New Type of Analysis on the Iowa Results
Future Market Changes Show Who "Wins"
By Adam C Posted in 2008 — Comments (51) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
First, I'd like to get my hands on the entrance poll results to look at the internals. From FoxNews, we know that 60% of Rs were evangelicals and Huck won them handily. We also now that of the non-evangelicals Mitt won big, then McCain got 18% and Huck was 3rd with 14%. That kind of information is really important in assessing other states. If you have the entrance poll data please contact me through the contact form.
Second, the futures markets analysis. In the last 24 hours, the odds that each candidate will win the overall nomination have changed. Thus we can look at people putting their money where their mouth is about who "won" with the Iowa results.
McCain: 27% to 32% (+5). Romney's loss is McCain's gain. The Senator is in position to win NH. If he does, then MI is his chance to notch a second win. But even a second place in MI would be enough to make it through 2/5 as a top tier candidate. He is now the most likely nominee, but not by much.
Giuliani: 24% to 29% (+5). The "wait until Florida" strategy got a boost from the Huck win. Romney's chance to run the early states was the biggest threat to Rudy. Further, Fred staying in the race means the results will continue to be divided for a few more states. Rudy still needs muddled results from NH, MI and SC but his risky gamble got a little boost on Thursday.
Huckabee: 13% to 16% (+3). Huck got a little boost from his win, but not the biggest of the group. A loss would have been almost a knockout, but the win only buys him time. With little money and smaller evangelical numbers in NH and MI, Huck has to show he can be more than the Religious Right candidate to win the nomination. But thanks to Iowa he gets the chance to prove his mettle.
Romney: 23% to 15% (-8). Romney took a solid hit in Iowa. After dumping massive money into the state, he comes up second to low budget Huck. Romney keeps his 15% chance to win because he is viable in NH and MI. But losses there would drop his changes to almost nil. Expect Romney to come out swinging (in a negative way) as he doesn't seem to care about respecting the other R candidates. Romney needs to win NH to get his momentum back. A loss could cripple him in MI and beyond.
Thompson: 3% to 3% (0). Despite all the online talk, Fred still doesn't have a path to the nomination and people who put money on these things know that. If you really think differently you can make bank by going to Intrade and buy up 3 cent shares that pay $1 if he wins the nomination. Fred exceeded expectations, but Iowa is likely his high point. He is at 2% in NH and 6% in MI. He will probably skip those and camp out in SC. But coming in third with 13% in SC won't be enough to keep him in the race. He needs an early state win to be relevant on 2/5. As the futures market shows, the 3rd place finish didn't make a Thompson Presidency any more likely.
[UPDATE] Third point for those who denigrate polls, even in the difficult low turnout caucuses, the polls did very well in predicting the outcome. Here are the results and (RCP Average).
Huckabee 34 (30)
Romney 25 (27)
Thompson 13 (12)
McCain 13 (12)
Paul 10 (8)
Rudy 3 (6)
This is why pundits and analysts follow polls. They correctly caught the Huckaboom and the upticks in Thompson and McCain support in December. They got Paul beating Rudy for 5th correct. And all candidates were within the margin or error. Polls are not "useless;" they are the best piece of information we have before the actual votes.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Minor Candidate Roundup — Comments (4) »
New Type of Analysis on the Iowa Results 51 Comments (0 topical, 51 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Romney's negative attack ads are hurting him. Here is FactCheck discussing how incorrect his ads are:
Romney's latest ad attacks McCain in New Hampshire with false and misleading claims:
* It claims McCain "voted to allow illegals to collect Social Security." That's untrue. Nobody who is in the country illegally could be paid any Social Security benefits under McCain's immigration bill.
* It implies McCain supported "amnesty" for illegal immigrants. That word isn't accurate. Illegal immigrants wouldn't have received a blanket pardon under McCain's bill. Instead, they would have had to pay thousands in penalties and fees to gain legal status. In fact, in 2005 Romney called McCain’s proposal “reasonable” and said it wasn’t amnesty.
* The ad says Romney "cut taxes" in Massachusetts. While he did cut some taxes – for example, enacting business tax credits – tax rates remained unchanged. Plus, Romney raised state revenues by hundreds of millions of dollars per year by increasing fees and closing corporate tax loopholes.
And the NH papers are covering how misleading and wrong the Romney ads are. My guess is that this backfires and hurts Romney in NH.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Look man, this is the umpteenth time that I’ve seen this post of yours, I GET THE POINT! He cheery picked McCain’s record for the worst parts, I see that. But the concerns are TRUE, McCain is NOT A CONSERVATIVE!! (Now, I'm yelling because you are obnoxious to be posting the same stuff all over the place. Get a grip.)
If Romney supporters would stop with the disingenuous "he isn't going negative" then I'd stop pointing out that he has already gone gone negative and is doing it as we speak.
I think Romney could have been a good candidate. But his negative campaigning is a big turn off for me.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
It's not that he "cherrypicked." It's that he lied and said things that aren't true about McCain's record. That's not pointing out bad things (which he could do easily), it's distorting and lying to win. That doesn't show character.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I don't know the details of the McCain plan with regard to SS. But Romney's assertion that he cut taxes is plainly true. Fees may have gone up, but fees are not taxes. As for the word "amnesty" that has been argued to death here. It is disingenuous of you to take one definition of the word - knowing that other people use it in a slightly different way - and claim that any other usage of it is a "lie".
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
He raised fees, and non-general ones at that. Fee's and Taxes are fundamentally different. McCain did support amnesty which was why he lost and the bill failed. It sounds like the social security issue is legal jargon and most likely a distortion on Fact Checks part. Romney is running a honest campaign and is professional enough not to out right lie. So save it, please.
Oh, and one reason they are different is that taxes are spent at the governments disclosure while fees are paid for specific services and are not obligatory.
For examle:
Gasoline taxes, in most states, are dedicated to roads and more closely reflect usage than registration fees, yet the artificial distinction between taxes and fees erroneously implies that the registration fee is the more fair one.
"Romney is running a honest campaign and is professional enough not to out right lie."
Because it harms your credibility among those who read it. If you are a Hewitt-style "my guy can't do wrong" then fine. But that makes it hard to convince others who can see with their own eyes that every candidate has flawed and one of Romney's is that he attacks other Rs with distorted ads.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Distorted, sure, I can see that. They are not out right lies though and the problem I have is that people are undermining his credibility by calling him a liar. That is a distortion as well. He challenges a record, they call him names. The media plays it up. People here play it up. It just gets old.
Are you seriously going to sit here and tell us what what McCain was pushing wasn't amnesty?
I think we've heard that argument before. And rejected it a thousand times over.
"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan
McCain absolutely did vote on giving Social Security benefits to illegal aliens. Now it's either you who is lying or distorting the truth and trying to blame in on Romney.
Sen. McCain Joined Sens. Clinton And Obama In Voting To Give Retroactive Social Security Benefits To Illegal Immigrants Who Would Be Granted Amnesty. "Specter, R-Pa., motion to table (kill) the Ensign, R-Nev., amendment no. 3985 that would bar illegal immigrants currently in the country from claiming Social Security credits for work done in years before they are assigned a valid Social Security number." (S. 2611, CQ Vote #130: Motion Agreed To 50-49: R 11-44; D 38-5; I 1-0, 5/18/06, Clinton, McCain, And Obama Voted Yea)
Or at least he voted to kill an amendment that would have prevented it.
Sen. McCain: "It would be wrong to deny hardworking men and women credit for all the dollars they've paid into Social Security from their often meager wages."
If you're going to call Mitt Romney a liar, I want you to call Rush Limbaugh a liar:
Rush Limbaugh: "[Sen. McCain] was one of the senators that voted to go ahead and allow Social Security benefits to be paid to people who had used identity fraud to get their Social Security number. ... Senator McCain, none of the others that support this will recognize or acknowledge any of the negative aspects of this, of the stolen Social Security numbers. ... Imagine that his Social Security number is swiped and that his identity is stolen. I'll guarantee you he would have an entirely different view of this."
Quoted from 5/22/06
How do you like them apples?
"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#IAR...
I think this is what you're looking for.
"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death. I'm very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that." - Bill Shankly
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
He won the Independent and Angry at Bush vote.
I hate praising CNN, but that was a very informative chart.
McCain has the best chance right now because he's going to win New Hampshire, Romney will be wounded, Huckabee will flame out, and Rudy's strategy is leaving him out of the conversation right now.
Rudy has the second best chance because he still has a huge lead in a lot of delegate rich states and you have to think some Republicans are still not happy with McCain.
Huckabee is now definitely in the running, but there fortunately there is much resistance to him. His best hope is that the non-Huck vote gets split up.
Romney still has the money to compete so he still has a shot, but two losses in two states that he invested so much time and money in is devastating.
Thompson's candidacy still lacks any energy, is short on funds, and lacks a clear path to victory. He's running behind Huckabee right now in the states that he needs and is off the radar in many other states. He needs to some how find lightning in a bottle and do it quick so he can win or come in a competitive second in either South Carolina or Florida or else he's finished.
Markets do clarify things. It's pretty clear that Romney's campaign is a dead man walking.
I do think Fred has a path to the nomination, but it's a long shot. If he wins in SC and then beats Rudy in the big Florida showdown, he would win a lot of Mega-Tuesday. But on balance, Thompson's staying in the race hurts McCain and helps Huckabee and Rudy.
I think that scenario is quite pie-in-the-sky. First, I don't see how Fred wins SC over Huckabee and McCain. But even if he does, I see almost no chance for him to win in a large, media-dominated state like Florida. In fact, I would expect Rudy, McCain and Huck to do better than him. I guess if he somehow pulls off SC, then he might push out Huck but he'd still be fighting two better known and better funded candidates in a big, diverse state.
The best case Fred scenario is NH 5th ahead of Rudy or Paul. A surprise 3rd in MI behind McCain and either Romney or Huck. A surprise win in SC. A strong 2nd or 3rd in Florida. And somehow he becomes the "conservative" choice instead of Huck by 2/5. I think that is very unlikely, especially after Iowa but it's his best chance. And that's why he has a 3% chance of winning while even Romney has 15%.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Huckabee is under attack from all corners because of his populist, big-government positions. I would think that counts for something. With Fred camping out in SC, I could see how he could win there. It's a different situation now. Maybe Mitt supporters will leave Mitt and go to Fred. Let's see what happens after NH.
My bet is that Mitt will get killed in NH and Fred will pick up his support in SC.
Visit The Scratching Post!
...you have the face the fact that Romney still has a decent shot (15%), and Thompson has small chances (3%).
But the whole argument for the Romney campaign *was* his electability, and te strategy for getting there was to win the early states. Beyond that, he has little appeal. He can't claim more experience than his rivals, because he doesn't have more experience. He can't claim electability in the general, because according to polls (the only evidence we have to this point) he's doing even worse than Thompson in the general. His running on the image of "Mr. Successful Businessman" is just a turn-off for most people, and in the general will definitely hurt him and reinforce the public image of the Republican Party as "the party of the rich". And of course, the dual perceptions of flip-floppery and fakeness will hurt him even more, and will prevent him from taking on the mantle of "the outsider" (which ironically Huck has been able to do despite his 8+ years as a professional politician).
I don't expect any major candidate who has the funds to drop out until after February 5th. In fact, given the volatility, it would be foolish to do so.
And fortunately for us, the same applies to the other side.
money where their mouths are, are fools.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
I have a hard time imagining any of our candidates actually winning the primary. I have a hard time believing that right now anyone has much better than a twenty percent chance of winning the nomination.
I agree with the analysis that Iowa's results help McCain more than Huckabee. Romney taking a hit, more than Huckabee's win, is responsible for Giuliani's rise. It wouldn't have mattered who won as long as it wasn't Romney.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110011082
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
why a small, largely rural state where a lot of Evangelicals vote for an Evangelical has so much impact on millions of voters.
It's like saying since Stop the Music got a jump on Secretariat out of the gate, Our Native had a better chance to win and Secretariat was in trouble.
--------------------
Vista really sucks!
The biggest effect they had was knocking Romney down from 23% to 15% and that's because he spent lots of time and money and lost.
Overall, IA's #1 is the national #3. IA's #2 is the national #4. IA's #3 is national #6 (behind Paul) and their #4 is nationally #1. So it's not exactly like they have set the tables for who is 1, 2, 3 now.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
1. Mostly it is name recognition. The average Joe has paid very little attention to this point.
2. Unfortunately, time is now VERY short, too short, for candidates to get their message out along with their "resume".
3. The huge eye opener for me on the stats was the percentage of WOMEN that went for the Huckster. What is it with these guys from Hope???
Those aren't national polls. Those are future markets where people put money on who will win the nomination. So McCain is not ahead in the national RCP average (Rudy is), but he is ahead in futures markets.
I agree that national polls aren't that important. Although since 2/5 is practically a national campaign, they may be more important than in the past.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Bill Clinton had 3% in Iowa in 1992. Even uncommitted had 12%. George H Bush was 3rd with 19% in 1988.
In 1992, Sen. Harkin (D-IA) was running and no one campaigning in IA except him. So that piece of data is a bit distorted. 1988 R race is a good example. But in 1996 and 2000, Dole and Bush won IA and got the nomination. So it isn't nothing to win IA.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Dole and Bush weren't unknown dark horses with no money or staff. That's why I see Huck as a fluke, an Evangelical voted for BY Evangelicals. Who cares? I believe Iowa, this year, is interesting, but meaningless for both parties.
I am so stunned. I have always thought of McCain as a logical man on the subject of “National Security”. I can only say wow, having read a news report of what McCain said while campaigning in Iowa, back in May of 2007.
What I am disturbed about is a certain quote from McCain, in which he says quote “I would close Gitmo.” To be as fair as I can be, this is just a small portion of the total comments McCain made. McCain also talked about global warming and other subjects of interest to Senator McCain.
The link to the quote I am talking about, can be found at the link below along with all of McCain’s comments he made that day, while his microphone was hot.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-06-18-gitmo-candidates_N.htm
McCain's respectable showing in Iowa and a win in NH will make him the darling of the center-left coalition Rudy hopes to capture on the East and West coasts.
Thompson needs an uptick in NH and a win in South Carolina to make him the viable conservative alternative to Romney - Romney needs a NH win.
All Republican candidates would benefit by understanding why Huckabee lifted off in Iowa. Its not just evangelicals. Huckabee is the only candidate to address the greatest frustration mainstream Republicans have with the Republican frontrunners and the Republican establishment. Their number one priority is saving this country from disintegrating into a godless, secular state.
Huckabee is the only candidate to clearly identify himself with this cause. He does not waffle on social issues; he is proud to own and carry a hunting rifle; he has Chuck Norris.
I'll bet a small number of voters know his record on immigration but so far none of the other candidates seems willing to clearly challenge him on this or other issues.
Unless this happens Huckabee will continue to get a way with murder.
My gut tells me that they slightly underestimate Romney, who could still win New Hampshire, and overestimates Huckabee (who won't win NH and has no infrastructure for Tsunami Tuesday).
Certainly McCain, who must now be favourite for NH and Giuliani, who is likely to see the field remain fractured until Tsunami Tuesday are the big gainers.
Just for comparison, remember 1988. George H W Bush was the prohibitive favourite for the early states. He was sitting VPOTUS and had beaten Reagan in Iowa eight years earlier. He came third behind Dole and Robertson. His twenty point lead in NH evaporated overnight. He ended up winning NH by 9 points and his campaign was back on track. Before Iowa winning by 9 points in NH would have been seen as a setback. After Iowa it was a comeback.
I think the market was broadly discounting a Huck win by five points. (Though I was expecting him to lose). His actual margin is therefore a good thing (for him). But Romney's setback is nowhere near as big as the one that Bush (41) suffered in 1988 - and Romney's main rival in NH is not even the man who beat him in IA.
It would have been much worse for Romney if McCain had secured a clear third place in Iowa or if Clinton had won the Democratic caucuses.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
In 1988 there was an establishment candidate (Bush) who'd spent the last eight years doing loyal work as Reagan's right hand man. Today there's nobody in that position. So the race is wide open, although Romney's margin of error has shrunk considerably. He can't count on the support of a loyal party establishment to help him overcome the momentum of his rivals. He must win New Hampshire to get back in this thing. If he doesn't he can stage a last stand in Michigan, but by that point his chances will be next to nothing.
BTW, I think the person in the best position right now is probably McCain. Like Fred Thompson, McCain finished strong in Iowa, given the low expectations. Moreover, Huckabee can't win New Hampshire, but McCain can there and is tied or leading in New Hampshire right now. [1] With just five days to go, expect McCain's positive momentum and Romney's negative momentum to be the deciding factor.
[1] http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_...
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
At this point Romney and McCain are in an elimination match inside the overall contest. I think McCain wins in NH in four days. If Romney does lose, Romney may stick it out through Michigan, but he's done.
McCain has to beat Huckabee in South Carolina. Otherwise he's done.
That's why Rudy, despite his poor showing, got a big boost from the Iowa results.
So Huck doesn't have to beat McCain in NH or MI, but McCain has to beat Huck in SC or "he's done."
If McCain wins one state he's in until 2/5 and has a national reputation like Rudy.
If Huckabee loses NH and MI, he needs to do well in SC. A win would be great, but even a good showing will keep him in through 2/5.
I think any candidate who wins an early state is probably viable through 2/5. That's why Fred is having a hard time. And it's why Romney losing IA makes NH so key for him.
If I had to guess, the early states go Huck, McCain, McCain, Huck. I don't know about Florida and then 2/5 hits. That would make it a McCain-Rudy-Huck race on 2/5. But there's lots to happen before then.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I like most of your post, but I actually think most of the major polls performed very poorly in Iowa, on both the GOP and the Dem side. On the GOP side most of the polls did predict a win for Huckabee, but at least two (strategic vision and CNN) called it the other way, and none of the polls called anything close to the correct margin of victory. [1] Similarly, most of the recent polls called Iowa for Obama, but two (CNN and American Research Group) went for Clinton. None got the margin right except for the Des Moines Register poll, which came pretty close. [2]
In both cases you see the problem with relying on polls for accurate predictions of primary races. In the primaries, and especially in a caucus system like Iowa, polls have a hard time accurately predicting the voting behavior of the relatively small group of highly motivated voters who will actually participate in the primary/caucus polling. That's not the same thing as trying to predict the voting behavior the the Republican or Democratic voters in general, because in either party most of the voters stay home during the primaries. So as this process continues, expect polling results to disappoint us again and again.
[1] http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_republica...
[2]
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_primar...
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
In both cases you see the problem with relying on polls for accurate predictions of primary races. In the primaries, and especially in a caucus system like Iowa, polls have a hard time accurately predicting the voting behavior of the relatively small group of highly motivated voters who will actually participate in the primary/caucus polling.
Absolutely right. I have seen no attempt to measure this, but I would be amazed if the polls did not have a better record at predicting primaries than cauci.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
I think most of us here know why the polls you mentioned (CNN and ARG) were wrong. And if you don't, you should ask some of your conservative friends how they feel about CNN. Nuff Said!
"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his."
-General George S. Patton
Good discussion once again; unfortunately I threw my two cents into another thread and don't have the energy to repeat it all hear....
Does this forebode the return of Crosstabs?
(Say yes, Adam!)
Be nice or i'll slap you cross-eyed!
- Granny
Huckabee was used yesterday. He was used by evangelicals as an anti-Romney vote. Why? It is simple. Romney's election would legitimize Mormonism. Evangelicals fear the legitimization of Mormonism.
It is this fear that forces Evangelicals into the biggotted stance that Mormons are not Christians. Referring to Mormons as Christians also legitimizes Mormonism.
Huckabee may continue to have success as the anti-Romney candidate but that will only continue while Evangelicals fear that Romney still has a chance. Once Romney is elimated, Huckabee will also be eliminated. Ironic isn't it?
And is this why 20% of evangelicals turned out for Romney? Evangelicals in Iowa turned out to support one of their own. That's pretty clear from the entrance poll data. There's no reason to believe that they secretly turned out to try to stop a Mormon from getting to the White House.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
No, I don't have any evidence. Just my opinion based on discussions with Evangelicals who have expressed to me that fear of Mormon legitimization.
Yes, only 20% of evangelicals voted for Romney. That is why he lost. He won among other constituencies. It is the evangelicals who caused his loss.
I am also making a prediction. Once Romney slides from the polls (and I believe that he probably will), I predict that Huckabee will suffer a similar demise.
This shows that if the GOP base is going to be a viable force going forward we need to support Romney and quit with the spin. He is not going negative, he is contrasting, and so on and so forth. The top three are all one stool slingers, and will fracture the base. Huckabee would be a worst case scenerio but Rudy and McCain would be not much better.