Politaction
08-13-2007, 04:50 PM
http://politaction.com/ron-paul/good-job-in-iowa-for-ron-paul/
Did Ron Paul’s campaign do a good job in Iowa?
While, 9.1% at the Iowa straw poll may be unpleasant for some of Ron Paul’s followers, I am going to make the case that it could be a good job and smart campaigning from Ron Paul’s campaign.
Coming in to the straw poll in Iowa we have the so-called front runner Rudy Giuliani, possible candidate and front runner-up Fred Thompson, and the only candidate having run a campaign that had a chance to win the Republican primary in 2000, John McCain, not participating in the “groundwork” in Iowa. This seemingly gives the impression that it is not worth the money to campaign on the ground in Iowa.
In all reality, Ron Paul’s campaign probably did not spend as much money into Iowa as Iowa straw poll winner Mitt Romney, runner-up Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, or Tom Tancredo. I wouldn’t be suprised that he probably didn’t even spend as much money as Tommy Thompson, either.
I believe that Mitt Romney’s and Mike Huckabee are the only candidates that come out best in Iowa. Coming in third for Sam Brownback is going to do nothing for his campaign and he probably spent a lot of money doing it. The same goes for forth place finisher Tom Tancredo.
Ron Paul’s campaign had to prove that it had some “real world” support and I think it proved that. A fifth place finish is not going to do much for his campaign, proving that he can draw dome “real world” support does.
Looking at the Washington Post-ABC News poll before the Iowa debate Romney led the field with 26 percent, with Rudy Giuliani at 14 percent and Fred Thompson at 13 percent. As we know Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson practically spent nothing in Iowa and their numbers at the straw poll can be discounted.
Mitt Romney, who was polling at 26 percent in the Post-ABC poll won the straw poll with 31 percent of the vote. Mitt Romney picked up 5 percent from before the debate until the straw poll. The 5 percent that he added to his campaign support levels, only adds up to about a 20 percent gain to campaign support. Mitt Romney has also probably spent more money in the last week than of all the candidates running for the Republican nomination to get this 20 percent increase in support.
The same Washington Post-ABC news poll had Mike Huckabee and John McCain tied at 8 percent. Mike Huckabee was the runner-up in the straw poll receiving 18 percent of the votes in Iowa. Mike Huckabee’s campaign added 10 percent to his campaign support levels. Mike Huckabee’s campaign support jumped 120 percent in the last week from the debate until the straw poll. John McCain’s campaign also chose not to do any serious campaigning on the ground in Iowa, so his votes in the straw poll can be discounted.
In the Washington Post-ABC news poll Sam Brownback and Tom Tancredo both received 5 percent. Sam Brownback had 15 percent in the Iowa straw poll. Sam Brownback added 10 percent to his campaign support levels. This added 10 percent means that his campaign support had risen about 200 percent. Tom Tancredo received almost 14 percent of the votes in the Iowa straw poll. Tom Tancredo added 9 percent to his campaign support levels. This added 9 percent means that his campaign support has risen about 200 percent, also.
Ron Paul’s numbers in the Washington-ABC news poll were a measly 2 percent. Ron Paul garnered 9 percent of the voting in the Iowa straw poll. This means that Ron Paul’s campaign had added 7 percent to his campaign support levels. This added 7 percent to Ron Paul’s support levels means that his campaign support has risen about 350 percent.
Now these gains in campaign support doesn’t mean that these candidates added this exact percentage in the last week, but it means that the support level was under-estimated by this much.
So what does all this mean? It means that Ron Paul got the largest gain or his campaign was underestimated the most in the past week. Ron Paul probably got these gains the cheapest out of the top 5 finishers in Iowa. Ron Paul probably spent the least out of the top 5 finishers in Iowa when 2 of the leading contenders for the nomination, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson elected to save their money as did the only contender in the Republican nomination in 2000, John McCain.
In essence, Ron Paul got the biggest “bang for his buck” in Iowa, when many of the contenders felt that Iowa wasn’t that important or worth the money and he got to put the “Internet Only” campaign talks to rest.
So how do you think Ron Paul did in Iowa?
Did Ron Paul’s campaign do a good job in Iowa?
While, 9.1% at the Iowa straw poll may be unpleasant for some of Ron Paul’s followers, I am going to make the case that it could be a good job and smart campaigning from Ron Paul’s campaign.
Coming in to the straw poll in Iowa we have the so-called front runner Rudy Giuliani, possible candidate and front runner-up Fred Thompson, and the only candidate having run a campaign that had a chance to win the Republican primary in 2000, John McCain, not participating in the “groundwork” in Iowa. This seemingly gives the impression that it is not worth the money to campaign on the ground in Iowa.
In all reality, Ron Paul’s campaign probably did not spend as much money into Iowa as Iowa straw poll winner Mitt Romney, runner-up Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, or Tom Tancredo. I wouldn’t be suprised that he probably didn’t even spend as much money as Tommy Thompson, either.
I believe that Mitt Romney’s and Mike Huckabee are the only candidates that come out best in Iowa. Coming in third for Sam Brownback is going to do nothing for his campaign and he probably spent a lot of money doing it. The same goes for forth place finisher Tom Tancredo.
Ron Paul’s campaign had to prove that it had some “real world” support and I think it proved that. A fifth place finish is not going to do much for his campaign, proving that he can draw dome “real world” support does.
Looking at the Washington Post-ABC News poll before the Iowa debate Romney led the field with 26 percent, with Rudy Giuliani at 14 percent and Fred Thompson at 13 percent. As we know Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson practically spent nothing in Iowa and their numbers at the straw poll can be discounted.
Mitt Romney, who was polling at 26 percent in the Post-ABC poll won the straw poll with 31 percent of the vote. Mitt Romney picked up 5 percent from before the debate until the straw poll. The 5 percent that he added to his campaign support levels, only adds up to about a 20 percent gain to campaign support. Mitt Romney has also probably spent more money in the last week than of all the candidates running for the Republican nomination to get this 20 percent increase in support.
The same Washington Post-ABC news poll had Mike Huckabee and John McCain tied at 8 percent. Mike Huckabee was the runner-up in the straw poll receiving 18 percent of the votes in Iowa. Mike Huckabee’s campaign added 10 percent to his campaign support levels. Mike Huckabee’s campaign support jumped 120 percent in the last week from the debate until the straw poll. John McCain’s campaign also chose not to do any serious campaigning on the ground in Iowa, so his votes in the straw poll can be discounted.
In the Washington Post-ABC news poll Sam Brownback and Tom Tancredo both received 5 percent. Sam Brownback had 15 percent in the Iowa straw poll. Sam Brownback added 10 percent to his campaign support levels. This added 10 percent means that his campaign support had risen about 200 percent. Tom Tancredo received almost 14 percent of the votes in the Iowa straw poll. Tom Tancredo added 9 percent to his campaign support levels. This added 9 percent means that his campaign support has risen about 200 percent, also.
Ron Paul’s numbers in the Washington-ABC news poll were a measly 2 percent. Ron Paul garnered 9 percent of the voting in the Iowa straw poll. This means that Ron Paul’s campaign had added 7 percent to his campaign support levels. This added 7 percent to Ron Paul’s support levels means that his campaign support has risen about 350 percent.
Now these gains in campaign support doesn’t mean that these candidates added this exact percentage in the last week, but it means that the support level was under-estimated by this much.
So what does all this mean? It means that Ron Paul got the largest gain or his campaign was underestimated the most in the past week. Ron Paul probably got these gains the cheapest out of the top 5 finishers in Iowa. Ron Paul probably spent the least out of the top 5 finishers in Iowa when 2 of the leading contenders for the nomination, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson elected to save their money as did the only contender in the Republican nomination in 2000, John McCain.
In essence, Ron Paul got the biggest “bang for his buck” in Iowa, when many of the contenders felt that Iowa wasn’t that important or worth the money and he got to put the “Internet Only” campaign talks to rest.
So how do you think Ron Paul did in Iowa?