ISU professor says Ron Paul “underpolls” in Iowa, elsewhere

[sailingaway]

http://www.radioiowa.com/2011/11/17/isu-professor-says-ron-paul-underpolls-in-iowa-elsewhere/

[bluesc]

Hell yeah he does. I'm glad it has finally been called out by someone credible.

[Kords21]

I think he does underpoll and the MSM/GOP establishment are seriously underestimating him. They seem to think that this election is going to be business as usual. I think that 89 second blackout woke up a sleeping giant.

[Bruno]

What many here have been saying for years:


“He is more of a front-runner than I think he gets credit for. I think he probably under-polls,” Peterson says. “Given what we know about polling, his supporters are younger, his supporters are more likely to reply on a cell phone. He’s probably going to perform better than his polling suggests.”

[trey4sports]

http://phone.ronpaul2012.com/v/

[1836]

Difficult to say. There may be a few points' difference. But often the independent polling is rather accurate. I think what we have seen recently is precisely what you'd expect to see with a fairly sudden surge of support – a lot of outliers all over the place, a few polls in complete disagreement with a few others, etc.

Our best support is certainly under the age of 45, and that group is certainly more likely to depend on cell phones. But I would be surprised if it were honestly more than a few points' difference.

[sailingaway]

There's more than a few points difference between polls.

[eok321]

Well he certainly underpolled in 07 and I'm pretty certain he's underpolling this time too.

[WD-NY]

Peterson, the Iowa State professor, says there appears to be a ceiling for Paul because Iowans who say they’re supporting another candidate rarely list Paul as their second choice.

So this is the reasoning pollsters/pundits use to back up their contention that Ron Paul has a ceiling of support?

[braane]

So this is the reasoning pollsters/pundits use to back up their contention that Ron Paul has a ceiling of support?

Part of it is lines have been drawn. Cain supporters probably don't think very highly of us. Romney supporters probably think we are holding the general hostage from their "candidate to be" (no one but Paul movement is going to piss people off). That doesn't begin to dig into the real analysis of it.

The fact is: Bachmann/Cain/Gingrich/Perry all have similar appeal from policy standpoints
Romney and Huntsman are pretty close policy wise (although I would think Romney's support is soft "electable" candidate support and would end up in some other camp)

Which means that they still have a second choice that is more aligned to their beliefs.

When Bachmann drops out after Iowa, and Perry drops out after New Hampshire(or SC), the picture will begin to narrow a bit and Ron will start to get put as a second choice. I don't know when Cain will drop out. If he is smart he would do so now, as to not further damage his image. I think he either drops out after Iowa... or he is in it for the long haul (as far as $ take him).

As late as it is in the game (with Iowa in 1.5months), the chance for a different media darling other than Gingrich isn't too great. Cain's scandal came out almost 3 weeks ago now. He still hasn't taken that large of a hit in the polls. So even if something came out tomorrow on Gingrich (besides the already long list of stuff), the effects wouldn't really start hitting home until Christmas. So my theory is that we have seen what is likely the last major shuffle (of course I could be completely wrong). If I am right though, the race if just Romney/Gingrich/Paul. Gingrich is on a shoestring budget, so no matter how well he fairs here in the first few states he can't go far without a major change in funds. Which leaves us with Romney/Paul...! PUSH

Sorry for my massive tangent.

[FA.Hayek]

Part of it is lines have been drawn. Cain supporters probably don't think very highly of us. Romney supporters probably think we are holding the general hostage from their "candidate to be" (no one but Paul movement is going to piss people off). That doesn't begin to dig into the real analysis of it.

The fact is: Bachmann/Cain/Gingrich/Perry all have similar appeal from policy standpoints
Romney and Huntsman are pretty close policy wise (although I would think Romney's support is soft "electable" candidate support and would end up in some other camp)

Which means that they still have a second choice that is more aligned to their beliefs.

When Bachmann drops out after Iowa, and Perry drops out after New Hampshire(or SC), the picture will begin to narrow a bit and Ron will start to get put as a second choice. I don't know when Cain will drop out. If he is smart he would do so now, as to not further damage his image. I think he either drops out after Iowa... or he is in it for the long haul (as far as $ take him).

As late as it is in the game (with Iowa in 1.5months), the chance for a different media darling other than Gingrich isn't too great. Cain's scandal came out almost 3 weeks ago now. He still hasn't taken that large of a hit in the polls. So even if something came out tomorrow on Gingrich (besides the already long list of stuff), the effects wouldn't really start hitting home until Christmas. So my theory is that we have seen what is likely the last major shuffle (of course I could be completely wrong). If I am right though, the race if just Romney/Gingrich/Paul. Gingrich is on a shoestring budget, so no matter how well he fairs here in the first few states he can't go far without a major change in funds. Which leaves us with Romney/Paul...! PUSH

Sorry for my massive tangent.

awesome analysis. PUSH!!!

[Aratus]

the 4-way tie poll had good results for Dr. Ron Paul
despite the media blackout & all the underpolling???

[sailingaway]

I don't think Gingrich has similar appeal to anyone but Cain in that they both just sort of go by the seat of their pants. Gingrich will never survive his record. I agree that teapartiers are casting around, but in the end what I take from Ron's going up in NH and Iowa is that when it comes down to Romney or Ron, most would rather Ron than Romney. I just want them to come to that realization before they split the vote and potentially give Iowa to Romney.

[braane]

I don't think Gingrich has similar appeal to anyone but Cain in that they both just sort of go by the seat of their pants. Gingrich will never survive his record. I agree that teapartiers are casting around, but in the end what I take from Ron's going up in NH and Iowa is that when it comes down to Romney or Ron, most would rather Ron than Romney. I just want them to come to that realization before they split the vote and potentially give Iowa to Romney.

I am about to say a whole lot of nothing. It's a massive wall of text. TLDR will apply.

I am completely pulling this out of my pants, but here is what I figure is order of choice (by candidate):

Candidate Choice -- Second Choice -- Third Choice -- Fourth Choice

Bachmann --------- Gingrich --------- Santorum? ---- Death
Cain --------------- Gingrich --------- Perry --------- Paul
Perry -------------- Gingrich --------- Paul ---------- Cain
Gingrich ------------ Cain ------------ Paul ---------- Perry
Romney ------------ Gingrich --------- Huntsman? --- N/A

So you see... If my predictions are correct, Gingrich should get the most support as a second choice. I haven't seen the poll numbers, but that's just how I feel the candidates line up. You know what they say... If it aint scientific...

Really though -- interesting that I put Gingrich ahead of Paul for Perry supporters, but Perry behind Paul for Gingrich supporters. It all comes back to that 1 word, electability. Perry's gaffe, makes him look really weak. It's hard to argue for a candidate like that and I see them going for Paul first. Of course, in my eyes, Romney has the smallest ceiling of the big 5 (Romney, Paul, Gingrich, Cain, Perry). He hasn't really exploded upwards, no matter how well his debates have gone. The media has said he is the absolute front runner from the very beginning. Shockingly, his poll numbers may be lower now than ever. Which tells me that most aren't going to bite.

So my theory:

This assumes a Bachmann dropout after Iowa, a Perry dropout after NH or SC, and Cain as a wildcard. Cain is a wildcard because it wouldn't make much sense for him to go forward after Iowa(assuming he did poorly there) without going all the way through Florida. Florida is a state where Cain has a chance to do very well in. Given the amount of delegates it produces he could even leave with a theoretical lead. I feel like, though, if he doesn't win Iowa or New Hampshire it isn't feasible to get there. He would be low on resources, and the winner(s) or Iowa/NH will be getting all of the attention. Which would hurt his chances in Florida significantly. So now that I said a whole lot of nothing, I think Cain drops out after Iowa.

Side note: Santorum is out after Iowa and Huntsman leaves after New Hampshire

Given my previous choice analysis... :D

Bachmann ---------> Gingrich --------- Santorum? ---- Death
Cain ---------------> Gingrich --------- Perry --------- Paul
Perry --------------> Gingrich --------- Paul ---------- Cain
Gingrich ------------ Cain ------------ Paul ---------- Perry
Romney ------------ Gingrich --------- Huntsman? --- N/A

That's a lot of Gingrich. Not so fast, my friend. This whole idea revolves around the idea that...if Iowa was tomorrow.

Gingrich's campaign is broke. They will be hitchhiking back from Florida...

I am going to, for the sake of my argument, assume Gingrich comes in second in Iowa and third in New Hampshire... with the results something like

Iowa -- Paul: 27%, Gingrich: 20%, Romney: 17%, Cain: 11%, Perry: 9%, Bachmann: 7%, Santorum: 6%

New Hampshire -- Romney: 40%, Paul:23%, Gingrich: 18%, Perry: 9%

So Gingrich has no money... and no momentum. Sure, a top 3 in Iowa and New Hampshire is good. His campaign needs better than good. His campaign now rides on pulling people who both have to think about his past and his chances of winning. So it all comes down to Florida and South Carolina for him. Both states he polls really well in. A win in South Carolina could be the boost he needs. I think he gets that win there, honestly, but barely.

So the campaigns each have 1 win a piece leaving South Carolina. I think, though, that Cain staying in could be very beneficial for us and Romney. If Cain gets to South Carolina, he steals votes from Newt. Which would give Romney the win there (most likely). Which is a much better scenario Imo.

Paul vs Romney is a push (see what I did there?)
Paul vs Romney vs Gingrich is... ??? I think Gingrich has a good chance to win both South Carolina and Florida under our current climate. Whether that changes between now and then is yet to be seen. I think it's certainly problematic. Florida and South Carolina have a lot of delegates (I love stating the obvious I guess :S). Anyways, the media clearly doesn't like Paul. The GOP has SERIOUS reservations about Romney. For some reason beyond me the GOP seems ok with Gingrich. If he won those two, it would be 1 state - Paul, 1 state - Romney, 2 states -Gingrich ... and a massive deficit in delegates for Paul and an even greater hurdle for Romney.

Now that I wrote a novel... I can run for President?

[acptulsa]

Well he certainly underpolled in 07 and I'm pretty certain he's underpolling this time too.

And by a wider margin, because last time it was old Republicans vs. young Republicans, and this time it's old Republicans vs. young Republicans, new Republicans and blue Republicans.

If we're doing our jobs right, and I think we are, they are seriously underpolling him. And they aren't underestimating him, either. They're doing it on purpose to discourage us.

[acptulsa]

Now that I wrote a novel... I can run for President?

No. The only work of fiction that will get you in the running for president these days is historical fiction--otherwise known as your memoirs.


How is Dubya going to write a memoir without releasing classified information? Mr. Rogers knew.

"Memoirs... means when you put down the good things you ought to have done, and leave out the bad ones you did do."--Will Rogers 1932

That said, I'm not so sure about your analysis. Great food for thought, and I thank you for it, but...

I don't think Bachmann's the first one out. She was born in Iowa. Also, she's good at shooting herself in the foot, but nowhere as good as Cain.

I also don't think Gingrich is the last one in. Yeah, he's the last to peak, but that's only because there are a lot of Republicans who may not be any brighter than the rest of the herd, but are old enough to dimly remember that he's carrying more baggage than a skycap's cart. Which is, I think, why he's not peaking as high as Bachmann, Perry or Cain did.

Republicans are starting to pay attention, Bachmann's going to do better in Iowa than you think, and if nothing else, New Hampshire is going to give the rank and file G.O.P. the first taste of our Blue Republican efforts. At that point, all the Murdoch spin in the whole world about electability won't count for jack. At this point, there will be the Huntsman-Paul, yeah we can give up our ass kickin' to win this thing side and there will be the give me dead Arabs or give me death faction. Where Bachmann will be by then, I don't know, but I think the latter camp will hold their noses and settle for Romney pretty quickly, and the former will come to Paul just as soon as they figure out they've been lied to about which side of the bread has their butter on it.

That's my take. But I could be wrong. The Romney Trotskyites could hold fast, and the warmongering end of the Tea Party could gravitate back to Perry or whomever and hold fast. If so, we had better have a bunch of delegates at that brokered convention!

[Aratus]

Gingrich does not draw Democrats in although Huntsman + Romney might. some states
later on allow cross-overs. lets assume Huntsman cuts into Romney in N.H so we all
might even see Ron Paul winning in Iowa + N.H before colliding into the two Georgians
in Jim Demint's home state of S.C like as if they both are a wrestling world tagteam.