IA-Rasmussen: Bachmann & Romney tied, strong showing by Paul

[Tender Branson]

22% Bachmann
21% Romney
16% Paul 
12% Perry
11% Pawlenty
18% Others/Undecided

Ron Paul leads among those who say they are "certain to vote".

[Tender Branson]

The results are very similiar to the ARG poll in July.

Maybe this is the cycle for Rasmussen and ARG ...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Bachmann has certainly deflated recently, if true.

[Phony Moderate]

Paul actually does have a slight chance of winning the nomination, which is hillarious.

[Zarn]

Can we stop saying Paul is a fringe candidate, now?

Can we also stop pretending Cain and Pawlenty have a remote chance?

[Reluctant Republican]

How bad would a Romney third place finish be for his campaign? I'm getting shades of Clinton here (Though it can be argued it did not hurt her all that much)

Good news about Paul. If he can win at Ames I'd call him the favorite in Iowa.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Can we stop saying Paul is a fringe candidate, now?

Can we also stop pretending Cain and Pawlenty have a remote chance?

I don't know. There are some people who would deny that Paul has any chance at all of victory even if he was polling in first with 25%. Plus, the media has been attempting to push Pawlenty as a viable option for ages, so he will at least attempt to hold on until Ames. Cain was a fad, and is unlikely to regain popularity any time soon.

If Ron Paul won the Ames straw poll, his chances of victory would go up considerably. However, the best order of victory for him would be

Paul
Pawlenty
Cain/Bachmann
Bachmann/Cain

We all know that T-Paw has no chance in hell of winning at this point (unless he won the straw poll and his opponents all did stupid things around the same time), and it would be impossible to paint him as a Huckabee style "Man of the People" what with all the official campaign stuff he is devoting to winning this. Thus, the media wouldn't be able to divert attention to the second place finisher, and Bachmann in third or fourth wouldn't have done well enough to gain lasting popularity and strength, resulting in her decline. From there, Paul would be the official "Anti-Romney" with the bonus of strength among certain demographics the others lack (indies, the youth, etc) and could beat Romney.

Of course, that is just day dreaming, but it is certainly more likely than it was in 2008.

[California8429]

Did they not poll anyone else? because if they didn't that kinda defeats the poll...

[King]

Paul actually does have a slight chance of winning the nomination, which is hillarious.

No.  Paul has a ceiling right around this showing in Iowa/NH; even less in big GOP states in the South.  Although it's certainly possible that the rest all embarrass themselves to the point where he has enough delegates to influence a brokered convention, he has 0% chance to be at the top of the ticket.

And, before the Paulfans bring out the personal attack machine, I'd vote for him over Obama in a general, but it's not happening.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Has Fox News been ignoring Paul less this cycle, or something?

[King]

Has Fox News been ignoring Paul less this cycle, or something?

I doubt most Iowans pay much attention to the national media portrayals of candidates when you can sit down and have coffee with them at any local McDonalds.

[Bacon King]

Paul actually does have a slight chance of winning the nomination, which is hillarious.

No.  Paul has a ceiling right around this showing in Iowa/NH; even less in big GOP states in the South.  Although it's certainly possible that the rest all embarrass themselves to the point where he has enough delegates to influence a brokered convention, he has 0% chance to be at the top of the ticket.

And, before the Paulfans bring out the personal attack machine, I'd vote for him over Obama in a general, but it's not happening.

I half agree, half disagree with you here, fellow King.

Paul can certainly beat his 2008 Iowa results by a significant margin in the right environment. Caucuses aren't so much a measure of public sentiment as they are a test of a candidate's base; testing whose supporters care enough about the candidate to go spend four hours on a Monday night in the local high school gym. Paul's supporters have always been energetic about the candidate, of course. I can also easily see the "serious" candidates in this race going strongly negative against each other in the couple of months before the Iowa caucus, just like the Democrats did in 2004, which would leave plenty of supporters discouraged. Also consider that Ron Paul's campaign seems a bit saner than it was four years ago; there's a lot of potential now for voters to cross over to Paul's camp (during that part of the caucus where people can switch and people get eliminated and stuff), which IIRC didn't really happen for him in 2008. He's actually managed to position himself as a bit of an inoffensive economic conservative candidate so he looks like a viable alternative to supporters of other candidates. It's not outside the realm of possibility for Paul to win Iowa. Doubt it, but it could happen.

But yeah, even if he did win Iowa, and even NH, his campaign would be dead in the water by the time the "Ron Paul wants to legalize heroin! And he hates our troops! And he didn't vote to give Ronald Reagan a Gold Medal!" ads were rushed onto the airwaves.

[AUH2O Libertarian]

Just listened to Rasmussen's podcast:

http://www.wmal.com/Article.asp?id=2255743

Interesting note:

49% of Paul supporters say that they will not vote for the Republican if RP is not nominated

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Can we stop saying Paul is a fringe candidate, now?

Can we also stop pretending Cain and Pawlenty have a remote chance?

If the political system is a as corrupt as Paul and his followers believe, he will never win the nomination, because it wouldn't be allowed.

[Zarn]

Just listened to Rasmussen's podcast:

http://www.wmal.com/Article.asp?id=2255743

Interesting note:

49% of Paul supporters say that they will not vote for the Republican if RP is not nominated

That's because Paul supporters know the records of the other candidates. They are anything but Republican.

[Phony Moderate]

They are anything but Republican.

You should probably use a small "r" there.

[Zarn]

They are anything but Republican.

You should probably use a small "r" there.

I think either way works. There is how voters see Republicans and how they really are.

[AUH2O Libertarian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=x15NxuTu9VE

[Meeker]

11% for Pawlenty is a lot better than he used to be doing.

[Mr. Morden]

11% for Pawlenty is a lot better than he used to be doing.

Keep in mind, Bachmann, Pawlenty, and Paul are the only candidates who have run any TV ads in Iowa.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Just listened to Rasmussen's podcast:

http://www.wmal.com/Article.asp?id=2255743

Interesting note:

49% of Paul supporters say that they will not vote for the Republican if RP is not nominated

Yeah, like those Clinton supporters that wouldn't vote for Obama (unless Hillary was given the VP spot).

[Associate Justice PiT]

Just listened to Rasmussen's podcast:

http://www.wmal.com/Article.asp?id=2255743

Interesting note:

49% of Paul supporters say that they will not vote for the Republican if RP is not nominated

Yeah, like those Clinton supporters that wouldn't vote for Obama (unless Hillary was given the VP spot).

     Probably more valid here since Paul gets significant support from circles that otherwise do not vote.

[Tender Branson]

Did they not poll anyone else? because if they didn't that kinda defeats the poll...

5% Gingrich
4% Cain
2% Huntsman
7% Others/Undecided

Link

[Mr. Morden]

Bachmann 22%
Romney 21%
Paul 16%
Perry 12%
Pawlenty 11%
Gingrich 5%
Cain 4%
Huntsman 2%

37% of Republicans have a "very favorable" view of Bachmann.  "No other candidate in the field earns Very Favorable reviews from more than 20%."

[Zarn]

Yeah, but she has squishy supporters. Also, her numbers were higher in Iowa. She is falling.