By Logan Scisco
This is a “transition” year for domestic politics questions in extemporaneous speaking. What I mean is that this is the last full season extempers will have to read about the Bush presidency. When the 2008-2009 season begins, extempers will only have to deal with the Bush presidency until the Montgomery Bell Extemp Round Robin at the latest. After that point, all questions about the Bush presidency will become more evaluative in terms of his performance over eight years in the White House and extempers will have to study and learn the names of a new batch of administrative officials, not to mention the ideology and temperament of a new president.
However, the first step in this “transition” year for domestic extempers is to focus on the presidential primaries. This is a unique election season because it is one of the first times in recent memory that a sitting vice-president is not contending for his party’s nomination. As a result, the Republican Party has been thrown into chaos and has been divided in its attempt to fight off a rejuvenated Democratic Party in the 2008 elections.
For many presidential contenders all roads to the White House go through Iowa. Its unique caucus format, which will be explained in this brief, tests the skills of presidential contenders in terms of fundraising, building a solid support team, and their ability to charm voters. Iowa is the first presidential contest on the primary calendar and the candidate who is able to harness a victory in the state has the ability to use that victory to enhance their position in the race. Just look to John Kerry’s reversal of fortune after he won the Iowa caucus in 2004 to get a glimpse of that.
Since the Iowa caucus is the first presidential primary contest it will receive a large amount of media coverage for the first half of the 2007-2008 season. Although the date of the Iowa caucus has not been set, political pundits are forecasting an early January date, if not a date in late December. Extemporaneous speaking questions on the Iowa caucus are bound to arise and even if extempers do not confront a question about the Iowa caucus directly they will need to include an analysis of Iowa in almost every question dealing with presidential contenders and their chances of winning the nomination of their respective party.
Therefore, understanding the history of the Iowa caucus, how the caucus system works, and where the race currently stands in Iowa for both parties is of definite value to extempers as they begin the 2007-2008 season. This brief will help you tackle the following questions:
–Who was the real winner of the Iowa straw poll?
–Can Hillary Clinton be stopped in Iowa?
–Is John Edwards gambling too much on Iowa?
–Will John McCain’s campaign die in Iowa?
History
The Iowa caucus emerged as a presidential primary contest in 1972 when the Democratic Party adopted new regulations on how delegates to its national convention would be chosen. Democratic activists were angered at how the 1968 party convention went when President Lyndon B. Johnson’s vice-president, Hubert Humphrey, won the nomination despite his refusal to participate in any of the Democratic primary contests. A commission was formed after the party convention and reforms were enacted to give more power to the delegates elected from primary contests to make the nomination process more democratic. One of the influential figures in this commission was Senator George McGovern of South Dakota and placing Iowa near the front of the presidential calendar was the idea of Norma Matthews, the state co-chair of McGovern’s subsequent campaign in Iowa during the next election season.
The Republican Party has never valued Iowa as much as the Democratic Party. When the caucus was in its infancy, the Republican Party would often have presidential contests before it, notably in Alaska and Hawaii. In fact, the 1988 victory by Pat Robertson in the Hawaii caucus is credited with giving a boom to his campaign in the state. For the 1980 election season, the Republicans began holding a straw poll before the caucus occurred which served to show the viability to certain candidates and whittle down the presidential field (this straw poll process will be discussed later in the brief). For the sake of the 2008 election, though, Iowa will play a significant role in the Republican nomination process due to the fact that there is no clear frontrunner at the moment and the votes for social conservatives are up for grabs.
Extempers should note that there have been many criticisms about the Iowa caucus and its position in the presidential primary calendar. In 2001, the University of Virginia Center of Government Studies wrote in a special report entitled “Nominating Process” where they noted that African-Americans are only 2.1% of Iowa’s population. The report also noted that New Hampshire, the state that conducts the first direct primary in the country, only has .7% of an African-American population. Considering that African-American’s make up 12.5% of the nation’s population, their voice is largely excluded in Iowa and critics allege that issues that are crucial to African-American voters are glossed over in a predominately white state. Another criticism of the Iowa caucus is that its state interests are often at odds with the country. An example that is often cited is the amount of subsidies demanded by Iowa farmers which cause international trade problems. The Economist points out on September 9, 2006 farm subsidies in the U.S. were over $20 billion and 46% of that went to corn farmers who are heavily located in Iowa. This has only been exacerbated by the U.S. looking to corn based ethanol as an alternative fuel source but that might not be economically feasible as studies have indicated that sugar based ethanol would be much more efficient.
Some of the criticisms mentioned above might be why states are moving up their primary contests. California has moved up its primary to early February and South Carolina has decided to hold its primary in mid-January. This will probably prompt New Hampshire to also move its primary ahead in order to retain its ability to be the first direct primary in the nation. It is due to this tactic of “front loading” which is loathed by both the Democratic and Republican Party’s that there is not a clear date for the Iowa caucus just yet. It will be important for extempers to follow the news about when the Iowa caucus will take place because there is a possibility that it might occur in late December.
It is important to list below the winners of the Iowa caucus for each party and the percentage of the vote they received versus that of their challengers. It is important to note that for the Democratic Party in 1992 none of the major contenders competed there due to the fact that Iowa Senator Tom Harkin was running and they thought they stood little chance of defeating his political machine in the state. These results can be found at wikipedia. Winners are put in bold and the candidate that went on to win his party’s nomination for president is designated with an asterisk.
DEMOCRATIC PARTY
2004: John Kerry (38%)* defeated John Edwards (32%), Howard Dean (18%), Dick Gephardt (11%), and Dennis Kucinich (1%)
2000: Al Gore (63%)* defeated Bill Bradley (37%)
1996: Bill Clinton* ran unopposed
1992: Tom Harkin (76%) defeated Paul Tsongas (4%), Bill Clinton (3%)*, Bob Kerrey (2%), and Jerry Brown (2%)
1988: Dick Gephardt (31%) defeated Paul Simon (27%), Michael Dukakis (22%)*, and Bruce Babbitt (6%)
1984: Walter Mondale (49%)* defeated Gary Hart (17%), George McGovern (10%), Alan Cranston (7%), John Glenn (4%), Rueben Askew (3%), and Jesse Jackson (2%)
1980: Jimmy Carter (59%)* defeated Ted Kennedy (31%)
1976: “Uncommitted” (37%) defeated Jimmy Carter (28%)*, Birch Bayh (13%), Fred R. Harris (10%), Morris Udall (6%), Sargent Shriver (3%), and Henry M. Jackson (1%)
1972: Edmund Muskie (36%) defeated George McGovern (23%)*, Hubert Humphrey (2%), Eugene McCarthy (1%), Shirley Crisholm (1%), and Henry M. Jackson (1%)
REPUBLICAN PARTY
2004: George W. Bush* ran unopposed
2000: George W. Bush (41%)* defeated Steve Forbes (30%), Alan Keyes (14%), Gary Bauer (9%), John McCain (5%), and Orrin Hatch (1%)
1996: Bob Dole (26%)* defeated Pat Buchanan (23%), Lamar Alexander (18%), Steve Forbes (10%), Phil Gramm (9%), Alan Keyes (7%), Richard Lugar (4%), and Morry Taylor (1%)
1992: George H.W. Bush* ran unopposed
1988: Bob Dole (37%) defeated Pat Robertson (25%), George H.W. Bush (19%)*, Jack Kemp (11%), and Pete DuPont (7%)
1984: Ronald Reagan* ran unopposed
1980: George H.W. Bush (32%) defeated Ronald Reagan (30%)*, Howard Baker (15%), John Connally (9%), Phil Crane (7%), John B. Anderson (4%), and Bob Dole (2%)
1976: Gerald Ford* defeated Ronald Reagan
How Does it Work?
A caucus works much differently than a direct primary, which is what we see in the early states of New Hampshire and South Carolina. The caucus system also works differently depending on if you are participating in the Democratic Party primary or the Republican Party primary.
In general, to vote in the Iowa caucus voters assemble in one of Iowa’s 1,800 precincts. Interestingly enough, seventeen year olds can participate in the caucus proceedings as long as they will be eighteen before the presidential election. Also, to participate in a party’s caucus you have to be registered to that particular party, no crossovers are allowed.
The Democratic Party caucus differs from the Republican Party’s in that it is more complicated. After voters have arrived at their precinct, they indicate support for their candidate by standing in a designated area. Voters who have not yet made up their mind have their own area they can stand in. Thirty minutes are then allowed for these undecided voters to talk to the support groups of the various candidates and for the various support groups to win over followers of other groups. When this thirty minutes is over a count is done of how many supporters each candidate has and they are considered “viable” by an arbitrary measurement of fifteen to twenty-five percent of those who are at the precinct. This viability measurement is important because a candidate does not receive any votes from a precinct unless they meet this viability threshold. After the viability count, thirty more minutes are given for a period of “realignment.” During this period people can switch their support and this can help candidates who have not met the viability threshold if voters who are supporting other candidates switch to their side to help them meet the threshold. This is an interesting part of the process because a candidate can sometimes benefit if they are a voter’s “second choice.” When thirty minutes concludes, another count is conducted and delegates are sent to the county convention which sets in motion the process of sending delegates to the Democratic national convention. The results are also called in to the state Democratic Party which then tabulates the delegates for each candidate and gives the results to the media. It is important to note that the delegates that are selected at the precinct level are initially bound to support the decision of their precinct in higher stages of the delegate selection process.
The Republican process is not as complicated. It operates just like the straw poll the GOP conducts several months before the caucus (to be discussed later). In this process, voters select a candidate on a secret ballot and their votes are tabulated by the state Republican Party who then releases them to the media. However, these votes are non-binding and the Republican delegates are later chosen through district and state Republican conventions.
As you can see, this is a very unique voting system, especially on the Democratic side, and having a large support system that can “get out the vote” is vital to success. Furthermore, having outspoken and persuasive followers can work in the favor of Democratic candidates as they can be used to persuade undecided voters on election night.
The Iowa Straw Poll
As was stated above, the GOP began holding a straw poll in Iowa in the 1980 presidential election cycle. Since the straw poll occurs the year before the presidential election that means the first poll was held in 1979. The GOP straw poll is an interesting event in that it helps to test a candidate’s support system and also eliminates some of the candidates who have not gained any traction with their campaigns. The straw poll’s official name is the Ames Straw Poll because it is held in Ames, Iowa. This is the chosen site because Ames is located near the center of the state.
The straw poll is an event The Economist magazine describes as “a cross between a money-raising wheeze for the Iowa Republican Party and a free day at the fair for local conservatives.” The poll is held at a fundraising dinner for the state Republican Party and candidates who show up for the poll are given time to speak to the crowd. There are several restrictions for participating in the event: you must be eighteen years of age, a resident of Iowa, and buy a ticket to the fundraising dinner (usually priced at $35).
These restrictions evolved over time as there was controversy in the early years of the straw poll that candidates were busing their supporters in from other states. Also, this year, after voters cast their ballots, their thumbs are dipped in ink instead of having their hands stamped due to allegations that voter fraud occurred in the past when people would go to the restroom and wash the stamp off their hands in order to vote a second time.
The straw poll is criticized by some as only benefiting candidates with a large amount of money. This is because candidates often foot the bill to bus their supporters to Ames, house them in a nice hotel, provide them with musical entertainment, and then pay for their ticket to the fundraising dinner. While a huge financial undertaking, winning the straw poll is ticket to free media coverage and electoral success in the state as three out of the four previous Iowa straw poll winners won the Iowa caucus several months later.
Here is a listing of past Iowa straw poll results. The vote tally’s come from wikipedia and the winner is identified in bold with an asterisk identifying who ended up winning the Iowa caucus.
August 2007: Mitt Romney (31.6%) defeated Mike Huckabee (18.1%), Sam Brownback (15.3%), Tom Tancredo (13.7%), Ron Paul (9.1%), Tommy Thompson (7.3%), Fred Thompson (1.4%), Rudy Giuliani (1.3%), Duncan Hunter (1.2%), John McCain (.7%), and John H. Cox (.3%)
August 1999: George W. Bush (31.3%)* defeated Steve Forbes (20.8%), Elizabeth Dole (14.4%), Gary Bauer (8.9%), Pat Buchanan (7.3%), Lamar Alexander (6%), Alan Keyes (4.6%), Dan Quayle (3.9%), Orrin Hatch (2.4%), John McCain (.4%), John Kasich (.04%), and Bob Smith (.03%)
August 1995: Bob Dole* and Phil Gramm tied (23.6%) and defeated Pat Buchanan (17.5%), Lamar Alexander (10.5%), Alan Keyes (7.3%), Morry Taylor (7.3%), Richard Lugar (4.3%), Pete Wilson (1.2%), Bob Dornan (.8%), and Arlen Specter (.6%)
August 1987: Pat Robertson (33.6%) defeated Bob Dole (24.9%)*, George H.W. Bush (22.5%), Jack Kemp (13.5%), Pete duPont (4.2%), Alan Heslop (.3%), Alexander Haig (.3%), Ben Fernandez (.2%), and other candidates (.4%)
August 1979: George H.W. Bush* won
It would not hurt to know a few of the names of individuals who dropped out shortly after the Iowa straw poll in order to try to impress judges. Here is a list of a few individuals that you can use in your speech:
*Tommy Thompson dropped out a day after finishing sixth in the August 2007 straw poll.
*Dan Quayle and Lamar Alexander immediately withdrew from the presidential contest after their disappointing finishes in the August 1999 straw poll.
The Democratic Field: Where the Race Stands
Looking at national polls one might conclude that the Democratic presidential race is already finished. After all, former First Lady and Senator Hillary Clinton is leading by double digits over Senator Barack Obama and former vice-presidential candidate John Edwards. However, those national polls are a misnomer. Since there is no “national primary day” where the entire country votes to select the presidential nominees one must look at early state contests to see where the Democratic presidential nominating process currently stands.
When looking at Iowa right now, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, and Mr. Edwards are running neck-and-neck. Each of them lead different polls but on the whole Senator Clinton seems to edge out her rivals. However, her lead is within the margin of error. In fact, the candidate who has led for much of the time in Iowa until recently was Mr. Edwards who is still using the political machine he manufactured in the 2004 Iowa caucus. Astute extempers probably know that Mr. Edwards rode that political machine to a surprising second place finish in Iowa, defeating both Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt, and that “victory” enabled him to continue on in the contest and eventually receive a vice-presidential nod from Senator John Kerry. In fact, shortly after the 2004 election was finished Mr. Edwards went ahead and got to work on maintaining the political machine he had in Iowa while he also created a poverty think tank to keep his political views in the newspapers. The strength of the Edwards campaign can be summed up in a Hart/McLaughlin poll taken during the first weekend of August which gave Edwards a 30% to 22% lead over Clinton and a 30% to 18% lead over Obama.
Edwards is trying to harness a populist message to win over voters in Iowa. He has gone on a “Fighting for One America” tour where he has denounced big oil companies, the pharmaceutical industry, and health insurance companies. Of the candidates in the Democratic field, Edwards is taking the more liberal positions with a plan to pay for the college education of Americans who want to pursue it and a plan for national health insurance. Edwards has also apologized for his vote in favor of authorizing the war in Iraq in 2003 during his time in the Senate which has won him favor among liberal activists. Furthermore, his wife Elizabeth, who tragically has inoperable cancer, has hit the campaign trail with him and has been very outspoken in attacking Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. Some political experts have called Elizabeth the “vice-president” in her husband’s campaign to the degree that she attends political engagements and gives speeches to large crowds in Iowa. Edwards’s biggest trump card is among unions. He is hoping to win them over with his populist messages against large corporations and with his skepticism on further free trade accords. Due to the fact that unions play a large role in the Iowa caucus and can use their resources to muster supporters to the caucus, which have low turnout among registered voters, winning them over is crucial to Edwards’s strategy.
Overall, Iowa is a MUST WIN state for John Edwards. Edwards’s strategy is a very Dick Gephardt-type strategy that was played out in 1988 (where it succeeded) and 2004 (where it failed). Edwards is hoping that he can win over union support and find a core group of voters in Iowa that will buy into his liberal ideas and his populist message and win him the caucus. Edwards is then hoping that the media attention from winning the caucus will provide him a wave of new support and funds, which could come from candidates who drop out after the Iowa caucus is finished or sooner. Edwards has invested the most time in Iowa than any other candidate and has also spent most of his money in the state. If, on election night, Edwards does not win Iowa his campaign is finished as he will not have the support or money to continue since he is underinvested in New Hampshire and South Carolina compared to Clinton and Obama.
Barack Obama is seen by many Democratic primary voters as the agent of extreme change. Not extreme change in terms of ideology, but extreme change in terms of who controls the White House and their policy prescriptions from the executive branch. America has been through eight years of a Clinton White House from 1993 to 2001 and another twelve years of a Bush White House from 1989 to 1993 and 2001 to 2009. There is a taste among Iowa voters for a new leader to inherit the White House and Barack Obama is the candidate these voters are looking to. A CBS News poll taken on August 16th revealed that 66 percent of Democratic primary voters believe Obama would “seek new ways to resolve the country’s problems” while only 44 percent of Democratic primary voters believed Hillary Clinton would do the same. Obama has tried to play on this during his campaign but it is not winning him as much support. Furthermore, Obama’s recent remarks about considering military strikes in Pakistan and his willingness to talk to the leaders of rogue nations in the White House has lessened his support among primary voters. The same CBS News poll showed that voters believe Clinton had more experience and understanding to be president when matched against Obama by a 80% to 41% margin.
Obama’s lack of experience has been attacked in the Clinton camp relentlessly although most of it has been implicit in her campaign ads. However, Obama’s lack of experience may not play against him as much in Iowa as it would in New Hampshire. This is because Iowa is a more personable state where candidates have to chat and meet with voters face-to-face in local restaurants and small campaign events. These events will showcase Obama’s people skills and likeability which get strong ratings from voters. A Washington Post-ABC News poll on August 3rd said that in Iowa only fourteen percent of voters believe Clinton is the most likeable Democrat in the field and only fourteen percent thought she was the most honest candidate. The same poll showed Obama and Edwards well above her in terms of likeability, honesty, and understanding the problems that face the country. Obama is hoping that these likeability traits will enable him to persuade voters to support his candidacy in Iowa.
Obama’s campaign strategy in Iowa is centered on turning out the youth vote. Voters under forty-five years of age heavily favor Obama in Iowa by a 39% to 24% margin over Clinton and 22% for Edwards according to the Washington Post-ABC News poll listed above. This is going to be a challenge because in the last Iowa caucus in 2004 two-thirds of the participants were over forty-five years of age. However, even with a loss in Iowa Obama’s campaign can keep going although he will have to win New Hampshire to stay alive. Even with a loss in New Hampshire, Obama could gamble everything on the South Carolina primary where a large portion of the Democratic electorate is African-American but with former President Bill Clinton’s high positives among African-American voters that is not a sure victory for him. Extempers would be wise to continue to monitor Obama’s support among youth voters and what he is doing to get them to the polls on caucus day because a failure to get them to turn out would doom his candidacy in the state.
Hillary Clinton is already being lauded by conservative pundits as the eventual winner of the Democratic nomination. Although she has high negatives among the general public she is crushing the Democratic field in terms of name recognition and her war chest. Also, Clinton can count on the support of her popular husband, President Bill Clinton, in future fundraisers and campaign events in Iowa. Clinton also has the support of former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack who was also a popular figure in the state. However, despite her high poll ratings over Obama and Edwards her campaign team is very concerned about Iowa. Clinton got her campaign started in the state late and has been trying, and it appears succeeding, in reducing Edwards’s once dominating lead in the state. Clinton has also stepped up advertising and public speaking engagements across the state in an attempt to stop Edwards and Obama from getting an early electoral victory. Her campaign team is concerned that Edwards might have a better turnout operation, which is vital to succeed in Iowa, and is worried that Obama’s high likeability ratings might doom her on Election Day. One only has to remember Howard Dean’s collapse in 2004 to remember that no lead in the polls is safe. It is Clinton’s best bet to focus on her experience as First Lady in the White House and record in the United States Senate over the last seven and a half years to contrast against the poor experience records of both Edwards and Obama. However, Clinton must avoid negative campaigning at all cost as well as any of her other challengers. Iowa’s voters do not take kindly to negative advertising as was seen in 2004 when they abandoned Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean and gave their votes to John Kerry instead.
The overall Democratic forecast in Iowa remains a fuzzy picture. Yet one observation becomes apparent: Hillary Clinton has to be stopped in Iowa or New Hampshire for Obama or Edwards to have a shot at the nomination. Clinton is polling very well in Super Tuesday states as well as in New York and California. It is very likely to assume that if Obama or Edwards cannot stop Clinton in these two early states their campaigns are doomed as Hillary would probably dominate the rest of the way, a fact only exacerbated by the massive “front loading” of primary states. The best place to stop Clinton would in Iowa because Edwards’s operation is better than hers on the ground and her likeability ratings could give a boost to Obama. A loss in Iowa would be a bit of an embarrassment for the Clinton camp and they would have to regroup in New Hampshire, which would not be hard if she finished second to Edwards in Iowa. The worst care scenario for Clinton is that she loses to Obama and Edwards in Iowa because that would give both of them a huge wave of momentum and it could cripple the Clinton candidacy in New Hampshire and South Carolina.
The Republican Field: Where the Race Stands
The Republican field is not as established as the Democratic field in that there is no clear frontrunner at the moment. While the Democrats have Hillary Clinton with a large national lead in the polls, the Republican Party does not have a true frontrunner. In fact, the party is divided at the moment between favoring a social liberal in former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, who currently leads in the national polls, and waiting for a “true conservative” candidate to enter the race which some believe will be former Tennessee Senator and Law & Order star Fred Thompson.
The Republican Party is also demoralized. Although the base was jubilant at the victory of George W. Bush in the 2004 election over John Kerry they have become demoralized with the events concerning the country. There was Hurricane Katrina which showed government mismanagement in 2005, there were the numerous corruption scandals extempers got to talk about during the 2005-2006 season, a costly and bad war in Iraq, and finally there have been concerns about the rise of big government and large government spending. The Republican Party has become a nice punching bag for extempers and it is in this demoralized climate that the 2008 presidential campaign is being waged when less than half of Republicans believe any candidate they choose will occupy the White House when President Bush leaves in January 2009.
Thankfully for extempers and for those reading the end of this brief, the Republican field can be talked about in more specifics than the Democratic field. This is because the GOP recently held the Iowa straw poll, which was discussed above, and it has served to give finer insight to the race which was lacking before. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney won the Iowa straw poll with 31.6 percent of the vote. Usually, this result would indicate a huge victory for Romney and would reshuffle the race in his favor. After all, in 1999 the straw poll solidified George W. Bush as the GOP frontrunner for the 2000 election. However, this year had some interesting twists. Looking at Romney’s Iowa operation, Giuliani and Arizona Senator John McCain chose not to contest the straw poll. The same can be said of the phantom candidacy of Fred Thompson, who has yet to declare that he is in the race (although that may change by the time you read this brief). As a result of this the Iowa straw poll became more of a test of Romney’s candidacy than it became a test of his operation against the operation of McCain or Giuliani in the state.
The results of Romney’s victory in the straw poll, by a 31.6% to 18.1% margin over former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee were mixed. On one hand, Romney’s victory was a good sign that his operation in Iowa is heading in the right direction. Simply put he was expected to win and he won so at least he has that going for his campaign. Also, Romney got a bigger share of the straw poll vote than what he is polling in Iowa which shows that he might have expanded his support. Finally, Romney won an advantage in that he contested the straw poll while bigger candidates in the GOP field did not. This could give him an additional message to play on before the caucus vote in several months and solidify his lead.
However, there were some disconcerting signs for Romney out of this straw poll although he emerged victorious. First, it was an embarrassment to Romney that he spent so much to get so little support. Due to the fact that Giuliani, Thompson, and McCain were not competing in the poll Romney was expected to win by a 2-to-1 margin by political pundits. This threshold however, was not reached. It is true that Romney won the straw poll by the same margin that George W. Bush won in 1999 but the crucial difference is that Bush won against his two main opponents at the time: Steve Forbes and Elizabeth Dole. Romney spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more, to get supporters to the straw poll. Meanwhile, Mr. Huckabee spent only $150,000 on the poll and yet finished with a strong result. The second worry for Romney is that two social conservative candidates, Huckabee and Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, who finished third with 15.3% of the vote, finished with a higher total combined than Romney. This means that Romney, a Mormon and former pro-choice politician, has not yet “wooed” social conservatives voters to his side. This leaves open the possibility that a candidate such as Thompson or former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich could come in, sweep up those votes, and put Romney’s presidential aspirations in jeopardy.
As with the Democratic contest, the situation in Iowa does not mirror the national race. Rudy Giuliani currently leads the polls but Mitt Romney is the one that leads the polls in Iowa by a double digit margin according to a Washington Post-ABC poll taken on July 31st. It is important for extempers to recognize the difference that exists between Romney’s election strategy and Giuliani’s. Romney is relying on a more traditional election strategy. He is focusing the majority of his resources in early states such as Iowa and New Hampshire and is looking to get a big victory out of those early states to propel him to victory in bigger states in the primary calendar such as Florida, California, New York, etc. Some political analysts have also speculated that Romney wants to use these early victories to make the race a one-on-one contest between he and Giuliani. It is in this one-on-one confrontation that Romney could try to portray himself as the “true conservative” versus the more liberal Giuliani and try to win the primaries that way.
Giuliani’s campaign strategy is more of the opposite. Although Giuliani is still making visits to Iowa and New Hampshire he believes he can win the bigger states later in the primary calendar such as California, New York, etc. where his more liberal brand of conservatism can play favorably. When weighing Romney and Giuliani’s strategy against each other, the extemper can make his or her own decision about which is best. However, it is my belief that Romney’s strategy is better. This is simply because the “front loading” of the presidential primary contests benefits candidates who can win early. Giuliani might gamble that he can win later but later might be too late and Romney might have too much momentum to stop by the time he reaches New York. Furthermore, with the shortened amount of time between primaries due to states moving theirs further and further ahead there may not be time to regroup after a successive wave of defeats in early primary states. Giuliani’s strategy may work in the end but it is running the risk that Romney or another candidate will not win both Iowa and New Hampshire or have too much momentum by the time they hit the larger states.
One candidate’s story worth following is John McCain. McCain’s campaign is in a mess. He has downsized staff due to not meeting fundraising expectations and much of the base of support he built for himself in 2000 has eroded. The sorry state of McCain’s campaign was summed up in the straw poll where he finished a mere sixty votes in front of businessman John Cox and finished second to last. It is true that McCain did not campaign for the straw poll but it does attest to his low level of support that very few of his followers felt obligated to attend the straw poll. However, it is way too soon to write McCain off. Looking at McCain’s campaign right now reminds me of John Kerry’s campaign in 2004. Kerry had many parallels with McCain: he was regarded as an early contender, fell on very hard times early, and was written off with several months to go. Nevertheless, if McCain can find a message or somehow recapture the maverick touch he was famous for in 2000 (repairing his image on Iraq would not hurt) he might rally in Iowa. It is a story worth watching because I believe you might be getting some “What is wrong is John McCain?” questions to start the year.
Also, look out for Mike Huckabee. His campaign has taken on new life due to his performance in the straw poll. Due to his placing and the media attention with it, social conservatives may start to re-evaluate his candidacy and find that they do not need a Fred Thompson in the race to get behind a more conservative candidate. This would be terrible news for Sam Brownback who is courting the same social conservative base but as with all things in politics, there is only enough room for one person to occupy that spot in the GOP primary. If nothing else, Huckabee’s performance has ignited talk that he could be a vice-presidential choice for whomever wins the Republican nomination. For a brief bio on Huckabee, he was a two-term Arkansas governor who was famous for his campaign against obesity and for losing over a hundred pounds in an effort to encourage the people to Arkansas to lose weight. The strike against him as a candidate, though, is that he is not very charismatic and has a sketchy history to present to voters on trade and taxes during his tenure as Arkansas governor. One thing that makes Huckabee an interesting candidate, though, is that he has a unique platform. His campaign centerpiece at the moment is the proposal of a “Fair tax” which would substitute the national income tax with a national sales tax.
To conclude, the Republicans are fighting amongst themselves with a demoralized base. Turnout this year for the straw poll was a little over 14,000 which was down from the 23,000 plus voters who turned out in 1999. Part of this was due to the curse of being in power. In 1999, the Republicans were full of their hatred for Bill Clinton and were desperate to take back the executive branch after four eight years. However, now that they have controlled the executive branch for nearly seven years the GOP has very little of that unifying hatred left in it. In fact, with the disastrous 2006 elections the GOP feels as if it is on the defensive and the party is fractured between those looking for a fiscal conservative (those who support Romney), a social conservative (those who support a possible Thompson candidacy), and a national security conservative (those who support Giuliani). It is possible the GOP might find its fire if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination but one thing is certain: if the GOP does not find its fire soon and remains in a depressed state it will become the victim of a self-fulfilling prophesy, ironically leaving it shut out of the government it felt that it could have dominated with a “permanent majority” just four years ago.
Cards:
Huckabee, Iowa Poll’s Real Winner? The Wall Street Journal. 13 August 2007. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118696092889395425.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
AMES, Iowa — The biggest winner of Iowa Republicans’ weekend straw poll of 11 presidential rivals may well turn out to be not Mitt Romney, whose first-place finish here was expected, but surprise runner-up Mike Huckabee, the guitar-picking former governor of Arkansas.
Iowa Straw Vote Shows GOP Race Still Wide Open. Christian Science Monitor. 13 August 2007. http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0813/p02s02-uspo.htm
If the Iowa straw poll Saturdayrevealed anything about the race for the Republican presidential nomination it is that the race, even in Iowa, is still open.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney sailed to a widely expected victory after millions of dollars and months of campaigning in the state.
Mitt and the Monkey. The Economist. 16 August 2007. http://www.economist.com/world/na/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=9645810&CFID=15457365&CFTOKEN=27370198
ONE of the odder events in the political calendar is the Iowa straw poll: ridiculous or diverting according to taste. It is not in any sense a representative poll. There are no straws involved. And it is an imperfect predictor of who will win the Iowa caucuses let alone the Republican presidential nomination.
In a Must-Win State, Edwards Takes a Harsher Tone. New York Times. 19 August 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/us/politics/19edwards.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
DES MOINES, Aug. 18 – As he travels across lush and green rural Iowa on a bus with his wife and two young children, John Edwards is an increasingly angry man. His face may break into a sunny smile and his smooth voice may drip with Southern charm, but his words are anything but soft these days.
Three Top Democrats Share Lead in Iowa Poll. Washington Post. 3 August 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202621_pf.html
Less than six months before Iowa voters open the 2008 presidential nomination battles, the Democratic contest in the Hawkeye State is in a deadlock, with Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards in a virtual tie for first place, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Obama and Clinton Find Pluses in Poll. New York Times. 16 August 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/16/us/politics/16obama.html?_r=1&oref=login&ref=politics&pagewanted=print
Senator Barack Obama has built his campaign around the idea that he is a transformational candidate and is more likely to bring change to the country than Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. And a new CBS News poll suggests that could be a fruitful line of argument for him.
Edwards on Track in Iowa. Time Magazine. 29 August 2007. http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1657478,00.html
John Edwards is betting that a strong showing in the Iowa caucuses will catapult him into national contention, and so far his strategy in the state is on track. A new TIME poll of likely Iowa caucus goers, taken a week after Edwards’ seven-day, 31-stop bus tour of the state, gives Edwards 29% of the vote, five points ahead of Hillary Clinton and seven ahead of Barack Obama. This latest TIME Poll of 519 likely Iowa Democratic caucus goers finds that, among the so-called “second-tier” candidates, Bill Richardson has 11%, with Joe Biden at 5%, Dennis Kucinich with 2%, and Chris Dodd at 1%.
Edwards Takes Risk Staking Run on Iowa. Boston Globe. 14 August 2007. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/14/edwards_takes_risk_staking_run_on_iowa/
SIOUX CITY, Iowa — Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards is staking his campaign on winning Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucus, even at the cost of stinting on the next big test in New Hampshire.