Wednesday, January 04, 2012

8 Is Enough

So Mitt Romney wins the Iowa caucus straw poll by 8 votes over Rick Santorum, with Ron Paul in third. And thus is the intellectual split in the Republican Party neatly defined.

Even amateur pundits are called on to explain What It All Means. So let's try:

  • What happens to the top three is less important than what happened to the bottom feeders. Michele Bachmann is making brave noises about South Carolina, but there's no path for her and hasn't been one since the Gardasil incident back in the fall. She's never lost an election before, but every politician loses one eventually. Now she has to decide whether to go home and try to win reelection to Congress, or if she should pursue another agenda. Don't be surprised if she pursues another agenda, since the 6th CD she returns to might be very different from the one she's won in the past. There's even a chance she might find herself having to run against Betty McCollum, who has a 99-year lease on the St. Paul electorate, depending on how redistricting shakes out.
  • Rick Perry might be done after finishing fifth. Had he done better in Iowa, he might have had a chance in the upcoming events in the South, but at this point it's difficult to see how he rises in the field. Some of the reports I've seen this morning suggest he is going to drop out. He might as well.
  • Newt Gingrich finished a distant fourth, well behind the front runners. He's got a chance to regain some ground in New Hampshire, mostly because Romney will have to fight on multiple fronts, and he could win if things break right. It's difficult to see where Gingrich would go from there, though. He's relied on the force of his personality to get back in the race, but as we've seen in his long career in politics, that personality is a double-edged sword, at best.
  • No matter what else happens, Ron Paul is in this thing to the end. I still believe he's in the race to further his agenda and doesn't really expect to win. It will be interesting to see how his campaign approaches the upcoming events. He will have to tread carefully, because in the end his best bet is to pave a path for his son Rand to pursue the office in a future cycle. Sometimes I think the biggest problem Paul has is the fervor of some of his supporters. A lot of Ron Paul fans are really irritating. While it's not fair to blame the man for his fans, I think the antics from some of Paul's supporters make it difficult for people who might otherwise be amenable to his message to listen. Memo to Paul fans: insulting the electorate isn't a winning strategy, even if you think they deserve to be insulted.
  • Santorum almost pulled off the miracle in Iowa, but it's frankly difficult to see where he goes from here. He was able to get the support of evangelical voters in Iowa, but the evangelicals in the South are a different matter. Santorum is Catholic and there are a lot of people in the South (and elsewhere) who won't pull the lever for a Catholic, especially among the evangelical population. We might as well be up front about that. I also don't see how Santorum will be able to sustain the momentum, given his limited resources. He may earn enough delegates to have a voice in the convention, but it's difficult to see him getting past Romney. And to be honest, the more you see of Santorum, the less you like him. While the shots I've seen about the way he handled the death of his infant child were mean and frankly beyond the pale, there's something strange about his overall manner. While you have to be a little strange to even consider running for president, you can't be too strange. I don't think Santorum will wear well.
  • Romney did very well in Iowa, all things considered. I would expect him to win New Hampshire, although Jon "Iowans pick corn, New Hampshire picks presidents" Huntsman is there, lying in wait. I don't see Huntsman beating Romney, but he could take enough votes away from Romney to give Gingrich an opportunity. Still, for all his faults, Romney has to like where he is right now.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

The only think I will repeat as analysis is Gingrich's statement that "75% of Iowans voted against Mitt Romney.' For the presumptive nominee, that's a pretty poor showing. So long as there is even one other choice, Romney can't win, IMHO.

J. Ewing

Anonymous said...

Mark,
I gotta agree with J. If that outcome is something to be happy about, Romney has more problems than even I thought. I agree with much of your analysis regarding Santorum. His two biggest issues right now, notwithstanding his personality...which is a little rum, are lack of funds and not having even filed in Virginia. But Willard just spent 4 Million dollars of his own money in Iowa and "interst groups" spent 1 to 2 Million more attacking his running mates, and the end result is a statistical tie and less actual votes than 4 years ago. Ouch! And the Iowa GOP turnout was lackluster at best: Less than half of the amount who turned out for Round 1 of Obama vs Hillary 4 years ago. Not exactly what I would call voter enthusiasm.

Lastly, your point about Catholics in the South would be true in most years, and might be again this year. But I have to wonder if this holds true when the choice is between a Catholic and a Mormon.

We will know soon enough. Just gotta sit back and watch the Greatest Show on Earth.

Regards,
Rich

Mr. D said...

But I have to wonder if this holds true when the choice is between a Catholic and a Mormon.

Just a guess -- the choice might be None of the Above. And that helps Romney in the end.

Anonymous said...

BTW, I still think Romney is gonna win this thing going away. But I can envision several scenarios where the process could take a lot longer than he had thought. And I doubt he will have this sewed up coming out of SC. Especially if Santorum has a decent showing in NH.

Rich

W.B. Picklesworth said...

I was all for the non-Romneys. Now, for some strange reason, I've made my peace with him. It happened the week before bumping into him at the ice cream parlor. Coincidence?

The reason, I think, is that I am am beginning to recognize that we don't need a political savior. We need a change of heart. As it stands right now, there is still a large group of Americans who are fundamentally okay with living better now at the expense of tomorrow. That's a moral problem. Before that changes, it will be next to impossible to make the changes we need.

My hope is that events will continue to present us with an inescapable reality, forcing change. At that point, in the midst of pain and hardship, I hope that we will learn that it just wasn't worth it. Spending money we don't have to help people ends up hurting us all.

So why Romney? Because I don't want a savior; I want someone who is competent. That's not nothing.

Anonymous said...

Pickelsworth,
someone like Dubya, who I believe you voted for twice. Right?

Rich

Anonymous said...

I take Dubya in a heartbeat over the Socialist in charge who is currently residing in the white house on Pennsylvania Avenue. Picklesworth's assessment of those who prefer to live better now at the expense of tomorrow is spot on. Is anyone seriously counting on, or expecting our next generation to clean up and pay for the mess we are creating? Is thinking that they should even moral?