ADVERTISEMENT

Iowa Poll: Carson surges to 9-point lead; Trump slides

cigaretteman

HB King
May 29, 2001
79,343
62,343
113
Donald Trump is the biggest loser in the new Iowa Poll.

The pious Ben Carson has plowed past the braggadocious New York businessman to take the front-runner crown, unseating Trump as the most popular choice for president among likely GOP caucusgoers, the new Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics poll shows.

Carson, a retired neurosurgeon, is the favorite choice for 28 percent — 9 percentage points ahead of Trump's 19 percent.

Even Carson’s most controversial comments — about Muslims, Hitler and slavery — are attractive to likely Republican caucusgoers. The poll shows just two perceived weaknesses: his lack of foreign policy experience and his research using fetal tissue during his medical career.

Iowa Poll: Who's up, down, or a bit of both

Iowa Poll: Gaffes? Carson gets benefit of doubt

Carson's support has jumped 10 percentage points since the last Iowa Poll in August, and Trump's has fallen 4 points. This shift to a new pack leader is a thunderclap in the Republican presidential race.

“Donald Trump’s got a real problem,” GOP strategist Alex Castellanos told the Register. “Ben Carson is now the favorite to win Iowa.”

Asked which candidate they’d like to see drop out of the race, if anyone, more caucusgoers (25 percent) name Trump than any of his 14 rivals. And among both moderates and caucusgoers ages 44 or under, 36 percent would like him to quit, noted J. Ann Selzer, the pollster for the Iowa Poll.


Imgur

Moving up into third place in the Iowa horse race is Texas U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, at 10 percent support.

Close on his heels is the top establishment contender, Florida U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, at 9 percent.

Tied for fifth at 5 percent are former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Kentucky U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, the son of three-time presidential candidate Ron Paul.

RELATED:

This has been a GOP primary cycle for outsider candidates, but one contender with no previous political experience, Carly Fiorina, hasn’t taken wing in Iowa like Trump and Carson have. Fiorina, a former tech company CEO, has 4 percent support, down a point since the last Iowa Poll.

Wallowing in the dregs of the new poll are a pack of political insiders: former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, 3 percent; Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and former Pennsylvania U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, each with 2 percent; New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, 1 percent; and former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore, South Carolina U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham and former New York Gov. George Pataki, each with less than a point.

“The outsiders are still beating the insiders, of course, but that’s not what is interesting,” Castellanos said. “What’s interesting is that the moral outsider (Carson) is whipping the businessman-not-politician-outsider (Trump) and crushing the hope-and-change insiders (Bush and Rubio).”

The results suggest that Iowa GOP caucusgoers see America’s decline as primarily a moral problem, Castellanos said.


Imgur

Carson has plenty of room to grow in Iowa: He’s at 28 percent in the horse race, but he could exploit another 25 percentage points from the 53 percent of caucusgoers who have "very favorable" feelings about him, Castellanos said.

“In other words, Carson could blow this out,” he said.

Poll respondent Bruce Lindberg, a 56-year-old chiropractor who lives in Ottumwa, said Carson is his No. 1 choice because "he’s very intelligent. He speaks from his heart. ... I just think it’s time for honesty. And we need to figure out how to slow down the government spending somehow.”

The poll shows Trump has little headroom.

“His problem is, shy and retiring wallflower that he is, he is well-known,” Castellanos said. “Trump has left little ambiguity about who he is with voters."

Carson's overall favorability rating, combining "very" and "mostly" favorable responses, stands at a field-leading 84 percent, with just 12 percent unfavorable. He's followed by Rubio (70 percent view him positively, 20 percent negatively) and Fiorina (66 percent/22 percent).


Imgur

If Trump collapses a few more points, there is a chance Rubio or Fiorina could climb into second place, Castellanos said. “If Trump pulls out, all hands on deck,” he said.

Strategists for Cruz think he’s poised to gain steam right before the Iowa caucuses Feb. 1, because he stands at the intersection of rabble-rouser outsider and Washington insider.

But Castellanos said these poll numbers indicate that “as long as Carson remains in the race, Cruz has nowhere to go.”

Cruz has a solid favorable rating: 61 percent view him positively, 26 percent negatively. But about twice as many likely caucusgoers have very favorable feelings about Carson compared with Cruz (53 percent to 28 percent), even though Cruz is second-highest in the field on that passion measure.

“Ted Cruz is in a good-looking car with a big engine, lots of gas, ready to roll — and the road ahead of him is blocked,” Castellanos said.

The Iowa Poll of 401 likely Republican caucusgoers was conducted Oct. 16-19 by Selzer & Co. of Des Moines. The margin of error is plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.

Trump’s backers think his forte is his forcefulness: He’ll stand up to anybody, they say.

Carson has a different superpower: His statements that he would be guided by his faith in God are an attractive attribute for 89 percent of likely caucusgoers. That's topped only by the 96 percent who find his perceived common sense attractive.

More at:

http://www.press-citizen.com/story/...ahead-of-donald-trump-iowa-poll-gop/74278414/
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Tradition
This graph shows Carson is in even better shape in Iowa than 9 points. 2nd choice matters a lot in a caucus state. The Iowa evangelical crowd who represent 42% of likely R caucus voters is being heard, look at Cruz too. 68% of Rs doubt Trumps Christian credentials.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...omberg-politics-des-moines-register-iowa-poll

-1x-1.jpg


Here is the D side:

-1x-1.jpg

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...des-moines-register-iowa-poll-democratic-race
 
So are you guys going to vote for Carson? Or are you going to be like the Democrats of old and show your racism....?
 
How many winners of the Republican caucus have gone on
to win the Presidential nomination? Iowa is not a good
forecaster because the caucus system is antiquated and
denies each Iowan one vote.
 
How many winners of the Republican caucus have gone on to win the Presidential nomination? Iowa is not a good
forecaster because the caucus system is antiquated and
denies each Iowan one vote.
Aside from McCain finishing 4th in 2008, it has been a fairly good indicator over the past 40 years.

Mitt Romney lost to Rick Santorum in 2012 by the slimmest of margins - 0.03%.

Bush won in 2000 and then of course ran unopposed in 2004.

Bob Dole won in 1996.

GHWB ran unopposed in 1992 but was a disappointing third behind Bob Dole and Pat Robertson in 1988.

Reagan was a close second to Bush in 1980 and won unopposed in 1984.

Ford won in 1976.

So the eventual Republican nominee was either first or a close second in 8 of the last 10 Iowa Caucuses, including 5 of the last 7 that were contested.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
How many winners of the Republican caucus have gone on
to win the Presidential nomination? Iowa is not a good
forecaster because the caucus system is antiquated and
denies each Iowan one vote.


The caucus system is also completely unnecessary with all the information available to people now. I believe the Republican caucus is still secret ballot, no? I've only attended one caucus (a Republican caucus when I caucused for Ron Paul when I was still a libertarian in '08). I'd heard at the time that the Democratic caucuses were not secret ballot, but I'm unsure if that's true. I believe strongly in the secret ballot.
 
The caucus system is also completely unnecessary with all the information available to people now. I believe the Republican caucus is still secret ballot, no? I've only attended one caucus (a Republican caucus when I caucused for Ron Paul when I was still a libertarian in '08). I'd heard at the time that the Democratic caucuses were not secret ballot, but I'm unsure if that's true. I believe strongly in the secret ballot.
Ds gather in groups around the room to indicate support. Everyone knows who you are for. And they have cookies.
 
Ds gather in groups around the room to indicate support. Everyone knows who you are for. And they have cookies.

I like the secret ballot. What if I'm a volunteer for a campaign but I change my mind over the course of a campaign as I learn more? Say I love what O'Malley has to say and I spend all fall campaigning for him. Then my friend turns me on to The Wire and I realize that Carcetti is based on O'Malley? I have to vote for Hillary at that point.
 
I love the attention but an on line fortune teller is more accurate than Iowa.

We should make something that's exactly like a primary but call it something else so we can still be first in the nation. I do believe Iowa is a good place for this kind of thing since it gives lesser-known candidates a chance to afford to run and get some cheap early publicity. Why not "first in the nation straw poll" where it's like the straw poll except it's only one day and you have to be a qualified voter and the straw buckets are in booths and the buckets are combined at the end of the event?
 
I like the secret ballot. What if I'm a volunteer for a campaign but I change my mind over the course of a campaign as I learn more? Say I love what O'Malley has to say and I spend all fall campaigning for him. Then my friend turns me on to The Wire and I realize that Carcetti is based on O'Malley? I have to vote for Hillary at that point.
I don't disagree. It's a little weird feeling having the sort of sharp discussions we have here in person with your neighbors. People ask questions, try to sway your vote, make speeches and as they are doing all this people are drifting from one table to the other. People steal the cookies and make you come to their table to get one and try to get you to sit down so they can count you. Old ladies try to flirt with you.

Every Iowan should check it out. It's unlike anything I've ever experienced.
 
I don't disagree. It's a little weird feeling having the sort of sharp discussions we have here in person with your neighbors. People ask questions, try to sway your vote, make speeches and as they are doing all this people are drifting from one table to the other. People steal the cookies and make you come to their table to get one and try to get you to sit down so they can count you. Old ladies try to flirt with you.

Every Iowan should check it out. It's unlike anything I've ever experienced.

When I did the Republican caucus ahead of the '08 election, I was a college freshman home for winter break. The first hour was county government. I voted to eliminate a county position based on libertarian principle. 90% of the Republicans there voted to keep it based on either sympathy for the person in that position or knowing that it's actually useful local government (can't recall which). For the POTUS candidate, two people were allowed to speak on behalf of each candidate before the voting. One guy spoke for Ron Paul to absolute silence. I summoned the moral courage to back him up and lecture on my understanding of inflation to a room full of people with mortgages. A fine moment for me. My HS football coach said it was good to see that I was voting. I hadn't known him to be sarcastic, but I wonder now.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
When I did the Republican caucus ahead of the '08 election, I was a college freshman on home for winter break. The first hour was county government. I voted to eliminate a county position based on libertarian principle. 90% of the Republicans there voted to keep it based on either sympathy for the person in that position or knowing that it's actually useful local government (can't recall which). For the POTUS candidate, two people were allowed to speak on behalf of each candidate before the voting. One guy spoke for Ron Paul to absolute silence. I summoned the moral courage to back him up and lecture on my understanding of inflation to a room full of people with mortgages. A fine moment for me. My HS football coach said it was good to see that I was voting. I hadn't known him to be sarcastic, but I wonder now.
But did they have cookies?
 
I would love the chance to vote for Carson in the caucus. I really hope he is the republican nominee.
Me too. As a lifelong Dem... it's always entertaining to register as a GOP just to vote in the Republican primary. And if I'm doing that, you can bet others are also... proving just how meaningless some of this stuff is.

This first in the nation stuff for Iowa is always a little boost to the local economies. But the so-called evangelicals which Iowa is labelled as, aren't really an accurate representation of the National scene, imo. But it's always fun to see which candidates crash and burn after Iowa... Michelle... I'm thinking of you!
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
But the so-called evangelicals which Iowa is labelled as, aren't really an accurate representation of the National scene, imo. But it's always fun to see which candidates crash and burn after Iowa... Michelle... I'm thinking of you!
FWIW, Michele finished 6th in Iowa with just 5% of the vote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
Me too. As a lifelong Dem... it's always entertaining to register as a GOP just to vote in the Republican primary. And if I'm doing that, you can bet others are also... proving just how meaningless some of this stuff is.

This first in the nation stuff for Iowa is always a little boost to the local economies. But the so-called evangelicals which Iowa is labelled as, aren't really an accurate representation of the National scene, imo. But it's always fun to see which candidates crash and burn after Iowa... Michelle... I'm thinking of you!

The "boost" to the local economies are maybe great for Iowa, but the nation wouldn't tolerate it if the tradition didn't make some sort of sense. It doesn't have to be Iowa, but I do like that serious candidates can be vetted in purple places where campaign expenses are lower.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
The "boost" to the local economies are maybe great for Iowa, but the nation wouldn't tolerate it if the tradition didn't make some sort of sense. It doesn't have to be Iowa, but I do like that serious candidates can be vetted in purple places where campaign expenses are lower.
This function of Iowa is in serious jeopardy. With the way the debates are run now using national polls the entire rationale of camping out in Iowa or New Hampshire has taken a hit. In the past you had the state newspapers or party organizations organize debates around local polls. Under the new system it matters much more how you are doing in CA, FL and OH then how the people who talked to you feel. I imagine we will see more celebrity candidates in the future as national name recognition will "trump" all.
 
This function of Iowa is in serious jeopardy. With the way the debates are run now using national polls the entire rationale of camping out in Iowa or New Hampshire has taken a hit. In the past you had the state newspapers or party organizations organize debates around local polls. Under the new system it matters much more how you are doing in CA, FL and OH then how the people who talked to you feel. I imagine we will see more celebrity candidates in the future as national name recognition will "trump" all.

The "debates" are the worst thing for the process, especially in the nomination stage of a two-party system. How hilarious is it that Obama and Hillary went at it the way they did in '08 only to end up with Hillary as Obama's SOS? It makes you appreciate the honesty of other "reality TV " shows.
 
The "debates" are the worst thing for the process, especially in the nomination stage of a two-party system. How hilarious is it that Obama and Hillary went at it the way they did in '08 only to end up with Hillary as Obama's SOS? It makes you appreciate the honesty of other "reality TV " shows.
I'm not sure I agree. While there are many things I would do to make the debates more informative and less about clever sound bites, I don't see them as particularly bad for the process. Additionally I think it's reasonable and laudable that an opponent you agree with on most issues would be welcomed onto your team.
 
I'm not sure I agree. While there are many things I would do to make the debates more informative and less about clever sound bites, I don't see them as particularly bad for the process. Additionally I think it's reasonable and laudable that an opponent you agree with on most issues would be welcomed onto your team.

I'd agree to the latter if I come to learn that '08 was the exception and that it (at least in part) informed the '12 Republican disaster (where Romney outlasted a crazy field and still lost to a 49% president in a country struggling by its standards). I admittedly lack faith, but I fear the "sound bites" are the new way. I'm left of center, but I'm really in favor of technocrats and pragmatists who are "courageous" enough to admit that they are technocrats/pragmatists who don't oppose court-rulings over the marginally unpopular legal treatment of social minorities. People who want this goddamned thing to work. People who don't respect religion (spiritual or political).
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_snp6dc585nnj4
. I'm left of center, but I'm really in favor of technocrats and pragmatists who are "courageous" enough to admit that they are technocrats/pragmatists who don't oppose court-rulings over the marginally unpopular legal treatment of social minorities. People who want this goddamned thing to work. People who don't respect religion (spiritual or political).
Could you decipher this last part for me, I'm not understanding.
 
Could you decipher this last part for me, I'm not understanding.

Sorry, "standing on my soap-box" as a likely hypocrite and not articulating. I am VERY left of center when it comes to non-violent people living their lives. I want the dissenters to be allowed to voice their opinions and I want to be allowed to be an obnoxious dickhead to them at every turn. That's one of my few joys in life. I am VERY center of center when it comes to legislated policy over things that matter which I don't understand. I'm not a timid Christian actuary who can help Social Security, but I'd like it if those people had more of a voice without fearing the repercussions of the unpopular stupid shit they might say about other things.
 
Sorry, "standing on my soap-box" as a likely hypocrite and not articulating. I am VERY left of center when it comes to non-violent people living their lives. I want the dissenters to be allowed to voice their opinions and I want to be allowed to be an obnoxious dickhead to them at every turn. That's one of my few joys in life. I am VERY center of center when it comes to legislated policy over things that matter which I don't understand. I'm not a timid Christian actuary who can help Social Security, but I'd like it if those people had more of a voice without fearing the repercussions of the unpopular stupid shit they might say about other things.
More raucous discussion seems like a fine thing to me. Invite them here. :D HROT should host a debate.
 
More raucous discussion seems like a fine thing to me. Invite them here. :D HROT should host a debate.

HROT should host a debate. Unfortunately, the "debate" is raging on twitter and their vote is equal to those who've landed on HROT. Am I old if I'm 26 and I have no faith in my peers to figure it out on twitter?
 
Last edited:
I've been saying it all along that Trump is great at drawing attention to himself. That doesn't translate into people showing up to caucus. Trump has always been on very thin ice with the far right and self described evangelicals. Something about him not being "willing", to share any favorite passages from the Bible or his three wives I suppose.
Trump was notably taking a hands off approach to Carson, but has now started blasting away at him. We'll see how mocking such a pious, non-politician works for him.
Incidentally, Carson has only had one political appearance in Iowa since the second Republican debate. He's had book signings, but, only one truly political event.
Edit, there have been two political events for Carson in Iowa. There was one yesterday.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
I've been saying it all along that Trump is great at drawing attention to himself. That doesn't translate into people showing up to caucus. Trump has always been on very thin ice with the far right and self described evangelicals. Something about him not being "willing", to share any favorite passages from the Bible or his three wives I suppose.
Trump was notably taking a hands off approach to Carson, but has now started blasting away at him. We'll see how mocking such a pious, non-politician works for him.
Incidentally, Carson has only had one political appearance in Iowa since the second Republican debate. He's had book signings, but, only one truly political event.
I'm of the opinion his entire campaign is a book selling enterprise.
 
I'm of the opinion his entire campaign is a book selling enterprise.
I think it started out that way, and shockingly he got traction. Huckabee thought this was going to be his spot in the campaign, but Iowans have seen that done that with Huckabee. Carson is new.
Look for Ted Cruz to inch his way up in Iowa. I think he's a comfortable alternative to many in Iowa as a real conservative, and as a true Christian to many. I think he can cleave away some support from both Carson and Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT