Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On Google Trends, Paul is in first place and WAY ahead of the others. If real people willing to extend their own effort to find out about him on line has any bearing on his popularity, the polls that don't have him in first place are wrong. This is true nationally and in Iowa.
People are far less interested in finding out about Romney or Santorum or anyone else on-line as you can plainly see.
Google trends is a measure of internet traffic. Ron Paul is way ahead because his supporters are more active on the internet (just look at the politics section of City-Data), but that is not an indication that he has more support from the general public.
RealClearPolitics.com is an aggregate of multiple polls and Romney clearly leads New Hampshire. Romney, Paul, and Santorum are in dead heat in Iowa, but as of the last few days both Romney and Santorum have gained while Paul has lost a few percentage points. Romney currently leads Iowa. Gingrich has a clear lead in South Carolina.
On Google Trends, Paul is in first place and WAY ahead of the others. If real people willing to extend their own effort to find out about him on line has any bearing on his popularity and translates to votes, the polls that don't have him in first place are wrong. This is true nationally and in Iowa.
People are far less interested in finding out about Romney or Santorum or anyone else on-line as you can plainly see.
On Google Trends, Paul is in first place and WAY ahead of the others. If real people willing to extend their own effort to find out about him on line has any bearing on his popularity and translates to votes, the polls that don't have him in first place are wrong. This is true nationally and in Iowa.
People are far less interested in finding out about Romney or Santorum or anyone else on-line as you can plainly see.
Ahhhhh, now I get it, if a poll shows Paul leading then they are correct but if they do not then they are wrong and should be ignored. I wonder what the excuse will be if Paul does not win in Iowa and NH, cheating by the rest of the Repubs?
Ahhhhh, now I get it, if a poll shows Paul leading then they are correct but if they do not then they are wrong and should be ignored. I wonder what the excuse will be if Paul does not win in Iowa and NH, cheating by the rest of the Repubs?
You don't really need excuses for not winning Iowa since historically it is not a great predictor of who will go on and win the eventual nomination. You NEED a strong showing...meaning 1st, 2nd, or 3rd.
You don't really need excuses for not winning Iowa since historically it is not a great predictor of who will go on and win the eventual nomination. You NEED a strong showing...meaning 1st, 2nd, or 3rd.
that is true but so many of the Paul supporters here have been saying for weeks he would win Iowa and now it doesn't look so promising. Why is that and how do you handle the predictions not coming true if indeed he doesn't win or even come in second? I really doubt he will win NH either.
But he doesn't lead in Iowa as of the lastest polls.
Ron Paul is in first place in the latest Public Policy Polling poll, which was from 1/1/2012. He was just one point ahead of Romney, which is basically a tie.
He was only 2 points behind Romney in the Des Moines Register poll, which is also a statistical tie.
Both polls show Santorum surging. What would be a real shocker is if Santorum got 2nd place ahead of Romney and Paul got 1st. That would make some waves and be an embarrassment for Romney.
that is true but so many of the Paul supporters here have been saying for weeks he would win Iowa and now it doesn't look so promising. Why is that and how do you handle the predictions not coming true if indeed he doesn't win or even come in second? I really doubt he will win NH either.
Nita
I don't worry about "handling" things. I don't see RP as the be all and end all of politics. I really hope he wins, but even if he doesn't he has (and is continuing) to shape policy discussions in a way that I strongly support...as long as he continues to do so I consider that a big win...we will get there eventually.
that is true but so many of the Paul supporters here have been saying for weeks he would win Iowa and now it doesn't look so promising. Why is that and how do you handle the predictions not coming true if indeed he doesn't win or even come in second? I really doubt he will win NH either.
Nita
Iowa has predicted the winner 55 percent of the time. The idea that Iowa is not a valid contest is a false idea. A presidential contender must win at least Iowa or New Hampshire to be seen as front runner. I don't recall any time in recent history when someone won the nomination but lost both Iowa and New Hampshire.
the statement was uncalled for and very tacky...I don't care what you think or who you support, of course we know you would neve support any Republican and should I remind you, Huckabee came in second overall in 2008.
NIta
That is a misconception. Huckabee came in third. Romney, even after dropping out ended up coming in second. Romney carried eleven states and Huckabee only carried 8.
After Huckabee won Iowa he didn't really do much else except run as a foil for McCain to get him the nomination.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
