Kellyanne Conway The Iowa caucuses provide four big takeaways:
1) Mitt Romney’s ceiling is real.
2) Rick Santorum’s combination of family, focus, and shoe leather is a winning combination.
3) Rick Perry will drop out of the race before the “staff infection” that has ruined his campaign goes from toxic to fatal.
4) Newt (my client), who absorbed an avalanche of negative ads, will fight back with deeper, more direct contrasts and an exposé of distortions and flip-flops.
The night belongs to Santorum. The victory was richly deserved and it will be fun watching some journalists having to brush up on the Bible to cover so amiable a “Jesus freak.” He may be the first Italian to win the Iowa caucuses, which means both of our immigrant grandfathers are smiling.
But the big story ought to be Romney. He has all the king’s horses and all the king’s men supporting him, the print MSM and most segments on Fox News Channel in his favor, yet for the second time in four years, 75 percent of Iowa caucus-goers rejected him. Frontrunner? Sure. Electable? Maybe. Inevitable? Not so fast.
Advertisement
The race now will be fought in equal parts in New Hampshire, in South Carolina, and in Florida. The states are measurably different — in terms of demography and geography, education and unemployment rates, ideology and issues concerns. There will not be a sweep of these four early states so much as a struggle to coalesce conservatives and a scrum to prove which of the candidates is this millennium’s Ronald Reagan and this movement’s best hope to change Barack Obama’s day job.
— Kellyanne Conway is president of the polling company, inc. and a pollster/senior adviser to Newt 2012.
Jim Geraghty To continue my anti-Iowa-caucus “jihad,” as Jonah called it . . .
The Hawkeye State killed off the chances of a perfectly good candidate, Tim Pawlenty, in favor of his Minnesota rival Michele Bachmann, only to drop her like seventh-period Spanish by the time the actual caucuses rolled around. The caucuses weren’t even over when the Fox News Decision Desk could project, with confidence, that she would finish sixth out of six major candidates in the caucus. As of this writing, she is set to finish 5 percentage points ahead of Jon Huntsman, who effectively conceded the state. Put another way, she finished 6 percentage points ahead of you and me, and we didn’t even run.
With no seriously contested Democratic caucus to compete for the votes of independents, the caucus turned into yet another sales pitch for closed primaries. According to the entrance polls, 38 percent of caucus-goers had never voted in a GOP caucus before; of those, by far the largest share, 37 percent, voted for Ron Paul. Among the registered so-called independents who took part in the caucus, 48 percent voted for Ron Paul, way ahead of anyone else. Next highest was Romney with 16 percent.
Otherwise, it was a great night for Santorum, a slightly disappointing night for Romney (soon to be rendered moot by a big win in New Hampshire). The quality of the night for Ron Paul is hard to evaluate because he does not operate on the same laws of time and space as most on this earth. Tough night for Gingrich, really tough night for Perry, brutal night for Bachmann, and we’ll see if Huntsman has any life in him next week.
So . . . how about the Geraghty Plan to revise the order of the states in upcoming presidential cycles?
— Jim Geraghty writes the Campaign Spot blog on NRO.
This was an epic fail by the non Romney's. Santo lived in Iowa for a year, is supposedly beloved by all 'true conservatives', collected the Van der Platts endorsement...and yet a supposed squish like Romney comes in in under two weeks (after writing the state off all year) and beats him.
I am happy for Santo's success, but c'mon, let's get real.
The story out of Iowa is that a weak front runner snuck in the back door and cleaned out the ABR stash and left with a big fat smile on his face.
Is it me or am I wrong here that some of this commentary states that Santorum beat Romney in the Iowa caucus. According to Townhall.com, Romney beat Santorum by 8 votes? This is a pretty amazing feat since no one thought Romney would win Iowa as of last week. As for the idiotic 75% commentary explaining that 75% of caucus voters voted for some one else...this is true for Santorum as well. And, if I am not mistaken here, didn't Santorum practically live in Iowa for a year, only to see a guy come in a week before the election to beat him? Finally, the 75% commentary doesn't take into account the large field of candidates as oppose to four years ago...and doesn't hold water when you just think about the next caucus in New Hampshire where Team Romney is way over 25% in support. I would expect better commentary from NRO.
This has been my feeling too, Mark. Sure, it's a victory for the not-Romneys, but that's like saying the generic Republican could be Obama. While theoretically both are true, the reality is A) Romney won, which essentially solidifies his stranglehold on the nomination (even if he is pretty much backing into it rather than winning it outrightly), and B) Republican enthusiasm is about to take a sharp spike downwards with Romney as the nominee.
Now, that may not be fair to Willard, who has done everything except strip down naked and do a Marilyn Monroe photoshoot in order to win the GOP nomination, but he *is* a weak candidate. Can he beat Obama? Maybe, depending on where the economy and jobs report are in November. But somehow, I just don't see it happening, and I'm beginning to think folks like Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, and Marco Rubio were brilliant for staying out of this cluster-you-know-what. Running in 2016 gives any Republican a much better chance.
Speaking of the future, anyone want to put down odds now on a Romney/Rubio ticket?
Romney is not that weak--simply realistic. All kinds of persons calling him non-conservative, including Santorum, endorsed him last time (he's gotten more conservative since then). He soared to a surprising 1st place in Iowa, a state where his appeal is weakest, while the opposition that was supposed to do him in (Perry, Gingrich) flopped where they should have been strongest. Meanwhile Paul got his usual one-state bump before fading into oblivion, and Santorum made the predictable pitch to conservative evangelicals in a hard-fought but unrepeatable victory.
None of this was surprising in any way. It ,was easy to predict. And so is the next step: a big Romney win in New Hampshire, a resurgence by some anti-Romney (not Santorum) in South Carolina, before he too fades away, and a lot of smiling faces at the Republican Convention talking about how this process has weathered Romney and made him ready to take on Obama. It's all predictable.
The Iowa caucus has proven how irrelevant it is when a rabid liberal comes in third in the Republican caucus. Only closed primaries should be used to select our Party's nominee.
You're kidding, right? Ron Paul is a liberal now? I don't really know what planet you're on. Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich are all far more liberal on federal power than Paul is.
If you don't like Paul, don't vote for him, or continue ignoring him as the establishment (for better or for worse) does. But don't call him a liberal. That's like saying Mondale was a conservative.
I suspect the only reason Bachmann's soldiering on os that Perry rather surprisingly seems to be dropping out first. That's not much of a reason after last night.
My Facebook news feed will be full of Rick Santorum, Theocrat pieces from the left blogosphere. If he is capable of recognizing this issue, even though it doesn't matter among GOP voters, and addressing it forcefully, it'll go a long way with the Somewhat Conservative.
An eight vote margin in a proportional election or not, it matters that Romney actually Got The Win. Between NH, SC, nd FL Santorum and Gingrich need to find at least one state to win, and I'm not sure where it is.
What happened in Iowa?
Iowa is not about winning it is about not losing. In this case it was about making sure Gingrich lost. The only person standing between Romney and the nomination is Newt Gingrich.
The caucus process has major weaknesses that can be exploited by a dedicated team of professionals who want to rig the outcome. We know that a campaign with virtually unlimited money can flood the state with foot soldiers that can exert major influences on individual caucuses.
The best way to stop someone like Gingrich, in addition to negative attack ads, is to build up support for candidates like Paul and Santorum. A narrow victory in Iowa makes it look like a real battle but it is, for Romney, a preferred result. The fringe voted for those two while he took the sensible middle. His machine will try to prop up Santorum and Paul as they move forward to other primaries. They are the perfect opponents, they have no chance of winning and they can distract the media.
The Romney campaign is flawless to this point and they have shown exceptional skill in manipulating the media to their advantage. Machiavelli would admire them. I know I do.
1) Will the anti-Romneyites (most of them rather weak conservatives like Steven Hayward) please stop making the ludicrous statement that Romney is the "liberal" candidate, or that "conservatives" do not support Romney?
On the big questions for conservatives -- entitlements, size and scope of the state, illegal immigration -- Romney is much, much more conservative, and more in line with the American people, than any other candidate out there. Santorum and Gingrich are big-government statists. Romney is the one leading candidate (Ron Paul being excluded for obvious reasons) with a private-sector background and an instinct toward shrinking, not increasing, government.
Sure, if you're obsessed with abortion and gays, Santorum's your man. But those issues pale compared to the real questions of statism, spending and illegal immigration.
2) Are you people out of your gourd when you speak so seriously about Santorum? Outside Iowa, the guy's a nonstarter. And that's just in the GOP primaries. To even consider him in the general election ... well, it's laughable.
Most of the country hasn't heard of Santorum outside of the fact he is now surging. Those who have probably know him because of his, er, "Google problem." And outside of a small number of abortion obsessives in Iowa, most people think he's a guy who cares way too much about abortion and gays. I hate to say it, but these are not the issues that get most Americans out of bed to vote.
Of course, Santorum has GOP support of ~6% nationwide and little campaign structure outside of Iowa. The obsequiousness directed at Santorum by most of the "symposium" participants is flat-out embarrassing.
3) Why is NRO so bizarrely anti-Romney? A large proportion of the "syposium" respondents use their space to try to tear him down. One is a Gingrich advisor, for crying out loud, and others sound like an unthinking cheering section for Santorum. They falsely claim he's not conservative (where he's actually more conservative than a Santorum or Gingrich any day), and gloat that his support has a ceiling "despite his advantages." Well, when the entire media complex is devoted to claiming that people don't like him and that he's not conservative, what advantages does he have?!
NRO and other publications really need to get over their odd and inexplicable anti-Romney prejudice. He's the most conservative, and most viable, candidate we've got. Slavishly supporting whatever "anti-Romney" flavor of the week the media manufactures, regardless of his record and positions, is not doing a service to conservatism, nor is it doing a service to NRO's claim to offer high-quality conservative journalism.
Has everyone at NRO suffered massive brain damage? How on earth is Rick Santorum considered a "conservative" by anyone except Ms. Lopez, who is a dyed-in-the-wool social conservative? This is the guy who pushed for federal intervention in almost everything, who was one of the chief architects of the vast expansion of federal power under President Bush, a strong believer in spending our money overseas as much as possible...
Seriously, what gives with the collective amnesia about Rick Santorum? Wanting to stigmatize gay people and ban abortion and contraception does not make one a conservative. It makes one a fascist. Wake up, people! If it's not going to be Romney, y'all conservative punditry need to find a real conservative, and fast. Santorum is *not* the answer, and if he is, the GOP is doomed to another four years of Obama. In which case, the political death watch for the GOP will be on.
"Mitt Romney is now the liberal alternative." Give me a break folks. By continuing to misrepresent Mitt's record you are polarizing conservatives who then fearfully grab hold of any other "non-Romney" candidate that comes along, including Ron Paul who is completely unelectable. Let's go over the "trauma" of John McCain. Romney is NOT John McCain by any stretch and was the convervative alternative in 2008. He has not changed, but we have gotten more fearful of being duped.
The question for Romney is this: are you a conservative who ran for senator and governor in Massachusetts as a left-winger? Or, are you a left-winger who is now running for president as a conservative? We need to know because many see you as a hollow man who is not genuine.
Romney is no McCain. For starters, Romney can string 3 coherent sentences together and doesn't mumble.
As to those who worry about President Romney: he cannot risk or afford a primary challenge in 2016. It is in his self-interest to keep the conservative base happy, particularly with economic/fiscal policy, judicial appointments, defunding Obamacare, and national defense. Romney will govern right-center consistent with his mandate.
Romney may not have changed since 2008, but the country has changed since then, the GOP has changed since then, and the issues have changed since then.
The economy has crashed, Obamacare is now law and the Tea Party & Occupy movements have formed as grassroots movements opposed to Establishment (Democrat, Republican & Wall Street) control of fiscal policy and politics.
Bush/Obama TARP and Obama's stimulus have failed to positively revive the economy and saddled the country with ever increasing debt. So the fact that Romney hasn't changed his economic message from 2008 is NOT a positive.
In 2008, Romneycare was just a poor state policy application to address the problem of health care cost explosion. In 2008, Romneycare was a minor forgiveable fault.
In 2012 - when the repeal of Obamacare is the #1 issue - Mitt's stubborn refusal to disavow his signature gubernatorial program and refusal to acknowledge his unwitting partial responsibility for helping to create Obamacare is now a damning, unforgiveable and disqualifying sin.
In 2010 the Tea Party grass roots rose up and gave the GOP control of the House and significantly increased the GOP Senate minority. Mitt has virtually shunned Tea partiers throughout and mistrust is mutual. Add in the GOP Establishment's foot dragging in Congress on Tea Party issues and the Tea Party's mistrust of the GOP Establishment's preferred 2012 candidate - Mitt Romney - is heightened even further.
In 2008 Mitt's leadership at Bain Capital was a plus. In 2012, after years of Wall Street financial abuses and bailouts and Bain's business practices in a difficlut economy, Mitt's leadership at Bain is a negative. Right or wrong, the Democrats and the Occupy movement will savage Willard's leadeship of Bain's "profiteering." While not sharing in the bile and hatred of Wall Street by the Dems and the Occupy movement, Tea Partiers are at least skepitcal of Wall Street, companies like Bain and Mitt.
So yes, Mitt hasn't changed since 2008 when he was a less moderate alternative to McCain. Unfortunately for Romney, he stood still while the grassroots GOP leaped and bounded to the right. Or put another way, Mitt & the GOP establishment favor the status quo when the rest of the country desperately wants to move forward.
