Mitt Romney received eight more votes in the Iowa caucuses than Rick Santorum. The media is spinning this as if it matters who actually receives more votes. It really doesn't. This is a battle for delegates -- a long one. It's not a winner take all election to serve as Iowa governor, senator, or whatever. Thus, it's fair to conclude that both Romney and Santorum won; Bachmann, Gingrich, and Perry lost; and Paul remains a libertarian insurgent who cannot win the GOP nomination because he is too far out of step with the modern GOP.
So, with those parameters set, what exactly does all this stuff mean? Let's start by comparing and contrasting the Iowa results from 2008 to the 2012 results.
Remember the narrative from 2008: Mitt Romney suffered a devastating blow in the Hawkeye State. His millions of dollars spent organizing and advertising were for naught. He allowed an unfunded and unknown upstart named Mike Huckabee to get to his right, and in so doing created room for John McCain to get to his left in New Hampshire.
In 2012, Romney won an effective tie for first place. The conservative, “anti-Romney” vote was spread across four other candidates; Rick Santorum won the most, but still not enough for a clear victory. What’s more, Santorum’s win was due in large part to being the only “unvetted” conservative in the race. He has baggage of his own, little funding, almost no institutional support, and (unlike Huckabee) cannot count on the South embracing him as a native son.
Very different implications from the Iowa caucus. But here’s the most amazing similarity: in both years Romney scored 25 percent of the caucus vote.
That’s not the only common thread. Indeed, let’s drill it down from top to bottom, and in so doing we’ll understand the Iowa results and come to a better grasp of the state of this race.
Morning Jay: What Iowa Tells Us About the State of the Race | The Weekly Standard
No comments:
Post a Comment