By now you've probably seen the toplines to PPP's brand-new Iowa Republican presidential caucus poll; if not, I'll point you to my colleague Steve Singiser's helpful summation. PPP's numbers are very similar to recent surveys from the Des Moines Register/Selzer and NBC/Marist, but what sets their poll apart are the amazing crosstabs. Indeed, Tom Jensen has produced an amazing 255 pages of crosstabs (PDF), pairing just about every question (and they asked a lot!) with every other question.

One tab which really stood out for me stems from the question just below, which Tom included at our suggestion and which was inspired by a similar query from Quinnipiac:

Q: What is more important to you when deciding who to vote for: a candidate’s ability to beat Barack Obama in the general election, or their positions on the issues? A candidate's ability to beat Obama: 34

Their issue positions: 57

Not sure: 9

That's pretty amazing, but in light of Quinnipiac's earlier findings on a nation level, not surprising. A wide majority of Republicans think that a candidate's ideological fitness is more important than his or her electability. This would help explain why Mitt Romney, who has made electability his core argument—an argument back up by the polls—has nonetheless struggled to catch fire.

But the truth is more complex, and even more fascinating. Check out how the answers to this question break down when paired with the candidate each respondent favors:

More important? Total Huntsm. Paul Bachm. Sant'm Romney Perry Gingrich Electability 34 4 20 27 36 39 41 51 Ideology 57 94 73 62 62 51 48 43

You might think Romney's beleaguered but logical supporters would be the most likely to say that electability matters more, but no—not at all. A majority thinks "positions on the issues" is the more important qualification! Makes you wonder how the hell the even figured out what Romney's positions are. Meanwhile, Jon Huntsman's idiot fans, who really have nothing but an electability argument to make on his behalf, are consumed with ideology.

But check out those pragmatists for Gingrich! He's the only candidate whose adherents think purity of essence takes a back seat to Obama-beating ability. That likely means that a great deal of Gingrich's support comes from people who think Newt Gingrich is the most electable Republican candidate—and they're backing him for precisely this reason. This is also confirmed by a separate question where a plurality (33 percent) of all respondents said they think Gingrich "has the best chance of defeating Barack Obama."

Think about that for a minute. The sensible, realistic, sober Republicans—the ones who theoretically prize taking back the White House over rigid litmus tests—support Newt Gingrich. And yet this is in spite of the fact that poll after poll after poll shows Mitt Romney giving Barack Obama a much harder time than Gingrich, by a noticeable margin, too. I'm not sure what more to say except that I hope more and more Republicans start feeling this way ... and wow, what a crazy primary season this sure is!