« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Forget the polls: Iowa is still up for grabs

With 21 days to go before the Iowa caucuses, Newt has emerged as the clear front-runner but 55% of likely caucus-goers say that they could change their minds between now and January 3.  It is easy to construct a scenario in which you can throw a blanket over all six contenders with everyone getting to 14% – 15% and the winner emerging with 20% – 21%.  If that happens, order of finish will be critical for the future of each candidate’s campaign.  Here’s my assessment of where the candidates stand and their possibilities in Iowa:

Newt Gingrich–The  bad news is that Gingrich is far ahead in first place.  The reason that this is bad news is that a month ago, finishing third would have been a win for Newt.  Now, anything but a first place finish will be a loss.  Newt faces three challenges in Iowa.  First, he is just now getting an organization up and running.  Second, as the front runner, the other candidates will throw everything they can at him over the next three weeks.  Paul, Bachmann, Romney, and to some extent Perry will all challenge Newt’s record and particularly his conservative credentials.  More importantly, he can expect nasty, vicious personal attacks waged through anonymous dirt sheets and phone calls.  Third, Newt himself can be his own worst enemy.  In the face of a constant barrage of attacks, will the “bad Newt” suddenly reappear.  That’s certainly what everyone expects.  As a result, Gingrich may have trouble turning his 30% poll ratings into more than 15% of the actual caucus-goers.

Mitt Romney–After having all but ignored Iowa during the summer and fall, Romney is now scrambling to avoid disaster.  At the worst possible time, he had his worst debate performance last week.  He seems to be off-message and unsure of himself for the first time during the campaign.  He has abandoned his strategy of attacking Obama and staying above the fray.  He is now committing serious resources and attention to Iowa, including dispatching his wife, who hates to campaign, but it may be too little to late.  Romney could still win Iowa, but if he falls to a fourth or fifth place, which is equally probable, his New Hampshire firewall will crumble.

Ron Paul–Everyone agrees that Paul has the most loyal and enthusiastic supporters, and that he has a good chance of finish second or even first in Iowa.  That’s the conventional wisdom at least.  But Paul and his supporters are their own worst enemies.  On the stump, Paul is easily sidetracked into discussions of eliminating federal drug laws, hemp cultivation, and arcane expositions on the federal reserve.  His foreign policy views are clearly out of touch with the Republican mainstream.  Yes he might win Iowa, but it is also likely that his young followers are so hung over from the New Year’s celebration that they forget to go to the caucuses.  10% and a fifth or sixth place finish is also a reasonable expectation for Paul.

Rick Perry–Perry is committing the resources and time needed to pull off a surprise in Iowa.  Unlike his debate performances, he generally makes a good showing in person and Iowans will get plenty of opportunities to see him up close between now and the caucuses.  Perry will spend 14 days on a bus tour of 43 cities and towns making his case.  Perry is now honing his stump speech to an anti-Washington, anti-Obama, anti-Congress message that should resonate with Iowa voters.  His “I’m a Christian” ads are designed to appeal to the evangelical voters who comprise 60% of caucus-goers.  He needs some big time Iowa endorsements also, however.  Perry has to finish third or fourth (if you discount Ron Paul, which I do), in order to survive.  He know that.

Michele Bachmann–Like Perry, the Bachmann campaign cannot survive less than a third or fourth place finish in Iowa, but she is working hard to exceed expectations and could finish even higher.  Bachmann is pushing four points.  First, she is a native daughter.  Second, she is a “consistent conservative”.  Third, conservatives don’t have to settle for less than in this election.  Finally, recognizing the threat to her campaign and having latched on to a clever ploy in the last debate, she is openly attacking “Newt Romney”.  All this may work and recreate her straw poll magic.  She will spend the next 21 days visiting 91 of the 99 counties in Iowa.

Rick Santorum–Since declaring his candidacy, Santorum has virtually lived in Iowa, knowing that his meagre chance depends on exceeding expectations.  He has worked hard to lower the bar, claiming that a fourth or even fith place finish is a victory.  In fact, if he can finish in fourth place ahead of Perry and Bachmann, he will knock them out of the race and generate momentum for his campaign.  He is the only candidate who has already been to all 99 counties and claims a grassroots organization in every county that will surprise everyone on caucus night.  This has yet to be seen.  If I were going to bet $10,000, it would be that Santorum would finish in sixth place in Iowa, but I’m not a betting man.

 

COMMENTS

  • trevorb

    if the candidates get 4th place or better, they’ll be able to survive, at least for a while. The two at the bottom… they’re not going to go anywhere. We’ll find out in a couple weeks who the real contenders are going to be.

  • http://www.tooncesthecat.wordpress.com tooncesthecat

    to get it all together in the next 21 days and finish in the top three in Iowa. If Perry ends up in the bottom tier and drops out, I’m not sure who I will support. Thank goodness there is only one more debate before the voting starts, and hopefully he will make a strong showing.

    • red_oakster

      If he’s third, he’s beaten Mitt, Newt, or Paul. That’s something. Ideally he finishes ahead of Romney, allowing Perry to skip New Hampshire and win two out of three by finishing ahead of Romney in South Carolina. If he finishes fourth and then finishes fifth or worse in New Hampshire, he’ll the Austin Powers mojo.

      • Scope

        If Bachmann and Santorum don’t win, I can’t see them going on as neither has any money. If Huntsman doesn’t do well in Iowa or NH, then I can see him leaving the race. That leaves Romney, Gingrich, Paul and Perry. From what I’m reading Gingrich still hasn’t gotten up to speed with fundraising, and is still paying off debt from earlier in his campaign. He just a week ago set up an office in Iowa, and doesn’t have very much of an organization or ground game in Iowa, and I believe has even less in the other states. If Gingrich starts fading in the polls, which is still very possible, if he doesn’t win or come in second in Iowa, he is pretty much done. That then leaves Romney and Perry who both have the funds and the organizations in place. I ignore the existence of Paul, he will never be the nominee. Romney has been making some pretty big flubs, such as his bet. Perry has been the one to get under his skin now twice in the debate. Perry really does have a pathway to the nomination, and I will take the Texans word for it. He has been in the same spot before and pulled big and great wins. Fingers crossed for Perry.

  • sticktotheconstitution

    “Yes he might win Iowa, but it is also likely that his young followers are so hung over from the New Year

  • Xasteius

    no text.

    • JSobieski

      Everyone I talk to has a very “soft” connection to the candidate they currently support. I think we are in for a very bumpy ride.

      In other news, O’Donnell endorsed Romney.

      As a Perry supporter, I guess I don’t care that much. She said that she based her endorsement on the traits of executive experience (Perry has more) and a viable campaigh operation (Romney has a bigger operation and Perry is probably #2).

      I don’t think much of O’Donnell, so I guess I don’t care, but are there any Perry supporters out there who are ticked off about this?

      • westcoastpatriette

        I heard her endorsement and she sounded really naive. I didn’t pay that much attention to her in 2010 but I thought she was supposed to be a conservative. On Hannity tonight, she was talking about how she doesn’t understand why the Tea Party isn’t supporting Romney and she wanted us to know he would be fine.

        Maybe Romney offered to pay off her campaign debt if she would support him.

        • JSobieski

          If she went with her true feelings, it shows how much projection was going on re: her candidacy.

          if it was a calculation, it wasn’t too smart.

          I kind of wonder whether or not Romney really wanted the endorsement. I can’t imagine his 25% of the Republican party being O’Donnell supporters.

    • Scope

      Newt may be going up and up in the polls, but, his support, as well as the support of many others has been so very soft. The only one that seems to have solid, rock hard, and non-negotiable support has been Ron Paul, and his support is not going to win him the election.

  • center77

    and I hope I never come of harsh, I do not hate Newt, but he is not who people think he is, I agree with Erik that many people do not know his past, sure they know he has baggage, but they have no idea what it is, but a crash course is coming. I am thinkful for people like Beck who will not deny the truth just because the establishment and Candidates will attack him. He first said Perry would be dangerous to the establishment in Washington some day, then he got upset about his “Heartless” comment, but he later said he understood that Perry was under attack and was not trying to attack conservatives. BBut Perrys flaws pale against Newts and Romney’s, and Perry’s record alone would probably beat Obama, but with his plan and the fact he was a poor farmer, he can transend the politics of this year.

    I think it would be one powerful message we would send to the country if we nominate Perrym because we can say we are cleaning up the garbage in D.C., we can say we have picked a guy with a governing record over the flying rhetoric. Independents will feel that, because Obama promised them real change in Washington. Then we can tout Perrys long record as proof he is ready. We can show how he served in the military, which many will like. We will even have a great comeback story to go along with his whole political life full of comebacks. We can say he beat the Republican establishment on the way to taking on the D.C. establishment. We can show how he got a sorry welcome when he went to Washington and told the congress people who showed up that as president he would cut all their pay. Thats not what you do if you are looking for support.

    I know I say this a lot, but it is more for the people who may read this and have not come to grips woth why so many on this site love Perry so much. I do not see how Obama beats someone like Perry in a jobs election, and the country is mad at Washington, both parties. I hope you will take a minute and think about how that message will look once the whole party gets behind Perry if he was to win. I think we would win at least 45 states, but more likely more. And our next battle will be going after all that oppose the government reforms that Perry will be mandated by the people to get done, and make no mistake they will fight, but it is the right fight, and the time is now.

    • JSobieski

      I support Perry as well, but telling people you are trying to persuade that they are being fooled is not a pathway to success. I refer to it as the Obama technique (i.e. “You people just aren’t smart enough to understand my brilliance”).

      Quoting Newt talking about FDR’s political skills is hardly an indictment of Newt’s political compass. If you want to sink Newt, focus on his statements about cap and trade. Highlight some of his ideas which would have been better left unexpressed.

      The “Newt likes FDR” thing is silly. Obama talked favorably about Reagan in a similar way—presidents who transformed America.

      • center77

        that people think I may have bad methods, because I am helping get the information out. Newt is a complete fraud, and I think he has been part of the problem, not anythin gclose to the solution. NOw just because someone does some good things in their career does not mean I have to judge him by them only, in fact there were many other people involved in those things you mentioned, one of them was Bill Clinton. But CLinton also set the housiing crisis in motion, and Newt then after imploading the conservative movement that led us to Bush, and Newt went to work for one of the companies that helped tank our economy. SO I will always tell the truth even if it is not nice. If you watch the video, you will see that it was more than Newt just saying that he respected FDR, Or Wilson, and Teddy Roosevelt, all major progressive players. It is my duty as a conservative to get as many people to see this as I can, and if it does not help, then so be it, I am a principled person, I can live with doing the right thing.

        • JSobieski

          http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1948&dat=19820128&id=xVUtAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6dcFAAAAIBAJ&pg=580,5309182

        • JSobieski

          You need to provide facts and argument that are not so easily refuted or dismissed.

          The FDR video is weak. I would suggest focusing on Newt’s environmental statements or some of his technology-futurist comments.

          There is a lot of material out there, but a clumsy attack accomplishes nothing.

      • tomatin

        the Newt detractors are the delusional ones about Newt’s record in congress.

        From passing DOMA, cutting the deficit, ending the worst part of the welfare state and derugulating, Newts accomplishments are indisputable and consistent with small government and conservative values.

        So what are they gonna do pull up so irrelevant video.

        • center77

          but that does not change everything eklse he has done,said and plans to do. His personal baggage alone could be a great argument against him, but I am goin gor the policy, and this video is not my whole argument against Newt, it is a number of things, and I think they are all valid, his insider Freddie Mac situations make shim part of the problem, not the answer, and after Newt finds out that it is not as easy to trick people as one may think, we will see what happens.

          • JSobieski

            Instead of trying a shotgun approach where you raise a lot of half-backed arguments that people will either disprove or dismiss . .

            Instead of loading up on a lot of opinion, innuendo, and characterizations . .

            Find some actual policy-based quotes that are objectionable, provide links, and discuss them. Freddie Mac is good way to start. Talk about how Newt’s attack on Romney was using the language of the left.

            Be specific. Your comments are filled with lots of generalities like “trick people” (on what is he tricking people), “personal baggage” (focus on the most damning aspects), etc.

            If become a better advocate, you will have a shot at actually helping your cause. Throwing out assertions that are clearly false (i.e. FDR as “best” President ever) just delates you of any credibility.

            Remember, the goal is persuade people to your side—not make sloppy arguments that will just convince people that your conclusions are similarly sloppy.

          • center77

            at all, Newt is what he is, and I see a lot of people who are willin gto deny logic for the simple wish to see Obama get beat in a debate, but why would it matter when the gut we would replace him with is not much better. I am a Perry shill, no doubt, but I need no help knowing what Newt is. For all the reasons people want to down Romney, I agree with them, but those things apply to Newt as well, the idea that it is any different is a farce. Newt even has his own Bain issue, Romney and Newt both made their money in a legal way, and I would say with Romney many hav ebein gsaying he is some how worse, but I suspect that is not really the case, Newt directly got involved with a company that helped tank our economy. I think what that is much worse.

            Now for your telling me to find policy based things to hit Newt on, well you may not have read them, but I have been posting them for a long time, the video you jumpe don is just one in a series of many that I’ve put up. THis is not my first Newt argument, no, no, no, its like my 20th or more. I am one of those people who thinks Newt would be the end of this new found sucess the Republicsn Party has seen since Obama took power, Bush left us in a pretty bad place, but the Tea Party saved the day, and now they are thinkin gabout Pushing Newt onto the country and seein gif it works, I feel it wont, so my rants about Newt will be coming and coming.

            I will not lay out every aspect of that argument everytime because it is pointless, but I will keep adding things I find in case someone has not seen them, maybie after they keep coming the whole thing may sink in for some people, because they are out there. Plus, that video had 7 clips that proved Newt is not a conservative, that is very important.

          • center77

            but just to follow up, I know what it is to deduct and then lay out a valid argument, but the thing is, I just am not going to post everthing I find everytinme I find it, the people who are here probably see the comments, whether they pay attention, well who knows, but I am guessing that every little bit helps.

    • JSobieski

      “Reagan praised FDR in glowing terms during a sentimental luncheon in the White House. Reagan said historians ‘all agree that FDR was an American gian, a leader who shaped, inspired, and led our country through perilous times and inspired the people’”

      http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1948&dat=19820128&id=xVUtAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6dcFAAAAIBAJ&pg=580,5309182

      If you want to take down a Republican candidate, citing the praise of FDR is not the way to do it.

      • center77

        because this is not the one posted yesterday, it has about 7 clips of differnt things Newt has said about praising Progressives, at 139 alone proves what New treally feels. His baggage, this is all part of one big mess for the GOP

        • JSobieski

          In argument terms, your argument proves to much if praising FDR makes the praiser a progressive, then Reagan would be a proven progressive (something that is clearly not true)—ergo, your argument is based on faulty logic.

          Good conservatives can praise FDR.
          You show Newt praising FDR.

          Nothing you have shown means that Newt isn’t a good conservative.

          Its basic logic

          Conservatives believe A.
          Some conservatives say B.
          Newt said A.

          You are arguing based on the propositions above that Newt doesn’t believe A, but it is not logical.

          Praising FDR does not make one a progressive.

          • center77

            is why the video matters, not that he simply did it, it is that he did it with such zeal. I just so happen to believe that Beck is right, it matters. It alone is not 100% proof, but it is not alone, it comes on his supprt for things like mandates and big government policy. Yes he has done some conservative things, but if Obama had done somethings like balance the budget we would not call him consrvative now would we.

          • JSobieski

            nt

  • center77

  • http://www.tooncesthecat.wordpress.com tooncesthecat

    Romney is now either in first place at 23% according to Rasmussen or fourth place at 12% according to Insider Advantage. This demonstrates how fluid this race is in Iowa. One thing is for sure, the barrage against Gingrich has only just begun, and its already affecting his numbers. At this point, anyone can finish first or second and anyone can finish fifth or sixth.