Page 1 of 18 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 1098

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!

    Politics 2012: The GOP Nominating Race

    Ok, I am going to try something. It may be a bad idea, but I have faith in our community.

    I want to see if we can talk about the Presidential race without getting into discussions of policy and who we like/hate and the such. We are just going to have an analytical and factual discussion about the GOP field. No passions, no ideological debates, no insults. Maybe we can do it, maybe we can't. I am hoping this will largely be a discussion place for polls and stuff like that.

    Please know that I will be looking closely at this thread. If you get into an ideological debate, you are probably going to get dinged. Please prove me right in thinking we can handle this.

    I'll start the discussion with the following --

    I am shocked at the latest Intrade odds of winning the GOP nomination. Intrade still has Romney as the huge GOP favorite despite Gingrich's surge. Here are the odds--

    Romney - 59.0%
    Gingrich - 17.9%
    Ron Paul - 7.5%
    Huntsman - 7.5%
    Perry - 3.4%
    Bachman - 1.7%
    Santorum - 0.7%

    I know Romney has been the most logical choice for a loooong time but many polls now show him running 3rd in Iowa, well behind Gingrich and slightly behind Paul. His once big lead in New Hampshire has been whittled to single-digits in most polls, and we know there will be an Iowa bounce for the winner there. Nationally, among all GOP voters, he is trailing Gingrich by about 10 points. What's more, the races right after New Hampshire, Florida and South Carolina, both seem to greatly favor Gingrich.

    I am seriously considering putting some money down on Gingrich as I think his odds of taking the nomination are muuuuch higher than 1-in-5 and his Intrade stock will bounce into at least the 30s if he wins Iowa.

    -Jason "and now I hit submit new thread and HOPE that we can keep this very civil" Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    I want to see if we can talk about the Presidential race without getting into discussions of policy and who we like/hate and the such.
    I find that unlikely on this board, heehee. But anything is possible. I agree that those intrade odds seem ridiculous to me - hard to believe Romney is such a favorite based on the recent poll numbers that have Gingrich way ahead nationally. Do you think the Republican National Committee's decision to proportionally award delegates this primary season (first time they've done that, I believe) will have an effect on the election at all? I would think it could make the primary season a lot longer as even if Romney, for example, comes in second place in the first four states, as long as he's relatively close percentage-wise, he can make it up in future states. The momentum isn't as severe as it used to be in a "winner takes all" setup. I mean, the Democratic primary process in 2008 was like that (delegates proportionally awarded) and caused the Clinton/Obama battle to go on a lot longer than McCain. (Obviously, other factors could have been at play as well.) So, perhaps this benefits a candidate who has a more established campaign on the ground and more $$$ to spend in various states.

    I've heard that Romney has a more established campaign staff and money to spend (although I think Gingrich is picking up more donations as his poll numbers have improved, but he apparently has a tiny office in Iowa), so perhaps a more drawn out process favors Romney. I'm just speculating though. Incidentally, if the Democratic National Committee had the same rules the Republicans did in 2008, Hillary would have likely gotten the nomination, right? She won the large populous states like NY and California, but again, was awarded delegates proportionally based on the percentage of votes.

    Blue "I am not a politics expert, so be kind" dog
    (yes, stealing Jason's signature item for this post only)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North of Durham
    I agree that it is quite surprising that Romney is shown as such a favorite - I would expect him to be ahead, but not by nearly that much. Some of this reflects his "electability" amongst the general voter community - the politics that will win the republican nomination are likely much different than what will win the White House, and it will be up to the Republican voters to evaluate this. Also, I think these numbers might show foresight into the many skeletons in Gingrich's closet that will emerge more vividly as the process continues - The New Yorker (admittedly with a very liberal slant) discusses some of these:

    http://www.newyorker.com/talk/commen...talk_hertzberg

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Northeast Florida
    On a cable news show I was watching this morning it was mentioned that in the last 52 years, only once has the GOP not nominated the individual who appeared "next in line" for the nomination. The Intrade odds may reflect that history to an extent, as Romney is certainly the next in line. It does seem like the Intrade odds disproportionately favor Romney, though. I'd put it at more like about 55% Romney, 45% Gingrich, with no one else really having a significant chance.

    How up-to-date are the Intrade odds? Maybe they don't fully reflect Newt's recent rise yet?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    Quote Originally Posted by Duke4Ever32 View Post
    On a cable news show I was watching this morning it was mentioned that in the last 52 years, only once has the GOP not nominated the individual who appeared "next in line" for the nomination.
    Who was that? Goldwater?

    A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.
    ---Roger Ebert


    Some questions cannot be answered
    Who’s gonna bury who
    We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
    ---Over the Rhine

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by throatybeard View Post
    Who was that? Goldwater?
    That would be my answer.

    Interesting struggle between the party leaders (tepid backers of Romney) and the engergized/enraged rank-and-file (Gingrich) and a dedicated insurgent faction (Ron Paul).

    They changed the rules IIRC for the early states to make them proportionate delegates as opposed to winner take all. Which may mean this drags past Florida.

    Fun for us political junkies.

  7. #7

    Iowa

    Beacuse it is a caucus and not a primary, the Iowa results can be skewed by organization and passion.

    In other words, the outcome can be misleading.

    Since 1976, the eventual Republican nominee has won six of the nine Iowa caucuses -- George H. Bush beat Reagan 32-30 percent in 1980' Bob Dole led the pack with 37 percent in 1988 ... folowed by Pat Roberson at 25 percent and George H. Bush (the eventual nominee) at 19 percent. Four years ago, Mike Huckabee won the caucus with 34 percent of the vote. Mitt Romney was second at 25 percent and Fred Thompson third. He barely edged out eventual nominee John McCain, who got just 13 percent of the vote.

    To me (as a Democrat) it's interesting to watch, but I won't get too carried away by the outcome.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    The City of Brotherly Love except when it's cold.
    Quote Originally Posted by Olympic Fan View Post
    Beacuse it is a caucus and not a primary, the Iowa results can be skewed by organization and passion.

    In other words, the outcome can be misleading.

    Since 1976, the eventual Republican nominee has won six of the nine Iowa caucuses -- George H. Bush beat Reagan 32-30 percent in 1980' Bob Dole led the pack with 37 percent in 1988 ... folowed by Pat Roberson at 25 percent and George H. Bush (the eventual nominee) at 19 percent. Four years ago, Mike Huckabee won the caucus with 34 percent of the vote. Mitt Romney was second at 25 percent and Fred Thompson third. He barely edged out eventual nominee John McCain, who got just 13 percent of the vote.

    To me (as a Democrat) it's interesting to watch, but I won't get too carried away by the outcome.
    I believe it's 5 out of 9 and if you eliminate the years when the incumbent republican was running unopposed, 1984, 1992, 2004, it's even less predictive. Your main point is right.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Close to the Gothic Playground!

    You hit the nail on the head!

    Quote Originally Posted by Olympic Fan View Post
    Beacuse it is a caucus and not a primary, the Iowa results can be skewed by organization and passion.

    In other words, the outcome can be misleading.

    Since 1976, the eventual Republican nominee has won six of the nine Iowa caucuses -- George H. Bush beat Reagan 32-30 percent in 1980' Bob Dole led the pack with 37 percent in 1988 ... folowed by Pat Roberson at 25 percent and George H. Bush (the eventual nominee) at 19 percent. Four years ago, Mike Huckabee won the caucus with 34 percent of the vote. Mitt Romney was second at 25 percent and Fred Thompson third. He barely edged out eventual nominee John McCain, who got just 13 percent of the vote.

    To me (as a Democrat) it's interesting to watch, but I won't get too carried away by the outcome.
    Excellent post. Ok, Repub here. IF Romney gets the nod he won't win; I can't vote for Perry but with the base as I know it, Perry stands a substantially higher chance of winning than does Romney. This again looks like a butt-whuppin' for the Repubs, which is fine with me. I remain worn out with politics and it's been that way for as long as I can remember, actually.

    dukestheheat
    hope I don't get dinged and if I do, I didn't mean it fellas.
    and this does remind me that I need to change my signature line.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    The City of Brotherly Love except when it's cold.

    Well This Can't Help

    Ron Paul walked out of a CNN interview last night.
    http://www.cnn.com/video/standard.ht...ewsletters.cnn

    Probably will solidify support in Iowa but reinforce his fringe image elsewhere. Paul was pretty insistent in recent interviews that he will not run as a 3rd party candidate but did not dismiss entirely.

    incidentally, since Jason started this thread, Romney has moved up about 10 percent on Intrade. As the news cycle focuses on the candidates in the lead up to Iowa, support in the betting market is consolidating which makes perfect sense to me. Unless somebody turns up a scandal in Romney's past or he flames out in Iowa, both highly unlikely, expect the bifurcation(Romney vs. everyone else) to continue as the caucus approaches.
    Last edited by 77devil; 12-22-2011 at 07:33 AM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Quote Originally Posted by 77devil View Post
    Unless somebody turns up a scandal in Romney's past or he flames out in Iowa, both highly unlikely...
    That's one of the big benefits of a second-go-round candidacy. All your dirt has been dug, and either there is none to find (Romney) or people have come to deal with it (Gingrich). Maybe Herman Cain can give his candidacy another shot in 12 years after people are no longer surprised by his (alleged) cheating ways.
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    [Goldwater] would be my answer.
    My guess was because I was supposing Rockefeller was the "next in line." I may be wrong about that. But I couldn't think of a better R example since 1960.

    A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.
    ---Roger Ebert


    Some questions cannot be answered
    Who’s gonna bury who
    We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
    ---Over the Rhine

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!

    PPP Poll

    PPP, which is a highly respected polling organization, just released a new Iowa poll minutes ago. It is the first poll done in almost a week as most pollsters took a break for the Holiday weekend. Here is what it shows--


    Paul 24
    Romney 20
    Gingrich 13
    Bachman 11
    Perry 10
    Santorum 10
    Huntsman 4


    That is quite a tight race. PPP says Paul appears to be assembling the same core supporters who gave Obama victory in Iowa in 2008 -- young, independent-minded voters who are sick of the status quo. In fact, there are apparently a large number of self-identified Democrats and Independants who plan to come out to the GOP Caucus to vote for Paul. PPP says that if turnout is bad, they expect Romney to win but a strong turnout will almost certainly mean a victory for Paul.

    Romney actually has a negative approval rating among likely GOP caucus-goers, 47 percent disapprove of him and only 44 percent approve. The consensus is that Paul voters are largely "true believers" in his cause. Most of the other voters are either pro or anti-Romney. Mitt is lucky there are 4 candidates dividing the "anti-Romney" vote fairly equally. If any one of the 4 can get some momentum in the final few days, it could vault that candidate to a surprise victory as there appears to be a lot of "anti-Romney" votes to be had in Iowa. There seems to be some thought that Santorum, who has put a ton of time in Iowa, may have the momentum now. I guess everyone else has had a shot, why not him?

    -Jason "I root for interesting campaigns that last a long time, that is what I like" Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    PPP, which is a highly respected polling organization, just released a new Iowa poll minutes ago. It is the first poll done in almost a week as most pollsters took a break for the Holiday weekend. Here is what it shows--


    Paul 24
    Romney 20
    Gingrich 13
    Bachman 11
    Perry 10
    Santorum 10
    Huntsman 4


    That is quite a tight race. PPP says Paul appears to be assembling the same core supporters who gave Obama victory in Iowa in 2008 -- young, independent-minded voters who are sick of the status quo. In fact, there are apparently a large number of self-identified Democrats and Independants who plan to come out to the GOP Caucus to vote for Paul. PPP says that if turnout is bad, they expect Romney to win but a strong turnout will almost certainly mean a victory for Paul.

    Romney actually has a negative approval rating among likely GOP caucus-goers, 47 percent disapprove of him and only 44 percent approve. The consensus is that Paul voters are largely "true believers" in his cause. Most of the other voters are either pro or anti-Romney. Mitt is lucky there are 4 candidates dividing the "anti-Romney" vote fairly equally. If any one of the 4 can get some momentum in the final few days, it could vault that candidate to a surprise victory as there appears to be a lot of "anti-Romney" votes to be had in Iowa. There seems to be some thought that Santorum, who has put a ton of time in Iowa, may have the momentum now. I guess everyone else has had a shot, why not him?

    -Jason "I root for interesting campaigns that last a long time, that is what I like" Evans
    Gingrich's Super-PAC has apparently sent out a pile of negative flyers against Mitt, calling him "the second most dangerous man in America" or something like that. Having watched Newt for 20-something years now, I expect him to finish this stretch with a bunch of haymakers. Whether anything lands or not is still to be seen.

    I think Romney and Paul are the only folks with strong organizations to carry through a long fight. Heck, the rest couldn't even get on the Virginia ballot. And Romney has TONS of cash. I just don't see how anyone grinds him down, despite the fact that the majority of the party just isn't that in to him.



    Edit to add: Newt is swinging at Paul, too:

    "I think Barack Obama is very destructive to the future of the United States. I think Ron Paul's views are totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American," Gingrich said Tuesday in a CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer.

    Could he vote for Paul? "No." If it came down to Paul vs. Obama? "You'd have a very hard choice at that point."
    Last edited by OldPhiKap; 12-28-2011 at 08:03 AM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    "I think Barack Obama is very destructive to the future of the United States. I think Ron Paul's views are totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American," Gingrich said Tuesday in a CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer.
    I wonder if he realizes that's far less insulting to Ron Paul than it is to "every decent American" that thinks Paul is someone they could support.
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    I wonder if he realizes that's far less insulting to Ron Paul than it is to "every decent American" that thinks Paul is someone they could support.
    I doubt it. This is classic Newt. You either love it, or you hate it. Hard to be neutral on the man.

    It will be interesting to see if Newt climbs back into Iowa, or goes down in a wild thrashing collapse. He still has South Carolina as a fire wall, regardless.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    If Mr. Paul wins Iowa, the news about his racist--euphemistically speaking--newsletters will begin to proliferate.

    Mr. Romney is in very good shape. I suspect he has ramped up spending...excuse me, I suspect his PACs, with which he assures everyone he has no connection to...have ramped up spending so he can focus on the only person with a comparable treasure chest: Barack Obama.

  18. #18

    organization

    Iowa is a caucus, not a primary ... so organization is everything and the ad campaign, while still important, is relatively less so.

    I bring this up because of a news report I heard on Dec. 22, while driving down to my family's home for this Christmas vacation. A reporter in Iowa was flabbergasted by the lack of organization exhibited by Gingrich's campaign. He said that Gingrich had almost nobody on the ground in Iowa -- everything was going into his ads. He said that as of Dec. 22 -- just about two weeks before the caucus -- none of the phone banks in Gingrich's headquarters had been connected (so maybe they are using cell phones).

    I don't know ... I'm not there. But that sounds like a recipe for a disastrous showing in Iowa.

    Makes me wonder if a witch might not have cast a spell: "She turned me into a Newt!"
    Last edited by JBDuke; 12-28-2011 at 10:38 AM. Reason: typos

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Is it me, or is Iowa just hugely unimportant if you are a mainstream candidate (Romney, Gingrich, even Perry to an extent).

    Paul won't win the nomination. When was the last time the Iowa winner did? I realize Iowa thins the herd a little bit by picking off the minnows, but it seems a lot of time and effort is put into a caucus that seems to be rather irrelevant come convention time. I guess Romney is following that strategy a bit.

    And states can expletive up a ham sandwich when it comes to voting laws. Heck, that's not just voting laws.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by A-Tex Devil View Post
    Is it me, or is Iowa just hugely unimportant if you are a mainstream candidate (Romney, Gingrich, even Perry to an extent).

    Paul won't win the nomination. When was the last time the Iowa winner did? I realize Iowa thins the herd a little bit by picking off the minnows, but it seems a lot of time and effort is put into a caucus that seems to be rather irrelevant come convention time. I guess Romney is following that strategy a bit.

    And states can expletive up a ham sandwich when it comes to voting laws. Heck, that's not just voting laws.
    Olympic fan addressed that question:
    http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/...619#post536619

    "Since 1976, the eventual Republican nominee has won six of the nine Iowa caucuses..."

Similar Threads

  1. Politics of Preschool
    By JasonEvans in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-05-2008, 02:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •