Iowa and New Hampshire Forum!

[POLLWONK]

Hey Guys!

2012 is here! So are the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries! Submit your ideas and vote!

Thanks and happy campaigning!

POLLWONK

[POLLWONK]

my call is this...

Romney will narrowly win in Iowa. Though it is somewhat uncertain, the Big Mo appears on Romney's side. I think Paul and Santorum will be 2nd and 3rd

Romney will also win in New Hampshire.

[Alfonzo]

The latest Iowa poll (found here), boasting an impressive sample size (compared to the other polls), has it essentially tied, with Romney at 19%, Paul at 20%, and Santorum at 18%.

Santorum definitely has the momentum at the moment. Paul's numbers seem to have peaked and are dying off.

If Romney wins Iowa and New Hampshire, my bet is that a good number of candidates will drop out. Probably most of Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry, Huntsman and Santorum. Most of Huntsmans votes will go to Romney and Paul, the rest will most likely go to the remaining anti-Romney anti-Paul.

With the latest averages, Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry and Santorum have nearly 50% of the total vote. Romney's biggest threat is making a clean sweep of the early voting states. As soon as most of the anti-Romney candidates drop out, the voters will have one anti-Romney to rally around. Romney needs to make sure that all of the anti-Romney candidates believe they still have a shot at winning, because as soon as they don't, they drop out, and the conservative vote consolidates around one candidate. We already saw that Cain dropping out gave pretty much no advantage to Romney. If Perry and Bachmann drop out, their votes will most likely all go to Santorum, which would put him well ahead of Romney, with no real alternative.

In short, I'm becoming more and more convinced that Romney simply cannot win the campaign. He simply has not made any headway. He's been the de facto frontrunner for a year now, and hasn't been able to bring his share of the vote out of the 20's. If he were going to be the nominee, it would have been apparent a lot sooner.

Paul received a boost from the demise of Gingrich, as conservatives scrambled for a 'true' Republican to support. Paul's 20% in the polls is very soft. At least 5 of that 20 are just going with Paul because he's the prominent anti-Romney. But with Santorum's rise, Paul will lose support. He'll probably be lucky to come 3rd in Iowa.

A big problem for Romney is expectations. For a short while now, he's been expected to win Iowa. Anything less than a win will be a loss for Romney, and he'll suffer a hit to momentum come New Hampshire and the other states.

If Romney wins Iowa, he loses the nomination, because some of the candidates will drop out, allowing one candidate to consolidate their vote and overtake Romney.

If Romney loses Iowa, he loses the nomination, because another candidate wins Iowa, gains momentum to win South Carolina and Florida, and maybe put up a fight in New Hampshire, and consolidates the vote from some of the other candidates who drop out.

If Paul wins Iowa and puts up a fight in New Hampshire, that might be Romney's only bet to win the nomination. It might push all the conservatives to drop out, leaving voters to choose between two candidates they don't like. A long and bloody primaries will follow, and Obama wins the presidency .

[VoteGOP]

Hard to see Romney not winning NH. As for Iowa its anyone's guess. Paul and Romney are in a dead heat, Romney may have a slight edge at the moment but the nature of Paul's supporters does him favor. Santorum may pull it off. The momentum is with him and according to a recent poll up to 40% of caucus goers say they could change their mind. Iowa has been crazy this election. I think 6 different people have led polls at one point, 7 if you count Santorum being within the MoE on a few. Tuesday is definitely going to be entertaining.

[ellchicago]

The latest Iowa poll (found here), boasting an impressive sample size (compared to the other polls), has it essentially tied, with Romney at 19%, Paul at 20%, and Santorum at 18%.

Santorum definitely has the momentum at the moment. Paul's numbers seem to have peaked and are dying off.

If Romney wins Iowa and New Hampshire, my bet is that a good number of candidates will drop out. Probably most of Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry, Huntsman and Santorum. Most of Huntsmans votes will go to Romney and Paul, the rest will most likely go to the remaining anti-Romney anti-Paul.

With the latest averages, Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry and Santorum have nearly 50% of the total vote. Romney's biggest threat is making a clean sweep of the early voting states. As soon as most of the anti-Romney candidates drop out, the voters will have one anti-Romney to rally around. Romney needs to make sure that all of the anti-Romney candidates believe they still have a shot at winning, because as soon as they don't, they drop out, and the conservative vote consolidates around one candidate. We already saw that Cain dropping out gave pretty much no advantage to Romney. If Perry and Bachmann drop out, their votes will most likely all go to Santorum, which would put him well ahead of Romney, with no real alternative.

In short, I'm becoming more and more convinced that Romney simply cannot win the campaign. He simply has not made any headway. He's been the de facto frontrunner for a year now, and hasn't been able to bring his share of the vote out of the 20's. If he were going to be the nominee, it would have been apparent a lot sooner.

Paul received a boost from the demise of Gingrich, as conservatives scrambled for a 'true' Republican to support. Paul's 20% in the polls is very soft. At least 5 of that 20 are just going with Paul because he's the prominent anti-Romney. But with Santorum's rise, Paul will lose support. He'll probably be lucky to come 3rd in Iowa.

A big problem for Romney is expectations. For a short while now, he's been expected to win Iowa. Anything less than a win will be a loss for Romney, and he'll suffer a hit to momentum come New Hampshire and the other states.

If Romney wins Iowa, he loses the nomination, because some of the candidates will drop out, allowing one candidate to consolidate their vote and overtake Romney.

If Romney loses Iowa, he loses the nomination, because another candidate wins Iowa, gains momentum to win South Carolina and Florida, and maybe put up a fight in New Hampshire, and consolidates the vote from some of the other candidates who drop out.

If Paul wins Iowa and puts up a fight in New Hampshire, that might be Romney's only bet to win the nomination. It might push all the conservatives to drop out, leaving voters to choose between two candidates they don't like. A long and bloody primaries will follow, and Obama wins the presidency .

Neither Paul or Santorum have infrastructure run a national campaign. If they are lucky they may to able to survive to South Carolina. Mitt Romney is going to the Republican nominee. In 1980 Bush won Iowa and then Reagan won New Hampshire and the nomination. This only proves that Mitt Romney is very dangerous to President Obama.

[POLLWONK]

I don't think that we can automatically assume that nomination is going be a knockdown dragout. At this point in the race, it was a 2 way tie between McCain and Giuliani, but by March the nomination was sealed.

I think Romney will probably win in Iowa. I think the poll you cited is good, but other polls show more Romney leads than Paul leads. Paul's momentum also is starting to falter. Their has been recent accusations of racism against him. Romney meanwhile appears to be picking up the pace. Still, its far from certain.

New Hampshire is certain. Romney will win the state. Unless he does a Dean Scream impersonation, he will win the Granite State.

If Romney wins both, then expect the nomination to be his.

Also, the GOP field I doubt won't endorse each other just to take down Romney. That is wishful Obama thinking, but highly unlikely. Pawlenty originally was Romney's archenemy, but endorsed him later. Santorum also endorsed Romney in 2008 so it wouldn't be too hard for him to do it again. Also, it is important to remember that the candidates want to take down OBAMA not Romney. Mitt Romney will probably get everybody's support except Ron Paul's.

By the way, I accidentally voted your post down... I thought I was clicking reply... kind of broke our ceasefire agreement... my bad...

The latest Iowa poll (found here), boasting an impressive sample size (compared to the other polls), has it essentially tied, with Romney at 19%, Paul at 20%, and Santorum at 18%.

Santorum definitely has the momentum at the moment. Paul's numbers seem to have peaked and are dying off.

If Romney wins Iowa and New Hampshire, my bet is that a good number of candidates will drop out. Probably most of Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry, Huntsman and Santorum. Most of Huntsmans votes will go to Romney and Paul, the rest will most likely go to the remaining anti-Romney anti-Paul.

With the latest averages, Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry and Santorum have nearly 50% of the total vote. Romney's biggest threat is making a clean sweep of the early voting states. As soon as most of the anti-Romney candidates drop out, the voters will have one anti-Romney to rally around. Romney needs to make sure that all of the anti-Romney candidates believe they still have a shot at winning, because as soon as they don't, they drop out, and the conservative vote consolidates around one candidate. We already saw that Cain dropping out gave pretty much no advantage to Romney. If Perry and Bachmann drop out, their votes will most likely all go to Santorum, which would put him well ahead of Romney, with no real alternative.

In short, I'm becoming more and more convinced that Romney simply cannot win the campaign. He simply has not made any headway. He's been the de facto frontrunner for a year now, and hasn't been able to bring his share of the vote out of the 20's. If he were going to be the nominee, it would have been apparent a lot sooner.

Paul received a boost from the demise of Gingrich, as conservatives scrambled for a 'true' Republican to support. Paul's 20% in the polls is very soft. At least 5 of that 20 are just going with Paul because he's the prominent anti-Romney. But with Santorum's rise, Paul will lose support. He'll probably be lucky to come 3rd in Iowa.

A big problem for Romney is expectations. For a short while now, he's been expected to win Iowa. Anything less than a win will be a loss for Romney, and he'll suffer a hit to momentum come New Hampshire and the other states.

If Romney wins Iowa, he loses the nomination, because some of the candidates will drop out, allowing one candidate to consolidate their vote and overtake Romney.

If Romney loses Iowa, he loses the nomination, because another candidate wins Iowa, gains momentum to win South Carolina and Florida, and maybe put up a fight in New Hampshire, and consolidates the vote from some of the other candidates who drop out.

If Paul wins Iowa and puts up a fight in New Hampshire, that might be Romney's only bet to win the nomination. It might push all the conservatives to drop out, leaving voters to choose between two candidates they don't like. A long and bloody primaries will follow, and Obama wins the presidency .

[POLLWONK]

I don't think that we can automatically assume that nomination is going be a knockdown dragout. At this point in the race, it was a 2 way tie between McCain and Giuliani, but by March the nomination was sealed.

I think Romney will probably win in Iowa. I think the poll you cited is good, but other polls show more Romney leads than Paul leads. Paul's momentum also is starting to falter. Their has been recent accusations of racism against him. Romney meanwhile appears to be picking up the pace. Still, its far from certain.

New Hampshire is certain. Romney will win the state. Unless he does a Dean Scream impersonation, he will win the Granite State.

If Romney wins both, then expect the nomination to be his.

Also, the GOP field I doubt won't endorse each other just to take down Romney. That is wishful Obama thinking, but highly unlikely. Pawlenty originally was Romney's archenemy, but endorsed him later. Santorum also endorsed Romney in 2008 so it wouldn't be too hard for him to do it again. Also, it is important to remember that the candidates want to take down OBAMA not Romney. Mitt Romney will probably get everybody's support except Ron Paul's.

By the way, I accidentally voted your post down... I thought I was clicking reply... kind of broke our ceasefire agreement... my bad...

The latest Iowa poll (found here), boasting an impressive sample size (compared to the other polls), has it essentially tied, with Romney at 19%, Paul at 20%, and Santorum at 18%.

Santorum definitely has the momentum at the moment. Paul's numbers seem to have peaked and are dying off.

If Romney wins Iowa and New Hampshire, my bet is that a good number of candidates will drop out. Probably most of Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry, Huntsman and Santorum. Most of Huntsmans votes will go to Romney and Paul, the rest will most likely go to the remaining anti-Romney anti-Paul.

With the latest averages, Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry and Santorum have nearly 50% of the total vote. Romney's biggest threat is making a clean sweep of the early voting states. As soon as most of the anti-Romney candidates drop out, the voters will have one anti-Romney to rally around. Romney needs to make sure that all of the anti-Romney candidates believe they still have a shot at winning, because as soon as they don't, they drop out, and the conservative vote consolidates around one candidate. We already saw that Cain dropping out gave pretty much no advantage to Romney. If Perry and Bachmann drop out, their votes will most likely all go to Santorum, which would put him well ahead of Romney, with no real alternative.

In short, I'm becoming more and more convinced that Romney simply cannot win the campaign. He simply has not made any headway. He's been the de facto frontrunner for a year now, and hasn't been able to bring his share of the vote out of the 20's. If he were going to be the nominee, it would have been apparent a lot sooner.

Paul received a boost from the demise of Gingrich, as conservatives scrambled for a 'true' Republican to support. Paul's 20% in the polls is very soft. At least 5 of that 20 are just going with Paul because he's the prominent anti-Romney. But with Santorum's rise, Paul will lose support. He'll probably be lucky to come 3rd in Iowa.

A big problem for Romney is expectations. For a short while now, he's been expected to win Iowa. Anything less than a win will be a loss for Romney, and he'll suffer a hit to momentum come New Hampshire and the other states.

If Romney wins Iowa, he loses the nomination, because some of the candidates will drop out, allowing one candidate to consolidate their vote and overtake Romney.

If Romney loses Iowa, he loses the nomination, because another candidate wins Iowa, gains momentum to win South Carolina and Florida, and maybe put up a fight in New Hampshire, and consolidates the vote from some of the other candidates who drop out.

If Paul wins Iowa and puts up a fight in New Hampshire, that might be Romney's only bet to win the nomination. It might push all the conservatives to drop out, leaving voters to choose between two candidates they don't like. A long and bloody primaries will follow, and Obama wins the presidency .

[ellchicago]

CNN Iowa Insiders Survey: Two out of three think Romney will win

Who will finish first?

• Mitt Romney: .....40 (63%)

• Ron Paul: .....17 (27%)

• Michele Bachmann: .....1 (1%)

• Newt Gingrich: .....1 (1%)

• Rick Perry: .....1 (1%)

• Rick Santorum: .....0 (0%)

• Too close to call/dead heat: .....4 (6%)

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/02/politics/iowa-insiders-survey-main/index.html

[POLLWONK]

Makes sense. Romney has the better ground game. And more polls indicate a Romney edge than a tossup.

CNN Iowa Insiders Survey: Two out of three think Romney will win

Who will finish first?

• Mitt Romney: .....40 (63%)

• Ron Paul: .....17 (27%)

• Michele Bachmann: .....1 (1%)

• Newt Gingrich: .....1 (1%)

• Rick Perry: .....1 (1%)

• Rick Santorum: .....0 (0%)

• Too close to call/dead heat: .....4 (6%)

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/02/politics/iowa-insiders-survey-main/index.html

[ellchicago]

Makes sense. Romney has the better ground game. And more polls indicate a Romney edge than a tossup.

Romney favored to win Iowa.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7030/6618578919_a29e9b8ea5.jpg

[Alfonzo]

Romney favored to win Iowa.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7030/6618578919_a29e9b8ea5.jpg

Not quite. FiveThirtyEight currently has Romney at 42% chance of winning Iowa. It's more likely that he'll lose it than win it, at this stage.

[ellchicago]

Not quite. FiveThirtyEight currently has Romney at 42% chance of winning Iowa. It's more likely that he'll lose it than win it, at this stage.

Nope. It is a multiple man race, so it is correct that he is favorite.

[POLLWONK]

Alfonzo, there are 7 Candidates... (taps the mic) 7 candidates... and almost everypoll out there is showing Romney with the lead. A few polling places have shown an occasional Paul lead there, but right now Romney is the most likely candidate.

Also, 42% is an awfully good chance in a field of 7 candidates. Of all the candidates,Romney is most likely to win Iowa. Yes, that's not 50%, but he is still the most likely to win. If you go to a horserace, who would you bet your money on? The horse with a 1 in 5 chance or the horse with a nearly 1 in 2 chance?

Plus, Romney has recently picked up a ton of momentum. Paul and Gingrich are faltering. Rick Santorum is surging, but not fast enough to overtake Romney.

Not quite. FiveThirtyEight currently has Romney at 42% chance of winning Iowa. It's more likely that he'll lose it than win it, at this stage.

[POLLWONK]

Also, nominating Ron Paul would be a jump for the GOP while nominating Romney wouldn't. When rubber meets the road and when the voters are actually casting their ballots, they may change their mind for the safer choice and select Romney. It has happened alot. Look at Kerry and Dean in 2004. Dean was a popular, yet daring candidate. Kerry was the safe choice. Iowa picked Kerry unanimously.

Not quite. FiveThirtyEight currently has Romney at 42% chance of winning Iowa. It's more likely that he'll lose it than win it, at this stage.

[Alfonzo]

Nope. It is a multiple man race, so it is correct that he is favorite.

You didn't read what I said.

Yes, Romney has a better chance of winning than any of the other candidates. But it is more likely that he will lose than win. That is what I said. And that is correct. The probability of somebody other than Romney winning Iowa is 58% at present. The probability that Romney loses Iowa is 58%.

[POLLWONK]

Odds are it will be Romney. You are trying to discredit all of Romney's leads by saying he has a 58% chance of winning. Calculations show that even though Romney isn't at a 50% chance, he is SIGFNICANTLY HIGHER than other candidates. If there two or three weeks left, then maybe I'd think differently, but we are talking about one day before the caucuses. Romney is getting a ton of attention and momentum.

THAT IS WHAT PROPELS CANDIDATES TO VICTORY!

You didn't read what I said.

Yes, Romney has a better chance of winning than any of the other candidates. But it is more likely that he will lose than win. That is what I said. And that is correct. The probability of somebody other than Romney winning Iowa is 58% at present. The probability that Romney loses Iowa is 58%.

[ellchicago]

You didn't read what I said.

Yes, Romney has a better chance of winning than any of the other candidates. But it is more likely that he will lose than win. That is what I said. And that is correct. The probability of somebody other than Romney winning Iowa is 58% at present. The probability that Romney loses Iowa is 58%.

I did read what you said. Statistically Romney is the favorate to win because of there are six other candidates. You basing your analysis off a two-man race when there is five other candidates. Stop cherry picking!

[POLLWONK]

Alfonzo, you have always said that elections compare candidate to candidate. Well, right now, candidate to candidate, Romney is the most likely to win in Iowa. Unless you think someone else has a better shot, the safe bet is Romney.

You didn't read what I said.

Yes, Romney has a better chance of winning than any of the other candidates. But it is more likely that he will lose than win. That is what I said. And that is correct. The probability of somebody other than Romney winning Iowa is 58% at present. The probability that Romney loses Iowa is 58%.

[Jayavarman]

Romney would put states like Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania into play, not to mention many traditional swing states like Florida and Ohio. He is President Obama's most dangerous opponent.

[Alfonzo]

Odds are it will be Romney. You are trying to discredit all of Romney's leads by saying he has a 58% chance of winning. Calculations show that even though Romney isn't at a 50% chance, he is SIGFNICANTLY HIGHER than other candidates. If there two or three weeks left, then maybe I'd think differently, but we are talking about one day before the caucuses. Romney is getting a ton of attention and momentum.

THAT IS WHAT PROPELS CANDIDATES TO VICTORY!

I did read what you said. Statistically Romney is the favorate to win because of there are six other candidates. You basing your analysis off a two-man race when there is five other candidates. Stop cherry picking!

Face, meet palm.

I did state that of the candidates, Romney was most likely to win. However, there is a better chance of him losing than him winning. This is simple, basic, high school probability. p(Romney wins) = 0.42, p(not Romney wins) - 1 - 0.42 = 0.58

It is more likely that Romney will lose than win, based on Nate's numbers. Why are you two so unable to grasp this incredibly basic concept?

[ellchicago]

Face, meet palm.

I did state that of the candidates, Romney was most likely to win. However, there is a better chance of him losing than him winning. This is simple, basic, high school probability. p(Romney wins) = 0.42, p(not Romney wins) - 1 - 0.42 = 0.58

It is more likely that Romney will lose than win, based on Nate's numbers. Why are you two so unable to grasp this incredibly basic concept?

We get the incredibly basic concept! You don't! The other candidates also are more likely to lose than Romney. Hence Romney is the favorite. By your logic only candidates who have over 50% chance of winning are the favorite to win which is simply not true. I could win 10% of the time and still be the favorite if all the other people have a less than 10% chance of winning. Would I be the overwelming favorite? No. But a favorite none the less.

[Alfonzo]

We get the incredibly basic concept! You don't! The other candidates also are more likely to lose than Romney. Hence Romney is the favorite. By your logic only candidates who have over 50% chance of winning are the favorite to win which is simply not true. I could win 10% of the time and still be the favorite if all the other people have a less than 10% chance of winning. Would I be the overwelming favorite? No. But a favorite none the less.

Face, this is palm, I believe you've met before.

You have most certainly not read what I said. It is more likely that Romney will lose than win. I also said that Romney had a better chance than any other candidate of winning. But the odds are against Romney winning. It is more likely that someone other than Romney will win. Romney is still the favourite, but you have better odds betting that he will lose than he will win. By my logic, only candidates with over a 50% chance of winning are more likely to win than lose. Duh.

At no point did I say that Romney was not the favourite, or that Romney didn't have the best chance of all the candidates of winning. All I did was point out that it was more likely that he would lose than win, which is true.

How can you not be able to understand this basic concept in probability? I know 15 year olds who could have understood this by now.

[ellchicago]

Face, this is palm, I believe you've met before.

You have most certainly not read what I said. It is more likely that Romney will lose than win. I also said that Romney had a better chance than any other candidate of winning. But the odds are against Romney winning. It is more likely that someone other than Romney will win. Romney is still the favourite, but you have better odds betting that he will lose than he will win. By my logic, only candidates with over a 50% chance of winning are more likely to win than lose. Duh.

At no point did I say that Romney was not the favourite, or that Romney didn't have the best chance of all the candidates of winning. All I did was point out that it was more likely that he would lose than win, which is true.

How can you not be able to understand this basic concept in probability? I know 15 year olds who could have understood this by now.

The other candidates also are more likely to lose than Romney. Hence Romney is the favorite. The way you do your analysis is unhelpful and less meaningful because I believe that the odds should be positive. If there were only two candidates over than 50% would positive. It is different point of view.

What about not insulting people? If someone doesn't get something you are saying, try explaining differently, use a metaphor.

[Alfonzo]

The other candidates also are more likely to lose than Romney. Hence Romney is the favorite. The way you do your analysis is unhelpful and less meaningful because I believe that the odds should be positive. If there were only two candidates over than 50% would positive. It is different point of view.

What about not insulting people? If someone doesn't get something you are saying, try explaining differently, use a metaphor.

I never said Romney wasn't the favourite. At no point did I say that. All I said was that it was more likely that he would lose than win. My analysis is not unhelpful. All I'm pointing out is that everybody saying Romney will win, will have a better bet saying he will lose. Saying anyone else will win will be less likely, no question. All I did, in my post, was point out that it's more likely that Romney will lose than win. Which is true. If Romney losing is an upset, then an upset is more likely than not. It's as simple as that.

[POLLWONK]

Alfonzo, let's clear things up...

1.) Yes, we know that 100-42 is 58. I earned a degree in math.

2.) We understand your point, but we are trying to point something out to you as well...

a.) This is not Romney with 42% vs. "Joe Schmo" 58%. We are seeing Romney with 42% and 7 other candidates with lower numbers. Yes, that is not a 50% majority. However, it means that Romney is most likely to win a majority of the voters, independents, Democrats, and Republicans.

b.) There is a nervousness factor about voting for an unconventional and risky candidate. Ron Paul is one of them. The GOP is still the party of interventionalism. Ron Paul is isolationist. That would be a huge jump. Romney's views fit more of what conservatives and GOP leaning independents believe. A similar thing happened in 2004. Kerry fit the more traditional Democratic mold at the time than Dean. When rubber met the road, most voters felt safest casting their ballots for Kerry. Elliot and I think that Romney will win the day because people want the safe choice usually.

Also, the argument you have made is based off more of a general election not a primary. In Iowa, the lowest percentage it would take to win would be only 15% in a seven man field. 15%. Romney is predicted to carry alot of votes. Also, he and Rick Santorum have gotten alot of attention as of late. That means more turnout and more publicity. Ron Paul was in a downward slide (read today's WSJ article) when caucus day came while Romney and Santorum were on the upswing. Considering this, they should both make near the maximum Silver predicted they could make while Paul will make near the middle or the lower end of the stick. A Romney victory.

Also, in a GOP field with so many fractured conservatives, the only candidate who isn't part of the fractured mess is Romney. Huntsman isn't, but won't win Iowa.

I never said Romney wasn't the favourite. At no point did I say that. All I said was that it was more likely that he would lose than win. My analysis is not unhelpful. All I'm pointing out is that everybody saying Romney will win, will have a better bet saying he will lose. Saying anyone else will win will be less likely, no question. All I did, in my post, was point out that it's more likely that Romney will lose than win. Which is true. If Romney losing is an upset, then an upset is more likely than not. It's as simple as that.