Quinnipiac poll: Rand Paul leads GOP candidates at 17%, Christie 13%, Rubio 12%

[Jeremy Tyler]

I agree with Collins on this one. While I'm sure the media pushing the newsletters did not help, it was CNN pushing that crappy poll (where they asked registered voters instead of likely caucus goers) that changed things. The republican primary was all about who was popular at the time and it seemed there was about 25% of primary voters who would go to them. Santorum got them at the end because of bad polling by CNN.

 

[klamath]

I agree with Collins on this one. While I'm sure the media pushing the newsletters did not help, it was CNN pushing that crappy poll (where they asked registered voters instead of likely caucus goers) that changed things. The republican primary was all about who was popular at the time and it seemed there was about 25% of primary voters who would go to them. Santorum got them at the end because of bad polling by CNN.

Can you explain why RP's surge had reversed before the Santorum poll came out?

 

[jjdoyle]

It became clear that Newt and Rick Perry had no chance in Iowa. A lot of people didn't want Romney and they weren't going to vote for Ron Paul under any circumstance. The only only plausible choice then was Santorum. Santorum has a similar appeal to Huckabee, who won Iowa in 2008. Santorum visited every county in Iowa. Talk radio was also behind Santorum at that point too.

Conservatives mobilized behind Santorum in the same way they mobilized behind Ron in Virginia when Romney was the only other candidate on the ballot.

This. While Santorum was actually TRYING to win, Ron Paul had packed his bags and headed home for New Year's weekend, probably because the polls showed him losing the state (we couldn't know that information though, because they still needed our funds).

Instead of Ron Paul 2012 addressing issues holding voters back (newsletters, foreign policy), we got them continuing to destroy Newt in December, while never touching Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum with an ad in Iowa.

It doesn't matter if the media puffed Santorum or not, AT LEAST Santorum wanted to win it. Ron Paul didn't want to win it, and I'm still not sure why he ran...other than to waste other people's money like the federal government.

Santorum had been being "puffed" by some in the media since early December. Ron Paul 2012 completely sank when they weren't prepared in ANY fashion to address the newsletter issue, or foreign policy, in a significant fashion.

When Ron Paul 2012 told supporters not to go to Iowa, then didn't have supporters at every caucus location to speak about Ron Paul in issues that were easy to understand, it was very obvious the campaign had completely failed.

 

[Matt Collins]

This. While Santorum was actually TRYING to win, Ron Paul had packed his bags and headed home for New Year's weekend, probably because the polls showed him losing the state (we couldn't know that information though, because they still needed our funds).

Actually he wasn't feeling well, which is why he went home.

Instead of Ron Paul 2012 addressing issues holding voters back (newsletters, foreign policy)

You don't talk about things that will cause you to lose and turn off voters. You have never run a campaign before obviously.

When Ron Paul 2012 told supporters not to go to Iowa

They told people who were going to interfere in the process and cause problems NOT to go to Iowa. There were many clowns who were trying to go and stir trouble among the locals, we did NOT want those people in state. Everyone else was welcome, although admittedly phone calls from home were the best option.

 

[klamath]

Dec 20; RP's RCP poll average for the 6 prior polls=24.6% (exactly the number Samtorum won the state by)

Dec 21 RP walks out of an interview when questioned about newsletters first makes the news.

Dec 28: RP's RCP poll average for the 6 prior polls = 21.0%

Dec 28: Very first of the news stories about Santorum's surge appears.

 

[Matt Collins]

Dec 20; RP's RCP poll average for the 6 prior polls=24.6% (exactly the number Samtorum won the state by)

Dec 21 RP walks out of an interview when questioned about newsletters first makes the news.

Dec 28: RP's RCP poll average for the 6 prior polls = 21.0%

Dec 28: Very first of the news stories about Santorum's surge appears.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause

 

[klamath]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause

You are too freaking funny. That is you best answer. At least I am logical compared to some people.....

 

[KingNothing]

Actually no it was not. The CNN fake puff job of Santorum was what caused Ron not to win Iowa.

The poll wasn't fake. It was real, but cherry-picked to capture what the establishment was able to accomplish by rallying religious voters around Santorum to stop Paul. The GOP certainly did everything it could to stop Paul but CNN did not "fake" a poll.

Don't you remember how the big players in local GOP politics convinced ministers and preachers to support Santorum? That is why we lost. Period. Otherwise, we would have won Iowa, and then won New Hampshire, and possibly South Carolina.

 

[EBounding]

You don't talk about things that will cause you to lose and turn off voters.

But do you just let the media and your opponents talk about these things (newsletters & Foreign Policy) to shape the narrative?

 

[KingNothing]

Cant it be a combination of the two?

Yes. And other things, too.

We didn't win Iowa because:

1.) The establishment didn't want us to win Iowa. The National party pressured the local politicians and even said that Iowa would lose its first in the nation status if Paul won. That was enough to cause the local players to look for an alternative.

2.) The news letters left a somewhat sour taste in the mouths of SOME moderates who would have otherwise rejected Romney and Santorum.

3.) The news letters made GOP insiders think Paul never really had a chance to win a national election, hence item #1 above.

4.) The Paul campaign was not prepared to deal with a Santorum surge, which was foolish. They should have known it was possible, given the religious nature of voters in Iowa, the tendency of GOP voters to cycle through front-runners, and the effect that churches and the party establishment could have on low-turnout caucuses.

5.) Romney's political machine and voter turnout was top-notch. He had it down to a science. We had the passion, but not the organizational know-how that he had.

Now, in spite of all of these things, I think the Paul campaign was VERY well-run, and I think that candidate Paul did a pretty remarkable job of being bombastic and message-driven, while still trying to appeal to a broad base of voters.

 

[Matt Collins]

You are too freaking funny. That is you best answer. At least I am logical compared to some people.....

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

 

[Matt Collins]

The poll wasn't fake. It was real, but cherry-picked to capture what the establishment was able to accomplish by rallying religious voters around Santorum to stop Paul. The GOP certainly did everything it could to stop Paul but CNN did not "fake" a poll.

Well, it showed Santorum up 0.25% and they called this "surging". That was of course well within the margin of error. Well they kept repeating the lie that he was surging over and over again, and then pretty soon the bandwagon effect took place.

 

[Matt Collins]

But do you just let the media and your opponents talk about these things (newsletters & Foreign Policy) to shape the narrative?

That's what ads and direct mailings are for. You can't control the media, you just try to go around them if you can.

 

[Matt Collins]

4.) The Paul campaign was not prepared to deal with a Santorum surge, which was foolish. They should have known it was possible, given the religious nature of voters in Iowa, the tendency of GOP voters to cycle through front-runners, and the effect that churches and the party establishment could have on low-turnout caucuses.

It wasn't a real surge until the media started turning it into one.

 

[thoughtomator]

Hey, say what you will about Mitt, he was a bright guy with an impressive resume from the private sector.

Actually, if you looked into his resume, it was a pretty ugly stain of serial looting of the public treasury. His "business" acumen was pulling political strings and gaming the law to pull windfall profits for himself while saddling the companies he managed with debt. Fairly typical vulture Fascism.

 

[klamath]

Yes. And other things, too.

We didn't win Iowa because:

1.) The establishment didn't want us to win Iowa. The National party pressured the local politicians and even said that Iowa would lose its first in the nation status if Paul won. That was enough to cause the local players to look for an alternative.

2.) The news letters left a somewhat sour taste in the mouths of SOME moderates who would have otherwise rejected Romney and Santorum.

3.) The news letters made GOP insiders think Paul never really had a chance to win a national election, hence item #1 above.

4.) The Paul campaign was not prepared to deal with a Santorum surge, which was foolish. They should have known it was possible, given the religious nature of voters in Iowa, the tendency of GOP voters to cycle through front-runners, and the effect that churches and the party establishment could have on low-turnout caucuses.

5.) Romney's political machine and voter turnout was top-notch. He had it down to a science. We had the passion, but not the organizational know-how that he had.

Now, in spite of all of these things, I think the Paul campaign was VERY well-run, and I think that candidate Paul did a pretty remarkable job of being bombastic and message-driven, while still trying to appeal to a broad base of voters.

RP's slump in the polls was media driven, and backed by the establishment who fell into the anybody but Paul mode. They really didn't want Santorum to win but they knew Romney was not going to pull it off except when they lied about the results. They knew Santorum's surge could be stopped in NH and it was. RP's surge would have been enhanced because he very will could win NH.

 

[Matt Collins]

RP's slump in the polls was media driven, and backed by the establishment who fell into the anybody but Paul mode. They really didn't want Santorum to win but they knew Romney was not going to pull it off except when they lied about the results. They knew Santorum's surge could be stopped in NH and it was. RP's surge would have been enhanced because he very will could win NH.

Yes, this is true, except for the part about them lying. When a race is that close, it's very hard to tell who the actual winner is, because of counting errors. Not saying there wasn't any corruption on the ground (I am not personally aware of any) but one shouldn't default to malice what can be assigned to incompetence.

 

[rich34]

It wasn't a real surge until the media started turning it into one.

To the best of my reckelection, Collins is correct on this. Of course after several polls showing Ron trending upward he was eventually going to hit a ceiling. Happens to everyone also known as peaked. It's impossible to say something as widely known to those in Iowa especially, the newsletters that is which had already been used against Ron numerous times would have prevented him from winning Iowa. Fact is Ron peaked, Romney peaked and then they created the Santorum surge with that fake ass poll and then as Collins said the msm started running with the surge story at the top of the hour every hour for two weeks straight. That became the "big story" and they didn't quit until they made it reality, well or prevented just enough undecideds and those with soft support for Ron to switch to Santorum. This isn't all to hard to understand.

 

[klamath]

To the best of my reckelection, Collins is correct on this. Of course after several polls showing Ron trending upward he was eventually going to hit a ceiling. Happens to everyone also known as peaked. It's impossible to say something as widely known to those in Iowa especially, the newsletters that is which had already been used against Ron numerous times would have prevented him from winning Iowa. Fact is Ron peaked, Romney peaked and then they created the Santorum surge with that fake ass poll and then as Collins said the msm started running with the surge story at the top of the hour every hour for two weeks straight. That became the "big story" and they didn't quit until they made it reality, well or prevented just enough undecideds and those with soft support for Ron to switch to Santorum. This isn't all to hard to understand.

And you are making your own reality. The very first news stories on Santorum's surge came out on the 28th of Dec. The Iowa caucus was on Jan 3rd. I don't know what calendar you use but that isn't even a week. What I do remember was one full week before the surge story coming out was non stop coverage of newsletters and RP walking out of an interview when asked about it. Try googling it and you will find pages of the stories.