The Santorum Surge In Iowa and Beyond (How long can he last?)

New York Times ^ | 12/30/2011 | Nate Silver

[katana]

A caucus is a funny thing. It is subject to a very different set of dynamics in comparison to a secret ballot election and surprising results are more the norm than the exception. My impression is that of Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum, the one candidate who has a relatively unblemished conservative record and image is the former senator from Pennsylvania. All the others still in the race have significant flaws which have been well exposed over the past several months.

Self described conservative voters have been swinging in their stated preference among various candidates for a year now as all of them have been subject to both fair and extremely unfair media exposure, and sometimes outright distortion. Lots of this slung mud has been smeared on a daily basis at this website, frequently by posters whose Freeper names I personally have never seen before but are listed as having joined many years ago. But that is another subject for another day. The conservative core in this polling is basically looking for anyone besides Mitt Romney who might still have a reasonable chance to defeat Obama in just over 11 months time, and as each possibility has been vetted or decided to not compete others have been grasped at with growing desperation.

The bottom line is that these polls are almost meaningless in such a piranha tank environment and in an open caucus it could well come down to the one candidate who has until now not received much serious notice by the school of ravenous fish. We know who the media and a party establishment that is happiest in the minority want selected. Santorum may be the last alternative with a real chance of coming out of Iowa with momentum and a crow bar big enough to turn their apple cart on its side.

[mamelukesabre]

iowa is different.

I live in iowa and I really think every state should do it like iowa does. You are allowed to change your vote. In fact, if I remember correctly, sometimes you are forced to change your vote. I could be remembering incorrectly, but it seems to me like everyone divides into groups, one group for each candidate. If a group has less than the minimum required people, then that group is disbanded and everyone in that group is forced to go join another group. The winner is the group with the most people.

So I am going with the expectation of voting for santorum, but if there isn’t enough people in the santorum group, I will join another group. I havn’t figured out yet who my second choice will be. Maybe perry. You just never know what is going to happen at a caucus sometimes.

The reason I think the iowa method is better is it is more involved and has a way of scaring off the people who are not really into politics. checking a box on a secret ballot is easy. you can do that without having any strong beliefs. But when you go to a caucus, you better be ready to explain to people why you choose the person you choose. You also better have an alternate candidate in mind just in case.

[david1313]

Iowa is scary. No thanks. Rick S. will get Romney nominated. That’s about all he can do. Go Newt.

[mamelukesabre]

You cannot read

[katana]

Thanks. I don't live in Iowa but your reply describes what I recall hearing the caucus rules are and is the main reason why I think these pre-caucus polls are all but useless. To a political geek like me it actually sounds like a lot of fun.

The reason, as far as I can surmise, why the candidates spend so much time and money on Iowa, besides the fact that it's the first event that produces convention delegates, is that it can give a winning dark horse candidate a solid week of publicity they could never obtain otherwise. "Big Mo" as Bush I called it back in 1980.

[Patton@Bastogne]

.


The Liberal News-Media (now joined by their The Usual E-RINO Suspects) will suffer an "epic fail" ...

as they DESPERATELY try to force a "faux disqualification" for Newt Gingrich in the upcoming Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary.


I'm confident that Newt Gingrich will "decimate" Mitt Romney and Dr. Winkie (Ron Paul) in South Carolina and Florida ...


======================================


How many successful POTUS candidates have ever won the Iowa Caucus ?

In the last thirty-two (32) years ... only ONE Democrat (Obama in 2008) and ONE Republican (Bush-43 in 2000) have won BOTH the Iowa Caucus and the Presidential Election ...

Of course, that doesn't include "sitting" Presidents (Reagan, Clinton) who won Iowas on their way to a second term election ...

That presents odds of TWO (2) Iowa Caucus wins out of SIXTEEN (16) possible Presidential Election Candidates !

Equivalent to a Whopping twelve-point-five (12.5) percent success rate ...




How many successful POTUS candidates have ever won the New Hampshire Primary ?

In the last thirty-two (32) years ... only ONE Democrat (Carter in 1976) and TWO Republicans (Reagan-1980 and Bush-41 in 1988) have won BOTH the New Hampshire Primary and the Presidential Election ...

Of course, that doesn't include "sitting" Presidents (Reagan, Clinton) who won New Hampshire on their way to a second term election ...

That presents odds of THREE (3) New Hampshire wins out of FIFTEEN (15) possible Presidential Election Candidates !

Equivalent to a Whopping thirteen-three-three (13.33) percent success rate ...


======================================


THE IOWA CAUCUS -- Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:


Democrats:

January 3, 2008 – Barack Obama (38%)

January 19, 2004 – John Kerry (38%)

January 24, 2000 – Al Gore (63%)

February 12, 1996 – Bill Clinton (unopposed)

February 10, 1992 – Tom Harkin (76%)

February 8, 1988 – Dick Gephardt (31%)

February 20, 1984 – Walter Mondale (49%)

January 21, 1980 – Jimmy Carter (59%)

January 19, 1976 – "Uncommitted" (37%)

January 24, 1972 – "Uncommitted" (36%)



Republicans

2008 – Mike Huckabee (34%)

2004 – George W. Bush (unopposed)

2000 – George W. Bush (41%)

1996 – Bob Dole (26%)

1992 – George H. W. Bush

1988 – Bob Dole (37%)

1984 – Ronald Reagan (unopposed)

1980 – George H. W. Bush (32%)

1976 – Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan


======================================


THE NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY -- Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:


Democrats:

2008 Senator Hillary Clinton

2004 Senator John Kerry

2000 Vice President Al Gore

1996 President Bill Clinton

1992 Senator Paul Tsongas

1988 Governor Michael Dukakis

1984 Senator Gary Hart

1980 President Jimmy Carter

1976 Governor Jimmy Carter



Republicans

2008 Senator John McCain

2004 President George W. Bush

2000 Senator John McCain

1996 Pat Buchanan

1992 President George H. W. Bush

1988 Vice President George H. W. Bush

1984 President Ronald Reagan

1980 Governor Ronald Reagan

1976 President Gerald R. Ford



======================================


.

[mamelukesabre]

I would like to see other states switch to a caucus and hold it the same day as iowa, or at least the same week. I think the caucus states with the least electoral votes should go first. Secret ballot states should wait until after caucus states.

[NKP_Vet]

I read an article the day that said in 2008 that said none of the other candidates were scared of Romney because of the “Morman factor”. Everyone knew he could not win in the South. The saying has been attributed to Karl Rove, who was for McCain in 2008. Now the “Morman factor” is never mentioned and if someone brings it up all that’s said is “the average voter has grown up since then, our economy is bad in bad shape, someone’s faith makes no difference now”. BS!

Romney’s Waterloo starts in SC and will continue through
Florida, especially after Rubio endorses Newt.

[Engraved-on-His-hands]

I won’t point out how your math is wrong (which it is), but I will point out how it is misleading:

According to the results that you posted, Iowa has correctly picked the Democrat nominee for President in four out of the last four caucuses (100%) and six out of the last eight (75%).

Iowa has also correctly picked the Republican nominee for President in four out of the last five caucuses (80%), five out of the last seven (71%), and six out of the last nine (67%).

Ta daaaaaahhhh!!!!

[Patton@Bastogne]

.


I'm afraid that you've missed my point ... apologies for not making it clearer ...


The Political MYTH is that Iowa and New Hampshire are "accurate" indicators of America's political mood ...


The data presented shows that they are NOT ... at least when actually ELECTING a U.S. President ...


Thirty-two years of data shows that Iowa and New Hampshire are ONLY ACCURATE at selecting the "elected" POTUS ... less than fifteen-percent of the time ...


Thus ... they are basically irrelevant as an accurate indicator ...


.

[Antoninus]

Just dropped a donation on Santorum for President. If you haven't yet, now is a good time.



Santorum for President ping. Let me know if you want on or off the list.

Top 10 Reasons why Conservatives should support Santorum

[Engraved-on-His-hands]

I don’t mean to continue berating the point, but both your math and your logic are incorrect. The Iowa caucuses have correctly chosen the elected President in the last four elections: Obama in 2008, G.W. Bush in 2004 and 2000, and Clinton in 1996.

[Antoninus]

Pinging the list...

[Antoninus]

Might as well save your breath. Reality or facts will not sway the Santorum (or other second tier) faithful. They will glob onto Santorums projected Iowa performance as proof that Rick can win it - despite all "evidence" to the contrary.

The fact is that every "Not Mitt" candidate who has come forward so far has imploded. Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and seemingly Gingrich have all had feet of clay. Santorum is moving up and gaining traction at exactly the right moment.

I say *good for him*!!! If he can build on this momentum, he could become the "Not Romney" we've all been hoping for.

[Patton@Bastogne]

.


Ahemmm ... I pointed-out that my calculated percentages "did not" include "incumbent presidents" ... such as Regean, Clinton and Bush-43 ...

Incumbent Presidents usually win Iowa and New Hampshire ... unless they are DUMBER than a ROCK ... like Jimmy Carter and Bush-41 ...


And my strategic point is that Iowa and New Hampshire are "designed" and "spun" by the GOP-DNC-MEDIA elite as Circuses to distract voters from what's genuinely happening ...


.

[Sun]

4 years ago TODAY McCain was in 3rd place in the Iowa polls, and went on to be the GOP nominee.

[Patton@Bastogne]

.


You're correct ... Iowa frankly doesn't mean SQUAT ... It's an "MSM Propaganda Event" ...


.

[Sun]

“Iowa frankly doesn’t mean SQUAT ... It’s an “MSM Propaganda Event” ... “

Actually it DOES mean SQUAT, it’s a heck of a good start. McCain was one of the first three and ended up getting the nomination.

[Salvation]

**(How long can he last?)**

It’s going to last a long time. Hang around and watch.

ONLY true pro-life candidate.