Approaching Iowa: A Tale of Parallel Universes
The results of the Iowa caucuses, coming on January 3, will likely tell different stories in the presidential nominating races of the Republican and Democratic parties.
That shouldn’t be surprising. For months now, the campaigns for the two parties’ nominations have unfolded like tales from parallel universes. The datelines and the timelines are the same, but the plotlines are altogether different.
Democratic voters are generally happy with their field of presidential contenders.
The Republicans have been restive. For months, people hankered for former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson to enter the race, for example. But once he did–”belatedly” according to the current bizarre standards, he was met by a collective yawn.
The respective parties’ debates have found Democratic and Republican candidates spending time talking about different topics, almost as though they were speaking to two different countries. Democrats talk more about health care and Republicans focus more on illegal immigration.
But it’s the difference in politics in the two parties that most interests me right now. The stakes associated with the Iowa caucuses and then, the New Hampshire primary, which happens on January 8, are very different for Democrats and Republicans.
At present, it appears that former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee will win the Iowa caucuses in the Republican Party. That will afford the affable former clergyman a bit of a bounce in his bid for his party’s nomination.
But it would be a mistake to conclude that Huckabee will automatically become the presumptive Republican nominee if he wins in Iowa. Such cautions are especially appropriate in the Republican universe.
In 1980, for example, George H.W. Bush narrowly won in Iowa, taking 32% of the vote. The elder Bush pronounced that he had Big Mo–momentum–in his corner as he headed to New Hampshire. Because the Bush family had strong New England roots, many presumed it would be a likely spot for a Bush to win, thrusting him toward the GOP presidential nomination. But it didn’t happen. Big Mo shifted his allegiance and Ronald Reagan was nominated for the presidency.
There’s another reason an Iowa win might not give Huckabee a big boost from Big Mo. Iowa’s Republican caucus-goers are both more conservative and more evangelical than voters in New Hampshire’s primary. The composition of Iowa’s Republican caucus-goers is advantageous to Huckabee. The composition of New Hampshire’s likely primary-voters is not. Not only New Hampshire’ Republican voters more moderate and dramatically less evangelical, the state also allows independents to cast votes in the parties’ primaries.
While Huckabee can certainly capitalize on an Iowa win, it’s likely that such a victory will say less about enthusiasm for him, at least for the moment, than about a decided lack of enthusiasm for the presumptive frontrunners going into Iowa, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.
A Huckabee win in Iowa then, will be a signal that the race for the GOP nomination is far from over. For Republicans, that will heighten New Hampshire’s importance.
For some time, it’s been clear that two members of the Republican field have built-in advantages for the New Hampshire primary race. One is Arizona’s senator, John McCain, a maverick whose appeal among Granite State voters was strong enough to give him a win there in 2000.
But the Republican with overwhelming apparent advantages in New Hampshire was Romney. For any Massachusetts pol, campaigning in New Hampshire has always been like the Red Sox playing at Fenway Park. On the Democratic side, John Kennedy, Michael Dukakis, Paul Tsongas, and John Kerry all knew that they could count on New Hampshire to give their quests for the presidency boosts. In 1964, while he served as ambassador to South Vietnam for a Democratic president, former Massachusetts senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Richard Nixon’s 1960 vice presidential running mate, won the New Hampshire presidential primary.
Given his advantages, the New Hampshire primary has always been a must-win for Romney. The stakes in the Granite State will only get bigger if he loses in Iowa. Failure to win in New Hampshire will spell the end of his quest for the nomination.
Romney operatives must be feeling that they’re watching a train wreck, as their candidate, prone to gaffes and exaggerations, loses support in both Iowa and New Hampshire, watches Huckabee surpass him in the first state, and sees McCain revivify his New Hampshire constituency, all at Romney’s expense.
If Iowa and New Hampshire produce two different winners and the elimination of Romney from the field, as I expect they will, the winner of the Republican nomination will be unknown through at least the South Carolina primary on January 26. Front-loading be hanged, the Republicans will have a race on their hands.
But in that parallel universe, the race for the Democratic nomination, a very different tale is likely to be told. In recent weeks, Illinois’ senator Barack Obama, has been pulling even with or surpassing New York’s senator, Hillary Clinton, not only in Iowa, but now in New Hampshire. If Obama wins in Iowa, as I expect that he will, the Democratic race, unlike the one among Republicans, will be effectively over. Barack Obama will then be the Democratic nominee.
The reason is simple. In 2004, the Democrats had a large field that included John Edwards, Wesley Clark, Joe Lieberman, Howard Dean, and John Kerry. When Kerry defied conventional wisdom and won in Iowa, Democratic voters became like traditional ward-heeling politicians, swallowing whatever misgivings they may have had about Kerry to back him. True-believing liberals forgot their loyalty to Dean and got on board with the Massachusetts senator. Democrats, many believing that the Bush Republicans had stolen the 2000 presidential election, were desperate to win. Dems decided to unite behind Kerry.
It almost worked. John Kerry got more votes than any Democratic presidential nominee in history. More than Franklin Roosevelt. More than Lyndon Johnson. Certainly more than Bill Clinton, who only mustered plurality votes in two successive elections. The problem is that George W. Bush got more votes, popular and electoral.
In the intervening years, the Democrats have built up even more desperation to put a Democrat in the White House. If the polls are to believed, quite a lot of independents and not a few Republicans agree with them. Democratic candidates are receiving more contributions from more contributors than their Republican counterparts. Crowds for Democratic candidates are larger and seemingly more enthusiastic than those for Republican candidates. Democratic rank-and-file voters, as much as the party’s professionals, want to win in 2008.
If Obama defies the odds and stands down the formidable Clinton machine in Iowa, the trend toward the Illinois senator, in New Hampshire and elsewhere, will become a tidal wave.
Two parallel universes. Two differing scenarios. The result? The presidential nomination of the party which generally gives its nod to the candidate next in line up for grabs. The party which pioneered democratization in its nominating process to give more candidates a shot closing ranks to support one person ten months before the general election.
But, as I always say when making political prognostications: Or not.
8 Responses to “Approaching Iowa: A Tale of Parallel Universes”
Terrific rundown, Mark. I do think Hillary can get away with losing Iowa, but maybe not Iowa and NH. South Carolina would almost certainly go for Obama then (trending there even now), and Hillary is definately playing distinct underdog at that point – though still I think, with a real good shot at winning the nod in the end. I don’t underestimate the Clinton machine’s strengths, nor Obama’s real or perceived weaknesses.
The Republicans – what a great show for junkies this year! It’s all popcorn and Coke, all the time! Sure, ’00 was a moderately interesting year, what with McCain sneaking past The Chosen One early on. But it ended the way it was originally scripted, of course, as do most Republican primary “contests.”
This year though, I’m thinking chaos has overcome the apparatchiks’ control. The rise of Huckabee is certainly most delicious, as is Giuliani’s complete inability to ID with actual primary voters. And sweet Jesus, Romney’s a Mormon! Great White Hope Thompson is the dud that landed with a thud. Could John McCain, the Most Hated Man in the Republican Party (at least to the base) be the last guy standing? Oh the gnashing of teeth! Oh, the rending of cloth and wailing! What a corner the Party of God, Guns ‘n Gays has painted itself into.
Personally, I’m hoping for a ’68 Dem-style convention meltdown for the GOP this year. Something truly memorable for the ages. It would restore some of my faith in my countrymen, and at least offer the possibility of beginning the road back to global leadership that we have so willingly pissed away these last 7 years.
I’ll second Mike’s praise of your analysis, Mark. My only question is whether the Clinton machine will allow Obama to capitalize on his Iowa win. Instead of the party uniting behind Obama as they did for Kerry, I see the Clintons and their powerful allies declaring a divisive war on Obama, perhaps resulting in a fight that goes all the way to the convention. I can’t see Hillary stepping aside for the good of the party.
Mike and Charlie:
Thanks for your gracious and interesting comments.
I don’t think that Clinton will step aside either. But I think she’s likely to be pushed aside if party regulars and voters see Obama turn things around in Iowa and then in New Hampshire.
Mark
Excellent work, Mark D.
Iowa by no means defines everything, yet tells a large story insofar as how much Huckabee might not only appeal to the Religious Right, but to others who are not “social conservatives” but prefer someone who seems more real and decent than Giuliani or Romney.
I don’t understand how anybody could like McCain, but he’s rising in New Hampshire and may win there — so there you go; he still has support in this country. Yes, he may defeat Romney in New Hampshire.
The youth support for Obama is obvious here in Iowa and I may go visit his campaign HQ here in town after I get off this site, to look for more stuff to read and send to my radical friend in DC. I just wrote to her that he does not seem to be a fluke any more, but in fact a class act (the Christmas ad from him and his family I saw yesterday came across to me that way, at least). I also got to remind her just now that the guy was rated by at least one organization as having a record farther left than that of Dennis Kucinich, someone she always has liked, so lefties can rejoice even if Obama beats Clinton.
I don’t fear Obama in the White House; to me he may be fully predictable, a traditional Democratic (Dinosaur) old central-city area (Chicago) Democrat. At any rate, I wouldn’t mind seeing him beat her here in Iowa in a couple of weeks. (At least Obama can get the date correct in his campaign’s literature, unlike Clinton. hahahahaha)
I believe Obama can win in Iowa. I’m about to go to his campaign HQ here in town to grab the latest goodies to read at lunchtime before I mail them to a friend elsewhere.
I don’t know where Clinton’s campaign HQ is here and I don’t care.
You’re also dead on not only about the political complexion here in Iowa (people are more conservative than average here, and the Religious Right is substantial here), but about the real reason for Huckabee’s rise, namely that it is relative: MANY OF US DO NOT LIKE GIULIANI AND ROMNEY. (And it has nothing to do with Romney’s religion, obviously; it has to do with RINO-hood and the alien-to-non-liberals environments from which they had emerged. New York? Massachusetts? (Real) Americans [tm] say DQ!)
The local Clinton supporters near where I live have put up an extra-large “Hillary” sign in their yard. Maybe they are getting nervous.
Floor yielded.
Thanks, Mark D. for the great posting. Some great observations. Even if the same Dem. candidate wins both Iowa and NH I don’t think the Dem. nominee will be chosen that quickly.
You mentioned that Dems in the 2004 primary decided to back Kerry after his unexpected win in Iowa and they did so because they felt that Bush had stolen the 2000 election and they wanted to unite behind a candidate.
I’m not sure the same dynamic will hold this time- everyone believes (at this time) that the Republicans are out this cycle so the Dems may take their time to select the right candidate. So even if Obama wins both NH and Iowa (and I’m a huge supporter of Obama’s) I’m not convinced he will be the presumptive nominee. And as others said in their postings here, HIllary won’t give-up the nomination without a fight. She has the determination, energy, money and baking to fight tooth and nail for the nomination, especially if she views this as her last chance of becoming the President. If a Dem won this time, she’d have to wait another eight years for her chance- and then she may be too old to run.
As far as the Republican nominee- I still think it will be McCain. He’s letting the current front runners duke it out while he tries to stay above the fray. A couple debates ago he was on point about the US practicing torture- his message was simple and he won (against Romney) that particular argument. He has good war credentials and the social conservatives would back him over Mitt and Rudy any time. I’ve said this before but… McCain knows he just has to hang in there, not wipe out and he has a real good chance of becoming the Republican nominee.
As far as Huckabee- I pretty much agree with you, Mark D. He may win in Iowa, but that doesn’t mean he will win in NH. Besides Huckabee scares enough Americans that he doesn’t stand a chance to win the general election over a Dem. nominee. But then again the 2004 Democratic dynamic- let’s pull around the early winner to beat the Republicans- may go to work this time on the Republican side. The restive Republicans (eager to choose someone to beat a Dem) may decide to rally around Huckabee because of his early win in Iowa. Huckabee just may gain momentum from there.
I still think McCain will be the eventual Rep. nominee.