CNN/Time Poll Finds Romney, Paul Iowa Photofinish, PPP Has Paul In Lead For Second Week

Tyler Durden's picture

When a week ago we reported the latest weekly data from the Public Policy Polling institute, many were stunned to learn that Ron Paul was in the lead in the Iowa caucuses. In light of the neverending media onslaught against the Texan, this is not very surprising. The discrepancy between PPP and other, more "accepted" polls such as the CNN/Time was borderline ridiculous, when it came to the standing of the anti-Fed crusader (attacks against whom have recently passed into the Twilight Zone as per this NYT article). Just released, however, is the latest CNN poll information, which is far more in line with what PPP predicts, namely an Iowa photofinish between Paul and Romney. "Twenty-five percent of people questioned say if the caucuses were held today, they'd most likely back Mitt Romney, with 22% saying they'd support Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. Romney's three point margin is within the poll's sampling error. The poll's Wednesday release comes six days before Iowa's January 3 caucuses, which kickoff the presidential primary and caucus calendar. The Iowa caucuses are followed one week later by the New Hampshire primary." In its previous poll, CNN had Gingrich in the lead with 33%, followed by Romney and Paul with 20% and 17%. So while CNN implicitly admits that Paul may well be in the lead net of sampling error, it masks this by making the story focus on something totally irrelevant: the fact that somehow Santorum's support is surging.

From CNN, deflecting from the main story:

In Iowa, both Romney and Paul are each up five points among likely caucus goers from a CNN/Time/ORC poll conducted at the start of December. The new survey indicates that Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania, is at 16% support, up 11 points from the beginning of the month, with Gingrich at 14%, down from 33% in the previous poll. Since Gingrich's rise late last month and early this month in both national and early voting state surveys, he's come under attack by many of the rival campaigns.


According to the survey, 11% are backing Texas Gov. Rick Perry, 9% are supporting Rep Michele Bachmann, and 1% are backing former Utah Gov. and former ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, who's spending nearly all his time campaigning in New Hampshire.


Santorum is campaigning on a shoestring budget, but he's visited all of Iowa's 99 counties and has made a strong pitch towards social conservative voters, who are very influential here in Iowa on the Republican side. Wednesday Santorum was up with a new radio spot on Hawkeye State airwaves touting endorsements by social conservative leaders. His pitch may be starting to pay off.


"Most of Santorum's gains have come among likely caucus participants who are born-again or evangelical, and he now tops the list among that crucial voting bloc, with support from 22% of born-agains compared to 18% for Paul, 16% for Romney, and 14% for Gingrich," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

So while the MSM continues to pray that Paul does not go far, here is the PPP following up on the story it broke last week:

The last week and a half has brought little change in the standings for the Iowa Republican caucus: Ron Paul continues to lead Mitt Romney by a modest margin, 24-20. Newt Gingrich is in 3rd at 13% followed by Michele Bachmann at 11%, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum at 10%, Jon Huntsman at 4%, and Buddy Roemer at 2%.


Paul's strength in Iowa continues to depend on a coalition of voters that's pretty unusual for a Republican in the state.  Romney leads 22-20 with those who are actually Republicans, while Paul has a 39-12 advantage with the 24% who are either independents or Democrats. GOP caucus voters tend to skew old, and Romney has a 34-12 advantage with seniors. But Paul's candidacy looks like it's going to attract an unusual number of younger voters to the caucus this year, and with those under 45 he has a 35-11 advantage on Romney. The independent/young voter combo worked for Barack Obama in securing an unexpectedly large victory on the Democratic side in 2008 and it may be Paul's winning equation in 2012.


Paul continues to have much more passionate support than Romney. 77% of his voters are firmly committed to him, compared to 71% for Romney. Among voters who say their minds are completely made up Paul's lead expands to 7 points at 28-21. If Paul's lead holds on through next Tuesday it appears he'll have won this on the ground- 26% of voters think he's run the strongest campaign in the state to 18% for Bachmann and 10% for Santorum with just 5% bestowing that designation to Romney. There's also an increasing sense that Paul will indeed win the state- 29% think he'll emerge victorious with 15% picking Romney and no one else in double digits.

And since the whole public is beyond tired of the relentless media spin, the good thing is that there is less than a week until the Iowa results are actual. One can only hope Diebold has not been used to tabulate the votes.

From CNN:

Iowa CNN

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Troll Magnet's picture

CNN...what do you expect from a network run by a bunch of AIPAC members?

strannick's picture

Ron Paul brings constituional democracy back to America. Real hope and radical change. Because it's real, and not vacuous rhetoric concealing the usual elite agenda ala Romney or Obama, and because unlike Obama, Paul doesnt get funds from Goldman Sachs or creampuff questions from the media, but he is getting support from voters. Since Paul cant be ignored any longer, he is now starting to get caricatured and ridiculed

'First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win'.

Troll Magnet's picture

it's so funny how the right and the left are coming together to use the same line of attack on ron paul.  you know the fuckers upstairs are scared shitless when that obama bitch rachel maddow and crack addict rush limbaugh are using the same argument against ron paul.  

UGrev's picture

and former conservative blogs with names that rhyme with "space of shades" attack him relentlessly because they are bunch of chicken shit, pussies who don't want to the sharade to end for their side, only that it doesn't continue for the other side.  Well,fuckers.. it's time that the "No Side" wins and you crawl home with your tails between your muffuggan legs.



Ron Paul 2012

erg's picture

I saw Newt's dead-eyed lament on CNN yesterday wherein he contradicted himself twice along the way. Also saw CNN contributor Frum's RP bile bucket overflowing.

I only heard about Ron Paul appearing on the Morton Downey Jr. show a week ago. Man, talk about piss and vinegar.


UGrev's picture

I fucking love it..

Mauibrad's picture

Tyler this is not your forte.  PPP is including a portion of it's sample as Independents and Democrats who say they are going to cross over and vote in the Republican Iowa Caucus.  That then gives the lead to Paul:  Iowa: Paul 24, Romney 20, Gingrich 13  Further, from PPP: "our IA poll just with Republicans: Romney 22, Paul 20. But with 24% of electorate that's non-Republican: Paul 39, Romney 12"  CNN/Time on the other hand are sampling only Republicans and NO Democrats or Independents even though in reality they can cross over and have indicated they will do so.  Bottom line:  CNN/Time's sample is junk.

weinerdog43's picture

Excellent point.  The PPP poll is polling people who are actually going to participate rather than CNN's stupid beauty pagent numbers.

Randall Cabot's picture

Michael Weenie was especially venomous tonight spewing frothy spittle into the microphone and out to the Weenie Nation. This jew supremacist warmonger and Ron Paul hater, vile scumbag that he is, actually compared Dr Paul to Dr Mengele!!!

Bangin7GramRocks's picture

Silly question. If Ron Paul is a libertarian, then why doesn't he run for president as a libertarian. Any non-fucking moron knows that he will never get elected as a republican so why does he waste the time and money?

JLee2027's picture

Any non-fucking moron would have that answer in two minutes if they used Google.

Bangin7GramRocks's picture

He has no chance of getting elected by the republicans. The party establishment will never let it happen. Don't tell me that you wacky RP supporters really believe that "the people" elect our president. Grow up! Romney has been selected by the party leaders and he will be the nominee. I do not support either party and would love a third party candidate, but sadly I will never get a chance to vote for Paul in any general election.

erg's picture

While running as a Republican he at least received 89 seconds in a 2-hour debate that he otherwise wouldn't have been allowed.

Got it? It's called getting the message out. Nothing precludes the man from running 3rd party.'s picture

None of us kooky Ron Paul supporters are willing to go down without a fight. That's what used to be called "character."

erg's picture

If your newest concern is that RP will split the Republican vote and auger in another term for the Grand O'Mummer, then my advice is to attempt that self-labotomy. Roll them bones.

UGrev's picture

Keep pushing the bullshit, defeatest attitude. That's how you win.. or something, right? grow a pair, pal.. let them hang low and large.. vote for him with a write in..

LongBalls's picture

Bangin7GramRocks - Way to be a part of the problem dude!! If you "would love" the chance to vote for Ron Paul then get off your duff and get the word out. Quitting is not a winning strategy! As a matter of fact; you can't loose if you never quit!


jeff montanye's picture

also note that hillary clinton was the choice of the "party leadership" in 2008 and the "insurgent, reform, most transparent administration, audacious change agent" (that last really hurts and amuses) blackish man won.  these are transformative times.  incumbents always win until they don't.  ron paul is not the answer to everything but he is an answer to some things that are very wrong: endless war, too big to fail and the destruction of constitutional liberty. these must be stopped before our nation dies.

LarryDavis's picture


Freddie's picture

LOL!  Larry Davis = Pablo honey,

"Are you washing your ass Pablo?.....keep yourself clean honey?"

Temporalist's picture

Ron Paul is a 99%er! in that 99% of his campaign contributions come from individual donations.

"In 2007, Paul set records for single-day fund-raising totals despite being one of the lesser-known candidates."


Ron Pauls biggest donors according to Motherjones were The Military, Google and Microsoft (some pretty smart people in this group).

Who Owns Congress? A Campaign Cash Seating Chart


I find it funny that they accuse Ron Paul of lying when if he were a liar, and if he wanted to lie, he could have always sounded like typical politicians but instead his stances have always been his own and now the Rs and Dems want to "know his secret."  I'll tell you his secret HE TELLS THE TRUTH!  When they all want to lie, he tells you how it is, come hell or highwater, and without regard for political benefit, he is going to say it straight faced to you because you don't fix a car by saying it just needs higher octane gas.


Veritas Odit Moras / Truth Hates Delay - Seneca

whstlblwr's picture

In Iowa, guy in charge of making sure vote count is fair is Romney supporter. I'm sure Paul campaign on top of this to make sure fair vote count. Should have computer wizard to verify electronic votes in other states.

Hey Status Quo assholes who are dismissive of Ron Paul, is it what you want, Romney for President while the US goes more to shit? What do you think Romney will do?

johny2's picture

They are starting to panic already.

Ron Paul 2012

erg's picture

Yep, I'd love to see him bag Iowa and New Hampshire just to watch the establishment sprout pee stains.

CrazyCooter's picture

The Ron Paul Campaign in Iowa has supporters on the IAGOP Central Committee, and it has a plan in place for observing the count. The Campaign is confident in the process, confident in their ability to monitor the election, and confident that the IAGOP will be fair and open. Any statements to the contrary are simply untrue.



dark pools of soros's picture

remember Stalin only cared who counted the votes

vast-dom's picture

I VOTE FOR.................................MYSELF!

Taint Boil's picture



CNN getting as bad as Fox News?

CNN said Ron Paul walked off from an interview, but watching the full uncut interview we can see once again how MSM lies and are corrupt.


CNN edited video claiming Paul walks off

CNN video in full

Outfoxed If you have time - you're on vacation so you do have time.


Freddie's picture

All TV and ALL media is the same.  Only dumb sheep watch TV.  I wish Tyler would bring back the simple math questions to keep TV viewers from posting shit like this.

Taint Boil's picture

Me and my calculator can beat any CAPTCA. And for the record - I NEVER watch TV

Cheyenne's picture

CNN is a collection of mindless corporate hacks like its senior political analyst Bill Schneider. Schneider's position on "unelectable" is a nose of wax depending on the candidate:

“Paul is ahead in the Iowa polls right now. But, at age 76, he is never going to be President of the United States.”

 William Schneider, 12/27/11


 “I've been in this business long enough to know that under the right circumstances, just about anybody can get elected. I've seen too many people who were called unelectable like Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Carter get elected.”

 William Schneider, 6/7/05 (re Hillary)


 Schneider and his ilk in the media are errand boys for the elite, that much is obvious. What's puzzling is why so many commenters insist on regurgitating their drivel.'s picture

Here's an article from the Des Moines Register which is actually unbiased and informative. We learn some interesting things such as...

He confessed to audience members at a forum sponsored by the Family Leader in Des Moines last month that he agonizes over his debate performances.


He also told the Register that communication remains his weakness on the campaign trail.


“I’m most proud of my message, but I keep working on my ability to deliver it,” he said....



Leading up to the 2008 caucuses, Paul started viewing videos of his speeches online, said former electronic campaign director, Justine Lam.


“By watching YouTube videos and seeing other people’s edits, he started adjusting his speech to make it better,” she said. “He stopped rambling so much, just because he saw what other people were valuing in his speech.” ...


Paul keeps his iPad close when he travels, and monitors the markets with it.


He also uses short, clipped emails — alternating with thoughtful conversations — to debate and define his own policy points with friends and colleagues, said campaign adviser Doug Wead.


“It’s seldom that I ever meet anyone who can change my mind, but Ron Paul’s managed to do it several times,” Wead said, noting that he’s been swayed by the congressman’s arguments for neutrality in the Israel/Palestine conflict and for the federal decriminalization of drug use.


“… If it was by email, he’d respond with very short notes, kindly saying, ‘No, I don’t agree with you … and here’s the reason,’ ” Wead said. “If it was verbal and face-to-face, he would listen, and let me talk without arguing. He cherishes different opinions.”


Paul also regularly trolls the Internet, looking for better ways to assert his positions.


“The only way I’ve noticed I can ever influence him is if I write a blog, and a few weeks later I’ll see him using some of my language,” Wead said. “If I were to send him that language in a memo, he’d never use it. But if he finds it on his own on the Internet and it makes sense to him, he’ll adopt it.”

blu's picture

Yeah that's some interesting stuff.

If I had to hazard an opinion I'd say that Paul is less a dog and more a cat.

Before the haterz start in hating, let me remind you that one of the two types is an independent, high-survivability ambush predator not afraid of going out on a limb. And as a bonus can see quite well in the dark.'s picture

Eliot is sitting at my left hand and looking with approval upon your post. The rest of the troop are napping.

WonderDawg's picture

I love dogs, but cats are very cool, too. I love the jungle instinct that they have. Predators is right.

Cathartes Aura's picture

naw. . .

dogs are loyal followers, "man's best friend" & all, more Paul-ish

cats are indeed independent, and they don't need to believe in sky-gods to justify their existence, live & let live

they definitely can see best through the dark. . .'s picture

Cats are libertarians. Dogs are socialists.

akak's picture

Cats are anarchists.  Dogs are collectivists.


If you want to read a damned funny book (even if it falls on the side of canine sympathy), go find the book "Why Dogs are better than Cats".

Cathartes Aura's picture

cats are definitely anarchists!

spiral_eyes's picture

The beautiful fact here is that Republicans can't win with Paul as spoiler. In a way, the Republican party needs Paul.'s picture

In all ways America needs Ron Paul.

Troll Magnet's picture

this whole fucking world needs ron paul.

mailll's picture

If these up/down arrows represent votes, Ron Paul would be leading 26 to 3 as of 10:46 eastern time.

akak's picture

The (rest of) the Republican Party also needs a swift kick in the ass, and to atone for their hysterical fearmongering and warmongering ways.  I wish Ron Paul would have used EXACTLY those two words in the debates, because that is EXACTLY what the rest of that benighted pack are: fearmongers and warmongers.

Troll Magnet's picture

they're ALL fearmongers and warmongers, the left AND right both.

Burticus's picture

TMagnet -

Understand that the political spectrum is really from 100% totalitarian gubmint (left) to 0% gubmint or anarchy.  It would be worth your time to watch Overview of America on YouTube.  It explains political & economic systems and how they interact and will fit some missing pieces into your puzzle.  The left-right paradigm promoted by the corporate media cartel is bull$#!+ propaganda intended to confuse, distract and divide.

The statist ruling party (both elephant & jackass divisions) is obviously way out left on the political spectrum on every issue.  The 'cons and 'rats both love the Kenyan Usurper and want him re-appointed.  What's there not to like - bankster handouts, eternal undeclared war, trillion FeRN annual deficits, totalitarian surveillance police state, etc.?  Objectively, the BushBama regime has been a seamless continuum of tyranny.

Ron Paul is a lone centrist, arguing for government limited to protecting men's rights from the force, fraud and injury of others.  He is not far right, since he never advocates anarchy.  His foreign policy mirrors that of our founding fathers; unfortunately the elephant-suit-wearing "conserve(the status quo)atives" know better.

Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none. - Thomas Jefferson

It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world. - George Washington

Cathartes Aura's picture

Paul is certainly a defender of "men's rights" - I'd like him more if he was equally for female body sovereignty, or at least kept his Xtian beliefs out of governance. 

how does this square with a "libertarian" stance? 

John Wilmot's picture

It has nothing to do with being an "Xtian." The libertarian ethic is the non-aggression principle. Therefore, concerning abortion, the relevant question is: "at what stage of development does one become a human being?" From the point that one becomes a human being, one is entitled to protection from aggression.

Now, explain to me how any particular answer to this question is objectively valid. Go on, I'm waiting....

You can't, neither can I. It's a matter of convention, like the age of consent: why should it be 18 rather than 18.3 or 19.6 or 17.5? The simple fact is that we need SOME uniform standard, and for whatever reason we've settled on 18.

The stage of human development that we choose as the beginning of personhood is the same kind of thing. Personally, I'm not decided on the issue. I don't find it to be very important, relative all of our other problems.

Fortunately, Ron Paul's position is compatible with all answers to this question - he believes that the abortion question ought to be left to the States, per the Constitution. States determine their own laws for murder, for instance, so why not abortion?

If Paul were to have his wish, you would be able to debate the issue freely at the State level, where your voice has much more weight than at the national level. And if your State settles the question in a way that displeases you, you're free to vote with your feet - and it's much easier to move out of a State whose laws you don't like than to move out of the U.S. altogether because of bad federal laws.

Problem solved.