| Good news for the Iowa GOP
By proving there's more than one way to win Iowa, the results give both "moderates" and conservatives a reason to compete here in the future. Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney tied, showing you can win by racking up pluralities in dozens of smaller counties, or by taking most of the urban and suburban counties. Ron Paul almost pulled off the win with his unusual coalition, including younger and crossover voters. He did quite well in counties containing colleges or universities.
In that sense, Iowa Republicans are fortunate the social conservative faction remained split among several candidates. If one candidate had consolidated this bloc early and defeated Romney convincingly, that would inspire future "moderates" to skip Iowa. I put "moderates" in quotation marks because Romney only appears to be moderate compared to some of the others who made a play here. There is no political space in Iowa for a real moderate Republican, like Jon Huntsman.
The exciting finish boosted national interest in the caucuses, which may help the party keep Iowa first in line in the future. For most of 2011, the caucus campaign was a dud, but the national media got the competitive horse race they wanted at the end.
Santorum's rapid rise and Paul's relatively strong finish validated organizing as a strategy for winning Iowa. It would have been terrible for the Iowa GOP if Herman Cain or Newt Gingrich had peaked at exactly the right time. They had no campaign infrastructure here, which Paul had been building for years, and they hadn't put in the time like Santorum, with his 99-county tour. If Romney had won Iowa comfortably, future candidates would be more tempted to blow off Iowa until the final month before the caucuses.
The results also give future GOP presidential candidates a reason to lend a hand with Iowa Republican crusades. There's no question that Santorum and Gingrich boosted their support by helping the 2010 campaign against retaining three Iowa Supreme Court justices. The anti-retention campaign probably helped Republicans win a few Iowa House and Senate races Democrats might otherwise have held.
Bad news for the Iowa GOP
The Ames straw poll as we know it is probably dead. Investing in the straw poll killed Tim Pawlenty's campaign, and winning that day didn't create a strong base for Michele Bachmann to build on. Equally important, blowing off the straw poll didn't stop Rick Perry or Gingrich from becoming front-runners for a time, and didn't prevent Romney from winning the caucuses. The Iowa GOP needs to look for another way to raise big money in the future.
Caucus turnout was disappointing. Republicans can say they set a record with about 122,000 caucus-goers statewide, but they should have been able to do better than that with the GOP base's intense dislike of President Obama, and so many candidates competing here. When you consider that thousands of those GOP caucus-goers were crossovers who may not vote for the party's eventual nominee, Republican turnout was below the 2008 level. That suggests a lack of enthusiasm for this presidential field. The caucuses did nothing to change my view that Obama is favored to win Iowa again this November.
Having the caucuses so soon after the holiday season probably hurt turnout, but attendance at the 2008 Democratic caucuses (also held right after New Year's) was nearly double the Republican total for this year.
The margin between Romney and Santorum was too close for comfort. A small tabulation error in Appanoose County or somewhere else could change the outcome. That may hurt Iowa's prospects for staying first in line. You can hardly blame politics-watchers across the country for concluding that the caucuses are less credible than a primary with more safeguards for counting ballots. It would have been better for the Iowa GOP to have a close race with an undisputed winner (margin of, say, a few hundred votes). That said, I contend that even with a few counting errors, the Republican caucus process reflects voter preferences much more accurately than the Iowa Democratic caucuses. The Bleeding Heartland community has been arguing about the merits of the caucus process in several comment threads this week: see here, here, and here.
The floor is yours. What do you think the Iowa caucuses mean for the Republican Party?
On a related note, Kevin Hall posted his take on the Iowa caucus winners and losers here. I agree that Secretary of State Matt Schultz helped himself by endorsing Santorum, and State Senator Kent Sorenson hurt himself by ditching Bachmann six days before the caucuses. |
![[Bleeding Heartland Logo]](http://www.bleedingheartland.com/upload/logo.jpg){kind=logo}
