PPP Poll: 2016 Iowa Caucus

[tsai3904]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/07/iowa-2016-presidential-preference-poll.html

2016 Iowa Republican Caucus
7/12 - 7/15
363 voters

Huckabee 17%
Santorum 17%
Christie 16%
Rand Paul 11%
Rubio 10%
Jeb Bush 8%
Ryan 6%
Palin 4%
Walker 4%


Rand Paul %:

Tea Party: 18% (1st)
Evangelical: 6% (7th)
Man: 16% (2nd)
Woman: 5% (6th)
Independent: 25% (1st)
Republican: 7% (7th)

[Matt Collins]

Fascinating.

Although it means nothing this far out because political conditions WILL change vastly between now and then.

[Sola_Fide]

Yep.

[trey4sports]

wow, that's not too shabby.

[James Madison]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/07/iowa-2016-presidential-preference-poll.html

2016 Iowa Republican Caucus
7/12 - 7/15
363 voters

Huckabee 17%
Santorum 17%
Christie 16%
Rand Paul 11%
Rubio 10%
Jeb Bush 8%
Ryan 6%
Palin 4%
Walker 4%


Rand Paul %:

Tea Party: 18% (1st)
Evangelical: 6% (7th)
Man: 16% (2nd)
Woman: 5% (6th)
Independent: 25% (1st)
Republican: 7% (7th)

Same problems as Ron. Anybody know how we can attract more mainstream Republic and/or female voters?

[Sola_Fide]

Same problems as Ron. Anybody know how we can attract more mainstream Republic and/or female voters?

Meet with Oprah?

[Nirvikalpa]

Same problems as Ron. Anybody know how we can attract more mainstream Republic and/or female voters?

Banning half the forum.






:)

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Same problems as Ron. Anybody know how we can attract more mainstream Republic and/or female voters?Let Rand do the talking, and shake the conspiracy/marijuana/code pink image.

[lakerssuck92]

Same problems as Ron. Anybody know how we can attract more mainstream Republic and/or female voters?

Rand has much better favorables and a much higher ceiling than Ron does among Republican voters. If Rand ran, he really could win...

[Sola_Fide]

Let Rand do the talking, and shake the conspiracy/marijuana/code pink image.

But...but...if we let Rand do the talking, he might win....and then what will happen to our movement. And if Rand does not argue for the complete legalization of all drugs immediately, he should not receive any support from us!

[Matt Collins]

Let Rand do the talking, and shake the conspiracy/marijuana/code pink image.EXACTLY!!! That sort of rhetoric must be toned down if we are to have any success.

[James Madison]

Let Rand do the talking, and shake the conspiracy/marijuana/code pink image.

So, basically sell his soul to the Washington machine. Gotcha!

[Matt Collins]

So, basically sell his soul to the Washington machine. Gotcha!Uhh... no, it's called talking about things that Republicans want to talk about so they will vote for him. No one has to sell their soul at all, but tact is a necessary component of communication.

[James Madison]

Uhh... no, it's called talking about things that Republicans want to talk about so they will vote for him. No one has to sell their soul at all, but tact is a necessary component of communication.

The plan is to out-establishment the establishment candidates? Those voters are a lost cause.

Ron was special because he wasn't afraid to speak his mind, to tell us the hard facts. That was a lot of his charm.

[James Madison]

Uhh... no, it's called talking about things that Republicans want to talk about so they will vote for him. No one has to sell their soul at all, but tact is a necessary component of communication.

The plan is to out-establishment the establishment candidates? Those voters are a lost cause.

Ron was special because he wasn't afraid to speak his mind, to tell us the hard facts. That was a lot of his charm.

[WilliamShrugged]

Lets see how the media will act before we even think Rand has a chance. They'll easily push however they know will play the way they want. Rand might think he is out smarting them, but he'll be left with nothing (from them or us) if he thinks he can trick the players. Idk if i'll donate to Rand but maybe vote for him then. Just don't see the support from the die hard supporters that Ron has going for Rand, but after four more years of this crap anything can happen.

[Sola_Fide]

Lets see how the media will act before we even think Rand has a chance. They'll easily push however they know will play the way they want. Rand might think he is out smarting them, but he'll be left with nothing (from them or us) if he thinks he can trick the players. Idk if i'll donate to Rand but maybe vote for him then. Just don't see the support from the die hard supporters that Ron has going for Rand, but after four more years of this crap anything can happen.

I think it really depends on how Rand campaigns.

[squirekyle]

Meet with Oprah?

Lol

[Matt Collins]

The plan is to out-establishment the establishment candidates? Those voters are a lost cause.Uhh... no one said anything about "out-establishmenting" anyone. It's called knowing what to say and when to say it. When you ask people for their vote, they have to like you and what you say. Otherwise you won't win.


Ron was special because he wasn't afraid to speak his mind, to tell us the hard facts. And as you can see, that didn't get him elected. But Ron has different goals than Ron. Ron wants to change people's minds, Rand wants to change the government.

[DrRP08]

I don't understand why Ron and Rand do so poorly with women. With Republicans I can understand. With women, it just doesn't make sense to me. At first I thought it was maybe because Ron was old whereas Romney was younger and better looking. Rand's a young, decent looking guy though and his ratings with women are horrible too, it just makes no sense to me.

[Sola_Fide]

I don't understand why Ron and Rand do so poorly with women. With Republicans I can understand. With women, it just doesn't make sense to me. At first I thought it was maybe because Ron was old whereas Romney was younger and better looking. Rand's a young, decent looking guy though and his ratings with women are horrible too, it just makes no sense to me.

Women need that warm little feeling in their heart.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Fascinating.

Although it means nothing this far out because political conditions WILL change vastly between now and then.
Yeah but Iowa never changes. They love their perennial fundamentalist losers (Huckabee and Santorum).

[July]

I don't understand why Ron and Rand do so poorly with women. With Republicans I can understand. With women, it just doesn't make sense to me. At first I thought it was maybe because Ron was old whereas Romney was younger and better looking. Rand's a young, decent looking guy though and his ratings with women are horrible too, it just makes no sense to me.

Romney did better with women in the primary, but even he does poorly compared to Obama. I think, women are just becoming more polarized on ideological grounds, sadly...women are going to be tough.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Same problems as Ron. Anybody know how we can attract more mainstream Republic and/or female voters?
Not the exact same. Ron got tepid Tea Party support, they usually gravitated to Newt, or Santorum, and even Romney over Ron. The thing is I think Rand has vast more potential at winning the evangelicals and women vote over Ron. Rand and his wife made excellent commercials together really showcasing their family values. Iowans eat that up.

[Matt Collins]

Yeah but Iowa never changes. They love their perennial fundamentalist losers (Huckabee and Santorum).Except that Ron was about to win Iowa this year until the media puffed up Santorum.

[KingNothing]

So, basically sell his soul to the Washington machine. Gotcha!

No. Not even close. There's nothing wrong with telling Republicans what they long to hear.

[KingNothing]

Women need that warm little feeling in their heart.

It's a shame we gave them the right to vote. They've generally (generally) supported every big government effort since being granted suffrage.

[trey4sports]

Except that Ron was about to win Iowa this year until the media puffed up Santorum.



word.

Had we have won Iowa things might have gone a whole lot differently.

[TomtheTinker]

But...but...if we let Rand do the talking, he might win....and then what will happen to our movement. And if Rand does not argue for the complete legalization of all drugs immediately, he should not receive any support from us!



I am a huge advocate of legalizing drugs..but if he makes the argument in way you want him to he isnt worthy of support because he will alienate almost all republican voters giving zero chance of success.



I love a president candidate to lay it all on the line...but if Ranf does thats all he will ever be is a candidate...if he wants to become president and if we want drug policy to be acctually effected he must toned down.

[Sola_Fide]

It's a shame we gave them the right to vote. They've generally (generally) supported every big government effort since being granted suffrage.

Oh boy. You are treading very thin ice there my friend:)

[Sola_Fide]

I am a huge advocate of legalizing drugs..but if he makes the argument in way you want him to he isnt worthy of support because he will alienate almost all republican voters giving zero chance of success.



I love a president candidate to lay it all on the line...but if Ranf does thats all he will ever be is a candidate...if he wants to become president and if we want drug policy to be acctually effected he must toned down.

I need to start using /s tags:)

[Karsten]

Same problems as Ron. Anybody know how we can attract more mainstream Republic and/or female voters?

He shouldn't try. That would involve selling out. Ron almost won (and would have if it wasn't for crazy media manipulation in the final week before Iowa -- which most of you seem to have forgotten). All Rand needs to do is build on what Ron did and just do a little bit better.

Another thing -- WIN the Iowa Straw Poll. Most of you seem to have forgotten about that as well. We came just over 100 votes short of winning that. Had we would, we would have had much earlier momentum.

[Karsten]

^^^ And yes, I do mean WIN these early contest. WIN the straw polls, not 2nd, not a close 3rd, not "oh well it's all about the delegates anyway" NO -- WIN the straw polls. SHOW people that you're a winner. This isn't horseshoes.

[July]

It's a shame we gave them the right to vote. They've generally (generally) supported every big government effort since being granted suffrage.

Well, that's for sure not the way to attract women either.... But I would agree it's a shame all mainstream discussion about women in society is dominated by statists and leftists, and they completely frame the discussion. It's not going to change until we can have a philosophical discussion about what 'rights' are--where they come from, and who 'grants' them, and whether groups or individuals have them. Until then, women and minorities are going to gravitate to the State.

[James Madison]

It's a shame we gave them the right to vote. They've generally (generally) supported every big government effort since being granted suffrage.

I could explain why this is from a evolutionary/biological perspective, but I don't want to get bogged-down with another useless debate. Suffice it to say, we have our work cut out for us.

[Matt Collins]

I don't want to get bogged-down with another useless debate. You must be new here :cool:

[One Last Battle!]

Rand Paul could definitely win Iowa without being a massive sell out. Remember, Ron came very close, and that was after a gigantic smear campaign. Plus, a lot of voters didn't vote for him just because he's really old.

Mind, I can't say I really trust Rand all that much. He's made some distinctly poor moves recently, and he'd have to damn well make sure he doesn't slide into interventionism when it comes to foreign policy.

[AuH20]

It's a shame we gave them the right to vote. They've generally (generally) supported every big government effort since being granted suffrage.

Women generally want to be in control in a world where very little is truly under control. Most crave security at the expense of logic. The Pauls dispel this notion so their numbers aren't exactly a shocker.

[Matt Collins]

Women generally want to be in control in a world where very little is truly under control. Most crave security at the expense of logic. The Pauls dispel this notion so their numbers aren't exactly a shocker.Has anyone noticed that as soon as women's suffrage came in to being, facial hair disappeared from politics?

[AuH20]

Yeah but Iowa never changes. They love their perennial fundamentalist losers (Huckabee and Santorum).

But they're RINOs at heart. I think Rand will pummel those 2 if they run in 2016. Beck loves Rand as well and probably will push him hard leading up to 2016. All the cards are lining up in that Rand has become a staunch ally of the pro-life movement and he's a much more full spectrum conservative as opposed to the frauds lining up against him. Honestly, Rubio is the only one who can beat Rand largely because of the similar superficial appeal Obama rode to the White House.

[AuH20]

Has anyone noticed that as soon as women's suffrage came in to being, facial hair disappeared from politics?

A part of me envies Muslim society. :)

[tbone717]

The poll is interesting, because what it does show me is that Rand has name recognition, which is a good thing. If Rand wants to run in 2016 (or 2020), I think he is going to have to keep himself in the forefront of the debate, broaden his appeal and shake off some of the fringe folks that clung to his father's campaigns. So far he seems to be doing all three pretty well.

[AuH20]

The poll is interesting, because what it does show me is that Rand has name recognition, which is a good thing. If Rand wants to run in 2016 (or 2020), I think he is going to have to keep himself in the forefront of the debate, broaden his appeal and shake off some of the fringe folks that clung to his father's campaigns. So far he seems to be doing all three pretty well.

We all know that Huckabee and Santorum will go to extreme lengths to attack Rand Paul. It's going to be those 2 leading the charge to make Paul seem unpalatable to evangelicals. And on the other flank, the security hawks like Kristol, Horowitz, Krauthammer, Christie and Cheney will be charging at him with the meme that he's a weak on national security. With all that said, I still think those 2 factions are getting weaker and weaker with each election cycle. It's very easy to portray them as part of the problem.

[tbone717]

We all know that Huckabee and Santorum will go to extreme lengths to attack Rand Paul. It's going to be those 2 leading the charge to make Paul seem unpalatable to evangelicals. And on the other flank, the security hawks like Kristol, Horowitz, Krauthammer, Christie and Cheney will be charging at him with the meme that he's a weak on national security. With all that said, I still think those 2 factions are getting weaker and weaker with each election cycle. It's very easy to portray them as part of the problem.

Well the soc-cons are definitively a declining bunch for sure, and Rand has those issues (abortion, marriage, etc), so they have to really spin it to attack him since his record is (and should continue to be) sound on those issues that concern evangelicals. The security hawks are always a tough one, but a lot of that will depend on a) the state of international affairs at the time, and b) Rand's ability to present non-interventionism in a way that is easily understood and palatable to mainstream voters.

[Uriah]

Women need that warm little feeling in their heart.

Yeah. Huckabee, Santorum, and Rubio... Rand has little chance to pick up the female vote in a field like that. I'll say it : this poll is meaningless. Poll is for 2016 and it's still 2012...

[Galileo Galilei]

I think Rand should stop driving on public roads, then attack any and all who would use a government road, including potential voters. Then he should construct a bronze idol of Lew Rockwell and demand all his campaign staffers bow down to the statute, kiss it, and chant "I worship the aqua-anarchist!" This would be a great way to promote liberty. It would be very effective.

:eek:

[James Madison]

Yeah. Huckabee, Santorum, and Rubio... Rand has little chance to pick up the female vote in a field like that. I'll say it : this poll is meaningless. Poll is for 2016 and it's still 2012...

What's so appealing to women about the preacher/evangelical crusader types?

[July]

What's so appealing to women about the preacher/evangelical crusader types?

No idea. Well, I've always thought Huckabee has a kind looking face and easy demeanor. And I guess Santorum does too, with that sort of guy next door/wholesome dad vibe. Maybe they show their softer side more, through their religion or family, I don't know.