is an idiot and that will show how backwards Iowa is if he wins. classic case of nobody researching anything

Do you have proof or are you generalizing? I see this kind of talk about Ron Paul in dozens of forums and those saying he's an idiot or unelectable never show any proof to back up their claims. Prove me wrong.

[Bigdoggy]

Do you have proof or are you generalizing? I see this kind of talk about Ron Paul in dozens of forums and those saying he's an idiot or unelectable never show any proof to back up their claims. Prove me wrong.

exactly, people say "he's to extreme" but they never say what part he is extreme by and the only thing he is extreme about is shrinking down the Federal and I personally don't see anything bad by doing that.

Foreign policy, Federal/income tax/etc etc, shrinking government, cutting spending. Funeralfog, explain why he is an idiot because I am not seeing that in him right now.

[-Kwesnoth-]

Surely Bush getting a second term shows how backwards the entire country is

Bush would have won a third term if there was the rule only allowing 2 terms. Obama would have been smoked by Bush because no matter how many times people make fun of Bush, he was still a damn good president.

[MATRIX 2]

Bush would have won a third term if there was the rule only allowing 2 terms. Obama would have been smoked by Bush because no matter how many times people make fun of Bush, he was still a damn good president.

Before Iraq, sure. After, not really.

[-Kwesnoth-]

Before Iraq, sure. After, not really.

War is war..lots will support it, lots will not. Its to be expected that Bush would be seen with the same prejudice.

[MATRIX 2]

War is war..lots will support it, lots will not. Its to be expected that Bush would be seen with the same prejudice.

Afghanistan was justified. There was no justification for Iraq. It was a personal vendetta.

[-Kwesnoth-]

Afghanistan was justified. There was no justification for Iraq. It was a personal vendetta.

Like I said, there is going to be mixed opinions no matter the cause or reason for the war. I do not have much knowledge about the war so I can't really understand.

[iplayonlysony]

Like I said, there is going to be mixed opinions no matter the cause or reason for the war. I do not have much knowledge about the war so I can't really understand.

That's the reason a lot of people didn't think he was good. It was a costly war that he started based on false information.

Sent from my R800x using Tapatalk

[btbam]

John Kerry wont that election until they screw him over...

Please be more specific. Who is "they" and how did he get screwed.

[Morganator]

In regards to Bush's war on Iraq, it's prudent to note that it was Chaney and his henchmen who forced the CIA into giving false intelligence. A thorough Google search will prove as much. Chaney is a fucking traitorous, deceitful, conniving little shit and he pulled the strings. While Bush is partly to blame for even having a dog like Chaney under him, it is mainly the fault of Chaney, an accomplished political dick with no morals to speak of.

As for Paul's unelectability? He is proving just how much the American people are fed up with the status quo. If he doesn't become president, the voters under him will still have massive influence in politics and it's an influence that will no longer be brushed off like it was in 1988 and 2008. We are going to experience a sea change regardless of who wins and if the congresscritters on capital hill neglect the populace at large?, expect a massive firing of incumbents from both sides of the political spectrum. Ron Paul has awoken a fervor in politics and the populace at large, not seen since just prior to the Civil War and the Revolutionary War respectively. Expect some real big surprises come next year.

[bash]

Please be more specific. Who is "they" and how did he get screwed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Un..._controversies

[btbam]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Un..._controversies

well you answered the screwed but you did not answer the 'they' give me some actually evidence not wikipedia and then we can talk on whether he got screwed.

[Versus]

exactly, people say "he's to extreme" but they never say what part he is extreme by and the only thing he is extreme about is shrinking down the Federal and I personally don't see anything bad by doing that.

Foreign policy, Federal/income tax/etc etc, shrinking government, cutting spending. Funeralfog, explain why he is an idiot because I am not seeing that in him right now.

I don't like getting into political debates on this forum but I let you get away with that a long time ago but I think it's time I really let you know WHY people think he's radical.

It's not SO much about the economic things he says, it's more on his other beliefs. He got the HELL booed outta him at an earlier debate this year for basically saying it was our fault that we were attack on 9/11, or that we're the reason the terrorist dislike us or something along those lines.

It's on youtube and I think this might be the video (on slow connection atm so can't view myself):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfBKKh0C2eo

This is a prime example for you to watch. Santorum had to fend off the crap statements and really got into with em. So he's not blaming the radical religous beliefs of the terrorist, he's going to blam it on America which is not going to sit well with most people. Dude you can't go around wondering why alot of people feel uncomforable with some of the stuff this guys says even if you do agree with em on the economic stuff.

If he or Gingrich were to ever be president, they would be MASSIVE gaff machines and say something crazy every month which would anger people here soo much they wouldn't tolerate it and would ultimately hurt their own party.

[MATRIX 2]

I don't like getting into political debates on this forum but I let you get away with that a long time ago but I think it's time I really let you know WHY people think he's radical.

It's SO much about the economic things he says, it's more on his other beliefs. He got the HELL booed outta him at an earlier debate this year for basically saying it was our fault that we were attack on 9/11, or that we're the reason the terrorist dislike us or something along those lines.

It's on youtube and I think this might be the video (on slow connection atm so can't view myself):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfBKKh0C2eo

This is a prime example for you to watch. Santorum had to fend off the crap statements and really got into with em. So he's not blaming the radical religous beliefs of the terrorist, he's going to blam it on America which is not going to sit well with most people. Dude you can't go around wondering why alot of people feel uncomforable with some of the stuff this guys says even if you do agree with em on the economic stuff.

If he or Gingrich were to ever be president, they would be MASSIVE gaff machines and say something crazy every month which would anger people here soo much they wouldn't tolerate it and would ultimately hurt their own party.

[Eltimas]

I thought you meant Ru Paul. You know the....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RuPaul

[Bigdoggy]

I don't like getting into political debates on this forum but I let you get away with that a long time ago but I think it's time I really let you know WHY people think he's radical.

It's not SO much about the economic things he says, it's more on his other beliefs. He got the HELL booed outta him at an earlier debate this year for basically saying it was our fault that we were attack on 9/11, or that we're the reason the terrorist dislike us or something along those lines.

It's on youtube and I think this might be the video (on slow connection atm so can't view myself):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfBKKh0C2eo

This is a prime example for you to watch. Santorum had to fend off the crap statements and really got into with em. So he's not blaming the radical religous beliefs of the terrorist, he's going to blam it on America which is not going to sit well with most people. Dude you can't go around wondering why alot of people feel uncomforable with some of the stuff this guys says even if you do agree with em on the economic stuff.

If he or Gingrich were to ever be president, they would be MASSIVE gaff machines and say something crazy every month which would anger people here soo much they wouldn't tolerate it and would ultimately hurt their own party.

yea and if you start to look at his later debates on that, he backs it up. 9/11 is pointless to discuss even now and the fact that some people that are trying to become president still use the 9/11 excuse is quite sad. research the history of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Saddam, etc etc. After you read all that I am sure you will Understand completely where he is coming from. When he says "America needs someone to hate" it's the truth, America does, if there is no one to hate America will pick a random country and it's obvious since the beginning of 1990's.

You showed me a video, yet you obviously didn't pay attention to the beginning of it which ties in with that comment he stated. bombing middle east countries for more than 10 years will definitely cause some issues with other middle eastern countries, if you don't think that then you need to check your common sense. Do people want to hear something like that? no they don't. Just because he got booed doesn't mean it wasn't a good point and it actually was a good point. The united states so far has it's fingers in a lot of countries. Some of those countries the United States has bullied by bombing them and rebuilding bridges and then to bomb them again and to rebuild their bridges yet again. It's the execution on what America does Vs setting a proper example.

get a declaration of war and go to war if you want a war, don't sit there and butt hump other countries slowly and sloppily which is what the USA has been doing for almost 20 years now. o.O seriously, I can't stress this enough. It's doing proper research and a proper train of thought to understand when you need to go to war, what you need to go to war for and carefully thought out outcomes on what could possible happen after said war is accomplished, there's a lot more to it than that even.

Pay attention to what happened after 9/11 because we certainly didn't bombard pakistan, instead we focused even more on Iraq and that sets a poor example to other muslim countries which start to become twitchy and that was quite a few years before 9/11 happened when we started a war in Iraq. What was said during that war, what was considered true and false and many MANY things were considered false during that war. Suppressed people in Iraq was an excuse for us to go to war with Iraq, yet if you look at North Korea those people are even in a worse situation yet we aren't going to war with N. Korea yet, we are just playing "flick the dick" and that's all.

[unicron7]

I think Ron Paul is a great Candidate, no doubt. The majority of his idea's are sound and make sense. He outshines any true republican candidate right now by a country mile. Both Democrats and Republicans are giving this guy crap at every media outlet I go too. They seem to be legitimately scared that an independent might win, and that's hilarious. The only two things that I really don't like that he would do away with is student financial aid and minimum wage. If I understand the logic as to why he would do those two things....but at the same time....the lower class people would hurting for a while until the system leveled out (college tuition becomes cheaper to get's it's low income students back, wages stabilize etc.)

The number one thing I like about Ron that the other republicans seem to be deathly afaid of, he's an old white guy who DOESN'T lick the butthole of corporate America. *gasp* Much respect.

Get rid of the Fed and it's manufacturing of currency that in itself is useless and worth nothing. If we don't inflation is going to go through the roof at the rate we are printing. Anyone ever see footage of Germany after WWI? Inflation was so high they had to wheel-barrel their paychecks around town when they went shopping. It got to the point where the money was so worthless they used the currency as firewood to stay warm.

...It's not SO much about the economic things he says, it's more on his other beliefs. He got the HELL booed outta him at an earlier debate this year for basically saying it was our fault that we were attack on 9/11, or that we're the reason the terrorist dislike us or something along those lines....

He's a realist, not an extremist. So American policy is not lolly pops and rainbows, that's how it is. Some people can't stop chanting USA for more than a minute to look at what we are doing and why it's wrong. The middle eastern tour of combat is FUBAR and will never accomplish anything. We need to cut our losses and bail.

[COLOR=#fafafa !important]

[/COLOR]

[Morganator]

I think Ron Paul is a great Candidate, no doubt. The majority of his idea's are sound and make sense. He outshines any true republican candidate right now by a country mile. Both Democrats and Republicans are giving this guy crap at every media outlet I go too. They seem to be legitimately scared that an independent might win, and that's hilarious. The only two things that I really don't like that he would do away with is student financial aid and minimum wage. If I understand the logic as to why he would do those two things....but at the same time....the lower class people would hurting for a while until the system leveled out (college tuition becomes cheaper to get's it's low income students back, wages stabilize etc.)

The number one thing I like about Ron that the other republicans seem to be deathly afaid of, he's an old white guy who DOESN'T lick the butthole of corporate America. *gasp* Much respect.

Get rid of the Fed and it's manufacturing of currency that in itself is useless and worth nothing. If we don't inflation is going to go through the roof at the rate we are printing. Anyone ever see footage of Germany after WWI? Inflation was so high they had to wheel-barrel their paychecks around town when they went shopping. It got to the point where the money was so worthless they used the currency as firewood to stay warm.

Excellent post. On the bit about education, I believe I can help you to better understand his position. Ron Paul's position on education is unique. Ron Paul believes that getting government out of education is the correct path because it's unconstitutional, creates bureaucracy, squanders the American peoples' tax money and you end up getting less than what you put in. By getting the federal government out of education, Ron Paul contends that education is best left to the states and local communities. I understand that student loans play a large role in one's decision to continue education and quite frankly, I feel for those who can't go to college because of lack of finances. There is a fix to this though. By getting the federal government out, schools have to compete and competition drives prices down. All things considered, privatizing or at least letting the states and local communities decide education, actually promotes a better learning environment as well as economic environment for kids. Paul solution, while simple, is actually quite robust. You just have to be willing to forgo government intervention in your education.

[btbam]

Excellent post. On the bit about education, I believe I can help you to better understand his position. Ron Paul's position on education is unique. Ron Paul believes that getting government out of education is the correct path because it's unconstitutional, creates bureaucracy, squanders the American peoples' tax money and you end up getting less than what you put in. By getting the federal government out of education, Ron Paul contends that education is best left to the states and local communities. I understand that student loans play a large role in one's decision to continue education and quite frankly, I feel for those who can't go to college because of lack of finances. There is a fix to this though. By getting the federal government out, schools have to compete and competition drives prices down. All things considered, privatizing or at least letting the states and local communities decide education, actually promotes a better learning environment as well as economic environment for kids. Paul solution, while simple, is actually quite robust. You just have to be willing to forgo government intervention in your education.

Who will pay for it then? My state has a surplus, but almost every state in the country has huge debts, they'd get even larger debts and underfunded schools if left to the states. I'm a small government guy, but education is the foundation of the future, it is compelling interest to the government to promote robust education opertunities.

[MATRIX 2]

Who will pay for it then? My state has a surplus, but almost every state in the country has huge debts, they'd get even larger debts and underfunded schools if left to the states. I'm a small government guy, but education is the foundation of the future, it is compelling interest to the government to promote robust education opertunities.

More money does not necessarily equal a better quality education.