dagblog - Comments for "Rasmussen poll shocker: Gingrich tanks in Iowa, Romney now on top"

No kidding. He better break

kgb999 — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 05:38:35 +0000

In reply to The SEC just announced fraud

No kidding. He better break out with *something* like that before Ron Paul breaks out with an ad that says Newt was promoting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to help the people signing his checks get away with lying investors and the American people.

There are indeed a bunch of

kgb999 — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 04:59:42 +0000

In reply to Your previous comment was

There are indeed a bunch of math and campaign narrative possibilities at the moment. Literally an open table. Pick a scenario you like or think current events and data are suggestive of ... and it's totally possible right now.

I didn't say Newt's numbers were devoid of meaning. I said they are statistical noise at this point. That term actually denotes a reasonably precise meaning.

I think there probably is meaning in the numbers ... and you nailed it, IMO - fluctuations. At the same time Newt hit what for the moment we'll call his "peak," around 70% of all voters said that they would consider picking someone else ... and 60% said they would like to see someone else enter the race. Same as when each of the other candidates that have risen and fallen rose and fell. Those are the voters that are causing these swings. For lack of a better term, they are driving a flavor-of-the-month cycle.

I have no idea what the political guys call it in their models, but I've always called instability flux. For my purposes I'm roughly interpreting the 70% as moderate flux and the 60% as heavy flux. Problem that I see with the current prevailing theory here is that the signal isn't in Newt's numbers ... the closest thing to a signal is in the flux. Interestingly, the levels of that flux seems to inversely correlate pretty well with the combined unwavering baseline support of Paul and Romney.

Now, my speculation is that until those voters settle down, it's literally musical chairs. I don't disagree at all that Newt has the potential to solidify support among these voters. But it really doesn't look like that is what is happening.

It's all a guess right now. Everyone who does data professionally is saying the same thing. Based on the data ... literally anything can happen in the next three weeks. There are suggestive indicators that the flux wave is moving on to Paul ... but not much indicator it is settling out into full support for anyone. Not sure where it goes after Paul ... Huntsman? He's been seeing a bit of extra notice of late. Roemer out of left field?

What ever happens next, if the cycle holds, Paul seems set to be peaking damn near right in time for Iowa. And both he and Romney clearly want to take out Gingrich ... along with everyone who's ever known or worked with Gingrich, apparently.

Romney has zero risk of being ascribed a "flavor-of-the-month" label. His campaign has been built on the assumption that he would take losses in the ultra-conservative early states to Tea Party darling [Bachmann/Perry/Cain/~~Paul~~ ... Newt?], pick up steady delegates on the new proportional rules and pull even on Super Tuesday when the more moderate states weighed in. The idea was at that point either he'd have done better than expected in the early states and put it to bed then and there or be positioned for a war of math-based attrition. I don't know how smart or dumb it was ... but that's the Romney game plan and what his campaign was built for. It hasn't been much of a secret.

OTOH. Newt is back from the grave. No organization. Pretty cash strapped. You don't think if his numbers tank or he does really crappy in Iowa that the same media guys who have been savaging him non-stop will slap "Plain Vanilla" over his picture on CNN and call him ice cream?

Your previous comment was

Elusive Trope — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 01:47:14 +0000

In reply to I'm not sure I get the

Your previous comment was about proportional delegates over the course of the nomination process and not just Iowa. Newt actually doesn't have to win Iowa, in my opinion, in fact he can come in third, get close in NH and then take SC in order to position himself for a win in Florida. Paul stands no chance in SC. Nor Mitt probably. Mitt will most likely take tiny NH, but everyone expects him, too. Unlike Newt in Iowa, Mitt has to have a big victory to come away from NH looking like a winner.

But remember that Iowa gave the victory to Huckabee last time around and none of these three guys fit the bill as the next Huckabee. Who will the Huckabee voters vote for? They will show up, without the need for some boots on the ground to get them there. With Perry and Bachman looking like sure losers, and many don't want to throw their vote away - they get to their second or third choice among Ron Mitt and Newt. It is anybody's guess.

Newt's previous 4% ratings says more about the voters looking around for the "winner," and this has led to flavor of the month. But unlike the other flavors, Newt has imploded like Perry and Cain once the spotlight was shown on them, or just whimpered into the background like Bachmann.

His numbers at this point are pure statistical noise.

I would say they aren't noise at all -- there is some meaning behind them because the fluctuation in the numbers are coming from people trying to make a decision. That they haven't settled down says a lot. There is volatility. Newt may end up back at 5% in a couple of weeks. Anything can happen. Or he may be back up over 32%. Or he can remain flat. They just seem like noise because we haven't see the outcome yet. But there will be outcome, and then the stats that appeared as noise will suddenly make sense.

This is a political blog in the political blogosphere. So people will try to see the meaning in the mess. What is the pattern. It is all speculation. And some of us find that entertaining. I may be utterly wrong (I once thought Bachmann had a legitimate shot at getting the nomination). I am just trying to make sense out of what appears to be noise right now. Like I said pure self-indulgent entertainment.

But somebody has to win. Last

Verified Atheist — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 01:25:52 +0000

In reply to I'm not sure I get the

But somebody has to win. Last one standing, I suspect.

I'm not sure I get the

kgb999 — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 01:10:20 +0000

In reply to And his challenger is: Mitt?

I'm not sure I get the question entirely. His challengers are both Romney and Paul. He has to beat them both. We won't actually know who has their shit together until after votes are counted.

he can't get a movement upward. Month after month after month. What is suddenly going to change that more than a ~~quarter~~ 4% of the GOP would like to see him be president.

A few weeks ago, that's what we were saying about Newt ... from 15 points back ... now his 15 points up from last week has already shrunk to 5. His numbers at this point are pure statistical noise.

Simply put, it looks like absolutely nothing is going to change. That's why things don't really look that great for Newt. We'll see how much of the flux settles out as solid Newt support in about a week or so.

Either way, I am going out on a limb and predicting a 3rd place finish for Gingrich in Iowa. Unless they go to war in the next week or so, Paul and Romney are preparing to tag-team the caucuses. And they've almost got a solid lock on the numbers to pull it off even if nothing changes between now and then.

I think that's a fair

kgb999 — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 00:35:54 +0000

In reply to Thing is, it's an investment

I think that's a fair assessment. However, there is a payout that does only come at the end of the event .

All positions are either yes/no and shares settle at a fixed rate of $10 if the outcome is yes or $0 if the outcome is no. There always has to be buyer on the other side of any transaction - if nobody wants to buy your plummeting stock on an event, you ride it to the zero payout.

It's a pretty cool data tool if you understand what you are looking at.

http://www.intrade.com/v4/misc/howItWorks/theBasics.jsp

Thing is, it's an investment

Elusive Trope — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 23:18:28 +0000

In reply to Prediction markets have been

Thing is, it's an investment market and we're pretty far out from final payout here; people are going to be betting based on where they think movement is going to be next ... not necessarily on who they think is going to win.

This point made by kgb changes everything. If one's payout only happened at the end of the election (in a primary or caucus or the eventual nomination), so people attempted to gather as much of the stock of the eventual winner, it might be a more accurate predictor. But people can make money if they buy stock in the surge, then sell at its peak before plummets. They may believe in their eventual loss that makes them buy now because they perceive momentary success.

Prediction markets have been

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 22:04:13 +0000

In reply to Intrade is seen as an

Prediction markets have been studied to determine their efficiency with various results but I believe that they are usually a more accurate predictor than polls. As I recall, studies which showed them to be only marginally better than a simple poll often used sports betting to test. This has the problem of people's tendency to bet on their wished for outcome in a football game which they are less likely to do with other sorts of outcomes which they might analyze more dispassionately.
For election results polls can likely be as accurate very close to election day but further out the prediction markets are better predictors.
Shortly after 9/11 some general or other military connected person suggested prediction markets be set up for various terrorist possibilities. Cannot recall details but I think the idea was much like the way Intrade works. The public reaction to the idea of 'gambling' and of anyone hoping to profit in that area brought on a great deal of criticism and the idea died quickly, but I read a bit about them at the time and the idea seemed to have some merit, at least in theory. It seems though, that the choice must be yes/no to one outcome or else a choice of most likely among several known possibilities, one of which will definitely come about.
I would assume that the larger the pool of investors, the more accurate the prediction would likely be. Does Intrade ever advertise?

And his challenger is: Mitt?

Elusive Trope — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 22:02:06 +0000

In reply to Proportional allocation of

And his challenger is: Mitt? or Paul? Does Mitt have his shit together? well, yes he does (and does great in the debates), and he can't get a movement upward. Month after month after month. What is suddenly going to change that more than a quarter of the GOP would like to see him be president. The notion he is the best challenger against Obama has been out there a long time. He doesn't seem to have anything new to say - and his image as one of the rich Wall Streeters (and Mormon to boot) just lingers. Given the rest of the field why hasn't these people just thrown in the towel and get behind Mitt?

Mitt's whole campaign is

Elusive Trope — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 21:49:23 +0000

In reply to Intrade is seen as an

Mitt's whole campaign is built around being able to sustain an abysmal finish in Iowa. Until the rest of the pack imploded so spectacularly, Romney in Iowa wasn't really even discussed as a likely outcome.

This is true, but it was built on the notion that he would do bad in Iowa because the conservative religious element in Iowa GOP. The problem for Mitt is that the numbers in Iowa reflect his level of acceptance nationally. Who cares about Iowa when Florida looms ahead. But Florida has taken to Mitt just like Iowa has.

Now Gingrich is leading the GOP field in Florida and other key states. A Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday showed him ahead of establishment favorite Mitt Romney in Florida by a 35-to-22 percent margin. A CNN/Time poll this week had Gingrich with a 48-to-25 percent lead over Romney in Florida and double-digit leads in Iowa and South Carolina.

And to the extent he was the front runner within the MSM was that there would be this or that flavor of the month, but that in the long run, Mitt would outlast them, if for any other reason than he was seen as the one who had the best chance at beating Obama. Mitt's victory was predicated on the notion the Republican voters would in the end make the rational choice in order to put a R into the WH. When Cain surged, he was the "front runner," but it was presented with the cavet it is unlikely that to outlast Mitt. And so on.

I don't base my decision that Newt's rise is unsurmountable. It is based on the idea that in coming month, when it comes to time to decide, when all those who are of the "i don't know" mindset right now have to come down off the fence, only the smallest fraction of them will choose Mitt.

A few will go with Cain and Bachman and Perry - all of which have shown themselves to strike voters, rightly or wrongly, as unpresidential or not of presidential material. The rest will ponder upon Paul and Newt. (Santorum?) But Paul is like Mitt - he's been around the block already. If they haven't been comfortable with him already then why now? Newt, although a national figure, is still basically new - in the sense most people never had to ponder whether to vote for him, unlike Paul and Mitt.

For some reason, which is beyond me to some extent, GOP voters are ambivalent about Newt. Not crazy about him but at the same time don't have a huge problem with the idea of him being president. He is to GOP voters as McCain was to Democrats back in 2000.

The reality is that a good portion of the Republican voters don't like any of the candidates for the nomination. They are voting in the primary like many liberals will in the general election - for the lesser of two (or three or four) evils.

Newt doesn't have to slay Mitt definitively. He just has to keep the lackluster enthusiasm for Mitt right where it is. Obama's fear is not the GOP candidate, but apathy of the liberal Democrats. If the Mitt voter believes Mitt is going to lose, or has a real good chance of losing, what's the point of taking the time out to hit the polls. It doesn't really matter. So what if Newt or Paul wins. No big deal.