If Public Policy Polling is right, the Gingrich comeback story may be almost over:
There has been some major movement in the Republican Presidential race in Iowa over the last week, with what was a 9 point lead for Newt Gingrich now all the way down to a single point. Gingrich is at 22% to 21% for Paul with Mitt Romney at 16%, Michele Bachmann at 11%, Rick Perry at 9%, Rick Santorum at 8%, Jon Huntsman at 5%, and Gary Johnson at 1%.
Gingrich has dropped 5 points in the last week and he’s also seen a significant decline in his favorability numbers. Last week he was at +31 (62/31) and he’s now dropped 19 points to +12 (52/40). The attacks on him appear to be taking a heavy toll- his support with Tea Party voters has declined from 35% to 24%.
Paul meanwhile has seen a big increase in his popularity from +14 (52/38) to +30 (61/31). There are a lot of parallels between Paul’s strength in Iowa and Barack Obama’s in 2008- he’s doing well with new voters, young voters, and non-Republican voters….
I’ll let Chris Cillizza explain why this could be extraordinarily helpful to Mitt Romney (and please note that Cillizza’s post was written before the PPP numbers were released):
If Paul and Romney — two of the best funded candidates in the Iowa field — are both going full bore at Gingrich on television in the final three weeks of the race, it will make it far more difficult for the former House Speaker to maintain his current elevated standing in the Hawkeye State.
But it’s not just in helping drag Gingrich’s numbers down in Iowa where Paul can help Romney.
… A Paul victory in Iowa would be a dream come true for Romney. Why? Because Paul, like former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee in 2008, has far less obvious appeal in the states beyond Iowa and would likely struggle to build his caucus victory into a broader national campaign.
Simply put: The less Iowa matters, the better for Team Romney. And a Paul victory there, while intriguing and a case study for political scientists for years to come, would almost certainly mean that the real race for the nomination begins a week later in New Hampshire.
The matchup to watch in Iowa then isn’t Newt vs Mitt. It’s Newt vs Ron. Or so Mitt hopes.
If Paul wins Iowa and Gingrich loses, I think Gingrich’s bubble will burst — he’ll struggle to be competitive with Romney in New Hampshire, and then he’ll be 0 for 2. At that point he’ll just be the underfunded loser with baggage he was a couple of months ago.
And no, Rick Perry isn’t going to be the new anti-Romney, according to PPP:
Rick Perry generated a ton of attention in the last week with his ad decrying the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and the ‘War on Christmas,’ but it hasn’t done much for his poll standing. He was at 9% and he’s still at 9%. His favorability numbers are under water with 43% of likely voters viewing him favorably to 47% with a negative opinion. The only Republican who’s less well regarded is Jon Huntsman. Only 41% of Iowa Republicans even oppose gays serving in the military to 28% who support it and 31% unsure…and Perry’s only tied for fourth even with those who are opposed, behind Gingrich, Bachmann, and Paul.
Meanwhile, Ron Paul has no game in South Carolina or Florida, and his message fails to hit many of the usual winger pleasure centers (foreign policy muscularity most prominent among them).
So if Paul wins Iowa, I’d say at that point it’s over. Romney wins the nomination easily, even if the base doesn’t like him all that much. And folks, I don’t think Obama can beat him.
(X-posted at No More Mister Nice Blog.)
People don’t like Romney. He is essentially the grand father of the HCR that the GOP hates. He is not going to win the nomination. Gingrich has enormous vulnerabilities. Paul is not going to win. Perry and Bachman are nuts. They can’t win.
At this point in 2004 Kerry was at 11 and Edwards was at 6. Both got over 30 in Iowa. I wrote a diary in DKOS in 2007: 4 of the 9 leaders of Iowa a month out have lost Iowa. 7 of the 12 leaders in New Hampshire a month out have lost.
There is an eon between now and the caucus – and virtually anything can happen.
Anti-Romney feeling is just like anti-McCain feeling four years ago. McCain shouldn’t have won, but he won.
Republicans are insane, but they seem to have trouble every four years agreeing on an insane candidate. So a fake-insane candidate wins.
“There is an eon between now and the caucus – and virtually anything can happen.”
There’s three weeks. “It’s too early to know anything” won’t last much longer.
Er, reply to fladem.
we will know something in 2 weeks in 5 days.
Of course the last poll in 2004 had Edwards under 20 and Kerry under 25. No poll saw one, much less both over 30. And every poll in 2008 had Obama beating Hillary in 2004 in New Hampshire.
My favorite example is from a campaign I worked on. In 1984 after Mondale won Iowa the NYT had a front page article touting that Mondale had the largest primary lead in polling history. 8 days later, after winning New Hampshire, Hart lead by 7.
These candidates are not very well known.
“And every poll in 2008 had Obama beating Hillary in 2004 in New Hampshire.
“
What a strange thing to poll. Obama and Hillary weren’t even running in 2004. :]
Obama in 2008 would have killed Hillary in 2004.
Hillary 2011 would totally beat Obama 2010, though.
little anti-anyone among the rank and file.
This is why I think Booman is so wrong in his read of the electorate. There is no stop Romney movement. I think Romney’s position on HCR makes him unlikely to be the nominee, but really anyone could win.
Campaigns often turn on late debates, late TV adds and late exchanges. In 2008 Obama caught Clinton flat footed in Iowa. The press’s attempt to bury Hillary saved her (in this the ’08 NH race was a replay of the ’80 GOP NH fight on fast forward). South Carolina then saved Obama.
In 1980 it was “I am paying for this microphone”. In 2008 it was Hilary’s gaffe about driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants. In ’04 it was a series of minor Dean gaffe’s that made people think he was unelectable.
I have been involved in three primary fights in Iowa and New Hampshire in a serious way. Issues were seldom the difference.
But keep in mind that a Paul win, followed by a fade, would drastically up the odds of a Libertarian/Paul 3rd party run. It would “prove” that the people love Paul’s politics but are being swindled out of their right to vote by the GOP sellouts.
And I think your assumption that Obama can’t beat Romney is ridiculous.
Obama can’t beat Romney if Europe implodes. If they struggle on maybe. It’s Obama’s lost voters from 2008 v. the idea of passion for Mitt Romney.
THe problem is that this applies to Gingrich too. Obama’s reelection at this point relies largely on events. And Gingrich would be much more dangerous in office. He is more extreme and personally unstable.
Let me get this straight: you’re positing a world in which Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucuses, and then confidently discussing what would happen after that?
I have no idea what happens next if Ron Paul manages to win the first state in a Republican nominating contest, and neither does anyone else. If that happens, it means that we’re not playing by the old rules, and an analysis based on them could make as much sense as Hillary’s inevitability.
If Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucuses, because of Obama2008ish enthusiasm, then why should I believe Romney’s lead will hold up in New Hampshire?
You don’t know what happens after that? Well, this, for starters: Paul’s campaign dies in the South because he doesn’t want to kill brown people for Jeebus.
Paul’s not going anywhere, no matter how well he does in Iowa or New Hampshire.
I dunno. Ron Paul is probably a racist.
A lot of racist crap was certainly published with his name on it.
Well, this, for starters: Paul’s campaign dies in the South because he doesn’t want to kill brown people for Jeebus.
He’d certainly never get a majority in South Carolina or Mississippi, no.
Then again, he probably won’t get a majority in Iowa, either, if he wins it.
Or…speaking of old rules…if Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucuses because of Obama 2008-ish enthusiasm, then why should we believe that he can’t win the presidency?
Listen up, folks…except for the fact that Ron Paul does not look “presidential” and the last four presidents have been better looking than their opponents in every way (which may be just one of the old rules that are not going to apply here), he has a good shot at winning a popular vote, especially in a 3 party race where he will take votes in equal percentages from both so-called “major” parties and will also get a lot of uncommitted voters as well. He’ll also attract a lot of people who normally don’t vote.
Even in a 2 party race (should some kind of perfect Paulian storm occur during the primaries…it could happen, given his opposition) he would have a good shot with disaffected Dem voters and the aforementioned independents/those who do not usually vote.
It ain’t nearly over.
Bet on it.
I have a suspicion that if an honest, highly inclusive nationwide poll of likely voters were taken (including those who are only “likely” to vote because Ron Paul is in the race), he would presently come in a good second to Barack Obama and a number of lengths ahead of any current RatPub candidate that they wanted to include as a third choice.
OOOOoooo….
Scaaaaary!!!
Watch.
The media will mass against him. That’s their job, to preserve the PermaGov status quo. They started out making fun of him. Then they tried to ignore him. Those tactics obviously haven’t worked very well, so sometime very soon we can expect to see them start to attack him on every front.
If Gandhi…who knew a thing or two about winning underdog battles…was right, this could get very interesting. He said “First they laugh at you, then they ignore you, then they fight you. Then you win.” Ron Paul is now approaching the 3rd phase of that kind of battle.
Gandhi also wrote an autobiography the he named “The Story of My Experiments with Truth.” In it he stated “There is no God higher than truth.”
Hmmmmm…
Isn’t “telling the truth” as he sees it the one, strongest distinguishing mark of Ron Paul’s entire political career?
HMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmm…
Watch.
AG
Ron Paul is not popular, but he is popular among Iowa and New Hampshire Republicans. If Paul wins Iowa, he can win New Hampshire. I agree that Paul would probably get killed in the South….but there’s a lot of uncertainty. I just don’t understand Republicans. Anything can happen.
I just don’t understand Republicans. Anything can happen.
This. Who the hell knows how these people think? They’re not like us. They’re liable to nominate a llame because its markings look like Jesus.
Paul will win Iowa and NH because he has the courage Mitt has never possessed. Paul is going to poke a hole in that hot air balloon ego called Newt.
Paul will win Iowa and NH because he has the courage Mitt has never possessed. Paul is going to poke a hole in that hot air balloon ego called Newt.
Right, because we all know that’s what wins elections in America: courage. The House Republicans who won in 2010 were like the guys who landed on Normandy.
As Joe from Lowell wrote above:
And you snark:
If we are “not playing by the old rules”…and God knows it’s about time for those “rules” to fall by the wayside because on all available evidence they are simply not working very well anymore…then who is to say that courage might not actually win out this time?
Not me. I don’t know what is going to happen but I do know this…the rules are in flux.
In 2007/2008 we elected a president of partially non-European lineage, and his major competition for the nomination was a woman. When has that ever happened before in America?
It is no longer about “Republicans” and “Democrats,” Steve. It’s about “Throw the bums who did this to us out on their asses!!!
If the American electorate finds both the mainstream Republicans and mainstream Democrats equally guilty of ongoing malfeasance or at best incompetence…and it would be a just verdict if it happened…then all bets are off. Even the media will not be able to hide the facts too much longer. Pressure from the left and also from the right is gathering more and more steam as the campaign goes on. Occupy + Teaparty people are awakening thousands…make that millions…to the truth of the matter, each in their own ways. But whether your alarm clock is on the left side of your bed or the right side and no matter what tune it plays, you still wake up if it plays that tune loud enough and long enough.
It’s a long way to November. Watch.
AG
Just for the record, “Throw the bums out” is nothing new in American (or other countries’) politics.
Many years ago, Garry Wills wrote an essay (perhaps in his “Confessions of a Conservative”?) arguing that elections are almost never about the future. They are primarily about the past, and usually about the very recent past (i.e., 6-12 months before the election).
If, in the next 11 months, the economy grows at a 3% annual rate or more, and it creates 2 million or more jobs, and median incomes are rising, then Obama is extremely likely to be reelected.
On the other hand, if in the next 11 months, economic growth slows, few or no jobs are created, and median incomes are flat or falling, then the Republican candidate (whoever that is) is extremely likely to be elected.
For a third party or independent candidate to be elected, one of the two major parties (and/or its candidate) would, I think, have to collapse. That’s happened only once in American history—in the 1850s.
Even with that, the 1860 election of a third party candidate (Lincoln) was made possible, in large part, by the simultaneous collapse of the Whig Party, and the splitting of the Democratic Party into two factions.
Noticing that there (may be) a change in our politics isn’t a license to go on absurd flights of fancy, Arthur.
if Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucuses because of Obama 2008-ish enthusiasm, then why should we believe that he can’t win the presidency?
Any candidate that wins Iowa enters the realm of possibly being able to win the general election. It doesn’t mean his odds are good, but it enters the realm of the possible.
Steve M’s political predictions all have to work backward from “Obama loses”, so the logical connections are kind of weak.
I think Obama can beat Gingrich. I just don’t think he can beat Romney, whose nomination will be accompanied by every centrist journalist in America saying, “Phew! The GOP is a sane sensible party that nominated a moderate. All’s right with the world, and all those people saying one of our major parties is insane were just silly scaremongers.”
If so, we are doomed, because a Romney presidency will be a nightmare.
Newt Gingrich is a much more-skilled politician than Romney, but Romney is a better matchup against Obama.
But, seriously, you’re saying that Ron freaking Paul “can” win Iowa, but that Barack Obama “cannot” win the election against Mitt Romney?
You must not be using “can” in the same way.
In the general, I don’t know — but I fear 8+% unemployment and an opponent the Village deems moderate makes an Obama-Romney contest an uphill battle for the incumbent.
Obama’s reelection will hinge primarily on the state of the economy at the time, barring major events like another terror attack or major scandal. That means he could win or lose against either Romney or Gingrich. The battle right now is showing that Gingrich is the more able campaigner. Romney is shooting himself in the foot with silly bets, and putting lunar mining up as his major difference from Gingrich. Gingrich pops Romney’s whole “not a career politician” schtick with one remark about losing to Kennedy. It’s not Romney who scares me here.
So now you are calling Steve M. a firebagger? Juicebox Jesus!!
Paul should do well in New Hampshire.
If Paul wins Iowa I haven’t the slightest idea what is going to happen. There may be a stop Paul movement in new Hampshire – but who knows.
I’m trying to play this in my head:
“We have to stop Ron Paul! My God…My God!”
Ron Paul isn’t some Washington jerk who you want to punch in the face. If there was an organized “Stop Paul” movement among the party leadership, it would generate all sorts of sympathy for him.
It isn’t like Gingrich or Romney or some other smarmy career pol who looks like an overgrown student council ass-kisser. It would be like watching a bunch of guys in suits beat up a little girl.
Start here: he blamed America for 9/11.
Doesn’t matter if it’s accurate. Doesn’t matter if all the kiddie Paulbots whine and pout about how unfair it is. Say that, put it in enough TV ads, and Paul gets no votes whatsoever in Iowa from anyone who isn’t either young or a current or former lefty who voted Nader in 2000.
You’re right.
Republicans would be happy to see a bunch of guys in suits beat up a little girl, as long as they first ran some negative advertising against her.
These people aren’t like us.
And yet…
In a world in which Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucuses, does that line still work?
Neither one of them will stop shit like this.
Damn, the teabaggers sure are fickle. That is all.
Well I guess that’s that then. Since Romney is gonna be the nominee, and Obama can’t beat ’em, I guess we should start preparing for the Romney presidency.
So what should our action plan be to survive it.
I’m gonna go with other commentators saying this makes no sense, in terms of Romney winning being determined by what happens in Iowa.
There is too much fluidity in the GOP, and WAYYYYYYY too much anti-establishment (aka, anti-Romney/GOP elite) for them to coalesce happily around Romney as the nominee. This is not an instance where people are just going to “fall in line”, because all that is left as a saving grace for keeping the GOP a real party is the white hot passion of the Tea Party base. These folks are the core of any GOP election, and a ‘meh’ candidate like Romney has them looking for a third party or quitting the process altogether.
Meanwhile, the mushy middle independent voters (things continuing economically as the are now for the US with a gradual recover, and crossing my fingers over the Euro) are going to shrug their shoulders and let Obama have a second term rather than trusting the crazy party that nearly defaulted on our debt. Pending economic calamity I don’t see the GOP winning, though it will look close until things break one way or the other.
I’m still sticking by my belief that Romney is the nominee, and Steve M is right that Paul can help make it happen.
If you think the attacks on Gingrich are ferocious, you have seen nothing compared to the shitstorm that will be unleashed if Paul wins, or even shows a strong second, in Iowa. If attacks are hurting a known quality like Gingrich (wasn’t that the CW last week – the new support for Newt would stick because everybody already knew about his baggage?) just think what they’d do to Ron Paul. Think of a cow standing placidly in an Amazon river. Paul will keep the 15% or so of dedicated Paulites, but the rest of that support is just as soft as it is for everyone else, and it won’t last long when the school of piranhas notices it.
After Paul has been skeletonized, who’s left? A weakened Newt, a nearly irrelevant Perry, and Mitt. Your 2012 Republican nominee.
I don’t agree that Romney will clearly beat Obama. I do agree that of the four, he has by far the best shot, for exactly the reasons Steve M mentions upthread.
Wasn’t BooMan saying something like “incumbents either win big or lose big?” I can’t picture Obama losing big to Romney.
But wtf do I know?
I guess it depends on where you predict Paul’s fair-weather followers going. If he does lose the 5+ percent he’s picked up lately and drop back down to the core of committed Paultards, do those voters go to the establishment candidate (Romney) or to other insurgent candidates (Gingrich/Bachmann/etc.)? I’m not sure I see the Paul-curious retreating back to Romney.
No, it’s going to take a lot more than an 8% unemployment rate to convince me that Obama can’t beat Romney. We’ve still got 11 months before the next election, and there’s going to be a lot of polling and campaigning and debating and so forth in the meanwhile. I don’t even want to try to predict how that’s all going to turn out, but there are some things that we can be sure of, and one is that whoever wins the Republican nomination is going to be stuck with some insanely unpopular positions–calling for even yet still more massive tax cuts for the wealthy, eliminating Medicare, privatizing Social Security, and basically dismantling the entire federal government.
I mean, at some point Romney is going to have to answer a simple question: As President, would you ever be willing to sign a tax increase? How does he answer that? We’ve got polls showing as much as 80% support for raising taxes on the wealthy, but as of right now it’s still something Republican politicians aren’t even allowed to speculate about in public.
Not that the Romney campaign isn’t going to be trying to deceive the voters about all of this, since they’ve already abandoned any notion of honesty or integrity. But if there wasn’t some limit to the gullibility of the American people, Obama never would have been elected in the first place.
I think this is about right. Of all the top-tier GOP candidates, Romney is the most worrisome to me, and I believe he will almost certainly win the nomination. But now that Romney has been forced to fetishize Paul Ryan’s Coupons4Codgers plan and take many other extreme positions to placate the crazy base, he’s more vulnerable than he was as a “moderate Republican” ideal rather than as an actual candidate.
Add to that Romney horrible personal skills and the fact that most people still like Obama personally even if they’re dissatisfied with his job performance, and I call a Romney – Obama race about even with maybe even a slight advantage for Obama. We shall see.