Jockeying for the American Presidency: The Political Opportunism of Aspirants

Some Thoughts on the GOP Iowa Caucus - Posted December 31, 2011

We're about five hours from the new year, one hour from the release of the Des Moines Register's last poll (LINK), and 72 hours from the first nomination contest of the 2012 presidential election. It seems like a good time to offer some thoughts on the commentary on the chances of the top six Republican aspirants vying for their party's nomination.

Starting with the obvious, let's state that (1) Gingrich has fallen like a rock, (2) Rick Perry is betting the ranch, (3) Michele Bachmann had the worst week of her campaign, and (4) Rick Santorum has had a good week. In short, the conventional wisdom is that Mitt Romney is likely to win Iowa, Ron Paul will likely place second, Rick Santorum will likely place third, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry are fighting for fourth, and Michele Bachmann is trying not to be last.

Beyond this, it seems important to note two things, which both come from dissecting the 2008 GOP Iowa entrance poll (LINK).

First, last time around 60% of those who voted in the GOP caucus identified themselves as evangelicals or born-again Christians. This time, it is unlikely that the composition of the Republican caucus goers will stay the same. Why? Because last time, a large number of Independents and nearly all Democrats made the decision to vote in the Democratic caucus (and most voted for Barack Obama), instead of the Republican caucus. This cycle, Obama has no competition and the GOP caucus is the only game in town. Expect an electorate that is closer to 55-45 than 60-40. This trend as Nate Silver noted, will likely help Ron Paul. What Nate did not mention is that this trend will also likely help Mitt Romney, who split the Independent vote in 2008 with Ron Paul (see entrance poll link above). 

Second, Mitt Romney is also in good shape (and I believe we'll eventually see that this is why he won in 2012) because of another trend that was evident in the 2008 entrance poll. Romney won the voters who made their decision about whom they would vote for "within the last three days." These were not as one might suspect the indecisive voters, but the "pragmatic" voters, the ones who wanted (and he won this group in 2008) a candidate that was "electable." This time around, it is even more likely that more Iowa Republicans (after four years of a sluggish economy and an opposition party incumbent) will want an "electable" candidate over a true believer they feel related to or are inspired by. Hence, Romney's support is likely to grow in the next three days. This means Romney's in good shape not only in the Hawkeye State, but also in the Granite, Palmetto, and Sunshine States. Look for this nomination to wrap-up about as quickly as John Kerry's 2004 Democratic run.

For more on how the Iowa Caucus works, see Politico's rundown (LINK).

UPDATED - January 3, 2011

As you'll note, more pundits are likening Romney's run to Kerry's in 2004 (LINK). Even Gallup has taken notice of the similarities in the polling between 2003 and 2011 (LINK).

There are, however, three more things I'd like to point out before the voting gets underway in Iowa and these will likely be uppermost in my mind as I watch the returns tonight.

First, Romney earned 25% of the vote in IA in 2008. Will he best his previous mark tonight? If he does, given the largely divided support in the GOP field, it will not only almost surely mean he'll win, but will also mean that he'll have strengthened his coalition over these last four years.

Second, does Romney win more rural counties in IA, which he did not win in 2008? If you look at the county map on CNN's 2008 IA results page (LINK), you can see that Romney won mostly the counties with the larger cities, like Cedar Rapids, in them (with the notable exception of Polk, where Des Moines is located) and those counties that border Illinois and Nebraska. What is going to be interesting tonight is how many counties that are smaller, more rural, more "Iowa" (than the border counties) can he win? Should he win several of them, it may be a sign that Romney has not only strengthened his coalition, but that he has broadened it. It may also be a sign that some evangelical and born-again Christians in those rural communities are more focused on "electablility" than "ideological purity" this time around. And if this is the case, then the Republicans are also likely to have a more energized party base - irrespective of their party nominee - than they did in 2008.

Third, I'll be interested to see both the composition of the GOP electorate in terms of gender and the way women vote in the GOP caucus. Ron Paul has traditionally not done as well among women, while Romney has done well. In 2008, women only made up 44% of the GOP caucus vote and 40% of those women voted for Huckabee. This time around, it will be fascinating to see (a) whether more women vote in the GOP caucus, and (b) whether women are the key to Romney's win (his defeating Paul). It will also be fascinating to see how they split their votes among Santorum, Bachmann, and Perry, and whether or not having a woman running in the GOP field matters.

Happy Caucus Day! Happy voting!

UPDATED - January 5, 2011 - What It All Meant!

Here's my take on the state of the Republican Party in 2012, posted on the New York Times "Room for Debate" blog: LINK

Beyond that let me say two things about Romney's win.

First, as I elude to in my NYT blog, he "coasted" to his win in IA. He relied on his ability this time around to pick up Polk County (Des Moines), which he did not in 2008, to put him over the top in the Hawkeye State. It did, but only by eight votes. Had he focused on Woodbury County (Sioux City) and the western border of Iowa, where he had done well in 2008, instead of ceding them to Santorum in the last week, he would have come away with a clearer victory, and it would likely put him on a glide path to winning New Hampshire and the GOP nomination. He chose not to. Probably because when it comes to Iowa, Romney is probably "once bitten, twice shy." Still, it is unfortunate because he went from winning Woodbury with 38% of the vote in 2008 to only earning 28% of the vote in 2012. Huckabee came in second in 2008, Santorum (thanks to his last minute surge) came in first in 201.

Second, the women's vote was slightly down from 2008 (43% of the GOP electorate in 2012 and 44% of the GOP electorate in 2008). This was surprising to me given how much ground work the GOP had laid with women during the 2010 midterm election cycle. I would suggest that this had something to do with (a) Palin not running, (b) Bachmann imploding, and (c) Cain's sexual harassment issues and Gingrich's multiple marriages and affairs, which in general, seemed to "slime" the entire GOP field. Romney, as I said above, has traditionally done well among women (in no small part due to his incredible wife, Ann). Still, as I also eluded to in my NYT blog, unless Romney starts deploying Senator Kelly Ayotte and Governor Nikki Haley (both of whom have endorsed Romney) to reach out to women and get them excited about the Republican Party again, Romney may discover that not only is the nomination more difficult for him to secure, but the general election may be tougher than he imagines. In short, the "swing vote" for the last three presidential elections has been white women (how much do they side with the GOP nominee) and Romney needs to focus on them for the long-term.