(CNN) - Need more proof that Rep. Michele Bachmann's bid for the GOP presidential nomination is on the rise?
Here it is: A quarter of likely Iowa GOP caucus goers say they are likely to support Bachmann in the battle for the nomination, according to a new poll.
An IowaRepublican.com survey indicates the congresswoman from neighboring Minnesota at 25 percent, with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who's making his second bid for the White House, at 21 percent.
According to the poll, nine percent of those questioned say they back former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, with an equal amount supporting former Godfather's Pizza CEO and radio talk show host Herman Cain. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who's making his third run for the presidency, was at six percent, with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich at four percent, former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania at two percent and former Utah Gov. and former U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman at one percent.
Although it was released Sunday, the poll was conducted June 26 through June 30, just a few days after a much reported survey from the Des Moines Register was in the field. That poll, which had Romney at 23 percent and Bachmann at 22 percent, sparked some favorable stories for Bachmann, who earlier in June received positive headlines for her performance at the much watched CNN/WMUR/New Hampshire Union Leader GOP presidential debate.
A strong showing in next February's Iowa caucuses, which kick off the presidential caucus and primary calendar, is crucial for Bachmann's hopes of winning her party's nomination. A strong showing in Iowa is also extremely important for Pawlenty, who's gone up with two television commercials in the state in the past couple of weeks. His nine percent in the IowaRepublican.com survey is up from a six percent showing in the Des Moines Register poll.
IowaRepublican.com is headed by Craig Robinson, a former political director of the Republican Party of Iowa who is not taking sides in the battle for his party's presidential nomination. The poll, which was conducted by Voter/Consumer Research, questioned 500 likely Iowa GOP caucus goers. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 4.4 percentage points.
The release of the new poll comes just under five weeks from a straw poll in Ames, Iowa. Bachmann and Pawlenty, as well as Paul and a few other candidates, are putting a lot of time and effort into getting supporters to attend the influential straw poll.
- Follow Paul Steinhauser on Twitter: @PsteinhauserCNN
This is excellent news!
Since Iowa only votes for right-wing freaks who never get elected!!!
What Americans are just starting to learn as we get into the debates about increasing the federal debt ceiling is how absolutely unstustainable the size and cost of our federal government is. Bottom line, it does not work going forward. Taxes are already too high so the economy is struggling. Want to know why companies hire workers in other countries? If it's not because that is where their customers are, it is because that may be where the materials are or where the suppliers are. It is certainlty where the lower taxes are. It is all of these reasons.
Michele Bachman's message is that we need to deal with our problems at the federal government level while we still have a choice. We do not want to tax our economy into a depression. That doesn't help anyone, including grandma and the poor people. We need to face our problems today and fix them now. It only gets more difficult. This is not radical. It is responsible. People are getting on board. She is here with answers that make sense.
GREAT NEWS!!!! – for Obama.
I would love to see Ms. Bachmann run against President Obama. It would not only guarantee him another four years, it would show the American People just how wacky and out of touch the right has become. I have yet to see her give any type of "fix" for any of the problems facing this Nation. All she has done so far is bash the President. She comes off more as a cheerleader than a serious political candidate. Maybe that is why she is preceived as "so attractive" to the good ole boys on the right. Now, if she would only wear the little skirt and get her pom poms out of storage, the would be a sure thing . . . That is, until the truth comes out about her "family business" and all the government handouts she and her family have, and are still receiving for trying to cure homosexuality with prayer. Seriously! That is how backwards her and her family are. Not the type of people I want representing me. If I want spiritual guidance, I'll find a church. I DO NOT want it from my government. I want my government to focus on the needs of the Country. Not being consumed with sexual prefernces and dictating personal choices.
Four and The Door said, "She is here with answers that make sense."
I laughed so hard that I cried! I would have put Boehner to shame. You should take that act on the road, cause you are just frickin' funny.
@Four and the Door... funny. Too funny. It is in part due to Bush's tax cuts that the U.S. government has all this debt. If you want to live in a society that provides all the services we want, the people have to pony up. It's about time we cut spending and gradually let the Bush tax cuts expire for all Americans.
When you read a story like this, all you can do is read, wonder, then shake your head. If the people of Iowa that consider them selves conservatives, find that Michelle Bachmann is the best their party has to offer, then again, you can only shake your head and pray to God that these people will drag themselves into reality.
"Bottom line, it does not work going forward."
Ummm, wrong. Lets pretend for a second that Congress follows and adheres to the law as currently written. That means no repealing the health care law, for one, but more significantly it means allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire AS WRITTEN, and (unfathomably) allowing Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors to fall to the levels prescribed by the formula Congress wrote almost 15 years ago. In other words, no more "doc fixes." Guess what happens then? THE DEFICIT GOES AWAY...POOF...ALL ON ITS OWN.
Magic pixie dust ideological nonsense like trickle-down unicorn farts, randian free market daydreams and "tax cuts create jobs" gnome turds? I think not. It's called MATH...and you, the GOP and the rest of the conservative plutocrats out there can thank the "liberal news media" for studiously ignoring CBO's study that proved it. Heck, we can all thank the GOP and Dems for ignoring it too.
It is not clear whether Bachmann or Santorum read the preamble before signing the candidate vow.
Gee, that funny. The economy didn't begin struggling until a GOP Congress led by a GOP President lowered taxes, began deregulating everything they could and not enforcing everything else they couldn't.
Like I wrote Friday, everything quickly decays into chaos unless some structure is imposed upon it.
My respect for Iowa is falling fast. Bachman and the rest of the GOP has no real solutions but to blame Obama for the economic crisis that we are in currently. That is not productive or constructive.
@ four and the door is wrong. Lower wages , not taxes, are why companies have moved offshore.
Think things through people.
All this crap about living within our means as a Federal Gov't, is just that...crap! The problem is all the tax cuts to the rich and corporations...this crap about being over taxed is that just...crap! The rich and the corps are paying the lowest taxes since Eisenhower. If they paid their fair share of taxes, then Medicare Medicaid and Soc Security would not be threatened. But this is exactly what they, the Bachmanns and her party, want...starve the beasts of the commie entitlement programs by throwing huge tax breaks to their rich cronnies, and then cry about how we have no money to pay for SS Medicare and Medicaid and any other program that could help us, like the EPA and Dept. of Ed. and therefore, we have to eliminate them. You can't trust her and her entire party.
Good for Bachmann, BUT the big question, can she beat a 5th grader?
...Lets pretend for a second that Congress follows and adheres to the law as currently written. That means no repealing the health care law, for one, but more significantly it means allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire AS WRITTEN, and (unfathomably) allowing Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors to fall to the levels prescribed by the formula Congress wrote almost 15 years ago. In other words, no more "doc fixes." Guess what happens then? THE DEFICIT GOES AWAY...POOF...ALL ON ITS OWN.
Hardly. But your scenario should also take unemployment up past 15% too. Nice fix. Are you by chance an Obama Democrat?
Wake up call for Mr. Mittens. Now would be a good time to stop acting like you already have the nomination. Bachmann may be wacky, but she has a lot of wackies from YOUR party solidly behind her.
Guess GOP/Tea Party voters want to make a point and not win back the White House. Independents and moderates will not vote for Bachmann. Social conservatives and Tea Party zealots do not make up a majority of voters.
@Four and the Door. You are living in a fantasy land if you actually believe taxes are too high or that government is too big. Reverting to the Clinton-level taxes would take care of a large portion of the deficit problem and spur economic recovery. It happened after the Clinton tax increases of 1993 and it (gasp) happened after Ronald "the GOP god" Regan oversaw the largest peacetime tax increase in history in 1982. Both tax increases were substantial and both spurred long periods of solid economic growth. Why? I don't know, I just know that it happened.
As for the size of government, we have about the same sized federal government today that we had in 1963. The total U.S. population in 1963 was 180,000,000. The total U.S. population today is about 308,000,000. In case you are mathematically challenged, that is a 71% growth in population, being administered by a federal government that essentially has not grown. Figure it out for yourself.
Obama would be an easy win over her. Most Americans will not vote for a hate-mongering, hyperreligious moron, no matter how much she threatens them.
The Elephant in The Room
@ four and the door is wrong. Lower wages , not taxes, are why companies have moved offshore.
Read again. There are many reasons companies do business outside of the country. Absolutely lower labor costs are part of it. Although many times labor costs are higher offshore, too. Especially lately. American workers are not expensive. Other factors are to locate near customers ( largest factor by the way ), or the materials supply or strategic reasons.
But if you are the federal government, how many of these things can you change? Tax rates and trade agreements are the two biggies. Tax rates overwhelmingly so. My point is, worry about things you can actually impact. High tax rates we can fix.
Sniffit, gotta call you on the Medicare reimbursement statement. I would venture to say that a LOT of the inflation in the healthcare sector is because the Medicare reimbursement rates are too low. The industry compensates for this by cost-shifting to the private sector. If you were to look at a graph of healthcare inflation over time superimposed over a graph of Medicare covered lives over time, the similarity is astounding.
"Hardly. But your scenario should also take unemployment up past 15% too. Nice fix. Are you by chance an Obama Democrat?"
MY scenario? That's CBO's scenario. IT'S MATH. THE NUMBERS DON'T LIE. But you're just going to disagree with CBO because it's not what you want to hear? You and the GOP/conservatives certainly seem to love citing CBO when it's conveniently something you DO want to hear. I'm pretty sure I'll trust a room full of economic experts with top notch PhDs and ivy educations over your conclusory statements that "Nuh Uh."
Am I an Obama Dem? No. I don't declare party and never will. I review the facts, evidence, historical record, science, expert opinions, etc., to make my decisions, not party policy and pledges, and I certainly recognize the lesser of two evils when I see it.
"your scenario should also take unemployment up past 15% too"
BTW, fabricating "facts" to make your ideologically motivated arguments look like they have some (however remote) relationship with reality is a sure sign you're felling backed into a corner. Read the studies or don't, but don't just lie to get out from under them.
"This is excellent news! Since Iowa only votes for right-wing freaks who never get elected!!!"
You do realize that President Obama wasn't considered a serious contender until he won the Iowan caucus (and later, the state in the general election), right?
Gee, so she is ahead of two guys who aren't wasting their time or money in that state, and ahead of a bunch of also-rans. If only she wasn't just another empty suit with no accomplishments.
Michelle Bachmann, as does Sarah Palin and others, presents emotionally charged rhetoric that constantly misrepresents the facts, and that is totally irresponsible. To wrongly state the problems, intending to convince the public that opponents positions are not addressing the problems and to infer they could better address the problems, is pure deception, lying, when literally just avoiding being responsible and trying to play people's emotions for political gain. Take the theatrics and often bazaar antics out of their presentations and demand honest and responsible conversation, and they just don't measure up. What is scary is that they demonstrate an ability to play people's emotions with their deceptive appeals to fears, biases, prejudices and self-interests.