Ron Paul is for real in Iowa. Seriously.

[Bindare_Dundat]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/ron-paul-is-for-real-in-iowa-seriously/2011/11/17/gIQAoSM7UN_blog.html

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, long dismissed by the GOP establishment as a fringe candidate, has broadened his electoral appeal and emerged as a major player in the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses, according to several recent polls and conversations with a handful of longtime Hawkeye political operatives.



“He has certainly broadened his coalition from the ‘rage against the machine’ types that primarily comprised his supporters in 2008,” said one senior Iowa Republican operative granted anonymity to speak candidly about Paul’s prospects. “The expanded coalition includes more traditional activists — as a number of GOP county chairs have endorsed his campaign, as have a handful of legislators.”

Two recent polls confirm Paul’s momentum in the state.

In a Bloomberg News survey — conducted by renowned Iowa-based pollster Ann Selzer — Paul was in a four-way statistical tie for first along with businessman Herman Cain, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. (Cain had 20 percent to 19 percent for Paul, 18 percent for Romney and 17 percent for Gingrich.)

And, in a new Iowa State/Gazette/KCRG survey, Paul took 20 percent — behind only Cain at 25 percent.

(For more on Paul’s surprising poll strength in Iowa, make sure to check out the Post’s “Behind the Numbers” polling blog.)

So, there is broad — if not unanimous — agreement that Paul has momentum in Iowa. But, why?

The most obvious reason is that Paul has been on television in the state since July and has spent more than $1.35 million on ads. (For months, Paul had the airwaves to himself although Texas Gov. Rick Perry is now on television in Iowa as well.)

Paul is using the relatively uncluttered airwaves to tell a story of himself as a consistent champion of fiscal responsibility in a field of candidates that have not always hewed so closely to that mantra.

One ad attacks the inconsistencies of Cain, Romney and Perry on fiscal matters — TARP, economic stimulus — before cutting to Paul; “I’ve been talking about these problems for a long long time...now we’re bankrupt and we have to decide which way we’re going to go,” he says.


[ Invalid YouTube link ]

[pedro01]

"But, why?"

Well, perhaps because people want a change and the great black hope brought more of the same.

[howardroark]

If he wins in Iowa, then the media will ignore his win. They'll play off Iowa as no longer being relevant to the Republican nomination.

If he gets second, even if his second place is within the statistical margin of error, then the media will barely mention who placed second (anyone remember Iowa Straw Poll?).

[tu_holmes]

There are people like Beach Bum who will say that this is because his online rabid fans are rigging the polls.

[Dos Equis]

Winning Iowa would be significant, but it's not determinative of who will win the nomination.  Huck won in 08 and never got off the ground.  McCain was fourth.  Here is the recent history:

2008 - Mike Huckabee (34%), Mitt Romney (25%), Fred Thompson (13%), John McCain (13%), Ron Paul (10%), Rudy Giuliani (4%), and Duncan Hunter (1%)
2004 - George W. Bush (unopposed)
2000 - George W. Bush (41%)[citation needed], Steve Forbes (30%)[citation needed], Alan Keyes (14%), Gary Bauer (9%), John McCain (5%), and Orrin Hatch (1%)
1996 - Bob Dole (26%), Pat Buchanan (23%), Lamar Alexander (18%), Steve Forbes (10%), Phil Gramm (9%), Alan Keyes (7%), Richard Lugar (4%), and Morry Taylor (1%)
1992 - George H. W. Bush (unopposed)
1988 - Bob Dole (37%), Pat Robertson (25%), George H. W. Bush (19%), Jack Kemp (11%), and Pierre DuPont (7%)
1984 - Ronald Reagan (unopposed)
1980 - George H. W. Bush (32%), Ronald Reagan (30%), Howard Baker (15%), John Connally (9%), Phil Crane (7%), John B. Anderson (4%), and Bob Dole (2%)
1976 - Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses#Republicans

[tu_holmes]

Winning Iowa would be significant, but it's not determinative of who will win the nomination.  Huck won in 08 and never got off the ground.  McCain was fourth.  Here is the recent history:

2008 - Mike Huckabee (34%), Mitt Romney (25%), Fred Thompson (13%), John McCain (13%), Ron Paul (10%), Rudy Giuliani (4%), and Duncan Hunter (1%)
2004 - George W. Bush (unopposed)
2000 - George W. Bush (41%)[citation needed], Steve Forbes (30%)[citation needed], Alan Keyes (14%), Gary Bauer (9%), John McCain (5%), and Orrin Hatch (1%)
1996 - Bob Dole (26%), Pat Buchanan (23%), Lamar Alexander (18%), Steve Forbes (10%), Phil Gramm (9%), Alan Keyes (7%), Richard Lugar (4%), and Morry Taylor (1%)
1992 - George H. W. Bush (unopposed)
1988 - Bob Dole (37%), Pat Robertson (25%), George H. W. Bush (19%), Jack Kemp (11%), and Pierre DuPont (7%)
1984 - Ronald Reagan (unopposed)
1980 - George H. W. Bush (32%), Ronald Reagan (30%), Howard Baker (15%), John Connally (9%), Phil Crane (7%), John B. Anderson (4%), and Bob Dole (2%)
1976 - Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses#Republicans

That's a 4-3 edge "for".

However, if we also add in the Democrats.

January 3, 2008 - Barack Obama (38%), John Edwards (30%), Hillary Clinton (29%), Bill Richardson (2%), Joe Biden (1%)[15]
January 19, 2004 - John Kerry (38%), John Edwards (32%), Howard Dean (18%), Dick Gephardt (11%), and Dennis Kucinich (1%)
January 24, 2000 - Al Gore (63%) and Bill Bradley (37%)
February 12, 1996 - Bill Clinton (unopposed)
February 10, 1992 - Tom Harkin (76%), "Uncommitted" (12%), Paul Tsongas (4%), Bill Clinton (3%), Bob Kerrey (2%), and Jerry Brown (2%)
February 8, 1988 - Dick Gephardt (31%), Paul Simon (27%), Michael Dukakis (22%), and Bruce Babbitt (6%)
February 20, 1984 - Walter Mondale (49%), Gary Hart (17%), George McGovern (10%), Alan Cranston (7%), John Glenn (4%), Reubin Askew (3%), and Jesse Jackson (2%)
January 21, 1980 - Jimmy Carter (59%) and Ted Kennedy (31%)
January 19, 1976 - "Uncommitted" (37%), Jimmy Carter (28%) Birch Bayh (13%), Fred R. Harris (10%), Morris Udall (6%), Sargent Shriver (3%), and Henry M. Jackson (1%)


The number goes up to some like 12-5

[Dos Equis]

The years when an incumbent ran unopposed shouldn't really be part of the analysis. 

[tu_holmes]

The years when an incumbent ran unopposed shouldn't really be part of the analysis. 

A win is a win... even if it's a forfeit.

[MCWAY]

As far as the GOP goes, South Carolina has been the big one. The last several GOP nominees won SC, even if they lost Iowa.

[loco]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/ron-paul-is-for-real-in-iowa-seriously/2011/11/17/gIQAoSM7UN_blog.html

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, long dismissed by the GOP establishment as a fringe candidate, has broadened his electoral appeal and emerged as a major player in the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses, according to several recent polls and conversations with a handful of longtime Hawkeye political operatives.



“He has certainly broadened his coalition from the ‘rage against the machine’ types that primarily comprised his supporters in 2008,” said one senior Iowa Republican operative granted anonymity to speak candidly about Paul’s prospects. “The expanded coalition includes more traditional activists — as a number of GOP county chairs have endorsed his campaign, as have a handful of legislators.”

Two recent polls confirm Paul’s momentum in the state.

In a Bloomberg News survey — conducted by renowned Iowa-based pollster Ann Selzer — Paul was in a four-way statistical tie for first along with businessman Herman Cain, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. (Cain had 20 percent to 19 percent for Paul, 18 percent for Romney and 17 percent for Gingrich.)

And, in a new Iowa State/Gazette/KCRG survey, Paul took 20 percent — behind only Cain at 25 percent.

(For more on Paul’s surprising poll strength in Iowa, make sure to check out the Post’s “Behind the Numbers” polling blog.)

So, there is broad — if not unanimous — agreement that Paul has momentum in Iowa. But, why?

The most obvious reason is that Paul has been on television in the state since July and has spent more than $1.35 million on ads. (For months, Paul had the airwaves to himself although Texas Gov. Rick Perry is now on television in Iowa as well.)

Paul is using the relatively uncluttered airwaves to tell a story of himself as a consistent champion of fiscal responsibility in a field of candidates that have not always hewed so closely to that mantra.

One ad attacks the inconsistencies of Cain, Romney and Perry on fiscal matters — TARP, economic stimulus — before cutting to Paul; “I’ve been talking about these problems for a long long time...now we’re bankrupt and we have to decide which way we’re going to go,” he says.


[ Invalid YouTube link ]

Ron Paul's da man!

[Dos Equis]

As far as the GOP goes, South Carolina has been the big one. The last several GOP nominees won SC, even if they lost Iowa.

Agree.  SC is a much better predictor. 

Was talking to someone who works with the Romney campaign and he said Romney isn't really spending much time in Iowa and has pretty much conceded it.  Focusing more on NH.  That may explain, in part, Paul's Iowa poll numbers.   

[Soul Crusher]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/us/politics/ron-paul-gaining-momentum-from-niche-voters-in-iowa-polls.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print


Aging momentum.

[howardroark]

Agree.  SC is a much better predictor. 

Was talking to someone who works with the Romney campaign and he said Romney isn't really spending much time in Iowa and has pretty much conceded it.  Focusing more on NH.  That may explain, in part, Paul's Iowa poll numbers.   

SC might be a better predictor, but Ron Paul is pretty much set to be a gamechanger in Iowa and New Hampshire...

[Freeborn126]

Ron Paul has Iowa in the bag IMO.  New Hampshire could easily go his way too but will be tougher b/c they love Romney so much up there.  He will at least be top 2 in NH.  SC is going to be his toughest because of all the evangelical neo cons down there that love Israel, want to attack Iran, and can't RP's liberal stances on drugs. 

Florida will be tough as well b/c of all the retiree's there who love their SS checks and medicare.  Something that RP wants to do away with.

[Soul Crusher]