New Iowa Poll - Ron Paul in 7th place with 4%

[Dave]

I don't believe Ron Paul has polled as high as 4% here before - he was at 0% the last time this poll was done in May. I'm surprised to see Tancredo at 5%. The media here is focused on Huckabee moving past Giuliani into 3rd place since no candidate has ever finished below 3rd in Iowa and gone on to win their party's nomination.

Worth a look - there's tons of other data and stories about this poll here:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=iowapoll07

[DrNoZone]

That's great news!

[ItsTime]

source: 405 people oct 1-3 not that many people and before his numbers were released.

[RTsquared]

Sounds like if they repeated the poll next week there might be an even bigger bounce for RP.

That is GREAT news!

[0zzy]

7th place? mehhh:)
better than 0%!

[DrNoZone]

7th place? mehhh:)
better than 0%!

It's so great because in May he was at 0%. A 4% increase BEFORE the Q3 announcement is impressive. Especially for these rigged and unfair polls.

[paulitics]

Notice how Rudy wants nothing to do with Iowa. I think he has spent less time than Paul. We must beat 2 out of these 3 clowns; Rudy, Huckabee and Thompson. A second or third place finish will set us up nicely for a NH win.

[purepaloma]

Margin of Error? 4.9%

They talked about this poll on Msnbc and of course no mention of RP due to being so low.

[tfelice]

One of the reasons these polls are meaningless is because they make the assumption that people are telling the truth when they answer the question: "Are you likely to vote in the caucuses". We know from history that caucus turnout is embarrassingly low (less than 7% in 2000 & 2004). So unless we know from the pollsters that 90% of the people polled said "no" to "Are you likely to vote" then we can easily conclude that the majority of those polled are unreliable.

[allyinoh]

who actually gets polled for these? I myself have never been contacted and I know hundreds of people who haven't either.

Does anyone know who gets polled or has anyone ever been contacted before?

[kylejack]

One of the reasons these polls are meaningless is because they make the assumption that people are telling the truth when they answer the question: "Are you likely to vote in the caucuses". We know from history that caucus turnout is embarrassingly low (less than 7% in 2000 & 2004). So unless we know from the pollsters that 90% of the people polled said "no" to "Are you likely to vote" then we can easily conclude that the majority of those polled are unreliable.

Yes, and this is about the only reason that can be used to de-legitimize the polls. What our hope is in this campaign is that:

A) youth will show up in much stronger numbers than usual
and
B) our supporters are far more likely to show up and vote

B is a lot more likely than A, but I'm hoping for both.

[Liberty]

One of the reasons these polls are meaningless is because they make the assumption that people are telling the truth when they answer the question: "Are you likely to vote in the caucuses". We know from history that caucus turnout is embarrassingly low (less than 7% in 2000 & 2004). So unless we know from the pollsters that 90% of the people polled said "no" to "Are you likely to vote" then we can easily conclude that the majority of those polled are unreliable.

One thing we have going for us is that turnout of Ron Paul supporters will be extremely high.

[tfelice]

I agree. Turnout by Paul supporters should be very high. Let's face it the majority of those supporting the so-called frontrunners are not too enthusiastic about their candidates.

Put yourself in their shoes, if you were a Republican who wasn't a political junkie, would you be excited about Mitt, Rudy, McCain or Thompson? None of these four have really said or have done anything that would inspire someone to make sure they are at the polls for them.

[kylejack]

None of these four have really said or have done anything that would inspire someone to make sure they are at the polls for them.
He was in the trenches on 9/11, man!

[Dave]

One thing we have going for us is that turnout of Ron Paul supporters will be extremely high.

Like turnout for the meetups?

Sorry to be a wise guy. I think turnout from Ron Paul supporters will be higher than most but we shouldn't kid ourselves that it will be automatic. We are going to have to work very hard to turn out the vote - even harder in states like Iowa where there are caucuses instead of primaries.

[LibertyEagle]

I know Iowa just got a great new campaign coordinator. :) Has he had a chance to get anything going with regard to campaigning?

[BillyDkid]

I agree. Turnout by Paul supporters should be very high. Let's face it the majority of those supporting the so-called frontrunners are not too enthusiastic about their candidates.

Put yourself in their shoes, if you were a Republican who wasn't a political junkie, would you be excited about Mitt, Rudy, McCain or Thompson? None of these four have really said or have done anything that would inspire someone to make sure they are at the polls for them.As long as those supporters are Republicans, right? IA is closed state isn't it?

[Dave]

Notice how Rudy wants nothing to do with Iowa. I think he has spent less time than Paul. We must beat 2 out of these 3 clowns; Rudy, Huckabee and Thompson. A second or third place finish will set us up nicely for a NH win.

Not true, unfortunately. After skipping Ames, Giuliani has spent a fair amount of time and a lot of money in Iowa. I've heard about tv commercials and heard his radio commercials. I've also gotten a few slick pieces of mail from him.

I wonder how he will respond to finishing 4th in this poll?

[tfelice]

As long as those supporters are Republicans, right? IA is closed state isn't it?

Technically it is a closed state, but a voter can change their party registration at the polls on the day of the caucus. So for all practical purposes it is an open primary.

[kylejack]

Technically it is a closed state, but a voter can change their party registration at the polls on the day of the caucus. So for all practical purposes it is an open primary.

Except that its not a primary at all. ;)

[jj111]

Register and/or log in and post your pro-Ron Paul comments.

[tfelice]

I'm looking at 2000 numbers and 86,000 Republicans turned out in IA. Bush won with 41%. Since the field is more crowded this time out 30% could win it. Assuming the turnout won't be any better than in 2000, that means Paul would need around 26000 votes to reach 30%. Does anyone have an idea of how many Meetup members there are in IA?

[Corydoras]

Someone in Iowa a few weeks ago was talking about how caucuses really have to be campaigned on an individual basis with supervoters-- people who have been in the past three caucuses-- and that Howard Dean failed because he did not target these people but tried to blanket the state instead. Anybody else remember that thread?