This blog is for students in Ms. Aby-Keirstead's AP US Government class in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on current events and governmental affairs. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
In an alternative universe I already did this so it didn't occur to me to do this until Abby T emailed me. My bad.
posted by maby-keirstead @ 7:13 AM
This blog is for students in Ms. Aby-Keirstead's AP US Government class in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on current events and governmental affairs. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
19 Comments:
@Hannah
Surprisingly, your prediction is almost accurate. Unexpectedly, Santorum lost to Romney by a mere eight votes [1]. A couple weeks ago, Santorum had few supporters and his meetings were not well attended [2]. Just two days ago, he was followed by the media and his gathering was packed full of supporters [2]. I agree with your statement that Santorum had a solid plan for winning the Iowa caucus and it appears to have worked. As seen by the results of the caucus, the 381 events and all 99 of Iowa’s counties allowed Santorum to gain an advantage over his competitors [3]. This really aided in spreading his name and message throughout Iowa. In November, Santorum had a two percent popularity rate has jumped to eleven percent in the past week, according to the Gallup Polls [4]. You are correct in predicting the trend of face-to-face visits being popular and well liked in Iowa. I agree that the Iowa’s Secretary of State supporting Santorum is a factor in his unexpected win, but I also want to add that Vander Plaats’s backing of Santorum helped him gain trustworthiness in voters [4]. Vander Plaat is the CEO of Family Leader, a strong Christian organization [5]. This aided Santorum in gaining more religiously conservative voters, which supports your statements of him having a religious advantage. Before the Evangelical Christian voters were divided between multiple candidates, this really helped swing their votes to focus on one candidate who is running with similar views [6]. If they all supported the same candidate, they would have a greater chance of being represented in Washington D.C. With this Evangelical Christian voter coalition, Santorum was able to gain a number of votes fairly close to Romeny’s votes.
I disagree with your statement of Santorum having no chance at winning the national nomination and Gingrich being a likely nominee. After almost winning the Iowa caucus, his momentum has greatly increase by both fundraising and supporters. “Game on,” was Santorum’s reaction when announcing his plans to win more caucuses and primaries [6]. While he has gained national attention due to the Iowa caucus, it will be interesting to see if Santorum can gain voters other than his strong base of Evangelical Christians, who allowed him to almost win the caucus [3]. In addition, Santorum is now facing the new obstacle of harsh political ads, rather than not being a known candidate. This could kill off his campaign. For instance, when Newt Gingrich was at the top of his game at thirty seven percent of support, all of the opposing candidates used attack ads to undermine Gingrich’s campaign [4] [7]. Due to these ads and many other factors, he has significantly dropped to nineteen percent popularity and was far behind Romeny, Santorum, and Paul in fourth place during the Iowa Caucus [4] [8]. On the other hand, the increase in popularity does result in an increase in financial support, so Santorum could expand his campaign to gain votes outside of his Evangelical Christian supporters. It should be interesting to see if Romney does win the New Hampshire primary or if Santorum has gained enough momentum from winning the Iowa caucus to defeat Romney. If he does, your predictions of him becoming the Republican nominee are high.
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5YbuhnoytM (ABC News)
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPQ5dWfsfCI (ABC News)
[3] http://iowacaucus.com/2012/01/04/santorum-won-with-grit-determination-and-volunteers/
[4] http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx
[5] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/bob-vander-plaats-endorses-santorum-does-it-matter/2011/12/20/gIQAKvSK7O_blog.html
[6] http://www.npr.org/2012/01/04/144663446/santorum-finishes-second-in-iowa-caucuses
[7] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKTOCP45zY (political ad)
[8] http://iowacaucus.com/results/
Julie-
You should look in to betting on horse races because you are quite good at making predictions. As of December 29th, Mitt Romney was the leader in polls regarding the Iowa caucus, ahead by 25% (2). He had been spending a considerable amount of time “blitzing Iowa,” the portion of his campaign spent there paid off when he won the January 3rd caucus. You brought up a good point about how voters who had been supporting Newt Gingrich would take their votes elsewhere, possibly to Romney. Just before Christmas, negative ads largely impacted the Gingrich campaign, bringing the percentage of voters committed to him down to 14%, with only 43% of all voters thinking he has “strong principles,” (1). However, pollsters for Gallup found that former Gingrich supporters were spreading there votes out amongst the other candidates, not automatically giving them to Romney (4).
I agree with you that while Mitt Romney was able to win the Iowa caucus, it is not likely that he will win the GOP nomination. He does have a lead in the New Hampshire polls, and if he were to win the primary there he would be the only non-incumbent Republican candidate to win both major preliminary elections in one year (3). Romney won the Iowa caucus by the same percentage of votes that he lost to Mike Huckabee four years ago, showing that his politics have made little progress (50). In fact, Romney’s winning percentage of votes in Iowa is the lowest seen in the 40 years of the Iowa caucus (5). The Republican Party will be looking to nominate someone with much more support from voters; something they will need if they having any hopes of defeating President Obama.
1.
http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2011/12/iowa-deck-reshuffles-again-gingrich-loses-ground-paul-gaining/
2.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-28/gingrich-loses-support-in-pre-caucus-poll-of-republicans-that-romney-leads.html
3.
http://articles.boston.com/2012-01-01/news/30579457_1_mitt-romney-iowa-rallies-iowa-voters
4.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70658.html
5.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/04/opinion/gergen-gop-campaign/index.html
Well, congratulations! Your prediction was indeed correct. Though, in the least offensive way possible, I have to say it did not take a genius to predict that. He was the only candidate who served enough of the needs of the average republican to stand a chance in the primary. Newt indeed fell to his deserved place among the hopeless candidates. The factors you mentioned were sure to be important in the fall from grace, seeing specifically how low Herman Cain rated in the polls, and extrapolating from there. The low count of both Bachman and Perry also demonstrates that the crazy parts of Newt are not yet accepted among the average primary voting conservative in Iowa. While that was a lot of qualifiers in a single sentence, it can be easily extrapolated to envelope the entire country when the election rolls around.
Your summary of the additional candidates is highly succinct and accurate. Huntsman was indeed as irrelevant. Thankfully, we can fairly safely cross him off the list of even mildly potential candidates. Your third restatement of the same point in the second paragraph; that Romney appeals to the most conservatives and will thus win, is once again, correct.
I would like to quickly point out that not even a brief mention of Santorum or Ron Paul strikes me as considerably lacking. I am disappointed in your predication in this way only. However, significantly. I expected better. Even a single sentence mocking them would have been sufficient. Ah well, perhaps another day you will take the time to make a snarky and researched comment.
(note: not meant to be specifically harmful to any party. Just giving honest personal opinion of the expected quality of the post.)
(1) http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/01/03/144593901/ap-results-iowa-caucuses
@Jessica
I guess I should begin by congratulating you for your correct prediction that Mitt Romney would win the Iowa caucus. However, I doubt even you could have predicted that Romney would only win by a margin of eight votes. What a race! Santorum. Who knew (besides Hannah Torvick)?
I think you were very wise to rely on the poll results from Iowa to inform your decision. Clearly, assuming the candidate with the largest number of fake twitter followers would be the one to win the Iowa caucus was a mistake. Sorry Newt, I tried. I agree completely with you when you write with poise and intelligence: “his increased campaigning in Iowa [was] undoubtedly good for his campaign.” I also agree with you when you assert that “Romney’s ‘volunteer army’” would lead him to victory; indeed, it enabled him to surmount Santorum’s significant ground support in Iowa (although not by much).
You could not be more correct when you say that “Romney has a strong chance at winning the Republican nomination.” He is the only viable candidate who is moderate enough to have a serious shot at the presidency [1]. As a staunch supporter of Obama, I hope that Romney does not get the nomination. Any other candidate that wins the GOP nomination would ensure that Obama says for another four years—which in my personal belief is the best course of action for the country.
[1] http://www.marketwatch.com/story/president-romney-mitt-is-gops-best-shot-2011-06-01
@ Brooke
While your reasoning in choosing Newt Gingrich to win the Iowa caucus makes sense, and the trends in those polls did seem to show Gingrich as the leader, sadly he did not win. Gingrich came in fourth place behind Ron Paul (third), Rick Santorum (second), and Mitt Romney (first). (1) Gingrich was leading polls during most of December, but Romney was not too far behind him, eventually overtaking him in the polls around Chirstmas. (2) Around this same time, Santorum was only favored by around 4% (2), making his recent jump to second (by about 8 votes) that much more remarkable. (1) I agree with you that Newt Gingrich will not become the nominee, especially coming in fourth in the caucus. (1) According to other polls, Romney is expected to win by a large lead in the New Hampshire primary. (3 & 4)
1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jan/05/us-elections-2012-iowa-caucus-results?newsfeed=true
2. http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx
3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/05/new-hampshire-polls-romney-lead_n_1186859.html
4. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/
@Kevin
Ron Paul did not win in Iowa (although you know that by now). Your guess was very thought out however, and I agree that he was poised to be the “not-Romney” candidate by the time the caucus occurred. You stated that much of Paul’s newfound success could be attributed to his name recognition, and this is correct. In fact, Paul now ranks towards the top of the candidate recognition charts (sadly, John Huntsman is towards the bottom) (3). You go on to elaborate on each candidate, and most of your predictions came true; Bachmann saw little success in Iowa, Perry did not make any major gains, and of course Cain was NOT going to win by that point (although he did manage to secure 56 votes! Ridiculous….) So after those candidates fell, what went wrong for Paul?
In Iowa, there are three basic groups that candidates needed to align with: The Evangelical Christians and Tea Partiers, the typical Republicans, and the young voters. (1) For Ron Paul, he really only had a significant draw from the young voting pool, who only comprise about 31% of those who attended the caucus, and within that percentage he only received votes from 48%(1) Mitt Romney (being the most moderate) catered to the “typical Republican”, and he found success within Iowa simply because of that. About 1/3 of the caucus-goers identified as being more moderate, and many backed Romney simply because they wanted the Republican nominee to be one who could actually defeat Obama. Your point that Ron Paul would be liked due to his polarizing viewpoints did not play out in the results, as most of the highly conservative voters went for Santorum. The fact that the moderate candidate is doing the best however, demonstrates that people are willing to settle for less if it means the “new” president will be more likely to align with their own political party. I think that the average American is actually afraid of the very extreme viewpoints of candidates like Ron Paul, which was reflected in the outcome of Iowa. The Social Conservatives flocked to Santorum (2), and the high percentage of Evangelical Christians who attended the caucus further amplified his success. The caucus really came down to two elements: what percentage of the Evangelical Christians would attend, and which candidate they would decide to back. Even prior to the caucus, the evangelicals could not agree on which candidate they would grace with their support. (4) The fact that Santorum and Paul took 2nd and 3rd shows that by January 3rd, the Social Conservatives had yet to decide.
I agree that nationally, the Republican contenders will come down to Romney and Paul (let’s face it, Santorum is not a real threat). The other candidates are simply running out of support and financing to launch a campaign large enough to recover from Iowa.
Sources:
1. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57351791-503544/iowa-caucus-results-why-the-race-was-so-close/
2. http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lx9cr7AMFg1qzxejoo1_500.jpg
3. http://www.gallup.com/poll/151103/GOP-Presidential-Nomination-Race-2011.aspx
4. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/behind-the-numbers/post/evangelicals-less-united-in-2012-caucuses/2012/01/03/gIQAWvFLZP_blog.html
@Karma
So unfortunately you were wrong and Newt didn't win the Iowa caucus, Mitt won (1). I don't blame you for not guessing who would win correctly, because it was very much anybody's game for a long time. I would say this because the leaders in the polls seemed to be changing everyday for a while (2). I would just like to add that I think its pretty crazy that Mitt won by eight votes, I don't think I've heard of a closer race (4). As for the Republican nomination race as a whole i believe you're right that the most middle of the road candidate will do the best and win the nomination (3). While that candidate will have the best chance to pull independent votes I still feel that the Republican party won't unite under one candidate. I think you did a really good job with your first post this tri!
1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/mitt-romney-iowa-caucus-results-2012_n_1181822.html
2. http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/31/final-polls-before-tuesdays-iowa-caucuses-show-a-remarkably-wide-distribution/
3. http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1594687385816014274&postID=7394530910511359806
4.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/05/iowa-caucus-2012-results_n_1188074.html
@ Alie
Obviously, you weren't right, as Gingrich's support bailed on him and left him sitting in a distant fourth. The first question that I think needs answering is why so many people thought he was going to win in mid-December. The second is what happened to cause such a mess for Gingrich. The third is, assuming he plans on continuing, where does he go from here?
Regarding the first question, I think that people thought he was going to win because the polls supported him. This isn't an automatically mistaken assumption- in most cases high poll ratings do indicate lasting support. But Iowa in general, and this caucus in specific, tend to whip around with alarming speed. There is a tremendous number of voters out there who don't like Romney's record and don't consider Ron Paul a proper Republican. These people have been out in force for whomever looks like the best Republican. This has resulted in massive swings for everyone but Romney and Ron Paul. One week up, the next week off the radar. Gingrich has fallen victim to this, where he attracts a large number of discontent voters, but fails to make them happy and so they move on. High numbers, but no solid support.
Regarding the second question, partly his fall lies within the reason I stated above. To go into a little more depth, however, when Gingrich seized the lead he became the target. When he got out in front many attack ads started pouring at him, and he was not ready to deal with these(1). People started remembering his past, and that did not sit well with traditional conservatives. Self-proclaimed born again notwithstanding, the evangelical Christians simply did not trust him, once his past was examined(2). This is a large part of Iowa- he never could have made it in a significant way there, once he came under scrutiny.
Regarding the third question, Newt Gingrich still seems to want to continue. His chances at this point are slim at best. He absolutely must convince people that his weak Iowa showing was a fluke, not a general rule. South Carolina is a strong state for him(3)- he must win it at all costs. Florida is also a state he will want to win. Both are close geographically to his home state of Georgia. But for him to win South Carolina and Florida, he absolutely must make a strong showing in New Hampshire. Everyone admits Romney is vastly more likely to win there, but if Gingrich can pull off a strong second, he may be able to keep his campaign moving. Realistically, though, I give Gingrich absolutely no chance at this stage in the elections.
(1) http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71056.html
(2) http://www.godvoter.org/2012/Newt-Gingrich-christian.html
(3) http://www.politico.com/2012-election/south-carolina/
@Abby
The results are finally in for one of the most dramatic Iowa caucuses in the nation’s history. This was evident in both you analysis of the “Republican race being so close” and the actual results of the Iowa caucus. Unfortunately, both you and I were wrong in our prediction for Ron Paul winning the Iowa caucus. With that being said, I must acknowledge the fact that Ron Paul did relatively well in such an enthralling race, in which he accomplished a third place finish with 21% of the votes [1]. As we are now aware, Mitt Romney practically ended in a virtual tie (at 25%) with Rick Santorum, barely edging him with a mere eight more delegate votes [1]. Honestly, the race couldn’t possibly have gotten any closer, without complete insanity ensuing.
As far as the arguments you presented to justify your prediction of Ron winning the caucus, I think they are all very sensible (and I’m not just saying that because I used many of the same arguments in my post). Ron had never been one of the front-runners of the GOP campaign, allowing him to evade intense media scrutiny like you stated. This allowed him to take a sort of “underdog” role in the Iowa caucus, gaining steady ground on the two front-runners in the weeks and days before the big vote. Also, I think the fact that he has been fairly consistent in his views throughout this whole process, was a big attraction to many people. I certainly agree the Ron Paul was peaking at the correct time; it just was not enough to pull off a better finish.
Since the Iowa caucus, Paul has remained in a fairly good position in the general GOP polls. According to the most recent Gallup Poll he stands at 13%, behind Gingrich and Romney [2]. However, with his success in the caucus, his numbers are certain to improve. As far as the primary in New Hampshire, I agree with the multiple sources that predict Romney will win it in a landslide. I definitely think it’s possible for him to come in 2nd or 3rd, depending on how Santorum’s momentum carries over in the next several days. Romney currently has the support of 41% of likely voters, with Paul coming in a distant second at 18% [3]. Finally, I completely agree with your assessment that Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination; however, he could definitely make an interesting 3rd party candidate if he chooses to do so. The fact that he isn’t even sure of his own stamina, would not give me any confidence in his ability to handle a four-year tenure in one of the most grueling, overwhelming offices in the country. Although you did not mention Mitt Romney as being the one to can the GOP’s nomination, I think that he will be the one to gain the nod.
[1] http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/
[2] http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx
[3] http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/05/poll-romney-remains-way-ahead-in-new-hampshire/
@Sam
First of all, it wasn’t entirely clear to me from your post who you favored to win the caucus, so I just assumed that you were rooting for Newt Gingrich to win. That being said, I think that your analysis of the leading candidates was very interesting.
Well, as you already know, your prediction about Newt Gingrich’s caucus triumph was wrong. We're in the same boat though, because I also thought that he would win. You were partially on the right track, however, when you said that Mitt Romney was in a close second for the win. I think that what you said about Newt Gingrich’s chance of winning the caucus was very valid. Although I knew that the caucus would be very competitive because of the similarities in support between the candidates, I was a bit surprised by exactly how close the caucus ended up being (an 8 vote differential). Mitt Romney ended the caucus in first, Rick Santorum in second, Ron Paul in third and Newt Gingrich ended the caucus in 4th place, with 13% of the votes [1]. I will give Newt Gingrich credit by saying that it was a hard fought battle for the win. However, his fourth place finish makes it quite clear that he was not one of the highest competitors in the caucus.
I think that some of Gingrich’s comments in debates were a bit wishy-washy. For example, when he called child labor laws “stupid” [2], I think that this set him back a bit. His reasoning was mostly fair for doing so, but I think that this is a bit of a turn off to debate viewers, because they might worry about similar comments that he may make in the future that could get him/the country into a sticky situation.
Another thing that I thought affected Gingrich’s loss was the amount of baggage that came with him. For example, his marital issues were a big obstacle for him, because many Americans judged him on his faithfulness/trust issues [3]. If Gingrich were to be elected President, the first lady would be a woman who he had an affair with while he was married to his previous wife, and I personally don’t think that such a lack of loyalty is something that Americans are willing to support.
Overall, I thought that your post was insightful and a pretty accurate evaluation of the front-running candidates.
[1] http://www.cantondailyledger.com/topstories/x550245391/Romney-wins-Iowa-by-8-votes
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/21/newt-gingrich-child-labor-lobbyist_n_1105178.html
[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/what-newt-gingrichs-three-wives-tell-us-about-the-president-hed-be/2011/12/31/gIQAd642UP_blog.html
Matt, I understood why you thought that Ron Paul would do well in the Iowa caucus. However, a victory was unlikely. First of all, you yourself cited a number of polls that had Paul losing to Mitt Romney. That to me does not point in any way towards a victory for the former; instead it justifies Romney’s victory. Second, his approval rating compared to Obama’s is not a very relevant statistic. He is not competing against Obama in the primary race, rather against other Republicans. And his popularity among “people who know about him” (aka his supporters) is worthless, what matters is his popularity among the ALL of the Republican voters in this primary season.
Also, one of Ron Paul’s strengths is also his biggest weakness: his libertarian views are unconventional and somewhat extreme. They have won him a sizable group of dedicated followers, but they are not appealing to a wide cross section of even the Republican party, let alone the nation. Iowa is more concerned with social issues and farm subsidies than eliminating government, and this showed in the results.
The final thing that you overlooked in your prediction can be forgiven: Rick Santorum. No one saw him coming. Still, he took over the “not-Romney” spot that you mentioned, and it allowed him to jump over Paul and nearly take the victory.
@Jessica
Congratulations, your pick was correct. Not that Romney won by a landslide, unless that’s what you would consider eight votes to be, but you still guessed right. I think you had to the right idea to use the polls to gage your decisions. Clearly, there wasn’t a clear cut predicted winner, so there wasn’t a lot to go off of. Although polls can sometimes have a high margin of error, you used a reputable source, which actually reflected the views, (or votes), of the people rather closely. When you posted, Romney was the strongest potential opponent against Obama, and still currently remains in that position (1). Now that he has taken Iowa, it seems that Romney could have what it takes to pull off the national election, as you predicted also. However, it is much too far off to have hardly any idea of what will happen with the GOP nomination.
You mentioned Romney’s “army” as a factor that helped him win the caucus. They must have played a significant role in their public support for his win. This Huffington Post article also credits his 2008 second place win at the caucus as a partial reason as to why he won this time around (2). Whatever it was, he won, and has taken a clear lead. He still has a long time to continue his campaign, and the other caucuses and primaries, so there is no telling what may happen. However, according to an article on Rasmussen I read a few weeks ago, he had taken the biggest lead over an incumbent ever recorded in their history. So he’s got that going for him. Even if he takes a few dips throughout the course of the rest of his campaigning, I do believe he has a very strong chance at securing the national nomination.
(1) http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
(2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/03/mitt-romney-iowa-caucus-2012_n_1179044.html
@ Arthur
I’m just going to go through your post in the order it was written and then evaluate your opinion overall at the end. For starters, I feel that your opening remarks about the premature nature of the assignment were really unnecessary. I wholeheartedly agree, however, it did come off as a little whiny. I’ll be honest, the amount of work put into calculating out the odds for something you yourself said was far too early to properly call is pretty astounding in my eyes. I am fairly certain that had the caucus been three weeks ago your results would have been much closer to the correct answer. That said your guess of Ron Paul was pretty darn close. Interestingly enough he got third place, which corresponds to a loss of a ranking each week. In light of that, I would have to say your estimate was excellent given the time at which it was made. The next part (which totally made sense three weeks ago) failed to take into account the fact that all candidates had potential to suddenly change standings like Cain or Gingrich did. Both peaked and fell out of favor. This could have meant that any other candidate had the potential to do the same. This notion explains why Santorum jumped to second place, but not why he--not a different Candidate--was the one to do it. I personally don’t have a real guess, but it could be attributed to a poor showing of Bachman-Gingrich-Perry supporters. From what I gathered from watching the news the morning after is that the collective Iowegian (I’m not sure that that’s the correct nomenclature, but does it really matter?) Granted, I am looking at the situation retrospectively so all of my opinions now are colored.
As for your prediction for the rest of the race, I feel that they will hold true overall (I have little doubt that there won’t be an upset in the race sometime soon). My one reservation is in regards to the very fickle nature of the polls and population, as circumstances could potentially change at any time.
Matt very well done on your prediction! You were almost right on. First, you were dead on with Newt Gingrich, the favorite about two weeks ago. He basically pleaded with America to gain votes and keep his lead, which he failed to do. Gingrich did not get very many votes and I think a big part of this was because Romney spent most of his campaigning on negative ads against Gingrich. “Gingrich was a favorite but because of the negative ads cost him a lot of votes”(1). I hate to admit it, but negative ads do work most of the time. Second, Ron Paul did end up coming into third. I don’t think his position will change very much, I think a lot of people have already decided who they will be voting for, even if people haven’t decided people will most likely choose Santorum or Romney because they are the favorites and the most talked about. Third, Santorum came in second and that is due to the loss of love for Bachman and Cain. “Hilarie Clinton loss of love led to swing voters”(1). Because people fell out of love for these two candidates it gave a huge wave of support to Santorum. As we all have heard Romney won by 8 votes, a very close outcome. Even though Romney won, Santorum is getting a lot of attention and is considered the real winner of the Iowa caucus. Santorum has had media attention everywhere including twitter, Santorum was mentioned 64,306 times compared to Romney who was only tweeted 44,193 times (2). Santorum is very well liked at the moment but in the class discussion someone had a good point that this new brought fame to Santorum could be short lived. I also think that he will always be a step behind Romney in the race. I think America will support Romney more because he is more experienced and better organized. “Supporting Mitt Romney still seems to many like a duty, the responsible thing to do”(1). “Romney is still the only candidate with the financial and organizational prowess to run real campaigns in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida simultaneously. Also, he won Iowa. (Did we mention that?)” (3) Clearly Romney is a winner and we can all say that in politics a winner always looks good and often has an advantage in a race and because of this I think that America will cling to Romney more than they will to Santorum. Great job on your prediction!
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/eight-lessons-the-iowa-caucuses-taught-us/2012/01/04/gIQAjNOIaP_blog.html
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/why-rick-santorum-really-won-iowa/2012/01/04/gIQAbIdnaP_blog.html
3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/suddenly-a-fun-candidate/2012/01/04/gIQAnn0jaP_story.html?tid=pm_pop
Matt very well done on your prediction! You were almost right on. First, you were dead on with Newt Gingrich, the favorite about two weeks ago. He basically pleaded with America to gain votes and keep his lead, which he failed to do. Gingrich did not get very many votes and I think a big part of this was because Romney spent most of his campaigning on negative ads against Gingrich. “Gingrich was a favorite but because of the negative ads cost him a lot of votes”(1). I hate to admit it, but negative ads do work most of the time. Second, Ron Paul did end up coming into third. I don’t think his position will change very much, I think a lot of people have already decided who they will be voting for, even if people haven’t decided people will most likely choose Santorum or Romney because they are the favorites and the most talked about. Third, Santorum came in second and that is due to the loss of love for Bachman and Cain. “Hilarie Clinton loss of love led to swing voters”(1). Because people fell out of love for these two candidates it gave a huge wave of support to Santorum. As we all have heard Romney won by 8 votes, a very close outcome. Even though Romney won, Santorum is getting a lot of attention and is considered the real winner of the Iowa caucus. Santorum has had media attention everywhere including twitter, Santorum was mentioned 64,306 times compared to Romney who was only tweeted 44,193 times (2). Santorum is very well liked at the moment but in the class discussion someone had a good point that this new brought fame to Santorum could be short lived. I also think that he will always be a step behind Romney in the race. I think America will support Romney more because he is more experienced and better organized. “Supporting Mitt Romney still seems to many like a duty, the responsible thing to do”(1). “Romney is still the only candidate with the financial and organizational prowess to run real campaigns in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida simultaneously. Also, he won Iowa. (Did we mention that?)” (3) Clearly Romney is a winner and we can all say that in politics a winner always looks good and often has an advantage in a race and because of this I think that America will cling to Romney more than they will to Santorum. Great job on your prediction!
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/eight-lessons-the-iowa-caucuses-taught-us/2012/01/04/gIQAjNOIaP_blog.html
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/why-rick-santorum-really-won-iowa/2012/01/04/gIQAbIdnaP_blog.html
3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/suddenly-a-fun-candidate/2012/01/04/gIQAnn0jaP_story.html?tid=pm_pop
Matt very well done on your prediction! You were almost right on. First, you were dead on with Newt Gingrich, the favorite about two weeks ago. He basically pleaded with America to gain votes and keep his lead, which he failed to do. Gingrich did not get very many votes and I think a big part of this was because Romney spent most of his campaigning on negative ads against Gingrich. “Gingrich was a favorite but because of the negative ads cost him a lot of votes”(1). I hate to admit it, but negative ads do work most of the time. Second, Ron Paul did end up coming into third. I don’t think his position will change very much, I think a lot of people have already decided who they will be voting for, even if people haven’t decided people will most likely choose Santorum or Romney because they are the favorites and the most talked about. Third, Santorum came in second and that is due to the loss of love for Bachman and Cain. “Hilarie Clinton loss of love led to swing voters”(1). Because people fell out of love for these two candidates it gave a huge wave of support to Santorum. As we all have heard Romney won by 8 votes, a very close outcome. Even though Romney won, Santorum is getting a lot of attention and is considered the real winner of the Iowa caucus. Santorum has had media attention everywhere including twitter, Santorum was mentioned 64,306 times compared to Romney who was only tweeted 44,193 times (2). Santorum is very well liked at the moment but in the class discussion someone had a good point that this new brought fame to Santorum could be short lived. I also think that he will always be a step behind Romney in the race. I think America will support Romney more because he is more experienced and better organized. “Supporting Mitt Romney still seems to many like a duty, the responsible thing to do”(1). “Romney is still the only candidate with the financial and organizational prowess to run real campaigns in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida simultaneously. Also, he won Iowa. (Did we mention that?)” (3) Clearly Romney is a winner and we can all say that in politics a winner always looks good and often has an advantage in a race and because of this I think that America will cling to Romney more than they will to Santorum. Great job on your prediction!
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/eight-lessons-the-iowa-caucuses-taught-us/2012/01/04/gIQAjNOIaP_blog.html
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/why-rick-santorum-really-won-iowa/2012/01/04/gIQAbIdnaP_blog.html
3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/suddenly-a-fun-candidate/2012/01/04/gIQAnn0jaP_story.html?tid=pm_pop
@Andrew
Unfortunately, Newt Gingrich did not with the Iowa caucus, although your reasoning for predicting him as the winner was very logical (as he had recently surged in the polls). Sadly, Gingrich placed fourth behind Romney, Santorum, and Perry (1). I was surprised by Gingrich’s leadership in the December polls, but Romney (who has been campaigning longer than any other candidate) did overtake Gingrich around Christmas (2). What surprised me even more than Gingrich’s poll numbers were Santorum’s numbers. Around Christmas Santorum had only 4% in the polls, which makes his eight vote loss miraculous seem. I do agree with your opinion that Romney will be the GOP candidate as he is continuing to do very well in the polls. However, I do not think that there is any chance that Herman Cain will ever decide reenter this presidential race or any other presidential race. Ever.
1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jan/05/us-elections-2012-iowa-caucus-results?newsfeed=true 2. http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx
Rutger-
You analysis in your blog post was mostly spot on. There were a couple of things that I think you could’ve improved upon. For example, although you look at the polling data from the caucuses, you don’t take into account a couple of factors that are particularly important in the caucus race. First and foremost is date of the poll. The closer the poll is to the election, the better it is for analysis. Second is the sample size. Gallup is a reputable polling institution, but most of the best polls conducted in Iowa were done by non-mainstream polling places, such as the PPP. These institutions have a broader base in Iowa and therefore can sample more voters. The third factor that you skip over is the inevitable collapse of the fringe candidates. This doesn’t mean a candidate drops out, but rather their supporters rally behind another candidate. I believe your most crucial mistake is to believe that each candidate has independent, separate camps of supporters, when in fact many share a popular base. For example, Santorum surged in a short time because family values groups rallied behind him for the first time in the election. This drew supporters from Bachmann and Gingrich. All in all, you did a pretty decent job and were right. Compared to most, in fact, your statistical analysis was excellent. So good work. Oh, and you are almost certainly right about Romney winning the nomination. He basically has a lock on that.
Rutger-
You analysis in your blog post was mostly spot on. There were a couple of things that I think you could’ve improved upon. For example, although you look at the polling data from the caucuses, you don’t take into account a couple of factors that are particularly important in the caucus race. First and foremost is date of the poll. The closer the poll is to the election, the better it is for analysis. Second is the sample size. Gallup is a reputable polling institution, but most of the best polls conducted in Iowa were done by non-mainstream polling places, such as the PPP. These institutions have a broader base in Iowa and therefore can sample more voters. The third factor that you skip over is the inevitable collapse of the fringe candidates. This doesn’t mean a candidate drops out, but rather their supporters rally behind another candidate. I believe your most crucial mistake is to believe that each candidate has independent, separate camps of supporters, when in fact many share a popular base. For example, Santorum surged in a short time because family values groups rallied behind him for the first time in the election. This drew supporters from Bachmann and Gingrich. All in all, you did a pretty decent job and were right. Compared to most, in fact, your statistical analysis was excellent. So good work. Oh, and you are almost certainly right about Romney winning the nomination. He basically has a lock on that.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home