The race is pretty close four ways in Iowa but Rick Perry is the new favorite among Republican voters in the state. Among announced candidates he's at 22% to 19% for Mitt Romney, 18% for Michele Bachmann, and 16% for Ron Paul. Further back are Herman Cain at 7%, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum at 5%, and Jon Huntsman at 3%.
If you throw Sarah Palin into the mix the numbers are pretty similar with Perry at 21%, Romney at 18%, Bachmann at 15%, Paul at 12%, and Palin registering at only 10%.
Perry's support is being built on Tea Party support and voters with very conservative positions on certain issues:
Only 33% of Republican voters in Iowa identify themselves as members of the Tea Party but a broad advantage with them is driving Perry's lead. He gets 32% to 22% for Bachmann, and 19% for Paul. Romney is all the way back in 6th place with those voters at only 6%. Romney doesn't need to win Tea Party voters to win in Iowa but he needs to do a whole lot better than that. With the majority of Republicans who don't consider themselves Tea Partiers Romney actually leads Perry and Bachmann with 30% to their 16% but it's not enough to make up for his poor performance with the far right faction of the party.
Perry's drawn some attention in the last week for his statements about global warming and evolution and although he's drawn ridicule from Democrats and Republican elites for them our polling suggests he's perfectly in line with the GOP base. Only 35% of Iowa Republicans believe in evolution to 48% who don't. With the ones who do believe in it Perry's in 4th place at 12%, putting him behind Romney's 24%, Paul's 18%, and Bachmann's 15%. But with the evolution deniers Perry is the overwhelming favorite at 32% to Bachmann's 19%, Romney's 15%, and Paul's 13%.
It's a similar story with global warming. Only 21% of GOP voters believe in it while 66% do not. Again with the believers Romney is in a strong first place at 31% to 15% for Paul, 13% for Bachmann, 11% for Huntsman, and only 9% for Perry. But with the much more numerous group of Republicans who think global warming is a farce Perry cleans up at 28% to 20% for Bachmann, 16% for Paul, and 13% for Romney, giving him the overall lead.
There even continues to be a pretty strong birther strain in Iowa. 48% of Republican voters believe Barack Obama was born in the United States but 32% still do not. With the ones who think Obama was born in the country, Romney edges Perry 25-22. That's more than overcome by Perry's 22-10 lead with the GOP voters who don't think the President is a legitimate US citizen.
Can you believe in global warming and evolution and still win the Republican Presidential nomination? I'm not sure you can given these numbers.
These numbers are very bad news for Michele Bachmann, and to a lesser extent Romney:
It's clear that Bachmann has gotten virtually no momentum out of her victory in the Ames Straw Poll. She was in 3rd place when we polled Iowa in June and she's in third place now. Beyond that her favorability numbers in the state have taken a significant hit. In June she had a 53/16 breakdown. Since then her positive number has dropped 6 points from 53% to 47%, and her negative number has climbed 19 points from 16% to 35%. Perry's now winning the voters on the far right that we showed her doing really well with throughout most of June and July. The day of her win in Ames may be remembered as the peak of her campaign.
In some sense the news is worse for Romney- he's actually losing support- going from 26% and the lead in June to 19% and second place now. There had been some thought that he might absorb Tim Pawlenty's support in the state and clearly that has not happened. But Romney probably doesn't need Iowa with New Hampshire serving as his firewall so these numbers still don't seem as bad for him as they do for Bachmann.
The other winner in the poll
Michele Bachmann may not have much momentum coming off of her strong performance in Ames but Ron Paul sure does. His 16% poll standing is up from 11% on our June poll of the state and his net favorability of +24 at 53/29 makes him the second most popular of 15 announced and potential candidates that we polled, behind only Perry's +32 at 56/24. While Paul is certainly still a very long shot for the nomination it looks likely that he will be a more relevant candidate this time around at least than he was in 2008.
Who's up and down
Here's the net favorability of everyone we polled in Iowa ranked from most popular to least popular, compared with where they were on our June poll:
| Candidate | Favorability (Net) | Change from June Poll |
| Rick Perry | 56/24 (+32) | +27 (was +5 at 21/16) |
| Ron Paul | 53/29 (+24) | +11 (was +13 at 42/29) |
| Rick Santorum | 44/22 (+22) | +11 (was +11 at 29/18) |
| Chris Christie | 43/21 (+22) | -8 (was +30 at 42/12) |
| Paul Ryan | 38/21 (+17) | -11 (was +28 at 42/14) |
| Sarah Palin | 52/36 (+16) | -12 (was +28 at 59/31) |
| Michele Bachmann | 47/35 (+12) | -25 (was +37 at 53/16) |
| Rudy Giuliani | 43/34 (+9) | -9 (was +18 at 49/31) |
| Herman Cain | 42/35 (+7) | -7 (was +14 at 38/24) |
| Mitt Romney | 45/38 (+7) | -10 (was +17 at 51/34) |
| Newt Gingrich | 42/44 (-2) | None (was -2 at 39/41) |
| Fred Karger | 3/25 (-22) | -7 (was -15 at 2/17) |
| Gary Johnson | 5/31 (-26) | -12 (was -14 at 4/18) |
| Jon Huntsman | 13/40 (-27) | -11 (was -16 at 7/23) |
| Buddy Roemer | 1/34 (-33) | -16 (was -17 at 4/21) |
Besides Romney and Paul the only other candidate who appears to be getting any traction right now in Iowa is Santorum, who's seen a healthy improvement in his favorability numbers. That still doesn't appear to be translating into many votes for Santorum but if Republican voters demonstrate that they at least like him that might help his cause for getting a show on Fox, which might be the best possible outcome for him out of this campaign.
No one is sinking faster than Bachmann. And it's interesting to note that Palin's popularity is on the decline as well, which makes you wonder how much of a factor she would be even if she did jump into the race at this point.
Full results here
43 comments:
You just never can read an article about the political horse race without some dismissive comment about Ron Paul's chances. "While Paul is certainly still a very long shot for the nomination ..." Ummm ... he's only 6% behind 1st place in this poll and his poll numbers have been steadily rising everywhere since he entered the race. So please explain to all us rabble why he's such a long shot?
I share your same sentiments MDKidd! Take heart though... Ron Paul, and his message/platform is only growing. Just think where he would be if the establishment Republicans & liberal elites didn't always try to undermine him! He's gaining --at a noticeable clip-- despite their attempts to marginalize him and his impeccable record.
From all the polls and online donations, it seems to me that Ron Paul is the frontrunner in this race. Perry just got in and nobody even knows anything about him so his support could drop fast once people learn.
To say Ron Paul is a long shot is laughable and discredits the author.
Why is Gingrich's support increasing from 5% to 7% when Palin is included ?
yes, i would like to know how his chances are still long shot too?
It's pretty obvious MDKidd. He's 6% behind in a 4 way race. If any candidate drops out, very few of their voters would go to Paul, if any really. You can practically look at Bachmann and Perry as a single unit - when one drops out, the other will get the vast majority of their support. Paul is a very long shot - the reporting here is not biased as it has been against Paul in the MSM, it's just true.
"So please explain to all us rabble why he's such a long shot?"
Because he's not actually winning anywhere, and won't win any of the early states, and he's getting no establishment support. Insurgency works in smaller-scale primaries, but in presidential races, you generally need some institutional oomph and an air of electability around you.
That said, we at least did call into question the media's three-candidate top tier by highlighting the beginning of what could be Bachmann's decline and the rise in Paul's personal numbers and strong 4th place, which is technically a tie for 1st when considering the margin of error.
Paul is a long shot because he commands one small segment of the conservate isolationists with all other candidates sharing the meat of the Republican party. As others quit, little of their support will go to Paul. What I don't understand is why the tea party is considered "far right" but the main line Republicans are not considered "Far left" of the republican party, they are really the old Democratic party.
Will you be releasing Ohio GOP Presidential primary numbers?
I can't believe I'm about to defend the Paul people, but I was at Ames doing work for another campaign and was stunned how demographically diverse his support was. Elderly women with canes and hardcore military types, along with the typical youth voters, were wearing Paul buttons and t-shirts. Maybe it's just Iowa, but his band of support isn't nearly as narrow as it was in 2008.
That doesn't mean he's viable nationally. But I wouldn't be surprised his support grows further in Iowa.
MDKidd
"You just never can read an article about the political horse race without some dismissive comment about Ron Paul's chances" It is truer about Sarah Palin. They want to tell us our eyes and hearts are lying to us.
We the people will show them in 2012. Pollsters will have a lot of egg on their faces.
RP did not win a single primary race in the 2008 election cycle...Yet, the talking points he provided to the democrats and the endless soundbytes from him damaged the Republican brand immensly...He continues to be a grandstanding attention whore. He has no chance but he will hang around again until the bitter end it seems. Where is all his campaign cash going...Is this guy in it for the money?
Note Q19-21 with the head-to-head matchups...of course they didn't include a head-to-head matchup with RON PAUL...and yes, I also noticed that they STILL have to put barbs in there like "very long shot"....no other candidate gets disrespected like that.
What about Jim McMillan?
I think you need to chill out with your political rhetoric. Just because someone believes someone wasn't born in the US doesn't mean they question their citizenship....there are millions of non-native Citizens!
Also, you can believe that God created Evolution, there are tons of religous figures who reconcile Creationism and Evolution. Just because someone believes in God doesn't mean they are Evolution-deniers. And there is nothing really to deny, no one yet has moved passed the theory stage on how life is CREATED...some think primordial soup, some think DNA from comets or asteroids (with no real knowledge where that DNA came from), in fact NASA is exploring this now. Its hard to be a DENIER of something thats only a unproven theory!
Your a polling firm, act like it.
PS I believe Obama was born in the USA and in Evolution, but that God created Evolution. My point is, your political language in poll analysis is very out of place.
Ron Paul 2012!!! Where the hell do we go to get in these polls? I hit up all I find and am from IA.
"He's 6% behind in a 4 way race. If any candidate drops out, very few of their voters would go to Paul, if any really."
That's another thing I've been pointing out--Paul is really no one's second choice. You either love him or hate him. He does seem to get some of Palin's people when she's not in the race, but other than that, he's got a finite number of supporters.
"What I don't understand is why the tea party is considered "far right" but the main line Republicans are not considered "Far left" of the republican party, they are really the old Democratic party."
The GOP of today, thanks to the Tea Party, is much further right than the Democratic Party is left. The Dems are not much left of center, but the GOP is about 3/4 of the way from the center toward the right.
Ron Paul will still be disrespected by the media and the elite while he is president too. It will just be something the American people will have to get used to and be able to see through. Fixing the country will not be easy but Ron Paul is the only one who can do it. Expect huge media backlash when the corporate and personal welfare checks begin shrinking dramatically.
"That's another thing I've been pointing out--Paul is really no one's second choice. You either love him or hate him."
If that's true, then 53% love him and 29% hate him, an enviable place to be. Plus, rising poll numbers may create a bandwagon affect and make soft admirers into hard supporters.
"The Dems are not much left of center, but the GOP is about 3/4 of the way from the center toward the right."
Nice Overton window. Not sure the Founding Fathers would agree about where you place the center though. Nor most of middle America.
Man. I really get tired of people saying Ron Paul and his supporters are isolationists. It just shows your ignorance when you say such things.
Look up the definition of isolationism. It is both non-interventionist foreign policy AND protectionist trade policy.
Ron Paul and his supporters believe in free trade, not protectionist type policies.
Please, before you act like you even have one tiny clue what you're talking about, at least look up the definition of isolationism on wikipedia.
There is no effort by the media or the Republican establishment to "undermine" Ron Paul.
Just mentioning Ron Paul is giving this fringe candidate a lot more publicity than he deserves.
Compare the favorables numbers of the candidates from June to present day. It seems that most of the contenders had their favorables decline, not just Bachmann. Rick Perry is the flavor of the month. Will he be able to stand up being probed by the national press?
"Also, you can believe that God created Evolution, there are tons of religous figures who reconcile Creationism and Evolution. Just because someone believes in God doesn't mean they are Evolution-deniers."
We didn't say anything, nor did our polls ask anything, about God. So if someone says they don't believe in evolution, it's safe to say they don't believe God caused it or designed it.
"Nice Overton window."
Well, yeah, the GOP has taken advantage of the media's obsession with balance to pull policy rightward. They know that whatever they propose will be seen as an equal and opposite proposal to the Democrats' preferences, when in reality, their opening bargain is far to the right of center and the Democrats' much closer to the center than the left. It's been demonstrated by the debt deal. My rough estimate was not so much my own as political scientists', in study after study in recent years, based on actual Congressional votes and candidate positions.
Ia Republicans are Ignorant, stupid, uneducated - so they picked the most Idiotic candidate.
Keep going morons.
"Not sure the Founding Fathers would agree about where you place the center though. Nor most of middle America."
That's a laugh. If the 'Founding Fathers' were alive today, none of them would have shot in hell of winning the Republican nomination. I doubt any of them would even be allowed membership in the GOP. They would all be considered too liberal and too unChristian for today's anti-intellectual, anti-science GOP.
Regarding the Anonymous comment about isolationism vs. non-interventionism:
So basically, Ron Paul would have traded with Stalin or Pol Pot or Gaddafi, an isolationist wouldn't have.
Good to know.
I have to agree with many of the above. Throwing in a nasty line calling Ron Paul a "very long shot" when he is obviously in the top tier, in a very close fourth, and has the second best favorability rating makes ZERO SENSE.
where can you get the actual poll questions and numbers?
Dustin - one thing I haven't seen yet in any polling (and it may be too small to concern with yet) is whether polling "usual ... Republican primary voters" will underrepresent Ron Paul's vote significantly given his appeal across the board.
Anecdotally, there seems to be a lot of 'I normally vote Democrat, but this time I'm voting for Ron Paul'. I'm just wondering if this is/will be of sufficient scale to affect the outcome.
Those Huntsman #s are terrifying... for the Republican Party.
This proves that they've blocked themselves into a corner. They are going to be stuck with a nut as their nominee.
"where can you get the actual poll questions and numbers?"
At the bottom of the post as usual.
Grim Ego, in terms of actually bring delegates to the convention, Paul is in the third tier, with candidates like Cain, Huntsman, Santorum, and McCotter. Unlike the Iowa Straw Poll, you can't rig the convention.
Based on the number of winner-take-all states he wins outright (none), and his percentage of the vote in proportional allocation states (usually single digits), he's projected to bring about 36 delegates to the Republican National Convention in 2012.
You need over a thousand to win.
I imagine Paul might get close to 20% of the Iowas primary vote, but I don't see how it can get any better than that. His negatives are high because of his positions. A lot of people just aren't buying the line.
I wonder what the Paul people are going to say when he starts losing primaries? Is that going to be a conspiracy too. Theryre going to be so puzzled about the results LOL. Thats going to be funny.
Im wondering if this is about money to him too. You could say he wants to get his message out too but Ive been noticing him pandering to people that woudl normally vote democrat but like him because he's anti-war.
he knows he cant win, and he's not serious about his message anymore, so it must be the money.
You go to public policy polling.com/ cached On the top left under The latest PPP surveys, click on the date August 23, 2011
There is an obvious attempt to CREATE a bandwagon for Rick Perry. He hasn't really said ANYTHING and polls are run twice a week announcing the new RNC candidate has a huge lead.
People are talking about Ron Paul's positions, but that just means that he has spoken about HIS values. Not what he thinks most people want to hear. It's called genuine values.
The Ron Paul supporters were all sure he was going to win in 2008 too. And yes, everything is a conspiracy to them.
I'd like to try to answer some questions I've seen in these comments, despite my lack of credentials (though not a lack of observation). Ron Paul's campaign money goes into advertising blitzes and travel and fees for caucuses and straw polls. That's why he's been winning the CPAC straw polls.
His supporters' anger at the media dismissing his candidacy is an interesting phenomenon, through I've seen it before. His supporters are more like a cult than a political movement, and they don't understand why everyone doesn't clearly see his genius.
I wish the media would give Paul's policy proposals a thorough review. Then it would be clear to many more people how unworkable these policies would be in the modern world. This isn't the 1800's, folks.
Dude, I think you have a few too many pre-conceived notions and defined views to be a pollster. At the very least, too many announced. If you want to keep some unbiased credibility, keep quiet.
Paul in it for the money? He could care less about the money. He is gold rich, first of all. Secondly, he doesn't even participate in the congressional pension plan...ignorance. I didn't think he would win in 2008, I hoped he would. As for his ideas not working in modern times...how do you know? The last time our currency had any type of significant value is before Nixon took us off the gold standard...which led to recession and high interest rates. We have had a declining dollar ever since. All these smart republicans commenting against Paul will expouse how Ronald Reagan was the greatest. Really? Read Reagan's memoirs, he regretted not putting the country back on the gold standard. He was against interfering in the Middle East. Ronald Reagan campaigned for Ron Paul in the 1980's and said "Ron Paul knows what it takes to protect this country, we need to keep Ron Paul fighting for us." I guess Ronald Reagan was a crazy isolationist as well.
Hi PPP - not sure if you read these comments, but did you also poll Iowa Democrats to find out how many of them believe in evolution or in human-influenced climate change? Just curious if it's an Iowan / midwest thing or something that really cuts across party lines.
Thanks, Jeff
Post a Comment