Ron Paul #1 in Latest Iowa Poll
#1
A few of the latest polls have him in first place, with Gingrich totally collapsing, falling to third, and Romney a close second.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/...ont/46360/

Quote: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 shows Gringrich 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 numbers tick up slightly (to 20%), putting him just behind Paul (23%) 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.

The bad news for Paul, however, is that when asked for their second choice for President, only 9% said they would vote for him after their preferred candidate. That means if supporters of any of the second-tier candidates sense defeat and decided to abandon their choice at the last minute, those votes are more likely to go to Romney. Even if Romney doesn't win, the stronger than expected showing could be the snowball that starts a primary avalanche for him.

One other tidbit from the PPP poll, the first question about Barack Obama asked if the respondents think he was born in the United States. Fifty-two percent either said he was not or they're not sure.
Reply
#2
But watch out...the GOP establishment is going to go after him like they went after Buchanan if he wins Iowa. I found the article below, which documents how the party leaders went after Buchanan when he won New Hampshire in 1996, to be very revealing. I knew the party sabotaged him after NH, but I didn't realize how pre-meditated it was. The same scoundrels will be at work this time around.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.c...owa/264111

Quote:The Republican presidential primary has become a bit feisty, but it will get downright ugly if Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucuses.

The principled, antiwar, Constitution-obeying, Fed-hating, libertarian Republican congressman from Texas stands firmly outside the bounds of permissible dissent as drawn by either the Republican establishment or the mainstream media. (Disclosure: Paul wrote the foreword to my 2009 book.)

But in a crowded GOP field currently led by a collapsing Newt Gingrich and an uninspiring Mitt Romney, Paul could carry the Iowa caucuses, where supporter enthusiasm has so much value.

If Paul wins, how will the media and the GOP react? Much of the media will ignore him (expect headlines like "Romney Beats out Gingrich for Second Place in Iowa"). Some in the Republican establishment and the conservative media will panic. Others will calmly move to crush him, with the full cooperation of the liberal mainstream media.

For a historical analogy, study the aftermath of Pat Buchanan's 1996 victory in the New Hampshire primary. "It was awful," Buchanan told me this week when I asked him about his few days as the nominal GOP front-runner. "They come down on you with both feet."

The GOP establishment that week rallied to squash Buchanan. Just after New Hampshire, Gingrich's hand-picked group of GOP leaders, known as the Speaker's Advisory Group, met with one thing on their minds, according to a contemporaneous Newsweek report: "How to deal with Buchanan."

While many Republicans dismissed Buchanan's New Hampshire win as irrelevant, arguing his support was too narrow to ever win the nomination, the neoconservative wing of the GOP darkly warned of a Buchanan menace. "People are panicked," Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard told Newsweek. "If they're not, it's only because they don't know what's going on."

The liberal mainstream media dutifully filled out Kristol's picture of "what's going on." Newsweek put an ominously lit picture of Buchanan on the cover under the words "Preaching Fear." The article stretched itself into contortions to paint Buchanan as a white racist. (Buchanan was campaigning in South Carolina, which still flew the Confederate flag over its capitol.)

Ted Koppel, on "Nightline" in the days after New Hampshire, relied on unsubstantiated tales (for which he later apologized) about Buchanan's father as a way of tying the son to "bigoted and isolationist radio orator Father Coughlin." He also cited a Jewish neighbor of the Buchanans who was beaten up and called "Christ-killer" -- without mentioning that Pat was off at college at the time.


Insinuations of racism and anti-Semitism were the weapons of the mainstream media, but Buchanan's sins in the eyes of the GOP establishment were different. They feared Pat because he rejected a rare inviolable article of faith among the party elites: free trade. Also, in the post-Cold War era, Buchanan's foreign policy had become far less interventionist than that of the establishment.

It's similar with Paul. There are many reasons he is unacceptable to the Republican elite. Some of these transgressions reflect badly on Paul. Others reflect badly on the party.

In Paul's favor, he holds to the professed principles of his party. He makes Republicans look bad by firmly opposing overspending and the unconstitutional expansion of federal power. He correctly predicted the troubles that would be caused by housing subsidies and the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Paul is also disliked for his foreign policy. His non-interventionism has provoked clashes with the party elites, but it resonates with a growing number of Republicans who have grown tired of endless war and nation building that doesn't seem to serve American interests. But Paul regularly goes too far for even these voters, criticizing the killing of al Qaeda leaders and at times sounding like he agrees with Iran's grievances against the United States.

But neither his establishment-irritating adherence to principle, nor his hawk-angering foreign policy, will be the focus of the anti-Paul attacks should he carry Iowa. His conservative critics and the mainstream media will imply that he is a racist, a kook, and a conspiracy theorist.

Paul's indiscretions -- such as abiding 9/11 conspiracy theorists and allowing racist material in a newsletter published under his name -- will be blown up to paint a scary caricature. His belief in state's rights and property rights will be distorted into support for Jim Crow and racism.

Many of Paul opponents will take heart in concluding that Paul cannot get more than 25 percent in any state, and so he can be dismissed as a spoiler. But for the enforcers of Republican orthodoxy, a Paul victory in Iowa will be an act of impudence that must be punished.
Reply
#3
(12-19-2011, 11:49 AM)rbjmartin Wrote: But watch out...the GOP establishment is going to go after him like they went after Buchanan if he wins Iowa. I found the article below, which documents how the party leaders went after Buchanan when he won New Hampshire in 1996, to be very revealing. I knew the party sabotaged him after NH, but I didn't realize how pre-meditated it was. The same scoundrels will be at work this time around.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.c...owa/264111

Quote:The Republican presidential primary has become a bit feisty, but it will get downright ugly if Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucuses.

The principled, antiwar, Constitution-obeying, Fed-hating, libertarian Republican congressman from Texas stands firmly outside the bounds of permissible dissent as drawn by either the Republican establishment or the mainstream media. (Disclosure: Paul wrote the foreword to my 2009 book.)

But in a crowded GOP field currently led by a collapsing Newt Gingrich and an uninspiring Mitt Romney, Paul could carry the Iowa caucuses, where supporter enthusiasm has so much value.

If Paul wins, how will the media and the GOP react? Much of the media will ignore him (expect headlines like "Romney Beats out Gingrich for Second Place in Iowa"). Some in the Republican establishment and the conservative media will panic. Others will calmly move to crush him, with the full cooperation of the liberal mainstream media.

For a historical analogy, study the aftermath of Pat Buchanan's 1996 victory in the New Hampshire primary. "It was awful," Buchanan told me this week when I asked him about his few days as the nominal GOP front-runner. "They come down on you with both feet."

The GOP establishment that week rallied to squash Buchanan. Just after New Hampshire, Gingrich's hand-picked group of GOP leaders, known as the Speaker's Advisory Group, met with one thing on their minds, according to a contemporaneous Newsweek report: "How to deal with Buchanan."

While many Republicans dismissed Buchanan's New Hampshire win as irrelevant, arguing his support was too narrow to ever win the nomination, the neoconservative wing of the GOP darkly warned of a Buchanan menace. "People are panicked," Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard told Newsweek. "If they're not, it's only because they don't know what's going on."

The liberal mainstream media dutifully filled out Kristol's picture of "what's going on." Newsweek put an ominously lit picture of Buchanan on the cover under the words "Preaching Fear." The article stretched itself into contortions to paint Buchanan as a white racist. (Buchanan was campaigning in South Carolina, which still flew the Confederate flag over its capitol.)

Ted Koppel, on "Nightline" in the days after New Hampshire, relied on unsubstantiated tales (for which he later apologized) about Buchanan's father as a way of tying the son to "bigoted and isolationist radio orator Father Coughlin." He also cited a Jewish neighbor of the Buchanans who was beaten up and called "Christ-killer" -- without mentioning that Pat was off at college at the time.


Insinuations of racism and anti-Semitism were the weapons of the mainstream media, but Buchanan's sins in the eyes of the GOP establishment were different. They feared Pat because he rejected a rare inviolable article of faith among the party elites: free trade. Also, in the post-Cold War era, Buchanan's foreign policy had become far less interventionist than that of the establishment.

It's similar with Paul. There are many reasons he is unacceptable to the Republican elite. Some of these transgressions reflect badly on Paul. Others reflect badly on the party.

In Paul's favor, he holds to the professed principles of his party. He makes Republicans look bad by firmly opposing overspending and the unconstitutional expansion of federal power. He correctly predicted the troubles that would be caused by housing subsidies and the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Paul is also disliked for his foreign policy. His non-interventionism has provoked clashes with the party elites, but it resonates with a growing number of Republicans who have grown tired of endless war and nation building that doesn't seem to serve American interests. But Paul regularly goes too far for even these voters, criticizing the killing of al Qaeda leaders and at times sounding like he agrees with Iran's grievances against the United States.

But neither his establishment-irritating adherence to principle, nor his hawk-angering foreign policy, will be the focus of the anti-Paul attacks should he carry Iowa. His conservative critics and the mainstream media will imply that he is a racist, a kook, and a conspiracy theorist.

Paul's indiscretions -- such as abiding 9/11 conspiracy theorists and allowing racist material in a newsletter published under his name -- will be blown up to paint a scary caricature. His belief in state's rights and property rights will be distorted into support for Jim Crow and racism.

Many of Paul opponents will take heart in concluding that Paul cannot get more than 25 percent in any state, and so he can be dismissed as a spoiler. But for the enforcers of Republican orthodoxy, a Paul victory in Iowa will be an act of impudence that must be punished.
Yep. Ron Paul really has somewhat of a populist conservative message just like the Buchanan Brigades back in '96 and the GOP establishment is scared to death of that. One criticism of the article however. Pat Buchanan was just not attacked for 'racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism' back in '96 since he continues to be attacked to this day.
Reply
#4
Good point. I supported him on his third party run in 2000, and he was being attacked for the same things then.
Reply
#5
I turned on Fox News this morning (mea culpa) to listen to the news about Kim Jong Il's death. There she was, that blonde morning lady,  with a screed about how Ron Paul's surge in Iowa is the result of being propped up by the media. 'Cause, you know, he can't possibly win or anything, so why would he being going up in the polls, she said. It's all very suspicious... Obama's behind it! Yeah, that's it. Because he really, really doesn't want to run against Guy Smiley Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney just scares them to death!




And they call RP the nutter.
Reply
#6
He said putting on airs and using his best imitation of a British Public School accent, "Theatre of the absurd 's all."

tim
Reply
#7
(12-19-2011, 12:19 PM)ResiduumRevertetur Wrote: I turned on Fox News this morning
Oh boy. Fox News hates that man.
Reply
#8
(12-19-2011, 12:33 PM)Traditional Guy Wrote:
(12-19-2011, 12:19 PM)ResiduumRevertetur Wrote: I turned on Fox News this morning
Oh boy. Fox News hates that man.

So true.

Did you notice in the last debate how they talked about his non-interventionist approach as being "left of Obama." So apparently, not wanting to fight undeclared, unjust wars that will bankrupt your country and kill thousands of American soldiers makes you "left of Obama." Obviously, he was trying to frame it in the left vs. right paradigm so brainwashed Republicans would automatically adopt a prejudice against Dr. Paul's position.
Reply
#9
(12-19-2011, 12:56 PM)rbjmartin Wrote:
(12-19-2011, 12:33 PM)Traditional Guy Wrote:
(12-19-2011, 12:19 PM)ResiduumRevertetur Wrote: I turned on Fox News this morning
Oh boy. Fox News hates that man.

So true.

Did you notice in the last debate how they talked about his non-interventionist approach as being "left of Obama." So apparently, not wanting to fight undeclared, unjust wars that will bankrupt your country and kill thousands of American soldiers makes you "left of Obama." Obviously, he was trying to frame it in the left vs. right paradigm so brainwashed Republicans would automatically adopt a prejudice against Dr. Paul's position.
Fair and Balanced my eye. I don't mind tough questions but at least get the info right. Non-interventionism and being skeptical of foreign wars is a conservative virtue.
Reply
#10
(12-19-2011, 12:33 PM)Traditional Guy Wrote:
(12-19-2011, 12:19 PM)ResiduumRevertetur Wrote: I turned on Fox News this morning
Oh boy. Fox News hates that man.
I really didn't know that. I haven't watched much of Fox in a long time, they irritate me. I did a quick google on it and came on this page. http://nation.foxnews.com/ron-paul/2011/12/19/poll-paul-pulls-ahead-iowa I suppose the comments on the story are indicative of that mindset. Actually, they sound disturbingly similar, after an admittedly cursory reading. Not only the content, but even the writing styles are the same. So weird.


ETA...Oops. Some later comments are pro-Paul. The others still sound like Stepford Wives.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)