“Iowa’s just a random hick state.”
“Iowa’s caucuses don’t matter at all – it’s just one state.”
“Why do we let Iowa matter so much?”
Statements like these reappear every four years. Perhaps they’re just a reaction to the status quo - against a feeling of powerlessness in political processes. Maybe they're a product of coastal disdain toward any states between the Appalachians and the Rockies. In any case, every four years Iowa begins the candidate selection process, and that quirk isn’t likely to change soon. So, accepting the status quo, what can we learn from Santorum's amazing performance last night? What will it mean for the rest of the Republican primary?
One surprise candidate from four years back, Mike Huckabee, provides a starting point to analyze yesterday's events. Like Santorum, Huckabee emerged at the last second as a “true conservative” alternative to Mitt Romney. Interestingly, last time John McCain was the "moderate" voice, and many Romney supporters flocked to Huckabee at the last second. How is Romney the moderate voice this time around?
Both Huckabee and Santorum spent fractions of what Romney spent and emerged at the last second to beat him. While Romney’s campaign seems stronger than ever, this should worry him. Polls in the past few months show widespread grassroots discontent with Romney. New candidates emerged frequently as a “Romney alternative”: Bachmann, then Gingrich, then Paul, and in the past few days Santorum. Has Romney ridden the storm? Will he emerge successful? Probably. But why are people so determined to find anyone but Romney? Are people put off by the same “distance” they feel with Obama? Do people distrust his history of extreme privilege? Is it that he’s more moderate (at least during his tenure in Massachusetts - less so now in rhetoric), which doesn’t work well in primaries/caucuses? Could there be an anti-Mormon bias?
Four years ago, Huckabee’s campaign was easy to dismiss: he had the fleeting appeal of a populist. He wouldn’t last the election season. I mean, goodness, he told Chuck Norris jokes in his ads. Santorum hasn’t been quite that laughable, but his recent ads are hilarious because they use doublespeak to highlight his biggest fault: Santorum claims to be the only candidate who can beat President Obama, when in reality he has no chance of beating President Obama. He's too extreme.
Santorum isn’t as ridiculous as Huckabee was, but his appeal seems just as likely to fade. Santorum already spent quite a bit of time in New Hampshire, but he is still polling terribly there (10% to Romney's 47% this morning - even after his performance in Iowa). He comes across during interviews as a wide-eyed fundamentalist. But he won’t peter out as quickly as Huckabee did, and in a season when momentum matters, perhaps he shouldn’t be written off yet.
Santorum is the best alternative for Perry and Bachmann’s former supporters. (Let's assume that Perry drops out in the next few weeks - after even hinting at dropping out last night, his funds will dry up immediately.) Gingrich seems determined to take Romney down after his ugly fight with Romney’s Super PAC. Both of these points will help Santorum. Plus, who doesn’t love a folksy underdog? Maybe Santorum’s newfound media attention will bring undecided voters to his camp. ...but, if I had to make a prediction, I’d say Romney emerges victorious. Perry’s and Bachmann’s supporters were few, and Gingrich is easy to dismiss as angry and erratic. Furthermore, unless he suddenly performs amazingly (unlikely), Huntsman will probably drop out soon too and throw his support behind Romney (a la Giuliani supporting McCain in '08).
Most worryingly for Santorum, Romney’s Super PAC now will likely focus all its Gingrich-busting resources on Santorum. And let’s not forget that according to polls Romney is the only one that has a chance of competing with President Obama. Even bastions of the “liberal media” – the New York Times and the New Yorker – have run pieces in the past week praising Romney. Is this because he’s the most centrist? The most pragmatic? Or is he just running the most effective (and expensive) campaign?
What about Ron Paul? The former libertarian candidate – and arguably the only leading Republican candidate who is both coherent and immune from "flip-flopper" criticisms – did very well with younger voters last night. Overall he finished close behind Romney and Santorum. While his supporters have the zeal of recent converts, his populist appeal only seems to grow over time. Is Ron Paul a feasible candidate? My hunch says, "No." He’s too extreme in too many views to win the Republican ticket. While people may theoretically like his ideas, they will be scared of the drastic changes he proposes. My prediction is still Romney.
Last night highlights the extreme divisions within the Republican Party. Three hugely different candidates each received a quarter of the votes. Could we see a disgruntled candidate leave the race and run as a third-party candidate? Such a move would be amusing, mostly because it would ruin Romney’s chance of beating Obama. But Republicans are known for stepping in line after primary season, so this is unlikely. My prediction: Romney gets the Republican ticket, and after months of speculation about how he might possibly beat Obama, he won't. This prediction is, of course, hugely dependent on the economy. But for now, I vote Obama over Romney in the presidential election.
Election season is just beginning folks, and it’s going to be a good one. And yes, it felt great to write this entry and barely mention Michele Bachmann.
“Iowa’s caucuses don’t matter at all – it’s just one state.”
“Why do we let Iowa matter so much?”
Statements like these reappear every four years. Perhaps they’re just a reaction to the status quo - against a feeling of powerlessness in political processes. Maybe they're a product of coastal disdain toward any states between the Appalachians and the Rockies. In any case, every four years Iowa begins the candidate selection process, and that quirk isn’t likely to change soon. So, accepting the status quo, what can we learn from Santorum's amazing performance last night? What will it mean for the rest of the Republican primary?
One surprise candidate from four years back, Mike Huckabee, provides a starting point to analyze yesterday's events. Like Santorum, Huckabee emerged at the last second as a “true conservative” alternative to Mitt Romney. Interestingly, last time John McCain was the "moderate" voice, and many Romney supporters flocked to Huckabee at the last second. How is Romney the moderate voice this time around?
Both Huckabee and Santorum spent fractions of what Romney spent and emerged at the last second to beat him. While Romney’s campaign seems stronger than ever, this should worry him. Polls in the past few months show widespread grassroots discontent with Romney. New candidates emerged frequently as a “Romney alternative”: Bachmann, then Gingrich, then Paul, and in the past few days Santorum. Has Romney ridden the storm? Will he emerge successful? Probably. But why are people so determined to find anyone but Romney? Are people put off by the same “distance” they feel with Obama? Do people distrust his history of extreme privilege? Is it that he’s more moderate (at least during his tenure in Massachusetts - less so now in rhetoric), which doesn’t work well in primaries/caucuses? Could there be an anti-Mormon bias?
Four years ago, Huckabee’s campaign was easy to dismiss: he had the fleeting appeal of a populist. He wouldn’t last the election season. I mean, goodness, he told Chuck Norris jokes in his ads. Santorum hasn’t been quite that laughable, but his recent ads are hilarious because they use doublespeak to highlight his biggest fault: Santorum claims to be the only candidate who can beat President Obama, when in reality he has no chance of beating President Obama. He's too extreme.
Santorum isn’t as ridiculous as Huckabee was, but his appeal seems just as likely to fade. Santorum already spent quite a bit of time in New Hampshire, but he is still polling terribly there (10% to Romney's 47% this morning - even after his performance in Iowa). He comes across during interviews as a wide-eyed fundamentalist. But he won’t peter out as quickly as Huckabee did, and in a season when momentum matters, perhaps he shouldn’t be written off yet.
Santorum is the best alternative for Perry and Bachmann’s former supporters. (Let's assume that Perry drops out in the next few weeks - after even hinting at dropping out last night, his funds will dry up immediately.) Gingrich seems determined to take Romney down after his ugly fight with Romney’s Super PAC. Both of these points will help Santorum. Plus, who doesn’t love a folksy underdog? Maybe Santorum’s newfound media attention will bring undecided voters to his camp. ...but, if I had to make a prediction, I’d say Romney emerges victorious. Perry’s and Bachmann’s supporters were few, and Gingrich is easy to dismiss as angry and erratic. Furthermore, unless he suddenly performs amazingly (unlikely), Huntsman will probably drop out soon too and throw his support behind Romney (a la Giuliani supporting McCain in '08).
Most worryingly for Santorum, Romney’s Super PAC now will likely focus all its Gingrich-busting resources on Santorum. And let’s not forget that according to polls Romney is the only one that has a chance of competing with President Obama. Even bastions of the “liberal media” – the New York Times and the New Yorker – have run pieces in the past week praising Romney. Is this because he’s the most centrist? The most pragmatic? Or is he just running the most effective (and expensive) campaign?
What about Ron Paul? The former libertarian candidate – and arguably the only leading Republican candidate who is both coherent and immune from "flip-flopper" criticisms – did very well with younger voters last night. Overall he finished close behind Romney and Santorum. While his supporters have the zeal of recent converts, his populist appeal only seems to grow over time. Is Ron Paul a feasible candidate? My hunch says, "No." He’s too extreme in too many views to win the Republican ticket. While people may theoretically like his ideas, they will be scared of the drastic changes he proposes. My prediction is still Romney.
Last night highlights the extreme divisions within the Republican Party. Three hugely different candidates each received a quarter of the votes. Could we see a disgruntled candidate leave the race and run as a third-party candidate? Such a move would be amusing, mostly because it would ruin Romney’s chance of beating Obama. But Republicans are known for stepping in line after primary season, so this is unlikely. My prediction: Romney gets the Republican ticket, and after months of speculation about how he might possibly beat Obama, he won't. This prediction is, of course, hugely dependent on the economy. But for now, I vote Obama over Romney in the presidential election.
Election season is just beginning folks, and it’s going to be a good one. And yes, it felt great to write this entry and barely mention Michele Bachmann.
