December 15, 2011

Today’s Rasmussen’s Iowa Poll Analyzed.

Rasmussen has released a poll today that shows that Newt Gingrich’s lead in Iowa has collapsed. Assuming for the time being that this collapse is for real, and that this poll is not an outlier, the movement shown in the poll is quite interesting.

Here is a breakdown of the movement the poll shows in the past month:

(11/15) (12/13) Change
Romney 19 23 +4
Gingrich 32 20 -12
Paul 10 18 +8
Perry 6 10 +4
Bachmann 6 9 +3
Santorum 5 6 +1
Huntsman 2 5 +3


Three things stick out from these numbers:

  1. Everyone but Gingrich went up.
  2. Gingrich’s loss was in double digits.
  3. Paul’s increased the most. He doubled Romney’s and Perry’s increase.

I have to say that Ron Paul now has a legitimate shot at taking Iowa. He is only five points back from the leader. And he nearly doubled his support from 10 to 18 percent. THAT is impressive.

Perry is once more in double digits. He has been working extremely hard in Iowa and has been rewarded with an increase of support of four percentage points.

The other guy who went up four points is Romney. He has returned to his steady-state low to middle twenties plateau. His supporters call it his floor. His detractors call it his ceiling. Whatever it is, his steady level of support in this extremely volatile year has been nothing short of remarkable.

The Iowa Caucuses are going to take place during the heart of a Midwestern winter. Under those circumstances, ask yourselves’ this question. If you were a candidate, which scenario would you prefer:

  1. Supporters who have been rock-solid in your favor for months and months, even years.
  2. Supporters who have essentially settled upon you in the last week or two primarily because they aren’t entirely happy with the other guy.

I know which one I would prefer if I were running. And if the results of this poll remain accurate (a very, very big “if” this year), I would think that any ABM candidate is going to have to have support in the high twenties to out-caucus Mitt Romney.

The joker in this deck, of course, is Ron Paul. His supporters are notoriously loyal and active. He might just pull off the Iowan Upset. We shall see.

One thing is for certain. The two and a half weeks before the Iowa caucuses are not going to be boring.

Trackback URL for this post:
http://race42012.com/2011/12/15/todays-rasmussens-iowa-poll-analyzed/trackback/

74 Responses to “Today’s Rasmussen’s Iowa Poll Analyzed.”

  1. Gunlock Bill Says:

    WOW!! Paul winning Iowa just might panic the ABR crowd into sensibility.

  2. Abe Says:

    Paul / Romney – 1st or 2nd

    Perry / Newt – 3rd or 4th

    Book it!!!

  3. SixMom Says:

    You’re right, I can’t remember a time in the past when Iowa has been so fun.

  4. Fuzzybird Says:

    Now that’s what I call a drop. Buh bye.

  5. GNV Says:

    I used to give Paul a ceiling of 3rd. We shall see if I’m right (and I’ll admit wrongness if he surpasses that.)

    And if he does take first, the RNC will have to seriously consider whether to ever let Iowa consider themselves important enough for 1st. They vote Dem in the general anyway.

  6. Romney/Perry 2012! (formerly known as asparagus) Says:

    Well that was quick. Thanks for playing Newt.

  7. Mark in PA Says:

    3
    Iowa was very interesting in ’08, but it was the final vote that was a shocker – “Huckawho won??” Here we really just don’t know what’s going to happen!!

  8. Craig for Newt Gingrich/Marco Rubio Says:

    Gingrich Running Strong With Traditionally Reliable Voters

    Older Republicans and core GOP identifiers show solid preference for Gingrich :)

    PRINCETON, NJ — Newt Gingrich’s current lead in Republican preferences for the GOP presidential nomination is largely due to particularly high support from the types of Republicans who might be expected to turn out heavily in the upcoming primaries — older Republicans and core identifiers with the Republican Party.

    Roughly 40% of Republicans aged 55 and older as well as core Republicans (as opposed to independents who lean Republican) and conservatives currently favor Gingrich for the nomination. This contrasts with 21% to 23% of each group backing Mitt Romney.

    (Excerpt) Read more at gallup.com …

    Looks like the base is definitely at odds with the establishment elite. Willard Romney, NO soup for you!

    8)

  9. Anybody but NEWT Says:

    Intrade is looking great for Romney http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/

  10. BenR Says:

    Paul’s already a solid second in NH. It’s very unlikely, but not inconceivable, that Paul could take out Romney in NH following an Iowa win. THEN things would get interesting!

  11. MonotheisticPresidentsOnly Says:

    #10 All heck would break loose. But what a wonderful statement of principle it would be.

  12. Craig for Newt Gingrich/Marco Rubio Says:

    Among those who reliably vote, Newt has a huge lead!!!

    Which is great news. The establishment will not pick the nominee this time.

    And TONIGHT, Speaker Newt will chop them up into kibbles and bits.

    Newt/Marco ’12 & ’16 :)

  13. Matthew Kilburn Says:

    I would vote for Obama before I would vote for Paul. There might be other Republicans I would stay at home for, but I would go to the polls to PREVENT Paul from getting into the White House. No man who wants to legalize drugs, eliminate marriage as a social institution (which is the same as legalizing gay marriage), and willingly surrender our global position and influence to countries hostile to our very ideals is fit to govern from the Oval Office. Never.

  14. Fuzzybird Says:

    Fickle voters. Or perhaps cowardly. If you want a chance at saving America, it’s Romney and as the deadline looms more and more are stepping out. I believe in America. You can’t say Romney isn’t earning this thing. You can see why the guy is successful. He can do hard things.

  15. Fuzzybird Says:

    Is there a debate tonight? I think Gingrich is due for a major implosion and tonight could be the night.

  16. Fuzzybird Says:

    Paul is not a well-thought out man, but I’d pull the lever for him over Obama anyday.

  17. Fuzzybird Says:

    Course I’d pull it for that lawn gnome, too.

  18. Craig for Newt Gingrich/Marco Rubio Says:

    Sheldon Adelson commits $20 million to pro-Newt Gingrich group

    Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson is planning to direct $20 million to an outside group backing Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign, multiple sources told POLITICO – the first answer to urgent pleas from allies to the former speaker’s long-time billionaire supporters.

    After leaving Congress, Gingrich cultivated a network of a few dozen uber-wealthy backers who poured tens of millions of dollars into a network of groups that helped him maintain a foothold in politics.

    Now, operatives supporting his presidential campaign are asking those same donors to write fat checks to a suite of new super PACs they hope can spend big on ads to offset Gingrich campaign fundraising that had lagged behind his rivals.

    (Excerpt) Read more at politico.com …

    Woot! Bingo!

    Go Gingrich!

  19. Mark in PA Says:

    11
    Change your name or get lost. I’m fairly sick that you would think that your position is perfectly legitimate.

    Kavon and/or marK, please delete their comments and/or ban them.

    I have no problem disagreeing with people on here… but to wade through garbage like this drags everything down.

  20. LV Says:

    The question for tonight’s debate will be…Can Gingrich’s ego handle the fall?

  21. Common Cents Says:

    Perry is “surging” which is coming directly out of Gingrich’s hide. I also think the final results will be better for candidates like Santorum and Bachmann that have really put everything into Iowa. I could see each of these candidates pulling double digits, which again, almost exclusively comes out of Gingrich’s total.

    I see a 1st and 2nd finish from Romney/Paul, but I don’t know who will come out on top. Gingrich will most likely place 3rd or 4th as I see him seriously under performing in a Caucus because of he doesn’t have a real campaign, and in addition the momentum indicates he’s hitting a downward trajectory. No one in the GOP seems to think he’s fit for office, and I think that concern is starting to trickle down to voters.

    Romney is definitely sitting pretty right now.

  22. Ci2Eye Says:

    Very good point about having loyal supporters vs. recent converts or folks just looking for an Anti-Mitt. Romney may outperform these numbers.

    One danger though is that Iowa has a very strong evangelical bias and many of those people are determined that Mitt cannot win. If it looks like he might win, they could mobilize. In 2008, they got behind Huck but this time there is no singular person that they support which could blunt any efforts they engage in. Still, they haven’t been energized yet because Romney wasn’t trying to win Iowa then it didn’t look like he could win Iowa. If both of those have changed, church leaders in The Hawkeye State could push voters to go out and deny Mitt a win.

    That’s why I think it is highly likely Paul just might pull it off. Especially if the weather is bad.

    Either way, it is good news for Team Romney.

  23. John Galt Says:

    Ron Paul probably has more than a legitimate shot at winning Iowa. I think he is probably the favorite. His supporters are going to be at the caucuses no matter what.

  24. Craig for Newt Gingrich/Marco Rubio Says:

    (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

    VAN SUSTEREN: Once again, here is Rush.

    (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

    VAN SUSTEREN: Why has Governor Mitt Romney not had a so-called “surge”? We hear “surge” used with basically every Republican nominee, but you don’t see that “surge” with Governor Romney.

    RUSH: Well, every poll I’ve seen of Republican primary voters, he can’t crack x percent. It has been curious. And you look at it from the reverse, 70 percent of Republican voters want somebody else. This is why we have the phenomenon of the “Not-Romney.” Bachmann was the “Not-Romney” for a while. Herman Cain was the “Not-Romney.” Now Newt is the “Not-Romney.” I think it boils down to something that’s not complicated at all. Republican primary voters are conservative. They don’t believe that Romney is. They believe that he will stick a finger in the air and moisten it and see which way the winds are blowing and try to get in that direction.

    Here’s the big problem, Greta, for the Republicans. And I am a lone wolf on this. The rule of thumb in elections, both parties, 40 percent are going to vote Democrat automatically, whatever you do, 40 percent are going to vote Republican, automatic, no matter what you do. And in the middle, who do we have? The precious, God love them, independents and the moderates. And they are the targets. They are the focus of every election. And our brilliant campaign consultants tell our candidates they are the ones that know how to go get a majority of those independents. And we have, as Republicans, put ourselves in prison to this whole silly notion that you only win elections by moving to the center and getting great independents. Fine and dandy, but if you squander your base in the process, you haven’t a prayer.

    The Republican Party is trying to do something in this primary that is unprecedented. They’re trying to split the conservative vote and win the primary with a moderate, with Romney. It’s the other way around. You consolidate your base and then you move to the center in the general. The Republican establishment has decided they don’t want any part of conservatism. And this is really not new. People are surprised to hear this, but the Republican Party formative event with conservatism is Goldwater’s landslide defeat. That’s what they think of when they think conservative. They don’t think Reagan. They think Goldwater.

    They believe what the inside-the-Beltway philosophy is about conservatives. They’re racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, Southern hayseed hicks. They’re pro-lifers. They’re embarrassing to have to go to the convention with them. And they’re just embarrassed to have those kind of people in the party. They’re dumb. They’re not erudite. They’re not educated in Ivy League schools. We’ll take their votes on election day, but we really don’t want to hang around with them. We don’t want anybody in Washington thinking that we’re really that close to them and aligned with them.

    So in the process — you know, it’s a very sophisticated electorate. The Republican primary voter can sense that the Republican Party really doesn’t like them, really doesn’t want them, thinks that they are the route to defeat. That’s the problem in a nutshell. The Republican establishment thinks that a conservative nominee is the route to defeat because they think Goldwater landslides are going to happen because they believe what the popular misconception the left has created of conservatives — they think everybody thinks that.

    -Fox News

  25. MonotheisticPresidentsOnly Says:

    #19 – I am sorry my faith sickens you. And also sorry you think it is worthy of banishment. You seem to think my faith and yours (if you have one) are not compatible. I would hate for someone like you to ever hold power.

  26. LV Says:

    Perry and Paul will see weakness and more than likely go after Gingrich tonight…Romney’s support is pretty well set.

  27. Gunlock Bill Says:

    24,

    Yup! Rush is out of touch with reality. He is buying into the same false narrative that you are.

  28. LV Says:

    #25…..MonoPresident…..Some people here think you’re Sojourner Truth…..

  29. Gunlock Bill Says:

    25 What “faith” would that be? Your belief in religious BIGOTRY?

  30. MonotheisticPresidentsOnly Says:
  31. Thunder (Romney/The only sane canidate) Says:

    Craig for Newt Gingrich/Marco Rubio Says:
    December 15th, 2011 at 2:18 pm

    Sheldon Adelson commits $20 million to pro-Newt Gingrich group

    Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson is planning to direct $20 million
    ======================================
    So now your are wallowing with Casino owners and the dark world of Fathers and Husband losing the family food money. You keep getting lower.

    On the other side of the coin, it almost time for you to change back to Perry now that Perry is surging and Newt is falling.

  32. Thunder (Romney/The only sane canidate) Says:

    MonotheisticPresidentsOnly Says:
    December 15th, 2011 at 2:27 pm

    #19 – I am sorry my faith sickens you.
    ========================================================
    So you don’t believe that either Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost are part of the god head?

  33. moose Says:

    Newt dropping, no can’t be … his the true conservative in the race, pfffft

  34. Mark in PA Says:

    25
    “I am sorry my faith sickens you.”

    So it’s your faith that’s telling you to politically oppose those with don’t believe in God the same way that you do? It’s your faith that is telling you to ignore what you have in common and unequivically denounce those who wish to worship in a different way than you? Then yes… your faith sickens me. It’s completely unAmerican, and I think you should take your bigotry elsewhere. Was this country not founded on religious tolerance!? Go back to Europe and the dark ages. I have no problem with people attacking my prefferred candidate because of his positions (past and present), but attacking him for his belief system should be soundly condemned. And since you are so open about it, I hope you are kicked right out the front door.

  35. jaxemer11 Says:

    Ron Paul win = Romney win

  36. Romney/Perry 2012! (formerly known as asparagus) Says:

    Those reliable voters like Mitt as well. When Newt is fully exposed as an unreliable nutty professor, those voters will move back to Mitt.

  37. okc mom for mitt Says:

    #11 Your name would seem to indicate that: 1-you are for every candidate because of their faith OR 2-you are using your name to show your religious bigotry? So which is it? Would you vote for Romney if he is the nominee or would you rather vote for Satan? Just curious if you truly are Sojourner….

  38. Ambrose Says:

    “MonotheisticPresidentsOnly”

    Which Muslim do you support for President?

  39. teledude Says:

    I said yesterday I was beginning to question how badly Newt wanted this, going by a couple of statements he made.

    The FPP is correct, Newt needs to answer these negative ads. He needn’t go negative himself, but I’ve heard him give good explanations on everything in these ads (many things are out of context, or at least half truths), but he needs to address these issues. They are on continuous loop here in Iowa, they hit you whenever you turn on the TV or radio.

    I understand he doesn’t have a large war chest, but media in Iowa will be some of the least expensive of the whole campaign.

    He needs to blast all this junk out of the water in tonight’s debate and turn these attacks into signs of desperation worthy of ridicule.

  40. Gunlock Bill Says:

    30 “The Republican Party is trying to do something in this primary that is unprecedented. They’re trying to split the conservative vote and win the primary with a moderate, with Romney.”

    Hey, stupid, the Republican Party didn’t choose the current field. Each individual candidate decided on their own to run. The Republican Party doesn’t decide who is or is not conservative or who does or does not run.

    Both you and Rush are totally WRONG!!!!!!!!

  41. jaxemer11 Says:

    I see Craig is still in denial. Who is the next RomNot to earn Craig’s coveted endorsement? Santorum? Bachmann (again)? Perry (again)? Huntsman (doubtful, given his religion)?

    Or maybe he can make himself real useful and start schilling for Huckabee again.

  42. Gunlock Bill Says:

    41. Eventually he will have to go to the ultimate RomNot candidate. Obama.

    And given his track record of choosing LOSERS, that will be a good thing.

  43. jaxemer11 Says:

    If people want to make themselves look like fools with their blatant bigotry, let them. Better to ignore them than give them something to respond to.

  44. Thunder (Romney/The only sane canidate) Says:

    MonotheisticPresidentsOnly Says:
    December 15th, 2011 at 2:35 pm

    #24 – Rush nailed it! Absolutely spot on.

    “The Republican Party is trying to do something in this primary that is unprecedented. They’re trying to split the conservative vote and win the primary with a moderate, with Romney.”
    =======================================================
    Hello!!!!!!!!!! What do you think happened in 2008. McCain split the conservative vote and went on to claim the nomination.. Of course the other problem with your statement is that Romney is conservative…..

  45. Katechon Says:

    RACE now between Paul, Romney and Huntsman for the nomination

    Gingrich was a bubble.
    Perry buzzing now, but has NO SHOT at nomini

  46. rightgal Says:

    18. Wonder what Sheldon A wants… can’t be good gov, but perhaps fav gambling laws?

  47. Boomer Says:

    39.

    Carole King said it best.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5TxpJVKKQ8&feature=related

  48. Katechon Says:

    I had a momentary panic, sold 111 Romney contracts at 45, bought Gingrich at 35. But sold it yesterday and shorted him at 45 on the Florida primary

    Shorting 200 Gingrich shares at 48 in average on Florida
    300 shares in Iowa.
    Feeling good about it.
    Hoping Huntsman will catch fire!

    Have 700 Romney for the nomination at 51%.
    1500 Romney for president at 24%.

    10,000 Huntsman for the nomination at 6.3%.

  49. Katechon Says:

    The Craig curse is still effective!
    Gingrich is doomed — DOOMED!

  50. rightgal Says:

    Looks like Iowa is tired of being the party embarrassment when it comes to voting.

  51. Katechon Says:

    Teledude

    Gingrich ain’t campaigning in Iowa till December the 27th….

    Selling books

  52. Matthew Newman Says:

    If Newt wants to prove he’s not just another “Not Romney” bubble, he’ll need to make a big push in Iowa. He’ll need to get some ads going to rebuild his brand. Also, he’ll need to be in Iowa.

  53. Katechon Says:

    Teledude

    If Gingrich collapses, could you consider Huntsman?

  54. teledude Says:

    53. I could. But he has not impressed me at all so far. I understand he has a solid record as Governor,

    …it may just be based on superficial things.

  55. Gunlock Bill Says:

    54 psst, did you know that Huntsman is a MORMON!!! ??

    (And less conservative than Romney?)

  56. Massachusetts Conservative Says:

    Can someone delete Craig for Losers’ spam?

  57. Keith Price Says:

    55. He’s not a very GOOD Mormon. AFAIK, he doesn’t attend and didn’t raise his kids as Mormons.

  58. teledude Says:

    In today’s mail: a nasty attack mailer with Newt and Nancy on the couch, reinforcing the points in the anonymous robo-call from the other day…from Mitt Romney…

    A thick envelope from Ron Paul (they come daily) – into the garbage without opening

    and a really very nice Christmas card from Todd and Sarah Palin….

  59. Katechon Says:

    Keith, your posts are always very astute, honest and well written. I value them a lot.

    But please dont advocate deleting other people’s posts.

    Craig’s are valuable in other ways than yours. He’s a window into the angry, brainless, rioting base.

  60. Katechon Says:

    By brainless, I meant acting by pure feeling, without thinking.

  61. SixMom Says:

    #59 ROFL – Humor is a gift.

  62. Keith Price Says:

    59. Thanks, Katechon.

    I don’t advocate deleting posts that contribute to the conversation.

    But, comments about religion or who worships the right God or whether God is 1 entity or 3 do not belong here.

    I also don’t feel personal attacks or spammy repetitive posts belong here.

    Those are the ones I believe should be deleted.

  63. teledude Says:

    60. nice save ;-)

  64. Katechon Says:

    Paul attacking Gingrich for dodging military service :

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/air-force-vet-ron-paul-drops-bombs-on-newt-gingrich-for-war-deferments/

  65. michaelolsen Says:

    Love the poll number for Mitt… Go Mitt!

  66. Teemu Says:

    53:
    Yeah, it seems somewhat like that, now he is supposedly going to supposedly really take on the establishment interest when he really didn’t take on it in the Utah tax reform, nor did he use the bully pulpit to defend the school choice, it shouldn’t have been that hard in the most Republican state in the union, but he allowed the teacher’s unions to dominate the debate and the school choice was overturned at the ballot boxes.

    The flat tax wasn’t really flat tax, but made progressive with credits

    Salt lake tribune quotes from one article (url seems to put it into awaiting moderation)

    Huntsman has proposed tax reform that would eliminate all deductions — including popular deductions for things like mortgage interest — and establish three tax rates, at 8, 14 and 23 percent.
    Wiping out hundreds of millions of dollars of deductions that have wormed their way into the tax code would mean taking on well-established and well-heeled Washington interests and drawing fire from both parties.
    “It certainly would push everybody’s emotional buttons,” said Keith Prescott, who had Huntsman’s ear on tax issues and was appointed as chairman of the Utah Tax Review Commission. “I think it’s doable given the right kind of leadership and I suspect that Governor Huntsman, of the candidates I’ve seen, he’s the one who could do that.”
    But it was a war that Huntsman opted not to wage when he was governor.

    By the time Huntsman took office in 2005, the issue of tax reform was already teed up. A commission, appointed by his predecessor, Gov. Olene Walker, had been studying Utah’s tax code and recommended that the state adopt a flat tax with no deductions that was initially embraced by the new governor.

    “Huntsman was in favor of the flat tax for a day and then dropped it,” said Rep. John Dougall, R-Highland, who worked on the issue.

    Huntsman was fairly detached from the actual negotiations of the tax package, according to the legislators involved, who said they communicated mainly with staffers.
    ——
    His leadership style sounds pretty Obamaish.
    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700203786/Romney-and-Huntsman-have-differing-leadership-styles.html

    Why does he summarize his decade of business experience with couple sentences, when wiki summary for Romney’s business turnarounds is 1600 words? It’s really hard to find impressive professional stories of him like you can find from Romney. It seems that his record summary looks great but when starting to scratch the surface, it seems that here is one guy with restless feet, who dropped out of high school, whose life is full of short term assignments, that he got because of circumstances, powerful daddy and Mandarin language skills from Taiwan missionary assignment. Even before he got the Ambassador assignment he was supposedly itching to get out of Utah, getting bored according to some staffers.

  67. Teemu Says:

    66 to add:
    Who got impressive short record because Utah is 70% Republican legislature, so getting impressive conservative legislation record isn’t that hard.

  68. Sean Says:

    Gingrich needs Iowa and Romney needs New Hampshire, so what do they do when Paul takes both of them?

  69. marK Says:

    Sean,

    That would be hilarious. I would laugh myself silly.

  70. Jerald Says:

    marK is back…Yea!… :D

  71. Fuzzybird Says:

    So only presidents that have only one wife? It’s been a mentally and emotionally tough political season, I know.

  72. The REAL Truth Says:

    Craig for Newtered

    Are you going back to Bachmann or Perry?? What a clown

  73. brs Says:

    ?I think he might back Santorum now.

  74. Keith Price Says:

    CRAP! This won’t help Mitt…

    Billionaire to give Newt PAC $20 million

    (as reported at http://gop12.thehill.com/)

Leave a Reply

State of the Race


Obama Approval


Support R4'12

Meta

Recent Posts

Buy This Book

Categories

Archives

Search

Blogroll

Site Syndication

Main