<a title=”GOP 2012 Clown car in 3D by dengre.bj, on Flickr” href=”http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/5813765368/”><img src=”http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5263/5813765368_b1a979ac25.jpg” alt=”GOP 2012 Clown car in 3D” width=”500″ height=”457″ /></a>
With the Iowa Caucus looming in the news cycle I thought I would offer some guesses as to the outcome. When the dust settles, the final results will matter very little, but the spin will drive the news cycle for a few days, help to shape who stays in the race against Willard, and either bust or inflate Iowa Caucus myth.
Polls project a close race between Willard, Paul and Santorum, with each of them at around 20% of the vote. Nate over at 538 gives them a 42%, 34% and 20% chance to win the caucus respectively. The only other candidate he gives a slight chance of winning Iowa is Gingrich, who has a 3% chance of pulling it off.
PAC Money has poured into Iowa and blanketed the state in negative ads–mostly focused on Gingrich and mostly ran by groups supporting Willard. Legend has it that Iowans do not like negative ads and punish the candidate behind them, but so far there is no sign that Mitt’s Attack PACs are hurting him. We’ll know if that part of the Iowa myth is busted in a few hours.
In fact, we’ll know if the entire myth of Iowa is busted in a few hours. If Willard wins, it means that a candidate can ignore Iowa and still win their caucus. With enough money and negative ads you can buy the state. If Willard pulls that off, then the myth of retail politics in Iowa that justifies the Always-First-in-the-Nation-Caucus will be busted. OTOH, if Iowa offers some surprises and somehow punishes Romney, then the myth of Iowa’s importance will live on in the State and–more importantly–in the village.
With that in mind here are my two cents:
- The Iowa Caucus system and the State’s ability to justify going first every four year is in jeopardy. The outcome will either feed the myth of Iowa’s importance or bust it. I think a lot of Iowans will take that in mind as they go to the caucus. A lot of folks will vote to protect the caucus system and that means NOT voting for Mittens.
- Willard will not break 24%–even if he comes in first. I think it is more likely that he’ll get around 20-22% of the vote and comes in third behind Santorum and Ron Paul. If he has a real bad night, he could even come in fourth behind Gingrich.
- The surge for Santorum reflects–in part–that he showed the Iowa caucus game respect. He did the retail politics thing and built an organization. He connected with folks who think that candidates should treat them special because they live in Iowa. He will be rewarded for this and gives the undecided folks–especially the deep wingnuts–a place to go. He is peaking at the right time and I would not be surprised to see him win with 28-30% of the vote.
- Ron Paul has also treated the Caucus game with respect and I think he will be rewarded as well with a strong second place finish with around 24% of the vote.
- Gingrich was late to give the caucus game its propers, but he has been spending a lot of time there in the last few weeks playing catch up. He may also be benefiting from some blowback against the endless negative ads that Team Romney has been running against him. In the last few days polls show some Newtmentum. I think he comes in fourth with 16-19% of the vote, but if Iowans decide that they really do not like Mittens he could get more. Regardless, I expect Newt to proclaim himself the “come-back kid” and start to go after Willard hammer and tongs in South Carolina and Florida where folks love good bloodbath.
- Perry and Bachmann will fail to break single digits. One or both will drop out in the coming days or weeks.
- Huntsman will continue to be irrelevant.
- The overall turnout for the GOP Iowa caucus will be low–in the 85,000 to 90,000 range.
- It would not be surprising if the Democratic turnout for their caucus beat the Bush turnout in 2004. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if turnout for the Democratic Iowa Caucus became one of the surprise stories out of Iowa.
Now I fully expect to be wrong here and there (or everywhere), but I thought the unpacking of the clown car in corn country might be a good starting point for a late night open thread.
Welcome to 2012. We’re glad you made it.
Cheers
Corner Stone
But what does Greenwald say about this process?
Corner Stone
Twitter says, “Hey!”
Corner Stone
Man I love this OSU coaching staff. Just balls to spare.
Corner Stone
Stanford D was gasping. They got gashed.
Yutsano
I miss Herb already.
Lolis
I think Romney will not win so I am glad he publicly predicted it.
amk
cbs
magurakurin
@Corner Stone: Greenwald doesn’t vote.
Little Boots
so, no more doug?
I have to pick on dennis?
Little Boots
dennis, was I right about Te-nehisi?
Corner Stone
@magurakurin: But he’s so powerful. He essentially sets the tone for official punditry.
I’d like to know what he thinks here.
Corner Stone
That was an awful, awful kick. I wonder if Greenwald has money on OSU?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Corner Stone:
I’ll go out on a limb and guess “a lot’
Corner Stone
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Hmmm…clever. Clever, indeed.
amk
twitterdom
Obama’s promises are like Kim Kardashian’s wedding vows, says the man who changes positions like Kim changes soulmates.
Little Boots
Greenwald has a point you know.
in case you hadn’t noticed.
Dennis G.
@Little Boots: Yes
PeakVT
@amk: That sums up the problem. Iowa would have a better argument for going first if turnout was higher. If 90k show up this year, that would be less 5% of the eligible voter population.
Martin
They’re predicting 140,000 turnout for the caucus. The 2008 Dem caucus turned out 240,000 – that’s a HUGE difference, and the GOP caucus is much easier than the Dem one.
The energy isn’t there for these candidates and it doesn’t matter who wins, if the base can’t turn out for these guys, independents won’t either and Obama is going to walk away with this.
Little Boots
dennis, you are a gent.
Little Boots
@PeakVT:
everyone, rightly, hates everyone.
amk
@PeakVT: No, worst is that these ‘votes’ mean jackshite since the backroom boyz will cast their delegate votes to whomsoever they want at the convention. What a fucked up system of ‘democracy’.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Tweety said today that Gingrich is gearing up to attack Mitt on abortion, which is pretty much Li’l Rickey’s whole campaign. I’ve been waiting for that issue to bubble up, and even though I don’t think Mitt can lose the nomination, I would love to watch him have to squirm some more, and keep the whole question of his shape-shifting front and center.
MikeJ
@Martin:
CBS described it as half the grandstands of the Indy 500.
Little Boots
gingrich is done. sell some books, bitch, and stop pretending to run for president.
Yutsano
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: “What do I have to say to you to get YOUR vote today?”
Martin
FWIW, I don’t see a problem with small states like Iowa going first. I’d much prefer it over the alternative. If a state like CA went first, candidates that lack massive institutional funding wouldn’t stand a chance. But with small states, more candidates can participate – and that’s good for a democracy. A less well funded candidate can do well in a state like Iowa, leverage that into fundraising for the next race, and roll on. In fact, I wouldn’t have a problem if the primaries were ordered and spread out entirely as a function of their population – start with Wyoming and end with California.
Little Boots
@Martin:
I agree. I like that idea. I just think we need to rethink the state, but I get that it’s difficult.
Ira-NY
Iowa’s job is not to pick the candidate.
Iowa’s function is to narrow the field to 3 or 4.
Iowa does this reasonably well.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Yutsano: Tweety actually had an insight today. He asked Romney if Mitt could say “Let them eat cake” in French, Romney laughed and said “I can, but I won’t!”. as Tweets said, it was a small moment that reflect Romney’s 1%er contempt for the people whose votes he’s chasing.
Little Boots
@Ira-NY:
No they vote crazy, constantly. we need a not crazy state.
The Other Chuck
@Martin:
On the other hand, candidates would have to speak to a constituency in a state where, well, people actually live, and not the infected armpit of Real ‘Merika.
suzanne
Mr. Suzanne and I met on the night of the Iowa caucuses four years ago. We met at a gelato shop and got to talking, and we were both really enjoying one another’s company, but we both wanted to go watch CNN without offending one another. Finally, one of us said, “Uh, I really like talking to you, but, um, like… IOWA…” So we ended up going back to his house to watch TV. (Yes, we only watched TV. Perverts.) We had to drive separately from the gelato shop to his house, as we each had our cars, and he has such an unfailingly bad sense of direction that he had to call me to give him directions to his own house.
Four years later, the caucuses will be less interesting, but we’ll watch them in our house with our little munchkin running around on the floor. He can now reliably tell me which way is north about 2/3 of the time, but I still do most of the navigating. But I think we’ll go out for gelato tomorrow evening. :)
Little Boots
hey, dennis, you here?
piratedan
@Ira-NY: Well it would be nice change of pace if this crop of candidates weren’t completely devoid of empathy and had some sense of realism associated with their campaigns, as it stands, it’s the usual saber rattling name calling that has continued to polarize our national discourse. I would like it, if our evil, megalomaniacal conservative brethren would actually be more concerned out our country then they are auditioning for roles in Governor LePetomaine’s cabinet in an off Broadway revival of Blazing Saddles . Seems like they’re so concerned with pandering to their phony baloney base that they actually forget that the rest of us are paying attention to what they say and do.
Little Boots
@piratedan:
true that.
Martin
@The Other Chuck:
Well, honestly that doesn’t describe Iowa, or New Hampshire broadly. It does describe the GOP in those states, but the GOP is like that in every state.
Ira-NY
@The Other Chuck:
Why do you consider Iowa an “infected armpit?”
Mark S.
Has Mitt really ignored Iowa? Maybe he did at first, but he spent a shit ton of money attacking Newt there the last few weeks.
The argument I’ve heard is that Iowa would be a laughing stock if Ron Paul won.
But none of this will matter. In 1996, Pat “Even More Racist Than Ron Paul” Buchanan won New Hampshire, and no one suggested NH should lose its privileged position. So we have two states (Iowa and NH) that are not very representative of the nation as a whole, and South Carolina, where GOP candidates go to genuflect in front of the Confederate flag and speak at Bob Jones University, used to winnow the field.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@Martin: The counter is that in a smaller state, more money goes a longer way. Multiple Choice Mitt stands a significant chance of winning the state and all he did was cluster bomb the airwaves there with his and his SuperPAC’s money.
PeakVT
@amk: @Martin: both states are older and much whiter than the nation as a whole. So even if Iowa’s job is nothing more than to narrow the field, it will produce a field for both parties that is to the right of the parties in the nation as a whole.
DFS
Yeah, I wouldn’t call Iowa an “infected armpit.” It’s empty and boring, but “infected armpit” I would reserve for someplace like, say, Ohio.
sfinny
@suzanne: This may be one of the most heartwarming stories I’ve heard in a while. Who knew that the Iowa caucus could be a relationship starter.
Villago Delenda Est
@Ira-NY:
This function was performed during this election cycle by the seemingly endless series of GOP debates, which told us that what we need are an entire fleet of clown cars.
Jewish Steel
@suzanne: That is super sweet. Happy caucaversery! (sounds dirty when you say it out loud)
RalfW
My 2012 projection is that Mittens will lead the ticket, and Santorum will slide into the Veep slot, thus allowing fundies to go to the polls and vote for a Mormon because they’ll really be voting for very holy (never mind K Street) Santorum for 2016.
This might actually work to win the White House for these dangerous, racist, nihilist, lie-saturated warmongering fvcks.
Redshift
@suzanne: Awwww….!
BonnyAnne
@suzanne: That story is pure delight, start to finish. Thanks for sharing :D
Redshift
@Little Boots: Oh, come on! The longer Newt pretends to run for president (at least as long as he can keep from becoming a laughingstock to his target audience), the better for book sales and lecture fees.
The free market demands that he keep running!
MikeJ
@Jewish Steel:
Everything fun does.
Steve Crickmore
In the original quote by Marie-Therese, the wife of Louis XIV,” (one hundred years befor Marie Antoinette) “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche,” means, literally, “Let them eat rich, expensive, funny-shaped, yellow, eggy buns.”
Marie Antoinette never actually uttered the words “Let them eat cake.” We have it on the authority of biographer Lady Antonia Fraser.
Villago Delenda Est
@suzanne:
You know this crowd all too well.
Still, let me add my voice to the chorus of ‘what a great story!’, and as BonnyAnne said, thank you for sharing.
Calouste
@Martin:
Wyoming already has 70 times as many Senators per capita as California. No need to give them 70 times as much influence on the Presidential candidates as well.
The prophet Nostradumbass
@Martin:
So, you think people in California should have absolutely no voice in the primaries?
amk
@Martin: A better solution would be to have the same day primary in all states. It’s already being done for GE.
MikeJ
@The prophet Nostradumbass: Primary delegates don’t have to be allocated like EVs, they could actually be proportional. California could actually have 75x as many delegates as Wyoming. Big states would be the final deciders after the small states winnowed out the chaff.
The prophet Nostradumbass
@MikeJ: Your first proposal is a recipe for my complaint without your second one. What are the chances of your second one coming to pass?
Martin
@The prophet Nostradumbass:
If you put California up front, they’d have all the voice. You’d lock up 1/6th of the delegates on the first day. Anyone who lost big would never be able to recover, even if they did start getting money. Run CA, TX, NY, and IL up front, and you could tell the other 46 states to not even bother showing up.
If you really want everyone’s voice heard, have 10 primaries over 10 weeks, one each Tuesday. In the first week, the 1st, 11th, 21st, 31st, etc. congressional districts of each state runs, and 50+ delegates are handed out. In the 2nd week, the 2nd, 12th, 22nd, etc. congressional district of each state runs. Everyone has to campaign in 50 states from day one. Nobody has any more influence than anyone else. Would be wicked expensive to implement, but it’d be pretty fun to watch.
The prophet Nostradumbass
@Martin: I have no problem with that, at all. It’s the “put all of California last” that bugs me.
Martin
@amk: Nah. You actually want a winnowing process. If we had IRV, then I’d go for same-day, but that’s too fucking French for us to contemplate.
FlipYrWhig
Someone on DailyKos, I think it was, years ago now, floated an interesting idea for setting up primaries. IIRC it involved running each state in order from closest vote in previous presidential election to most lopsided. I like some of the schemes of regionally-based primaries as well.
Anoniminous
A key to the caucuses is turn-out and the Des Moines Register poll found 76% of his supporters will definitely caucus versus 58% for Romney and 56% for Paul. Santorum is also benefiting from the Undecideds deciding for him and a collapse of the other Not-Romney candidates.
The GOP doesn’t “caucus” in Iowa. It’s basically a primary with a limited – 2 hour IIRC – voting window.
Supposed to be partly cloudy and warm across Iowa tomorrow so weather won’t prevent farmers driving to the caucus sites which is a plus for Santorum.
H’mmm.
Santorum has a serious shot at taking Iowa.
cokane
interesting post, but I think Romney wins Iowa. Conservatives are motivated by one major thing: beating Obama. They will gravitate towards Romney because he is the best shot at doing that. He also has more name recognition than any other candidate in the race. He’s the easy default choice for uncommitted voters.
Porlock Junior
@suzanne:
Awww. That is one sweet story.
Makes me glad I didn’t have the sense to just go off to bed after fucking my mind with the current Greenwald war.
LosGatosCA
@Ira-NY:
Iowa’s job is to select their party delegates to go to the national convention.
In their own minds (like New Hampshire) they think they are guardians of some public trust or such nonsense.
LosGatosCA
In point of fact, the pre-primary process already thinned out Trump, Pawlenty and Cain.
Self-selection thinned out Jindal, Guiliani, Daniels, Christie, Huckabee, Palin, et al. before that.
So the first few primaries weed out the vanity candidacies (Huntsman, Bachmann) and the the few after that the clearly unfit to represent the base (Perry, Gingrich) and the ongoing tally will tell the people who are really trying to compete (Romney, Paul, and apparently now Santorum) when to fold them.
Think of the smaller states as test markets, like New Haven, for shows before they make it to Broadway. The lesser talent shouldn’t waste the big state voters time. Let Iowa and New Hampshire waste theirs.
Samara Morgan
cornfed
sry, couldn’t resist.
cornfed….like slaughter pigs.
Samara Morgan
@LosGatosCA: jindal cannot run. the Exorcism Papers make Ron Paul look sane.
The Fat Kate Middleton
@The Other Chuck: <a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLZZ6JD0g9Y