The Nut-Jobs Talk Faith With Iowa

The first major event in Iowa of the 2012 Presidential season has come and gone, albeit without Romney, Huckabee, or Palin. Don't get down though, as the lacking of front-running candidates didn't dampen the crazy talk.

The candidates essentially pledged the same thing, with a few variations in language and emphasis: defending marriage as a covenant between man and woman; curbing abortion; slashing the federal deficit; and shifting power away from Washington in favor of state and local governments.

Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota, delivered one of numerous condemnations of President Obama and the secular tilt that he and others blamed on the country's fraying morality.

"We need to be a country that turns toward God," he said. "Not a country that turns away from God."

Playing off the title of his recent book, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich decried the "secular socialists" surrounding the president and said they "could not possibly lead the country to a successful future."

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum decried the "entitlement attitude" propagated by Democrats in Washington and suggested Obama's push for national healthcare legislation was akin to a dope dealer trying to hook someone on drugs.

"If that's not a moral issue," Santorum said, "I don't know what is."

There was no interaction among the candidates, who took turns speaking for about 10 minutes each and never appeared together onstage. The closest anyone came to engaging in debate was Roemer, who pledged to accept no more than $100 from any single source. That, he said, is the only way to accomplish what everyone else promised to do.

The fifth contender on the stage, former Godfather's Pizza chief executive and radio talk show host Herman Cain, echoed GOP criticisms of Obama as insufficiently convinced of American exceptionalism.

"I have a breaking news announcement for President Obama: The United States of America is not going to become the United States of Europe. Not on our watch," he said.

Get this straight- Republican means saving the unborn children, stopping gays from legal recognition of their relationship, gutting spending, and states' rights. President Obama is pro-Europe, doesn't believe we have divine right, "like a drug dealer," a "secular socialist," and wants to turn us away from God.

These guys are all nuts.

Sarah Palin's Iowa Constituency

These are the caucus-goers who will decide the Iowa Caucus. Listen to what they say. "He's a Muslim." "He's Neville Chamberlain." "He believes America is at fault." Who's rhetoric of the Presidential contenders in the GOP closest matches this? Mitt Romney? He's trying, but not there. Mike Huckabee? Frankly, he'd be way out of character. Gingrich? He'd be making a fool of himself. This is Sarah Palin's base. This is who will go to the caucuses for her, IF she runs a good race there.

538 Graph: How The GOP Field Relates To Each Other

I'll let Nate Silver explain this himself:

One dimension is obvious: we can classify the candidates from left to right, from relatively more moderate to relatively more conservative. But another dimension that is often salient in the primaries, and perhaps especially so for Republicans next year, is what we might think of as the insider/outsider axis: whether the candidate is viewed as part of the Republican establishment, or as a critic of it.

There are two more kinds of information embedded in the chart. First, the area of each candidate’s circle is proportional to their perceived likelihood of winning the nomination, according to the Intrade betting market. Mitt Romney’s circle is drawn many times the size of the one for the relatively obscure talk-radio host Herman Cain because Intrade rates Mr. Romney many times as likely to be nominated.

Finally, the color of each circle reflects the region the candidate is from: blue for the Northeast, red for the South, green for the Midwest, and yellow for the West.

I think this is useful for one reason, and one reason alone. I don't necessarily typically agree with the Beltway crowd's labels on candidates, as a useful tool for looking at these primary fields for President. Rather, I think what matters is how they relate to voters, and the perception voters have of them. This is really, really important in these early states, where particularly, the perceptions amongst activists really matter. In the Iowa Caucus, having a core group of active supporters early on is as important as having a lot, hence why Mike Huckabee, who leads right now, isn't a lock to win. To be fair, Huckabee will have hard-core supporters too. This sort of shows why a Palin or Bachmann, or even a DeMint or Santorum, might be really appealing candidates, in the early states. New Hampshire and Iowa activists do this every four years, and winning them over might be more important at first than winning the masses.

Poll: Huckabee Leads Iowa, Romney New Hampshire

GOP consulting firm Strategic National polled Iowa and New Hampshire. Their results?

Iowa:

Mike Huckabee 28%, Mitt Romney 19%, Sarah Palin 12%, Newt Gingrich 12%, Tim Pawlenty 4%, Michele Bachmann 4%

New Hampshire:

Mitt Romney 34%, Mike Huckabee 14%, Sarah Palin 13%, Newt Gingrich 9%, Tim Pawlenty 5%

What this says? Romney is the front-runner, Huckabee the top challenger. Palin, Gingrich, and Pawlenty all have a chance, but probably only if they show very well in Iowa. This leads to the main question, should Romney go for it in Iowa, or lay-up and take some delegates? If he goes for it, and comes in behind anyone besides Huckabee, it may kill him in New Hampshire, where he looks strong. For Gingrich or Palin, simply beating Romney may catapult them in this race. The wild-card here? Huckabee says he won't enter until summer. So, is he going to enter at all? Or, will he be weak then? If he's a non-factor, it's wide open. Interestingly enough, no sign of Haley Barbour here. I would think he needs to be a competitor in Iowa.

Draft Mitch Daniels Commercial

Really? This is the way to draft him?

Anyone Awake In Iowa And New Hampshire???

It's January 27th, 2011. No one's running for President yet. Apparently, the polls aren't moving yet either. PPP Polling suggests no one has gone up more than 3% in Iowa or New Hampshire since May. No one. Not even Sarah Palin, who some are declaring is politically "dead." Welcome to the 2012 election.

Here's Iowa:

Candidate May 2010 January 2011 Shift
Mike Huckabee 27% 30% +3
Sarah Palin 17% 15% -2
Newt Gingrich 16% 13% -3
Mitt Romney 15% 18% +3
Ron Paul 7% 6% -1
John Thune 2% 3% +1

Got that? Here's New Hampshire:

Candidate April 2010 October 2010 Shift
Mitt Romney 39% 40% +1
Mike Huckabee 11% 13% +2
Newt Gingrich 11% 10% -1
Sarah Palin 13% 10% -3
Tim Pawlenty 3% 4% +1

So what's it mean? Well, first off, it means that no one's paying attention to people who aren't declared candidates. Shocking, I know. This also means that fundraising totals for the tier twos- Pawlenty, Bachmann, Thune, etc.- will be crucial. Could there be room for a late run at this? Yeah, but only for funded candidates. My sense is that this favors the front-runners. Romney, Huckabee, Palin, and Gingrich all will gather lots of attention no matter the early polling, and to be ahead means they will squeeze others out. It could hurt them too, if they all stay stagnant for months. We'll see in due time I guess, but clearly no one has the early mo'.

Meet The GOP Field: The Front-Runners

It's that time again.... the 2012 Election is going to begin any day now (well, we think). By my count, 18 Republican names are floating about for 2012, and in the coming months at least some of them will arrive in Des Moines and Nashua, and will begin courting the activists in Columbia and Carson City. You'll see them from Sioux City to Davenport, and everywhere in between. You'll see them on the Sea Coast, and in Manchester. The campaign will begin, in earnest.

We're going to start by looking at the heavyweights of the GOP Primary field for 2012. The four candidates we open with all start with a substantial head-start on the field- but with some drawbacks. We'll review who they are, how we describe them, and why they will or won't win the nomination. Here we go.

• Mike Huckabee- The former Governor of Arkansas. He is both social conservative, and by the current GOP's standards an economic moderate. Don't get me wrong, Huckabee is right of center for sure on economics, but he's not for abolishing the Department of Education, right now. Huckabee's pathway to victory is clear. He must reclaim the social conservative base that won him Iowa in 2008, and then use that momentum to capture the South Carolina primary afterwards to catapult him to the nomination. If he loses, it'll be because he's old news, his rhetoric is too soft, and he's the "other guy from Hope, Arkansas."
• Sarah Palin- The former Governor of Alaska. She is the darling of the Tea Party activists, a star with social conservatives, the largest media celebrity in the race, and the candidate of the anti-intellectualism movement. Palin can win the nomination because she inspires the exact kind of activists that carry the day in Iowa, her rhetoric reaches the Tea Party crowd who has been winning primaries, and has less of a record to explain than the other front-runners. If she loses, it'll be because she's unelectable, is hopeless in New Hampshire's open primary, and she runs a lazy, media driven campaign. Her race could be over quick with a weak showing in Iowa, or no wins in Iowa and South Carolina.
• Mitt Romney- The former Governor of Massachusetts. Romney is supposed to be Mr. Electable, straight out of central-casting. He is guy who can reach independents, the "moderate" on social issues who can speak in "business language." Romney must build on his runner-up finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire in 2008, and most certainly must win New Hampshire. If he loses, it's because he's altered every position he has, he gets called a liberal, his health care law is too big of an issue, he's unable to come up with a platform of ideas, he's a re-run candidate, and his ugly corporate past comes up.
• Newt Gingrich- The former Speaker of the House of Representatives. Gingrich is the "modern intellectual father" of the conservative movement, a social and economic conservative. Gingrich can run on the "good old days"- the 90's, particularly in a bad economy. He will attempt to run strong in all of the early states, and may be the only of the front-runners who can do so. If he loses, it'll be because his closet has more skeletons than a grave yard, is no longer fresh and exciting, and he has no extremely strong appeal in any of these early states, and oh yeah, he isn't electable.

Well, that's that for now. We'll have more later.

Palin, Bachmann Scoping Out Iowa

Two (crazy) women, two different approaches to running for the GOP Presidential nomination in Iowa. Apparently, both Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann are taking a serious look at Iowa, and their opportunities there, but their road there is different.

Sarah Palin is walking softly. She has sent aides to the state to meet with key grassroots activists. Palin herself isn't visible in Iowa much yet, and she is essentially bypassing the major establishment leaders in favor of the grassroots types. She has no specific staffers there yet, and she doesn't have anyone assigned to coordinate the state.

Michele Bachmann is going the other way on this one. The Congresswoman is meeting tomorrow with Governor Branstad and the GOP Chairman Matt Strawn. She is going to meet with state lawmakers as well. Bachmann also will give an anti-tax speech, meet with the Tea Party, and work the coffee shop circuit in Des Moines during her weekend visit. It's safe to say she's going straight to the top.

So, who has the better approach? History may mislead us here. Vice-President Biden had the deep support with state legislators in 2008, while Secretary of State Clinton had the backing of the popular former Governor (Vilsack). Labor lined up hard behind Clinton and former Senator Edwards. President Obama spent millions building a grassroots campaign that was unmatched. Senator Edwards built on top of his strong grassroots 2004 team. They finished first and second. I would say Palin has the better idea of these two, but let's temper that for a moment. She needs to engage herself here, and put serious staff in. If she does that, she has the right idea. If not, she's done. As for Bachmann, endorsements don't win caucuses, but they do help. She appears committed to the state right now. That's likely to help her down the road. Both have a lot of work to do against Huckabee and Romney, who finished first and second here in 2008.