Newsletters Issue Not Hurting Ron Paul In Iowa
So far, Iowa voters don't seem to be bothered by the Ron Paul newsletters.
David Weigel takes a look at the internals of the PPP poll I wrote about this morning, and finds that the newsletters controversy that has been all over the media since before Christmas does not seem to be hurting Paul with Iowa voters:
Paul’s number are notably up with Democrats, making up for some slippage with Republicans. The ideological screens are a little different. Here’s how Paul was doing with liberals et al last week.
Real slippage with “very liberal” voters — a tiny fraction of caucus-goers, at 4 percent. But strong support from moderates and “somewhat” liberal voters, and a bounce with “very conservative” voters, who make up 37 percent of the sample.
I would never suggest that the content of the newsletters are boosting Paul here. Two months ago those “very conservative” voters were ready to nominate Herman Cain. But one week after James Kirchick’s Weekly Standard “ahem, remember this?” story kicked off the new wave of Paul stories, it’s either a boutique issue that isn’t connecting with people, a confusing issue that raises “liberal media bias” hackles with conservatives, or both.
Weigel reaches this conclusion by comparing Paul’s favorable/unfavorable numbers from last week’s PPP poll [PDF] and this week’s poll [PDF], and the numbers are fairly clear:
- Last week, Paul’s favorable/unfavorable/not sure numbers were 54/38/8. This week they are 53/40/7;
- Among Democrats, Paul’s favorable/unfavorable/not sure numbers went from 59/34/7 to 70/28/2;
- Among Republicans, they went from 52/40/9 to 49/43/6;
- Among Independents, they went from 60/33/6 to 63/30/7;
As Weigel notes, the only group that showed significant slippage was those who identified themselves as “very liberal,” but even there we’re talking about a drop from 66/28/4 to 59/34/7. Not bad at all, especially considering that the “very liberal” group makes up a tiny group of likely caucus goers.
Given that Paul supporters tend to be strongly committed to their candidate in a way that the supporters of the other Republican candidates have not tended to be, this isn’t entirely surprising. On some level, I believe Weigel is right that we’re seeing a reflection of traditional Republican skepticism of the media combined with the fact that many people may well be dismissing this as a 20 year old issue that doesn’t matter to them. Of course, there is another factor. Given the fact that many of these stories about the newsletters broke during the run up to the holidays it’s entirely possible that a lot of Iowa voters haven’t heard a lot about them. That could change between now and January 3rd, but so far none of Paul’s opponents appear to be making much of a big deal about them. The fact that the story broke so late may end up meaning it will have very little impact on the race at this point.
Jonathan Bernstein makes the same point I do about Christmas, and then notes this:
To be fair: Iowa caucus attendees are hardly typical voters. They’re more interested in politics, and far more likely to encounter this kind of stuff than are regular general election voters. But still: this sounds to me a little like all of the people who were claiming a week into the anti-Newt onslaught that he was immune to attacks for whatever reasons. It’s very possible that it just will take a bit of time to sink in.
If that’s going to happen, though, it’s only going to happen if Paul’s opponents start hitting him on it. So far, that has not happened and, other than Newt Gingrich’s tirade on CNN yesterday, it doesn’t seem like it will come from anyone with sufficient money and gravitas to make it matter.
This would seem to support the idea that Very Conservative voters, who only get their news from Very Conservative sources, are exceptionally uneducated and gullible.
Funny how PPP got Democrats in a survey of likely Republican Caucus voters.
“Democrats who are likely to vote in a Republican caucus” are different animasl from “Democrats”
Ron Paul 2012 Please
Track Record and Substance OVER Flip Flopping Rhetoric.
Thank you!
@ponce:
If you look through the cross-tabs you will see that they filter out people who say they are not likely to vote in the GOP Caucus
Substance? Ok, his views on the fed and the gold standard demonstrate his complete lack of knowledge of not only the American economy, but the global economy as a whole and he would be disastrous for both.
Yep, leaving Democrats who are likely to vote in the Republican caucus.
18% of who voted in the Republican caucus in 2008, too.
I think this has to be because of the ad he has been running in Iowa about the problems caused by having US troops stationed overseas. It is a very good ad and very liberal, neither Hillary or Obama would have ran an ad like that in 2008.
I am not sure how much the newsletters have penetrated yet. Also dont forget the problems with polling Iowa over the holidays. The results may not be as accurate as we think.
@David:
The precise reasons why this particular demographic is supporting Paul isn’t easy to divine from these polls, but is a subject well worth exploring. I suspect the GOP machine is working on that. At least, they damn well should be.
@George Washington: “Track Record and Substance OVER Flip Flopping Rhetoric.”
FLIP: Ron Paul’s words 1995: “I also do an investment letter” “I also put out a political type of business investment newsletter”
FLOP: Ron Paul’s words 2011: “I didn’t write them. didn’t read them at the time and I disavow them.”
Trying to determine who Iowa’s 800,000+ Democrats will support using a sample of 45 Democrats who plan on voting in Republican caucuses next week is bound to lead to silly numbers.
Paul’s competitors aren’t hitting him for it because it would be a waste of time. Remember, to the establishment, Paul doesn’t have a chance outside Iowa.
I can’t see anything in the newsletters that would upset Iowa Republicans. If anything, the newsletters have probably helped him.
@Stan:
Not just in Iowa, but nationwide.