Does Ron Paul lead in Iowa? Does it matter for the long term if he does?

By David McElroy · December 19, 2011

My friends who support Ron Paul are very excited by a new poll that shows him leading in Iowa. For them, it’s the first sign of the breakthrough they’ve been expecting to reveal that more people are “seeing the light.” I’m on record as saying that Paul can’t win the presidency — even though it would make me happy — so Paul’s supporters won’t believe my analysis. But let me explain why this poll doesn’t mean much.

First, let’s take the poll results at face value and assume they’re correct. Paul has been pounding Gingrich hard with effective advertising lately that exposes Gingrich as the phony he is. (Unfortunately, the ad plays a bit fast and loose with some key facts, but let’s ignore that since it doesn’t affect the horse race, which is what I’m talking about today.) It’s natural that Gingrich might have fallen some in the face of the attacks and some of that support could have gone to Paul.

But there’s a key piece of information that some of Paul’s supporters haven’t noticed. The people who support Paul support him and nobody else. The rest of the people pretty much support anybody other than Ron Paul. I say this because Paul is second choice for only 9 percent of the voters who don’t support him. So as other candidates drop out, their supporters are far less likely to jump on the Paul bandwagon. They’ll be joining other candidates instead.

This is simply the mirror image of Paul’s strong support among his supporters. They see such a gap between his views and everybody else’s views that they aren’t willing to support any other halfway viable Republican. In the same way, the people who don’t support Paul similarly see his views as far outside the mainstream views of the rest of the candidates. So if the candidate they like drops out, there are several other candidates whose positions are very similar to the candidate they had previously supported.

In other words, even if you assume this poll is accurate, this is about as high as Paul can go — using the data from the same poll.

Next, let’s assume the poll is accurate and let’s assume that Paul could win Iowa. Just to make it interesting, let’s assume he could also win the New Hampshire primary a week later. How would that affect the later primaries — where the vast bulk of delegates will be selected? In truth, it would get Paul tremendous publicity, but it wouldn’t make any difference to the far more socially conservative Republicans in the delegate-rich states elsewhere, especially the South.

Iowa and New Hampshire Republicans don’t have a lot in common with Florida Republicans or Alabama Republicans, for instance, on average. Iowa is far more of a centrist state, and the results there won’t necessarily say anything about how social conservatives in other places are going to react to Paul’s libertarian positions.

Finally, let’s consider whether this poll is accurate or not. Survey research is a science, but you have to make quite a number of judgement calls about how to “weight” certain groups. For instance, in the case of the Iowa caucuses, a pollster has to figure out what percentage of people who will attend the caucuses will be self-identified Republicans, what percentage will be self-identified independents and what percentage will be self-identified Democrats. This analysis shows the assumptions made by the poll in question and explains why those assumptions are probably inaccurately inflating Paul’s performance here.

As I said, I don’t believe Ron Paul has any chance of winning the presidency. I actually think he might have a better chance in the general election than he does to get the GOP nomination. If his supporters are going to have any chance to feel excited for a little while, it will be in Iowa and New Hampshire. But for the reasons I’ve laid out before, he has no chance with the vast bulk of socially conservative Republicans who are very hostile to libertarian ideas on anything other than economics. (And even with economics, they like rhetoric more than someone who will actually do the things they claim to want.)

So if Paul does well in Iowa and New Hampshire, you can get your hopes up if you want to, but count on them to be dashed pretty quickly in the months after that. I’ve been wrong before, of course, but I just can’t see how things could play out well for Paul between now and the GOP convention.

So what’s my prediction for Paul in Iowa? I don’t feel strongly about it, because I don’t have a good feel for the data or the situation on the ground there. If I were forced to guess, though, I’d say Paul will likely finish second there. Gingrich might win, but it wouldn’t be terribly surprising if Gingrich’s collapse continues and Mitt Romney ends up on top.

Whatever happens in Iowa, I don’t see it affecting the race in the long term. I’m sorry to be a bearer of bad news, but I think the facts support my analysis.

Share on Social Networks

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

For four years, Donald Trump’s supporters screamed that everything that went wrong was the fault of Joe Biden. They were sometimes right and they were sometimes delusional. (Anybody who knows me understands that I can’t stand Biden any more than I can stand Trump, just for different reasons.) But for two months, Trump has rampaged through U.S. political life — vandalizing pretty much everything in sight — and the vast majority of his supporters are silent at best. Many watch as he blows up the world economy and they make excuses for him. They’re in absolute denial, even about things that Trump is doing very intentionally. Anybody who understands economics and history knows that tariffs are a terrible idea from a pragmatic point of view. Anybody who values individual freedom knows that tariffs are massive taxes on individuals — and they’re a tool of political control over the ability of people to trade freely. Trump is the antithesis of everything which political conservatives stood for just a few years ago. It’s far past time for people who claim to be conservatives to reclaim the principles and values which they used to claim — and stop this mad man before he can accelerate the day when we experience economic and social collapse. Open your eyes to reality and reject this lying narcissist.

Related Posts