I join my NR colleagues on the cruise tomorrow, but for the week, a thought or two, war-gaming out the upcoming GOP primaries . . .
It is mid-November. Iowa Republicans vote in their caucus on January 3, roughly six weeks away.
And we’re still not sure if Mitt Romney is going to make a serious push at Iowa. (Increasingly, it appears he will; the Des Moines Register writes about evangelicals giving him a second look here.)
It’s almost unthinkable that a candidate who has a decent shot at winning the first contest wouldn’t choose to make a serious effort to win, but we live in strange times. Romney has visited only four times so far, but in the RealClearPolitics average, he trails Herman Cain by six tenths of a percentage point; Romney’s been a solid second in most polls and leads in the most recent CNN/Time survey.
At first glance, Romney has to compete. How would you describe a candidate who chose to not try to win the first contest when he’s barely behind because it wasn’t part of his campaign’s original scripted strategy? Hesitant? Too cautious? Cowardly? A half-hearted effort in Iowa, and a decision to keep the Romney campaign’s focus on New Hampshire, would be the most small-c conservative approach to campaigning in recent memory.
And yet . . . winning Iowa might set up its own problem for Romney. The recent history of presidential primaries suggests that the purpose of New Hampshire is to negate Iowa. In fact, the best way to ensure you lose New Hampshire appears to be to win Iowa:
2008: Iowa winner: Mike Huckabee. New Hampshire winner: John McCain.
2000: Iowa winner: George W. Bush. New Hampshire winner: John McCain.
1996: Iowa winner: Bob Dole. New Hampshire winner: Pat Buchanan.
1988: Iowa winner: Bob Dole. New Hampshire winner: George H.W. Bush.
1980: Iowa winner: George H. W. Bush. New Hampshire winner: Ronald Reagan.
This is a bipartisan phenomenon; look at the Democrats:
2008: Iowa winner: Barack Obama. New Hampshire winner: Hillary Clinton.
2004: Iowa winner: John Kerry. New Hampshire winner: John Kerry.
1992: Iowa winner: Tom Harkin. New Hampshire winner: Paul Tsongas.
1984: Iowa winner: Walter Mondale. New Hampshire winner: Gary Hart.
(Yes, John Kerry somehow did what no other non-incumbent, non-vice-president candidate has done since 1980.)
If Romney wins Iowa, will New Hampshire voters be determined to reject Iowa’s choice?
Obviously, as they say in those investment-fund commercials, past performance does not predict future results. And Romney’s lead in New Hampshire has been huge and consistent. But consciously or subconsciously, New Hampshire voters hate to confirm the choice of Iowa. If the Granite State rubber-stamps the choice of the Iowa caucus-goers, won’t that make Iowa even more important four years later? If Iowa is the real contest, why would candidates and campaigns shower New Hampshire voters with visits and attention and ads and spending?
Herman Cain is still doing well in New Hampshire, and this is one of Ron Paul’s stronger states. But one of the candidates who have done reasonably well here is . . . Jon Huntsman — until now, mostly an afterthought and punch-line of this campaign.
Huntsman is so thoroughly determined to demonstrate his devotion to the New Hampshire voters that he alone can say, “I boycotted candidate debates for you.” Remember, there will be no significant Democratic presidential primary, and unaffiliated voters can and do vote in party primaries. (The deadline to switch your party registration for the presidential primary was October 14.) Granite State residents can register to vote until January 3.
So suppose Romney wins Iowa, New Hampshire is determined to avoid a coronation, and so the independents and Democrats cross over and fuel Huntsman to a New Hampshire primary victory. (It feels like that kind of an unpredictable, wild-unexpected-swing cycle, no?) Then the action would move to South Carolina, where conservatives would probably be apoplectic at the thought that the top two contenders for the GOP nomination were Romney, derided as an unprincipled flip-flopper, and then Huntsman, widely perceived to be the one guy clearly to the left of Romney. They would then consolidate around one of the remaining Not-Mitt, Not-Jon options . . .
Right now, the leading Not-Mitt option is Herman Cain. But by January 21, Herman Cain may look a little weaker, depending on how he finishes in Iowa and whether the harassment claims stick to him. So currently running third in South Carolina is . . . Newt Gingrich. If Iowa’s results knock out Bachmann or Santorum, and if Perry is widely perceived to be kaput . . . wouldn’t Gingrich be in the best position to win over their supporters? And if Cain’s backers waver, wouldn’t Gingrich, the fellow Georgian, be a likely second choice for them?
Under this scenario, Republicans would go to the polls on January 31 in Florida, with a winner-take-all primary, with three winners in three primaries: Romney in Iowa, Huntsman in New Hampshire, and Gingrich in South Carolina.
Since Romney has held virtually every position out there, how could Huntsman possibly be to his left?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEasy. Romney flip-flops to the right some times ... Huntsman never does. Thus, Huntsman is more consistently left of center which is why MSM loves him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs Florida winner-take-all again? I thought the new rules prohibited winner-take-all until fairly late in the process. If it is proportional, that would reduce the urgency to consolidate behind a single "non-Mitt" candidate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIntriguing, but doesn't your conclusion slightly misstate "three primaries, three winners". Iowa is a caucus, correct? The whole "strength of organization" issue, instead of simply buying airtime and plowing away. It's another dimension, but I thought Obama's brilliance, aside from the TOTUS, was caucus organizations unusually adept for a newcomer. Caucus skills are a bit different.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSeems simple but then I'm not in the business: run hard in Iowa to show you are serious, be as nearly omnipresent as possible, but don't pander.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGov Rick Perry is the only leading candidate who can unite the conservative voters and win back the WH. No matter what the polls say, the GOP voters will embrace Rick Perry because he is a solid conservative and has a proven record, unlike Herman Cain, a RINO and moron.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePlease help elect Gov. Rick Perry because he is a solid conservative and has a proven record, and who can beat Obama in a landslide in 2012. Among other candidates, Herman Cain is a RINO and moron, Mitt is a flip-flopper, Michelle and Santorum, they are sinking in the polls, Newt is a conservative of convenience, and Jon Huntsman, who used to work for Obama. Rick Perry is the real deal.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, I don't think Perry has much of a chance anymore. He entered the race with a storm, and then just fell flat. His debate performances have only reinforced the stereotype that he is not a particularly bright man. Plus, Obama would chew him up and spit him out during their debates. I believe that your hope that he would beat Obama in a landslide to be a tad bit optimistic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEven if Perry were a brighter bulb on the GOP tree than he shows in public, his final exclamation to "terrorist water-boarding" question, spoken with arms waving, and a strong Texas twang that he would maintain his position, "Until the day he died," reminded a lot of people of President Bush (who I like, admire and support). I don't think a majority of voters, even if they are like me and supported much of what President Bush stood for, particularly when it came to a straightforward approach with the American public, are going to jump on a Perry ticket when he channels Bush like that. I'm not interested in voting for a cowboy-in-chief this time around. Know what I mean?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am so hoping that nobody wins the nomination outright before the convention.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree completely. I hope President Obama doesn't win his party's nomination before their convention.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'd love it if a conservative (eg, Santorum) would run as a Democrat in the primary against Obama. Attack the president and the party as well ("our stimulus bill failed. We had the best intentions, we thought it would create jobs, but we now must admit that it destroyed millions of jobs.")
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis speculation emanates straight from your posterior, Mr. Geraghty. It is so ridiculous I can only conclude you are so excited about your impending trip that you've hit the bar a little early.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"It feels like that kind of an unpredictable, wild-unexpected-swing cycle, no?" No.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerry kaput? Not according to the latest CNN poll. At last Saturday's debate, Perry was a solid 2nd (Newt won).
Why is Romney afraid to go on the news shows for a one on one interview? Can we nominate a candidate that is afraid of Chris Wallace?
IMHO Newt/Perry or Perry/Newt 2012.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat debate did you watch? Perry knows nothing of foreign policy (no surprise here), and Gingrich, who knows better, pandered to appease the know nothing voter (sadly surprising). Why don't all the stupid people just continue to hang with Herman? Y'all deserve each other, and I'm told the pizza's good, too.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour slip is showing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy view on what happened in Iowa in 2008 was that the "Christian right," when given a choice between a Baptist preacher and a Mormon, chose the Baptist preacher. However, there were many at the time who said they "voted against" the Mormon. My guess is that, if Romney makes too much noise there, they may "vote against" the Mormon - they even have another ordained Baptist minister for whom they can vote. I think if Romney can run a good stealth effort he can do well - possibly even win. And I don't think it will hurt him enough to lose New Hampshire - although it could take from the total.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne other thing - in my opinion, if one goes hard for the "Christian right" vote in Iowa, s/he will irritate the voters of New Hampshire who, generally speaking, see religion as a private matter.
"My view on what happened in Iowa in 2008 was that the "Christian right," when given a choice between a Baptist preacher and a Mormon, chose the Baptist preacher."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse.
Yeah, that must have been it. Religious bigotry. There's no chance that CONSERVATIVES chose to vote for the more conservative candidate over the RINO flip-flopper, blessed-by-the-GOP establishment candidate who was likely to take the party down in defeat, just like most OTHER "moderate" Republicans have done. (See "McCain, John") No, it MUST have been the religion thing.
.
I don't oppose Romney because he's a Mormon, I oppose him because he's a MorON - a man without a single conservative bone in his body who thinks we are supposed to get along with liberals and compromise with their ideas instead of opposing them and DEFEATING their ideas. And because of Romneycare which he will NEVER admit was a mistake.
.
Regards,
.
Joe
.
P.S.
.
"Baptist preacher" isn't something I particularly look for in a presidential resume. As a Catholic I've been on the receiving end of plenty of Baptist bigotry, too. But I don't vote for or against people based on their religion - or mine.
I'm not sure I agree with your analysis. The likely winner of Iowa (from someone from Iowa) right now is either Newt or Paul. Cain is falling rapidly here, and Romneys support is very very soft. I say Paul has a chance here because his support though not huge is very solid and his organization is currently best in the state, and I suspect if the weather is poor on caucus night his supports just might put him over the top in a ver divided primary. Newt is getting a second look, but has no real organization. I suspect a canidate with 25% support could carry Iowa. If Paul wins Iowa and Romney finishes lower than third (I have him at 4th or 5th in my personal opinion of where he will end up) then he could end up with a bounce that puts him at first or second in New Hampshire. Where he would go from there is unclear though. I think If Newt pulls off the win in Iowa he bounces to at least a 2nd place finish in New Hampshire, and wins SC as well on his way to the nomination.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse