As a refresher, there are five early primary states that the Republican candidates will be campaigning in and which will frame the course of the nomination fight. Most important are Iowa (Jan 3) and New Hampshire (Jan 10), being first and second and due to their historic role in determining successful candidates- which will garner massive media attention. Here's a comprehensive calendar.
This is just a
The guys to beat:
Mitt Romney- The most stable candidate in the race; easily amassing the most establishment support from the Republican Party, and never dropping below 20% in national preference polls since his declaration. One of the reasons for this is that Romney has been running a Presidential campaign since losing to John McCain almost 4 years ago; campaigning for the party, making new friends (and money), and creating an air of inevitability about his nomination. This strategy has served him well: the more inevitable you seem, the more your party will want to jump on your bandwagon and close out the nomination fight- after all, the goal above all other goals of the GOP is to remove the sitting President, not repeat Dem. Primary 2008. As is stands, one lesson we take from 2008 is that long-term inevitability does not always win (see Hillary Clinton), but that large scale support and financing makes it very difficult to lose also, since you can weather a long campaign (see again Hillary Clinton). This leaves Mitt Romney in the most enviable, if not completely unassailable, position.
What to watch:
1. Although Romney has a lot of establishment support relative to the other candidates, large scale endorsements have not been forthcoming for any candidate. If there is a large break for, or against Romney, it would be a serious indicator, so watch from which direction endorsements begin to pile up.
2. National polling has been trending weakly downward for Romney, so a major gaffe on any issue could be enough to reinforce the trend. Romney is almost over-polished, however, so this is unlikely. But another flip-flop would not surprise and would do similar damage. Either way, use 20% as a marker. If his polling drops below this number by more than a point or two, you will know he's becoming seriously vulnerable and his air of inevitability is deflating. Around 20-25% and you will look for a likely protracted nomination fight, and 30-35% shows that he's been able to break through his ceiling and rally enough of the base for a nearly assured win.
3. A win in Iowa or a loss in New Hampshire. Romney's largest base of support is in NH. Iowa not so much. Here's the easy formula: If he wins in Iowa (he's just upped expectations there), he'll win in NH, and he'll almost certainly win the nomination. If he loses NH he will have already lost Iowa and his nomination chances become very weak indeed (but certainly not impossible, as he will have the resources to drag things out).
Newt Gingrich- I heard one commentator describe this year's Republican nomination as a game of musical chairs. Almost every candidate has had their shot in the limelight, sitting in the "front runner" seat for a few weeks, but only to be replaced by another one week later. If that's true, it's just a matter of seeing who's sitting in the chair when the music stops at the Iowa caucuses and NH primary. There's no question that Newt Gingrich is enjoying such a distinction at the moment, but is he just the next flavor of the month to be replaced by someone else just in time for the start of the primary calendar? It's hard to tell, but I don't think so. Newt has a few things going for him that point to his increasing steadiness. First, this isn't his first surge in the polls. Gingrich has been running for the nomination for almost as long as Romney, though perhaps not quite as overtly, and as early as a year ago a couple of polls even showed him leading Romney. My point is that Gingrich's name has been out there for a long time and after his campaign imploded over the summer, nearly every negative of the former Speaker of the House has been showcased. Therefore it is telling that voters are coming back around to Gingrich, knowing his flaws and skeletons- and despite those issues, choosing him anyway. Unlike Bachmann, Perry, and Cain, who crumpled when they were introduced to the electorate and their inadequacies made known, Gingrich has already been through the grinder, and is less likely to suffer since there cannot be much more that will come out of the woodwork. His advantage is that he is seen as the anti-Romney; consistently conservative, and willing to speak his mind even if it isn't the most politically expedient. Romney is slick but perhaps untrustworthy; Gingrich is a little dirty, but he's demonstrably smart and ideologically close to the center of the Republican party.
What to watch:
1. Fundraising. Although endorsements will also come in handy, Gingrich has a massive fundraising deficit when compared with Romney. If his 4th quarter numbers come in close to Romney's or even above, you'll know he's not just noise and will have the firepower to compete in and outside of the 4 early states.
2. Iowa, but mainly South Carolina. It's hard to see a path to the nomination for Gingrich without winning one of these two states, or both, preferably. He's tamped down expectations in NH enough, but he should have some natural play in SC, being from Georgia himself and appealing to the more conservative SC GOP electorate. Watching SC polls will be the key here; Gingrich's got a lot of competition in Iowa, with Bachmann, Santorum, Paul, and Perry all struggling for a break-out hit there. If he has a slight win, or even a narrow loss in Iowa, it won't matter if he can resoundingly smash Romney in South Carolina after NH. That leaves Gingrich open for a run at Florida voters with whom he may also have some natural play- that'll be a devastating 1-2 punch against Romney who has also been courting Florida.
The ones to keep an eye on:
Rick Santorum- If the nomination truly is a game of musical chairs, this guy's next in line after Gingrich. Although he tends to skew a touch too right on social issues and (perhaps) a touch too left on economic for the tea-party-leaning-maybe-more-libertarian GOP base these days, to the casual observer, Santorum sits next to Gingrich and Perry regarding his ideological substance, making him a serious "last resort" conservative "anti-Romney" contender if Gingrich falls apart in the next few weeks. He's run a good campaign in Iowa, although he's largely under the radar elsewhere, and he's a solid debater with youthful energy and almost unparallelled anti- abortion/gay marriage credentials that might be appealing to a block of the electorate, particularly in socially conservative Iowa. He's a stronger candidate than the polls have shown, which I think is due to the lack of attention paid to him in the mainstream media. Therefore, all he needs is a breakout win or surprising finish in Iowa to make him viable, again, assuming Gingrich is somewhat out of the picture.
What to watch:
Iowa. Santorum only has one hand to play and it's here. His resources are thin, but he's the only candidate to have visited all 99 counties in Iowa, so he's clearly playing to win. A strong debate performance from him alongside some Gingrich scandal would be enough to give him the viability edge that Iowa caucus-goers would need to commit their support to him. Of course, after that, he may not have the staying-power to go much further; if it were to happen, a last-minute Santorum rise could seal the deal for Mitt Romney.
Jon Huntsman: It is clear to me that Huntsman has the best chance to beat Barack Obama. If Republicans see that, he could have a chance. Huntsman sports probably the best resume for the office out of all the candidates: exceptionally successful #1 jobs producing former two term Governor of Utah, three time US Ambassador, most recently to China under the Obama administration, can himself speak Chinese, supports civil unions, exceptionally moderate center-right, with market-friendly solutions to global warming and job creation. This cycle of course, Republicans are very wary of nominating someone who looks that much like Obama, or is moderate in any way- especially not someone who served under the man. But as semi-moderate (maybe) Romney flip-flops around, some moderate to liberal Republicans see Jon Huntsman as the better center-right option to confront the more extreme party elements. Yet, overall, he may just be too liberal for his party to rally behind, since moderates are not a majority of the GOP anymore.
What to watch:
Left-leaning New Hampshire is the perfect place to take such a message as Huntsman's, so he's gambled his cards there, trying to convince New Hampshire's electorate that he's a better voice for the moderate wing of the Republican party than Romney. He's been creeping up in the polls there, but he needs a win or something very close to it to break through Romney's support there. Of course if Romney's campaign fell apart for some reason, Huntsman would be in a great position to replace him. He has some funding and is personally wealthy; these things could help him maintain his showing better than Santorum.
Ron Paul- Paul is probably the most important candidate to keep an eye on, so I left him for last. Not because he is likely to win the nomination, but perhaps because he could play the role of spoiler for one of the two front-runners or create an opening for a third candidate to break through. Paul is one of the most unique phenomena of the GOP that I've ever seen; known during his long years in Congress as the man who always votes "no", his libertarian positions are extremely popular among the youngest generation of Republicans who largely eschew interventionist foreign policy and social conservatism. His support ranges across the political spectrum, from the most conservative fiscal hawks, to liberal peace activists, to anti-corporate anarchists, to marijuana users across the US, to, yes, even some conspiracy theorists. But his views also limit his support to around 10% of the Republican voters nationally; he seems to be completely unable to break through that ceiling. Although Paul supporters will chalk that up to the mainstream media's failure to take Paul seriously or a failure of the polling to account for Paul's kind of support, there is something to be said for the fact that his views are just simply out of step with most Republicans. Still his polling is moderately strong in both New Hampshire and Iowa where his socially liberal and fiscally conservative views, respectively have played well.
What to watch:
Iowa and then New Hampshire. Outside of the Mountain West, Paul doesn't have a strong core base of support. But the closest that he's likely to get will come in NH and Iowa where he's concentrated almost all of his energy. He's right around 10-15% there right now, if he can pull it up 10 points or so with some liberal help he could split the overall vote which would throw a lot of variables into the equation. This would lower the threshold for what percentage of votes a candidate would need to win in both these contests. It's unclear which candidate would be most likely to benefit, but I'd guess Mitt Romney, since Ron Paul's supporters tend to skew conservative and might spoil Gingrich's chances at upending Romney. On the other hand, if he can pull support away from either of the front-runners Huntsman, Santorum, Bachmann, or Perry might benefit. Finally, Paul could surprise everyone and win Iowa, only to go on to win NH also. What this would create is unpredictable, but it could cause party support to coalesce around Romney or Gingrich to make sure Paul doesn't coast to success in the nomination. Paul is weak in SC and FL, so it may simply refocus the race on those contests as the frontrunner(s) dismiss Paul's "freak" wins. There seems to be a lot of confusion around how the Ron Paul candidacy will affect race dynamics, so I'll have more on it in the future.
But what about...?
Herman Cain- I think Cain's campaign is on it's last legs. If he doesn't drop out soon, he'll probably pull in some of the vote in Iowa or NH, but not enough to create a stir or spoil another candidate's chances. He's helped to remind voters that substance and experience mean something, and I'm skeptical that they'll rally to him now that he's displayed incompetence, a myriad of controversies, and hesitation regarding his own campaign. Still, he has such an unconventional ...campaign that it's hard to predict anything.
Michele Bachmann- I feel sorry for Michele; her thunder was stolen by Rick Perry right on the cusp of when she saw her star rise. She's obscenely conservative even to the GOP, prone to gaffes on American history, and relatively inexperienced as a politician, although she has shown strength in the debates and on the campaign trail. I think there's only room for one candidate to rise if Gingrich falls, and I think Bachmann is old news. But I could be wrong, and she has focused almost singularly on Iowa, polling better than Santorum.
Rick Perry- That's a good question. Old-school political thought says that money and institutional support mean something, and Rick Perry has acquired quite a bit of both. So much so, that it's possible that Perry will try to ride out the fight on his millions and wait until the field narrows and he can get into some Southern contests. My school of thought says that his debate performances were beyond crippling and that Perry's negatives are too much to overcome, even with his money. He'll certainly be a factor as we go forward since he will have some endurance, but at the moment he's in such a compromised position that it's barely worth watching his campaign. I'll let you know if that changes.
This, this, and this could come in handy when watching polls.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please keep comments civil, productive, and related.