good showing, for Iowa. there are 3 tickets out of Iowa. Rand gets one, Huck is perfect for another because he can't win the nomination. that leaves Ryan as the threat
Ron got 20% in Iowa, Rand should be able to easily get at least that
A society that places equality before freedom with get neither; A society that places freedom before equality will yield high degrees of both
Make a move and plead the 5th because you can't plead the 1st
If Huckabee (or Palin for that matter) had been running in 2012 it would have been a different story for Ron. Iowa wouldn't have been winnable for anyone but Huck.Originally Posted by dillo
If Huckabee doesn't run I think Rand should win IA but if he does then I think 20% (doable) would be a great showing for Rand and he would probably be in a strong second place at that point.
I'd expect Huckabee to win with around 30%.
Huckabee winning IA is expected so he won't gain all that much momentum.
But if he goes on to win (or keep Rand from winning) other places he is a major problem.
Guys, please. These polls don't change because so-and-so is more or less liked than last week, nobody is paying any real attention now. They change because of random sampling, the candidates included (adding Huckabee's name always hurts Paul a lot in Iowa) and whomever is getting the most media attention at any given moment. That is why you saw Paul doing well after his filibuster, Cruz after his fake filibuster or, most recently, Perry after he got focused on by the media following his indictment.
I honestly and truly think Huckabee is done politically because of Maurice Clemmons. Huckabee hasn't ran for any office since the event happened in late 2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Clemmons
If Dukakis couldn't survive Willie Horton, how can Huckabee explain away Clemmons? Horton didn't even kill anyone after his furlough from prison.
It could have happened to any governor with all the pardons they all hand out. I don't see it as an issue at all.
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter
Life, Liberty, Logic
We'll see about that, when someone puts an ad out featuring some grieving relatives of Clemmons' four murder victims.
You could also say Willie Horton could have happened to any Governor as well, but it absolutely destroyed Michael Dukakis in 1988. Horton was said to have scared white women especially. Put Clemmons' black mug out there, and see how the overwhelmingly white state of Iowa reacts to Huckabee having let him out.
Last edited by RonPaulFanInGA; 09-17-2014 at 10:00 AM.
Guys, this was a landline telephone poll. It means jack $#@!. Most Rand Paul voters are under 40 and don't have landlines, the opposite case for Huckabee. This is very skewed toward older voters. Cell phones and the internet have really changed polling reliability.
I've been reading this line - that the polls are inaccurate because they're only polling landlines and not cell phones - since the Bush-Kerry race in 2004, and yet the polls continue to be reliable, for the most part.
Probably because older people are the ones who tend to have landlines, and the ones who tend to drag their butts to the polls.
Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder. ~GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter, Aug. 17, 1779
Quit yer b*tching and whining and GET INVOLVED!!
Let's be honest. Huckabee running could be a good thing for Rand because Huckabee will be a non-factor after Iowa. Plus, he could siphon off Evangelical support the longer he stays in. No offense, but I doubt Rand is going to win many of the Evangelicals. Plus with some of this Cruz speaking down to Middle Eastern Christians, I'd rather have Rand stop pandering to Evangelicals.
McCain got fourth in Iowa in 2008, and went on to win the GOP presidential nomination that year.
Huckabee won 8 states in 2008. Huckabee is a factor after Iowa, even more than in 2008.
McCain also won South Carolina and Florida though, do you see Rand winning either of those if a Huckabee type runs? I don't. We can rule out South Carolina now, as Huckabee almost beat McCain in South Carolina in 2008, with little/no national name recognition before running.
Agree. Polls this early already don't mean much... name recognition is a large part of it. People who won't run are listed. And nobody has had to face a debate yet.
But if you are gonna do a poll they should at least use a bigger sample size. 300 people is really small.
It doesn't look like they weren't even able to get a reasonable sample of people under 50:
Also keep in mind this is a cnn poll which also created the artificial santorum "surge" so id wait until another came out before getting down..
Biden got back in after a plagiarism charge in 1988. Anything can happen. But sure, somebody will attack Huckabee for that.
If Santorum is also in, those votes will be split.
It took twenty years for Biden to recover politically on the national stage, and even then he bombed in the Democratic presidential primaries in 2008.
Nope. Santorum is in this poll, and at 3%. Santorum is a nobody if Huckabee runs. Huckabee gets the majority of Santorum voters, as this poll shows, and probably then some. And, if we look at 2008 and 2012, it is now Huckabee's time to run and win the nomination.
2008 - McCain was 1st with vote totals, and won the nomination. Romney was 2nd in vote totals, but dropped out early February. Huckabee remained until March. In 2012, Huckabee kept to his talk show, allowing Romney the floor.
There is nobody else from 2008, that got numbers like Huckabee did, with so little name recognition at the time. And as this poll shows, I believe, Iowa is his for the taking. Then South Carolina.
I think Huckabee wanted it to be a Huckabee vs. Clinton campaign in 2008, and he will probably get that in 2016; assuming they both run again, which I'm thinking they both will.
At some point they will be inaccurate for this reason, though. I tend to trust polls, but we will reach a point when a non-trivial percentage of registered voters do not own landlines. 2016 could be the election in which this becomes significant.
I think we are already there, which is why the vast majority of polls nowadays and even since 2010 at the latest included a large sampling of cell phones.
In fact, the very poll this thread is based on isn't land line only:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/im.../12/topia1.pdfIn Iowa, interviews with 1,013 adult Americans conducted by telephone by
ORC International on September 8-10, 2014. The margin of sampling
error for results based on the total sample is plus or minus 3 percentage
points. The Iowa sample also includes 904 interviews among registered
voters (plus or minus 3.5 percentage points) and 608 interviews among
likely voters (plus or minus 4 percentage points). In Iowa, 712 interviews
were conducted among landline respondents and 301 interviews among cell
phone respondents.
So whomever said this was a landline only poll clearly didn't even read the first paragraph of the poll .pdf.
Haha, oh. Noted.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us