As a pundit, I should not admit this, but it is much more interesting when
actual voters express themselves in an election, and particularly, in a
presidential election. Not only is it more interesting, it is much more fun.
We pundits are really a dour lot who tire ourselves out by wagging our
fingers at the candidates and everyone in sight (that is, when we are not
simply holding up our fingers in the air trying to determine political wind
direction and velocity).
Now, of course, comes the heavy lifting, i.e., interpreting what the voters
mean by their votes (as if we can’t take their selections at face value).
It is, to be fair, worth trying to translate a result in the Iowa caucus, where
there are multiple candidates who will get a noticeable percentage of caucus
votes, and the winner will likely receive only about a quarter of the total.
The sober news is that despite their huge egos which propelled them into the
race in the first place, several candidates will call it quits after Iowa, or soon
thereafter, not only because of a poor showing, but equally or more
importantly, because they are out of cash (and unlikely to receive much
more).
Cash is not so important in the long run-up to Iowa and New Hampshire,
especially after the 2012 cycle innovation of numerous pre-primary/caucus
debates, most of them telecast nationally. The biggest winner of that
phenomenon in 2011, Newt Gingrich, will now see if it pays off when
votes are cast. In 2004, Howard Dean was the sensation of the internet
phenomenon of that cycle, but fell short when the votes Iowa came in. On
the other hand, Barack Obama got attention in the grass roots cycle in
2008, won Iowa, and took it to the White House.
But cash is very important as contending candidates go from primary state
to primary state, states which offer little time or opportunity for “retail”
campaigning.
Several pundits, myself included, have offered up the possibility that the
2012 Republican nomination contest might go on longer than expected,
even (horrors!) possibly all the way to Tampa and the GOP convention.
It’s still possible, but the (brief?) Ron Paul bubble has sobered up the
conservatives who want, most of all, to replace Mr. Obama with one of
their own, and a coalescing around the two leading candidates, Mr. Romney
and Mr. Gingrich, seems to be taking place. If I might guess, Mr. Romney
has the advantage in this process, although Newt-as-Lazarus cannot be
be finally dismissed until (if you will pardon the adaption) the elephant lady
sings.
If Mr. Romney does win the Iowa caucus by whatever margin, he will win
New Hampshire the next week by a much bigger margin, and then head into
South Carolina with a full army. General Gingrich will then have to re-stage
"crossing the Delaware" to a state that does not resemble colonial New Jersey,
and win there so to fight credibly soon after in Florida (which resembles no
state in American history) with its large sub-groups of the elderly, several
generations of Cuban-American refugees, recent South and Central American
emigres, Jewish retirees from further north on the East Coast, American
blacks and Haitian-American settlers, Panhandle blue collar whites, Seminole
American Indians, and outposts of very affluent voters on both the west and
east coasts of the peninsula.
Neither a General Washington, Grant nor Marshall would be able to stop
one candidate’s tidal wave, should it develop.
Hurricanes form suddenly in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean or the Gulf
of Mexico before heading to the mainland on an unpredictable course.
The storm of the 2012 election is now forming in the midwestern state of
Iowa. Because the primary/caucus season has a known itinerary, we know this
storm’s course, but we don’t yet know its name.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2011 by Barry Casselman
All right reserved.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Saturday, December 24, 2011
One Year To Another
One of the most invisible parts of the life of any human being, no matter
where they live, no matter who they are, is the passage of one calendar
year to another. Of course, each religion and each culture have certain
markers called holidays which reflect the four seasons of life on earth, but
the awareness of years passing only seems to be a conscious matter of the
old as they become increasingly aware of their own bodies aging and the
approaching limits of their own lives.
We are now days from one more passage of the calendar year most observed
in the Western world, and in the United States of America, a nation until
recently unchallenged as the most powerful and productive on earth. It
remains so, but now there are inevitable challenges on the near horizon of
history coming, and there are new self-doubts, self-recriminations and
outright pessimism in its outlook into the always unpredictable future.
The former governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, recently penned an op ed in The
Wall Street Journal entitled Capitalism And The The Right To Rise,"; and it
caused an extraordinary amount of interest, even among those not counted
as fans of his, or devotees of his family, now perhaps the most distinguished
in the history of American public life (along with the Adams and the Taft
families). Jeb Bush himself, it has often recently been said, would have won
the 2012 Republican nomination for president (a contest now raging in full
force) had not it been for his surname and his DNA.
There was a reason why Mr. Bush's essay caused so much interest, in my
opinion. That reason was that he identified in a phrase, and in his
subsequent argument, what it is that sets the American republic and its
form of democratic capitalism from all other systems to date.
Recently, prominent American commentators have indulged in a feckless
self-revilement of that distinctly American public process, and an open
praise of other processes, including parliamentary systems and even,
the peculiar totalitarian pseudo-capitalism of the Chinese Peoples
Republic. The U.S. republic, they say, is too corrupt, too messy, too
non-egalitarian, and ultimately too weak, to survive much past the
present time. Centralized, highly bureaucratic regimes, they predict, will
soon overshadow our own "unfashionable" way of life.
Radicals and some liberals have already embraced these criticisms, and
it is suggested that the president of the United States is among them.
Isolationists and those on the far right try to pick and choose their
favorite principles while opposing or ignoring others that are vital to
American success and survival.
The U.S. political center and most conservatives, those who still strongly
support "the American way," have been shaken not just by this criticism,
but by events in very recent years here and abroad. Financial "inequality,"
"racism," "political incorrectness," and lack of "diversity" are the rubrics
of much of this criticism, and the historic assertiveness of the contribution
and creativity of the United States has been replaced with defensiveness,
apologies and passivity.
Even the contemporary contest for the Republican nomination for
president in 2012, for the right to oppose Barack Obama, has been
lacking (much of the time) in effective re-assertions of the basic
American principles. On a few occasions, Jon Huntsman, Michele
Bachmann, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Tim Pawlenty and, yes,
Herman Cain have come forward in admirable fashion, but none of
them is going to be president. Much more consistently, a very
flawed candidate, Newt Gingrich, an eloquent and thoughtful
historian, has defended and elucidated these principles, and
through the pre-primary/caucus debates articulated them to make
a remarkable comeback. But now he inevitably has run into a
withering series of attacks on his personal life and his long previous
political record that is overshadowing his campaign.
The likely GOP nominee is Mitt Romney, but he has so far failed to "close
the deal" with Republican voters. In many ways, he is the personification
of Jeb Bush's "right to rise," but he has not yet successfully communicated
this to his party, and GOP voters so far are hesitating before handing him
the political prize he seeks.
I have only met Jeb Bush once, and heard him speak in person later on that
occasion. His record as governor of Florida was as good as any governor of
either party anywhere in recent years, and he is obviously a thoughtful man,
perhaps a "deeper" figure than his grandfather, father and brother. The
political calendar, and circumstances, however, have not been advantageous
to any personal ambitions he may hold.
It would serve those in the GOP contest now entering its climactic stage,
nontheless, to take heed of what he wrote, and the meaning of what he said.
Only when the candidates of his party, or any other party, re-assert the
American basic principle Jeb Bush has expressed, and how to restore it,
will this nation and its society be able to take a rightful place in the world
that is coming in the unknown calendar years in front of us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2011 by Barry Casselman
All rights reserved.
where they live, no matter who they are, is the passage of one calendar
year to another. Of course, each religion and each culture have certain
markers called holidays which reflect the four seasons of life on earth, but
the awareness of years passing only seems to be a conscious matter of the
old as they become increasingly aware of their own bodies aging and the
approaching limits of their own lives.
We are now days from one more passage of the calendar year most observed
in the Western world, and in the United States of America, a nation until
recently unchallenged as the most powerful and productive on earth. It
remains so, but now there are inevitable challenges on the near horizon of
history coming, and there are new self-doubts, self-recriminations and
outright pessimism in its outlook into the always unpredictable future.
The former governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, recently penned an op ed in The
Wall Street Journal entitled Capitalism And The The Right To Rise,"; and it
caused an extraordinary amount of interest, even among those not counted
as fans of his, or devotees of his family, now perhaps the most distinguished
in the history of American public life (along with the Adams and the Taft
families). Jeb Bush himself, it has often recently been said, would have won
the 2012 Republican nomination for president (a contest now raging in full
force) had not it been for his surname and his DNA.
There was a reason why Mr. Bush's essay caused so much interest, in my
opinion. That reason was that he identified in a phrase, and in his
subsequent argument, what it is that sets the American republic and its
form of democratic capitalism from all other systems to date.
Recently, prominent American commentators have indulged in a feckless
self-revilement of that distinctly American public process, and an open
praise of other processes, including parliamentary systems and even,
the peculiar totalitarian pseudo-capitalism of the Chinese Peoples
Republic. The U.S. republic, they say, is too corrupt, too messy, too
non-egalitarian, and ultimately too weak, to survive much past the
present time. Centralized, highly bureaucratic regimes, they predict, will
soon overshadow our own "unfashionable" way of life.
Radicals and some liberals have already embraced these criticisms, and
it is suggested that the president of the United States is among them.
Isolationists and those on the far right try to pick and choose their
favorite principles while opposing or ignoring others that are vital to
American success and survival.
The U.S. political center and most conservatives, those who still strongly
support "the American way," have been shaken not just by this criticism,
but by events in very recent years here and abroad. Financial "inequality,"
"racism," "political incorrectness," and lack of "diversity" are the rubrics
of much of this criticism, and the historic assertiveness of the contribution
and creativity of the United States has been replaced with defensiveness,
apologies and passivity.
Even the contemporary contest for the Republican nomination for
president in 2012, for the right to oppose Barack Obama, has been
lacking (much of the time) in effective re-assertions of the basic
American principles. On a few occasions, Jon Huntsman, Michele
Bachmann, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Tim Pawlenty and, yes,
Herman Cain have come forward in admirable fashion, but none of
them is going to be president. Much more consistently, a very
flawed candidate, Newt Gingrich, an eloquent and thoughtful
historian, has defended and elucidated these principles, and
through the pre-primary/caucus debates articulated them to make
a remarkable comeback. But now he inevitably has run into a
withering series of attacks on his personal life and his long previous
political record that is overshadowing his campaign.
The likely GOP nominee is Mitt Romney, but he has so far failed to "close
the deal" with Republican voters. In many ways, he is the personification
of Jeb Bush's "right to rise," but he has not yet successfully communicated
this to his party, and GOP voters so far are hesitating before handing him
the political prize he seeks.
I have only met Jeb Bush once, and heard him speak in person later on that
occasion. His record as governor of Florida was as good as any governor of
either party anywhere in recent years, and he is obviously a thoughtful man,
perhaps a "deeper" figure than his grandfather, father and brother. The
political calendar, and circumstances, however, have not been advantageous
to any personal ambitions he may hold.
It would serve those in the GOP contest now entering its climactic stage,
nontheless, to take heed of what he wrote, and the meaning of what he said.
Only when the candidates of his party, or any other party, re-assert the
American basic principle Jeb Bush has expressed, and how to restore it,
will this nation and its society be able to take a rightful place in the world
that is coming in the unknown calendar years in front of us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2011 by Barry Casselman
All rights reserved.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Has Ron Paul Peaked Already In Iowa?
Ron Paul, the Libertarian congressman from Texas may have peaked
almost two weeks before the Iowa caucus. If he does not win there, than
who can and will win?
No one knows with any certainty, but many Republican caucus voters
seem only half-heartedly behind their favorite candidate. The campaigns
themselves are playing an elaborate game of creating low expectations
for their results in the voting. So many political poll bubbles have come
and gone that the presumption of the final order is back almost to the
beginning when Mitt Romney was the sole frontrunner nationally and
Mr. Paul the most residual challenger in Iowa.
Iowa Republicans are, for the most part, very conservative, and include
many rural, evangelical and other social conservative voters. The party
establishment, however, is more moderate, and is led by by popular
multi-termed Governor Terry Branstad. After a considerable hiatus
during which he served as a college president, Branstad returned in the
GOP landslide of 2010 to the state capitol.
Pockets of very liberal voters, especially in Iowa City (the home of the
University of Iowa), Quad Cities and Des Moines with its large number
of labor union employees, exist throughout the state. Many Iowa farmers
are populists and progressive, a tradition that exists all over the prairie
states of North and South Dakota, Montana, Minnesota and Iowa.
In fact, a number of other farm voters, as well as Iowa suburban
voters, defy standard ideological and party categories, and fit into the
peculiar libertarian and isolationist tradition that has existed since the
last century in this region.
These voters make up much of the base of Ron Paul's support.
A new Iowa, however, includes highly-educated, white collar voters who
are younger, more affluent, and freer from political stereotypes than
their parents and grandparents. Less fundamentalist in their religious
views than older Iowa generations, but not as liberal as many students,
high school and college teachers, new ethnic voters recently moved into
the state, and activist union members, they compose a relatively new
voting bloc. These voters tend to support Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich
and might have supported Jon Huntsman had he competed in the state,
or would have supported Tim Pawlenty had he remained in the contest.
It is this voting bloc, along with undecided conservatives, who make up
the large number of Iowa Republicans who are not truly committed yet to
a particular candidate. I suspect that relatively few of them are drawn to
Ron Paul. If they stay home, or split among the other candidates, Mr Paul
will win Iowa. But if they coalesce around Romney, Gingrich, or Perry in
the closing days of the campaign, the results could be quite surprising.
This unanswered question about who will turn out on January 3 is the
source of this cycle's nagging mystery of what will happen in Iowa in 2012.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2012 by Barry Casselman
All rights reserved.
almost two weeks before the Iowa caucus. If he does not win there, than
who can and will win?
No one knows with any certainty, but many Republican caucus voters
seem only half-heartedly behind their favorite candidate. The campaigns
themselves are playing an elaborate game of creating low expectations
for their results in the voting. So many political poll bubbles have come
and gone that the presumption of the final order is back almost to the
beginning when Mitt Romney was the sole frontrunner nationally and
Mr. Paul the most residual challenger in Iowa.
Iowa Republicans are, for the most part, very conservative, and include
many rural, evangelical and other social conservative voters. The party
establishment, however, is more moderate, and is led by by popular
multi-termed Governor Terry Branstad. After a considerable hiatus
during which he served as a college president, Branstad returned in the
GOP landslide of 2010 to the state capitol.
Pockets of very liberal voters, especially in Iowa City (the home of the
University of Iowa), Quad Cities and Des Moines with its large number
of labor union employees, exist throughout the state. Many Iowa farmers
are populists and progressive, a tradition that exists all over the prairie
states of North and South Dakota, Montana, Minnesota and Iowa.
In fact, a number of other farm voters, as well as Iowa suburban
voters, defy standard ideological and party categories, and fit into the
peculiar libertarian and isolationist tradition that has existed since the
last century in this region.
These voters make up much of the base of Ron Paul's support.
A new Iowa, however, includes highly-educated, white collar voters who
are younger, more affluent, and freer from political stereotypes than
their parents and grandparents. Less fundamentalist in their religious
views than older Iowa generations, but not as liberal as many students,
high school and college teachers, new ethnic voters recently moved into
the state, and activist union members, they compose a relatively new
voting bloc. These voters tend to support Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich
and might have supported Jon Huntsman had he competed in the state,
or would have supported Tim Pawlenty had he remained in the contest.
It is this voting bloc, along with undecided conservatives, who make up
the large number of Iowa Republicans who are not truly committed yet to
a particular candidate. I suspect that relatively few of them are drawn to
Ron Paul. If they stay home, or split among the other candidates, Mr Paul
will win Iowa. But if they coalesce around Romney, Gingrich, or Perry in
the closing days of the campaign, the results could be quite surprising.
This unanswered question about who will turn out on January 3 is the
source of this cycle's nagging mystery of what will happen in Iowa in 2012.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2012 by Barry Casselman
All rights reserved.
Monday, December 19, 2011
At Last! Real Voters
After a zillion (any number beyond what is useful) opinion polls, and
pols (and pundits) with opinions, we are now going to have some results
regarding the 2012 election from the folks who count, that is, the voters.
The fluid caucus race in Iowa is turning out to be a memorable political
adventure, thanks to the unprecedented pre-caucus candidate debates.
After a series of poll "bubbles" which thrust Michele Bachmann, Rick
Perry, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich (in that order) forward, the final
bubble appears to be that of Ron Paul, a perennial presidential candidate
under various political party guises who appeals to a devoted claque in
the Hawkeye state. Iowa voters have so far resisted acclaiming the early
frontrunner Mitt Romney. Unfortunately, for the Republican party and
for Republicans in Iowa, a Paul caucus victory will render the state's
caucus irrelevant to the 2012 presidential contest outcome, and elevate
the importance of New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida (whose
primaries follow). But it's a free country, and Iowa GOP voters will
choose their own political caucus destiny.
Mr. Gingrich has challenged the conventional wisdom that grass roots
organization is what counts most in Iowa, and for about two weeks, he
seemed to be correct. Now his greatest hope is a "hail Mary" issue he
introduced on national TV, asserting that if he is elected president, he
may, if the issue is serious enough, ignore U.S. Supreme Court rulings
(citing no less than Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin
Delano Roosevelt as his precedents). It's an issue likely to be received
well in Iowa, and I would assume that the Gingrich campaign will flood
the airwaves with ads about this in the days before the caucus.
If this does not re-surge the Gingrich campaign, it would appear that
the race is down to Mr. Paul and Mr. Romney. There is little expectation
that Mr. Romney would win in Iowa, so if he does, and follows it with
an expected triumph in New Hampshire, it could be the beginning of
the "momentum" he needs to clinch the nomination.
Michele Bachmann is literally pouring it on in Iowa, and is expected to
do better than her poll numbers indicate she would. Mr. Perry has spent
a lot of ad money, and Mr. Santorum has worked the state relentlessly
for months, so any pundit who suggests he or she can predict the outcome
is probably living in a dreamland.
But why must we have a predicted winner? The important point is that
at last GOP voters are speaking their minds, and will continue to do so
in the GOP race until June, and then officially in Tampa.
After that, there will be an historic campaign with opposing candidates
more at odds, and with more differing visions, than any in memory, and
possibly, with more at stake in the lives of those who read this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2011 by Barry Casselman
All rights reserved.
pols (and pundits) with opinions, we are now going to have some results
regarding the 2012 election from the folks who count, that is, the voters.
The fluid caucus race in Iowa is turning out to be a memorable political
adventure, thanks to the unprecedented pre-caucus candidate debates.
After a series of poll "bubbles" which thrust Michele Bachmann, Rick
Perry, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich (in that order) forward, the final
bubble appears to be that of Ron Paul, a perennial presidential candidate
under various political party guises who appeals to a devoted claque in
the Hawkeye state. Iowa voters have so far resisted acclaiming the early
frontrunner Mitt Romney. Unfortunately, for the Republican party and
for Republicans in Iowa, a Paul caucus victory will render the state's
caucus irrelevant to the 2012 presidential contest outcome, and elevate
the importance of New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida (whose
primaries follow). But it's a free country, and Iowa GOP voters will
choose their own political caucus destiny.
Mr. Gingrich has challenged the conventional wisdom that grass roots
organization is what counts most in Iowa, and for about two weeks, he
seemed to be correct. Now his greatest hope is a "hail Mary" issue he
introduced on national TV, asserting that if he is elected president, he
may, if the issue is serious enough, ignore U.S. Supreme Court rulings
(citing no less than Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin
Delano Roosevelt as his precedents). It's an issue likely to be received
well in Iowa, and I would assume that the Gingrich campaign will flood
the airwaves with ads about this in the days before the caucus.
If this does not re-surge the Gingrich campaign, it would appear that
the race is down to Mr. Paul and Mr. Romney. There is little expectation
that Mr. Romney would win in Iowa, so if he does, and follows it with
an expected triumph in New Hampshire, it could be the beginning of
the "momentum" he needs to clinch the nomination.
Michele Bachmann is literally pouring it on in Iowa, and is expected to
do better than her poll numbers indicate she would. Mr. Perry has spent
a lot of ad money, and Mr. Santorum has worked the state relentlessly
for months, so any pundit who suggests he or she can predict the outcome
is probably living in a dreamland.
But why must we have a predicted winner? The important point is that
at last GOP voters are speaking their minds, and will continue to do so
in the GOP race until June, and then officially in Tampa.
After that, there will be an historic campaign with opposing candidates
more at odds, and with more differing visions, than any in memory, and
possibly, with more at stake in the lives of those who read this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2011 by Barry Casselman
All rights reserved.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
The Shape Of The 2012 Nomination Contest Begins To Form
DES MOINES - The latest Republican presidential debate, a contentious
one in the Iowa capital less than four weeks from the Iowa first-in-the-nation
caucus on January 3, took place as the long-forming contest began to take
some discernible shape across the nation.
As already reported, new GOP frontrunner Newt Gingrich, surging in virtually
every state poll, east and west, north and south, was attacked pointedly by
his rivals, as he has been attacked in the media, and by old friends and foes,
over the past two weeks. So far, he has handled himself well, and remained
apparently not seriously wounded. In fact, his surge continues in spite of the
attacks. He is also experiencing some luck (a not inconsequential factor in
almost every successful presidential campaign) in that the most noted miscue
in the debate was not his, but by the previous frontrunner Mitt Romney when
he casually bet Rick Perry $10,000 to prove an allegation the Texas governor
made about him. One more time, Mr. Gingrich seemed to be judged the debate
winner by the media. Only one more major debate with all the candidates
remains until January 3.
Behind the setting of the debate at Des Moines' Drake University campus,
both the Romney and Gingrich campaigns were furiously playing catch-up
in on-the-ground organization, an important factor for success in this
caucus state. Mr. Romney was well-organized in 2007-08 in Iowa when he
competed against and lost the caucus (to Mike Huckabee), and thus has had
an easier time restarting his campaign at the precinct level in 2011-12. His
is the only urban Des Moines headquarters, located on Ingersoll Avenue near
the city center. All the other candidate offices are located in the city's suburbs,
including Urbandale where Mr. Gingrich has just set up shop. Based on my
many presidential cycles covering Iowa, it would appear that both campaigns
will be near-fully operational by caucus night. In Mr. Romney's case, he has the
funds, and seasoned supporters in place. Mr. Gingrich is benefiting from his
intense surge here and seemingly everywhere else. The Romney campaign
seems to have the advantage on paper, but it is difficult to measure the impact
of Mr. Gingrich's surge, especially if he can maintain it until January 3.
Nor should the well-organized campaigns of Michele Bachmann and Ron
Paul be ignored. Rick Perry has a serious effort here, as well, but he has seemed
to have lost much ground since his "bubble" appeared to burst during the
debates following his late entry into the race. Rick Santorum, as perhaps the
most conservative candidate (along with Mrs. Bachmann) in the race, also has
a notable following here, and may well do better than the expectation created
by his poll numbers. Mrs. Bachmann seems likely to do better than her poll
numbers, as she pulls out all political stops to survive past Iowa.
Jon Huntsman has not competed here, and did not appear in Saturday's
debate. He is putting everything he has into New Hampshire where he admits
he has to finish a strong third (behind Romney and Gingrich, but clearly
ahead of Ron Paul). Herman Cain once enjoyed a surge of his own in Iowa,
but has suspended his campaign, and is no longer making campaign
appearances.
Iowa has a particular character that includes many evangelical voters, farmers,
and urban conservatives. There are major urban liberal areas, including Des
Moines, Iowa City (home of my graduate school alma mater, the University
of Iowa), as well as many farm communities in northwestern Iowa, but the
Republican voter in the Hawkeye state has become increasingly conservative
since the 1970's when its presidential caucus was inaugurated.
A libertarian populist (and isolationist) faction exists here, and this has fueled
the Ron Paul campaign which did well in the past two straw polls and in the
2008 caucus itself. Mr. Paul could win here on January 3, but the voter
configuration in Iowa that makes that possible exists almost nowhere
else, and a Paul victory on January 3 would probably make Iowa much less
relevant to the GOP presidential contest than Republican leaders would
prefer. Media attention would then focus on who came in second, and who
was ahead of whom.
The Iowa race is now engaged in full. TV and radio ads will flood the airwaves.
Allegations will fly back and forth. In the unseeded corn fields of this
midwestern state, all is quiet, preparing for the cold winter before the next
planting season. In the political fields in Iowa, however, activity is increasing
and the heat is rising.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2011 by Barry Casselman
All rights reserved.
one in the Iowa capital less than four weeks from the Iowa first-in-the-nation
caucus on January 3, took place as the long-forming contest began to take
some discernible shape across the nation.
As already reported, new GOP frontrunner Newt Gingrich, surging in virtually
every state poll, east and west, north and south, was attacked pointedly by
his rivals, as he has been attacked in the media, and by old friends and foes,
over the past two weeks. So far, he has handled himself well, and remained
apparently not seriously wounded. In fact, his surge continues in spite of the
attacks. He is also experiencing some luck (a not inconsequential factor in
almost every successful presidential campaign) in that the most noted miscue
in the debate was not his, but by the previous frontrunner Mitt Romney when
he casually bet Rick Perry $10,000 to prove an allegation the Texas governor
made about him. One more time, Mr. Gingrich seemed to be judged the debate
winner by the media. Only one more major debate with all the candidates
remains until January 3.
Behind the setting of the debate at Des Moines' Drake University campus,
both the Romney and Gingrich campaigns were furiously playing catch-up
in on-the-ground organization, an important factor for success in this
caucus state. Mr. Romney was well-organized in 2007-08 in Iowa when he
competed against and lost the caucus (to Mike Huckabee), and thus has had
an easier time restarting his campaign at the precinct level in 2011-12. His
is the only urban Des Moines headquarters, located on Ingersoll Avenue near
the city center. All the other candidate offices are located in the city's suburbs,
including Urbandale where Mr. Gingrich has just set up shop. Based on my
many presidential cycles covering Iowa, it would appear that both campaigns
will be near-fully operational by caucus night. In Mr. Romney's case, he has the
funds, and seasoned supporters in place. Mr. Gingrich is benefiting from his
intense surge here and seemingly everywhere else. The Romney campaign
seems to have the advantage on paper, but it is difficult to measure the impact
of Mr. Gingrich's surge, especially if he can maintain it until January 3.
Nor should the well-organized campaigns of Michele Bachmann and Ron
Paul be ignored. Rick Perry has a serious effort here, as well, but he has seemed
to have lost much ground since his "bubble" appeared to burst during the
debates following his late entry into the race. Rick Santorum, as perhaps the
most conservative candidate (along with Mrs. Bachmann) in the race, also has
a notable following here, and may well do better than the expectation created
by his poll numbers. Mrs. Bachmann seems likely to do better than her poll
numbers, as she pulls out all political stops to survive past Iowa.
Jon Huntsman has not competed here, and did not appear in Saturday's
debate. He is putting everything he has into New Hampshire where he admits
he has to finish a strong third (behind Romney and Gingrich, but clearly
ahead of Ron Paul). Herman Cain once enjoyed a surge of his own in Iowa,
but has suspended his campaign, and is no longer making campaign
appearances.
Iowa has a particular character that includes many evangelical voters, farmers,
and urban conservatives. There are major urban liberal areas, including Des
Moines, Iowa City (home of my graduate school alma mater, the University
of Iowa), as well as many farm communities in northwestern Iowa, but the
Republican voter in the Hawkeye state has become increasingly conservative
since the 1970's when its presidential caucus was inaugurated.
A libertarian populist (and isolationist) faction exists here, and this has fueled
the Ron Paul campaign which did well in the past two straw polls and in the
2008 caucus itself. Mr. Paul could win here on January 3, but the voter
configuration in Iowa that makes that possible exists almost nowhere
else, and a Paul victory on January 3 would probably make Iowa much less
relevant to the GOP presidential contest than Republican leaders would
prefer. Media attention would then focus on who came in second, and who
was ahead of whom.
The Iowa race is now engaged in full. TV and radio ads will flood the airwaves.
Allegations will fly back and forth. In the unseeded corn fields of this
midwestern state, all is quiet, preparing for the cold winter before the next
planting season. In the political fields in Iowa, however, activity is increasing
and the heat is rising.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2011 by Barry Casselman
All rights reserved.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Some Notes As The Presidential Campaign And World Affairs Curiously Intensify
As we approach the next presidential debate and the next European
crisis, each of which seems curiously connected to each other, here are
some brief notes:
Even as the breathless, sensational "old" stories about Newt Gingrich
now pour out like an Alpine avalanche into the various news media,
the former speaker's poll numbers appear to be rising, not falling as
conventional wisdom might have predicted they would. Is it possible
that the public tolerance of private and matrimonial gossip masquerading
as substantial "news" has reached a natural limit? Is this a warning to
the Obama organization that their purported investment in a massive
negative campaign planned against the eventual Republican nominee
(whoever it might be) may not work out as planned? I have long
maintained that in Mr. Gingrich's case particularly, his much-ballyhooed
"baggage" might be mostly ignored by voters if they were worried and
fearful enough about the economy and the security of the nation, and if
they had lost any remaining confidence in the incumbent president. Is
that where we are? Is that why the Gingrich "bubble" seems to be not only
enduring, but growing?
The Corzine scandal is going to be huge. Does any rational human being
believe that a man who reportedly was worth $400 million, and then was
elected a US. senator, and after that, was elected governor of New Jersey,
doesn't know what happened to the enormous amount of money lost and
missing from the corporation he led as C.E.O.?
Those following the European economic crisis have perhaps noted a certain
pattern, that is, the crisis over the currency and debt reaches a critical
moment at which resolution seems imminent, only to be papered over for
a few months, then weeks, and now days until the next "absolutely critical"
moment? How many of these moments does the European Union and the
euro currency have left? Some British observers are lamenting their
apparent exclusion from the decision-making now led by Germany and
France because in a fortuitous moment the British decided not to adopt the
euro, but to keep their pound sterling. The British dilemma is, of course,
that the outcome of the continental problems profoundly affects their own
prospects, especially since the Obama administration has allowed the
"special relationship" between the U.S. and Great Britain to deteriorate
and wither. Isn't is curious that many British observers, including some who
are not Tories, are now openly pining for a "new" Margaret Thatcher, just as
a number of U.S. observers, including some who are not right wingers, are
pining for a "new" Ronald Reagan? I even know one endangered incumbent
who is pining for a "new" Teddy Roosevelt. San Juan Hill, anyone?
Like a skin blister, the situation in the Middle East is approaching some
dramatic release of historic pressure. Are we months away from it, weeks,
days or even hours?
Why do media commentators keep reviving stories of new candidates
entering the presidential election, and prognosticating that there will be one
or more serious third party candidates in the November, 2012 election?
Needless to say, anything is possible, and there are always numerous
minor candidates on any November presidential ballot, but is there really
a significant candidate outside the two major parties? Mayor Bloomberg?
Ralph Nader? Ron Paul? Alec Baldwin? Madonna? Derek Jeter?
Theoretically, some one or two could be "spoilers," (and with a relatively
tiny number of votes cast for him nationally, Mr. Nader did make the
difference in 2000; and Mr. Perot, with many more votes cast for
him, made a difference in 1992), but economic conditions are probably too
troubling for voters likely to dabble this cycle. The election will be a
referendum (if not a plebiscite) on President Obama.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2011 by Barry Casselman
All rights reserved.
crisis, each of which seems curiously connected to each other, here are
some brief notes:
Even as the breathless, sensational "old" stories about Newt Gingrich
now pour out like an Alpine avalanche into the various news media,
the former speaker's poll numbers appear to be rising, not falling as
conventional wisdom might have predicted they would. Is it possible
that the public tolerance of private and matrimonial gossip masquerading
as substantial "news" has reached a natural limit? Is this a warning to
the Obama organization that their purported investment in a massive
negative campaign planned against the eventual Republican nominee
(whoever it might be) may not work out as planned? I have long
maintained that in Mr. Gingrich's case particularly, his much-ballyhooed
"baggage" might be mostly ignored by voters if they were worried and
fearful enough about the economy and the security of the nation, and if
they had lost any remaining confidence in the incumbent president. Is
that where we are? Is that why the Gingrich "bubble" seems to be not only
enduring, but growing?
The Corzine scandal is going to be huge. Does any rational human being
believe that a man who reportedly was worth $400 million, and then was
elected a US. senator, and after that, was elected governor of New Jersey,
doesn't know what happened to the enormous amount of money lost and
missing from the corporation he led as C.E.O.?
Those following the European economic crisis have perhaps noted a certain
pattern, that is, the crisis over the currency and debt reaches a critical
moment at which resolution seems imminent, only to be papered over for
a few months, then weeks, and now days until the next "absolutely critical"
moment? How many of these moments does the European Union and the
euro currency have left? Some British observers are lamenting their
apparent exclusion from the decision-making now led by Germany and
France because in a fortuitous moment the British decided not to adopt the
euro, but to keep their pound sterling. The British dilemma is, of course,
that the outcome of the continental problems profoundly affects their own
prospects, especially since the Obama administration has allowed the
"special relationship" between the U.S. and Great Britain to deteriorate
and wither. Isn't is curious that many British observers, including some who
are not Tories, are now openly pining for a "new" Margaret Thatcher, just as
a number of U.S. observers, including some who are not right wingers, are
pining for a "new" Ronald Reagan? I even know one endangered incumbent
who is pining for a "new" Teddy Roosevelt. San Juan Hill, anyone?
Like a skin blister, the situation in the Middle East is approaching some
dramatic release of historic pressure. Are we months away from it, weeks,
days or even hours?
Why do media commentators keep reviving stories of new candidates
entering the presidential election, and prognosticating that there will be one
or more serious third party candidates in the November, 2012 election?
Needless to say, anything is possible, and there are always numerous
minor candidates on any November presidential ballot, but is there really
a significant candidate outside the two major parties? Mayor Bloomberg?
Ralph Nader? Ron Paul? Alec Baldwin? Madonna? Derek Jeter?
Theoretically, some one or two could be "spoilers," (and with a relatively
tiny number of votes cast for him nationally, Mr. Nader did make the
difference in 2000; and Mr. Perot, with many more votes cast for
him, made a difference in 1992), but economic conditions are probably too
troubling for voters likely to dabble this cycle. The election will be a
referendum (if not a plebiscite) on President Obama.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2011 by Barry Casselman
All rights reserved.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Iowa Getting Closer And Closer
With less than a month to go before the Iowa caucus, and after almost
a year of campaign preliminaries, the race for the Republican nomination
for president will now seem to move quickly. This appears to be the
psychological rule: As the moment of voting approaches, the velocity of
events and perceived time increases noticeably.
This has not been a cycle that has been kind to conventional wisdom. Now
the most persistent example of this kind of thinking, that is, that Mitt
Romney’s poll numbers have been constant and will lead to his victory,
will be tested. It is undeniable that the former Massachusetts governor
and persistent 2012 frontrunner’s poll numbers have fluctuated within a
relatively narrow range in lower double digits (15-25%) in most polls to this
date, but what will happen now that actual voting results are posted and
disseminated?
A lot may depend on the Iowa caucus results. Either a win for Romney or his
latest major challenger, Newt Gingrich, could set a quick resolution of the GOP
contest into motion, with unstoppable momentum building from Iowa, New
Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida. A third outcome, a not impossible
win in Iowa by Ron Paul, would make Iowa more or less irrelevant to the
final outcome, and lead only one week later to New Hampshire having even
more influence than usual, probably helping Mr. Romney more than his rivals
because of his current big lead in that state.
Mr. Gingrich has been riding a huge wave in recent days, but as any surfer will
tell you, the greater the wave, the greater the risk of falling. Mr. Gingrich needs
a win in Iowa, or at the least, he needs to finish ahead of Mr. Romney in Iowa.
Considering the newly-energized Romney Iowa campaign effort, and Mr.
Gingrich’s lack (until now) of a serious organization in that state, the explosion
upward of Mr. Gingrich’s poll numbers across the nation could begin to bust
if high expectations are not realized in the first state to actually vote in the
presidential race.
The facts on the ground are well-known. Mr. Romney is a familiar face in Iowa,
having competed there in 2008, winning the 2007 straw poll and coming in
second in the 2008 caucus voting to Mike Huckabee (the surprise winner).
Until recently he had not activated his Iowa organization, but he has the
contacts, staff and funds to raise this organization from dormancy. Ron Paul not
only competed heavily in 2008 in Iowa, he has developed a loyal and noticeable
statewide effort for 2012; His political base in Iowa, a caucus state, has more
potential impact than any of his efforts in a primary state where sheer
numbers prevail over intensity and loyalty. Mr. Paul’s poll numbers in Iowa
have continued to be strong, and if his campaign here is not overshadowed by
a strong (but late) Romney push, or the surge for Mr. Gingrich, he could
conceivably win the Iowa caucus. Considering Mr. Paul’s isolationist foreign
policy views, and his narrow libertarian preoccupations, it is difficult to imagine
where his campaign could go next for anything more than a third, fourth or
worse finish in subsequent primaries.
Mr. Gingrich’s name is well-known in Iowa, partly from his years as speaker of
the House in Congress, and from his frequent appearances in the state during
the past year. But his incipient organization here was placed on hold earlier in
the year when most of his campaign staff resigned. The secret to success in the
Iowa caucus has always been organization. That is the nature of any caucus state
where only the most interested voters turn out. Mr. Gingrich in recent weeks has
been beefing up his organizational efforts in New Hampshire and South Carolina,
both good longer-term strategies, but only now, with less than a month to go, is
he attempting to transform his surge in the polls in Iowa into election night
success. Complicating his efforts are the campaigns of Michele Bachmann,
Rick Perry and Rick Santorum, each of whom have created active organizations
in Iowa.
Conventional wisdom does not look kindly to Mr. Gingrich’s prospects, then, in
Iowa. On the other hand, he is now enjoying a surge not only in the polls, but in
his fundraising (which had been lagging all summer), he does have some key Iowa
endorsements, and he has consistently campaigned in Iowa over the past year.
The bottom line is that he needs to finish ahead of Mr. Romney in Iowa, do well
in New Hampshire, and begin winning primaries in South Carolina and Florida.
An alternative scenario to the it’s-all-over-after-Florida hypothesis, is that no
one candidate develops overwhelming momentum the first month, and a replay
of the 2008 Democratic nomination race calendar takes place, with the two
leading 2012 GOP candidates fighting it out all the way to the Tampa
convention next September, or to the end of the primaries in June. That is a
scenario little discussed so far, but it would be the consequence of Republican
voters not making a decision, as they usually do, in the first month or so of the
primary/caucus season.
We'll know which scenario will prevail soon enough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2011 by Barry Casselman
All rights reserved.
NEW OP ED
by Barry Casselman
With less than a month to go before the Iowa caucus, and after almost
a year of campaign preliminaries, the race for the Republican nomination
for president will now seem to move quickly. This appears to be the
psychological rule: As the moment of voting approaches, the velocity of
events and perceived time increases noticeably.
This has not been a cycle that has been kind to conventional wisdom. Now
the most persistent example of this kind of thinking, that is, that Mitt
Romney’s poll numbers have been constant, will be tested. It is undeniable
that the former Massachusetts governor and perennnial 2012 frontrunner’s
poll numbers have fluctuated within a relatively narrow range in lower double
digits (!5-25%) in most polls to this date, but what will happen now that
actual voting results are posted and disseminated?
A lot may depend on the Iowa caucu results.Either a win for Romney or his
ltest major challenger, Newt Gingirch, could set a quick resolution of the GOP
contest into motion, with unstoppable momentum building from Iowa, New
Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida. A third outcome, a not impossible
win in Iowa by Ron Paul, would make Iowa more or less irrelevant to the
final outcome, and lead only one week later to New Hampshire having even
more influence than usual, probably helping Mr. Romney more than his rivals
because of his current big lead in that state.
Mr. Gingrich has been riding a huge wave in recent days, but as any surfer will
tell you, the greater the wave, the greater the risk of falling. Mr. Gingrich needs
a wiin in Iowa, or at the least, he needs to finish ahead of Mr. Romney in Iowa.
Considering the newly-energized Romney campaign effort in Iowa, and Mr.
Gingrich’s lack until now of a serious organization in that state, the exploion
upward of Mr. Gingrich’s poll numbers across the nation coud begin to bust
if high expectations are not realized int he first state to actually vote in the
presidential race.
The facts on the ground are well-known. Mr. Romney is well-known in Iowa,
having competed there in 2008, winning the 2007 straw poll and coming in
secnd in the 2008 caucus vtoting to Mike Huckabee (the surprise winner).
Until now he has not activated his Iowa organizatin, but he has the contacts,
staff and funds to raise this organizatin from dormancy. Ron Paul not only
compted havily in 2008 in Iowa, he has developed a loyal and noticeable
statewide effort for 2012; His political base in Iowa, a caucus state, has more
potential impact than any of his efforts in a primary state where sheer
numbers prevail over intensity and loyalty. Mr. Paul’ poll numbers in Iowa
have continued to be strong, and if his campaign here is not overhadowed by
a strong (but late) Romney push, or the surge for Mr. Gingrich, he could
conceivaby win the Iowa caucus. Considering Mr. Paul’s isolaitionist foreign
policy views, and his narrow libertarian preoccupations, it is difficult to imagine
where his campaign could go next for anyting more than a third, fourth or worse
finish in subsequrent primaries.
Mr. Gingrich’s nme is well-known in Iowa, partly from his years as speaker of
the House in Congress, and from his frequent appearances in the state during
the past year. But his incipient organization here was placed on hold earlier in
the year when most of his campaing staff resigned. The secret to success in the
Iowa caucus has always been orgainzation. That is the nature of any caucus state
where only the most interested voters turn out. Mr. Gingrich in recent weeks has
been beefing up his organizational efforts in New Hampshire and South Carolina,
both good longer-term strategies, but only now, with less than a month to go, is
he attempting to transform his surge in the polls in Iowa into election night
success. Complicating his efforts are the campaigns of Michele Bachmann,
Rick Perry and Rick Santorum, each of whom have been making active campaigns
to do well in Iowa, and who are better organized to do so.
Conventional wisdom does not look kindly to Mr. Gingrich’s prospcts, then, in
Iowa. On the other hand, he is now enjoying a surge not only in the polls, but in
his fundraising (which had been lagging all summer), he does have some key Iowa
endorsements, and he has consistently campaigned in Iowa over the past year.
The borrim line is that he needs to finish ahead of Mr. Romney in Iowa, do well
in New Hampshire, and begin winning primareies in South Carolina and Florida.
An akternative scenario to the it’s-all-over-after-Florida hypothesis, is that no
one candidate develops overwhelming momentum the first month, and a replay
of the 2008 Democratic nomination race calendar takes place, with the two
leading 2012 GOP candidates fighting it out all the way to the Tampa
convention next September, or to the end of the primaries in June. That is a
scenario little discussed so far, but it would be the consequence of Republican
voters not making a decision, as it usually does, in the first month or so of the
primary/caucus season.
a year of campaign preliminaries, the race for the Republican nomination
for president will now seem to move quickly. This appears to be the
psychological rule: As the moment of voting approaches, the velocity of
events and perceived time increases noticeably.
This has not been a cycle that has been kind to conventional wisdom. Now
the most persistent example of this kind of thinking, that is, that Mitt
Romney’s poll numbers have been constant and will lead to his victory,
will be tested. It is undeniable that the former Massachusetts governor
and persistent 2012 frontrunner’s poll numbers have fluctuated within a
relatively narrow range in lower double digits (15-25%) in most polls to this
date, but what will happen now that actual voting results are posted and
disseminated?
A lot may depend on the Iowa caucus results. Either a win for Romney or his
latest major challenger, Newt Gingrich, could set a quick resolution of the GOP
contest into motion, with unstoppable momentum building from Iowa, New
Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida. A third outcome, a not impossible
win in Iowa by Ron Paul, would make Iowa more or less irrelevant to the
final outcome, and lead only one week later to New Hampshire having even
more influence than usual, probably helping Mr. Romney more than his rivals
because of his current big lead in that state.
Mr. Gingrich has been riding a huge wave in recent days, but as any surfer will
tell you, the greater the wave, the greater the risk of falling. Mr. Gingrich needs
a win in Iowa, or at the least, he needs to finish ahead of Mr. Romney in Iowa.
Considering the newly-energized Romney Iowa campaign effort, and Mr.
Gingrich’s lack (until now) of a serious organization in that state, the explosion
upward of Mr. Gingrich’s poll numbers across the nation could begin to bust
if high expectations are not realized in the first state to actually vote in the
presidential race.
The facts on the ground are well-known. Mr. Romney is a familiar face in Iowa,
having competed there in 2008, winning the 2007 straw poll and coming in
second in the 2008 caucus voting to Mike Huckabee (the surprise winner).
Until recently he had not activated his Iowa organization, but he has the
contacts, staff and funds to raise this organization from dormancy. Ron Paul not
only competed heavily in 2008 in Iowa, he has developed a loyal and noticeable
statewide effort for 2012; His political base in Iowa, a caucus state, has more
potential impact than any of his efforts in a primary state where sheer
numbers prevail over intensity and loyalty. Mr. Paul’s poll numbers in Iowa
have continued to be strong, and if his campaign here is not overshadowed by
a strong (but late) Romney push, or the surge for Mr. Gingrich, he could
conceivably win the Iowa caucus. Considering Mr. Paul’s isolationist foreign
policy views, and his narrow libertarian preoccupations, it is difficult to imagine
where his campaign could go next for anything more than a third, fourth or
worse finish in subsequent primaries.
Mr. Gingrich’s name is well-known in Iowa, partly from his years as speaker of
the House in Congress, and from his frequent appearances in the state during
the past year. But his incipient organization here was placed on hold earlier in
the year when most of his campaign staff resigned. The secret to success in the
Iowa caucus has always been organization. That is the nature of any caucus state
where only the most interested voters turn out. Mr. Gingrich in recent weeks has
been beefing up his organizational efforts in New Hampshire and South Carolina,
both good longer-term strategies, but only now, with less than a month to go, is
he attempting to transform his surge in the polls in Iowa into election night
success. Complicating his efforts are the campaigns of Michele Bachmann,
Rick Perry and Rick Santorum, each of whom have created active organizations
in Iowa.
Conventional wisdom does not look kindly to Mr. Gingrich’s prospects, then, in
Iowa. On the other hand, he is now enjoying a surge not only in the polls, but in
his fundraising (which had been lagging all summer), he does have some key Iowa
endorsements, and he has consistently campaigned in Iowa over the past year.
The bottom line is that he needs to finish ahead of Mr. Romney in Iowa, do well
in New Hampshire, and begin winning primaries in South Carolina and Florida.
An alternative scenario to the it’s-all-over-after-Florida hypothesis, is that no
one candidate develops overwhelming momentum the first month, and a replay
of the 2008 Democratic nomination race calendar takes place, with the two
leading 2012 GOP candidates fighting it out all the way to the Tampa
convention next September, or to the end of the primaries in June. That is a
scenario little discussed so far, but it would be the consequence of Republican
voters not making a decision, as they usually do, in the first month or so of the
primary/caucus season.
We'll know which scenario will prevail soon enough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2011 by Barry Casselman
All rights reserved.
NEW OP ED
by Barry Casselman
With less than a month to go before the Iowa caucus, and after almost
a year of campaign preliminaries, the race for the Republican nomination
for president will now seem to move quickly. This appears to be the
psychological rule: As the moment of voting approaches, the velocity of
events and perceived time increases noticeably.
This has not been a cycle that has been kind to conventional wisdom. Now
the most persistent example of this kind of thinking, that is, that Mitt
Romney’s poll numbers have been constant, will be tested. It is undeniable
that the former Massachusetts governor and perennnial 2012 frontrunner’s
poll numbers have fluctuated within a relatively narrow range in lower double
digits (!5-25%) in most polls to this date, but what will happen now that
actual voting results are posted and disseminated?
A lot may depend on the Iowa caucu results.Either a win for Romney or his
ltest major challenger, Newt Gingirch, could set a quick resolution of the GOP
contest into motion, with unstoppable momentum building from Iowa, New
Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida. A third outcome, a not impossible
win in Iowa by Ron Paul, would make Iowa more or less irrelevant to the
final outcome, and lead only one week later to New Hampshire having even
more influence than usual, probably helping Mr. Romney more than his rivals
because of his current big lead in that state.
Mr. Gingrich has been riding a huge wave in recent days, but as any surfer will
tell you, the greater the wave, the greater the risk of falling. Mr. Gingrich needs
a wiin in Iowa, or at the least, he needs to finish ahead of Mr. Romney in Iowa.
Considering the newly-energized Romney campaign effort in Iowa, and Mr.
Gingrich’s lack until now of a serious organization in that state, the exploion
upward of Mr. Gingrich’s poll numbers across the nation coud begin to bust
if high expectations are not realized int he first state to actually vote in the
presidential race.
The facts on the ground are well-known. Mr. Romney is well-known in Iowa,
having competed there in 2008, winning the 2007 straw poll and coming in
secnd in the 2008 caucus vtoting to Mike Huckabee (the surprise winner).
Until now he has not activated his Iowa organizatin, but he has the contacts,
staff and funds to raise this organizatin from dormancy. Ron Paul not only
compted havily in 2008 in Iowa, he has developed a loyal and noticeable
statewide effort for 2012; His political base in Iowa, a caucus state, has more
potential impact than any of his efforts in a primary state where sheer
numbers prevail over intensity and loyalty. Mr. Paul’ poll numbers in Iowa
have continued to be strong, and if his campaign here is not overhadowed by
a strong (but late) Romney push, or the surge for Mr. Gingrich, he could
conceivaby win the Iowa caucus. Considering Mr. Paul’s isolaitionist foreign
policy views, and his narrow libertarian preoccupations, it is difficult to imagine
where his campaign could go next for anyting more than a third, fourth or worse
finish in subsequrent primaries.
Mr. Gingrich’s nme is well-known in Iowa, partly from his years as speaker of
the House in Congress, and from his frequent appearances in the state during
the past year. But his incipient organization here was placed on hold earlier in
the year when most of his campaing staff resigned. The secret to success in the
Iowa caucus has always been orgainzation. That is the nature of any caucus state
where only the most interested voters turn out. Mr. Gingrich in recent weeks has
been beefing up his organizational efforts in New Hampshire and South Carolina,
both good longer-term strategies, but only now, with less than a month to go, is
he attempting to transform his surge in the polls in Iowa into election night
success. Complicating his efforts are the campaigns of Michele Bachmann,
Rick Perry and Rick Santorum, each of whom have been making active campaigns
to do well in Iowa, and who are better organized to do so.
Conventional wisdom does not look kindly to Mr. Gingrich’s prospcts, then, in
Iowa. On the other hand, he is now enjoying a surge not only in the polls, but in
his fundraising (which had been lagging all summer), he does have some key Iowa
endorsements, and he has consistently campaigned in Iowa over the past year.
The borrim line is that he needs to finish ahead of Mr. Romney in Iowa, do well
in New Hampshire, and begin winning primareies in South Carolina and Florida.
An akternative scenario to the it’s-all-over-after-Florida hypothesis, is that no
one candidate develops overwhelming momentum the first month, and a replay
of the 2008 Democratic nomination race calendar takes place, with the two
leading 2012 GOP candidates fighting it out all the way to the Tampa
convention next September, or to the end of the primaries in June. That is a
scenario little discussed so far, but it would be the consequence of Republican
voters not making a decision, as it usually does, in the first month or so of the
primary/caucus season.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)