As polling is looking increasingly likely that Rick Santorum will place in the top three in Iowa, one of the most important aspects of the race to watch in the final days is actually farther down the list from the frontrunners.
As I have mentioned in my recent article- discussing the atmosphere that a strong Gingrich campaign brings to a Ron Paul candidacy- only two candidates have the real significant strength (at this moment) to wage a significant campaign against Paul and Romney past Iowa and New Hampshire, especially absent a major drop out and/or defection from one of the other current candidates. Those two candidates are Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry. Perry 'cause he has the money, and Gingrich 'cause he has the national polling numbers.
Neither of these two candidates is likely to drop out after Iowa, as long as their showing isn't stunningly abysmal- like getting much less than 10% of the vote. For perspective, 15-20% would represent a good showing.
Therefore a key aspect to watch this coming Tuesday will be which of the two candidates, Gingrich or Perry, does better, and by how much. In recent conversations with friends I've been fairly bullish on Perry recently, expecting him to offer a surprise showing for the current expectations (but probably not a top three finish). With all the negative attacks against him, Gingrich seems to be continuing his downward slide, so if Perry can beat Gingrich and even perform near Santorum's level, he may be able to re-assert himself as the 'establishment' (meaning that the national party leaders could easily get behind him) conservative alternative to Romney.
Expectations for Perry in NH are all but nothing, so he'll move directly on to South Carolina after Iowa. Of course then he'll have to convince voters that he's a better choice than Santorum, going forward. If Santorum, whose campaign has indicated an interest in competing in New Hampshire, fails to garner a solid finish there, Perry's argument may be made for him. South Carolina should have some natural regional play for Perry.
But what about Gingrich? Previous polling has indicated that his most solid bases of support are the 3rd and 4th contests; South Carolina and Florida respectively. If he finishes close to- or ahead of- Perry in Iowa, Gingrich's campaign could attempt to make a comeback with a respectable placement in New Hampshire. All he needs is a win (or close to it) in South Carolina to put him back on track. Of course, like I just pointed out, this is also true of Perry.
There is something to be said for the lack of establishment enthusiasm for Gingrich; it's probable that a good Perry showing in Iowa would do more for Perry than if his place was switched with Gingrich. Perry is seen as having less baggage than Gingrich, and seen as being a solid campaigner (if not debater- although his recent performances have been adequate). This also has to do with expectations: Gingrich, until recently, was expected to win the Iowa caucuses; Perry has been weak in polling for weeks now.
If neither of the two manages to put in a surprise showing, Romney may have a nearly unobstructed path to the nomination. It's hard to see Bachmann or Santorum managing to upset Romney in the long run like Perry or Gingrich could, mainly because Gingrich and Perry are likely to be persistent for at least the next few contests, regardless of their placement. However, if Bachmann or Santorum ended up in 5th or 6th place, I don't know how well their campaigns could continue functioning. (This is a rhetorical example, since Santorum at least is likely to place in the top three)
Ultimately, what I am trying to say is this: The outcome of the lower tier placement in the Iowa caucuses will matter just as much as the top tier finalists for the long term outlook of the Republican nomination. And the contrast between the placements of Perry and Gingrich, particularly if it is stark, is likely to be very telling.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Friday, December 30, 2011
Are you still watching Santorum?
Remember way back when? You know about a month ago when I put out my guide to the Republican Nomination, 2012? That was way back when Herman Cain was still a candidate. Like years ago or something. Ancient history. Anyway...
In it I outlined three Republican candidates to make sure to keep an eye on. Well we already know that one of those mentioned has been worth keeping an eye on, and I've been doing it here: Ron Paul, the most important of those mentioned, is living up to expectations. He's been a frequent topic of this blog, and the implications of his candidacy and voters have been well fleshed out in at least three recent posts.
But this blogger has also been patiently waiting to see if one of the two other special candidates mentioned would suddenly appear out of the woodwork. It is looking now, and I can feel triumphant in saying this, that Rick Santorum, is having a very late, last minute surge.
It wasn't a farfetched prediction, but it's nice to have one's opinions validated when one is just an ammeter political handicapper. For those of you who have not been watching Santorum, the background and analysis I printed a month ago still works now, so I'll just reprint it here for your (but mainly my) amusement. Or you can skip down to the meat of it.
* * * * *
Rick Santorum- If the nomination truly is a game of musical chairs, this guy's next in line after Gingrich. Although he tends to skew a touch too right on social issues and (perhaps) a touch too left on economic for the tea-party-leaning-maybe-more-libertarian GOP base these days, to the casual observer, Santorum sits next to Gingrich and Perry regarding his ideological substance, making him a serious "last resort" conservative "anti-Romney" contender if Gingrich falls apart in the next few weeks. He's run a good campaign in Iowa, although he's largely under the radar elsewhere, and he's a solid debater with youthful energy and almost unparallelled anti- abortion/gay marriage credentials that might be appealing to a block of the electorate, particularly in socially conservative Iowa. He's a stronger candidate than the polls have shown, which I think is due to the lack of attention paid to him in the mainstream media. Therefore, all he needs is a breakout win or surprising finish in Iowa to make him viable, again, assuming Gingrich is somewhat out of the picture.
What to watch:
Iowa. Santorum only has one hand to play and it's here. His resources are thin, but he's the only candidate to have visited all 99 counties in Iowa, so he's clearly playing to win. A strong debate performance from him alongside some Gingrich scandal would be enough to give him the viability edge that Iowa caucus-goers would need to commit their support to him. Of course, after that, he may not have the staying-power to go much further; if it were to happen, a last-minute Santorum rise could seal the deal for Mitt Romney.
* * * * *
Here are the averages (for four select candidates) of three recent Iowa pollsters about 10 days ago:
Paul: 22%, Romney: 21%, Gingrich: 15%, Santorum: 8%
And here are those same three pollsters averaged for this week:
Paul: 21%, Romney: 20%, Gingrich: 14% Santorum: 13%
What a difference five points can make. As you can see, there's really only one place in the Iowa top tier with significant last-minute movement, and its with the Santorum campaign. This jump is readily apparent on the RCP aggregate poll graph for Iowa. As Gingrich campaign has weakened, and as conservatives in Iowa seek to rally around a central non-Romney non-Paul candidate, recent polls are pointing toward Santorum being the choice for many Iowans, particularly those who are concerned with social issues. This momentum could build, as Bachmann and Perry supporters look to support the candidate most likely to win Iowa- and jump on the Santorum bandwagon. Santorum, Bachmann and Perry all have very similar views, and outside hardcore supporters, it's possible many Iowa conservatives will consider it a victory if any of the three manages to coalesce voters for a surprise. This is, of course, what Santorum hopes will happen, especially since getting the endorsement of Bob Vander Plaats, an important voice in the Iowa social conservative community. We'll just have to see if this is a temporary spike, or a lasting surge- if it is lasting, it will likely be at the expense of Bachmann, Perry, and even Gingrich.
A Santorum upset would be a great media generator, even if he doesn't get first or second, since his rise would be seen as sudden and potentially exciting. But after Iowa, there's not much more to be said for what Santorum can do. New Hampshire is just too much a Romney stronghold to be within his grasp, and Santorum has been counting on an all-or-nothing Iowa gambit, with little resources or campaign in place in any other state. What I said a month ago about Santorum's prospects are still true: a Santorum surge that puts him in a surprising position in Iowa is only likely to put Romney in a better position further along.
That is unless he captures Iowa with a resounding victory; that would be a real surprise!
So who knows; strange things happen in primaries, and this nomination process has been stranger than most. If Santorum manages to trounce Bachmann and Perry in Iowa and (one or both) drop out and endorse him, the situation could change dramatically. If voters truly are committed to defeating Romney at all costs and Santorum seems more viable than Gingrich coming into South Carolina, he has a real chance at winning the nomination, something that was virtually unthinkable just a couple of weeks ago.
Regardless of how the surge plays out, Santorum will continue to be worth keeping a close eye on, at least through Iowa and immediately afterward. His presence is changing the dynamic- in a dynamic way- and to observers like me, that's always a lot of fun.
In it I outlined three Republican candidates to make sure to keep an eye on. Well we already know that one of those mentioned has been worth keeping an eye on, and I've been doing it here: Ron Paul, the most important of those mentioned, is living up to expectations. He's been a frequent topic of this blog, and the implications of his candidacy and voters have been well fleshed out in at least three recent posts.
But this blogger has also been patiently waiting to see if one of the two other special candidates mentioned would suddenly appear out of the woodwork. It is looking now, and I can feel triumphant in saying this, that Rick Santorum, is having a very late, last minute surge.
It wasn't a farfetched prediction, but it's nice to have one's opinions validated when one is just an ammeter political handicapper. For those of you who have not been watching Santorum, the background and analysis I printed a month ago still works now, so I'll just reprint it here for your (but mainly my) amusement. Or you can skip down to the meat of it.
* * * * *
Rick Santorum- If the nomination truly is a game of musical chairs, this guy's next in line after Gingrich. Although he tends to skew a touch too right on social issues and (perhaps) a touch too left on economic for the tea-party-leaning-maybe-more-libertarian GOP base these days, to the casual observer, Santorum sits next to Gingrich and Perry regarding his ideological substance, making him a serious "last resort" conservative "anti-Romney" contender if Gingrich falls apart in the next few weeks. He's run a good campaign in Iowa, although he's largely under the radar elsewhere, and he's a solid debater with youthful energy and almost unparallelled anti- abortion/gay marriage credentials that might be appealing to a block of the electorate, particularly in socially conservative Iowa. He's a stronger candidate than the polls have shown, which I think is due to the lack of attention paid to him in the mainstream media. Therefore, all he needs is a breakout win or surprising finish in Iowa to make him viable, again, assuming Gingrich is somewhat out of the picture.
What to watch:
Iowa. Santorum only has one hand to play and it's here. His resources are thin, but he's the only candidate to have visited all 99 counties in Iowa, so he's clearly playing to win. A strong debate performance from him alongside some Gingrich scandal would be enough to give him the viability edge that Iowa caucus-goers would need to commit their support to him. Of course, after that, he may not have the staying-power to go much further; if it were to happen, a last-minute Santorum rise could seal the deal for Mitt Romney.
* * * * *
Here are the averages (for four select candidates) of three recent Iowa pollsters about 10 days ago:
Paul: 22%, Romney: 21%, Gingrich: 15%, Santorum: 8%
And here are those same three pollsters averaged for this week:
Paul: 21%, Romney: 20%, Gingrich: 14% Santorum: 13%
What a difference five points can make. As you can see, there's really only one place in the Iowa top tier with significant last-minute movement, and its with the Santorum campaign. This jump is readily apparent on the RCP aggregate poll graph for Iowa. As Gingrich campaign has weakened, and as conservatives in Iowa seek to rally around a central non-Romney non-Paul candidate, recent polls are pointing toward Santorum being the choice for many Iowans, particularly those who are concerned with social issues. This momentum could build, as Bachmann and Perry supporters look to support the candidate most likely to win Iowa- and jump on the Santorum bandwagon. Santorum, Bachmann and Perry all have very similar views, and outside hardcore supporters, it's possible many Iowa conservatives will consider it a victory if any of the three manages to coalesce voters for a surprise. This is, of course, what Santorum hopes will happen, especially since getting the endorsement of Bob Vander Plaats, an important voice in the Iowa social conservative community. We'll just have to see if this is a temporary spike, or a lasting surge- if it is lasting, it will likely be at the expense of Bachmann, Perry, and even Gingrich.
A Santorum upset would be a great media generator, even if he doesn't get first or second, since his rise would be seen as sudden and potentially exciting. But after Iowa, there's not much more to be said for what Santorum can do. New Hampshire is just too much a Romney stronghold to be within his grasp, and Santorum has been counting on an all-or-nothing Iowa gambit, with little resources or campaign in place in any other state. What I said a month ago about Santorum's prospects are still true: a Santorum surge that puts him in a surprising position in Iowa is only likely to put Romney in a better position further along.
That is unless he captures Iowa with a resounding victory; that would be a real surprise!
So who knows; strange things happen in primaries, and this nomination process has been stranger than most. If Santorum manages to trounce Bachmann and Perry in Iowa and (one or both) drop out and endorse him, the situation could change dramatically. If voters truly are committed to defeating Romney at all costs and Santorum seems more viable than Gingrich coming into South Carolina, he has a real chance at winning the nomination, something that was virtually unthinkable just a couple of weeks ago.
Regardless of how the surge plays out, Santorum will continue to be worth keeping a close eye on, at least through Iowa and immediately afterward. His presence is changing the dynamic- in a dynamic way- and to observers like me, that's always a lot of fun.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Ron Paul's best hope could be... Gingrich?
In my last several posts I've been discussing the Republican Nomination in general, and prospects for Ron Paul, the seeming Iowa frontrunner, specifically. I have noted several times that the Paul campaign has changed it's media strategy in Iowa and New Hampshire recently, specifically regarding Newt Gingrich.
His campaign has been running a negative spot on the airwaves in an attempt to erode Gingrich's popular support, particularly from conservative audiences, which would theoretically position Ron Paul as the 'true' conservative anti-Romney candidate. This strategy to woo conservatives, including social conservatives is echoed in his other most recent ad. Paul has said in TV interviews that he had decided to go after Gingrich because he thought that Gingrich's hypocrisy needed to be brought to light, particularly the fact that Gingrich took over a million dollars in compensation from Freddie Mac, a corporation Ron Paul has railed against for being a part of crony corporatism.
It has been my opinion that Ron Paul actually benefits from staying out of the fray so long as he is still seen as a second tier candidate in national polls. Romney and Gingrich, both running about 10 points better than Paul nationally, don't want to elevate Paul's position by attacking him- at least if they don't have to. Meanwhile Paul can use his organizing power and positive spots highlighting his consistent conservative position to build his vote share in Iowa, where he is running even or better than Romney and Gingrich. There's three reasons why tearing Gingrich down is risky, and maybe even counter productive.
First, attacking Gingrich, not surprisingly, has invited counter attacks, and although Gingrich probably doesn't have the funds to go on a major ad campaign against Paul, he can go on national TV to swipe back. For example, on CNN today he declared that he would not vote for Ron Paul against Barack Obama, that 'decent' Americans wouldn't agree with Paul on foreign policy, and that past controversial campaign mailers have not been adequately explained. It may not be much, but I can't see this extra negative attention helping Paul- and the attention may increase.
Second, Paul's ads may truly have helped to drag Gingrich down; certainly Gingrich has fallen to a tangible third place in Iowa polls behind Paul. But these attacks could also help Romney in Iowa. Perhaps increasing distaste of Gingrich could be cementing Romney's position as the alternative to Gingrich for voters who simply cannot stomach Paul's brand of libertarian conservatism- it appears that Romney's numbers have been on the rise in the last few weeks, corresponding with Gingrich's fall. But even if not, by splitting the vote in Iowa, Paul lowers the threshold for a victory, allowing the possibility that even with a ceiling of 25%, Romney could win or come in a narrow second place; both would be a victory for a campaign that has comparatively ignored the state.
One might argue that Romney doing well in Iowa doesn't matter as long as Ron Paul wins the overall Iowa caucus. I disagree. Romney is almost certain to win New Hampshire, with a nearly 20 point lead in polling there; even if Ron Paul grabs momentum from Iowa, he is unlikely to win in NH. So if Paul was to hope to win NH, it would be through attacking Romney, not Gingrich. In fact, if Gingrich remained relatively strong at Romney's expense and Huntsman could glean away enough moderates, it would lower the threshold for victory in NH as well, opening a possibility for a Paul win. Attacking Gingrich, and ruining him in Iowa will only further weaken the Gingrich campaign's ability to focus on pulling establishment conservatives away from Romney. Paul doesn't have a lot of play in the establishment.
But finally, the risk in attacking Gingrich has a much longer term effect. As Nate Silver wisely points out in a recent post, the best thing for the Paul campaign is to keep the Republican field as fractured as possible for as long as possible, and to enter into a brokered convention with as much influence as possible. To think that a majority of the GOP electorate would ever choose Paul as a nominee is very wishful thinking, but I could see a plurality supporting him in a fractured field. Therefore the best strategy for Paul, it seems to me, is not to win, but just to hold his own and hope the other weaker candidates can too. We could call this a winning (sort of) strategy.
Unfortunately to have a long term fractured field, you have to have candidates who can fight a long fight, continuing to split the vote with Romney much past Iowa and New Hampshire, since Romney's campaign is the only campaign that seems to have the game an resources to play a long game with Paul. The only other options for long-term candidates are Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich- Perry cause he has the money, Gingrich cause he has the numbers. And Gingrich was, and may still be, the best hope for the Paul campaign. But since being attacked from all sides, Gingrich has been weakened significantly, and without victories in either Iowa or New Hampshire, he may not be able to continue his campaign long enough to prove a contender for Romney.
Thus Ron Paul may emerge as the only Romney alternative, and I can't see Paul pulling in 55% of the overall national vote against an establishment-backed, well funded candidate, can you? Wild as it may sound, Paul's best overall chance for victory may have been to run positive spots on Gingrich's behalf, rather than bashing Gingrich down with negatives. I say this tongue in cheek.
Either way, and whatever the true reason for the changing fortunes, Romney's position is looking better and better for the long term- as Gingrich has fallen- even as Paul's position in the short term has skyrocketed. Now that Gingrich is fading, maybe the best chance for the Paul campaign is to hope for a Perry upset in Iowa, or a Huntsman surprise in NH. Or switch strategies and run a full court press on Romney, like, right now. Absent these possibilities, I'm having to admit that it's looking more and more like Romney just has to not mess up, and he could coast just ahead of the Paul tide, straight into the convention...
But to conclude, let's have a reality check here. Keep in mind that Gingrich's plummeting numbers are not- at all- entirely due to Paul's attacks; these attacks have simply added fuel to a growing chorus. There is not much Paul could have done to stop Gingrich's slide; my point here is that it may really have not been worth the resources attacking him. Remember, Gingrich still has a lot of play left, and he could ride strong performances in Iowa, NH, (and some debates) into a victory in SC and Florida, reviving his campaign. It's hard to know how much it will hurt Gingrich to lose two contests in a row- perhaps he will emerge into SC with the strength to hold his superior numbers there.
The outcome for Gingrich- and Ron Paul's fate too- may end up hinging on what candidates do after Iowa. It is likely that at least a couple of candidates will drop out if they have disappointing Iowa performances. If those candidates all consolidate around Romney, the end result seems clear. If they do nothing, it is unpredictable where their supporters might go, but Gingrich- and Paul- could benefit. However, if Santorum or Bachmann chooses to endorse Gingrich (or Perry) in the hopes of keeping Romney off the ticket, it may give Gingrich (or... possibly Perry) the credibility to continue to contests in SC and FL and grapple with Romney beyond.
And that could also be enough to give Ron Paul a winning (sort of) strategy.
His campaign has been running a negative spot on the airwaves in an attempt to erode Gingrich's popular support, particularly from conservative audiences, which would theoretically position Ron Paul as the 'true' conservative anti-Romney candidate. This strategy to woo conservatives, including social conservatives is echoed in his other most recent ad. Paul has said in TV interviews that he had decided to go after Gingrich because he thought that Gingrich's hypocrisy needed to be brought to light, particularly the fact that Gingrich took over a million dollars in compensation from Freddie Mac, a corporation Ron Paul has railed against for being a part of crony corporatism.
It has been my opinion that Ron Paul actually benefits from staying out of the fray so long as he is still seen as a second tier candidate in national polls. Romney and Gingrich, both running about 10 points better than Paul nationally, don't want to elevate Paul's position by attacking him- at least if they don't have to. Meanwhile Paul can use his organizing power and positive spots highlighting his consistent conservative position to build his vote share in Iowa, where he is running even or better than Romney and Gingrich. There's three reasons why tearing Gingrich down is risky, and maybe even counter productive.
First, attacking Gingrich, not surprisingly, has invited counter attacks, and although Gingrich probably doesn't have the funds to go on a major ad campaign against Paul, he can go on national TV to swipe back. For example, on CNN today he declared that he would not vote for Ron Paul against Barack Obama, that 'decent' Americans wouldn't agree with Paul on foreign policy, and that past controversial campaign mailers have not been adequately explained. It may not be much, but I can't see this extra negative attention helping Paul- and the attention may increase.
Second, Paul's ads may truly have helped to drag Gingrich down; certainly Gingrich has fallen to a tangible third place in Iowa polls behind Paul. But these attacks could also help Romney in Iowa. Perhaps increasing distaste of Gingrich could be cementing Romney's position as the alternative to Gingrich for voters who simply cannot stomach Paul's brand of libertarian conservatism- it appears that Romney's numbers have been on the rise in the last few weeks, corresponding with Gingrich's fall. But even if not, by splitting the vote in Iowa, Paul lowers the threshold for a victory, allowing the possibility that even with a ceiling of 25%, Romney could win or come in a narrow second place; both would be a victory for a campaign that has comparatively ignored the state.
One might argue that Romney doing well in Iowa doesn't matter as long as Ron Paul wins the overall Iowa caucus. I disagree. Romney is almost certain to win New Hampshire, with a nearly 20 point lead in polling there; even if Ron Paul grabs momentum from Iowa, he is unlikely to win in NH. So if Paul was to hope to win NH, it would be through attacking Romney, not Gingrich. In fact, if Gingrich remained relatively strong at Romney's expense and Huntsman could glean away enough moderates, it would lower the threshold for victory in NH as well, opening a possibility for a Paul win. Attacking Gingrich, and ruining him in Iowa will only further weaken the Gingrich campaign's ability to focus on pulling establishment conservatives away from Romney. Paul doesn't have a lot of play in the establishment.
But finally, the risk in attacking Gingrich has a much longer term effect. As Nate Silver wisely points out in a recent post, the best thing for the Paul campaign is to keep the Republican field as fractured as possible for as long as possible, and to enter into a brokered convention with as much influence as possible. To think that a majority of the GOP electorate would ever choose Paul as a nominee is very wishful thinking, but I could see a plurality supporting him in a fractured field. Therefore the best strategy for Paul, it seems to me, is not to win, but just to hold his own and hope the other weaker candidates can too. We could call this a winning (sort of) strategy.
Unfortunately to have a long term fractured field, you have to have candidates who can fight a long fight, continuing to split the vote with Romney much past Iowa and New Hampshire, since Romney's campaign is the only campaign that seems to have the game an resources to play a long game with Paul. The only other options for long-term candidates are Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich- Perry cause he has the money, Gingrich cause he has the numbers. And Gingrich was, and may still be, the best hope for the Paul campaign. But since being attacked from all sides, Gingrich has been weakened significantly, and without victories in either Iowa or New Hampshire, he may not be able to continue his campaign long enough to prove a contender for Romney.
Thus Ron Paul may emerge as the only Romney alternative, and I can't see Paul pulling in 55% of the overall national vote against an establishment-backed, well funded candidate, can you? Wild as it may sound, Paul's best overall chance for victory may have been to run positive spots on Gingrich's behalf, rather than bashing Gingrich down with negatives. I say this tongue in cheek.
Either way, and whatever the true reason for the changing fortunes, Romney's position is looking better and better for the long term- as Gingrich has fallen- even as Paul's position in the short term has skyrocketed. Now that Gingrich is fading, maybe the best chance for the Paul campaign is to hope for a Perry upset in Iowa, or a Huntsman surprise in NH. Or switch strategies and run a full court press on Romney, like, right now. Absent these possibilities, I'm having to admit that it's looking more and more like Romney just has to not mess up, and he could coast just ahead of the Paul tide, straight into the convention...
But to conclude, let's have a reality check here. Keep in mind that Gingrich's plummeting numbers are not- at all- entirely due to Paul's attacks; these attacks have simply added fuel to a growing chorus. There is not much Paul could have done to stop Gingrich's slide; my point here is that it may really have not been worth the resources attacking him. Remember, Gingrich still has a lot of play left, and he could ride strong performances in Iowa, NH, (and some debates) into a victory in SC and Florida, reviving his campaign. It's hard to know how much it will hurt Gingrich to lose two contests in a row- perhaps he will emerge into SC with the strength to hold his superior numbers there.
The outcome for Gingrich- and Ron Paul's fate too- may end up hinging on what candidates do after Iowa. It is likely that at least a couple of candidates will drop out if they have disappointing Iowa performances. If those candidates all consolidate around Romney, the end result seems clear. If they do nothing, it is unpredictable where their supporters might go, but Gingrich- and Paul- could benefit. However, if Santorum or Bachmann chooses to endorse Gingrich (or Perry) in the hopes of keeping Romney off the ticket, it may give Gingrich (or... possibly Perry) the credibility to continue to contests in SC and FL and grapple with Romney beyond.
And that could also be enough to give Ron Paul a winning (sort of) strategy.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Who's surging with two weeks to go? Ron Paul
Iowa caucuses, the first official contest in the GOP primary calendar, take place on January 3rd this year. That means we're two weeks away from the eve of Iowa, and the polls and ground game are pointing toward an unexpected winner: Ron Paul. Fivethirtyeight now gives him better than 50% odds.
Now if you've been reading this blog, you'd already know that a Ron Paul victory in Iowa has been a distinct possibility for weeks, but we now have the first polling which suggests a veritable surge for Paul, not just in Iowa, but across the country.
This is the average of polls released two weeks ago for Ron Paul, Gingrich, and Romney:
Gingrich: 31%, Romney: 18%, Paul: 16%
This is the average of polls released last week:
Gingrich: 23%, Romney: 17%, Paul: 19%
And here is the average of the polls released so far this week:
Gingrich: 14%, Romney: 19%, Paul: 24%
The trend is obvious. Paul, capitalizing on the Cain supporters who came to his camp, seems to have capitalized further on the 5-candidate attack on Gingrich that has weakened Gingrich's position over the last couple of weeks. His strategy of also attacking the former Speaker may be paying off, after running his spot regularly in Iowa and New Hampshire for the last couple weeks.
As I pointed out in my previous post, this attack strategy is dangerous, because it invites a response and may hurt Ron Paul's favorability (voters generally don't like a negative campaign). But I also noted then that Ron Paul may be safe as long as he is still seen as somewhat of a joke to the larger GOP, and if his national polling stays weak. If a front-runner were to attack Ron Paul, s/he would only elevate Ron Paul to the position of 'worthy opponent', something the candidates have so far avoided. As a result, Ron Paul has been left relatively unscathed by the primary process, while the others fight amongst themselves.
Unfortunately (or fortunately) for Ron Paul, his polling numbers are on the rise outside of Iowa: a New Hampshire poll out today shows him in second place, and several national polls now put him in the low double digits. These national numbers are significant because Paul has so far been unable to win more than about 9% of the national electorate to his cause. These numbers also mean that the other candidates can no longer afford to laugh off Paul and that could be bad news for the Texas congressman. They may now have no other choice but to attack Ron Paul, since he is becoming an inarguable front runner, positioned to win the first GOP primary contest.
The good news for the Paul campaign is that there's virtually no time for the other candidates to outmaneuver Paul's current position. People aren't usually paying much attention to politics during the holidays and there are no more debates left between now and the caucuses. Mitt Romney and Rick Perry are probably the only candidates with the monetary resources to beat Paul, and Romney at least is more likely to pin his hopes on a New Hampshire win than to make a large ad buy in Iowa. Perry might try an attack on Paul; he desperately needs a good showing in IA; so might Bachmann, although she isn't rolling in money. Overall, a last minute attack ad is not out of the question, but seems unlikely. On the other hand, we have desperate campaigns shaping up here, with several candidates relying on Iowa for a break out win. A dirty mailer or robocall attack may emerge.
Setting all speculation aside, these Iowa numbers are undeniably good news for Ron Paul. And his increasing traction with the national electorate suggests that he may be surging at just the right time. Better polling across the board also points to the possibility that Paul will be able to sustain his position even after Iowa and New Hampshire, and compete long term-- he just finished raising 4 million in a money bomb over the weekend, so he'll have the funds to compete.
So the final question is, will he hold on to these good numbers, or even see them increase? He probably has a good chance of staying where he is. We will have to see whether the other candidates react with a Paul pile-on, but I am skeptical either way that Ron Paul will see much more of a boost than he already has. Not only is Paul a divisive figure, what with his 'wacky' and 'off the rails' foreign policy perspectives, but no candidate has been able to secure more than a third of the vote in Iowa so far, mainly because the field is just too crowded. It would be a downright shocking achievement if Paul ended up with much more than a third of the vote. But even 25% is enough to win, with all the other candidates splitting the rest.
After that, it's hard to say. His numbers are still pretty weak nationally, even though they are on the rise. Will a win in Iowa give a boost to that support?
I should note here that we should all be careful not to underestimate Ron Paul. He is an unusual candidate with an unequaled ground game in Iowa and a base enthusiasm that is also unmatched amongst the candidates. If he does win Iowa, it'll be because of these supporters and volunteers; and with them, Paul really may have just enough of a foundation to make a real play for the nomination.
Now if you've been reading this blog, you'd already know that a Ron Paul victory in Iowa has been a distinct possibility for weeks, but we now have the first polling which suggests a veritable surge for Paul, not just in Iowa, but across the country.
This is the average of polls released two weeks ago for Ron Paul, Gingrich, and Romney:
Gingrich: 31%, Romney: 18%, Paul: 16%
This is the average of polls released last week:
Gingrich: 23%, Romney: 17%, Paul: 19%
And here is the average of the polls released so far this week:
Gingrich: 14%, Romney: 19%, Paul: 24%
The trend is obvious. Paul, capitalizing on the Cain supporters who came to his camp, seems to have capitalized further on the 5-candidate attack on Gingrich that has weakened Gingrich's position over the last couple of weeks. His strategy of also attacking the former Speaker may be paying off, after running his spot regularly in Iowa and New Hampshire for the last couple weeks.
As I pointed out in my previous post, this attack strategy is dangerous, because it invites a response and may hurt Ron Paul's favorability (voters generally don't like a negative campaign). But I also noted then that Ron Paul may be safe as long as he is still seen as somewhat of a joke to the larger GOP, and if his national polling stays weak. If a front-runner were to attack Ron Paul, s/he would only elevate Ron Paul to the position of 'worthy opponent', something the candidates have so far avoided. As a result, Ron Paul has been left relatively unscathed by the primary process, while the others fight amongst themselves.
Unfortunately (or fortunately) for Ron Paul, his polling numbers are on the rise outside of Iowa: a New Hampshire poll out today shows him in second place, and several national polls now put him in the low double digits. These national numbers are significant because Paul has so far been unable to win more than about 9% of the national electorate to his cause. These numbers also mean that the other candidates can no longer afford to laugh off Paul and that could be bad news for the Texas congressman. They may now have no other choice but to attack Ron Paul, since he is becoming an inarguable front runner, positioned to win the first GOP primary contest.
The good news for the Paul campaign is that there's virtually no time for the other candidates to outmaneuver Paul's current position. People aren't usually paying much attention to politics during the holidays and there are no more debates left between now and the caucuses. Mitt Romney and Rick Perry are probably the only candidates with the monetary resources to beat Paul, and Romney at least is more likely to pin his hopes on a New Hampshire win than to make a large ad buy in Iowa. Perry might try an attack on Paul; he desperately needs a good showing in IA; so might Bachmann, although she isn't rolling in money. Overall, a last minute attack ad is not out of the question, but seems unlikely. On the other hand, we have desperate campaigns shaping up here, with several candidates relying on Iowa for a break out win. A dirty mailer or robocall attack may emerge.
Setting all speculation aside, these Iowa numbers are undeniably good news for Ron Paul. And his increasing traction with the national electorate suggests that he may be surging at just the right time. Better polling across the board also points to the possibility that Paul will be able to sustain his position even after Iowa and New Hampshire, and compete long term-- he just finished raising 4 million in a money bomb over the weekend, so he'll have the funds to compete.
So the final question is, will he hold on to these good numbers, or even see them increase? He probably has a good chance of staying where he is. We will have to see whether the other candidates react with a Paul pile-on, but I am skeptical either way that Ron Paul will see much more of a boost than he already has. Not only is Paul a divisive figure, what with his 'wacky' and 'off the rails' foreign policy perspectives, but no candidate has been able to secure more than a third of the vote in Iowa so far, mainly because the field is just too crowded. It would be a downright shocking achievement if Paul ended up with much more than a third of the vote. But even 25% is enough to win, with all the other candidates splitting the rest.
After that, it's hard to say. His numbers are still pretty weak nationally, even though they are on the rise. Will a win in Iowa give a boost to that support?
I should note here that we should all be careful not to underestimate Ron Paul. He is an unusual candidate with an unequaled ground game in Iowa and a base enthusiasm that is also unmatched amongst the candidates. If he does win Iowa, it'll be because of these supporters and volunteers; and with them, Paul really may have just enough of a foundation to make a real play for the nomination.
Saturday, December 10, 2011
How Occupy Wall Street is Changing Washington
Occupy Wall Street has captured news headlines and provoked journalistic investigations. The movement has taken root all over the nation, and everywhere it goes occupiers have met both resistance and support. But as OWS spreads, it's dynamism is also fostering discussions and questions about the movement from those who are looking in from outside. Many of those questions have been adequately answered, as journalists examine the movement from the inside out, trying to help the public understand what is going on. But one question has not been comprehensively addressed: Is Occupy Wall Street really making a difference to the politicians in Washington?
It's a question worth asking. For all the discussions about the changes being brought about by OWS, not enough has been said about whether or not politicians are even listening. In order to answer this question we will have to examine the tangible political implications of OWS for those in power. Has OWS affected the overall American national discourse in such a way that politicians are addressing the movement's goals? Are politicians moving to embrace- or castigate- Occupy Wall Street? And how is the movement engaging with those running for office? As it turns out, events in the last few weeks can give us some great insight into this matter.
This Tuesday, President Barack Obama delivered a speech in Osawatomie, Kansas that frames what is likely to be the central platform of his campaign in 2012. In language that (in no small way) echoed the goals of the Occupy Wall Street movement, Obama laid down hard facts about disparity in the country, contrasting the vast wealth of the 1% with the plummeting incomes of most workers. Calling it “wrong” and “the height of inequality” Obama blasted the entrenched government systems and loopholes that shelter the wealthy while crushing the poor.
Obama's speech was a great indicator that the chief expression of OWS has made its way into the national and political discourse: the growing difference between the 99% and the 1%. Obama spoke of "inequality" six different times.
And as Chrystia Freeland notes in her fantastic discussion of the speech, Obama essentially declared American inequality “the defining issue of our time”, a modest nod toward OWS and the (perhaps misguided) Tea Party. But Freeland also points out that whereas the Tea Party's version of American restoration had helped to change the debate in Washington to a question of spending and cutting, Obama's speech was a recognition of how the Occupy Wall Street movement is utterly re-framing the debate too: for Occupy Wall Street, restoring America means recognizing (and changing) the power of the 1% to make room for everyone else.
In that capacity, Obama seems to agree. And by lending the weight of his voice to the cause, he only gives momentum to OWS' perspective of inequality.
So there's no question that Occupy Wall Street is substantially changing the national discourse. If the Presidential bully-pulpit is blasting out 1% tirades to win an election- if Obama is staking his Presidency on the issue of inequality- we can be certain that the message of OWS is catching on, even in political circles. Although many members of OWS may be loathe to compare themselves to the Tea Party movement, it looks like grassroots OWS has offered (to the Democrats at the top) the campaign-ready ideological response to the Republican co-opted Tea Party.
And that begs the question: are the Democrats interested co-opting OWS members into their party? Do Democrats want to join the OWS protests and turn them into a political operation? In my home state of North Carolina, Secretary of State Elaine Marshall (who is running for re-election next year) has fully embraced the movement, and protesters also embraced her, even as she turned an appearance at Occupy Raleigh into a campaign advertisement. Marshall represents a very small portion of Democrats, however, (mainly local leaders) who have risked the political dangers of being associated with such a 'radical' movement. National leaders, while glad of the ideological framing, have been wary of declaring themselves a part of OWS (and joining in). Nancy Pelosi, for example, has said that she 'supports' the movement... from the comfortable chair of a national interview.
This wariness shouldn't be too surprising, though, since OWS has also gained a reputation for having little appreciation for political attention. Occupy Atlanta gained headlines in October when General Assembly rules blocked Congressman John Lewis from addressing the crowd in support of the movement's goals. It was understandable; after all, OWS is a movement that strives to ignore the celebrity of power and privilege. It's also understandable that those Democrats who already have considerable power would strive to steer clear of outright participation.
But what about Republicans? If Democrats are wary of OWS, it would follow that the GOP must be deathly allergic. But Occupy Wall Street's popular influence has even had an affect on the Republican discourse, albeit at the margins. Buddy Roemer- the former Governor of Louisiana and Presidential candidate- showed up at Occupy DC in late November to listen to (and debate with) the occupiers. While there, he defended the importance of the movement: “I told the other Republican candidates, 'Listen, listen -- they're saying something we oughta hear. They're saying that the few at the top gets the best of America, and everybody [else] gets what's left over.'”
Meanwhile, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, whose libertarian supporters sometimes join OWS gatherings, has also declared his sympathy for the movement. Despite being heckled at a rally by members of OWS, Paul signaled his agreement with the protesters, saying “The people on Wall Street got the bailout and you guys got the bills and I think that’s where the problem is.”
But Roemer and Paul both represent significant outliers amongst Republican politicians. Most Republicans see OWS as a threat to American capitalism or at least an opportunity to score a good applause line from the conservative Republican electorate. Candidate Mitt Romney has called the movement “dangerous”, and Republican frontrunner Newt Gingrich has declared that Occupy Wall Street demonstrates the moral collapse of America, saying to occupiers, “Go get a job, right after you take a bath”. Zing. Applause.
Occupy members don't seem too phased by the criticism, however, and some have begun to change their protest tactics to go on the offensive against those running for office. This marks a significant change in strategy, with OWS members singling out some of the Republicans for disruptions on the campaign trail. On Wednesday night, several activists sneaked into a D.C. Fundraiser for Newt Gingrich, interrupting his $1000 ticket event to remind him of the suffering of the 99%.
It is unclear whether or not this kind of direct political action by Occupy Wall Street will continue, but as elections approach next year, those of the OWS movement will have to decide how they will approach the political system. Will they protest Democrats as much as Republicans, or will they become entangled in party preference? Can occupiers embrace direct political advocacy without compromising their ideals?
In the meantime, Occupy Wall Street's mark on the political sphere is only going to grow. Even if the protests fizzle, the discussion that was started by OWS is causing the whole American discourse to shift, and politicians are watching. OWS is fundamentally changing the way politicians in both parties approach delicate issues like loopholes, tax brackets, bailouts, inequality, and free speech. Because of OWS, Americans are even beginning to wonder if the central American problem lies in an even more fundamental structure, rather than cronyism or misconduct. At a Republican Governor's Association meeting last week in which the GOP struggled to reframe the subject, strategist Frank Luntz discussed his fears about the way the movement has changed the national dialogue: "I'm so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I'm frightened to death. They're having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism."
Oh yes. Occupy Wall Street is making a difference in Washington.
Editorial Note 12/15/11: A version of this article was published at WagingNonviolence.org
It's a question worth asking. For all the discussions about the changes being brought about by OWS, not enough has been said about whether or not politicians are even listening. In order to answer this question we will have to examine the tangible political implications of OWS for those in power. Has OWS affected the overall American national discourse in such a way that politicians are addressing the movement's goals? Are politicians moving to embrace- or castigate- Occupy Wall Street? And how is the movement engaging with those running for office? As it turns out, events in the last few weeks can give us some great insight into this matter.
This Tuesday, President Barack Obama delivered a speech in Osawatomie, Kansas that frames what is likely to be the central platform of his campaign in 2012. In language that (in no small way) echoed the goals of the Occupy Wall Street movement, Obama laid down hard facts about disparity in the country, contrasting the vast wealth of the 1% with the plummeting incomes of most workers. Calling it “wrong” and “the height of inequality” Obama blasted the entrenched government systems and loopholes that shelter the wealthy while crushing the poor.
Obama's speech was a great indicator that the chief expression of OWS has made its way into the national and political discourse: the growing difference between the 99% and the 1%. Obama spoke of "inequality" six different times.
And as Chrystia Freeland notes in her fantastic discussion of the speech, Obama essentially declared American inequality “the defining issue of our time”, a modest nod toward OWS and the (perhaps misguided) Tea Party. But Freeland also points out that whereas the Tea Party's version of American restoration had helped to change the debate in Washington to a question of spending and cutting, Obama's speech was a recognition of how the Occupy Wall Street movement is utterly re-framing the debate too: for Occupy Wall Street, restoring America means recognizing (and changing) the power of the 1% to make room for everyone else.
In that capacity, Obama seems to agree. And by lending the weight of his voice to the cause, he only gives momentum to OWS' perspective of inequality.
So there's no question that Occupy Wall Street is substantially changing the national discourse. If the Presidential bully-pulpit is blasting out 1% tirades to win an election- if Obama is staking his Presidency on the issue of inequality- we can be certain that the message of OWS is catching on, even in political circles. Although many members of OWS may be loathe to compare themselves to the Tea Party movement, it looks like grassroots OWS has offered (to the Democrats at the top) the campaign-ready ideological response to the Republican co-opted Tea Party.
And that begs the question: are the Democrats interested co-opting OWS members into their party? Do Democrats want to join the OWS protests and turn them into a political operation? In my home state of North Carolina, Secretary of State Elaine Marshall (who is running for re-election next year) has fully embraced the movement, and protesters also embraced her, even as she turned an appearance at Occupy Raleigh into a campaign advertisement. Marshall represents a very small portion of Democrats, however, (mainly local leaders) who have risked the political dangers of being associated with such a 'radical' movement. National leaders, while glad of the ideological framing, have been wary of declaring themselves a part of OWS (and joining in). Nancy Pelosi, for example, has said that she 'supports' the movement... from the comfortable chair of a national interview.
This wariness shouldn't be too surprising, though, since OWS has also gained a reputation for having little appreciation for political attention. Occupy Atlanta gained headlines in October when General Assembly rules blocked Congressman John Lewis from addressing the crowd in support of the movement's goals. It was understandable; after all, OWS is a movement that strives to ignore the celebrity of power and privilege. It's also understandable that those Democrats who already have considerable power would strive to steer clear of outright participation.
But what about Republicans? If Democrats are wary of OWS, it would follow that the GOP must be deathly allergic. But Occupy Wall Street's popular influence has even had an affect on the Republican discourse, albeit at the margins. Buddy Roemer- the former Governor of Louisiana and Presidential candidate- showed up at Occupy DC in late November to listen to (and debate with) the occupiers. While there, he defended the importance of the movement: “I told the other Republican candidates, 'Listen, listen -- they're saying something we oughta hear. They're saying that the few at the top gets the best of America, and everybody [else] gets what's left over.'”
Meanwhile, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, whose libertarian supporters sometimes join OWS gatherings, has also declared his sympathy for the movement. Despite being heckled at a rally by members of OWS, Paul signaled his agreement with the protesters, saying “The people on Wall Street got the bailout and you guys got the bills and I think that’s where the problem is.”
But Roemer and Paul both represent significant outliers amongst Republican politicians. Most Republicans see OWS as a threat to American capitalism or at least an opportunity to score a good applause line from the conservative Republican electorate. Candidate Mitt Romney has called the movement “dangerous”, and Republican frontrunner Newt Gingrich has declared that Occupy Wall Street demonstrates the moral collapse of America, saying to occupiers, “Go get a job, right after you take a bath”. Zing. Applause.
Occupy members don't seem too phased by the criticism, however, and some have begun to change their protest tactics to go on the offensive against those running for office. This marks a significant change in strategy, with OWS members singling out some of the Republicans for disruptions on the campaign trail. On Wednesday night, several activists sneaked into a D.C. Fundraiser for Newt Gingrich, interrupting his $1000 ticket event to remind him of the suffering of the 99%.
It is unclear whether or not this kind of direct political action by Occupy Wall Street will continue, but as elections approach next year, those of the OWS movement will have to decide how they will approach the political system. Will they protest Democrats as much as Republicans, or will they become entangled in party preference? Can occupiers embrace direct political advocacy without compromising their ideals?
In the meantime, Occupy Wall Street's mark on the political sphere is only going to grow. Even if the protests fizzle, the discussion that was started by OWS is causing the whole American discourse to shift, and politicians are watching. OWS is fundamentally changing the way politicians in both parties approach delicate issues like loopholes, tax brackets, bailouts, inequality, and free speech. Because of OWS, Americans are even beginning to wonder if the central American problem lies in an even more fundamental structure, rather than cronyism or misconduct. At a Republican Governor's Association meeting last week in which the GOP struggled to reframe the subject, strategist Frank Luntz discussed his fears about the way the movement has changed the national dialogue: "I'm so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I'm frightened to death. They're having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism."
Oh yes. Occupy Wall Street is making a difference in Washington.
Editorial Note 12/15/11: A version of this article was published at WagingNonviolence.org
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Calculating Ron Paul
In my last post (which you should read!) I indicated that the most important non-Romney/Gingrich candidate to watch during this Republican Nomination is Ron Paul. I also stated that the effects of his campaigns in IA and NH will be difficult to predict. While that still holds true, this post will attempt to play out some scenarios regarding "Dr. no".
In the last few days five different pollsters have interviewed prospective Iowa caucus-goers and come up with the same stunningly uniform result: Ron Paul is sitting at around 17% support in the state. That's up from around 12% the last few weeks. Similar good numbers in NH have yet to be confirmed by substantial polling agreement like this.
Although it might not seem like it, 17% is very good. It actually ties Paul for second with Romney, and puts him only 10 points behind Gingrich. And yet this has corresponded with virtually no change in his national polling numbers, which remain in the high single digits, meaning that this is a local phenomenon, probably due to Paul's powerful campaign infrastructure in Iowa.
In order to understand what all this means for the nomination as a whole, we have to ask this question: So, what is this Ron Paul boost due to, and will the trend continue? To try to answer this question, I have looked at three of the five pollsters (those which have surveyed Iowa multiple times) to compare this new result with their last result of these polls in October. We'll look at the 4 candidates that have appreciably changed their numbers before and after, the others have remained roughly static. Averaging (and rounding) them together gets this result:
October: Gingrich: 7% Romney: 23% Paul: 11% Cain: 24% Undecided: 11%
Now: Gingrich: 26% Romney: 17% Paul: 18% Cain: 6% Undecided: 9%
(Herman Cain had dropped out and was not surveyed by one of the 3 polls the second time, but the numbers still work)
Look at that! Cain and Gingrich have swapped numbers, and Paul has sapped 6 or so points from Romney. Romney? Well, looks can be deceiving. Cain having imploded (as predicted last post) and dropped out of the race was a big game changer for the race, but he had been on a downward trajectory for weeks now. Cain's support in Iowa does appear to have transferred largely to Gingrich, but it is likely that some of his anti-establishment supporters have and will go to Ron Paul as well. We also know from national poll numbers that it is Gingrich, not Paul, who has largely sapped Romney's strength, and this is probably playing out in Iowa, as well.
It's hard to be sure what a Ron Paul supporter looks like, but we know that his support is coming from a nearly even mix of (self-identified) Moderate, Somewhat Conservative, and Very Conservative voters. Therefore it would actually not be too surprising that Romney, beaten down from all sides by flip-flop allegations, might be losing some more moderate Republican voters (what few there are in Iowa) to Ron Paul, even as some Herman Cain conservatives quietly slide into the Paul camp. It's also possible that undecideds are beginning to break for him, especially now that he is establishing himself as a viable candidate in the state, but right now it is too early to tell.
Paul is certainly playing to win the very conservative crowd in Iowa, but if he is picking up moderate support as well, he may begin to pull within striking distance of Gingrich. Romney meanwhile is probably kicking himself for his recent decision to ramp up in Iowa which will serve to raise expectations of a better than third place standing come January.
So while the majority of Paul's boost is probably from Cain, he may also be playing well in moderate and undecided circles. I'll be keeping an eye on it. But now we must ask: will the trend continue?
My answer is absolutely yes. Here's why: the front-running Republican candidates, like the media, are having a hard time taking him seriously. And for once this is coming in handy for the Texas Congressman. See, Paul has a national viability problem, and he's seen as somewhat of a joke in some Republican circles, so if Romney or Gingrich were to attack him (to bring his numbers down) it could make Paul into a threat- a viable threat. So Romney and Gingrich will be reluctant to spend time attacking Paul when they are busy attacking each other; no need to elevate Paul's position to that of front-runner, right?
But this means Paul can fly under the national radar to pull a (by national polling standards, surprising) upset in Iowa and New Hampshire, since he has continued to concentrate his resources there. Its possible that he can even get away with attacking Gingrich without drawing return fire, and although I think it is a risky move, Paul probably doesn't have a whole lot to lose at this late stage. All the while Paul can continue to solidify his base in IA while Gingrich and (especially) Romney are gearing up for a lengthy nomination fight, concentrating their resources down the road.
All of this is good news for Ron Paul. It shows in hard numbers for the first time that he could actually win IA and possibly even NH, which would at the very least elevate his personal stature from side-show to main attraction, force his critics to stop laughing, and inject his views into a serious national discourse. Even if this were to happen, Gingrich and Romney are making a wise bet that the Paul campaign will run into a brick wall at SC and beyond. But maybe being taken seriously on a national stage is all Ron Paul needs to make his case to the Republican electorate- to force them to consider whether there really is something credible in Paul's sometimes rambling answers, and for him to prove to Republicans that he can win- not just the primary, but the Presidency too.
In the last few days five different pollsters have interviewed prospective Iowa caucus-goers and come up with the same stunningly uniform result: Ron Paul is sitting at around 17% support in the state. That's up from around 12% the last few weeks. Similar good numbers in NH have yet to be confirmed by substantial polling agreement like this.
Although it might not seem like it, 17% is very good. It actually ties Paul for second with Romney, and puts him only 10 points behind Gingrich. And yet this has corresponded with virtually no change in his national polling numbers, which remain in the high single digits, meaning that this is a local phenomenon, probably due to Paul's powerful campaign infrastructure in Iowa.
In order to understand what all this means for the nomination as a whole, we have to ask this question: So, what is this Ron Paul boost due to, and will the trend continue? To try to answer this question, I have looked at three of the five pollsters (those which have surveyed Iowa multiple times) to compare this new result with their last result of these polls in October. We'll look at the 4 candidates that have appreciably changed their numbers before and after, the others have remained roughly static. Averaging (and rounding) them together gets this result:
October: Gingrich: 7% Romney: 23% Paul: 11% Cain: 24% Undecided: 11%
Now: Gingrich: 26% Romney: 17% Paul: 18% Cain: 6% Undecided: 9%
(Herman Cain had dropped out and was not surveyed by one of the 3 polls the second time, but the numbers still work)
Look at that! Cain and Gingrich have swapped numbers, and Paul has sapped 6 or so points from Romney. Romney? Well, looks can be deceiving. Cain having imploded (as predicted last post) and dropped out of the race was a big game changer for the race, but he had been on a downward trajectory for weeks now. Cain's support in Iowa does appear to have transferred largely to Gingrich, but it is likely that some of his anti-establishment supporters have and will go to Ron Paul as well. We also know from national poll numbers that it is Gingrich, not Paul, who has largely sapped Romney's strength, and this is probably playing out in Iowa, as well.
It's hard to be sure what a Ron Paul supporter looks like, but we know that his support is coming from a nearly even mix of (self-identified) Moderate, Somewhat Conservative, and Very Conservative voters. Therefore it would actually not be too surprising that Romney, beaten down from all sides by flip-flop allegations, might be losing some more moderate Republican voters (what few there are in Iowa) to Ron Paul, even as some Herman Cain conservatives quietly slide into the Paul camp. It's also possible that undecideds are beginning to break for him, especially now that he is establishing himself as a viable candidate in the state, but right now it is too early to tell.
Paul is certainly playing to win the very conservative crowd in Iowa, but if he is picking up moderate support as well, he may begin to pull within striking distance of Gingrich. Romney meanwhile is probably kicking himself for his recent decision to ramp up in Iowa which will serve to raise expectations of a better than third place standing come January.
So while the majority of Paul's boost is probably from Cain, he may also be playing well in moderate and undecided circles. I'll be keeping an eye on it. But now we must ask: will the trend continue?
My answer is absolutely yes. Here's why: the front-running Republican candidates, like the media, are having a hard time taking him seriously. And for once this is coming in handy for the Texas Congressman. See, Paul has a national viability problem, and he's seen as somewhat of a joke in some Republican circles, so if Romney or Gingrich were to attack him (to bring his numbers down) it could make Paul into a threat- a viable threat. So Romney and Gingrich will be reluctant to spend time attacking Paul when they are busy attacking each other; no need to elevate Paul's position to that of front-runner, right?
But this means Paul can fly under the national radar to pull a (by national polling standards, surprising) upset in Iowa and New Hampshire, since he has continued to concentrate his resources there. Its possible that he can even get away with attacking Gingrich without drawing return fire, and although I think it is a risky move, Paul probably doesn't have a whole lot to lose at this late stage. All the while Paul can continue to solidify his base in IA while Gingrich and (especially) Romney are gearing up for a lengthy nomination fight, concentrating their resources down the road.
All of this is good news for Ron Paul. It shows in hard numbers for the first time that he could actually win IA and possibly even NH, which would at the very least elevate his personal stature from side-show to main attraction, force his critics to stop laughing, and inject his views into a serious national discourse. Even if this were to happen, Gingrich and Romney are making a wise bet that the Paul campaign will run into a brick wall at SC and beyond. But maybe being taken seriously on a national stage is all Ron Paul needs to make his case to the Republican electorate- to force them to consider whether there really is something credible in Paul's sometimes rambling answers, and for him to prove to Republicans that he can win- not just the primary, but the Presidency too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)