Quin
raises an interesting question about why voters seem to like a
winner. I think many of us who write about politics for a living —
or who comment frequently on political websites — fail to
appreciate that many voters pay only casual attention to election
campaigns. The media through which such voters do follow the
campaign isn’t always sympathetic to conservative insurgent
candidates. Finally, perception matters. There’s a strong case to
be made against Mitt Romney’s electability but the perception is
he’s the strongest general election candidate. Rick Santorum’s
underfunded campaign and Newt Gingrich’s haphazard one have
struggled to alter those perceptions.
There are two questions I’ve heard more than any other while
covering the early phases of the 2012 campaign. Why does Iowa or
New Hampshire get to pick my party’s nominee for me? And who cares
about these little states? Wake me when a state with significant
electorate votes casts its ballots. The answer to the first
question is: Iowa and New Hampshire don’t have the power — or the
delegates — to determine the nominee. It is just an observable
fact how a candidate performs in those states has substantial
impact on how they do going forward. That also answers the second
question: by the time those big states vote, the primary campaign
may be largely over.
In defense of the early states, however, I’d note that they are
the very places that prize retail politics and afford the ability
to run relatively low-budget campaigns. If we just immediately
shifted to primary votes in huge, expensive media markets, the race
would probably be even less competitive than it is now. Iowa, New
Hampshire, and South Carolina allow the other Republicans to
compete with Romney on something approaching even terms.
