Politico Says: Romney Is Winning Iowa, According To Polls We Won't Name, List, or Give the Numbers For

A bizarre and confusing very long four-screen epic of Romney kremlinology spin and counterspin that sets my counter-counter-counter-agent head spinning: are they trying to set up Romney for a fall by declaring him the likely winner? Are they trying to scare off voters for the other possible winners? Are they just desperate to file counternarrative copy in that hoary ol' 24-7 news cycle?

All I know from this piece is various people close to Romney think he will win, won't win, will be second, is sure he's doing fine, doesn't want anyone to know how fine or poorly he's doing, is working hard in Iowa, isn't really campaigning there much at all, or who the hell knows.

And that Politico leads in graf two with this:

a slew of public and private polling and anecdotal evidence on the ground suggests that Romney is within striking distance of a first-place finish in Iowa — especially as Ron Paul’s momentum spurt appears to have run into the reality of front-runners’ scrutiny.

...then manages to go on for four more screens naming none of those polls (you got an entire "slew," buddies! Can't you toss us a smidge from your slew?), giving no numbers from them, and not mentioning them again, though they seem somewhat key to their thesis.

Actual Real Clear Politics average over past 9 days has Ron Paul ahead of Romney by 1.7 points. (There is a Rasmussen from the 19th that has Romney ahead by 5 percent. But that's the 19th.) This PPP from the past two days has Paul both in the lead at 24 and with the largest percentage saying they are strongly committed to him, at 28.

Huffington Post with a similar story of mystery Romney victory unsupported by specific facts. Washington Post on how Romney is playing the Iowa expectation game. Right-wing site Town Hall on why Romney's electability is a myth.

UPDATE: Since this post was written, RCP added a new Time/CNN poll to the average, which brings Paul's lead over Romney down to 0.5 percent over the past 9 days.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    It's called "media narrative", Brian. They make the news by reporting it. In this case, kneecapping Ron Paul is the priority, whether he's a real threat or not, because he is a perceived threat.

  • Juice||

    It may also be a prediction of the Caucus mechanism. The caucuses are designed to build consensus around one candidate. There are probably more Republican caucus goers that will never support Ron Paul than reluctantly support him and that may be the reason he doesn't win. I could be wrong and Ron Paul die-hards will show up at 33% or more and in that case (and pretty much that case alone) will Ron Paul win.

  • ||

    First comes denial.

  • ||

    Ooh, can't wait for the bargaining stage.

  • ||

    Isn't apologize in there, I wanna see Krugnuts apologize to all he's wronged.

  • ||

    Step 9 damnit!

  • PIRS||

    Oooooh they are getting desperate! Well, more desperate than they already were ....

  • ||

    Well if you can't dazzle them with brilliance....

  • Sam Grove||

    The narrative gymnastics are incredible, worthy of Cirque du Soleil.

  • DJF||

    I predict that the person with the most votes will win, unless it is Paul and then the media will declare the person with the second most votes the winner in recognition of their supporters who bravely came out and voted even when physically threatened by the neo-Nazi/KKK Paul supporters

  • robc||

    Im hoping for a November headline of:

    Obama finishes 2nd!

  • db||

    Big LOL.

  • ||

    Nice.

  • tarran||

    Will Romney win in Iowa?

    The Horse says...

  • Romney||

    Winning. Duh!

  • Troll||

    Fox News reluctantly admitted yesterday that Ron Paul was leading in an Iowa poll.

    They subsequently changed the subject to Mitt Romney in (not exaggerating) less than two seconds.

  • ||

    Did they have a D next to Paul's name?

  • Lewis H||

    Mitt's the man.

  • pmains||

    The man who believes that the Chinese have the magical ability to defy Gresham's Law?

  • robc||

    You Sugarfreed that link.

  • ||

    A new gerund. Nice!

  • robc||

    New?

  • Hugh Akston||

    I would love to see Ron Paul win in November, if for no other reason than it would mean four solid years of MSM coverage of Mitt Romney's speaking tour and how Barack Obama's memoirs are coming along.

  • ||

    Yes, what the media would do with a President Paul will be fascinating to watch.

  • ||

    We'd definitely see a return to 'accountability journalism'.

  • Tonio||

    I predict there would be a big media shakeup since I hope that a RP White House would remember the snubs and do pay backs by limiting access of the media (individuals or organizations) who ignored him.

  • ||

    I hope Paul requires each reporter to bid on admission to the White House press pool.

  • cynical||

    Hopefully he would just end the damn thing. It's the age of the internet, we don't need a dedicated spin team, just a presidential blog.

  • ||

    Romney is a great candidate...for me to poop on!

  • thirtyandseven||

    Numbers?!! We don't need no stinkin' numbers you filthy athiest scum!!

  • Sandi||

    I agree.

  • protefeed||

    a slew of public and private polling and anecdotal evidence on the ground suggests that Romney is within striking distance of a first-place finish in Iowa

    Translation: Romney appears to be in second place, but we're gonna use weasel words so we can use the words "Romney" and "first-place" in the same sentence.

  • Politico||

    I used to be a reliable source of information, but then I took an arrow in the knee.

  • ||

    Never gets old.

  • ||

    It does not.

  • ||

    As the media has all of the op-eds already written for a mitt nomination, they're desperately hoping it will come true so they don't have to work from May to November.

  • robc||

    One thing that's hurt Santorum's ability to really make a move is that the Evangelical vote is incredibly fragmented with 6 different candidates getting between 12 and 21%. Paul actually leads the way with that group at 21% to 16% for Romney and Bachmann, 15% for Santorum, 14% for Gingrich, and 12% for Perry.

    Bachmann leads the way with Tea Party voters 24-21 over Paul but the fact that you can be winning Tea Partiers but only in 4th place overall speaks to the diminished power of that movement compared to 2010 within the Republican electorate...only 26% of likely caucus voters consider themselves to be members.

    From the commentary on the latest PPP poll, which leads to some interesting long term thoughts.

    1. Some dont think Paul will get the evangelical vote, but he is doing well with them. He is one of them (us), so why wouldnt he?

    2. When Bachmann drops out, a lot of her tea party support is going to go to Paul.

    I realize these are Iowa numbers and Im drawing longer term trends, but I think they apply.

    Also:

    Additionally Romney is the second choice of only 10% of voters, barely better than Paul's 9%.

    3. People have said that Paul needs a multicandidate rate because he isnt the 2nd choice of many voters. But neither is Romney.

  • robc||

    s/rate/race/

  • robc||

    link here

  • Tonio||

    And in an Obama/Romney/Johnson race the evangelical vote would stay home.

  • ||

    One thing that's hurt Santorum's ability to really make a move

    I snickered.

    For a tiny fraction of the population, he will forevermore be a joke.

  • ||

    http://reason.com/blog/2006/11.....mmy-and-sw

    I love google. I just typed 'santorum speech' and the 6th listing on the drop down showed 'santorum concession speech photo' so I clicked it and the 3rd link from that was the reason link I include here. And this is why freedom is important. China would have purged that shit.

  • ||

    I just commented there to keep VM happy during his lonely vigil.

  • BigT||

    2212 comments! schadenfreude fest

  • Lewis H||

    My fellow republicans, let's embrace Mitt so we can rid the nation of the foul Obama.

  • robc||

    No.

    How about someone who is actually conservative?

  • Brett L||

    So, will we continue to call the Mitt presidency in Bush terms (Bush III) or will he be Obama II? I'm not voting for any president who won't veto the horrendous Republican budget of 2013.

  • Apatheist||

    Bush IV

  • Juice||

    Kim Jong the second

  • ||

    Make a statement about various polls without a link? So, so 20th century...

  • Anonymous Coward||

    a slew of public and private polling and anecdotal evidence

    Is the corporate media so lazy and ignorant that they can't even be bothered to lie convincingly? "Mitt Romney is winning! How do we know? A SLEW of polls we won't identify and anecdotes from people we won't name. Trust us! Believe us! We are the gatekeepers!"

    Piss on their anecdotes, piss on Romney and piss on the three stooges who wrote that propaganda piece.

  • Tonio||

    Is the corporate media so lazy and ignorant that they can't even be bothered to lie convincingly?

    Why, yes, yes they are.

  • Lewis H||

    When push comes to shove, and the election comes down to Mitt vs. Obama, you will all bite the bullet and vote for Mitt.

  • Hugh Akston||

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    The deluded tunnel vision of Team Red partisans never ceases to amuse me.

  • Sam Grove||

    I won't.

  • ||

    Not me. Johnson, unless Paul is the Team Red nominee.

  • ||

    Agreed.

  • robc||

    Ditto. Assuming Johnson is team orange nominee. What color is the LP again?

  • ||

    It's clear.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Gold.

  • ||

    That's too rational and sense-making for the LP.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Good point.

  • ||

    Perhaps a color well into the ultraviolet would be most appropriate? Past the visible range, of course.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Too extreme.

  • ||

    Okay, how about some deep infra-red?

  • BakedPenguin||

    **pinches bridge of nose between fingers**

  • Max||

    Ron Paul will be the nominee when pigs start fucking ducks.

  • Trespassers W||

    So you haven't sunk that low yet?

  • Brett L||

    Is this after clothes and walking on two-legs? Part of the afterward to Animal Farm?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Maxipad,

    Ron Paul will be the nominee when pigs start fucking ducks.


    But pigs are already doing this, Maxipad.

  • ||

    ""Ron Paul will be the nominee when pigs start fucking ducks.""

    Haven't you heard that song from Aerosmith? Pig and Duck DNA just don't mix.

  • ||

    Yup.

  • ||

    Hey, new guy. Hope you brought lube.

  • Max||

    Amazing. Fickle voters abandon a candidate just because he turns out to be a racist bag of shit.

  • yawn||

    .

  • BigT||

    Only a few of Obama's people are abandoning him.

    ...on that issue

  • Max||

    Doherty is suddenly aware of some gaps in his stupid book.

  • ||

    When you pull out of mom, remember that even the genetic miscreant that pops out of her 9 months down the road won't be half as retarded as your dumb fucking ass.

  • ||

    On-topic: Unless Paul's the nominee, I won't vote simply because I won't give a shit. Romney's an asshole. I could go vote for him, but there will be no point in the event that he wins the nomination anyway. Fuck statism, red and blue.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Res Publica Americana,

    I cannot vote but, if I could, I would vote for Paul if he decides to run 3rd party, or for Gary if not. I am NOT going to vote for either Obama or whatever other bloodthirsty fascist the Establishment wants to push on us.

  • Old Mexican||

    This PPP from the past two days has Paul both in the lead at 24 and with the largest percentage saying they are strongly committed to him, at 28.


    "They're heeeeeeere!"

  • ||

    You know what would be totally badass? If Paul manages to win Iowa (which is very realistic), but ALSO climbs steadily over Romney and scrapes away New Hampshire as well. Maybe more people would take him seriously then.

  • Max||

    Dream on, dimwit. Nobody outside militia circles and dimwits like you are ever going to take the boring old racist fuck seriously.

  • ||

    The Constitution is for militias and dimwits. Yeah, that's pretty much what a large part of America believes these days.

  • ||

    Actual Real Clear Politics average over past 9 days has Ron Paul ahead of Romney by 1.7 points. (There is a Rasmussen from the 19th that has Romney ahead by 5 percent. But that's the 19th.)

    Actually clicking on that link shows Ron with an insignificant 0.5% lead. Moreover Romney is ticking up in the latest polls while Paul is ticking down. Furthermore, while it's true that the Rasmussen poll is from the 19th, the Insider Advantage Poll that has the widest spread, thereby hoisting Paul ahead of Romney, is from the 18th.

    For a long post, the thesis of which is how someone else is being sloppy with their math, you pretty much shot yourself right through the metatarsals.

  • robc||

    Nate Silver shows Paul's lead widening, but he weights polls based on how recent AND how valuable (who has been right in the past) they are.

    A few days ago, Paul and Romeny were basically even, now Paul is 60% to win.

  • Brian Doherty||

    Blog posts are written at a moment in time. And at the moment in time this was written, the TIME/CNN poll was not up, and the lead was exactly as I reported.

  • ||

    I like Brian Doherty a lot.
    Thanks for writing, I enjoy it.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement