NBC/WSJ GOP and Dem poll for IA and NH

[Mr. Morden]

Here are the #s:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/283603490/GOP-DEM-CAUCUS-NBC-News-WSJ-Marist-Poll-Iowa-Annotated-Questionnaire-October-2015

http://www.scribd.com/doc/283603493/GOP-DEM-PRIMARY-NBC-News-WSJ-Marist-Poll-New-Hampshire-Annotated-Questionnaire-October-2015

Carson’s the leading 2nd choice of voters in Iowa, while Fiorina’s leading the 2nd choice options in NH.  Despite leading the 1st choice options, Trump’s only at 8% on the 2nd choice question in NH, which makes him tied for 6th place on that question.

[Mr. Morden]

Note that Jindal's been airing TV ads in Iowa, while Christie airs ads in NH:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=218607.msg4743145#msg4743145

Bush's Super PAC has been airing ads in all the early states.

Kasich's been running ads in NH, but I think that was more in August than September.  His ad spending has slowed down, and he's got more competition on the airwaves now.

Trump has aired no TV ads yet.  Carson and Fiorina have spent very little on TV ads in the early states.

[Mr. Morden]

I think this shows that the normal rules of politics still are in effect and money can work. This time it may be even more important with the debates being spaced so far apart.

I actually think money tends to matter a bit less in IA and NH than in other primary states, because the voters get so much candidate attention in the form of personal contact, and the voters are unusually well informed by election day (at least compared to other states) because of all the attention the states get.  It's the bigger states down the road where $ will be more important.

I think this is how Romney at least prevented himself from being blown off the map after losing in both IA and NH in 2008.  Sure, he had the favorite son effect in MI, but his ads definitely seemed to boost his poll #s there.  And then he rebounded in Florida polls based on the ads he bought there before McCain regained momentum in the final days.

[Mr. Morden]

I think this shows that the normal rules of politics still are in effect and money can work. This time it may be even more important with the debates being spaced so far apart.

I actually think money tends to matter a bit less in IA and NH than in other primary states, because the voters get so much candidate attention in the form of personal contact, and the voters are unusually well informed by election day (at least compared to other states) because of all the attention the states get.  It's the bigger states down the road where $ will be more important.

I think this is how Romney at least prevented himself from being blown off the map after losing in both IA and NH in 2008.  Sure, he had the favorite son effect in MI, but his ads definitely seemed to boost his poll #s there.  And then he rebounded in Florida polls based on the ads he bought there before McCain regained momentum in the final days.

Huckabee and Santorum won in Iowa with little money, and McCain must have been heavily outspent in New Hampshire both times he won it. The other thing is it looks like the biggest momentum here is Fiorina and Rubio who haven't spent a lot in ads but did well in front of a huge debate audience (especially Fiorina) and got positive media coverage since.

Yes, that's what I mean.  I do think money can make a difference in IA and NH (it's how Romney climbed from the back of the pack to the lead in 2008 Iowa polls in the first place, even though he ended up losing in the end).  But it gets more important in later, bigger states, where the candidates aren't going to have the opportunity to interact with the voters in person.  Nonetheless, it's not necessarily enough even in those later states to overwhelm other factors, such as momentum from IA and NH.