Newt: I Told You So

Jonathan Bernstein is mildly miffed that now that Newt Gingrich’s self-inflated bubble is collapsing too few people are remembering those who always said this would happen. I quite agree. (Complete Newt-scepticism collected here.) As I said and still say:

Perhaps Republican voters aren’t yet willing to “settle” for Mitt Romney but despite the Union-Leader and all the rest of it, the great dog-abuser is still the prohibitive favourite, no matter what the polls say. This remains the case even as the press dwells on his rivals and finds ever more ingenious ways of suggesting Romney must be in some kind of trouble. The race needs a story and at the moment Newt’s main role is to provide that story. Fair enough, but not quite what’s needed to actually, you know, win.

This was true when Michelle Bachmann rode high, true when Herman Cain had his turn in the spotlight and, just as it was true for Newt so it will be true for Ron Paul too. I’ve plenty of time for the Texas Congressman and, given the competition, would cheerfully vote for him. But let’s not pretend that winning Iowa would catapult him to the forefront of the Republican race; if anything a Paulite triumph seems likely to shorten it, squeezing the time and space that a more plausible contender (that is, Rick Perry) needs to exploit to get back in the race with Romney.

That doesn’t mean Paul’s triumph (if it happens; we’re still some way from caucus day) would be meaningless. But Iowa is a loopy circus to begin with (and caucuses are crazier than primaries) and you will remember how the likes of Pat Buchanan, Steve Forbes and Pat Robertson all spun strong performances in the corn fields into lasting and credible campaigns for the Presidency. Hang on…

Anyway, back to Bernstein who rightly says that what counts out of Iowa is the spin and how the press decides to play:

I count three big releveant press biases. One is that “news” trumps “not news”, which means that surprises get more coverage than whatever is expected to happen — which is where the expectations game really does matter. The second is that the press has limited capacity, and can only really handle one big and one minor story line. The third is that there’s a press bias in favor of portraying the nomination contest as close and uncertain.

That’s another reason for noting that if Ron Paul somehow becomes “expected” to win Iowa the rewards for actually doing so will be discounted in the media. He will only have met expectations! Not good enough! You must, you know, exceed expectations. If this proves the case, dollars to donuts, someone else will be hailed the “real winner” and Paul will soon become the minor storyline.

Nevertheless, can someone please do an inventory of every piece and post claiming that Bachmann/Cain/Gingrich could really be a serious contender and might actually win the nomination? Sure, we’ve all got space to fill but there’s no requirement to fill it with nincompoopery.