Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've been reading all of the poll analysis news stories and overall a pattern is emerging.
1) The negative campaigning against Gingrich in Iowa is working because while he's falling in the polls there, he is not falling nationally (because the rest of us don't see those ads or mailouts).
2) The noble Gingrich decision to "take the high road" is based on him not having the money to run negative ads of his own in Iowa, more than anything else.
3) Gingrich's loss in Iowa isn't Romney's gain.
4) Analysts are waiting for the negative ads in Iowa targeting Ron Paul however, no one seems to know who that would benefit.
5) Nikki Haley's endorsement of Romney only produced a two point bump for him in SC.
6) There are A LOT of uncommitted voters still out there.
The least surprising thing to me from the above is Number 5. There is no way Romney will win SC.
The most surprising thing to me is I'm seeing less poll reporting. Really, why is PPP (a Democrat poller) the polling results reported on the most? I hate to stir you up but Ron Paul fans, do you think if he was in the lead in Iowa there would be polling results not made public at all? I don't mean supressed by the media. I mean supressed by the polling company.
I've been reading all of the poll analysis news stories and overall a pattern is emerging.
1) The negative campaigning against Gingrich in Iowa is working because while he's falling in the polls there, he is not falling nationally (because the rest of us don't see those ads or mailouts).
2) The noble Gingrich decision to "take the high road" is based on him not having the money to run negative ads of his own in Iowa, more than anything else.
3) Gingrich's loss in Iowa isn't Romney's gain.
4) Analysts are waiting for the negative ads in Iowa targeting Ron Paul however, no one seems to know who that would benefit.
5) Nikki Haley's endorsement of Romney only produced a two point bump for him in SC.
6) There are A LOT of uncommitted voters still out there.
The least surprising thing to me from the above is Number 5. There is no way Romney will win SC.
The most surprising thing to me is I'm seeing less poll reporting. Really, why is PPP (a Democrat poller) the polling results reported on the most? I hate to stir you up but Ron Paul fans, do you think if he was in the lead in Iowa there would be polling results not made public at all? I don't mean supressed by the media. I mean supressed by the polling company.
Not at all. Paul supporters need to get over themselves.
There is no "conspiracy" to bring Paul down. He always brings himself down.
Paul is merely enjoying the success of being part of a weak group of potentials that are watered down.
Gingrich's numbers have come down a lot nationally. Every major poll released since the 18th has him and Romney in a statistical or actual tie. He has fallen like a rock. I don't think all of it is negative campaign ads either since they are not being run nationwide. A lot of it is his own doing with some of the things he is getting out and saying. He has a history of sabotaging himself.
Nikki Haley's endorsement has not had time to show it's effect in the polling and wasn't expected to turn around the South Carolina voters overnight. What it did do was shake the Tea Party up. They are scrambling this week to try and figure it all out. If Rubio endorses they will probably go to DEFCON 2...lol.
Gingrich's numbers have come down a lot nationally. Every major poll released since the 18th has him and Romney in a statistical or actual tie. He has fallen like a rock. I don't think all of it is negative campaign ads either since they are not being run nationwide. A lot of it is his own doing with some of the things he is getting out and saying. He has a history of sabotaging himself.
Nikki Haley's endorsement has not had time to show it's effect in the polling and wasn't expected to turn around the South Carolina voters overnight. What it did do was shake the Tea Party up. They are scrambling this week to try and figure it all out. If Rubio endorses they will probably go to DEFCON 2...lol.
I've been reading all of the poll analysis news stories and overall a pattern is emerging.
1) The negative campaigning against Gingrich in Iowa is working because while he's falling in the polls there, he is not falling nationally (because the rest of us don't see those ads or mailouts).
Incorrect, he is falling nationally. Just not as far and not as fast.
Quote:
3) Gingrich's loss in Iowa isn't Romney's gain.
Also incorrect.
Romney is close enough to possibly win in Iowa. He wasn't expecting to even come in second there.
Quote:
Analysts are waiting for the negative ads in Iowa targeting Ron Paul however, no one seems to know who that would benefit.
Negative campaigning targeting Ron Paul is tricky. Economists agree with his take on the Fed and getting us back on a gold backed currency. Nobody wants to talk about it because everyone else is too scared of even having the conversation. You can't hurt him on this issue.
Negative campaign ads will have to focus on Paul's less than popular ideas: Ending the war on drugs and withdrawing from our current militaristic foreign policy. These ideas make a lot more sense than you might think, but they are extremely controversial because they are the exact antithesis of what we've been doing for many decades.
Quote:
5) Nikki Haley's endorsement of Romney only produced a two point bump for him in SC.
The least surprising thing to me from the above is Number 5. There is no way Romney will win SC.
The deep south has a very large Evangelical base. They are very hesitant to support a man who is, according to their pastors, part of a heretical cult, when there are like-minded non-Mormon candidates in the running. Romney can win everywhere else, but the deep south is going to be a real struggle. He may very well lose the whole south.
Intriguingly enough, polls are already showing that the Evangelical vote goes from being Mitt's worst enemy in the Republican primaries, to being one of his biggest assets in the general election. Head to head against Obama, Evangelicals overwhelmingly support Romney -- more so than any other large demographic.
Truth is, the hardest part for both Romney and Paul is actually winning the Republican nomination. In the general election they face a man who has added $6.5 trillion (and counting) to the national debt, has spent four years presiding over a 9% or more unemployment rate, who force-fed America a health care bill the majority of Americans opposed, has done nothing about foreign out-sourcing of American jobs, and thanks to his stonewalling of the Keystone Pipeline, has shattered a chance Americans had to pay less at the pump. Either of them should do very well against Obama.
Quote:
The most surprising thing to me is I'm seeing less poll reporting. Really, why is PPP (a Democrat poller) the polling results reported on the most? I hate to stir you up but Ron Paul fans, do you think if he was in the lead in Iowa there would be polling results not made public at all? I don't mean supressed by the media. I mean supressed by the polling company.
Both sides want absolutely nothing to do with ever discussing Ron Paul's policies. The Democrats are banking on Paul eroding support for the eventual Republican candidate, but not actually being that candidate. The Republicans are sticking with the tried and true method: Pretending Ron Paul doesn't exist and hiding the evidence every time he is looking like a legitimate threat. The long-standing solution to keep Ron Paul at bay: Pretend he doesn't exist and never tell America anything about him.
Both parties and the media outlets they control have been quite willing to do that for years. The Dems are taking a gamble here.
Averaging polls when their methodology differs is not a good indicator of anything. Better to take each one individually and compare them to the same polling company's previous week's/month's results and include within the margin of error.
What's in my original post is what I read in various online political columns not my opinion. As far as this goes "Negative campaign ads will have to focus on Paul's less than popular ideas: Ending the war on drugs and withdrawing from our current militaristic foreign policy. These ideas make a lot more sense than you might think, but they are extremely controversial because they are the exact antithesis of what we've been doing for many decades,"the point was that while they think Paul will be next for negative ads, they can't seem to figure out which candidate would benefit by Paul slipping in the polls.
,
I've been reading all of the poll analysis news stories and overall a pattern is emerging.
1) The negative campaigning against Gingrich in Iowa is working because while he's falling in the polls there, he is not falling nationally (because the rest of us don't see those ads or mailouts).
Paul has been unleashing a huge negative ad campaign against newt that appears to be working, but Paul has always been strong in Iowa. Newt is plunging in the polls nationwide
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC
2) The noble Gingrich decision to "take the high road" is based on him not having the money to run negative ads of his own in Iowa, more than anything else.
Newt is broke and has been for a while. There is no taking the high road, he doesn't have the funding to really do anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC
3) Gingrich's loss in Iowa isn't Romney's gain.
It will be. Newt has been tanking and Romney has been picking up steam.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC
4) Analysts are waiting for the negative ads in Iowa targeting Ron Paul however, no one seems to know who that would benefit.
Likely Bachmann as she seems to be the #2 favorite there
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC
5) Nikki Haley's endorsement of Romney only produced a two point bump for him in SC.
I don't think anyone really cares about her
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC
6) There are A LOT of uncommitted voters still out there.
I think there are many of the hard right "anyone but Romney" people still around, but once Newt completely tanks they have nowhere else to go. They will end up supporting Romney.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC
The least surprising thing to me from the above is Number 5. There is no way Romney will win SC.
The most surprising thing to me is I'm seeing less poll reporting. Really, why is PPP (a Democrat poller) the polling results reported on the most? I hate to stir you up but Ron Paul fans, do you think if he was in the lead in Iowa there would be polling results not made public at all? I don't mean supressed by the media. I mean supressed by the polling company.
PPP is a very good pollster and quite accurate. I think Paul does have a very strong chance of taking Iowa, but doubtful anywhere else.
Keep in mind the straw poll where Paul just barely lost to Bachmann who had to bus in and bribe people to vote for her. If it was a legitimate vote, Paul would have dominated the field. I think PPP is right on with this one.
You may be right that they will end up endorsing Romney once Gingrich falls, (and Perry who isn't going to make it), but what's interesting to me is that I have "talked" to them while some of the debates were going on and man, do they HATE Romney.
They absolutely DESPISE him.
All they ever say about Paul? "He's a kook" or "He's a fool". That's it.
But Romney? They go on and on and on and on and on....
MAYBE if it is between Romney and Paul, they'll actually start LISTENING to what Paul is saying..especially if the whole Obomneycare and mandates keeps being heard because I don't know one single Republican who is for Obomneycare.
Course, I tend to give way too much credit to people and never learn my lesson...so I could be wrong.
Averaging polls when their methodology differs is not a good indicator of anything. Better to take each one individually and compare them to the same polling company's previous week's/month's results and include within the margin of error.
I would tend to disagree. The reason for averaging polls is that each of them has something of a hidden agenda, but those agendas do not correspond with one another. So averaging them all together diminishes political bias from the numbers.
What we are seeing in both Iowa and nationwide is Romney and Paul both gaining ground rapidly. Since Huntsman is effectively impossible at this point, that's a two horse race that I don't mind seeing.
Now if the GOP establishment breaks out the big guns and starts blasting away at Ron Paul, the clearest beneficiary might just be Ron Paul. Attacking him forces you to talk about him. Talking about him gets people interested in finding out both sides of the story. An all-out assault on Paul right now might succeed in burying him in the Republican Primaries, but it also might just open the door to him beating both Romney and Obama in November, running as a Libertarian.
And before it comes up, Paul is an intelligent man. He won't run as a third party candidate unless he stands a very good chance of winning. I don't expect him to endorse anyone, but he won't play the spoiler to allow Obama to get reelected.
Gingrich's numbers have come down a lot nationally. Every major poll released since the 18th has him and Romney in a statistical or actual tie. He has fallen like a rock. I don't think all of it is negative campaign ads either since they are not being run nationwide. A lot of it is his own doing with some of the things he is getting out and saying. He has a history of sabotaging himself.
Nikki Haley's endorsement has not had time to show it's effect in the polling and wasn't expected to turn around the South Carolina voters overnight. What it did do was shake the Tea Party up. They are scrambling this week to try and figure it all out. If Rubio endorses they will probably go to DEFCON 2...lol.
I think you are wrong, I think her endorsement probably has set in and I don't think it did or will make any difference, or not much. As for Newts numbers coming down, of course they have, that had to be expected by everyone. How much more they fall will determine what the future holds.
BTW, if Paul were to win in Iowa that wouldn't be nearly as helpful as coming in 3rd would hurt him. He has always been strong in Iowa. He certainly should do well. I am watching the other candidates, yes, Romney, of course Perry and Newt.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
