IA-Bloomberg/DMR/Selzer: Cruz 25% Trump 22% Rubio 12% Carson 11% Paul 5% Bush 4%

[Mr. Morden]

Bloomberg/DMR/Selzer poll of Iowa:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-13/bloomberg-politics-des-moines-register-iowa-poll-january-2016

[Mr. Morden]

Fav/unfav % among Republican caucusgoers:

Cruz 76/19% for +57%
Rubio 73/21% for +52%
Carson 73/22% for +51%
Fiorina 58/28% for +30%
Huckabee 59/33% for +26%
Santorum 52/34% for +18%
Trump 54/45% for +9%
Christie 51/42% for +9%
Paul 45/43% for +2%
Bush 47/50% for -3%
Kasich 28/43% for -15%

[Lief 🗽]

Wow even the anti-TRUMP DMR is showing him with the momentum now!!

[Mr. Morden]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[This account no longer in use.]

No Democrat numbers?

[mds32]

No Democrat numbers?

Probably soon to come. Probably has a Clinton or Sanders lead by no more than 2-3.

[Lief 🗽]

Democratic numbers will be released tomorrow morning.

[Bismarck]

Iowa is all going to come down to wether or not Trump can turn out his voters.

[mds32]

Wow even the anti-TRUMP DMR is showing him with the momentum now!!

Anti? Seriously this is getting ridiculous. I guess that they are anti-bush and anti-gilmore too since neither lead in their polls. Seriously.

[Lief 🗽]

Wow even the anti-TRUMP DMR is showing him with the momentum now!!

Anti? Seriously this is getting ridiculous. I guess that they are anti-bush and anti-gilmore too since neither lead in their polls. Seriously.

The DMR has been very anti-TRUMP in their reporting and editorials this campaign.

[Mr. Morden]

Wow even the anti-TRUMP DMR is showing him with the momentum now!!

Anti? Seriously this is getting ridiculous. I guess that they are anti-bush and anti-gilmore too since neither lead in their polls. Seriously.

The DMR has been very anti-TRUMP in their reporting and editorials this campaign.

Yes, and so they bribed Ann Selzer to skew her polls, just to make him look bad, right?

[mds32]

Wow even the anti-TRUMP DMR is showing him with the momentum now!!

Anti? Seriously this is getting ridiculous. I guess that they are anti-bush and anti-gilmore too since neither lead in their polls. Seriously.

The DMR has been very anti-TRUMP in their reporting and editorials this campaign.

Yes, and so they bribed Ann Selzer to skew her polls, just to make him look bad, right?

Not only that it was probably Reince himself! Next he'll probably say that overtimepolitics broke off the "trump" team because they showed Iowa tied.

[Mr. Morden]

Wow even the anti-TRUMP DMR is showing him with the momentum now!!

Anti? Seriously this is getting ridiculous. I guess that they are anti-bush and anti-gilmore too since neither lead in their polls. Seriously.

The DMR has been very anti-TRUMP in their reporting and editorials this campaign.

Yes, and so they bribed Ann Selzer to skew her polls, just to make him look bad, right?

Not only that it was probably Reince himself! Next he'll probably say that overtimepolitics broke off the "trump" team because they showed Iowa tied.

The Des Moines Register really just wants to toy with Lief.  They know that he's both pro-Clinton and pro-Trump, so they bribed Ann Selzer to put out anti-Trump polls, while also having her set up "Overtime Politics" in her spare time, to churn out anti-Clinton polls.  It's the most logical explanation.

The editorial board over there probably reads the Atlas forum frequently, and has decided to troll posters they don't like.  I bet they even have a few accounts here.  If you spot a likely DMR poster, let me know and I'll run an IP check.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Cruz is definitely gaining in Iowa, the GOP sentiment against Trump is settling in.

[Phony Moderate]

Cruz is definitely gaining in Iowa, the GOP sentiment against Trump is settling in.

...

[mds32]

Wow even the anti-TRUMP DMR is showing him with the momentum now!!

Anti? Seriously this is getting ridiculous. I guess that they are anti-bush and anti-gilmore too since neither lead in their polls. Seriously.

The DMR has been very anti-TRUMP in their reporting and editorials this campaign.

Yes, and so they bribed Ann Selzer to skew her polls, just to make him look bad, right?

Not only that it was probably Reince himself! Next he'll probably say that overtimepolitics broke off the "trump" team because they showed Iowa tied.

The Des Moines Register really just wants to toy with Lief.  They know that he's both pro-Clinton and pro-Trump, so they bribed Ann Selzer to put out anti-Trump polls, while also having her set up "Overtime Politics" in her spare time, to churn out anti-Clinton polls.  It's the most logical explanation.

The editorial board over there probably reads the Atlas forum frequently, and has decided to troll posters they don't like.  I bet they even have a few accounts here.  If you spot a likely DMR poster, let me know and I'll run an IP check.

They probably infiltrated the prediction maps too and made sure that Cruz would get the massive amount of states that he has right now along with suddenly allowing Bernie to continue to gain momentum there too!

[Mr. Morden]

A graphic illustration of this poll:

[Maxwell]

I'm trying to remember what the last Selzer poll looked like, but I'm pretty sure it was 31 Cruz-21 Trump. Cruz is losing steam, but from the looks of it, it may be the natural drain of momentum rather than this whole birther issue.

[weixiaobao]

Are they overpolled old Romney supporters? and underpolled former Paul supporters?  I cut out the ones that didn't attended the caucus.

100-22-7-9=62

The 7 and 9 here seemed to be trolling. Or that they did attend but wasn't illegible to vote or something.

Most of Ron Paul voters probably around this cycle. But many voters probably had died off (due to the average age of the caucus goers) and there are new voters coming in.  The only explanation is that Ron Paul supporters were temporary students of the state or something and no longer here this cycle.

Romney 31/62*100=50%
Santorum 14/62*100=22.58%
Ron Paul 5/62*100=8.06%


2016 Rep CGs who
have attended a Rep
caucus in the past
n=336
±5.4% pts
22 No, did not attend 2012 Republican caucus
31 Yes, supported Mitt Romney
14 Yes, supported Rick Santorum
5 Yes, supported Ron Paul
3 Yes, supported Newt Gingrich
4 Yes, supported Rick Perry
2 Yes, supported Michele Bachmann
2 Yes, supported someone else
7 Yes, not sure of support
9 Not sure whether attended

[Ljube]

I'm trying to remember what the last Selzer poll looked like, but I'm pretty sure it was 31 Cruz-21 Trump. Cruz is losing steam, but from the looks of it, it may be the natural drain of momentum rather than this whole birther issue.

It's the birther issue I tell you.

[Why]

Cruz does seem to have peaked.
Trump going steady
Carson look to have recovered by a slight insignificant amount unless it grows.
Rubio needs to beat at least Carson, losing to Carson would not be good for him at all.

The rest are irrelevant to this contest.

[Alcon]

I'm trying to remember what the last Selzer poll looked like, but I'm pretty sure it was 31 Cruz-21 Trump. Cruz is losing steam, but from the looks of it, it may be the natural drain of momentum rather than this whole birther issue.

Yep, it was.  Compared to the last Selzer poll:

Cruz 25% (-6)
Trump 22% (nc)
Rubio 12% (+2)
Carson 11% (-2)
Paul 5% (+2)
Bush 4% (-2)
Huckabee 3% (nc)
Christie 3% (nc)
Fiorina 2% (+1)
Kasich 2% (nc)
Santorum 1% (nc)
Gilmore 0% (nc)

Not sure 6% (+2)
Uncommitted 5% (+2)

[Mr. Morden]

Are they overpolled old Romney supporters? and underpolled former Paul supporters?  I cut out the ones that didn't attended the caucus.

I don't trust voters to accurately recall who they voted for last time.  Especially in a case like this, when you're talking about a caucus, and some people may have been confused and thought they were being asked who they supported in the general election.

[Maxwell]

Are they overpolled old Romney supporters? and underpolled former Paul supporters?  I cut out the ones that didn't attended the caucus.

I don't trust voters to accurately recall who they voted for last time.  Especially in a case like this, when you're talking about a caucus, and some people may have been confused and thought they were being asked who they supported in the general election.

If they are Paul supporters, I would be surprised if they forgot.

[This account no longer in use.]

Are they overpolled old Romney supporters? and underpolled former Paul supporters?  I cut out the ones that didn't attended the caucus.

I don't trust voters to accurately recall who they voted for last time.  Especially in a case like this, when you're talking about a caucus, and some people may have been confused and thought they were being asked who they supported in the general election.

If they are Paul supporters, I would be surprised if they forgot.

I believe you mean RON PAUL REVOLUTIONARIES