538 on Paul's chances in Iowa

[Agorism]

He correctly points out the gap between 10% where we are currently and closer to 20%, which is where we need to be.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/16/sizing-up-iowa-without-huckabee/


Ron Paul. Mr. Paul’s eccentric but enthusiastic base of supporters seems to be fairly constant from state to state — somewhere around 10 percent of the electorate both in the polls and at the ballot booth. They’re also the sorts of voters who might not vote at all in a Republican primary unless they vote for Mr. Paul. If Mr. Paul were, hypothetically, to garner anything like 20 percent of the vote in Iowa, we’d be in an alternate universe where virtually anything could happen.

[libertybrewcity]

Now that Huckabee's out, I think our support will absolutely shoot up to 15 or more.

[kah13176]

Now that Huckabee's out, I think our support will absolutely shoot up to 15 or more.

Without Huckabee, it's 15, according to PPP. Nowhere near enough to take out Romney, who will bus people in and already has a statistical advantage around 30%.

[South Park Fan]

Without Huckabee, it's 15, according to PPP. Nowhere near enough to take out Romney, who will bus people in and already has a statistical advantage around 30%.

Second place is almost as good as first if Romney's lead becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. See the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary in the 1992 election as an example. Plus, the presence of the Ames Straw Poll in August poses additional uncertainty.

[Johncjackson]

Not trying to be a downer, but I remember people really overshooting the level of support last time and being very let down when get what was the realistic % of vote. Certainly the potential is much better this time, but I think it remains to be seen how much of that potential is going to be converted. Signs are very encouraging that this time the campaign is going to do a better job focusing efforts where they need to be and I think they are really going to go all out.

[realtonygoodwin]

It's a three way tie for second in Iowa...

[Mallory]

in june 2007, paul had almost 0 name recognittion in iowa, so 9 percent was pretty good considering.

[Epic]

I think the establishment pundits and Silver are missing the big story here.

1. Ron Paul is already at 15% in the only poll without Huckabee and Trump. And that's in Iowa, where he usually underperforms his national poll numbers.

2. Ron Paul will gain support throughout the campaign because of grassroots campaigning. His supporters are more enthusiastic, younger, and will work harder. If he went from 0% to 10% in Iowa in 2008, why can't he go from 15% to 30% in 2012?

3. The Iowa Straw Poll is of significance, and Ron Paul is likely the favorite to win, given the straw poll's tendency to reward the "depth" or enthusiasm of supporters, not the "width" or total number of soft supporters.

[The Moravian]

Paul won 9.9% of the Iowa caucuses in 2008, and with all that's happened since then in organization and name recognition, with Huckabee out, I think we can easily get past 15%. Of course our first goal must be to win New Hampshire at all costs, but I'm glad that Ron has set up a good state-wide team in Iowa, and we absolutely must win the straw poll in Ames to get past 15% in the caucuses.

If Paul wins the straw poll, of course, the MSM will explain it away, but we will have the upper hand to convince GOP voters to take him seriously at least. That is the only thing standing in the way of persuasion right now -- "Ron Paul is unelectable".

[Ex Lux lucis]

Don't let doubt seep in. Be honest, yes. But remember that we DO have a serious chance to win this, and need to realize it. Remember the importance of our endeavour.

[Badger Paul]

We at least can't finish lower than third in Iowa if we want to win New Hampshire which is a must. It's that simple and to finish that high in Iowa we must do well at the straw poll.