And the Nomination Race Begins!

Remove all ads!

On Tuesday we had the first primary - technically a caucus - in Iowa. This is the first of eventually 50 states that will vote for who the Republican nomination will be for president in this November's election. The Democrats go through the same process, but seeing as how Obama is the incumbent, those primaries and caucuses will not be competitive.

Anyway, the results are in, and Mitt Romney won the caucus by eight - yes, 8 - votes over Rick Santorum. Romney finished with 35,015 votes, Santorum with 35,007. Both totals represent 25% of the total vote. Ron Paul was respectable at 21%, Newt Gingrich finished with 13%, and Rick Perry had 10%. There were several other candidates on the ballot, but none of the other ones finished with more than 5% of the vote.

Here's my takeaway from the results: I think Mitt Romney will be pretty pleased with the razor-thin win. Due to a host of demographic factors, Iowa is not a particularly good state for Romney. He expects the majority of his support to come from the northeast, mid-Atlantic, and rust belt states. He also stands to do pretty well on the west coast. So picking up a win - regardless by how small a margin - in a mid-west state is good news for him. The second state on the primary calendar is New Hampshire, and he looks very strong there. He is now the clear favorite to win the nomination.

If you weren't following politics in the week between Christmas and New Years, you would have completely missed Rick Santorum's late surge in the polls. After polling in the single digits throughout most of the campaign, he surged at the end and nearly won out right. He is obviously extremely pleased by the outcome. By beating expectations in Iowa it breathes some life in his campaign, and he'll definitely be in the race for the foreseeable future. How much staying power he has (Santorum is extremely conservative) has yet to be determined, but he may set himself up as the Romney alternative.

Ron Paul did well. Yes, he finished 3rd, but when the winner has 25% of the vote, and you get 21%, that's not bad. And like Romney, he polls pretty well in New Hampshire. I'm very skeptical about the long-term prospects of Paul's campaign - we've seen this show before in 2004 and 2008. But at least you can say that the results didn't effectively eliminate his campaign like...

Rick Perry almost certainly, and Newt Gingrich quite possibly. For Gingrich, South Carolina (3rd on the list of primaries) is now a must-win state for him, as is probably Florida (4th). He's from South Carolina, so at least that bodes well for him.

With Rick Perry, we can probably begin the postmortem on his campaign. Here's the thing: While we will eventually have primaries in all 50 states, you have to win somewhere in the first few states. Losses - especially like 5th place in a state where you looked to be a fairly strong candidate - are campaign killers. People see those results and go with their 2nd choice that is doing quite well. People simply feel that they are wasting their vote on you, because your long term prospects for winning the nomination are remote at best. Looking at the primary calendar, it's hard to see exactly where Perry can win. He has virtually no chance of finishing better than 4th or 5th in New Hampshire. If South Carolina is going to vote for someone other than Santorum or Romney, it most likely will be Gingrich. Same goes for Florida. After that it's Michigan, and that's Romney's home state. There are some good states for Perry if he hangs on until Super Tuesday in February, but by that point, most people will turn their attention to other candidates if he has no wins. I simply don't see a path for Perry to the nomination at this point, despite his excellent fund raising numbers thus far.

 

Republicans who don't vote for Romney are fooling themselves. None of them like him as he is a mormon, changes his positions to often, isn't conservative enough, etc. However, he is the only one of the bunch who can beat Obama. The vast majority of the country hovers in the middle and that is where Romney hangs out. Independents and conservative Democrats are not going to abandon Obama for a radical right winger.

 

There's really no way to spin this negatively for Romney. As I said, Iowa isn't a state that was favorable to him. While Iowa isn't particularly conservative as a whole, its Republicans are typically more conservative than Republicans as a whole. Iowans voted for Huckabee in 2008, and Buchanan in 2000. And their track record for picking the eventual nominee isn't particularly good. However, typically the eventual nominee doesn't come out worse than 2nd or 3rd in the Iowa Republican caucus. Of the candidates in this year's field, Santorum and Bachmann are the most conservative, and in that light, it isn't surprising that Santorum performed well.

So long as Romney finished ahead of Gingrich and Perry, his campaign would have been in good shape. To actually win outright, no matter the margin, is great for his campaign. A win is a win after all.

It isn't winner take all in the primaries, but Romney still doesn't care. Romney, Santorum, and even Paul for that matter, will all come out of this with a similar number of delegates, and don't forget that the super delegates (consisting of members of the House, Senate, State House, State Senate, Governor, etc.) are not required to vote in accordance with the voters of the state.

Remember what I said in the first post - perception is as important as the actual vote count. By winning Iowa, Romney at least met, and possibly exceeded his expectations, so it's a win. Santorum exceeded expectations, as did Paul, so it was good for them too. You can't win the nomination by winning Iowa, but if your performance is particularly poor (read Perry), you can certainly lose it.

 

It was said that Rick Santorum wants everyone else to drop out and Mitt Romney wants nobody else to.

If you at the vote total and consider that Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, and Gingrinch all divided the "anti-Romney" vote then that means a number of republicans don't really want Romney.

That is an interesting point about S. Carolina and I would say Gingrinch and Perry each see it as must win.

How it turns out will likely define the end of one or both of those campaigns.

Pawlenty and Bachmann-the 2 GOP candidates from Minnesota-are now out. Interesting when you consider their state borders Iowa.

How would Huntsman get a surge in New Hampshire as it seems that is what he is looking for?

 

It's definitely now or never for Huntsman in New Hampshire, after he basically conceded Iowa. Bachmann's exit of the campaign is some good news for Santorum. Just looking at their positions, a Bachmann voter would most likely have Santorum as their second choice. I'd say the same for Perry. Not so much for Huntsman, or any of the other Republican candidates.

 

Romney will be the nominee, straight up. Santorum is a putz currently riding the latest "anti-Romney" wave, and will fizzle. Newt is done, but damned if he won't set fire to the place on his way out. Ron Paul won't be the nominee, and if his supporters continue to feel that he's being kneecapped by Fox News and the Republican establishment, he will be more likely than ever to make good on his threats to go third party. Bachmann is bowing out today, and though Perry will limp along until South Carolina, he's done too. The only other candidate in the race who is a match for Obama as a candidate and wasn't totally ridiculous is John Huntsman, but he's never been able to muster much support and his campaign has been pretty well under the radar. Which is odd, since of all of them he has the best overall profile, experience and accomplishments. An Obama vs. Huntsman race would have been a great one, and my decision on who to vote for come November wouldn't have been easy. If he gets second or better in New Hampshire, he'll stay in, but not otherwise.

I would say Romney has a chance at beating Obama, but I wouldn't say he is at all likely to or will beat Obama. I heard someone recently describe him as "Kerry without the medals." Funny, but extremely charitable, IMO. He has thus far - despite being the frontrunner practically since 2009 - not endured traditional frontrunner scrutiny of any kind. That'll change real quick once he's the only guy in the spotlight after the clown show packs it in. And he has a ton of vulnerabilities.

That fact that no strong, intelligent, credible conservative entered the race this year says to me that the Republican party elites at large see Obama's reelection as a foregone conclusion and have for some time.

 

I find it funny that Rick Santorum's nephew backed Ron Paul. I'm pleasantly surprised that he did so well, since he seems to be the only candidate with sensible foreign and domestic policy, even if I disagree with him on economic issues. I know most people think he won't win, but never say never right? Some friends of mine and I might campaign a little bit for him here.

 

I'm not sure I share his love for libertarianism, but I do have some respect for the way he conducted himself - imo better than most GOP contenders. We'll see how it works out. To be honest, imo Obama has been fairly unimpressive so far - so if the GOP candidates struggle, it's not because they are faced with the second coming of JFK.

Frankly, I wish the US could set up the whole elections system so it takes 2-3 months at most. I think the country would be saner, and less divided, for it.

 

I like Ron Paul in a lot of ways. On a personal level, he seems* more grounded and principled than just about anyone running. He's one guy that doesn't pander to anyone, and I like that a lot. If for no other reason, if anyone is the anti-Romney in the realest sense, it's Ron Paul. And if nothing else, the fact that his anti-interventionist views are finally getting some serious air-time is one of the best side-benefits of the campaign so far. If he runs independent, that will likely continue.

Having said all that...let's be honest, folks - the man is a crank. Farther to the right than just about anyone up there and steadfastly convinced of some remarkably wacked ideas (his 'gold standard' rubbish is among his saner positions). Anyone who seriously thinks him sitting in the oval office is a good idea needs to sit down and think it through. That goes double for liberals.

As for shortening the election cycle - I couldn't agree more. Most voters don't start paying attention until the last 2-3 months anyway. Only partisans and political junkies are really following anything closely at this point. I've always thought Presidential campaigns were a ridiculous waste of money and cultural oxygen.

* operative word, there.

 

Yeah, his gold standard stuff and religious devotion to free markets are some of the economic things I disagree with, but realistically he would never be able to get a gold standard passed. I like him almost solely for his non-interventionism and his idea of expanding state power and limiting federal. It doesn't work in all cases, but with the over-reach of federal authority we have seen in recent years it would be a breath of fresh air to see it limited.

 

I agree, but that's hardly a reason to support Ron Paul.

A vote for Paul is a vote for scaling back federal over-reach, you're right. It's also a vote for the idea that global warming is a hoax, the contention that the Civil Rights act infringes on the rights of wealthy whites to benefit from the permanent underclass of blacks, that a border fence should be built to keep Americans from leaving the country, opposition to the UN on the grounds that they want to take away our guns, etc.

I love peanuts, but I'm not going to eat a sh*t sandwich just because I see one in the middle.

 

I can't help but laugh every time I hear the Civil Rights thing. Not because you're not right or anything, but because he basically reductio ad absurdum'd himself and didn't realize it. I appreciate consistency and everything, but no philosophy can be applied that fundamentally.

Anyways, in spite of all that I still think Ron Paul would be the best of all the Republicans for the job. It's not like we have a tyranny of the president in terms of policy making, his more extreme stuff would never get passed. Leaving the U.N? Yeah right. As for his global warming stance, Republicans aren't exactly the most environmentally friendly party to begin with. Bachmann wanted to get rid of the EPA for example. What would get passed through him, in my mind, is the very things I said before as that is where he gets most of his rational support, and I think the public wouldn't be too upset about more state power. We could also expect to see the end of things like the surveillance state and the "national security" regime and the frightening precedent it sets. That alone is an important enough issue, tackled by absolutely no-one else, to garner my support. If the sh*t sandwich meant I wouldn't have to eat one every day of the week later down the road, and I had no other choice, I think I would go with it.

 

"And I had no other choice" is the key phrase here. You could back John Huntsman - who has thus far displayed no such inclinations to ramp up our interventionist streak or surveillance state. Or Gary Johnson - the actual Libertarian candidate. Or, you could vote to keep Obama in - though if government over-reach is your sole overriding issue, probably isn't your favorite based on all the Bush-era policies he's not only kept in place but expanded. I happen to think, to quote/paraphrase Chris Rock, Obama will "wait until his second term to do his gangsta sh*t." Meaning his bigger, grander initiatives - including all the things he opposed about the Bush administration but hasn't had the leverage of a second-term President to make any progress on.

Bare in mind I don't really care who you support - I'm just tossing out ideas here. From reading your posts these last few months you strike me as pretty liberal and/or liberaltarian (please correct me if I am wrong), and I don't see how any liberal can support Ron Paul - even based on a single issue - and still consider themselves one. Anti-interventionism is about the only thing Paul has in common with anyone left of center. I don't know how someone with your views can look at his now infamous newsletters and his deliberate political appeal to the worst strains of homophobia, racial paranoia, climate denialism, new-world-order wackness and say "Yeah, but - if he gets us this other stuff, then he's good by me."

4 more years of Obama seems far more in keeping with your desired vision of America than does Ron Paul's House o' Crazy - but I may have totally misread your particular dance card. Apologies if that's the case.

Just makes me scratch my head, is all.

 

I'm ashamed to admit I never heard of John Huntsman until now. I do agree that my support for him stems from "all his other stuff", but I believe that the growing authority our government is taking over our lives represents a major threat to our freedoms, much more so than the supposed "terrorists" they are designed to combat, and I am more than willing to compromise to see that trend reversed. You're right that my beliefs lie in liberal territory on a vast majority of issues, but Obama seems more than willing to allow the national security/paranoia state to grow under his watch, his actions (or lack thereof) concerning the indefinite detention bill is an example of that. Honestly, I would ditch Ron Paul the moment someone slightly sane took the stances I like in him. But, I wouldn't consider myself a libertarian at all. In my mind that philosophy creates deregulation and wealth-defense as a natural consequence and I am in no way on board with that.

 

Oh boy yes. The US election system takes longer than all the countries in the world added together. In NZ, the process takes about 2 or 3 weeks. We like our politicians to do some actual work between elections rather than spending the whole intervening campaigning.

 

Thank God MB is out. I laughed when she compared herself to "the Iron Lady."

 

It's primarily for this reason that the far left is so mad at Obama. For all the right's insisting he's a socialist far-lefty, actual socialists and far-lefties hate him. He hasn't done a single thing they wanted. No single-payer health care. No immediate Iraq withdrawal on day 1. No marijuana legalization. No immediate and permanent tax hike on the wealthy. No attempted closing of corporate tax loopholes, etc. The right screams all day what a horrible far-left extremist he is yet I've yet to see any evidence of him actually behaving like one. He campaigned as a moderate and has for the most part governed like one. There's no reason to think he'll lurch farther to the left in a second term since he's never been much farther to the left than he is now.

I personally believe the maintaining of the Bush-era surveillance state is more a function of political expediency than of principle. Disappointing, but understandable. All first-term presidents have the same overriding concern - getting a second term. I submit to you that he will scale back the previous administration's security state overreach when he is no longer in danger of being painted as leaving America's back door open for his terrorist pals to waltz on in. Mind you, the right already accuses him of as much every day anyway - despite the damage he has done to al Qaeda. But it strikes me as shrewd of him not to give his enemies more ammunition, and to wait to fight that battle under more favorable conditions. I could be wrong – and will of course eat crow come 2013 if I'm wrong – but that's how I see it.

 

So you're saying I mis-named the topic? It should be "And the Nomination Race Ends!"

I agree that Romney was the front runner since he formally announced his candidacy in the spring of 2011. Obviously, after winning Iowa, a state he didn't necessarily need to have, his position as front runner is more solid than it was a week ago. I don't expect that to change when New Hampshire votes in 5 days.

But what happens when we go south? When the evangelicals and fundies start making up a large percentage of the Republican electorate. Half of them hear Mormon and think Muslim. That would be my worry as Romney - that his opponents could attempt to characterize him as "not one of us". Given Santorum's views on a lot of things, he could say that and believe it himself.

 

Perhaps. Anything is possible, but I just don't see how any of Mitt's competitors get an edge on him at this point. Santorum is popular now because he's bet the farm on Iowa - a sound strategy, it seems - and as I said, is currently the latest "hey, I'm not Romney" candidate the jittery GOP base has jumped to. But he's an even bigger yahoo than Cain or even Bachmann. Just watch - Romney's superpac will start hitting him presently with a multi-million dollar ad blitz highlighting his long history of insane public statements - just like they did to Gingrich - Romney will feign ignorance, and Santorum will be old news by South Carolina. Then it's Mitt vs. Paul. If this thing even gets to Super Tuesday, I'll eat my hat.

By the time we go south, the anti-Romneys will fall in line behind the party's candidate. The 75% of Republicans who have consistently opposed Romney (as he's never been able to break through his 25% support ceiling) will all come out to vote for him come November. Because no matter how much they cringe at the idea of voting for a flip-flopping, liberal-ish Ken doll Mormon, they'll find it infinitely more palatable than allowing Barack Hussein Obama - whom these people sincerely believe is either Karl Marx reborn or the literal anti-Christ, depending on the day - to get a second term. They will not stay home.