PPP (D) Iowa 2012 GOP Caucus Poll
- Ron Paul 20% (24%) {23%} [21%] (18%) {10%} [16%] (11%) {16%}
- Mitt Romney 19% (20%) {20%} [16%] (16%) {22%} [19%] (26%) {28%}
- Rick Santorum 18% (10%) {10%} [8%] (6%) {5%} [5%]
- Newt Gingrich 14% (13%) {14%} [22%] (27%) {8%} [5%] (15%) {19%}
- Rick Perry 10% (10%) {10%} [9%] (9%) {9%} [22%]
- Michele Bachmann 8% (11%) {10%} [11%] (13%) {8%} [18%] (14%) {15%}
- Jon Huntsman 4% (4%) {4%} [5%] (4%) {1%} [3%] (1%)
- Buddy Roemer 2% (2%)
- Someone else/Not sure 4% (5%) {7%} [7%] (7%) {5%} [5%] (8%) {12%}
Among Republicans
- Mitt Romney 21% (22%) {22%} [15%] (16%)
- Rick Santorum 19% (11%) {10%} [8%] (7%)
- Newt Gingrich 17% (13%) {17%} [25%] (29%)
- Ron Paul 17% (20%) {19%} [17%] (15%)
- Rick Perry 11% (12%) {11%} [10%] (10%)
- Michele Bachmann 8% (10%) {10%} [12%] (13%)
- Jon Huntsman 2% (4%) {2%} [3%] (3%)
- Buddy Roemer 1% (1%)
- Someone else/Not sure 4% (7%) {7%} [8%] (6%)
Among Independents
- Ron Paul 33% (46%) {34%} [35%] (34%)
- Rick Santorum 14% (9%) {9%} [6%] (1%)
- Mitt Romney 14% (11%) {13%} [15%] (11%)
- Jon Huntsman 10% (5%) {11%} [13%] (7%)
- Newt Gingrich 7% (8%) {6%} [12%] (21%)
- Rick Perry 6% (4%) {7%} [6%] (7%)
- Buddy Roemer 5% (3%)
- Michele Bachmann 5% (13%) {10%} [8%] (7%)
- Someone else/Not sure 6% (2%) {6%} [3%] (9%)
Regularly Watch Fox News
- Mitt Romney 24% (27%)
- Newt Gingrich 21% (16%)
- Rick Santorum 18% (11%)
- Ron Paul 11% (12%)
- Rick Perry 10% (10%)
- Michele Bachmann 9% (15%)
- Jon Huntsman 2% (2%)
- Buddy Roemer 1% (2%)
- Someone else/Not sure 4% (6%)
Do NOT Regularly Watch Fox News
- Ron Paul 30% (38%)
- Rick Santorum 18% (10%)
- Mitt Romney 15% (13%)
- Rick Perry 9% (9%)
- Newt Gingrich 8% (9%)
- Michele Bachmann 7% (7%)
- Jon Huntsman 6% (6%)
- Buddy Roemer 3% (2%)
- Someone else/Not sure 4% (5%)
Evangelicals
- Rick Santorum 24% (15%)
- Newt Gingrich 16% (14%)
- Mitt Romney 15% (16%)
- Ron Paul 15% (21%)
- Rick Perry 12% (12%)
- Michele Bachmann 11% (15%)
- Buddy Roemer 2% (0%)
- Jon Huntsman 1% (1%)
- Someone else/Not sure 4% (6%)
Non-Evangelicals
- Ron Paul 25% (27%)
- Mitt Romney 24% (24%)
- Newt Gingrich 13% (11%)
- Rick Santorum 12% (7%)
- Rick Perry 8% (8%)
- Jon Huntsman 7% (7%)
- Michele Bachmann 5% (8%)
- Buddy Roemer 3% (4%)
- Someone else/Not sure 4% (5%)
Would you say you are strongly committed to that candidate, or might you end up supporting someone else?
- Strongly committed to that candidate 76% (72%) {63%} [60%] (55%)
- Might end up supporting someone else 24% (28%) {37%} [40%] (45%)
Among Those Strongly Committed to That Candidate
- Ron Paul 24% (28%) {29%} [29%] (22%)
- Mitt Romney 21% (21%) {23%} [18%] (20%)
- Rick Santorum 18% (10%) {9%} [5%] (5%)
- Newt Gingrich 14% (12%) {14%} [21%] (25%)
- Rick Perry 9% (9%) {9%} [9%] (7%)
- Michele Bachmann 8% (14%) {9%} [11%] (15%)
- Jon Huntsman 4% (5%) {4%} [4%] (5%)
- Buddy Roemer 2% (1%)
Among Those Who Might End Up Supporting Someone Else
- Rick Santorum 20% (14%) {12%} [13%] (7%)
- Newt Gingrich 19% (17%) {18%} [28%] (32%)
- Mitt Romney 18% (22%) {19%} [14%] (13%)
- Rick Perry 14% (13%) {14%} [12%] (14%)
- Ron Paul 13% (21%) {18%} [13%] (16%)
- Michele Bachmann 8% (7%) {13%} [13%] (14%)
- Jon Huntsman 5% (3%) {4%} [6%] (4%)
- Buddy Roemer 2% (4%)
Second Choice
- Rick Perry 15% (11%) {14%} [10%] (11%) {12%}
- Rick Santorum 14% (14%) {9%} [8%] (9%) {5%}
- Michele Bachmann 13% (12%) {15%} [11%] (10%) {11%}
- Newt Gingrich 11% (12%) {13%} [14%] (17%) {17%}
- Mitt Romney 11% (10%) {12%} [13%] (13%) {11%}
- Ron Paul 8% (9%) {9%} [12%] (10%) {9%}
- Jon Huntsman 5% (7%) {7%} [7%] (5%) {3%}
- Buddy Roemer 2% (1%)
- Someone else/Not sure 22% (25%) {18%} [25%] (22%) {15%}
Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}
- Rick Santorum 60% (56%) {52%} [49%] (51%) {46%} [44%] (29%) {27%} [28%] / 30% (29%) {32%} [33%] (28%) {17%} [22%] (18%) {11%} [9%] {+30%}
- Michele Bachmann 52% (53%) {52%} [55%] (56%) {44%} [47%] (53%) {49%} / 37% (37%) {34%} [37%] (35%) {38%} [35%] (16%) {13%} {+15%}
- Rick Perry 52% (48%) {48%} [43%] (44%) {38%} [56%] (21%) / 39% (40%) {40%} [47%] (46%) {41%} [24%] (16%) {+13%}
- Mitt Romney 48% (44%) {49%} [48%] (49%) {51%} [45%] (51%) {55%} [57%] / 44% (47%) {40%} [44%] (45%) {36%} [38%] (34%) {25%} [26%] {+4%}
- Ron Paul 43% (53%) {54%} [61%] (52%) {37%} [53%] (42%) {55%} [47%] / 51% (40%) {38%} [31%] (38%) {46%} [29%] (29%) {17%} [23%] {-8%}
- Newt Gingrich 40% (37%) {46%} [52%] (62%) {56%} [42%] (39%) {47%} [53%] / 54% (54%) {47%} [40%] (31%) {32%} [44%] (41%) {26%} [27%] {-14%}
- Jon Huntsman 27% (31%) {32%} [28%] (30%) {18%} [13%] (7%) {5%} / 53% (43%) {38%} [43%] (45%) {28%} [40%] (23%) {8%} {-26%}
Which of the Republican candidates do you think has the best chance of defeating Barack Obama?
- Mitt Romney 27% (25%) {25%} [21%] (23%)
- Newt Gingrich 14% (13%) {17%} [30%] (33%)
- Ron Paul 14% (14%) {16%} [14%] (9%)
- Rick Santorum 9% (5%) {3%} [3%] (2%)
- Michele Bachmann 5% (8%) {7%} [5%] (7%)
- Rick Perry 5% (8%) {6%} [7%] (7%)
- Jon Huntsman 2% (4%) {3%} [2%] (3%)
- Buddy Roemer 1% (1%)
- Someone else/Not sure 22% (23%) {20%} [16%] (14%)
Who do you think is going to win the Iowa caucuses?
- Mitt Romney 24% (15%) {19%}
- Ron Paul 20% (29%) {20%}
- Rick Santorum 9% (5%) {2%}
- Newt Gingrich 8% (8%) {20%}
- Michele Bachmann 4% (7%) {6%}
- Rick Perry 4% (4%) {3%}
- Jon Huntsman 1% (1%) {2%}
- Buddy Roemer 1% (1%)
- Someone else/Not sure 28% (30%) {27%}
Who do you think has run the strongest campaign in Iowa?
- Ron Paul 22% (26%) {22%}
- Rick Santorum 13% (10%) {8%}
- Michele Bachmann 13% (18%) {19%}
- Mitt Romney 8% (5%) {5%}
- Rick Perry 7% (7%) {7%}
- Newt Gingrich 5% (5%) {8%}
- Jon Huntsman 1% (1%) {1%}
- Buddy Roemer 1% (1%)
- Someone else/Not sure 29% (28%) {28%}
Do you think that Rick Santorum has strong principles, or not?
- He does 59%
- He does not 16%
Do you think that Ron Paul has strong principles, or not?
- He does 60% (68%) {73%}
- He does not 19% (14%) {10%}
Do you think that Mitt Romney has strong principles, or not?
- He does 41% (42%) {50%}
- He does not 37% (37%) {31%}
Do you consider yourself to be a member of the Tea Party?
- Yes 25% (26%) {26%} [27%] (32%) {29%} [33%] (31%) {28%}
- No 65% (64%) {61%} [61%] (58%) {52%} [51%] (48%) {48%}
What is more important to you when deciding who to vote for: a candidate’s ability to beat Barack Obama in the general election, or their positions on the issues?
- A candidate’s ability to beat Obama 31% (30%) {32%} [32%] (34%)
- Their issue positions 54% (58%) {56%} [56%] (57%)
Are you an Evangelical Christian, or not?
- Are 49% (47%)
- Are not 51% ( 53%)
Do you regularly watch Fox News, or not?
- Do 51% (52%)
- Do not 49% (48%)
When did you decide who to vote for: in the last week, the last month, or earlier?
- In the last week 29%
- In the last month 29%
- Earlier 34%
Decided in the Last Week
- Rick Santorum 29%
- Mitt Romney 17%
- Newt Gingrich 13%
- Ron Paul 13%
- Rick Perry 10%
- Michele Bachmann 8%
- Jon Huntsman 4%
- Buddy Roemer 3%
Decided in the Last Month
- Rick Santorum 20%
- Mitt Romney 19%
- Ron Paul 19%
- Newt Gingrich 15%
- Rick Perry 14%
- Michele Bachmann 7%
- Jon Huntsman 3%
- Buddy Roemer 2%
Decided Earlier
- Ron Paul 28%
- Mitt Romney 24%
- Newt Gingrich 14%
- Michele Bachmann 9%
- Rick Santorum 8%
- Rick Perry 8%
- Jon Huntsman 5%
- Buddy Roemer 2%
Survey of 1,340 likely Iowa Republican caucus voters was conducted December 31, 2011 – January 1, 2012. The margin of error is +/- 2.7 percentage points. Party ID: 76% (76%) {75%} [78%] (80%) Republican; 18% (16%) {19%} [17%] (14%) Independent/Other; 6% (8%) {5%} [4%] (6%) Democrat. Political ideology: 38% (37%) {36%} [42%] (40%) {36%} [38%] (41%) {44%} Very conservative; 33% (33%) {36%} [35%] (37%) {36%} [34%] (37%) {33%} Somewhat conservative; 18% (21%) {19%} [17%] (15%) {21%} [21%] (14%) {17%} Moderate; 6% (4%) {3%} [4%] (3%) {3%} [3%] (2%) {2%} Very liberal; 5% (5%) {6%} [3%] (5%) {4%} [3%] (6%) {4%} Somewhat liberal. Results from the poll conducted December 26-27, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted December 16-18, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 11-13, 2011 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 3-5, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted October 7-10, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 19-21, 2011 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted May 27-30, 2011 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted April 15-17, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted January 7-9, 2011 are in square brackets.
–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:53 am
looks like its anyone’s race.
although i still think they are overstating the INdie and DEm vote at 24% in this poll. The bulk of which goes to Paul.
Confirms Santorum is getting some steam. Paul is coming back to the crowd. Romney steady.
Think that organization is going to carry the day.
January 2nd, 2012 at 1:10 am
AND DOWN THE STRETCH THEY COME!!!!!!!!!
January 2nd, 2012 at 1:20 am
Over at Politico the article “Conservative movement base fears another 2008″ kind of makes sense of what’s going on.
January 2nd, 2012 at 1:24 am
19% of respondents think Ron Paul doesn’t have strong principles? … Really?
One can disagree with Paul, but the man has ceaselessly and consistently pounded the same drum for 30 years — even when he knows he’ll stand alone or take a beating for it.
19% would say Mount Everest was a canyon.
January 2nd, 2012 at 2:16 am
No matter how you slice it, if Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are Romney chief rivals, Romney is in really good shape. Based on these numbers, we may not see anyone drop out. I am going to predict that Santorum, Newt, Perry, and possible Bachmann (if she doesn’t drop out), will all race to South Carolina and skip New Hampshire.
January 2nd, 2012 at 2:32 am
Santorum has pledged to head straight to NH on Wednesday.
January 2nd, 2012 at 3:18 am
There must have been a lot of behind the scenes help going on for Santorum, but he still has to keep people motivated and committed to get out and caucus Tuesday night…
January 2nd, 2012 at 4:37 am
I am sticking with my prediction:
1. Santy
2. Paul
3. Romney
All in the low-twenties, the rest of the field in the in the low-teens. This stays muddled up until Florida.
January 2nd, 2012 at 5:00 am
Two questions I’m wondering about now: what’s the weather going to be like on Tuesday? And did Huckabee’s surprise win in Iowa in 2008 give him any kind of a boost in New Hampshire?
January 2nd, 2012 at 5:11 am
I think Iowa is bordering on irrelevant at this point. One of their top pics probably hasn’t fielded a full slate of delegates in most states. Another isn’t really a republican and will do little better than most third party candidates. The only serious candidate is in their top 3, so maybe they will decide to stay relevant. 4 years ago McCain skipped Iowa, got 4th and won the nomination. Another low finish in Iowa for our nominee will just show Iowa is irrelevant.
January 2nd, 2012 at 5:33 am
@8
Your prediction makes no sense. If Paul/Santorum/Romney were all in the 20′s, you could only have two candidates in the “low teens” because “None of the Above” will also be in the teens.
@9
Partly cloudy, with the predicted temp being 35F
I don’t think I’ve ever been to a place that dropped below 50 in the day. (I’m from Los Angeles)
As for Huckabee and New Hampshire – He only got 11% due to McCain/Romney being in the 30′s.
New Hampshire residents are not friends of Neocons/Fundamentalists, so neither Huckabee or Santorum can do well there.
@10
Is the “another isn’t really a Republican and will do little better than most third party candidates” supposed to be Romney or Paul? Since it could apply to either, depending on one’s allegiance. (Pre-Reagan Conservatism would consider Romney to not be a Republican at all, whereas Post-Reagan Conservatism would gladly accept a Liberal Democrat like Romney into the fold)
January 2nd, 2012 at 5:39 am
6: I think that is a bad decision…….he needs to go to SC, forget NH
With the PPP poll out here is my final Iowa prediction:
Romney 24%
Santorum 22%
Paul 19%
Gingrich 10% (it’s over for him, everybody knows it, and the raw results will bear out people fleeing him to vote for someone they perceive can win)
Perry 9% (Ditto Gingrich)
Bachmann 6% (and the sole person to exit the race after IA in my opinion)
Huntsman and Roemer tie at a number too insignificant to post
January 2nd, 2012 at 6:01 am
@12
I mean no disrespect, but your prediction completely leaves out the Independent/Dem advantage for Ron Paul. There is simply no way Paul will come in third with that kind of support.
January 2nd, 2012 at 6:19 am
Bigotry in the making!! Gotta love Iowa.
January 2nd, 2012 at 6:23 am
13,
I understand what you are saying, and it is very possible that it pushes Paul over the top. There are so many variables, especially when the race is this close. I’m basing my numbers on the biggest decider in politics, momentum. I could see any of the top three winning, though I think there will at least a little disparity between there final numbers.
January 2nd, 2012 at 6:32 am
Santorum will have to thank the media for giving him the flash of the pan at just the right moment. It is interesting that thoose who regularly watched Fox news favor Romney despite how much Fox puts Romney down.
All this makesfor a great Horse race. I’ll agree that the Iowa Ames Straw poll is officiallly irrelevant. Sure, participate in it, but never base your decision to drop out that early.
How much did Santorum poll in the Ames Straw Poll?
January 2nd, 2012 at 6:40 am
16,
I honestly think Fox just wants a race, this is a huge year for them ratings wise and there is a lot of money to be made off of close horse races. If somebody else was perceived as the inevitable nominee, they would be the person under the gun. Anywhere money is involved, like you know, in pretty much everything, you can expect some manipulation. But once the nomination process settles itself out then the GOP nominee will have to more worry himself with the Obama propoganda machine, code name: MSM, then he will Fox News.
January 2nd, 2012 at 6:56 am
35F shouldn’t keep anyone home that was planning to come out. So I’m expecting a close finish between Paul and Romney, with Santorum not far behind. And then on to NH, where Romney will cream everyone else, and get more votes then the next two candidates combined.
January 2nd, 2012 at 7:20 am
Santorum is a great benefit to Romney in Iowa. But, after Iowa, he has zero organization anywhere and no money. He isn’t even going to N.H and he has enough in the bank to float a commercial in the Sebring, Florida market. Most importantly, there is an immense amount of congressional baggage for Santorum to explain……if he ever was viable enough to draw attention to.
The Iowa results will be about organization……fought out by Romney and Paul. Paul will win if he gets enough non Republicans to vote in the Caucus…….but that doesn’t work anywhere else
January 2nd, 2012 at 7:26 am
InsiderAdvantage poll, all polling done yesterday, seems to make more sense than previous InsiderAdvantage polls.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2012/InsiderAdvantage_Iowa_0102.pdf
Romney 22.7%
Paul 22.4%
Santorum 18%
Interesting that Gingrich is doing as well with Democrats as Republicans, but does over 8 points worse among independents, smells like Demorat party poopers.
January 2nd, 2012 at 7:39 am
Here is an interesting article concerning the Evangelical vote and Romney http://www.article6blog.com/2012/01/02/to-my-fellow-iowa-christians-a-case-for-romney/
January 2nd, 2012 at 7:40 am
“It is interesting that those who regularly watched Fox news favor Romney despite how much Fox puts Romney down.” Or Fox does not put down Mr. Romney nearly as much as your imagination suggests.
January 2nd, 2012 at 7:40 am
Among Those Who Might End Up Supporting Someone Else
Rick Santorum 20% (14%) {12%} [13%] (7%)
Newt Gingrich 19% (17%) {18%} [28%] (32%)
Mitt Romney 18% (22%) {19%} [14%] (13%)
Rick Perry 14% (13%) {14%} [12%] (14%)
Ron Paul 13% (21%) {18%} [13%] (16%)
Michele Bachmann 8% (7%) {13%} [13%] (14%)
Jon Huntsman 5% (3%) {4%} [6%] (4%)
Buddy Roemer 2% (4%)
Looks like Santorum’s supporters do not know him that well. Today is really the last full day of ads. Look to see if negative ads about Santorum get on the air today and cause his supporters to break away. Also, notice that Gingrich’s supporters have softened up somewhat, while Romney’s supporters have hardened recently. Paul’s supporters are hardening as well. Bachmann supporters are clinging for dear life, which has GOT to be great news for Romney and Paul. Everyone knows her supporters have been going to Santorum, and it looks like that is largely over.
January 2nd, 2012 at 7:42 am
22
No. I think it’s more that mainstream Republicans watch Fox, and they also tend to support more mainstream candidates like Romney.
But don’t act like if Fox conducted itself more professionally this year, that Romney’s lead in this area wouldn’t be larger.
January 2nd, 2012 at 7:44 am
What an embarrassment for Santy. He knows its not his “grass roots” efforts that have him surging. He has the evangelikkkal preachers spewing their bigotry to thank. I love it when the media says Iowa voters are “skeptical” of Romneys Mormon faith. Why don’t they just say evangelikkkals are bigots and they won’t vote for the Mormon? Once Santy wins and then goes nowhere, everyone will wake up to the fact that Iowa doesn’t matter.
January 2nd, 2012 at 7:49 am
Looks like Santorum could pull off the win. Which would largely tend to discredit Iowa once Santorum goes nowhere, but still plenty entertaining.
January 2nd, 2012 at 7:57 am
But, Mr. Romney is not exactly a Mainstream candidate within GOP circles.
January 2nd, 2012 at 7:59 am
Christian conservatives are seeing that RON PAUL is the only choice. Nothing about these other candidates are Christian conservative and in fact, these guys say they are for winning the population that buys into the media that portrays them as something they are not. Funny how they put in your head “Ron Paul can’t win”. Mitt Romney and newt or sanatorum or anyone else for that matter is in the lead beside the real poll leader (Ron Paul). Wonder why they are so bent on not giving him the credit that the whole country sees that he has earned?!?
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:00 am
27
Then explain his 60% favorables and 25% unfavorables.
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:01 am
Of the media were for the best interest of the people, they would not be biased against and bent on ruining a guy trying to give us back freedom that has been taken from us. Better figure it put and spread the word before its too late!
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:05 am
27
I think Mitt Romeny has gotten an endorsement or two from some Mainstream Republicans.
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:12 am
27.
>>But, Mr. Romney is not exactly a Mainstream candidate within GOP circles.
Actually, he is which is why he consistently pulls in the most Republican votes.
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:18 am
Wow. Steve Deace is so full of himself. He was just on CNN saying how he is the reason Romney lost in 2008. What a loser.
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:20 am
30 My hat is off to Ron Paul and his loyal supporters. If he wins the nomination I would vote for him over Obama. At least he made it on the Virginia ballot. If you can’t make it on the ballot in Virginia you have no business running for POTUS.
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:22 am
Willard,
Take your hate somewhere else.
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:24 am
Alvin,
“I honestly think Fox just wants a race, this is a huge year for them ratings wise and there is a lot of money to be made off of close horse races.”
This is true. Propping up candidates who are behind doesn’t require malice against the frontrunner. It’s just good business for those in the business of selling news.
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:27 am
35 My hate of Bigotry isn’t going anywhere.
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:29 am
There is something seriously wrong if the media only wants a close race for money reasons instead of wanting the best rep. Of the people as it is or dare I say was intended to be
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:33 am
Willard,
You don’t hate bigotry. You hate evangelicals. That’s why you call them “evangelikkkals.” That’s why you treat them all the same, and disparage the entire group.
What if someone characterized your religion or race by its worst elements.
No, you don’t hate bigotry. You love it. You’re rolling in it. Bathing in it- immersed in the acid of your own self-righteousness. Bitter. Spiteful. Hateful.
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:34 am
I’m almost totally lost on Iowa here. Seriously. What an odd, odd race. It’s worth noting that Insider Advantage, along with PPP, has consistently shown better numbers for not-Romney’s than other polls in the field at the same time. The last Insider Advantage poll had a 3 way tie between Romney, Paul, and Gingrich. No other poll around the same time had Gingrich within 8 of the lead and only PPP had Paul doing so well. So that Insider Advantage is probably MILDLY good news for Romney. But it’s so, so, close.
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:35 am
Tommy,
“There is something seriously wrong if the media only wants a close race for money reasons instead of wanting the best rep”
Hey, that’s capitalism.
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:36 am
MEM,
Do you think Mitt will match his ’08 turnout?
Is the relative lack of fundraising a reflection of interest and enthusiasm?
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:36 am
# Matt “MWS” Says:
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:22 am
Willard,
Take your hate somewhere else.
===============================================
I have to disagree with you, you have shown a lot more hate around here than he does, at least in these posts. Face it, it is reality. Many are voting against Romney because of his faith, not all, but many. Certainly, if Romney was Evangelical, Steve Deace and the lot would be behind him 100 like they did for Huckabee.
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:36 am
Romney live. Thune just introduced him.
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/tab/live#/video/cvplive/cvpstream1
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:37 am
Mitt LIVE in Iowa, VERY energetic today
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/tab/live#/video/cvplive/cvpstream1
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:37 am
Thunder,
Whatever.
Show me where I’ve tarred and disparaged an entire church or religion.
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:39 am
Moderators,
Can we start banning trolls who only want to bash other religions?
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:39 am
42
Mitt’s campaign said they will have exceeded their 3rd quarter fundraising ($13 million) easily for Q4.
The lack of fundraising is on the part of the other candidates. Plus, the economy sucks.
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:41 am
MWS,
If I had to guess, I’d say Mitt finishes with either 22 or 23%. He finished with 25% last time. So whether he matches the absolute number- 30k- will depend on overall turnout. I suspect he’ll hit 30k and maybe surpass it because, despite the relatively quiet primary season, the Republican caucus is the lone draw this year and Paul’s bringing in new voters, overall turnout probably will be up.
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:43 am
“Then explain his 60% favorables and 25% unfavorables.” His numbers are no better than Dr. Paul in Iowa. In any event Dr. Paul is an extreme Monetarist and Mr. Romney is an anti-Monetarist. Neither position is mainstream.
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:46 am
Matthew E. Miller Says:
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:41 am
MWS,
If I had to guess, I’d say Mitt finishes with either 22 or 23%. He finished with 25% last time. So whether he matches the absolute number- 30k- will depend on overall turnout. I suspect he’ll hit 30k and maybe surpass it because, despite the relatively quiet primary season, the Republican caucus is the lone draw this year and Paul’s bringing in new voters, overall turnout probably will be up
==========================================================
I have to disagree with you, in 2008, Huckabee brought in a lot of voters who are likely to sit home this year. I doubt we will see the same level of voters as in 2008. I expect that Romney will surpass the 30K but not by much, but will represent a higher number.
The question about Santorum, can he turn poll numbers into voters. I have heard of little in the way of organization for him. My prediction for Iowa.
1. Romney by 5%
2. Rick Perry (organization)
3. Ron Paul
4. Santorum (disappointment, he drops out.)
5. Newt
6. Bachman.
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:46 am
50
You are using Iowa as a reflection of what is mainstream or not?
Isn’t using the entire nation to make that determination a lot more logical?
You are making no sense to anyone but yourself on this one, brother.
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:48 am
51 LOL!
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:48 am
Im skeptical of this poll because of the partisan breakdown; there aren’t going to be 20% of Iowa Caucus goers as Democrats. Including all these Dems and indies are inflating Ron Paul’s numbers. If I were a betting man, I’d say that Ron Paul gets a solid 3rd place, but he only gets 20% or less.
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:51 am
4–Paul’s principles…I have always found myself admiring Ron Paul’s ideas and positions on many issues, and he is generally principled. However, IF he runs as a third party candidate after losing the party’s nomination, I will advocate that he be run out of the country.
What kind of principles does a person have, if, they pledge Libertarian principles for 20 years, and after failing to make inroads with the electorate, “convert” to Republicanism, only for the sake of winning elections, and then, in 2012, after failing again to convince people of your capacities, you take your Libertarian toys and vacate the sandbox(run as a 3rd party), handing control of the sandbox back to the liberals?
If Paul runs third party, I’ll work tirelessly to expose this hypocrisy, and to assure that his son and his supporters are discredited fully. It’s the height of political hypocrisy.
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:51 am
# OHIO JOE Says:
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:43 am
“Then explain his 60% favorables and 25% unfavorables.” His numbers are no better than Dr. Paul in Iowa. In any event Dr. Paul is an extreme Monetarist and Mr. Romney is an anti-Monetarist. Neither position is mainstream.
=======================================================================
And exactly how is Romney an anti-Monetarist. Monetarism, or rather one who believe the money supply effects inflation, is simple a fact, there is no going around it. Most republicans, including Romney do not believe just printing money. Now, is Paul an extremist on the subject, sure, but Romney is well in the mainstream and believes that printing money does cause inflation, it is simple a fact.
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:51 am
51. Ron Pauls organization is by far the best. Perrys best case will be 3rd.
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:55 am
# Micah Says:
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:51 am
51. Ron Pauls organization is by far the best. Perrys best case will be 3rd.
==================================
I just don’t think it will materialize enough to make that big a difference. Ron Paul reminds me too much of Howard Dean and his organization that fell flat when the votes were counted.
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:59 am
39
Now, You get it!!!!!!!!!!!
January 2nd, 2012 at 9:03 am
56- main difference is that Paul would like to repeg the dollar to gold.
not Romney.
Nixon detached the dollar because Vietnam and trade deficit were overburdening the treasury. They had to print more money, or cut spending, or both. And too many people were converting their cash into $35 dollar per ounce gold. Government was bleeding gold. Tighter monetary supply was needed.
instead, Nixon let the dollar float.
January 2nd, 2012 at 9:03 am
Willard,
Okay. Congratulations. You taught me that you’re a bitter, hateful, bigot.
Now, take it somewhere else.
January 2nd, 2012 at 9:13 am
And it’s not only insulting to evangelicals to associate them with the Klan, it’s insulting to everyone who was ever truly a victim of the real Klan. Comparing a few evangelicals refusing to vote for Mitt to blacks getting lynched, raped, and terrorized really trivializes the true evil done by the Klan.
January 2nd, 2012 at 9:17 am
What if… Huck endorsed Romney today. I’d say it would be worth 5th pts.
Not going to happen but it would be big.
January 2nd, 2012 at 9:21 am
61 You’re ok Matt. Glad to see you understand that bigotry has no place in our society. It’s just frustrating to me that some only see it when its against them. I apologize for the “evengelikkkals” thing. But I hope you get my point now. You were angry and so was I.
January 2nd, 2012 at 9:29 am
Willard,
It wasn’t against me. I’m Catholic. I’ve also jumped people who said hateful things about blacks, hispanics, and Mormons on this site.
I appreciate the apology.
January 2nd, 2012 at 9:31 am
Santorum starts his final full day in Western Iowa, Romney starts it in Eastern Iowa. However they both end up in the middle of Iowa in places like…Clive, Marion & Altoona.
So they both start where there base of support is but finish in swing counties.
hhuuuummmm…
Gingrich is spending most of his final full day in Davenport, IA (Mitt Country)
January 2nd, 2012 at 9:33 am
Smack,
I bet Gingrich slept in today.
January 2nd, 2012 at 9:36 am
Folks, Romney has many, many loyal Evangelical supporters AND polls well with them as well.
Yes, there are some that are anti-Mormon, but in respect to those fighting in the trenches with us to get Mitt elected, let’s completely stop painting all evangelicals as anti-Mitt/anti-Mormon–OK?
Mitt also has a very large and strong group of Catholic supporters, which is about to increase by at least 1 when we get MWS on board
January 2nd, 2012 at 9:37 am
Matt “MWS”
As the unofficial-official RACE42012 Newt Gingrich Campaign Manager I resent your remark……
..no matter how true it is….
January 2nd, 2012 at 9:38 am
MWS, will Gingrich be walking any cute animals on the campaign trail today?
January 2nd, 2012 at 9:40 am
Huntsman with 4% may be the reason Romney loses Iowa. If he had the 4% he would be in a mmich better position to win in Iowa.
January 2nd, 2012 at 9:42 am
#66:
Since Romney is expected to dominate the Eastern part of the state, I suspect he’s trying to gin up turnout in his stronghold. With the race being so close, winning your favored area by 10 points instead of 5 points might make all the difference. As for the central Iowa swing, Romney’s probably hoping to get a decent enough position to balance whatever wins Santorum is going to get in central and western Iowa.
Newt? Well I can’t even pretend to guess at Newt’s strategy.
January 2nd, 2012 at 9:42 am
I woke up to this poll this morning.
Wow…Iowa is corn-ier than ever.
January 2nd, 2012 at 9:43 am
#67 MWS
Truly funny.
January 2nd, 2012 at 9:45 am
Hudson,
Likewise, Bachmann at 9% could cost Rum the state. I mean, really, all the candidates (except maybe Paul) could “what if so-and-so didn’t run”.
In truth, Mitt probably has the least competition for his spot in Iowa, other than Paul. If I were a candidate, I’d rather occupy the same space as the absent 4% Huntsman, than I would the very active Bachmann and Perry.
January 2nd, 2012 at 9:49 am
Jonathan,
Newt’s strategy is to find a time machine to transport us all back to early Decemeber. He’s hot on the trail, and his latest clues tell him it may be buried under the 2nd Presbyterian church in Davenport.
Romney is dispatching surrogates as we speak, to ensure he doesn’t find it.
January 2nd, 2012 at 9:49 am
Hudson, there’s probably little chance that 4% is going to go out into the cold to caucus for Huntsman….I think he’ll be lucky to register 1%…
Sorry MWS, not insult intended…
January 2nd, 2012 at 9:53 am
#75:
Governor Branstad was ferocious on Fox News Sunday when Chris Wallace mentioned Huntsman’s skipping of his state. The irony is that by skipping Iowa, Huntsman has probably helped the candidate Branstad supports, Romney, more than anything.
January 2nd, 2012 at 9:53 am
Matt “MWS”
I think Newt occupy’s some of Mitt’s space as well. Newt has always polled better with Moderates than the other ABR candidates. I think that is why we see Newt in Davenport today. Newt will also do better with the more well off Iowa voters than Santorum….and Santorum will do better with the middle class.
Mitt is looking for Bachmann not to go below 8% to help splinter the Soc/Con vote…..and Mitt does not want Newt to have a rebirth with the +65voters.
Yep..I think Newt’s final numbers are almost as important to Mitt as Bachmann’s.
IMO.
January 2nd, 2012 at 9:53 am
I can’t believe I wasted so much of my life in school and working when I could have become a “pundit”.
If I hear one more talking head say “It all depends on turnout” I am going to start throwing large objects. It all depends on turnout is the political equivalent of saying which team will win depends on which team scores more points.
And these bozos get paid to say this stuff.
January 2nd, 2012 at 9:54 am
It all depends on how many non-Republicans decide to vote in the Iowa caucus for those Ron Paul numbers to hold.
I wouldn’t surprised in the least to see these voters flake out in large numbers, especially when they find out they have to register themselves as Republicans first in order to vote. Do the rest of Iowan GOP voters understand that a Ron paul win means no more Caucus? You’re talking about billions of dollars leaving the state, all for a candidate that has zero chance of winning the nomination. I could see many Iowans supporting Romney at the end so as not to embarrass themselves.
I don’t know how Perry stays in this with a 5th place finish, my understanding is he’s spent more from his individual campaign than any other candidate in Iowa, and has also taken some extreme positions to pander (like outlawing abortion even in cases of rape).
January 2nd, 2012 at 9:56 am
The Iowa polling numbers can be summarized as this: Mitt Romney will be the nominee. If Romney wins Iowa, the race is effectively over. If he loses to Paul or Santorum, Romney will still be the nominee, although the race may not be fully concluded until Super Tuesday.
Looking ahead, it is imperative for Romney to pick a conservative as his running mate. If he doesn’t, there is the real danger of someone like Gary Johnson being the Nader-like spoiler in this election.
January 2nd, 2012 at 9:58 am
My Bold Prediction:
Santisize 23.2
Mittster 22.6
‘doc’ Paul 21.2
oops Perry 14
Newt 13
bachman 5
Mitt lite 1
Bachman will bail and support Mitt,
Newt will say he got what he thought he would get all along and it shows a real movement towards his campaign.
Perry will say he cant wait to get to SC for some barbeque.
Doc will say that clearly his message is the only realistic one to save america and that santified voters are confused.
Mitt will humbly thank the iowa people for their support and toss a few special memories he has of the place out there.
Santorum will say that he is the clear winner(+.6), the game has changed, his 99 county retail politics have proven him to be the clear favorite for the nomination.
He will say he expects a 1 or 2 finish in New Hampshire and a solid victory in South Carolina. He will be full of himself and Fox will eat it all up.
Rush will become santisized and join his cause.
Within 4 days santorum will rise up and start to collapse at the first taste of national vetting.
Mitt wins NH, SC, and Florida,and the story is done.
January 2nd, 2012 at 9:58 am
If you look at these latest Iowa polls you will Santorum actually rising the best among 45-64 age group, but not so much with the +65. Mitt is now doing quite nicly with the +65 voters with Newt going down. The new Insider Advantage poll that came out this morning shows the same thing….Mitt is now very strong with +65…a very good sign for him.
Santorum rising in the 45-64 age group probably has just as much to do with his economic messaging……..Manufacturing…..than any social/Con messaging.
IMO.
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:02 am
http://yfrog.com/oe6ahoj
Polk City this morning for Santorum. Packed house according to the press that is covering RUM.
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:03 am
SMACK…….I’ve noticed that Gingrich is completely ignoring you lately.
Seems like he’s going into meltdown mode in his angst against Romney–his mouth is becoming his worse enemy and he reeks of “bitter” and “whiny” lately.
I guess the positive, happy-go-lucky Newt was only as sturdy as his post-Cain new-found “support.”
He really shouuld have listened to you…
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:03 am
Yesterday, a pollster said that the GOP registration is up over 30%. Most of them are young and enthusiastic about the caucuses and they are mainly Ron Paul supporters. Ron Paul’s supporters will show up and won’t change their minds. They also think the turnout will still be around 100,000 people.
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:04 am
I left out the GOP registration is up in Iowa
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:06 am
Jerald,
It’s the same thing with my Wife and Dog.
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:07 am
#89..SMACK
Ouch…
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:08 am
1. Mitt Romney
2. Rick Santorum
3. Ron Paul
4. Rick Perry
For what it is worth, that is my prediction.
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:08 am
SMACK…I haven’t seen any news about Pawlenty lately.
Is he in Iowa campaigning for Mitt or has he gone AWOL??
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:09 am
Smacks,
I suspect if Newt weren’t running, his supporters would disperse pretty much in proportion to the polls we see.
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:09 am
My BOLDER prediction:
Huntsman: 57.3%
Bachman: 22.2%
The rest single digits. Yep, you heard it first here!!!
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:11 am
And WERE is the endorsement of Mitt by Gov. Barnstad??
Come on Governor, it’s now or never!
(Preferably now
)
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:12 am
One thing I don’t hear about is projected tallies of delegates going into NH, then going into SC, and then going into FL. Given this year’s proportional allocation at first, I’d have thought that would receive a lot more discussion vs. 2008.
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:15 am
hamaca,
Actual number of delegates has also taken a back seat to (in order of media attention):
1. Who surprised
2. Who won
3. By how much
Nobody seems to pay much attention to delegates until Super Tuesday.
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:18 am
Posting all my replies in one message; hope that’s okay. Please someone set me straight if that’s considered inappropriate; thanks.
20 and 40. Why do you say that Insider Advantage polls don’t make sense? And I certainly haven’t seen any pro- or anti- bias toward any of the other candidates. Out of the 7 Insider Advantage surveys I’ve number-crunched since mid-October, not one has been out of line with other surveys taken at the same time, once I’ve derived the Probable Support Ranges (PSRs). In fact, one of them, the one taken on November 3rd, was the first to catch the Cain surge and the simultaneous Romney dip.
To save space, I’m not explaining PSR, since I’ve done so before, and I suspect most of you are now familiar with that approach.
47. I wouldn’t characterize those who insist on talking about religion as trolls. They are expressing passionate and deeply-felt beliefs. That said, I DO think that that discussion is definitely OFF-TOPIC. These are discussion threads about polls, not religious bigotry. Maybe those discussions should be transferred by the moderators to separate threads.
54. Well, if you’re skeptical of this poll, then you have to be skeptical of the Register and Insider Advantage polls as well, since they all AGREE, once one derives each candidate’s Cumulative PSR (CPSR). Here’s that derivation:
IOWA COMPOSITE 12/27-1/1 Final
Romney 20-21.7
Paul 19.4-21.7
Santorum 15.4-15.6
Gingrich 12.4-16
Perry 9.3-12.7
Bachmann 7.3-9
DK 5.3-6.7
Huntsman 1.3-4
Roemer 0-3.6
Cain 0-2.7
Karger 0-2.7
77. Huntsman at 1%? Hmmm; don’t bet on it. I expect he’ll do a little better than that. PPP is a huge poll, with a tiny margin of errror 2.7%, and they’re showing him at 4%. Accounting for that margin of error, that still means Huntsman will probably clear 1% by a few tenths.
8 and 12 and 51 and 83 (very funny!) and 91 and (even!) 94. I honestly don’t think it makes any sense to make predictions at this point. The race is simply moving too fast. I’m not going near a prediction until the last polls are released, either tonight or tomorrow. I always proceed on the assumption that polls are probably accurate, which is why I always wait until the last one.
97. And I think with good reason. After all, the delegate totals in IA and NH are really insignificant.
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:18 am
95. If Branstad endorses someone, when do you think would be the best day/time for maximum media/voter impact? Isn’t it the case that the caucausing begins tomorrow evening? If so, he could still endorse during the day tomorrow. On the one hand, that’d get widespread coverage and would be visible to those who access the internet regularly (like us sorry saps). On the other hand, an endorsement today would be in time to show up in the printed newspapers tomorrow morning.
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:18 am
#96:
One reason might be that since there are going to be more proportional contests, it’ll make calculating who-gets-how-many much more complicated. If I remember right from 2008, it took 2 days for California Democrats to determine how their delegates were going to be apportioned, and that was only with 2 candidates.
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:20 am
96.
I’ve tried to start this conversation a number of times but few takers. The new rules reward proportional delegates in all contests before March 1 which is one reason Romney is so confident.
He has a professional organization ( Hi Virginia ) that understands the rules and built an organization that can go the distance. Individual wins are nice but he has the resources to keep gathering delegates and refocus his efforts against whichever candidate rises up to meet him in any given state. Nobody else can.
If you notice, Romney keeps saying that he doesn’t know who is going to win any individual contest but he is confident of getting the necessary delegates to get the nomination. Eyes on the prize.
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:22 am
2/3 of Iowa GOP insiders polled over the weekend think Romney will win, and now think Santorum can win outright. On CNN front page
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:24 am
Thanks Matt “MWS” and Jonathan. Could be. I would have thought that in 24 hour news cycle, that’d be another twist to add in there, especially given Iowa looking like a 3-way tie potentially in terms of delegate allocation. Who wins will be a story as Matt says. But winners only benefit from actual delegate distribution. Sure, they may get the momentum bounce. But it’s so different this time around.
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:27 am
This is a very interesting article from the Des Moines Register with actual numbers.
http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/12/31/varying-scenarios-varying-results/
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:29 am
#103:
Iowa has a really bizarre and lengthy delegate apportionment process which also might be a reason for the lack of coverage. Technically, no one gets any delegates tomorrow night. Iowa Republicans are electing delegates to their county and state convention which will convene in the summer after we have a nominee (hopefully) and they will decide the state’s delegation to Tampa.
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:31 am
Greg,
Interesting CNN article. I also thought this was interesting, coming from the insiders:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/02/politics/iowa-insiders-survey-main/index.html
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:32 am
105. True. In fact, if their candidate drops out, they can then get together and strategize about whom to support then. That lack of clarity has to be a big reason.
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:32 am
I have read several threads of how bigoted and hateful evangelicals are. IF there has been anyone posting the implied bigotry or hatred toward Mormons – I’ve missed it. I agree with Matt “MWS”. The evangelical bashing needs to stop or we might lose many non-Mormons that are currently frequenting this site. I can’t even stand reading all of the comments anymore. I’m out of here for now at least. Maybe I’ll be back IF the religious bashing stops.
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:34 am
hamaca,
I think IA and NH are always about momentum, not delegates. I bet in ’08, there weren’t 12 delegates separating first from second headed into SC.
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:34 am
Conservative Independent,
The article is great and it’s written by the great pollster Ann Seltzer.
The DMR & PPP poll both show an elevated INDIE envolvment in this Iowa race.
A traditional turnout and RUM wins this race….but it’s not going to be traditional.
Crazy final day.
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:37 am
One last thing before I leave. I’d like to thank the non-evangelicals (Thank you to a certain Catholic and a few sane Mormons) that have been trying to make those bashing us understand how much they are turning people off – not only to their religion but also to their candidate.
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:39 am
My Extra Bold Prediction: After a very close top three in Iowa (as in within 2 points or so of each other), Rum has the momentum heading in to NH. He takes some from Romney. Paul gets a small boost from his numbers in Iowa, as does Huntsman (because no one expected him to hit 5%). Rom, Ron, Rum, and Man, all hover around 20-25% and the media spins Ron’s NH victory as a loss.
They pump a Santorum vs. Huntsman race. Santorum wins SC due to a slipping Romney and a converging so-con base, and the Gingrich guys, Romney supporters, and a not-diehard Paul supporters pick Huntsman as their standard bearer and J-Hunt wins Florida easily. At this point, neither frontrunner has any money or organization so they are forced to drop out. The base is so disaffected and discouraged that no delegates show up for the convention and Obama wins by default.
Four more years of Obama put the country and the world on the brink of collapse because we are not able to deal with the looming alien invasion due to our fiscal instability. In the meantime, conservatives pray for a saviour in the vein of Zombie Reagan to come save us all, but the Avengers take care of the alien threat and the GOP nominates Tony Stark for President in 2016.
Stark is a boon to the economy because of his private sector experience, and his foreign policy basically involves blasting anyone who would mess with us, however his pick of Thor for VP causes controversy because of his questionable citizenship.
Sounds totally plausible to me.
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:39 am
In 2008,in Iowa, Huck got 17 delegates, Romney 12, McCain 3.
In New Hampshire, McCain got 7, and Romney got 4 (Huck got 1).
So after those two contests, Huck had 18, Romney had 16, and McCain had 10.
Florida swamped those combined totals, allocating 57 delegates (which I think was after getting their delegate total penalized).
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:39 am
“• Perception that he has changed views for political gain:…..64%”
AMEN!!!!!
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:46 am
So, following are the projected delegate counts for the first three states:
IA: 28
NH: 12
SC: 25
Hypothetically assuming Iowa stays consistent with caucus numbers, there could be some interesting story lines. Say the breakdown was:
Iowa:
Paul: 7
Santorum: 6
Romney: 6
Others: 9
NH:
Romney: 5
Paul: 3
Huntsman: 2
Others: 2
SC:
Gingrich: 7
Romney: 6
Santorum: 5
Others: 7
Others will be far more informed estimates than I can. But the tallies would be something like:
After NH:
Romney: 11
Paul: 10
Santorum: 7 (if he gets one in NH)
After SC:
Romney: 17
Santorum: 12
Paul: 12 (if he gets 2 in SC)
Gingrich 10 (if he get a few from IA and NH)
Someone like Santorum could actually be in second place at this point without actually winning a state, whereas Gingrich could be in 4th in this scenario. So many possibilities.
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:49 am
Yikes. Watching Newt on TV is not pretty these days. He is angry, petulant, whiny… does he even understand that he is still in an election and the idea is to attract voters not repel them?
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:50 am
I realize that no one here is an Iowa expert, but any guesses on the “key counties” tomorrow? Just looking at the ’08 map, I’m thinking:
Marshall County. Huck carried it by 9% in ’08 but both Romney and Huck outperformed their statewide totals because of a poor showing by Paul. If that trend continues, I’d expect Marshall to be something like a bellwether between Romney and Santorum. If Paul’s at about 15% there and all the lower-tier candidates basically mirror their statewide numbers, that leaves 50-54% for Santorum and Romney to split. Romney hit 29% last go around. If he wins the county, it’s probably a good sign that he’s running close to his ’08 percentage, statewide.
Polk County. The largest GOP county in the state, by far. Huckabee carried it by 13% in ’08, better than his 10% margin statewide. If Santorum wins, he pretty much has to carry this county and get a nice turnout. Something like:
Santorum 25
Romney 20
Paul 17
Gingrich 15
Perry 14
Bachmann 7
Huntsman 2
…and Santorum’s probably sitting pretty statewide.
If Santorum’s less than 3 points ahead of Romney here, he’s probably in trouble.
Story County. Similar story. Biggish county in central Iowa. Huckabee carried it by a wide margin. Here I’d expect Santorum needs a 8-9 point margin to be in good shape statewide.
Scott County. Not only did Romney carry it convincingly in ’08 but McCain clocked in at 19%. This county should give us a good idea of of many ’08 Romney supporters are ’12 Romney supporters. He ought to win a good chunk of McCain’s more moderate supporters and so this should be one of the few counties where he surpasses his ’08 percentage (31). If he falls below 35% here I have to think he’s in trouble.
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:51 am
While momentum is a factor I think it is secondary to a few others:
1. Organization. Only half of it is calling supporters, reminding them the location and time of the caucus, and making sure (usually in the case of the elderly) if they need a ride arranged for them. The other half is making sure you passionate speakers at each caucus location. A caucus is not a single poll of the lever. It’s active politicking and debating. People try to persuade each other to support their candidate, and with 41% going in undecided, that is huge. Advantage: Paul (I believe he has speakers attending nearly ALL locations) and Romney
2. Growth potential. Positive intensity scores are only one measure of this. 2nd choice numbers are more important to look at. People at the caucus can see how everyone is voting which introduces an intriguing phenomenon described in game theory. If you realize your first choice has no shot, but your second choice does, then you’ll switch your support. Bachman, Newt, and Perry are all candidates that will probably under-perform and their second choice unanimously is Santorum. On caucus night, I expect a number of defectors, and at the moment that looks to be in Santorum’s favor.
3. Intensity of support. While Santorum has growth potential, half of his current support just barely made their mind up this past week, and the cross-tabs of the PPP suggest his support is the most willing to consider someone else. Sense Santorum is relatively unvetted, disturbing information about Santorum that is revealed to voters at the caucuses can pull supporters away from him. This also applies to Paul. Romney, Santorum, Perry, etc. can bring up the newsletters and perhaps disillusion a number of recent Paul converts. Paul’s number are among the most solidified, which means that I think the newsletters mostly hurt him with the 41% undecided that are up for grabs.
My impression is that Santorum has a HUGE advantage going in due to the amount of bottom tier supporters that could switch over, but he doesn’t really have the resources to organize and ensure that happens in a systematic way. I can see Romney and Paul people combing over Santorum’s record preparing to debate and win over voters. Because of the newsletters thing, I have difficulty seeing Paul winning over any Santorum supporters knocked loose (besides, they are polar opposites on nearly every issue). Paul could get the most people there, but I think the dynamics of what happens after everyone gets there favors Romney and Santorum. I feel a Santorum or Romney win.
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:54 am
114…Granny T
My apologies for my fellow religionists.
There are very very many great Evangelicals and many of them even support Mitt.
I understand the sore spot some of the LDS folks have about the attacks, but painting everybody with the same brush is just not good.
My immediate family converted from Church of Christ and South Baptist to the LDS faith.
Some of our relatives are true Christians in the way they treat us and other treat us like God-forsaken devil worshippers.
It is what it is, but it is much more important to be grateful for the good folks than to worry about the others…
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:56 am
108. I couldn’t agree more that the discussion here of religious bigotry, while certainly substantive and serious at times, has had the effect of frequently hijacking this thread and other threads as well. I suggest the simplest solution, which respects the time of those who come here to read the comments pertinent to the subject, which is polls, and respects the rights of those expressing themselves OFF-TOPIC, is for the moderators to transfer those comments to a separate thread.
Whatever the solution, I agree that the non-stop discussion of religious bigotry that has permeated these threads in recent days has become a significant problem, and needs to be solved somehow.
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:56 am
hamaca, for me YESTERDAY wouldn’t have been too soon, so I’m hoping for today.
However, with it so late in the game, I’m thinking he won’t endorse…which is really too bad
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:59 am
Xor,
#112
That is a rather…… bold…… prediction.
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:00 am
MEM,
Scott County is where Newt can hurt Mitt…..by cutting into Mitt’s winning margin. I will be all over Scott County come Tuesday night and will be reporting the numbers by the minute.
Polk County will of course be RUM’s Waterloo (no pun intended)……Rick needs to win this county by at least 10%.
RUM has had a big turnout today in Polk City…HUGE!!
Mitt is spending some time in Story County later tonight……yep, another county to watch.
You nailed it.
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:02 am
#108 Granny T and others: Please put on your thinking caps. NO ONE is bashing evangelicals. NO ONE is talking about religion (ie religious doctrine or practice). Please go check out Evangelicals for Mitt (honorable, good, God-fearing, straight-thinking evangelicals, last time I looked.)
Race is a political blog; we discuss factors that influence the election. Because there is a Mormon doing well in the polls, there are a few influential evangelical pastors making Mormonism an issue. And yes, according to other evangelicals (Evangelicals for Mitt) lying their heads off about Mitt’s record on life and marriage in order to deny ANY Mormon the election in IA.
Anybody who doesn’t like hearing this political factor discussed, can contact Vander Plaats and others and denounce their lying, under-handed tactics. Stop them in their tracks by calling them out as the liars they are. Perhaps they will get a conscience (or at least be mortified) and cease and desist.
Sometimes people have to have the courage and honor to police their own. You hear-no-evil, see-no-evil, speak-no-evil people here amaze me.
PS: Granny, you are right. We haven’t heard anybody bashing Mormons on this site for a long time–that’s why I’m here. But please understand: NO ONE is bashing evangelicals here either; that would despicable. We are simply pointing out that the anti-Mormon pastors are lying in an attempt to influence the election. My plea is for honorable evangelicals to not to only inform themselves of the truth and reject the lies, but call these particular pastors out for their deceitful tactics. Because this will not stop in IA. If Mitt continues to do well (and he has the money to continue), this issue will not go away.
No matter who our GOP candidate is, the Dems have promised to “carpet bomb” our candidate–and they will use religion as well as other issues to do it. It doesn’t matter which of which religion our nominee is a member. They will use hate and lies. I guess I’m just a naive little girl who expects better from so-called “Christian leaders.”
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:02 am
MEM,
#117 sounds right.
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:03 am
Charlie Black signs on with Romney.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/charlie-black-joins-team-romney-109307.html
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:04 am
Jerald,
Church of Christ to LDS?
Holy cow. My childhood best friend’s family is Church of Christ, so I know something about that.
That is quite a leap.
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:05 am
I think Santorum rise in the polls is in part media driven….He still has to get people out to caucus and vote for him…..and unlike Huckabee in 2008′, the Evangelicals are not loyal to just one candidate….
I don’t think Santorum can get this kind of support with no organization in such a short period of time.
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:14 am
Smack,
Does Santorum really need to carry Polk by 10%? I doubt it. Huckabee only carried it by 13% and Huckabee cruised to a 10% 35-25 victory statewide. A 10% victory in Polk looks like a blowout statewide for Santorum. To my mind anyway. Iowa’s probably one of the few states in the ’08 cycle where Romney’s coalition was relatively moderate so we’d expect his ’08 strengths/weaknesses to be similar to his ’12 weaknesses.
But it’s hard to say- coalitions seem to be odd this time around. I was looking at PPP’s last NH poll which is, on the topline numbers, wildly out of line with other NH polls, but which has some useful internals. And apparently Romney’s only carrying 65% of his ’08 supporters. How is he winning then? He’s carrying 41% of McCain’s supporters and 42% of Rudy’s. If that pattern applies to Iowa- Romney winning 2/3′s of his ’08 supporters and about 40% of McCain’s supporters (Rudy was non-existent in Iowa)- we could have a somewhat different county alignment. He could seriously over-perform in Eastern Iowa while seriously under-performing in central Iowa counties like Story, where McCain was weak.
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:14 am
#128: LV: I hope you’re right. Carl Cameron just now claiming Santorum has spent all year in the state and has a “great organization.” I wonder if it’s true. Fox wants a race and wants to have a bunch of stuff to say so they have become very suspect. And yes, the rise of the ABRs is always media driven. Once they start rising in the polls, others are happy to jump on the bandwagon, while there was no point when their polls showed them in the single digits.
On another note, I heard Santorum at an IA cafe the other day, droning on and on about closed up mines. It seemed one lady was interested.
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:14 am
Yeah, on my father’s side everybody was Irish Catholics, and the ones that became LDS did so with little fanfare and no ripples in the family whatsoever. My mother’s side is Southern, however, and 40+ years later, we are still the “apostate so and sos” to some of the family LOL…
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:15 am
Paul has a track record of outperforming in caucuses (in 2008). I expect him to outperform the polls.
That means he probably wins Iowa by a similar percentage as Huckabee did last time. I recall how bad the Iowa polls were last time.
I expect Santorum to finish third behind the Romney organization.
I think Perry finishes fourth, Bachmann fifth, and Newt sixth.
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:18 am
#132…egs…That’s quite a prediction for Paul.
I think he’ll be lucky to squeak out a win, especially considering the Romney protest vote he had been getting is now moving to Santorum…
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:20 am
EGS,
Not true. Paul went from 7.3% in the RCP average to 9.9% on caucus night. Fred Thompson went from 11.7% to 13.4%. McCain went from 11.8% to 13.0%. Huckabee went from 29.7% to 34.4%. Only Romney went down, from 26.7% to 25.4%. Ron Paul outperformed the polls about as much as all of non-Romney candidates- i.e, not at all, when we factor in the poll averages’ undecideds.
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:28 am
And Paul under-performed, vis-a-vis polling, in NH (from 8.2% down to 7.7%) when both McCain and Romney over-performed. It’s bunk, Ronulan mythmaking, that Paul’s uniquely dedicated followers aren’t caught in polls and therefore he’s bound to surprise.
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:47 am
saw this out of Tea party in Philadelphia and thought i would share-
Apparently Romney isnt the tea party pariah that some would have us think
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Influential-Tea-Party-PAC-Endorses-Mitt-Romney-for-President.html?soid=1103080512401&aid=RSc5EaPwKq0
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:54 am
For some reason, discussing the impact of religion in politics, and in this case Iowa, makes some people very uncomfortable. Not sure why. I think it should be fair game if there are certain demographics voting certain ways or certain campaign activities going on that may be noteworthy.
Where we get off track is by the sheer laziness and wrecklessness of certain commenters here who might be right in what they are trying to communicate, but do so in a way that causes the perception of stereotying an entire set of people. This results in others countering the unintended assertions. Finally, the debate falls into a sometimes comical (for me) state of some arguing A and others arguing against B.
Yes, there are certain pastors engaging in Mormon bashing to discourage people from voting for Romney. It has been seen by many and is no secret. Those who deny this have their head in the sand or just choose to not believe it. It may be small-scale enough to be anectdotal, but it’s there and it’s ugly to many people.
At the same time, many of Romney’s strongest supporters are Evangelicals and he draws support from many groups (as do other candidates). The aforementioned lazy comments are slamming the very people who make up much of Romney’s support. Stupid–at best.
My recommendation to these few lazy Rombots: write your comment in a way that that makes clear in no uncertain terms that you are referring to a minority, a subset, a specific few characters when you refer to bigotry. Also, there is bias out there. This is more benign. Certain people vote for candidates they “get”. Happens to some Mormons and Mitt. Cultural cues. Bias is not bigotry. Don’t lump the two together or you’ll get the same counter-productive push-back that paints you in similar fashion as those against whom you’re speaking out in the first place.
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:54 am
129
Bingo.
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:02 pm
124 – Exactly right, with a few exceptions. There are a few infrequent posters that have stereotyped evangelicals in a negative way. The idea that all but a “few sane Mormons” hate evangelicals, though, is a little insane.
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:05 pm
I am skeptical of Santorum’s ground game. He has had to travel around in a borrowed truck. How is he going to have the money for a solid get out the vote effort that can compete with Romney’s? He will have some evangelical support, with busses, but I am skeptical that it will come close to matching Hucks in 2008 (especially since his support among that group is not nearly as unified as it was for Huck).
He will likely have to count on people to get there on their own, which is never good in a caucus. I think Romney has to be the favorite.
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:05 pm
Winning caucuses is a lot like winning straw polls. Getting people on busses is a huge part of winning.
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:07 pm
137 – I wholeheartedly endorse this post (and will try to improve my own posts from now on).
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Santorum’s ground game is going to be good. First of all, according to the Des Moines Register poll, 76% of Santorum’s supporters said they will definitely attend a caucus. That’s compared to 58% of Mitt’s and 56% of Paul’s.
Nowhere near as good as Huckabee in organization, but certainly enough to compete.
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:17 pm
143 – People saying that they will certainly caucus does not equate a good ground game. Will he have busses? Does he have people getting people out to the caucuses? Are there as many churches providing ground support this time around? I remember in 2008 Huck had a “bring a friend” campaign that got a lot of people out. I haven’t seen much about Santorum’s ground effort. I don’t think it matches the rhetoric we are getting from the press. This is why I think Romney still has to be favored.
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:23 pm
#139 I share in denouncing anybody who paints any adherents to any religious with a broad brush. I hope no one feels like I have; I certainly do not feel that way. I’ve made it clear that I know many, many evangelicals, Catholics, Mormons, etc and they are as far as I know honorable, exemplary people in every way. And even if they are not, I don’t care. That’s their business–unless they are outright lying to achieve their ends.
And you are right, we need to be more precise in how we express ourselves. I have tried to be as clear as I know how. On the other hand, you might agree with me that it’s one or two posters here who have baited and stimulated more discussion than this topic deserves by being quick to deny obvious facts. I for one am done trying to set them straight.
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:27 pm
144
Ardent support substitutes nicely for an organization.
Juicy has a representative at every caucus location in the state already signed up. He’s done the work.
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:30 pm
#146: MassCon: You know I love you, but I’m sorry: “Juicy” just does not describe Rum IMO.
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:35 pm
147
Type “santorum” on google and then get back to me
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:55 pm
#148: What did you do? Make it happen? Too funny.
But Rum is just dry; did you hear his townhall going on and on about deserted mines in IA and across the US? NOT juicy stuff.
January 2nd, 2012 at 1:03 pm
149
It was a massive effort launched across the country called a “Google Bomb” where people would attend pages that had the disgusting definition, which would bring the page to the top of Google for all to see.
January 2nd, 2012 at 1:12 pm
Juicy Rum.
JR
January 2nd, 2012 at 1:24 pm
#151: hamaca: Good compromise, but should not to be confused with JR Perry.
January 2nd, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Perhaps a slight vindication for Jax and his rants on the anti-Mitt being based on religion?
BIG Romney Endorsement from Independence Hall Tea Party PAC
That doesn’t excuse the vehemence and name calling by Jax, though. It does, however, lend credence to his claims.
And, Matt MWS, nothing I saw in Jax’s posts suggested it was all or even a minority that was doing it.
AND, I’m not trying to get that discussion going again. I just thought this was interesting and valid.
January 2nd, 2012 at 2:05 pm
#153: Good on Teri Adams. The problem with not challenging the “religious intolerance” encountered by Adams in IA is that it will follow Romney all over the country; indeed these factions will become more emboldened. We expect it in the general, where our nominee (whoever he is) will come face to face with Obama’s “hell’s kitchen.” However, lies and intolerance need to be challenged on our side. It’s what I’ve been calling for; so glad to see Adams is standing up. I hope more do.