Paul up to 7% in Iowa tied for 5th with McCain

[crhoades]

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071201/NEWS09/71130037

We are gaining. Thompson is only at 9%. We can continue pushing and easily make it to 4th passing him. Rudy is at 13%.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

were we not at 8% ?

[crhoades]

were we not at 8% ?

8 in NH. We were around 4-5 in IA.

[transistor]

how does tancredo have 6%?

[brumans]

Good news... it looks, as of right now, we could pull a 3rd place in Iowa losing to Romney and Huckabee. Iowa is going to be a hard sell. New Hampshire I have tons more faith in.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

how does tancredo have 6%?

because he's only around to embarrass us. nah. his scare tactic ad

[Ethek]

because he's only around to embarrass us.

Hucakbee is only around to make me nauseas.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Good news... it looks, as of right now, we could pull a 3rd place in Iowa losing to Romney and Huckabee. Iowa is going to be a hard sell. New Hampshire I have tons more faith in.

I hear that more than 50% of Iowan (Republicans?) are anti-war. How can we not pull in 1st?

[foofighter20x]

I hear that more than 50% of Iowan (Republicans?) are anti-war. How can we not pull in 1st?

They aren't anti-war, they just want us out of Iraq within 6 months. Of course, only 1 GOP candidate will do that. That's what we need to tell them. Only Paul will have our troops out of Iraq within 6 months of taking office.

[max]

all we have to do to win Iowa is get the word out about wayne dumond...the rapist that Huckabee paroled and who then raped and murdered another woman

[MrCoffee]

I hear that more than 50% of Iowan (Republicans?) are anti-war. How can we not pull in 1st?

People are scared by ron paul's eagerness to basically raze most of the federal government... for a while, it bothered me a lot too. But I now think that states will probably do fine picking up the slack.


Well, let me give you an example:

Ron paul often quotes the department of education as one of the things he wants to cut. People get scared when they hear this because they think it means that schools will go broke. They don't understand that a lot of the education system's funding comes from local and state governments. A lot comes from the federal government too, so it gets to influence state educational policy.

Remind people that this is how GWB can do things like No Child Left Behind(Talk to teachers... it's a royal PITA for them, and most agree that it's a bad thing). That might get them to at least question more things like the DoE and whatnot.

[Mark Rushmore]

People get scared when they hear this because they think it means that schools will go broke. They don't understand that a lot of the education system's funding comes from local and state governments. A lot comes from the federal government too, so it gets to influence state educational policy.

Not to argue with you, just to give you more ammo:

Federal funding at most schools averages around 8%.
And as a reminder - ALL funding comes from the 'local' area - whether it is filtered and reduced through bloated federal bureaucracies or not - the source of the funds is still ultimately the people. If the Fed. Dept. of Education disappears and that 8% of funding goes away, assuming an equivalent reduction in incoming federal taxes, the local regions can simply up their own taxes commensurately, and the level of overall funding will remain the same - only more cents out of every dollar will be spent on education because less are needed to repair federal buildings and pay federal workers.

Not to mention the money saved and education gained by not having to comply with federal regulations and curriculum.

[michaelwise]

And don't forget about all the federal mandates that the local school districts won't have to deal with anymore.

[MozoVote]

I've never expected a high finish in Iowa, but beating McCain or Thomson would be news to the MSM. They may spin it more in the vein of "What is wrong with their campaign" than allot any credit to RP, though.

[me3]

This is great. I hope people realize that we are polling 7% in the group that is probably least likely to be our base.

Also, Dr. Paul's unfavorable of 44% is awesome in this demographic. That's 56% of Bush Republicans who are either favorable or neutral.

[derekjohnson]

The key in Iowa will be College students and getting independents (get in on the letter writing campaign) to go to the caucus. The traditional base is going to stick with the huckster and Romney. Cutting farm subsidies may also hurt Paul in Iowa. I think top four is necessary, top three or better is huge.

[Ron LOL]

This is great news. I honestly never expected us to break 5% in IA for various reasons. Just seems like a really stubborn place.

[Paulitician]

I think even for the anti-war people there Ron Paul saying he'd get out of the Iraq war immediately is somewhat scarry, because it does not assure that it will be safe and whatnot. In this instance, people are right to call Ron Paul an extremist. I think in the ads Ron Paul says that he'd get out as quickly as possible without further harming our men or the people of Iraq. That can be implied but there are a lot of non-thinking people out there.

On the DOEducation, Ron Paul just needs to stress that the schools constantly trying to "improve" themselves in oder to get the right funding from the federal government has really hurt our public schools, and that that we need to give the local people more power over their children's edumacation.

[MozoVote]

We're going to see the "straw poll effect" take place Jan 3. Nobody knew where "all those Ron Paul people" came from.

I don't know if it will be +1% or +5% or whatever. But it's there.

[MrCoffee]

Not to argue with you, just to give you more ammo:

Federal funding at most schools averages around 8%.
And as a reminder - ALL funding comes from the 'local' area - whether it is filtered and reduced through bloated federal bureaucracies or not - the source of the funds is still ultimately the people. If the Fed. Dept. of Education disappears and that 8% of funding goes away, assuming an equivalent reduction in incoming federal taxes, the local regions can simply up their own taxes commensurately, and the level of overall funding will remain the same - only more cents out of every dollar will be spent on education because less are needed to repair federal buildings and pay federal workers.

Not to mention the money saved and education gained by not having to comply with federal regulations and curriculum.

8% doesn't seem like as much as I thought it would be. It is to my understanding that the only way the Federal G can regulate education is through funding. Is this correct? I don't want to be spreading misinformation.

[justinc.1089]

I think even for the anti-war people there Ron Paul saying he'd get out of the Iraq war immediately is somewhat scarry, because it does not assure that it will be safe and whatnot. In this instance, people are right to call Ron Paul an extremist. I think in the ads Ron Paul says that he'd get out as quickly as possible without further harming our men or the people of Iraq. That can be implied but there are a lot of non-thinking people out there.

On the DOEducation, Ron Paul just needs to stress that the schools constantly trying to "improve" themselves in oder to get the right funding from the federal government has really hurt our public schools, and that that we need to give the local people more power over their children's edumacation.

Don't worry you should see the flier things they're mailing out about that here in the mecca of pro-war Republicans, South Carolina lol. Its really awesome, and does not ever use the words leave Iraq immediately or withdraw from Iraq immediately.

As for the DOEducation, I agree, he needs to clarify he wants to put education back in the hands of state governments and take it away from federal government because when he says he wants to get rid of the DOEducation, a lot of people think he means like all government education programs period. If they do think that though I wonder if they're smart enough to get with the program anyway though lol......

[LibertyEagle]

People are scared by ron paul's eagerness to basically raze most of the federal government... for a while, it bothered me a lot too. But I now think that states will probably do fine picking up the slack.


Well, let me give you an example:

Ron paul often quotes the department of education as one of the things he wants to cut. People get scared when they hear this because they think it means that schools will go broke. They don't understand that a lot of the education system's funding comes from local and state governments. A lot comes from the federal government too, so it gets to influence state educational policy.

Remind people that this is how GWB can do things like No Child Left Behind(Talk to teachers... it's a royal PITA for them, and most agree that it's a bad thing). That might get them to at least question more things like the DoE and whatnot.

Good points. I sure wish he would explain these things better. If people would only remember that what the government does, it does with our money. It takes it from us, and if we agree to follow their dictates, they give some of it back to us. Why wouldn't it be more advantageous to keep it in our own states from the very beginning? It would.

[Mark Rushmore]

8% doesn't seem like as much as I thought it would be. It is to my understanding that the only way the Federal G can regulate education is through funding. Is this correct? I don't want to be spreading misinformation.

That's one of those weird questions because it's too absolute. I'm pretty sure [but not certain] that as of today the federal government only mandates education things as a contingency to receiving federal funding - I could be wrong. More importantly, with the way government is going they "could" certainly regulate education in myriad ways given their penchant for claiming powers they have no right to claim. I'd check it out on Google to make certain before I spread it, to avoid misinformation as you claim.

Edit: In case it was the percentage that you had questions about...

http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget08/summary/edlite-section1.html

Federal funding makes up about 8.9 percent of the estimated $584 billion that America is spending on elementary and secondary education during the 2006-07 school year.

[csen]

I'm starting to think now that Iowa might be a much bigger positive for us than we previously thought. For better or worse Iowa is becoming a two-man race if you're a status quo, pro-war Republican: Romney and Huckabee. I imagine most casual voters are going to switch from Rudy/Thompson/McCain to vote for them on caucus day. That leaves the sizable Paul contingent to place third. Double digits and third place looks like a real possibility.

The thing I relish the most is I have a feeling anyone who loses to Ron Paul is going to be trashed by the media as a loser and "can't win." I can't wait for Rudy to have to suck on that. :D

[kotetu]

I think the letters are helping! We'll win IOWA! WE WILL! Come on guys! let's get these letters sent!

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=40590

[Avalon]

We're going to see the "straw poll effect" take place Jan 3. Nobody knew where "all those Ron Paul people" came from.

I don't know if it will be +1% or +5% or whatever. But it's there. There's no way it will be anything like the straw polls. Compare the turnout of the strawpolls to the turnout in a contested (ie, 2000) primary. We still have a long way to go; get out and tell convince as many people as possible!

[tonyr1988]

If we can pull a top 5 finish, that would be amazing, IMO.

I know that a lot of people are wanting top 3. Don't get me wrong - I'd love for Paul to get 3rd (probably behind Huckabee and Romney), or even win it, I just didn't think it could happen, given the stereotypical Iowa supporter.

However, I'm slowly being convinced. :) Think about it this way: 5th out of 8 doesn't sound the greatest, but it means that we've beaten at least one "frontrunner" - could you imagine the headlines if Paul beats McCain, Thompson, and/or Giuliani in the first caucus?

So I'm rooting for 5th - it may seem somewhat low, but I think it's definitely attainable, and would do wonders with the media attention the campaign gets.

Then again, I was thinking that $1 million would be amazing for Nov 5, and I was blown away. Let's hope I'm wrong again.

P.S. The campaign has said that voter turnout for Iowa is generally low, and if we get only 25,000 votes, we're almost guaranteed a top 3 finish. 25,000 really isn't a whole lot.

P.P.S. Shameless plug: speaking of Iowa, click my signature!!! :P

[ErythnulofSiren]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that 5% support he has is among those who voted in the republican primary in '04, right? What was the turnout like in '04, because wasn't Bush running unopposed?

[tonyr1988]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that 5% support he has is among those who voted in the republican primary in '04, right? What was the turnout like in '04, because wasn't Bush running unopposed?
It depends on how the poll was conducted. It sounds like they chose random registered Republicans and asked how likely they were to vote in the caucus. If they said "probably will" or "definitely will," then they did the other question(s).

In that case, it won't only be the '04 primary voters, although some polls will use that as their polling base.

[ErythnulofSiren]

Is that poll for the caucus or the primary? Cause I have no clue how the caucus works.

[paulitics]

This is an incredibly huge development. We still have a month, and the 16th. If we can beat Giuliani, Thompson and McCain than we will fare well in NH. The only bad thing is that Mitt is evaporating, and we need him to suck votes away from Rudy for the duration of this. Mitt and Rudy are both similar, neocon big govt yankees. The south will trend Huckabee, and a few Fred. The good thing is that if we win NH, we will have enough time to work states like CA, TX, WA. I believe the west will be the most favorable.

[tonyr1988]

Is that poll for the caucus or the primary? Cause I have no clue how the caucus works.

States either have a primary or a caucus - they are mutually exclusive. Iowa has a caucus.

Primaries are the simplest (and most wide-spread): people go and vote for who they want to be the nominee. I think Howstuffworks explains the Iowa caucus the simplest:


In Iowa, the caucuses themselves are local party precinct meetings where registered Republicans and Democrats gather, discuss the candidates and vote for their candidate of choice for their party's nomination (Iowa caucuses actually occur every two years - in non-presidential-election years, participants generally discuss party platform issues). In both parties, the purpose of the caucus vote is to select delegates to attend a county convention -- each caucus sends a certain number of delegates, based on the population it represents. The delegates at the county convention in turn select delegates to go to the congressional district state convention, and those delegates choose the delegates that go to the national convention.

The Republican caucus voting system in Iowa is relatively straightforward: You come in, you vote, typically through secret ballot, and the percentages of the group supporting each candidate decides what delegates will go on to the county convention.

They both achieve the same goal - just through slightly different means.

[Avalon]

Think about it this way: 5th out of 8 doesn't sound the greatest, but it means that we've beaten at least one "frontrunner" - could you imagine the headlines if Paul beats McCain, Thompson, and/or Giuliani in the first caucus? You have to remember the media is working against us, not for us. If we take even fourth, you'll be lucky for the fact to be buried in an article; there will be no headline for us.

If we get third or better the media will be dismissive, saying that the process in Iowa makes it the exception, "RP has more hard core supporters...have you seen some of those crackpots?!" but the heavily RP saturated NH voter will likely see through it (unless we are a really distant third perhaps) and deliver us the state. Then even if the media tries to BS people will see through it, especially as pundits start breaking ranks. Even so, we could still lose it on Super Tuesday, especially after the smear campaigns come out from every angle/corner.

[ronpaulyourmom]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that 5% support he has is among those who voted in the republican primary in '04, right? What was the turnout like in '04, because wasn't Bush running unopposed?

Most polls call random landline numbers and ask the questions:
1. "Do you intend to vote this primary election season?"
2. "How likely are you to vote in this primary election season?"
3. "Which party's primary are you going to vote in?"

People whose results get included in the final results are those that answered:
1. Yes
2. Somewhat likely or very likely
3. Republican primary

Now there are plenty of polls that dont follow this methodology, but those that give Paul numbers like 7% in Iowa usually have. The polls still under-represent Paul for a number of other reasons, but the one about only calling 04 republicans is usually a myth. I've speculated on other reasons why Paul is under-represented in the polls though, I made a thread about it here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=438910#post438910).

[Silverback]

This is an incredibly huge development. We still have a month, and the 16th. If we can beat Giuliani, Thompson and McCain than we will fare well in NH. The only bad thing is that Mitt is evaporating, and we need him to suck votes away from Rudy for the duration of this. Mitt and Rudy are both similar, neocon big govt yankees. The south will trend Huckabee, and a few Fred. The good thing is that if we win NH, we will have enough time to work states like CA, TX, WA. I believe the west will be the most favorable.

If we win NH, WA is a lock. The way our primary/caucuses work here this year is really funky, we have an open primary deciding half of the GOP delegates and NONE of the Dems.

That's half for sure if there's momentum in the early states.

We've been working hard on the caucuses for the other half too, we have more PCOs than the other guys, and a lot more grass roots. I've yet to see another GOP candidates sign anywhere, and Ron seems to be EVERYWHERE.

I'm convinced a win in NH is the key to the whole thing, we win in NH and we'll win in NV, and if we win two of the first four states people will believe it can happen and the floodgates will open.

Any surprisingly good finish in Iowa is a win, third would be huge.

[ronpaulyourmom]

Any surprisingly good finish in Iowa is a win, third would be huge.

In my opinion third is actually necessary. Anything less and we're in big trouble. Lets hope this 7% number holds or climbs in upcoming polls.

I also hope to see Romney win Iowa.

[tsetsefly]

"Arkansas governor is making the most of a low-budget campaign by tapping into the support of Iowa's social conservatives."
this guy basically runs on a anti-guy, pro-abortion platform, how in gods name can anyone vote on only these two issues is incredible...
But it is iowa, nothing but hicks and inbreds...

[alien]

People need to get in on the letter writing. It can and will make a huge difference. I am well on my way along with my wife of getting our goal of 1000 done. If only one hundred of us did that we would have reached one hundred thousand people. And the people on this list are undecided voters.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=40590

[shida]

People are scared by ron paul's eagerness to basically raze most of the federal government... for a while, it bothered me a lot too. But I now think that states will probably do fine picking up the slack.


Well, let me give you an example:

Ron paul often quotes the department of education as one of the things he wants to cut. People get scared when they hear this because they think it means that schools will go broke. They don't understand that a lot of the education system's funding comes from local and state governments. A lot comes from the federal government too, so it gets to influence state educational policy.

Remind people that this is how GWB can do things like No Child Left Behind(Talk to teachers... it's a royal PITA for them, and most agree that it's a bad thing). That might get them to at least question more things like the DoE and whatnot.

This is a very good point. There was a thread on here yesterday about the ratio of men to women involved in the campaign. Women care about their children's education, they need to feel secure about it. Ron Paul's stance in this area and the issues surrounding it needs to be made more clear to them

[alien]

If we win NH, WA is a lock. The way our primary/caucuses work here this year is really funky, we have an open primary deciding half of the GOP delegates and NONE of the Dems.

That's half for sure if there's momentum in the early states.

We've been working hard on the caucuses for the other half too, we have more PCOs than the other guys, and a lot more grass roots. I've yet to see another GOP candidates sign anywhere, and Ron seems to be EVERYWHERE.

I'm convinced a win in NH is the key to the whole thing, we win in NH and we'll win in NV, and if we win two of the first four states people will believe it can happen and the floodgates will open.

Any surprisingly good finish in Iowa is a win, third would be huge.

Silverback, are you by any chance from over at Iron Addicts? Or are you a different Silverback?

[ErythnulofSiren]

States either have a primary or a caucus - they are mutually exclusive. Iowa has a caucus.



See, I told you I don't know much about caucuses, I thought they had both.

Is there someway they could try to exclude Republican RP supporters from the caucus in Iowa? Gotta make sure his people can get in there.

[BrianH]

Most polls call random landline numbers and ask the questions:
1. "Do you intend to vote this primary election season?"
2. "How likely are you to vote in this primary election season?"
3. "Which party's primary are you going to vote in?"

People whose results get included in the final results are those that answered:
1. Yes
2. Somewhat likely or very likely
3. Republican primary

Now there are plenty of polls that dont follow this methodology, but those that give Paul numbers like 7% in Iowa usually have. The polls still under-represent Paul for a number of other reasons, but the one about only calling 04 republicans is usually a myth. I've speculated on other reasons why Paul is under-represented in the polls though, I made a thread about it here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=438910#post438910).
They posted their method here: http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071201/NEWS09/71130040/1056
The issue of Ron Paul supporters being not registered to vote, or having no land lines, or simply that they are unreachable at their home numbers may be big factors.

[ErythnulofSiren]

The only possible problem I have with your conclusion is that many will feel a sense of duty to going out and voting. They may feel that sense, but would that duty include voting in the primary or only in the general?

OOPS: I thought you were quoting your own earlier post, my bad. My objection still stands though.

[derekjohnson]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that 5% support he has is among those who voted in the republican primary in '04, right? What was the turnout like in '04, because wasn't Bush running unopposed?

This one included independents, but only those that said they were likely to vote in the republican caucus.

[ErythnulofSiren]

Was it a random sampling of registered voters? Or of previous causus goers?

[ronpaulyourmom]

Was it a random sampling of registered voters? Or of previous causus goers?

It was a random sampling of registered voters, which would include general election voters I assume.

It did sample independents, but it did not sample 3rd party or first time voters. I think.

[stevedasbach]

8% doesn't seem like as much as I thought it would be. It is to my understanding that the only way the Federal G can regulate education is through funding. Is this correct? I don't want to be spreading misinformation.

8% is about right. And it all comes with strings.

Getting the feds out of education is the single best thing that could be done to improve education. (IMO, based on 25 years teaching in public high schools).

[ErythnulofSiren]

Man, I hate all this primary stuff. Especially when I believe the general would be a cakewalk for him to win.

I wish we could take away those who are supporting Guiliani and Romney just because they think one of them can win against Hillary. Dr. Paul could blow away any Dem (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) in the general.

If we could just get the Rep voters to understand that Pro-war / Big Government won't win in '08, they would support Dr. Paul.

Question 1: What percentage of the general electorate will base thier vote primarily on pulling out of Iraq?

Question 2: How big was the shift of Ind voters to the Dems in '06? (because weren't they mostly fiscal conservative? And anti-war?)


I mean, if they are just going to vote for Guiliani or Romney because they can win, wouldn't that mean that they would vote for any Rep? Or are they voting for them because they believe that Iraq is good for our national security (the central front in the war on terror?
(If thats the case then answer this...

Question 3: If your main concern is staying the course in Iraq, would you vote for Hillary clinton over Dr. Ron Paul? Would you stay home and not vote, perhaps allowing Hillary Clinton to win?