December 19, 2011

Poll Watch: Public Policy Polling (D) 2012 Iowa Republican Caucuses Poll

  12:00 am

Public Policy Polling (D) 2012 Iowa Republican Caucuses Poll

  • Ron Paul 23% [21%] (18%) {10%} [16%] (11%) {16%}
  • Mitt Romney 20% [16%] (16%) {22%} [19%] (26%) {28%}
  • Newt Gingrich 14% [22%] (27%) {8%} [5%] (15%) {19%}
  • Michele Bachmann 10% [11%] (13%) {8%} [18%] (14%) {15%}
  • Rick Perry 10% [9%] (9%) {9%} [22%]
  • Rick Santorum 10% [8%] (6%) {5%} [5%]
  • Jon Huntsman 4% [5%] (4%) {1%} [3%] (1%)
  • Gary Johnson 2% [1%] (1%) {1%}
  • Someone else/Not sure 7% [7%] (7%) {5%} [5%] (8%) {12%}

Would you say you are strongly committed to that candidate, or might you end up supporting someone else?

  • Strongly committed to that candidate 63% [60%] (55%)
  • Might end up supporting someone else 37% [40%] (45%)

Second Choice

  • Michele Bachmann 15% [11%] (10%) {11%}
  • Rick Perry 14% [10%] (11%) {12%}
  • Newt Gingrich 13% [14%] (17%) {17%}
  • Mitt Romney 12% [13%] (13%) {11%}
  • Rick Santorum 9% [8%] (9%) {5%}
  • Ron Paul 9% [12%] (10%) {9%}
  • Jon Huntsman 7% [7%] (5%) {3%}
  • Gary Johnson 1% [1%] (2%) {1%}
  • Someone else/Not sure 18% [25%] (22%) {15%}

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

  • Rick Santorum 52% [49%] (51%) {46%} [44%] (29%) {27%} [28%] / 32% [33%] (28%) {17%} [22%] (18%) {11%} [9%] {+20%}
  • Michele Bachmann 52% [55%] (56%) {44%} [47%] (53%) {49%} / 34% [37%] (35%) {38%} [35%] (16%) {13%} {+18%}
  • Ron Paul 54% [61%] (52%) {37%} [53%] (42%) {55%} [47%] / 38% [31%] (38%) {46%} [29%] (29%) {17%} [23%] {+16%}
  • Mitt Romney 49% [48%] (49%) {51%} [45%] (51%) {55%} [57%] / 40% [44%] (45%) {36%} [38%] (34%) {25%} [26%] {+9%}
  • Rick Perry 48% [43%] (44%) {38%} [56%] (21%) / 40% [47%] (46%) {41%} [24%] (16%) {+8%}
  • Newt Gingrich 46% [52%] (62%) {56%} [42%] (39%) {47%} [53%] / 47% [40%] (31%) {32%} [44%] (41%) {26%} [27%] {-1%}
  • Jon Huntsman 32% [28%] (30%) {18%} [13%] (7%) {5%} / 38% [43%] (45%) {28%} [40%] (23%) {8%} {-6%}

Which of the Republican candidates do you think has the best chance of defeating Barack Obama?

  • Mitt Romney 25% [21%] (23%)5
  • Newt Gingrich 17% [30%] (33%)
  • Ron Paul 16% [14%] (9%)
  • Michele Bachmann 7% [5%] (7%)
  • Rick Perry 6% [7%] (7%)
  • Rick Santorum 3% [3%] (2%)
  • Jon Huntsman 3% [2%] (3%)
  • Gary Johnson 2% [1%] (1%)
  • Someone else/Not sure 20% [16%] (14%)

Who do you think is going to win the Iowa caucuses?

  • Newt Gingrich 20%
  • Ron Paul 20%
  • Mitt Romney 19%
  • Michele Bachmann 6%
  • Rick Perry 3%
  • Jon Huntsman 2%
  • Rick Santorum 2%
  • Gary Johnson 1%
  • Someone else/Not sure 27%

Who do you think has run the strongest campaign in Iowa?

  • Ron Paul 22%
  • Michele Bachmann 19%
  • Newt Gingrich 8%
  • Rick Santorum 8%
  • Rick Perry 7%
  • Mitt Romney 5%
  • Gary Johnson 2%
  • Jon Huntsman 1%
  • Someone else/Not sure 28%

Do you think that Ron Paul has strong principles, or not?

  • He does 73%
  • He does not 10%

Do you think that Mitt Romney has strong principles, or not?

  • He does 50%
  • He does not 31%

Do you think that Newt Gingrich has strong principles, or not?

  • He does 36%
  • He does not 43%

Do you consider yourself to be a member of the Tea Party?

  • Yes 26% [27%] (32%) {29%} [33%] (31%) {28%}
  • No 61% [61%] (58%) {52%} [51%] (48%) {48%}

What is more important to you when deciding who to vote for: a candidate’s ability to beat Barack Obama in the general election, or their positions on the issues?

  • A candidate’s ability to beat Obama 32% [32%] (34%)
  • Their issue positions 56% [56%] (57%)

Do you think Barack Obama was born in the United States?

  • Yes 47% {37%} [48%] (42%) {26%}
  • No 31% {42%} [32%] (36%) {48%}
  • Not sure 21% {22%} [20%] (23%) {26%}

Do you support or oppose ethanol subsidies?

  • Support 33%
  • Oppose 32%
  • Not sure 35%

Survey of 597 likely Iowa Republican caucus-goers was conducted December 16-18, 2011.  The margin of error is +/- 4.0 percentage points.  Party ID: 75% [78%] (80%) Republican; 19% [17%] (14%) Independent/Other; 5% [4%] (6%) Democrat.  Political ideology: 36% [42%] (40%) {36%} [38%] (41%) {44%} Very conservative; 36% [35%] (37%) {36%} [34%] (37%) {33%} Somewhat conservative; 19% [17%] (15%) {21%} [21%] (14%) {17%} Moderate; 6% [3%] (5%) {4%} [3%] (6%) {4%} Somewhat liberal; 3% [4%] (3%) {3%} [3%] (2%) {2%} Very liberal.  Results from the poll conducted December 11-13, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conductedDecember 3-5, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted October 7-10, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted August 19-21, 2011 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted May 27-30, 2011 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted April 15-17, 2011 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted January 7-9, 2011are in square brackets.

Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal



by Oldest
by Best by Newest by Oldest

Paul timed his peak very well. He's winning this.


If six people land double digits in Iowa, it does not bode well for an early finish...


Well that's certainly it for Newt in Iowa.


Ron Paul like a BOSS

Paul got another bump after winning another Fox News debate. Now #1


Any bets on how far Gingrich has to sink in the polls before "Craig for Paul" appears?



This will be decided in the final week. I would not want to be on top of Iowa right now. That said, both Paul and Romney are within the margin of error. pop tweeted that Paul and Romney were dead even for the 18th


BTW, if it comes down to Paul and Romney in the caucuses, Romney will nab the undecideds.


Paul now officially becoming the flavor of the time.

He'll be under attack.

Can he survive attacks from all corners before the Caucus? 2 weeks is relatively short.

Another bubble over the horizon.

He'll never be the nominee. But he could win Iowa

Romney wins if Paul is destroyed or weakened by attacks.

His supporters are immune, to be sure. And indys and dems will Caucus.

Paul is probably resilient enough to survive those attacks.

Will FOX NEWS go ballistic against him?

What about Palin? Rush?


Paul in the crosstabs is winning because he's bringing in new independent/disaffected Democrats.

And he's destroying in younger voters, where Republicans are always weak.

That's the way you win.


Craig and Nyboe went "all-in" so many times!

Perry, Cain, Gingrich. Now what?


Romney's masters at Goldman Sachs and in the defense industry sure wouldn't want Paul to win, would they? 😉


8- especially if u have to bring in voters on a cold long evening. 2 days after the New year. Older folks will be tired. Mitt might not be able to motivate enough.


11 super violent attacks against Paul to come.



3. M I don't know how you can believe Paul won the Fox debate. Everything he said relating to foreign policy just made him frightening and unelectable.


As for this poll, really good news for Mitt. But, some very strange things jump out at me...

* Top favorable is Santorum, yet he's 6th place in the Win poll, and 5th place in the Second Choice poll. Odd that.

* All The top 4 favorables are within 4 points of each other. All w/in MOE.

* We're getting to the point where people are finally DECIDING. 63% are strongly committed.

* Romney KILLING it vs Obama.

* Top 3 First Choice are the same as the top 3 Who do you Think, though in a different order.

* Mitt trounces Newt on Strong Principles.

* Huge 61% NOT with Tea Party. Interesting.

* Electability NOT a big factor. Interesting.

* Looking very good for Ron Paul.

* Looking very bad for Hunstman. (Last place in Favorables, 7th Place for First Choice AND Second Choice AND vs Obama. Only Gary Johnson and "Someone Else" does better.

* Michelle gets highest honors for strongest campaign, yet still comes in 4th for First Choice (though takes first for Second Choice).

* 51% Don't think Obama was born in US or are unsure. Hmmm...


* Top favorable is Santorum, yet he’s 6th place in the Win poll, and 5th place in the Second Choice poll. Odd that.

Looks like Santorum is in a 3-way tie for 4th.

Also, Paul seems to have him beat in net favorables.


Oh, the net is at the end. How confusing.


This just in: North Korean leader Kim Jong-il dead, son hailed as heir


Ron Paul like a BOSS is right. I expect it to go up a bit higher before caucus night, too.

@8: Yep, flavor of the decade.

@9: Good point. Frankly, the Republicans would do well to nominate him so they could bring those younger voters into the fold. Would make a big difference, Democrats losing them and Republicans gaining them, and not just on the Presidential race. Think of the down ticket effects on the Senate and House races!

@14: The "he didn't win the debate" is the consensus here and a few other places, but out in the land of independents and democrats, Paul won by a large margin. Doesn't help tremendously in the primaries (except for open primaries), but would help bolster his chances in the big show.


Sure Ron Paul won the debate according to Democrats. Too bad he isn't running for their nomination.


Well, we'll see if Iowa votes crazy or not. Paul up 2 since last poll while Romney is up 4


The first-place candidate is only 13 points separated from the sixth-place candidate. What a crazy race. And even crazier if Ron freakin' Paul manages to win this.

Also note that this was taken after Thursday's debate, so any thought of his foreign policy ruining him should be shot down by this poll.

And Santorum could very well finish 4th -- or, if Newt continues to fall, even 3rd.

Can you imagine a Paul-Romney-Santorum first-second-third finish? Wow wow wow. Crazy.


Craig, quick! Support Paul!


This poll includes two days before the Des Moines Register (completely) - so let's see what happens in a few days.

Regardless, does Iowa REALLY want the reputation for being the corn field? If they put Ron Paul up front, no one will ever take them seriously again.


Also, I think Santorum should be given 4th here, not 6th. Santorum has been growing, while Bachmann continues to shrink and Perry collapsed from early on and is stagnating at this point. Bachmann should be given 6th, because of the trends.


Regardless, does Iowa REALLY want the reputation for being the corn field? If they put Ron Paul up front, no one will ever take them seriously again.

They were still taken seriously after Huckabee. New Hampshire was still taken seriously after Pat Buchanan.

The show will always go on...


Great news for Romney.

Bad news for reform-minded conservatives.

Here's hoping someone will catch on soon and force a brokered convention!


25. Huckabee was a reasonably sane candidate with a good governor record. Pat was highly conservative but not dangerous.

A Paul win would cast some real doubt, I think, on the viability of Ohio.


26. Colorado, I really don't understand why folks like you believe all it takes is someone willing to bang the pulpit to get stuff done. You talk about reform as though we just need to elect someone who really WANTS it.

The reality is nothing can nor should get done until the economy is put back on track. And the other reality is our president needs to work well with the opposing party.

Romney is the only one who can do that. His record proves it.


A Paul win would probably ruin the credibility of Iowa. A candidate could simply write off the state and be fine.


Now I'd like to bet on the Iowa governor to endorse Mitt.



26- good news for Huntsman too.

Gingrich will soon poll behind Huntsman in New Hampshire.

Paul will get under ferocious attacks.

Huntsman will then by-pass Paul in New Hampshire

2 men race from there.


@31: You must be joking. Huntsman is not close. Average of the last two polls (taken the same day, which is why I'm averaging them):

Romney 31

Gingrich 23

Paul 23

Huntsman 10.5

Gingrich is going to continue to drop, especially after a loss in Iowa. Romney will get some of those numbers back, Paul will pick up a chunk as well. Huntsmans's best chance is a distant third, assuming he gets a piece of the post-Gingrich pie.

Huntsman is not going to pick up another 12.5+ before New Hampshire primaries.

There is some hope for Paul to overtake Romney, but it'll be tough and it will require momentum coming out of Iowa, and Huntsman won't have that momentum available to him to overtake Paul.

You're right that it's a two man race. Romney and Paul.


32- well I've been pretty right so far, haven't I?

Gingrich is now a non factor.

So it's a 3 men race. Paul will totally fade, even if he wins Iowa.


Anti-Romney vote will eventually coalesce around Huntsman

Establishment will make Paul non grata


For some reason RCP doesn't have the newest NH poll (until PPP releases NH poll today), which showed Paul as 2nd.

American Research Group poll from Dec 11-14 New Hampshire Romney 36, Paul 21, Gingrich 16, Huntsman 13, Bachmann 4, Perry 2, Santorum 1, Undecided 8


Romney = 75% chance

Huntsman = 20%

Paul = 5%


Most likely from establishment point of view Paul is much more dangerous as third party candidate in general election than as one of two in two man race in primaries, so I would not expect much from them because they don't want to piss him off which could increase the risk of him running third party if he does not win primaries.


37- that's a VERY good point


37- they'll find a way to tarnish his character


The perception of his character


@ 33/34: I don't see a "totally fade" in Paul's future. He might lose some support, but losing it all in a landslide? Unlikely at best. When people move to Paul, for the most part they stay (most, not all).

I'm still predicting that this race (not just this state, I'm talking for the nomination across the board) is between Paul and Romney, same as I have been since before Bachmann had her brief spike of fame. It's too early to tell who will win, but we should have a much better idea after New Hampshire. I think a lot of the people who are hesitant to support Paul feel that way because of the constant barrage of "omg he can't win tee hee" nonsense. After doing very well in the first two states, he's suddenly a real contender, and I expect to see his overall poll numbers increase significantly. Just need to wait for the can't win bubble to pop.


Keith Price #26 - I don't understand how the Romney apologists can call themselves conservatives.

If you want to nominate a Republican who will seek to compromise with Harry Reid rather than confront him and his minions in the Senate, vote for Romney.

If you want to nominate a Republican who has touted himself as a "progressive," vote for Romney.

If you want to nominate a Republican who has implemented an individual healthcare mandate and who has, just last year, called parts of ObamaCare "good," vote for Romney.

If you want to nominate a Republican who has flip-flopped on every major issue, vote for Romney.

If you want to nominate a Republican who equated his sons Winnebago trips around Iowa to campaign for their father with miliary service, vote for Romney.

If you want to nominate a Republican who thinks cutting capital gains and dividend taxes for the "middle class" (who pay next to no capital gains and dividend taxes) is a reformer, vote for Romney.

I could go on and on.

But let's suffice to say that If you want to nominate a Republican who will enact real reforms and undertake the significant changes this country NEEDS, vote for someone other than Romney. If you want a weak-willed moderate, oh I'm sorry, progressive, Republican, then vote for Romney.

Is Jon Huntsman ideal? No. But he is in so many ways better than Romney, Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry, Paul and Santorum.

If you're a reform-minded conservative who thinks America needs more than slight changes at the margins then vote a straight Republican ticket for House and Senate to stop Obama. Then vote 3rd party if Romney is the Republican nominee to send the GOP establishment a message that this country needs a reformer and will not support a "progressive" Republican because said establishment tells us to follow their marching orders.

Vote for real conservative change, vote for real conservative reform. Do not progressive Republicanism that plays well on MSNBC - your country deserves better.


Also @34: They've been treating him as persona non grata for a long time now. Heck, Newt even teamed up with Democrats to try to get someone to beat Paul in his congressional district in '95, so he'd lose his seat. Pretty slimy move, I might add.

Check that out, if you want to find out more of what Gingrich did.


When he Romney touted himself as a progressive? I haven't heard such a thing.


43. Colorado, And, if you want to nominate a man who insists on getting everything 100% his way, vote for Ron Paul.

If you want to nominate a man who has never in all his years in Congress gotten anything passed, vote for Ron Paul.

If you want to nominate a man who hasn't even managed to build a decent coalition of supporters in the House, vote for Ron Paul.

If you want to nominate a man who will speak clearly but accomplish absolutely nothing in the White House, nominate Ron Paul.

Really, Colorado, it's great to stand by your beliefs, but when half of the country disagrees with you, you have to find some common ground and Ron Paul seems incapable of doing that.


Yes, Romney used the word Progressive. Root word, "Progress".

He said he was not partisan.

He has shown the ability to get conservative policies passed while working with 85% democrat legislature.

Huntsman managed to get moderate policies passed while dealing with 85% republican legislature.

I'm going with the guy who can get the economy working, again, while working with the opposition. He's shown he can do it. He's shown he WANTS to do it.

Not Your Promiscuous Daddy

Go Paul go!

Matthew E. Miller

Yeah, if Ron Paul wins Iowa, I think there will be a massive drum-beat next cycle to dethrone Iowa as an early state.


For those who like to parse polls, here is a critique of the PPP poll, suggesting that it over-polls Independents and under-polls conservatives, meaning that Paul may not be as high as indicated.

Perhaps the current state of affairs is closer to the Rasmussen poll from Thursday.


Go GrandPaul Go!


Ron Paul nation will do ANYTHING to keep Romney have to know this. We don't care whether it's Obama over Romney...they're the same guy with a few minor differences. We'll stay home, we'll vote democrat, we'll support third-party, we'll hold the non-conservatives hostage within the party if we have to. But, there will be no Romney presidency....there are enough of us to guarantee that. We're used to losing, so we have nothing else left and your idle threats of "splitting the vote" or "helping to elect Obama by not supporting 'our guy'" are meaningless to us. We have the guy we want, and we won't be swayed. Many of us are younger professionals with a lot of money to donate ($4 mil over the weekend) while the rest will sell their couch (they won't let us sell our kin...already checked) in order to donate to the Paul campaign, and sans Ron Paul (and a few others) the rest of the party can go to hell. Yesterday's GOP was our home, but today's version of Democrat-lite is pathetic and needs us to take it over and kick the rest of you pansy-moderates and your pandering elitists out (sadly you're too stupid to see that you do exactly as they need you to).

You are either with us or you're against us. You win with us, or you lose with us. Either way, we don't care because victory by anyone other than Ron Paul is not a victory and changes very little for our future. So, let's not pretend.....We hate you, and you hate us. We're offended personally by your disparaging comments about Ron Paul but we understand you don't like how we criticize your soft and sensitive marshmallow men (we just don't care anymore). Your path to victory includes us since your pro-war stance is isolating you to a very small percentage of the population (remember 2008?), but our path to victory doesn't need you since freedom is popular amongst indys and conservative-leaning democrats.

This is what we talk about over a beer at one of our whacko Paulista secret've always known that, I'm just confirming it for you. Yes we're fanatical, yes we're passionate, and yes we're willing to wreck the whole freaking shop to get our way if we have to.

Now, what are you gonna do about it? Whenever you get done crying about us, I recommend you just get out of the way. Stay home...don't vote. We don't need or want you anyway.


Hmmmm..... 😉

Some interesting questions/answers from the poll:

Q4 Who would be your second choice for


Michele Bachmann ......................................... 15%

Newt Gingrich ................................................. 13%

Jon Huntsman................................................. 7%

Gary Johnson ................................................. 1%

Ron Paul ......................................................... 9%

Rick Perry ....................................................... 14%

Mitt Romney.................................................... 12%

Rick Santorum................................................ 9%

Someone else/Not sure .................................. 18%

Q27 Who do you think is going to win the Iowa


Michele Bachmann ......................................... 6%

Newt Gingrich ................................................. 20%

Jon Huntsman................................................. 2%

Gary Johnson ................................................. 1%

Ron Paul ......................................................... 20%

Rick Perry ....................................................... 3%

Mitt Romney.................................................... 19%

Rick Santorum................................................ 2%

Someone else/Not sure .................................. 27%


Why exactly would a Paul win in Iowa discredit them for a future cycle? I mean...this is by FAR the weakest republican field in recent memory. So picking Paul can hardly be seen as that much of a surprise. What about new hampshire? What does it say about them now that paul is in 2nd there? I mean...the narrative could be used for almost any it's just stupid to think that there will be any real effect on the next cycle based off of what iowa does this time. And what happens if RON PAUL WINS THE NOMINATION? I mean, there is a chance he could...and then iowa wouldn't be any different than anyone else. So what's the problem here? He's not a brandished social conservative. He isn't someone that appeals to the largely evangelical quarter of the vote there. So how are they going to discredit iowa on this? Are they going to say that iowa is an isolationist state and can't represent us anymore? It's just stupid to think that will happen.


It's just stupid to think like that.

Comments are closed.

Recent Posts

Tweets by @Racefour

Search R4'16