Etch-A-Sketch Time: The End of the Republican Primary and the Start of the General Election

It no longer appears if but when. Specifically, two questions now dominate the presidential race. First, when will Rick Santorum drop out. Second, when does the campaign shake the Etch-A-Sketch and switch into general election mode?

The End of the Road for Santorum

Math and the primary terrain are clearly against Santorum after he lost a hat trick last week in Wisconsin, Maryland, and the District of Columbia.  Romney has more than 57% (658) of the 1,144 delegates he needs to clinch the Republican Party presidential nomination. At this pace he merely needs to win about 45% of the remaining delegates–he can underperform slightly and still win. Conversely Santorum has won only 281 or 25% of the delegates and he would need to win 863 of the approximately 1,125 remaining delegates or 77% to clinch the nomination. Given that the primaries now turn to states such as California and New York, this will be tough. Both states are Romney ones in the sense of being more moderate and favoring candidates and SuperPacs with deep pockets.

The only two states that Santorum can hope for are Texas and Pennsylvania. Texas is a big southern state with evangelicals, thus it looks a little like Alabama and Mississippi. Maybe Santorum can hope for a repeat here, especially if he can convince Gingrich to leave the race although that looks unlikely even though Newt has conceded that he is broke and has little chance. Yet Texas is not the rest of the south. It is big and expense to campaign in and its politics is not that of Alabama and Mississippi. Santorum has no guarantees here.

Pennsylvania should be Santorum’s last stand. It is his home state yet he lost the Senate race here by 15 points. He is trailing Romney now. If Santorum does win it is discounted as a state he should have won and he gets no bump from it. If he loses pressure intensifies for him to leave the race. After PA his campaign should end.

But he might have a more graceful way to exist early or even after losing in Pennsylvania. Santorum’s daughter is very ill and on at least a couple of occasions he has had to suspend his campaign to attend to her. No one will fault Santorum and he will earn high praise from all were he to leave the campaign now or after PA by saying he needs to be with his daughter and family. Not only is this the right answer but it allows him to bow out of the race and no one will be able to criticize him. Do it now before losing in PA and this saves the embarrassment of a loss.

 Shake the Etch-A-Sketch–Romney and the General Election

After Romney’s three victories last week the rhetoric suggested that he and Obama had moved to the general election phase already. Romney faces significant challenges moving ahead.

Despite some polling to the contrary he still is not embraced by the religious conservatives. Look at the county-by-county returns in the Wisconsin primary last week. He continued to win in the areas where Democrats win and he failed to when rural areas with more evangelicals and working class. He is still a passionless candidate for his supporters and conservatives still do not trust him. To win the presidency he needs to win both the evangelical base and win over swing voters. Move to the center as he has to do to win swings and he confirms the worst fears of conservatives that he really is a moderate. If he does that they may not mobilize for him. Stay on the right and risk losing swings. Already the primary has damaged him–his negatives are as high as Obama’s and double since January–and the birth control debate has alienated him from women, producing an increasingly large gender gap that the Democrats are exploiting. A month ago Romney looked great in the swing states, he is now trailing there. Romney appears to have little room to maneuver, less he alienates groups he needs to win.

Yet the best thing going for Romney is the economy and gas prices. We all see the gas prices going up.  Consumers are angry. Second, the economy is fragile, affected by energy costs of course. But the jobs report last week was weak, consumer spending is again slowing, and housing prices are not rebounding.  Are you better off now than four years ago? This will be Romney’s question and Obama needs to deflect it.  Sure president’s have little control over gas prices and the economy, at least in the short run. As stated before, what will bring Obama down are the two things he cannot control.

It’s the money, stupid!

One other issue to look at here. Obama will not have the overwhelming cash advantage he had over McCain four years ago. Citizens United changed part of that. But something else is important to note. Four years ago Wall Street gave strategically and contributed heavily to Obama. That is not happening this year. Four years ago Obama persuaded donors not to give in a partisan fashion but this year he has been unsuccessful in that talk. Democrats generally do not do well when political contributions and expenditures are done in a partisan fashion.

Republican Good News, Bad News after Alabama and Mississippi

Good News for Santorum: He wins Alabama and Mississippi.
Bad News for Santorum: He loses Hawaii and Guam.

Good News for Romney: He wins Hawaii and Guam.
Bad News for Romney: A Republican will never win Hawaii in the presidential race and Guam doesn’t matter.

Good News for Gingrich: He came in second in Mississippi and Alabama.
Bad News for Gingrich: He came in second in Mississippi and Alabama after stating last week these were must wins for him.

Good news for Romney: No Democrat can win Mississippi or Alabama.
Bad News for Romney: Nor can he.

Good News for Santorum: He won two states and slowed down Romney’s momentum.
Bad News for Santorum: He has one-half the delegates that Romney.

Good News for Romney: He won the most delegates on Tuesday.
Bad News for Romney: It’s hard to claim frontrunner status when you come in third in two states.

Good News for Santorum: Conservatives win 70% of the vote in Alabama and Mississippi.
Bad News for Santorum: As long as Gingrich is in the race, they split the conservative vote.

Good News for Romney: Gingrich is still in the race, splitting up conservative vote.
Bad News for Romney: He cannot seal the deal and close the nomination.

Good News for Gingrich: He is not dead yet.
Bad News for Gingrich: He cannot identify another state he can win.

Good News for Romney: Illinois is the next state.
Bad News for Romney: He may win another state that no Republican will win in November (Obama’s home state).

Do the Math: The Increasing Probability of a Brokered Republican National Convention

After Super Tuesday Mitt Romney told Santorum that the delegate numbers were against him and that it was unlikely that the latter could win enough delegates to reach the 1144 magic number to clinch the nomination. Truth be told, it looks like none of the GOP candidates except Romney can reach this number, and even his chances are questionable. All this  raises the increasing probabilities that there will be no candidate with enough delegates after the primaries are done in June to clinch the nomination.  Brokered convention here we come!

Let’s do some math.

There are a total of 2,286 delegates to the August 27-30, 2012 Republican National Convention (RNC) in Tampa, Florida.  For a candidate to win the nomination he must secure 1144 delegates.

Through super Tuesday here is the delegate count:

Romney          421
Santorum        181
Gingrich          107
Paul                47
Huntsmann      02

So far a total of 758 delegates have actually been awarded.  This is 33.1% of the total delegates. Another 129 delegates have been selected in caucus states such as Maine and Minnesota but have not yet been awarded to anyone. This means there are 1399 delegates or 61.2% are yet to be awarded.

Of the 129 caucus delegates not officially awarded, potentially Santorum and Paul have done well at winning many of the delegates in these caucus states, suggesting that their numbers looking better than they do.  In fact even Romney may have more delegates than his official number indicates if his portion of the 129 is considered.  But for purposes here, ignore these 129 delegates since they probably will not be awarded until after the primary season is over and they generally are cast for the winner at the national convention, assuming there is one.  If no candidate has already reached the 1,144 number, these 129 delegates will become really important.

Of those delegates actually awarded (758) Romney has won 55.5%, Santorum has won 23.8%, Gingrich 14%, and Paul 6.2%.

For Romney to win the nomination, he needs to win 723 additional delegates out of the 1399 remaining. This means he has to win 51.6% of the remaining delegates.

For Santorum to win the nomination, he needs to win 963 additional delegates our of the 1399 remaining. This means he has to win 68.8% of the remaining delegates.

For Gingrich to win the nomination, he needs to win 1037 additional delegates our of the 1399 remaining. This means he has to win 74.1% of the remaining delegates.

For Paul to win the nomination, he needs to win 1097 additional delegates our of the 1399 remaining. This means he has to win 78.4% of the remaining delegates.

The math suggests that Romney merely need to perform in the future at slightly below or about the same level of delegate collection to win the nomination. If this were occur, he would have enough delegates around June 5, when California (172), Montana (26), New Jersey (50), New Mexico (23), and South Dakota (28) hold their primaries. Assuming no major changes in political fortunes, it will  be three more months at a minimum for the Republican nomination to conclude with a nominee.

But Romney’s math is fuzzy. March 10 brings Kansas, March 13 Alabama and Mississippi, and then Missouri has a March 17 contest. There is a total of 142 delegates here.  Romney will not do well here, winning perhaps 40% of the delegates (57). There are other southern states–Texas, Louisiana,  Arkansas, and Kentucky, with a total of 272 delegates where he may also substantially underperform  and perhaps win only 40% of the delegates (109). If this were the case, Romney would have 587 delegates, and would then have to win 557 out of the other 1,127 remaining delegates (49.4%).  This is not impossible for Romney, but it suggests that he has to continue to perform well in these other states if he wants to clinch the nomination by the end of the primary season in June.

If Romney were to perform worse than these projections then he chances of securing the necessary delegates to clinch the nomination goes down. For example, if he does worse than expected in the next two weeks and his momentum is slowed then it may make it harder for him to clinch in advance. Better than expected performances in the next couple of weeks can increase the chances of securing the necessary delegates.

Bottom line: The math is against Santorum at this time and Romney merely needs to continue at his current pace to clinch the nomination in June. Romney is definitely in the driver’s seat but the math suggests a precarious seat.

Quick thoughts on Super Tuesday

All eyes on Ohio will it be Romney or Santorum?


Here are the variables.

The polls have them tied or Romney with slight lead with Santorum going down in the last couple of days.  Romney did well with early voters or those who already made of their minds but a large percentage of 35% of so have yet to make up their minds or might change it. If electability is on their minds they will break to Romney, if it is about the blue collar vote then they break to Santorum.

Regardless of who wins the popular vote, delegates will be split almost evenly. Santorum wins in OK and TN, Romney in VT, MA, and VA. Gingrich wins in Georgia. Everyone declares themselves to be a winner.

I think Romney eeks out a win in Ohio.

End of the Day. Delegates are split and the battle goes to next week in Alabama and Mississippi where Romney does poorly.

The GOP war on the 1960s: “I thought this debate was over years ago.”

Curiouser and curiouser turns the 2012 Republican presidential primary. But what seems now to stand out the most is how the race is turning on issues that one had thought were long since resolved. In many ways, Rick Santorum’s presidential campaign, and the pull he is having on the Republican Party, seem to be a referendum on the 1960s and the changes that decade unleashed on American society.

Over the last few weeks I have had so many people turn to me and say about the issues being debated this year: “I thought this debate was over years ago.”

Think about it.

Santorum grossly misquotes a 1960 John Kennedy speech talking about the need to respect a diversity of religious perspectives and not use the government to impose its orthodoxy upon others. JFK gave this speech both to assure voters that his Catholicism did not mean as president he would take direction from the Pope and that America was simply more than a Protestant nation. Santorum construes this speech to be about an attack on religion and a separation of church and state that makes he want to throw up. Never mind also that the Supreme Court has also repeatedly addressed  issues of prayer in public schools and public displays of religion on governmental property. Santorum wants to fight this battle all over again. “I thought this debate was over years ago.”

Santorum hates birth control and think that employers and their health plans should not be required to pay for it for women. In 1965 the Supreme Court ruled in Griswold v. Connecticut that a constitutional right to privacy protected the choice of couples to use birth control. Last year Rick Perry was assailed for a decision at one time to mandate human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine for  young women to protect their health. Rush Limbaugh calls a woman a slut and prostitute for taking a stand on this issue. All this is reminiscent of the battles in the 1960s over the pill and claims that it encouraged promiscuity. Have we not resolved the issue of protecting women’s health and promoting women’s equality? “I thought this debate was over years ago.”

Beginning in the 1960s states began relaxing abortion laws and repealing rules restricting sexual behavior between consenting adults.  In 1973 in Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court affirmed reproductive rights of women, and again did so in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Yet Santorum and all the Republicans want to take away these rights and label women who want to control their reproductive and sexual choices as sluts. “I thought this debate was over years ago.”

Ron Paul objects to the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as eroding personal freedom. I thought Martin Luther King, Jr., “I have a dream” speech and the civil rights movement demonstrated the importance of racial equality. “I thought this debate was over years ago.”

The 1967 Loving v. Virginia Supreme Court case stated that marriage is a fundamental right.  Then beginning with the 1969 riots at the Stonewall Bar in NYC the movement for gay rights began.  The two events come together to represent a national evolution towards equal rights regarding of sexual orientation.  The Republicans want to deny marriage equality to gays and lesbians. “I thought this debate was over years ago.”

It is curious. The Republican presidential candidates and the base seem intent on revisiting the 1960s. They cannot seem to stand the fact that America has evolved, even after nearly 50 years has passed. It is more than simply the politics of nostalgia. It seems to be one of both a generational and racial divide, looking to see a world that has changed and an anger over it. For the Republicans, these issues are disasters both in 2012 as they will alienate many swing voters, but beyond as one generation dies out, only to be replaced by another that believes simply: “I thought this debate was over years ago.”

Final Thoughts
My very first undergraduate political science professor Mary T. Hanna wrote a book in 1979 entitled Catholics and American Politics. She foretold of a future American politics with Catholics as the largest religious denomination in the country. Yet at the time she wrote the book in 1979 she saw a Catholicism that was progressive and liberal. Since then much of Catholic politics has turned conservative. What we may be seeing in the United States now is how the change in Catholicism is driving the GOP. It is now a religion that is large and conservative, pent on using it clout to further its orthodoxy. Amazing how it is forgotten the days when Catholics were a minority persecuted by a Protestant majority. Amazing how it has forgotten the wisdom of JFK’s 1960 speech.

Super Tuesday Preview
Super Tuesday will be rough for Romney. He will not do well in the South and if he doe not win Ohio then the race is clearly wide open. The race is tightening in Ohio and it is unclear who wins but even a close second by Santorum along with wins in Oklahoma and Tennessee and a Gingrich win in Georgia mean the race is not over for a long time. But now the race is less about states than delegates, although where those deletes are won makes a difference in terms of assessing presidential prospects. Romney, except for Florida, seems to win in states that Republicans will not win in November, and has a tough time in close swing states such as Iowa, Michigan, and Ohio.

Dodging a Bullet: Quick Thoughts on the Romney Victory and the Problems Ahead

Romney dodges two bullets. His double wins in Arizona and Michigan ensure he is the frontrunner and forestall even more panic among the GOP. But more importantly, his win in Michigan saves him from embarrassment that he cannot win his home state.

But all is not well in Romney city. He was expected to win in Michigan, but barely hung on. In some ways his victory here was less impressive than four years ago.

In 2008 Romney won Michigan with 39% of the vote compared to McCain with 30% of the vote. In 2008 Romney won 20 delegates. In 2008 Romney did win a greater percentage of the vote with 41%, but Santorum came in second with 38%. Instead of a margin of victory of 9%, it was 3%, and with a much less crowded field than in 2008. This time Romney only won 11 delegates and Santorum received the same. The one bright spot is that in 2008 Romney won 338,316 votes, in 2012 it was 410,000. It is possible that without a contested Democratic primary Romney benefited from a larger turnout.

After Michigan there is still no indication that Romney has closed the gap with the social conservatives or the Reagan Democrats. His campaign demonstrates continued strategic ills such as his decision to do a rally in the near empty Ford Stadium, and Romney himself concedes that his gaffes are hurting him. His negative ratings continue to rise. Moreover, the negative attack ads all of the GOP are using are damaging the party badly. Unlike 2008 with Obama-Clinton, Obama came out a better and strong candidate. The opposite is happening with the Republicans and Romney.

Put simply: He is not sealing the deal with a large active base of his party and there is no indication that he is helping himself with the swing voters if he moves beyond the nomination to the general election. He cannot win over the right of his party and he cannot win over the moderate swing voters. He is caught in a political squeeze that is hard to escape.

Final thoughts: Super Tuesday next week. Polls now have Santorum leading but that may change. Gingrich has a chance in Georgia and Tennessee and that may add a new dynamic to the race. Romney ventures into a south full of white evangelical voters who do not like him, but who like Santorum. Even after Romney's two victories, it is too soon to call the race over.

Assessing the Minnesota Caucuses–Final Thoughts On Why It is Times to Scrap Them

Minnesota’s February 7, political caucuses meant something this year...sort of.

This year they were part of a trifecta of non-binding events that included the Colorado caucus and the Missouri primary that awarded no delegates but nonetheless had a significant media impact in rendering Rick Santorum a viable challenger to Mitt Romney. In winning these three states the political world heralded that the party activists had again repudiated Romney. Thus, Minnesota’s caucuses had a signal effect even if no delegates were awarded.

But there are real problems with the caucus process in Minnesota and across the country. Criticism of the Iowa caucus is growing as arguments are again mounted that it should not be first in the nation since no delegates are awarded and its demographics are not representative of the country.

Similarly, the recently concluded Maine caucuses will be read in two ways–evidence that Romney is again a frontrunner after his win there or that he is in trouble after eeking out a narrow victory in his backyard again a weak Ron Paul in a state where no one else really campaigned against him. Yet with fewer than 6,000 Republicans participating in the Maine caucuses, one probably should not read too much into the results.  Moreover, Ron Paul has a good argument in suggesting that there is a difference between winning caucus straw polls and collecting delegates and that despite his showing in the latter, he may be doing better with the former.

There are lots of problems with caucuses and straw polls. Beginning with the Iowa Straw Poll and up to the CPAC one over the weekend, one can make the argument that they are simply self-promotional media events that really mean nothing in the larger scheme of things. However, in a world of politianment where politics and media converge in a 24/7 cable news cycle and every state or group wants its 15 minutes of fame, they get reported on in a way disproportionate to their importance.

Some will defend these straw polls and caucus systems as important tools to judge political strength and organization (Santorum’s wins might argue against that) or that they are great ways to activate the political base. But let me offer six final criticisms of the Minnesota caucus system.

1.  The Minnesota caucuses is exclusionary and non-participatory. The criticism here is that at best 2-2.5% of the population participate in a caucus. Compare us in 2008 to Wisconsin where its presidential primary had a 37% turnout. We have pitiful attendance. Excluded from participating are those in active duty in the military, those working second shift, ill, elderly afraid to go out at night in the cold, those with child care issues, or a host of other matters. Caucuses are great to deepen political commitments and participation, but as Garrison Keillor once stated: “Democracy is a form for government for people with too much time on their hands.” Given how few people can and do show up, effectively it is not a system that really encourages civic engagement on a scale that makes it a really net contributor to social capital building.

2.  The Minnesota caucuses are not representative of the party members. There is a real debate I election law over who is the party. Is it the party officers, candidates, caucuses or convention attendees, or primary voters? Good answers all. The problem here in Minnesota and perhaps elsewhere is that those who attend the caucuses do not seem representative of the broader voters in party primaries and instead are more conservative or liberal than the broader group of people who consider themselves Republicans or Democrats. Over the years in Minnesota we have seen successful candidates such as Arnie Carlson rejected by caucus and convention attendees only to win primaries and general elections. Democrats have a similar problem with Mike Freeman winning at conventions but losing in primaries. Thus, individuals selected via the caucuses process might not be the strongest party nominees, they might not enjoy the broadest support among the primary voters, and they ultimately might not be the strongest candidates for a general election.

3. The Minnesota caucuses conflict with our sense of privacy.  Minnesotans are a very private lot of people. We keep to ourselves on many topics, preferring discourse about family, weather, and the miserable Twins and Vikings to anything more personal.  Many Minnesotans do not attend caucuses because they do not want to openly identify their party affiliation or stand up and declare who they will vote for in an election. I know too many people because of professional work reasons (government workers ad journalists) who feel like they cannot attend caucuses because of how it identifies them politically. When we do have primaries it is a semi-open one that does not require you  to declare party preferences openly. Minnesotans are much more comfortable with this type of process.

4.  The Minnesota caucus process has a muted impact on national politics. Because we actually do not award any delegates at the caucuses, the impact that the state could have were it to have a primary is blunted. We are at best a beauty contest and generally their impact is more short-term and media-driven than real.

5.  The Minnesota caucuses deny choice and voice. Whatever the caucus results last week, they mean nothing.  In 2008 Romney won 41% in the presidential preference poll results in or caucuses. How many votes did he get from our GOP convention at the RNC in 2008? Zero! All the delegates voted for McCain. This is typical. By the time we select our convention delegates the contest for the party nominee is over and our delegation votes by acclamation and awards all delegates to whomever is perceived to be the party nominee (It does not help that at conventions Minnesota comes at the middle of the alphabet when called on to cast its votes). Think of how frustrated Ron Paul must be. He wins the Twin Cities and did well in the state but I doubt he gets any delegates who vote for him in the nomination is sewn up by convention time. Thus, caucus attendees really do not have their vote heard in terms of presidential preferences and it almost seems a waste of time for candidates to stump in a caucus state if they receive no delegates.

6.  The Minnesota caucuses insulate against orderly political evolution. Party leaders love caucuses because they can generally control them. But with caucuses mostly attended by party activists they insult against change and evolution. Conversely  many will say that the caucuses allow small numbers of people to alter the direction of the party rapidly. Both criticisms are correct.  Parties need to evolve to survive and remain relevant, especially if they are to grow their base and appeal to swing voters. Yet the Minnesota caucus system seems to discourage that, as evidenced by the growing numbers who consider themselves not to be members of the two major parties. The parties just do not seem to line up with the way many Minnesotans think about a range of political issues, instead producing polarizing alignments. Thus, the caucus system does not seem to yield a system a system that promotes healthy party evolution.

Last thought: There is a great Sesame Street routine that shows several objects and asks which does not belong. In Minnesota we have caucuses, primaries, and conventions. Which does not belong?

Mini-Tuesday Results: Where do the Republican Nominees Stand Now?

Mini-Tuesday is over and done in Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado. Santorum sweeps the three states. Who were the winners and losers in it?  Do the numbers.

There have been 8 primaries and caucuses:

Name	Victories
Santorum	4
Romney	3
Gingrich	1
Paul	0

With the three wins yesterday Santorum’s victories raise big questions about Romney’s inevitability and momentum. After Florida and Nevada Romney supporters said he was clearly the frontrunner. However, as I argued, only his Florida victory is a real one and he underperformed in Nevada compared to 2008.

Romney definitely underperformed in MN yesterday (third) compared to a 2008 victory. Overall, there is little Mitt can point to yesterday that indictes victory, momentum, or that he is consolidating his support among conservatives. The three states yesterday featured the hardcore conservative base and they are still not with him.

Yet Romney can point to a different fact–no delegates awarded yesterday. Romney still leads in this category.

Name  Delegates Romney      91 Santorum      44 Gingrich      29 Paul      8

Doing the delegates, Romney has about as many delegates as the other three candidates combined.
Going forward there will be several questions:

1) Can Santorum transform yesterday’s results into money and political donations?
2) Can Santorum transform yesterday into real delegates?
3) Is Santorum the leader?
4) Can Romney close the deal with conservatives?
5) Where is Gingrich and is he now the third candidate?
6) Can Gingrich survive February and make it to super Tuesday?

My sense is that these four candidates remain in the race at least through March. No one is exiting soon.  If when delegates are again rewarded we see all of these candidates winning in the double-digits, it will be impossible for any of them to enter the convention with a majority. It may be too soon to discuss brokered convention but that is still a possibility and getting more real everyday.

No I do not think there is another candidate about to emerge. Money, organization, and time are against that. However, do look for a long campaign with no quick resolution in sight.

The Iowa Caucus Results: And the winner is...

Not Romney. Not Bachmann. The winners are Obama, big money, and the massive divide in the Republican Party as the primaries head to New Hampshire and South Carolina.

A first look at the results suggests clear winners and losers. Romney, Santorum, and Paul are the clear winners. Romney wins a state only a few weeks ago he conceded. Santorum comes out of nowhere to almost win, and Paul does well enough to stay near the top. In fact Paul is the most consistent of all the Republicans. He came in second in the August, 2011 straw poll and now finishes a close third.

But look deeper and the fortunes of these candidates look very different.

Romney's Win
Yes, Romney wins Iowa and he will no doubt win New Hampshire. Many candidates are bypassing that state and are aiming for South Carolina on January 21. Romney leads in polls in all the early states, he has the money, and he has the organization to succeed. Yet he lacks a passionate base, and so Iowa was not a great victory for him. Recall that in 2008 Romney came in second in Iowa with 25%–this is exactly where he is today. It is not that Romney is a stronger candidate today than a month ago (let alone four years ago). Instead, the GOP base–especially the social conservatives–are more divided today than in 08. Romney tremendously benefited on Tuesday from a fractured conservative base.

Think back to 08. Huckabee wins Iowa with 34%. Add his percent to Fred Thompson’s 13% and the social conservatives have 47% of the vote. Now shift to 2012. Romney has 24.6%. Compare that to Santorum (24.5), Perry (10.3), and Bachmann (5.0) and that totals 39.8%. Yes the clear social conservatives have a lower percentage, but they are more divided, especially if one concedes that some of Gingrich’s votes too might come from the social-conservatives.

But think also about how Paul went from 10% in 2008 to 21.4% in 2012. He more that doubles his vote. One message from Iowa is how with Romney stuck at 255 in two caucuses, he has failed to win over the more conservative wings of his party. He is in no better shape than before, he just looks better because of a more divided party.

But Romney’s win came also with big money. Super Pacs were the big winner in Iowa spending more than $16 in ads. Romney benefitted from this spending and lethal attack ads on Gingrich. Thus, were it not for big money and a divided conservative field, Romney would look no better today than four years ago.

Romney has failed to close the gap with the majority of the GOP base. He has been stuck at 25% in Iowa and across the country for months. He still faces a distrust problem among conservatives and there is still little passion for him. As I said before, he is Mr. Inevitable but that hardly is the basis for a party rallying around you. Going forward he needs to win over the conservatives and that may not happen easily. Look to see rumors or calls for others to enter the race and with the GOP now running primaries on a proportional and not a winner-take-all basis, candidates such as Paul have every incentive to stay in the race, pickup delegates, and prevent a sealing of the deal for Romney.

Santorum's Close Second
Santorum wins but this is a short-lived one, perhaps. He is the latest beneficiary from the “Anybody but Romney” vote. Unlike others such as Bachmann and Perry who rose and there was time for media vetting and scrutiny, this did not happen with Santorum. He benefitted from the implosion of other conservatives, the Anti-Romney feeling, conservative endorsements, and luck of timing. He will face more scrutiny now and Romney and Super Pacs will turn on him. Santorum has little organization and money going forward and he challenge will be to capitalize on Iowa.

Given all this division, Obama must be thrilled. The GOP are divided and will spend resources fighting one another. This is good news, especially to hope that the social conservatives do not quickly rally around Romney or someone else. However, Obama should not rejoice yet. The potentially long GOP primaries may mean that Republican candidates spend a lot of time and get a lot of air time criticizing him and it may also mean that the candidate who survives is a better campaigner as a result of the long primary fight.

Perry and Bachmann
Now the clearest losers are Perry and Bachmann. Perry has money to go on but he is so damaged that he is returning to Texas to reassess his campaign. Wise move.

The bigger story if Bachmann’s fall from first in the Iowa straw poll to essentially last in the caucus. Her fall from grace is told in City Pages.

Her errors are numerous and she never grew as a candidate. In fact, her presidential campaign simply magnified her flaws from her congressional campaigns where her easy victories were more a consequence of good district lines and weak opponents. But Bachmann was a one trick pony–She never tired in repeating a line–“I will not rest until Obamacare is repealed”–but she had nothing beyond that. She lacked a real narrative or vision for her presidency and it showed.

What will Bachmann do next? She will go onto SC but she lacks money, staff, and a media presence after today. She is a zombie–walking dead–or a piece of toast.

Bachmann is no shoe-in to get re-elected for Congress in MN for a couple of reasons.

First, Minnesota's have soured on her and that too may be within her district. Statewide I have seen polls putting her negatives in the upper 50% range. Whether the same is true for her district is a good question. However, many were upset that she began her presidential campaign or at least announcement that she was considering a run for the White House on the day she was to be sworn in for Congress back in January 2011. They look at that, her rhetoric in Iowa confessing her roots there and love for the state to be a turning of her back on MN. She will have to explain all this rhetoric and abandoning her district should she decide to return home to run again.

Second, the bigger problem is redistricting. We will not know until February 22 what her district lines will look like. Her district is way over in population and needs to be apportioned with other congressional ones to achieve one-person, one vote. Currently she has benefited from one of the most solidly pro-GOP districts in the state. No guarantee that will happen again. Moreover, at least one plan for redistricting--puts her home of Stillwater, MN in Democrat Representative Betty McCollum's district. McCollum's district is a solidly Democrat one that includes mostly St. Paul. It make a lot of sense to redraw McCollum's district to extend out to the Wisconsin border. If that happens, Bachmann would have to decide to run against McCollum in a district that favors a Democrat. Other possible districting scenarios are also possible and we will not know until the MN courts finish their work in February.

Under MN law, Bachmann does not have to declare her candidacy for Congress again until June. However, the MN caucuses are on February 7, and if she decides to run she may want to declare sooner to prepare. Right now, uncertainly about redistricting and whether she will run again have depressed other GOP candidates from being able to gain traction or declare. One rumor is that Tom Emmer--former GOP gubernatorial candidate in 2010--wants to run.

My guess for Bachmann? If she runs and wins it is a prologue to her then challenging Franken for the US Senate in 2014. If she does not run, she tries for a political commentator job on CNN or Fox. CNN needs her more. However, her poor performance in Iowa and bad book sales have hurt her value. Maybe she goes on the speaking circuit. But to do any of this she needs to do better in SC to raise her value. That is perhaps why she goes on: to salvage something.

Countdown to Iowa

The Iowa caucuses are just a few days away. As it approaches it appears that the state is up for grabs with varying polls placing Romney and Paul in the lead. A few quick observations and thoughts.

Bachmann’s collapse.
This is one of the interesting stories to tell, tracing her victory in the August straw poll to what is certain to be poor finish on Tuesday. She is hoping that the 45% undecided break and that she is the recipient. No chance. The numbers do not suggest it. As Gingrich has faded his support has gone in three directions–Paul, Santorum, and Romney. Moreover, she has little chance to recapture the momentum after her manager defected. Bachmann is already a political zombie–walking dead–before Tuesday and really cannot not do much next Wednesday baring a miracle. Even then, she has no infrastructure to go beyond Iowa.

Paul’s day in the sun.
Paul will do well and still may beat Romney. He has a loyal following of young much like Obama 08 and one issue will be whether with school out that helps or hurts him. Paul’s GOTV is terrific and it may carry the day. He has taken a hit with his 1990s newsletter but it is not clear what impact that will have. Paul will have legs beyond Iowa and he may be a gnat to Romney as the latter seeks to consolidate.

Gingrich as Mr. Nice Guy.
Who would have ever thought of Gingrich as Mr. Nice Guy? The attack ads worked on him and he did not respond. He failed to remember the rule–define or be defined. He let his past define him and has lost momentum in the polls.

Santorum’s surge?
One poll has Santorum in third. He has benefitted from the other conservatives collapse (including Bachmann) but does he have the organization actually to deliver bodies on Tuesday?

Romney’s resurgence?
Iowa was a loser for Mitt but now he has a chance to win it and then New Hampshire the next week. He benefits from the mistakes of others and by being the consistent second choice of everyone else. In a field where there is some disarray perhaps simply holding on to 25% is enough.

Perry's Irrelevance.
What is left to say? He has put his foot in his mouth so many times his breath must smell like shoe polish. He has no momentum and appears to be spending all his money here with hopes like Bachmann that something breaks for him.

Are the GOP in trouble?
One dumb headline this past week said that there was a crisis with the GOP because going into Iowa there was no clear frontrunner or choice. Is it not the purpose of the primary and caucus system to select the nominee? It used to be that the conventions selected nominees and the crisis was if there were no clear favorite then. Then the fear was that going into the convention there was no clear favorite. Now it seems that there is a crisis if there is no favorite going into the caucuses and primaries. This is jumping the gun. Think of Iowa as the start of a decision-making process that is supposed to produce a nominee. The nominee is not supposed to be decided before the process starts.

Yet the GOP still face problems in terms of a message, perhaps nominating another Goldwater like candidate, and also via lack of support among Hispanics, Blacks, and other key constituencies in some swing states.

Obama’s problem.
Remember once a Democratic candidate running for reelection with high unemployment, slow growth, a large deficit, and rising gas prices? This was Carter in 80. We all know the economy is not a great issue for Obama but gas prices may also hurt him, too. Reports this week suggest $4 gallon gas this summer. Spikes in gas prices will not help him. Look to see another potential tapping of the Strategic Oil Reserve this summer.