South Carolina gave us a lot to chew over, and Florida will reveal even more. Over on the homepage, five thoughts on the primary we just witnessed and the one to come.
Note:
Three: The continuing irrelevance of Iowa. In the Hawkeye State, Rick Santorum pulled off the most unlikely of upsets, presented a feel-good underdog story in the first major contest of the 2012 cycle, and . . . he saw a relatively small impact on his numbers in New Hampshire. (They were raised from about 3 percent to 9 percent.) Perhaps that can be explained historically: Iowa and New Hampshire rarely agree, and Granite State Republicans are usually extremely reluctant to confirm Iowa’s choice. But in South Carolina, Santorum jumped from 3 percent to 20 percent . . . and then slid down to around 12 percent in the final polls, finishing with an acceptable — but uninspiring — 17 percent on Saturday night.
Santorum seems to be repeating the experience of Mike Huckabee, who also couldn’t translate an Iowa win into many significant victories in the subsequent states. This cycle has given critics of Iowa’s prominence a great deal of ammunition, but even if the state’s turnout had been higher and the count had been clear and no ballots had been lost, a definite pattern would remain: The rest of the country just isn’t all that enamored with the candidates Iowa likes best. Perhaps the state’s love of retail politicking and lavish personal attention from candidates is to blame, since candidates obviously can’t duplicate their 99-county tours in subsequent states . . .
Five: South Carolina presented the Republican-turnout surge we’ve been waiting for. At first glance, the stage seems set for a GOP fired up like never before: A president who many Republicans see as the breathing embodiment of liberalism sits in the Oval Office; an energetic grassroots movement to fight back spontaneously formed in the tea parties; the 2009 races in New Jersey and Virginia, the special election in Massachusetts, and the 2010 midterms all showed that Republicans can win (and win big) almost anywhere when they tap into that passion; the president’s record consists of enormously unpopular nationalized health care and a stimulus that didn’t make a dent in high unemployment. Throw in scandals such as those involving Solyndra and Fast and Furious, and Obama’s presidency represents the nightmare that every Republican would presumably be highly motivated to end.
The good news for Republicans is that in 2012 turnout has been modestly higher, but less than one might think in this seeming perfect storm for conservative outrage. In Iowa and New Hampshire, the modest increases over the 2008 records appeared to have been driven mostly by Ron Paul’s not-really-Republican voters.
But in South Carolina, that energized grassroots finally appeared at polling places in big numbers: “With 13 precincts still uncounted Sunday morning, 601,166 votes already were recorded, topping 2000’s record turnout of 537,101 and well ahead of 2008’s 445,499 voters. Earlier in the week, officials had projected a moderate turnout about equivalent to the 2008 primary.” Both Gingrich and Romney won more votes than John McCain did when he won the state in 2008.
The way delegates are allocated in GOP primary and caucus states were change to one similar to that by the democrats in 2008. Hence, a win in Iowa is no longer relevant. Ron Paul understands this and that's why he is staying in and collecting delgates so he can impact the agenda at the convention. That's how Obama beat Hillary. Newt and Santorum teams were not prepared for the delgate race and that's why they are not on VA ballot and a few other states.
If Newt is to pull this off, he better keep winning because he cannot compete in VA. Romney still has a big advantage in the delegates game.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIowa has never been about picking winners, but weeding out losers, and it does a pretty good job at that. Plus giving a lot of non Political Elite folks the chance to interact with the camdidates. The complementary nature of Iowa and New Hampshire combined make a very good intro to the Election Cycle
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually that isn't quite right. Iowa isn't important for who it picks, but for who it DOESN'T pick.
The caucus is a test of organizational strength. Iowans have to sift through eight or ten (or more) candidates to find the candidate they like the best. There is a lot of noise from candidates who are virtually the same in most respects.
Iowa winnows the field and does it quite well. South Carolina's role is an important one, but they have a much easier time selecting a Presidential candidate among four contenders than Iowa does picking from a field more than twice that size.
Individual contests in states all around the map do the best job in selecting candidates capable of winning a 50 state campaign. A guy like Santorum can raise his profile for being an effective candidate, even without tons of donations. If it weren't done this way, we could just dispense with the nominating contests and automatically select the best fundraisers--because that's what it would amount to.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWinning New Hampshire gets you what these days? Being beaten soundly in South Carolina. Losing a huge lead in ten days going into South Carolina.
Come on, trying to say that Santorum winning Iowa means Iowa isn't valid isn't supported here. This cycle has been about finding anyone, but Romney. Bachman, Perry, Cain, Santorum and now Gingrich.
Gingrich has been able to withstand the attacks by the media that the others were unable to address. The process is actually working. If you cannot cope with personal attacks by the media, then you cannot become president. It isn't even complex so far. Iowa isn't about whether or not it represents the rest of the country as much as it is about winnowing the field going into the remaining primaries...on the money side. Each state has and should continue to select the candidates that best represent their state's values and priorities. I would love to see all of the candidates make it all the way to the actual convention. It isn't going to happen. Money is a very real and limited resource for candidates.
If all the states held their primaries on the same day, then Romney would have won because he was the only one with the money to have people across the country out of the gate. No one could compete with the wealthy candidates.
Is there a better mix between finding the correct candidates for states and getting money for them than the current one in place which includes Iowa and the other early state primaries? Maybe, but this is the one we have and it continues to work quite well in my opinion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow soon we forget! The reason Santorum's Iowa victory didn't lead to more is that, for a week or two, the storyline was that *Romney* won it. Even if only by a pathetic 8 votes, the storyline was that Romney had managed to do what he hadn't done in 2008 -- never mind that he blew wads of money on the place.
Even conservative media tend to portray Santorum as yet another knuckle-dragging, election-losing social conservative (Romney's losses? failure to run again? cough cough), so the nods in his direction were more like damning by faint praise. Even so, the storyline by then was Newt's promise to make Romney pay for his negative campaign in Iowa. Hence, the attention in NH and SC on Newt v. Romney, rather than Santorum v. Romney.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse