(UPDATE VII) What The Iowa Caucus Results Tell Us About The GOP’s Chances Of Unseating Obama
The three top finishers in the Iowa caucuses tell you all you need to know about the Republican Party in 2012: Mitt Romney, who disavows his greatest accomplishment; Rick Santorum, whose compassionate conservatism does not allow room for anyone not sharing his extreme right-wing views; and Ron Paul, whose sensible ideas keep getting trampled on by wacky ideas tinged with racism.
At first glance, Romney’s hair’s breadth 8-vote win over Santorum is a surprise considering the fact that Iowa Republicans are an extremely conservative lot who had an awful time making up their minds and in the end gave 46 percent of their votes to Santorum (25 percent) and Paul (21 percent).
But methinks that even some of these Tea-hadists realized that only Romney (25 percent) stands a chance of unseating our socialist president. That noted, he received only 67 more votes than he did in 2008 despite having campaigned for months in the Buckeye State and is the weakest party front runner since Bob Dole in the 1996 Republican primaries.
Yet when you consider the competition, anything but a Romney win — or in this case pretty much a draw — would have been disastrous. This is because the competition has taken turns beating up on each other — and in the case of Rick Perry, on himself in what may be the most inept run since the somnambulant Fred Thompson in 2008.
One by one, nearly every threat to Romney has been eliminated: Tim Pawlenty by Michele Bachmann, Bachmann by Paul and Herman Cain by his own hand. Gingrich likewise. Meanwhile, Paul’s finish in the caucuses will have been his best. That probably also is true for Santorum, neither of whom would have gotten the nomination let alone be remotely electable.
(Incidentally, by one calculation Santorum spent $1.65 per vote while Romney spent $113.07 and Perry an astonishing $817. And for all the talk of a fired-up party base champing at the bit to take down the president, turnout was only slightly higher than in 2008 overall, which accounts for Democrats and Independents who caucused with the Republicans, while the actual Republican turnout dropped from 102,000 in 2008 to 91,000 last night.)
It will be interesting to see who remains on board as the Republican clown car heads to New Hampshire.
Bachmann, who finished dead last, quit today and Perry, who finished just ahead of her, is likely to also do so. Will they endorse Santorum and if so will that make a difference in New Hampshire, which is far less socially conservative than Iowa? Probably not, nor will expected endorsements of Romney by John McCain and other party moderates matter much.
Presuming that Romney is the eventual nominee, which has only happened in two of the last five presidential caucuses (McCain finished a distant fourth in 2008 and Romney even further back), let’s focus on his electability against a tenacious and still popular Barack Obama, who pushed through health-care reform, saved the domestic auto industry, ended the Iraq war, took out Osama bin Laden and has refashioned U.S. foreign policy.
Romney is not electable because:
* He is not a likable person. He is not charming, does not inspire or quicken the pulse when he steps up to the podium, and does not have a cult-like following like many of his opponents.
* He is a poster child for capitalism run amok. His tenure at Bain Capital, where he ran dozens of companies into the ground while screwing thousands of workers, made him filthy rich and he will be an easy target for an incumbent who is running a populist campaign.
* He can’t win in the South. The key to a GOP victory in November is sweeping the South and attracting enough independent voters, and while he might have some success with the latter, many Southern Republicans may prefer to stay home than cast their ballots for him.
* He is a flip-flopper of monumental proportions. Beginning with health-care reform, which was his signature success as Massachusetts governor, he has reversed field, sometimes repeatedly, on virtually every major and voters are rightly confused about what he stands for.
* He’s a Mormon. His faith should not be a disqualifier, but will be for some voters who believe that the Church of Latter Day Saints is a cult. Because their minister told them so.
* He’s a political loser. While winning in Massachusetts in 2002, he did so with less than 50 percent of the vote, got clobbered by Ted Kennedy in 1994, and according to one poll left office as the 48th most popular governor and would have been easily defeated had he run for re-election.
Finally, Obama will be running this time as an experienced candidate with all of the assets that incumbency brings to the campaign trail.
Obama’s advisers have quietly assembled another massive campaign organization, he is raking in tens of millions of bucks in contributions, and while some voters may not be as enthusiastic about him as they were in the run-up to the historic 2008 election, Romney is not a viable alternative for many independents.
The unrelenting extremism of the Iowa field, from the candidates’ absurd stands on issues that matter to middle class voters to an oblique racism when it comes to Obama himself has forced Romney to tack ever harder to the right. It will take the biggest flip-flop of them all for Romney to reposition himself as a moderate and not the sell-out that he has become if he gets the nomination because otherwise he doesn’t stand a chance.
14 Responses to “(UPDATE VII) What The Iowa Caucus Results Tell Us About The GOP’s Chances Of Unseating Obama”
Looks like Santorum won Iowa.
7 electoral votes for Santorum.
Romney, zip
If you want to know who is “electable”, look at the cash standings later this month (remember to add a few mil to Romney for his delay-reporting superpac).
Allen wrote
I think you are confusing the Iowa Caucus with the electoral college.
There is no “all or nothing” rule within the Iowa Republican Caucus, which selects delegates in the following manner:
Here are the number of pledged delegates that each Republican candidate has received as a result of the Iowa Caucus (as tabulated by CNN thus far):
Santorum = 6
Romney = 6
Paul = 4
Gingrich = 1
Perry = 1
By “all or none”, I mean, “winner take all.”
I don’t think Romney is unelectable. I think he is the only Rep who has a chance at beating Obama, but he will need a lot A LOT of help from political and economic circumstances that are out of his control.
Obama is a monster on the campaign trail and will have a TON of money.
I agree with Shannon. Obama should have the upper hand but Romney is not as bad a candidate as Mr Mullen is making him out to be. Romney has been able to project a likability and sincerity he hasn’t shown in the past, and handles himself well in debates. Like all candidates he will move to the center after (and if) he gets the nomination. Since he is already seen as the moderate in the GOP field I don’t see the flip-flop attacks working that well, especially since Obama hasn’t exactly been Mr. Consistency himself.
What will hurt Romney severely as a candidate would be a strong third party candidate like Ron Paul.
Ron Paul reminds me of another Ralph Nadar in that he IS useful in stealing the attention and votes away from the republican hopefuls…
“But I won the straw poll”, says Bachmann. “But I won the straw poll”, says Bachmann.
I wonder what she considers the reason for, (or whom was at fault), for her laughable performance in Iowa after winning the Iowa straw poll?
Allen:
I would consider Bachmann’s overall performance to be more pathetic than laughable.
Other than summoning the power of prayer, which I do not disparage in and of itself, she failed to articulate a single worthy position.
I am from Massachusetts (and, as it turns out, Romney’s former state district). I watched as he ‘solved’ the economic problems in the state.
1. Increased the amount of money people in low-income housing had to contribute. For those who did not get heat/hot water covered it went from 25% to 28% of income.
2. Eliminated funding for the suicide hotline.
3. Increased lottery sales.
4. Eliminated dental and eye glasses for adults on MassHealth (aka Medicaid).
5. Cut funding aid to schools, especially to wealthier districts. When the money came back, it came back proportionally to how much the school district was currently getting. In other words, if the district had some money, it lost more. Then when some of the money came back, they got less back (since they were now getting less to begin with).
6. Cut all sorts of jobs/support staff for public housing. Combined with #1 this had the effect of charging the poor more money to rent government housing (already owned) while reducing the maintenance staff and repairs. Since the amount of money brought in by rents almost certainly exceeds the amount spent by the housing authority, the increase in rent was a MONEY MAKING proposition on the backs of the poor.
If you would like to take guesses as to what we might expect from a Romney presidency, consider all the talk in Republican circles of the need to make cutbacks in entitlements. Consider also Romney’s promise to never raise taxes, ever, for anything, including the defense of the country. Consider also that he ‘supported’ abortion until he decided to run for the presidential nomination.
Trust me–the story about the dog on top of the car is going to kill this guy. For those of you who don’t know, he put the family’s golden retriever on top of the car when driving from Boston to Ontario in 1983. Strapped the dog on top of the car going 70 miles an hour. That’s all you need to know about him Seriously, what kind of cold f**k does something like that?
ONE political ad on this subject could run in all 50 states and he’s dead meat. Obama is playing political rope-a-dope at this point.
He won’t win because no one likes him, period. And he’s Mormon to boot–a just weird enough religion to turn off suspicious social and religious conservatives. None of the conservatives I know can stand him.
I suppose it should be a bit of a relief to Democrats that the leading Republican candidate is the most liberal of them all. Though I am hoping fence Democrats have the good sense not to vote for a slick corporate thief like Romney come November.
@Rcoutme, Are you saying that Romney made all these changes by himself and did not have the democrats in the state legislature agreeing to these changes? I just find it very hard to believe that Romney had the ability to screw over a heavily Deomcrat state without much fight from the Democrats that controlled the legislature.
If this is the case, then this guy is much better at working across the isle than anyone thought possible.
Or is your state different from the one I am in (NC) where it is hard for governors of the opposite party to get the legislature to support their agenda unless they are very centrist in their agenda and work hard to get something done. Right now we have vetos by the governor occuring since she is more left of center and the right controls the state legislature.
I think you’re right Vera. That is the sort of story that will sink in and not go away. Good lord, did he really do that???
Allen, as for Romney being the most “liberal” of the bunch, that is small consolation given the current definition of the word liberal. Obama isn’t even a real liberal. It’s all relative.