Iowa GOP Poll Results: Front Runners For All!–Including Ron Paul


New Bloomberg poll from Iowa makes all the talk of rising and falling frontrunners seem pointless, with Romney (the legacy frontrunner), Cain (the why-God-why? frontrunner), Gingrich (the "we need someone new to talk about this week" frontrunner) and now Ron Paul, the brand-new, let's-see-if-anyone-notices frontrunner in Iowa all in a statistical tie. The poll has:

Cain at 20 percent, Paul at 19 percent, Romney at 18 percent and Gingrich at 17 percent among the likely attendees with the caucuses that start the nominating contests seven weeks away.

Better news for Paul buried toward the end of the story:

 Among likely caucus-goers who say their minds are made up, Paul leads with 32 percent, followed by Romney at 25 percent and Gingrich, a former House speaker, at 17 percent.

Among Paul supporters who backed him in the 2008 caucuses, 69 percent are still with him now.

Paul's campaign is also showing the strongest political ground game, with 67 percent of the likely caucus goers saying he or she has "been contacted by the campaign through email, direct mail, telephone, or by someone coming to your door in the past year or by meeting the candidate in person." The closest competitor on that is Bachmann, with 61 percent saying the same. Cain's campaign has only hit 41 percent of the likely caucus voters, and Gingrich only 29 percent.

Full poll results, for which Bloomberg interviewed 2,677 registered Republicans or independents, finding 503 likely caucus voters. The numbers are all based on those 503, with a 4.4 percent margin of error.

Interestingly, the likely Iowa caucus voters think Paul, who openly derided the sense of a border wall and suggested it could be used to keep us in at the September 7 Reagan Library debate, is the candidate who "would do the most to halt illegal immigration," at 17 percent. (19 percent were not sure which candidate would do the most to halt it.)

Yes, Iowa is not the nation (ask the Huckabee '08 campaign–if you can find it!!), but this is good news for potential Republican Party sanity.

NEXT: In Search of Free Will and Moral Responsibility

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. this is good news for potential Republican Party sanity.


  2. Interestingly, the likely Iowa caucus voters think Paul, …is the candidate who “would do the most to halt illegal immigration,” at 17 percent

    I would like to think by doing something about the “illegal” part, rather than the “immigration” part. But this is Team Red we’re talking about.

    1. I really, really want to know why the fuck this is a leading issue when there is the recession, fucking scandals involving ridiculous graft, and new countries being bombed. Yet here is TEAM RED and what is it highly concerned about? People who come here to pick fruit.

      It’s fucking retarded.

      1. YOU’RE retarded for using the word “retarded”, RETARD!

        1. Don’t be retarded, retard.

      2. Immigrant hate always runs high in tough economic times. I’m reading a biography of Grover Cleveland right now, and man people really hated Chinamen in the 1880s.

        1. Yeah, I guess. It’s so fucking stupid, but it makes sense for the politicians to stoke it, I guess, if they want to win.

          God damn I hate politics and politicians.

          1. Politics and politicians are retarded

        2. Could you use a different phrasing?

          1. Happy to oblige.

            Tough economic times tends to amplify peoples’ innate xenophobia. One example from the Grover Cleveland biography I’m currently reading is the popular and bipartisan hatred of Chinamen.


            1. Thank you.

        3. don’t forget the chinawomen.

          1. Nobody hates Chinawomen.

        4. I’m a semi-serious Grover enthusiast. Which one are you reading?

      3. People have cherished beliefs, emotionally arrived at, that are not sustainable in practice.

        When the system begins to break down, it’s the rare person who asks why the system is failing and is willing to give up one of these cherished beliefs. Most people instead look for a scapegoat – Jews, Mexicans, Rich People, Poor People, Hippies, Pacifists, Drinkers, Drug users, Smokers, Bankers, Kulaks, Algebra Professors.

        1. Libertarians?

          1. It’s always libertarians. We are the ones the Trilateral Commission reports to.

        2. You know who else found someone to blame for all their problems…

          1. The turdbreathed do-nothings of the Occupy Wall Street movement?

            1. Oh, SNAP! RPA for the win!

      4. Well, the pollsters asked them about illegal immigration. It’s not like they volunteered that information.

  3. Alright, I gotta question for the commentariat.

    If Ron Paul wins Iowa, what happens? Media reaction, other candidates’ reactions, etc.

    1. 7th sign, raining frogs, dogs and cats lying down together, MOOSLIMZ put a mosque at HOLY GROUND ZERO, rivers flow with blood, Jesus comes back and is PISSED and rains hellfire and kills people and throws lighting bolts like Zeus and shit.

      I pretty much think it’d be like that.

      1. Dogs and cats, living together? Mass hysteria?

    2. If Ron Paul wins the Republican party “proper” attacks him with a shit storm like no other. Democrats will get better treatment than RP.

      1. In that case, my hope is that the Republican base comes around and tells the Republican leadership to eat shit — will it happen, though? Any chance at all?

        1. Yes, because if he wins Iowa that means the base must be sympathetic to him anyway.

          And other than the newsletter thing, which I’m betting he’d be able to handle, he doesn’t have the past personal ickiness of Gingrich or Cain

          1. Yes…but he is a pussy who doesn’t want to nuke brown people who follow the wrong religion.

    3. …would have a panic attack.

    4. “Hey guys, did you hear about those racist Ron Paul newsletters?!”
      – New York Times, et al

    5. Romney won the straw poll at 19%. Cain narrowly lost at 21%, and Gingrich is pulling stong at 17%.

      Santorum’s campaign is surging at 6%, and Rick Perry has dropped out after his low showing of 14%. Bachmann wants her supporters back, after showing only 1.1%.

      Now, for Steve with the weather.

      [Ron Paul at 20%]

    6. If Ron Paul wins, the mainstream media finally recognizes that the “straw poll” has no direct bearing on the election of delegates to the county convention which elects delegates to the state convention which elects delegates to the national convention.

      Ron Paul winning another straw poll is still meaningless.

      1. I meant the actual primary…

    7. the shit hits the fan.

      the pro-paul and anti-paul factions both experience a massive surge and primary suddenly becomes a referendum on the Republican party of the last 20 years.

    8. If Paul wins Iowa and comes in second in New Hampshire (both very possible at this point) it’s not out of the realm of possibilities that the rank and file just line up and vote for him. They do that a lot. The big question is what happens in South Carolina, where the GOP establishment crushes the hopes of insurgent candidates.

    9. Clearly the Iowa Caucuses don’t carry the importance that they once did. New Hampshire is the fist primary in the nation. Romney is expected to win big there!

  4. I’d say, “Fuck you, Iowa and New Hampshire, with your douchitarian influence beyond your size and importance to The Union? with your stupid early cauci and compulsory figures and whatever!”

    Except since I’m not voting anyone from Team Rouge OR Team Bleu, I don’t give a shit about any of this!

    tl/dr YAAAAAAAAY, ME!

    I’m voting for me in 2012. I’ve decided I’d be best. Even better than Ron Paul or Saint Gary Johnson. You vote for whomever you think is best. Or don’t vote. It’s a free country. Kind of. For a little while longer.

  5. Do not vote for Ron Paul.

    1. Seriously? He is the only candidate right or left that truly is not a war-monger. Obama just got us into 2 more wars without even consulting with congress!! We’ve hit a new low. Paul would bring the troops home immediately, and he could, as he is not beholden to the military industrial complex as EVERY other politician is!

  6. Join the r3VOLution 2012.

  7. “Interestingly, the likely Iowa caucus voters think Paul, who openly derided the sense of a border wall and suggested it could be used to keep us in”

    If that ever happens, if we ever fall so far, I’ll be the first to blow my brains out — no fucking way in hell am I taking that

    1. jesus if you have a gun the least you could do is take out a few feds with you.

      1. Yeah, you’re right — not doing so would be civic irresponsibility.

  8. I think it’s a forlorn hope that he wins the nomination, but hopefully he wins enough support to get him to run as a 3rd party candidate!

    (so Obama wins)

    1. The Derider?! Was it you who summoned HTS back?

      If so, a grateful commentariat thanks you.

  9. Two Brian Doherty posts on Hit and Run in one evening? This is an embarrassment of riches!

    Mr. Doherty, are we to take it that your return means your book is complete, and, if so, when can we anticipate seeing it on the shelves of all good booksellers?

  10. I am back onclock with Reason as of today, yes. The publication of books grindeth slowly; it won’t be out for awhile. As regular readers will know, we aren’t going to let the publication of a staffer’s book go unannounced, you’ll be well informed well in advance of publication.

    1. Well, welcome back then, Brian.

      1. wait, what is this above comment Epi, not being a douchebag? Truly Ron Paul will now win the Iowa caucuses.

        1. Only if you make the right sacrifices to the spam gods. I can’t do everything myself, you know.

    2. “we aren’t going to let the publication of a staffer’s book go unannounced”

      No, I’m pretty sure you let one by Gillespie and Welch slip by…

    3. Someone see on staff wrote a book? Who the fuck knew?

  11. Here is how the media will react: After weeks of harping about how who ever wins this first contest will be first real frontrunner; If Ron Paul comes in first they will immediately dismiss the whole causcus as not really being that important. If he comes in second, they will talk about the winner and the person that takes third place.
    The only way that Ron Paul will get recognition by the media is if the gets two early 1st place wins in row.

  12. I’m a military veteran and I’m all-in for Ron Paul because he is pro-freedom, pro-peace and anti-bailouts. No other candidate comes close to having these characteristics. btw – for all you neocon war-mongers that want the other candidates, why don’t you join this time and go to war with Iran? Leave the rest of us and our children out of your crazy unjust wars. Ron Paul is the only one that will not start another unjust war.

    1. take a deep breath Vet. I’ll probably vote for RP again (twice), but, Just you know, don’t get your hopes up too high.

      1. Awesome, how do you get to vote twice?

    2. But RP is not pro-peace. He is in favor of the appearance of peace at all costs. Even if that means turning a blind eye to Khobar towers and the attempted assassination of an ambassador here. You can ventilate about foreign adventures all you want but it does not change the reality that Iran has been at war with America since 1979 and America has dumbly stood there at every outrage.

      Even if Ron Paul did win the nom (unlikely), Obama would just have to dredge up some of the newsletter weirdness or the “Nuclear Iran? Why worry?” foolishness or the “NAFTA = North American Union” loopiness and Obama is reelected.

      1. Actually Cyto, RP is pro-peace and he has consistently voted against unjust wars. I can’t discern what the rest of your note means but I would say that RP is truly the most pro-peace candidate of either party and, besides Perry, is the only one that actually served in the military. RP is not a neocon war-monger like all the others. That said, if you want to fight Iran, by all means board the next flight over; but stop having others do your fighting for you; that is neither honorable nor moral. In fact it is cowardly.

        1. Allowing Iran to sponsor US terrorism is not peace. ‘America not going to war’ is not synonomous with peace (squares and rectangles). Your criteria are wrong.

          That said, if you want to fight Iran, by all means board the next flight over

          Fuck off. Americans already pay taxes for the government to protect their rights they don’t have to sign up to justify it. Why don’t you just write “my arguments are shitty so I have to ultimatum you”? More pointed.

          1. Cyto, Iran is not a threat to you or me. The Pentagon poses a much greater threat to our freedoms, even lives I’d say, than those Mullahs ever will

          2. Here’s how it works. Ron Paul doesn’t start wars. He finishes them.

          3. Ctyo, why don’t you just write “Like all neocons, I just call for war but never actually go fight.” War-mongers screech for blood but never do the fighting. Also, look up ‘unjust war’; the ‘unjust’ part makes a big difference.

          4. Iran is a 3rd world country. They don’t have an army, a navy or an air force that can come here. They can’t even make enough gasoline for themselves! This is more war propaganda just like Iraq. It is orchestrated to benefit the special interests while bankrupting our country and hurting the rest of us.

      2. We openly have announced our intention to employ black operations to kill Iranian citizens, topple Iran’s government, and destroy its state property.

        We almost certainly are responsible for the assassination of Iranian scientists and for both cyber and physical sabotage on Iranian soil.

        I honestly don’t care if Iran meddles in the internal affairs of Iraq or Lebanon. Where is it written that only the United States is entitled to meddle in the internal affairs of Iraq and Lebanon?

        1. Where is it written that only the United States is entitled to meddle in the internal affairs of Iraq and Lebanon?

          In the fucking bible you bleeding heart pussy!

          1. ^Insane

    3. We would never attack Iran because they actually have their shit together and could hurt us. There is a reason we only invade countries led my unpopular dictators.

      1. America would crush them like a bug. “Having shit together” in that part of the world just means most of the helmets are the right size

        1. Of course we would crush them in a full-on military confrontation. But that isn’t going to happen (are you advocating an occupation of Iran?)

          What would happen is a slew of airstrikes against their nuclear facilities. They would then retaliate by closing off the strait of Hormuz, potentially crashing the global economy. Hezbollah and Hamas, knowing where their bread is buttered, would start a new war with Israel. The Shia militias who have been behaving in Iraq would likely turn on the American troops we still have there. Iranian sleeper cells in America might even go on a rampage.

          And you would then claim that they started it 🙁

          1. But they did start it…because there are brown and stuff. They should have welcomed the Shah with open arms, bowed to our greatness, bought our union produced garbage, and dressed their women like sluts. But no…they had to be fucking brown non-christians who hold grudges and get uppity when they are perpetually threatened by a slew of countries with thousands of nuclear weapons. What a bunch of ungrateful fucks.

  13. If Ron Paul wins in Iowa, I win $100. C’mon, Ron, keep it up!

    1. My god. Intrade libertarians will be rich beyond their wildest dreams.

  14. Obviously, not a lot of Jooooos in Iowa.

    1. I’m Jewish and voting for Paul — if he makes it to Georgia…

      1. But then as a joint member of the libertarian-monocled elite, and the learned elders, I really, really rule the world

      2. That’s ridiculous jj. There are no Jews in Georgia.

  15. but this is good news for potential Republican Party sanity.

    It really doesn’t matter. Jimmy Carter wants Romney and that settles it.

    Geez, get with the f*ing program.

  16. If they do nominate Romney, I swear I’m voting for The Big O-Boy. Because it’s the only hope for knocking any sanity at all into the Sanity-Free Republicans.

    If Romney gets the nomination and then the election, I predict the Republicans will take a big permanent step left-ward-ho!

    We don’t need no stinking principles. We just need to win elections.

    1. Well, yeah. If we don’t win then we are bunch of losers and the most important thing is to make sure we win so we are not losers despite the cost. Ultimately, I’ll be happy once people are forced to read the bible, get sentenced to death for entertaining the possibility of one day getting abortions, and must serve in the military for 5-20 years if they are under 35 (good thing I’m 36 suckers). Monetary policy, questioning government at all levels, and letting people do what they want with their bodies are the pet projects of faggy know-it-alls that like to read books not ghost-written for my favorite terrible candidate of the moment. Repeat, BOOKS ARE FOR FAGS.

      1. Actually, the Democrats are more pro-draft than the Republicans.

    2. Who do you see in the GOP class of 2016 that is worth supporting?

      1. Rand Paul? Possibly Paul Ryan?

      2. Sorry, no answer available. Whoever would make a good president, will not be running for president.

        If you want good people in government you’re going to have to draft them. Almost no sane person that I know would willing apply for the job of POTUS. You have to be a maniacal power hungry beast to actually want that job.

        But then who gets to do the drafting? And who drafts the drafters?

        In the end we just get blown out and that’s it.

  17. A minor case of media bias?
    I contacted Bloomberg to point out that in their article 3 of the 4 candidates had Bold subtitles and one was tucked in under Health Care…

    To the author John McCormick:
    In your article “Romney Two-Way Race Now Four-Way Republican Dead Heat in Iowa”
    You go into a bit of detail on each of the candidates. 3 of the 4 candidates got subtitles over their section.
    A Romney Opening, Cain Support Dips, Gingrich Gains, Health Care Vulnerability…
    Ron Paul got tucked in the second paragraph under Health care. While I am not one who would ever accuse the media of bias, It looks that way sometimes……Ed Howard
    Those subheads are placed at fixed intervals to break up the story visually. I would read nothing into the fact that Paul didn’t get one. Classic example of people thinking there is a media conspiracy, when none exists. John McCormick,
    If I understand you correctly, you thought it more appropriate to insert a second subtitle in the middle of your section on Romney and no subtitle for Paul even thought it would have “broke up the story” exactly the same, been contextually more accurate and even-handed.
    – Biases are human tendencies that lead us to follow a particular quasi-logical path,or form a certain perspective based on predetermined (often subconscious)mental notions and beliefs. Ed Howard
    And some people don’t want to accept reality, and would rather allege bias in a case when subheads are literally placed where the computer says they need to be placed, based on the story length. Good luck. John McCormick,
    Wow – Your actually blaming you omputer program for your article’s construction. Ed Howard
    Not blaming anyone, because there was nothing wrong. Goodbye. John McCormick
    And there was “nothing wrong” with news reports about the Iowa straw poll talking about Bachmann coming in first (28%) – pushing Pawlenty down to third while failing to mention Paul’s dead heat finish in second (27%).
    Nothing wrong? – only if one has no interest in being intentional about present news in a manor that appears objective and unbiased. Goodbye.

    Then I emailed the above to the editor Mark Silva…
    Mr. Silva,
    Thought I would share this exchange I had with John McCormick… I thought it odd that his position on this is so close-minded…. If he had responded with “I had not noticed that – will try to watch out for that in the future. I can/can’t edit the published article”. I guess his response reflects his level of commitment towards Bloomberg appearing unbiased. -Ed Howard

    Silva’s Response: The truth is, the subheads are placed center of the screen as stories appear on the Bloomberg terminal. It’s an aesthetic thing, not political. Forgive John for working really hard in the field and being accused of bias. No fun. He’s a great reporter. As straight a shooter as there is, and there are many. Thanks for reading, and for writing. Mark Silva

    Huh? The author’s contention that the computer just happened to pick the beginning of 3 out of 4 candidates strains credulity.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.