No Rand Paul Surprise in Iowa; Fifth Place, Likely 4.5 Percent
Ron Paul counties in 2012 went for Trump mostly; big college counties for Rubio
Despite hopes and guesses about bad polling and great ground game, as discussed in posts by me earlier today, it looks like Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has pulled off no particular surprise in tonight's Iowa caucus, coming in fifth with about 4.5 percent of the vote. (That is well above such folk as Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and John Kasich, who all were including in a debate a few weeks ago Paul was booted from.)
Ron Paul got 21 percent in Iowa in 2012, in comparison. Althought various Rand Paulites assured me that a total loss of the Ron base was a myth, it looks true on the macro level.
And on the micro? Let's look at the counties Ron Paul won in 2012.
There were 15 of them, most in the east or south of the state. Of the 14 for which results are in, Rand Paul even managed to hit the top 4 in only one, Jefferson County, home of Fairfield and Maharishi University of Management, a county Ron Paul won all the way back in 2008 as well.
Of the 14 Ron Paul counties, Donald Trump won nine of them tonight, and Sen. Ted Cruz won five.
What does this mean? It gives some weight to the conclusion of the anonymous Paul-watcher I quoted this morning who noted that for many voters in Iowa, Ron Paul was less the libertarian choice than the radical anti-establishment choice, and that that energy went to Trump.
There has never been, as far as I've seen, any actual social science data about Ron Paul voters. By the nature of things, as a reporter in Iowa in 2012 I mostly got to meet and talk to the serious fans who showed up to rallies, who I found were very largely libertarian in outlook, even if they didn't identify with the term.
Rand Paul certainly failed to capture and build on whatever it was that attracted those to Ron Paul. The content of his speeches I saw and followed (via the Internet, was not on the ground there) felt libertarian in intent, mostly. If Iowa is any indication, though, that was not what a lot of voters wanted or needed to hear right now.
Now, the biggest thing often not accounted for in this sort of analysis is the potential voters who don't vote at all, so we have no way of knowing if it's the same voters who voted for Ron in 2012 not voting for Rand, or voting for Trump, this time. There was a .46 percent first-time caucusgoers turnout, so only 54 percent of caucusgoers today represented a "Ron Paul vote" to win or lose.
The student angle, which was supposed to be Paul's salvation, paid off a tiny bit. For example, in Story County, home to Iowa State University, Paul did come in 4th with 8.7 percent; but Florida Sen. Marco Rubio crushed with a 32 percent win. In Johnson County, home to University of Iowa, Paul also came in 4th at 8.9 percent; again Rubio seemed to have more student appeal, with a 29 percent victory there.
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.
-
RAND "MUTHA FUCKING" PAUL
-
Looks like I won't have a chance to Handle the Randall
-
Or spell it apparently
-
Still my write-in vote.
-
Well, shit.
-
Almost double what Jeb got, and that's what really matters. Sorry Jeb!
-
Yeah, who would have predicted that a year ago?
-
Time for Rand to drop out and back Trump.
-
Ron Paul, Donald Trump. Potato, po-tah-to.
-
In all seriousness I've suspected that the tard leaning portion of the paultards have moved onto Sanders and Trump. The Sanders internet brigade certainly has that smell.
-
This is what I've seen.
-
oh yea.
The young ones went to bernie.The old ones went to trump.
they based their decision on who they blamed more, corporations or immigrants.
I am curious what trump's game is. Bc it is definitely not what he says, He's just feeding garbage to those who are ruled by the lower parts of the brain, women call it passion.
He's just well versed in persuasion, com professors are prolly jealous. -
oh yea.
The young ones went to bernie.The old ones went to trump.
they based their decision on who they blamed more, corporations or immigrants.
I am curious what trump's game is. Bc it is definitely not what he says, He's just feeding garbage to those who are ruled by the lower parts of the brain, women call it passion.
He's just well versed in persuasion, com professors are prolly jealous. -
I spent a summer in Iowa working at an ethanol plant on the eastern border of the state. It was an awful combination of manufacturing belt decay and rural vindictiveness. Golf was more expensive than in San Diego because there was nothing else to do. Based on the results I've seen, it looks like most of the filthy-ass Mississippi and Missouri river people went for Trump and Sanders.
-
Not true. A fellow plant operator here. I wouldn't vote for Trump or Sanders if a gun were to be held to my head. Liberty is more important than every soul on planet Earth.
-
OUCH! beat out by Carson. But, according to the NYT link, that still gives Paul 1 delegate. And hopefully the crowd will start to thin, and Rand can get more time in upcoming debates.
-
-
Rand likely won't be in the next GOP debate unless he leap-frogs Christie into 6th place nationally. Otherwise it's Top 3 Iowa and Top 6 NH polling.
-
I wonder if the right-of-centrists are so pissed that they are doing everything in their power to vote down the liberals. Hence Ron/Rand Paul supporters are throwing their weight behind Cruz and Trump. Maybe that is my own bias beginning to show....?
-
Stay in, Rand!