BF2S Forums Rick Perry, Republican Presidential candidate

Spearhead wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/report-santorum-finished-34-votes-ahead-of-romney-in-new-iowa-tally-votes-from-8-precincts-missing/2012/01/19/gIQAJGuRAQ_story.html

Romney lost Iowa

Ty wrote:

The media's enthusiasm to announce a winner before its competitors has probably decided more election results than anyone fully realises. Santorum's a close-minded idiot though, I'm happy he's flopped.

No surprise about Perry. He was never going to claw back the support. No surprise he endorsed Gingrich too, they're both cut from the same cloth. Can't say I'm sad he's out of the race either, especially after those embarrassing ads.

FEOS wrote:

Much like Perry, for continuing his campaign beyond August.

Dilbert_X wrote:

13urnzz wrote:

R I P, rick parry campaign. we barely knew ya

I know the R and the I, what does the P stand for?

Turquoise wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/report-santorum-finished-34-votes-ahead-of-romney-in-new-iowa-tally-votes-from-8-precincts-missing/2012/01/19/gIQAJGuRAQ_story.html

Romney lost Iowa

If Santorum gets the nomination, that's about the only way I'd vote for Obama.

Just how safe is a 19-point lead at this point in the campaign? Based on historical precedent, it is enough to all but assure that Mr. Romney will be the Republican nominee.

I went through our database of past primary polls for the 16 competitive nomination races from 1972 (when the current primary system was adopted) to 2008. For each cycle, I took a simple average of all national polls conducted in the two weeks after the New Hampshire primary was held. (The lone exception was the 1976 Democratic race, when there were no polls conducted within this window, so I expanded the range to three weeks after New Hampshire instead.)

In 13 of the 16 cases, the candidate leading in national polls after New Hampshire won his party’s nomination. In another case, the 1984 Democratic race, two candidates — Walter Mondale and Gary Hart — were tied in national surveys at this point in the race, and Mr. Mondale emerged victorious.

The only cases where a candidate came from behind to win were in 1972, when Edmund S. Muskie had a narrow 2-point lead in the polls over Hubert H. Humphrey, but George McGovern, far back in the polls, went on to win the race, and 2008, when Hillary Clinton had a 9-point lead over Barack Obama after New Hampshire but lost the nomination to him.

Note, however, that the leads held by Ms. Clinton and Mr. Muskie were considerably narrower than the 19-point advantage that Mr. Romney now has. Candidates who had a lead of the magnitude of Mr. Romney’s — like George H.W. Bush in 1988 — generally won their nominations with some ease.

One way to evaluate the data is through logistic regression analysis, which gives an estimate of how likely a candidate was to win the nomination based on the size of his national polling lead after New Hampshire. The analysis suggests that a 19-point lead in national polls at this stage of the race translates into roughly a 98 percent chance of winning the nomination.

In addition to having an 86 percent chance of winning South Carolina, for instance, Mr. Romney has roughly a 20-point lead in Florida and has in excess of a 90 percent chance of winning there. There have been no recent polls conducted of Nevada, but Mr. Romney’s position has generally been stronger there than his overall national polling.

The same holds for Michigan, which will vote in late February, and where Mr. Romney has always held a large lead. Arizona votes on the same day as Michigan; Mr. Romney holds a 27-point lead in a recent poll there. And if the contest makes it to Super Tuesday on March 6, Mr. Romney’s large resource advantages should give him a big edge.

Turquoise wrote:

If that's true, then it sounds like the primary system is pretty useless in most cases beyond the first few months or so.