Newt up in Iowa

Newt Gingrich has taken the lead in PPP's newest poll of Iowa Republican caucus voters with 27% to 18% for Ron Paul, 16% for Mitt Romney, 13% for Michele Bachmann, 9% for Rick Perry, 6% for Rick Santorum, 4% for Jon Huntsman, and 1% for Gary Johnson.

Gingrich has gained 19 points since PPP's last poll of the race in early October.  Also showing momentum are Paul whose support is up 8% and Bachmann whose support is up 5%.  Romney has dropped 6 points since then with the other candidates mostly standing in place.

Gingrich's rise to the top is being fueled by strong support from seniors and the Tea Party.  With voters over 65 he's at 37% leading Romney's 18% and Paul's 11% by 19 and 26 points respectively. With Tea Party voters Gingrich is at 35% with Bachmann actually coming in at second with 23%, Paul in third at 14%, and Romney all the way back at just 4%.

Paul's benefiting from the lack of action on the Democratic side this year. 20% of likely caucus goers are either Democrats or independents and with them he's leading the way with 28% t0 18% for Gingrich and 13% for Romney and Bachmann. He's also very strong with younger voters, getting 23% with those under 45 to 21% for Gingrich, 16% for Bachmann, and 15% for Romney.

When PPP polled Iowa for the first time this year in January 57% of voters had a favorable opinion of Romney to 26% with an unfavorable one.  Now he's at only 49/45, representing a 27 point decline in his net favorability over the course of the year. Perhaps most troubling for Romney, only 48% of those who voted for him in 2008 say they're planning to do so again this year.

Bachmann appears to be having a little bit of a resurgence. Her favorability in early October was down to 44/38 but now she's back up to 56/35. There may be some hope for her yet. Perry's 9% is the same as what he had in October, but given that he's fallen below 5% most everywhere else we've polled in the last month it at least means he's doing comparatively well in Iowa.

43% of likely caucus goers say government spending and reducing the deficit is the issue most important to them and they're supporting Gingrich 34-17 over Paul with Bachmann at 16% and Romney only at 12%. 27% say jobs and the economy are most important and they go for Romney 29-24 over Gingrich with Paul at 14%. If you want a reason why Rick Santorum has never caught on it's probably because only 9% of likely caucus goers say that social issues are the thing most important to them. He's getting 17% with those voters but it's just not a very big piece of the pie.

Electability is not usually a trait you would associate with Newt Gingrich but 33% of Republicans think he would be the candidate with the best chance to defeat Barack Obama with Mitt Romney at 23% and no one else hitting double digits. 57% of voters say they're most concerned with a candidate's stand on the issues to 34% who are most concerned about getting the candidate who can beat Obama. Paul actually leads Gingrich 23-20 with voters who care most about a candidate's stances. But Gingrich has the overall lead because he's at 39% with those most concerned about electability to 18% for Romney and only 11% for Paul.

There's been a lot of discussion about the comparative lack of retail politics this year. Only 29% of likely voters have seen one of the candidates in person. Ron Paul is winning over those folks with 27% to 22% for Gingrich and 17% for Romney. But Gingrich leads Paul 29-14 with those who haven't seen any candidates on the stump. Only 21% of caucus voters say it's 'very important' to them that a candidate spends a lot of time in Iowa.

One reason Gingrich is moving ahead of Romney in Iowa? 42% of voters say they would have major concerns about a candidate who supported an individual mandate for health care to just 34% who say they'd have major concerns about a candidate who cheated on his spouse.  Romney's health care plan is a bigger liability than Gingrich's marriages. There's also not much evidence that Gingrich's immigration stance will prove to be an issue. Only 29% of caucus voters think illegal immigrants who have been in the country for 25 years and paid their taxes and obeyed the law should be deported, to 44% who think they should not be. Something may sink Newt's campaign in the next month, but it's not likely to be that issue.

For all that there's one piece of news in this poll that's very good for Romney and very bad for Gingrich. 66% of Romney's remaining supporters in Iowa are strongly committed to him.  62% of Paul's supporters are strongly committed to him. But only 49% of Gingrich's supporters say they'll definitely vote for him. Newt's support is comparatively weak.  And the second choice of Gingrich voters? For 26% of them it's none other than Mitt Romney to 17% for Perry, 15% for Bachmann, and 13% for Paul. So if Gingrich's campaign does fade over the course of December we could end up with Romney back at the top, just like was expected all along.

We'll be running an Iowa tracking poll every week for the duration of the campaign, if you have suggestions of other questions we should be asking please share them.

Full results here

Comments

[Lucas Black]

So I guess Perry wasn't in double digits? All that money he's spending and so little to show for it. And Newt gets newtmentum without spending a dime.

[Adam101]

APPEAL TO ALL AMERICANS FOR ACCEPTANCE OF RON PAUL’S FOREIGN POLICY

If you don’t support Ron Paul because of his foreign policy I can understand because I was a traditional neoconservative type for much of my life. Upon digging into the facts, however, I now recognize that Ron Paul is on the right side of this issue.

The history of the Middle East and world in general, virtually all major surveys taken in Muslim streets, speeches delivered by Muslim leaders, and human nature confirm that meddling in the affairs of other countries and regions is the root cause of resistance, hatred, revenge, and terrorism.

Our meddling in the Middle East for more than 60 years by overthrowing governments (including democratic ones), invasions, occupations, setting up puppet governments and military bases came long before terrorism emerged as a reaction. There is no supporting evidence that organized radical Muslim terrorism results from hating us by nature, because of our religion, or lifestyle.

A universal characteristic of human nature is to be focused on creating a better life for ourselves and our children. Hatred, terrorism, and focus on what goes on in other countries come into play when our own way of life is violated or threatened by them. Until our heavy handed meddling in the Middle East we were rather liked and very much respected in the Middle East.

If a Muslim superpower meddled in our region for 60 years, invaded and occupied countries in North America, set up pro-Muslim puppet governments and military bases there would also be resistance, hatred, and no doubt some of us would also consider it justified to respond with the use of terrorism (even though terrorism should never be justified). Why, therefore, are we surprised that blowback emerges in reaction to our constant and consistent meddling in the Middle East during the course of 60 years?

We kept escalating the war in Vietnam to no avail but since leaving that country we now get along well. When under Soviet occupation the people of Eastern Europe despised and resisted the Russians on a daily basis. Now that the Soviets are out they are hardly given a 2nd thought in the people’s daily lives. Afghanistan practiced resistance and terrorism during the Soviet occupation of that country. Since Soviet departure and American entrance in that arena the hatred and terrorism has shifted to us. There is terrorism being committed by Muslims of Chechnya in an effort to free that country of Russian occupation.

Why then do we violate our Christian, national, and individual values to aggressively meddle in the affairs of others only to create more hatred and terrorism directed against us, while the vast majority of people around the world, and friendly leaders of other countries, warn against this course of action? Do not two of the most important commandments left by Jesus Christ not state “Love thy brother as you love yourself” and “Thou shell not kill?” Does not our Constitution, and did not our forefathers, warn against foreign entanglements and to respect the self-determination of all people whether we agree with them or not? Have we not been taught from early childhood to treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves?

History has proven over and over again that empires usually fall not from the strength of enemies but from their own over expansion. Many empires have tried to create a world in their own image by force and to date have all ultimately failed on each occasion.

If you can’t accept supporting Ron Paul’s foreign policy based on true Christian, national, and individual values that maintained the world’s respect for so many decades, then consider the fact that we simply cannot afford our current self-defeating warfare policy. Even if our meddling in the Middle East could create utopia for 30 million people in Afghanistan and 30 million people in Iraq, is it worth leading 312 million Americans into bankruptcy and full scale Depression during this process?

All evidence available thus far shows that our claims against Iran are basically as bogus as those used to justify the war in Iraq, except that the bombing of Iran would have far more serious negative consequences. Iran poses absolutely no threat to the United States. Even if Iran developed nuclear weapons it is unreasonable to believe that they would initiate a nuclear war against Israel as Iran would be toast within 24 hours. Contrary to the claims of so many Ahmadinejad never threatened to nuke Israel. And Iran has not started a war of aggression during its entire modern history, while we have started several, which included 3 acts of war committed against Iran alone.

This is not to say that Ahmadinejad does not represent a despicable dictatorship but we must consider how to deal with the situation with our own best interests and those of our children first. This also does not mean that Ron Paul does not believe in maintaining very strong defense. He absolutely does but that has little to do with constantly, and aggressively, meddling in the affairs of other nations.

Even after reading hundreds of documents that are readily available on the Internet, including those of our own government, which confirm all of the above, it took me a few years to accept the truth. Unfortunately, we don’t have a few more years to resolve these issues any longer thus I hope and pray that all Americans will take the time to examine the facts and accept the truth much more quickly than I did. This election will determine if we continue on the path to endless wars of self-destruction, bankruptcy, and full scale Depression within the next few years, or if we start the process of recovery under President Ron Paul.

Please feel free to pass on this appeal anywhere and everywhere possible in the interest of America’s future during this critical time in our history.

[jeff]

Gingrich needs to pack himself in Iowa and campaign hard instead of campaigning in NY and elsewhere. It's do or die for Newt in Iowa. If he wins Iowa, momentum will carry him to win SC and most likely FL. If he loses Iowa, it's game over for his campaign - he'll go the way of John Edwards in 2008 or Howard Dean in 2004.

[Obama 2012]

That Romney is the #1 second choice for Gingrich supporters means to me that Gingrich really is the final anti-Romney. It's all coming down to these two. I think they are both weak nominees for the Republicans ... but I'd still prefer to face Gingrich because I think he's just off the charts gross to normal people (ie non GOP primary voters who are obviously nuts.)

[tbert]

Aaaaaaand...cue the Paulbots. I look forward to visiting your stateless ocean seastead in 2012.

Honestly, moderators, can we cut down the cut'n'paste Ron Paul spam?

[Jay]

To Adam 101- You don't have to vote for Paul. We already have a President that will not do anything serious about Iran and who could care less about Muslim radicalism. As for the Iowa poll, I really don't think any poll of Iowa until right before the caucus is worth much. It would be better to concentrate on exactly who is certain to come out to these events. Polling caucuses and primary voters is much more difficult than polling for a general election because you are never quite sure who will show up for these events. If Romney's supporters are strong, he will undoubtedly do better than the pollsters predict because his people will actually show up and vote for him.

[Mark Silk]

Given the importance of white evangelicals in the GOP caucuses, why don't you ask ask a question about likely participants religious affiliation--or at least the standard exist poll question: "Do you consider yourself a born again or evangelical Christian?" Evangelicals not only dominate among "social conservatives," but they are the most dubious about having a Mormon as president.

[Peter Gibbons]

Ron Paul 2012 is America's last chance at recovery and redemption. My Thanks to the previous poster for helping spread the word. Take your message to every forum and message board you can find.

[Janeway]

I always knew Iowegns were certainly a different group but in the Caucus they are so proud of, it is beyond me how Bachman and Santorum are so low. They have really worked hard to get their vote and Cain and Newt swoops in and wins the polls like a popularity contest. Iowa has defeated it's roll for going first. They usually pick a preacher of some sort so I do not expect my guy, Romney, to win as he spent time and money in Iowa in 2008 while they picked Huckabee but at least it was understandable. If they pick Newt after all the work, which they say is necessary to win in Iowa, that Bachman and Santorum, even Paul has done, they have made themselves irrelevant. Any state could be first if nothing is required but a popularity contest. Think again, Iowa, your political future is at stake.

[Dustin Ingalls]

"It would be better to concentrate on exactly who is certain to come out to these events."

This is a poll of likely caucusgoers, so....

"I always knew Iowegns were certainly a different group but in the Caucus they are so proud of, it is beyond me how Bachman and Santorum are so low."

It's because they don't care if the candidates haven't spent a lot of time there.

[NotoNewt.com]

A vote for Romney or Newt is a vote for globalist bankers. Look at their list of campaign contributors and atrocious voting records. Both men are puppets like Obama.

[RageFury]

If you are of the Tea Party and you support Newt Gingrich over Ron Paul, I dare say your thinking processes might be just a bit flawed.
It is Ron Paul who supports smaller Government, less taxes, less spending and the Constitution. You won't find all these qualities in Newt Gingrich, certainly not.

What you will find in Newt Gingrich is the following:
Newt Gingrich supported the bailouts.
Newt Gingrich supported a health care mandate similar to the one signed into law by President Obama
Newt was a highly paid strategic advisor for Freddie Mac during the years of the housing bubble, he reportedly made $1.6 million during that time.
Newt Gingrich was involved in a banking scandal while in office in which he bounced 22 checks including a $9,000 check to the IRS. Yet he will balance our Federal budget?
Newt Gingrich was involved in a 6 year affair with his 3rd wife while married to his 2nd wife. If you backed away from Herman Cain because of infidelity then you can't possibly support Newt Gingrich.
Newt Gingrich also resigned from the House of Representatives after being slapped with a $300,000 fine for ethics violations, about 84 violations I believe it was.
Presidential material Newt Gingrich is not as evidenced above.
An Establishment Republican for bigger government, higher taxes and more spending Newt Gingrich definitely is.

[Thomas Phifer]

Please watch this video http://youtu.be/1Jzi3HBCS2M and then tell me how you could possibly want to vote for Newt Gingrich.