Skip to comments.Iowa GOP Caucus Poll: Paul 27.5%, Newt 25.3%, Mitt 17.5% (Romney Tanking in Iowa?)
Posted on 12/27/2011 1:25:30 PM PST by TitansAFC
AMES, Iowa -- A new Iowa State University/Gazette/KCRG poll of 333 likely Iowa Republican caucus goers finds Ron Paul in the top spot among GOP presidential candidates with 27.5 percent, followed closely by Newt Gingrich with 25.3 percent. Paul's lead over Gingrich is within the poll's margin of error at plus or minus 5 percentage points.
Mitt Romney is in third place at 17.5 percent, while Rick Perry is the only other candidate to poll in double digits at 11.2.
While Paul's lead is just over 2 percentage points and easily within the poll's margin of error, it may actually be more solid than it appears.
"What our poll says is that 51 percent of Paul's supporters say they're definitely backing him," said James McCormick, professor and chair of political science at Iowa State and coordinator of the poll. "The percentage for the next two candidates is much weaker, at 16.1 for Mitt Romney and 15.2 for Newt Gingrich. Moreover, the percentage of respondents 'leaning to' or 'still undecided' in their support for these latter two candidates remains high, at 58 percent for Gingrich and 38 percent for Romney. In other words, I'm going to make the case that these numbers are still very soft for those two candidates."
"I think Paul probably under-polls," said Dave Peterson, interim director of the Harkin Institute of Public Policy at Iowa State and associate professor of political science who assisted with the poll. "His supporters are younger and more likely to reply on a cell phone, so he's probably going to perform better than his polling suggests. His supporters also are dedicated and will likely turn out on caucus night and not change their minds."
With less than two week to go until the Jan. 3 Iowa Caucuses, the race still remains remarkably fluid. Asked how certain they were of their choice, 37.8 percent of respondents indicated that they were still trying to decide and another 34.1 percent answered that they were only leaning towards one candidate. Only 28.1 percent indicated that they had definitely decided who they would support.
"Because we surveyed the same likely caucus goers in November [data collected between Nov. 1 and 13], these results do indicate some movement to strengthening the commitment to a particular candidate," McCormick said. "In November, only 16.5 percent indicated that they had definitely committed to a candidate....
Now just a bleepin second, you can't say that with a straight face.
BHO Senior was a British Subject.
And Mama was a (radical) U.S. citizen. Now if you want to argue that they gave away citizenship in Indonesia that's fine. Place of birth is not the important factor here.
‘but the principles were and the formula was either/or.’
that is what the modern pundits want you to believe. Supreme court cases, founding father’s correspondence and “Law of Nations’ all point to Jus Sanguinis AND Jus Soli.
That is why Congress should clarify this, but we all know they are too chicken to do so.
Isn't FR for illiterates?
‘A child born to U.S. citizens can be born anywhere in the world, and he is a U.S. Citizen.’
Yes the child can be a US citizen but he is NOT a natural born citizen, one who has undivided loyalty or sole allegiance to USA. After all, the child was born under a foreign jurisdiction and subject to that jurisdiction thru parentage.
Consider this -
a child born in USA to foreign parents (say Mexican) can be a US citizen, but as far as his parents’ country (Mexico) is concerned, the child is their citizen (i.e. a Mexican) by parentage. The child is under Mexican jurisdiction as well as US jurisdiction, so he/she has dual citizenship and multiple allegiance, which means he/she is NOT a natural born citizen elig to be the pres of USA
Sole allegiance is the main issue!
For over 40% of the electorate who are not being counted and remain “undecided”, the turnout in Iowa may shock the World; Knowing that we only have a choice between Paul and Romney, coming from all the Democrat funded (And commissioned) Polls.
Or the only other possibility is, that the numbers somehow became reversed between Newt and Romney, in order to reflect all the other MSM polling.
‘His father George was born a U.S. Citizen in Colonia Dublán, Galeana, Chihuahua, Mexico in 1907’
That his father was born a US citizen is debatable at best.
He was born under Mexican jurisdiction. He is a Mexican as far as Mexico is concerend. Actually as far as USA is concerned he can be a Mexican.
Probably the US and Mexican laws on citizenship at that time would determine his citizenship.
In the absence of any Mexican or USA laws on citizenship at work back then, had George gone through naturalization to be a US citizen prior to Mitt’s birth, then definitely George would have been a US citizen at time of Mitt’s birth.
So there is doubt about George Romney’s US citizenship at time of Mitt’s birth.
With soetor/obama, it is clear cut case - o was born to a Brit citizen father, birth place unkonwn.
soeotor/obama is NOT an article 2 nbc and is NOT elig to be the pres of USA.
‘His father George was born a U.S. Citizen in Colonia Dublán, Galeana, Chihuahua, Mexico in 1907.’
Do you know for a fact that George was born a ‘US citizen’ when he was born in Mexico?!
Mexican laws on citizenship have a say about a child born on its soil. As far as USA is concerned George can be a Mexican!
We can read, but your statement is not based on facts!
There is doubt if George was indeed born a US citizen. Reason - he was born on Mexican soil under Mexican jurisdiction!
If George was not born a US citizen and had never naturalized to be US citizen prior to Mitt’s birth then Mitt was NOT born to a US citizen father, hence not a nbc!
No, you're wrong about that. Contrary to "popular opinion", the 14th Amendment does not grant U.S. citizenship to children of foreigners. This has been "interpreted" incorrectly for decades, and all those children born to illegals (or even holders of valid visas) should not be considered U.S. citizens.
Maybe, but that's not how they are ruling.
Damn it! It is not my job to prove that which has been accepted by every effing state in this country. If you have special proof that it is not true please come forward. I have proof that he is the worst president in the history of this country. I have proof that his is a lawless regime. I have proof that his is a government of man rather than law. I have proof.
Sometimes you just have to accept that the dragon exists and abandon the assertion that it is impossible. Sometimes you have to draw swords and attack the dragon. Let’s attack the bloody dragon instead of try to prove that he doesn’t exist!
Who said anything about place of birth, according to him, his father was not an American...that is a requirement.
Of course, also according to him, he was born in Kenya, and has his "muslim faith".
Yeah it is.
The fact that Nasty Pelosi signed the documents declaring that Obama was eligible, ought to be evidence enough for you, that he probably is not.
The document she signed in Hawaii was modified and read differently than the other 56 states. Could that be because Hawaii knew better?
Neil Ambercrombie was damn well going to prove it!...That is until he couldn't.
Now you are just being shrill and silly. You have assigned me work that I did not seek and ignoring all of the many arguments that you can win.
Barack Obama is president until next January. He is the worst president in our history and the greatest current threat to our prosperity and security. Let’s get on with arguing that to everybody we know.
I want you to try something.
Get yourself a piece of chewing gum, start chewing it, and then try to walk at the same time.
Let us know how that turns out.