POLITICS JANUARY 4, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
As of this writing, Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney are very nearly tied for first place in the Iowa caucuses, and Ron Paul is close enough to make it a functional three-way tie. But no matter who eventually “wins,” Mitt Romney has already won in terms of Iowa’s impact on the overall nominating process.
That’s the case no matter what tomorrow’s spin on the Caucus results suggests, for the simple reason that Paul cannot win the nomination, and Santorum is a very long shot. The candidate with the resources and positioning to challenge Romney in later states, Rick Perry, is finishing a fatal fifth in Iowa, behind Newt Gingrich, whose reservoir of support in the South will likely dissipate once the negative attack ads on his conservative credentials that destroyed his lead in Iowa spread elsewhere.
In some respects, a Paul or Santorum “victory” in Iowa would almost be better for Romney than an outright Mitt win. Paul’s strong performance will generate endless, fatuous hype about the strength of his revolutionary ground troops, and his alleged appeal to independents, Democrats, “moderates” and young people. Entrance polls from Iowa showing his strength in these demographic categories will gain attention. But that only creates an easy illusion for Romney to shatter in states with less unusual primary electorates. Combined with the nuclear attack Paul will soon face over his foreign policy views and his history of association with racists and other beyond-the-pale extremists, whatever buzz a strong Iowa showing creates will simply detract attention from candidates who have an actual prayer of beating Romney.
Santorum is theoretically someone who could inherit the strong anti-Romney vote in the GOP. But he’s not very well-equipped to do so. Having spent virtually all his time in Iowa, he has no organization elsewhere, and whatever money he can raise on the basis of winning, placing or showing in that state will be dwarfed by Romney’s resources. And despite his apparent victory in the “true conservative” subprimary, he has little natural appeal in the southern states where any challenge to Romney must emerge and thrive. For all his success with Iowa evangelicals, he’s a Catholic, with none of the One-of-Us pull in South Carolina and Florida that 2008 Iowa winner Mike Huckabee had. And as recent diatribes by RedState proprietor and southern conservative opinion-leader Erick Erickson showed, Santorum’s record as a longtime congressional insider and supporter of “Big Government Conservatism” is going to be a real problem for him when the campaign goes South.
It’s an open question as to whether Gingrich or Perry can survive their terrible showings in Iowa, but it’s hard to imagine they’ll be raising much money or getting much earned media. And neither showed during the final crucible in Iowa that they can overcome the handicaps that destroyed their once-formidable candidacies. In particular, Perry threw his money and time into a last-gasp effort to resuscitate his candidacy, and succeeded only in beating the doomed Michele Bachmann. To call him the Fred Thompson of 2012 is an insult to the Tennessean.
Once Mitt Romney wins in New Hampshire over an overrated Ron Paul and an overmatched Rick Santorum, the anybody-but-Romney forces in the GOP will likely begin to slink back into his camp, some because they sincerely prefer Mitt to his remaining rivals, and some because his nomination is finally, truly becoming inevitable. If Gingrich or (less likely) Perry can somehow build a southern redoubt, it will only take votes away from the other flailing anti-Romney prospects. And the final conservative surrender could come earlier: say, with an endorsement of Mitt by Jim DeMint in South Carolina or Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush in Florida.
Romney’s likely nomination is nearly as unlikely as John McCain’s four years ago. But as the Iowa results indicate, the conservatives who could have stymied him couldn’t find another Goldwater or Reagan, and couldn’t even convince Iowa’s savvy caucus-goers to unite on an alternative. The fact that all three “tickets out of Iowa” ultimately belonged to Mitt is a sign that the GOP’s ascendant hyper-conservative wing has lost altitude and will likely find itself anxiously supporting a nominee it does not want or trust.
Ed Kilgore is a special correspondent for The New Republic.
11 comments
Oh please, Ed. Yes, Romney still has a good shot. But it's not nearly as inevitable as you paint it. The guy still can't crack 25 percent in Iowa; Gingrich and Huntsman are gunning for him; Perry and/or Bachman may drop out; and Santorum has some big momentum that will translate into press coverage and fundraising. Most of all, though, Romney has a likability problem; he comes across as - well, he is - too much of an elitist; the candidate whom he's most reminiscent of is John Kerry. All Romney needs to do is fall a bit short in New Hampshire or elsewhere, and the electability and inevitability arguments will fade fast.
- Thunderroad
January 4, 2012 at 1:36am
...That’s the case no matter what tomorrow’s spin on the Caucus results suggests, for the simple reason that Paul cannot win the nomination, and Santorum is a very long shot... Agreed. I made the mistake of thinking Gingrich had a real shot at beating Romney. I may be making another one but outlier Iowas will propel Santorum nowhere. He's got presidential chops the way I have movie star good looks. In other words, he's got none.
- basman
January 4, 2012 at 1:51am
Okay, the gloves are off. The other candidates may define themselves by whether they can restrict themselves to fact when attacking Romney or whether Romney will become someone unrecognizable even to his own family.
- Doug12
January 4, 2012 at 10:57am
basman, you are right but if the other candidates begin to drop out the question is how many rank and file voters take Santorum as a protest vote against Romney? The longer Santorum lasts the harder it will be for Romney as he can't take Santorum as his VP. I can't stand Romney, he is a total fraud.
- blackton
January 4, 2012 at 12:25pm
Kilgore underestimates Huntsman, but so are the others at TNR. But the real story here is that the nominee of the evangelical Protestant party comes down to two Mormons and two Catholics. Holy Justification!
- rayward
January 4, 2012 at 1:29pm
Blackton I have more benign feelings about Romney though I wouldn't vote for him. I can't imagine Romney being constrained to take Santorum, who gives me the creeps and whose cultural values also creep me out, as his VP, no matter how well Santorum does, which I don't think over time will be well at all. Now Huntsman, that'd be a smart and attractive choice. Rayward, you may be confusing Huntsman's attractiveness as a candidate with his chances of getting political traction, which are IMHO slim to none. It's an irony that moderation, thoughtfulness and intelligence can't gain purchase with the Republican base. But I know nothing and am usually wrong in what I think will happen. I thought Obama never stood a chance against Hillary. It's fair to say that I slightly missed the mark there by a mere percentage point over 99%.
- basman
January 4, 2012 at 1:44pm
Or...there will be another groundswell for a late entrant or a third-party candidate.
- polcereal
January 4, 2012 at 1:57pm
I think people are underestimating Santorum's potential to beat Romney in the stretch. Clearly a majority of Republican voters would prefer an alternative to Romney, which is why they have serially supported a menagerie of alternative candidates. Each of those Romney alternatives came crashing down after the scrutiny revealed their ignorance of the issues, unethical behavior and/or ideological inconsistency. But I don't see how Santorum fails any of these three tests, i.e. policy knowledge, personal ethics and ideological consistency. Sure, he's not exciting, but Santorum is a former Senator and Congressman, holds a JD and an MBA, and has been a staunch conservative, a devout Catholic and a stable family man his whole life. So, while he's not particularly charismatic, he can check all the boxes that Republican voters are looking for in a Romney-alternative.
- NateG
January 4, 2012 at 5:43pm
And, to those who say that Santorum lacks the infrastructure to mount a successful campaign, I would reply that in the internet age, that infrastructure is less important and/or can be built on-the-fly, once a candidate gets some momentum and encouraging poll numbers.
- NateG
January 4, 2012 at 5:47pm
The Iowa caucus is meaningless. The sooner the chattering classes realize that, the better for democracy.
- dubyadoubte
January 4, 2012 at 8:18pm
Huntsman and Huckabee! Huntsman and Huckabee! Huntsman and Huckabee! Allteration, moderation (relatively speaking), gentle religious fanaticism...what's not to like?
- skahn
January 4, 2012 at 10:43pm