May 6, 2013

Poll Watch: McKeon & Associates/Freedom to Choose PAC 2016 Iowa Republican Caucuses Survey

  2:41 pm

McKeon & Associates/Freedom to Choose PAC 2016 Iowa Republican Caucuses Survey

  • Rand Paul 39%
  • Marco Rubio 20%
  • Chris Christie 11%
  • Jeb Bush 10%
  • Bobby Jindal 3%
  • Condoleezza Rice 3%

The poll, provided to The Daily Caller, surveyed 804 registered Iowa voters using phone interviews. 328 usually participated in the Republican presidential caucuses, and 247 said they usually participated in the Democratic caucuses. The poll was conducted on April 18 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.

Inside the numbers:

Among voters who said they usually took part in the Republican presidential caucuses, 39 percent said they would vote for Paul if the caucuses were held today. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio was in a distant second place with 20 percent. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was at 11 percent, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush was at 10 percent, and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal was tied with former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at three percent.

Paul’s lead was buoyed by his strong support among independent voters, who said they usually attend the Republican caucuses. Sixty-seven percent said they would support Paul. The other 33 percent said they would support Christie.

Among self-identified Republicans, Rubio and Paul ran close, with Rubio getting the support 24 percent and Paul getting the support of 30 percent. Christie’s share of the vote fell to four percent among such voters.



by Oldest
by Best by Newest by Oldest

Rand is the man.


Of this list I would choose Jindal. The other choices are THAT bad. Not surprised that Paul is doing so well. He starts the Iowa caucuses with 23% of the vote his dad got. That's his floor.


At least the primary won't be a laughing stock of B-level talent like 2012.


4. the 2012 field was a joke

after all the hype of 2010 and the tea party

everybody was expecting a field that would have obama scared

but instead the GOP decided to get a circus full of clowns to run in 2012


would like to see ted cruz polled!!


we had better be start working on 2016 NOW!! and don't run any mccain types candidates !


4. The GOP didn't decide who was running. It was the candidates themselves who decided to throw their hats in the ring. The ones that were good decided to sit it out for some odd reason.


Before you guys start laughing at the clowns that ran in 2012 (and I agree with your assessment), there is probably one guy on the list above who could win a general election right now and he also happens to be on the one who will have the most difficult time getting through a Republican primary. Barring a major controversy in the Democratic Party, Rand Paul will not be the next president of the United States, regardless of how many Iowan Republicans like him.


"804 registered Iowa voters using phone interviews. 328 usually participated in the Republican presidential caucuses, and 247 said they usually participated in the Democratic caucuses"


What a horse-sh^t poll!!!!!!!!


Only 3 of these people are capable of winning a general election, and I'd argue that Bush may not be because of his last name. And I'd rather not run Christie. I'd love to see Ted Cruz run and see what he's made of.


Why do some people continue to advance this idea that Rice will somehow magically run for President? She's said a million times she doesn't want to.

8-If we don't run a real conservative with some gumption, ie Paul with his libertarian leanings or Cruz or Rubio (if he actually takes a stand, but he has completely struck out all the time he has had a chance beyond safe Reb rhetoric) or the we will advance to something like where a Thatcher is elected but is afraid to touch the NHS because it is a 3rd rail. If we move left now, we move left permanently, at least in some sense. Look at the political state of Europe countries and Canada. We have a crystal ball in a way.

And who knows, maybe your right. But lets not mince words. If we pick a Christie or Bush what we are doing is conceding defeat and moving left which is what the majority of rep in Congress think we should do. They just want to cover it up in a nice way by talking about reviewing the party platform. And since we are the right party, it makes me think the solution is probably to move right because you know that is what we stand for (yes I know that is overly simplistic).


11 Mass Con

I agree.


Do I see another GOP primary blood bath coming?

If Hillary is runs and is anointed by the Donkey's, then it will probably look like 2012 all over again....except we'll lose even more of the female vote...

PS. The fact that you folks consider Romney to be a clown candidate (I agree the rest were somewhat clownish) shows the problem our party is in.

By the time the liberal press and Dems get down with Paul, Rubio, Christie, Bush, Jindal, etc., etc., most of them will be looking like clowns too...


Everyone on that list is a policy joke. Just because they make us feel better doesn't mean they need to run for office. Look at our current President. How can we in good conscience vote for the people when we gave Obama so much crap for not having any experience? Seriously people. What has Rubio ever done? Paul?


we need some body to be able to compete with the clinton $$$$$$$$$$$ machine so christie rubio!!


What? No Mormons running? What are 90% of you idiots gonna do???


@14. I don't think Romney ever had a chance in the general election. He had two problems that were very big. He signed an assault weapons ban into law. His signature accomplishment was Romneycare. After the 2010 anti-Obamacare election that should have shown us clearly to nominate someone that could hammer Obamacare. We nominated the ONE guy in the field who couldn't. Between the two, 5 million stayed home when we could have had a high good turnout.


#17 Spud

So, you're staying the people who hated Obamacare stayed home to let Obama win because the GOP ticket, which declared it would end Obamacare, didn't hate on Obamacare enough?

You're not making sense.

Last time I checked, it was the people who liked Obama's policies who voted for him.

If 5 million people who don't like Obama's policies stayed home because Romney didn't look, act, or sound like a duck hunter, they need to have their heads examined.

Maybe that's part of what Jindal was talking about when he called the GOP the "dumb party"...


Romney was the best candidate of the contenders on the GOP side, he had no baggage as did Gingrich and was not a anti-abortion nut as was Santorum. Bachmann, Perry and the rest were not worth mention. Romney had a record as a very good family man and one that was a very generous with his money to the church. The guy actually had great business experience and leadership capabilities as shown with the Olympics. The problem was not Romney but the platform of the party, he tried to swing too far right to pick up the nut cases and could never come far enough back to the center to win a national election. No candidate can win with that dog and pony show, especially when a third of the party don't, can't or just completely refuse to change.They will definitely take the party to a loss in 2016.

Comments are closed.

Recent Posts

Tweets by @Racefour

Search R4'16