Persia and Athens at Marathon. Romney and Huckabee at Iowa. Inevitability Isn't Inevitable.
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (29) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Jim Geraghty has mentioned it and Jennifer Rubin has mentioned it.
Naturally, I now must weigh in on the matter of Huck leading Mitt in Iowa.
The Romney campaign has never said it was going to trounce the competition in Iowa. But they poured resources into winning Ames and the campaign has been camped out in Iowa for months and months and months. The Romney campaign has spent around $7 million in Iowa.
From A Mormon in the White House, Hugh Hewitt writes:
[I]n those eighty-five [LDS church] wards will be an incredible not-so-secret weapon — a core of young people who almost always count among their number a vast array of strong personalities and well-regarded and accomplished youth leaders, not to mention experienced missionaries.
Unlike the out-of-state Deaniacs in 2004 who turned off the homegrown Iowans, these Romney volunteers will be from the neighborhoods in which the caucuses will be held, will learn the sites where the caucuses will be held and will deliver not just themselves but their non-Mormon friends and neighbors to the caucuses en mass and do so with a full grasp of the rules and a deep experience in patience that comes from knocking on thousands and thousands of doors during their time as missionaries. . . .
Romney didn't write the rules for the Iowa caucuses, but he almost certainly will benefit from them.
[Emphasis added]
Romney did not start the expectations game, but once built, he has allowed himself to be portrayed as the inevitable candidate for conservatives against Rudy and the unstoppable winner in Iowa.
And if Romney does not come in first in Iowa, he is as inevitable as the great Persian army smashing the Athenians at Marathon. The dynamics will shift along with the fortunes of a number of candidates.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | A Do-Over Debate — Comments (128) »
Persia and Athens at Marathon. Romney and Huckabee at Iowa. Inevitability Isn't Inevitable. 29 Comments (0 topical, 29 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Goodness. We are all blogging about the same topic. What happens if Huckabee beats Romney in Iowa? It really is the question of the campaign right now. If you believe, as I do, that this race has come down to a three way race between Giuliani versus Romney versus Huckabee, Iowa will be crucial...... unless it turns out not to be.
If he doesn't win Iowa outright he's toast anyway.
He's probably toast even if he does, given his inability to raise money, but at least an Iowa win puts him on the map.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Expect some heavy duty attack ads from Team Romney against Huckster in the very near future.
The risk for Romney in going negative is that if he takes a chunk of points off of Huck then Fred will gain points since Fred along with Romney and Huckabee are the only serious contenders in Iowa.
However, I don't see what other choice Romney has but to go negative. If Mitt doesn't go on the offensive against Huckabee soon, Huck may have unstopable momentum heading into Iowa.
All they need to do is highlight his record.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
McCain is now visible in Romney's rearview mirror in NH.
What happens if Huckabee upsets Romney in Iowa, McCain wins NH and Giuliani tanks.
Who among the top tier are left standing? Fred? Huckabee?
A loss for ROmney in Iowa would be potentially crippling IF he went into caucus night as the clear leader and lost it.
Now expectations are changed and Huck as been focusing SOLELY on Iowa for months.
The mantra that ROmney's done if he doesn't win IA is based on the premise that Rudy and Romney would be neck and necK in NH and that the IA loss would tilt things to Rudy.
IA caucus is DOMINATED by Evangelical Christians (over 50% of caucus goers claim this title). That Romney has been doing so well there has always been a big surprise to me.
NH my be the real show-down state.
Mitt still wins NH big if:
1) Romney comes in a solid 2nd in IA and Rudy comes in 4th with McCain in 5th or 6th.
OR
2) Obama beats Hillary in IA and all the independents want to weigh in on that battle leaving Mitt with a big advantage (though all the polls still show him doing VERY well with NH independents)
OR
3) Rudy slips more and more as his patchy ethical history is played out in the MSM (as with the Judy Nathan/Hamptons/Billing irregularities story has shown)
The win in NH (with both showings besting Rudy) will give Mitt the advantage in MI and NV over Rudy. In none of these 3 major states between IA and SC does Huck or Fred have much of a chance.
Then SC becomes the real showdown in the leadup to FL and Tsunami Tuesday.
I agree with Erick that Romney's "inevitability" is in question if he doesn't win IA . . . but it also sounds like Erick is conversely arguing that Romney IS inevitable if he wins IA.
Is that what you meant? :)
Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).
...on a FL/Feb. 5th strategy. If Huck and Romney split IA/NH, Rudy is not harmed. Mitt won't seem as inevitable, and Rudy can run even just a close second in MI, win NV, pick up a few delegates in SC and move on to FL. Unless Rudy literally implodes over the ethics thing, I just don't see him losing his leads in NY/NJ/CT, and if there is no consolidation of the "anti-Rudy" vote due to splits between Romney and Huck (and maybe others), Rudy will do well in California.
That still gets Rudy out of Feb. 5th with a lot of delegates, and perhaps more delegates than either Romney or Huckabee. The issue could really then be whether either Romney or Huckabee performed well enough on Feb. 5th to force the other off the stage. If both Romney and Huckabee stay in it much past Feb. 5th, you are risking, more and more, that nobody gets an outright majority, making it possible that Thompson and McCain could play a more prominent role in the outcome than their finishes would warrant (by throwing their blocks of delegates, and their support in later contests) to one of the other horses left.
(I do note that most delegate rules do not bind the delegates to vote for anybody other than the candidate - so if Thompson wins a delegate he cannot transfer the commitment to another candidate - he can only release his delegates and ask them to honor his request to vote for his preferred person).
Also note that, in almost every state, the 3 delegates that are awarded in the persons of the State Chair, Committeeman, and Commiteewoman go to the convention unpledged regardless of state caucus, convention or primary results. If there is any need to "broker" things late, they could collectively back someone not even officially in the race (or one of the also-rans) in an attempt to defuse a "situation" (like not knowing who we're going to wind up with until late spring, or possibly even late summer if we have to go all the way to convention).
But, if Huck scores an upset in Iowa, and Mitt wins the next four, that means Rudy goes into Feb. 5 without a win. He's in trouble, and I think Mitt is still in the driver's seat in that case.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
However, if the Browns beat the Bengals and the Jaguars at least tie the Colts, they will only need either a Chargers loss or a Broncos win.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
This whole thing is bazaar to me. I have lots of questions.
Has Romney not spent 53 mil or more? If not mainly in Iowa then where?
I am very curious about this other number as well. I have a hard time believing Carter was serious about 327 dollars. What does one plane ticket cost to Iowa?
Huckabee is running at least two commercials now, I think. Huckbee has spent some money too.
I find this very odd.
Jim Tomasik
He seems to me a slightly more competent, and even more squishy George W. Bush. Doubt that our movement could withstand another such leader.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Since when did being a Mormon in Iowa become a positive? I know folks out there who quote Jeremiah and Micah verbatim along with their 10 closest neighbors ever time the subject comes up.
What's the rationale, that numerical feet on the ground bearing a quality of persistence gained from having doors slammed in their face is an- advantage?
Please tell me there is more to this since it's really all just very silly and illogical.
Romney is certainly polishing his delivery to the point he has a real shot. But trying to divine a win in Iowa will have nothing to do with his overall success. I don't think my reasoning qualifies as "going out on a limb"; does it Iowa?
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
Iowa will be decided with very few votes. If you've got a self-selected group who would be motivated to show up and vote you can swing the "election". That's why caucuses are so stupid.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Who might those few votes come from? Evangelicals that suddenly decided to join the LDS church, Iowa's large Mormon population or some five finger cows with voter ID cards and a secret love for Joseph Smith?
Sorry, you know me I am a little dense.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
What's your point? That Romney doesn't stand a chance of winning Iowa when he is pitted against an evangelical Christian in a low turnout caucus?
That the argument presented regarding Mormon grassroots efforts is substantially flawed.
Reread what I wrote.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
I read the original comment to be saying that the LDSers will have experience will engaging in a door to door activity. They will be motivated for their guy. And that they are not "foreigners" like the Deaniacs were. While they may not be a large community the Mormons in Iowa are Iowans, and will be able to communicate with their neighbors (for all their religious disagreement) with a kind of instinctive understanding of the state, the precinct, the caucus process and the meetings themselves.
That is what could be advantageous to Romney in a caucus situation where "feet on the ground" is much more important than on a primary day.
Yet you also have a point about evangelicals - and about the small Mormon population - which I don't think the other comment disputes. Though I have to wonder: if evangelicals were all so dead set against a Mormon, how did Romney garner 30+% at points, and why was he ever leading there back when a guy like Brownback was in the race (for that matter Huckabee was in it too)? I don't think evangelicals are unanimous in their opinion as to the impact Mormonism has on their vote.
Let's put this post up.
You are lowering the expectations by implying Romney is mortally wounded should he loose Iowa. That way if he does, people expect him to be finished, yet he clearly isn't and then he surpasses expectations.
Man, blogging psychology.
IA caucus is DOMINATED by Evangelical Christians (over 50% of caucus goers claim this title). That Romney has been doing so well there has always been a big surprise to me
Actually, here are the demographics.
* Protestant – 52%
o Lutheran – 16%
o Methodist – 13%
o Baptist – 5%
o Presbyterian – 3%
o Pentecostal – 2%
o Congregational/United Church of Christ – 2%
o Other Protestant or general Protestant – 11%
* Roman Catholic – 23%
* Other Christian – 1%
# Other Religions – 6%
# Non-Religious – 13%
# Did not answer – 5%
Now, I am not sure which you would consider Evangelical Christians, but I think for what little I know, it would be the 5% of Baptist. Now, I don't know what Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran think about Baptist, but I got a feeling, they may not see eye to eye.
The one thing I am sure of, this may very well set a record for the number of voters attending the Caucuses, and I think there will be a wide gap between 2nd and 3rd. 1st and 2nd, will be almost a virtual tie.
Also, I got a feeling Catholics may not be that enthused with a Evangelical Christian. Some of Huckabee's attempts to get Evangelical Christians to vote for him, may turn off those who don't consider themselves Evangelical Christians.
I have SERIOUS theological problems with LDS. Plu, I have serious reservations about Mitt as POTUS, I really don't like the the guy at all.
That said, I'd vote for either RonPaul™ or my dead white cat before I voted for BJ.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
The evangelicals who are concerned about Mitt's religion will have to decide between those three concerns.
1) Is a vote for Mitt approval of his religion or his policies?
A: Policies. I don't Know ANYONE who will vote for him because they think he will push his religion into his policies.
2) Is a vote for Huck approval of his religion or his policies?
A: So far, it seems as if the only things he has going for him is his religion and his affability.
3) Are Mitt's religion or platform detrimental to conservatism?
A: Mitt is weak on the 2nd, but he isn't a gun grabber. He hasn't espoused any policies that are anti-conservative and his religion teaches very conservative ideals.
4) Are Huck's religion or platform detrimental to conservatism?
A: What is his platform? He makes a lot of jokes and clever statements, but that isn't enough to obfuscate his recent history of anti-conservative policies. His religion is very conservative in certain areas, except for taxes, immigration, and personal freedoms.
In the final analysis, all that matters is religious values and conservatism. Mitt has both where as Huck has only religious values.
I think it's silly for Christians to be concerned about Romney because of his Mormon faith. It is highly unlikely that Mormon theology will "leak" into anything Romney would do as president. I believe it's more likely that Huckabee's Christian beliefs would permeate his presidency, and that's not necessarily bad, although you begin to run into the "what does the Bible really say about this?" problem. I think both Romney and Huckabee would govern based on moral values, although some still question Romney's sincerity due to his past changes of position. From a SoCon perspective, I don't think either are objectionable, and I don't think Huckabee's faith is detrimental.
It would be an interesting exercise to try to map Huckabee's Christian conservatism into his fiscal and immigration policies. I think he's made an attempt to do that, but I think he has it totally backwards - this is where he lapses into Mr. Compassionate Conservative. It is possible to be a Christian and have conservative philosophy (as opposed to Huckabee's socialist tendencies) towards fiscal and other issues aside from abortion, homosexuality, etc.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
The Church and the government have different roles.
The Church has a responsibility to "widows and orphans", making sure they're taken care of. The "compassionate conservatives" think the way to do this is have the government do it. The problem is, the government is terrible at implementing social programs. The Church is much better suited to this task. Just look at the history, especially the 19th and early 20th centuries.
In the end, Huck's social and fiscal policies would hurt the very people he wants to help (and I believe he sincerely wants to help).
==== 13 ====
had something right. His faith-based initiatives leverage the God-given responsibilities of churches and other private-sector social service organizations to serve the needy. The only concern I have had about it is the possible results stemming from a faith-based organization feeding at the public trough...that could cause problems (and I don't mean church/state separation). Addiction to government funding has insidious effects on an organization.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
Erick
I was posting my blog entry at the same time you were posting this.
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/a_texan/2007/nov/30/notes_on_todays_predic....
You gotta wait a few more weeks before you worry about expectations, I think. In fact, if Huckabee has a decent lead around Christmas, he will be the one worrying about expectations, I think.
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke