I know a lot of people 'round these parts that would disqualify his southern-ness based on him living the last 10 years or so in a D.C. suburb as a lobbyist… I mean, historian, plus his effectively living there as a Congressman before that.
Born in the North, lives in D.C., not much of an accent. I’m not making a case about whether he’s “really a southerner”. Personally, I find the whole concept unbearably clannish. I’m just saying I don’t think most GOB’s in SC think of Gingrich as coming from the South (though his Congressional races may have bled into the state somewhat).
538’s projections did fairly well. The biggest error was they underestimated Santorum’s votes by around 6%. Overall a fairly good night for Mitt though he would have preferred to win outright obviously. The one piece of bad news is that Perry may be dropping out. There is a solid core of around 40% who don’t want Mitt and they are not going to change their minds just because of Iowa and NH. If these voters consolidate around one candidate, that would be a serious challenge. If Bachmann and Perry drop out, conservatives will be divided only between Santorum and Newt.
Fortunately for Mitt both of them have serious flaws and not much of an organization. On balance Santorum is the weaker of the two and he is the one with the surge tonight which suits Mitt just fine.
Again. Finicky. Look at the results tonight. Romney didn’t lose by leaps and bounds as some predicted. In fact, he “lost” by a handful of votes. Literally. So he pretty much tied.
Gingrich tanked (which isn’t that surprising, but last minute changes happen - look at the Dem side in Iowa in 04) but Romney, Paul & Santorum did not.
It’s still anyone’s* game.
**The Chick With the Face and a few others nonwithstanding
As it happens Nate had a post titled “Why I’d Bet on Santorum (and Against My Model)”. As he explains the model is just supposed to be a benchmark and you should supplement it it with analysis of other factors like political momentum. He actually creates an Iowa specific model which more or less correctly predicted Santorum’s vote though it understimates Romney.
The Iowa caucus is a pretty messy process with relatively small numbers of voters. I would imagine predicting turnout in winter in an open caucus is a nightmare too. Overall I think Nate did pretty well.
He did about as well as anyone who’s not a mathematician. But seriously, Iowa isn’t just about weather and wintertime (weather is usually mild in most parts of IA in January). It’s like any other race. People really care about wtf the news is saying, about what their neighbors are doing, and about what the candidates are doing/saying.
And…it depends on the ground. For the Dems, the union muscle can make or break you. For anyone, it’s about where the money is spent. For Dean in 04, he peaked too soon (so they’ve said) and the structure of the campaign was all wrong on the finance level and the communication was poor in the last stretch and his campaign basically gave it away. Well, there was also the Kerry-Edwards deal that swung the votes heavily away from him. (A Kerry voter would vote Edwards if he saw it coming down between Edwards and Dean and vice versa.)
So…I agree that a pollster can only do what a pollster can do, but elections anywhere are sort of run like we’re in high school.
If you read the last several posts about Iowa, you’ll see that Silver did the expected good job of analyzing what the numbers might mean. Silver comes out of the Bill James school of sabermetrics. Numbers, stats, are never meaningful in and of themselves. They must always be put into a context that allows them to tell a story. Other people always seem to forget this, as I believe Ultrafilter did in starting this thread. They look at the raw numbers and which is bigger or smaller and assume they have done the work.
Even so, I’m also slightly disappointed that Silver trusted the numbers as far as he did, even after admitting that the context was pulling him in a different direction. He should know - does know - the limitations of polls and why these particular polls were almost bound to be off. In particular, a very large percentage of undecideds is a killer for making predictions and apparently as many as half of caucus-goers were undecided until the last minute. This more than puts a premium on momentum, as he did note. It means that there’s an emphasis on persuasion, something that is greatly magnified in a setting like a caucus, far more than in a regular secret-ballot election. I think he also got caught on Iowa history, in which face-to-face encounters have traditionally been more powerful than wholesale methods like ads. But that seems to have changed this year. At best you can say that Santorum did well by traditional campaigning, but he lucked out by seeming to be too meaningless to attack. The ones who got attacked sank, just as in any normal campaign. If the base style of a campaign makes a drastic change, then the predictive power of previous years is lessened.
However, that indicates that future primaries will be more predictable than Iowa, if not perfectly so. The sample sizes are always too small and the uncertainly about who will actually come out and vote too large.
Fortunately for Silver and the rest of the prognosticators, they have the rest of 2012 to hone their techniques. It’s going to be Romney against Obama and this is already so obvious even to “neutral” observers who will be trying to preserve the horse race that they can shift their focus to November, where there are larger samples and smaller percentages of undecideds.
From what I can tell Silver did just fine. His projections had the top-line win odds (in which he had the winner with the highest odds) and a range for each candidate. Every single result was in line with the range he offered.
It looks even better if you add in his pre-election nudge for Santorum. Did any other prediction outfit have Santorum as high as the 19% Silver had him at (with a 10-29% range)? RCP’s polling average was at 16.5 and no single poll had him above 18%
Things are still going swimmingly well for the Mittster.
538 gives him a 67% probability of winning SC. Gingrich is not that far behind but Romney continues to benefit from the the division of the conservative vote. He has been quite lucky. It’s not that hard to come up with an alternative scenario where both Perry and Santorum were gone by now and most of their votes went to Gingrich. In that case Romney would have probably lost SC and there would been a real fight at least for a while. Right now it’s looking like a coronation.
The crucial period of this primary was in mid-December when Romney pounded Gingrich with ads and the latter didn’t really respond. The pro-Gingrich super PAC has launched a counter-attack now but they should have done it a month back to make a difference. After that things played out beautifully for Romney. Santorum surged but he was never going to be a serious contender just someone who divided the conservative vote. Perry seemed on the verge of quitting but decided to stick on further dividing the conservatives.
I was just coming in to share the same thing. Here’s a link to the article about the new polling data.
Newt is surging big time. I think he might actually take SC on Saturday.
And with the Iowa results news, Romney may go from being a lock to sweep the 1st three contests to actually ending up 1 and 2, and this thing will drag out till Super Tuesday.
I took it from this line, “No. It’s simply too early to call. I expect that the picture will be a lot clearer after Iowa and New Hampshire.”
The picture was quite clear when you started the thread. Silver was using the numbers badly and you seemed to be trusting in the raw numbers rather than the story by following him. I’ve read him enough to think that his behavior here was an aberration. I don’t know that about you. It was just a side comment, though, nothing personal.
But seriously, Iowa isn’t just about weather and wintertime (weather is usually mild in most parts of IA in January). It’s like any other race. People really care about wtf the news is saying, about what their neighbors are doing, and about what the candidates are doing/saying.