The morning after Ron Paul's stronger-than-expected 10% showing in Iowa was no surprise to Paul supporters (and probably disappointing to some), but it had to come as a bit of a surprise to most of the pollsters. Over the past week, most pollsters had Paul in the 5-8% range. So 10% pushes the limit on "margin of error" and suggests that Paul supporters have been right all along. His support is underrepresented in the polls.
Paul wasn't the only candidate the pollsters were wrong about. Rudy Giuliani was consistently polling in mid-teen double-digits up until about a week ago, but he ended up at 4%. He had fallen to the 5-8% range within the past few days, but 4% has to be considered a monumental drop for him. Mike Huckabee's poll numbers were consistently 5 points lower than what he actually got. The other candidates were pretty much in line with what the pollsters thought they would get.
It's not a surprise that Huckabee picked up extra points the night of the caucus. People love to vote for the likely "winner," which is probably where his extra 5% comes from, but the Giuliani and Paul numbers should give pollsters pause to reconsider. Essentially, it looks like Giuliani lost the lion's share of his support to Paul and Huckabee.
CNN entrance polls are even more interesting when you look at them up close.
For instance (and not surprisingly) when asked to rate their feelings about the Bush administration, Paul supporters represented 54% of those said they were "angry" at Bush out of all "angry" voters. These represented only 5% of the overall totals, which is also not surprising given that most Republican activists are Bush supporters, but it's very helpful in terms of understanding how much pull Paul could have among the overall electorate who tend to hold our current King George in relatively low esteem.
Paul was also the clear winner among Republican caucus goers who view themselves as being "independent" rather than identifying with the Republican party, with 29% of that group's support (well ahead of Romney at 19%). Independents accounted for 13% of overall Republican caucus goers.
Paul's support is stronger among lower-income Americans. He tied for third with John McCain with 14% of people making less than $50,000 a year, and scored a high of 18% (second place) among those making $15,000 to $30,000 annually.
He also finished a strong third among young Iowans. Voters in the 18-29 age range picked Paul 21% of the time, just one tick behind Romney who was in second place.
One thing I couldn't find was any reference to what the results were among cell phone users. We may have to wait awhile before this information comes out, but it would be very interesting to see how much of Paul's extra support came from voters who have cell phones but not land lines.
©2008 Walt Thiessen, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Friday, January 4, 2008
Last modified: Friday, January 4, 2008
The views expressed in this article are those of Walt Thiessen only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Walt Thiessen is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by Walt Thiessen of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By Walt Thiessen |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: John B. in Florida
Date: 2008-01-04 08:11:43
I'll be the first to comment here. I was somewhat disappointed with the results last night, only because I thought Ron Paul had a good chance to take third last night. But considering the margin of difference between Paul and the third and fourth place candidates, I have to say that I am VERY WELL PLEASED!! He was only out of a third place finish by about 4,000 votes, which was not a whole lot in this contest.
What I find most interesting is how long it took for CNN to report the voting numbers. This honestly worries me... and it is the very reason people start up conspiracy theories. Why at 11:00 PM EST, when the Democrats had almost 100% reporting, did the Republicans only have 72%. The Democrats are the ones that have this very long drawn out caucus process, whereas the Republican party only has to vote and then they can leave. On the Dem side it can be a much longer process, if all the articles I read on the Dem caucus were accurate.
Why then did the republican numbers not come in first???? It seems very odd to me and leads me to believe there may have been some vote tampering going on. The other reason I speculate is because in an AOL poll that only allowed users to vote once by blocking their IP after they voted, Ron Paul was tied with Huckabee for first place, with almost 4,500 people voting in the poll. On the democratic side of the AOL poll, it was Obama, followed by Edwards, followed by Clinton, which is exactly how the vote came out. But somehow, on the Republican side, it wasn't even close to how the poll came out. Something doesn't feel right.
I kept asking my wife last night... why do they still not have the numbers for republicans. Even at Midnight last night (EST) when I went to bed, they were only reporting 84% of the votes in. What was even more odd, is that when the vote was in at 72%, there was a 3,500 vote difference between Paul and the third place finisher Thompson (who came out of nowhere). As the rest of the precincts reported, the difference never really changed, almost like someone was keeping the vote exactly even as it was.
I would love to go back and have a paper recount of all the votes cast that night. I am sorry, but I just don't trust those damn computer voting machines. I don't care what anyone says... they can be hacked... just Google Hacking Democracy and you will see just how easy it is for a vote to be rigged.
I am a true diehard Ron Paul supporter, and I am not going to let these things get me down. I am happy with Ron Paul's close to third finish and I anticipate he will do even better in New Hampshire. My gravest concern is for other Ron Paul supporters who may lose some wind because we didn't place first. Just remember, IA is only one state, and we will continue to be victorious. Remember that Bush did not win Iowa and still got elected. Keep the faith.
Last, let me close on the obvious play that the Elite of this country have made on Huckabee. It is so crystal clear in my mind that he is being propelled to first by the media that it makes me sick to my stomach how many sheep we have in this country. Wake up people, open your eyes. Oil is over $100 a barrel, $4.00 gas is on the horizon. Gold is over $850 an ounce, and the dollar is losing it's value by the day. If you think for one second that Huckabee hasn't been annointed by the elite bankers who run this country you really have another thing coming. He was hand picked because he's the only one that the Elite feel can beat Ron Paul because of how he tries to mirror Ron Paul and because of his "Christian" credentials. Huckabee had NO MONEY TO EVEN SPIT AT TV ADS after the third quarter... but somehow the media starts putting him all over the news EVERY SINGLE NIGHT and he's suddenly getting $40,000,000 worth of advertising just because the media decides he's a contender. Don't you see, the fix is in. Wake up America... before it's too late and the future of our children to grow up in the great America we once knew is dead.
VOTE RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT
Posted By: buck
Date: 2008-01-04 08:43:34
"Huckabee had NO MONEY TO EVEN SPIT AT TV ADS after the third quarter... but somehow the media starts putting him all over the news EVERY SINGLE NIGHT and he's suddenly getting $40,000,000 worth of advertising just because the media decides he's a contender. " ....
if it had been coverage of what he actually supports and his background (now.. .when did he decide to abolish the IRS again?.. and how many times did he raise taxes while he was Gov.?) then the outcome would be very different. Instead they just said his name over and over and over and over and over and the people listened and voted for who they were told to vote for.
Posted By: Bo
Date: 2008-01-04 09:07:23
Ron Paul has 10% but CNN has him lumped in with the havenots like Rudy Giuliani in the "Rest" losers pie chart they show. Why does CNN not show a pie chart section with 10% for Paul? He has more than 3 times the votes of Giuliani. People need to write CNN and ask them why they are biased against Ron paul he is onbly a 3 percentage points below both Thompson and McCain but he is lumped into "The Rset of the Republicans." That is netwrok bias. CNN is just as bad as Fox for their bias.
Posted By: Mark
Date: 2008-01-04 10:20:38
Guys, don't worry about it. 10% is good in Gods country and Subsidized Corn Fields. I guarantee you the establishment was surprised Ron took that much. It shows a real movement and we have tons of CASH in the bank to change this thing starting in New Hampshire. Huck doesn't have a chance there. Plus, go to CNN and look at the county votes, he took 2nd and 3rd in many districts. Its a good showing, lets move on.
Posted By: WCH
Date: 2008-01-04 10:47:44
This whole latest caucus thing seems fraught with questionable behavior. After all, a full year before the election, a tiny state, months of campaigning, and approaching $400 per vote spent is rife with questions. None of them pleasant.
I grew up in Iowa, and I find it difficult to accept that Iowans actually voted in such large numbers for Huckabee. His meteoric rise in the polls seems also contrived. I smell a rat. Of course it is the same rat that has been around since Tammany Hall and many others.
Putting together the last few years' vote tampering a la Florida/ChoicePoint in 2000 and Ohio in 2004, the current Democratic-controlled Congress continually rolling over for one of the most hated presidents (of the opposing party no less) in history, deficit spenidng like never before in history, and the current media-manipulated circus of this way-too-protracted presidential contest, the following current scenario seems to be in play by the power elite: Bush, et al are hated. So we (power elite) give them a Democrat next go round. We thought we could dump HIllary on them, our best choice, as she is well bought and paid for and will play ball. But Obama will do OK too. Smart, Well-spoken, but way too young and able to be managed. Put a sure loser Republican out there to run against the Dem, and we have it under control. The 6 or 7 moguls who control media in the country will play ball with us. The Republicans in Democrat clothes (eg: Hillary, Nancy, Dianne) in positions of leadership will play ball (they're becoming multi, multi millionaires working with us, why not?).
At all costs, and from the get-go, keep up the pejorative language about people like Ron Paul, while marginalizing his positions on issues.
I could go on. All bases are covered.
They must do this. Otherwise the ability to ram through 1100 page bills at the last minute at 2:00 AM giving them billions of tax dollars, would not be possible.
There will always be a significant number of thoughtful voters and visionary leaders who "get it". But the great majority of sheep simply roll over them by sheer numbers, fulfilling this statement by a world leader from the past:
"How fortunate for the leaders that the people never think" - Adolf Hitler" .
Cheers, All
Posted By: Mike Cunningham
Date: 2008-01-06 11:46:00
Wasn't it Winston Churchill who said: "The best argument against Democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter"