As I was preparing a post saying that if I were a betting man, I’d bet on Ron Paul to win the Iowa caucuses today, I received an unusual e-mail, reporting that the “Irish betting company Paddy Power” has determined Mitt Romney to be the favourite for today’s Iowa caucus: “The former Massachusetts governor is available at Evens with his nearest challengers’ libertarian Texas congressman Ron Paul and surprise package Rick Santorum both available at 2/1.”
Although I expect said Texan to win by a narrow margin, I would hedge my bet a bit. A lot depends on how the late-deciders break. Many polls have shown a substantial number of undecideds and have indicated that some voters who have expressed support for one candidate or another are not firm in that support, that is, they could change their mind.
Paul will win, I believe, because he has the most enthusiastic supporters, those who would walk over broken glass to get to their respective caucus sites. A Paul supporter in this video says he’d vote for Paul even he had two broken legs. Paul’s also got a good campaign infrastructure in place.
Now, there remains a chance that Rick Santorum could win in Iowa, that is, if the undecideds break his way–and those voters not firm in their support for the other social conservative in the race (Michele Bachmann) fall his way. Problem is that many (one-time Bachmann supporters) have already done so–and there are fewer and fewer of her supporters for the former Pennsylvania Senator to pick up.
A lot depends on who those late-deciers are. If they are primarily voters to whom social issues are paramount, Santorum could win. If they are more mainstream Reagan conservatives, that could benefit Romney significantly.
Now that I’ve offered some predictions, let me offer some hypothetical results and their implications:
Should Mrs. Bachmann do as polls suggest she will, it’s over for her.
Should Newt Gingrich come in fourth or lower, Newt-mentum (or whatever they’ve been calling it) is over. Given his recent surge, even a third-place showing all but rules him out of contention.
Should Romney win and Rick Perry come in a strong fourth, the Texas Governor could still emerge as the best alternative to Romney.
Should Romney win with a higher number of votes — and higher percentage of the total tally — he strengthens his hand as frontrunner and all but guarantees his nomination. If he finishes a close second–or even close third–he’s still in contention. The former Massachusetts Governor doesn’t need to win to remain in contention, but a victory tonight would make his nomination seem increasingly inevitable.
ADDENDUM: To make clear that although, by and large, like Ron Paul’s domestic policy agenda, I could never vote for a guy with a foreign policy as whacky as his nor for a guy who has a record of publishing the nutty stuff that he did. I’m pretty much with Ace on this one.
If Ron Paul wins Iowa…. Iowa is irrelevant. Just like when Pat Robertson won in 1992.
Bruce, you should add that to my “implications”. 🙂
But, I think you meant Pat Buchanan winning New Hampshire in 1996. Guess we all confuse that crazy Pats. 🙂
Oh aren’t they all the same?
But Pat Robertson did win Iowa some year…. lemme check….
Well lookie there…. according to a quick Wikipedia check — Sen. Dole won Iowa in 1988 and in 1992!
The “Pats” came in 2nd both years.
I guess we both recall the media “spin” of the day….
ugh.. sorry.. Dole won in 1988 & 1996. Bush 41 was unopposed in 1992.
Bruce, exactly. We remember the media “spin”, with the talking heads trying to tell us that the nut bags have taken over the GOP! And so they will today should (as I expect) Ron Paul win.
What I remember is that in 2008, MoveOn.org (I think, it might have been some other organization) was advising liberal voters in open primaries to vote for Mitt Romney in the Republican primaries, because he was considered the least electable of the candidates at the time.
Now look at the field.
What’s with the Ron Paul hatred? Didn’t it propel then Sen. Barack Obama to the head of the pack? Now if someone who’s more of a libertarian conservative wins, it’s irrelevant?
This man has positions most Americans agree with on corporatism, statism, wars, the economy, the war on drugs, etc. He has a dedicated, organized passionate staff who gets people to the polls (which is why he’s currently poised to win) and since he does, he’s irrelevant.
May I remind you ladies current GOP rules state that the winner takes all electorate system is suspended until April 1st and electoral votes will be given out according to percentages of votes? Paul could run 2/3rd in states behind Romney and beat him in the caucus states and draw this thing out to April/May/June.
There is a very large part of the electorate that includes the middle who doesn’t identify with a major party. Ron Paul is the “father of the tea party movement” which flipped almost 70 seats in the 2010 midterm elections. Combined with young voters, independents, tea parties and some Democrats, his coalition in a traditionally lower-turnout primary elections shouldn’t be looked down or discounted. It’s nice that Romney is doing well in New Hampshire, but I wouldn’t count it as some amazing victory considering he was governor in Massachusetts, he had the advantage there in 2008 and couldn’t even beat McCain. And you’re very familiar with the “anybody but Romney” fog pervading the air of this entire primary.
Could you guys look beyond your own beltway and wonkish prejudices and stop being so dismissive. The theory that if one specific candidate wins the state makes the whole election irrelevant just makes no sense.
I won’t put a ton into his win either, but I wouldn’t discount it entirely either. As I indicated before, we may have a long back and forth of a primary season ahead of us as close contests make sure no winner takes all system comes into play and there may be a few candidates with electoral votes in their column as the race goes on.
Find a link on that, Serenity. I was following the 2008 campaign and that doesn’t ring any bells.
Yep. Barack Obama was actually in the political mainstream, Ron Paul is proud to not be.
I’ve heard it said that everyone agrees with Ron Paul on 50% of the issues, but never any more, which is the exact problem in the Republican primaries. Too many Republicans disagree very strongly with his stances on issues such as the War on Drugs and US policy towards Israel. He’s just too self-limiting to win nationally, and Iowa can’t change that.
Now Daniel, that was in a Guardian article from nearly four years ago. However, because I like you, I trawled through the guardian.co.uk archives and found what I was looking for. I was wrong about it being MoveOn.org though, it was Daily Kos:
Also this is good for a laugh. Ah to be young again…
I don’t understand how a racist, antisemitic, isolationist, libertarian, Bradley Manning supporter like Ron Paul can possibly win. I agree with him on economic issues, but the rest of his opinions are insane enough to make me scared of him.
(PS, I used to comment using the handle “Naamloos” but I will henceforth use the handle “Rattlesnake.”)