-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Based on the recent polling, this year’s Republican race in Iowa could resemble the 2008 Democratic contest between Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards (not necessarily in that order). You will see a top three bunched closely together with the rest of the candidates lagging behind.
If Iowa was a primary, Rick Santorum would clearly win. He has the momentum, the support of late deciders, and a poll surge that will allow him to peel off support from other similar but less viable candidates. But Iowa is not a primary, and in this byzantine caucus system I am going to give the edge to ground game and organization over organic popularity. (I’m aware that Michele Bachmann was able to beat organization with popularity in Ames and that this all goes out the window if 60 percent of the caucus-goers are evangelicals.)
Mitt Romney wins the Iowa caucuses. He is the candidate who does best under the most scenarios. Again based on organizational strength, Ron Paul squeaks past Santorum. Santorum finishes a strong third. Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry both break into the double digits, but are separated from the top tier by more percentage points than the top three candidates are separated from each other.
View all comments (24) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/03/iowa-predictions
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Randy | 1.3.12 @ 9:22AM
As long as Paul does not come in 1st I will be pleased. We need to nip this thing in the bud, NOW. Paul is an embarrassment for the GOP. Beyond that I am hoping for a Romney win. I do believe he's the one who has the best chance of beating Obama. But he won't do it by being Mr. Nice Guy or going boilerplate when pressed for answers on important issues.
Christopher| 1.3.12 @ 9:40AM
Randy, I think YOU are embarrassment for supporting a guy like this:
http://youtu.be/BI9yjhd8b84
Ron Paul 2012. Peace, Liberty, and Sound Money!!!!!!
Dan| 1.3.12 @ 11:29AM
Where has Romney ever affected a demeanor that isn't "Mr. Nice Guy?"
Behind the scenes his operatives smear, and maneuver aggressively to take advantage of every procedural possibility such as what we're witnessing in Virginia. And all the while, Romney swans around patting himself on the back for his wonderful family values, without ever getting his fingernails dirty, so to speak.
Now I don't fault him for campaigning aggressively.
But his behind the scenes machinations aren't going to cut it against Obama.
Romney can't bring himself to brand Obama, can't bring himself to brand him a socialist or much of anything else.
And branding is crucial in politics.
Which is why I'm convinced that he would be the worse candidate of all others, save Paul, who is a kook.
Santorum and Bachmann would try to tar and feather Obama, and wouldn't hesitate trying to do so.
Not so Romney.
A Romney candidacy might ameliorate the range of defeat in the Northeast, --------------- but who here can identify a single state Northeast of the Mason Dixon that they know for a fact that Romney will take away from the Democrat nominee.
New Jersey?
Conn.?
Pennsylvania?
Which present blue state will Romney flip that makes his selection eminently sensible?
Bob Grant| 1.3.12 @ 12:17PM
Which blue state could Romney pick up? With a little help from the Fatman, he could steal New Jersey.
Romney's got two issues he needs to address, and I think he will:
(1) Can he win the 6-7 percent moderate/independent/undecided vote that will - as always - determine the election? Can he convince those people he is the most competent, the most effective change agent, and someone they can trust. Of all the candidates, he fits the bill with this category of voters, without question.
(2) Can he convince people on the right his TENDENCIES are conservative when making tough choices. I say yes, more so than anyone in the Bush family so that's a definite improvement.
Folks, there is no Ronald Reagan who will emerge from the shadows in the eleventh hour to save us. This is what we have to choose from.
To be honest, I'm not that jazzed about the field myself but my deep, deep concern about the future of my country trumps my tepid feeling for this group of candidates, but nevertheless, I will give my full support to the one I believe has the best shot at uprooting this thug dictator. Now's not the time to take a risk on some ideal candidate because there isn't one.
You people need to also understand, he's much, much better than our candidate in 2008. Plus, the election will and should be about OBAMA AND HIS RECORD and not so much about who we have in the field.
All things considered Romney would be the wise choice.
Al Adab| 1.3.12 @ 12:42PM
Bob:
In re your number two, I of course differ. Romney represents the eastern, establishmentarian, accomodationist wing of the GOP as did his father before him. Those people have opposed the Conservative Movement since its inception. Why should we trust them now. Time after time Conservatives have compromised on the choice of candidate, Nixon, Ford, Bush 41 etc. What we have reaped is constant failure and lost elections - Bush 41, Ford, McCain, Dole - so why I ask should we follow them again?
Bob Grant| 1.3.12 @ 1:24PM
I think there is something to be said about a conservative - understanding the politics on the ground - campaigning/governing in blue territory who performs a balancing act and should be judged differently than a conservative from...oh....Texas, Arizona, or Florida.
Those moderate conservatives governing the latter states should be judged more harshly than the ones governing the former.
The fact that John McCain and the Bush Dynasty unnecessarily CHOSE to govern as RINO'S in solid conservative states demonstrates an utter lack of conviction, political skills, and leadership. Talk about unforced errors; missed opportunities. These states should be examples of how conservatism works, and led by true conservatives whereas conservatives in moderate blue states should be more focused on INCREMENTALLY moving those states to the right. In the real world, NO ONE could govern as a Barry Goldwater conservative in Massachusetts, you must run as a republican technocrat. That's just smart. That's just the political reality.
We have no southern conservative leaders who can sweep the nation this time around. What we have is a moderate/conservative technocrat who could be extremely successful at stopping the madness currently going on in Washington and one who moves the country in a conservative direction.
Even better, he might be the one who ushers in a new era of conservatism in this country ala Harding/Coolidge.
Al Adab| 1.3.12 @ 1:42PM
Bob:
My concern is exactly spelled out in your reply, for which I thank you. If a moderate technocrat was dedicated to stopping the madness, to repealing Obie care, to eliminating the Czars, to reducing the budget to say 2005 levels, etc. then perhaps we could support that candidate. However, I see nothing to suggest that such actions are the ones Romney would take. His accomodationist tendencies (like McCains) are simply too strong. AQgain it is a matter of the changed political rules. Romney bases his actions on the old ones, not the - as yet ill defined - new ones.
The south and west plus Ohio have the electoral votes to carry the day. Why attempt to compete in NY, NJ, IL, CA and so on when not one vote from those states will accrue to the GOP.
Bob Grant| 1.3.12 @ 1:51PM
Well, then someone better define these new rules, A.S.A.P.
I'm more in the triage mindset than sweeping wholesale changes at this moment.
As it stands now, wholesale changes means some form of revolution, which I'm not necessarily against if someone could convince me it would be effective; you know, that risk/reward thing.
I just think RIGHT NOW, at this moment, the best we could hope for is effective change, which for me, means stop the bleeding.
In order to do this you have to have a good organization and change agents in Washington ready for action.
I only see Romney able to pull this off.
Bob Grant| 1.3.12 @ 2:16PM
....Also,
I understand your concerns about his accomodationist tendencies but I've come to the conclusion Romney would have zero, zip, nadda, to gain by moving left, or even center.
Surely he's witnessed how The Bush Dynasty and a few "moderate" republicans have managed the decline of the country and practically destroyed the republican party.
He only wins if he moves right. He cleans up the mess left by the socialists (obama, peolsi, reid, clinton presidency) and the slew of RINO'S in charge.
He ushers in a new era of economic growth giving credit to conservative principles. This is the only possible way his presidency could be successful.
He knows this and would be a fool govern as a RINO.
Let's game out this situation.
Al Adab| 1.3.12 @ 2:28PM
Part of what this campaign season is about is the defining of whatever the new rules are. I wish I knew the answer for then I could get hired as a campaign consultant at great price. They changed when the Tea Party came into its own which is why we see sa many and varied candidates. That represented some kind of populist/libertarian/conservative outburst and what I think is expected is politicians who speak the truth, their own minds and stand on principle rather than those who continue to pander to interest groups and define our citizens in terms of group think rather than as the individuals they are. For too long we have listened to those who tell us what we want to hear instead of telling it like it is. Often we will not like the answers to our questions, but an honest answer is what we all should expect.
BTW, this is the kind of discussion we need to hear in the coming months. We need to be harnessed to our principles rather than to any candidate by name. Unlike The Left Conservatives do not worship the man on the white horse which is one difference which our opposition does not understnad. They fail to notice that Conservatives often opposed Bush on principle rather than slavishly following his lead.
Al Adab| 1.3.12 @ 2:29PM
PS: sorry about Penn State.
Christopher| 1.3.12 @ 9:41AM
Randy, YOU are *the* embarrassment.
Sorry for the typo, but it definitely is nice to say twice :)
Judy Kay| 1.3.12 @ 10:46AM
I seriously doubt that Romney will win against Obama. He seems to be just another boring elitist who supports war for profit. No thanks. Personally, I have had enough of these jokers!
Dan| 1.3.12 @ 11:19AM
Romney is far too cautious a man to "support war," for profits or for whatever purpose.
Romney campaigns as if he's scared of his own shadow.
Rest assured, he'll govern in the same manner.
Al Adab| 1.3.12 @ 10:51AM
Sir:
Aside from the media hype, always a factor, does the selection of the Iowa caucas actually have any bearing on who should be the GOP nominee? If Iowa is unlikely to deliver electoral votes to the GOP, why should the party concern itself with Iowan views anymore than it might with the preferneces of NY, NJ, CA and the like.?
Le Cracquere| 1.3.12 @ 10:57AM
Yeah, it's mostly media hype because it comes first. The Iowa system skews the results in favor of fringe and single-issue candidates, and the Iowa voters themselves aren't as representative as the "Midwestern yeomen" stereotype would have it.
However, though these early caucuses can't decide a nominee, they can often end a second-tier campaign that was counting on a strong early showing for continued funds.
Dan| 1.3.12 @ 1:44PM
You're willing to bet the farm that Romney could steal New Jersey?
Take a good look at Christie's numbers in NJ right now?
Dan| 1.3.12 @ 1:45PM
That last post was to an earlier observation, not directed at Le Cracquere.
Dan| 1.3.12 @ 1:49PM
Not to be overly glib here, but Iowa is important when it's important, and unimportant when it's unimportant.
It's politics here, and sometimes appearances can overshadow political reality. New Hampshire and Iowa combined represent something like a dozen votes, {I'm not sure of the real number, but it's a trivial amount}, but because of their proximity they can create positive political images and wonderful optics.
As for NY, California and the like, ------- well those states are dominated right now by the left wing of the Democrat party. And those states are super expensive to campaign in, buy radio and television ads in, such things play a factor in the prominence of NH and Iowa.
But there are some of us who have advocated a different primary schedule for the GOP, which pushes forward states like Florida and Colorado.
Not to e
Derek Leaberry| 1.3.12 @ 11:27AM
If Romney, Santorum and Paul pull the trifecta, how much political air remains for the other candidates? It is hard to fathom Mrs. Bachmann or Perry surviving a fifth-sixth place showing in Iowa. Huntsman is wishing and hoping for Romney to fall to third. He needs a wounded Romney for New Hampshire as it is hard to fathom Huntsman remaining viable without a strong second in the Granite State. But if Romney underperforms in Iowa, does someone new jump into the race?
Bill Kristol is obliquely supporting Santorum. Shouldn't that frighten any conservative disgusting with the debacle that was most of the Bush presidency? Bill Kristol is almost always wrong.
tonypal| 1.3.12 @ 12:45PM
I predict Ron Paul will win 100% of the Iowa vote. That should keep me safe from the RonPaulbots, at least for now.
Haddit| 1.3.12 @ 1:31PM
It is my understanding that Newt Gingrich is for the 999 or stepping stone to the Fair Tax. The man has my vote if I have to write it in.
OLDRAY| 1.3.12 @ 1:35PM
Romney will be another wishy/washy loser against Obama .And if he should somehow win, he'll be weak on foreign policy . Any of the rest would be better except of course (as many have noted) Paul, who is a Kook and really an evil one at that.
Haddit| 1.3.12 @ 1:41PM
Oldray. I wouldn't say that Paul is evil. I would say he's a bit radical in his defence thinking. A lot of his thoughts are okay with me but when he blew it in that debate as to what he would not do with Iran, I lost it for him.