Hey now. I was writing “Could Ron Paul seriously win Iowa?” posts before writing “Could Ron Paul seriously win Iowa?” posts was cool.
There has been some major movement in the Republican Presidential race in Iowa over the last week, with what was a 9 point lead for Newt Gingrich now all the way down to a single point. Gingrich is at 22% to 21% for Paul with Mitt Romney at 16%, Michele Bachmann at 11%, Rick Perry at 9%, Rick Santorum at 8%, Jon Huntsman at 5%, and Gary Johnson at 1%.
Gingrich has dropped 5 points in the last week and he’s also seen a significant decline in his favorability numbers. Last week he was at +31 (62/31) and he’s now dropped 19 points to +12 (52/40). The attacks on him appear to be taking a heavy toll- his support with Tea Party voters has declined from 35% to 24%.
Paul meanwhile has seen a big increase in his popularity from +14 (52/38) to +30 (61/31). There are a lot of parallels between Paul’s strength in Iowa and Barack Obama’s in 2008- he’s doing well with new voters, young voters, and non-Republican voters…
Simple question: What’s Paul’s ceiling in Iowa? A friend on Twitter was arguing earlier that it’s 20 percent, which is borne out by the polls — so far. If he’s right then Paul can’t win. But … what if Paul’s ceiling is actually 30 percent? Note that his favorables are trending upwards while Newt’s are sinking under the weight of renewed scrutiny of his various conservative heresies. If you’re an Iowan who’s unhappy with the “electable” candidates — Romney for being too opportunistic, Gingrich for flirting too often with activist government, Perry for seeming too darned hapless — then Paul’s an obvious choice for your “none of the above” protest vote. So obvious, in fact, that both Glenn Beck and Joe Scarborough are threatening to back him as a third-party candidate if Gingrich is the nominee. (An interesting footnote in the PPP data: Voters split equally on whether their view of the GOP establishment is favorable or unfavorable, and among the latter group Paul leads by double digits at 34 percent.) If he can pull 10 percent from voters like that on top of the 20 percent who make up his base, then his chances at an upset improve dramatically. And don’t forget, not only is Paul’s base famously enthusiastic and guaranteed to turn out, he’s one of the best organized candidates in Iowa this time. He might be able to get leaners to come out and caucus come rain or shine. Can Gingrich do the same?
So, both Obama AND Paul do well with the exact same demographic.
They both attract new voters, young voters, and non-Republican voters.
Let Paul go 3rd party and pull away the disenchanted Obama voters.
Experienced voters agree that Paul is weakest of all Republican candidates on foreign policy, where he is the choice of just 4%, tying him with Jon Huntsman.
No surprise.
Paul is a libertarian non-interventionist.
In his foreign policy arena his views are indistinguishable from most hard-core lefties.
If he were to become a Republican ”flavor of the month,” he would leave a very bitter aftertaste in the mouths of voters once they realized just what they’ve bitten into.
Nan G.
do you think OBAMA will drop in popularity , after AMERICANS learn, that he
ALLOWED a former IRANIAN REVOLUTIONARY GUARD, in the WHITE HOUSE ACCOMPANY THE IRAK PRESIDENT,
the FBI, SAYS THIS IRANIAN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MANY DEATHS OF MILITARY,
how come this guy is there cosy and feeling secure with OBAMA in the AMERICAN WHITE HOUSE?
CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT,
I just read it in the WASHINGTON NEWS , IN SMALL print
down below on the left
If no one attacks Paul in Iowa, it’s fairly likely he’ll win it. One thing to keep in mind as regards the polling is that the Paul campaign strategy in Iowa relies heavily on getting increased commitment from people who already are leaning toward him. Caucus turnout is less than 20%. Getting to 25% on caucus day involves mobilizing only about 30,000 of over a million theoretically eligible voters. Accordingly, Paul’s campaign has been phone banking like mad in order to try to get hard commitments from those voters who favor him – calling every voter in the state in the process, but not trying to sell them on Paul, just trying to see who likes him and get them to promise to caucus. I’m assuming there will be followup get-out-the-vote calls from precinct captains on caucus day. The relentless climb in the polling is partly the result of Paul-favoring voters getting called and being pressed to promise that they will caucus (though I’m sure his TV ads also result in some increase in overall support).
Point is, he can win without actually increasing his ceiling of support (assuming it’s real). Just needs to ramp up the turnout of his own voters. If he succeeds you can assume that future primary campaigns in Iowa will study the tactics used and replicate them.
Another thing working for him (which also makes the polling difficult) is the independent vote. Independents are eligible to vote in the Republican primary, but normally only account for a small fraction of the vote. In 2008, Obama was running, and most independents who caucused went to the Dem primary. With no Democratic primary, all independents are free to go to the Republican primary – and Paul leads strongly among Iowa independents.
I have no idea how this plays out down the road, though. Mainly, it seems likely to hurt Gingrich. If Paul wins Iowa and Romney wins New Hampshire (as seems likely), then Gingrich could take a hit like Giuliani did in 2008. If Paul does really well, the GOP will be looking for an anti-Paul rather than an anti-Romney, and Romney might fill that bill.
@Nan G: ‘They both attract new voters, young voters, and non-Republican voters. Let Paul go 3rd party and pull away the disenchanted Obama voters.’
Not quite, though. Paul attracts young Republican voters (at least in Iowa… he pretty well splits the under-30 vote with Bachmann). Not Democrats. Polling for a Romney-Obama-Paul matchup gives Obama a crushing victory, not Romney. Even though a 3rd party Paul would draw some Democrats, he would draw significantly more Republicans.
@bbartlog:
I was simply quoting the poll results from the original post, bbartlog.
It continues at the link:
Sure, sure. I’m just saying that the third party run doesn’t work out in the Republicans’ favor, as you seemed to be implying.
@bbartlog:
BB, It is one of those things we will just have to wait to see.
Ron Paul is not controlled by any constraints that any Republican organization could use with success on any other losing candidate.
He will do what he will do.
He has not ruled out a 3rd party run.
Whoever he steals the most votes from he will hurt.
Lots of Occupiers claim they would vote Ron Paul in an election.
As the poll pointed out, lots of young, lots of first-time and lots on NON-Republicans will vote for him, too.
I even know a young black neighbor who voted Obama last time but would rather vote Ron Paul over Obama this time, if he can.
Is anyone paying attention to what Gingrich is actually proposing?
From an article that appeared today, December 13, in The Christian Science Monitor:
Here’s a chart showing the average effective federal tax rates under the Gingrich Plan by income level. The horizontal axis is the taxpayer’s income level, in thousands of dollars; the bar on the far right represents taxpayers having income of $1 million per year or more.
The article the chart is from: Gingrich Tax Plan Would Codify Lower Taxes On Rich Than On Middle Class
Is anything not clear about this?
Read it all, Greg.
From Your CJM article:
BOTTOM LINE:
If you buy into Obama’s theory that the wealth pie is static, yes, this plan is ”expensive.”
But if you realize that wealth can be created you realize this plan seeds more wealth in the future, leading to more taxable income.
@Nan G: Well, it’s easy for the plan to be a win for most households when it adds a trillion to the deficit. Proposing big tax cuts without any similar cuts on the spending side to balance them is, given the current state of the budget, retarded. Hey, since we’re on the topic: I know this guy who has a trillion in spending cuts (year one) instead of a trillion in tax cuts. I think that makes more sense given the current deficit. His name is Ron Paul.
‘But if you realize that wealth can be created you realize this plan seeds more wealth in the future, leading to more taxable income.’
Indeed, lower taxes do lead to higher growth, and so ultimately higher revenues. But the question that you have to ask when invoking this Laffer Curve argument is, what time frame are we talking? In general, the lower your target tax rate is, the longer you will have to wait before you come out ahead. In the case of Newt’s plan, let’s be generous and assume that his plan results in annual growth of federal revenues of 5%, whereas the default path is 0% growth. Under this assumption, it would take roughly fourteen years for federal revenues to catch up so as to be equal to the non-Newt baseline, during which time an additional $10 trillion would have been added to the federal debt. And this is quite optimistic. If someone like Perry proposed such a plan, I would assume that they were clueless or poorly advised. In Newt’s case, I assume he is smart enough to realize that he is peddling high-test bullshit, and is just hoping that he can run the ‘lower taxes mean higher revenues’ gambit one more time before it’s worn out.
What Gingrich’s plan would boil down to would be another huge tax cut for the richest, at the cost of another trillion dollars added to a national debt that belongs to everyone in a single year.
Too bad for paulbots the poll is likely to be BS.
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/12/13/surprise-poll-with-ties-to-seiu-and-daily-kos-says-ron-paul-getting-close-to-leaders-in-iowa/
Gingrich is being blasted by the likes of Beck and Coulter (actually a plus in my eyes lol). About 2 weeks ago I predicted here a Paul win in Iowa. Newt’s Iowa manager quit today.
@Richard Wheeler: Of course he quit, RW.
It was either quit of be fired!
I just got an email from Paul.
Here’s the ”money quote:”
Sounds like Paul is on the edge.
Anything is possible with this election. Thats what the GOP and Company just can’t quite understand. They are still acting like everyone is playing by the same old rules, they are not. Only the GOP is. Can RP really run? of course he can. If he really believes what his egos telling him, and what politician does not believe in his ego?, he will run on a third-party ticket. Ron Paul believes he is a legend in his own mind, granted all politicians think that way. But Ron Paul suffers from it more than most politicians. Who knows maybe we will have all the choices we need, but don’t want! Ron Paul, Rommey, and Trump! And or Obi of course.
Gary G. Swenchonis
that leave you GINGRISH, PERRY, BACKMANN, THE OTHERS TOO,
AND TRUMP IS MENACING TO COME IN MAY.
I also like HUCKABEE , HE HAS THE STUFF, TO bad he was also stain by a llooney, the last time years ago when he tried to run,
AMERICANS MUST NOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE THIS TIME TO BELIEVE RUMORS ON A CANDIDATES,
BECAUSE IT’S AMERICA LOOSING GENUINE TRUE PATRIOTS which could repair this COUNTRY’S DEEP WOUNDS, this time is crucial as many thinkers are warning, and they don’t come out to say it for any profits.
and they could not be clearer than that,
any fool can hear it, there will be no excuse after
@Nan G: His fundraising emails are pretty much always like that (I get plenty of them, believe me). And of course it’s true, up to a point: if he got bupkis instead of the two million or so he’s probably expecting, I’m sure he would have to cut back, just like anyone else with finite resources. But he’s not likely to actually be running on empty based on his previous FEC filings. Plus he hasn’t dipped in to his leftover war chest from previous congressional campaigns, which he can legally roll over. If you’re hoping that he’s actually on a financial knife edge and might just suddenly run out of steam, you’ll likely be disappointed.
@Gary G. Swenchonis: I actually don’t think Paul will run third party. He has nothing to lose, but also nothing to gain, and I think he’s smart enough to realize that if he can’t win the Republican nomination then he’s certainly not going to win the general election either.
@bbartlog: You know I was inclined to believe that way before. But RP is getting ready to retire, and it would not surprise me if he went for the whole banana. It would not hurt him any, he could then have bragging rights to “i ran for prez”, and it would be one last hoe down for his supporters too. Winning would have nothing to do with it. This race if you can call it that is still interesting in that there are so many possibilities that could happen, I don’t say will, but the chance is there. Especially if Romney gets the nod. Then people like RP, Trump and maybe even Palin will measure the anger, and unhappiness of those who wanted more in their man/woman and decide to take a risk. It all remains to be seen as of yet.
BBartlog,
it look like someone is out to something in there,
they almost all had the top rank and where feeling good about it, and backed up at one time, all in a strange similarity,
as if they are being manipulated by some involved force what ever you can call that force,
personaly I think it will also be the same for RON PAUL,
but why and where and who is the manipulator,? and could it be possible also?
and for what reason would it be?
money gain? if not what else?
bye
Gary G. Swenchonis
hi,
you bring a good point there.
bye
@ilovebeeswarzone: Yes, the sequential rise and fall of the candidates is strange, and certainly looks like a controlled narrative. But I’m not a believer in conspiracy theories (nor a disbeliever either). As for Ron Paul, it looks like he’s surging at a good time, at least if the Christmas and New Year’s week is effectively a break from politics and news; but we will see.
I am curious: is your posting style a deliberate choice, or just the way you have always written? It is interesting (almost like impressionistic writing, if I can call it that) but sometimes hard to follow for me.
@Gary G. Swenchonis: It’s always possible. Though I think Paul is more likely to run 3rd party if Gingrich gets the nod. He may have a personal grudge against him, whereas Romney is nobody to him.
bbartlog
thank you for mentioning it,
I’ll check on what I am doing wrong there.
bye
How to speak Paulian
Sheep: Anyone who doesn’t think RP is the messiah
Bush: Guy behind 9/11
Jews: AKA Jooooos! Those Bush was serving when he blew up the WTC on 9/11. They also control all the banks, and especially the Fed. Pure evil.
Fiscal Conservative: Anyone who brags about never voting for an earmark, but has grabbed plenty of pork.
Defend America: The fantasy that by doing nothing to influence world events and completely withdrawing/cowering behind our borders will keep Ammerica safe.
True Conservative: A liberal who is slightly spending conscious.
Neo-Con: Joooooooo!
Afraid of Freedom: An accusation hurled at those that point out how Ron Paul’s actions and words don’t match.
@Hard Right: That was good! And funny!