Iowa
May 15-19, 2014
303 Republican primary voters
+/-5.2%
*SE/NS = Someone else/Not Sure
I know that people get annoyed with me with some of the things I say and have said, but maybe people should listen to me when I say that you have to be strongly socially conservative, specifically strongly pro life, to win the Iowa caucus. It's not a coincidence that Rand's support in Iowa has gone down after his recent comments.
Last edited by Brett85; 05-22-2014 at 12:29 PM.
To win the Republican primary sure, but the win the state and country as a whole...yeah not so much. For all the bluster of the bible thumping theocons in Iowa, what has it gotten them? They have gay marriage within the state and the democrats win the state in Presidential years. It's becoming bluer as we speak. A substantial portion of republicans in that state are out of touch.Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative
Maybe so, but I'm talking about the Iowa Republican caucus, and it makes it really hard to win the GOP nomination without winning the Iowa caucus. The winner of the Iowa caucus gets a lot of media coverage and momentum.
You are right, Rand needs to win Iowa and New Hampshire. He had better be sound like the true Conservative in the debates. Cruz and Huck are the main people I would worry about winning Iowa. I hope Cruz does not run, but it looks like he might.
This is the first poll of the 2016 cycle that has really made me concerned. We need to change something up strategy wise.
The poll has Rand getting 2% of the 18-45 crowd. That seems outlandish to me.
He will probably get ten times that.
New Hampshire is more important
If Rand positions himself to win iowa it might cost him NH. He can afford to lose Iowa but he can't afford to lose NH. The man that won the largest electoral win in the last 40 years LOST the republican Iowa caucus but won huge in NH. It would be great to win both but if Rand has to paint himself as a socon to win Iowa he very well could lose NH because that state is NOT socon. Iowa has been very poor at predicting the R nominee.
War; everything in the world wrong, evil and immoral combined into one and multiplied by millions.
He won't.
Dang...Looks like all of Rand's losses went straight to Cruz.
Does PPP ask respondents to name their 2nd and/or 3rd favorite candidate(s)?
I imagine many of Huck's 20% have Rand as their #2 - or at least did until recently. Worst case scenario at this point = Huck supporters now have Cruz in the 2 spot and Rand in the 3.
It's within the margin of error that it could be that he's been 14% all along.
I'm a moderator, and I'm glad to help. But I'm an individual -- my words come from me. Any idiocy within should reflect on me, not Ron Paul, and not Ron Paul Forums.
Yeah, like not making comments that offend conservatives and get played all over the internet.Rand's largest group of support ideologically in the poll is moderates at 12%. There just aren't that many moderate Republicans.
Losing Iowa or doing really bad in Iowa makes it much harder to win New Hampshire. Momentum is important.
There is more than one ticket out of iowa. New Hampshire's record at picking the nominee is much better going back to 1947
or ... IA: Huck
NH: Rand
SC Rand
NV Rand
TX: who cares
It's possible to win New Hampshire without winning Iowa, but I don't think that you can just get crushed in Iowa and still win New Hampshire. Rand will at least have to be competitive and be closer to Cruz and Huckabee than he is in this poll.
Maybe you missed this:Yeah, like not making comments that offend conservatives and get played all over the internet.
There is no evidence his support has dropped. Margin of error is +/- 5.2%.
Further, there is no evidence that any comment he has made has had an effect on his support.
Further, it is a highly contested claim that his recent comments have offended conservatives. Many believe, as I do, that conservatives who would never support him are looking for reasons to be offended by the things he says, and MSM is glad to fan those flames at any opportunity.
The exaggerated response to his reasoned comments appear to me to have come largely from loud people on the internet and in the news, and I highly doubt those people are potential Rand supporters. I even see them on this forum.
I'm a moderator, and I'm glad to help. But I'm an individual -- my words come from me. Any idiocy within should reflect on me, not Ron Paul, and not Ron Paul Forums.
He dropped 4% in the poll, and all his support went to Huckabee and Cruz. You can think what you want, but I don't believe that's a coincidence. The most any other candidate dropped was 1%. If the numbers had fluctuated widely for all the other candidates, you might have a point.
Ron almost won IA, if Rand loses, it will be terrible. Ron Paul was supposed to be the kook, if his more marketable son loses, man.
I hope so too.
More than ever before.
Except almost all the recent polls are saying the same thing. I don't think the average GOP voter hates Rand, his approval ratings are generally high, he is just not automatically going to be the frontrunner in the key states. He can and may win the people over, we shall see. But he does need Social Conservatives in the primaries.
It appears you don't understand margin of error. +/- 5.2% margin of error means that statistically the true number could be 5.2% more or less than what appears as the poll result. If you ask every person, the margin of error is 0. When they only ask a few of the total number of people, the margin of error is greater, it becomes an estimate. So it is not valid to say his support has dropped 4%. There is no evidence of that. 4% is less than 5.2%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error
There is no evidence that support went to another candidate. If they had asked that question, their might be. But there is an option 'someone else, not sure.' We don't know if any true rise of support or drop in support came from or went to that option. There's not enough data to be sure.
You are speculating, and that's fine, but it's speculation without evidence, and speculation that supports a dubious claim that problematic internet voices seem to be voicing lately.
I'm a moderator, and I'm glad to help. But I'm an individual -- my words come from me. Any idiocy within should reflect on me, not Ron Paul, and not Ron Paul Forums.
Now that's something - if true. Do you have links to those polls?
Of course, even if there are multiple polls saying the same thing, it would be speculation as to why the numbers are changing, whatever direction they truly are.
I'm a moderator, and I'm glad to help. But I'm an individual -- my words come from me. Any idiocy within should reflect on me, not Ron Paul, and not Ron Paul Forums.
I understand margin of error. I just don't think it's likely that Rand lost 4% simply due to margin of error, when the most any other candidate lost was 1%. When you look at the poll, Rand still has a high favorability rating at 60%. So the way I look at it is that Rand's recent comments and move to the left still didn't make Iowa conservatives have an unfavorable view of him, but many of them now view him as their second or third choice, rather than their first choice. They view Cruz and Huckabee as a better option.
Check out the Paul vs Clinton numbers. They are about the same as Huckabee, and no one else comes close.
Also, most of the SE/NS is probably Ben Carson.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us