Iowa Caucuses

[Bri]

In the end, I see it mostly as a race between Santorum and Romney at this point because Santorum is the least crazy of four crazies.

You really think so? Santorum is the latest anti-Romney, but I don't know if he's going anywhere. He's also just as crazy (probably moreso) than some of the others, he just hasn't been thoroughly vetted. His craziness is mainly concentrated in the sphere of social issues, which has helped him in Iowa but will probably hurt him elsewhere. Also, his craziness is remarkably consistent -- one can suspect that some of the other candidates are just pandering to the far right, but Santorum seems to really believe some of the things he's said:

“Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?”

“The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire.”

“I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts.”

“What happened in America so that mothers and fathers who leave their children in the care of someone else ... find themselves more affirmed by society? ... Here, we can thank the influence of radical feminism, one of the core philosophies of the village elders.”

“This was tried once before in America, when the liberty and happiness rights of the slaveholder were put over the life and liberty rights of the slave. But unlike abortion today, in most states even the slaveholder did not have unlimited right to kill his slave.”

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. [Sex] is supposed to be within marriage. It’s supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal…but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen…This is special and it needs to be seen as special.”​

-Bri

 

[marksman]

Iowa will send 28 of the 2,286 delegates to the 2012 Republican National Convention. Does anyone else think that the importance of the Iowa caucuses has been overblown?

No. I heard one commentator say that Iowa doesn't anoint kings; it identifies knaves. Iowa is full of right-wing whackadoodles. So if you are a candidate who hoped to get nominated by appealing to that constituency an it's clear you aren't their choice, you get out. That's why Perry and Bachman are probably going to drop out soon. Gingrich is holding on because if Santorum screws up, he might be able to get back the right-wing vote. And Huntsman doesn't care about Iowa because he isn't going for the nutjob vote. (But if Huntsman doesn't do well in NH, he'll drop out -- at this point Huntsman is mostly setting himself up to be the frontrunner among moderate GOP candidates in 2016.) And Paul never cared about political reality (though the fact that he doubled his percentage of the vote from four years ago is troubling.)

 

[daredelvis]

I know Santorum did not win, but does anyone know if Santorum covered the spread?

Daredelvis

 

[Denver]

I think Romney's Mormonism may be a blessing in disguise for his campaign. Because of it, he won't push his religious beliefs as much as the other candidates. And I am starting to get the feeling that large amounts of conservative voters are getting tired of how the candidates are using their religion for the candidates own gain. This has gotten so old and overdone now, I am expecting a backfire.

 

[Small Town Jesus]

I think Romney's Mormonism may be a blessing in disguise for his campaign. Because of it, he won't push his religious beliefs as much as the other candidates. And I am starting to get the feeling that large amounts of conservative voters are getting tired of how the candidates are using their religion for the candidates own gain. This has gotten so old and overdone now, I am expecting a backfire.

A Santorum backfire?

Duck and cover!

 

[Brown]

Could the "she" not be the explanation? After all for many Christians (look at the RCC for an example) the idea of a female leader is an anathema?

Hard to say. The GOP in Iowa fought hard against the state Equal Rights amendments (the Amendment eventually being adopted in a different form, and none of the parade of horribles imagined by the anti-ERA forces coming to pass), and also fought like hell against Democrat Liberal Trial Lawyer Roxanne Conlin becoming governor. The Elephants were OK with a woman holding the Lt. Governor's job, but were less comfortable with a little lady in the top spot.

There have been several women on the Iowa bench, however, at trial and appellate levels. The first woman lawyer in the US came from Iowa. Many administrative agencies and government branches have women as leaders or in positions of power. Women have been elected to the state legislature. There have been few widespread complaints of sexism in local elections. Even in very rural (some say, "conservative") areas, women hold elected positions as mayors, clerks of court, city council persons, members of the boards of supervisors.

In short, I suspect there is some sexism, but the sexism is not very overt (and might be honestly denied by many who might be perceived as sexist) and in any event sexism does not explain the result.

Rather, the result is more a consequence of a negative campaign, a campaign based more upon what voters don't want than on what they do want. The GOP doesn't want Obama. But who to replace him? Many of them don't want Romney for various reasons. So Bachmann became the front runner, as a self-made lady with Iowa roots. But then it seemed she showed herself to be a spooky loon. Okay, said the Elephants, we don't want her. How about Perry? He seems to be popular! But then Perry turned out to be brain-deficient, and when he opened his mouth, inanity came out. Okay, said the Elephants, we don't want him. How about Cain? He's a businessman, and shouldn't government be run like a business? Cain stayed on top for a while, then it was discovered that he had some episodes of Perry-esque stupidity and Clinton-esque bad judgment. Okay, said the Elephants, we don't want him. How about Gingrich? He's got experience and he's sorta smart. But Newt turned out to be an insider, a liar, a fool and an insufferable blowhard. Okay, said the Elephants, we don't want him. How about ... my goodness, who's left? How about Santorum? He's ... uh ... not Romney, not Paul, not Huntsman.

Is there anyone out there who doubts that, if the Iowa campaign were to extend another few weeks, that Santorum would have fallen out of favor? He is, after all, a buffoon who tries to make totalitarianism sound appealing, and Iowans would eventually start to cringe. Santorum's fall from favor may of course still happen, although Santorum (like Cain and Gingrich before him) is confident he can hold onto a contending spot, if not the lead. It is a State other than Iowa who will have to filter him out, though.

So my take is that sexism is not so much a motivator as cowardice. In particular, the cowardice associated with being against things but not having the fortitude to stand up and say what you're FOR. In a sense, Bachmann was LESS of a coward than her male counterparts, since she did stand up and say what she was for. It's just that people didn't like where she stood.

 

[Solitaire]

The only "not Romney" left is Huntsman, and the nut-right will never support him because he believes in evolution.

Actually, I suspect that if he stays in he'll be next one on conservative roulette.
I expect they'll dump him in a month and then start voting for Ron Paul before
finally settling in on voting en mass for the anti-Romney candidate whose last
name begins with 'O' as in 'Oprah' this November.

 

[Oliver]

Wikipedia is your friend.


So, if I understand this (which I am by no means sure of) it looks like the Caucuses are to appoint electors to county conventions. Those electors then vote for electors to a state convention, who then choose electors for the national convention.

It gets even better: All these electors can vote for whoever they want. It's as if you never casted a vote.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I know Santorum did not win, but does anyone know if Santorum covered the spread?

Daredelvis

No, Mitt's magic underwear contained it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

First: The showing of Santorum is not really a surprise, given the showing of Pat Robertson a few decades ago. There are a substantial number of Elephant Party voters who think that they're calling a pastor rather than picking a presidential preference, and whoever says "Christ" and "Jesus" and "Bible" the most and the loudest will get their vote. Wisdom and intelligence be damned, gooble gobble, we've got to support "one of us," someone who is just as judgmental and deluded and backward and morally screwed up as we are.

And bear in mind that the "substantial number" here is only reflected by 30,000 caucus voters.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It gets even better: All these electors can vote for whoever they want. It's as if you never casted a vote.

Not really. The result of this caucus is already having the effect on this race of a couple of candidates possibly dropping out.

I mentioned already that Iowa being the first means they've traded off being an early leader of the primary at the cost of being a later follower (at the actual convention).

ETA: And given how few voters we're talking about, I'd say the Iowa GOP caucus has a disproportionately large impact on the GOP primary.

 

[Brown]

Actually, I suspect that if he stays in he'll be next one on conservative roulette.
I expect they'll dump him in a month and then start voting for Ron Paul before
finally settling in on voting en mass for the anti-Romney candidate whose last
name begins with 'O' as in 'Oprah' this November.

It would not be out of the question for someone like Bachmann or Perry to say, "To heck with it, I'm staying in the race," just as Newt is expected to do. There may be a dynamic at play that has never been seen before, and it's a longshot, but still.

Once you drop out, you've got no more chance to surge. (Say, wasn't there someone else from Minnesota, a governor, Tim Something, who was in the race but dropped out? Wouldn't Iowans have favored him over this guy Santorum?? Too bad he dropped out after ... what was it that made him drop out, again??)

If you've got a voting group that is more concerned with what it doesn't want than with what it does want, then dropping out might not be a smart move. Maybe a candidate can rise in popularity, plummet, and then rise again. Newt (maybe) thinks he can do it, although the conventional wisdom is that he's in it for financial and some political reasons. Maybe Bachmann and Perry might think that their stars might rise again, if voters conclude that they really don't want Santorum, but don't want Romney or Paul.

 

[bonzombiekitty]

People from nations other than Canada also find the campaign hard to believe.

Yeah, my sister lives in the UK and is the token American amongst her friends and co-workers. She's getting tired of having to say "Yes, I know it's crazy but I swear we're not all like that".

 

[Brainster]

Iowa will send 28 of the 2,286 delegates to the 2012 Republican National Convention. Does anyone else think that the importance of the Iowa caucuses has been overblown?

Actually, the caucuses are non-binding, so by that metric it's even less important than you indicate.

But in reality it is important because:

1. It results in free media exposure to the strong finishers. Media is very expensive these days and getting some for free can go a long way.

2. It starts to separate the candidates. As Scrut noted, Perry and Bachmann will likely drop out. Romney will probably experience a good surge going into New Hampshire, which was already friendly territory for him.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I keep hearing about the dollars spent (on media ads in Iowa) per vote won, and Santorum was the big winner of that measure.

This makes me wonder if his technique of campaigning by silence will work from here on out? (After all, silence communicates the "I'm not Romney" message as good as anything, and it prevents him getting caught saying something foolish.)



In fact, I think Santorum was just the most recent not-Romney flavor of the month, who had the good fortune to peak exactly when 100,000 Iowans were asked to vote for a nominee. I predict he will "regress to the mean" in short order.

 

[bonzombiekitty]

In fact, I think Santorum was just the most recent not-Romney flavor of the month, who had the good fortune to peak exactly when 100,000 Iowans were asked to vote for a nominee.

Which was exactly what the campaign was banking on. They admitted as much back when Gingrich was starting to surge.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Which was exactly what the campaign was banking on. They admitted as much back when Gingrich was starting to surge.

Well, I don't think they intended Iowa to be the peak of the campaign (meaning a decline is coming--a rapid one, most likely). If so, it's a very strange strategy. (Or is Santorum going to write a book and use his primary fame to sell it?)

ETA: I predict that sooner or later (probably sooner now that Perry and Bachmann are gone), Republicans will begin realize that they can't nominate "not-Romney". Their choice will be between Romney and some other candidate with even more problems than Romney, and then Romney will start to break the 25% ceiling he keeps bumping into. I hope I'm wrong, for the same reason I suspect Republicans will do this (any one of the other candidates would be even less of a challenge to Obama).

 

[Oliver]

Not really. The result of this caucus is already having the effect on this race of a couple of candidates possibly dropping out.

True, but Iowa's Republican caucuses are non-binding — they are technically just a straw poll and delegates are free to vote for whichever presidential candidate they choose.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

True, but Iowa's Republican caucuses are non-binding — they are technically just a straw poll and delegates are free to vote for whichever presidential candidate they choose.

I understand that. (That's exactly what I meant by Iowa's delegates to the convention taking the role of followers.) But Bachmann and Perry are out. That's a very real and very significant effect. Iowa delegates to the GOP convention will not, practically speaking, be free to vote for either of them.

Again, Iowa has opted to be an early leader in influencing the primary at the cost of being a later follower.

ETA: In sum, again, I think this has resulted in the relatively few participants in the Iowa GOP caucus having a disproportionately large effect on the primary.

 

[Brown]

Yeah, my sister lives in the UK and is the token American amongst her friends and co-workers. She's getting tired of having to say "Yes, I know it's crazy but I swear we're not all like that".

I get a much stronger international exposure in Canada than I did in the US. Many of my friends have relatives or close contacts in Europe or Asia or the Middle East or elsehwhere. It is via these folks that I get a sense that people in other advanced countries are watching the US and can't decide whether what they're seeing is authentic insanity or not.

There have been times in election cycles (now and in 2007-08) when I have been treated like a man with a psychotic family, merely because I come from the United States, and maybe people thought I brought a little of that mental sickness across the border with me. No one has ever been rude about it, but some have politely made inquiry whether I was a rational person, or whether I was reflective of the lunacy they saw on television. A few have avoided making any comments about US politics out of concern for causing offense. When I first came to Canada, I encountered many Canadians who despised President George W. Bush (and I have YET to find a single Canadian who thinks highly of him), but were reluctant to mention their distaste for the man out of concern that I might have been one of his supporters.

Anyway, I submit that maintaining the national image is important. Trashing the national image to "win" the presidency strikes me as block-headed. In human beings, a quality of maturity is self-awareness and an understanding of what impressions you may be creating in others. When candidates do not care how the rest of the world perceives them or their causes, they show an immaturity that everyone else in the world can recognize at once, and it stains the entire nation.