IA- PPP (1/11/2011) : Iowa caucuses

[pbrower2a]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_IA_0111930.pdf

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sarah Palin seems to be fading fast. 

[Yelnoc]

I wish people would take Huckabee out of polls.  I really do not think he will run again (though he'll string it out through May at least) and I want to see which candidate his supporters will break to.

[Mr. Morden]

I wish people would take Huckabee out of polls.  I really do not think he will run again (though he'll string it out through May at least) and I want to see which candidate his supporters will break to.

This poll does ask for the second choices of each poll respondent.  Second choices of people whose first choice is Huckabee:

Palin 26%
Romney 16%
Gingrich 15%
Paul 9%
Pawlenty 4%
Thune 2%
Daniels 1%
undecided 26%

You can use that reallocate Huck's support, and work out what the poll would say if he wasn't included.

The leading second choice pick for supporters of Gingrich, Palin, Paul, Pawlenty, and Romney supporters is Huckabee.

[Gustaf]

Ok, I ran the numbers without Huckabee and they are:

Palin: 26%
Romney: 26%
Gingrich: 18%
Paul: 9%
Pawlenty: 5%
Thune: 4%
Daniels: 1%
Undecided: 18%

[California8429]

Ok, I ran the numbers without Huckabee and they are:

Palin: 26%
Romney: 26%
Gingrich: 18%
Paul: 9%
Pawlenty: 5%
Thune: 4%
Daniels: 1%
Undecided: 18%

is this distributing Huckabee's votes? Or just taking them out?

Also Palin behind Gingrich now...in Iowa?!?!? Yup she's toast

[Mr. Morden]

Ok, I ran the numbers without Huckabee and they are:

Palin: 26%
Romney: 26%
Gingrich: 18%
Paul: 9%
Pawlenty: 5%
Thune: 4%
Daniels: 1%
Undecided: 18%

is this distributing Huckabee's votes? Or just taking them out?

It's redistributing Huckabee's votes, based on his supporters' second choices.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What are you talking about?  Palin is ahead of Gingrich.

[Bull Moose Base]

I think it should be more like Palin and Romney about 23 with Huck votes redistributed.  But of course, Huckabee and Palin are the only known candidates here born-agains are enthusiastic about.  They'd probably like Thune and Pence tons and be cool with Pawlenty. 

Daniels's invitation to CPAC on the other hand has sparked an outcry from social conservatives.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/cpac-attacked-for-inviting-mitch-daniels.php?ref=fpblg

[Mr. Morden]

Daniels's invitation to CPAC on the other hand has sparked an outcry from social conservatives.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/cpac-attacked-for-inviting-mitch-daniels.php?ref=fpblg

Social conservatives are already in a state of insurrection over CPAC, for reasons larger than that:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47231.html

Daniels just gives them another excuse to complain about CPAC.  It'll be interesting to see if any 2012ers refuse to come, or withdraw their acceptance of a speaking slot over the controversy.  According to this:

http://www.conservative.org/cpac/

it looks like all the major 2012ers except Huckabee, Palin, and Pence have said they're going to attend.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Huckabee and Palin know that they have the same base of support. Gingrich is running, and either one of the aforementioned (Palin more likely) or neither will run.

In other words, I'd put the order of chances of winning as:

1. Romney
2. Palin
3. Huckabee
4. Palin
5. Daniels
6. Pawlenty
7. Barbour
8. Thune
9. Paul (won't win)

[Mr. Morden]

Huckabee and Palin know that they have the same base of support.

Huck gets virtually all of his support from people who are interested in voting for "the identity politics candidate for Evangelicals".  Palin's support comes more from "movement conservatives".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Palin appears to be the Grover Cleveland of your rankings.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I meant Gingrich for the #4.

And Huckabee's problem is that his support only goes one way. His supporters would go to Palin if she runs and he doesn't-evangelicals who care less about economic issues and more about social issues-while Tea Partiers would never support Huckabee, going to Gingrich or even Pawlenty.

[Mr. Morden]

I meant Gingrich for the #4.

And Huckabee's problem is that his support only goes one way. His supporters would go to Palin if she runs and he doesn't-evangelicals who care less about economic issues and more about social issues-while Tea Partiers would never support Huckabee, going to Gingrich or even Pawlenty.

Well, in this particular poll, 26% of Huckabee supporters say Palin is their second choice, while 42% of Palin supporters say Huckabee is their second choice.  Huckabee is the leading second choice option for almost all the other candidates.  The overall second choice #s are:

1. Mike Huckabee 19%
2. Sarah Palin 13%
3. Newt Gingrich 12%
4. Mitt Romney 9%
5. Tim Pawlenty 5%
5. Ron Paul 5%
7. John Thune 3%
8. Mitch Daniels 2%

Now of course, that's just from this snapshot, and things would likely play out differently in a real race, once voters get to know some of the currently unknown candidates.  But right now, Huckabee is well liked by the supporters of the other candidates.

[California8429]

Wow, looking at Huck and Romney supports going 2nd for the other guy, looks like the blood is starting to wash away.

Paul's 2nd choice is interesting, it's all over the map

And I read it as Gingrich then Palin morden sorry

[Keystone Phil]

I know polling the caucuses is very tricky and obviously a lot can and will happen between now and next January but this was the state where Palin didn't have excuses. Her disappointing showing in national and some other state polls were able to be explained. The early states were going to carry her to the nomination. Even with Huckabee out, her showing is weak!

She isn't getting the nomination.

[Lambsbread]

I'm actually really surprised by how well Huckabee did. Garnering 30% of the vote is difficult.

[Mr. Morden]

I'm actually really surprised by how well Huckabee did. Garnering 30% of the vote is difficult.

Well, he did campaign in Iowa virtually nonstop for like a year in 2007, so he does have that going for him.

[Liberalrocks]

I wish people would take Huckabee out of polls.  I really do not think he will run again (though he'll string it out through May at least) and I want to see which candidate his supporters will break to.

This poll does ask for the second choices of each poll respondent.  Second choices of people whose first choice is Huckabee:

Palin 26%
Romney 16%
Gingrich 15%
Paul 9%
Pawlenty 4%
Thune 2%
Daniels 1%
undecided 26%

You can use that reallocate Huck's support, and work out what the poll would say if he wasn't included.

The leading second choice pick for supporters of Gingrich, Palin, Paul, Pawlenty, and Romney supporters is Huckabee.

So it appears to me that democrats had better hope that Huck doesn't run so that way his supporters go to Palin thus giving her a 50/50 chance at winning Iowa at this point.

I really like those readjusted numbers when the second part of the question is asked. Puts a big smile on my face !

[Bull Moose Base]

Huckabee and Palin know that they have the same base of support. Gingrich is running, and either one of the aforementioned (Palin more likely) or neither will run.

In other words, I'd put the order of chances of winning as:

1. Romney
2. Palin
3. Huckabee
4. Gingrich
5. Daniels
6. Pawlenty
7. Barbour
8. Thune
9. Paul (won't win)

I don't know how you can look at a poll that shows Huckabee leading all comers by double digits and rank him 3rd.  This is Huckabee's perennial Rodney Dangerfield problem again.  I'd rank them like this (assume Huckabee, Pence and Daniels pass)

1. Thune (big bank, few vulnerabilities, good at reaching those voters, hearts ethanol subs.)

2. Pawlenty (similar to Thune, but started earlier.  a little behind because of superficial reasons.  his pardon issue could be a point of attack.  I'd put them pretty close.)

3. Palin ("blood libel" and doing that video on same day as Obama's speech, or doing it at all, reveal her political instincts are even worse than anyone realized)

4. Romney (primary campaign will coincide with a year of GOP vilifying mandate including perhaps a Supreme Court case, Thune or Pawlenty, once known to Iowans, will be passable alternatives to voters who just want someone half-credible).

5.  Gingrich (too many scandals.)

6. Barbour (he'll have big bank but what exactly will make Iowans gravitate to him over options above?)

7. Santorum (exudes irrelevance.  Suppose if he got a big endorsement maybe.)

If the omissions all ran, I'd have Huckabee and Pence a close 1, 2 and Daniels after Palin.

[Mr. Morden]

Huckabee and Palin know that they have the same base of support. Gingrich is running, and either one of the aforementioned (Palin more likely) or neither will run.

In other words, I'd put the order of chances of winning as:

1. Romney
2. Palin
3. Huckabee
4. Gingrich
5. Daniels
6. Pawlenty
7. Barbour
8. Thune
9. Paul (won't win)

I don't know how you can look at a poll that shows Huckabee leading all comers by double digits and rank him 3rd.  This is Huckabee's perennial Rodney Dangerfield problem again.  I'd rank them like this (assume Huckabee, Pence and Daniels pass)

1. Thune (big bank, few vulnerabilities, good at reaching those voters, hearts ethanol subs.)

2. Pawlenty (similar to Thune, but started earlier.  a little behind because of superficial reasons.  his pardon issue could be a point of attack.  I'd put them pretty close.)

3. Palin ("blood libel" and doing that video on same day as Obama's speech, or doing it at all, reveal her political instincts are even worse than anyone realized)

4. Romney (primary campaign will coincide with a year of GOP vilifying mandate including perhaps a Supreme Court case, Thune or Pawlenty, once known to Iowans, will be passable alternatives to voters who just want someone half-credible).

5.  Gingrich (too many scandals.)

6. Barbour (he'll have big bank but what exactly will make Iowans gravitate to him over options above?)

7. Santorum (exudes irrelevance.  Suppose if he got a big endorsement maybe.)

If the omissions all ran, I'd have Huckabee and Pence a close 1, 2 and Daniels after Palin.

All of that looks reasonable to me.  I also have this hunch that, even if Palin runs, she'll end up pursuing something of a "Giuliani-like" strategy.  Not that she'll hunker down in one state like Florida, but that she'll focus less on the early states than other candidates do, and try to rely on her national celebrity to keep herself relevant in later states.

She seems like the type who would foolishly try to run a "national" primary campaign, rather than focus on getting early wins in order to stay in the game.  Hence, I could imagine a scenario in which she's leading or tied for the lead in national polls as of Iowa caucus day, but still ends up losing the caucuses....despite the fact that, on paper, Iowa is a state she should be able to do well in.

[California8429]

I know polling the caucuses is very tricky and obviously a lot can and will happen between now and next January but this was the state where Palin didn't have excuses. Her disappointing showing in national and some other state polls were able to be explained. The early states were going to carry her to the nomination. Even with Huckabee out, her showing is weak!

She isn't getting the nomination.

I don't even think she'll run. She only has downhill to go, while dark horses on the other hand can still be conservatives but rise as a fresh face and new charisma

[Bull Moose Base]

Huckabee and Palin know that they have the same base of support. Gingrich is running, and either one of the aforementioned (Palin more likely) or neither will run.

In other words, I'd put the order of chances of winning as:

1. Romney
2. Palin
3. Huckabee
4. Gingrich
5. Daniels
6. Pawlenty
7. Barbour
8. Thune
9. Paul (won't win)

I don't know how you can look at a poll that shows Huckabee leading all comers by double digits and rank him 3rd.  This is Huckabee's perennial Rodney Dangerfield problem again.  I'd rank them like this (assume Huckabee, Pence and Daniels pass)

1. Thune (big bank, few vulnerabilities, good at reaching those voters, hearts ethanol subs.)

2. Pawlenty (similar to Thune, but started earlier.  a little behind because of superficial reasons.  his pardon issue could be a point of attack.  I'd put them pretty close.)

3. Palin ("blood libel" and doing that video on same day as Obama's speech, or doing it at all, reveal her political instincts are even worse than anyone realized)

4. Romney (primary campaign will coincide with a year of GOP vilifying mandate including perhaps a Supreme Court case, Thune or Pawlenty, once known to Iowans, will be passable alternatives to voters who just want someone half-credible).

5.  Gingrich (too many scandals.)

6. Barbour (he'll have big bank but what exactly will make Iowans gravitate to him over options above?)

7. Santorum (exudes irrelevance.  Suppose if he got a big endorsement maybe.)

If the omissions all ran, I'd have Huckabee and Pence a close 1, 2 and Daniels after Palin.

All of that looks reasonable to me.  I also have this hunch that, even if Palin runs, she'll end up pursuing something of a "Giuliani-like" strategy.  Not that she'll hunker down in one state like Florida, but that she'll focus less on the early states than other candidates do, and try to rely on her national celebrity to keep herself relevant in later states.

She seems like the type who would foolishly try to run a "national" primary campaign, rather than focus on getting early wins in order to stay in the game.  Hence, I could imagine a scenario in which she's leading or tied for the lead in national polls as of Iowa caucus day, but still ends up losing the caucuses....despite the fact that, on paper, Iowa is a state she should be able to do well in.

I'm not convinced Giuliani's strategy was the wrong one, disastrous results notwithstanding.  He had no chance to do anything in Iowa and with Florida moving early, and all its NY transplants, did have a chance to launch from there.  I think there's a fair argument that if Romney had beaten McCain in New Hampshire, McCain would have faded fast, Huckabee would have won South Carolina knocking McCain out or all but and that Giuliani would have had a much better chance in Florida since his and McCain's support overlapped a bit.

Anyway, I see Haley Barbour likely to attempt a Giuliani.  I think he'll have loads of $ and staff but as I say above, I don't think he'll get traction in Iowa, and eventually, I expect him to cut bait and concentrate on South Carolina.  It'd be a risk.  Someone could win Iowa and pick up enough momentum to blow past him.  His ideal could be Romney sweeping Iowa and NH, putting everyone else on the ropes, sneak away with a win in South Carolina and stake out the anti-Romney turf.

Palin, if she runs, I think will definitely try to use her star power to conform her campaign to her comfort zone and avoid certain traditional moves if they leave her feeling exposed (e.g. Sunday shows).   I don't know that that means giving Iowa short shrift.  But it could mean, hypothetically, if she has a late slip in the polls and anticipated losing that, instead of the normal way a candidate would try to spin or save face or brace the media for a loss, that she would do so in some wild, bizarre way that accidentally pissed Iowans off and end up trading a close second-place for a distant fourth or something.