Latest Iowa poll: Paul still at 5%, >50% of Iowa Repubs still want out of Iraq

[csen]

http://strategicvision.biz/political/iowa_poll_112807.htm

4. Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months? (Republicans Only)
Yes 51%
No 37%
Undecided 12%

I'm really, really confused about this. It's probably the issue that confuses me more than any other. If 51% of Iowa Republicans want out of Iraq immediately and Ron Paul is only 5% in the polls, there are only 3 possibilities that I can see:

1) Name recognition is still too low
2) "He can't win"
3) The war issue isn't as important to people as the media lets on

I tend to think it's a bit of all of them, but I've gotta say it both perplexes me and gives me hope.

[tsetsefly]

Seriously the campaing needs to focus right now only on NH and IOWA, and focus on his anti-war stance in these states, I know they said they need more funds but I am sure they have at least 4 mill to spend in both of these states alone and then spend whatever comes in on the 16th on the other states...

[saahmed]

Name recognition is still low.

[Midnight77]

We can help this Name Recognition issue by making the 30th successful. It needs to happen. it will give Paul another round of Media Coverage now.

[ChickenHawk]

Most people (including Republicans) want a nanny state in some form or another. There are very few people (probably less than 15%) that would want the federal government dismantled to the degree that Ron Paul does. This is the real reason he can't win and the reason the Libertarian party has done so poorly in the past. Most want the government to protect them from themselves and to protect them from other peoples freedoms. Indiscriminate freedom scares people.

Name recognition is a problem too.

[SevenEyedJeff]

We all know these telephone polls give Ron Paul lower numbers than he is actually at. The people who vote in primaries generally are those who are enthusiastic for their candidate, do you really think Ron Paul is at 5%? Wait and see....

[ChickenHawk]

We all know these telephone polls give Ron Paul lower numbers than he is actually at. The people who vote in primaries generally are those who are enthusiastic for their candidate, do you really think Ron Paul is at 5%? Wait and see....


I think he will get more the 5%. I'd like to believe he can win but that would be overly optimistic in my opinion.

[Goldwater Conservative]

We probably only need half those people to win Iowa, and only a third to rank a very strong second or third.

[born2drv]

Most people (including Republicans) want a nanny state in some form or another. There are very few people (probably less than 15%) that would want the federal government dismantled to the degree that Ron Paul does. This is the real reason he can't win and the reason the Libertarian party has done so poorly in the past. Most want the government to protect them from themselves and to protect them from other peoples freedoms. Indiscriminate freedom scares people.

I understand what you're saying regarding Paul's ideology being a little to extreme for the masses... but the way politics works (as I'm sure you know) is that when someone is elected, 100% of his agenda is never enacted... you're lucky to get them to fulfill say 50% of their campaign promises, and 10% of their total ambitions....

With Bush, Clinton, etc... that's about on par for getting nothing done. At least with Ron Paul, getting 10-50% of his "radical" agenda through would be just what most American's have been waiting for.

He himself has already downplayed what he theoretically could accomplish as president.... for example he said he couldn't just walk in and abolish the IRS... he'd have to cut spending and entitlements first, then work to abolishing it. Same with the federal reserve, he wants to phase in a competing currency first. And with social security, he wants to appease those dependent while allowing the younger generation to opt out. So there is compromise and a way to move closer to the goal without so much "radicalism" the media would like you to think Ron Paul is all about.

[michaelwise]

Ron should point out that the troops will remain in Iraq for at least another year and only be pulled out if he is elected President and sworn in on January 20th 2009.

[ChickenHawk]

I understand what you're saying regarding Paul's ideology being a little to extreme for the masses... but the way politics works (as I'm sure you know) is that when someone is elected, 100% of his agenda is never enacted... you're lucky to get them to fulfill say 50% of their campaign promises, and 10% of their total ambitions....

With Bush, Clinton, etc... that's about on par for getting nothing done. At least with Ron Paul, getting 10-50% of his "radical" agenda through would be just what most American's have been waiting for.


Yeah, but I think that at least 80% of Americans would never vote for someone with the "extreme" views that Ron Paul has. If I am right it makes it a little hard for him to be elected president.

[Ron Paul Fan]

Yep. I knew someone would come on here pretending to be a messenger for liberty, but in reality he just wants to pound home the "he can't win" card to all the lurkers. Well, I for one think that he can win and that's why I'm here! Maybe people are really ready for a change, maybe they're not. We shall see come January, but his name is on the ballot so there's a risk he can win. I'd like to know where this traitor got his 80% statistic. If I am right, it makes it a possibility for him to be elected president.

[Ron LOL]

We need signs that say something like "you can be an anti-war conservative. Vote Ron Paul."

[Primbs]

The pollsters know it is very hard to predict who will go to a caucus and stand around for a few hours to vote.

Historically, participation has been low, but this year could be different.

Assume Romney will purchase every bus for one thousand miles and bring in his supporters and put them up in hotels for a week. Even Rudy is ramping up quickly.

[ChickenHawk]

Yep. I knew someone would come on here pretending to be a messenger for liberty, but in reality he just wants to pound home the "he can't win" card to all the lurkers. Well, I for one think that he can win and that's why I'm here! Maybe people are really ready for a change, maybe they're not. We shall see come January, but his name is on the ballot so there's a risk he can win. I'd like to know where this traitor got his 80% statistic. If I am right, it makes it a possibility for him to be elected president.


Dude, I made up that "satistic". It's just my gut feeling based on my own experiences. I hope he does win I just think it is a real long shot. I suppose that I shouldn't say anything because it just discourages people.

By the way, I made up my mind today, I'm voting for Ron Paul in the Washington primary and I'm going to my precinct caucus. I promise I'll never say "Ron Paul can't win" ever again on these forums.

[ChickenHawk]

We need signs that say something like "you can be an anti-war conservative. Vote Ron Paul."


Better yet, "you can be a pro war conservative and vote for Ron Paul".:)

[Ron Paul Fan]

Dude, I made up that "satistic". It's just my gut feeling based on my own experiences. I hope he does win I just think it is a real long shot. I suppose that I shouldn't say anything because it just discourages people.

By the way, I made up my mind today, I'm voting for Ron Paul in the Washington primary and I'm going to my precinct caucus. I promise I'll never say "Ron Paul can't win" ever again on these forums.

That's the spirit! I am delighted that you have decided to vote Ron Paul despite your differing views on the Iraq war and foreign policy! Ron Paul CAN win! I don't think anyone would argue that it isn't a long shot, but there's always a chance and things have been looking up since November 5th. Thank you for making the right choice Chicken Hawk. You are a true patriot and champion of liberty.