It’s shaping up to be an exciting election season and round one should be particularly fascinating. The Iowa caucus reflects the preferences of the most committed of Republican voters, those willing to brave typically inclement weather and spend multiple hours in a living room or gymnasium debating who will be Iowa’s Top Nominee.
Latest Iowa polls are here: http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contest/geo/IA
Let’s go down the list.
Second place for Mitt Romney, would put to rest claims of inevitability for the Massachusetts mudslinger. A complete and utter humiliation, unless Ron Paul secures first place, lasting a minimum of three news cycles.
Second place for Newt Gingrich would be an impressive turnaround from last summer, when he had to explain hundred thousand dollar credit lines at Tiffany’s and his entire campaign staff left en masse. Will Callista be America’s next First Lady?
Second place for Ron Paul will bore everyone, except his supporters who don’t really count.
Second place for Herman Cain or even third place would be remarkable, following the suspension of his campaign. Remarkable but still irrelevant.
Second place for Rick Santorum would be a sign of the Apocalypse.
Second place for Michelle Bachmann can’t be discounted: she hails from neighboring Minnesota and has solid organization in Iowa.
Handicapping
I place my quatloos on Romney for the #2 spot, followed by Gingrich, followed by Ron Paul. This concerns me: how can Romney move forward after such a defeat?
Sheesh I forgot about Huntsman! It won’t happen: although Huntsman is a conservative tax cutter from the conservative state of Utah, he has stated that he believes in the scientific consensus on global warming and evolution. Ok, one would be quirky, but supporting science in 2 instances is downright dangerous, at least from the POV of the energized Republican voter. He will obtain less than 10 percent in Iowa and less than 25 percent in New Hampshire. Insufficient craziness in the pursuit of conservative policies is unforgivable. Currently he is polling just under 10% in the granite state: http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contest/2012-nh-pres-12-r
Romney hasn’t even campaigned in Iowa until the last week or so. He doesn’t care about Iowa, the campaign for him starts in New Hampshire. The Iowa caucuses for the Republican Party are a referendum for social conservatives and are barely relevant anymore for the national picture.
I expect Romney to come in second. That will do little to damage his chances overall. If he still wins NH he’s got the Republican nomination in the bag. Losing in Iowa actually helps him in the general as it is more well known the Iowa caucus always picks the most extreme right wing candidate, not having to wear that badge helps him pull the votes from Obama he’ll need to win.
Mike Huckabee won 2008. As you can see it didn’t rocket him anywhere except onto FOX News.
Mitt Romney came in second last time, it certainly didn’t cause a ‘complete and utter humiliation’ last time. Why would it be different this time around?
You sir, have absolutely no future in TV news reporting.
Actually though, the Romney campaign cares a little about Iowa. The problem with coming in second is that somebody else comes in first. But they do want to put a lot of effort into showing very little effort in Iowa. The caucus system is so squirrelly relative to a normal primary that going all out there makes little sense.
What? I thought that was what they were auditioning for. Oh you mean the Presidency. That’s just a conciliation prize.
Isn’t this thread rather putting the cart before the horse? Surely, it all depends on who wins 1st place (and, to a lesser extent, what all the margins are). I mean, if Romney fails to get second place by virtue of getting fifth place, that’s probably bad news for him. If he fails to get second by virtue of getting first instead, though, that’s obviously great news for him.
Typically media coverage emphasizes the second place finisher in Iowa, possibly because it is more “surprising”. The OP reflects the inanity of existing horserace journalism.
Romney is likely to look passe if he comes in first, because attention will then focus on #2. Romney will look bad if he comes in #2, because he was once the frontrunner. Ditto for #3. He can’t really win Iowa, but he can lose more convincingly. But the Iowa caucus is a highly noisy indicator of the eventual nominee anyway – most commentary is profoundly unserious.
And we should be discussing policy anyway, as opposed to applause lines.
Largely because the moderates are so afraid that they’re rallying to Romney. Although he might the next Great Right Hope if Gingrich crashes and burns.
The number of GOP moderates is vanishingly small. Combine Romney and Huntsman and you get about 25%. Plus if your hypothesis were correct you would have at least expected Huntsman to have his day in the polling data. But nationally he never broke 5% IIRC. Today’s Republican votes with his gut, and his gut treats science-friendly candidates with suspicion. It was not always this way: in 1980 John Anderson seeked the Republican nomination on the basis of his advocacy of a 50 cent gas tax. Now admittedly he only polled at 10% in New Hampshire, but George Bush won 23% in the granite state even as he denounced Reagan’s tax plan as “Voodoo Economics”. (Reagan received 50%). 1980 Republican Party presidential primaries - Wikipedia
Nate Silver runs some models on the Iowa caucus: A First Iowa Forecast: Race Is Still Wide Open - The New York Times
Gingrich now has a 50% chance of victory, but that’s an extremely soft number. Apparently a week is a very long time in the Iowa caucus (relative to other primaries or the national election.) Ron Paul is at 28%: the rest have less than a 10% chance. Though collectively I suppose notNewt/notRon has a 22% chance - not trivial. None of the preceding reflects subjective factors, which I would guess are important.
Intrade’s current picks for the #1 slot:
Intrade puts Gingrich’s odds at 46%, Ron Paul’s at 30%, Romney’s at 14%, Bachman at 5% and Rick Perry’s at 3%.
Intrade also has market for 2nd place finishing (curses! foiled by Poe’s Law again).
Intrade thinks Ron Paul has a 35% chance of placing 2nd, Romney has 30%, Gingrich has 25%, Bachman has 8%, and Rick Perry scores 3%.
Well he isn’t well known (even less than Santorum) and despite being more consistent and conservative than Romney ever was is portrayed as a “liberal”.
I disagree that second place for Romney would be a disaster. For a long time it wasn’t clear whether he would compete seriously in the state at all and no one considers it his stronghold. New Hampshire is his first crucial test. Second place there especially to Gingrich would be a disaster though probably not a fatal one.
Similarly second place for Gingrich in Iowa would be a disaster especially if he is behind Romney. He is the front-runner according to polls and if he can’t translate that into a win in a relatively conservative, small state, it will be difficult in bigger,more moderate states. He badly needs the momentum from Iowa to take to New Hampshire.
Qin: Huntsman has been in most of the debates. And in New Hampshire his polls are rising… but only to 10%. And that’s where he has focused his efforts. Admittedly there are other factors at play: Nate Silver points out that political parties often choose candidates from the far wing of their party one election after they lose power. Think Goldwater in 1964 and Reagan in 1980. My problem is that Republican moderates have so little voice today. To paraphrase Barney Frank, half of all Republican reps are crazy and the other half are afraid they will be primaried by a crazy.
Heh. I guess Santorum has name recognition.
Romney won’t have a problem if he comes in 2nd, though the media might pretend otherwise. But if he comes in fifth, things could get interesting. As of today, Gingrich, Ron Paul, and the Mittster are in a three way tie for Iowa. Romney didn’t go full out against Gingrich in tonight’s debate, indicating he isn’t too worried about the former Georgian representative. And Ron Paul is on a slow boat to nowhere.