PPP 2016 GOP Poll - Iowa (May '14)

[WD-NY]

I just think the only way a non-establishment person is going to take the nomination is if the tea party, conservatives and libertarians unify early on with a single candidate.

All the above are willing to unify on Rand but there are plenty of other candidates who could get in the way. All the conservative pundits keep saying "we need to look at the conservative governors" and never mention Rand.

If Rand took the first two states I think the alliance is possible and I really don't see any candidate that isn't establishment (not just liberty, but not establishment) that could do it.

Rand stands the best ONLY chance if it becomes "Rand vs. Bush (or whoever)" early on.

If another "tea party" or "conservative" won Iowa, then Rand won NH, those two candidates would be splitting the conservative vote in other contests meanwhile the establishment will probably be fully unified behind their guy.

This x1000.

There is ONLY ONE WAY for the single establishment candidate to win: SPLIT the conservative/tea party BETWEEN AT LEAST 2 candidates. That's it. Period.

If Rand loses any of the early primaries (re: Iowa, NH, NV or South Carolina) to Cruz or any other "non-establishment" candidate, the MSM and GOP establishment will put everything they've got into extending the runway for Cruz (or whoever they can prop up to take votes away from Rand) with millions in 'un-earned' & super positive media.

So no, Rand can't lose Iowa or South Carolina like Reagan, Bush, McCain, Romney did. THE RULES ARE DIFFERENT FOR RAND. No doubt Rand & co. understand this, but it would be helpful for the grassroots to understand as well.

 

[nayjevin]

I don't know that it's over if rand doesn't win every early primary. Lots of variables. Excited to see how this all turns out!

 

[FriedChicken]

This x1000.

There is ONLY ONE WAY for the single establishment candidate to win: SPLIT the conservative/tea party BETWEEN AT LEAST 2 candidates. That's it. Period.

If Rand loses any of the early primaries (re: Iowa, NH, NV or South Carolina) to Cruz or any other "non-establishment" candidate, the MSM and GOP establishment will put everything they've got into extending the runway for Cruz (or whoever they can prop up to take votes away from Rand) with millions in 'un-earned' & super positive media.

So no, Rand can't lose Iowa or South Carolina like Reagan, Bush, McCain, Romney did. THE RULES ARE DIFFERENT FOR RAND. No doubt Rand & co. understand this, but it would be helpful for the grassroots to understand as well.

Thank you very much for bumping my post and agreeing with me, truly.
I'd like to say though that I'm very wary of using strong statements like "only chance", "only way", "can't lose ____", "must win ____", etc.

If we get all the way to Florida and Rand hasn't won a single contest, yeah, we need to recognize its over.
But if he loses the popular straw poll vote in the Iowa caucus? I'm not ready to hang up the gloves. It just means we need to adapt and adjust to making a new path to victory.

Where you and I couldn't agree more is that Iowa and New Hampshire need to be fought for tooth and nail. Winning both is hands down the best and easiest way to win.
But I'm open to there being more than one path to victory if Iowa doesn't turn out the way we hope.

I don't want to set us up to lose hope if we lose Iowa - similar to what we went through with Ron after the Ames straw poll. Heck, I had a big spaghetti dinner celebration and strategy meeting planned for our local group (in Indiana) after the Ames straw poll that I canceled because of the looming disappointment in the poll results.
If we lose Iowa we'll need the grassroots activity MORE than ever - I definitely don't want the grassroots losing hope at that point, I want them fighting harder than they've ever fought for the remaining states. (personally speaking).

Lets hope we don't have to deal with that. Lets work hard so we don't have to.

 

[fr33]

OK, I'll bite. What's your preferred strategy to advance Liberty?

Rand must win the primaries and start winning them early. It's why he's done some of the things he's done (that turned off some of Ron's supporters). Ron's support is at most 15% of the GOP voters. Probably a lot less. Rand has the potential to win over conservatives to win the nomination on some issues then win over some liberals after the nomination on other issues.

 

[Brett85]

Rand has the potential to win over conservatives to win the nomination on some issues then win over some liberals after the nomination on other issues.

Yep, but he has to give answers that appeal to conservatives, rather than giving answers that David Axelrod might be impressed by.

 

[CPUd]

Yep, but he has to give answers that appeal to conservatives, rather than giving answers that David Axelrod might be impressed by.

True to a certain degree; I think what he's trying to do right now is change the demographic of the party, and bring in new primary voters before 2016. In just about every interview he's done since 2012, when someone asks him if he's running for President, he will say he's trying to grow the party.

And whatever positions he is taking in the primary, he needs to stick with for the general election, or get the flip-flop label like Mitt and John Kerry did. He can still keep a lot of the conservative base, but there are going to be some who he will turn off.

 

[DeMintConservative]

Yep, but he has to give answers that appeal to conservatives, rather than giving answers that David Axelrod might be impressed by.

Answers that might please Axelrod signal to the moderate/centrist voters that Paul is an acceptable candidate. It makes him look bipartisan-esque and pragmatic as opposed to a rigid ideologue. That's half of the ticket for the GOP nomination because the majority of the Republican primary voters won't nominate someone they don't perceive as able to conquer votes in the middle in the general election - they want to win and none will be buying the theory of a libertarianish nominee winning by siphoning votes from the liberal left-wing, from the Code Pink and Occupiers of the world (and rightly so, those guys will be calling Paul a neo-nazi by the time the general election rolls out, even if the Dem nominee is someone like Cuomo or Jim Webb or Rahm Emanual).

No, he might not.
I hope he doesn't - but I think, at the moment anyway, the odds are that he IS going to run. But I'm not saying that with any type of certainty.

I just think the only way a non-establishment person is going to take the nomination is if the tea party, conservatives and libertarians unify early on with a single candidate.
All the above are willing to unify on Rand but there are plenty of other candidates who could get in the way. All the conservative pundits keep saying "we need to look at the conservative governors" and never mention Rand.

If Rand took the first two states I think the alliance is possible and I really don't see any candidate that isn't establishment (not just liberty, but not establishment) that could do it.
Rand stands the best chance if it becomes "Rand vs. Bush (or whoever)" early on.

If another "tea party" or "conservative" won Iowa, then Rand won NH. Those two candidates would be splitting the conservative vote in other contests meanwhile the establishment will probably be fully unified behind their guy.

I disagree.

Rand Paul won't be winning the vote of Iowa Social Conservatives (which means he likely won't win Iowa) - not if he wants to win the nomination and get elected. It doesn't matter if Huckabee runs or not: there will always be someone that will make a run for those voters. Two years out it's impossible to know who that might be (who would have guessed Santorum? Or that Forbes would 'evolve' into a staunch social conservative from 1996 to 2000 and jump from 10% to 31%? It can be Ben Carson. A surprise candidate like Brownback). Those people want to hear things that Paul can't say, want to perceive a tone that Rand isn't good at delivering (because his heart isn't on it) and want to hear it straight from the horse's mouth - a difficult accomplishment for a sitting Senator. It's not just about saying the right things - Tim Pawlenty checked all the boxes and he was utterly destroyed by Santorum.

Aside from that, there's no such thing as an establishment GOP primary voter (or GOP voter). I'd like to see a pollster asking Republican voters if they consider themselves part of the GOP establishment. I bet thinking of oneself as an establishment Republican would only poll above 1% in DC. "Establishment" has become a slur and has little operative value (and modern American parties don't have establishments, primaries killed them). Go to sites like HotAir or RedState and you'll see people calling Rand Paul part of the establishment or at least a sell-out. More importantly, there aren't any Republican voters running around saying "I'll never vote for Rand Paul, I'm an establishment Republican you see?".

This to say Rand Paul can perfectly win the nomination running against a guy who's perceive to be to his right. He can become the acceptable choice for those who are wary of the SoCon hero who had a good result in Iowa and the NYT favorite candidate.

I'm extremely skeptical that a candidate that doesn't win in Iowa and New Hampshire can win the nomination. Therefore, if a Huckabee type wins Iowa (with Paul getting a respectable result) and Rand Paul wins in New Hampshire, I think the nomination would be his to lose, especially if he's seen as unbeatable in the Nevada caucus (and if he and his people work the state hard, he should).

 

[MrGoose]

Do you guys actually think Cruz will run? There's no way he'll be president... Not to demean him or anything, but he's basically Palin tier when it comes how many Americans see him.

 

[FriedChicken]

I disagree.

Rand Paul won't be winning the vote of Iowa Social Conservatives (which means he likely won't win Iowa) - not if he wants to win the nomination and get elected. It doesn't matter if Huckabee runs or not: there will always be someone that will make a run for those voters. Two years out it's impossible to know who that might be (who would have guessed Santorum? Or that Forbes would 'evolve' into a staunch social conservative from 1996 to 2000 and jump from 10% to 31%? It can be Ben Carson. A surprise candidate like Brownback). Those people want to hear things that Paul can't say, want to perceive a tone that Rand isn't good at delivering (because his heart isn't on it) and want to hear it straight from the horse's mouth - a difficult accomplishment for a sitting Senator. It's not just about saying the right things - Tim Pawlenty checked all the boxes and he was utterly destroyed by Santorum.

Aside from that, there's no such thing as an establishment GOP primary voter (or GOP voter). I'd like to see a pollster asking Republican voters if they consider themselves part of the GOP establishment. I bet thinking of oneself as an establishment Republican would only poll above 1% in DC. "Establishment" has become a slur and has little operative value (and modern American parties don't have establishments, primaries killed them). Go to sites like HotAir or RedState and you'll see people calling Rand Paul part of the establishment or at least a sell-out. More importantly, there aren't any Republican voters running around saying "I'll never vote for Rand Paul, I'm an establishment Republican you see?".

This to say Rand Paul can perfectly win the nomination running against a guy who's perceive to be to his right. He can become the acceptable choice for those who are wary of the SoCon hero who had a good result in Iowa and the NYT favorite candidate.

I'm extremely skeptical that a candidate that doesn't win in Iowa and New Hampshire can win the nomination. Therefore, if a Huckabee type wins Iowa (with Paul getting a respectable result) and Rand Paul wins in New Hampshire, I think the nomination would be his to lose, especially if he's seen as unbeatable in the Nevada caucus (and if he and his people work the state hard, he should).

The way I see it is this - if Ron had a shot at Iowa (and he did) then Rand has a shot at Iowa.

And no, I doubt hardly anyone would self identify as an establishment voter. Doesn't mean they won't solidify behind someone like Romney, Bush or whoever early on because "we need to back someone who can win" "This infighting is hurting us" "he's going to win anyway".

When phone banking for Ron Paul in 2012 I came across a lot of people that were going to vote for Romney just because they thought no one else could win the nomination, but they wished someone else could. Nope, I can't find a shred of logic in voting for someone you don't want to win because they're probably going to win anyway. But that was their answer!
They're getting this from somewhere. Whatever has influenced them to back the establishment in years past will still be out there trying to influence them in 2016.

Why people do it I don't know but there are plenty that would never identify as establishment that vote for the establishment candidate.

I think you're giving the media and talking heads too much credit. People fall for talking points for the most part - as soon as the establishment takes the lead the race will be declared to be over.
And if more than one non-establishment candidate is in sight the media and talking heads won't shut up about how divided they are and use the two candidates to destroy each other.
I think you're viewing voters in a way that is too reasonable and as not being as gullible as they are in reality.

That is a hurdle I think we can make it past, I just hope we don't have to. Winning the first two states, in my mind, mostly eliminates that hurdle.

 

[FriedChicken]

BUT!
I do appreciate the fact that many here are ready to move on past Iowa. That is a good thing.
There is a good chance we'll lose that state and if that is so we need to be ready to go on to the next with a plan to win rather than positioning ourselves to lose all hope after the first contest.

I still think we should do everything we can to win.
And by that I don't mean Rand should compete in the social conservative rhetoric with Santorum, Huckabee, whoever.

Just win votes and organize well. Wide appeal and good ground came might win this and if not then we have other states to win. That is all I'm saying.

 

[WD-NY]

Thank you very much for bumping my post and agreeing with me, truly.
I'd like to say though that I'm very wary of using strong statements like "only chance", "only way", "can't lose ____", "must win ____", etc.

If we get all the way to Florida and Rand hasn't won a single contest, yeah, we need to recognize its over.
But if he loses the popular straw poll vote in the Iowa caucus? I'm not ready to hang up the gloves. It just means we need to adapt and adjust to making a new path to victory.

Lets hope we don't have to deal with that. Lets work hard so we don't have to.

Agree fully! #OnlyaSithDealsInAbsolutes

But yeah, folks need to understand that Iowa can not be pooh poohed because the MSM will give whoever wins (e.g. Cruz, Huckabee, Santorum, etc.) enough oxygen (coverage) to stay in the race for as long as needed. In 2012, they played Santorum against Gingrinch (because Ron wasn't a worry in most big states) perfectly. The coverage of Cruz/Huckabee/Santorum will be specifically tailored to draw votes away from Rand rather than the establishment candidates (e.g. Bush or Christie). At this point, the establishment will also make some sort of deal with Cruz/Huckabee/Santorum to stay in the race and continue splitting the vote (which is, possibly, what they did with Ron in 2012).

With wins in Iowa, NH and NV, Rand could begin explaining to primary voters that the above is what the Establishment/Bush is doing to keep him from winning and that in order to avoid another Dole/McCain/Romney ass-kicking, the other 'conservative' needs to drop out and get behind him.

With enough early wins, Rand can effectively (and honestly!) make the case that the base is being played and basically shame Cruz/Huckabee/Santorum into dropping-out for the good of the base (GOP and country). And even if they don't drop out, the base will likely turn against them anyway assuming Rand makes a compelling enough case (which I think he can).

re: "Establishment Republicans" - FriedChicken is correct, but the name most polls give them is "Moderate Republicans" (but they basically always vote for the "establishment candidate").

A couple good reads on the subject and (possible) insight into what Rand's strategy might be:

The Four Faces of the Republican Party - National Journal
A deep look at the key GOP factions and how successful primary candidates navigate them. By Henry Olsen

Rethinking the 2016 GOP Nomination Contest - by Dan Balz
Olsen argues that there are four factions that play a role in the nomination process. And Olsen says, as have other analysts, that the most important is the one often overlooked. The most conservative wing generally gets the most attention, but the voters who count most in the GOP nomination process are those who say they are “somewhat conservative.”

This is the largest group nationally and is consistently a big presence in all the states, unlike some of the other factions. “They are not very vocal but they form the bedrock base of the Republican Party,” Olsen writes. “They also have a significant distinction: they always back the winner.”

They backed then-senator Robert Dole in 1996, then-Texas governor George W. Bush in 2000, Arizona Sen. John McCain in 2008 and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney in 2012. Olsen says these voters like candidates with governing experience, who have conservative values but do not push radical policies and are optimistic about the country. They reject culture warriors.

How Viable Is Rand Paul for 2016? - by Nate Silver

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Do you guys actually think Cruz will run? There's no way he'll be president... Not to demean him or anything, but he's basically Palin tier when it comes how many Americans see him.

He's a very polarizing figure, but there's a segment of the GOP that loves him. He comes across way too lawyerish to me.

 

[francisco]

Agree fully! #OnlyaSithDealsInAbsolutes

But yeah, folks need to understand that Iowa can not be pooh poohed...

+rep for posting the three articles with lots of food for thought re: the factions within Republican party and how they would come into play logistically.

http://nationalinterest.org/article/the-four-faces-the-republican-party-9930?page=show


http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...e2f952-a6cb-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html


http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...and-paul-for-2016/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

As a separate note the Christie picture in the Washington Post article by Balz is truly awful and surely signifies Christie's diminished stature and that establishment organ looks like it's setting him up for dismissal.

 

[MrGoose]

Yeah I do like how he pisses off liberals, but it always sounds like he's talking down to everyone.

 

[Uriah]

I tend to agree with the writings of Nate Silver but I must disagree with his overlapping of Republicans. Here in Iowa some of the most passionate libertarian supporters of Ron Paul are very religious conservatives. These libertarian religious conservatives make up a plurality if not an outright majority of the remaining active liberty supporters in the Iowa GOP. Ron Paul had a big foot in the door of the evangelical vote in Iowa. He took away from Santorum. Compare Santorum's result in 2012 of 24% to Huckabee's 34% in 2008 and George W. Bush's 41% in 2000. Santorum wasn't a strong candidate and Paul pulled support from him. I believe Rand can pull from that same group which Ron did and outside of it as well. I believe Rand has a 25% minimum come caucus day in Iowa. I don't see a hardcore evangelical doing as well as in the past. More and more voters are looking for a candidate they view as able to actually win. Rand is making the right inroads to the establishment and moderate type Republicans to gain the 'electable' mantle.

edit: I should add that most of the liberty supporters I know in Iowa are under the age of 45. Younger voters tend to have more liberal views on social issues. Thus, the supporters I identified as religious libertarians may be more libertarian and not truly representative of the evangelical religious voters.

 

[DeMintConservative]

The way I see it is this - if Ron had a shot at Iowa (and he did) then Rand has a shot at Iowa.

Of course, I said he had a shot. His minimum threshold should be the 20% his father got in 2012. How much of a shot it depends on how divided the field is and how strong the leading social conservative candidate is. Even a very weak politician like Santorum (who isn't even an evangelical) got 25% of the vote.

And no, I doubt hardly anyone would self identify as an establishment voter. Doesn't mean they won't solidify behind someone like Romney, Bush or whoever early on because "we need to back someone who can win" "This infighting is hurting us" "he's going to win anyway".

Not sure what you took from my comment, but that was exactly my point. Rand Paul can be that candidate if an evangelical wins in Iowa and he wins in New Hampshire (or obviously if he wins both, except maybe if someone like Jeb Bush if he runs comes in second in both).

In fact, it seems to be he's angling to be that candidate.

When phone banking for Ron Paul in 2012 I came across a lot of people that were going to vote for Romney just because they thought no one else could win the nomination, but they wished someone else could. Nope, I can't find a shred of logic in voting for someone you don't want to win because they're probably going to win anyway. But that was their answer!

That logic is very sound. They want to avoid a bigger evil - that's all that politics is in the end as there are no perfect political arrangements anyway (except for utopians).

They're getting this from somewhere. Whatever has influenced them to back the establishment in years past will still be out there trying to influence them in 2016.

Why people do it I don't know but there are plenty that would never identify as establishment that vote for the establishment candidate.

Again, there's no such thing as "the establishment". There are candidates, there are voters who agree more or less with them, with most of those same voters being very pragmatic in the sense of being willing to vote for someone they agree less if they see that person as having a better chance in the general election - because they know they'll agree a lot less with whoever the Democrat nominee is. The rest is just narrative for consumption.

I think you're giving the media and talking heads too much credit. People fall for talking points for the most part - as soon as the establishment takes the lead the race will be declared to be over.
And if more than one non-establishment candidate is in sight the media and talking heads won't shut up about how divided they are and use the two candidates to destroy each other.
I think you're viewing voters in a way that is too reasonable and as not being as gullible as they are in reality.

The establishment vs non-establishment thing is entirely nonsense. "The establishment" is a great bogeyman for some politicians and an easy narrative for the press.

If there's a major candidate identified in the press as the establishment and that candidate fails to win both Iowa and New Hampshire, your theory is that the narrative will be about other candidates fighting each other? That's delusional.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Numbers that jump out to me in this poll:

" Jeb Bush's numbers are not good. He has a favorable of 48% and an unfavorable of 25%. Given that practically republican knows who he is, I say this means Bush can't win Iowa. And since Bush is even worse in NH, he does not really have a good path to victory.

* John Kasich who is often thought of as an establishment candidate who could be groomed as the GOP nominee, has bad numbers. Only 18% favorable and 10% unfavorable. Compare to Rand who has 60% favorable, only 12% unfavorable.

* Christie has hideous number, 36% favorable, 38% unfavorable.

 

[jbauer]

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.

Yeah, or his 10% might only be 5%. You can't take the margin of error and automatically say the poll screwed up.

 

[nayjevin]

Yeah, or his 10% might only be 5%. You can't take the margin of error and automatically say the poll screwed up.

Exactly. Poll might be skewed in either direction. High margin of error polls are for uninformed voters to make faulty conclusions - not political strategists.

 

[FriedChicken]

DeMintConservative-

I get where you're coming from but you haven't convinced me you're right. I think the media, major donors and leaders of the republican party have specific candidates in mind and, for this moment in time, hold pretty good sway over the public opinion.

I hope I've done a good job explaining my position so that you at least understand it, as I do yours. That'd be the best I can hope for.
I don't think we're going to change each other's minds and I don't want to get into a long winded debate over this. (felling tired lately )