Loading ...Prediction: Santorum may win Iowa caucuses
flockwoodI’ve been pouring over polling data, and I’ve reached a few conclusions:
1.) If Mitt Romney wins the Iowa caucuses, Mitt Romney will be nearly unstoppable in the 2012 Republican primaries.
2.) If Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucuses and Mitt Romney finishes second, Mitt Romney will be virtually unstoppable in the 2012 Republican primaries. [A Paul victory will scare the living daylights out of establishment Republican leaders and they'll circle the wagons. Plus, it will suck up all the media attention, leaving little benefit for whoever finishes third...]
But if an Anti-Romney (other than Ron Paul) finishes first in Iowa, things are going to get mighty interesting and incredibly unpredictable awfully fast.
So far, several would-be Anti-Romneys have risen to the front of the pack, including Bachmann, Perry, Cain and Gingrich.
But each of them withered once the media spotlight focuses on them. Now, the Iowa caucuses are less than a week away and polls suggest the race remains fluid.
Evangelicals make up about half of the Iowa Republican caucus base, and they’re really skeptical of Mitt Romney, if you believe a plethora of polls out there.
Gingrich is fading, and his polling trend lines suggest his descent will continue. Perry is stagnant. In Iowa, folks who like Michele Bachmann disproportionately like Rick Santorum. And vice versa. Both are polling in low double digits in the latest poll, by Public Policy Polling.
Both are faring well among Iowans who voted for Mike Huckabee in 2008.
If Bachmann and Santorum draw equal numbers of voters on Caucus day, it probably guarantees that Mitt Romney and Ron Paul will cross the Iowa finish line in first or second place.
But if either Bachmann or Santorum begins to falter in the final days, we could see a stampede toward whichever of the two looks strongest.
And if that shift becomes clear in the final days, it’s likely that many Perry and Gingrich-backers will be tempted to jump on the bandwagon.
Now, a new poll released today suggests it is Santorum is peaking at the right time. It suggests Santorum has pulled ahead of Bachmann and is nearing the front of the pack.
If he’s seen as the ascendant Anti-Romney on caucus day, he could pull off a real stunning come-from-behind victory.
Polling suggest that Santorum — despite polling poorly until recently — has high overall favorability ratings amond Iowa Republicans. Nobody has slung mud at him until now because nobody thought he had a chance. And now, if he is gaining momentum, it may be too late to try to effectively trash him.
Plus, Santorum has basically been living in Iowa. And he’s spent time in all 99 counties. He’s done the leg work and his ground game is better in Iowa is better than many of his opponents. In addition, he’s a loyal, churchgoing Catholic. His appeal can stretch beyond the 2008 Huckabee electorate.
If Romney wins in Iowa AND wins in New Hampshire, it’s hard to come up with a blueprint for stopping him. However, if Santorum rallies evangelicals in Iowa, he can fight through New Hampshire and head to South Carolina, where he’d be the early odds-on favorite.
Any candidate who trails Santorum in Iowa (other than Mitt Romney) will immediately see their fundraising efforts run aground, and the field will immediately narrow.
Mitt Romney will remain a formidable candidate, no matter what happens in Iowa. He has more money, better organization, high name recognition and impressive discipline. He’s been thoroughly vetted and he’s spent the past five years honing his presidential campaign skills.
Once the media spotlight shines brightly on Santorum, he’ll face the tough kind of scrutiny that follows a frontrunner. And he could crash and burn, leaving the race to Mitt Romney by default.
But there won’t be time to fire up that spotlight until AFTER the Iowa caucuses.
December 28th, 2011 at 5:08 pm
Poor former Sen. Santorum is still plagued by what happens when one types his name into Google.
I have had little doubt that any candidate besides Romney will win the nomination. None of the other candidates plotzing about the Repub caucuses seem even remotely electable for the U.S. voting population at large. Anyone but Romney getting nominated pretty much means that President Obama will be re-elected almost by default, I think.
Whether or not that is a good thing I will leave up to other posters here to decide…
December 28th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
It is surprising that Sen. Santorum has not yet had a turn at the top of the polls. He’s certainly more qualified than two other darlings of the social conservatives– Rep. Bachmann and Mr. Cain– and yet is no more weird than either (though that’s not saying much). Being a fierce advocate of religious freedom I could never vote for the guy but he deserves at least as much respect and regard as the other contenders.
December 29th, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Cain is out.
Santorum homeschooled his kids, as a senator, whats that say about public schools?
Bachmann, don’t know, had her chance, couldn’t grasp the reins.
Romney, knows what to do, very rich, not ideal for the working man in this economy. Working man still feels stifled, insulted by Romney. A 10,000 bet, what a slap in the face to john q public. Most electable by elite Republicans.
January 6th, 2012 at 10:45 am
Don’t know about you guys, but I’ve made $10,000 bets before in heated debates and I’m by no means rich. Luckily, no one ever took me up on them or I would be even poorer. Yes, Romney is rich, but he earned most of it. He was barely upper middle class growing up. He got a leg up and used it. Good business sense—something you only learn well at your mother’s (or father’s) knee—sort of like language. Not like our current commander-in-chief who’s brief foray into the private sector he described like “being in the enemy camp.” We’re never going to get this economy back on its feet until we have a world war or a real business man (or woman) in the hot seat. Romney’s not perfect (after all he is a Mormon and going straight to hell) but he is electable and has a proven track record. That and he hasn’t been sleeping around like some of the other candidates. (Those damn Mormon values again.)
January 6th, 2012 at 7:30 pm
Mitt Romney was still a baby when his father became an executive in the auto industry. By the time he graduated from high school his father had been CEO of American Motors and governor of one of the biggest states and soon was a legitimate contender for the presidency. Most of us in the 99% don’t exactly consider that middle class. If Mitt Romney earned his fortune, it was at least in part because of doors that were open to him because of his family’s connections.
I don’t ever remember making a $10,000 bet, even in jest. We would say $100 as an exaggeration. $10,000 sounds awfully calculated, especially coming from someone who could pay off such a wager without first having to confirm that the check would clear.
January 8th, 2012 at 11:17 am
Maybe we need to run John for President!
January 9th, 2012 at 4:44 pm
Sure, I’ll run. I’d be in way over my head, but not as much as the current occupant of the Oval Office. At least I got few more of my morals straight, well, some of them anyway.
Mitt’s father was CEO of AM, yes, but it didn’t pay anything like such a position would today. His governor’s salary was certainly not in the millions, and you could run a campaign for President on $20 and some coupons back then.
Mitt took what he was given and turned HIMSELF into a millionaire. Remember Jesus’ parable of the talent? Some were given more, some less. Where much is given, much is expected. I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t have been as hard-working and successful as Mitt has been if I were given the same opportunities. Envy will get you nowhere—just gives you an excuse to bury your one or two talents.
BTW. I once made my little sister a $1 million bet and won! She still owes me and I bring it up every now and then when I want her to pay for lunch. She says she’ll pay up once we’re done with the inevitable Obama inflationary cycle (that old-time, tried-and-true tax on the poor without ‘em knowing it). Then it will be equivalent to about $5.00.
Another BTW, José, “$11,563″ would be “calculated.” $10,000 was an even round number. Notice, Perry didn’t sound aghast or even flinch when Romney made the offer, though he didn’t take him up on it ’cause he knew he’d loose. Perry isn’t particularly rich, but ten grand wasn’t the offensive insult you pious liberals want to make of it to him.
January 14th, 2012 at 9:54 am
It’s not Mitt Romney’s fault that he grew up in a wealthy. It’s misleading to call that lifestyle “middle class”.
There’s nothing wrong with the fact that Romney attended a prestigious prep school and graduate school at Harvard. It’s misleading to pretend that money, influence, and connections had no bearing on his admission to the schools.
There’s nothing wrong with the fact that Romney landed a good job after graduating from Harvard with an MBA and JD. It’s misleading to pass it off as an “entry level position” when the annual salary was more than most average people will ever see.
There was (apparently) nothing illegal about Romney’s work with the private equity activities of Bain. It’s misleading to brag about creating a hundred thousand jobs, for a number of reasons.*
There’s nothing wrong with a smart and successful guy working hard over the years to meticulously position himself for public office. It’s misleading for him to profess that he was not interested in running for office and that he did so reluctantly.
Like many other Americans I’ll congratulate Mitt Romney for being a smart, talented, hard-working fellow. However I do not envy him, and it’s misleading for anyone to tell me that I do. He has many real accomplishments that deserve congratulations. It’s disappointing that he and his shills feel the need to hide the full story and to twist facts into lies.
It’s not pious liberalism when someone insists on a fair and complete accounting of the facts, but it’s kind of you to say so.
–
*Romney’s figures on job creation take into consideration the net number of positions in the companies owned by the Bain investors. Significantly, it does not factor in the effects on other companies. If a Bain company grew by 1000 people, but in doing so it put out of business a competitor with 1500 workers, Romney would claim a net creation of 1000 jobs. In fact, the American workforce would have been reduced by a net 500 jobs. Romney’s gain was America’s loss.
Taking credit for job creation is dishonest when it disregards the work of other people. The companies that succeeded did so because of the hard work of a great many people, especially the employees. They cared about their work and their jobs, whereas the goal for Romney and the other Bain investors was simply the return on investment, regardless of whether their actions helped or hurt the American people and the American economy.
January 19th, 2012 at 11:24 am
Good points, José. Please remember, though, his family and connections only got him in the door. He would have never been hired at that particular “entry level position” had he not performed well at Harvard, etc. Also, he would not have gotten into Harvard without doing exceptionally well at the prep school first, no matter who his parents were.
Connections were there, sure, and money was helpful in paying for the schooling, but it was the performance that counts in the end. But the argument could be made that he was “between” the middle and upper classes. I agree this may be misleading, but it depends on shifting definitions and perspective.
I don’t know if Romney specifically claimed a net gain all-around in jobs, but he created them for his customers/clients (the shareholders) and that means he was, and is, successful. He is perfectly welcome to do the same for his future “customers/clients,” the American people. If that comes at the expense of jobs overseas or something, well… And that’s all I want as an American, a “return on my investment” (especially since so much of my “investment” I have no say or control over). Romney would not have gotten this “return” if he did not manage the business so that those sainted employees can be the most productive in providing the service and products that the general public is willing (keyword here “willing”) to pay for, thus creating that evil return.
I’m not sure what you mean by “positioning himself” for public office. He was simply good at what he did and was in demand. As I remember it, he did not volunteer to head up the scandal-ridden Salt Lake Olympics, we asked him. Also, you had to be insane to go up against the deity of Ted Kennedy for the Senate in 1996, but those around him thought he could do it, and he almost won. His father may have been pushing him (maybe to finally win vicariously?) and he certainly had a family culture of political involvement that is an asset he couldn’t refute. So, we don’t know exactly what is in his head—he was making good money, and very well may have been pushed or persuaded to do more. If Picasso had a child who showed signs of inheriting his/her father’s talent in art, wouldn’t there be a cadre of associates encouraging him/her to try their hand at it? We just have to take Mitt’s word on this, since the evidence could go either way.
As a pious conservative myself, I certainly would like more fair accounting of the facts on both ends. Thank you for bringing these points up, but when analyzing them all the way down, they may not be as misleading as you might think.
February 8th, 2012 at 12:00 pm
This is the thread about Sen. Santorum, as I recall. Looks as though the candidate is being regarded by more GOPers as the most favored anti-Romney aspirant. Bully for him. He has certainly worked tirelessly. It will surely be interesting to see how he fares with citizens who are not affiliated with the right wing of the Republican party. Santorum’s position on a number of issues is increasingly at odds with the general public. Think gay rights, reproductive rights, religious freedom, climate change and science, etc.