by Ana Marie Cox
Ron Paul is in a position to pull off an upset in the Iowa caucuses in three weeks that would have serious ramifications for the Republican party elite.
Going into Thursday night's debate – and the caucuses only 21 days away – probably the only person who thinks Newt Gingrich can meet the high expectations his recent poll and debate performances have set is Newt Gingrich.
The rest of the field, and political operatives, are getting ready for a scenario that just three months ago would have seemed as far-fetched as, I don't know, Herman Cain being the front-runner: Ron Paul winning Iowa.
Among Iowa voters, Paul is the only candidate in the top tier (he's in the top tier!) that has not seen his support rise precipitously and then erode. Paul is, in fact, the only candidate that has seen his support simply grow.
This solid base, combined with Paul's Iowa organization – unlike Romney or Gingrich, he has one – put Paul in the position to pull an upset that has the potential to shake-up not just the 2012 race, but the way the GOP conducts its primaries for years to come.
Within the party, moderates and realists (these groups overlap but are not exactly the same) have been quietly making the case for years that Iowa's caucus picks wind up hurting the GOP in general elections. Though the actual caucus winners are often the eventual nominee, the social conservatives who wind up doing well in Iowa (winner Mike Huckabee, and runner-ups Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson) reinforce stereotypes that younger Republicans especially would like the party to move away from.
A Paul win in Iowa would give GOP establishment types more ammunition in their battle to "minimize Iowa's importance". No-one will go so far, even off the record, as to say Iowa shouldn't play a part at all. Those who say that a Paul victory alone would make Iowa not count" seem to be forgetting that delegates are awarded there, whether the pundits think the winner will actually get the nomination or not.
A Paul win probably would make Iowa's results an outlier compared to the rest of the early primary states but, as one strategist I talked to put it, "Ron Paul is no Pat Robertson." A Paul win would not quite be the same as a victory by a candidate whose popularity and volunteer strength stems almost entirely from Iowa's evangelical community – Paul's support comes from libertarians and students as well Iowans who are looking for a candidate who has nothing to apologize for, no past positions that are different than the ones held today.
As far as specific issues go, another Republican whose been on the ground in Iowa pointed out that voters seem singularly focused on spending – to the exclusion of candidates' personal foibles – and those people love Paul's similar focus.
In many ways, a Paul victory would be a repudiation of the sound-bite/image-driven politics that we've come to take for granted as America's electoral lingua franca. Even if you don't agree on Paul's positions, you cannot argue that he has simplified his explanations of them in order to get off a good line. And, look at the man – he personal presentation has certainly not been focus-grouped. (Or, if it has, it's a focus group of people who still let mom pick out their clothes.) It would also be the loudest rejection possible of the GOP's de facto top-down approach to presidential nominations.
As such, Paul winning could spark an internal revolution in the party – either for elites to seize control with an even tighter grip, or for new leadership to emerge. Closer to the present, it would re-open the field: shaking Gingrich out of the top spot, putting Romney on notice in New Hampshire, and giving early state Republicans a reason to reconsider what "electability" means to them. Huntsman could be an attractive option once Romney has a bag over his head.
Link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ana-marie-cox-blog/2011/dec/15/what-if-ron-paul-wins-iowa
No comments:
Post a Comment