IA-Neighborhood Research: Huckabee 21.0% Romney 13.5% Trump 8.8% Gingrich 7.8%

[Mr. Morden]

Neighborhood Research poll of Iowa for GOP caucus:

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM152_110405_iowa_memo.html

Huckabee 21.0%
Romney 13.5%
Trump 8.8%
Gingrich 7.8%
Palin 6.6%
Bachmann 5.3%
Pawlenty 4.4%
Paul 3.4%
Cain 2.5%
Santorum 1.3%
everyone else at 1% or less

If Huckabee, Palin, and Trump don't run:

Romney 21.0%
Gingrich 12.2%
Bachmann 6.6%
Pawlenty 6.3%
Paul 5.6%
Cain 2.8%
Santorum 1.9%
everyone else at 1% or less

If only these five candidates run:

Romney 24.1%
Gingrich 12.5%
Pawlenty 8.2%
Bachmann 7.9%
Paul 6.9%

[Bull Moose Base]

It's hard to imagine Romney blowing off Iowa with those no-Huckabee-Palin-Trump #s.  Too tempting to go for a quick knockout.  But I guess he led in IA polls even later in last cycle, and lost to someone who was just a blip on polls until summer.  So maybe he'd wait to see how the polls look in 6 months after debates and campaigning.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Pawlenty works his ass off for a year with Iowans and yet he gets the same share as Bachmann who just entered(?) the race. Who said life is fair?

Also, LOL at Santorum.

[Likely Voter]

I think Romney has a shot at winning IA. If Gingrich, Bachman, Cain, Santorum split the conservative half of the electorate he can win with a reasonable chunk of the mainstream/moderate vote. He got 21% in 2008, so getting 30% is not out of the question and could win it

[Mr. Morden]

He got 21% in 2008, so getting 30% is not out of the question and could win it

Actually, he did even better than that in 2008.  It was Huckabee 34%, Romney 25%.

[Rowan]

Isn't this Rick Shaftan's polling outfit? I wonder if he has a horse in the race.

[King]

Iowa always rejects inauthentic pandering candidates in the end, which means either Bachmann or Paul will win.  Scary.

[tpfkaw]

Iowa always rejects inauthentic pandering candidates in the end, which means either Bachmann or Paul will win.  Scary.

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=19&year=2004&f=0&off=0&elect=1
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=19&year=2000&f=0&off=0&elect=2
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=19&year=1996&f=0&off=0&elect=2

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

^
True.

And also,

1988 - Gephardt
1984 - Mondale
1980 - Bush

[California8429]

I do find it funny bloggers on the right claim Bachmann and Santorum are the only two that could possibly fill the Palin/Huck gap while Herman Cain continues to poll better in Iowa than Santorum while having less ID

[King]

Iowa always rejects inauthentic pandering candidates in the end, which means either Bachmann or Paul will win.  Scary.

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=19&year=2004&f=0&off=0&elect=1
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=19&year=2000&f=0&off=0&elect=2
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=19&year=1996&f=0&off=0&elect=2

Of course it's all relative.  They are all liars in some way to even bother running for President.  But if you think Bush and Kerry are inauthentic compared to guys like Steve Forbes and John Edwards, then... I don't know what to tell ya.

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

But Forbes' showing was the high point of his campaign, and Iowa put Edwards on the map. There's just nothing to suggest that Iowa always rejects panderers or votes for candidates as eccentric as Bachman and Paul. Buchanan/Robertson/Keyes et al. overperformed there, but didn't win. NH is more the anti-pandering/vote-for-oddballs state.