in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000.
| Quinn. Uni. | 2012 Watch: Santorum Up 9 Points Among Republican Voters |
0 |
| Ben Shapiro | New Tone: OWS Letter to the Editor in USA Today: We Will Storm Wall Street With Guns |
0 |
| CNN | ROP: 5 killed as protests over Quran burning rage in Afghanistan |
0 |
| US News | Oops: Americans’ Satisfaction Almost as Low as It Was Under Carter |
0 |
| WaPo | FAIL: Virginia governor no longer fully supports ultrasounds before abortions |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
Gaffetastic:
Vice President Joe Biden had his “oops” moment Wednesday speaking in a 49er-crazed SF when he told a crowd at a city political fundraiser that “the Giants are on their way to the Super Bowl.” - SF Chronicle, 1-18-12
Why I’m not worried about the Paul/Santorum “surge” in Iowa
There are any number of polls out right now which show either Romney (coasting), Ron Paul (surging), or Rick Santorum (surging) “leading” in Iowa, with Gingrich “fading.” With the GOP’s Iowa Caucus happening next Tuesday, those poll numbers have got some conservatives panicking over the thought of any of the three “top pollers” (especially Ron Paul) being our eventual nominee. Michael Barone, writing in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, reminds us that Iowa’s track record on picking the eventual GOP nominee isn’t very good:
But the Iowa Republican caucuses have a poor record in choosing their party’s nominees. In the five presidential nominating cycles with active Iowa Republican caucus competition, the Hawkeye State has voted for the eventual Republican nominee only twice—in 1996 for Bob Dole, in 2000 for George W. Bush—and only once was the Iowa winner elected president.
The state’s Democrats have a better record, producing a surprise victory for Jimmy Carter in 1976 and a big victory for eventual nominee Walter Mondale in 1984. They faltered in 1988 as Dick Gephardt and Paul Simon came in ahead of nominee Michael Dukakis, and in 1992, when Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin swept the field. But they gave big victories to Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008.
One reason Iowa Democrats have been better prognosticators than Iowa Republicans is that more people participate in their caucuses. About twice as many people showed up for the Democratic precinct caucuses as for their Republican counterparts in 2008. In a state of three million people, a bare 119,000 Republicans showed up for the caucuses. Some 60% of them identified as evangelical or born-again Christians—a far higher percentage than in any presidential contest in any large non-Southern state that year.
The small, skewed turnout resulted in a victory for Mike Huckabee, who ran ads identifying himself as a “Christian leader.” In later contests in other states, Mr. Huckabee, despite sparkling performances in debate and impressive command of popular culture, failed to win more than 15% of the support of those who did not identify themselves as evangelical or born-again Christians, and he lost to John McCain.
Other early voting states have a better record than Iowa of picking Republican winners. New Hampshire primary voters gave victories to eventual nominees Richard Nixon in 1972, Gerald Ford in 1976, Ronald Reagan in 1980 and George H. W. Bush in 1988. South Carolina, whose early contest was concocted by Bush operative Lee Atwater in 1988, has done even better, backing the senior Bush in 1988 and 1992 primaries, Bob Dole in 1996, George W. Bush in 2000 and John McCain in 2008. In both states the primary electorate is a much larger and more representative sample of the Republican voting population than in Iowa.
As it stands now, Romney leads in the polls in New Hampshire by an average of almost 20%. It’s really not even close there for any other GOP candidate. Meanwhile, in South Carolina, at this stage in the game Newt Gingrich is in the lead in the polls by an average of 16%. So if Barone’s scenario plays out, one of those two states may turn out to be bellwethers for us in the coming months and either Romney or Gingrich will be our eventual nominee.
BTW, it’s not exactly surprising but worth noting anyway that the make-up of Ron Paul’s supporters are not exactly your average run of the mill Republican. In fact, many aren’t Republicans at all:
Given Paul’s views on the Fed, the gold standard and social issues, not to mention his isolationist foreign policy, the polls have left some politicos wondering whether Republican voters have somehow swerved off the rails. But there’s another question that should be asked first: Who are Ron Paul’s supporters? Are they, in fact, Republicans?
In an analysis accompanying his most recent survey in Iowa, pollster Scott Rasmussen noted, “Romney leads, with Gingrich in second, among those who consider themselves Republicans. Paul has a wide lead among non-Republicans who are likely to participate in the caucus.”
The same is true in New Hampshire. A poll released Monday by the Boston Globe and the University of New Hampshire shows Paul leading among Democrats and independents who plan to vote in the January 10 primary. But among Republicans, Paul is a distant third — 33 points behind leader Mitt Romney.
In South Carolina, “Paul’s support is higher among those who usually don’t vote in GOP primary elections,” notes David Woodard, who runs the Palmetto Poll at Clemson University.
In a hotly-contested Republican race, it appears that only about half of Paul’s supporters are Republicans. In Iowa, according to Rasmussen, just 51 percent of Paul supporters consider themselves Republicans. In New Hampshire, the number is 56 percent, according to Andrew Smith, head of the University of New Hampshire poll.
The same New Hampshire survey found that 87 percent of the people who support Romney consider themselves Republicans. For Newt Gingrich, it’s 85 percent.
So who is supporting Paul? In New Hampshire, Paul is the choice of just 13 percent of Republicans, according to the new poll, while he is the favorite of 36 percent of independents and 26 percent of Democrats who intend to vote in the primary. Paul leads in both non-Republican categories.
“Paul is doing the best job of getting those people who aren’t really Republicans but say they’re going to vote in the Republican primary,” explains Smith. Among that group are libertarians, dissatisfied independents and Democrats who are “trying to throw a monkey wrench in the campaign by voting for someone who is more philosophically extreme,” says Smith.
And with the way you can switch parties in the Iowa caucus virtually on a dime, the “first in the nation” state may very well be a primetime target next week for exactly the type of “mischief” voters described by the Washington Examiner’s Byron York above. As CNN notes (bolded emphasis added by me):
While Iowa Democrats famously caucus by literally standing up for their chosen candidate, the Hawkeye State’s GOP holds secret ballot votes.
Here’s how the unique process will work: On caucus night, would-be voters will gather in 809 locations across the state — school gyms, churches and auditoriums of all shapes. To participate, each person must be a registered Republican who will turn 18 by the general election on November 6.
But, in a closely watched twist, voters can switch party affiliation at the caucus and register as Republicans that night.
“From a process standpoint, it’s a nightmare,” said Dallas County Republican chairman Mike Elam, “but I think it’s a good thing. People can decide they want to be involved up to the very last minute.”
Republicans this year hope that ability leads to a surge of registrations from disgruntled Democrats and independents. But the practice also allows potential cross-party sabotage, where members of one party can participate in a rival caucus in order to vote for the candidate they see as the weakest potential opponent.
In other words, if you wake up next Wednesday morning to see/read the media hype about Ron Paul’s win (if indeed it happens), don’t be surprised. And don’t panic.
With that said, and with months of campaigning and politicking and researching in the background, where do you stand on the candidates at this point?
Iowa Caucus 411:
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
12 Responses to “Why I’m not worried about the Paul/Santorum “surge” in Iowa”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Island of Misfit Bloggers
Stats
The way I look at it, there are 3-4 viable candidates in terms of money and organization beyond IA: Romney, Perry, Paul and maybe Gingrich. My original support was for Michelle Bachmann but it looks like she is out of it. Despite Santorum’s surge in IA, he doesn’t have the money or organization to go anywhere after IA.
Keep in mind that my number one issue is spending:
1) Paul: Perhaps the only credible candidate on the issue of spending.
2) Perry: Don’t trust him on immigration but I guess he’d be ok otherwise.
3) Romney: Said he’d vote for Paul over Obama.
4) Gingrich: Said he would not vote for Paul.
Before I get “schooled” about Ron Paul’s foreign policy and newsletters, etc., I want to say that I am aware of it and it is a problem but that I believe that spending is the number one issue in this country and I really don’t believe that any of the other candidates, except Bachmann, would seriously try to reduce the size of government and actually cut spending.
I still back Perry as closest on average to my own beliefs. Newt impresses me with his intellect, but not with his lack of discipline and organization. Santorum… something about him just turns me off, but I can’t put my finger on it. Bachmann disappointed me greatly over the loooong Iowa campaign. For Romney, the individual mandate in Romneycare and his tortured defenses of it are huge sticking points for me. Huntsman, two words: global warming.
But all of these would be acceptable to me in preference to Obama. Only Ron Paul is anathema; I’ll write-in my own name if he turns out to be the nominee.
Not really happy with any of them. Santorium I like, but seems abit to naive from what I have heard from him.
Perry to me is a problem, his stance on immigration, the whole HPV thing, and these commercials where he says he is going to cut Congress’ pay in half and make them part time. Since you would need Congress to do that as an amendment, it just seems like big talk to me.
Romney, don’t get me started. His constant pandering, his lack of a defense on Romneycare, and it being used as a framework for National health care, his flip flopping… it just goes on and on. Also, one of the thoughts that keeps reoccuring to me, is that if Romney is the nominee the American People will find out more about mormonism that they have cared to know. This will be done in an attempt alienate Evangelicals. You lose the Evangelical vote, and this is done before it even got started.
Huntsman is bothersome, I just don’t like the guy. One of the reasons is that he talks about being from Utah, but the man actually lives in Washington DC. Really?!?!? You don’t think that little factoid isn’t gonna weigh down on voters…. Right. Talk about a Washington insider. We don’t need another one of those.
Bachman is out as much as I liked her she has her negatives.
Cain was in, but not anylonger due to his own personal problems. \
Gingrich bothers me…. as much as I liked the man, he is too much of a flip flopper on some issues.
All I have to say is good luck Reps. – Lorica
Ron Paul is a real oddball. He stands for and has voted 100% of the time Constitutionally. He wants a balanced budget, responsible spending, a much smaller, less suffocating government, wants us to go to war only if we do it legally through a vote of congress, wants a pro-business lower tax government that doesn’t encourage our industry to leave this country through tax breaks, and is actually an honest man whose position doesn’t change depending on who he is talking to or who needs to consult polling to see what his stance should be.He is a real oddity for a politician, an honorable, honest man. Ron Paul 2012.
The ONLY viable candidate that can turn things around from this disastrous administration is Newt. Just look at what he did in 1994. I see a lot of comments about him being establishment, RINO, etc. I have done my research, and for me, Newt is my CHOICE. All other candidates pale in comparison. NEWT 2012
Disenchanted – uh, is more than Paul’s foreign policy and newsletters (as though they were small matters). Ron Paul allows 9-11 Truthers to infest his movement and refuses to denounce them. Worse, he dabbles in it sometimes himself. He still gives speeches to the John Birchers, and he still associates with that racist Lew Rockwell’s website. Yes the Federal Reserve should be reformed, but if you really listen to Paul it becomes clear he’s more than a little bit nutty about it. On and on it goes. In short, he’s a kook.
Lorica – I’m not happy with any of them either, but it’s like when your parents served something for dinner you didn’t like. You could either throw a tantrum or man up and eat it. Guess which you’re doing.
Rick for president. Perry or Santorum. Either one for me. Newt has so much baggage that even Southwest Airlines charges him fees. Paul is freaking crazy. Romney is a used car salesman. I wanted Bachmann but I doubt she can recover.
I would rather have Santorum than Perry as I don’t trust him but he’ll do if he gets the nomination
“Perry: Don’t trust him on immigration but I guess he’d be ok otherwise.”
Famous last words.
Vincente Fox’s man in Washington.
The first few caucuses(cauci?)/primaries are a good explanation why voting in the primaries should be “closed.” If one wishes to vote in a particular party primary, let him/her sign up in that party with enough time to allow the state to verify his/her citizenship.
The old saw that one is denying voting rights just doesn’t hold water. The primaries were originally designed so each party could elect who THEY thought would best represent THEIR party, and let the chips fall where they may in the general election.
It doesn’t really matter. After the caucuses and carcasses have been separated, I still won’t vote Commiecrat.
LOL Tom, there is a 3rd alternative. When my Mommy would serve up something I didn’t like, such as liver, I would eat the mashed potatos, the peas, and then I was quite satisfied. I don’t know how you were raised, but I was raised to deal with things in a more mature manner.
It is time for a change in just how Reps pick their nominees. One of which is that you should not be able to run as a Rep if you were not one the year before…. Paul is a huge example of that, Spector, Chaffee… how long is this list exactly and all of these fools cause nothing but problems for the party.
Yea I called Ron Paul a fool. His pandering to the drug crowd is bothersome to me. His stance on both Iraq and Afghanistan is silly. Were we not attacked by both of these countries?? Yes we were. Clinton had congressional authorization to launch an attack on Iraq, but decided it was not politically expedient for him. Hmmm Imagine that….Clinton only worried about politics. Sodamn Insane had completely broken the agreed upon surrender, attacked our jets patrolling the no fly zone, which was an act of aggression against the United States.
I have an expectancy that the Republican party will do the right thing. Look at the 2008 McCain campaign. It boggled the mind how in any reality McCain got the nomination. Except if you speculate that Huckabee became a tool of the McCain campaign in a hoped for or agreed upon VP nod. The Huckster, couldn’t win anything outside of AR, and IA, so why did he stay in. Now seeing the tide turn against Huckabee, McCain realized that his only hope was to go with someone different. He made the right choice in Palin, and if McCain wouldn’t have been such a buffoon, you would be talking about President McCain right now.
The idiocy came in when stupid voters started listening to the Lame stream idiots, and didn’t realize that they had a vested interest in seeing McCain’s opposition win the election. To this day, I still hear people quoting Sarah Palin that she could see Russia from her house. I just shake my head and laugh at them, and when McCain talked of shutting down his campaign to work out the economic crisis. /shakes head
I am going to vote for whoever the Rep nominee is, but by the time the nomination process gets to my state it will be mostly overwith. Does that clear things up abit Tom?? I hope so. – Lorica