Say Goodnight, Newt...

[Patrick Degan]

Back on December 4th, when Herman Cain's comical presidential bid came to its inevitable and wholly predictable crash, and Newt Gingrich suddenly found himself flavour-of-the-month amongst the GOP Anybody-But-Mittens crowd, I said this:

Newt's too much of a loose cannon for the comfort of the powers-that-be within the GOP, so expect them, through their various tools, to plant a mine or three under his campaign trail. As it is, though, he's another candidate who appeals to the hardcore base but couldn't get general support if his life depended upon it. I expect him to fail within six weeks.

And now, after spending the last two weeks acting the assclown he is, Newt's poll numbers in Iowa are tanking:

Mitt Romney again solidified his front-runner status this week as Newt Gingrich's anyone-but-Romney position collapsed. Prediction market data, including Betfair and Intrade, now give Romney a 65.6 percent likelihood of victory in the Republican primary, compared to Gingrich's 11.0 percent and Ron Paul's 9.2 percent.

Gingrich's decline in Iowa is persistent and sharp, his possible routes to the Republican nomination increasingly limited. He has trailed Paul or Romney in each of the last 4 polls of Iowa voters (Rasmussen, ISU, PPP, Insider Advantage); in the last 2 polls, he trails both of them by a sizable margin. Contrast that with how things looked on December 12: prediction markets had Gingrich's likelihood of winning Iowa near 60 percent. After that date, he started moving slowly downward before the possibility of victory in Iowa fell precipitously when the polls began showing declining support for him.

Gingrich now has an 8.0 percent likelihood of winning in Iowa and just 18.5 percent of coming in either first or second in the caucuses. His 11.0 percent likelihood of winning the nomination is optimistic.

While an all out victory in Iowa would give Gingrich about a 2 in 3 likelihood of winning the nomination, a second place finish would leave him a long shot. If Romney wins, the former governor's momentum after a likely New Hampshire win would be massive. If Paul comes out ahead of Gingrich, he would likely become the any-but-Romney candidate (also a possibility, however less likely, for Jon Huntsman). Either way, Gingrich would be weak.

Paul's 45.0 percent likelihood of winning Iowa, and his 58.2 percent likelihood of either winning or coming in second in New Hampshire, turns him into a serious candidate; the markets now give him a 9.2 percent likelihood of winning the nomination. Of course, Paul still has a long route to the Republican nomination, even if he were to win Iowa.

Unlike Gingrich, who would be a favorite to win the nomination if he can carry Iowa, Republican leaders say that rather than making Paul relevant, a victory in Iowa would be an indicator of Iowa's irrelevance. Compared to Gingrich, Paul still has sluggish national poll numbers. Gingrich is still leading many national polls with Paul a distant third, and Paul's libertarianism sits further outside the mainstream Republican platform. Further, he is relatively un-vetted by the American people. Still, while the media will downplay a win in Iowa, a one-two combination of Iowa and New Hampshire would propel Paul into the national debate.

Nothing in the numbers indicates a new swell of support for Romney; the failure of yet another anyone-but-Romney candidate is giving him a lift. A Real Clear Politics aggregated trend average of Republican support has moved from 24.3 percentage points on November 1, 2011 to 24.6 percentage points on December 21, 2011. Political talk is all about Romney's opponents, not him; Paul dominates search and Twitter traffic, with Gingrich and others tending to generate more social buzz than Romney, too.

Romney may look weak by not gathering any momentum with the electorate, but it is likely to be a winning strategy for the Republican nomination. Gingrich earned headlines this week by talking about arresting federal judges who make "controversial rulings"; former George W. Bush attorney general (Michael Mukasey) called the proposal, "dangerous, ridiculous, totally irresponsible, outrageous, off-the-wall and [he asserts it] would reduce the entire judicial system to a spectacle."

Not wholly a surprise, except for the speed of the collapse —coming way ahead of my prediction. It looks like Newt's campaign is derailing just simply by Newt being Newt.

[Uraniun235]

Paul's 45.0 percent likelihood of winning Iowa, and his 58.2 percent likelihood of either winning or coming in second in New Hampshire, turns him into a serious candidate; the markets now give him a 9.2 percent likelihood of winning the nomination. Of course, Paul still has a long route to the Republican nomination, even if he were to win Iowa.

Unlike Gingrich, who would be a favorite to win the nomination if he can carry Iowa, Republican leaders say that rather than making Paul relevant, a victory in Iowa would be an indicator of Iowa's irrelevance. Compared to Gingrich, Paul still has sluggish national poll numbers. Gingrich is still leading many national polls with Paul a distant third, and Paul's libertarianism sits further outside the mainstream Republican platform. Further, he is relatively un-vetted by the American people. Still, while the media will downplay a win in Iowa, a one-two combination of Iowa and New Hampshire would propel Paul into the national debate.

Good. Maybe we can finally put an end to this stupid "nuhhh Iowa and New Hampshire go first!!" bullshit.

[Rogue 9]

New Hampshire has a constitutional mandate to hold the first primary election; if some other state moves up, they by law must schedule theirs a week before.

Which is stupid, but there it is.

Incidentally, this "Paul winning Iowa makes Iowa irrelevant" line has come up before this cycle; in the Ames straw poll, Bachmann winning put her in temporary front-runner status, and it was widely stated that had Paul won instead (as he almost did), then it would mean the straw poll couldn't be taken seriously. Well, either it can be taken seriously or it can't; pick one. I'm not hot at the bit for Paul to win, but come the fuck on, if the man wins a state it means he won the state, not that the state's voters suddenly don't count.

[Eframepilot]

I think it's more the massive negative ads from Newt's opponents. Romney and his Super PAC allies really went nuclear on Newt in Iowa. Notably his South Carolina numbers have been more stable... so far.

The Republican base just needed to be reminded how awful Newt is. Most of them just remembered Newt as the '90s Speaker with a mixed record.

[Skgoa]

Am I parsing the OP wrongly or do they really try to prove something with what people are BETTING on? That's even worse than meaningless straw polls, since the entire point of betting markets is "people are bad at making predictions."
edit: I am not dissing their conclussions, but their axioms are worthless.

[Alkaloid]

Am I parsing the OP wrongly or do they really try to prove something with what people are BETTING on? That's even worse than meaningless straw polls, since the entire point of betting markets is "people are bad at making predictions."
edit: I am not dissing their conclussions, but their axioms are worthless.

In Aus, and I assume it's the same thing here, that sort of thing is normally advertising. Essentially the TAB or Sportsbet or the local equivalent will pay to have it mentioned that people are betting and at what odds largely to remind people that they can. I assume it's the same thing here.

[Skgoa]

Still, it's the evidence they provide...