Monday, 31st December 2007

What the candidates want from Iowa

James Forsyth 2:47pm

It is now only 4 days until Iowa Caucuses get the 2008 presidential contest under way. The most precious commodity that Iowa can bestow upon a candidate is momentum; the result in Iowa can set the tone for the rest of the campaign. So, here is Coffee House’s guide to what the leading candidates want out of Iowa.

The Democrats
Current polls show John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in an effective three way tie.

John Edwards: The Southern populist needs to win Iowa. If he doesn’t, he might as well drop out of the race.

Hillary Clinton: Winning would obviously be nice and there are signs that things are swinging back her way in the final few days. But most important to Hillary is that Obama doesn’t win. If he does, momentum will likely carry him to victory in New Hampshire and South Carolina—and if Hillary is 0 for 3 after the first three contest, then she in real trouble.

Barack Obama: Victory in Iowa would make Obama the master of his own destiny in this race. Anything less than first place and the New Hampshire primary on January 8th, will be an absolute must-win for him.

The Republicans:

Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney are running way ahead of the rest of the pack. In recent days, Romney’s attack ads have taken their toll on Huckabee’s support and have seen Romney edge ahead of Huckabee in most polling.

Mike Huckabee: The Christian populist needs to win Iowa if he is to have any serious chance of winning the nomination. If Huckabee can’t win in a caucus dominated by Christian conservatives then he can’t hope to win the whole thing. However, even a second place finish will establish Huckabee as a major figure in the GOP and the most influential Christian conservative in the country.

Mitt Romney: Defeat here would be a major embarrassment after Romney has spent far more money and time here any other candidate. The negative press that will follow any defeat would weaken him in New Hampshire where he is locked in a tight-race with John McCain. If Romney, who has built his campaign around an early state strategy, doesn’t win either Iowa or New Hampshire then it is almost certainly all over for him.

John McCain: McCain has an interest in the outcome of both the Republican and Democratic races. In the Republican contest, he’d love Huckabee to beat Romney and to come in third himself, gaining more good press and giving him vital momentum heading into New Hampshire. On the Democratic side, a strong Hillary victory would be ideal for him as it would persuade independents in New Hampshire that the Democratic contest is effectively over and push more of them to vote in the Republican primary. For McCain, though, crunch time comes on the eighth: win New Hampshire and he’ll probably be the nominee, if he doesn’t it is probably all over for the Arizona Senator.

Rudy Giuliani: Giuliani has barely campaigned in Iowa instead choosing to put his chips on winning the Florida primary at the end of January and then cleaning up when the big states vote on February fifth. but he still has a significant stake in the result. First, he needs to avoid coming in behind the fringe candidate Ron Paul—if he did, it would only serve to emphasise how out of sync Giuliani is with the Republican heartland. Second, he’d also like the well financed Romney campaign not to win here. The nightmare for Giuliani is that one Republican sweeps the first three contests and overwhelms him in Florida thanks to the momentum picked up in the early states and a flood of TV advertising.

Previous Back to Coffee House Next

Actions: Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (8) | Subscribe

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Justin

December 31st, 2007 5:01pm Report this comment

Thanks for once again not including Ron Paul. Typical.

James Marshall

January 1st, 2008 5:02am Report this comment

I agree with Justin. I won't be surprised if Paul beats at least two of the candidates you profile in Iowa. (He also happens to be the only conservative candidate - something that would once have interested Spectator writers.)

Lawrence

January 1st, 2008 1:42pm Report this comment

i agree with both. Ron Paul is on for 3rd, and as the only interesting candidate in the whole race you should include him, indeed focus your support on him

David

January 1st, 2008 5:37pm Report this comment

I agree with James and Larry. He lets me call him Larry. Only his Mom calls him Lawrence.

HalcyonDays

January 1st, 2008 6:55pm Report this comment

David Brooks in today's New York Times talks about Romney, noting that he is basically unelectable if he becomes the Republican nominee this autumn. This is principally because his support among people under 42 is very low, and even lower among those under 30 (ie. 7%). He will also face hostility from Latinos, middle and lower middle class income groups and from the media. He is too 'old brand' Republican, given his positions on immigration, Iraq, Guantanamo etc., and is unresponsive to the middle class angst that Huckabee may now be able to tap into.

Lawrence

January 1st, 2008 8:39pm Report this comment

Thanks for your agreement Dave, and it's true that I let you call me Larry. Though I should say that 'Larry' isn't as popular on this side of the pond as in your country. I know you're American because you spelt 'mum' wrong. ron paul. Ron Paul! RON PAUL!!!

David Lindsay

January 2nd, 2008 1:58am Report this comment

John Edwards is the best of the bunch on the Democratic side. But that is not necessarily saying very much, considering that one of that field is Her, the vicar on earth of Mr NAFTA, Mr GATT, Mr Triangulation, Mr Bomber Of Belgrade.

And just how much of an economic populist is Edwards, really? Just how much of a moral and social conservative, really? Just how clearly an opponent as much of coercive utopianism and world government as of isolationism and laissez faire, and vice versa, really? The answers to these questions add up to the answer to the big question: is he really the man for 2012?

For 2012 is the year when the Democrats might well have to nominate an economically populist, morally and socially conservative foreign policy realist.

They might need to do this in order to remove the economically populist, morally and socially conservative foreign policy realist President Huckabee, who is by any historical standard a classic Democrat, and exactly the sort of person driven away by the Democrats since Roe v Wade, the non-fulfilment of all promises to alter which is how the Republican Party keeps itself in existence.

Or they might need to do it in order to keep economic populism alive at all in national politics after the Republicans, tired of that line from the basically Democratic Huckabee, replace him, if not with Ron Paul (who really will be a good age by then), then at least with the candidate most like Ron Paul.

And why not? Nothing could be better for America or the world than the return of the real Democratic Party - economically populist, morally and socially conservative, realist in foreign policy - running both the White House and Capitol Hill for generations while always conscious of a strong Republican Party reminding it that it is just as opposed to coercive utopianism and to world government as to isolationism and to laissez faire.