iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Ron Paul: Poised For An Upset In Iowa?

First Posted: 12/13/2011 5:39 pm Updated: 02/12/2012 4:12 am

The basic story of the campaign season, if you've been absorbing the most conventional accounts from the most conventional media, is that Mitt Romney established himself early on as the candidate to beat. One by one, the other candidates have, in rapid succession, risen to the challenge but failed to surmount it. In that storyline, we've gone from Michele Bachmann to Rick Perry to Herman Cain to -- now -- Newt Gingrich. And the movement up and down for these various candidates has been chiefly the result of the sorts of crash-and-burn errors that the media dearly loves to report on, from Bachmann's HPV debacle to Perry's brain freezes to Cain's alleged sexual harassment of his subordinates.

Now, the media waits in wonder for the story to repeat itself with Gingrich. Sure enough, the first sign of his presumed decline came yesterday when Reuters reported that a University of Iowa poll suggested that Newt's "support could be slipping." It wasn't the most convincing poll in the world, for a variety of reasons related to timing and sample size that are too complicated to expound upon at length, but it nevertheless shot around the world on social media, as the political press geared up for another turn at the flame-out feeding frenzy. And as luck would have it, Public Policy Polling came out today with another set of numbers that suggested the same thing.

So who benefits if Gingrich fades in Iowa? Not so fast, everyone who just said, "Mitt Romney." Via PPP:

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 [Ron] 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%.

Oh, yeah! Ron Paul. Remember him? His basic story, if you've been absorbing the most conventional accounts from the most conventional media, is that Ron Paul doesn't...quite...exist. Paul's the candidate who has consistently gotten ten times the amount of support of the various candidates who get excluded from the debates, without getting much more in the way of press coverage. He consistently outperformed Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum, now has Bachmann and Perry envying his position, and yet, even as he's peaked, the disrespect continues. At the last debate, Paul received only about eleven minutes of time to answer 8 questions -- this despite the fact that he was entering the night at third place in the polls. (I think it took Diane Sawyer the same amount of time to actually pose the questions.)

But there are dissenters to the disrespect. Take Matt Dowd, who made a bold prediction on ABC's "This Week With Christiane Amanpour" some weeks ago that Paul was going to win the Iowa Caucuses. And if Dowd has it in him to make a casual $10,000 bet of his own, those PPP numbers must look awfully enticing:

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%.

Of course, who's in Iowa working to drag Newt down? Paul, who has been running some scorching attack ads aimed at the former speaker. Of course, the conventional wisdom is that going negative drags down the attacker behind the attackee, but in Paul's case, this does not appear to be happening:

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.

[...]

Young voters, independents, and folks who haven't voted in caucuses before is an unusual coalition for a Republican candidate...the big question is whether these folks will really come out and vote...if they do, we could be in for a big upset.

And this is key: "Paul's supporters are considerably more committed to him than Gingrich's are. 77% of current Paul voters say they're definitely going to vote for him, compared to only 54% for Gingrich."

So keep that in mind as you read the way this Paul surge is captured and the way the candidate himself is treated. Most tend to frame Paul as the guy who's going to bail out Mitt Romney -- here's Time's Adam Sorenson, the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza, and our own Sam Stein playing it that way.

But that's not nearly as frustrating to Paul supporters as the way their man was treated on "Meet The Press" last Sunday, when David Gregory plied Ron Paul with question after question about ... Newt Gingrich. And Mitt Romney. What did Paul think of those guys? Who could he get behind as a GOP nominee? I thought it was a "journalistic failure." Jon Stewart was less polite, quipping, "Hey, would you like to go out Saturday night? I know this quiet little place where we can talk which one of your friends I want to f--k."

Naturally, Ron Paul's bid in Iowa faces significant challenges. Much depends on what happens to Gingrich and Romney, and whether or not Paul's coalition can outnumber those two candidates' own constituents on January 3rd. And for Paul, the Iowa Caucus is not just a chance to earn delegates -- it's the acid test for both his ideas and his organization's vaunted mettle. But if you like to see the media's conventional narratives shattered, there's probably a part of you that wouldn't mind seeing Paul prevail.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not?]

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
 
 
  • Comments
  • 5,283
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (75 total)
photo
Wozzeck
Pearl Bay, Australia
10:06 AM on 12/19/2011
Paul is being marginalized by corporate media for failing the same Israel litmus test used by corporate media in selecting its news personnel. CNN' s selection of former AIPAC spokesman Wolf Blitzer is a prime example.
03:35 PM on 12/16/2011
As the corruption became more apparent, and the media became less journalists and more like entertainists or elites trying to pick a candidate for me - I discovered Ron Paul. I read all his books and watch his speeches going back to the 80's. This man takes the oath of office seriously, is relentlessly consistent, and has the solutions that make the most sense. The other republicans are bought and sold status quo pin cushions, and Obama in his own speech last week said Capitalism is the reason why the economy is a shambles. What made America the last 200 years ? Ron Paul has my complete support, I wish I voted for him 2008 perhaps our country would be much better for it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DanInLA
03:13 PM on 12/16/2011
Ron Paul appeals to democrats more than any other republican candidate.
12:47 AM on 12/16/2011
This article touches on a lot of important aspects of the Iowa caucuses and Ron Paul’s potential upset. However, I do not think this article presents enough evidence in support of the other candidates. Yes, the Republican Party, to a certain extent, has pretty terrible potential nominees but that does not mean you can just discredit all of them. If I may speak frankly, I believe that President Obama will most likely get reelected, but when I’m reading an article about the primaries, I want an unbiased and informative report. I think Ron Paul is an excellent candidate as well as Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich.
photo
Bexarpaw
Just tryin to get outta this world alive!
09:04 PM on 12/15/2011
You know I am a very conservative person....not necissarily a Republican or a Libertarian, but very conservative. I would like to vote for Ron Paul and agree with many of his thoughts on government scale and reach. I just cannot vote for him because I don't really think he appeals to the masses needed to defeat Obama. While a lot of his views are to withdraw and regroup, to change a lot of government authority and size, which I feel needed......... most people are still afraid to change directection and come around 180 degrees and take a new course. I find that odd in the fact that is just what we have done accepting the socialist/marxist direction we are now headed.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DanInLA
03:12 PM on 12/16/2011
Don't vote for who might be the best president. Vote for the person you think everyone else will vote for.
photo
Bexarpaw
Just tryin to get outta this world alive!
03:51 PM on 12/16/2011
Very good point......Thank You!
photo
freeSpeakr
I stand on the shoulders of giants
05:34 PM on 12/15/2011
Think about the last few election cycles. How did the winner of Iowa fare in the overall race?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Scott Michael Labenski
04:10 PM on 12/16/2011
but trends do not last forever
05:34 PM on 12/15/2011
Ron Paul would be in high double digits if it weren't for the media's self-fulfilling prophecy that "he can't win." People who would vote for him in a heartbeat hear that and decide to change their minds.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Conlaw Bloganon
Ron Paul 2012!
02:32 PM on 12/16/2011
It is a deliberate effort on the part of the mainstream media to cast Paul as an "also ran," regardless of his actual performance, because he refuses to be bought and paid fore, unlike every other candidate from every party. His is an election that will be won on the ground, on the social networks, and by word of mouth.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
onlyonecandor
05:26 PM on 12/15/2011
What if Dr. Paul wins Iowa? Well, The Republicans have a unique opportunity to make Mr. Obama a one-term president. Dr. Paul is the only possible candidate to beat Obama. The only thing stopping him is his own party. Godspeed Dr. Paul.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
seatheworld1
your duty is to accept me/my duty to tolerate you
12:13 PM on 12/15/2011
Huff Po sure pulled this down quick from top story!
photo
Aryeh Melaris
Put our government back on its leash!
10:44 AM on 12/15/2011
Who is John Galt?

Ron Paul
06:50 PM on 12/15/2011
Who is Lew Rockwell?

Ron Paul
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:27 AM on 12/15/2011
The republicans would rather have Obama win then Ron Paul. Since Newt, Mitt and Obama all work for Goldman Sachs, the Military Industrial Complex and the Ponzi Scheme that is the Federal Reserve, there is an agreement among thieves to retain power by electing these 3 "choices".

When an entire system doesn't want one particular person in power, why is that? Through the generations we complain about "fixing" Washington. An effort is truly made to keep us thinking that we have 3 choices.

The last President to talk about the kind of change Ron Paul wants to make was JFK, like ending the Federal Reserve. His other initiatives are ending the corrupt war on drugs, ending fatcat contracts with companies like Halliburton, restoring civil liberties, returning the power and the money to the people. I hope Americans can "get it" in time.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
seatheworld1
your duty is to accept me/my duty to tolerate you
12:12 PM on 12/15/2011
Yeah and they shot JFK
03:43 PM on 12/16/2011
Actually I think America is starting to wake up, and I believe we may witness some political history in 2012. People are realizing the party does not care about them, they need to vote for a candidate for themselves. If the republicans hold onto the notion that people vote for the party only...then they need a 'wake up' call themselves. Ron Paul is the guy that cares about the average American.
10:58 PM on 12/14/2011
Newt on the housing bubble. Watch if you are a Newt fan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmmCWfAIf5w
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hysterian68
bureaucrat/historian/ranter
09:31 PM on 12/14/2011
Ron Paul may well come in first in Iowa, but I still think Newt gets the nomination. He's still has the best chance of beating Obama of any of the GOP contenders assuming there is no 3rd party contender from the right. Despite his claims that he won't run as a 3rd party candidate next year, I wouldn't rule out a Ron Paul run.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
iamone3
04:01 AM on 12/15/2011
Newt doesn`t stand a chance against Obama. The only one that can beat obama is Ron Paul.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hysterian68
bureaucrat/historian/ranter
02:19 PM on 12/15/2011
“Newt doesn`t stand a chance against Obama. The only one that can beat obama is Ron Paul.”
----------------------------

Perhaps. It looks that way now. I think you have to look down the road. Given that Europe is on the cliff's edge of a depression which will definitely drag the U.S. down with it, I think ANY Republican will be able to defeat him. If the economy doesn't significantly sour, then your right. But even Paul won't be able to defeat Obama.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:33 AM on 12/15/2011
Recent Iowa Poll when asked of each candidate against Obama:

Paul 43% Obama 42%
Gingrich 37% Obama 47%
Romney 37% Obama 44%

I think people just want an honest guy for a change like Ron Paul
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hysterian68
bureaucrat/historian/ranter
02:15 PM on 12/15/2011
“Recent Iowa Poll when asked of each candidate against Obama:

Paul 43% Obama 42%
Gingrich 37% Obama 47%
Romney 37% Obama 44%

I think people just want an honest guy for a change like Ron Paul”
===============
As I've said before, if the Germans and French drag Europe into a depression next year, it will have a direct negative impact on America's economy and Obama's chances or being re-elected will crumble. ANY Republican, despite the Pew findings today, will be able to cut Obama off at the kneecaps.
photo
mcmutter
A Groover has to expect a few setbacks .....
09:18 PM on 12/14/2011
Iowa is certainly nutty enough / weird enough to give Ron Paul a win ....

but in the end I doubt it will really mean anything ....
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:00 AM on 12/15/2011
That's how the media will spin it: and if their man wins it'll will be called a great victory, and he'll be considered a shoe in.

What's nutty or weird to one person is not to another. Check out the video on youtube called One Million Dollar Penny.
03:51 PM on 12/15/2011
If he wins Iowa, it doesn't 'mean nothing'.

It certainly means something.

If Romney wins Iowa does that mean anything? It sure does. It puts Romney and the unquestioned front runner.

What about Gingrich? Same thing. If Gingrich wins Iowa, then he's the point man.

And why wouldn't the same logic which applies to Gingrich and Romney, somehow by a contradiction in that logic, not also apply to Paul?

If he wins, it will certainly mean something.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:49 PM on 12/15/2011
Of course it will, but I read that Chris Wallace has already said that Iowa doesn't mean anything. The neocons at FOX are getting worried, and looking to spin it. The new mantra is Paul is unelectable, actually that's an old mantra, -- memos have gone out to paint him as a 9/11 conspiracy nut which he is not, and they're dusting off the old newsletters that he dealt with forcefully in 08 with Wolf Blitzer.

That youtube video is actually: The One Hundred Million Dollar Penny. Worth a look.
08:46 PM on 12/14/2011
It would be wise to value the years that a person has spent on Earth as an asset to humanity - and not a liability.

One could be inspired by a man whose dedication in the face of overwhelming odds and a lifetime of principled commitment has brought him to the brink of the Presidency.

One could see this as a maturing of the American political mind - but if one does not value the experience, wisdom and commitment to principle of those who have been here awhile, one must then leave it to the young - those who see the value of passion, principle, wisdom, integrity, courage and commitment.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
iamone3
04:03 AM on 12/15/2011
Well said Redking.
12:00 PM on 12/15/2011
Thanks. If anything, the other candidates running are too immature and foolish. The Constitution should be changed to only allow those over 70 to run for public office. Less wars and dumb policies if that were done.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
riverlee34
11:31 AM on 12/15/2011
Agree 100%. When people mention Paul's age, all I can think about is my Grandfather. He is 89, but looks like he's in his mid 60's. He owns and runs his own business and still goes out and works everyday. So, when I see people saying Paul is "too old", it really puzzles me. People who tend to live the longest lives, are those who stay active and working. Paul is physical, still exercises everyday, and still works. I don't think he's too old, by any means. People from that generation LIKED hard work, unlike the later generations who have just gotten lazier with time. I think Paul probably still has many years ahead of him.
12:05 PM on 12/15/2011
Yes, Ron Paul is a great role model for integrity, principle and being a wise and useful member of society no matter what your age. The Universe is 13.7 billion years old. A few Earth years is the tiniest flash in time compared to that. Make the most of it.