SHOCK POLL IOWA: CAIN 24.5% PAUL 20.4% ROMNEY 16.3% PERRY 7.9% BACHMANN 7.6% GINGRICH 4.8%

Posted on November 18, 2011


Presidential Candidate Leader Ron Paul

New Iowa Poll: Paul Surges to 20.4%

Washington Post

A word on Rothschild Zionism aka; Banking Cabalist Who Attempted To Exploit Israel Through High Taxation Until He Was Kicked Out Of Israel. To this day no British Royalty (sic) can step foot on Israeli soil. Rothschild is not even a Jew He’s A Loan Shark. If you want to associate a Country with Rothschild Zionism It Is Britain for he owns Britain. Judaism should NEVER be associated with Rothschild Zionism, for they are good people and Ahmadinejad gets along with them just fine. Don’t forget the CFR controls the propaganda media machine of which Newt Gingrich has not renounced as he is a member.

Latest numbers from Iowa - Iowa State University/KCRG:

Cain 24.5%
Paul 20.4%
Romney 16.3%
Perry 7.9%
Bachmann 7.6%
Gingrich 4.8%

But wait, there’s more!

http://www.news.iastate.edu/news/2011/nov/ISUpoll

  • “Can’t Decide” (21.5 percent) was the most frequent second choice. Cain, Perry, Romney and Paul all had more than 10 percent support as respondents’ second choice.
  • Most of the candidates have a small gender gap among supporters. Cain does much better among women than men as do Perry and Gingrich. Paul and Bachmann do better with men than with women.
  • Cain has strong support across all income levels, particularly among those earning $100,000 a year or more. Among the least well off, Paul leads at around 41 percent. The wealthiest voters have the highest level of “undecideds.”
  • There are sizable differences in the level of candidate support based on religious beliefs. Cain leads among three categories — Catholics, born-again Protestants and mainstream Protestants. Among those with no religious preference, Paul captured nearly 59 percent.
  • Romney wins support across all educational levels. It rises with education level. Cain and Paul’s support is highest among those with either some college or a college degree.

The poll was compiled through phone interviews conducted between Nov. 1 and 13, and surveyed 979 registered Republicans and 277 registered independents. Of those polled, 377 (30.0 percent) stated that they definitely or probably would attend the Republican caucus on Tuesday, Jan. 3.

Daily Paul

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, long dismissed by the GOP establishment as a fringe candidate, has broadened his electoral appeal and emerged as a major player in the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses, according to several recent polls and conversations with a handful of longtime Hawkeye political operatives.


WASHINGTON, DC – NOVEMBER 16: Republican presidential candidate U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) addresses the Congressional Health Care Caucus “Thought Leaders Series” November 16, 2011 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)“He has certainly broadened his coalition from the ‘rage against the machine’ types that primarily comprised his supporters in 2008,” said one senior Iowa Republican operative granted anonymity to speak candidly about Paul’s prospects. “The expanded coalition includes more traditional activists — as a number of GOP county chairs have endorsed his campaign, as have a handful of legislators.”

Two recent polls confirm Paul’s momentum in the state.

In a Bloomberg News survey — conducted by renowned Iowa-based pollster Ann Selzer — Paul was in a four-way statistical tie for first along with businessman Herman Cain, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. (Cain had 20 percent to 19 percent for Paul, 18 percent for Romney and 17 percent for Gingrich.)

And, in a new Iowa State/Gazette/KCRG survey, Paul took 20 percent — behind only Cain at 25 percent.

(For more on Paul’s surprising poll strength in Iowa, make sure to check out the Post’s “Behind the Numbers” polling blog.)

So, there is broad — if not unanimous — agreement that Paul has momentum in Iowa. But, why?

The most obvious reason is that Paul has been on television in the state since July and has spent more than $1.35 million on ads. (For months, Paul had the airwaves to himself although Texas Gov. Rick Perry is now on television in Iowa as well.)

Paul is using the relatively uncluttered airwaves to tell a story of himself as a consistent champion of fiscal responsibility in a field of candidates that have not always hewed so closely to that mantra.

One ad attacks the inconsistencies of Cain, Romney and Perry on fiscal matters — TARP, economic stimulus — before cutting to Paul; “I’ve been talking about these problems for a long long time…now we’re bankrupt and we have to decide which way we’re going to go,” he says.

And, it’s not just Paul’s television ads that have blanketed the state. Sixty seven percent of those tested in the Bloomberg poll said they had been contacted by the Paul campaign via email, direct mail, telephone or someone coming directly to their door over the last year — the highest percentage for any candidate. (Just 47 percent said the same of Perry, 46 percent of Romney and 41 percent of Cain.)

“We have a strong ground game in the state that is reaching out at a faster pace than any other campaign,” argued Trygve Olson, a Paul adviser.

The other major factor that appears to be working in Paul’s favor is the lack of a clear social conservative candidate ala former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee in 2008.

Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann appeared to be the natural 2012 heir to the Huckabee slot in Iowa but has collapsed both in the state and nationally since she won the Ames Straw Poll in mid-August. (Don’t forget — because many people do — that Paul came within a hairsbreadth of defeating Bachmann at Ames.)

Perry, too, has faltered badly since he began his campaign. And, while Gingrich and Cain have pockets of support among social conservatives neither have an organization in the state to match Paul’s.

“We are picking up support among social conservatives in Iowa — particularly ones who believe our country’s fiscal situation is in serious peril,” noted Olson.

There are other, more technical reasons to believe that Paul warrants being taken seriously in the state.

Turnout in the 2012 caucuses is expected to dip below the 119,000 (or so) people who turned out in 2008.

“Turnout will probably be lower than in 2008 because there are not the kind of hyper-developed ground efforts like we saw in 2008, 2000, or 1996,” said Gentry Collins, a former executive director of the Republican Party of Iowa. “I think that benefits a candidate like Paul because the depth of his appeal will guarantee him a minimum number.”

The composition of the caucus-goers, too, could help Paul whose appeal — much more so than his GOP rivals — expands beyond the typical Republican rank and file.

“[Paul] will benefit more than other candidates from our registration rules as independents, Libertarians [and] Democrats can effectively become Republicans for a night and caucus for Paul,” said one veteran Iowa Republican operative. “Anecdotally, I have encountered more than a few self-described liberals who will caucus for Paul due to his anti-war stance.”

There are still few people — outside of Paul’s direct orbit — who see a clear path to victory for the Texas Republican in Iowa. Paul’s problem in Iowa, as it is almost everywhere, is that his support base is loyal and getting larger but still too small to comprise a winning coalition. (Make sure to read our piece on what Paul has in common with “Friday Night Lights” for more on that particular phenomenon.)

But, Paul is an emerging Iowa force in a race that remains as wide open as at any time in recent memory. That means that Paul’s rivals ignore him at their own peril.

Washington Post

Rasmussen Manipulating Polls

In Rasmussen’s own words they admit the following:http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/about_us/methodology


TEXT:



All Rasmussen Reports’ survey questions are digitally recorded and fed to a calling program that determines question order, branching options, and other factors. Calls are placed to randomly-selected phone numbers through a process that insures appropriate geographic representation. Typically, calls are placed from 5 pm to 9 pm local time during the week. Saturday calls are made from 11 am to 6 pm local time and Sunday calls from 1 pm to 9 pm local time. To reach those who have abandoned traditional landline telephones, Rasmussen Reports uses an online survey tool to interview randomly selected participants from  a demographically diverse panel. After the surveys are completed, the raw data is processed through a weighting program to insure that the sample reflects the overall population in terms of age, race, gender, political party, and other factors. The processing step is required because different segments of the population answer the phone in different ways. For example, women answer the phone more than men, older people are home more and answer more than younger people, and rural residents typically answer the phone more frequently than urban residents. For surveys of all adults, the population targets are determined by census bureau data. For political surveys, census bureau data provides a starting point and a series of screening questions are used to determine likely voters. The questions involve voting history, interest in the current campaign, and likely voting intentions.  Rasmussen Reports determines its partisan weighting targets through a dynamic weighting system that takes into account the state’s voting history, national trends, and recent polling in a particular state or geographic area.


IMPORTANT TEXT HIGHLIGHTED:



All Rasmussen Reports’ survey questions are digitally recorded and fed to a calling program that determines question order, branching options, and other factors. Calls are placed to randomly-selected phone numbers through a process that insures appropriate geographic representation. Typically, calls are placed from 5 pm to 9 pm local time during the week. Saturday calls are made from 11 am to 6 pm local time and Sunday calls from 1 pm to 9 pm local time.  To reach those who have abandoned traditional landline telephones, Rasmussen Reports uses an online survey tool to interview randomly selected participants from  a demographically diverse panel.  After the surveys are completed, the raw data is processed through a weighting program to insure that the sample reflects the overall population in terms of age, race, gender, political party, and other factors. The processing step is required because different segments of the population answer the phone in different ways. For example, women answer the phone more than men, older people are home more and answer more than younger people, and rural residents typically answer the phone more frequently than urban residents.  For surveys of all adults, the population targets are determined by census bureau data. For political surveys, census bureau data provides a starting point and a series of screening questions are used to determine likely voters. The questions involve voting history, interest in the current campaign, and likely voting intentions. Rasmussen Reports determines its partisan weighting targetsthrough a dynamic weighting system that takes into account the state’s voting history, national trends, and recent polling in a particular state or geographic area.


LET US GO THROUGH EACH POINT ONE BY ONE:



randomly-selected phone numbers through a process that insures appropriate geographic representation.
What is the process? Who is in control of the process? Is the process autonomous? Is Ptech software involved with the architecture for risk management processing that can easily be manipulated to shift “RANDOM” to “TARGETED AND DELIBEATE WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE”.
—————————————

an online survey tool to interview randomly selected participants
Who is in control of this tool? Same questions as above.
—————————————

the raw data is processed through a weighting program to insure that the sample reflects the overall population in terms of age, race, gender, political party, and other factors.

A weighting program? Are you guys for real? How can you get away with saying “Out of 1,000 people surveyed, 29% said they prefere candidate A” when you change all of the numbers based on a weighting program which takes into consideration “OTHER FACTORS”. And who is in control of that weighting program? Is it a Ptech type system or a STUXNET type system built to assist in risk management simulations (which can therefore be manipulated behind the scenes without anyone knowing)? Same questions above and are all of these systems part of a interwoven tapestry with a central command control over it for easier manipulation by the ones paying for the poll (or by others)?
—————————————

a series of screening questions are used to determine likely voters. The questions involve voting history, interest in the current campaign, and likely voting intentions.

YOU SCREEN PEOPLE BASED ON HOW THEY ARE LIKELY TO VOTE?

IS THIS FOR REAL?

WHAT ARE THE CHANCES THAT PEOPLE WERE SCREENED WHO WERE LIKELY TO VOTE FOR RON PAUL YET ONLY 5% DID VOTE FOR RON PAUL? DOESN’T THAT SEEM UNLIKELY? WHAT ABOUT THE CHANCES THAT PEOPLE WERE SCREENED BASED ON 29% BEING LIKELY TO VOTE FOR ROMNEY, 29% LIKELY TO VOTE FOR CAIN, 10% LIKELY TO VOTE FOR GINGRICH AND NO ONE LIKELY TO VOTE FOR PAUL?

I WOULD SAY THE CHANCES ARE BETWEEN 80-100%!

SCREENING PEOPLE BASED ON THEIR LIKELY VOTING INTENSIONS? HOW IS THAT EVEN POSSIBLE AS A REQUIREMENT?

Also the same questions, how is the data transfered, who is in control of the algorithms, etc. These are not scientific polls, these are highly biased polls with dozens of remote manipulation stress points that would allow NWO operatives an opportunity to shift entire results.
———————————–

determines its partisan weighting targets through a dynamic weighting systemthat takes into account the state’s voting history, national trends, and recent polling in a particular state or geographic area.

Another weighting system? There is so much manipulation of the raw data it is absolutely amazing. Also, the method to get the raw data is compromised by design.