Tuesday, December 13, 2011

HOT: Gingrich and Ron Paul Neck and Neck; Pollster Likens Paul Move to Obama's 2008 Rise

Public Policy Polling is reporting that Newt Gingrich is at 22% to 21% for Ron Paul with Mitt Romney at 16%, Michele Bachmann at 11%, Rick Perry at 9%, Rick Santorum at 8%, Jon Huntsman at 5%, and Gary Johnson at 1%. In their recent Iowa poll.

This is extremely significant because of the polling organization that is reporting these results. I have long stated that Public Policy Polling is the best in the business.

This is what I wrote about them in May, after they polled on a NYC special election.
Public Policy Polling, which regularly picks up trends before most other polling organizations, believes that the recent victory of a Democrat in a special district election New York is significant.
They were a week ahead of all other polling organizations in detecting the shift toward Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts in his 2010 Senate win against Martha Coakley. Here's what I wrote in January 2010:
Earlier I highlighted the polling results of Public Policy Polling that show Republican Scott Brown leading Martha Coakley 48-47.

At the same time, a Rasmussen Reports poll, released last week, shows Democrat Martha Coakley leading Republican challenger Scott Brown by nine points. A Boston Globe poll puts Coakley up by 17 points. What's going on?

In other words, they are at the top of their game,which means if you are a Ron Paul supporter, you are going to love what PPP has to say about Iowa polling trends (My bold)
Gingrich has dropped 5 points in the last week and he's also seen a significant decline in his favorability numbers. Last week he was at +31 (62/31) and he's now dropped 19 points to +12 (52/40). The attacks on him appear to be taking a heavy toll- his support with Tea Party voters has declined from 35% to 24%.

Paul meanwhile has seen a big increase in his popularity from +14 (52/38) to +30 (61/31). There are a lot of parallels between Paul's strength in Iowa and Barack Obama's in 2008- he's doing well with new voters, young voters, and non-Republican voters:

-59% of likely voters participated in the 2008 Republican caucus and they support Gingrich 26-18. But among the 41% of likely voters who are 'new' for 2012 Paul leads Gingrich 25-17 with Romney at 16%. Paul is doing a good job of bringing out folks who haven't done this before.

-He's also very strong with young voters. Among likely caucus goers under 45 Paul is up 30-16 on Gingrich. With those over 45, Gingrich leads him 26-15 with Romney at 17%.

-Among Republicans Gingrich leads Paul 25-17. But with voters who identify as Democrats or independents, 21% of the electorate in a year with no action on the Democratic side, Paul leads Gingrich 34-14 with Romney at 17%.

Young voters, independents, and folks who haven't voted in caucuses before is an unusual coalition for a Republican candidate...the big question is whether these folks will really come out and vote...if they do, we could be in for a big upset.

Paul's supporters are considerably more committed to him than Gingrich's are. 77% of current Paul voters say they're definitely going to vote for him, compared to only 54% for Gingrich. Romney has much more solid support than Gingrich as well, 67% of his voters saying they're with him for the long haul. Among only voters who say their mind's totally made up, 29% support Paul to 21% for Gingrich, 18% for Romney, and 11% for Bachmann....

-Here's a finding that helps explain why Mitt Romney's struggling so much: 31% of voters have a favorable opinion of the Republican establishment and an equal 31% have an unfavorable one with 38% unsure. When Romney rolls out endorsement after endorsement, to a lot of voters that's actually coming across as a negative thing. With those anti-establishment voters Paul's at 34% to 18% for Gingrich, 12% for Santorum, and only 10% for Romney.


  1. Once he gets into the lead, then you'll see jumping onto the bandwagon.

  2. ***
    Young voters, independents, and folks who haven't voted in caucuses before is an unusual coalition for a Republican candidate...

    This is what I believe the mainstream media is afraid of...and why they've done their best to keep Ron Paul's out of the news. They do not want the multitudes of independent people and those who don't vote to find out about him.

    They want everyone to "rock the vote" except them.

  3. Saw this comment on Youtube:

    "Ron Paul would practically dismantle our government, resulting in the public school system being even more underfunded than it already is, our nation producing vastly higher amounts of virtually unregulated pollution, the destruction of our country's beautiful forests, the lack of a central bank to try to keep the economy in check, rampant consumer misinformation in the health industry, and a slew of other problems."

  4. Cheney calls for air strike on Paul, Young voters, independents, non caucus voters, latinos, blacks, chinese, Major Metropolian areas, etc etc

  5. "Ron Paul would practically dismantle our government, resulting in the public school system being even more underfunded than it already is, our nation producing vastly higher amounts of virtually unregulated pollution, the destruction of our country's beautiful forests, the lack of a central bank to try to keep the economy in check, rampant consumer misinformation in the health industry, and a slew of other problems."

    Yeah well, simple minds simple pleasures. This poster has swallowed every bit of the nonsense the idiot box and public indoctrination centers, er, I mean schools, have taught him.

    I simply cannot understand how someone with an internet connection can STILL buy into this kind of BS.

  6. @Anonymous 8:33 PM,

    Sounds like another mindless meme for the state to me....

  7. Fantastic news. Timing is almost perfect. I hope the others don't have time to mount a serious attack on Paul before Jan 3. I don't think Newt has the money for it, but Mitt might.

    I recall watching the Iowa results last time and we were so bummed out. I pray it will be different this time.

  8. Outstanding news! Go, Ron, go! You are this century's Thomas Jefferson!

  9. @ Anonymous (December 13, 8:33 PM)

    Yes, and he eats babies too.

  10. So when will Repub BigWigs start ordering lesser lights out of the race so their chosen Newty can get a clear path ahead of him ?
    They can't be happy with this news.

  11. The closer you get to the actual election day, the less spin and more facts you'll see. The only thing pollsters hate more than a non-establishment candidate doing well, is a non-establishment candidate doing well when they predicted he wouldn't.

  12. One off state. Paul's Military stance dooms him with Joe public. He should lighten up on that a bit and focus more on talking about the wasteful
    spending in other government programs like education,the student loan scam,state local governments going broke...etc. Paul already stated that he would not use the executive order, so his military disarmament dreams would never come to fruition anyways as it has to go through the house and senate.

  13. Lysander,

    I don't see Mitt attacking Ron. That would only help Newt. Mitt is probably hoping for a Ron Paul victory in Iowa to take the wind out of Newt's sails. Because Mitt probably still doesn't see Ron as a threat to his campaign in the long run (he listens to the conventional wisdom). I suspect he plans to attack after Iowa.

  14. anon@7:27 you mean it dooms him with you? and as for cutting other programs don't you know Paul is promising to eliminate the education dept among others. And local governments going broke is a local problem for locals. It just so happens that,unlike medicare or social security the Military-intelligence complex is the biggest waste of money with the fewest beneficiaries who vote. Have you seen the coverage of the closing of Camp Victory in Iraq over the last couple of days? have you wondered how much that cost?

  15. Tony, but he eats only minority babies.

  16. Mainsteam media is dead, at least for those of us who have been paying attention to Ron Paul. MSM have ignored and marginalized Ron Paul at every turn, and that's not all. They do so in a coordinated way, supplying the same 'reasons' why Ron Paul cannot possibly become the GOP candidate. Jon Stewart has been great in pointing this out, showing them all falling all over themselves to administer the same formerly deadly knife to the heart of Ron Paul's campaign. But it no longer works.

    Long live the internet and long live our next US President, President Ron Paul!

  17. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/signal/ron-paul-could-win-105810338.html

    Look at the name of the author.

  18. Just have to comment on the anonymous posting above. Not the substance, which is nonsense, but what it signals. First of all, this is the kind of attack that's coming, and it'll be pretty successful. Most people are clueless and easily scared by the very people they should fear most.

    Second, when the attacks come, that's a fnatastic development. Sure it's unpleasant to have mud slung at you, but it means we've cleared our way to the next stage.

    First they ignore.

    Second, they ridicule and marginalize.

    Third, they attack, because now, the other tactics having failed, they have to take you seriously and will try to take you down.

    Unfortunately, if you're too successful, you know what happens. The corporatists will never give up power just because an upstart has an impressive showing in an election. They will find a way to crush him...or worse.

    But "he" is us, and they can't stop us. The movement isn't about the guy. Dr. Paul himself has said he isn't the best messenger, but that doesn't matter so much, because it's the message that's shaking the system, not the man.

    End the Fed. Stop the wars. Respect Constitutional authority. Legalize freedom. the list goes on. (Note that there's nothing about destruction of forests in there.)

    This stuff scares the crap out of the Powerz.

  19. Ron Paul 2012. A vote for Ron Paul is like signing the Declaration of Independence ... and you don't have to pick up a gun and fight King George ... although Wall Street and K Street and government employees won't go down without a fight.

  20. The powers that be are scared spitless. You go Ron!!! Ron Paul for President, Rand Paul for Vice President!

  21. @anon12:31 If you don't mind I'd rather stick with George 3. Washington and that crowd jacked up taxes appallingly. And since the king is dead and buried in England somewhere I don't think he would be particulary activist executive.

  22. I hope all you Ron Paul boosters are putting some money where your blogs are. There's still a good eleven months between now and election day. Sauron and his boys ( read: Lord Obama and his orc minions, aka Dumbocrats ) will do everything in their power to kill the upstart hobbits ( us and those who think like us ). The only way is to throw some gold, even a little at Ron Paul's campaign to give the poor guy 1/2 a chance. Don't put it off any longer. http://www.ronpaul2012.com.

  23. If Congressman Ron Paul wins in Iowa, will the media find out a way not to report it? Maybe the tie for second place will prove fascinating to them?

  24. Per fallingman 12/14 11:05;
    Best comment I've seen yet over several articles and weeks. My thinking too.

    If Dr. Paul falls martyr to the Empire striking back, it may be a looong struggle for the rally-cry for freedom to rise again. The forces of the dark side have electric shock and awesome power arrayed against us. I don't know how this may play out, but success came recently in North Africa, it came in India (Gandhi), and it came in North America in 1776-. I pray to Aether Deus (Blue Sky) it comes here, in my lifetime.

  25. Regarding whether the media will report his Iowa victory, I note that over the weekend, Chris Wallace stated that "if Ron Paul wins in Iowa, then Iowa doesn't mean anything this year." As for how those lame-o's on the alphabet-soup networks will cover it: They think Obama is unbeatable, and they also think that Ron Paul taking an early lead is the best possibility to re-elect Obama. After all, his economic message is all anti-Obama, and is foreign policy platform is all Obama said he would be (that is, before he decided that the meaning of what he said expired when he started his next sentence).

    I'm going all-in again this year for Ron Paul for President.

  26. Though I think much of his ideas are not practical, they are a breath of fresh air. Watching him in the "debates" on TV, his authenticity and candid sincerity come across loud and clear. He focuses on policy and not personalities. It also demonstrates how the other candidates listen to and observe him with marked respect, albeit at times tinged with puzzlement!

  27. Dec. 22, 2011

    Okay, NOW, Ron Paul's been twice caught on air with his pants down! He cut short a Dec. 21 CNN interview when Gloria Borger pressed him on his 1990s newsletters --- but only after saying, “I never read that stuff. I was probably aware of it ten years after it was written.” Or about 2003 to 2005. And on the Dec. 22 Ed Morrissey show, http://hotair.com/hotair-tv-ed-morrissey-show/ he said incendiary content was "incendiary to you," implying not to him!


    BUT on a CSpan interview about his years out of office (1985 to 1997), when he had resumed his Texas MD practice, Paul explained his "educational" newsletters from his "economic education foundation" which had also made 14 videos by then as being "a political type of business investment newsletter" that covered Washington, monetary policy, the gold standard, high government spending and so on. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW755u5460A&feature=player_embedded#t=348s
    (H/T Breitbart TV)

    During his 1996 Congressional campaign when Paul now says he was not reading his newsletters, he had defended racist statements as "taken out of context."

    On May 22, 1996 Dallas Morning News reported "Dr. Ron Paul, a [Texas] Republican congressional candidate..., wrote in his political newsletter in 1992 that 95% of...black men in Washington, D.C., are "semi-criminal or entirely criminal." ...[and] that black teenagers can be "unbelievably fleet of foot."

    He said his writings were being taken out of context. "It's typical political demagoguery" [...] Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns....

    May 23, 1996, Houston Chronicle: Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks [were in context with] "current events and statistical reports...." [...] Paul also wrote... although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers." [A Paul spokesman said the statements mirrored those of black leaders like Rev. Jesse Jackson....]

    May 23, 1996, Austin American-Statesman: "Dr. Paul is being quoted out of context," [...spokesman Michael] Sullivan said. "It's like picking up War and Peace and reading the fourth paragraph on Page 481 and thinking you can understand what's going on." [...]

    May 26, 1996 Washington Post: Paul, an obstetrician from Surfside, Tex., denied he is a racist and charged Austin lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, his Democratic opponent, with taking his 1992 writings out of context. "...our opponent has chosen to lie and try to deceive the people of the 14th District," said ... spokesman ... Sullivan, [claiming] the excerpts were written during the [L.A.] riots when "Jesse Jackson was making the same comments."

    So is Ron Paul a racist lying about not writing or reading the newsletters he had defended a few years earlier? Or did he lie when he defended them, even though he'd never read them? Or does he suffer from dementia? Any way you slice it, Paul is unfit to be president.